From: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org (navy-soup-digest) To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Subject: navy-soup-digest V3 #89 Reply-To: navy-soup@smoe.org Sender: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk navy-soup-digest Wednesday, May 24 2000 Volume 03 : Number 089 In This Digest: ----------------- Re: Live footage, religion, etc. [meredith ] Re: Live footage, religion, etc. [meredith ] Re: Religion ["taitts" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 21:37:46 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. Hi! I usually try to avoid these "concert recording - good or evil?" discussions, but I do have to respond to a couple of things here. First, for full disclosure: woj and I are serious tapers, but we always try to get the permission of the artist beforehand if we can. We never, ever exchange money for copies - just fair trade. And we already own everything that's available from the artists we tape. We don't make MP3's to post them anywhere for public consumption. Our recordings are for our own use only. >...that may or may not stop you from purchasing the actual album by that >artist because you are now in possession of their songs anyway. Whatever >the legalities are, that's the crux of the problem for so many artists who >have trouble just making ends meet (which is 98% of artists that I know). I >agree that it's wonderful that an artist's work is shared for the purposes >of creating interest and spreading the good word. However, for many people, >they'll be happy with getting MP3s from Napster (or wherever) and never >spending a cent that will go to the artist at all. I have met and/or corresponded with dozens of tape traders in the past 10+ years. Not one of them has used live recordings as a replacement for the music that's already commercially available by the artists they record. In the vast majority of cases, tapers only record their favorite artists, because it's too much of a hassle to deal with for someone you're only ambivalent about. >(You >may also notice that the artists who are most vocal about allowing live >tapings and the distribution of those bootlegs are all artists with alot of >money... Always easy to be cool when you've got the bills covered!) Most of the artists we record (hell, most of the artists we go out to see) are relatively obscure, playing to tiny rooms to double-digit audiences. They are scraping along to cover the bills, and not always succeeding. Most of them are happy to allow us to record the show, provided that we send them a copy of the tape when we're done. In many cases it's the only document the artist has of a particular show, because they (or the venue) don't have the werewithal or the equipment to make a recording for themselves. Just an alternate opinion. Now that I've said all that, I will state that since we know Sarah doesn't want taping, we respect her wishes. If we ask an artist if it's ok to tape and she says no, we don't. That's only common courtesy. +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 21:45:02 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. Hi again, James added: >After that it's what you do with the image that makes a >difference. If you sell it to a news outlet you are ok, since it falls into >'public interest', .... what if you *give* it to a news outlet? :} I'm almost afraid to mention this now, but: Sarah's picture was in the paper today! The New Haven Register, our local rag did a feature story on house concerts today. I was interviewed for the piece, and (thanks to Jeff Wasilko and his digital camera) provided the photos, from the Slean/Harmer/Feist gig here back in March. I gave them one shot each of all three artists. The article itself is at: The only photo they put on the web page is of Leslie Feist, but trust me, there was a nice shot of Sarah in the print edition. :) +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:21:56 -0400 From: "taitts" Subject: Re: Religion >Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:04:01 -0400 >From: "Sophie" >Subject: Re: religion (sigh) > >taitts, > >Ouch. > >First you agreed with me that religion is a personal aspect, and then you >condemned me for requesting that we not discuss it. I don't understand. Who did I condemn? I agreed that religion is personal. I also said that there is nothing wrong with discussing it. There are a lot of personal issues that are uncomfortable for people - the "taboo" subjects - and they have only been able to be discussed in an open forum because people dared to talk about them. If >something comes up and a person involved thinks it would be tacky to talk >about it, talking about someone's love life while they aren't present, for >example, shouldn't they be allowed to voice that opinion? I don't see discussing someone's love life and simply asking if anyone knows what Sarah's religious views are in the same light. "Does anyone know who she's sleeping with?" and "Does anyone know religion she is?" are not comparable questions in terms of how tasteless they are, in my opinion. >If that makes me high-strung or defensive in your opinion, >so be it. I certainly hope no one feels *censored*. I specifically put "for lack of a better word" after the word censorship so that you would understand that it was perhaps not the most ideal word, but was the only one that seemed to semi-fit what I was describing. So I don't see why you now highlight that word when I already made an effort to ensure that it was not misinterpreted. As yes, when someone on this list innocently asks about Sarah's religion and is met with "Can we not talk about that?", which really means "I don't want to talk about that", I do find that mildly defensive. Maybe I'm wrong. >I don't know if the "sexuality" cut was for meredith, but I hope not. I have no clue who Meredith is. I used sexuality as an example of another aspect of a person's life that is innately private but often expressed publicly. >If her fans don't care enough to formulate an opinion than we shouldn't even >have this discussion. :) I think you should re-read what I said. Obviously her fans care or you're right, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I said that the type of religious zealots you were describing would likely NOT be fans of Sarah's, and therefore wouldn't care enough about her religious practices to form an opinion. >It humors me that I said "I'm an US, she's a THEM" and right away you said >"I knew you were an atheist from the first post...". Like I said in the post >I sent you (directly, I might add, not through the mailing list) What are you talking about? Anything I've read about this topic has been through Navy-Soup. And I don't see what's humourous about my saying that I knew you were an atheist from the first post. What does your comment about "I'm an US, she's a THEM" have to do with what I said? I simply made an observation. I offered no judgements about your atheism nor did I ever assert that you and I were in two different camps and never the two shall meet. In fact, I did the exact opposite. I encouraged what I thought could be a thoughtful discussion between any interested members of the mailing list, regarding of his or her spiritual beliefs. I have no interest in the divisionist attitude. I can only learn so much from people who think the same way I do. I know lots >of Christians that I like, my little sister for example. In fact, I was a >Christian until I was 16. I have no problem or discomfort with Christianity, >but it does bother me when people decide to talk about someone's religious >stance when the person is not around. I guess I just don't get that. This mailing list can sit around and discuss the taping and trading of Sarah's copyrighted material without discussing it with her and that's supposedly kool, but we can't talk about her religion? When someone writes lyrics that elude to spirituality as much as Sarah does, it doesn't strike me that she would be adverse to her spiritual views as a topic of discussion. If she feels that way, I would certainly expect Heather to tell us. >And, in case you missed it the first time, I said this: >> I'm sorry if it seemed like I was stereotyping all Christians to Pat >>Robertson. I love some Christians (my little sister is one). I thought I >was >>clearly just exemplifying prejudice and intolerance as it sometimes relates >to >>religious conviction. I did miss that, so thank you for posting it again. I'm glad that you're not using him as a benchmark for Christianity, because he's a pretty despicable man. >My point with Pat Robertson was NOT that he is a good example of a >Christian. It was that he was a good example of bigotry and just plain ol' >nastiness. He takes the US vs. THEM thing to a whole new level. Well obviously I didn't think that you were using a bigot and a fanatic as an example of a good Christian. I have no idea why you would have reached the conclusion that I thought that's what you were saying. He does take the US vs. THEM thing to a whole new level; he's missed the boat completely. But what I was saying with my don't use him as your yardstick remark was that I find it frustrating that when people are citing what religion can do to people, they constantly pull out examples like Pat Robertson. There are many people who have been shaped into wonderful, wonderful human beings as a result of their religious beliefs. They are not fanatics. AND, then there are the precious few who are fanatics but take it in the other direction - the Desmond Tutus and Mother Teresas of the world. These people are as consumed by their religious beliefs as Pat Robertson is. They simply use their faith for good. Sophie, I made a point in my last post to let you know that I respected both your views and your beliefs. You said you were extremely sensitive about the topic and had I known that you were going to read such negativity into my remarks I would never have bothered continuing with this. I also said that I understand that while religion is a touchy subject, it can be a very eye- opening one as well. I find it very unfair that in your response you chose to ignore everything positive that I said and every effort that I made to ensure that you knew that I was not in any way attacking you personally. Instead, you accuse me of "condemning" you, when I was merely trying to have a dialogue with you. I apologize for any offense that I obviously caused. peace&love... tt. ------------------------------ End of navy-soup-digest V3 #89 ******************************