“In the face of massive consumer [read voters] outrage and objections not only from ISPs, but also from police and intelligence services, British politicians say they’re nonetheless determined to turn the corporate entertainment Three Strikes bidniz plan into UK law,” I said in p2pnet and here, yesterday.
“The plan would have the UK government working as a taxpayer-funded Hollywood and Big Music enforcement agency with ISPs as online copyright police, acting against their own customers.”
Indiana Gregg is an American singer who hit the headlines in a big way, last year, when her UK representative, Ian Morrow at Britain’s Gr8pop Ltd, took on The Pirate Bay.
She’s also one of the performing artists who’ve signed up to a2f2a.com and under the a2f2a.com post on the UK anti-P2P disaster, “It would be nice to see some of these other artists come into it,” said Devil’s Advocate in a comment, adding “Not only would we be getting more input from some fresh voices, but it would take some of the pressure off Billy, who seems to be handling almost every needed ‘artist’ viewpoint right now.”
Says Indiana in a response, “you know @DevilsAvocate, it’s obvious why artists are having difficulty making statements,” going on >>>
In a utopia, everyone would state their opinion and people would rationally evalutate the pros and cons of each person’s arguments. No agendas, no contracts looming over their heads. In reality, artists share their opinions through their art. Through their music, their lyrics, their ‘actions’. In today’s world, not to state the rather obvious, ‘artists’ or at least popular artists are subject to the scrutiny of the press. There is a machine behind it of course. Popular people sell popular stories. Which sells news and well, gossip is somehow a cornerstone of society these days.
So, artists, what do they really think? Does anyone really think they are chasing rainbows?
In my somewhat limited opinion … and I must confess, it is more than likely a somewhat skewed view,which takes into consideration a definition of ‘artist’ that I have personally made a decision to define. It is not something that a public votes for simply for the sake of aspiritional subjects who regard ’success’ as the ultimate indication of what is deemed either cultural or significant (because the artists that I talk to on a regular basis create out of pure love for their craft and a social responsibilty. Not only do they really truly love music, they actually care about other artists and the world in general be it their perspectives on politics, influencing behaviour, the power of creativity and the healing that manifests itself through art, etc.)
So, my opinion may not represent the general public’s opinion about what true artists might think. However, all the artists I’ve spoken to agree on a very definite level. They require some support financially. They give. People take. I know it’s all fun to say that artists are never truely recognized until they are dead. You know, Picasso did shoot that theory down. But, I digress. Let’s put it simply. No artist wants to recognize this statement from Mandelson. I admire that he recognizes the lack of fans who are willing to pay for music. I believe that a forum like this one could reach parliament. I admire Billy Bragg and also Jon Newton’s willingness to create a forum for this issue.
Well, I’ve seriously digressed. For @DevilsAdvocate. Most artists aren’t willing to risk alienating their fanbase for their opinions. Artists want to be heard. this happens on so many levels. If you are an artist, you will understand. Let’s be very honest, you don’t go into music because you think you’re going to solve global warming, change the world, or solve world hunger. You go into music out of LOVE. That’s it.
I really shouldn’t participate in my first forum and write a huge essay. But, this is exactly what is needed. There really does need to be a bridge to cross this divide between the musicians who have also been put into that ‘riaa box’ and the p2p (which really means anyone who uses facebook, youtube, pirate bay or whatever).
“I have my ideas and opinions,” says Indiana, adding:
“In the meanwhile, I have been privy to hear what the other players plan. Unfortunately, it’s not what most internauts want to hear. As I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s fair, but, it’s bound to happen. It’s only forums like this one [a2f2a] that could potentially create a market driven change. So, MOVE. 
”
Stay tuned.
(I hope you don’t mind me quoting your post here and in p2pnet, Indiana.)
Jon Newton
October 29th, 2009 at 9:44 am
“Artists want to be heard” is a very strong argument for legalising file sharing.
In a world where files can be shared without fear of prosecution, the huge amount of free word of mouth and ‘try before you buy’ advertising given to artists by file sharers will seriously weaken the record companies stranglehold on the market.
One of the major reasons I am campaigning to legalise file sharing is so that the 40 singles chart stops being a list of who has talked their record company into spending the most on promotion and starts becoming a list of who actually makes the best music.
Once we have that system in place, artists will truly be able to talk directly to their fans, without the need for a record company taking a cut.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am
@ Andrew Robinson
“Once we have that system in place, artists will truly be able to talk directly to their fans, without the need for a record company taking a cut.”
A major aspect of the problem is: the labels don’t want artists talking to their fans at all — unless it’s through company operated ‘fan’ mags and sites — cuts or no cuts.
And am I wrong in thinking the 40 singles chart only counts for artists signed up to one or other of the corporate labels? Or are independent artists included as well?
Cheers!
October 29th, 2009 at 10:36 am
@Jon:
That’s a very good question about how and who can get into the top 40. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe the Beatles still managed to make the charts under Apple, which was their own independent label.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:18 am
” That’s a very good question about how and who can get into the top 40. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe the Beatles still managed to make the charts under Apple, which was their own independent label. ”
That was a long time ago.
There isn’t a single artists that gets mainstream play that is a TRUE independent. They are all owned by one of the big ones.
Once net neutrality is smashed the same will be true of the internet. That’s the real intent behind demonising sharing.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I don’t mind you talking about my ‘history’. I don’t believe that websites should be actively exploiting the works of others. (By the way, Ian isn’t my “UK representative”-er- he’s my husband!)
I don’t agree with any website by it p2p or a social network or whoever exploiting the works of others without their agreement in order to make cash. In my opinion, that is wrong fundamentally, morally, and as it turns out, has also been deemed ‘illegal’ in Sweden.
This doesn’t mean that I’m against free music or that I’m against p2p, the opposite is true. As I’ve said in the past, we went into NDA’s with Bittorrent a couple of years ago on a project we were working on and it’s great to have this kind of technology. But, it’s entirely wrong to be in this situation where artists are only paid for 1 out of every 20 downloads on the web.
So, the question is how can you have both? How can you have your cake and eat it too where people get free music and the artists are also compensated.
This is what we’re supporting: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/compulsary_worldwide_digital_mus/index.html
(this is only the online petition, there is a physical petition that is being passed around).
Going back to previous entries that I’ve read on this forum, you cannot only have a levy on ISPs, there must be a license in place that places responsibilty on the sites themselves (be it p2p, social networks, etc.) to collect the streaming and download data to be submitted on behalf of the artists. If there were a global compulsory license for music (and perhaps all media) on the web similar to radio whereby websites would be held responsible for tracking the data and making a financial contribution to the media creators that they are ‘using’ to generate their traffic and revenues. (e.g. for example, a p2p site would be responsible for collecting the data to hand over to the ISPs and pay an annual license. There wouldn’t be any ‘black box’ figures because the data would be available to allocate to the artists, same with myspace, youtube, facebook, etc.) The license fees would contribute in a more efficient way that radio licenses have in the past. The ISPs contribution in combination with this kind of global license could potentially create a more positive and balanced eco-system. Government’s contribution could go towards the regeneration and aiding of websites to be equipped with this kind of accounting system rather than in chasing 3 strikes offenders. Subsidies that could help create jobs and benefit society rather than serving monopoly interest.
I could write a big long article explaining in greater detail that actual inner-workings and how this could potentially achieve what the end goal could be. However, it would really take a mass of the community to support such a concept in order to bring it to reality.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
@Jon Chart elegibility is actually fairly simple, digital distributors like Ditto Music offer it as a service for around £50 a track.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
” So, the question is how can you have both? How can you have your cake and eat it too where people get free music and the artists are also compensated. ”
How can you not notice that very thing has been happening, and has always been happening. Sales were through the roof during the Napster period. People were then, as they are now, downloading, finding they like it, and then BUYING it. The percentage of people that will never buy under any circumstance are much smaller than the labels would like you to believe. That small percentage will never buy, no matter what laws are made, and throttling, disconnecting, none of that will ever stop them, just as DRM has never been successful at preventing the copying of anything.In a different article I posted a couple of things that are part of the problem, and one of those is a very large reason some download before buying. It is this …
The right of fair return does not exist for music CD’s and DVD’s in nearly all markets, at least in the US. One can only return a CD for another copy of the SAME CD, refunds don’t happen. Times are tough for everyone, and no one wants to shell out for a music CD, find that it only contains one or 2 songs they like ( the ones that got all the airplay ) and them not be able to get a refund.
I don’t blame them one little bit. Do you ?
File sharing and buying have been coexisting long before anyone made a fuss about it, and it never has and never will stop people from buying what they like. Try not to operate under the misconception that file sharing hurts your bottom line because it doesn’t, and there are independent studies that prove it.
” If there were a global compulsory license for music (and perhaps all media) on the web similar to radio whereby websites would be held responsible for tracking the data and making a financial contribution to the media creators that they are ‘using’ to generate their traffic and revenues. ”
You mean like AllOfMp3 was capable of doing, before the labels forced them underground ? They were paying the russian versions of the collective societies and are by the book legal. That site can do everything you asked for, and yet the labels stomped it ,opting to push sites that use that very ‘black box’ system you mention. Fans WANT to pay you, and want to see you get paid, yet the labels smash business models that do exactly what you outlined, and do it well.
” I could write a big long article explaining in greater detail that actual inner-workings and how this could potentially achieve what the end goal could be. However, it would really take a mass of the community to support such a concept in order to bring it to reality. ”
You don’t have to. It’s already a reality. Research AllOfMP3, not just waht the label tells you about them, but your own independent research. You’ll see that what you wanted is already there, if only the labels would let it exist.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
As for the petition, I won’t sign any petition that even hints that an global internet ‘tax’ is a solution of any kind.
The solutions already exist, pressure the labels to use THEM instead.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
” But, it’s entirely wrong to be in this situation where artists are only paid for 1 out of every 20 downloads on the web. ”
Really sorry mods, I know you hate this, but I just noticed this. Please be so kind as to link us to the document that statistic comes from. I ask because there is no REAL way that anyone can know that for a certainty.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
“If there were a global compulsory license for music (and perhaps all media) on the web similar to radio whereby websites would be held responsible for tracking the data and making a financial contribution to the media creators that they are ‘using’ to generate their traffic and revenues. (e.g. for example, a p2p site would be responsible for collecting the data to hand over to the ISPs and pay an annual license. There wouldn’t be any ‘black box’ figures because the data would be available to allocate to the artists, same with myspace, youtube, facebook, etc.) The license fees would contribute in a more efficient way that radio licenses have in the past.”
Errrr. Have you consulted with computer experts on the technical feasibility of these ideas? Because from the perspective of computer engineering (my profession), the above sounds somewhere between very difficult and technologically impossible to get working well (not to be interpreted to mean that it would be any more feasible to only collect from ISPs).
October 30th, 2009 at 4:48 am
On the basis that ‘artist’s want to be heard’ here’s my suggestion as to the outcome of a compulsory license:
A) Compulsory license fees persuade all except cartel owned ISPs, file-sharing services and websites to filter/block all such music in favour of license exempt music published by musicians who want to be heard.
B) All those musicians whose music is freely distributed and played on streaming sites build up large audiences that want to pay them to produce more – and do.
So, the future market for music is comprised of two sorts of musician:
1) “You can only play, share, remix my music if you pay me”
2) “Please play, share, remix my music – there’s no charge or permission required, but if you want me to produce more feel free to chip in”
There’s a parallel paradigm shift in the software industry.
As Microsoft is finding it very difficult to comprehend, despite their work being free to share, modify or commercially exploit, software engineers are still being paid to produce work for Linux and other free software projects.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:34 am
” ” But, it’s entirely wrong to be in this situation where artists are only paid for 1 out of every 20 downloads on the web. ”
I don’t expect I will get a link to documentation for this, so I pose the question … even if this WERE true is it so impossible to believe that the 19 that didn’t buy the CD discovered that there was only 1 song on it they liked, so it wan’t worth buying .. after all they can’t return a purchased CD. There are too many people still paying for CD’s parallel to downloading to be able to make such a claim.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:55 am
I think most downloaders actually love the music they are downloading. The illegal file sharing was born out of the high cost of music, especially the enormous mark-up on CD’s. From the downloaders I’ve spoken to, their justification was that the record labels were ripping them off with the high cost, but they didn’t consider the impact to the artists.
But then you think about the small % of what you spent on the CD that actually went to some artists – was it just the fans that were being ripped off?
I can think of several parallels. How about the current food market? The producers say they are under pressure from the supermarkets to drive down the prices. But despite what the news may say, have you actually seen the price at the checkout go down (bread is a prime example)?
I haven’t!
What I like about this site, is finally a dialogue between the two aggrieved parties… the artists and fans. With a common enemy, what’s the point of further fighting???
Artists in other creative industries all also cutting out the middle men, and I’m sure they will be watching us with interest.
At the end of the day, you can listen to music for free, turn on the radio! If you want to choose what you listen to, then there are lots of sites you can use… Myspace, Reverbnation, LastFM, Imeem, Spotify, to name but a few. If you want to own a copy of it, then you should pay something, and that should go to the artist(s).
The artist needs to earn a living, to re-invest in their work and be rewarded for the blood, sweat, love & passion they but into creating their work. If you didn’t pay the artists, the music industry would collapse. You may still get some new music floating around, perhaps from some just doing it for the love, but you’d loose so much diversity, so much talent.
Artists should be heard, as they deserve to be rewarded. Now the real question, is how and how much. This is a great opportunity to shape the future of a great, and much loved industry. To protect and evolve something which enriches all our lives. And it’s the artists and the listeners/fans who are the most important people in the equation – do not waste this opportunity!
October 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
To say that artists should be paid absolutely is a fairly empty statement. Anybody who wants to be paid for anything has to make a deal of some kind. You don’t turn up uninvited, start digging somebody’s garden then demand payment. You make an arrangement.
Likewise, us creatives can’t expect payment simply because we did the work. We need to do a deal first. If the deal is dependent on unit sales then it’s a bad one because the market for units is fast disappearing.
Seek payment for your work from those who would have you make it. Create it, let it go, then start over. With such an outlook we have a better chance of being heard and responded to positively rather than complaining about the demise of the old system.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
” From the downloaders I’ve spoken to, their justification was that the record labels were ripping them off with the high cost, but they didn’t consider the impact to the artists. ”
There is no impact to artists. That’s a myth fostered by the labels to justify strengthening their monopoly priviledges. There is an article here about how digital sales are going well, and file sharing has not diminished one iota. The best way to stop the propoganda is to avoid repeating it.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
” To say that artists should be paid absolutely is a fairly empty statement. Anybody who wants to be paid for anything has to make a deal of some kind. You don’t turn up uninvited, start digging somebody’s garden then demand payment. ”
You make way too much sense .. leave now
( yes I am joking, welcome .. seriously )
October 30th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Clark Sorley, you’ve saved me from having to create a sock puppet (not that I would). Have an “I’ve grokked it!” medal.
I think I’ve said pretty much the same line as you at some point already: “Seek payment for your work from those who would have you make it. Create it, let it go, then start over.”
Publishing corporations love being able to charge for copies or performances for 150 years, even if they’re sometimes forced by auditors to cough up the 1% royalty they promised to the artist or their heirs. It’s high time artists were paid for their work in full, and the public got back their liberty to share and build upon it.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
” ” ” But, it’s entirely wrong to be in this situation where artists are only paid for 1 out of every 20 downloads on the web. ”
Without any citations to back this up, i’m afraid i’m going to have to consider it nonsense. I am always willing to follow up and read any documentation that pertains to information presented, but without any backup, it’s not a fact, it’s opinion.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Crosbie, I have to confess I didn’t know what “grok” meant and was relieved to learn it was not much of a bad thing. Actually I was making similar arguments thirty years ago when I started in the biz but had long since consigned them to the worn-out record dustbin.
Things are really changing now. It has been a long time coming and I thoroughly embrace it.
It is heartening to find on this new website some radical and progressive views. I think I’m not referring to Indiana Gregg.
Dreddsnik, Thanks for the welcome. I will hang on your every word!
October 30th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Evenin’ all. There is an awful lot of sense here. Just to throw my tuppenceworth in if I may, I’m a musician that no-one’s heard of
I make music because I love to. Whether anyone else likes what I do, hey ho, that’s the eternal struggle for me to address. Likewise, whether I can make it commercially viable in a career-sense is MY responsibility.
I’ve attended the FAC meetings and heard Billy and others speak with great passion about the need to embrace radical and innovative new ideas. They do so because quite simply, they really do give a shit, want to make this situation work for everybody and abhor the idea of people thinking about “rich rock stars counting their money.”
I’m in a different situation, I’m not established so I don’t have experience of the ‘old model’. I fully accept that if I want to ‘earn a living creating music’ then I will do what is necessary to make that a reality. However, I at least need to feel there is an opportunity for remuneration (whatever form that takes) for me to consider it a viable proposition.
I know this is a massive issue and I’m not here for the sympathy vote and genuinely apologise if I’m over-simplifying things….there are certainly some very eloquent posts above.
The direct a2f models really seem like our best hope, as long as we are respectful.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
” The direct a2f models really seem like our best hope, as long as we are respectful.”
Though it’s not music, it still applies.
Wil Wheaton has been self publishing his books for a while now under the Creative Commons licensing model if I believe. He also sells his work as an UNPROTECTED .pdf file .. no DRM.
This time around ,, http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/10/memories-of-the-futurecast-episode-eight.html It would seem that the only advertising at all is his blog,and he’s been very successful, using a ‘trust your fans’ philosophy. I tried to get him to visit p2pnet a while back without too much success, and I don’t want to push, stalking is a crime after all
, but it’s another proof of concept.
Trust your fans, you can compete with free, you don’t need DRM, and if your work is good in enough peoples eyes, they WILL pay for it.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Clark, yup, there’s not much new under the sun. People have argued the monopoly of copyright to be an unethical privilege since it was enacted 300 years ago, but it’s only the advent of the digital age that has brought people face to face with the suspension of their cultural liberty. It is this confrontation that makes arguments against copyright more than academic.
More importantly, and vitally for a2f2a, it is the failure of copyright, the impossibility of holding back the tide of individuals’ assertions of liberty in the form of file-sharing, that drives the pursuit of a means of exchanging art for money (given the market for copies has ended).
It has been three centuries since artists last tried exchanging their art for their audience’s money. We have a lot of catching up to do, a lot of cobwebs to clear up.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Can there be an area to post ideas to sell music, not one where “musicians need to get paid” but rather just like all of us they want to get paid. To get paid they need to sell or have someone sell for them. There needs to be a demand for what they are selling or have a demand made. The price should be at the level of the demand. The supply should be at the level of demand.
Musicians should decide how their music is priced, and when they are paid. If they want to give it away for free, have it played for free fine, if they want to be paid for every time it’s played fine. Let them decide what to charge and when to charge.
The market then will either pay or not.
This can be great for new musicians, smaller venues that can’t afford the big names can play their music.
Radio stations can play all new music and not pay anything for the music or have a only the most popular if they want to pay what the musicians want to charge.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Clark,
I’m interested in how you finance your recordings?
October 30th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
A MAC, Protools, a Break box, an imagination.Some artists do very well on their own that way.
Wasn’t ‘Gimme Some Lovin’ done on a cheapo multitrack recorder ?
How big did that get ?
It’s not what you spend that makes the record, and you’ve been around long enough to know the truth of that.
It’s even cheaper to promote it yourself, worldwide. And anything he does get, it’s all his. Best of luck to you Clark, and if your stuff is my ‘cup of tea’ you’re guaranteed at least one sale
. Where can I sample some ?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Dredd, Your endorsement is appreciated, thanks. I’m in the process of putting together a new label. When it appears blinking in the sunlight I’ll be delighted to let you know. It’s output will be multi-genre reflecting the stunning musical diversity that exists within the community I serve.
And yes, Mac, Protools….. along with everything else you said.
Billy, Here’s a bit of my story. I’m a musician who’s been making music recordings a long time. I’ve made thousands of them while providing a mix of services which include producing, engineering, programming, composing, arranging, performing and offering studio facilities. I have made a career of this. I’m not wealthy but I survive by being fully committed to the medium I love which is the recorded work.
My clients are virtually anyone who wants a recording – i.e. other musicians, writers, composers, record companies, publishers, radio, television and film companies et al. Most of what I do I get paid for but I also do speculative work (a label currently), some pro-bono jobs, and some just for the love of it. Modesty aside for a second, I’m sufficiently good at what I do to have a problem accommodating all the work that comes my way.
In my world copyright is a non-issue. No one ever discusses it because it has zero bearing. It may as well not exist for any difference it makes to me and those in my circle. If people copy what I do my first reaction is to be pleased. It might be tempting to peer into their lives and see how much money they’ve made from my creations. But frankly I can’t be bothered with the negativity of that. I’d rather work on music, develop new projects, doing what I do, than become a royalty chaser.
Most projects over the years which involved record deals earned me little beyond small token advances. If I ever get a royalty cheque I will frame it as a historical document. The same goes for all of us where I am. The idea of receiving royalties from our hypothetical copyrights belongs in another place. We have always had to do things differently. It now happens that these differences seem to be running in sympathy with the sweeping changes in the creative industries. That pleases me.
I welcome the new possibilities because they offer the prospect of something genuinely new and something one can make a contribution towards shaping. From a self-interested view if copyright were abolished tomorrow it would make no material difference to me. What would do would be new structures which have an imaginative eye on the future and ones that stay fixed on the possibilities for musicians to earn a living commensurate with their worth.
This is a huge up-hill and requires a cultural mind-shift. It means getting away from the old ideas of unit commodities, statutory licensing, big deal contracts and the rest which were mainly structures around trying to find an artist who would lay a golden egg. It means people like us going into the community and asking those with money (there is no shortage of them) to invest in us. Doing this is, of course, only for the entrepreneurial few. But they are the trailblazers who will shape the future. It will be a future with a different spirit where artists are financed by their communities because their communities want what they’ve got.
I understand that I am an odd beast and no model necessarily. I use studio technology to express myself in recorded works. But my particular experience gives me an unusual perspective and some insight into possible ways forward. The emerging options through which creative people can engage the world feel natural to me. They open doors to a great untapped potential.
I have a label in the making which is being financed cooperatively by me and the other artists I work with. I have five new products waiting to go. It is a daunting prospect but an exciting one. I have no idea if our initiative will earn a penny. Given most recorded works earn nothing for anybody then the odds are against it. I remind myself that the vast majority of those party to a traditional copyright agreement never received anything from it anyway. It was never a good system for helping musicians make a living other than the privileged few. Most of us have always had to find other ways of earning from our talents.
I am confident my project will do something. I can be sure now with the distribution door being wide open that people will get to hear the work. Even in the worst event, with no financial return, the recordings will remain in existence as a form of expression. And that is what artists do – express themselves and hope to resonate. At one level the art is its own reward.
Billy, I applaud you and your colleagues for putting energy into getting a dialogue going here. I suspect it could easily be a full-time job. I imagine that you inhabit a different world from me, one that still has substantial interests in how copyright pans out. Although I agree with Crosbie Fitch that it is time copyright left the stage, it hasn’t yet and still exerts a powerful influence on motivations within the business. My experience in contrast is more in-keeping with the invisible majority of music-makers who have never been heard. I think I am easily tuned to how values and events will develop in future.
So the short answer to your question: I finance my recordings from the pockets of the people I work with. Sometimes one of them has written the song and they pay me, sometimes I have and sometimes I pay them. I just finished a session there today with a pedal-steel player who travelled fifty miles to come and play on a track. He had only recorded professionally once before and that was with me. He played beautifully and I paid him for his good work. Just as often people forgo payment happy to participate in a happy enterprise. And there is the crux: music shows no signs of losing its vitality and its importance in the lives of everyone.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:55 am
” And yes, Mac, Protools….. along with everything else you said. ”
Just one request. We are all aware of the capabilities of protools when it comes to shoddy vocals ( the labels have shown us just how much they are willing to do to make pretty people with lousy voices sound ‘good’ ” ). Use the best people for the job, not the most beautiful, but I have a feeling you already know that. Engineers usually do.