|Reuters piece on 'crap art,' etc.
(03 Dec 2003 at 20:55)
| Well, here it is, the Reuters piece on NaNoWriMo and my Album-a-day project, among others. Coming from a wire service meant that it will appear in all sorts of places; for instance, you can choose Forbes Magazine or USA Today, or perhaps your local newspaper. |
|So mp3.com is gone, although they claim pseudo-temporary, but I'm not expecting much. How many AADs are broken due to that? |
|Dude, when are you going to start touring?|
|"The band must have multiple members, and no out-takes, covers or reinterpretations are allowed."
what's with that?
|Nothings: only 8, actually. mp3.com has been broken for quite a while.
Mike: I dunno, reporters often get things wrong. Don't trust the news!
|They think "crap art" is a revolution?!
I don't know why, but I find that a bit disquieting.
I actually think the whole concept of art under a strict self-imposed deadline is quite loony. Perhaps I am a member of the orthodoxy.
They say that the first 500 paintings an artist produces are just practice. (There is also a saying that a beginner must lose the first 50 games of Go as quickly as possible.) Maybe crap art is an excellent way for n00bs to get into a production habit. You don't seriously recommend it for seasoned players, do you?
|Of course I do!
If that last 20% takes 80% of the time... think how much higher our utility function is if we only spend the first 20% of the time!
|Madness! How weird to read this in USA Today and Forbes. It's sad that they're doing their damnedest to play up as much as they can some sort of commercial/biz aspect to projects that are pretty fundamentally non-commercial.
Hey Tom, if mp3.com is dead, maybe you should change our "Reentrant Uperiodic" link on the AAD page to http://mp3.tom7.org/reentrant-uperiodic/ ey?
Kaustuv: Folks (especially those interested in selling you something) seem to be using the word "revolution" quite loosely these days... That aside, though, I think you maybe are missing the point of crap art.
|I'm not sure that albums-a-day and nanowrimos necessarily have to be non-commercial. I think that, as long as people want to read and listen to music, there will be a way to make money off it, and that way doesn't even need to be insidious.
For example, I would definitely pay money for a service that found good, free, underground music for me that I was likely to enjoy. There's a lot of it out there, but it sure is painful to wade through it sometimes.
I changed the reentrant link but there's no page there yet. Marc: Mix MAT AAD #3!
|Getting payed for the art you made for youself is like iceing on the cake, imho.|
|Ahhh, I didn't mean to say that it's wrong for anyone to think of making money off of their album-a-days and such, but I just meant that, so far as what I've seen, everyone's been sharing them for free, yet the article tried to play up the money-making or potential money-making angle in a weirdly over-emphasized way. At least to me it seemed weird, it stuck out to me. Like the fact that someone might be able to make money out of it is what makes it worthwhile.
note to Marc: Mix MAT AAD #3, yes yes...
|That's true, but when you consider that it comes from Reuters, which specializes in financial news... well, that's the kind of trend they want to see.|
|"If that last 20% takes 80% of the time... think how much higher our utility function is if we only spend the first 20% of the time!"
or maybe thats why Reuters is on it ;)