From: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org (navy-soup-digest) To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Subject: navy-soup-digest V3 #91 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 Thursday, May 25 2000 Volume 03 : Number 091 In This Digest: ----------------- RMS on the music "industry" [Paul Schreiber ] Re: World Cafe... ["Sophie" ] Re: World Cafe... ["Coz Baldwin" ] Re: OAC: Lenni Jabour (was: Heather's slacking off :) ) ["Julian C. Dunn"] Re: RMS on the music "industry" ["Julian C. Dunn" ] Re: RMS on the music "industry" [Paul Schreiber ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 15:19:55 -0700 From: Paul Schreiber Subject: RMS on the music "industry" this is more or less related to what we've been talking about... A few weeks ago, I was listening to an interview with Richard Stallman (he's the guy behind the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project). http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,35143,00.html Stallman is noted for his politicial views, especially wrt various freedoms. About 2:00 into part three of the interview, he talks about the music industry: http://www.wired.com/news/audio/netslaves/stallman_3.mp3 "I love music and therefore I loathe the music industry. I don't want music that comes from a factory..." Paul shad 96c / 3B CS / mac activist / eda / fumbler fan of / jewel / sophie b. / sarah slean / steve poltz / emm gryner / / x-files / buffy / dawson's creek / habs / bills / 49ers / t h i n k d i f f e r e n t. "I'd rather see the world from another angle." -- Jewel Kilcher ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 15:47:06 -0700 From: Paul Schreiber Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. What? Management wrote: >Wasn't Metallica all up on bootlegs and >the internet until 350,000+ copies of their new album were downloaded >before it was even released? (Different than live taping, agreed, but it >runs parallel with this issue.) As I understand it, Metallica is tolerant/encouraging of tapers at concerts. The 350,000 number is the number of people who had their napster accounts terminated for allegedly trading Metallica songs. There wasn't an unreleased album in this story. Paul shad 96c / 3B CS / mac activist / eda / fumbler fan of / jewel / sophie b. / sarah slean / steve poltz / emm gryner / / x-files / buffy / dawson's creek / habs / bills / 49ers / t h i n k d i f f e r e n t. "I'd rather see the world from another angle." -- Jewel Kilcher ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 15:47:05 -0700 From: Paul Schreiber Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. What? Management wrote: >Songwriters will also make "mechanicals" from their songs (I think it's >still $0.071 per song here in Canada), but some record companies try to get >the artist to agree to a "three-quarter rate" (pay only 3/4 of that >mechanical rate) on "controlled compositions" (songs written by the artist >signed to their label), and they will limit the # of songs per record >they'll pay mechanicals on. Steve Poltz tells an interesting story about his car breaking down. During the story, he noted that he heard You Were Meant For Me (his co-write with Jewel) on the radio, and realized he got six and a half cents (or was it six and three-quarter?) cents for that. So do US songwriters (ASCAP, BMI, whatever) get 13 cents for each time one of their songs is played? Paul shad 96c / 3B CS / mac activist / eda / fumbler fan of / jewel / sophie b. / sarah slean / steve poltz / emm gryner / / x-files / buffy / dawson's creek / habs / bills / 49ers / t h i n k d i f f e r e n t. dreams last so long / even after you're gone / - --Jewel Kilcher and Steve Poltz, "You Were Meant For Me" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 19:04:06 EDT From: Starfall18@aol.com Subject: World Cafe... hey guys...ok, so i heard about how Sarah SLean and Sarah Harmer were going to be on World Cafe today, so i set up the tape recorder, and recorded the hour we get here....unfortunetkly, it was the hour with Sarah Harmer! She's excellent and everythign, but i want Sarah Slean!!! The hour is played at like 6 in the morning, so i couldn't it...did anyone else tape it??? thanks:) emily ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 19:13:32 EDT From: Songbird22@aol.com Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. Paul asks: > So do US songwriters (ASCAP, BMI, whatever) get 13 cents for each time > one of their songs is played? I'm w/ ASCAP and I think it's even less... I'd have to dig up the actual figure it's in my paperwork somewhere (god, even if even knew what a disaster our apartment is!) Jessica www.jessicaweiser.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 19:59:25 -0500 From: "James McGarry" Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. - ----- Original Message ----- From: What? Management To: Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 4:59 PM Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. > >Needless to say the whole concept of the "music > >industry" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. > Not all of us are bad... honest! I'll second that... Heather is one of the nicest people and most accomodating managers I've met, but there are hoards of good, nice, decent people in the music industry. William Tenn, Joni Daniels, Michael Murphy, Alex de Cartier, Jude Coombs, you might recognize these people from liner notes, but I've seen every single one of them at the same shows I go to and not once because they had to be there. They talk with the same fondness, reverence and wonder at these artists as you do. The weasels are the lawyers, the big agents, and those assistant vps and even then a lot of them are ok folk too. It's the paradigm under which they operate I find off putting, that music and musicians are a commodity, to be bought and sold like a steel girder. (I know I use the industry term 'product' a lot. i.e. Does this person have product? But it's my bizarre humour... honest.) Even at the major level there are a lot of good people sluggin' away in the trenches. :-) James. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:12:57 -0400 From: "Sophie" Subject: Re: World Cafe... Doh! I had notes everywhere reminding me that worldcafe was today, and I still managed to miss it! Do they archive stuff at all? Is it gone for good? - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 7:04 PM Subject: World Cafe... > hey guys...ok, so i heard about how Sarah SLean and Sarah Harmer were going > to be on World Cafe today, so i set up the tape recorder, and recorded the > hour we get here....unfortunetkly, it was the hour with Sarah Harmer! She's > excellent and everythign, but i want Sarah Slean!!! The hour is played at > like 6 in the morning, so i couldn't it...did anyone else tape it??? > > thanks:) > emily > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:26:27 -0400 From: "Coz Baldwin" Subject: Re: World Cafe... Well, it's not gone forever. I'm here in Philly area where it's taped. I'm not a big listener of the station, and I somehow managed to miss it to. I had it planned all week what today was for. *slaps forhead* But i'm sure they archive it, and also make compilation CD's of all the artists that are featured during the year (I think) They do at least have a few compilations out. I'm sure if you write to them thy might be able to make a copy. I would like one myself. I heard a S.S. song on it yesterday when I happened to flip past it and they announced todays full playback of the session. I'm an idiot. Coz - ----- Original Message ----- From: Sophie To: NavySoup Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 8:12 PM Subject: Re: World Cafe... > Doh! I had notes everywhere reminding me that worldcafe was today, and I > still managed to miss it! > Do they archive stuff at all? Is it gone for good? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 7:04 PM > Subject: World Cafe... > > > > hey guys...ok, so i heard about how Sarah SLean and Sarah Harmer were > going > > to be on World Cafe today, so i set up the tape recorder, and recorded the > > hour we get here....unfortunetkly, it was the hour with Sarah Harmer! > She's > > excellent and everythign, but i want Sarah Slean!!! The hour is played at > > like 6 in the morning, so i couldn't it...did anyone else tape it??? > > > > thanks:) > > emily > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:45:25 -0400 (EDT) From: "Julian C. Dunn" Subject: Re: OAC: Lenni Jabour (was: Heather's slacking off :) ) On Wed, 24 May 2000, What? Management wrote: > (Todor Kobakov). He made an album in his bedroom a few years ago and Sarah > sang on a couple of tracks, which is how I heard of him. He's putting a > live show together, so hopefully you can all check him out! He's produced a > track for Lenni Jabour and has done a remix for Damhnait Doyle. There are ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wondering aloud what happened to her. I saw her many months back, and she said she'd been gearing up to do music again, but I haven't seen her do any dates as of late. Heather, you have any "inside info" as to what she's up to? - - Julian [ Julian C. Dunn - jdunn@aquezada.com WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/ ] [ FuE exfe94 a+++ Ifte/slc lonca r- ps++ bs+ t++/*t C+++$/C! w+++ p7 LF+++ ] [N++/N! cd350 pr++ g+++ S-/S *x++ Fa+++/Fa$/Fa! m1 b+ fc+++/ E>+ rl-- *d s!] [ "and any love remaining, i can't share anymore - ] [ 'cause by the time it gets to you, it's a little war" - emm gryner ] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:54:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "Julian C. Dunn" Subject: Re: RMS on the music "industry" On Wed, 24 May 2000, Paul Schreiber wrote: > A few weeks ago, I was listening to an interview with Richard Stallman > (he's the guy behind the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project). > > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,35143,00.html > > Stallman is noted for his politicial views, especially wrt various > freedoms. That would be quite an understatement. Richard Stallman's another one of those "militant computer programmers" who are intent on sticking to extreme matters of principle, irrespective of the absurdity of doing so. Like many such individuals he tends to view the world as black-and-white, as evidenced by your extracted quote: > "I love music and therefore I loathe the music industry. I don't want > music that comes from a factory..." Such gross generalizations are great for a "new media" magazine like Wired that operates on the basis of soundbites from so-called technogurus. However, to state that the music industry is nothing but bad for the production of music is ridiculously absurd. - - Julian [ Julian C. Dunn - jdunn@aquezada.com WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/ ] [ FuE exfe94 a+++ Ifte/slc lonca r- ps++ bs+ t++/*t C+++$/C! w+++ p7 LF+++ ] [N++/N! cd350 pr++ g+++ S-/S *x++ Fa+++/Fa$/Fa! m1 b+ fc+++/ E>+ rl-- *d s!] [ "and any love remaining, i can't share anymore - ] [ 'cause by the time it gets to you, it's a little war" - emm gryner ] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:04:27 -0700 From: Paul Schreiber Subject: Re: RMS on the music "industry" Julian C. Dunn wrote: > Richard Stallman's another one of >those "militant computer programmers" He doesn't program much these days. :) >> "I love music and therefore I loathe the music industry. I don't want >> music that comes from a factory..." > >Such gross generalizations are great for a "new media" magazine like Wired >that operates on the basis of soundbites from so-called technogurus. >However, to state that the music industry is nothing but bad for the >production of music is ridiculously absurd. Hmmm ... I think a little more context would be appropriate here, but I didn't feel like transcribing the interview. Go listen. :) Paul imprint university of waterloo student newspaper imprint.uwaterloo.ca p 519-888-4048 / f 519-884-7800 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 07:40:31 -0400 From: "Sophie" Subject: Re: Religion The reason we call something personal, is to distinguish it from public. Public means it's fine to voice your opinions on it in public (as say, bootlegging), personal means it's private...nobodies buisness. Are we allowed to talk about personal stuff? Sure. We're allowed to talk about anything we want. You seem to think that the "taboo" items are items that "dare" us to speak about them. I think that there's a reason it requires courage to do so...it's delving into the Not My Buisness area. I used the "love life" scenario as an example of another personal topic. I've tried to consistantly state that I'm uncomfortable with talking about the religion discussion because I think that matter is personal, not public. Do you think it's public? I don't know whether what you want is to talk about it, or not. What I said was "I'd prefer we didn't talk about it". I'm as allowed to voice that opinion by the first amendment, as you are to say "There's nothing wrong with discussing it". You agreed with me that we shouldn't discuss it, but I'm the defensive one for posting that thought. Why? Because I said it in terms of "can we not discuss that"? How could I have phrased it that you would not think me defensive? What am I defending? Baby :), why else would I not want religion discussed? Because I don't want to be converted?..If my friends in engineering couldn't convert me, I doubt it will happen (which is not to say it won't...one should always maintain an open mind). Because I don't have anything to contribute? (On the contrary...I know more than I ever did about religion). I don't see why else you think I wouldn't want the topic introduced. If you think that atheists are "uptight" about religion (and I was a bit insulted by that, because it's a stereotype, which contributed to the way I handled your message) you should read Richard Feynmen's (the sweet-natured physicist) book 'The Meaning of it All'. It's a good book, adorable and easy to read. :) I guess there were some miscommunications before this one. I tried to send you a private email in response to yours. Maradeth also sent me a private email that I thought was through the forum. Now, if anyone disagree's with me that religion should be private, go ahead and talk about it. It's only my opinion. :) Soph - ----- Original Message ----- From: taitts To: Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 12:21 AM 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 #91 ******************************