Sharing music, online.

1. What was the purpose in uploading your music files to some place on the net?

a. So I could practice downloading them and listen to them over and over.
b. So other people could download and listen to my music (over and over).
c. I uploaded music somewhere? Really?

2. If the answer to 1. was b. and you don't encode to mp3, why have you used ogg/flac/mugwak/wizcomp compression?

a. It is a superior format, and the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
b. I think the pronunciation of the file extension is what did it for me, so fine, so fine...
c. I try to support this format for a variety of audio and/or philosophical reasons.

3. If the answer to 2. was c., why would you ignore the dominant encoding 'standard'?

a. My priorities in audio/philosophical matters supercede ease for the end user.
b. What is wrong with you? I just told you why I do what I do! Can't you read???
c. I know what is best. It is up to the rest of the world to do it my way. If they don't like it then they don't have to download and listen to my music.

*****

This is all semi-tongue-in-cheek, but one really wonders why someone would knowingly reduce the pairs of ears their music might reach (and that is what it is: you *won't* reach as many people [exclusively] using alternative file formats). We already know the microtonal crowd personifies "niche market", but there comes a point that placing burdens between you and the listener - no matter *how* small - seems a stunning display of something.

I don't know what, just *something*.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> 1. What was the purpose in uploading your music files to some place
on the net?
>
> a. So I could practice downloading them and listen to them over and
over.
> b. So other people could download and listen to my music (over and
over).
> c. I uploaded music somewhere? Really?

b

>
> 2. If the answer to 1. was b. and you don't encode to mp3, why have you
> used ogg/flac/mugwak/wizcomp compression?

I tested how much I needed to compress to get what I thought was good
enough encoding with mp3, and it would have taken more space and
up/downloading time than ogg.

>
> 3. If the answer to 2. was c., why would you ignore the dominant
encoding
> 'standard'?

> a. My priorities in audio/philosophical matters supercede ease for
the end
> user.
> b. What is wrong with you? I just told you why I do what I do! Can't
you
> read???
> c. I know what is best. It is up to the rest of the world to do it
my way.
> If they don't like it then they don't have to download and listen to
my music.

d. I didn't realize people would be so pigheaded as to make a big deal
out of it. Maybe I should have uploaded wav files, everyone can read
those.

> This is all semi-tongue-in-cheek, but one really wonders why someone
would
> knowingly reduce the pairs of ears their music might reach (and that is
> what it is: you *won't* reach as many people [exclusively] using
> alternative file formats).

Because not being able to listen to an ogg file is so pathetic I did
not realize many people would find it a problem. Do they have problems
even getting on the Web? Can they find anything on it when they do?
This was not a matter of arrogance on my part, but lack of
understanding of psychology.

>I tested how much I needed to compress to get what I thought was good >enough encoding with mp3, and it would have taken more space and >up/downloading time than ogg.

Not anything appreciable, I am sure. Even if it were a 10% savings, it hardly seems worth it, with the caveat that if audio quality suffered mightily. That hasn't seemed to be the case in my tests.

>d. I didn't realize people would be so pigheaded...

Well, there you go. I was pretty sure it was everyone else's fault.

>Because not being able to listen to an ogg file is so pathetic I did not >realize many people would find it a problem. Do they have problems even >getting on the Web? Can they find anything on it when they do? This was >not a matter of arrogance on my part, but lack of understanding of psychology.

No, it seems to be a critical lack of understanding of the lay of the land. The mp3 standard is ubiquitous, and not simply because it is the most common encoding for electronic dispersal of music, but also because it is the de facto standard for hardware listening devices, both solid-state and disk drive. Heard of the iPod? And if *anyone* wondered just how solidly the mp3 format has taken hold, one only need read one of today's new items, whereby Sony - who for years and years has supported *only* their own proprietary encoding format, ATRAC - is now actively considering support for mp3 files on their next generation Walkman devices, most assuredly trying to tap into the iPod market. And not to mention all the portable CD players that now can play CDR discs full of - you guessed it - mp3 files.

I'm guessing none of that matters to you, but it is the way of the world. We'll see if you manage to change things, but my suspicion is that you are simply reducing your potential audience. Why anyone would freely choose to do that, I haven't a clue.

Cheers,
Jon

I just thought I'd chime in on this mp3 vs. ogg debate.

Ubiquitousness is a consideration, but so should quality. And, in the case of
patents, so should legal and philosophical issues. And the utter beauty and
subversion of open source. I say stick it to patent weenie assholes.

I think ogg sounds better at the same quality settings than mp3 does. Compare
them at the Ogg Vorbis web page if you don't believe me. Also, I resent, as a
Linux user, the kind of mentality that goes around saying, 'this page is best
viewed in IE'. Linux is coming from behind to be a bigger threat to MS than
Apple, precisely because it's dedicated users didn't cave to the BS of the
'ubiquitousness argument'. Britney Spears is ubiquitous. Big fucking deal.

Things that are ubiquitous are rarely the best things, and are also so mostly
because people are too lazy to care to change, install new software,
whatever. If enough people start using ogg for its virtues, then more people
will consider it a viable alternative.

Anyway, I feel that I do might small part encouraging an open-source solution
to an audio/ethical problem by posting ogg files.

Maybe it's just me, but I think this corporate culture of
Microsoft/Halliburton takes all just plain sucks, and yes, I believe in
doing my small part to support the openness and beauty of the open source
model. I like subversive ideas, and a patent-free audio format that sounds
better than a corporate alternative will get my support.

I'm with Gene with this one, although to be fair, using mp3 has points in its
favor. It's a personal choice. But please, how hard is it to download ogg
extensions to a player, or an ogg player? C'mon....jumping all over Gene for
that doesn't make sense. I have to download different shit all the time for
the multiple video/audio formats all the time. It takes literally 5 minutes
at most. How lazy can we get?

Could we perhaps stop the back and forth nastiness, though?

My 2 cents.

-Aaron.

P.S. Having said that, I reserve the right to post whatever I want--.mp3
or .ogg, as I see fit. In balance, I do want listeners. At least there are
free mp3 encoders. That changes things a bit.

On Thursday 23 September 2004 08:50 pm, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> >I tested how much I needed to compress to get what I thought was good
> >enough encoding with mp3, and it would have taken more space and
> >up/downloading time than ogg.
>
> Not anything appreciable, I am sure. Even if it were a 10% savings, it
> hardly seems worth it, with the caveat that if audio quality suffered
> mightily. That hasn't seemed to be the case in my tests.
>
> >d. I didn't realize people would be so pigheaded...
>
> Well, there you go. I was pretty sure it was everyone else's fault.
>
> >Because not being able to listen to an ogg file is so pathetic I did not
> >realize many people would find it a problem. Do they have problems even
> >getting on the Web? Can they find anything on it when they do? This was
> >not a matter of arrogance on my part, but lack of understanding of
> > psychology.
>
> No, it seems to be a critical lack of understanding of the lay of the land.
> The mp3 standard is ubiquitous, and not simply because it is the most
> common encoding for electronic dispersal of music, but also because it is
> the de facto standard for hardware listening devices, both solid-state and
> disk drive. Heard of the iPod? And if *anyone* wondered just how solidly
> the mp3 format has taken hold, one only need read one of today's new items,
> whereby Sony - who for years and years has supported *only* their own
> proprietary encoding format, ATRAC - is now actively considering support
> for mp3 files on their next generation Walkman devices, most assuredly
> trying to tap into the iPod market. And not to mention all the portable CD
> players that now can play CDR discs full of - you guessed it - mp3 files.
>
> I'm guessing none of that matters to you, but it is the way of the world.
> We'll see if you manage to change things, but my suspicion is that you are
> simply reducing your potential audience. Why anyone would freely choose to
> do that, I haven't a clue.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> >I tested how much I needed to compress to get what I thought was good
> >enough encoding with mp3, and it would have taken more space and
> >up/downloading time than ogg.
>
> Not anything appreciable, I am sure. Even if it were a 10% savings, it
> hardly seems worth it, with the caveat that if audio quality suffered
> mightily. That hasn't seemed to be the case in my tests.

A 10% difference is obviously worth it. What is the big deal? It's not
as if it was hard to listen to an ogg file. If I uploaded a png
instead of a gif, would that cause a similar uproar?

> >d. I didn't realize people would be so pigheaded...
>
> Well, there you go. I was pretty sure it was everyone else's fault.

You framed the matter as my fault, with your usual courtesy.

> No, it seems to be a critical lack of understanding of the lay of
the land.
> The mp3 standard is ubiquitous, and not simply because it is the most
> common encoding for electronic dispersal of music, but also because
it is
> the de facto standard for hardware listening devices, both
solid-state and
> disk drive. Heard of the iPod?

Yes. I don't think portable players are a big deal to the sort of
people who are likely to be interested in downloading my stuff, but if
they want to take their music jogging, there are portables which play
ogg wma aac etc as well as mp3. You seem to think ogg is something
like mpc, which isn't yet well supported. Ogg files are really not a
problem, even if you insist on using a hardware device you can find
one. And of course, anyone is free to convert an ogg to a wav if they
choose.

I've asked what is the big deal. I've not heard an answer which makes
much sense yet.

> I'm guessing none of that matters to you, but it is the way of the
world.

The way of the world is that technology keeps changing anyway. I
expect the music business to push for DVD audio and SACD in order to
be able to put copy protection schemes into place, we'll see how that
works out. Meanwhile the technology of compression codecs marches on.

> We'll see if you manage to change things, but my suspicion is that
you are
> simply reducing your potential audience. Why anyone would freely
choose to
> do that, I haven't a clue.

Didn't mean to. I thought the only people who would be interested in
my site would be those serious about music, and they would *of course*
want to keep up with things. The doings of people willing to spend 99
cents for a "tune" of inferior audio quality in order to play it
through headphones did not and does not interest me.

Aaron,

{you wrote...}
>I'm with Gene with this one, although to be fair, using mp3 has points in its
>favor. It's a personal choice. But please, how hard is it to download ogg
>extensions to a player, or an ogg player? C'mon....jumping all over Gene for
>that doesn't make sense.

I was not jumping on Gene, merely giving my $.02 as you have, except for the fact that his hostile attitude towards the end-user (his audience) is counter-productive. One of the things that has been consistent in the underlying general topic - proprietary vs. open source - is the assumption that someone like me (from my postings earlier) either doesn't like open source, prefers $$$-ware, or has some other agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth, because I am speaking to one issue and one issue only: how one chooses to encode music for download by listeners.

I use a lot of open source applications and tools, and try to get as many people to do so as well. I publicly thank Carl Lumma for twisting my arm on .ogg, which I use a lot since that time, and archive a fair amount of music with it, though I still do even more in mp3 because that is the format supported by my mp3 player (hardware), and that piece of gear has been worth it's weight in gold for music pleasure/study.

As for quality issues, the difference between similar encodings of mp3 and ogg are an awful lot closer than the best encoding vs. non-encoded music. If you really care about all the fidelity, all the invisible nuances that aren't just in the music but in the surrounding air of the mix, then nothing is a substitute for full-spectrum, uncompressed audio.

The only point I see in all of this is What Path Will Lead Your Music To The Most Listeners. If you want to mount a crusade, fine. But as someone who has administered websites that have had (by virtue of their mission) broad and deep audiences, I must stick with the point of view that you do the best service to your audience by reaching as many of them as possible, with as little effort on their part as possible. Are there better audio formats? Without a doubt. Is it rather unbelievable that people don't want to load yet another app, or install another plugin? Yep, those lazy slobs, you can count on it.

But are you trying to teach the world a lesson, or are you wanting people to hear your music?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:

> I think ogg sounds better at the same quality settings than mp3 does.

I agree that ogg sounds better at the same compression. I think Jon
underrates the improvement, and when we are talking gigabytes of data,
even 10% is a lot.

Compare
> them at the Ogg Vorbis web page if you don't believe me. Also, I
resent, as a
> Linux user, the kind of mentality that goes around saying, 'this
page is best
> viewed in IE'.

Mostly I use Windows, but almost never use IE rather than Firefox.

Linux is coming from behind to be a bigger threat to MS than
> Apple, precisely because it's dedicated users didn't cave to the BS
of the
> 'ubiquitousness argument'. Britney Spears is ubiquitous. Big fucking
deal.

The nix world is more ubiqitous than Windows and always has been in
academia, so that argument doesn't always work. A lot of programs
which used to be only nix are now available on Windows, but of course
traffic on that street is two-way and heavy. For other fields, Macs
are still a big deal.

But please, how hard is it to download ogg
> extensions to a player, or an ogg player?

If you are using Linux, your install probably knows how to play an ogg
file anyway. If you are using Windows, downloading WinAmp (which does
not require a plugin) is dead easy. The complaints that this is hard
really are hard for me to understand--what, precisely, is hard about it?

> P.S. Having said that, I reserve the right to post whatever I
want--.mp3
> or .ogg, as I see fit.

Hey, I'll upload mpc files if I want to. It's a grand codec!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I was not jumping on Gene, merely giving my $.02 as you have, except
for
> the fact that his hostile attitude towards the end-user (his
audience) is
> counter-productive.

Of course, uploading a vast amount of free music means I am hostile.

> If you really care about all the fidelity, all the invisible nuances
that
> aren't just in the music but in the surrounding air of the mix, then
> nothing is a substitute for full-spectrum, uncompressed audio.

Uh huh. Listened to mpc yet?

Is it rather unbelievable that people don't want
> to load yet another app, or install another plugin? Yep, those lazy
slobs,
> you can count on it.

Aren't we supposed to be interested in music around here?

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>A 10% difference is obviously worth it.

In what way? It certainly isn't obvious when you factor in the people that don't download it, which is *your* loss, not theirs.

>What is the big deal? It's not as if it was hard to listen to an ogg file.

It doesn't have to be hard for people to not do it. I'm speaking as someone who has done a lot of website administration, and you do your client - in this case yourself - by finding the easiest solution to the problem (delivering music).

>You framed the matter as my fault, with your usual courtesy.

I'm sorry, Gene, but you referred to anyone who wouldn't do what you wanted as pig-headed. Is that your idea of courtesy.

[No need to answer, as I can see where this is all heading, and I'll spare the list all the crap.]

>I've asked what is the big deal. I've not heard an answer which makes much >sense yet.

The answer is that not everyone will take the time to mess around with less common standards. It isn't a big deal to *me*, but if you don't care that fewer rather than more people will hear your stuff, fine. *That* is the deal: you lose audience.

>I thought the only people who would be interested in my site would be >those serious about music

I think it is pretty clear Jeff Harrington is serious about music. You now have documentation of at least one member of your core audience that you've failed to connect with. If 10% is an important percentage to you, who knows what percentage of serious musicians are passing you by?

Cheers,
Jon

{you wrote...}
>Of course, uploading a vast amount of free music means I am hostile.

Depends on the music. :) No, Gene, just calling your audience "pig-headed".

>Uh huh. Listened to mpc yet?

Nope. Should I? I've got my full-on digital files, and at least two codecs. Why have another?

>Aren't we supposed to be interested in music around here?

Sure, and I think it is good to have a lot of people hear it. As many as possible, for that matter.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> Because not being able to listen to an ogg file is so pathetic I did
> not realize many people would find it a problem. Do they have
problems
> even getting on the Web? Can they find anything on it when they do?
> This was not a matter of arrogance on my part, but lack of
> understanding of psychology.

I like your style... I have to go to the library to download and
listen and I tried to download your file the last time I was there
but had no luck. Good to know I'm just too stupid!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> >Uh huh. Listened to mpc yet?
>
> Nope. Should I? I've got my full-on digital files, and at least two
codecs.
> Why have another?

You were the one claiming there was no alternative to losslessness to
achieve transparancy, so you should I presume be interested in
evidence pro or con.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns"
<daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:

> I like your style... I have to go to the library to download and
> listen and I tried to download your file the last time I was there
> but had no luck. Good to know I'm just too stupid!

I'm sorry about that and obviously you aren't stupid, but just as
obviously very few people will need to go to the library to take a listen.

Here's a bit of irony -- I just upgraded to Mozilla Firefox. For the life of me, I can't get Firefox to open mp3s via Winamp or any other player. Download, yes, but open directly, no. Oggs, WAVs, videos of all sorts are no problem, just mp3s...

DJW

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...> wrote:

> Here's a bit of irony -- I just upgraded to Mozilla Firefox. For the
> life of me, I can't get Firefox to open mp3s via Winamp or any other
> player. Download, yes, but open directly, no. Oggs, WAVs, videos of
all
> sorts are no problem, just mp3s...

That's what you get for using a non-standard browser. Everything you
do should always be exactly like everything everyone else does; it
makes life so much easier. Of course, that includes using the standard
tuning, 12-equal--only troublemakers have any objection to using the
Industry Standard Tuning.

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

>The only point I see in all of this is What Path Will Lead Your Music To >The Most Listeners. >
Jonathan --

With all dues respected, enough of my professional work (i.e. anonymously orchestrating bighollywoodspaceoperafilm scores and the like) reaches "the most listeners" in formats that I cannot control. That work has already been given over to the lowest bidders, format-wise. However, when I do the work that is closest to me (and for which remuneration is already a marginal factor), I honestly don't give a forint about "the most listeners", but rather wish that those who are interested get a listening experience that is good relative to the costs of up- and downloading. I have always found that MP3 shortchanges my ears timbrally when it comes to music where details of tuning and timbre are vital. Ogg does surprisingly well for me, and there are simply too many Ogg players out there _now_ (six months ago this wasn't the case) for difficulty of use to be an excuse.

DJW

daniel_anthony_stearns wrote:

>
>
> I like your style... I have to go to the library to download and
> listen and I tried to download your file the last time I was there
> but had no luck.

You should let your librarian know that their audio players should be upgraded for Ogg-Vorbis, and that such an upgrade is free.

DJW

Daniel,

{you wrote...}
>With all dues respected, enough of my professional work (i.e. anonymously >orchestrating bighollywoodspaceoperafilm scores and the like) reaches "the >most listeners" in formats that I cannot control.

Same here. My BMI stuff is all over the globe, and all I can do is wait for the checks.

>However, when I do the work that is closest to me (and for which >remuneration is already a marginal factor), I honestly don't give a forint >about "the most listeners", but rather wish that those who are interested >get a listening experience that is good relative to the costs of up- and >downloading. I have always found that MP3 shortchanges my ears timbrally >when it comes to music where details of tuning and timbre are vital. Ogg >does surprisingly well for me, and there are simply too many Ogg players >out there _now_ (six months ago this wasn't the case) for difficulty of >use to be an excuse.

Of course, and it certainly helps when the argument is framed in a reasonable way. I would never argue with someone who asserts that their music suffers so much as to require a differing format, you, Gene, or anyone else. You *are* left with the situation of educating your audience and dealing with those that aren't set up for your given format - how this is handled is critical to their receptivity to your work. You want those who are interested to have an optimum experience; I only hope that in going with a format such as ogg/vorbis you aren't inadvertently closing the door on some ears.

Bear in mind that I only hope to maximize the potential audience, and did not (and never have) mean to imply that one should *strive* for a mass appeal. Had that been the case, I would have suggested Gene marry Britney Spears before it was too late, but, alas... :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>
wrote:
> Here's a bit of irony -- I just upgraded to Mozilla Firefox. For
the
> life of me, I can't get Firefox to open mp3s via Winamp or any
other
> player. Download, yes, but open directly, no. Oggs, WAVs, videos
of all
> sorts are no problem, just mp3s...
>
> DJW

Some more irony - until Firefox came out, no Mac OSX web browser was
capable of opening Windows Media video directly - had to download the
media first. Now Firefox opens everything fine on Mac OS X, but
somehow has gotten corrupted or otherwise broken on my Windows 2000
machine and I'm starting to see reports like this about Firefox on
Windows.

PV

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> But as someone
> who has administered websites that have had (by virtue of their
mission)
> broad and deep audiences, I must stick with the point of view that
you do
> the best service to your audience by reaching as many of them as
possible,
> with as little effort on their part as possible.

Very good point, and worth reiterating.

While my career has been more on the development end of the
information technology field, I have done my share of supporting Web
applications. The more work you make your user do to access a
particular feature or product, the less likely that user is going to
want to use it.

You may have the greatest masterpiece of your generation sitting on
an audio file on the Web. Joe Webuser may be open to some cool
microtonal music and comes across the link to your masterwork
recording, as well as links to other people's music in MP3 format.
He clicks your link and says "What? I gotta download and install
this app first? Screw that - I'll listen to these MP3s instead".

Is Joe Webuser lazy? Maybe. Or maybe Joe Webuser is just looking
for stuff to listen to while he's working on some software
development project that's 3 months behind schedule and he has to
deliver it by close-of-business the next day. Or maybe he's a
musician himself taking a break from his intense practice schedule to
Web surf a bit and check out some stuff. Or maybe Joe is a house-
husband checking out some stuff while the kids are taking their nap,
because when they wake up, he has to take them to the soccer game,
then fix their dinner or whatever. It doesn't matter if we're
talking about .ogg audio or DIVX (or whatever that is) video or
somethign else.

Whatever the reason, the more work you make the user do, the less
likely the user is going to want to check out your stuff.
Unfortunately, that's how the real world works. I believe anybody
else who has had experience supporting websites or web applications
will observe this as well.

Paolo

Aaron wrote,

> Britney Spears is ubiquitous. Big f**king deal.

Britney Spears isn't an archival data format. ;-)

And let's keep away from use of "f**k" around here, please. It doesn't
offend me, but it does some people, and I would prefer, as a co-moderator,
that and a few other words not be used.

And really, data formats for audio are just way off topic for this list.

Rick

On Friday 24 September 2004 10:35 am, Rick McGowan wrote:
> Aaron wrote,
>
> > Britney Spears is ubiquitous. Big f**king deal.
>
> Britney Spears isn't an archival data format. ;-)
>
> And let's keep away from use of "f**k" around here, please. It doesn't
> offend me, but it does some people, and I would prefer, as a co-moderator,
> that and a few other words not be used.

Ok, no more potty-mouthing from me ;)

> And really, data formats for audio are just way off topic for this list.

hmmm.....isn't recording and formats part of 'MakingMicroMusic'? If one can
make a reasonable case for say, a microphone being better to record vocals,
or a synth plugin that has microtuning capabilities, couldn't we also talk
mp3/ogg?

Besides, the subject *did* come up organically because people were discussing
how best to share their work !

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

>> I think ogg sounds better at the same quality settings
>> than mp3 does.
>
>I agree that ogg sounds better at the same compression.

Up to what bitrate?

-Carl

>Here's a bit of irony -- I just upgraded to Mozilla Firefox. For the
>life of me, I can't get Firefox to open mp3s via Winamp or any other
>player. Download, yes, but open directly, no. Oggs, WAVs, videos of all
>sorts are no problem, just mp3s...

You've been to Options -> Downloads?

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"

/makemicromusic/topicId_7570.html#7580

> I think it is pretty clear Jeff Harrington is serious about music.
You now
> have documentation of at least one member of your core audience
that you've
> failed to connect with. If 10% is an important percentage to you,
who knows
> what percentage of serious musicians are passing you by?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***It's a pretty damning complaint of .ogg when somebody with Jeff
Harrington's computer expertise finds playing files difficult. How
about the *average* or maybe slightly above-average schmoe?
Admittedly, I had no trouble downloading Winamp after GeneWS pushed
me into it for a few months... but still...

J. Pehrson

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>***It's a pretty damning complaint...

Why don't you read the entire thread, from beginning to end, before you comment on it? Since you are digesting this long after the fact, check out all the give-and-take of the discussion, because you may be surprised by where it all ends up.

Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7570.html#7602

> Aaron wrote,
>
> > Britney Spears is ubiquitous. Big f**king deal.
>
> Britney Spears isn't an archival data format. ;-)
>
> And let's keep away from use of "f**k" around here, please. It
doesn't
> offend me, but it does some people, and I would prefer, as a co-
moderator,
> that and a few other words not be used.
>
> And really, data formats for audio are just way off topic for this
list.
>
> Rick

***I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Rick here. I'm not a
moderator on this forum, but only on the *other* main one that nobody
posts to anymore for mostly good reasons... However, since much
microtonal music is posted to the web and distributed this way, a
discussion of appropriate formats and the mechanics of making and
distributing Microtonal Music is 'way on topic for this forum, IMHO...

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"

/makemicromusic/topicId_7570.html#7871

<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >***It's a pretty damning complaint...
>
> Why don't you read the entire thread, from beginning to end, before
you
> comment on it? Since you are digesting this long after the fact,
check out
> all the give-and-take of the discussion, because you may be
surprised by
> where it all ends up.
>
> Jon

***Sorry, Jon... I've been getting a little behind in my work...

Well, it seemed to end up where it started: *both* file formats were
posted. That seems the best solution to *me* anyway...

best,

jp