From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #422 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Sunday, December 8 2002 Volume 02 : Number 422 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] another music industry story [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] another music industry story [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey <] Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link [Gil Ray ] Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link [LeftyZ@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] another music industry story [Dave Walker Subject: [loud-fans] another music industry story This is so just so bizarre, I had to pass it on. It's Bill Nelson's story of how he's been screwed out of any royalties for the Be Bop Deluxe albums by EMI over the years: http://www.billnelson.com/diary.htm I especially like the part about how they've apparently been paying royalties all these years for all albums to the members of the band (except for Bill) who only appeared on the first album. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 08:24:55 -0800 From: John Cooper Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link > From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey > > My favorite - which I simply cannot come up with any even remotely plausible > reason for - is on a building about half a mile from here. It reads: > > Dog' Grooming Maybe the sign writer was confused by the fact that although the groomer grooms an indefinite number of dogs, the title "dog groomer" uses "dog" in the singular, and he or she added the apostrophe to denote the implied plural! Sometimes seemingly dumb mistakes arise from pretty intelligent logic. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:29:00 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] another music industry story Quoting Roger Winston : > This is so just so bizarre, I had to pass it on. It's Bill Nelson's story > of how he's been screwed out of any royalties for the Be Bop Deluxe albums > by EMI over the years: > > http://www.billnelson.com/diary.htm > > I especially like the part about how they've apparently been paying > royalties all these years for all albums to the members of the band (except > for Bill) who only appeared on the first album. Without excusing at all the hugely unethical actions of EMI, I found myself asking...why, over all these years, didn't Nelson demand a clear enumeration of expenses versus income? The very first time EMI said, "oh, costs haven't been recouped," his response should have been, "show me." One lesson here is, of course, that musicians cannot afford (literally) to keep their business affairs at arm's length. It also would seem that *if* a label contracts to pay a business entity ("Be-Bop Deluxe, Ltd."), how the money flowing to that entity flows through to its members needs to be very carefully spelled out. One of the sad truths is that the music industry runs itself as a business...but musicians too often, it seems, approach it as if it's a benevolent society dedicated to the propagation of artistic works. I'm just surprised it took Nelson so long to figure that out. I'm reminded of an interview with Frank Zappa I once heard rebroadcast. EMI (yes, them again) had been giving Zappa static over his parody of the _Sgt. Pepper_ cover for _We're Only in it for the Money_. At one point, Zappa (who apparently assumed the Beatles themselves were behind it) contacted Paul McCartney, asking him why the band was so vehement about that image - couldn't they take a joke? McCartney, according to Zappa, didn't have a problem with the parody, but was quite offended that Zappa would ask him, a fellow musician, about business and legal issues. That's what lawyers are for, man - we're musicians, it's uncool to sully ourselves with the business end. Uh-huh...which only allows the business end to be inserted slowly and deeply, then rotated. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: "Shut up, you truculent lout, and let the cute little pixie sing!" :: ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:34:33 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link Quoting John Cooper : > > From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey > > > > Dog' Grooming > > Maybe the sign writer was confused by the fact that although the groomer > grooms an indefinite number of dogs, the title "dog groomer" uses "dog" in > the singular, and he or she added the apostrophe to denote the implied > plural! > > Sometimes seemingly dumb mistakes arise from pretty intelligent logic. Because, as we all know, apostrophes are used to designate the plural? "Now" I get it'! I think the store probably thought something like "we groom dogs' fur," and somehow the concept of the apostrophe transferred to the sign. I find the whole apostrophe problem puzzling, since the apostrophe is used in basically two situations, neither of which seem all that troubling or ambiguous (possessives, contractions). The crux of the confusion, I'd argue, is the "its/it's" issue, which confuses, since the possessive does *not* have the apostrophe in that case. All the other problems flow from there, I think. There's also an odd notion that plural -s shouldn't follow a vowel - so you get things like "stereo's," for instance. No idea *where* that comes from. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 13:47:04 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] another music industry story On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 12:29 PM, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Without excusing at all the hugely unethical actions of EMI, I found > myself > asking...why, over all these years, didn't Nelson demand a clear > enumeration of > expenses versus income? The very first time EMI said, "oh, costs > haven't been > recouped," his response should have been, "show me." Sorry I can't produce a link, but I read not long ago that one reason royalty audits are such a PITA for artists is that they all have to be funneled through a single, industry-approved auditor, who has a 3-year backlog, and that that the auditing fees are billed against the artists royalties. "See, we don't owe the Swinging Beelzebubs a thing, isn't that right, Ed?" "Sure thing, Frank, here are the numbers you asked f... I mean, here are the totally independent results of our audit. When's our tee time again?" -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:48:26 -0800 From: Tim Walters Subject: Re: [loud-fans] another music industry story >Without excusing at all the hugely unethical actions of EMI, I found myself >asking...why, over all these years, didn't Nelson demand a clear >enumeration of > expenses versus income? In addition the contractually-obligated auditor problem Dave mentioned, there's also the real risk that any low-clout artist who demands an audit will never again make an album for that label, and sometimes can even get blacklisted at other labels. I'm not sure if this applies to Nelson any more--does he have his own label now? Nelson's diary reveals a certain amount of naivete on his part. But consider his options: (1) working within the system and hoping for the best; or (2) initiating an audit/lawsuit against a huge corporation, which is certain to be expensive and an immense pain in the ass, and not at all certain of victory. I find it easy to imagine myself rationalizing choice (1). P.S.: new song, very poppy, you like: http://www.doubtfulpalace.com/artists/Mercaptan/graduationday.mp3 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 15:20:03 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link Quoting Carolyn Dorsey : > This one "about" misused quotation marks. > http://www.juvalamu.com/qmarks/ A business near my home has a sign that advertises their service. It reads: TRUCK LETTRING I swear I'm not making this up. JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 13:22:56 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link Not really related to misused quotation marks, but back in the 80's, a friend of mine had his band pose for a photo in front of a barbeque joint whose sign read: You Don't Need No Teef To Eat Our Beef Gil --- John Sharples wrote: > Quoting Carolyn Dorsey : > > > This one "about" misused quotation marks. > > http://www.juvalamu.com/qmarks/ > > > A business near my home has a sign that advertises > their service. It reads: > > > TRUCK LETTRING > > > I swear I'm not making this up. > > > JS > > > ------------------------------- > This mail sent through > Brooklyn Law School WebMail > http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail > ------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 16:26:56 EST From: LeftyZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link In a message dated 12/7/02 12:26:38 PM, jsharple@brooklaw.edu writes: << TRUCK LETTRING I swear I'm not making this up. >> Italian place down the street closed up about a year ago. A chinese place was going in. During construction, there was a huge banner..... "COMING SOON LUCKY LOTUS CHINESE BRISTO" a couple weeks ago, on my way to San Francisco, right next to San Luis Reservoir, a huge PERMANENT sign.... "San Lius RV Park" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:18:00 -0500 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link And I have photos of a barbershop in my old neighborhood in Albuquerque whose sign read "Haircuts While U Wait." My friend Laura's bookstore used to be next door to this barbershop. She says the guy had no idea how funny his sign was. S At 01:22 PM 12/7/2002 -0800, Gil Ray wrote: >Not really related to misused quotation marks, but >back in the 80's, a friend of mine had his band pose >for a photo in front of a barbeque joint whose sign >read: You Don't Need No Teef > To Eat Our Beef >Gil > --- John Sharples wrote: >> Quoting Carolyn Dorsey : >> >> > This one "about" misused quotation marks. >> > http://www.juvalamu.com/qmarks/ >> >> >> A business near my home has a sign that advertises >> their service. It reads: >> >> >> TRUCK LETTRING >> >> >> I swear I'm not making this up. >> >> >> JS >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> This mail sent through >> Brooklyn Law School WebMail >> http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail >> ------------------------------- >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. >http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:23:44 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link Quoting Stewart Mason : > And I have photos of a barbershop in my old neighborhood in Albuquerque > whose sign read "Haircuts While U Wait." Was this perhaps across the street from the infamous ID spotting: "Tattoos While U Wait"? ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: I suspect that the first dictator of this country will be called "Coach" :: --William Gass ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:34:35 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] another music industry story Quoting Tim Walters : > >Without excusing at all the hugely unethical actions of EMI, I found myself > >asking...why, over all these years, didn't Nelson demand a clear > >enumeration of > > expenses versus income? > > In addition the contractually-obligated auditor problem Dave > mentioned, there's also the real risk that any low-clout artist who > demands an audit will never again make an album for that label, and > sometimes can even get blacklisted at other labels. I'm not sure if > this applies to Nelson any more--does he have his own label now? Cocteau Records, I think - if it's still in operation. I think Roger would know - aren't you a big Bill Nelson fan, Rog? You raise some good points about the power imbalance. But I have a hard time believing there can be only one auditor - and that that auditor is industry-approved. That completely flies in the face of, uh, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. I wonder what would happen if a large coalition of powerful artists - the kind who make or break labels (I think I read that Alanis Morissette accounted for about 20% of Maverick's income) - put forth a lawsuit. I guess it was the post I deleted with the McCartney/Ono link - but I agree with Ono's last line...that doing this might well create the impression that only *these* songs were written by Macca (at least among newer, naive fans). Seems kinda dumb - everyone who cares knows who wrote which Beatles songs anyway. And of course neither McCartney nor Ono is exactly starving. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: "am I being self-referential?" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:44:07 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] another music industry story At Saturday 12/7/2002 05:34 PM -0600, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Cocteau Records, I think - if it's still in operation. I think Roger would >know - >aren't you a big Bill Nelson fan, Rog? I think Cocteau went the way of Enigma, who was distributing them... Steve S. is the bigger Bill Nelson fan though, and could probably tell you more. What you read was only a small part of the Bill Nelson saga - there's the larger issue of the problems with his management. There's no doubt there was naivete on Bill's part over the years (especially in his younger years), but you can be damn sure he's learned his lesson by now. Unfortunately, it's really affected his music making. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:09:06 -0500 From: Janet Ingraham Dwyer Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link At 05:23 PM 12/07/2002 -0600, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Quoting Stewart Mason : > >> And I have photos of a barbershop in my old neighborhood in Albuquerque >> whose sign read "Haircuts While U Wait." > >Was this perhaps across the street from the infamous ID spotting: "Tattoos While >U Wait"? Unfortunately, not unless Stewart lived in Albuquerque, TN, an unincorporated hamlet near Sevierville. Here's the sign under consideration: http://www.insouciant.com/photo/tatuwait.jpg and a few more funny signs from the same roadtrip: http://www.insouciant.com/photo/arby.jpg (we enjoyed its pleading tone) http://www.insouciant.com/photo/generic.jpg http://www.insouciant.com/photo/icekrem.jpg janet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 01:18:33 -0000 From: "Phil Gerrard" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link Gil wrote: > Not really related to misused quotation marks, but > back in the 80's, a friend of mine had his band pose > for a photo in front of a barbeque joint whose sign > read: You Don't Need No Teef > To Eat Our Beef Uhm, anybody else getting that SNL 'Pre-Chewed Charlie's' jingle running through their heads right now? More paranoid than ever about the apostrophe usage in that last sentence - peace & love phil PS apologies to many for my tardiness response-wise - end of term, production week, job worries etc. Hope y'all are OK... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:09:32 -0800 From: John Cooper Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link Okay, I expressed myself pretty badly. The THIRD common use of apostrophes is to denote the removal of letters in words other than possessives and contractions: Pushin' up the daisies Toys 'R' Us Li'l Psychopaths So what I meant to say is that the sign writer was unconsciously using an apostrophe to stand in for the missing and unpronounced "s" which would have meant that the groomer is willing to continue after grooming the first dog. This would also explain the apostrophe in "stereo's." I wasn't clear 'cause I was postin' before I had my coffee's. 'Kay? "Jo'n" > From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey > Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:34:33 -0600 > To: Omnes Cogitate Nimium > Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link > > Quoting John Cooper : > >>> From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey >>> >>> Dog' Grooming >> >> Maybe the sign writer was confused by the fact that although the groomer >> grooms an indefinite number of dogs, the title "dog groomer" uses "dog" in >> the singular, and he or she added the apostrophe to denote the implied >> plural! >> >> Sometimes seemingly dumb mistakes arise from pretty intelligent logic. > > Because, as we all know, apostrophes are used to designate the plural? > > "Now" I get it'! > > I think the store probably thought something like "we groom dogs' fur," and > somehow the concept of the apostrophe transferred to the sign. I find the > whole apostrophe problem puzzling, since the apostrophe is used in basically > two situations, neither of which seem all that troubling or ambiguous > (possessives, contractions). The crux of the confusion, I'd argue, is the > "its/it's" issue, which confuses, since the possessive does *not* have the > apostrophe in that case. All the other problems flow from there, I think. > > There's also an odd notion that plural -s shouldn't follow a vowel - so you > get things like "stereo's," for instance. No idea *where* that comes from. > > ..Jeff > > J e f f r e y N o r m a n > The Architectural Dance Society > www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html > :: Solipsism is its own reward :: > :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 20:52:47 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] another music industry story On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 06:34 PM, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > You raise some good points about the power imbalance. But I have a > hard time > believing there can be only one auditor - and that that auditor is > industry-approved. That completely flies in the face of, uh, Generally > Accepted > Accounting Principles. I managed to find an article which goes into some depth about industry auditing: http://news.dmusic.com/print/5767 It's a pretty long article so just keep searching on audit inside the article to get to the juicy stuff. As I understand it, it's part of the boilerplate in standard industry contracts for new artists. As others have said, a lot of the most egregious industry abuses come from the initial contracts new bands sign, when they are at their weakest from a bargaining point of view and least likely to be able to win concessions on contract points. As Steve Albini so memorably wrote (apologies for the imagery and language, but it fits): > Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, > I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a > trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards > long, > filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them > good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this > trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end, > holding > a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. > > Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and > besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey > shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign > the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously > to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin > wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under > the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one > contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says, > "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim it > again, please. Backstroke." -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:53:25 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yet another link(Scott content, for better or for worse..) One more and this actually has Scott content. Next to our home is a mall with many types of Asian eateries. Most of them cater to hardcore Asian eaters. On a Vietnamese menu, was the tasty offering of: "Cock Testicle". I told Scott about this and his reply was: "Is that a choice?" Rimshot Pow! Gil - --- LeftyZ@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/7/02 12:26:38 PM, > jsharple@brooklaw.edu writes: > > << TRUCK LETTRING > > > I swear I'm not making this up. >> > > Italian place down the street closed up about a year > ago. A chinese place > was going in. During construction, there was a huge > banner..... > > "COMING SOON > LUCKY LOTUS CHINESE BRISTO" > > a couple weeks ago, on my way to San Francisco, > right next to San Luis > Reservoir, a huge PERMANENT sign.... > > "San Lius RV Park" Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 01:15:43 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] another music industry story (Bill Nelson) On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 05:44 PM, Roger Winston wrote: > I think Cocteau went the way of Enigma, who was distributing them.. Yes, Cocteau is ancient history. > Steve S. is the bigger Bill Nelson fan though, and could probably tell > you more. Bill comes up with a new label just about every time he releases an album. The fairly recent Noise Candy is on ToneSwoon Records. He has two new labels in the works via Voiceprint: Astral Supertone for "an occasional assault on the mainstream world" and Fabled Quixote for "a regular outlet for oddball material." There's nothing from Astral Supertone yet, but the first two releases on Fabled Quixote are reissues of an album of incidental music called Chameleon and his Orchestra Arcana material collected as The Hermetic Jukebox. > What you read was only a small part of the Bill Nelson saga - there's > the larger issue of the problems with his management. There's no > doubt there was naivete on Bill's part over the years (especially in > his younger years), but you can be damn sure he's learned his lesson > by now. Unfortunately, it's really affected his music making. I wouldn't say it's affected his music making, but I would say that it has prevented him from making albums with other musicians in professional studios. - - Steve __________ George W.'s war on Iraq will be the reductio ad absurdum of America's long, slow abandonment of any pretense that the people have any say in the question of whether their government will send some of them far away to kill and die. - Michael Kinsley ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #422 *******************************