Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Problem with Music (1993)

thebaffler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#61

Post by atoav »

teolandon wrote: post #48
atoav wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I as a musician that practised for years to play the right note in the right way the right moment will truly appreciate it when the unique style I developed with my band over years of work and sweat will be cloned in mere seconds by a multi-national corporation and their AI. Or it could be a 13 year old teenager that has the AI create music in the style of someone else. Not that I am against sampling and remixi…

You are not the authority on what counts as an "artform of its own". I agree with your last statement though.

I am the authority of what counts as an artform of its own — to myself. I mean I also have a MA in arts, so I know about art forms, but I didn't attempt to represent an authority here. So I am sorry if you perceived I was acting as an "authority" when in fect I was speaking a out my very own perspective and nothing more.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#62

Post by atoav »

okareaman wrote: post #40
atoav wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I as a musician that practised for years to play the right note in the right way the right moment will truly appreciate it when the unique style I developed with my band over years of work and sweat will be cloned in mere seconds by a multi-national corporation and their AI. Or it could be a 13 year old teenager that has the AI create music in the style of someone else. Not that I am against sampling and remixi…

There will be two groups of people: those who figure out how to use AI to their benefit and those who don't

And those who figure it out and still won't benefit, because bigger entites do what bigger entites always did when technological promises loomed at the horizon.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#63

Post by Kranar »

lisper wrote: post #57
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I read in the article, you need to also avoid signing anything that says you’ll sign something else later (why in the world is that kind of contract legal?).

Your question makes a mistaken assumption about contracts. Contracts are not "legal" or "illegal", they are "binding" or "non-binding". And a contract that stipulates that you will sign something else later is generally non-binding. The people who ask you to sign such contracts are counting on you not knowing that. There are several criteria that a contract needs to meet in order to be binding. Interestingly, being w…

Contracts absolutely can be legal or illegal. Binding/unbinding contracts are a related but separate concept.

A legal contract is a contract whose terms do not violate the law or public policy and whose terms are enforceable. A binding contract is legal contract that has been signed by all parties involved. It is perfectly valid to question whether a contract is legal or illegal, regardless of whether that contract is binding.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#65

Post by UberFly »

simoneau wrote: post #54

See also "Courtney Love does the math" (2000) for a similar analysis of the music industry: https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

That was a good read, thanks. I'd like to know how the last 20 yrs have effected things and if musicians are still getting just as screwed. Sadly I'm guessing yes.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#66

Post by lisper »

Kranar wrote: post #63
lisper wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question makes a mistaken assumption about contracts. Contracts are not "legal" or "illegal", they are "binding" or "non-binding". And a contract that stipulates that you will sign something else later is generally non-binding. The people who ask you to sign such contracts are counting on you not knowing that. There are several criteria that a contract needs to meet in order to be binding. Interestingly, being w…

Contracts absolutely can be legal or illegal. Binding/unbinding contracts are a related but separate concept. A legal contract is a contract whose terms do not violate the law or public policy and whose terms are enforceable. A binding contract is legal contract that has been signed by all parties involved. It is perfectly valid to question whether a contract is legal or illegal, regardless of whether that contract i…

"Legal", "enforceable", and "binding" are all more or less synonyms in this context. Yes, it's true that a "legal" contract is a thing, but it's really just a synonym for "enforceable", which is really just a synonym for "binding". None of these things mean the same thing as "legal" in the sense that it is, say, "not legal" to rob a bank. There is nothing illegal under contract law in signing a contract to rob a bank. Such a contract is not binding/enforceable/legal but there would be no legal repercussions under contract law if you signed such a contract. If you robbed the bank you'd be charged with bank robbery, and if you didn't rob the bank you could be charged with conspiracy. But under no circumstances could you be charged with a contract violation (which is always a civil matter anyway, not a criminal one).

> A binding contract is legal contract that has been signed by all parties involved.

That is just flat-out false. Verbal contracts can be (legally) binding and hence enforceable. It's not common because of the practical difficulties of ascertaining what the terms of a verbal contract actually are or were, but it's not unheard of.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#67

Post by Kranar »

lisper wrote: post #66
Kranar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contracts absolutely can be legal or illegal. Binding/unbinding contracts are a related but separate concept. A legal contract is a contract whose terms do not violate the law or public policy and whose terms are enforceable. A binding contract is legal contract that has been signed by all parties involved. It is perfectly valid to question whether a contract is legal or illegal, regardless of whether that contract i…

"Legal", "enforceable", and "binding" are all more or less synonyms in this context. Yes, it's true that a "legal" contract is a thing, but it's really just a synonym for "enforceable", which is really just a synonym for "binding". None of these things mean the same thing as "legal" in the sense that it is, say, "not legal" to rob a bank. There is nothing illegal under contract law in signing a contract to rob a bank…

I think you're way out of your league here if you're saying that there is nothing illegal under contract law to sign a contract to rob a bank. Not to mention that you've now gone from trying to be pedantic about the fact that there's no such thing as a legal contract, to now saying that it's actually just a synonym for binding contract. If all you cared about was the overall intention and meaning instead of trying to get into the nitty gritty, there'd have never been a point in you posting to begin with.

With that said, if you're under that impression then I'm afraid there's likely not much of a point in discussing this further with you and you're welcome to continue believing what you like.

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#68

Post by lisper »

Kranar wrote: post #67
lisper wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Legal", "enforceable", and "binding" are all more or less synonyms in this context. Yes, it's true that a "legal" contract is a thing, but it's really just a synonym for "enforceable", which is really just a synonym for "binding". None of these things mean the same thing as "legal" in the sense that it is, say, "not legal" to rob a bank. There is nothing illegal under contract law in signing a contract to rob a bank…

I think you're way out of your league here if you're saying that there is nothing illegal under contract law to sign a contract to rob a bank. Not to mention that you've now gone from trying to be pedantic about the fact that there's no such thing as a legal contract, to now saying that it's actually just a synonym for binding contract. If all you cared about was the overall intention and meaning instead of trying to…

> I think you're way out of your league here if you're saying that there is nothing illegal under contract law to sign a contract to rob a bank.

Could be. Like I said at the beginning, IANAL. But if you are any less out of your league than I am, it would be pretty easy for you to cite the specific provision of contract law that would make it illegal, and how it would be prosecuted. Would it be a criminal offense? Felony or misdemeanor? Or would it be a civil suit? Who would be the plaintiff? Under what provision of contract law would they sue? What would be the actual damages?

At worst, signing a contract to rob a bank might be evidence of a conspiracy [1] but conspiracy is not part of contract law. Merely signing such a contract in and of itself is not an illegal act. I could sign such a contract, for example, as part of an April Fools joke and that would be perfectly legal even if the contract that I signed were drawn up by a lawyer and was prima facie valid and enforceable.

---

[1] https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/con...

Re: The Problem with Music (1993)

#69

Post by bombolo »

mikeryan wrote: post #41
bombolo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radio is still a thing, and studios decide what goes on there.

Is it though? I grew up in the Bay Area listening to “Live 105” the local Alt-Rock station. It doesn’t even exist anymore. There’s maybe one station on the dial that caters to a demographic younger then 40. I’m not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under the age of 30.

> Is it though?

Yes.

> I’m not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under the age of 30.

Maybe you don't drive? If you drive and you get tired of listening and re-listening the stuff you have on your phone… radio it is.

Post reply on HN