MP3.COM VORTEX

Thank you for the third-party music Web sites article (“Working Musician: Keep It on the Download,” September 2001). Artists often get sucked into the MP3.com routine without checking out the options. I am surprised, however, that the author didn't mention Ampcast.com. Ampcast is a great hosting site that has several advantages. You can upload any kind of music file, letting you take advantage of some newer and better compression codecs. Also, the CD program offers more flexibility and control of graphics and packaging than any Web site I've used. You can use Red Book audio (rather than reconstituted MP3s) for your CD. Add unlimited MP3 and music-file storage, six cents per download payback, and almost instant song approval, and you have a site that beats MP3.com hands down.

MP3.com can take three weeks or longer to approve a song, the digital automatic music CDs look rather cheap, and the site has a ridiculously convoluted process for updating material. I've never bothered to pay the $20 monthly fee to be treated right at MP3.com, but I can tell you the free service is more trouble than it's worth.
A. Moore
via e-mail

RADIO DAYS

Karen Stackpole dates Foley back to the heyday of radio (“Recording Musician: Sounds in the Key of Life,” September 2001). If she is referring to the radio dramas of the '30s and '40s, then she should use the term sound effects. Ray Erlenborn, Barney Beck, Bob Mott, and Ross Murray were sound-effects engineers.

Harry Swan at CBS and Arthur Fasig at NBC were some of the earliest sound-effects engineers. Both were characterized as sound experts by their respective networks by late 1929. Author Doty Hobart profiled Swan and Fasig in the March 1930 issue of Radio Digest.

Beginning in September 1922, elementary sound effects were used in radio productions, with the apparatus adapted from that used in stage plays — thunder sheets and so forth. Smaller-scale effects were also employed, such as footsteps and telephone bells.

The term Foley is used throughout the media, but when referring to the heyday of radio drama, it is totally out of place.
Henry Howard
via e-mail

AND FOR OUR NEXT NUMBER

Hats off to EM and Gary Hall for the DVD cover story (“World of Options,” August 2001). I've had to research the subject, so I can appreciate how much work went into it. It's the best DVD overview written with a user context I've ever read. Bravo.
Ralph Goldheim
via e-mail

ALL YOU NEED IS CASH?

Thanks for the article about distribution (“Working Musician: Distribution Roundtable,” August 2001). It shed light on how the industry looks at the future of getting music to people. One comment by Ron Sobel touched a nerve: “We will also learn how to take advantage of digital distribution to reward and incentivize music as a service and not as a product.” Thinking of creating music (or any other art) as a service is a radical shift in the relationship between the creator and his or her public.

Did John Lennon provide a service? How about Beethoven, Van Gogh, or Tennessee Williams? Food for thought.
Arnold Friedman
via e-mail

The distribution article was informative and thorough. As an unsigned artist, I don't know about many aspects of the music business. How do I get signed? What do I do with my record once it's finished? Who do I sell it to and how? Why are some bands so successful and famous?

Although the article didn't quite answer all of those questions (and wasn't meant to), it did point out one important process in getting your music heard and getting it to the world. I now know a few companies to contact, what they specialize in, and what I can expect. As an independent artist trying to make a living in the music business, I found that the article really helped bridge a lot of gaps. Thanks again for sharing the information.
Benny Sanches
via e-mail

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

As I thumbed through the June 2001 issue, Gene Lowinger's letter (“Oppressed Males Unite!”) caught my eye.

Are you kidding me? What is up with that guy? I know the dude has a right to say what he wants, and you have a right to print his opinion, but just because one article in a million isn't about male engineers, musicians, and producers, but about women, it's called reverse sexism?

I don't think reverse sexism is possible in the music industry! If Lowinger paid attention, he would notice that the majority of magazines cater to his gender. I never read the article he criticized (“Electric Ladyland,” April 2001), but I have read millions of others, and seen millions of ads, that are geared toward males.

How do you think women feel when most magazines target males? For females, sexism is just another word in their daily vocabulary. I appreciate EM's writing an article about women, and I wish I could have read it. Please don't take my opinions as some “angry woman thang.” It just hurts to see women have such a hard time in the music industry.

I wish more people would recognize women engineers and give support to the younger generation. It's not just for the men. Thank you for listening and keep up the good work.
Ana Ierlick
via e-mail

Ana — You can check out “Electric Ladyland” at www.emusician.com. You also might enjoy reading “Breaking the Sound Barrier” (interviews with top female industry pros Lora Hirschberg, Rachel Portman, K. K. Proffitt, and DJ Rap) from the February 2001 issue, also available on our Web site.
— Steve O

FUTURAMA

Steve O's “Front Page” in the August EM was worth the price of a year's subscription. I teach a course in goal setting and goal achieving; Steve O's suggestion about writing a short story showing the future as the goal setter would like it to be is a technique I plan to incorporate into my lesson plan. Two points are worth passing along.

First, luck is what happens when opportunity meets preparation. Second, by internalizing your goal or desire — making it so much a part of you that you can see it clearly, believe in it, and hold it dear — you create a powerful psychic energy field that will attract the people, circumstances, events, and opportunities needed to make your goal come true. The trick is to visualize your goal as if it has already been achieved.
Eric Beheim
via e-mail

NO, NOT RICHARD GERE

I have subscribed to EM since 1987. At that time, I used an Atari computer and Dr. T software. I have often wondered what happened to the good doctor. He disappeared from the scene, and nobody wrote about his fate. I later became a PC user and searched long and hard for software that contained some of the spirit of Dr. T's programs. Opcode's Vision was one program. Alas, Opcode disappeared before it could come out with an audio version of Vision for the PC (not to mention the program Max, which I waited many years for).

Now that I am due for a hardware upgrade again (my Pentium/150 MHz running Windows 95 is ready for the Museum of Computer Technology), I am looking at the question: Mac or PC? Also, with the advent of FireWire, I realize I could use a laptop to do everything I have dreamed of doing.

The Mark of the Unicorn 828 computer audio interface, for example, works with Macs and PCs. Recently I asked an expert what he would do; he said that a PowerBook G4/400 MHz was better suited to doing computer-based recording and digital signal processing (DSP) than the fastest, most powerful PC. He attributes that to the differences between Windows and the Mac OS. If that's true, why isn't someone at EM writing about it in clear terms? EM seems to avoid direct, unambiguous statements comparing the technical advantages of using one or the other platform (regardless of software) for computer-based recording and DSP.
Rob Waring
via e-mail

Rob — If that were true, as you say, you would have a good point — but it isn't necessarily true. Your expert is entitled to his views, but evaluating the relative advantages of the Mac and Windows operating systems for musicians is not that simple and unambiguous. I've heard bitter debates between “experts” on both sides of that argument, and I'm not convinced that one platform is superior for musicians.

Perhaps more important, some music software is available on only one platform, and you might feel that the advantages of your preferred applications outweigh the alleged technological disadvantages of the hardware and OS. Furthermore, some important differences are a matter of personal preference, not a matter of technology.

That said, we will certainly consider running a story that spells out the differences so you can draw your own conclusions.

Max is now a product of Cycling '74 (www.cycling74.com), which is headed by David Zicarelli, the developer of Opcode's version of the software. Cycling '74 recently released Max 4.0 for the Mac and expects to ship Windows and Mac OS X versions by the end of this year.
— Steve O

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

With all the product reviews EM publishes, it wouldn't be a bad idea to include technical-support reviews. That's a problem the reviewers probably never have to deal with, because when they test a unit, they probably have direct access to adequate support. But for those who have to walk the tough path, good technical support is almost as important as the machine or the software itself.
Richard Van Slyke
via e-mail

Richard — Throughout the years, the EM editors have repeatedly discussed the best way to evaluate and write about tech support. You hit the nail on the head: the manufacturers know who the reviewers and editors are, so we are unlikely to experience the same support problems the average reader faces. Even if we were able to do an undercover investigation — dangerous ground for those who have no experience in such matters — we could not sustain it for long.

That said, your point is valid, so the editors will discuss how we could meaningfully evaluate technical support. If you have specific suggestions, please feel free to write us again at emeditorial@primediabusiness.com.
— Steve O.

WE WELCOME YOUR FEEDBACK.

Address correspondence and e-mail to “Letters,” Electronic Musician, 6400 Hollis Street, Suite 12, Emeryville, CA 94608 or emeditorial@primediabusiness.com. Published letters may be edited for space and clarity.