From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #172 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, June 12 2004 Volume 13 : Number 172 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Payola - The Legal Way! ["Fortissimo" ] Reapdundancy ["The Mammal Brain" ] Re: Reapdundency [James Dignan ] how much longer? [Jill Brand ] Re: how much longer? [Eb ] Movie time [steve ] Re: Movie time ["Fortissimo" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:06:11 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Payola - The Legal Way! On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:27:25 -0700, "Tom Clark" said: > As long as you call it a "commercial", it's legal for the record > company to pay you for playing it! > > http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2621567 This was the most pathetic part: > Playing songs as advertising makes "the chart unreliable," said Garett Michaels, program director of San Diego > rock station KBZT-FM. "Basically, the radio station isn't playing a song because they believe in it. They're > playing it because they're being paid." "Because they believe in it"?!? C'mon - does anyone really believe a commercial radio station plays a song because it "believes" in the song? Only if belief is defined as "will not cause our listeners to turn to another station, thus preventing them from hearing the ads that pay our salaries and keep us on the air." I hope Mr. Michaels got a nice little bonus from the PR department for that bullshit remark. I'd probably get upset on principle over this new wrinkle in the old payola game - except I doubt it makes any difference. The same shit put out by the same big record companies would get played with or without these promotional tactics - and I'd be every bit as uninterested in it as I am now. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:51:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "The Mammal Brain" Subject: Reapdundancy Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 20:57:23 -0800 From: Eb Subject: re: re: re: re: re: re: re:.... >Folks I'm so sad to to say Joe Strummer has passed on today. Has there EVER been a celebrity who received more redundant "reaps" on this list? ;) BTW, check out http://www.strummernews.com for an *incredible* volume of heartfelt tributes. It could take *hours* to read them all. . ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:57:54 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: Reapdundency >Someone should figure out the record for the number of redundant REAP posts >to come in before everyone realizes they can't be first. Ray Charles might >just be it. Expect James' to come in sometime Friday afternoon ;-) feh. I actually heard the news before the first of those messages was sent, but thought "naw, someone else is bound to get there first". >James says: > > > >You mean these? http://www.geocities.com/bodacious_bass_babes/ well, actually, it was whoever I was replying to who said that. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:08:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: how much longer? I'm really sad about Ray Charles. Can someone tell me, like, when Reagan will really be dead? When will I stop having to hear the Reagan fairy tales told over and over again with nary a word about Iran Contra or David Stockwell or the demise of the social fabric of this country? And how much hay will GWB try to make of this at his convention? Jill, who senses Ferris in the wings ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:38:51 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: how much longer? > And how much hay will GWB try to make of > this at his convention? > A shamelessly tearjerking convention speech by the Widder Reagan seems almost inevitable, doesn't it? I think Ronnie finally may be underground now, but there's a good chance that his coffin will be dug up in another year for an anniversary tour. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:43:39 -0500 From: steve Subject: Movie time I've never bothered to watch any of Moore's films, but I think this will be my first. And proof that Ray Bradbury takes himself far too seriously - > Legendary SF author Ray Bradbury has ripped into filmmaker Michael > Moore for using the title Fahrenheit 9/11 for his new Bush-bashing > movie, an obvious takeoff on the 84-year-old's science-fiction classic > Fahrenheit 451, the WorldNetDaily.com Web site reported. Bradbury > reportedly told the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter, "Michael > Moore is a screwed asshole, that is what I think about that case," > according to an English translation of the story. "He stole my title > and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission." > > Bradbury added, "[Moore] is a horrible human being. Horrible human!" > When asked if he agreed with Moore's political positions, Bradbury > replied, "That has nothing to do with it. He copied my title; that is > what happened. That has nothing to do with my political opinions." > According to the Swedish daily, Bradbury said he had tried to discuss > the issue with Moore several months ago, but that the director avoided > him, the site reported. > > According to the report, Bradbury refused to say if he would take > legal action against Moore. , eh? Gojira and Fahrenheit 9/11 in the same month, what a deal. - - Steve __________ Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool. - Jacob Weisberg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:33:06 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Movie time On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:43:39 -0500, "steve" said: > And proof that Ray Bradbury takes himself far too seriously - > > > Legendary SF author Ray Bradbury has ripped into filmmaker Michael > > Moore for using the title Fahrenheit 9/11 for his new Bush-bashing > > movie, an obvious takeoff on the 84-year-old's science-fiction classic > > Fahrenheit 451, the WorldNetDaily.com Web site reported. Bradbury > > reportedly told the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter, "Michael > > Moore is a screwed asshole, that is what I think about that case," > > according to an English translation of the story. "He stole my title > > and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission." > > > > Bradbury added, "[Moore] is a horrible human being. Horrible human!" > > When asked if he agreed with Moore's political positions, Bradbury > > replied, "That has nothing to do with it. He copied my title; that is > > what happened. That has nothing to do with my political opinions." > > According to the Swedish daily, Bradbury said he had tried to discuss > > the issue with Moore several months ago, but that the director avoided > > him, the site reported. > > > > According to the report, Bradbury refused to say if he would take > > legal action against Moore. > > , eh? So Bradbury's unaware that titles aren't copyrightable, eh? Not to mention that - hey - the titles *aren't* the same! - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #172 ********************************