Is this comment true?

[GA Russell]

Today I see this comment on the internet.  Some of you know about recording and such things.  Is all this correct nowadays?

"With tools like GarageBand (included with any Mac) and Audacity (free open source software), anyone with technical know-how of audio mastering can create studio quality albums.

Combined with the proliferation of direct-to-USB recording, you no longer need to deal with the analog headaches associated with microphone placement.

Finally, you can use a platform like Soundcloud to get your initial music out there - all bypassing the parasite studio system that has put a chokehold on artists for decades."

(I always post my links in the spirit of "Pics or it didn't happen."  So here is the link, so that you can see that I haven't made this up.  

Edited September 6, 2022 by JSngry
Deleting link to a hardcore political site/post

[JSngry]

Depends on what kind of music you want to make a record of.

[jcam_44]

No. But it sounds good. 

[GA Russell]

5 hours ago, jcam_44 said:

No. But it sounds good. 

Oh, well!

[JSngry]

Well, it is true that you can make a record like that and then distribute it via SoundCloud and such. It's going on damn near daily.

But think about it - what kind of music is being made like that? Pretty specific, and some would say, limited. Very limited 

But if that's your bag, then this is your Golden Age.

Carpe Diem. 

Oh fuck man, you did it again, posted a link to some hardcore political site under the guise of making an innocuous musical inquiry.

We do not do that here. You know better. And don't cry censorship when such links get removed from your post, like I am going to do in this one.

This keeps happening. Too much to be unintentional. 

[GA Russell]

56 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Oh fuck man, you did it again, posted a link to some hardcore political site under the guise of making an innocuous musical inquiry.

We do not do that here. You know better. And don't cry censorship when such links get removed from your post, like I am going to do in this one.

This keeps happening. Too much to be unintentional. 

No, Jim, it's not a "guise." As I said in the OP, I always post links to show everyone that I'm not making stuff up.  CFL scores, Amazon box set sales, whatever.

I note that the objections I've seen have not been to the subject matter I post about.  They have always been aimed at the 21st Century media sites themselves.

Shall we stop linking to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal sites because so much of their content is political?  Or are their sites acceptable because those companies were founded before 2000, and are owned by billionaires?

You once deleted a link I posted because somewhere the website also had an unrelated article (which I never saw) which Rooster objected to.  Will you delete a link I post to an Amazon CD sale because elsewhere on its site Amazon sells rebel flags?  I have friends who are offended by rebel flags.

I've never cried censorship, so don't suggest that I do.  And speaking of which, I've never whined (as certain people have) when their objectionable posts stay up.  

In my view, a large part of the appeal of the 21st Century organizations is that they discuss events that the old outfits ignore.  Why post a link to an article which everyone already knows about?

[JSngry]

Dude.

The article you posted to was a link about some country singer. His wife, his PR form. Some comments that somebody had made, and then a long multi-page rant about cancel culture, censorship, new fascism, the whole grievance litany. I gave up reading before I could find anything about what you said was the point in question.

So maybe yeah, stop posting links, just give us the facts, name the names of you like. Just stop posting these links that go to well inside the political rabbit hole 

These aren't my rules, these are board rules 

[porcy62]

Politic a part, I tend to think that boundaries, (producers, budgets, clients, market, ecc,) usually saved ART from self indulgent egotistic artists.

[clifford_thornton]

NYT and WSJ are fairly centrist to center-right if they lean in any direction. Very little hardcore about them.

[Brad]

29 minutes ago, clifford_thornton said:

NYT and WSJ are fairly centrist to center-right if they lean in any direction. Very little hardcore about them.

The Times is more center left these days while at times the Journal can be centrist. 

[Larry Kart]

The Times has no less than three regular right-wing columnists now -- Douthat,  the other guy whose name escapes me right now, and the faux reasonable David Brooks, who pretends to be a centrist but is not when push comes to shove.

[clifford_thornton]

yeah, those columnists are who I was thinking of and bring them to the right of center-left IMO. I'm far from the broader world of journalism and find the NYT pretty pathetic in terms of its cultural coverage, which is pretty nonexistent and a slap in the face given its home city's impact in the arts. But neither paper is what I would call radical, just milquetoast and ready for corrections the next day.

I think this thread could veer dangerously close to a political one so I'll stop there.

[JSngry]

The problem here was less the overall site, but the article itself that was linked to. Calling it a screed is putting it mildly. Like I said, I had to stop reading before getting to the point made in the OP. I thought that that was going to be the focus of the article. It was at best a footnote. 

[T.D.]

3 minutes ago, JSngry said:

The problem here was less the overall site, but the article itself that was linked to. Calling it a screed is putting it mildly. Like I said, I had to stop reading before getting to the point made in the OP. I thought that that was going to be the focus of the article. It was at best a footnote. 

Dude has a history of that, but the ignore list helps.

[Brad]

20 minutes ago, clifford_thornton said:

yeah, those columnists are who I was thinking of and bring them to the right of center-left IMO. I'm far from the broader world of journalism and find the NYT pretty pathetic in terms of its cultural coverage, which is pretty nonexistent and a slap in the face given its home city's impact in the arts. But neither paper is what I would call radical, just milquetoast and ready for corrections the next day.

I think this thread could veer dangerously close to a political one so I'll stop there.

That’s just the columnists but the news coverage and viewpoints make it slightly left of center.  One of the reasons you may not like the cultural coverage is because it’s more of a national paper these days. 

[clifford_thornton]

2 hours ago, T.D. said:

Dude has a history of that, but the ignore list helps.

the problem with the ignore list is that sometimes good commentary gets buried/disappeared as a result.

re: news, I tend to side with the left of left of center but that discourse is of course incomplete. That said, if the Guardian knows what's up in terms of NYC culture more than the NYT, that is a problem.

[Larry Kart]

Regarding the cultural coverage, the NYT  had an article about composer John Adams yesterday that asserts that he went his americanish-minimalist way despite studying under the Darmstadt school composers Roger Sessions, Leon Kirchner, and David De Tredici. This is a disgraceful error. De Tredici is a flaming romantic, and while both Sessions and Kirchner are so-called "High Modernists," the music of those men was fully formed years before there was any Darmstadt School to react to, and their music owes nothing to that of Stockhausen et al. I blame the writer of. the article of course but also the copy desk. As a former copy editor, I would have caught that in minute.

[clifford_thornton]

Wow. Yeah, that's insane.

[JSngry]

54 minutes ago, clifford_thornton said:

the problem with the ignore list is that sometimes good commentary gets buried/disappeared as a result.

I thought it was an interesting premise, not totally unfounded on the realities of today, do to read more, I clicked on the link.

Bait and switch.

[T.D.]

1 hour ago, clifford_thornton said:

the problem with the ignore list is that sometimes good commentary gets buried/disappeared as a result.

re: news, I tend to side with the left of left of center but that discourse is of course incomplete. That said, if the Guardian knows what's up in terms of NYC culture more than the NYT, that is a problem.

Maybe, but

a) I have limited time to peruse forums, and ignoring proven unreliable sources improves the signal/noise ratio;

b) Ignored posts are still visible if replied to by non-ignored members.

[clifford_thornton]

30 minutes ago, T.D. said:

Maybe, but

a) I have limited time to peruse forums, and ignoring proven unreliable sources improves the signal/noise ratio;

True dat.