From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #34 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 Tuesday, February 4 2003 Volume 03 : Number 034 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Johnny Cash is hurt, and I wish I gave a darn ["Paul Seeman" ] Re: [loud-fans] wa-huh? (Psychedelic Furs) (tangential Scott content) [Da] Re: [loud-fans] wa-huh? (Psychedelic Furs) (tangential Scott content) [J] [loud-fans] the man from K-Ville ["Larry Tucker" ] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] wa-huh? (Psychedelic Furs) (tangential Scott content) [] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? ["G. Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? [Stewart Mason ] Re:Re: [loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] [dana-boy@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? [Miles Goosens ] RE: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? ["Larry Tucker" ] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? [John F Butland ] [loud-fans] [Fwd: Art censorship at the UN] [jenny grover ] Re:[loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeff] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] [Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] Johnny Cash is hurt, and I wish I gave a darn In what might well be old news to the rest of the list, I just saw the video for Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt". I love the guy's older stuff so much that I've organized Cash-centric hoots at my folks' house over the holidays, but seeing him cover a typically naove/whiny/gradiose NIN song just made me laugh queasily...until the Ratt-esque dinner table scene, which had me rolling my eyes while waiting for a CGI'd Milton Berle to show up. It seemed like an awfully mawkish (and outdated) choice for a guy who in his prime seemed to take a lot of pride in figuring out what exactly was expected of him, then veering chucklingly offcourse in search of bigger game. I haven't heard his latest few releases, so I'm willing to write this off as an anomaly, but I'd be glad to hear from anyone with a better-informed opinion. Is this just a misguided bid for listeners, or the final awkwardly navel-gazing testament of a guy who never was quite the badass he made himself out to be? Or is it some sort of beyond-Alex Chilton effort to thumb his nose at those of us who admired him up to this point? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:47:09 -0500 From: Dana Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] wa-huh? (Psychedelic Furs) (tangential Scott content) Fortunately, I haven't yet tossed out my old version of the CD...strange. You'd think they'd have made note of this - but there's no way to tell until you listen, and if you hadn't had the original US release, you wouldn't know at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember being annoyed by the Rhino reissue of "Black Snake Diamond Role" which uses different mixes of a couple of songs, because it meant that I had to keep two copies of the CD. Same deal with "The Velvet Underground." How irritating to lose a song almost entirely. I'm trying to think if I own any other must-keep-two-copies CDs. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:49:33 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] wa-huh? (Psychedelic Furs) (tangential Scott content) Quoting Dana Paoli : > Fortunately, I haven't yet tossed out my old version of the > CD...strange. > You'd think they'd have made note of this - but there's no way to tell > until > you listen, and if you hadn't had the original US release, you wouldn't > know > at all. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > I remember being annoyed by the Rhino reissue of "Black Snake Diamond > Role" which uses different mixes of a couple of songs, because it meant > that I had to keep two copies of the CD. Same deal with "The Velvet > Underground." How irritating to lose a song almost entirely. I'm > trying to think if I own any other must-keep-two-copies CDs. I think the Rhino edition of _Blood & Chocolate_ substituted a different version of one of the bonus tracks that was on the Ryko version. Of course, there are things like the "2000 flushes" version of _Combat Rock_... ..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: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:07:11 -0500 From: "Larry Tucker" Subject: [loud-fans] the man from K-Ville Here's a very nice and extensive article by David Menconi on NC's modern living legend, Mitch Easter. http://newsobserver.com/features/story/2161918p-2049703c.html - -LT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:26:44 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: [loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] (there are lots of relevant weblinks in the HTML version of this screed, available at the URL in my .sig) The RIAA represents large manufacturers, not musicians. This is self-evident, but the rhetoric coming from the organization itself often obscures this fact. Two new articles released this weekend, one short (Janis Ian) and one much longer (by NARAS board member John Snyder) serve as reminders that those musicians and record companies who can't afford to pay off Clear Channel for airplay have a different perspective on things than BMG and UMG . Speaking of radio, it is no surprise that Clear Channel supports Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2003, which would give them additional tax breaks for selling low grossing stations in small markets, and opposes Russ Feingold's (D-WI) much more far-reaching (and substantive) Competition in the Radio and Concert Industries Act , "which would address the levels of concentration, curb some of the anti-competitive practices, and end the alleged new payola system." - -- Dave Walker freeform goodness, internet radio http://www.freeke.org/ffg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:48:27 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re:[loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] "It's also been widely reported that the most down loaded album of all time was "The Eminem Show," by Eminem. It was downloaded so heavily that Interscope took the unusual step of releasing the album a week early due to the rampant online sharing of tracks from the album. Fast-forward to the end of 2002, and "The Eminem Show" is the best-selling album of the year. This seems to indicate the opposite of what the RIAA would have you believe. When people share MP3s, more music is sold, not less." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is from one of the articles mentioned in Dave's post, and seems typical of the faulty logic that pervades these kinds of justifications. The Eminem Show sold a ton of copies, and it was heavily downloaded. Where's the proof that A is a result of B? As usual, there isn't any. The Janis Ian article doesn't make much sense to me either, if I'm reading it correctly, as she conflates the mp3s that she offers, presumably legally, on her site with the copyright infringing ones that constitute the vast majority. Personal experience: since I signed up with eMusic, the amount of money that I spend in record stores has plummeted. I've bought a few more jazz albums, because eMusic gave me the ability to find out for free that I like Alice Coltrane, Pharaoh Sanders (thanks Stewart!) and Sun Ra. But as for rock, forget it. A second quote from the article: "Why would you pay for a song that you could get for free? For the same reason that you will buy a book that you could borrow from the public library or buy a DVD of a movie that you could watch on television or rent for the weekend. Convenience, ease-of-use, selection,ability to find what you want, and for enthusiasts, the sheer pleasure of owning something you treasure." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This again combines apples and oranges. When you borrow a book from a public library or rent a movie, you *lose possession of it at some point.* With mp3s, you don't. And I have no idea what the author means by "convenience, ease-of-use, selection, ability to find what you want" in the above, since these are all benefits of mp3s rather than CDs. There's a lot in the long article, so it would get boring to respond point by point, but I also note that he quotes the same flawed statistics that we pretty much debunked here earlier (the 11,000 fewer releases theory). It just continues to amaze me that no-one is willing to point out the obvious: it's extraordinarily convenient to be able to steal things with no personal repercussions, and no product can compete with an essentially identical free product. Instead we get conspiracy theories about the evil RIAA, record companies, etc. I'd love to read more articles that explore the question of what exactly can be done to encourage people to pay for products that they can already get for free, which strikes me as more interesting than railing against corporate evil. It's cute, though, that the article ends by claiming that the future of record companies is as software companies: The music business will be saved by someone from the software business who can impose a new business model on music assets. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we'll replace those evil record companies, that don't let us do what we want, with a nice software company that lets us choose whatever software is best and most convenient. Just like Microsoft. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:16:47 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 10:48 AM, dana-boy@juno.com wrote: > It just continues to amaze me that no-one is willing to point out the > obvious: it's extraordinarily convenient to be able to steal things > with no personal repercussions, and no product can compete with an > essentially identical free product. Instead we get conspiracy > theories about the evil RIAA, record companies, etc. I'd love to read > more articles that explore the question of what exactly can be done to > encourage people to pay for products that they can already get for > free, which strikes me as more interesting than railing against > corporate evil. Actually, the author of the longer essay did point out a few things about the "value for money" factor that I thought were worth noting. One of the reasons DVDs sell-through so well is that the movie studios provide all sorts of value-adds: commentaries, making-of's, etc. The DVD experience is richer than the VHS experience not just in providing a higher-quality picture and sound, but by enhancing the base product in ways that makes owning the physical disc and packaging worthwhile to lots of people. That DVD's were no more expensive than VHS tapes was just icing on the cake. As far as encouraging people to pay for music, I think there's still hope. A service like Emusic on a larger scale (perhaps with tiered service models that provide higher bitrates / enhanced bonus content / larger catalogs to choose from) would be a killer app, but only if it's not consumer hostile (read: crippled beyond usability with copy protection) and equitable to artists (real royalty sharing, rather than the fraction of a penny on the dollar arrangements of Pressplay, etc.) The existing CD business model is doomed, though, and if they can't do any better than their current legislative hand-wringing, it's a deserved death. > Yes, we'll replace those evil record companies, that don't let us > do what we want, with a nice software company that lets us choose > whatever software is best and most convenient. Just like Microsoft. Why would the "software" model resemble Microsoft's? Why not, say Sendmail, Inc.'s, or Bare Bones's [BBEdit] (they provide a free product, as well as a for-pay version with value added extras. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:49:25 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: [loud-fans] Fwd: [paisley-pop] VARIOUS SONGS FROM THE MATERIAL WORLD: A GEORGE HARRISON TRIBUTE FYI, Gil Note: forwarded message attached. Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: ggilray@yahoo.com via 216.136.131.231; 03 Feb 2003 09:34:21 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from 66.218.66.105 (HELO n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.105) by qmail3.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 03 Feb 2003 09:34:21 -0800 (PST) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1672678-14173-1044293602-ggilray=yahoo.com@retu rns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2003 17:33:33 -0000 X-Sender: youamwho@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: paisley-pop@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Feb 2003 17:33:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 12357 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 17:33:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2003 17:33:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web20303.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.226.84) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 17:33:21 -0000 Received: from [64.12.102.157] by web20303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 09:33:21 PST To: El_Mariani@yahoogroups.com, mitcheasterletsactive@yahoogroups.com, paisley-pop@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: MarkP From: MarkP X-Yahoo-Profile: youamwho MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list paisley-pop@yahoogroups.com; contact paisley-pop-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list paisley-pop@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:33:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [paisley-pop] VARIOUS SONGS FROM THE MATERIAL WORLD: A GEORGE HARRISON TRIBUTE Reply-To: paisley-pop@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1417 X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 0.97c X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain VARIOUS SONGS FROM THE MATERIAL WORLD: A GEORGE HARRISON TRIBUTE You knew this was coming. A dozen of George's tunes are brought back to life by his friends and fans on this set. Roger McGuinn steals the show with his version of "If I Needed Someone." Others weighing in include Bonnie Bramlett, Bill Wyman, John Entwistle (ironic isn't it), Todd Rundgren, The Smithereens, Jay Bennett, Edward Burch and more. Artist Milton Glaser provides the cover art. You'll know all of the songs and the artists, just not in this combination. Have fun. Koch $15.99 Ships February 25 Track Listing: 1. Todd Rundgren - 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' 2. Masters Of Reality - 'Devil's Radio' 3. Marc Ford - 'I, Me, Mine' 4. Dave Davies - 'Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth)' 5. Wayne Kramer - 'It's All Too Much' 6. John Entwistle - 'Here Comes The Sun' 7. Jay Bennet/Edward Burch - 'Isn't It A Pity' 8. Big Head Todd and The Monsters - 'Within You, Without You' 9. Bonnie Bramlett - 'Something' 10. The Smithereens - 'I Want To Tell You' 11. Roger McGuinn - 'If I Needed Someone' 12. Bill Wyman - 'Taxman' ...Hayseed Dixie's lone Kiss trib "Kiss My Grass" is out in a couple weeks as well. m ===== Sleep Well ~ Don't Burst http://www.mitchworldusa.net/ Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:33:26 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/03/spector.arrest/index.html Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:43:29 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? In a message dated 2/3/03 11:34:30 AM, jmmallon@joescafe.com writes: << http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/03/spector.arrest/index.html >> Like that's some surprise? It's too bad this isn't a TV show, though. He'd be the ultimate Columbo villain. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:59:33 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] wa-huh? (Psychedelic Furs) (tangential Scott content) On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > I remember being annoyed by the Rhino reissue of "Black Snake Diamond > > Role" which uses different mixes of a couple of songs, because it meant > > that I had to keep two copies of the CD. Same deal with "The Velvet > > Underground." How irritating to lose a song almost entirely. I'm > > trying to think if I own any other must-keep-two-copies CDs. I have three different vapors best-ofs, which is a lot for a band that only released two albums and a small handful of b-sides. i think i kept two translator best-ofs, too. - -- d. np pat boone "in a metal mood" {omigod! this is so great! i mean, horrible.} ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:13:29 -0700 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? JRT456@aol.com on 2/3/2003 12:43:29 PM wrote: > In a message dated 2/3/03 11:34:30 AM, jmmallon@joescafe.com writes: > > << http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/03/spector.arrest/index.html >> > > Like that's some surprise? It's too bad this isn't a TV show, though. He'd be > the ultimate Columbo villain. I'm sure the plot will show up on a Very Special Law & Order episode for May sweeps, right after the one mimicking the Pete Townshend arrest. Waiting for "Law & Order: Copyright Enforcement Unit"... Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:39:08 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 03:13 PM, Roger Winston wrote: > I'm sure the plot will show up on a Very Special Law & Order episode > for May sweeps, right after the one mimicking the Pete Townshend > arrest. Yeah, I kinda think the big surprise is that this is the _first_ time Spector's been arrested for murder... Speaking of Townshend, I don't recall seeing this link coming across the list: http://tinyurl.com/5a4y (an article that would seem to support Townshend's claim that he had been in contact with watchdog groups well in advance of his arrest) -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:45:58 -0800 (PST) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? > http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/03/spector.arrest/index.html > > Joe Mallon > jmmallon@joescafe.com Creeply. Not wholly unanticipated. I vaguely recall the story about Ronnie, and the coffin. How odd, though, that nobody's commented on, you know, Saturday morning. The dogs bark, and... Andy About suffering they were never wrong, The Old Masters; how well, they understood Its human position; how it takes place While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along; How, when the aged are reverently, passionately waiting For the miraculous birth, there always must be Children who did not specially want it to happen, skating On a pond at the edge of the wood: They never forgot That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer's horse Scratches its innocent behind on a tree. In Breughel's Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry, But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green Water; and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky, had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on. - --W.H. Auden, "Musee De Beaux Arts," inspired by "Landscape With The Fall Of Icarus," by Breughel The Elder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:59:29 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 03:45 PM, G. Andrew Hamlin wrote: > How odd, though, that nobody's commented on, you know, Saturday > morning. During my freshman year at college, while stumbling home, very drunk, from a party my friend John was looking for a place to, um, be sick. He stumbled up to Angell Hall, a huge, Greco-Roman building bedecked in ivy, looked up at it, stopped, and said, "nah, too big." -d.w. still very sad nah, too big ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:35:45 -0500 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? At 12:45 PM 2/3/2003 -0800, G. Andrew Hamlin wrote: >How odd, though, that nobody's commented on, you know, Saturday morning. I'm not sure what there is to say, exactly. Yes, it's a shame that the shuttle exploded. But that makes a whopping total of three explosive fatalities in the US space program in, what, 43 years? Given the very high risk involved even in routine space flights such as this one, my only surprise is that it's not happened more often than this, which I think speaks only to the high safety standards NASA has maintained. S ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:44:22 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re:Re: [loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] Actually, the author of the longer essay did point out a few things about the "value for money" factor that I thought were worth noting. One of the reasons DVDs sell-through so well is that the movie studios provide all sorts of value-adds: commentaries, making-of's, etc. The DVD experience is richer than the VHS experience not just in providing a higher-quality picture and sound, but by enhancing the base product in ways that makes owning the physical disc and packaging worthwhile to lots of people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but none of that has much to do with CDs. DVDs are currently protected from mass copying because of bandwidth, and I'm sure that that's a temporary thing. We'll see how badly people want the physical disc and packaging when they can download the entire DVD's contents in ten minutes for free on whatever P2P thing comes along. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:03:39 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? At 04:35 PM 2/3/2003 -0500, Stewart Mason wrote: >At 12:45 PM 2/3/2003 -0800, G. Andrew Hamlin wrote: >>How odd, though, that nobody's commented on, you know, Saturday morning. > >I'm not sure what there is to say, exactly. Yes, it's a shame that the >shuttle exploded. But that makes a whopping total of three explosive >fatalities in the US space program in, what, 43 years? Given the very high >risk involved even in routine space flights such as this one, my only >surprise is that it's not happened more often than this, which I think >speaks only to the high safety standards NASA has maintained. I felt that way the first time a space shuttle exploded, though I think it was a minority opinion. I'm actually rather pleased that every mailing list I'm on hasn't descended into weepy hysteria. The first time around in '86, I particularly despised the way the press kept harping on the death of the teacher, as though her death was more poignant and important than the death of any of the other astronauts. It's like how the media will always trumpet stuff like "Pregnant Woman Hit By Car" -- unless the person was going all Rae Carruth and trying to kill the woman *because* she was pregnant, is it really relevant to the story? I do vividly remember how in January '86, I had just gotten back from my afternoon classes at college and was walking into my suite at the college dorm, and out of the corner of my eye, I spied our suitemates in their room, door open and TV on. While unlocking the door to my room, I heard one of them say, as though it was the most common thing in the world: "Space shuttle blew up." The sentence was so out of left field, such an unlikely series of words, that I couldn't quite process it. "What?" "Space shuttle blew up." To me, the way he said that was weirder than the space shuttle blowing up. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:21:31 -0500 From: "Larry Tucker" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? |-----Original Message----- |From: Miles Goosens [mailto:outdoorminer@mindspring.com] |Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 5:04 PM |To: loud-fans@smoe.org |Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? | | |At 04:35 PM 2/3/2003 -0500, Stewart Mason wrote: | >At 12:45 PM 2/3/2003 -0800, G. Andrew Hamlin wrote: | >>How odd, though, that nobody's commented on, you know, |Saturday morning. > >I'm not sure what there is to say, |exactly. Yes, it's a shame that the >shuttle exploded. But |that makes a whopping total of three explosive >fatalities in |the US space program in, what, 43 years? Given the very high |>risk involved even in routine space flights such as this one, |my only >surprise is that it's not happened more often than |this, which I think >speaks only to the high safety standards |NASA has maintained. | |I felt that way the first time a space shuttle exploded, |though I think it |was a minority opinion. I'm actually rather pleased that |every mailing |list I'm on hasn't descended into weepy hysteria. | |The first time around in '86, I particularly despised the way |the press |kept harping on the death of the teacher, as though her death was more |poignant and important than the death of any of the other |astronauts. It's |like how the media will always trumpet stuff like "Pregnant |Woman Hit By |Car" -- unless the person was going all Rae Carruth and trying |to kill the |woman *because* she was pregnant, is it really relevant to the story? I think the issue for me with the earlier Challenger accident was that NASA pushed for a launch that was not advisable with the low temp problems with these o-rings were prone to leaking and ultimately resulting in failure. The Columbia accident is one of those things that's just going to happen sometimes unfortunately, and is just the cost of such a dangerous endeavor. Like Stewart said I think NASA's track record is pretty good considering the number of missions over the past 4 decades. There have been many more deaths over the years from ordinary people in ordinary automobile transportation that have died as a result of some unanticipated mechanical failure and we don't stop driving cars. And hey Stewart! Mike Nicholson dedicated a song to you at last Friday night's Stratocruiser show. And the song? "Superstar of Cool" - -Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:27:52 -0400 From: John F Butland Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? At 11:33 AM 03-02-03 -0800, Joseph M. Mallon wrote: >http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/03/spector.arrest/index.html > from the P2 list: "Unfortunately, you could have put together a really good band with all the musicians that Spector pulled a gun on." - -A quote from the Flamin' Groovies list... best, jfb John F Butland O- butland@nbnet.nb.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 19:59:54 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] [Fwd: Art censorship at the UN] > Guernica Reproduction Covered at UN > > NEW YORK.- The "Guernica" work by Pablo Picasso at the > entrance of the Security Council of the United Nations > has been covered with a curtain. The reason for > covering this work is that this is the place where > diplomats make statements to the press and have this > work as the background. The Picasso work features the > horrors of war. On January 27 a large blue curtain > was placed to cover the work. > > Fred Eckhard, press secretary of the U.N. said: "It is > an appropriate background for the cameras." He was > questioned as to why the work had been covered. > > A diplomat stated that it would not be an appropriate > background if the ambassador of the United States at > the U.N. John Negroponte, or Powell, talk about war > surrounded with women, children and animals shouting > with horror and showing the suffering of the bombings. > > This work is a reproduction of the Guernica that was > donated by Nelson A. Rockefeller to the U.N. in 1985. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:08:30 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? "G. Andrew Hamlin" wrote: > > How odd, though, that nobody's commented on, you know, Saturday morning. Does that mean nobody got my post on Sunday, or that nobody read it? :( Jen - -- You can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you don't know where your bootstraps are. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:25:41 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re:[loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] Quoting dana-boy@juno.com: > The Eminem Show sold a ton of copies, and it was heavily downloaded. > Where's the proof that A is a result of B? As usual, there isn't any. The logic isn't A is a result of B, it's B does not prevent A. Not the same thing at all. > "Why would you pay for a song that you could get for free? For the same > reason that you will buy a book that you could borrow from the public > library or buy a DVD of a movie that you could watch on television or > rent for the weekend. Convenience, ease-of-use, selection,ability to find > what you want, and for enthusiasts, the sheer pleasure of owning > something you treasure." > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This again combines apples and oranges. When you borrow a book from a > public library or rent a movie, you *lose possession of it at some > point.* With mp3s, you don't. And I have no idea what the author means > by "convenience, ease-of-use, selection, ability to find what you want" > in the above, since these are all benefits of mp3s rather than CDs. The article is poorly edited at this point. The preceding paragraph is more germane to the last sentence: "O'Reilly compares an on-line music subscription service to people paying $19.95 a month for an ISP when 'free' Internet is available, or $20 to $60 a month for TV programming when there is 'free' TV programming." > It just continues to amaze me that no-one is willing to point out the > obvious: it's extraordinarily convenient to be able to steal things with > no personal repercussions, and no product can compete with an essentially > identical free product. But (a) the ISP and cable examples disprove your last phrase (as do the fact that people buy DVDs when they can rent them for nearly free - there's a store near me at which every DVD is rented for 99 cents), and (b) the convenience of theft is really irrelevant to the actual issue, which is that no matter what the industry says, file-sharing is here to stay. What to do about it is the issue, not its ethics, and so far the RIAA's response has been lamer than an open casting call for the part of Richard III. And actually there are any number of situations in which it's very easy to steal things with very little risk of repercussion, and yet most people don't do it. To me one of the more interesting points of this article (in Salon at http://salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/01/file_trading_manifesto/index.html) is the comparison of MP3s with radio. File-sharing is perhaps better thought of as millions of very small-scale radio stations, and that the industry doesn't approach it that way, providing its own P2P nets and perhaps funding it with (okay, someone will kill me) ads appended at the beginning or end of MP3 files (of course, anyone can edit them out...but a lot of people won't bother - or, if you're hardcore about the rights of industry, find a way to make them *uneditable* without much futzing, in the way one can't FFWD through the FBI warning on DVDs...). Fact is, for most casual fans, music has always been free. The old industry model found a way to profit from that - but the old model can't work with the new technology. And finally, I appreciate the emphasis on the lameness of most industry product, and the fact that the industry and its associates like radio and mTV seemingly do everything they can to discourage consumers from hearing the music that's out there: no singles, one or two tracks emphasized, incredibly narrow playlists, rising prices, self-sabotage with "copy-protection" etc. The more the industry tries to tell me that I can't play a CD *I bought* in my car, on my computer, or make a mix CD with tracks from it, the likelier I am to *want* to steal (for real this time) from the industry. > I'd love to read more articles that > explore the question of what exactly can be done to encourage people to > pay for products that they can already get for free, which strikes me as > more interesting than railing against corporate evil. Well maybe I'm only halfway through the Salon article, and most of the way through the Bricklin article linked on its second page, but as I read it there's much that does exactly what you suggest, and pretty much ignores the industry except insofar as it's in the way. And of course, it's very easy to get people to pay for products they can get for free: just add value that makes them worth paying for. Again: people pay for ISPs, cable TV, and buy DVDs because in many cases they get more than they would with corresponding free (or nearly so) versions of same. There's no great trick to it, really - and the record industry, of course, has always been about getting people to pay for what they can hear for free - on the radio. Historically, it's worked: the more popular a song is on the radio etc., the higher its sales. Hearing the song for free over and over again, for most people, encourages paying for it. ..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: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:26:18 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? At Monday 2/3/2003 08:08 PM -0500, jenny grover wrote: >"G. Andrew Hamlin" wrote: > > > > How odd, though, that nobody's commented on, you know, Saturday morning. > >Does that mean nobody got my post on Sunday, or that nobody read it? :( I certainly didn't get it, and it doesn't appear in the archives, so I guess you were Black Holed. Hey, since when did Andy become "G. Andrew"?? Excuse me while I go play the Grand Piano... Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:35:25 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whhaaaa? At Monday 2/3/2003 05:21 PM -0500, Larry Tucker wrote: >There have been many more deaths over the years from >ordinary people in ordinary automobile transportation that have died as >a result of some unanticipated mechanical failure and we don't stop >driving cars. Well, yes, but there's also been a lot more people driving cars than flying around in space shuttles. I don't think that's a real good analogy, statistically speaking. That said, I agree that space travel is a dangerous business and there are bound to be some causalities when you push the borders of the frontier, and that's no reason to stop trying. I wept for the astronauts and their families, but I fear what happens next. >And hey Stewart! Mike Nicholson dedicated a song to you at last Friday >night's Stratocruiser show. And the song? "Superstar of Cool" Stewart is the new Michael Jackson? Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:40:29 -0500 From: Dana Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] I said: > The Eminem Show sold a ton of copies, and it was heavily downloaded. > Where's the proof that A is a result of B? As usual, there isn't any. And Jeff, who was probably reading in a hurry, said: The logic isn't A is a result of B, it's B does not prevent A. Not the same thing at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point that the author was making was that downloads help sales. So yes, it is the same thing. I direct you to the last sentence in the paragraph about The Eminem Show: "When people share MP3s, more music is sold, not less." In fact, that's the entire point of this section of the article, which has the heading (the link to it from the preceding page), "MP3s are the greatest marketing tool the music industry has ever come upon." When people discuss "marketing tools" they're talking about things that increase sales. Not things that "don't prevent" sales. >The more the industry tries to tell me that I > can't > play a CD *I bought* in my car, on my computer, or make a mix CD > with tracks > from it, the likelier I am to *want* to steal (for real this time) > from the > industry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting. Do you always want to steal products that don't live up to your expectations of what they should be? I mean, that strikes me as being a little extreme, but hey, I'm a small town boy. It is true that I'm really annoyed by the fact that the DVDs that I buy don't project an image onto a giant screen in my living room, just like a 70mm projection, and they don't sell popcorn or Junior Mints!! Next time I'll steal the fuckers, and then the DVD people will wise up and the next thing you know I'll get my way!! > And of course, it's very easy to get people to pay for products they > can get > for free: just add value that makes them worth paying for. Again: > people pay > for ISPs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff, have you checked AOL's stock lately? You know, compared with other forms of entertainment, you get enormous latitude with CDs. It's not currently very practical to make copies of books or DVDs to enjoy anywhere you want (I know it can be done, it's just not practical), or to send to your friends. You can't go into a museum and take photos for later. You can't videotape a Broadway show so your kids can watch it in the car. If you want to watch professional sports live (baseball, football, basketball), you're limited to one or two teams to watch in most parts of the country. You'd think the record companies were killing babies or something. Oh, no, I'm just mad because I can't play my 3 Doors Down CD on my vacuum cleaner. - --dana ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 05:09:24 +0000 From: "Brendan Curry" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Biz rant(s) [delete at will] >Dana said: In fact, that's the entire point of this section of the article, >which >has the heading (the link to it from the preceding page), "MP3s are the >greatest marketing tool the music industry has ever come upon." When >people discuss "marketing tools" they're talking about things that >increase sales. Not things that "don't prevent" sales. I agree. One thing I haven't seen many of the majors do, but which many smaller labels are taking up, is streaming mp3 audio from their sites. I just checked Columbia's site, and could only find 30 second song clips. If I go to jade tree records, I can hear Jets to Brazil's new single in its entirety. Granted, the enterprising consumer can capture the stream, but I do not think that most people will, given the technical hurdles involved. The problem: this still does not address the reality that it only takes one person willing to capture the song, or buy and upload the album onto a p2p, to make the files available to a significant number of people. Renting DVDs might work along a similar line. If I am able to watch the whole movie, and I like it enough to have it around all the time, I'll probably buy it. The popularity of DVD versions of entire TV seasons also speaks to the idea that people will pay the extra money to own a higher quality version of something they enjoy. The same could be true of audio, but there's no easy fix-all that I can see. One thing I do know is that it's only going to get worse. My 19 year-old brother has an entirely different attitude toward owning CDs vs. using KaZaa than I do, and I am only 4 years older. What the majors need to think about is how they are going to change his generations' mind about what it means to consume their product, and why he and his peers should pay for it. "Because they should," while ethically persuasive, is not enough to fix the problem. Or, I could make no sense. Brendan _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #34 ******************************