Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
thanks hilary, I should have specified terrestrial tv.
channels 1-4 and prime.
used to be that 2-3 of these channels had the big new years thing going down.freeview still requires cash input and I don't think prime is on it either?
I was in Taipei once and had researched ways to get from the airport to town the cheapest. There was a bus listed called freebus so I found out where it departed from and waited, climbed aboard and got charged $15 for the ride. apparently freebus was the brand name, it wasn't actually free, silly me for thinking it would be. -
interesting tv line up for new years eve.
not one round up of the year, tv party and count down etc.
guess tv must really be dead as a relevant social format -
Sofie did you get along to the ak 79 gigs and if so, impressions, highlights?
-
I was right at the back, and elevated.
if you're right at the back there is practically no echo which makes it the one good spot to be in. unfortunately you're as far away from the stage as you can get.
right in the middle is the worst for slap back echo.
A solution is to ping the echo in a different direction with tiered seating and people filling them will absorbing sound. Its still a sports venue though.
re being up front at a gig sometimes you're between the speakers and unable to hear them as is the case in wide stages such as the james hay theatre in chch. you're essentially hearing reflected sound, on stage sound coming form the bands amps, and no vocals since these all go through the PA. A well set up system would take into account the dead spot and have some in fill speakers but many riggers don't bother cos they stand at the mixing consol and say it sounds fine. -
IMHO venues aren't designed with sound in mind because they believe that the sound engineers for the gigs will be able to paper over the cracks. Most sound engineeers idea of doing this is to turn all of the knobs up to 10 (or 11) and rely on the overwhelming volume to pummel the punters into submission. This then leads to a muddy sound mix.
not having been to vector but if its anything like westpac arena in chch that venue is designed for sports, no concession to sound and especially not rock sound which has lots of fast attack sounds like drums in it.
rock music requires absorptive surfaces to stop the sound bouncing back and hitting the next bit of sound coming its way. this is important
1) cos you get a great big echo and
2) cos the combination of delayed sound and source sound cancel each other out at different frequencies making things sound weird, bass holes, brittleness, muddiness.
its near impossible to mix your way around this so engineers often opt for the technique you mentioned, not to overpower the punter but to over power the limitations of the venue so you can't hear the echo as much. often it doesn't work, but there is little else you can do.venues like the wellington and chch town halls which are very similar are designed for slow transient music such as orchestras. there is supposed to be natural long reverb in these venues but that doesn't really work for rock music cos it makes everything go mush.
small clubs and pubs are the better places to hear good sound mostly because the venue and people in it can absorb some of the sound splatting around and makes it all sound clean and clear.
In these venues it is all really the sound engineers (and band for the sound they produce) fault if it sound bad, unless we're all too out of touch with a genre to understand the intricacies of brittle hurting shards. Anyone remember early marychain for example?pretty hard to design a large capcity venue that caters to all event styles, but more likely these venue designers don't appear to even try.
I'll never pay to attend a concert at any of these spaces until they (venue designers) do something to address this issue. complete waste of money. -
ambiguous,
nice.... -
the chch google map is well out of date.
the corner of deans and moorhouse ave has been a new intersection for a couple of years now and the blenheim road roundabout closed off -
For me it has already. How many times do we have to go over the same ground. Finis.
and yet here you are again, reiterating unproven points and still not answering the simplest of simple questions.
I already know the answer.
"trent reznor expresses disappointment,"
"x band gets no millage from an already used novelty."why was it so difficult for you to say, "yes it worked for radiohead, no its not working as well for anyone else"
Why can't you bring yourself to acknowledge that simple point.
if it was any different you'd be linking to the article about the success stories, but you're not.
you're talking in circles and saying I'm asking the wrong questions. That one question is the one I want the answer too now.
I'll get to the others later.Why do we have to sugar coat these things.
eno/byrne just invented myspace, again.
It's not that exciting.yeah I get you've got to think out side the square, its not like there's any choice in the matter, but we could do with an element of 'down to earth emperors new clothes' analysis on this instead of the "radiohead solve everything, problem over" slant on this stuff.
People without any more insight than what they read on your page take it at face value and spout it out in ever diminished forms. I've read a few articles trumpeting these 'developments' as the be all and end all solutions to this stuff, the tide is turning, the sun is coming up, and quite simply on the coal face nothing has change.
I get that you dig radioheads little game, you love that shit, but surely you can see how it looks from other perspectives?
what you're essentially saying with your think outside the square comment is that we'll need a different angle for most every new release, that's a lot of angles. That's not a very stable playing field at all.
-
No-one has evaded anything.
yet again you didn't answer the question relating to your claim. it goes toward the whole giving it away is the way forward argument.
a simple yes or no will do.
are the other people using this model seeing equal or greater results or are the returns diminished?
It starts to get ludicrous when you are saying that Radiohead are trying to 'make themselves look good' esp as they've said the same thing from day one repeatedly.
if you're going to make these statements you've got to back em up.
I haven't read anywhere that radiohead said prior to the figures being in that this was a marketing concept to promote their album.Artist frames events to make themselves look good? yeah, where ever did I get a concept like that from? Though I appreciate the use of the word ludicrous in any sentence its hardly fitting to critque my comment which is pretty much stateing the bleeding obvious. yes its true artists and infact any media figures do infact put a positive spin on most things they do cos surprise surprise it benefits their career. And Tom York is nothing if not a smart careerist.
and back to my original point which was a direct comment on your blog, the statement
Radioheads view point was the only one that mattered.
That statement is correct if you're a member of radiohead or chairman of their fan club but if you're anyone else radiohead's singular success is not of interest if you're interested in the bigger picture. The music industry in general isn't interested in radiohead selling a swag of their one album, they're interested in how that new model which everyone including you (you've gone on record as saying giving away your music is the best thing to do for a band) said was the way to go actually works out in the long run.
Radiohead would have been singing a different tune altogether if 90% of people who downloaded their album paid $10 for it and everyone went to their website to grab it instead of bit torrenting it.
It'd be "our fans respect us and what we do and music is all hugs and community, we had faith in the inherent decency of human nature etc etc,
But that didn't happen so its a different story isn't it.
This is only going 1000 times cos you're arguing around the point.
if you give me an answer to my direct question on your statement
are the other people using this model seeing equal or greater results or are the returns diminished?
and acknowledge there are other interests who's view point matter in a social experiment such as the pay what you like business model then we're all sweet, or you could keep diverting and misdirecting so sacha can say how patient you are, again.
2 simple points and it all goes away :)
-
Simply really.
ok, that's conveniently one person who wants to make himself look good. the question was, do you think all people involved were looking at it from a self serving perspective or were perhaps some of those people interested in seeing how the public would react to this model. I don't see why you're so interested in sugar coating it cos tom wants to look good.
why are you ignoring the plethora of other people who were seriously interested in it succeeding, definitely some people in the management camp would have been over the moon if it had proved people were prepared to cough up cash of their own free will.you're good at evading the intent of the question as you did with this one
are the other people using this model seeing equal or greater results or are the returns diminished?
since you're the one championing the radiohead model please prove it has been a roaring success for the people who have used it in their wake. If not then could you see your way to acknowledging that as a model its benefit is purely novelty and promotional?
you seem to be trying to make me say something I'm not. I'm not trying to say radiohead didn't pull some benefit from it, i'm looking at the bigger picture and commenting on that. you appear to be saying over and over that the bigger picture is irrelevant, its all about radiohead. I don't even like the band any more,
and how have the sales of socks and cars change much past the "I have a product you give me money for it model"? sure there's different ways of promoting them but the model remains the same. none of those products have had the same upheaval as media. my point was they have essentially remained the same (ie cash for product which we can stop you taking by keeping it in a secure location) where as media has lost its ability to maintain that model.
one of the possible outcomes for media distribution is it could go belly up. its possible, is that so hard to admit?