From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #212 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, July 30 2000 Volume 09 : Number 212 Today's Subjects: ----------------- High speed internet access trade for live robyn [plpalmer@ix.netcom.com] Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #207 ["mike hooker" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #207 [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: Queen Elvis error disc [The Great Quail ] dawn of the replicators ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: Queen Elvis error disc ["Colin Meloy" ] Re: dawn of the replicators ["Proctology Now" ] Re: polite tics (we want your body!) ["Proctology Now" ] Re: dawn of the replicators [Capuchin ] Re: dawn of the replicators ["Noe Shalev" ] Re: Speaking of analogies... ["Noe Shalev" ] my dissertation on the ethics of Napster [Eb ] nick drake tribute ["Mike Hooker" ] Re: Speaking of analogies... [Capuchin ] RE: Speaking of analogies... ["Brian Huddell" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:42:15 -0700 From: plpalmer@ix.netcom.com Subject: High speed internet access trade for live robyn Does anyone on this list have a high speed internet access (cable modem or better) and CDR burning capability? There is a internet video PPV (I'll pay for it) of Jeffrey Gaines a HOB.com on Sunday at 6 PM. Apparently, it's on a 24 hour loop starting then. If someone could burn this on CD and make a video tape for me. I'd trade some live Robyn with them. My list is here: http://home.netcom.com/~plpalmer Peter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:42:58 -0400 From: "mike hooker" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #207 hi, does anyone have a recording of robyn covering nick drake's river man? i saw it up on napster, the download failed, and i never saw it again. thanks, Mike Hooker ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:25:49 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #207 In a message dated 7/29/00 10:13:31 AM, mike.hooker@icnt.net writes: << does anyone have a recording of robyn covering nick drake's river man? i saw it up on napster, the download failed, and i never saw it again. >> I don't have this, but you're looking for this show, apparently (answer given by The Asking Tree): Robyn Hitchcock Concert appearance: Sat., 25 Sep. 1999 The Barbican London, England UK Nick Drake Tribute Concert Set list: Pink Moon (Nick Drake) River Man (Nick Drake) - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:29:01 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Queen Elvis error disc >Just found a copy of Queen Elvis that has a mis-printed label on the disc. >Instead of Queen Elvis info, it's the Madonna of the Wasps single info, but >it's it regular Queen Elvis disc. Any documentation of this before, or do I >have a super-rare find here? >Would be funny if it was rare, because it was sitting in my CD store at $5.99 >for nearly three years! I have the exact same artifact! It confused me for quite a while, until I decided that record companies could, after all, make mistakes after the Who's "3.905" debacle. Oh, and of course, when I picked up a copy of Tom Waits' "Nighthawks at the Diner" and it was actually a Journey CD, even though the CD was all Tom Waitsy. - --Quail - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) http://www.w-rabbit.com/gerbilstuff/gerbilbabies15a.html "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." --Vice President Dan Quayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:19:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: dawn of the replicators So I'm following the discussion of copyright laws etc. with some interest. And as the distinction between ideas and property comes up, I try to imagine what would happen if the objects we normally regard as "property" were as easily reproducible as ideas. So someone has designed a terrific socket wrench for Sears to sell. My friend buys one, and she loves it so much that she says, "here, you've gotta use this wrench!" I pass it under my little home 3D scanner, tell my computer to make one copy, and in just a minute or two, voila! An exact copy of the wrench is constructed from molecules and waits in the output tray of my replicator, ready for use. Well, a few more people buy the wrench, but mostly we're just passing the 3D scan around on the net so people can copy it. The product is discontinued and socket wrenches are deemed unprofitable. Who would engineer tools -- or anything else -- in a scenario like this? I admit to a similar confusion about free software, though I plan to take advantage of same soon. The argument regarding music is usually that people would make it anyway, and that they don't profit from it now. But would people engineer and test power tools or cars or whatever if those things were as replicable for "free" as music is now? I'm pretty fuzzy on this stuff, so please understand that I present this not as argument but as a request for further explanation. Thanks, Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:31:36 -0700 From: "Colin Meloy" Subject: Re: Queen Elvis error disc I've seen that error disc before as well. I thought that it was a bit of a rarety (and in the collection of somebody who was far from being a Robyn collector--it was her only Robyn album), but maybe not. I would like to also thank everybody who was involved in the Robyn tribute night a few weeks ago. It went swimmingly and everybody seemed to have a great time. Cheers! Colin. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:55:22 PDT From: "Proctology Now" Subject: Re: dawn of the replicators profits are EVIL. produce for use rather than profit, and there's no dilemma. (funky word choice, by the way. "deemed".) great example. here we have a community which wants to be able to USE the best software possible. when proprietary considerations are out the window, the community is free to work COOPERATIVELY, thereby harnessing everybody's "human resources", and producing a FAR superior product. the "competition-as-the-source-of-inspiration" mantra is so much hokum. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:15:02 PDT From: "Proctology Now" Subject: Re: polite tics (we want your body!) can't say that i think single-issue voting determinations are any more wise when you're on the right side of the issue. it is clinton/gore that have overseen the demolition of iraq. it is clinton/gore that have overseen the explosion in prison population. it is clinton/gore that have overseen "managed care". it is clinton/gore that have overseen welfare "reform". it is clinton/gore that have overseen the massive erosion of civil liberties. it is clinton/gore that have overseen passage of nafta and wto (and almost mai). it is clinton/gore that have overseen the terrifying escalation (including a billion brand new taxdollars) in colombia. it is clinton/gore that have overseen the further commodification of food. it is clinton/gore that have overseen continued ecological destruction (according to david brower, the first *four* years of the clinton administration were more damaging to the environment than reagan and bush combined -- and it's tough to disagree with him). moreover, this doesn't make much sense. if it is indeed the only issue worth caring about; given your acknowledgement that the right to choose has been all-but-eliminated under eight years of clinton/gore, shouldn't you be voting for BUSH? . ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:28:42 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: Speaking of analogies... http://www.gnutella.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: dawn of the replicators On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > So I'm following the discussion of copyright laws etc. with some > interest. And as the distinction between ideas and property comes up, > I try to imagine what would happen if the objects we normally regard > as "property" were as easily reproducible as ideas. A very good exercise. > So someone has designed a terrific socket wrench for Sears to sell. > My friend buys one, and she loves it so much that she says, "here, > you've gotta use this wrench!" I pass it under my little home 3D > scanner, tell my computer to make one copy, and in just a minute or > two, voila! An exact copy of the wrench is constructed from molecules > and waits in the output tray of my replicator, ready for use. This is a perfect analogy. I mean, the technology you've chosen translates very well. > Well, a few more people buy the wrench, but mostly we're just passing > the 3D scan around on the net so people can copy it. The product is > discontinued and socket wrenches are deemed unprofitable. Well, everyone who has a 3D replicator can make one at any time... if we assume deep "market penetration" of 3D replicators, then we're on the same page. If it's just hobbyists with replicators, industry wouldn't be too effected. > Who would engineer tools -- or anything else -- in a scenario like > this? Tools are engineered by people who use them. This may sound like a contrived example because it fits the situation so perfectly, but it's entirely true. My father was a journeyman electrician. A very blue collar worker with almost no formal education (he stopped going to school in fourth grade because his father died and the household needed an income). My father learned to read after I did. However, he's not stupid. He has some old, unintellectual ideas, but he can be clever when it comes to the things he knows and loves. In addition to electrical work, my father had been a welder, a carpenter, a mason (of the concrete pouring/brick-laying type), and an auto mechanic. When my father approached a new task, he would go out to his garage (actually an enormous pole barn used entirely as a workshop) and look grab the appropriate tool from one of his many large tool boxes and start to work. My father had literally hundreds of screwdrivers, probably thousands of sockets and more wrenches than I'd ever bothered to count. They were suited to different tasks. But every once in a while, he'd have an idea... either he'd be working on a project for which one of his pre-existing tools wasn't good enough or he'd have an inspiration independent of a specific project and he would go out to the garage. He built tools. He would build a bizarre paintbrush with a flat trowel attached on the side with a spring (which worked amazingly well for edge work) or a wrench with a one inch drop between the handle and the head (to get into a tight place where a regular wrench wouldn't, over the top of something a socket didn't like). His tools were useful for his tasks... and sometimes he'd make one for a friend or give the one he made away after it had served its usefulness. Of course he talked all the time about patents and getting rich, but he never did it. I remember about fifteen years ago he invented a little clip that fit over the finger hole on a rifle and clasped the other side and had a quick-release that was quite tricky to get off. He said it would significantly lower the problem of children accidentally firing guns around the home, but still make them readily available to folks that insisted on home protection. He talked for months about getting a patent and making "his million". He never did and when a similar product hit the market five or so years later, he bought one to show all his friends that had seen his model. He isn't bitter. Tools arise from necessity, not from market research. Imagine now that my father could build his tool, then feed it into his 3D scanner and produced a perfect copy, probably better than the original because the seams are clean and it's a solid piece rather than something perhaps shoddily welded together. Now, imagine further that he could post his 3D scan to newsgroup for people who worked on the same sort of projects as the tool was specifically designed. Surely others would share its usefulness or adapt it for their own purposes (hopefully there would be software that could manipulate these 3D scans digitally before they were ever fabricated into objects and that could become a whole design workshop in itself). > I admit to a similar confusion about free software, though I plan to > take advantage of same soon. This is almost EXACTLY how it works in the free software community. Someone has an idea (or sees the way another thing is done by someone else) and writes a piece of software. They release it to the world under an open license (a copyleft that uses copyright law against itself, requiring that all distributors of said information must distribute the original source and the license to freely distribute) and people who find it useful start to use it. Other programmers that use the tool may see ways of improving the software and the license not only allows this, but encourages it. They make some changes, note them in a Changes file along with the source code and add their name to the contributors list (of course all that works on the honor system) and maybe put the whole shebang up on their ftp site (of course under the original license, because the original license requires that of derivative works). Because the source code is always available, it's easy to find bugs and fix them. It's also easy to tell whether the program does what you want it to do and isn't just a trojan. (By the way, there's no such thing as a Linux virus. First, people who design open applications are either strongly security conscious and don't build stupid things like auto-run scripts into their software [Microsoft Outlook has no security to speak of and is the entire reason for the so-called "ILOVEYOU virus"] or some future security-conscious user sees the security holes and fixes it and releases the changes to the world. Second, because when the standard is to distribute source code as well as executable object code, nobody's dumb enough to put in attacks or other trojan horse features. Any attempt would be immediately spotted by the first person to open the source code and read it.) > The argument regarding music is usually that people would make it > anyway, and that they don't profit from it now. But would people > engineer and test power tools or cars or whatever if those things were > as replicable for "free" as music is now? Absolutely. A tool is for doing something else and as long as there is a need to do that other thing, there will be people who see through the problem and design that better way. If anything, the profit motive and patent law encourage companies to defend the old way and reject new ways to protect their existing profit stream. Just look at the RIAA and MPAA. > I'm pretty fuzzy on this stuff, so please understand that I present > this not as argument but as a request for further explanation. Read the GPL, Drew. That's a good first step. It contains a preamble that's quite illuminating. Second, think about problems you've solved and shared with others. Then think about why you solved them. Was it always for a profit motive? I don't think that's what you'll find. Sometimes problems just need solving and sharing those solutions is human nature; either to brag or to help others in the same boat. Now, I'm not a leftist. I think sharing is a natural part of the way people interact. I think protectionist, proprietary thinking is counterproductive for the individual as well as the collective. I think profit is a perfectly reasonable thing to try to make (I don't think anyone should EXPECT it, however. It is the nature of business to fail.) and outside of proprietary and protectionist practices, I think it's most often reasonable and well-earned. ( Most of the service industry is a good example. I'll happily shell out to a person who does what are, to me, unsavory tasks... just as my doing what others consider unsavory tasks is rewarded by my own pay.) But sharing information is the natural way the world works and if, in the sharing of information, other profit making institutions must be dismantled, so be it. Jeme. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:08:38 +0200 From: "Noe Shalev" Subject: Re: dawn of the replicators >I admit to a similar confusion about free software, though I plan to take >advantage of same soon. > >The argument regarding music is usually that people would make it anyway, >and that they don't profit from it now. well here's again, to explain this I might bore you with some details about my thesis. it's in the field of jurisprudence or legal philosophy if you wish. I took the GNU community as a testcase for a non closed community who succeded without or should I say against the common *rules* and *truths* belived to be basics. The GNU community here fefer to the freesoftware community. free software (as oposed to free ware) is not about money but about the freedom. free software could be sold but the first sale theory implies (almost totaly but the details r not important) for the intelctual material itself. which means it can be changed mutilated, copied and disrobuted. the idea was based on the simple need of hackers to adjust computer programs to their needs, and adjusting an existing program in easier than starting it from none. yet all comercial software is not Open source and therefore not adjustable. reading througfh 100's of documents written by this communities members (hackers-programers) I found a very marksist-socialist point of view, surprisingly, the arguments to suport their views were all charicterized in a capitalist - liberal language. the amazing thing is that it works. co-operation between the members of a community arises better, more efficient resukts ti the whole group, better than a free open competition would. I try to imply this expirience to the wole cybersapce region and to most forms of digital data. One thing is very obvious - money making can be gained not only by selling the product itself as we know it. as I stated here b4 in Israel most artists don't make money on their records, and it's there only to promote gigs, it's a good example bcz in the US the situation is just the opposite. another things is music videos. I think most videos are much more expensive to produce than the music audio track their accompaning, yet this venture is not for sale. record companies don't get money from giving them to MTV or other networks. (although artist get their royalties for broadcasting). This is on the product level, another diversion can be made on the who's paying level. the best example as I stated was comercial TV in which the end consumer is not the payer. There's is still one problem on implying the GNU expirience to other non software digital media. The GNU community consists on the same amount of consumers and producers (not exactly but close to that) all members or most of them are hackers who right software and share it with each other. it is true that alot of others usinf free software as well, but basicaly the need for an open source adjustable software arises usualy with those who can use it and actualy improve and changed this software. In music the situation is not the same. most produced music is not music for musician, will the balance work? There are two recent studies I found attacking the non software data from two diferent aspects. the first is the one claims that people produce better results when not doing so for a reward (this is a magor actor in the GNU scene) The other which I quote here b4 saying that Napster music buy more music than they used to prior to the launce of Napster.The later one is less helpfull since as technology goes on the music on hardware could be history quite soon, when we all get opur bandwidth wide enough to transfer cd quality in no time and to share it not only with each oter but with all of our equipment (from the net to our cellular to our PC conected to our hi fi and again to our car sterio Any thoughts anyone? sugestions? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:30:38 +0200 From: "Noe Shalev" Subject: Re: Speaking of analogies... well I guess this guy won't stick in the fag lighting buissness somthing I realy don't want to c happening to my favorite musicians. >http://www.gnutella.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:39:51 -0700 From: Eb Subject: my dissertation on the ethics of Napster Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:03:32 -0400 To: "Rhino Handmade" From: mr.hand@rhino.com Subject: Rhino Handmade Early Warning 17 Greetings Earthling! This Monday, 31 July 2000, at Noon Pacific Daylight Savings Time [1900 UTC], The Archivists at The Rhino Handmade Institute Of Petromusicology will begin taking orders for TINY TIM's PREVIOUSLY UNRELEASED 'Live! At The Royal Albert Hall' 1968 performance. Herbert Khaury, better known to us all as TINY TIM, was -by any measure- delightfully odd. He usually sang in falsetto, he played a mean ukelele, had an encyclopedic knowledge of music and he just had no trouble at all singing duets all by himself. He was introduced to most of us with his appearances on 'Laugh-In', made internationally famous/notorious for marrying Miss Vicki on late night television and all the while recorded three quirkily scrumptious albums for Reprise Records. After the success of his first Reprise album, 'God Bless Tiny Tim', and after the recording (but before the release) of his second Reprise album, 'Tiny Tim's 2nd Album', Mr Khaury went to England to headline an evening of musical performances on Wednesday 30 October 1968, held for the benefit of a local charity, at the legendary Royal Albert Hall in London. The opening acts for the night were THE BONZO DOG DOO DAH BAND, JOE COCKER and PETER STARSTEDT. And for this grand occasion TINY TIM would be performing backed by the thundering might of the 44-piece National Concert Orchestra conducted by Mr Tim's producer, Richard Perry. No matter what you may have thought of his singing voice, or -to be accurate- his singing voices plural, TINY TIM knew the length and breadth of American Music inside and out. He cherished most of it. And he always found some way to include what he believed to be the best of it in his performances. And, boy howdy, did he know the works of both Diverse and Obscure Songwriters. From Bob Dylan to Noel Coward. From George M Cohan to Lennon/McCartney. From Al Jolson to Sonny Bono. And to a Dozen Composers You Would Never Otherwise Know The Name Of. Their compositions are all represented here. On this splendid night at Royal Albert Hall Mr Tim was given the perfect setting to demonstrate his vast musical knowledge and his unique musical gifts. TINY TIM performance at The Royal Albert Hall was recorded live to a 4-track master in 1968. The Archivists have used this original 4-track master to create this release. As it was being recorded live, and therefore was unpredictable to a degree, you will hear a few recording mistakes here and there and you will also notice that it takes a few songs before the Recording Engineer gets Mr Tim's vocal mike volume perfectly set. But knob-twiddling anomalies aside, TINY TIM 'Live! At The Royal Albert Hall' captures Mr Tim at the height of his fame singing songs dear to his heart -many never before released on any TINY TIM album- to the phenomenal accompaniment of full-sized orchestra. And you will hear it from first overture to final applause. In order to properly present this rarified evening of The History Of Pop Music as seen through the eyes, ears, nose and throat of Mr Tim, the Archivists have also delightfully included a reproduction of the original 28-page concert programme -reduced in size to fit within the heavenly TINY TIM 'Live! At The Royal Albert Hall' packaging, of course- which was given to the audience members that glorious October night. TINY TIM 'Live! At The Royal Albert Hall' is available in an individually-numbered limited edition of 3,500 (three thousand five hundred) copies. It is not distributed to any store on the planet. It is distributed directly from us to you. It is available only from The Archivists at the Rhino Handmade Website at: http://www.rhinohandmade.com The complete track listing for TINY TIM 'Live! At The Royal Albert Hall' is at the bottom of this e-mail. And sound samples for every track will be available on the Rhino Handmade Website this coming Monday at Noon Pacific. Always Stereophonically Yours, R W Hand Curator Rhino Handmade Institute Of Petromusicology - ---------- TINY TIM 'Live! At The Royal Albert Hall' Catalogue Number: RHM2 7710 [Approximately 73:00 Total Time] 1. God Bless Tiny Tim Overture 4:21 2. Welcome To My Dream 1:52 3. Livin' In The Sunlight, Lovin' In The Moonlight 2:36 4. On The Old Front Porch 3:13 5. I Gave Her That 2:34 6. Buddy, Can You Spare A Dime? 3:28 7. Save Your Sorrows For Tomorrow 2:25 8. Love Is No Excuse 3:11 9. As Time Goes By 3:24 10. A Little Smile Will Go A Long, Long Way 1:51 11. I Got You, Babe 2:47 12. Then I'd Be Satisfied With Life 3:07 13. Where Does Daddy Go When He Goes Out? 2:35 Includes Hello Hello 14. You Called It Madness (But I Call It Love) 3:17 15. The Other Side 4:55 16. I Love Me (I'm Wild About Myself) 1:24 17. I Wonder How I Look While I'm Asleep 1:08 18. Frisco Flo 2:24 19. Medley: I'm Glad I'm A Boy/My Hero 3:44 20. I Hold Your Hand In Mine 0:43 21. Earth Angel 2:06 22. Mr Tim Recalls His Visit With Mr Dylan 3:47 Includes Maine Stein Song, I'm Just A Vagabond Lover, Like A Rolling Stone, My Time Is Your Time 23. Mr Tim Recalls His Visit With The Rolling Stones 2:08 Includes (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction 24. Nowhere Man 2:17 25. Tip Toe Through The Tulips With Me 3:22 26. I'll See You Again 4:18 ALL TRACKS PREVIOUSLY UNRELEASED ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:30:08 -0400 From: "Mike Hooker" Subject: nick drake tribute hi, well, thanks to MARKEEFE@aol.com and the asking tree, i found out about this: Robyn Hitchcock >Concert appearance: Sat., 25 Sep. 1999 >The Barbican >London, England UK >Nick Drake Tribute Concert >Set list: >Pink Moon (Nick Drake) >River Man (Nick Drake) > now, does anyone have this show and want to trade. i'd really like to hear the whole gig, as i really like nick drake. i have the 11/97 drake tribute in NYC to trade( or tons of other stuff) if anyone can help. i already leached robyn doing pink moon from napster, but i dont think its the same version. the one i have has robyn going nuts on electric guitar, sounds like its an outdoor gig. have fun, Mike Hooker ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:55:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Speaking of analogies... On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Noe Shalev wrote: > well I guess this guy won't stick in the fag lighting buissness > somthing I realy don't want to c happening to my favorite musicians. Well, luckily there are dozens of other people that are willing to light fags. Only the fellow who wanted to own the fire quite the business. Everyone else kept right on producing. Only the musicians who are only in it for the money they get from recording will lose their inspiration. Now who would that be? Nobody I care to hear, anyway. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:50:56 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Speaking of analogies... > Only the musicians who are only in it for the money they get from > recording will lose their inspiration. Now who would that be? Nobody I > care to hear, anyway. I imagine it's a rare musician whose sole drive is to make money. Of course they exist, and I agree that they won't be missed, at least not by me. But I understand Noe's concern that talented, worthwhile artists might think twice about committing themselves to an enterprise that doesn't even earn them a living, let alone the riches that the dunderheads in Metallica seem to consider their due. But that's always been the problem with artists, hasn't it? The renaissance painter or sculptor who couldn't secure a commission from the Court was shit out of luck, and at best was able to squeeze out a few works between shifts at Wendy's. I have a few painter friends, any one of whom may be doing something important and groundbreaking, but they pay their bills doing stupid jobs like everyone else. As a musician who grew up wanting to emulate the Beatles, I've always envied painters because they were able to realize their work in full, even within a limited budget. Canvas and paint cost something, sure, but it's nothing compared the cost of studio time. My "canvas" has always been the recording studio, where the great works of my heroes were created. I know there are a lot of fegs who view The Studio as a corruption and I respect that opinion, but I don't share it. The recording studio is the palette from which many of the most beautiful influences in my life arose. But in the last few years the disparity between a painter's access to the tools of her trade, and that of a musician has all but disappeared. And this is where you should take heart, Noe. Jeme is right; I don't need the Music Industry's "help" anymore to paint my masterpiece (and we already know that distribution is no longer an issue). With some reasonable expense on a modest salary, and some patience and research, I've turned my PC into an extremely capable recording studio. The only technical limitations I face now are my own, as an engineer/producer. In other words, if I'm good enough (and I'm not, yet) I can make recordings that rival the garbage on the radio. More importantly, the same thing is happening in garages and bedrooms right around the world. I suspect that this state of affairs puts as much or more fear in the hearts of the recording industry than the unbridled distribution of Napster and the like. I guess it's likely that the collapse of the "recording industry" will result in fewer musicians without day jobs. The best of them, I imagine, might secure more free time to make music through subscriptions, sponsorships, grants, whatever. I know I won't stop making music just because my chances of becoming rich (or making a living) as a musician have been reduced from none to less than none. And there are much more talented people than me who feel the same way. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #212 *******************************