On February 25th, 2014 the Bitcoin exchange in Tokyo, Japan, Mt Gox collapsed. Bitcoin is a form of digital currency that has been in use since 2009. Bitcoins are used to pay for regular purchases of goods and services, in place of cash. Bitcoins are paid for with real money, such as dollars, euros, etc. Bitcoin value had gone as high as $1,151 in December 2013 before falling to $418.78 after the Mt Gox exchange crashed.
Mt Gox reported that as much as $390 million dollars worth of the virtual currency may have been stolen. Since Bitcoin was an unlicensed and unregulated currency, authorities are not certain what to do. Meanwhile, Bitcoin investors have lost thousands, if not millions of real dollars.
Bitcoin is the brain child of Satoshi Nakamto who created the virtual currency in 2008. However, it's been said that the Bitcoin was created anonymously, because no one has actually met Satoshi Nakamoto. Nakamoto stopped communicating in 2011, but not before releasing a detailed self regulating concept, and the code for the crypto-currency.
Nakamoto's concept was to establish an organized, non government regulated currency without ties to a central banking authority. It's like Paypal or a credit card, except that no one has to use their name or their social security number. Its use is peer to peer.
Bitcoins can be bought or they can be obtained though a process called bitcoin mining. To get bitcoins, one must program their computer with a particular algorithm. Your computer must run the algorithm until it comes up with the right computation, before anyone else in the world does. If you are fortunate enough to do that, you win a block of 25 new bitcoins. This is a very simplified description of bitcoin mining, because the process of coming up with the right computation can take an inordinate amount computing power and possibly the use of more than one computer.
On Feruray 10, 2014, Mt Gox announced that "a bug in the Bitcoin software makes it possible for someone to use the Bitcoin Network to alter transaction details to make it seem like the sending of coins to a bitcoin wallet happened when it actually didn't." Thus the present state of affairs.
On February 26th, 2014, authorities in the US began calling for a ban on the Bitcoin, citing it as "encouraging illicit activity," and "highly unstable and disruptive to the economy." Because the use of Bitcoin is a peer to peer interaction, it can be used for illegal activities. However, at this time any restriction or ban of use of the Bitcoin will only come through the enactment of new legislation.
What is interesting about all of this, at least to me, is that since the late 1960s, the US has been moving toward a cashless society. Money has become increasingly more virtual, or digitized as we move on into the 21st century. Clearly, the Bitcoin experiment may not prove to be a success going forward, but it may have laid the ground work for the next step in evolution monetary and banking transactions. Undoubtedly more rules, regulations, and oversight will be needed to make the next crypto-currency work.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Streaming, Again...
It was reported back in January that sales of digital music had fallen for the first time since 2003. A lot of bloggers have blamed and decried the rise of streaming as the culprit. Some have even suggested that streaming will not survive as a business model. I think that streaming is not the problem at all.
CD sales have been falling since the late 1990s. The Mp3 and the iPod became a sensation at the beginning of the 21st century. Digital downloads rose steadily until recently, when the increase in the use of mobile computing devices gave many an opportunity to sample and then become heavy users of streaming media services.
Any loss of profits by a major recording company, from the sale of music can be absorbed by the parent company that owns it. Independent and DIY artists most likely supplement any loss of revenue with money earned from touring. And of course, if you don't tour, you don't make any money.
I think, and this is just my opinion, once again, the lure of, "free," is making it difficult to sell music. Many potential music buyers are willing to forego ownership of their own copy of a recording, believing in, and feeling safe in the knowledge that they will always have access to the media as long as they have access to the internet.
I think that what has been missing from the discussion of why things have become the way that they are is that there is no thought being given to what one would do if they suddenly were without internet access. Think about it. All those music files stored in the Cloud would be unavailable, hundreds or maybe even thousands of miles away.
I'm not an anarchist. I love technology. But, if something should happen to cause a loss of connection to the web or a prolonged loss of power in general, those who were wise enough to obtain and save a hard copy of anything will be miles ahead of everyone else. It seems strange to me that no one ever talks about that.
Things of great value stored on electronic, internet enabled devices won't be able to provide one with needed information should some mishap make it impossible to retrieve your precious data. A solar flare or an asteroid strike could make life unbearable for an extended period of time.
In the past, music was considered precious, valuable, and worth preserving. In the days of vinyl, many a collector stored away their albums after making taped copies. The belief was that the originals would be worth a great sum of money in years to come. But, should our lives one day be interrupted by some major calamity, those who were wise enough to see the value of owning their own copy of sound recordings, as well as many other items, may quickly discover that what they saved has become not only timeless, but priceless.
CD sales have been falling since the late 1990s. The Mp3 and the iPod became a sensation at the beginning of the 21st century. Digital downloads rose steadily until recently, when the increase in the use of mobile computing devices gave many an opportunity to sample and then become heavy users of streaming media services.
Any loss of profits by a major recording company, from the sale of music can be absorbed by the parent company that owns it. Independent and DIY artists most likely supplement any loss of revenue with money earned from touring. And of course, if you don't tour, you don't make any money.
I think, and this is just my opinion, once again, the lure of, "free," is making it difficult to sell music. Many potential music buyers are willing to forego ownership of their own copy of a recording, believing in, and feeling safe in the knowledge that they will always have access to the media as long as they have access to the internet.
I think that what has been missing from the discussion of why things have become the way that they are is that there is no thought being given to what one would do if they suddenly were without internet access. Think about it. All those music files stored in the Cloud would be unavailable, hundreds or maybe even thousands of miles away.
I'm not an anarchist. I love technology. But, if something should happen to cause a loss of connection to the web or a prolonged loss of power in general, those who were wise enough to obtain and save a hard copy of anything will be miles ahead of everyone else. It seems strange to me that no one ever talks about that.
Things of great value stored on electronic, internet enabled devices won't be able to provide one with needed information should some mishap make it impossible to retrieve your precious data. A solar flare or an asteroid strike could make life unbearable for an extended period of time.
In the past, music was considered precious, valuable, and worth preserving. In the days of vinyl, many a collector stored away their albums after making taped copies. The belief was that the originals would be worth a great sum of money in years to come. But, should our lives one day be interrupted by some major calamity, those who were wise enough to see the value of owning their own copy of sound recordings, as well as many other items, may quickly discover that what they saved has become not only timeless, but priceless.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
The Art Of Album Art
When you buy a download from an online music store, it's not very likely that you even wonder where the cover art for the album or single is. And, with streaming on the rise today, it's possible that you never even think about the cover art.
That being said, when we buy or listen to music online, the cover art is always ever present. While we may not consider it as part of the package anymore, we still use the art as an identifier or locator that helps us quickly find just what we are looking for.
But, for recording artists whose music appears in these online stores, the cover is still a very important part of the music's presentation. In fact, most online distributors, those who are responsible for getting artists' music into these online stores, require that every album and single be posted with some form of cover art. So it is that many recording artists will still try to present their recording with a visual that will have just as much impact as their music.
In the 1950s and 60s, a simple photo of the band or artist would suffice. But, when the Beatles arrived on the scene in 1964, things would change and never be the same. Their coming marked the beginning of an era of creative and artistic freedom that lasted throughout the 1970s and into the 80s.
Many mid to late 60s bands and artists would either conceive or commission an artist to design their album covers. This tradition led to some of the most memorable cover art ever made. However, some album covers like the Beatles Yesterday... and Today, or what became know as the, "butcher block," album or Jimi Hendrix's, Electric Ladyland, proved to be controversial and consequently problematic.
So what does a recording artist do when the visual concept for their music is either mis-perceived or even though innocent, is considered to be risque. Of course, we see this all the time today as some recording artists use a visual that they know will get attention, for no other reason then the shock value.
Things like nudity or acts of violence tend to get noticed in a hurry. There's also the concept that's either so simple that it's cuteness turns the listener off. Or, the concept that's so complicated that the potential buyer thinks that the artist is either being pompous or pretentious.
Getting it right is not always an easy thing to do, especially in an era when Madison Avenue has all but sold everyone on the notion that image is everything. But, I have noticed that there some artists who are trying to keep the art of album art alive. To those bands and artists, major, indie, or DIY, I wish you all good luck and much continued success.
That being said, when we buy or listen to music online, the cover art is always ever present. While we may not consider it as part of the package anymore, we still use the art as an identifier or locator that helps us quickly find just what we are looking for.
But, for recording artists whose music appears in these online stores, the cover is still a very important part of the music's presentation. In fact, most online distributors, those who are responsible for getting artists' music into these online stores, require that every album and single be posted with some form of cover art. So it is that many recording artists will still try to present their recording with a visual that will have just as much impact as their music.
In the 1950s and 60s, a simple photo of the band or artist would suffice. But, when the Beatles arrived on the scene in 1964, things would change and never be the same. Their coming marked the beginning of an era of creative and artistic freedom that lasted throughout the 1970s and into the 80s.
Many mid to late 60s bands and artists would either conceive or commission an artist to design their album covers. This tradition led to some of the most memorable cover art ever made. However, some album covers like the Beatles Yesterday... and Today, or what became know as the, "butcher block," album or Jimi Hendrix's, Electric Ladyland, proved to be controversial and consequently problematic.
So what does a recording artist do when the visual concept for their music is either mis-perceived or even though innocent, is considered to be risque. Of course, we see this all the time today as some recording artists use a visual that they know will get attention, for no other reason then the shock value.
Things like nudity or acts of violence tend to get noticed in a hurry. There's also the concept that's either so simple that it's cuteness turns the listener off. Or, the concept that's so complicated that the potential buyer thinks that the artist is either being pompous or pretentious.
Getting it right is not always an easy thing to do, especially in an era when Madison Avenue has all but sold everyone on the notion that image is everything. But, I have noticed that there some artists who are trying to keep the art of album art alive. To those bands and artists, major, indie, or DIY, I wish you all good luck and much continued success.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
We Want The Funk
There's a movement that has just be initiated to make Funk a Grammy category. I know this because I was invited to join the movement's official Facebook Page.
When I visited the Make Funk A Grammy Category Page I found that the page was first posted on January 20th, 2014. There's not much information, nor is the identity of the page's founder given. There are however, several posts from the page's founder as well as a few from the 2,613 followers who have liked the page so far.
Given those facts one is pretty much left with their own opinion of this idea. My first thought was that this is not only a great idea, but one that is long over due. After thinking it over for a while, it occurred to me that long over due was an understatement. In fact it's at least forty years overdue.
Rap came onto the scene in 1979 and received it's first Grammy 10 years later in 1989. Funk came to life in the guise of James Brown's, "I Feel Good (I Got You) in 1964. 10 years after that in 1974, Funk was merely a sub genre of R&B that was represented by the Isley Brothers, Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind & Fire, Commodores, Ohio Players, and Average White Band. In the mist of that growing Funk evolution, Disco, which some considered to be European R&B, arose.
1976 saw Disco rise and then begin to wain as Funk continued to gain new converts. The Parliament, Bootsy's Rubber Band, and ConFunkShun were pushing Funk to new boundaries. However, the release of the movie, Saturday Night Fever in the fall of 1977, breathed new life into the Disco scene. The movie's success caused major labels, at the time, to sign as many new Disco artists as they could. Clearly, Funk had been upstaged.
It was only a fan revolt that took place at Chicago's Comiskey Park on July 12th, 1979 that stalled the Disco onslaught. By that time many major label recording artists across all genres were already jumping onto the band wagon. Going forward into the 1980s as major labels scrambled to recover, Disco was quickly absorbed temporarily into Funk to briefly become Dance or what some had called Disco Funk. In 1982, Rap was taking off and slowly but surely, Funk artists either added one of the new sounds to their own or decided not to record for a while.
By the time Rap received its first Grammy in 1989, Funk had gone underground. Only a hand full of R&B and Jazz artist were still doing the music with any authority. Through the 1990s on into the 21st century, Funk has scarcely been played on radio, except for what might be heard on R&B oldies stations. However, there are many artists out there who have never given up on the music. Now, one of those artists who still believes is trying to rally the Funketeers. Can it be done after all this time? Anything is possible. We'll all just have to stay tuned to see just how far the movement goes.
When I visited the Make Funk A Grammy Category Page I found that the page was first posted on January 20th, 2014. There's not much information, nor is the identity of the page's founder given. There are however, several posts from the page's founder as well as a few from the 2,613 followers who have liked the page so far.
Given those facts one is pretty much left with their own opinion of this idea. My first thought was that this is not only a great idea, but one that is long over due. After thinking it over for a while, it occurred to me that long over due was an understatement. In fact it's at least forty years overdue.
Rap came onto the scene in 1979 and received it's first Grammy 10 years later in 1989. Funk came to life in the guise of James Brown's, "I Feel Good (I Got You) in 1964. 10 years after that in 1974, Funk was merely a sub genre of R&B that was represented by the Isley Brothers, Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind & Fire, Commodores, Ohio Players, and Average White Band. In the mist of that growing Funk evolution, Disco, which some considered to be European R&B, arose.
1976 saw Disco rise and then begin to wain as Funk continued to gain new converts. The Parliament, Bootsy's Rubber Band, and ConFunkShun were pushing Funk to new boundaries. However, the release of the movie, Saturday Night Fever in the fall of 1977, breathed new life into the Disco scene. The movie's success caused major labels, at the time, to sign as many new Disco artists as they could. Clearly, Funk had been upstaged.
It was only a fan revolt that took place at Chicago's Comiskey Park on July 12th, 1979 that stalled the Disco onslaught. By that time many major label recording artists across all genres were already jumping onto the band wagon. Going forward into the 1980s as major labels scrambled to recover, Disco was quickly absorbed temporarily into Funk to briefly become Dance or what some had called Disco Funk. In 1982, Rap was taking off and slowly but surely, Funk artists either added one of the new sounds to their own or decided not to record for a while.
By the time Rap received its first Grammy in 1989, Funk had gone underground. Only a hand full of R&B and Jazz artist were still doing the music with any authority. Through the 1990s on into the 21st century, Funk has scarcely been played on radio, except for what might be heard on R&B oldies stations. However, there are many artists out there who have never given up on the music. Now, one of those artists who still believes is trying to rally the Funketeers. Can it be done after all this time? Anything is possible. We'll all just have to stay tuned to see just how far the movement goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)