indessed roscivs

Happy 2008 everybody! Can you believe how time has flown? Nine years ago was the first New Year’s Eve that DW and I spent together. The year after that was Y2K, when people weren’t really sure whether the whole world would fall apart. Soon after that, I was celebrating New Years’ by going to the beach in the middle of the summertime. Last night we brought in the new year with music, dancing, and champagne. Who knows what next year will bring—or, in the words of ABBA,

In another ten years time
Who can say what we’ll find
What lies waiting down the line
In the end of eighty-nine

Last week’s fiddle concert gave me something else to think about. Which requires more talent: faithfully reproducing a piece of music to exactness—or being able to interpret the music, making it your own, improvising a completely new tune each time you play? Or, perhaps, that is approaching it from the wrong direction. Which is more aesthetically pleasing from a listener’s point of view?

Interestingly enough, if this is the listener’s first exposure to the song, the two are theoretically indistinguishable. The listener has no way of knowing whether the performers have practices intently together for hours on end, getting each part immaculately perfected, or whether they simply have a vague idea of what the others will play and are improvising the details and flourishes as they go.

This was the situation I was in on the evening of the performance. The harmonies were rich and nary a sheet of music was in sight; the performers were three separate groups who were simply joining each other in ensemble that day. Had they practiced for hours before? Did they distribute sheet music and discuss which parts each person would be playing for the particular song? Or did they simply say, “Hey, let’s play such-and-such in the key of G,” ran through the music a few times together, and took that to the stage? Were the violin solos, where one of the trio would saw away madly while the other two took a back seat for a moment, planned down to the measure? Or did they have some system of gestures or signs where each would know it was his turn to play?

As the performers were taking their final bow at the end (after their encore), and people were filing into the aisles, some fake snow started falling from above their heads, apparently taking them by surprise. One of them began to play the melody of “Jingle Bells,” with a gleam in his eye. Another fiddler joined in, and the first began to harmonize. The audience started singing along, and pretty soon all the performers had joined in to the obviously unrehearsed Christmas carol.

Was this performance any different from the previous hour’s music?

Last weekend, my wife bamboozled me into going to a fiddle performance. “Highland, Heath, and Holler, it’s called,” she said. “Celtic music.” It wasn’t until we were on the road halfway to the concert that she revealed that the particular performer she was most interested in hearing was a world-famous fiddler.

“Ah well,” said I. “I’ll comfort myself with the harp music.”
“Um …” she squirmed.
“There will be harps, won’t there?” I asked.
“Ah … no,” she replied.
“Gah! I want my money back!” I exclaimed.
“Too late now,” she cackled with glee.

Turns out there wasn’t just one fiddle, but three—a cello and a guitar for accompaniment, but the primary music of the evening was all fiddle. My one moment of respite was when one of the fiddle players put down his catgut and horsehair and picked up a banjo instead. Much better.

Now, I don’t mind fiddle music as much as I do other forms of violin playing. If you’re going to play a warbly, whispery-scratchy instrument, you might as well embrace it rather than trying to hide it, in my opinion. But the performance still reminded me of several reasons I missed previously as to why I dislike the violin.

First of all, the violin is a supremely uncomfortable instrument. There’s simply no good way to hold the thing that won’t give you either neck, wrist, or shoulder aches—and many ways that will give you all three. The trio of fiddlers exemplified this in their wildly different postures. One hardly rested the violin on his shoulder at all, propping it up nearly entirely with his wrist. The third was more traditional in his stance, and the second was somewhere in between.

Second, seeing the black fingerboards glittering with heavy white dust, I recalled—the violin is really quite a dirty instrument. In order to improve the scratchy sound of the horsehair being dragged across those strings, the bow requires copious amounts of rosin. This rosin then is released as a cloud of white dust as you play, getting everything in the vicinity sticky—from the bow to your hands to the surface of the violin itself.

The required ritual of cleaning all affected surfaces with a dry cloth typically only results in smearing the stickiness around. But that’s better than the alternative—if you fail to clean up at all, you end up with a sticky mess of tar-like substance covering the face of the violin which is nearly impossible to remove, and ugly to look at. I’m the kind of person who hates to get anything on their hands—a compulsive hand-washer—so this feature of the violin was always particularly distressing to me.

All-in-all, the evening wasn’t a total loss. I’d say it was a better use of my time than spending a couple of hours reading Slashdot, and probably more enriching as well (which, I am sorry to say, cannot be said about every musical event I have attended in my life). And it certainly gave me something to write about!

I once knew a kid named David who thought it unfair that there were so many Davids in the world, but no Nightvids, and so wanted to change his name. His parents, for whatever reason, went along with the idea and he legally changed his name to “Nightvid”. As far as I know, he’s the only one.

This post is not about him.

It’s about one of the many Davids in the world—one of the stranger ones: David Bowie. Apparently, we’re all supposed to write about David Bowie this Halloween, and since it’s Halloween, I’m writing about David Bowie.

I don’t have much to write about Bowie; my major exposure to him was through the Jim Henson movie Labyrinth. I’ve listened to a few of his songs here and there, but although he’s generally considered widely influential in the music biz, only one or two of his (non-Labyrinth) pieces have ever really stood out for me.

But I will say this about Bowie: when I was reading about The Prestige on IMDB and discovered that David Bowie played Nikola Tesla, I didn’t believe it. I watched the entire movie, in the theater, and never once suspected it was Bowie. Even upon learning that it was him, I refused to believe it until I saw photos of him side-by-side with screenshots from The Prestige. The man has an image, but he never hesitates to reinvent himself with a new one.

Happy Halloween, David Bowie!

Another reason for my dislike of the violin, especially in comparison with the instruments I currently favor (piano and guitar) is its lack of flexibility. The violin is, for the most part, a single-voice instrument. It is not capable of producing harmonies or chords as a solo instrument. As such, its range of musical options are limited primarily to classical works, typically orchestral.

The piano, to take a contrasting example, is considerably more broad in its range and adaptability. It can play not only classical works, solo as well as accompanied by an orchestra, but also has free range across nearly every musical genre, from jazz to pop to country and more. If I hear a song on the radio that I like—no matter whether it’s Debussy on the classical station or Third Eye Blind on the pop station—I will almost definitely be able to find or create an arranged version of it for the piano. The same is simply not true of the violin.

The guitar has almost as much versatility as the piano, although it requires more skill perhaps to play some works than the piano might. (I think particularly of Kurt Rodarmer’s arrangement of the Goldberg Variations for guitar, although even that required overdubbing for some variations.) But again, no matter what song I hear, I can almost definitely find a guitar version that is instantly recognizable.

Sealionii mentions a difference between orchestral violin and folk violin or electric violin. I think part of this difference might be due to the lack of flexibility in the instrument. For starters, just showing the instrument in a different light than its stereotypical role implies some adaptability that might be aesthetically appealing. Furthermore, I would say that in its folk music role, the fiddle is primarily an instrument to accompany dancing—and when talking about folk music to dance to, the violin shows much more versatility in this respect. It can serve as a useful instrument for nearly any song in such a context. Personally I’m still not a fan of the violin in its folksy “fiddle” role, but that may be more because I’m not particularly interested in that type of music to begin with.

The electric violin, however, I must confess holds some appeal for me. I wonder if again it may be linked to this issue of versatility. The electric violin is more prominent in popular music, again giving that façade of broader utility. But it also can be more easily recorded and overdubbed, allowing for a single melodic instrument to provide the chords and harmony that it previously lacked. I have even seen devices that you can connect to an electric violin that will loop what you have previously played at some delay, so you can improvise and harmonize with yourself in real-time, no overdubbing required!

In learning and playing an instrument, motivation is hugely important. And what better motivation than to hear an awesome-sounding song that you want to be able to play yourself? The violin, along with its other faults that I mentioned last week, just doesn’t feature that strongly into our daily musical routines. It is rare enough that we’ll hear a song that could be suitably arranged for violin, much less hear one that makes us exclaim, “I want to be able to play that song!” Yet another reason to pick up another, more versatile instrument.

Sealionii asks the very good question: why is the Roscivs anti-violin?

The answer is multifarious indeed. I likely will not be able to enumerate all the different reasons, but for Sealionii’s sake I will give it a try.

One rather large reason was that I was forced to play the violin and practice daily for twelve years of my life. I begged, swindled, and bargained with my parents to somehow give it up, but they were certain it was my gift. And I certainly can’t say it was all bad—it was my violin-playing skills that first wooed my now-wife. But the moment I moved out of my parents’ house, I stopped playing, and haven’t touched a violin since. So a good deal of my dislike of the instrument may simply be a reaction to being a slave to it for so many years.

But a larger reason, I think, is that the violin is tremendously difficult to play well, and I’m enormously picky. I was never satisfied with my own intonation or sound quality, and am rarely satisfied with that of performing artists—even quite famous ones. I can count on one hand the number of violinists I have heard play that didn’t have imperfections that made me cringe. Most people, I’m sure, wouldn’t even notice the flaws, much less have them detract from their enjoyment of the music. But for me, I hear them even in the most virtuouso of professional violinists.

I also don’t particularly like the timbre of the violin in general, even when played impeccably. I believe I prefer the sound of any other instrument to the violin. The stringed instruments in general share in my disfavor (although only the bowed ones; the plucked instruments escape my wrath), but at least the cello and viola aren’t so high-pitched and whiny as the violin. It just is not a beautiful instrument. (In my eyes, of course—non disputandum est.)

All in all, in a world with so many more beautiful-sounding instruments than the violin, why waste your time with an instrument so inferior, either when it comes to the time you spend listening to music or the time you spend producing it yourself?

A fellow blogger recently asked this question:

I own [Celtic Woman’s DVDs] and I love the music. I also own the CD soundtrack from the first DVD. However, the music on the soundtrack CD is slightly different than the DVD, and it’s in a different order. So I rip the music OFF of the DVD onto my mp3 player and to make my own CD. I’ve done the same with Xanadu—the soundtrack music is so different than the music in the movie, and I want to listen to the movie.

Is that wrong or illegal?

And if you “know” one way or the other, is it just something you feel should be right, or do you actually know the law? Could I technically get busted for making my own copies of my own DVD’s, even though it’s in a different format?

Here is my best attempt at answering this tricky, tangled question.

---

The “Audio Home Recording Act”, passed in 1992, contains this passage: “No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.”^[1]

Basically, this means that if you’re making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car, even though it’s still technically copyright infringement, the copyright holder can’t sue you or do anything about it.

Furthermore, the “fair use” doctrine under US copyright law states something similar:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.^[2]

There have been some court cases that imply that format-shifting (making MP3s of a CD you own, or making a CD of a DVD you own [as you’re doing], or making a DVD of a VHS tape you own, etc.) is legal under these “fair use” provisions of copyright law.^[3]

That said, DVDs are in a murky area because of two things: encryption and the DMCA. DVDs are digitally encrypted, meaning that it’s impossible to copy them without “cracking” their code. Furthermore, the “Digital Millennium Copyright Act”, or DMCA, passed in 1998, “criminalizes the act of circumventing [encryption], even when there is no infringement of copyright itself”.^[4] This means that, even though you might be fully within fair use rights to make copies of your DVD, or format-shift into MP3s or a CD, the DMCA makes breaking the DVD’s encryption (which you must do in order to format-shift) illegal. This is hugely controversial, and the DMCA is widely regarded on the Internet as a bad law. Regardless, it is the law.

All that said, if this is all for personal use, you have exactly zero chance of ever being sued. There have been absolutely no court cases (as far as I am aware) that involved solely personal-use copyright infringement. All cases either involve widespread distribution (such as peer-to-peer filesharing) or some sort of commercial benefit. You basically have nothing to worry about from a legal standpoint, despite the technical illegality under the DMCA (due to DVD encryption).

The moral issue is a completely different kettle of fish. Let’s just say I personally believe that format-shifting is, and always will be (regardless of circumstance or legality) completely morally acceptable, and leave it at that.

Hope that helps!

---

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
3. http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php, section 4.
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

Slashdot has a great article today about HBO’s CTO who thinks that the real reason people don’t like DRM (Digital Rights Management) is because of the name. Remember, DRM is the thing that makes it so that you can’t watch a DVD you bought in Europe here in the US. It’s the thing that makes music you download from iTunes Music Store not work on most mp3 players. It’s the thing that makes some music CDs not work in your car’s CD player. Basically, controls what you can do with content you’ve purchased, typically restricting your “fair use” rights under copyright law.

CTO Bob Zitter instead wants to use the phrase:

Digital Consumer Enablement, [which] would more accurately describe technology that allows consumers “to use content in ways they haven’t before,” such as enjoying TV shows and movies on portable video players like iPods. “I don’t want to use the term DRM any longer,” said Zitter

Of course, those of us who obtain non-DRM content can already enjoy TV shows and movies on portable players like iPods or Palm Pilots. DRM is what stands in the way of easy media transportation, not what enables it. This sort of bizarre language-changing is best seen by this Slashdot response (paraphrased):

I’m not going to call it piracy anymore. I prefer Personal Choice Enablement. PCE allows consumers (not customers, since you won’t be paying for the service) to enjoy content not only in ways they haven’t before, such as on portable video players like the iAudio A2, but at a more reasonable price than they have been offered in the past. This is also a win-win situation for the content creators as it alleviates all packaging and most distribution costs, as well as providing excellent word-of-mouth advertising for FREE!

Brilliant. Please, enjoy your new Personal Choice Enablement.

A few months ago I talked about Steve Jobs’ offer to remove DRM from music sold on the iTunes Music Store. As I noted then,

Many, including those at the aforementioned conference, have accused Steve Jobs of being “insincere,” calling his open letter a “red herring.” They believe that Jobs knows that the music companies will never allow him to sell music without DRM protection, and is simply bluffing to get the EU off his back. Steve would never sell music without DRM, they maintain. This is just a PR move—Apple needs DRM to keep people on iTunes and the iPod.

Turns out Jobs was being honest the whole time—last month, Apple announced that EMI, one of the big five media conglomerates, was going to begin selling DRM-free music on Apple’s store. (As an interesting aside, when this news hit, nearly everyone thought it was a great advance that would help both Apple and EMI—reporters were apparently having a difficult time finding people who didn’t think so.)

Now, Apple has reportedly extended this deal to anyone (including independent labels) who sells music on their web site. I’m hoping this results in great competition, where labels who embrace DRM-free music sell more than those who are reluctant to do so, eventually resulting in the death of all DRM-encumbered music.

Steve Jobs was right when he said the best solution was to abolish DRM entirely. And, due in a large way to his efforts in this arena, today we’re a little bit closer to that world.

1. Gordon Sumner
2. Ne ver
3. The Beauty Of Seattle
4. This ape’s for you
8. Friends
10. Canadian Ties
12. Simian Astronauts

Still no guesses?