>> Painting out these movie mistakes as part of a restoration is wrong.
> It's really not the equivalent though. I don't see anything wrong with fixing a license plate or removing a reflection or a modern-day wristwatch.
I think it depends on the primary objective of the restoration. If I’m trying to preserve history, I shouldn’t fix errors. If I’m trying to make a (by implication derivative) work that maximizes enjoyability for (new) audiences, then it’s ok to fix.
e.g. a long time ago, I once transferred vinyl recordings of an extremely amateur community musical group to CD.
After thinking long and hard, I decided to fix recording technology flaws (a bad hum) and vinyl degradation flaws (crackles, dust, etc). But I didn’t fix any of the musical performance flaws.
Bottom line: I decided to respect the history of the performance, and disrespect the history of the recording and playback technology/medium.
> The one anomaly bucking that trend are all of these K-pop groups that are very popular and viral right now.
I’d argue, that those aren’t bands in the same intuitive sense as The Beatles or Radiohead, but manufactured brands owned by producers, who hire the “band members” as employees. This concept has been around the music business for a long time. From The Monkeys to Milli Vanilli to Spice Girls and many more.
Also: Many so called bands were effectively solo artists operating under a brand name. Sometimes with very long term employees (band members) sometimes only for a limited run of projects (albums and/or tours). From ELO to NIN and countless others.
> Software development is a social activity, especially with relatively high-visibility projects like Asahi, and it comes with just as usual burden of social troubles as any other kind of social activity.
Yes.
> The only way to do that is to never collaborate with anyone else.
Not necessarily. You can also treat project politics and social skills like any other technical skills that you need on your team like network engineering or database optimization.
If you can find trusted collaborators with those social and political skills, you can make a lot of things happen without necessarily being very good at it yourself.
Team building has a lot of parallels with building a full stack technology. Or building a sports team.
Price increases due to multiple factors from higher interest rates to trade wars, etc. are tempering the financial enthusiasm of customers to buy at the higher end, maybe?
I’m fascinated by the idea of my future music making DAW computer having one of those manycore monsters.
That’s also because my favourite software synthesizers are increasingly modelling instruments, rather than sample based instruments. And that reduces the need for RAM and storage, but increases the thirst for CPU cycles.
I don’t have the right background/expertise to dig deeper into a different way of looking at this, but am still hoping that some writer will analyze this as a kind of asymmetrical warfare.
Because looking at it that way, might open different analysis than most of what I’ve seen so far.
I’m not AL either, but I’ve been close to a couple of trademark applications and even a court case - so that’s why I was curious. Looking through some of the attached PDF, I wonder if it was, or will be denied unless amended, because the words are just too common and/or the scope for the trademark is being cast too wide? The examiner apparently sent a notice to the applicant earlier this year, and there seems to be some sort of extension to the application in play. This may suggest, that unless amended, the current application won’t be granted?
So I’ve switched to using RSS to follow the specific niche creators that add value for me. As a result, my YT experience is entirely unlike what the YT algorithm suggests.
> In my opinion one of the most overrated songs in all of popular music.
What is the other metric you're implying?
Because "popular" is the only metric in your statement and if that's also the metric you imply with "overrated", then the statement doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
> It's really not the equivalent though. I don't see anything wrong with fixing a license plate or removing a reflection or a modern-day wristwatch.
I think it depends on the primary objective of the restoration. If I’m trying to preserve history, I shouldn’t fix errors. If I’m trying to make a (by implication derivative) work that maximizes enjoyability for (new) audiences, then it’s ok to fix.
e.g. a long time ago, I once transferred vinyl recordings of an extremely amateur community musical group to CD.
After thinking long and hard, I decided to fix recording technology flaws (a bad hum) and vinyl degradation flaws (crackles, dust, etc). But I didn’t fix any of the musical performance flaws.
Bottom line: I decided to respect the history of the performance, and disrespect the history of the recording and playback technology/medium.