Hi.

I was wondering.

As I've managed to gather all of the 3000 songs on AM, would anyone mind if I offered to send them to the participants of our next Forum Visitors' Best Songs Ever, whenever that happens to be? Together with all the bubbling ones too, and all the songs that are on Rate Your Music and aren't on AM too, and also all of the songs that anyone voted for in the last Forum Visitors' Best Songs Ever?

I assume our next Forum Visitors' Best Songs Ever will take place about the end of this year, but asking you now will give me ample time to gather the Rate Your Music ones and the ones from the individual lists.

You could now be in the position of asking why?

Various reasons. Here's a few.

- Knowledge of songs tends to be limited. It means that well-known songs end up being winners in the Forum Visitors' Best Songs Ever, while more obscure ones don't. In order to have the greatest Forum Visitors' Best Songs Ever possible, the participants would all listen to all these songs and have a great quantity of songs to choose from.

- I don't enjoy spending so much effort on gathering this stuff and just keeping it to myself. I know, that sounds strange - but what's the point, really, in letting everyone spend months on gathering stuff when one person can do it for all?

- I'm bored.

I can already hear you. You're saying: "wait, wouldn't this be illegal?"

I don't know, so that's why I'm here asking you.

I don't think it would be, at all, given how what I would be sending you would qualify as... a mixtape. Yeah, that's right! Mixtapes aren't wrong, right? I hope not...

I can prove I have every album/compilation that every song is on. Additionally, you're my friends, and I love sharing whatever I can with friends... (well, I hope you feel the same)

I would be sending them to you in flac, naturally. I don't believe in mp3.

But I understand why you wouldn't agree. Please tell me how you feel.

Sounds like the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard.

Aside from being a logistical nightmare (color me technologically impaired, but how on earth can one transfer 3000 songs, in FLAC no less, with ease?), it's completely illegal and while sounding admirable and selfless on the surface, it reeks of a blatant and misguided attempt at popularity in a community of people who couldn't give a shit.

Friends?

Aside from being a logistical nightmare (color me technologically impaired, but how on earth can one transfer 3000 songs, in FLAC no less, with ease?)


Err. Well, it takes time, but I've already done it. Haha.

The 3000, bubbling unders aside, have 80-something GB in total. So a few DVDs' worth.

(I'm still working a bit on it - looking for better-sounding versions of some old songs - but other than that it's complete.)


it's completely illegal


Yeah, that sucks, but - well, to make up for it, I won't be sending you the 3000 albums as a bonus, just merely the 3000 songs. So if you want the real good stuff (??), you'll have to get it yourself.

It'll be like listening to the radio! Except you can do it at will.

I don't know. You're right, but.

It will be just to whoever participates in the forum poll (not a lot of people), and you have to sign a contract that you will burn the DVD's after listening to them, or something.

From Wikipedia:


One important distinction between homemade mixes and retail compilations of pop music is that the latter generally obtain permissions for the use of copyrighted songs, while the former do not. As a result, mixtapes such as those produced and sold by club DJs in the 1970s are illegal (although rarely, if ever, prosecuted) under the definition of fair use expressed in the Copyright Act of 1976.[citation needed] Most mixtape enthusiasts assume that private mixtapes are inoffensive from a fair use standpoint, but this is far from clear. An article in the New York Times cites Frank Creighton, a director of anti-copyright infringement efforts for the Recording Industry Association of America, as saying that "money did not have to be involved for copying to be illegal." While mixes on cassette tapes may not have inspired the wrath of the record industry in the past, Mr. Creighton said, "digital mixes have better sound quality." And given the proliferation of CD burning for friends and relatives, "it would be naive of us to say that we should allow that type of activity", he said. Others have argued that the Audio Home Recording Act protects the noncommercial use of home recording devices.


But more precisely:


In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose — the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, " he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift", those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.


Or briefly:


Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by §1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage", offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player.


There'd be no commercial advantage or anything of the sort. I won't even ask you for mailing expenses.


it reeks of a blatant and misguided attempt at popularity in a community of people who couldn't give a shit.

Friends?


I couldn't care less about popularity. If you like, I'll change my name afterwards (like I've done in the past), so you won't know it's me anymore.

Or I can insult you, or something, to make up for whatever hypocritical goodness of the heart you see in me. (even though, of course, I won't mean the insults)

That way, no cheap popularity gain.

I knew that one would get Anthony stirred up.

mismaiome, I appreciate the generosity behind your offer, and it's certainly tempting. Except for two things:

1. I can't use flac--at a minimum, I would have to convert to Rockbox, which I have no desire to do.

2. It's howlingly illegal. This isn't just sharing an album or a few files on the QT; you're talking about a massive exchange of copyrighted data, arranged in an open forum.

It's one thing to drive 37 in a 35-mph zone...it's another to drive 110 through a school zone at 7:58 am, on mushrooms, with a naked hooker's ass hanging out the window.

schleuse and Anthony are right, this is 100% illegal. And .flac's (certainly 3000) are a nightmare to transfer. Even 320kbps MP3's at an average of 10MB would be 30GBs.

I suppose you could make a torrent, which would make it legal for me to download, but still illegal for you to upload.

But schleuse, those kids have to get to school somehow.

Ok, so we've established the criminality of such an act, now I'd like to commandeer this thread to ask when Hall of Acclaim is starting. I've spent the better part of this morning re-reading Bracketology (in its entirety), and after coming to the conclusion that several of us (me included) did their best work in that game, I'm looking forward to this new adventure.

schleuse... any updates?

Sorry about the lack of HOA updates recently, Anthony...my real life has been indescribably crazy for the last month or so, so I haven't been devoting as much time to AM stuff.

(In fact, in two hours, I have an interview for a job I would sell most of family for. Why I'm on AM right now, I don't know.)

Anyhoo, I'm still thinking of July 1, as long as Moonbeam, our doyen of the top 100 artists poll, doesn't object. Look for me to rescucitate the HOA thread later today or tomorrow.

Good luck on the interview.

(In fact, in two hours, I have an interview for a job I would sell most of family for. Why I'm on AM right now, I don't know.)


Best of luck to you!


schleuse and Anthony are right, this is 100% illegal. And .flac's (certainly 3000) are a nightmare to transfer. Even 320kbps MP3's at an average of 10MB would be 30GBs.


I have no idea what you're talking about, Stephan. Transfer? I'd put them on DVDs and send them to you by real life mail. That's what mixtapes are.


1. I can't use flac--at a minimum, I would have to convert to Rockbox, which I have no desire to do.


I can convert for you. No problem. I have time, and I'm not going anywhere. Pick your format.


2. It's howlingly illegal. This isn't just sharing an album or a few files on the QT; you're talking about a massive exchange of copyrighted data, arranged in an open forum.

It's one thing to drive 37 in a 35-mph zone...it's another to drive 110 through a school zone at 7:58 am, on mushrooms, with a naked hooker's ass hanging out the window.


I see your point.

But seriously, it's only a few hundred hours of music, for orientative purposes.

I just find it impractical to not send this if I can. It's like inventing the wheel over and over again - what's the point?

Certainly it appears that it would mean I would help you steal profits from music companies and artists. This approach is also an impractical one: you're just a dozen people, and that's it. It's not a virus that spreads.

In addition, I'll bet you a hundred panda bears you'll end up buying more than you would otherwise if you're subverted to music you wouldn't touch with a pole and realize it's actually awesome.

So, yeah. The so-called lost profits will be made up for through purchases you would have never made.

(Not to imply that gathering the 3000 songs is a big deal. I don't think it is, and don't find any pride in it - so long as I can't help out anyone less fortunate or patient than me.)

And it's not like internet file-sharing. It's a mixtape, technically - and not something in plain sight, for everyone to grab.

I can already notice myself sounding very silly.

What are these so-called laws anyway? Just the authority of others asserted upon us, others that perhaps we would not agree so much with - if it were not for the authority!

Right, sounding even sillier.

Alright, let's look at it this way.

If you were working for a music magazine, and were going to have to do a list of the greatest songs of all time, would it be illegal for your chief editor to make a mix of the most acclaimed songs ever and give it to you? If you were a close-knit group with a purpose, as we are? (We can take our forum results and make an ever-updating website of them. We can become supercritics, find funding for our own magazine, force Henrik to add our lists to his site. Ok, maybe the "make our own website" part at least.)

Because, really, it seems like a wonderful excuse to me.

Well, I do understand the open forum argument (even though this place has always felt like a warm and cozy musical den with - it seems against all odds even - a small bunch of visitors).

If you like, we can discuss the legality of this (and no, I don't intend to do anything illegal, only to find a loophole somewhere, a la the "it's legal to download torrents, but not to upload" sort, but better) on Yahoo! Messenger if you have it. My ID is "mismaiome". Or you can simply send me an e-mail at "mismaiome@yahoo.com". Feel welcome to. Whoever you are. Even if you find this thread two years from now, on some godforsaken search engine that no one has heard of - feel free. I'll be around.

(Sometimes I go so far in being funny.)

As for the forum itself... Oh, fellow forum denizens! I beckon you, dwell on my music magazine argument!

Thanks, schleuse.

And I'll second Stephan, although a polymath like yourself is probably a shoo-in for any job they're interviewed for.

(Sometimes I go so far in being funny.)


Through this I do not wish to imply that all of this is a joke. It's not. Unless someone really minds it, in which case you are free to assume that I am merely jesting. What I have just said now even applies for what I have just said now.

can I have them in mp3 ? I don't believe in Flac !

Absolutely.

Why don't I just send them in both mp3 and flac, in case you change your mind somewhere along the line?

I'm all for it

Illegal shmegal...

I'd actually thought about this sort of thing - that if I couldn't find a song,someone on here would probably have it but I know what people here are like with the whole legal/illegal thing...

I've thought about collecting all 3000 too, but it seemed like a lot of work. I thought you meant sending all the files over, or uploading them somewhere, mismaiome. If you're willing to send them by DVD I would certainly appreciate that. If you want you can rip them to 256kbps so they'll fit on 5 DVDs.

I realize it's hard to explain how these subtle distinctions make this any less wrong.

People have been creating nations, enslaving others, asserting themselves over opposite genders or races, gone to war and started duels, over subtle distinctions, since the beginning of the time of humans itself!

Surely it's not that bad to use subtle distinctions, when all life and belief revolves over them. So I can use them too.

I just want to share my pile of toys with the other kids. And have the potential to figure out how to do it without anyone minding (supposedly).

What is money anyway? We gain money from our capacity to function as cogs, to follow instructions, something that even smart mechanoids could do. Even when we act creatively, we are still merely following instructions in forwarding our own. (Speaking as someone who has money and hates it; I know, I'm full of contradictions. Infamously, I can't stand The Beatles, even though they're my favorite band.)

What decides who has money? Chance. Like chance dictates who is born female, and who is born black, and who is born stupid, and who is born in a certain country, and so on.

Is chance worth it? Is it worth asserting ourselves over others because of something as petty as chance?

A television company CEO in the U.S. makes more money in one year than all of the writers in television put up together do.

I think things like those invalidate the concept of money from the very start.

Destroy materialism today!

Also, law! What is law? Law is adherrence to a set of rules based on consensus. Democratic consensus is lowest common denominator consensus - the many can bully the few around easily, even if the few are actually wiser.

Pederasty was unusual not to have back in ancient Greece. Nowadays it's a heinous crime. Why? Laws have changed, laws are fickle.

File-sharing is illegal today. It won't be in a hundred years.

"Ah, but the present is the present. The present is what matters."

Present schmezent. It has no real worth. Every past is a present that just doesn't happen to be around anymore, and every future is a present waiting to happen.

But surely, if we can appreciate people for being ahead of the time, we can appreciate it in this aspect too?

Anyone can have money. Many people do. Everyone tries to cheat others out of money. Music costs money, as art tends to, because you need money to live, and artists need to live, and they need money.

Most money floats up to record company executives.

"Yes. However, no money, no music. Agreed?"

Absolutely. However, I counter this with:

- In practice, I'll only be cheating them of very little money, as I'll only be sharing my toys with a handful of folks instead of them getting their own.

This, however, is still a heinous thing to do. I therefore counter it with this:

-- In practice, I won't be cheating anyone. If someone, Person 1, is inclined to, say, download music illegally, he will continue to do so instead of buying it whether I can help it or not. Whereas someone like Person 2, who buys music, will continue to buy music, and possibly more than before.

Imagine someone not being familiar with Bessie Smith, and taking this as a chance of acquainting themselves with her great songs. And their reaction.

"Ah! Well, I have to get the whole box set, because this is great."

Ad infinitum!

In practice, sending you those DVDs will really be equivalent to sending you, say, Harvard Classics. However, no one would object to the books - and why?

Because they're a physical object.

So what's my choice then? Buy every CD in my collection again, and send it to you?

I'm likely to be insane enough to do it (if you give me a few years), only to prove a point (I'm not that exceptional in this regard; remember, The KLF burned a million quid on an island for no reason).

But it's simply impractical. (and I prefer to not have to do it, unless maybe I really have to)

Whereas, seriously. Orientative purposes is a great, great explanation for all of this.

What makes us any different from those music magazines who do it? Well, other than the fact that they do it more lousily.

If people can justify war through the nuttiest, darnedest things (remember, all humans are bossy kids deep inside), and get people to kill each other for n reason over a tiny slice of land, and yet be able to justify it ("OH, but it wasn't murder, because our authority justifies it"), surely I can justify what I have proposed to do, and even better.

The only thing I lack is authority, which we are always uninclined to grant to others unless we really can't help it, in which case we often embrace them (even though it's with mixed feelings).

Henrik: "Look, you can start with all this sophistry, but we won't be getting anywhere. I'm locking this thread."

No! PLEASE GOD, NO!

Err.

Even the Athenians thought Socrates was a sophist. (And he did say the absolutely darnedest things every now and then, but he was cool regardless.) And they sentenced him to death!

What does that say about blind obedience to arbitrary authority?

I sure hope someone at least enjoys these long monologues of mine, besides finding them slightly absurd.

Aaaah! Challenge every fibre of your existence! Disregard all that you know about the world!

Ok, but take it in small steps.

I see no point in this being wrong, considering just two things:

- We are classifying it as a mixtape. Since a lot of authorities can classify whatever they like as whatever they like, and still be right all of the time, I can classify it as a mixtape. Ha! I win. And mixtapes are technically alright, when not in commercial purposes, of which there are none at stake, not a single one. And I'm also asking you to make sure you, or your dinasty up to the following 10 generations, buy every single song in there eventually, or else! Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. OR ELSE!

- I own this music and can give it to whoever I like, barring it's ok to send .txt files of books, but not music files stereotypes.

- Copyrights, when established all those ages ago, were never supposed to last so long, until companies started petitioning to enlarge them further and further. We should really have a more timeless approach to things.

- You can already hear all of it on the radio, in bits, if you wait long enough on just the right frequency. Heck, you can find most of it on YouTube, listen to it all you like - what is the difference between that and having a file of it, other than the stupidest, more arbitrary distinctions known to man?

- We aren't cheating anyone of money. What we are doing is cheating people of time, patience and knowledge. "You don't have money, you don't deserve this stuff. End of story." Well, I'm sorry, but no. This basis don't work for me.

- I can still go on about stuff like this, if you like.

- Revolutionary tendencies like these certainly aren't taken very seriously by strange people on forums. Unless.. unless... it's too late!

- It's going to be used for a constructive purpose, i.e. big, whooping informed list by people with great tastes.

Surely almost everyone on this forum is at least as good at evaluating music as a critic, or would be if they wanted.

Whereas the Acclaimed Music list is the combination of many lists of people with less perspective than us. (How else can you explain Missy Elliott with songs at #59 and #149? Though, of course, most of it is awesome, and even Missy Elliott has charm - and the point is not so much to decide what you dislike, as it is to like as much as you can, because life and music are worth enjoying, and yadda yadda. So on with typical cute-sounding mismaiome nonsense.)

- This:


Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by §1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage", offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player.


Guarantees it, sort of. Well, if you look at it like this... with your eyes squinted... err.

Ummmm. You have to agree that "making copies for a friend" is at least as valid as "making copies for a family member", right?

You also can agree that I don't mind regarding you as friends in the least.

Maybe I've annoyed some of you over time with my various aliases, for short stints. But really, I never said anything in anything less than good humor, you know?

This is one of my favorite sites in the world.



Anyhow.

I'll let Henrik decide if this thread has any right to exist. I've already explained why it should - even though I routinely sabotage my own arguments as to be less boring - but if he doesn't feel the same way, there's nothing I can do about it.

We could, of course, talk about it behind his back if you e-mail me.

mismaiome, I'm not taking a stand for or against this. It's not my business whether you or any other AM visitor wants to share music files. That's definitely something that takes place outside of the Acclaimed Music site, even if it's discussed here in the forum.

It amazes me how much you can write in a few minutes...!

1. For purposes of US copyright law, it doesn't make a difference whether the files are transferred electronically over the internet or via hard disc. Sharing is sharing.

2. Not all sharing is illegal, even without obtaining permission, but this probably would be. There would not appear to be a viable fair use argument.

3. In the grand scheme of things, sending a few hard discs out to a few "friends" is an extremely minor violation. The impact on sales is likely to be a net positive, but even if it weren't, the industry has far bigger violators to be worried about. It's more like going 56 in a 55 mph zone. A technical violation with no real injury that is never going to be enforced.

How many hours does it take to play through all 3,000 songs? It's got to be at least 150.

I'm a real busy guy. Could you maybe send me one disc containing the very best hour or so worth of the most brilliant songs (skipping the ones that are so obvious and overplayed that we all know them by heart)?

In other words, I'm looking for a real mix tape: Semi-obscure gems from the top 3000 as selected by mismaiome....

I won't turn you over to the authorities.

OMG AWESOME!

I feel like a little girl all over again. Err.

Sure, Paul. And sure, Stephan. I'll send you the whole flac set (just in case you'll change your mind later), together with your choices.

The 3000 have about 220 hours between them. Somewhere around that.

Hey, is this a sting?

I tried to send an e-mail to your Yahoo account but it got bumped: " Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 554 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (mismaiome@yahoo.com)"

he he... netjade stings smell best, paulipaul.

Good one!

Damn, you got me.

Wow, that's weird. I made the account just today (or maybe that's why?).

Let me try e-mailing myself.

I love crazy misunderstandings like the one above.

Yahoo! was acting up with an internal server error ("something unexpected has happened"), not saving settings. The issue was that it was a new profile under an already existing ID, and that wackified things - but I've gone through it again.

It works now. I've managed to e-mail myself. Yay! Observe:


Received: from [92.80.223.230] by web45710.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:20:47 PDT
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Red Door Painted Black
Subject: YOU HAVE TO WORK NOW OR I WILL STRANGLE YOU!
To: mismaiome@yahoo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-191926996-1213834847=:22579"
Message-ID: <266155.22579.qm@web45710.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Content-Length: 431


It's ALIVE!

No, I'm not netjade. (even though I love De La Soul and Aretha Franklin) And this is not a joke. (though your patience will probably be tested a little bit - remains to be seen how long, depends on how quick I can be - until you get them, you will get the musics!)

(I admit it would have been funny if the whole thing was an elaborate joke, but it's even funnier that it's not!)

(It would be even funnier if actually was netjade, but, sadly, such heights of humor elude me, given how I'm not.)

You can rest assured I have no interest in an Acclaimed Music reenactment of Waiting For Godot, too.

Lucy, do you promise not to pull the ball away again?

Mismaiome - would you consider throwing any other tracks on outside the AM3000?

I'm not sending anyone anything until I have all the bubblings unders (working on them now) and the Rate Your Music ones, at least. The RYM music list is pretty similar for a long time with the AM one, but it does get murky at one point.

Otherwise, the thing would feel half-done to me for some reason. RYM folks have pretty good tastes, whenever twenty metal freaks don't gather up to bump their favorite stuff to the expense of others! And bubbling unders are a welcome expansion to the 3000, trust me.

The only wish I had about the bubbling unders was to know how they fit in with the rest of the 3000. It would be really neat if Henrik could still have just 3000 songs, but give the bubbling unders numbers too, like 3241 or 3621 or whatever.

Also, I understand that some are afraid of flac, but why? It's... almost... exactly like mp3! Just that they're... slightly more smug with their bettersoundingness!

My idea was that it's better to start off with flac while you're young, instead of waking up someday as a 60 year old, and suddenly realizing that mp3's were not, in fact, the way all this time, and you've wasted away all of your youth on them, and now it's too late!

All you need for them is a tiny winy little bitty plugin, after all!

I hate to keep you waiting; wish I could send them to you right off. Patience isn't one of my vices either. (hopefully, insistence is)

The idea from the onset was for it to take a while, but now that I've got you riled up, better try to save the day.

So you'll have to wait some weeks, sadly. Hang in there, mmkay?

I hope Anthony and schleuse will let me send the stuff to them too. (And whoever else likes.)

Also, one more issue: as you realize, the list will have songs of wildly varying volumes, ranging from quiet 20's transfers all the way to victims of the 2000's loudness wars. So you can get from almost whisperiness every now and then (even though I've tried to stick to fuller-sounding remasters every now and then, there've been obvious exceptions), all the way to the loudest album ever - something must be done!

As you know, when people finish albums, the songs tend to have varying volumes between them to, so they normalize the volume throughout. I want to do the same thing, so as to make the experience seamless, and make it so your ears don't have to adapt all the time to new surroundings.

Naturally, people crazier than me, flac-wise, would object to this. "How dare you take these songs out of their natural habitats!" But I intend to do no irrevocable damage to the songs, I swear! Only to add meta tags at the beginning of each, that don't change the files themselves - nothing you need to know or worry about at all.

Since all CD's are already normalized from the start, and thus this is an omnipresent phenomenon even before it has anything to do with me, I don't believe I'll be doing anything wrong by normalizing songs from various places between themselves too, noting that the only thing that happens is switching volume.

Should anyone mind still somehow, lemme know.

The problem with FLAC is that they can't be played on new Ipods and that's where I listen to half of my music the other half on my record player... I never listen to music on my computer.

That's fine, John. I'll turn them into .mp3's of your chosen bitrate, or anything you want.

Thanks for the offer, but given my stance on the topic of file-sharing, I have to politely decline.

On the subject of mp3/flac...

I use mp3s with my iTunes/iPod(s) -- I really like the playcount feature and being able to generate smart-playlists with it. But, I also use FLAC as well, at this point exclusively from my home computer when I want to blast the tunes throughout my place. The Winamp/Ozone plug-in combination is amazing; for any of you looking for some amazing sound, I highly recommend it. (Stephan - iirc, you use winamp.... do you use Ozone too?)

I'd be thrilled if someone could write a patch for Ozone, to use in conjunction with Rockbox. Ummm... someone here should get on it. lol

When I used to listen to music on my computer I used Foobar and I've heard there is a backend for ITunes (although you still can't play flac I don't think). But Foobar was great.

I would like mp3 @ 192, since this is "for sampling purposes only."

Plus I want to play them on my i-pod.

Thanks M

I'd prefer them as mp3s at 128 - so they don't take up too much space...

Legally it's pretty clear cut, this is illegal.

Morally, I think downloading is only okay if you're doing it for evaluation purposes. To figure out if you like it enough to spend money on it.

I think downloading, used as an alternative to buying, is wrong.

Legally it's pretty clear cut, this is illegal.


Yes, but technically, the law is absurd.

YouTube should be file-sharing too; not only does it have music you can listen to over and over, but it has video too!

I mean, I prefer my guidelines for human existence to be practical, not merely theoretical...

Oh, c'mon. Here's snippets from the liner notes I'm writing:


When having to make choices, I tried to make the most sensible ones. I made all of them in the interest of audio quality, and so this could be not just a whole flac set of Acclaimed Music's songs, but an audiophile's flac set.

Most songs are remastered, wherever remastered versions existed. This happened the most when they were songs from well-known albums as opposed to spread-out hits. Everything from The Doors to Joy Division to The Velvet Underground to Talking Heads is from the most recent remasters. Sometimes there are 24-bit remasters, like with the songs of David Bowie and The Smiths.

Of course, you could say that every now and then, it's debatable whether remasters sound better than the originals - a good example would be the remaster of Jeff Buckley's "Grace" - but I tended to be aware of such situations, and in Jeff Buckley's case included the songs from the 1994 master. Mostly, you can rest assured about these.

I took a few liberties, i.e. cheated, hehe. For example, three songs by The Beach Boys ("Good Vibrations", "Heroes And Villains", "Surf's Up") didn't sound that great in their original versions. "Good Vibrations" and "Heroes And Villains" sounded tinny, and the "Surf's Up" shown on Acclaimed Music was the inferior version from 1971. I replaced all three with the versions of them on the SMiLe bootleg by Purple Chick (widely said to be the best SMiLe bootleg, and I agree) - these are not only stereo, but contain bits of the songs that were missing, which I think are neat - and they sound great.

Another liberty that I took was with The Smiths' "This Charming Man". As is well-known, The Smiths' first album, that the song is from, wasn't produced that well, and the songs sound better in recordings from John Peel's radio sessions. Fans regard the Peel version of "This Charming Man" as the definitive one.

That's the one you'll find here. Similarly, The Rolling Stones' "Time Is On My Side" is present in the version with the guitar intro - that is, the more highly regarded one.

I tried to stick to stereo in general when it was available. So, for example, you'll find that songs from The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" are in stereo, and so is Aretha Franklin's "Respect", and so are some early songs by The Beatles, and so forth. Some are inclined to say that these were meant to be in mono (as that is how they came out), but on listening to both over and over, stereo won me over.

Some songs, though, have never been in stereo. Phil Spector productions like The Ronettes' "Be My Baby" are good examples. You can tell I couldn't do much about that.

Songs, whenever possible, were from audiophile masters of albums, if they sounded better than the remasters, as was the case with, for example, "Like A Rolling Stone", the version here being from the DCC Gold version of "Highway 61 Revisited" - the same went for the other songs on that album - and for "Imagine", being from the MFSL Gold version of the eponymous album.

Songs like, say, "Temptation" by New Order, better-known from the rerecording on the band's 1987 compilation "Substance", are presented here in their original versions, when the Acclaimed Music list has the originals on instead of the remixes, of course. This also goes for Madonna's songs - they don't appear in the remixed versions on The Immaculate Collection, but in the original ones.

Sometimes the site is unclear. For example, it says "Summer Babe" for Pavement (so apparently the single version) as opposed to "Summer Babe (Winter Version)", which is the album remix. I have, thus, included the former - they sound almost the same regardless. As for a song like "Yeah" by LCD Soundsystem, the site doesn't specify whether it's the "crass version" or the "pretentious one" - looking at the critics' list, however, the crass one is either specified, or nothing is, so the crass one is the one I've placed here.

When the distinction between the song and the album was unclear, like with Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", the song here came in its single version.

And sometimes I merged songs. For example, Pink Floyd's "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" had 9 whole parts, 5 of which were on the first track of "Wish You Were Here", and the last 4 of which were on the last. I combined them and the 26 minute giant was reborn.

Sometimes it didn't seem like a good idea to merge two supposed parts of one song. Neil Young's "Tonight The Night" is one example. The first part is the actual song, while the second part is really a reprise, so I kept only the first one. This is comparable to The Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and its reprise, or to Nick Cave's "Do You Love Me?" (which is not actually among the songs here, but it explains the situation well if you're familiar with it). This made sense to me.

Once I even had to split a song from its introduction and its end, The Moody Blues' "Nights In White Satin". The single version didn't sound anywhere as good as the album version, but the album version had pointless orchestral bits, as mentioned before in the introduction and ending ("Days Of Future Passed", the album, is infamous for its orchestral interludes), so I got rid of them, and replaced the the former with a fade-in and the latter with a fade-out. No damage was done to the song itself - it's still as lossless as ever. Likewise, merging The Beatles' "Golden Slumbers" with "Carry That Weight" (as they appear as one song on Acclaimed Music) changed nothing about their structure.

The song "Slow Jamz" by Twista featuring Kanye West and Jamie Foxx is on two different albums. It's on Twista's "Kamikaze", and it's under that guise on Acclaimed Music, and it's also on Kanye West's "The College Dropout" in a longer mix. Since they're identical otherwise, really, I've decided to include the Kanye West version - I prefer it just a little more.

Some old songs sound like old songs, or poorly recorded songs in general like poorly recorded ones - this really couldn't be helped. Many 50's and 60's hits - some of them from which you perhaps would have expected otherwise, like "The Israelites" - were never transferred to CD very carefully by the engineers, but I did look for better-sounding versions when I could.

When several mixes of songs existed (i.e. the album mix, the radio single mix, and the extended single mix), I generally chose the one that best represented the song, and that fans liked the most. As such, Orbital's "Chime" is here in its extended version, as is Ministry's "Jesus Built My Hotrod".

If a song had a thousand mixes, like with Frankie Goes To Hollywood's "Relax", I just chose the most "default" one - which, in this case, was the "Move Mix", the typical 7 inch single one, as opposed to the album mix and others.

As for jazz songs, as you know well, these were very often rerecorded, often a ridiculous amount of times. I always looked around until I found exactly the version that was on Acclaimed Music.


And so forth. What's the point in going through all that if no one wants them in flac - or worse, almost no one wants them in the first place.

Wow.

I think posting on You Tube can violate copyright law too, since you seem take downs. So that argument doesn't really work.

I prefer Surf's up from the Millennium bootleg.

SMiLE

Do people here really listen to a million different versions of the same songs? I guess I'm the only one that doesn't really care about sound quality - a song is a song. I don't have time to keep re-listening to the same songs over and over in mono/stereo,flac/mp3 or whatever....

The file type doesn't bother me, but there are obvious differences in mono/stereo and there are most definitely differences in different masters. I usually trust the consensus and a couple of knowledgeable friends about masters although it's not like it's easy to get your hands on that stuff anyway. I prefer mono if it's available, but I can understand why people prefer remastered stereo. Except for the Beach Boys... that's just wrong!

I think posting on You Tube can violate copyright law too, since you seem take downs. So that argument doesn't really work.


You know what that means? Means, unless they send us a notice, they got nothing on us!

(And and... you can find Prince videos on other sites besides the proverbial Tube!)

(Prince is Prince, you have to agree, but still, pretty much Everything goes on YouTube, whatever it is, no copyright violation anyhow!)

And this has nothing on my practicality argument in any case.


I prefer Surf's up from the Millennium bootleg.

SMiLE


That jazzy one? I love it too. But it's sort of a different species of fish - I wish it was the Surf's Up, but any Surf's Up nowadays pretty much has to be like 1971/2004 or be relegated to the status of wacko remix.


Do people here really listen to a million different versions of the same songs? I guess I'm the only one that doesn't really care about sound quality - a song is a song. I don't have time to keep re-listening to the same songs over and over in mono/stereo,flac/mp3 or whatever....


Nah, I just figure out which one seems best to me, and stick with it.

flac sounds noticeably quite better than mp3 - which, you'll have to agree, is most likely a Good Thing.


Except for the Beach Boys... that's just wrong!


Why! "God Only Knows" has never sounded so serene.

A lot of people prefer the stereo mix of Pet Sounds.

But I don't think it makes sense to go with the stereo mix as a default rule. For a lot of Sixties artists, more care went into the mono mix and, as a result, the mono mix sounds better. You have to take it on a case by case basis.

"Except for the Beach Boys... that's just wrong!

Why! "God Only Knows" has never sounded so serene. "

Well, listening to the stereo mix is listening to something Brian Wilson had no say in since he's deaf in one ear. Pet Sounds is ultimately about the genius of Brian Wilson as song writer and producer so I like to hear it as he intended it to be heard. You can say that about most pre '68 music but it really rings true with the Beach Boys because of the circumstances.

You can say that about most pre '68 music but it really rings true with the Beach Boys because of the circumstances.


Brian is a victim of circumstance too - imagine him not having been deaf, and having an affinity for stereo, and voila! Stereo Pet Sounds.

He had no real choice about his intention.

And since stereo is the way to go nowadays, and has been for a good bit of time, I think retroactive continuity is alright. (If the past was the present, then the past would be stereo, and the rest of that line of thought.)

My ears just enjoy to be entertained more - at worst, c'mon, the stereo is at least equal to the mono.

Of course, I'd never take a lousy-sounding stereo mix over a good-sounding mono one - but I really don't think this is the case.

You know what? Maybe you're right.

I'll listen to the DCC Gold of Pet Sounds again and see.

Heh. I found a really cool quote by Steve Hoffman of DCC Gold fame:


Love the Beach Boys. There's always been the stereo versus mono Beach Boys controversy. The mono mixes were the ones that Brian Wilson liked because he only had one ear drum working at full throttle. Yet the stereo mixes had all the life and dynamic range and were more satisfying musically, in my opinion.


But now you've really challenged me about audiophilia. I'm glad you appreciate DCC and MFSL. Now I seriously want to pester my even more obsessive audiophile friends to lend me their DCC and MFSL collections so I can turn some parts of the 3000 songs into a better party.

I'm not totally surprised that Hoffman said that since he has no problem taking the original producer out of the equation. A little surprised though.

I'm more of a fan of finding master tapes of songs I like, or needle drops of the definitive printings. I think MSFL and Dr. Ebbetts don't really remaster they just produce the masters with precise equipment. I think Hoffman is given access to the masters and then remasters them right? I'm not a big fan of that, but I've heard some good stuff he's done.

We've had the mono/stereo debate before but I'm firmly in the mono camp for pre 67-68 stuff. Stereo was developing at that time and it sounds terrible, all of the vocals coming out of one side or sounds coming out of nowhere.

When you go to a rock show you don't hear that you hear one blast of sound in both ears. I understand that some think that's part of the in home listening experience but it's not for me. I wouldn't have minded if stereo never caught on and we still listen to records in mono. But, at least stereo is a million times better than it was back then. I also wouldn't want somebody who had zero input on those projects coming in and remastering them to give them a present sound.

My mono bias stems from how atrocious the official Beatles catalog on CD sounds. It made me seek out stuff that sounded like my Beatles vinyl and I discovered the Ebbetts collection which I first listened to in stereo (and liked) but then fell in love with the mono releases. Ever since then I've sought out mono issues and only once have I found an album that sounded bad in mono but I think that's only because they were on a budget greatest hits collection.

I agree John -- the Ebbetts mono releases are scrumptious, although, I prefer Revolver and Pepper in stereo. The guys might not have been there for the stereo mixes, but I'll give Emerick the benefit of the doubt; I think he did them well.

Actually, DCC is exactly like MFSL, except DCC came after MFSL so went after different albums.

Steve certainly contradicts himself, though.


Why doesn’t DCC use the new stereo versions of things like Pet Sounds? In fact, since you sometimes get original multi-tracks, why don’t you remix them to make things sound better?

I hear all the time, ''Well, Pet Sounds is great, but it's in mono, why don't you use a stereo mix?' No. Brian Wilson was standing there, that's the one (the mono mix) they chose at the time, it was exciting, they were all there,..that 'karma' was on it. That's the real mix. A friend of mine at MCA once told me that anyone who remixes a classic record ought to be shot, and I said, "no, listen to how much louder I can make the drums on this Mama's & Papa's song!" And she rightly argued that the karma of the original mix, no matter how crappy it sounds, is the original mix. Anything else is just jerkin' off. And she's right! Thank you Diana!


In addition:


You wanted a few examples of two different versions of the same song with different compression ratios? OK. Take the case of Pet Sounds. Listen to the mono mix of (let's say) "Wouldn't It Be Nice". A lot of warm tube compression keeps the voices "in the mix", riding along with the music track. Not the best mix on earth, but totally of it's time. Now, listen to the stereo remix of the same song, ignoring the fact that it seems more open because of the stereo effect. Just listen for tonality and mixing style. The voices have a squashed, edgy quality that make them stand out too much. They are overcompressed, and then EQ'd to make them more "transparent". Problem is, they don't flow with the music anymore. They sound like they were recorded in a different time zone then the music....

Another example. The mono version of "Beatles For Sale". Listen to "Eight Days A Week" on the CD. Now that is overcompressed! The poor limiter has hit the wall and can't compress anymore, so it just distorts. Ouch...Overload! The stereo version of the song was mixed with much less compression, using the famous Fairchild stereo tube limiter (used on all stereo Beatles mixes). This version sounds much better, and it's not just because it's in stereo. Even played back in mono, the stereo version at least breathes a little, and since the limiter is not bottoming out, the song has a nice 10db of dynamic range. Pretty nice for Abbey Road in those days. On the other hand, the mono mix of "Eight Days A Week" has about 2db of dynamic range. Youch! Even the voice on your telephone has about 25db of dynamic range! More than any Beatles mix...


As you can see, this is rather complicated.

Well, to make everyone happy, I'll just stick to the MFSL or DCC version of every song whenever it's available.

Surely even casual listeners like Stephan should be enticed by this.

Just wishing Anthony relented!

This is hard to find stuff or at the very least hard to compile. How much of your 3000 is alternative masters?

How much of your 3000 is alternative masters?


Actually, I have no idea. I'm going to go through it all again and make a list.


This is hard to find stuff or at the very least hard to compile.


Yes. However, not only am I slightly insane, but I'm quick at such things too. You're in safe hands.

What's a good guess of how much of it would not be the track found on the normal CD? I wasn't going to ask you for this because I already own most of the 3000 songs and have Rhapsody for stuff I haven't heard already but this is a whole new can of worms.

What's a good guess of how much of it would not be the track found on the normal CD?


Not as many as I'd like. Maybe a few hundred?

That is, of course, if by "tracks not found on the normal CD" we refer merely to MFSL and DCC, as opposed to stuff like SACD.

What's the difference between an MP3 made from an SACD and a regular CD? It would lose the encoding wouldn't it?

A few hundred eh? I'm intrigued.

You guys take all the fun out of music

What's the difference between an MP3 made from an SACD and a regular CD? It would lose the encoding wouldn't it?


Well, the "SACD" generally thrown around doesn't actually refer to the SACD itself.


The HD layer of an SACD disc cannot be played back on computer CD/DVD drives, nor can SACDs be created except by the licensed disc replication facilities in Shizuoka and Salzburg.


It refers to the CD layer of Hybrid SACDs, which really amounts to fancy high-profile remastering.

But it does tend to make people happy.

As for .mp3/.flac, I really think .mp3 defeats the purpose of DCC/MFSL in the first place (as does bad equalization), as it muddles up the frequencies. I'll definitely convert them to .mp3 for ya, but if you have a good sound system linked to your PC, better hear the .flac there.


A few hundred eh? I'm intrigued.


I'll check Hoffman's non-DCC discography while I'm at it.

"You guys take all the fun out of music "

Why? It's not affecting you any. I have a lot of fun listening to all these different versions and even more fun debating about them. To each his own. It's just another way to appreciate music and if it didn't exist I'd still love music.

Anyway....

So, a SACD rip is really no different than a new CD remaster? I've heard that the Dark Side of the Moon SACD is awful.

So, a SACD rip is really no different than a new CD remaster?


Pretty much, except they tried harder on the SACDs.

I'll definitely enjoy some mp3s (I haven't gotten into the whole flac thing.) I really don't think it's illegal, by the way.

Mismaiome - how would we pay you for the postage?

Hey mismaiome!

I have to admit I'm very intrigued (although, I'm not going to get my hopes too high...I don't want to end up like that kid who thinks Santa Claus will bring him a Wii and ends up with a Sega Saturn). But if this is the real deal then sign me up.

As far as the legality issue goes, I completely agree with BillAdama's comments. Most of the new cds I tend to download first, then when I figure out that like the album, I buy it. Every month, I look at Stefan's Mega-Critic list and download torrents of a couple albums that I haven't heard of (the last 2 being Bon Iver and The Last Shadow Puppets which I will most certainly buy within the next couple weeks). I think if more people had a similar view of downloading, it would actually HELP the music industry, but of course that isn't the case.

Doug,

Don't be too quick to blame downloading for all of the music industry's woes. It's a convenient scape goat, but I suspect the music industry was headed for a downturn anyway.

Two other factors to consider are (1) the major labels' promotion of less artistic music in favor of the fast buck. (Not a new phenomenon, but more likely to result in lost sales during the "information age"), and (2) competition from video games, 1000 TV channels, and many other new, more accessible distractions.

Some downloading does help the industry. I run a music blog and I get a lot of promo stuff sent to me in the hopes that I will share it on my blog, including major label stuff. If they thought it would hurt, they would not send it to me. And studies have shown that blog promotion helps sales of most bands.

Other downloading, like p2p, more than likely hurts the industry, but even that is not clear. I for one have bought more CDs as a result of downloading than I would have without downloading. It's an avenue to explore new music. Like a few of you, when I find something I like, I want to own the disc. (You can't hold on to an mp3 file). We are probably not alone in this view.

So it's weak for the music industry to just throw up its hands and say "we can't deal with downloading!" If they had half a brain they'd figure out how to monetize it through advertising or low-cost subscription plans (like cable TV).

Mismaiome - how would we pay you for the postage?


You wouldn't. Postage is easy!


But if this is the real deal then sign me up.


Yessir!

Paul, what blog do you run?

Music subscriptions do exist and people have turned their nose to them because of the low bitrates and DRM. A good portion of downloaders won't be happy until the labels make music totally free in lossless quality, and that's just silly. The best option would be a site like Rhapsody for free at a 192 bitrate with ads. If you want the pristine quality you'll go buy the album or maybe you can buy the album in lossless for 10 bucks.

People will still pirate because they aren't getting their lossless or high bitrate albums for free. But, at the same time the common person would never pirate again... but, I'm sure the labels might think the common person will never buy an album again. I guess the question is if ad revenue can bring as much in as CD sales. I'm sure the major labels think about that every day and it's a tough choice with major repercussions. Not that I sympathize with people who have ruined a lot of lives through litigation but it's a tough decision.

My blog is called Setting The Woods On Fire. It's country oriented, but not exclusively. I get a lot of ideas from reading this forum.

I think for a subscription plan to work it would have to have all of these elements: (1) Major label backing, (2) DRM free, (3) User friendly (i.e., on par with i-Tunes), (4) Generate reveune from advertising--based on the anticipated huge volume--without being obtrusive, and (5) Priced reasonably. That combination has never been tried. I think it would be a huge success. Advertising on the high-volume sites is big revenue source. The cost of overhead to the labels/artists would be extrememly low. It would be almost all profit.

I think it would also be possible to build in a social-networking feature to such a site. Give everyone a place to have their own mini-blog with photos and mp3 selections. Could be huge.

People still like music, they just acquire it differently these days. The labels must adjust.

DRM is always portrayed as evil but it shouldn't be. In the right context it is useful like in subscription plans. Having no DRM on the songs would be like allowing 1000 people into a buffet with 999 of the people eating off one plate. If it were universal DRM that could be played on any digital player that you own DRM would not be a bad thing, but Steve Jobs makes that pretty hard to accomplish.

This whole debate is fueled by greed and it's not just the labels. They are #1, but you have Apple who wants total control of the industry and their iPods plus downloaders who argue that they should have unlimited, unrestrained access to music for free. Musicians don't have a union do they? They should really start one because it seems everybody is looking out for their own except them.

People don't buy cds because record companies want us to buy shit and stuff we already have. Look at commercials on tv. Rarely any good stuff. And if it's good, it's a greatest hits cd.

The "music industry" I'd approve of would be the one where you get rid of the intermediaries. No more marketing or people in suits who make all the money, but instead communities like Rate Your Music, where musicians post their music and are judged according to quality as opposed to record company promotion, and the musicians actually end up making more money than they do under the current music industry.

I imagine the future is either that, or even more marketing.

"Communities like Rate Your Music".

I mean there should be a central internet music community where you can listen to anything, vote on stuff, read essays on how to appreciate music, and have the highest-rated folks get the money.

A mix between AllMusic, Rate Your Music, YouTube, Acclaimed Music and Metacritic.

It could work, if someone took the trouble.

Of course, it would imply a form of communism, but:

1) Communism has a bad reputation because idiotic dictators of the 20th century ruined it with their eponymous goverments that had nothing to do, really, with communism.

2) Capitalism is worse. It's definitively the realm of the lowest common denominator.

Of course, the real problem to social systems is the distribution of work. Communism is clueless in regards to "work", whereas capitalism takes the free-for-all approach.

What one really needs to do is ban work in the first place, and then everything should take care of itself.

Go read "Weath of Nations" and then talk to me about capitalism. Still not convinced after that, then read Ayn Rand.

"Wealth". sorry. When I respond to ridiculous comments, my typing skills go out the window.

Ayn Rand... respond to ridiculous comments... Bizarro World!!!

Ayn Rand?

lolz

AMF gets all politickal!

The banning work part didn't give it away, did it?

(Dream reply: Anthony says "Didn't Ayn Rand give it away for me too?" And then I say: "Ha! Touché!" And management gives the plumber permission to put the sarcasm detector back in the lobby, let it whirr and beep to its little heart's content.)

Everyone should get the same amount of discs/tapes/mp3 files. No more no less. Somebody has to be in charge to make sure the music is doled out evenly.

The people in charge should NOT be allowed to take the best stuff for themselves!

I trust them.

Have no one in charge and magically give everyone everything.

It works.

Mismaiome - is this still on?

Of course. There are 1272 bubbling under songs, so give me a while. I'd also like to incorporate Henrik's update for 2007.

If you're in a hurry, though, I'll see what I can do. Are you?

One of the big advantages of the digital age of music is that you aren't tied down to one cd/lp when purchasing music and this is especially beneficial when compiling greatest hits. Recently I've used RYM to rate singles and I've made it a goal to find everything I've rated 3.0 and above. Using Rhapsody I can listen to every copy of the song they have until I find one that is quality. This is extremely important with songs released before 1965-66 because first, a lot of times those songs were re-recorded, second, a lot of times they might be the original song but put out by a budget label with terrible quality and most important for me is that I can find the original mono master sometimes. When buying a cd, you don't have the ability to cherry pick your songs. This isn't that important for modern music but it's a big deal for old music.

This is also the big reason why I prefer Rhapsody to torrents. You don't get that preview feature with torrents unless you download every album by an artist. Still, I would bet even the greatest private site doesn't have the catalog that Rhapsody has. Most of the time with popular songs I have about 10-15 versions to choose from. Private torrent sites might give you those choices with the Beatles or The Beach Boys but it's doubtful that I'm going that with The Fortunes or The Drifters.

No hurry - just wondering because I hadn't heard about it for a while...

When buying a cd, you don't have the ability to cherry pick your songs. This isn't that important for modern music but it's a big deal for old music.


when it sounds wrong, "try again".