From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V6 #203 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Saturday, July 15 2000 Volume 06 : Number 203 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Acoustic Vaudeville rolls in and out of London [jburka@min.net] RE: Hi! [phil@tiaranetworks.com] A Question for Ectophiles (was Re: Spamster Spasms) [Joseph Zitt ] Re: spamster spasms [three damons ] Re: song lyrics!!! [Bill Mazur ] Re: song lyrics!!! [Bill Mazur ] Re: Greeting and Annette Ducharme / Anet [Bill Mazur ] BOSTON SHOW [Christine Waite ] Re: digital licensing, macster (help!), and napster [Andrew Fries ] Re: spamster spasms [Joseph Zitt ] Re: spamster spasms (No Napster talk) [Ted ] Re: Spamster Spasms [three damons ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:16:47 -0400 (EDT) From: jburka@min.net Subject: Re: Acoustic Vaudeville rolls in and out of London adam kimmel sez: > I saw Aimee Mann and Michael Penn in their "Acoustic Vaudeville" tour last > night at the Shepherd's Bush Empire: Two of the best singer/songwriters > around, two people I'd give my left arm to see on their own, and it > was ---- well, rather ordinairy. hmmm. I saw Acoustic Vaudeville in June, just before the end of this us leg and enjoyed it *tremendously*. This was the 4th time I've seen Aimee and I think all 4 shows have been wonderful. While I know what you mean about her charisma when actually performing (she has a tendency to stand at her mic and be very still like a deer in headlights), but her own between-song banter can be extremely funny, and she always manages to interject fun oddities in to her shows (for instance, I've seen her do Ruttles covers, improv songs about audience members, and so forth). I still laugh when I think of the time she picked up a tambourine and announced "And next I'll be doing my Susan Dey impersonation..." One thing I liked about the AV show was the way the co-headliners used each other in their songs. Last time I saw Aimee, it was just her, Patrick, and Buddy and the extra oomph in the arrangements thanks to the extra guitar and live drums was a big plus. There were plenty of loud, rocking moments and the fun the performers were clearly having on stage was both evident and infectious. Now, having said all that, I will comment that my boyfriend, who I have turned into an Aimee Mann fan, went home and listened to some of her stuff again and then told me how surprised he was at how faithfully they had reproduced the sound of _Bachelor No. 2_ in the live setting. Frankly, as a general rule, that's not what I'm looking for in a live setting. The big coincidence of the show: I got to talking with the fellow across the table from us (who was wearing a Vic Williams shirt from the _Loose_ tour) and it turned out that we were both amongst the 10 or so people sitting on the dance floor at the Bayou in Georgetown at an Aimee Mann show on the second leg of the _Whatever_ tour back in...erm...can't recally if it was late '93 or early '94. jeff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:24:47 -0700 From: phil@tiaranetworks.com Subject: RE: Hi! Thanks Bill and Andrew for your welcoming words. And thanks to Joseph for inspiring me to clarify my remarks from my last posting, which helped me think it through and gain more insight on what I was rambling on about. Bill, thanks for your signal to noise remarks; the current flames are not really a problem. This really does look like a great list to be on, and a few spirited "border skirmishes" here and there just liven it up a little. Rather like tossing a few cats over the wall of a dog pound. And no, I don't really mean that; some of my best friends are cats, which lame attempt at humor leads me to... One quick caveat; Bill mentioned my "tongue-in-cheek" humor. I do have a very irreverent twist to my nature, and sometimes my tongue is so firmly stuck in my cheek that it's hard to hear the words properly. Bottom line is; if you think you've just been insulted, you most probably weren't. (So sc**w you for even thinking of it, you judgmental pr**k ;-) Best regards Phil "Good judgement comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgement." Will Rogers - -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Fries [mailto:afries@zip.com.au] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 4:53 AM To: Ecto Subject: Re: Hi! On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Bill Mazur wrote: >I have been waiting for someone here on Ecto to give you a warm welcome Indeed. We have been slack... I still feel a bit funny welcoming new members to Ecto, but after all I *have* been here for over four years - I'm not the newest addition anymore :) So here we go: welcome to Ecto Phil, enjoy your stay! >Remember that I told you about how Ecto has interesting discussions >about musical artists from many genres of music and film and art and all kinds >of other interesting topics? Remember that I told you how Ecto very rarely had >flame wars and prided itself on it's low signal-to-noise ratio? Remember how I >told you that the majority of the people here on Ecto would be able to >recognize >and appreciate your wry, tongue-in-cheek British sense of humor? > >Well once upon a time all of that was true! Lately I have been really >wondering >if that culture exists here on this list any longer. We shall see... I >hope so! I hope so too. I think for all its ups and downs Ecto culture still exists. Thanks largely to people like you - Bill, you've always been the voice of moderation and reason. - ------------------------------------------------------ "Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software. I'm talking about major label recording contracts." -- Courtney Love - ------ http://www.zip.com.au/~afries/hall.html ------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:21:23 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: A Question for Ectophiles (was Re: Spamster Spasms) (For those who have burned out on the Napster-related dialog, hop down to the row of asterisks, beyond which is a question that may interest you.) On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 11:54:22AM -0700, phil@tiaranetworks.com wrote: > Even Peter Gabriel, the major deity in my personal pantheon, who nearly went > flat broke maintaining the integrity of his music, had to finally pay a > little lip service to the mass market. > And anyone who saw the first "So" tour got an idea of how wickedly he and > his band sent themselves up for "selling out": Levin and Rhoades both > pranced around the stage in full length leather duster coats, with colored > mohawk wigs, and all the rock godling postures imaginable. But on the other hand, this was, if anything, a toning down of the theatricality of his Genesis days. And if I were to imagine what I might do with a performance given Gabriel's current financial resources, it would look very much like the Secret World tour. How might such an artistic result be reached without financial success? How might such financial success be reached without appealing to a large market? The only other way might be the patronage of a small number of rich people, which would probably involve even more restriction. > Critical successes are not often financial ones and it's hard to work on > your freedom of expression with some gravy train A&R pustule breathing down > the back of your neck and threatening to pull the plug. I'm curious as to whether you are expressing this from experience, or whether it is theory. I also wonder if you consider all people in high levels in the music industry to be "gravy train A&R pustule(s)"? Would this involve all record label chiefs? How about, say, the head of Real World? > >>Is great art impossible under externally imposed ideals? What do you > >>think of the relevant works by Shostakovitch? > > I find the early stuff that he did that was condemned by the Communists as > "decadent and bourgeois" to be the most inspired and spirited of his works. > (But then I just love that shit-kickin' Gypsy stuff) > I'm not really familiar with his entire life and ouevre, or, for that > matter what you mean by "relevant"; are you talking about the stuff he did > that fit the Communist Party guidelines, or the movie soundtracks, or his > string quartets or what? Each has its interesting relevances. > When you think about it " Your music is not inspiring and uplifting to the > People's Glorious Movement, comrade" is not really that much different in > essence from " Our demographic markets are a little younger; could you pull > out the flute solo and make it a little more upbeat? We need to sell more > Cheetos" Same old song, different target market, different carrots, (sorry > Dmitri; this analogy is rather broad!). Agreed, and sort of my point. (To look at it from another angle, another strong composer, Cornelius Cardew, threw away his avant-garde music when he became a hardcore Marxist-Leninist and changed to composing godawful, unsingable dogmatic anthems because he thought that was what The People wanted and needed. Gak.) > Generally speaking, I think it can be argued that great art often flourishes > under externally imposed ideas, as a reaction to those very impositions. > That's what artistic "reform" has always been about hasn't it? The Blues > immediately comes to mind as an obvious example. Not obvious to me. How do you see it as an example? > I'm really not interested in telling people how much they can or cannot > earn; that's no different from telling people what they can and cannot > compose or play, or watch, or think. > But how many bottles of champagne can one drink in one day/week/lifetime? > How many Roll-Royces does one REALLY need? How many mansions? How many changes of clothes do you really need? How many CDs? How much computer access? How many meat meals (assuming you're not a vegetarian). The problem in defining what is "too rich" is that it is almost always relative to the speaker's own current financial status. > The last I heard, Peter Townsend now gives away 50% of his money to the > taxman, and the other 50% to mostly musically-related charity projects. He > feels he just doesn't NEED any more than he has. > That is an act of purity and enlightenment, not one of self-absorption and > greed. Good for him, and I hope that I would emulate that, if i had the resources. * * * * * A friend recently asked me a very interesting question, relevant to many of us CD-junkies here on Ecto. Over the year's I have amassed a fairly huge CD collection (though not as huge as some here have) and a very good library, focusing for the most part on contemporary/improvised/experimental music. One member of my ensemble asked me what would happen to it if I die, and I didn't have an answer. I know that I should make out a will, and the simple default answer would be that it would go to a member of my family -- but none of them would be able or knowledgable enough to do anything appropriate with them. He suggested that I earmark my collection to go to a library that would benefit from a well-tended collection such as this. So, fellow EWS-sufferers: what, if any, are your long-term plans for your music libraries? How might they best serve the common good once you're gone? > "He who dies rich, dies shamed" Andrew Carnegie - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:19:46 -0700 From: phil@tiaranetworks.com Subject: RE: A Question for Ectophiles (was Re: Spamster Spasms) On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 11:54:22AM -0700, phil@tiaranetworks.com wrote: > Even Peter Gabriel, the major deity in my personal pantheon, who nearly went > flat broke maintaining the integrity of his music, had to finally pay a > little lip service to the mass market. > And anyone who saw the first "So" tour got an idea of how wickedly he and > his band sent themselves up for "selling out": Levin and Rhoades both > pranced around the stage in full length leather duster coats, with colored > mohawk wigs, and all the rock godling postures imaginable. But on the other hand, this was, if anything, a toning down of the theatricality of his Genesis days. Yes, but Joe, Genesis *starved* in those early days; I used to go see them at one of their favorite venues in the UK. They were not the mainstream songwriting collective that they later became, as you're no doubt aware. And that theatricality, mostly PG's highly original and unfettered inspiration, was exactly one of the things that made them inaccessible to the wider markets; it was only after PG left and they had some Top40 action that they started to see any kind of financial success. Basically when they tried to maintain the purity of that vision, they were a critical success but a financial disaster. They would travel to gigs with packed lunches because they couldn't afford to eat out! >>And if I were to imagine what I might do with a performance given >>Gabriel's current financial resources, it would look very much like >>the Secret World tour. How might such an artistic result be reached >>without financial success? How might such financial success be reached >>without appealing to a large market? The only other way might be >>the patronage of a small number of rich people, which would probably >>involve even more restriction. Good point; I'm not criticizing mass-market appeal or techniques, or financial success, just pointing out some of the inherent drawbacks. If mass market stuff did not exist, how would we ever get to hear/read/see any of this stuff? > Critical successes are not often financial ones and it's hard to work on > your freedom of expression with some gravy train A&R pustule breathing down > the back of your neck and threatening to pull the plug. >>I'm curious as to whether you are expressing this from experience, or >>whether it is theory. A little of both: I have been in, but mostly on the periphery of, The Biz, for some years. I have seen many great talents treated as manipulable commodities, or worse. I know of at least two great bands that were signed by record companies for the purposes of obtaining tax breaks for said company. Sounds great when you sign up; three album deal with some serious cash advance; then no distribution, no promotion, and oh, by the way, when are you guys gonna pay back that advance? It's just hard to watch a really good band wither away for three years just because some bean-counter figured the company could benefit from some tax credits. That to me is more of a theft than someone downloading MP3s. The industry, by and large, is not governed by those with a passion for the music and what it means. These people would be just as at home working for any major industry; General Foods, Lockheed, Universal; it's just a gig for them. Most musicians are passionate about what they do and get damaged and betrayed by these attitudes and practices. >>I also wonder if you consider all people in >>high levels in the music industry to be "gravy train A&R pustule(s)"? >>Would this involve all record label chiefs? How about, say, the head >>of Real World? No, of course not, I was generalizing rather wildly there for a moment. I took a deep breath and I'm ok now. I was invoking Sturgeon's Law: "Ninety percent of everything is crap" I think the Real Worlds of the world are a direct reaction to the "all cash/no soul" approach adopted by so many that went before them. > When you think about it " Your music is not inspiring and uplifting to the > People's Glorious Movement, comrade" is not really that much different in > essence from " Our demographic markets are a little younger; could you pull > out the flute solo and make it a little more upbeat? We need to sell more > Cheetos" Same old song, different target market, different carrots, (sorry > Dmitri; this analogy is rather broad!). Agreed, and sort of my point. (To look at it from another angle, another strong composer, Cornelius Cardew, threw away his avant-garde music when he became a hardcore Marxist-Leninist and changed to composing godawful, unsingable dogmatic anthems because he thought that was what The People wanted and needed. Gak.) That's a great example of what we've been discussing here. The Muse of The People generally appears with a Budweiser can in one hand and a Lynrd Skynrd album in the other. > Generally speaking, I think it can be argued that great art often flourishes > under externally imposed ideas, as a reaction to those very impositions. > That's what artistic "reform" has always been about hasn't it? The Blues > immediately comes to mind as an obvious example. Not obvious to me. How do you see it as an example? Sorry; the above paragraph was unclear; not an example of artistic reform, but art flourishing under externally, etc.etc. The blues came about as a direct response to the social and political conditions in which slaves found themselves. Some very powerful and moving music has been written as a response to say, oppression, political or social. > But how many bottles of champagne can one drink in one day/week/lifetime? > How many Roll-Royces does one REALLY need? How many mansions? >>How many changes of clothes do you really need? How many CDs? >>How much computer access? How many meat meals (assuming you're not >>a vegetarian). I don't think I *need* 40 billion of anything, with the possible exception of brain cells. But I don't think it's about needs; it's about "wants" Gates doesn't *need* $40bil; he just *wants* it. Money subverts desires as well as principles. >>The problem in defining what is "too rich" is that it is almost >>always relative to the speaker's own current financial status. Yes, it is a sticky area. My point was really that many artists get into making money as a way to support their art, and then get into making art as a means of supporting their money. I am really enjoying this exchange, but it *is* an offshoot of a prior 'spirited exchange". I'm happy to continue, but if anyone's tired of it please inform and we could move it offline. Best regards Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:23:54 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms Joseph Zitt wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 01:22:45AM -0400, three damons wrote: > > > whats forcedexposure? > > http://www.forcedexposure.com/ is the web site of a distributor of > mostly obscure music (though occasional semi-popular items, like > Sonic Youth and Belle & Sebastian pop up there), i'll have to check them out. tho my general music listening is rather obscure, i'ts not as obscure as you ecto guys. > > > But who gave the thieves the authority to determine what I am > > > allowed to do? > > > > when you buy a car, it comes with a warranty. > > > > who gives thieves the right to deny you > > your warranty just because they steal your car? > > To make that question meaningful, there would have to be some way > in which one might try to use a warranty in the absence of the > physical car. buy the same brand but without an added dealer warranty. > > > > it also depends on what you're buying. > > > > > > > > > > > > with software, you're essentially purchasing a [permanent?] lease of > > > > use. > > > > > > If someone steals my Microsoft Office CD, am I thus morally bound to > > > erase it from my hard drive? > > > > sigh. > > i JUST explained that. > > you're leasing use. > > in theory, the cd-rom is unimportant. the copy on you comuter is > > unimportant. > > And if the lease extends beyond the point of the theft of the CD-ROM, > what does this suggest about one's access to the music one instance of > which was on a CD that had been stolen? nothing, because in one case you're leasing something, and in the other case you're purchasing something. that's what i've been trying to explain. > > > > with artistic products, you're purchasing a hard copy of the art, > > > > a physical thing. > > > > > > This assumes that "artistic products" refers to a very narrow subset > > > of the visual arts, and ignores all other media. > > > > no it doesn't. > > you purchase a hard copy of music when you buy a cd. > > you prucahse a hard copy of a movie when you buy > > a dvd or vhs tape.--- > > wait, wait. > > > > now, i realize the semantics you're using, or thin i do. > > i used 'hard copy' here specifically because ithink > > purchasing a copy of an album over the internet > > would be different in ways i didn't want to discuss. > > > > looking at your question, perhaps i should have said > > 'physical copy'. > > This doesn't evade the problem, since it doesn't address the ways > in which a CD is more like a CD-ROM than it is like a statue. naw, a cd is more like a cd player, or to make a better analogy, a novel. you honestly feel entitled to go photocopy an entire novel from your workplace photocopier and photocopy the thing borrowed from a library if you lose that novel? > (And what about live performance, broadcasts, concept arts, and > ephemeral media?) what about them? do you feel purcahsing access towards that event entitles you to copying it? > And why do you want to avoid discussing the very relevant issue > of music purchased over the Net? because it's trickier and would sidetrack the point i'm trying to make wrt your feeling of entitlement towards copying a cd you no longer own. > > > > does this answer your question? i'm not sure. > > > > > > A music CD is neither of the above, so it really doesn't address the > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > the issue. > > if you buy a cd, are you allowed, morally or legally, > > to make a copy of it for personal use? > > yes. > > > > now, if you don't OWN a copy of said cd, but still have purchased in > > at one time in your life, are you also allowed? > > > > me, i think that answer is no. > > Here we might have to agree to disagree. But I'd be curious as to what > you'd actually do if you found yourself in that situation. buy the cd again. if the cd was oop, then i'd copy it, but still buy it again if it ever became reavailable. - -- What political correctness is: Make disparaging remarks about minorites of New York: get suspended for two weeks. Admit to covering up two murders that happened right in front of you: no supsension. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:34:28 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: spamster spasms Ted wrote: > > three damons wrote: > > > > > i hear they killed jfk too. > > The Mafia Killed JFK, Is there a link that you know of between the Mafia and the RIAA? oh, i'm Sure there's one. > > anarchy is progress over tyrranny. > > niether is as good as democracy. > > I don't disagree with you there, but what about a musical monopoly. it's better than not getting any cds. > > old people aren't afraid of libraries. > > > > They are irrationally afraid of MP3. they are also irrationally afraid of me. > > > > > > [1] anything valued by poeple becomes valuable. > > metallica's music is valued neough to become valuable. > > no artist should *expect* wages like that, but no artist should be > > *denied* > > wages like that either. > > > > > [2] art does not become perverse when driven by economics. > > some of the best drama in history has been on commercial television. > > I keep missing the Athol Fugard hour, when's it on? dunno. there's plenty of other good shows too. > > > > some of the best music has been released on commercial labels. > > Do you wear a "Mullet"? so you don't really like sinead or kate bush, or sarah maclachlan, etc. > > economics may often dilute art, but not always. > > worse is the implication that there's something wrong with wanting to > > make > > a living off of one's art. > > I was talking about a mindset, you can disagree with me if you wish, it's an ideal. the problem with ideals is that they don't work in the real world, and they generally tend to put stupid ideas in people's heads. > You don't have to follow it. I wish you the best with whichever boy band you decide to join. the boos! > > [3] art doesn't want to be free. > > that's an empty, meaningless statement. > > art wants nothing. > > So give it nothing. and take it all. i suppose since cd players want nothing, i shouldn't mind taking them either. thanks for clearing that up. - -- What political correctness is: Make disparaging remarks about minorites of New York: get suspended for two weeks. Admit to covering up two murders that happened right in front of you: no supsension. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:34:13 -0700 From: Bill Mazur Subject: Re: song lyrics!!! Jeff, Your least favorite Happy lyric line is probably one of my least favorite as well. Bill jjhanson@att.net wrote: > 1. Favorite Lyric (this was tough--there are so many good > ones!) > "What if the man convicted innocent" > (from To Live in Your World--actually the entire > song has great lyrics) > > also like "A leaf fell, but didn't land" > from I'm Not Awake, I'm Not Asleep--that entire > song just really resonates with me > > 2. Least favorite: > "Gonna need stronger underwear" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:36:34 -0700 From: Bill Mazur Subject: Re: song lyrics!!! Brian, Your favorite Happy lyric really seems to give a view into her personality. I love that line as well. Bill Brian Bloom wrote: > 1. Favorite lyric: > "and music hides me..so well, and reveals me... oh well..." > Actually, that song is so short I could probably just quote the whole song > as my favorite lyric.. ;) > > 2. Least favorite: > I'm sure to be ousted as a heretic for this, but.... > "Are you dancing dead, or maybe walking toast?..." > > * mooman ducks. > > moo. > > N.P. - Brunatex - "Cut" (well, as soon as I get home from work it will > be. Maybe I should put S.T.B.P. [soon to be playing] :) > N.R. - Robin Hobb - "Ship of Magic" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:06:42 -0700 From: Bill Mazur Subject: Re: Greeting and Annette Ducharme / Anet Neile, I really appreciate your post! You are one of the people on Ecto that really epitomizes the culture that I loved so much when I first found the Fuzzy Blue habitat. There are many others here that also contribute to that feeling for me. There are others that have left and some that we don't hear from as much anymore. I miss many of them. I know that we have a few active members that have been here from the beginning of Ecto. I suspect that some of these very early contributors and long-standing members may feel the same way. Ecto has the greatest breadth and depth of musical discussion when compared to any other list or news group that I have examined. One definitely gets exposure to many types of music here on Ecto. The comprehensive Ectophiles' Guide and your ongoing dedication to it's growth is clear evidence of that fact. With much affection and gratitude! Bill M. Neile Graham wrote: > Hi, all-- > > In the midst of all this discussion it does bother me how people talk past > each and insult each other, but my favourite Happy lyrics are "Words > weren't made for cowards". > > I don't know what my least favourite are. > > Mieu and Phil, and to the others new here, welcome to ecto. > > You should know that over time there has been a lot of discussion about > artists you like such as Diamanda Galas, Portishead, Garbage and more. One > of the best things about this list is the breadth of music interests. > There are a lot of people who like soft folky pop, too, but that's only one > part of the range. > > I don't know of any musical list that has a greater breadth and--usually a > least--a high signal-to-noise ratio and a respect for different tastes and > beliefs. I sorry that hasn't been the case recently. > > In one of those weird incidents of ecto-serendipity, I had recently > finished Annette Ducharme's entry in The Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music > and had found very little information about her out there. > > Then I was working on Danielle French's entry (very pretty pop if anyone is > looking for more along the Tara MacLean, recent Sarah line) and was looking > for web sites to include in the See also section. I found her mp3.com site > (it's http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/27/danielle_french.html for anyone > who wants to check her out) and was in a browsing mood and saw under the > Artists We Like section there she'd linked a band called Anet. So I clicked > and recognized some of the song titles! Anet is Annette Ducharme, still > busily producing music, and there are lots of sound samples for an album of > hers I hadn't seen, called _Tortured_. She has a web site, > http://www.anetmusic.com/, and is working on a new album. > > Great mainstream-kinda rock. > > --Neile > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Neile Graham ...... http://www.sff.net/people/neile ....... neile@sff.net > Les Semaines: A Weekly Journal . http://www.sff.net/people/neile/semaines > The Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music ....... http://www.smoe.org/ectoguide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:20:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Christine Waite Subject: BOSTON SHOW July 23 at Middle East (472 Mass. Ave, Central Square-Red Line, Cambridge, MA)617-497-0576 MARK KOZELEK of Red House Painters will be performing! Also of note, Throwing Muses, July 22 ($13.50) at Lupo's in Providence, RI (www.lupos.com) - -christine :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:01:42 +1000 From: Andrew Fries Subject: Re: digital licensing, macster (help!), and napster On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Scott S. Zimmerman wrote: >So, does anybody here use that macintosh equivalent of napster? I used Rapster without any hassle. But note the past tense - I haven't tried to connect in the last couple of weeks during which I heard there were some changes and troubles with Napster servers. Anyho, Rapster lives at Another one is MP3 Rage - general swiss-army type of mp3 tool that is also supposed to work with Napster network but I haven't tried it myself, because unlike Rapster you have to pay for it. Finally there is an Open Source project, MacStar - supposedly at . I say supposedly, because I just tried this link and the site seems to be down at this moment. - ------------------------------------------------------ "Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software. I'm talking about major label recording contracts." -- Courtney Love - ------ http://www.zip.com.au/~afries/hall.html ------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:04:45 EDT From: ArtfulMdrr@aol.com Subject: Re: song lyrics!!! Ah, yey, a Happy post! Favorite: Aaaall of "Words Weren't Made for Cowards." It's so to the point, but not without humour or a quick turn of phrase. Least: Probably the same lyric from Murder, which is still a compelling song. - - Katherine nr: Wuthering Heights, Angela's Ashes np: Esthero, "Breath from Another" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:33:42 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 08:23:54PM -0400, three damons wrote: > i'll have to check them out. > tho my general music listening is rather obscure, > i'ts not as obscure as you ecto guys. Well, the stuff I'm talking about makes general Ecto fare seem like Top 40 by comparison :-) > > To make that question meaningful, there would have to be some way > > in which one might try to use a warranty in the absence of the > > physical car. > > > buy the same brand but without an added dealer warranty. I don't see the correlation. > > And if the lease extends beyond the point of the theft of the CD-ROM, > > what does this suggest about one's access to the music one instance of > > which was on a CD that had been stolen? > > nothing, because in one case you're leasing something, and in > the other case you're purchasing something. > > that's what i've been trying to explain. And the explanation falls through, because of the possibility of having duped the CD beforehand, a task which no one denies to be valid. If what you're trying to explain is some way in which unknown thieves have a right to deprive me of owning a copy of music that would be valid had they not stolen it, I can't see that as true. An explanation, to be true, would explain in what way the thieves had been legally or morally granted that control over their victims. Absent that, the supposed explanation is no better than an approval of the actions of theives. Certainly you can understand that. > naw, a cd is more like a cd player, or to make a better analogy, > a novel. In what sense? Map the issue of copies of CDs, as described above, to the issue of copies of novels (the issue of whether the novel is on disk or on paper being moot, unless you believe in some legally or morally magical aspect of paper), and you see that the novel and the CD player differ in essential ways, and analogies to the two cannot both be right. > you honestly feel entitled to go photocopy an entire novel from your > workplace photocopier and photocopy the thing borrowed from a library > if you lose that novel? Your problem with that is... ? I actually do have photocopies of articles and items from books that were previously stolen from me. (That I happen not to have complete photocopies of books is more a matter of the tediousness of photocopying, and of not tying up the office machine. But come to think of it, I do have some on disc.) > > (And what about live performance, broadcasts, concept arts, and > > ephemeral media?) > > what about them? > do you feel purcahsing access towards that event entitles you > to copying it? The point is that while these might grouped under "artistic objects", it is questionable to refer to "copying" them. What do you mean when you refer to "copying" a live performance? Certainly not recording it, which translates it into a vastly different medium. > > And why do you want to avoid discussing the very relevant issue > > of music purchased over the Net? > > > because it's trickier and would sidetrack the point i'm trying to make > wrt > your feeling of entitlement towards copying a cd you no longer own. It would sidetrack the point because of its relevance. You can't evade it and still make the point. > buy the cd again. > > if the cd was oop, then i'd copy it, but still buy it again > if it ever became reavailable. You know, I might have thought the same until actually in the situation. But, again, I see no way in which thieves have the right or power to obligate me to spend money. - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:35:48 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: spamster spasms On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 08:34:28PM -0400, three damons wrote: > the problem with ideals is that they don't work in the real world, and > they generally tend to put > stupid ideas in people's heads. Ya know, that's rather close to the points that you seem to deny in other messages... - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:07:36 -0400 From: Ted Subject: Re: spamster spasms (No Napster talk) three damons wrote: > > so you don't really like sinead or kate bush, or sarah maclachlan, etc. > Who's Kate Bush? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:24:44 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms Joseph Zitt wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 08:23:54PM -0400, three damons wrote: > > > i'll have to check them out. > > tho my general music listening is rather obscure, > > i'ts not as obscure as you ecto guys. > > Well, the stuff I'm talking about makes general Ecto fare seem like > Top 40 by comparison :-) well, it depends then. > > > To make that question meaningful, there would have to be some way > > > in which one might try to use a warranty in the absence of the > > > physical car. > > > > > > buy the same brand but without an added dealer warranty. > > I don't see the correlation. > mmm. > > > And if the lease extends beyond the point of the theft of the CD-ROM, > > > what does this suggest about one's access to the music one instance of > > > which was on a CD that had been stolen? > > > > nothing, because in one case you're leasing something, and in > > the other case you're purchasing something. > > > > that's what i've been trying to explain. > > And the explanation falls through, because of the possibility of having > duped the CD beforehand, a task which no one denies to be valid. the closest i could come would be that theives deny you the ability to modify your car with those huge tires by stealing yoru car. > If what you're trying to explain is some way in which unknown thieves > have a right to deprive me of owning a copy of music that would be > valid had they not stolen it, I can't see that as true. they're not depriving you of that *right* because younever had that *right*. what they are denying you is the ability to copy your disc, which is what you were entitled to. you were not entitled to copy ANY disc of the same material, you were entitled to copy YOUR disc. that 'entitlement' came from your purchase of the disc. iow, that *specific* peaice of plastic you bought, and held in your grubby hands, had the built in legal entitlement of your being able to copy IT. NOT any other disc exactly like it, because you didn't buy THOSE discs. An explanation, > to be true, would explain in what way the thieves had been legally or > morally granted that control over their victims. Absent that, the > supposed explanation is no better than an approval of the actions of > theives. Certainly you can understand that. > also, note you keep saying 'theives and i keep humoring you. my argument doesn't presuppose theives- you could have lost the disc, dropped it and broken it, or tossed it in a momentary fit of despair. so, ask yourself does your discarding of the disc on purpose allow you to at some later point reacquire the music for free? > > naw, a cd is more like a cd player, or to make a better analogy, > > a novel. > > In what sense? Map the issue of copies of CDs, as described above, > to the issue of copies of novels (the issue of whether the novel > is on disk or on paper being moot, unless you believe in some > legally or morally magical aspect of paper), and you see that the > novel and the CD player differ in essential ways, and analogies > to the two cannot both be right. > > > you honestly feel entitled to go photocopy an entire novel from your > > workplace photocopier and photocopy the thing borrowed from a library > > if you lose that novel? > > Your problem with that is... ? I actually do have photocopies of > articles and items from books that were previously stolen from me. > (That I happen not to have complete photocopies of books is more a > matter of the tediousness of photocopying, and of not tying up the > office machine. But come to think of it, I do have some on disc.) yuo're reproducing it without permission. that's my problem. you feel entitled to perpetual ownership of a work of art, having purchased it once. hence the cdplayer analogy- NO ONE feels entitled to perpetual owenership of the ability to play cds once they have bought one. thus you are arguing there is something intrinisc about art/entertainment that differs from material posession that entitles you to perpetual ownership. this different thing eldues me. > > > (And what about live performance, broadcasts, concept arts, and > > > ephemeral media?) > > > > what about them? > > do you feel purcahsing access towards that event entitles you > > to copying it? > > The point is that while these might grouped under "artistic objects", > it is questionable to refer to "copying" them. What do you mean when > you refer to "copying" a live performance? Certainly not recording > it, which translates it into a vastly different medium. does that matter? does changing media change this special intrinsic feature you feel art has which justifies perpetual ownership? > > > And why do you want to avoid discussing the very relevant issue > > > of music purchased over the Net? > > > > > > because it's trickier and would sidetrack the point i'm trying to make > > wrt > > your feeling of entitlement towards copying a cd you no longer own. > > It would sidetrack the point because of its relevance. You can't > evade it and still make the point. yes i can, because that's not the point i'm making. to sidetrack, wrt most art, you are purchasing a material object conatining that art. wrt downloaded art, you are purchasing a single digital copy. since the thing you purchase is immaterial, i'd posit a better anaolgy would be a live concert. but there is no exact anaolgy, because what you purchase, tho immaterial, is fiarly permanent. to answer the point, tho, youare essentially purcahsing the ability to copy a song from their server once, and to keep one copy, plus any fair use copies. now, if you delete the song, or your computer is stolen, you have *again* lost the copy which you had purcahsed wrt fair use. copying another copy for free would still be theivery. > > buy the cd again. > > > > if the cd was oop, then i'd copy it, but still buy it again > > if it ever became reavailable. > > You know, I might have thought the same until actually in the situation. > But, again, I see no way in which thieves have the right or power to > obligate me to spend money. > what about yourself? - -- What political correctness is: Make disparaging remarks about minorites of New York: get suspended for two weeks. Admit to covering up two murders that happened right in front of you: no supsension. ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V6 #203 **************************