| ||
| The Ovation Fan Club | ||
| ||
| Random quote: "Ovation Guitars really don't get the respect they deserve!" - Alex Pepiak |
 Billy Ray Cyrus playing sinister Ovation
| View previous thread :: View next thread | |
| Forums Archive -> The Vault: 2002-2003 | Message format | |
musicamex |
| ||
Joined: March 2002 Posts: 873 Location: puerto vallarta, mexico | good bluegrass is hard to beat. really a pretty sophisticated mix of harmonies and musical counterpoints. modern country for the most part quenches my thirst for good music about as well as reading a hallmark greeting card while drinking a glass of cheap pancake syrup. it makes me wonder about those millions of people searching for an identity that buy that stuff. if i was king i'd plug all of those bull riding machines into 440 three phase and try to shake some sense into them. | ||
| |||
| Bailey |
| ||
Joined: May 2002 Posts: 3005 Location: Las Cruces, NM | I'll buy that Russ, I can't accidently turn on a "country" radio station without gagging. A little 440 would be good for all, maybe we could produce an amp that feeds stun gun voltage to any mike held by these pukes, the cops say stun guns are humane and it would be humane for us. I certainly would enjoy the show. Twitching and jerking would be infinitely more entertaining than their music! Bailey [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Bailey ] | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 7222 Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | "I strongly advise seeing Queens of the Stoneage" What kind of "show" does he put on. My comment about "country artists putting on better shows" was in reference to the shows size and style, not the music. I saw a video of Tim Mcgruff (whomever) and he had a larger crew and stage setup than U2 did for Rattle and Hum. I saw Aerosmith recently... and well... don't even get me started.. lame is the only word I will use. All of the pop Country artists seem to be at the level of production that KISS puts in...but most of the "Rock" acts... just show up and play. Now I have nothing against "show up and play"... I just like the big shows too and was surprised that "country" is doing it now... not Rock. [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Mr. Ovation ] | ||
| |||
| musicamex |
| ||
Joined: March 2002 Posts: 873 Location: puerto vallarta, mexico | maybe i'm getting older and more biased, but i long for the good old days when i used to see real talent in places like dark coffee houses. guys like doc watson and his son merele, PP&M, chuck and jonie mitchel and even bob dylan, dressed like the audience and played TO them. no smoke and mirrors, just plain honest music that the audience was a part of instead of being apart from it. today the connection is gone and the music is formula (in both senses) for people who expect a circus act and for musicians who lack the ability to stand on their musical talent. this isn't a blanket statement, and i still find great music being played in smaller places, in particular in clubs with open mic venues. these clubs are often filled to capacity with people that i have a common ground with and i have made countless friends both playing and listening in them. i cant think of ever having dinner with someone i met at a modern concert, though i admit i just don't bother going anymore. i still like concerts by groups like String cheese incident, and dylan has gotten closer to his roots again and i certainly plan to get to know more about QOTSA. this has been a good thread. it reinforced my own personal committment to making the music the show. so let's see-----should i wear my foss tug boat t- shirt for tonight's gig or since it's friday maybe something with buttons for a change. that's it for the special effects---now i'll restring my guitar----well, after a little siesta that is. | ||
| |||
| Paul Templeman |
| ||
Joined: February 2002 Posts: 5750 Location: Scotland | This is the bottom line as I see it. Music is basically an artform. Marketing & accounting are not art. However the success or otherwise of an "artist" as far as a major label is concerned, is in the hands of the marketing & accounts departments. Art & finance make strange bedfellows & as soon as the money comes in, the art disappears. That last phrase sums up the entire Nashville/corporate/major label/big guitar manufactuer vibe in one sentence. Steve Earle is in my opinion one of the most important American musicians of the last 40 years. Earle & the likes of John Hiatt & Ry Cooder wil sell globally maybe between 100 & 300 thousand copies of anything they want to put out, and make a lot of people happy. This is chicken-feed for a major label who want to see multiple-millions, largely to justify their ridiculous salaries, huge marketing costs & their liking for Peruvian marching powder. So what's my point? Simply this... Fuck corporate music of any kind. Real music is out there & real people are making it, at every conceivable level. The net is making the global music market a viabilty for everyone. I for one, hate the concept of Napster or "file-sharing" (read "theft of intellectual copyright") & was glad to see it's demise, but it scared the fatcats shitless. It's possible to have a career & sell music at a fair price without a bunch of drug-addled know-nothing pseudo-intellectuals ripping you off for 70% Most of the acts I listen to have had major-label deals at some point in their careers. All are now with independants or are self-financing their releases (John Hiatt, David Lindley, Rodney Crowell, Peter Case, Darden Smith, Warren Zevon, Steve Earle Etc. Etc) All are currently producing their best ever work, I don't believe those two facts are unrelated. Screw MTV/CMT and the rest of the bullshit. If you want good music, of any kind, don't let corporate TV and Radio make your decisions for you, go and look for it, it's out there. Paul [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Templeman ] | ||
| |||
| moody, p.i. |
| ||
Joined: March 2002 Posts: 15664 Location: SoCal | Seriously Paul, don't mince words. What do you really think? Just kidding. There are a lot of artists out there who are touring, making good music in small venues, and selling the cd's that they made themselves. One doesn't have to have a major label to be a success by any standard. And some of the best music out there is being made by people recording in their converted garages or living rooms. It struck me in readin Paul T.'s post that his thinking also applies to Ovation When they were making great guitars to make great guitars, oddly enough, they made great guitars. When they listened to the finance people, well, they made a good profit, but the great guitars were harder to find. And this comes full circle. As you will recall, I commented on Chet Atkins helping to develope the "Nashville" sound in the 60's, which spelled the end of pure country music for a few years. Chet even said himself that they were doing it to save their jobs. It was a money decision, not an art decision. It made sense at the time when you had family to feed, but looking back now..... | ||
| |||
| Paul Templeman |
| ||
Joined: February 2002 Posts: 5750 Location: Scotland | This is how much the people at the helm actually know about music.... Just for a laugh, a UK Music journalist sent current recordings of Bob Dylan & David Bowie to their label's A&R departments. A few weeks later he received the standard rejection letters. A true story, well-documented in the UK press. Paul | ||
| |||
| stonebobbo |
| ||
Joined: August 2002 Posts: 8307 Location: Tennessee | Very interesting thread ... and just my two cents worth, traditional country music is alive and well. My 16-year old son, who started out playing distorted power chords in a punk rock band, quickly morphed into a cleaner sound ... leaning heavily towards classic rockabilly and soon country. He now plays a lot of Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, Hank Wilson and Johnny Cash and is turning on a lot of urban/suburban teenagers to the sound. (He had a good laugh when one of the audience commented on how they liked the toned down Social Distortion song "Ring of Fire" ... to which he replied "Hello ... that's Johnny Cash" in a near perfect imitation). I guess my point is ... even with his old man still mostly rocking, his contemporary mostly headbanging or hip-hopping, he has discovered a "new sound", which is drawing in new fans every time he plays. P.S. All of the "new country" and "young country" stations in the San Francisco Bay Area are now off the air. Not a moment to soon sez me. P.P.S. Oh yeah, forgot to mention ... of course he is playing on an Ovation -- non-cutaway since the cutaways "don't look right". Tell the factory to get ready to move back that direction with bodies ... the change is a-comin'. [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: stonebobbo ] | ||
| |||
| Bailey |
| ||
Joined: May 2002 Posts: 3005 Location: Las Cruces, NM | As I read these postings I have gotten a good feeling that there is hope out there. I have never felt that MUSIC had a chance of resurfacing like it did after the "Nashville Sound" attempt to destroy it in the 60's and 70's. Maybe the gen X version of J. Cash, Christofferson, Waylon, Willie etc. is waiting in the wings. I hope we're on the verge of this kind of revolution and I live to see it. Bailey | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 7222 Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | I gotta jump in on whoever thinks losing Napster was good. First.. it just moved to half dozen other services.. but.. in reality, the ONLY people that lost money was CORPERATE MUSIC INDUSTRY. Indie bands THRIVED because of Napster. Literally 1000's of bands that would not have been heard outside thier own town circulated enough "free" music to create a buzz to buy thier CD's. It was proven over and over that in general if somone ONLY downloaded music for free and didn't buy CD's... they weren't GOING to buy CD's and hence no money lost. Most NEW music I heard was because of Napster and then went and bought the full CD. Where else CAN you hear NEW good music? The loss of Napster was a crime by Music Corperations monopoly worse than anything Microsoft has ever done. The Music industry better realize they are now SOFTWARE companies and get with the program or by roughly 2010 they will be out of buisness, because enough people will be able to download, and BUY DIRECTLY from the artists. As an addition... In Europe, many of the nightclubs (at least in Germany) have download services, whereby they don't bring boxes of records and cd's to clubs.. they just hook up to the clubs Internet access and download what they need as they need it. Most of this material is NOT paid for, and this DIRECTLY affects the corperate pocketbook. That's hwo they should be going after or blocking, not sending a message to the youth of today that if you PIONEER GROUNDBREAKING TECHNOLOGY you will be fined by the very government and country you desgined it for!!! Remember Napster was only a convienent testbed for peer-to-peer technology. They could have shared recipies, but chose music to test the software... they didn't een realize what they had until everyone was using it. Those two college freshman (and several of their friends) accomplished what Microsift, Novell, and some other were attemping for YEARS (and still can't match).... and they got punished for it!!!! | ||
| |||
| alpep |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 10582 Location: NJ | www.limewire.com | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 7222 Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | http://www.morpheus.com/ | ||
| |||
| Paul Templeman |
| ||
Joined: February 2002 Posts: 5750 Location: Scotland | The concept of "File-sharing" is flawed, just about everytnimg that is being "shared" was stolen in the first place. If people are prepared to pay a small fee for downloading something then fine, and there are lots of sites where bands without record-label support, publishing or distribution can get their music into the public domain and get paid for it. However the Napster-type sites, and there are way too many, just allow the public to steal other peoples work. Just because that work may be owned by a faceless multi-national does not make it less of a crime. It's not just music, software, movies are all available. I teach music technology at a college, the amount of crack software distributed among & by my students is frightening. Most had the new version of Cubase (SX) before it was officially released. My local fleamarkets & carboot sales are full of scumbags selling pirated MP3 compilation CDS & DVD movies, some of which aren't yet on general release. Everyone likes a bargain, but this is just wrong. If the public have the choice between going into a store & buying something, paying a fee to download, or stealing it from a "file-sharing" site, what is the most likely senario? I have no affection for the major labels, but this is the thin end of the wedge & is a recipe for disaster. Everyone should be paid for the work they do. If you walk into a record store and get caught stealing a CD you will have to deal with the consequences. Stealing someones intellectual copyright from a website should be no different. Stealing it from a site & selling it on should be a capital offence. [ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Templeman ] | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 7222 Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | "everytnimg that is being "shared" was stolen in the first place." This is the presumed notion, and was disproved over and over. There was an extremely SMALL group of folks who download music and either didn't aleady own, or then go buy the actual CD. Most downloading was done by folks who just wanted to grab an easy copy of what they already bought. If download wasn't avialable, they would just rip or tape like we always did. The comparitely few that ONLY downloaded music, are the same bums that got thier friends to copy tapes... hence NO MONEY LOST. Want to deal with numbers.. the Larz the techno idiot of Metallica can't even do simple math. Based on their OWN numbers.. had they been paid roayalty due for all of the 1000's of downloads of their songs... they lost a few thousand dollars, which was easily made up 10-fold by the increase in their record sales due to the publicity of said idiot. (by the way I am a Metalica fan also) The whole thing as far as I am concerned started as a publicity stunt for Metallica. ALSO... Had record companies sold the songs ANYONE's songs online... for ANY fee.. NOTHING would go to the artist as ONLINE distro was, up until now NOT covered in ANY Record company contract... so AGAIN.. no artist money lost. ALSO... More files are shared via standard newsgroups and FTP sites than all of the Napster type sites put together. My problem is the punishment of the young inventors of technology that the big corperations couldn't succeed at. File sharing is NOT just about music. It's about banking, it's about the internet, it's about file streaming, it's about global electronic community. Although I think the shuting down Napster was pointless and wrong.. fining and prosecuting people for inventing technology is stupid. You believe file sharing is wrong... go after the peopls doing the sharing. Cars kill people, so we should go after Henry Ford. The guy who invented the Hypermic needle should have been hung. The group of folks who created Arpnet should all be jailed. I don't think so. Finally... sheesh.. What about music shared that is out of print. Rekindling artists catalogs that actually WENT BACK INTO PRINT because of the popularity of thier downloads on Napster. AND What about all the record and tape trader/used stores. Selling USED records, cd and tapes over and over and the artist gets NOTHING... now THAT's stealing from the artist, especailly whent he record is STILL IN PRINT. [ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Mr. Ovation ] | ||
| |||
| Paul Templeman |
| ||
Joined: February 2002 Posts: 5750 Location: Scotland | To clarify, I actually said "just about everything that is shared was stolen in the first place". There is no easy answer to this, I agree with most of your argument, and stand by all of mine. The fact is that there is theft involved, regardless of who owns what, how much money they earn or how many millions of albums they may sell, a basic wrong is happening, and certain sites, if not blatantly promoting the theft of music, software, movies or anything else which is downloadable, are at least providing the opportunities. I have no problem with the technology used, & persucuting the inventors of the technology is closing the door after the horse has bolted. I have a major problem with blatant disregard & disrespect for a persons creativity & the ownership & rights of the results of that creativity [ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Templeman ] | ||
| |||
| musicamex |
| ||
Joined: March 2002 Posts: 873 Location: puerto vallarta, mexico | the internet is like the old west in a way. few laws, and unless you have a big gun and can handle it you are going to be offended, robbed, bullied, and gunned down until legislators even begin to protect people. i am offended by the junk mail we recieve both in quantity and content. i am satisfied with the size of my dick and don't particularly want to see teens and farm animals or respond to a loan scam, yet i recieve around 1000 unsolicited e-mails a week that my wife recieves too in her hotmail account. despite the filters, you still get occasional stuff that you want to read but don't have in your address book yet. ie to get an e mail from someone on this site that isn't in my address book yet, they have to make sure the subject line has something to do with guitars or ovations so i notice it in the junk mail folder before it is automatically deleted. i respect freedom of speach and press etc but this unsolicited, offensive, virus laden crap is eating up my time and trying my patience. we have become cynical and skeptical and feel targeted and suspicious with what could be the best new learning and communication tool since the printing press. i feel sorry for parents with kids, and for my grand kids and for the vast majority of people who don't approve of internet mass mailings but get them anyway because it is so cheap to do. i'm far from a saint. i grew up in detroit in a blackboard jungle scene and knew how to cuss long before i knew what the words meant, but i knew where to use them. now there is so much obscene stuff that using the internet almost guarantees that you will be exposed to it. e mail and pop ups are only examples what needs policing, but they particularly piss me off. they rob me of time, security and train of thought every day i use the computer. but how do you run the bad guys out of dodge when dodge is now global, and the bad guys can assume a new identity in minutes. property rights are only one issue in this new online world. this board is an example of the good amongst pervasive in your face bad and ugly. i'd appreciate any tips on how to have more control over what we view. if you have suggestions please send me a link or post it. i'll bet allot of us on this board are fed up with this theft of our personal time and choice. [ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: musicamex ] | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 7222 Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Although this started out as a thread about Silly Billy and his Ovation... It certainly is an interesting thread, and right up my alley of expertise. First I can address "law" and the internet... to have law, you have to have ownership.. and no ones ownes the internet, LEAST of all the United States government at this point even though we invented it for the most part. As far as governing content, expect for some of the real bizarre... remember that in many countries most of what you see is perfectly legal... and the rub in fact (excuse the pun..) Is this "questionable" content you speak of is targeted at the US. There is little or no interest in seeing nudity on the internet in the rest of the world, because in most of it.. you can just turn on the tv. Someone getting shot or stabbeb, you won't see... People haveing sex... sex related game shows, no problem.. as it should be. We are the prudes of the world for the most part (these are generalizations) and we are targets of lots of junk because of it. So this doesn't really have an answer that's clear. Much like the thread of what is stealing on the internet and what isn't. One last (maybe not) note on Napster.. Bands (even signed big acts) now are in the practice of releasing a tune or two (usually the hit single) free over the internet for each new album to entice buyers. This used to be done for FREE by fans via Napster and others and covered by the press for FREE also. Now the bands have to PAY FOR ADDITIONAL MARKETING they used to get for FREE. That was one of the music industry goals I'm sure. A way to charge a band to do something that was already being done for free. Bands popularity in general only INCREASED and sales only INCREASED by appearing on file-sharing networks, especially if they were good. Good bands that couldn't even get gigs before Napster had to go from CD-R copies to packaged releases to keep up with demand. And all because Larz wanted to make a stink and get the bands name into the press. Larz had no idea what a Napster was, nor how to use a computer, and still doesn't... by HIS OWN admission (at least as of Feb 2002.) As for pop-ups and spam. It's very hard to filter from the larger ISP's. When thinking about @hotmail, @yahoo or @AOL accounts.. you can pretty much make up any name and it's a real address. It's much harder to target private corperate mail servers with spam. Also, if you post your email address on websites (not hidden like here) but ""mailto" myemail@email.com" search engines pick that up.. and add them to spam lists. I was considering offering a | ||
| |||
| Bailey |
| ||
Joined: May 2002 Posts: 3005 Location: Las Cruces, NM | Russ, Miles and others You are now addressing issues that were hoped in the early days of the network, would not arise. IN THE BEGINNING the Lord sayeth, no commercial traffic was to be allowed on the net and was met with disapproval if it showed up, but that was like saying radio and TV can't have ads, the possibility of reaching so many people became irresistable when everybody in the world discovered they could talk to everybody else in the world by plugging in their computer and running a program that was usually free or came with their computer. So we log on and we are inside the store, now there is greed on both sides of the counter, can WE get something of value free, can THEY sell us something by giving us a come-on with the product to follow at a cost. In the middle are the services that give us the service at the expense of advertisers, leading to the situation Russ describes where if you do anything at all, you are inundated with spam. Now if we compare it to cable TV, we watch hours of programs free interspersed with advertising, I tape music off of the cable with my VCR for my enjoyment and cut out the ads, so is that a theft? The shared sites are the reverse where the location of the music is uploaded for the same sort of enjoyment, it sounds equivalent except the sites that are listing this information are profiting by it because they are getting free what you paid for when you bought the CD. I am a musician, I go to bars and other commercial enterprises and expect them to pay me if I attract businesss for them because it took me years to get to where I could play well enough to do that. People who are listeners want my product free because they imagine that if they could play like that they would do it for nothing as if musicians don't eat or pay rent, even though they wouldn't think of going to work for nothing or giving up the amount of time watching cable TV it takes to play like that. Either playing music as a human has a value or we will be reduced to hearing synthesized music as we ridicule those ragged beggers on the street corners with their $5000 guitars that stupidly thought you could get paid for playing music. Bailey (I hope I have confused the situation even more) [ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Bailey ] | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 7222 Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Hi Bailey... was waiting for you to join.. Also with some more good points. One thing that I guess I just can't seem to explain very well is that the FEW people that downloaded music that DIDN'T either already have the CD, or later go buy it... WOULDN'T BUY IT.. So no money lost BUT at least.. they end up being a tool advertising the tunes to others that MAY actually buy it. Most people I know (and the data the courts came up with, reported and decided to ignor) that download music download four types.. 1. Music that is not longer available for purchase. (NOBODY LOOSES) 2. Music THEY ALREADY OWN, just want in electronic form on their PC for use at work or whereever instead of carting a CD player (LEGAL NO MONEY LOST, you are allowed to copy for personal use) 3. People that randomly download tunes from artists with interesting names or whatever.. to decide if they want to buy the album. Do to this method.. music is exposed to a wider audience and SALES DID and DO GO UP.. that is why the Corperate folks are NOW PROVIDING the HITS FOR FREE!!! If you are on AOL, you can listen to most songs and see the full videos for FREE as the they come out (actually pre-release usually).. THESE ARE PROVIDED BY THE RECORD COMPANIES TO ENTISE YOU TO BUY... These "FREEBEES" are most likely COSTING the Artist money for something that used to happen for free. 4. (THIS IS THE SMALLEST GROUP OF PEOPLE) People that downloaded music and in general just stole it.. never buying CD's and even worse using it for public DJ work and such. THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED... and as Bailey wisely inferred.. NOT THE SERVICE.. the OFFENDERS should have been prosecuted. | ||
| |||
| alpep |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 10582 Location: NJ | I think I will go deliver pizzas it is much less stressful and all you have to think about are the roads | ||
| |||
| Paul Templeman |
| ||
Joined: February 2002 Posts: 5750 Location: Scotland | The fact that music is no longer available for purchase is irrelevant unless the publishing rights have lapsed to public domain. If a radio station plays a track from an out-of-print album, a royalty is still payable to the owner of the copyright. That becomes a grey area on a download but I would still question the morality, especially if the work is duplicated and distributed, which happens. We're just talking about music here, what about the amount of movies & crack software available to download? | ||
| |||
| stonebobbo |
| ||
Joined: August 2002 Posts: 8307 Location: Tennessee | Our own perception becomes our own reality. I have two daughters in college - which used to be the time in life when most of a person's music was purchased. Whereas I still have hundreds and hundreds of vinyl albums I acquired during those (sometimes hazy) days, very few CDs are being bought by those I know in the college scene these days. One of my daughters has several hundred CD-Rs filled with all the latest music, plus a ton of the classics, and owns less than 20 officially produced CDs. She is very typical of the students in Santa Barbara, and many of her friends are even more flagrant abusers. My other daughter tells me the practice is rampant at UCLA ... in fact she and I went to the on-campus music store and when I commented to the clerk how small both the store and the selection were, he said it's because no one buys music anymore, they download it. If they can't get it downloaded, one person will buy the disc, it will then be passed around for copying by anyone who wants it (I've seen signup sheets!), and then the original disc is then sold back to the music store as used and the process starts all over again. The conundrum: how many sales are actually being lost? Most of these kids simply don't have the money to purchase all of the music they want to listen to. Is downloading the lastest Dave Matthews album then OK because the music is getting out and widely listened to? I don't buy the argument that the practice drives more airplay and therefore revenue to the artist. My first-hand experience is that college people aren't listening to the radio much ... instead they are creating playlists on their computer from downloaded files and playing the music that way. Most of the college students think it is only the big, ugly record companies who are getting burned, and that's OK because they are the big, bad corporate moneywhores anyway. And since the you can listen to the music for free over the radio, what's any different about getting it over the internet? The concept that someone actually owns the intellectual property is foreign to them. The other side that I haven't seen discussed much relates to the songwriters. How much in the way of royalties is being lost to them? What comes next ... should the tab sites be shut down because they are publishing copyrighted materials (ie lyrics) which used to be available only by either buying the album or from a songbook? After all, a copyright is a copyright, right? We have had many spirited discussions around this in my house. The internet has been a boon to many bands who have found a new way to get their music out to a huge public, and maybe even get a "real" record deal. It's a great way to search out new music and new performers, and support them by BUYING their self-produced CD. Those of us who are musicians and songwriters have a different perspective on this than the general public. We respect the time and talent that go into crafting and developing sounds that inspire others, and therefore tend to respect the rights that go along with what is created. We can decide for ourselves what we expect in return for our work, but many of the abuses now inherent in the internet have taken that decision away from the artist. | ||
| |||
| alpep |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 10582 Location: NJ | back in the day I got a reel to reel recorder for my birthday. I hooked it up to my stereo and didn't look back. I recorded lp's live radio concerts my favorite tunes from the radio and borrowed albums and then recorded them. Later on during college I got a cassette recorder and did the same and was able to use the cassettes in my pickup truck. I had a friend that was doing the same only recording onto 8 track tapes. so here we are in the 21st century. I have close to 5K albums. I have a pile of cassettes and probably 1000 cd's many of them copies of what I have on vinyl or new compilations with additional songs.(that is how they get me) Ok so I have a computer with a cd burner and decide to try this "napster" thing. Yes I got hooked and downloaded a bunch of stuff mostly live unreleashed recordings and out of print stuff from years gone by. ( In my LP's is a big chunk of bootleg concerts also) I used the download services to find a tune that I may want to work out and learn to play or to make cd's for my cd player in my pickup truck. I hate to leave real cd's in there they will get beat melted or stolen. No one will steal a burned cd. From my own expereience I have found that If I downloaded a tune or two from a certain CD or artist I almost always would buy the legitimate one from the atore. Music is not the only thing to get bootlegged. I have found pictures of items that were taken from my website on the website of others and I have found articles that I wrote on other websites without my permission. My personal policy is if you ask me fine I will let you use it but if you don't ask and use it I will protest. But in reality these instances of "stealing" have increased my exposure and interest in my website and items I have for sale so it is a double edged sword. Miles had a few tracks from my band stored on his website they were not even there for public use yet people were hitting on them and listening. I find this kind of fascinating the someone would scope out unsolicited original material and listen to it but who knows???? Maybe I am a major artist in Ecuador and don't even know it. As for bookleg Cd's cassettes dvd's etc just go to any major flea market they are all over the place. the days of the live stuff is harder to find though people are taking commercial product and bootlegging. I think bootlegging live music fills the void between the commercial releases and the live performances. | ||
| |||
| Mr. Ovation |
| ||
Joined: December 2001 Posts: 7222 Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | I think we are really getting to the meatloaf of this conundrum. If you buy a box of pencils, you bought pencils. If you buy a car, you bought a car etc etc etc.. Even when you buy a piece of art, it's tangible and you look at it. If you buy a CD, you really buy the stuff you hear when you play it. The artwork and that piece of plastic is just a way to get your product to you and in fact, it is called Packaging by the industry. I'll just leave that statement as is, cause it seems important.. Copyright law is pretty interesting and really up to interpretation when it comes to music, which is sad. Big corperations even play the game of not paying for material. I wonder if Led Zep, and The WHO really are getting royalties for those truck and car commercials. You might think "of course they are" but not necessarily. If you thought big corps have some crooks... get a load of this. I have a friend who has/inherited the photos (and the rights) taken of a famous actress. One night he was watching one of those news magazine shows and a photo popped up in the backdrop as they were talking about her birthday or something. Anyway, he recognized the photo, because it was in her house and so he looked it up, and sure enough it was his. So he called the TV station, and finally got all the way to the show production department who... get this.. transferred him to the royalty claims departement. They looked up the show, told him how long the photo appeared on the air, and gave him a small but reasonable price. If he didn't want it, he was free to take this particular Entertainment Network (hint hint) to court... so he took it. He did ask, and basicallly they have royalty funds in the budget. If someone calls, they pay.. if they don't call... then oh well too bad. It costs them too much to research, and based on the interpretation... they are not refusing to pay a royalty where due. They just aren't doing it up front. How did they get the photo... who knows.. but they probably got permission from the person who supplied it... so they are covered :) go figure... | ||
| |||
| Paul Templeman |
| ||
Joined: February 2002 Posts: 5750 Location: Scotland | Stonebobbo, in my veiw your post is far closer the the mark & expresses my concerns about payment to the originators of the work. I work in a college & I am well aware of the extent of downloading of music, software & movies by that particular demograph, though, perversely, it's exactly those people desperate to get "signed" to a record label. Those of us who make our livings from, or are genuinely interested in music will tend use the net as a tool to increase our awareness of music or promote our art. For the rest it's a candy store with the owner in the backshop. [ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Templeman ] | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
| This message board and website is not sponsored or affiliated with Ovation® Guitars in any way. | |
| (Delete all cookies set by this site) | |