They had another party the
next
year, cleverly called ``three dot oh,'' and then they gave up, so the
``four dot oh'' party never happened.
Coincidentally, that was about the same time that Netscape (oh, did
I say Netscape? I meant the Netscape brand identity as worn by
the AOL-Time-Warner
leviathan) decided that the fact that it had been four years
since Netscape Confusicator 4.x had been
released was starting to get really embarrassing, so they
packaged up a very early alpha of Mozilla and released it under the
Netscape name. They also decided, apparently, that calling it
5.0 would have been embarrassing, so they called it 6.0
instead, to leap-frog over Microsoft's latest version number.
Were you fooled? I wasn't fooled.
Anyway, this succession of events clearly, to me, makes this party
``five dot oh.'' So that's what I wrote in the
party announcement
and FAQ I wrote for them last week, part of which went like this:
|
Party? What party?
Read the
flyer.
Wow, so you finally shipped the damned thing? Awesome!
Yeah, we're pretty excited.
Hey, why's it called ``Party Five Dot Oh''? I remember
parties
One, Two, and Three, but what happened to Party Four?
Party Four Dot Oh celebrated the release of Netscape
Communicator 5.0.
But there wasn't a...
These are not the version numbers you are looking for.
Move along.
Move along.
|
|
|
Now I thought that was pretty damned funny, but hey, what did I
expect: they still have
no sense of humor and took that out. They decided to call the party
``1.0'' again, so now the succession of party names goes 1.0, 2.0, 3.0,
none, 1.0. Huh?
×
3-May-2002 (fri)
This is the bandwidth consumption graph of the machine that serves
up the audio webcasts for last week.
Look at that hole where
Webcast
Blackout Day
was! (We served roughly the same number of hits, but comparitively no
bandwidth, since nobody listened to the looping robot voice doing a
public service announcement for very long.)
Think of how much bandwidth I'll save when
CARP goes into effect!
(There's a list of media coverage on this event
here and
here.)
×
10-May-2002 (fri)
This spam made me laugh:
| Subject: |
|
Digital Rights Management |
| Date: |
Fri, 10 May 2002 13:35:33 -0400 |
| From: |
info@_______.com |
| To: |
<booking@dnalounge.com> |
Dear Booking,
We acquired your name from The Musician's Atlas 2002 published
by Music Resource Group. And as a leader in the musical industry we
thought you would be interested in acquiring more information about
the world of DRM (Digital Rights Management) the new technology for
securely downloading copyrighted materials over the
internet. [...]
For those of you not following along at home, ``Digital Rights
Management'' is the latest doublethink buzzword for ``making it
impossible for you to copy your legally-purchased CDs to your
computer'' and ``making it impossible for you to download music off
the net.'' Yeah, sign me up!
×
18-May-2002 (sat)
Not much to report this week. The biggest drama we had was that
our
SoundWeb (the computer that runs the
whole sound system) melted down on
friday afternoon. We were able to borrow one from Townsend so that we
actually had a sound system on friday night, but apparently something
wasn't configured right on the loaner, and so we ended up with no
webcast on friday. Oops... Well, we have a new one today, and the
webcast tonight seems to be working. I hope it was just the power
supply or something: SoundWebs are really expensive, and if we have to
replace it, it's going to put a serious crimp in the debt-reduction
progress we've been making lately...
I suppose I ought to be screwing around with the kiosks and working
around the
couple of
problems that are preventing me from being comfortable installing
Mozilla as the club's web
browser. I really ought to find some way to make those go away
before the
Mozilla
party next month, so that I don't have to spend the whole night
answering the question of why it's not installed. But you know,
that just sounds like the farthest possible thing from fun. I'd much
rather hack on screen savers...
×
19-May-2002 (sun)
Congratulations, Mollie and Alex!
Tonight we hosted a wedding reception for our good friends Mollie
Gilbert, aka DJ Melting Girl of
Death Guild, and her new
husband Alex Warren. They had a lovely ceremony under the rotunda at
the Palace of
Fine Arts, and then invited a hundred of their friends and family
over to DNA for a pre-honeymoon party. We all wish them the best!
_________________________________
In other news, we've just confirmed a new live show:
20 Jun 2002 (Thursday)
I am so looking forward to this! I saw Download play at DNA
Lounge once before, a year or two before we took over and remodeled the
place, and it was one of the best shows I've ever seen. I think that
was the last real live performance I saw at DNA before we moved in!
×
21-May-2002 (tue)
CARP rejected!
I'm always shocked when there's any sign of sanity occuring in
opposition to corporate interests, but the Copyright Office has
rejected the CARP recommendation. This was the proposal that would
have forced webcasters to pay such enormous royalty payments that
it would have pretty much shut down all small webcasters over night.
You can read the details over at the
Save Internet Radio and
Radio And Internet Newsletter
sites. On the off chance that you haven't been following this
(unlikely if you're reading this web page at all!) you can find
some background info in my
Webcasting Legality article.
Note that while they have rejected the current proposal, we
still don't know what the eventual decision will be; this just means
everyone goes back to the negotiating table. But presumably the
eventual decision will be less egregious than this last proposal!
×
22-May-2002 (wed)
Let me just start by saying
AAAAARRRGGGGGHHHH!!!
So, the
Download
show has been cancelled, after having been on our calendar for less
than three days.
The band's representative had signed the contracts and webcast
agreement, so we thought we were done: we went ahead and announced the
show and started selling tickets. Two days later, they came back to us
and said, ``by the way, no webcast.''
Apparently the first time cEvin actually read the contract was two
days after we'd already gotten a signed copy back, and it wasn't
one he would have signed. It's still unclear to me whether this
was because of his personal beliefs, or because his record label
doesn't allow it, or because he just thinks his record label
doesn't allow it. But, we've had dozens of other signed bands perform
here, and none of them have had a problem with it.
Had we known ahead of time that they wouldn't agree to the webcast,
we wouldn't have booked the show. But we thought that was all settled
already. I'm very sorry that we found out about this so late in the
game. We didn't mean to get everyones' hopes up unnecessarily; we
really had every reason to believe that the deal was done, and the show
was on.
In fact, Download is the very first band who has ever turned us
down because of the webcast.
People keep asking me, ``well can't you just black out the webcast
for that night?'' I could, but I won't. These webcasts we do are
completely integral to the mission of this club: doing the webcasts is
a major part of why I opened the club in the first place. I see them
as one of the major benefits we have over other venues.
And if there's one thing that the last year of operating this club
has taught me, it's that there's a world of difference between the
words ``never'' and ``sometimes.'' The difference is that
``sometimes'' means ``always.'' The first time we booked a show and
turned off the webcast, that would become the norm and not the
exception. Because just about every time someone hears about the
webcasts, their gut reaction is, ``ooh, scary, we can't do that.'' But
when we push back, they go and talk to whoever they need to talk to,
and realize that it's not actually a problem after all. And then after
it goes off, they think it was really cool.
But it would be easier not to webcast, in that it would mean
less conversations about it. And then we'd end up being just like
every other club: doing webcasts only once in a blue moon, if at all.
How can anyone possibly think that a live webcast is anything but a
benefit to the band? Even if someone does manage to save an MP3 of the
show (something that's not very easy to do), in what alternate universe
can that possibly hurt record sales rather than helping
them? It's nothing but free exposure for the artist (``free'' in the
sense of ``DNA is paying a lot of money to do it for them.'')
God dammit, I really wanted to see this show.
×
22-May-2002 (wed)×
27-May-2002 (mon)
I'm enjoying this Kidneythieves album that they
sent us -- yay club swag! (You're coming to the
show next week,
right?) All I'd heard of them before was a two-song single that
someone gave me a few years ago, which I liked. This is
industrial-rock with female vocals and occasionally-trip-hoppy
electronics. They're a bit like Radio Iodine, or maybe Curve, if Curve
were Kittie. (No, that's not right. Oh, nevermind, I couldn't write a
music review to save my life.)
I will say, though, that I really miss industrial with guitars.
(Of course I really miss old-school EBM as well, which the arrival
of guitar-industrial pretty much killed off in the early 90s. But
whichever; the progressive house and/or retread-synthpop that most
people seem to call ``industrial'' these days just doesn't cut it for
me.)
I got a nice email from Phil Western apologizing for the Download
cancellation mess, which made me feel a lot better. I'm still edging
closer to deciding that the webcasts are just not worth the fucking
hassle, though. I haven't reached that decision yet, but doubt grows.
Here's a summary of the debate going on inside my head:
|
|
|
|
|
It's the way of the future: as the net becomes more pervasive,
net-based music will only become more common, and this shows the
artists, labels, and media that there's more to it than
warez-kiddies violating copyrights. What we're doing is legitimate,
moral, legal, and in the best interests of both the artists and
consumers. It's good to set that example.
|
|
|
It's insanely expensive: the very limited amount of webcasting that
we're doing costs us over $20,000/year in bandwidth and
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensing fees.
(And that price tag will get lots larger if the
CARP-pushers get their way and we have to pay RIAA as well.)
It's nice to stand up and be an example... but so very expensive!
|
|
|
It exposes the artists we book to an even wider audience than
those people physically in our building: this is good for the
artists, and thus good for the music scenes in general. Providing
wider exposure for small artists increases diversity and gives the
opportunity for non-corporate-controlled music to become known and
to thrive.
|
|
|
About twenty simultaneous listeners. That's what that $20k/year
buys us. Even the smallest terrestrial college radio station has
hundreds or thousands of potential listeners. We're not even on the
map as far as webcasters go: we can't afford to be. Even
after all this expense, it's still just a symbolic gesture: our
audience is so minuscule that it won't make a bit of difference one
way or another.
|
|
|
It lets people who couldn't otherwise attend our club in person
experience it, and be exposed to new music.
|
|
|
We charge people to come to the club, but we pay so
that those who don't come can listen in. What kind of sense does
that make?
|
|
|
It's a neat gimmick that gets us talked about. It gets us good
publicity, and thus more customers.
|
|
|
It could be drawing people in to the club, or it could be keeping
them away: ``oh, I'll just listen from home.'' It's impossible
to tell.
|
|
|
We're giving a gift to all the artists whose music is played here at
the club. Sure, it costs money, but it provides even greater
exposure to the artists than they would otherwise get just by
playing at a venue of our size. Spending money to support the arts
is good.
|
|
|
The artists don't generally seem to see it that way, so every time
we book someone, we have to have extensive debates with them about
it. This takes a lot of time, which costs money. It is also very
frustrating and discouraging. They generally react to our
philanthropy as if we're trying to rip them off!
Except for Download, they've always come around and agreed to it
so far. But we've never had any artist actually be excited
by the webcast. The best reaction we ever get from any
artist about it is ``complete indifference.'' It goes downhill from
there.
Also, we do very few live shows: mostly what we do here are dj
nights. Since there's no way in hell we will ever convince
the djs to type in their playlists, our dj webcasts will never have
the names of the actual artists in them. If a listener likes a song
they hear, what can they do about it? It doesn't help the artist if
nobody knows who they are. It might help the dj get more
bookings, but so what? Most djs just play other people's music.
(Oh dear, here comes the hate mail for pointing out that the emperor
of ``dj culture'' still has no clothes.)
|
|
|
But wouldn't you feel like a fuckin' idiot if you just gave up now,
after all this work?
|
|
|
Absolutely. But that's not a very good reason.
|
|
I wouldn't be having this debate with myself if it was any
of: cheap-and-easy; or influential; or appreciated. But it's
none of those, really.
×
31-May-2002 (fri)
Since that last entry, I've gotten a number of messages from
listeners telling me how much they appreciate the webcasts. Though
it's definitely nice to actually hear that from people, I should
clarify that when I said ``unappreciated'' above, I meant by the
artists, not by the fans. I never had any doubt that there were a lot
of folks out there who enjoy and appreciate the webcast... I've got the
bandwidth bill to prove it! If people weren't interested, people
wouldn't be listening, and there are a lot more people trying to
listen than we actually let in!
Not too surprisingly, most of the people who wrote me about this
were people who live in the middle of nowhere: I guess the internet
would have to play a much larger role in music discovery for people who
aren't in or near large cities.
One guy said that his usual technique is to try and write down any
lyrics he hears of songs he likes, then feed those into a search engine
to find out what the song is. He said: ``I figure you have sold me
over $500 worth of CD's this year, yet you have to pay to sell me that
and you don't get a commission? What the hell is this world coming
to?''
A few people suggested setting up some kind of online ``tip jar''
to take donations for the webcast. That might be worth looking into,
but I have my doubts about it; nobody ever pays for shareware. I'm
also not sure of the ASCAP implications: if our web site changes from
zero revenue to a tiny bit of revenue, are they going to expect us to
pay more? I think they might, but I no longer remember how their rules
work.
One guy had a suggestion I really like, which is that we put a
suggestion on the webcast page that people contact the band to let them
know that the webcast is appreciated, and that it provides them with
exposure to a wider audience. Maybe if more artists were hearing
feedback like that, they'd be less worried.
Anyway, on to current events.
Last week some doofus threw up over the bar. It was very
early in the evening, he did a shot, then dove forward to yakk right in
the well (``the well'' is the part of the backside of the bar where the
ice and cheap liquor lives.) Now our bars are pretty deep, you've got
to really work at it to reach all the way over like that! Amazing.
He bolted out of the room before we could have him tossed out, but that
happened a few hours later.
New pictures:
- May 26: The Champion Sound
- May 30: d:CODE
(Cybrid, Bass Kittens, and Single Cell Orchestra)
