From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V3 #100 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Tuesday, March 20 2001 Volume 03 : Number 100 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] tape trading and whatnot and my idea which was really iain's idea [j] [RS] What A Rush [RockinRonD@aol.com] Re: [RS] tape trading and whatnot and my idea which was really iain's idea [Deb Woodell ] Re: [RS] arrgh -napster [Elwestrand ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:35:03 -0500 From: jcolb Subject: [RS] tape trading and whatnot and my idea which was really iain's idea Several thoughts on tape trading eet al- I do believe in most cases, the people trading tapes in the folk genre have most, if not all of the artist's legitimate releases including ep's and rarities. I do believe pearl jam, the dead and richard thompson have found the best ways to combat bootlegs (and i make a very clear distinction between a bootleg, that a company or individual passing himself off as a company presses for financial gain vs. a tape recorded for personal enjoyment and not sold) is by simpy releasing more of the live and unreleased stuff. And very often, we see WHY it has been unreleased! now what i think is a neat compromise, as i mentioned to Charlie, is the thing that iain matthews did while under the young/hunter wing; he went into the studio armed with just a guitar and his voice and recorded live- old stuff, new stuff, covers, alternate versions... stripped down and as close to front porch music as most of us will ever get from a legit recording artist. Got 'em made up and sold at concerts and through his newsletter- the Notebook series, he called them. He released a few live things in the series too before, I suppose, losing interest. (Frankly, he started releasing so much stuff between his different projects that I wasn't able to keep up) But think about it- low up front costs- hell, ask your fans to buy an advance copy and pay for the studio time, give them an autographed disc in exchange when it comes out- direct marketing- and relatively complete control over the project. i think something like this would be perfect for Richard... And i'm still not sure what feelings I have on napster. It's almost like i want to draw a line- well, that's the stones and they're filthy rich so help yourself, but hey, it's richard and he's not... and that isn't right, commercial success shouldn't dictate right or wrong- but then it also exposes the music to people who might not otherwise have heard it- THEORETICALLY. I find here at our work it's way more often people downloading stuff they simply didn't want to buy. (last thing I personally downloaded literally months ago was arrowhead and reunion hill from before I owned reunion hill, just because i wanted to hear them again before the special ordered disc came in... now this didn't influence my decision to buy, because i had already ordered the disc, but it was nice to be able to listen to the tunes in the mean time.) And then too, as far the the big labels go, if you have, say, a greatest hits record that all the tapes already existed for, the studio time and musicians have been covered long ago, you often have cheesy graphics and minimal packaging- yet they charge $17 bucks for... that's sheer greed. (And again, before anyone jumps on this, i am not talking about indies with minimal budgets, minimal distribution and a real good chance of losing money every time they record someone banging away on an acoustic guitar...) So mostly i try not to think about it cause it makes my head hurt. jim colbert sc pa usa with a brand new taylor guitar! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:01:14 EST From: RockinRonD@aol.com Subject: [RS] What A Rush In one of the earliest interviews I ever did with a musical artist, when a third year student at the university of Florida in 1973, I interviewed Tom Rush and wrote a profile of him for the Gainesville Sun, a New York Times-owned daily for which I was sort of the pop journalist in residence. I sent the article to Tom's record company after it was published and about two weeks later I got a fabulous post card from Tom - a photo of the famous Edward Hopper diner painting -- where he thanked me for the article and wrote that he enjoyed both doing the interview and reading the story. He signed off, "Keep on Scribblin' --Tom Rush." In the many years I've been writing about people, songwriters and otherwise, no one but Tom Rush has ever sent me a thank you for writing them up. Ever. It meant alot to me then as a student journalist. It means just as much to me today. Recently Tom played here and I brought a photo of him and I taken in 1973 after our interview concluded. We both got a great laugh. Then again, he looks alot better 28 years later than I do. RecallinRon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:02:22 -0800 (PST) From: Deb Woodell Subject: Re: [RS] tape trading and whatnot and my idea which was really iain's idea My thinking on all this...taping, Napster, etc., primarily is to abide by the performer's wishes. Some, for instance, don't mind taping shows, but no digital recordings, some don't like Napster, some don't mind. I think we should respect their wishes. And part of the problem/situation, as I see it, involves the whole concept of downloading. I, for one, have never downloaded anything off the Internet, but have listened to some stuff at mp3, all people who put their own stuff there. Perhaps part of the solution is to allow so-called listening stations online, but to negate the ability to download. Then, we can listen as much as we want, just as we do when we go to the record store that has listening stations, but we cannot own the music unless we make the actual purchase. My other personal view of downloads/bootlegs, etc., is that one can have only so much in their possessions. Every once in a great while, I will get some boot from a show, you know, joing a taping tree, but for the most part, I don't need every last thing and every last recording/show by someone. (I also don't do the autograph thing -- it's beyond me why something signed by someone famous makes it more precious than something a friend gives, but that's another story. And don't even get me started on those who have to have all the merchandise, as if it somehow validates your level of fandom.) Deb ===== You can take the rock band away from the girl and think you've tamed her. But, she'll just pick up an acoustic, give you that innocent little girl grin, quietly laugh and say? "Nevah!" Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:14:00 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: [RS] arrgh Oh, God. I've been quietly reading these posts, hoping the whole damned thread would just unravel, whither away, and disintegrate into so much cotton dust. No such luck. If we're going to go on with this, can we at least try to express our opinions without insulting others? I get it. Some of you are too well-behaved/cool/whatever to want to talk to someone whose work you admire, to try to get autographs, to buy the t-shirt, or to want to hear much more out of a musician than what they release officially. I . . . get . . . it. Please, however, have a little mercy on the rest of us. On a related note, some people on the list have decided for _themselves_ that bootlegs are not what they're into. Now, if you want to trade bootlegs, is it really necessary to convince those people that it's OK? Why should you care what they want, or don't want, to do? Do your bootleg thing, and if the artist doesn't care, I'm willing to bet that no one here does, either. They just don't like it, that's all. Different strokes for different folks, guys (and I'm not really one to go for moral relativism, nor do I have any strong opinion on the matter). This is just annoying. Some of you (I name no names) imply that you're better fans because you don't do this, and you don't do that. Well, isn't that kind of the point? Why do you feel the need to point out all your many virtues to the list--other than to be recognized for what a great fan you are? Am I the only one who sees the irony, and finds it . . . annoying?! And boring. Anyways, I know this thread isn't going away anytime soon, because a lot of people seem to have a lot at stake in proving their "ultimate fanhood," or "ultimate anti-fanhood," or whatever. And why the statement, "Well, if the artist doesn't like their music being disseminated in that way, then it's bad; and if they don't mind, well then, it's not bad," which has been repeated over and over again by some sensible people, hasn't ended the bootleg/napster conversation already, I'll never know. And I'm not saying it should stop--just that I'll be deleting a lot of posts with "tape" "bootleg" "napster" or "fan" in the message headers for a little while. That's my two cents, for whatever that's worth. Peace, Peace, and PEACE, Vanessa - -- "Somewhere within this heart of mine,/ Demons are working overtime, Would that I were ruled by sweet, sweet fate,/ Never facing the choice I made." --Duncan Sheik, "House Full of Riches" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:35:36 -0500 From: Elwestrand Subject: Re: [RS] arrgh -napster Vanessa said: Some of you are too well-behaved/cool/whatever to want to talk > to someone whose work you admire, to try to get autographs, to buy the > t-shirt, or to want to hear much more out of > a musician than what they release officially. I think it is great fun to get to talk to the artists. I didn't even know that was possible for the longest time! I also think it is great to get things signed. Well that is by some people. For instance I have found that Katrina Nields will ignore you at great length and doesn't seem the least bit interested in signing anything. I will never ask her again. Nerissa on the other hand, is all sunshine and loves to sign and talk about her music. Same with Dar. I will still try to get my CD's signed by Richard, but I have mostly lost the desire to talk to him. I think Vanessa makes the ultimate point about bootlegs. We want them because we want to hear more of the artist than what is commercially available. We aren't trying to screw them. As for Napster I think that we will ultimately pay for all forms of entertainment by the piece and through some kind of online/wireless media. It will all just be charged against your wireless media bill. At that point there will likely be a means to charge us for anything that flys through our personal media outlet. Although we may be billed on listening/viewing time instead of for the actual media. They are trying to figure this model out. I don't see Napster as a threat, because it is a slow painful process. However, the limits of this technology will be blown out by the memory and processor innovations on the way. Those with the money to own the cutting edge will not have to wait for anything. The only limits to speed in the future will be the limits of software designers. Won't it be ironic to listen to folk music on such high tech channels? E ________________________________________________ Get your own "800" number Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V3 #100 ***********************************