Fine Woodworking Articles are now "purchase only"

Page 2 of 3  

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message

You betcha ... as a longtime musician, with a recording studio and a small record label among other business interests, and therefore a vested, if somewhat small, interest in the economics of the music business, I agree totally.
I've spent far more for single song music purchases _online_ since Apple and iPod than I ever would have buying albums at a traditional record store at my age
When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... it appeals precisely to the same desires that built the industry in the first place.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As a kid, all my money went into a juke-box as I didn't have a record player till I was 17. What I did have, very early on, was a tube-powered portable radio. It had a massive lantern-sized battery plus a C battery for the filament. That thing kept me broke as well. On a good day I could listen to England, Germany or the pirate-ship radio stations like Caroline and Veronica. Nothing cured my teen-aged angst like a little harmony from the Everly Brothers. I'm still a sucker for a good bit of harmonizing, like Hollies, Peter and Gordon, Chad and Jeremy, Mamas & The Papas, CSNY, Beatles (As soon as I hit 'post' I'll think of a few more.......)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except there's no "B" side...
:-(
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message

model is

and a

Considering that the average house cost about $9,000 at the time, $1.98 for two "sides", if you just have to have both, still ain't a bad deal.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

Jeez, now you got me wondering what my parents used to pay for early 78s. I can't even recall what I paid for my original "Rock Around The Clock", which probably is a sign of age. I bought that thing twice, because I wore the first one out. Somehow, $.89 seems right, because I seem to recall 45s being a tad cheaper when they first came out, but fairly hateful to keep stacked and playing on most dual speed players.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

pocket
for
Roughly 1955/56, and at the age of 12/13, I frequented "Robbie's Record Shop" and paid .49 cents per 45 record. First two I bought were Nervous Norvus' "Transfusion" and The Penguin's "Earth Angel".
It was indeed a slippery slope ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My first recording purchase was the album Iron Butterfly: In-a-gadda-da-vida. (1968). I think it was about $3-4 at Kresge's (now K-mart).
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Two thoughts:
I paid for the original publications, saved most of them, and tossed or took to the wood club the ones I thought excess to my needs. But they were not free.
My local library has back issues of most of the Taunton magazines. I can use them at no charge, but I must go to the library, and retrieve them from the archives. The library is supported with our tax dollars, but is not free.
And a bonus thought: Taunton evidently believes that there is value beyond that which they can extract from advertisers on their site. This experiment will yield its results in due time. I have no predictions.
However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically viable, with the exception of adult content. Possible exception is the Wall Street Journal...
Vote with your dollars.
Patriarch
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Patriarch wrote:

- Consumer Reports Online - Pay per use online automotive manufacturer's service info sites, like techinfo.toyota.com and Subaru's version of the same, are huge success stories! They take the place of multi-hundred dollar manuals. - Financial research sites, like Morningstar - Newspaper sites that allow access to articles from yesterday's paper and earlier - Dating services - Alldata
I can go on, and on....
FWW's online content is typically good enough that it may very well be viable.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Patriarch wrote:

*NOT* true. There are a sh*tload of 'viable' commercial subscription services out there on the 'net. Several _big_ ones: Medline Dunn & Bradstreet Lexis/Nexis OAG TRW credit reporting
In addition, there are many _thousands_ of 'niche' operations, particularly in the realm of stock/commodities/futures/options investement advisory services that provide fee-based services -- either flat-rate subscription or on a pay-per-use basis.
The folks that "make money" with Internet 'pay sites' are those who have a product that is valuable in a specialized market. They also tend to be 'nearly invisible' *outside* of the market that they serve.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote in

I _knew_ that the moment I wrote this, various good and valid examples would be raised. Thank you. At least these corrections are polite.
I shoulda kept my post shorter. ;-)
The economic model is stil developing for this Internet thing. That's good.
Patriarch
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Patriarch says...

The problem with old school media (including music) is that they want the Internet to just go away and they think that if they fight it or ignore it long enough it will. They are petrified of losing any of their profits, but if they don't adapt, they may in fact lose more than that. It just doesn't make sense to force people to buy CD's or magazines with the tools we have now. They need to accept the medium and sell their products for what they are worth. If they don't, then somebody will and that is where people will spend their money. If there is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that? I just can't grasp why these publishers won't put their product online at subscription rates. Less would be better, but the $5/issue subscription rate wouldn't be a burden. Are they afraid too many people would buy them?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why shouldn't the cost reflect the value of the information, rather than simply the cost of distribution?
I work for a publisher (have done for most of my career, various companies. I've been with this one for 11 years). The cost of printing and distributing our publications are a minority of the actual costs of running our business.
f the FWW articles aren't worth the money TO YOU, don't buy them. Plain and simple. Value for money.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:25:46 -0500, Hax Planx

] Several years ago, I was a member of an organization that spent almost all of it's annual budget protecting copyrights it held the rights to. When asked, the executive officer stated bluntly that it was to keep the texts unchanged- it had nothing to do with making money. That may or may not have been true, and it may not be the same case with the music industry, but I have found (and YMMV) that MP3's are almost always signifiganty lower quality than a commerical CD. If they are investing in artists (and I am not familiar enough with that industry to know what they do and do not provide) and doing signifigant editing and providing high-quality recording media, it may be the case that they simply wish to provide a finished product whose quality is higher than that provided by viable electronic formats (by viable, I'm talking about MP3- I know there are lossless formats available, but not that many people are willing to make the time and bandwidth investment needed to download them.)

As far as magazines go, I think you're onto something. I'd be willing to pay subscription price for a good electronic version of certain magazines. Music is another story altogether- even with the popularity of iPods and the like, I still prefer getting a master copy on an actual physical object.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Prometheus says...

I know that MP3 is a loss format, but the reduction in sound quality isn't as great as is generally believed. For the better sampling rates, the differences are almost insignificant. I have a bunch I have resampled to about 3 minutes per megabyte for a microscopic MP3 player and it is still hard to fault the sound quality. Besides, does anybody really believe that the music industry clowns care about sound quality considering the quality of music that is produced?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

And for years, the real 'audio tweaks' refused to even listen to CDs, claiming the sound was bastardised.
Given the processing that occurs with most sound, even in 'live' venues, it's no wonder that most 'audio product' bears as much resemblance to live, acoustic music as mdf does to a quality hardwood.
Patriarch, marveling once more at the power of 'threading' on the wReck...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:56:46 -0500, Patriarch

Right.
But remember that the room affects even heavily processed, amplified music. As a live sound guy, I still like "barns" for hard rock and heavy metal, but hate it for other types of music, for instance, swing or bluegrass. <G> For example, the slap back of a perfectly rectangular room would ruin a zydeco act's day, but somehow enhances a kick drum / bass vamp in the middle of a metal act's set.
All in all, it's still difficult to capture the "feel" and nuances of any live venue in a recording, since even different seats may have different details.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:56:46 -0500, Patriarch

We did a test a few years ago- same recording (classical) on CD and LP, on the same higher end, but not the ultra high end mega $ stuff, in the same room (fairly large, open 2 story space). I could hear the difference between the 2, and yes, the LP was better.
Didn't matter so much with the rock and roll selections.
Renata
-snip-

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Hax Planx" wrote in message

As, among other things, a not-yet-retired recording engineer/producer, with well over 100 published albums to my credit, many with names you would recognize, and a commercial studio owner to boot (www.hsound.com), I agree wholeheartedly, and without reservation, with your statement.
Despite owning a studio full of high tech gear, almost 100% of my listening for pleasure is over, or through, an iPod full of mp3's.

A good argument can be made that many engineers and producers today care more about "sound" quality than they do about "song" quality. IOW, and when all is said and done, most don't seem to understand that we'd rather listen to a bad recording of a good song, than a good recording of a bad song.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman says...

For proof just turn on the radio. Half of the stations are playing oldies recorded in 8 track studios.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.