From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V7 #305 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 Sunday, December 11 2005 Volume 07 : Number 305 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] Waist Deep in the Big Muddy (Pete Seeger... and covered by Richard) [OzWoman321@aol.co] [RS] Freeware and Eugene McCarthy [Bart Gallagher ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:20:20 EST From: OzWoman321@aol.com Subject: [RS] Waist Deep in the Big Muddy (Pete Seeger... and covered by Richard) Hello, All - The following poem was featured in the December 9, 2005 edition of The Writer's Almanac e-newsletter - I felt it relevant to our recent thread... "The Ministry of Propaganda..." by David Ray from The Death of Sardanapalus and Other Poems of the Iraq Wars. ) Howling Dog Press Retired generals in various cities are interviewed nightly about the war. The maps are shown and strategies discussed with great enthusiasm. Our troops are grabbing the bulls by their horns. Resistance is soon to be overcome. But resistance to what is never quite defined. The news anchors gaze upon these guests with the admiration until now shown only to movie stars. There are no views represented other than this gung-ho enthusiasm for war. From every military base intelligence and publicity personnel fan out to offer their services to media as part-time advisers and experts. They explain and make palatable all the President's policies, e.g., allowing no photos of flag-draped coffins bound for Arlington or home town cemeteries, though it would be hard to find one that has not added a few from overseas to its holdings. Every technique described by Orwell or practiced by Goebbels is in place, but so far few have dared say so. Susan "I was all out of choices, but the woman of voices She turned round the corner with music around her, She gave me the language that keeps me alive..." ~ Dar Williams ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:40:19 -0500 From: Bart Gallagher Subject: [RS] Freeware and Eugene McCarthy >Lisa wrote: > Well, the way things are going, we shall all have to go back to REAL folk music, oral tradition, in which songs are simply passed on by memory, nobody owns anything and also never gets paid for anything other than actual performances. Seems to me the tradition came up with an awful lot of good tunes and good lyrics without intellectual property rights. It may not have helped the musicians but it didn't hurt the music. As if the record industry gave a damn about musicians! And I have to feel that any musician who would dare to use the word "folk" should at the very least insist that lyrics, tabs, etc. be freely available to the public. Along the lines of "freeware" -- free to all except those who would seek to make money off of something AND exclude it from others. Interesting thought Lisa. I too think that lyrics and tab should be freely available. There is good evidence that this helps, more than hurts, musicians get their songs out. Bart "We do not need presidents who are bigger than the country, but rather ones who speak for it and support it," Senator Eugene McCarthy, sometime in 1968 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:55:57 EST From: Rongrittz@aol.com Subject: Re: [RS] Freeware and Eugene McCarthy >> I too think that lyrics and tab should be freely available. There is good evidence that this helps, more than hurts, musicians get their songs out. << I can see there being no problem with posting lyrics, but in the case of tabs, free sharing of transcriptions on the web CAN hurt the musician IF that musician also has commercially available songbooks in the marketplace. If it's free, people won't buy it. Not unlike the free sharing of the recorded songs themselves. So how would tabs, technically, be any different? In my case, with my chord site, I've made the commitment to only post lyrics/chords for artists who do NOT have their work commercially available, and in the case of those who DO, I've gotten their permission. RG ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:26:04 -0500 From: Lisa Davis - home Subject: Re: [RS] Freeware and Eugene McCarthy >In my case, with my chord site, I've made the commitment to only post lyrics/chords for artists who do NOT have their work commercially available, and in the case of those who DO, I've gotten their permission. Makes sense. But along similar lines, it would seem to me to be fair use of copyrighted work if that work is not available for sale commercially. The trouble is that there is quite a lot that is not available but apparently "out of print" is no defense. Or how about "unpublished" e.g. songs never recorded commercially? Lisa ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:18:18 -0500 From: Jamie Younghans / John McDonnell Subject: [RS] RE: Freebirdware Hi all, I was disturbed by Sandy's post regarding the crackdown on available tabs and lyrics, though RG's point is well taken that it does cut into an artist's revenue if they are commercially available. Personally, I don't know if I would have become as big a fan of RS were it not for RG's chord site. I had already discovered the music (late in the game) but definitely would not have bought all the CDs and picked up my guitar without the site. Granted, those people who have heard me play (family only) may question the benefit of RG's site (don't worry, Ron, but, you know, sleep with one eye open) but I am now a true believer, and my family's misery is RS' gain. That said, how much are artists, whose tabs and lyrics are commercially available, really making from those sales? I understand RG has to be diligent, but is any artist really losing revenue because I have a computer? (Not me, but you know what I mean). Also, I think I have said this before, but I'm in agreement with Dave Grohl (Foo Fighters) who made the point that if you're struggling and somebody is ripping you off, OK; but if you're a millionaire (a la Metallica) and you're worried about pennies, then F--- you. The problem is, who is more likely to be "struggling" but a folk artist in this musical environment? I see Lisa's point that if it's folk, it should be available; the problem is that it has been accepted that the music industry is the watchdog for an artist's intellectual property rights, which is akin to the fox guarding the henhouse, only more so. I don't know if I am typical, but if I have chords and tabs available, I'll play the songs, but I wouldn't use them for a public performance, even on a local open mic night--just at home. I would, however, buy the songs or CDs, so the artist doesn't lose, but gains. Also, who is making the tabs and lyrics available, but people who are competent enough to figure them out, and who can gain regardless? I can read (really), so if I want to have a T.S. Eliot reading at the local library, do I have to pay his estate? I think so, but how much do you think I'm bringing in? Am I really cutting in to his estate's revenue? I understand that intellectual property rights must be absolute and without regard to level of income, but it can be a little self-defeating. Friggin' lawyers. John McD. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:49:40 -0500 From: LN Davis Subject: Re: [RS] RE: Freebirdware hey hey -- I'm a lawyer!! :) don't blame the lawyers for their greedy clients! Jamie Younghans / John McDonnell wrote: >Hi all, > >I was disturbed by Sandy's post regarding the crackdown on available tabs >and lyrics, though RG's point is well taken that it does cut into an >artist's revenue if they are commercially available. Personally, I don't >know if I would have become as big a fan of RS were it not for RG's chord >site. I had already discovered the music (late in the game) but definitely >would not have bought all the CDs and picked up my guitar without the site. >Granted, those people who have heard me play (family only) may question the >benefit of RG's site (don't worry, Ron, but, you know, sleep with one eye >open) but I am now a true believer, and my family's misery is RS' gain. >That said, how much are artists, whose tabs and lyrics are commercially >available, really making from those sales? I understand RG has to be >diligent, but is any artist really losing revenue because I have a computer? >(Not me, but you know what I mean). > >Also, I think I have said this before, but I'm in agreement with Dave Grohl >(Foo Fighters) who made the point that if you're struggling and somebody is >ripping you off, OK; but if you're a millionaire (a la Metallica) and you're >worried about pennies, then F--- you. The problem is, who is more likely to >be "struggling" but a folk artist in this musical environment? I see Lisa's >point that if it's folk, it should be available; the problem is that it has >been accepted that the music industry is the watchdog for an artist's >intellectual property rights, which is akin to the fox guarding the >henhouse, only more so. I don't know if I am typical, but if I have chords >and tabs available, I'll play the songs, but I wouldn't use them for a >public performance, even on a local open mic night--just at home. I would, >however, buy the songs or CDs, so the artist doesn't lose, but gains. Also, >who is making the tabs and lyrics available, but people who are competent >enough to figure them out, and who can gain regardless? > >I can read (really), so if I want to have a T.S. Eliot reading at the local >library, do I have to pay his estate? I think so, but how much do you think >I'm bringing in? Am I really cutting in to his estate's revenue? I >understand that intellectual property rights must be absolute and without >regard to level of income, but it can be a little self-defeating. Friggin' >lawyers. > >John McD. ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V7 #305 ***********************************