napster
-
Grrrr.... (bull snorting, keenly eyeing the red flag while sharpening horns and pawing at ground). There's always one small thing that gets overlooked when discussing this topic - the musicians. Or that the highly coveted Major Label Record Deal ends up paying about 3% of record sales to the artist. Of course, out of that 3% first comes repayment of $200,000 or more to pay back the studio time used to make the album, plus any other recoupable cost that the label can come up with, before the artist sees a dime. In the meantime, it's boxed macaroni and cheese for dinner. Are the record labels and their corporate radio counterparts evil leeches? Absolutely. And of course, that's how people justify stealing music, because the big bad record companies have it coming. No one ever stops to think that every time you screw the record company out of sales, you screw the musicians out of their meager cut. But hey, they can always just play gigs to make up for it, right? Sure. Did you know that in America, bar gigs pay almost exactly the same today that they did in the late 70s? Really. And they didn't pay shit in the 70s, trust me. How would you like to work for the equivalent of minimum wage? No, wait, the equivalent of what minimum wage was 20 or 30 years ago? Would you still want to go to work each day? It's a curiosity that people will crank up the tunes from their favorite band and even tell people how great they are, and yet have absolutely no moral difficulty with stealing from them or depriving them of what little money they get from these record deals. But it doesn't matter, because they're rich rock stars, right? You need to hang out with more musicians. The overwhelming majority of people who have record contracts can barely afford to pay for their own Big Macs. But it's okay to rip them off, because it should all just be about art anyway. And art should be free, right? Sure. Then let's extend that. You love programming. So, why should you get paid to do something that you enjoy? All software should be free. It should just be about the art of developing cool stuff. We should share it completely, with each other, and with the companies who use it. Of course, if all software is free, then you can kiss that weekly paycheck goodbye. You'll be working for free, too. Naturally, of course, none of you would stand for that. Why should musicians? Is their work less valuable? Obviously not, or you wouldn't go to the trouble of tracking it down & downloading it for free. The truth of the matter is that
-
Grrrr.... (bull snorting, keenly eyeing the red flag while sharpening horns and pawing at ground). There's always one small thing that gets overlooked when discussing this topic - the musicians. Or that the highly coveted Major Label Record Deal ends up paying about 3% of record sales to the artist. Of course, out of that 3% first comes repayment of $200,000 or more to pay back the studio time used to make the album, plus any other recoupable cost that the label can come up with, before the artist sees a dime. In the meantime, it's boxed macaroni and cheese for dinner. Are the record labels and their corporate radio counterparts evil leeches? Absolutely. And of course, that's how people justify stealing music, because the big bad record companies have it coming. No one ever stops to think that every time you screw the record company out of sales, you screw the musicians out of their meager cut. But hey, they can always just play gigs to make up for it, right? Sure. Did you know that in America, bar gigs pay almost exactly the same today that they did in the late 70s? Really. And they didn't pay shit in the 70s, trust me. How would you like to work for the equivalent of minimum wage? No, wait, the equivalent of what minimum wage was 20 or 30 years ago? Would you still want to go to work each day? It's a curiosity that people will crank up the tunes from their favorite band and even tell people how great they are, and yet have absolutely no moral difficulty with stealing from them or depriving them of what little money they get from these record deals. But it doesn't matter, because they're rich rock stars, right? You need to hang out with more musicians. The overwhelming majority of people who have record contracts can barely afford to pay for their own Big Macs. But it's okay to rip them off, because it should all just be about art anyway. And art should be free, right? Sure. Then let's extend that. You love programming. So, why should you get paid to do something that you enjoy? All software should be free. It should just be about the art of developing cool stuff. We should share it completely, with each other, and with the companies who use it. Of course, if all software is free, then you can kiss that weekly paycheck goodbye. You'll be working for free, too. Naturally, of course, none of you would stand for that. Why should musicians? Is their work less valuable? Obviously not, or you wouldn't go to the trouble of tracking it down & downloading it for free. The truth of the matter is that
OK, I've been buying music for many years, right back when albums were on 33rpm LPs. Back then, records didn't cost too much and I remember being able to buy a record on the chance that I'd like what I hear. Sometimes I bought an album that was naff but it cost so little it didn't matter. I bought the records, the T-shirts, paid to see the bands, everything. I started recording my own compilations on compact cassettes and sure enough the record companies started their anti-piracy campaign - "home recording is killing music" with a skull/crossbones log merged with a cassette. What the record companies didn't want was for the public to be *able* to make their own copies for use in the car etc. They wanted to sell us the records and the tapes and control *how* we listened to the "artists" they "represented". The cynical might have thought at the time that perhaps the piracy argument was in fact an excuse to raise prices of the records - "we can't help it, it's the pirates forcing us to". So then CDs came out and we were all expected to throw away our LPs and replace 'em with shiny new CDs. But the exorbitant price of CDs never got any lower despite advances in the economy of pressing the damn things. Owners of LPs didn't get any discount for the fact they had already paid the band and the record company bosses once already for the same music they were having to buy *again*. The prices remained high despite the total absence of copying back then. Investigations of price hiking by the record companies were conducted, and gues what? The price of CDs were entirely justified according to the results. Sure enough, almost immediately the results were announced, the prices went up again! Then came the CD copier and people start making copies for the car and their own compilations. Another anti-piracy campaign is started and the prices of CDs go up yet again. The record companies don't want us to make copies even for our own use and certainly not as compilations because "that's not how the artist wants their music listened to". The Internet starts making a difference (at least to the record company exec's minds). People are downloading MP3s and actually listening before they buy. If they don't like 'em enough or the CD is too expensive, they don't bother buying. Let me be absolutely clear on this: if the music is good enough and cheap enough, people generally would rather support the artist and buy a nicely packaged CD. As it is, the prices of CDs are artificially high while the record companies fight to maintain thei
-
Grrrr.... (bull snorting, keenly eyeing the red flag while sharpening horns and pawing at ground). There's always one small thing that gets overlooked when discussing this topic - the musicians. Or that the highly coveted Major Label Record Deal ends up paying about 3% of record sales to the artist. Of course, out of that 3% first comes repayment of $200,000 or more to pay back the studio time used to make the album, plus any other recoupable cost that the label can come up with, before the artist sees a dime. In the meantime, it's boxed macaroni and cheese for dinner. Are the record labels and their corporate radio counterparts evil leeches? Absolutely. And of course, that's how people justify stealing music, because the big bad record companies have it coming. No one ever stops to think that every time you screw the record company out of sales, you screw the musicians out of their meager cut. But hey, they can always just play gigs to make up for it, right? Sure. Did you know that in America, bar gigs pay almost exactly the same today that they did in the late 70s? Really. And they didn't pay shit in the 70s, trust me. How would you like to work for the equivalent of minimum wage? No, wait, the equivalent of what minimum wage was 20 or 30 years ago? Would you still want to go to work each day? It's a curiosity that people will crank up the tunes from their favorite band and even tell people how great they are, and yet have absolutely no moral difficulty with stealing from them or depriving them of what little money they get from these record deals. But it doesn't matter, because they're rich rock stars, right? You need to hang out with more musicians. The overwhelming majority of people who have record contracts can barely afford to pay for their own Big Macs. But it's okay to rip them off, because it should all just be about art anyway. And art should be free, right? Sure. Then let's extend that. You love programming. So, why should you get paid to do something that you enjoy? All software should be free. It should just be about the art of developing cool stuff. We should share it completely, with each other, and with the companies who use it. Of course, if all software is free, then you can kiss that weekly paycheck goodbye. You'll be working for free, too. Naturally, of course, none of you would stand for that. Why should musicians? Is their work less valuable? Obviously not, or you wouldn't go to the trouble of tracking it down & downloading it for free. The truth of the matter is that
Good points , Christopher, and exactly correct. Theft is theft, no matter what the medium. All that we have in life, really, is time. We expend some of it developing skills, more of it applying those skills to create a product or service. Any who would steal the fruits of our labors steal some part of the hours of our lives. And any who would steal some of those hours should be treated as one who would steal all of them. I, for one, do not steal music, or software, or deprive a simple ditch digger one moment of his earned wage. And I have zero tolerance for those who do. They have no sense of respect, and those who do not respect others are deserving of no respect. Good rant - wrong forum, but who's counting:) Let's Put The Fun Back In Dysfunctional! - My Darts Team T-shirt
-
OK, I've been buying music for many years, right back when albums were on 33rpm LPs. Back then, records didn't cost too much and I remember being able to buy a record on the chance that I'd like what I hear. Sometimes I bought an album that was naff but it cost so little it didn't matter. I bought the records, the T-shirts, paid to see the bands, everything. I started recording my own compilations on compact cassettes and sure enough the record companies started their anti-piracy campaign - "home recording is killing music" with a skull/crossbones log merged with a cassette. What the record companies didn't want was for the public to be *able* to make their own copies for use in the car etc. They wanted to sell us the records and the tapes and control *how* we listened to the "artists" they "represented". The cynical might have thought at the time that perhaps the piracy argument was in fact an excuse to raise prices of the records - "we can't help it, it's the pirates forcing us to". So then CDs came out and we were all expected to throw away our LPs and replace 'em with shiny new CDs. But the exorbitant price of CDs never got any lower despite advances in the economy of pressing the damn things. Owners of LPs didn't get any discount for the fact they had already paid the band and the record company bosses once already for the same music they were having to buy *again*. The prices remained high despite the total absence of copying back then. Investigations of price hiking by the record companies were conducted, and gues what? The price of CDs were entirely justified according to the results. Sure enough, almost immediately the results were announced, the prices went up again! Then came the CD copier and people start making copies for the car and their own compilations. Another anti-piracy campaign is started and the prices of CDs go up yet again. The record companies don't want us to make copies even for our own use and certainly not as compilations because "that's not how the artist wants their music listened to". The Internet starts making a difference (at least to the record company exec's minds). People are downloading MP3s and actually listening before they buy. If they don't like 'em enough or the CD is too expensive, they don't bother buying. Let me be absolutely clear on this: if the music is good enough and cheap enough, people generally would rather support the artist and buy a nicely packaged CD. As it is, the prices of CDs are artificially high while the record companies fight to maintain thei
phykell wrote: I myself have several hundred CDs and vinyl records and I defend my right to make my own copies for my own use and to listen before I buy. This right would be denied me by the record companies if they could. They are, indeed, trying to take away that right, and they should be resisted. The right to make copies for personal use has been a staple of copyright law since its inception, and that right should be protected. Let's Put The Fun Back In Dysfunctional! - My Darts Team T-shirt
-
Grrrr.... (bull snorting, keenly eyeing the red flag while sharpening horns and pawing at ground). There's always one small thing that gets overlooked when discussing this topic - the musicians. Or that the highly coveted Major Label Record Deal ends up paying about 3% of record sales to the artist. Of course, out of that 3% first comes repayment of $200,000 or more to pay back the studio time used to make the album, plus any other recoupable cost that the label can come up with, before the artist sees a dime. In the meantime, it's boxed macaroni and cheese for dinner. Are the record labels and their corporate radio counterparts evil leeches? Absolutely. And of course, that's how people justify stealing music, because the big bad record companies have it coming. No one ever stops to think that every time you screw the record company out of sales, you screw the musicians out of their meager cut. But hey, they can always just play gigs to make up for it, right? Sure. Did you know that in America, bar gigs pay almost exactly the same today that they did in the late 70s? Really. And they didn't pay shit in the 70s, trust me. How would you like to work for the equivalent of minimum wage? No, wait, the equivalent of what minimum wage was 20 or 30 years ago? Would you still want to go to work each day? It's a curiosity that people will crank up the tunes from their favorite band and even tell people how great they are, and yet have absolutely no moral difficulty with stealing from them or depriving them of what little money they get from these record deals. But it doesn't matter, because they're rich rock stars, right? You need to hang out with more musicians. The overwhelming majority of people who have record contracts can barely afford to pay for their own Big Macs. But it's okay to rip them off, because it should all just be about art anyway. And art should be free, right? Sure. Then let's extend that. You love programming. So, why should you get paid to do something that you enjoy? All software should be free. It should just be about the art of developing cool stuff. We should share it completely, with each other, and with the companies who use it. Of course, if all software is free, then you can kiss that weekly paycheck goodbye. You'll be working for free, too. Naturally, of course, none of you would stand for that. Why should musicians? Is their work less valuable? Obviously not, or you wouldn't go to the trouble of tracking it down & downloading it for free. The truth of the matter is that
All good points, and I do agree, having played bass guitar in a band myself, but I don't see why you would want to continue a system that pays 3% (if that) to the artists. Why not devise a better system, like sell albums directly via download for 99 cents or $1.99, 100% of which goes to the artist? I'd rather pay a couple bucks and have it go to the band than pay ten bucks for a traditional CD with thirty cents going to the band.
-
Grrrr.... (bull snorting, keenly eyeing the red flag while sharpening horns and pawing at ground). There's always one small thing that gets overlooked when discussing this topic - the musicians. Or that the highly coveted Major Label Record Deal ends up paying about 3% of record sales to the artist. Of course, out of that 3% first comes repayment of $200,000 or more to pay back the studio time used to make the album, plus any other recoupable cost that the label can come up with, before the artist sees a dime. In the meantime, it's boxed macaroni and cheese for dinner. Are the record labels and their corporate radio counterparts evil leeches? Absolutely. And of course, that's how people justify stealing music, because the big bad record companies have it coming. No one ever stops to think that every time you screw the record company out of sales, you screw the musicians out of their meager cut. But hey, they can always just play gigs to make up for it, right? Sure. Did you know that in America, bar gigs pay almost exactly the same today that they did in the late 70s? Really. And they didn't pay shit in the 70s, trust me. How would you like to work for the equivalent of minimum wage? No, wait, the equivalent of what minimum wage was 20 or 30 years ago? Would you still want to go to work each day? It's a curiosity that people will crank up the tunes from their favorite band and even tell people how great they are, and yet have absolutely no moral difficulty with stealing from them or depriving them of what little money they get from these record deals. But it doesn't matter, because they're rich rock stars, right? You need to hang out with more musicians. The overwhelming majority of people who have record contracts can barely afford to pay for their own Big Macs. But it's okay to rip them off, because it should all just be about art anyway. And art should be free, right? Sure. Then let's extend that. You love programming. So, why should you get paid to do something that you enjoy? All software should be free. It should just be about the art of developing cool stuff. We should share it completely, with each other, and with the companies who use it. Of course, if all software is free, then you can kiss that weekly paycheck goodbye. You'll be working for free, too. Naturally, of course, none of you would stand for that. Why should musicians? Is their work less valuable? Obviously not, or you wouldn't go to the trouble of tracking it down & downloading it for free. The truth of the matter is that
I agree. But... I download a few songs each week. And, I generally download songs from bands i've never actually heard, to see if i want to buy the album. In a pre-radio-deregulation world, I might have been able to hear some of these bands on the radio. But now, all I can hear is the same crappy Creed and Nirvana wannabe bands. Because I believe I have taste (read: I'm a music snob), I have stopped listening to commercial radio entirely, not as a political staement but because there's nothing there for me anymore. I only listen to NPR on my way to work. I haven't seen a video on MTV or VH1 in, literally, years, and we don't get any other video channels where I live. As a result, AudioGalaxy and friends have taken commercial radio's place in exposing me to new bands. My usual method is to cruise on-line CD stores (Parasol and Amazon, mostly), reading reviews and recommendations, then grabbing a couple songs by the bands that seem interesting. And, I usually buy something, ex. I have 8 CDs in the mail at the moment. So, I'm definitely a supporter of bands. And I don't think my downloading is stealing, just previewing as I would have done if radio and/or MTV actually played music anymore. If I'm any kind of example, then there's a market for this kind of browsing. If the record companies (or BMI, ASCAP) got together and offered a subscription download service where I could expect to find songs from new, often independent, bands, on any label (i'm not a label loyalist), i'd probably sign up. But until then, I'm going to have to rely on people ripping CDs and sharing their MP3s. -c
Cheap oil. It's worth it!
-
OK, I've been buying music for many years, right back when albums were on 33rpm LPs. Back then, records didn't cost too much and I remember being able to buy a record on the chance that I'd like what I hear. Sometimes I bought an album that was naff but it cost so little it didn't matter. I bought the records, the T-shirts, paid to see the bands, everything. I started recording my own compilations on compact cassettes and sure enough the record companies started their anti-piracy campaign - "home recording is killing music" with a skull/crossbones log merged with a cassette. What the record companies didn't want was for the public to be *able* to make their own copies for use in the car etc. They wanted to sell us the records and the tapes and control *how* we listened to the "artists" they "represented". The cynical might have thought at the time that perhaps the piracy argument was in fact an excuse to raise prices of the records - "we can't help it, it's the pirates forcing us to". So then CDs came out and we were all expected to throw away our LPs and replace 'em with shiny new CDs. But the exorbitant price of CDs never got any lower despite advances in the economy of pressing the damn things. Owners of LPs didn't get any discount for the fact they had already paid the band and the record company bosses once already for the same music they were having to buy *again*. The prices remained high despite the total absence of copying back then. Investigations of price hiking by the record companies were conducted, and gues what? The price of CDs were entirely justified according to the results. Sure enough, almost immediately the results were announced, the prices went up again! Then came the CD copier and people start making copies for the car and their own compilations. Another anti-piracy campaign is started and the prices of CDs go up yet again. The record companies don't want us to make copies even for our own use and certainly not as compilations because "that's not how the artist wants their music listened to". The Internet starts making a difference (at least to the record company exec's minds). People are downloading MP3s and actually listening before they buy. If they don't like 'em enough or the CD is too expensive, they don't bother buying. Let me be absolutely clear on this: if the music is good enough and cheap enough, people generally would rather support the artist and buy a nicely packaged CD. As it is, the prices of CDs are artificially high while the record companies fight to maintain thei
Actually, I agree with you and strongly oppose the record industry's attempt to eliminate our "fair use" rights (making personal copies for backup, etc.) in the name of copy protection. A right lost is a right lost, and I don't feel that we should suffer such a loss because of the theft of others. I've also gone through LPs, 8 tracks, cassettes and now CDs. Back in the days when CDs were new, I'd make a cassette copy of my CD for the car because the quality of commercial cassettes was horrible. But I paid for the CD, and that falls under "fair use" rights. phykell wrote: Let me be absolutely clear on this: if the music is good enough and cheap enough, people generally would rather support the artist and buy a nicely packaged CD. Unfortunately, I don't share your optimism or faith in human nature. People like you, who obviously support artists and pay for what you use, aren't the problem. The problem is that there is an entire generation growing up who feel that "music should be free" (and in fact believe that anything on the Internet should be free) and who actually don't buy CDs - they download & put them on their portable mp3 players. This is extremely widespread, and for once, the record companies aren't playing Chicken Little. I just wish I knew what to do about it. I don't. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
Good points , Christopher, and exactly correct. Theft is theft, no matter what the medium. All that we have in life, really, is time. We expend some of it developing skills, more of it applying those skills to create a product or service. Any who would steal the fruits of our labors steal some part of the hours of our lives. And any who would steal some of those hours should be treated as one who would steal all of them. I, for one, do not steal music, or software, or deprive a simple ditch digger one moment of his earned wage. And I have zero tolerance for those who do. They have no sense of respect, and those who do not respect others are deserving of no respect. Good rant - wrong forum, but who's counting:) Let's Put The Fun Back In Dysfunctional! - My Darts Team T-shirt
Roger Wright wrote: Good rant - wrong forum, but who's counting :-O Oops... Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
The hilarious thing is that it does not matter a damn. I got mp3's before Naptster, and the options have only increased since. The record companies have simply succeeded in making people hate them. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002
Christian Graus wrote: The record companies have simply succeeded in making people hate them. Not to mention spreading awareness of this backchannel way of obtaining their precious music for J. Random Fan, and spurring other developers to jump in on the front lines of the battle. - Jason (SonorkID 100.611) In the beginning, teachers taught the 5 W's: who, what, where, when, why. Now it's just a big damn G
-
All good points, and I do agree, having played bass guitar in a band myself, but I don't see why you would want to continue a system that pays 3% (if that) to the artists. Why not devise a better system, like sell albums directly via download for 99 cents or $1.99, 100% of which goes to the artist? I'd rather pay a couple bucks and have it go to the band than pay ten bucks for a traditional CD with thirty cents going to the band.
I quite agree! Cut out the useless middleman and reward the artist... Let's Put The Fun Back In Dysfunctional! - My Darts Team T-shirt
-
I agree. But... I download a few songs each week. And, I generally download songs from bands i've never actually heard, to see if i want to buy the album. In a pre-radio-deregulation world, I might have been able to hear some of these bands on the radio. But now, all I can hear is the same crappy Creed and Nirvana wannabe bands. Because I believe I have taste (read: I'm a music snob), I have stopped listening to commercial radio entirely, not as a political staement but because there's nothing there for me anymore. I only listen to NPR on my way to work. I haven't seen a video on MTV or VH1 in, literally, years, and we don't get any other video channels where I live. As a result, AudioGalaxy and friends have taken commercial radio's place in exposing me to new bands. My usual method is to cruise on-line CD stores (Parasol and Amazon, mostly), reading reviews and recommendations, then grabbing a couple songs by the bands that seem interesting. And, I usually buy something, ex. I have 8 CDs in the mail at the moment. So, I'm definitely a supporter of bands. And I don't think my downloading is stealing, just previewing as I would have done if radio and/or MTV actually played music anymore. If I'm any kind of example, then there's a market for this kind of browsing. If the record companies (or BMI, ASCAP) got together and offered a subscription download service where I could expect to find songs from new, often independent, bands, on any label (i'm not a label loyalist), i'd probably sign up. But until then, I'm going to have to rely on people ripping CDs and sharing their MP3s. -c
Cheap oil. It's worth it!
Chris Losinger wrote: But... I download a few songs each week. And, I generally download songs from bands i've never actually heard, to see if i want to buy the album. Actually, I'm very much in favor of that. One of my ventures is an online record store for unsigned artists (begin shameless plug - www.NotOnTheRadio.com - end shameless plug). My problem is with the hordes of people who are not using downloads in this manner, but are instead trying to get something for nothing. All the bands on my site have agreed to put up mp3 samples of their music for promotional purposes. Napster type sites, though, aren't operating on that principle and almost never have the artist's approval. Chris Losinger wrote: If the record companies (or BMI, ASCAP) got together and offered a subscription download service where I could expect to find songs from new, often independent, bands, on any label (i'm not a label loyalist), i'd probably sign up. But until then, I'm going to have to rely on people ripping CDs and sharing their MP3s. Actually, there are a couple of major label consortiums that are doing just this (PressPlay, and there's another one but I don't remember the name). They're losing money hand over fist for two reasons. One, their download system is unbelievable convoluted. Secondly, and more importantly, they just don't get it. The reason people download the latest Britney Spears album is not because they want it in mp3 format. They do it because they don't want to pay for it. These major label ventures were doomed before they even started. As I mentioned earlier, honorable people like you aren't the problem. It's the members of the up and coming generation who believe that they're entitled to free music. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
All good points, and I do agree, having played bass guitar in a band myself, but I don't see why you would want to continue a system that pays 3% (if that) to the artists. Why not devise a better system, like sell albums directly via download for 99 cents or $1.99, 100% of which goes to the artist? I'd rather pay a couple bucks and have it go to the band than pay ten bucks for a traditional CD with thirty cents going to the band.
Well, the site I'm working on is selling self produced CDs, not downloads. We'd thought about selling downloads in the beginning, but came to the conclusion that people will pay for a tangible product, but in general downloads are considered "something that should be free" (as the major labels are finding with their own sites). Do you still play? Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
Christian Graus wrote: The record companies have simply succeeded in making people hate them. Not to mention spreading awareness of this backchannel way of obtaining their precious music for J. Random Fan, and spurring other developers to jump in on the front lines of the battle. - Jason (SonorkID 100.611) In the beginning, teachers taught the 5 W's: who, what, where, when, why. Now it's just a big damn G
Jason Hooper wrote: and spurring other developers to jump in on the front lines of the battle. Yeah, although being in the front lines is an overrated experience... Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
Well, the site I'm working on is selling self produced CDs, not downloads. We'd thought about selling downloads in the beginning, but came to the conclusion that people will pay for a tangible product, but in general downloads are considered "something that should be free" (as the major labels are finding with their own sites). Do you still play? Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
I stopped playing about 15 years ago but I'm seriously thinking about starting again. I miss it, and a lot of rap, alternative, and metal tunes have good bass lines. (Except for that sythetic bass crap -- I hate that!)