Comments on: Chuck D vs. Lars Ulrich,

Chuck D vs. Lars Ulrich,

mathowie — Fri, 12 May 2000 12:11:22 -0800

Chuck D vs. Lars Ulrich, tonight on PBS' Charlie Rose Show. I can't wait.

By: EricBrooksDotCom

EricBrooksDotCom — Fri, 12 May 2000 12:34:36 -0800

Oh man... Chuck D is gonna slaughter that nitwit. Anybody ever read his (Chuck D's) interview in Webtechniques? He slammed the music business for being greedy, sang the praises of MP3's (long before the Napster thing) as a revolution in the Music industry....plus, he knows a lot about the internet. Fight Tha Power!

By: harmful

harmful — Fri, 12 May 2000 13:35:25 -0800

Apparently KETC in St. Louis is too lame to show Charlie Rose. No wonder I've never noticed him before.

By: holgate

holgate — Fri, 12 May 2000 14:30:02 -0800

Chuck D in the first round, I'd say: he's been doing keynotes and panels on MP3 at conferences for years, and he knows his shit. Metallica, on the other hand, haven't distinguished themselves in their public statements or "interactions" recently...

By: Dean_Paxton

Dean_Paxton — Fri, 12 May 2000 16:53:30 -0800

Distinguished themselves? Sheesh. They have managed to loose an awful lot of fans. Fans that have been loyal for nearly 20 years now hate them. This sort of reminds me when Tipper Gore and the PMRC was crusading. Jello Biafra, Frank Zappa, and Dee Snyder kicked ass then (particularly Jello). I know that the topics are not similar, but I love to hear smart music people slam the man, esp. on T.V.

By: chaz

chaz — Fri, 12 May 2000 18:00:01 -0800

Yes but you also have to keep in mind that while Jello, Frank and Dee may have "kicked ass" in your opinion and mine, Senator Gore and his gang did exactly what the PMRC wanted. The reality is that for the powers that be, it doesn't usually matter who is well versed and obviously more intelligent. It's who can play the game, who has connections, power, and money to spend.

By: aladfar

aladfar — Fri, 12 May 2000 21:45:38 -0800

Having just watched the program, I can say that both artists articulated their points clearly. A good debate on all accounts. Here's how the whole Napster things is gonna be rectified - you read it here first, so remember me when I'm not rich and famous: MP3 files will be availble for download absolutely free and you'll be able to carry them around on your hip little portable player, etc. The catch? There's gonna be a 30 second advertisement attached to the begining and end of each track you download. Advertisers will foot the bill, and everyone involved will get rich. Chuck and Lars alike. In the early days of radio, stations thought that money was to be made in selling the radio receivers themselves. It didn't take them long to figure out that the real money was to be made in selling the radio sets as cheaply as possible, providing an audience for advertisers. You just wait and see . . .

By: Doomsday

Doomsday — Fri, 12 May 2000 21:56:50 -0800

what's to stop the user from decoding the mp3 to a wav file, chopping off the ad, and decoding back to mp3? possibly, trading that un-added file over Napster? I watched the program as well and i must say that i though Chuck out did Lars on every point. Metallica first must understand the technology, before they try and stop it. Clearly, they have no clue. Power to the people!

By: aladfar

aladfar — Fri, 12 May 2000 22:05:00 -0800

Most people aren't that technically saavy Doomsday. And even if they are, the ads will still be listened to, and will still finance the whole thing. What you're suggesting isn't unlike taping something off of the radio (which will be going digital within a few years). You'll still have to hear that advertisement.

By: EricBrooksDotCom

EricBrooksDotCom — Fri, 12 May 2000 23:43:23 -0800

That's actually a pretty good idea (advertiser encoding). No one whines when we rent a tape and site through movie previews right? I think the record companies are finally pulling their heads out of their @$$es and realize that the MP3 situation isn't going away anytime soon. ----------------- I wondered when vinyl was out and CD's were in, how there would be a top 40, without 45's being released...they solved that problem, why were they so reluctant with this (besides greed and ignorance)?

By: dhartung

dhartung — Sat, 13 May 2000 00:56:27 -0800

Somebody would just come up with an ad auto-beheader. More likely they're going to find some solution for charging royalties to end-users, a la the royalties silently paid on cassette tapes.

By: daveadams

daveadams — Sat, 13 May 2000 17:40:52 -0800

"No one whines when we rent a tape and site through movie previews right?" Maybe they don't whine, but they are finding ways around it. DVDs have a special section on the front that you have to watch (i.e. fast-forward does not work). It's usually just used for the FBI warning (fair enough...) but Disney has started putting previews in this section. Didn't the Tarzan DVD have like five minutes worth? Imagine your kids having to watch those previews every time they watch a Disney movie. That's a lot of previews when they want to see Tarzan now. Of course, since the DVD Copy Control Association is in control of who gets to build DVD players, all players conform to this standard way of doing things.