# Would you agree with Stevie Nicks?



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Interesting debate here. I guess there are pro's and con's. No doubt it has changed things big time.



> Stevie Nicks is convinced the Internet has "destroyed" rock 'n' roll because young bands are no longer given the chance to develop if they don't achieve instant success.
> 
> The Fleetwood Mac singer is vehemently opposed to the expansion of the Internet, blaming the growth of the online music industry for stifling upcoming talent and discouraging youngsters from socializing with their peers.
> 
> She tells the New York Daily News, "The Internet has destroyed rock. Children no longer develop social graces. They don't hang out anymore. I'm financially stable. I'm OK. But what about the kids trying to make it in this business? If you're not an established band, if you don't have a hit single, they're (the record labels) gonna drop you. There are a lot of people out there as talented as we (Fleetwood Mac) were, but they can't sustain being in a rock 'n' roll band for long without success. We were able to, but we're going to die out."


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Huh? Guess Stevie doesn't cruise Myspace or Facebook where people self promote all day long. And with the internet comes worldwide collaberations. Not to mention improvements and availablility in recording equipment. 

Not wait .. with no internet there would be no Justin Beiber ....kkjq


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Actually she onto something. Although she's a little too targeted, in my view. The Internet is but one bit of technology that is predicated on coddling impatience. It joins a lineup consisting of faster computers, microwave ovens, picture-in-picture, cable TV, video recorders, cellphones, GPS, home shopping network, etc etc., that are predicated on delivering more faster. Impatience is not humanity's finest quality. Indeed, the prisons are full of people whose impatience led them by their nose.


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

Without Youtube Andy McKee would probably still be an unknown guitar teacher in Kansas. The internet presents great opportunities to circumvent traditional record companies and go straight to the audiences. Some bands did well with the old way things worked. Other bands will do better the new way.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

There are dozens of bands and musicians I would never had heard of if it wasn't for the internet and internet radio. 

Sorry Stevie - :wave:


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I think she is talking more about the business side of it more than being heard. Being heard alone wont put any bacon on the table. Anyone can post up music today


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I see it from the POV of a listener and, even though I don't like the word, consumer of music.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think she's right.

If Video killed the radio star, the internet made sure he couldn't be resurrected.

Yes there are cases where the net actually helped carreers, but with the advent of the concept that music is free and the oxymoronic idea of "sharing" that which you don't own the income of MANY musicians has been largely wiped out other than live performance.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Naw, the internet is killing the label. Something that should have been killed long ago. The most exciting and interesting music is online from exciting and interesting musicians and artists.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

keeperofthegood said:


> Naw, the internet is killing the label. Something that should have been killed long ago. The most exciting and interesting music is online from exciting and interesting musicians and artists.


I would agree that in terms of the listener the internet has been a fabulous thing. To a certain degree it is great for artists as well in the sense that you can reach more people a lot easier and maybe in some cases free. But if you want to make a living at it, free is not good.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Oh agreed there. Free doesn't feed well. But for 1000's of years, the best a musician got for money was what people tossed into a hat. The sad reality for many bands and acts is that all they ever got from their labels has amounted to the same. In fact, many musicians have disappeared having been put under the rug once being bought by labels so a label can promote one over another. The list of dirty deeds is very long.

What will happen is a new Renaissance. Money is there to be made online, people simply have to adjust both their personal expectations and their perspectives to gain those funds. Two musicians I love online make their living as stand-ups. Their online presence is much more their business card and that gets them audience. One is now a love character on a sitcom because of it, the other an accomplished actress in big budget film. Without the internet, these ladies would just be 30 something dishwashers.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I mostly agree with her but care more about one of you guys inventing a time machine so I can go back to about, oh, 1973 and get to know her real well ROWWRRRRR!


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I can't completely agree or disagree, but music has changed a lot over the centuries for a lot of different reasons--some good, some not.

Most of us have seen cassettes take over from vinyl, then CD's take over--and now those are being surpassed by downloads. But when recorded music first appeared it was opposed by musicians' unions because it was feared that recordings would kill live music. And in some ways it did. Radio was once the home of live music. BB King is someone still alive that played live music on radio when it was still common. Recordings eventually took over, and live music on the radio is rare. Also it eventually became more common for clubs to play recorded music than live music.

But recorded music also helped musicians to become well known over a larger area, and created new fans and sources of revenue.

Going back further, through most of the time when what we call classical music was all the rage, many of the well known and well liked composers died in poverty and were not always the most popular of those days.

Most of the music they wrote was commissioned by royalty or the church. they didn't just write a symphony & go out & perform it.

Music will continue to change.

I will miss some of it--such as the idea of an album which is changing.
A collection of songs that are connected in a way more than a collection of singles and filler is something I enjoy listening to. I'm not referring specifically to concept albums--although there are good examples of that, but this is, for example the difference between albums in the early 60's and before and albums of the late 60's to 80's. With the late 80's & 90's CD's made albums longer, and often more a collection of singles & fillers again. Now the idea of an album is becoming superfluous and foreign to many kids. Just pick the songs you like. That's not necessarily a bad idea, but it does away with the cool little songs on an album that work in context of an album, but get ignored if there's an emphasis of individual songs out of context.

mp3 players & iPods are definitely contributing to the album not being so important to many people, and they thrive on online music.

Those who adapt will continue to succeed, and things will change again in 10 years or less.
In 2020 we'll be debating the new state of things in music.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

No, I dont agree with her.
She sounds like a record company shill, clutching at straws to justify the record company's existence and right to exploit artists.

She just seems really out of touch with the times, IMO.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

All this great music on the internet means nothing to me. Most of these unknowns will be forgotten in a decade. Stevie seems to be talking about the disappearance of super groups. Bands that work hard and stick together for 25 plus years and make a good living at it. Groups of people the socially bond and write many great songs on many great albums over the years, not ones that release 2-3 songs on itunes every 9-15 months. How can you survive on two or three new songs?


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I would never have hear of Gov't Mule with Warren Haynes, Derek Trucks and the The Dixie Dregs with Steve Morse without the internet. All have been around a long time and will continue to be for more than a decade. These are just off the top of my head too.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

Maybe she is just bitter judging from the types of gigs she has to play:
2010 Tour Dates
August 4 - Santa Barbara Bowl in Santa Barbara, CA
August 6 - Harveys in Lake Tahoe
August 25 -Turning Stone Resort & Casino in Verona, NY.
August 27 - Trump Taj Mahal Arena, Atlantic City
August 28 - Foxwoods Resort Casino/MGM, Mashantucket, CT


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Well, she is 62 and not exactly doing today's mainstream pop and hip-hop.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I would say if the internet killed your career, it couldnt have been in a good state in the first place. Stand aside old fart, technology is here to throw out the trash..........


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> I would never have hear of Gov't Mule with Warren Haynes, Derek Trucks and the The Dixie Dregs with Steve Morse without the internet. All have been around a long time and will continue to be for more than a decade. These are just off the top of my head too.


I don't think the arguement is about exposure? Obviously the internet exposes all kinds of music, good and bad. You have listed bad examples all you mentioned since these band are made up of established musicians before the internet?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I hear about music and artists I've never heard of before largely through magazines. Vintage Guitar runs more articles and reviews of albums by obscure guitar players than you can shake a stick at. Were it not for Guitar Player, I would never have discovered David Torn.

One of the difficulties with the net is that it is accessed principally using a screen, which means the music has to have a visual element. When I hear something on the radio, or read about it in a magazine, I'm working with either the music, or an idea behind the music, rather than a visual. Personally I like that.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I enjoy and use the internet, but like most technology, people always find ways to twist and pervert it.

I have no problem with gaining exposure via the net. I do have a problem with people downloading music that has NOT been approved for such use by the people who created or at least own it.

Try that with your plumber sometime.

Just because it's commonly done, doesn't make it right.

Everybody has to live with their own conscience. I rest easy knowing that ALL of the music on my ipod, every last song, was purchased legally. I don't steal from stores and I don't steal from artists.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

keto said:


> I mostly agree with her but care more about one of you guys inventing a time machine so I can go back to about, oh, 1973 and get to know her real well ROWWRRRRR!


Absolutely!


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Wow talk about some harsh comments, I myself totally understand what she is saying. If you as a young band go out and play gigs all over town you have a good following well chances are you'll make a bit of money but in the old days as musicians we hug out together and we worked on our chops as a whole. Today with the net you'll never get that chance because even if you are lucky enough to find a label that will listen to you they don't have or want the time to develope your sound of today and the future. Most professional musicians that I know today who were never signed to a big or small label often are better off not to, they ( recording copmpanies ) want whats in your library more then they want you, they already have those professional musicians established and what they need is new material and its a lot cheaper for the labels to buy and own you and your music ( that way they can sell off your material ) and they haven't had topworry about investing a ton of money as they use to develope a bands sound.
The internet will give you a large variety of music and styles to choose from but they may never become the next Fleeetwood Mac oe Santana or Stevie Ray Vaughn, they are here today and gone tomorrow and it will always be that way now as they keep looking for the next big thing.
Which can never happen thanks in part to us , the much music stations and the internet we are a fickled lot us humans and we like what we like and we throw out the rest, me I just wish when they sign these young kids these days they also spend the time to develope them so that they are still around 10 years down the road, I do get a little tired of one hit wonders that never go anywhere.
Alos I know I may be out of the loop but can anyone tell me one internet ( band ) hit that made it big say more then 3 golden albums or is still around from beginning on the net to playing the big stages.Ship


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

i would tend to agree with her...the internet is killing the record business...but...i will say that it helps promote the little guys...smaller bands that wouldn;t get ANY exposure are gettin some fame simply b/c of the internet...

its almost a no win situation


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It makes me think of someone like Justin Bieber (or whatever the hell his name is) standing in front of his bedroom mirror for 2 years singing to himself and his parents video taping him and posting the garbage on youtube. Some business exec sees it and says "there is a product we can package" and in 6 months he is a megastar (from Stratford, Ont). 

This is what the music industry is becoming. The last 10 pop stars have come out of TV shows. The old format is dying, for good or bad I can't say, but its dying.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

As long as she shaves off the moustache!



Jeff Flowerday said:


> Absolutely!


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

keeperofthegood said:


> Naw, the internet is killing the label. Something that should have been killed long ago. The most exciting and interesting music is online from exciting and interesting musicians and artists.





Diablo said:


> No, I dont agree with her.
> She sounds like a record company shill, clutching at straws to justify the record company's existence and right to exploit artists.
> 
> She just seems really out of touch with the times, IMO.


bring it on, i say. the way the industry was run previously benefitted the label, period, the end.
the listener paid ridiculous prices for cd's and the artist made all his $$ from tours and merch.
the labels want to be dinosaurs and not evolve? good riddance. smell ya later. if an artist is good, and they have perseverance and a little luck, they'll succeed. they'll stand the test of time if their product is actually timeless. if it's hard to be a musician, i say, boo-hoo, there ain't no monopoly on sorrow. it's hard to be a sheetmetal worker or a waitress or salesman too. those with talent and ambition will succeed. those who don't, will not. the way it has always been.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Ship of fools said:


> Wow talk about some harsh comments, I myself totally understand what she is saying. If you as a young band go out and play gigs all over town you have a good following well chances are you'll make a bit of money but in the old days as musicians we hug out together and we worked on our chops as a whole. *Today with the net you'll never get that chance because even if you are lucky enough to find a label that will listen to you they don't have or want the time to develope your sound of today and the future.* Most professional musicians that I know today who were never signed to a big or small label often are better off not to, they ( recording copmpanies ) want whats in your library more then they want you, they already have those professional musicians established and what they need is new material and its a lot cheaper for the labels to buy and own you and your music ( that way they can sell off your material ) and they haven't had topworry about investing a ton of money as they use to develope a bands sound.
> The internet will give you a large variety of music and styles to choose from but they may never become the next Fleeetwood Mac oe Santana or Stevie Ray Vaughn, they are here today and gone tomorrow and it will always be that way now as they keep looking for the next big thing.
> Which can never happen thanks in part to us , the much music stations and the internet we are a fickled lot us humans and we like what we like and we throw out the rest, me I just wish when they sign these young kids these days they also spend the time to develope them so that they are still around 10 years down the road, I do get a little tired of one hit wonders that never go anywhere.
> Alos I know I may be out of the loop but can anyone tell me *one internet ( band ) hit that made it big say more then 3 golden albums or is still around from beginning on the net to playing the big stages*.Ship


When you take the record company/labels out of the picture altogether, its not as problematic. Its going to be a change in paradigms.

IMO, the problem with labels is, all they want is the next Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber or Britney Spears. Anyone else will just get their life sucked out of them and tossed away, not taken under their wing.

Re: the big hits developed by the internet, give it time. Its pretty clear some big names believe in it (Trent Reznor, Radiohead, among others), and its the way of the future. Heck, even Americas Got Talent have incorporated Youtube in their selection process.

But theres some prety expensive 40 room mansions that the label execs have to pay for, so they wont go down without a fight.

Stevie opposes it because she doesnt get it. Todays musicans "hang out" and share and collaborate online.
Making music can be more than just an excuse to pass around a bong.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

cheezyridr said:


> bring it on, i say. the way the industry was run previously benefitted the label, period, the end.
> the listener paid ridiculous prices for cd's and the artist made all his $$ from tours and merch.
> the labels want to be dinosaurs and not evolve? good riddance. smell ya later. if an artist is good, and they have perseverance and a little luck, they'll succeed. they'll stand the test of time if their product is actually timeless. if it's hard to be a musician, i say, boo-hoo, there ain't no monopoly on sorrow. it's hard to be a sheetmetal worker or a waitress or salesman too. those with talent and ambition will succeed. those who don't, will not. the way it has always been.


I would have to disagree with that only slightly. In the sense that the marketing machines are what make many of these people wealthy and famous. The normal working bloke does not have the money for promotion. Thats why youtube has exploded, its free. It has paid off for some people as well, like my example above. Everyone of us can probably think of a dozen acts or people that we have heard and said "these guys are fantastic" and are relegated to the venues within driving distance of their homes. If they were marketed by one of these huge machines, they would be world famous. It is no secret that for most of our lifetimes we have fallen in love with what has been presented to us by radio, tv. Someone is making the decisions on what and who is being presented. Everyone can't be famous, there is talent out there just as good as Steve Vai and Joe Satriani etc.

The old way was getting out there and playing anywhere you could, hanging around the "music scene" and getting exposure and making contacts. I think that is where Stevie Nicks was coming from. Half starving but keeping at it and pushing and pushing. When a 15 year old kid can become a megastar from his bedroom with a hand held video camera, never having stood on a stage in his life or played a live gig, then I would say things have changed from where Stevie Nicks is coming from. It's still all about the money. If Justin Bieber was not "found" and "packaged" by the corporate money people he would still be standing in front of his bedroom mirror singing to himself. A good view of the old way is watching that new Rush documentary. It shows how these bands had to do it. 250 shows a year for years on end, living in vans and half starving.

But there is a big differnece between pop acts and rock and roll. Pop acts are very much packaged for a specific audience. Most hard hitting rock bands have to put in the time and sweat.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I've not partaken in them, but I had a friend, writer, and she did only collaborative work online through an invitations only forum. Her music was usualy sold without the writers line at a higher price than had it retained her moniker and she wasn't doing outrightly bad for a two bit writer... she kept her day job and struggled on as they have through out time.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I'll hold back here on any comments about Stevie Nicks. I'm one of those who was appalled by the 1977 Rumours album. To me, Fleetwood Mac was Peter Green, Jeremy Spencer and Danny Kirwan. Rumours may have been a very well written, performed and produced album, but it was still bubble gum pop to me. Man, it made my teeth hurt. But then, I have never had any interest or use for pop music.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Robert1950 said:


> I'll hold back here on any comments about Stevie Nicks. I'm one of those who was appalled by the 1977 Rumours album. To me, Fleetwood Mac was Peter Green, Jeremy Spencer and Danny Kirwan. Rumours may have been a very well written, performed and produced album, but it was still bubble gum pop to me. Man, it made my teeth hurt. But then, I have never had any interest or use for pop music.


While I understand where Stevie Nicks is coming from, Fleetwood Mac's 70's stuff is some of the most boring, sappy, unremarkable music of the era IMHO. They're in a part of my mind where the bad seventies stuff goes. Like ABBA and The Osmonds. 

Shawn


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> The old way was getting out there and playing anywhere you could, hanging around the "music scene" and getting exposure and making contacts. I think that is where Stevie Nicks was coming from. Half starving but keeping at it and pushing and pushing. When a 15 year old kid can become a megastar from his bedroom with a hand held video camera, never having stood on a stage in his life or played a live gig, then I would say things have changed from where Stevie Nicks is coming from. It's still all about the money. If Justin Bieber was not "found" and "packaged" by the corporate money people he would still be standing in front of his bedroom mirror singing to himself. A good view of the old way is watching that new Rush documentary. It shows how these bands had to do it. 250 shows a year for years on end, living in vans and half starving.


A far far bigger change has not been the internet. Legally you are not an adult till 18 in the USA for the most part, and you can be dragged back home to your mommy and daddy dearest if under that age. The depth of that is quite stifling. No way could a group of 15 year olds head out on the road there with their thumbs in the air and do shows; they could not be hired, they would be arrested and sent home, and if found sleeping in vans really do face the real probability of being arrested for vagrancy and then sent back home again to mommy and daddy dearest. "Boy" bands are traveling circuses of teachers and parental authorities and gobs of lawyers and even they are barraged by legal efforts to send the "children" back home to mommy and daddy dearest.

As a nation, they have dummed young adults down to the point they are only allowed out to go to school, then to university, then to a 9 to 5 job. Recently a person under 18 went sailing. She got into rough waters, needed some sea support. The vitriol that expounded calling upon the authorities to take her away from her parents and arrest the parents for child abuse for even letting her sail alone was quite shocking, but that is a bigger part of the modern reality MORE than the internet in terms of how young adults no longer play with each other.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

keeperofthegood said:


> As a nation, they have dummed young adults down to the point they are only allowed out to go to school, then to university, then to a 9 to 5 job. .


Nowadays, dumb has no borders


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Haha agreed there. I was referring to the USA because that is the nationhood of the author of the original article.

Canada has not followed as closely to the USA in dumming the young adults, though the young offenders act sure has not encourages youths to be responsible people.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> bring it on, i say. the way the industry was run previously benefitted the label, period, the end.
> the listener paid ridiculous prices for cd's and the artist made all his $$ from tours and merch.


Really? Ever heard of royalties?

It's the writers who are getting screwed these days. Oh yeah, I forgot, we're all supposed to suffer for our art and do it for the love of creating and to benefit mankind.

Say, maybe the next time I need brake work done on my van I'll askthe mechanic to do the same, LOL.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Robert1950 said:


> I'll hold back here on any comments about Stevie Nicks. I'm one of those who was appalled by the 1977 Rumours album. To me, Fleetwood Mac was Peter Green, Jeremy Spencer and Danny Kirwan. Rumours may have been a very well written, performed and produced album, but it was still bubble gum pop to me. Man, it made my teeth hurt. But then, I have never had any interest or use for pop music.






Rugburn said:


> While I understand where Stevie Nicks is coming from, Fleetwood Mac's 70's stuff is some of the most boring, sappy, unremarkable music of the era IMHO. They're in a part of my mind where the bad seventies stuff goes. Like ABBA and The Osmonds.
> 
> Shawn


I should show these posts to friends of mine that think Rumours is one of the all time great albums.
They don't get it when I reply that's it's one of the all time over-rated albums.
They don't get why I don't like it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

zontar said:


> I should show these posts to friends of mine that think Rumours is one of the all time great albums.
> They don't get it when I reply that's it's one of the all time over-rated albums.
> They don't get why I don't like it.



I don't git it either.

I think Rumours is a classic, loaded with great writing, playing and singing.

One of the best of all time.

I would say so.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I think Rumours is a classic, loaded with great writing, playing and singing.


Yes, I totally agree with this, but <rant> to me it is still sappy, saccharine-sweet, bubble-gum pop music. Ugh, I do not like it. The only time I hear songs from Rumours is in grocery stores and shopping malls. I only listen to internet radio and can select my genres. The last two songs I've listened to are by the Addison Grove Project and Medeski, Martin and Wood. The only classic, well written, played and performed "music" that is far worse is by Paul McCartney and Wings, and of those, the most horrid, seizure inducing song of all time is 'Silly Love Songs.' </rant>


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

I thought the main gist of her comments had more to do with lost opportunity. Not hers, but of newer artists that won't get the benefit of hangin out with other artists. 
I know of songs that were recorded by a group of artists where a few had never even met each other.
It worked but only because they were older folks and had already experienced the social aspect of being a musician. 

I'm not defending her comments. I'm just saying that I see them as not about the business as much as about the art. 

Can you make great music without the social interaction you get being a band, playing out with other bands, etc? Absolutely. 

What could change for that great music or so-so music if exposed to that environment. The argument is that it could only make things better for everyone (even if it might only be to demonstrate to someone how NOT to do things  )

For the record, I don't play in a band. I'd be terrified by stage fright. I do know that it is holding me back from getting to be a better player but I'm good enough for the basement walls. They never walk out.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

LOL yes, people do not "get together" any more. But the internet has not had anything to do with that. The explosive growth of the internet is a result of the same changes, of not being allowed out at night, allowed into clubs, allowed at school after the bell had rung (my last high school turned on the burglar alarms 15 mins after let out bell, anyone there after 3:30 would be arrested for trespass). Where were youths to go? To the only place they couldn't be kept out or turned away from, the internet. There are also some very serious studies out over the past couple years on obesity in children (under 12) and the main findings are that the societal change is to blame. The internet is a non-factor, it is the parental "play indoors where I can watch you" that has been the biggest contributor.

Yes, people do not socialize anymore. Socializing only happens at arranged play dates, and when you are 15 the last place you want is to be on an arranged play date.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Really? Ever heard of royalties?
> 
> It's the writers who are getting screwed these days. Oh yeah, I forgot, we're all supposed to suffer for our art and do it for the love of creating and to benefit mankind.
> 
> Say, maybe the next time I need brake work done on my van I'll askthe mechanic to do the same, LOL.


while i understand the sentiment, the analogy doesn't work. your analogy suggests that the mechanic's craft is somehow "beneath" a musicians because it is not aesthetic or as "esoteric". it also suggest that the mechanic does not suffer for his craft. in actuality, he probably suffers more, in a physical sense. and he does plenty of free work, especially in the early stages of his career. also, hot girls don't throw themselves at good mechanics. they aren't routinely gifted with free booze and drugs from admirers as some musicians are. most of them won't ever "hit the big time" and get rich the way a musician can. (jesse james being an exception to the rule) a good mechanic spends just as much time learning and perfecting his skill. a trade is a trade. some are more desirable than others. not everyone can be a rock star or a doctor or a lawyer. some people have to wait tables, take out the trash, fix the toilet.

not everyone gets big numbers for royalties. not everyone got them. many people had them with held to pay back "loans" from the studio for promotion, services and equipment, personell, studio time, etc. i wonder how fat tom sholz and brad delp got from their royalty checks. i mean, after all, they had one of the highest selling debut albums of all time, didn't they?


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Milkman said:


> I don't git it either.
> 
> I think Rumours is a classic, loaded with great writing, playing and singing.
> 
> ...


Well, that's okay by me if you feel that way.

I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with my musical tastes.

But still it's nice to see others, like Rugburn & Robert agree with me about Rumours.

I found it dull, and sappy, and soul-less.

But you might very well say that about some album I consider a classic.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

> dull, sappy and soul-less


IMO a good description, hell, I thought I was the only one that thought that. I remember seeing Fleetwood Mac way back when. Boy was I disappointed that PG was not with them, that the band had changed, to me, for the worst. But for most of the record buying public, they became one of the most popular bands of the day, Rumors became one of the biggest selling LPs ever. 

As GC mentioned earlier, Pop is NOT Rock n Roll.

My biggest concern with the internet and music, is the iTunes model of sell-one-song-for-99¢. If you want to make it, you should only concentrate on poppy 2:37 songs that iTunes can pump out. I fear that spells the death of the album, which I think would be such a shame. Better music is often hidden in those tracks that never hit radio, never hit Top 40. 

I read the other day that Pink Floyd had to threaten to sue Apple over Apple's selling single songs, when they specified full album only. PF won. And, although Apple had a press release some time ago that they'd have the Beatles library available, that same choose-one-track model crashed that deal.

I've never bought any music off of iTunes. I usually hear of new bands on satellite radio, then I'll buy their CD and listen for other hidden gems. The last time I think that happened was with Joe Bonamassa, but I bought his CD off of his internet site. HMV didn't have it. 

Here's a new band I heard the other day on the satellite blues channel. Without YouTube I don't think I'd have heard them again. And I'll probably buy their CD from their internet site. None of that stuff could ever happen without the net.

WSNB, Phone Call From Leavenworth. 

YouTube - WSNB-Phone Call-Dec 5 2008


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Well...

I prefer the one track at a time. I encountered this on youtube: YouTube - Jason Mraz -I'm Yours (live)

LOVE the song. I think it is fabulously great. Dozens of others think so too, as there are dozens of this on youtube. Frustrated for a lack of other songs to hear from this artist, I decided to pop the tenor and buy his album through his web site. As I was going to click the purchase, I read a review calling the album the biggest wast of time since something or other I stopped... Well... other-ways to skin cats, and I did. Glad I did. This is the only song on the album that can easily be listened to more than once. One other is ... tolerable but gahhh have to really be in the mood. The remainder of the album is an easy stand in for 1970's porn sound track. Putting out 10 would have been him robbing me :| 

Only 1 good song only deserves 1 dollar, 75 cents on a group sale coupon. Places like iTunes do sell them that way AND they offer you the chance at the full album too. Only a very few bands where the "whole" album matters like Pink Floyd. But just about anything made from the 1980s onward were made as "how many singles will this album contain" and not "what is the concept of this album as a whole so we can sell the album", selling one song at a time is not a new invention by any means. It is just more efficiently done these days.

I should add: I have not said anything about the band Fleetwood Mac. I bought I think three albums on vinyl back in the day. They didn't get more than a couple plays before being stuck in the "yuck" pile. I never entertained the notion again of listening to them or pursuing any more of their work and began to view it the way children view "those crazy adult that actually eat fish eggs", too crazy for their own good.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2010)

Wasn't sure I was going to bother responding since I don't really have anything nice to say but oh well...

Ms. Nicks is, in my opinion, speaking well beyond anything she knows about. Sure sure sure: she's _been_ there. _Done_ it (and more than a few of _them_). For a long time now. But if she thinks there's less opportunities for bands today than there were "in her time" (hehehe) she is clearly removed from reality. You don't need a label today the way you needed a label in the 70's. You can get heard, you can rocket to fame, you can fizzle and die without the help of others -- you can do that all on your own now.

What's more rock and ****ing roll than that?

I can't think of anything except maybe staging diving from a communications tower in to an empty parking lot as part of your encore performance at a festival.

But I digress.

She's only further proving her removal from reality with the whole "nutur" word. Bands have never been nurtured. They may have been _tolerated_ or _allowed_ to change. But nutur isn't in the record labels vocabulary. No hit on your first album that let you recoup your costs? Good luck getting the second album record. Oh: and your contract has you tied up to that label for 5 albums -- so it's not like you can shop it around to another one.

As for the whole "iTunes has been the death of the LP" lets not forget that the LP is not as ancient as the industry. Pre-1970 an LP was a rare thing. People bought 45's, singles plus a b-side, and that's how it was done. The LP didn't really come in to its own until the 70's. The Beatles look down right pioneering when you think about their full length opuses like Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road. Albums with well thought out flow and structure at a time when the album wasn't really the dominant way rock or pop music was sold.

So spare me Ms. Nicks. You're old, change must be scary now. You didn't heed the fundamental principal of rock and roll and now you sound like an idiot: live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I mentioned some of the things dwagar & iaresee mention about albums in an earlier post, but to follow up on their last posts above--I would miss the album if it disappears--there are a lot of songs I have enjoyed over the years that weren't really singles type material, and I have enjoyed many songs in the album context, but yeah ties do change, and they did change to where the album was more than a collection of singles & filler--and they changed to move back to that--hopefully things will be cyclical and the album will regain some format type changes so it will stay with us.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> I would say if the internet killed your career, it couldnt have been in a good state in the first place. Stand aside old fart, technology is here to throw out the trash..........



....seriously? you want to get rid of the james cottons, bb kings, john lee hookers, van morrisons et al of the music world?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

iaresee said:


> So spare me Ms. Nicks. You're old, change must be scary now. You didn't heed the fundamental principal of rock and roll and now you sound like an idiot: live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse.



...ah. i get it. old is bad. should those of us over sixty all be terminated? have our instruments taken away?

oh, how i miss being young and stoopid.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

[video=youtube;80LJTeto8MQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80LJTeto8MQ[/video]

LOL more appropriate to say, the times they are a changing... than to simply not trust anyone over thirty


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2010)

david henman said:


> ...ah. i get it. old is bad. should those of us over sixty all be terminated? have our instruments taken away?


Immutable is bad. It just so often follows old. Not always, but often. I suspect Stevie Nicks has some chemicals to blame for her slow-firing neurons these days...

I never said she should stop making music. She should stop offering her opinion on things she clearly doesn't understand...like technology. I have more friends making careers in music now because of technology than in spite of technology.

Whatever you need to do to deal with that on a personal level: you do. But attacking innovation because it makes you uncomfortable, puts you in a world that's different from the one you knew 30 years ago, is well...there's no other word for it than stupid. That's about as dumb as it comes. "Change is bad. In my day it was better." You sound like your father, and your father's father and your father's father's father...



> oh, how i miss being young and stoopid.


David: you seem to think that you're "one with Ms. Nicks" -- based on your response to my post calling _her_ stupid. I don't see in there where I chided you for offering up some poorly informed opinion on technology. That's a pretty mighty opinion you hold of yourself Mr. Henman. Just so you're not confused, in the future when I want to address you and tell you want I think of you, I'll call you by _your name_ instead of using "Stevie Nicks". So it's not confusing for you.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

iaresee said:


> David: you seem to think that you're "one with Ms. Nicks" -- based on your response to my post calling _her_ stupid. I don't see in there where I chided you for offering up some poorly informed opinion on technology. That's a pretty mighty opinion you hold of yourself Mr. Henman.


..um, no. in fact, you're not even close. yours is a completely misguided assumption. this does not say much about your reading comprehension skills.

i don't entirely disagree with your comments about nicks. however, if you had used the word "immutable" INSTEAD of words like "old fart" and "trash", we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2010)

david henman said:


> ..um, no. in fact, you're not even close. yours is a completely misguided assumption. this does not say much about your reading comprehension skills.
> 
> i don't entirely disagree with your comments about nicks. however, if you had used the word "immutable" INSTEAD of words like "old fart" and "trash", we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


Stop with the personal attacks David. You are clearly confused. I'll give you a chance to retract your snipe at my reading comprehension, which is impeccable. I never used the term "old fart" or "trash" in my post. I did say "old" at one point...we're talking 5 words in a long post. But that was mostly dramatic flair (although old and immutable do travel closely).


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

iaresee said:


> You are clearly confused. I'll give you a chance to retract your snipe at my reading comprehension, which is impeccable. I never used the term "old fart" or "trash" in my post. I did say "old" at one point...we're talking 5 words in a long post. But that was mostly dramatic flair (although old and immutable do travel closely).


...okay sorry, i'm confusing your post with another similar one - so my own reading comprehension is in question. however, my original comment stands, in regard to your insinuations regarding nicks' age.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2010)

david henman said:


> ...okay sorry, i'm confusing your post with another similar one - so my own reading comprehension is in question. however, my original comment stands, in regard to your insinuations regarding nicks' age.


Anything you read between the lines is your own opinion projected on to me. In all my editorial I spoke directly to her and about her. If you feel connected to her in some way, so that my editorial is now about you, that's nothing I can help.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Anything you read between the lines is your own opinion projected on to me. In all my editorial I spoke directly to her and about her. If you feel connected to her in some way, so that my editorial is now about you, that's nothing I can help.


..."So spare me Ms. Nicks. You're old..." seemed crystal clear to me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2010)

david henman said:


> ..."So spare me Ms. Nicks. You're old..." seemed crystal clear to me.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

Did someone call me an old fogey...???...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

iaresee said:


>


...take two aspirin and call me in the...never mind, i'll probably wake up witha hangover.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

Every time I see Picard it reminds me of this...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> while i understand the sentiment, the analogy doesn't work. your analogy suggests that the mechanic's craft is somehow "beneath" a musicians because it is not aesthetic or as "esoteric". it also suggest that the mechanic does not suffer for his craft. in actuality, he probably suffers more, in a physical sense. and he does plenty of free work, especially in the early stages of his career. also, hot girls don't throw themselves at good mechanics. they aren't routinely gifted with free booze and drugs from admirers as some musicians are. most of them won't ever "hit the big time" and get rich the way a musician can. (jesse james being an exception to the rule) a good mechanic spends just as much time learning and perfecting his skill. a trade is a trade. some are more desirable than others. not everyone can be a rock star or a doctor or a lawyer. some people have to wait tables, take out the trash, fix the toilet.
> 
> not everyone gets big numbers for royalties. not everyone got them. many people had them with held to pay back "loans" from the studio for promotion, services and equipment, personell, studio time, etc. i wonder how fat tom sholz and brad delp got from their royalty checks. i mean, after all, they had one of the highest selling debut albums of all time, didn't they?



Suffering for one's craft and being ripped of for your efforts are somewhat different wouldn't you say? I don't want patronizing gifts of "booze" or "drugs".

If one makes a crappy record deal because he or she is under the influence of those "gifts" that's unfortunate, but it certainly doesn't justify the wholesale rape of all original music.

If you don't pay for it. It's not yours, unless the artist gives it to you.

That seems clear to me.


I in no way imply that a mechanic or plumber's work is beneath a musician's. In fact I see the values as being very similar. I would never steal from a craftsman, any more than I would from an artist.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2010)

Milkman said:


> If you don't pay for it. It's not yours, unless the artist gives it to you.
> 
> That seems clear to me.
> 
> I in no way imply that a mechanic or plumber's work is beneath a musician's. In fact I see the values as being very similar. I would never steal from a craftsman, any more than I would from an artist.


Really? Are you certain it's clear to you. Because I would just like to point out that your entire YouTube channel consists of songs other people wrote, that you have recorded and rebroadcast without permission or payment. Or do you cut Sir Paul a cheque for Let It Be every time someone streams your cover of it?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)




----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2010)

iaresee said:


> Really? Are you certain it's clear to you. Because I would just like to point out that your entire YouTube channel consists of songs other people wrote, that you have recorded and rebroadcast without permission or payment. Or do you cut Sir Paul a cheque for Let It Be every time someone streams your cover of it?


Stone cold hard hittin' mofo


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Really? Are you certain it's clear to you. Because I would just like to point out that your entire YouTube channel consists of songs other people wrote, that you have recorded and rebroadcast without permission or payment. Or do you cut Sir Paul a cheque for Let It Be every time someone streams your cover of it?


oK, PISSING CONTEST IT IS.

I think we were talking about steailing the recorded work of artists were we not? For your information, as I have stated ad nauseum, I buy ALL of the music on my ipod.

It is the rsponsibility of the venue to pay royalties for cover songs performed in their establishment.

The fact that I uploaded the clips to YouTube did NOT in any way take money out of the pockets of the artists that wrote the songs, unless you want to imply that Paul McCartney lost a gig at a Legion somewhere in Ontario because I was playing there.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Mogwai said:


> Stone cold hard hittin' mofo



Hard hitting but off the mark.


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2010)

Sigh.



Milkman said:


> I think we were talking about steailing the recorded work of artists were we not? For your information, as I have stated ad nauseum, I buy ALL of the music on my ipod.


That's nice. But the license that comes with your purchased music doesn't allow you to rebroadcast it or even perform it live. It just covers personal listening from the copy you bought. I just want you to know the soapbox you're standing on is really non-existant. You're ripping artists off even though I suspect you never intended to rip them off. You just don't seem to understand how copyright, song writing royalties and broadcasting work.



> It is the rsponsibility of the venue to pay royalties for cover songs performed in their establishment.


The license the venue holds is for the live performance of that music in that venue only. _It does not cover the recording and rebroadcasting of those performances._ If that was true Madison Square Gardens could record every concert played in MSG and resell or rebroadcast it without paying the songwriter for those recordings.



> The fact that I uploaded the clips to YouTube did NOT in any way take money out of the pockets of the artists that wrote the songs, unless you want to imply that Supertramp lost a gig at a Legion somewhere in Ontario because I was playing there.


It has nothing to do with gigs won or lost. Songwriters don't get paid for gigs, they get paid for the _performances_ and _broadcasts_ of the songs they write.

So this has to do with songwriting royalties. Every time a song someone has written gets played the writer (technically the copyright owner, which isn't always the person who wrote the song) is owed a royalty. Played could mean played live in a club or played by a radio station or streamed over the internet via YouTube. Your venue paid those royalties for you when you played there, the payment only covered the one time, live performance of the song in their venue -- not the recording and rebroadcasting you're doing. But when you stream those performances over the internet the royalties aren't being paid out -- the song writer isn't being paid their royalty for your use of their song as the copyright laws of our land prescribes. You are, in effect, operating a radio station with your YouTube channel (technically the law calls it a "streaming service") are you are liable to pay out a royalty every time someone streams a song from your station. For the details see: Royalties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the US the rate is $0.05/stream of a song. So: if someone listened to your version of Let It Be 1000 times you owe the songwriters of Let It Be 1000 x $0.05 = $50.00 -- the copyright for a song can be assigned to anyone so you really owe the current copyright holder of Let It Be, not the named authors of the song.

Look, this copyright stuff is a minefield. We _all_ violate it from time to time. It's impossible to move in music and not violate it. I've posted clips of other people's materials and you've streamed them and I didn't pay the royalties -- case in point: the Duran Duran clips I've posted on this very board are probably not covered under educational fair use and I should be tracking the number of listens and paying out the royalties to ASCAP or BMI or whomever Duran Duran is registered with. But I don't.

The only difference is I'm not walking around telling everyone how good an righteous I am about how I respect artists and songwriters because I pay for everything I use. I don't, and you don't. That's a fact.


----------



## prodigal_son (Apr 23, 2009)

<cough..!>

I agree with Nicks 110%. There is more to it though. I believe that she has alluded to the idea that most careers in music are now purchased as opposed to earned. Purchased meaning wealth permits "artists" to afford services offered by labels, promoters, etc.. Whereas earned means a career is developed and achieved mainly due to true musical talent and hard work. 

With that being said, I am willing to bet my life that there are a Hell of alot more people than ever who want to become successful professional musicians mainly due to the fact that it is such an escape from reality and very hedonistic. A portal to Hell, if you will. The internet has fully enabled one's delusional obsessiveness by permitting these strange yet seemingly effective variations of self promotion, cheap distribution, recording, etc.. Many of the lesser musical Earthly beings have become (in a way) jellous and are now more aggressively than ever attempting to catch up with their idols. The internet provides the perfect avenue to achieve this illusion. Amazing how happily in this era they march single file into the mind control machines of doom.

The ugly truth of it all is that there still only exists a tiny percentage of real artists who are worthy of genuine admiration. This has always been the way and will never change. Notice that there is not all of a sudden (for the first time in history) this glut of amazingly talented musicians? IT'S ALL SO ****ING MEDIOCRE, ISN'T IT!!?? We are certainly not in the midst of a musical renaissance. Or are we? Not bloody likely.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Bought not Earned. That is exactly why I now find all the good non-mainstream talent by searching the internet and listening to internet radio. I have to. I loathe pop music and don't care for main stream hip-hop. I stopped downloading napster style over six years ago once I thought about and decided, yeah, this is not good. Now, I still download free music occasionally, but these are free downloads from the artist site. And yes, I have purchased based on these freebies (Umphrey's Magee for example). All the bands I like have been working away at it for at least five years (Umphrey's for 13 years). No fly by nights for me.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

iaresee said:


> Really? Are you certain it's clear to you. Because I would just like to point out that your entire YouTube channel consists of songs other people wrote, that you have recorded and rebroadcast without permission or payment. Or do you cut Sir Paul a cheque for Let It Be every time someone streams your cover of it?


Good point, and I agree with most of what you've said in this thread.
But with all due respect, don't you also play in a Duran Duran tribute band? And forgive me if I've missed you mentioning it elsewhere, but have you sent Simon and the Taylors et al any cheques lately?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Sigh.
> 
> 
> That's nice. But the license that comes with your purchased music doesn't allow you to rebroadcast it or even perform it live. It just covers personal listening from the copy you bought. I just want you to know the soapbox you're standing on is really non-existant. You're ripping artists off even though I suspect you never intended to rip them off. You just don't seem to understand how copyright, song writing royalties and broadcasting work.
> ...


As verbose as all that is, I'm too busy to study it in detail and respond in kind.

I'll just say that if you're comparing what I do to what people who "share" recorded music they don't own you're not seeing things clearly. I support the artists I love and pay tribute to. Your position would imply that cover bands should all be considered the same as the guys who download thousands of songs and don't pay a nickel for any of them.

I sleep well at night. I don't steal. If you want to appease your conscience by taking a shot at me, knock yourself out. I have broad shoulders.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> LOL yes, people do not "get together" any more. But the internet has not had anything to do with that. The explosive growth of the internet is a result of the same changes, of not being allowed out at night, allowed into clubs, allowed at school after the bell had rung (my last high school turned on the burglar alarms 15 mins after let out bell, anyone there after 3:30 would be arrested for trespass). Where were youths to go? To the only place they couldn't be kept out or turned away from, the internet. There are also some very serious studies out over the past couple years on obesity in children (under 12) and the main findings are that the societal change is to blame. The internet is a non-factor, it is the parental "play indoors where I can watch you" that has been the biggest contributor.
> 
> Yes, people do not socialize anymore. Socializing only happens at arranged play dates, and when you are 15 the last place you want is to be on an arranged play date.


I see kids walking along, socializing with each other every day. Of course their heads are down and they're texting each other ............ or somebody else for that matter.


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2010)

Diablo said:


> Good point, and I agree with most of what you've said in this thread.
> But with all due respect, don't you also play in a Duran Duran tribute band? And forgive me if I've missed you mentioning it elsewhere, but have you sent Simon and the Taylors et al any cheques lately?


Playing in a cover band is not a problem. The venues we play in pay the licensing fees that enable us to play other's music in their establishments. It's the posting of material online. And yes, in my longer response to Milkman, I admit as much: that I too post material I shouldn't -- clips from our rehearsals have been posted for people to listen to. The difference is I don't go around telling people how good and righteous I am and how I never rip anyone off. I'm not that naive. Copyright in a minefield. And it's near impossible to live your life in music without running afoul of it from time to time.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

And all of this over a comment made by Stevie Nicks, you would think with all of this free time most would have been busy making music instead of arguing with each other who is right and why your wrong. Why is it folks forget to see that there is no right or wrong with comments made by any given artist, is she less deservant of her opinion then any of us and then to get into a pissing match that you said this or he said that.
Why is it that we can't just let everyone have their opinion on whatever and agree to disagree with each other I see no need for most of these comments towards each other that bordeline negitivity towards each other as musicians do we not need to play on a different field then others we are suppose to be creative and when you hurl negitive things around well how can you influence your music when one is so determined to be critical of their fellow musicians.
So I purpose that we stop take a deep breath and stop to smell the remainder of the flowers left this year and appreciate the things we do, which is making music mine yours someone else's, doesn't matter really its music and at the end of the day its our music because we all bring something different to it each and every day, so step back strap on your guit and get to it and do what we are here to do.



................................................................................... MAKE ...MUSIC..............................................................
save the rest for someone who cares.
Ship



Oh and I would like to add that its all fun and games till someone gets poked in the eye


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2010)

Milkman said:


> As verbose as all that is, I'm too busy to study it in detail and respond in kind.
> 
> I'll just say that if you're comparing what I do to what people who "share" recorded music they don't own you're not seeing things clearly. I support the artists I love and pay tribute to. Your position would imply that cover bands should all be considered the same as the guys who download thousands of songs and don't pay a nickel for any of them.


No, that's not my position at all.

I'll sum it up succinctly for you: My position is that you are violating the exact same laws as the downloaders when you post your videos on YouTube.

That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Full stop.

You are using songs that are not yours in ways that you are not authorized to use them because you haven't paid for that use case. The 966 views of your cover of Piano Man are 966 unauthorized, unpaid for uses of that song. When I listen to your stream of that song the same laws are being broken as if someone was downloading Billy Joel's version of that song from a web site.



> I sleep well at night. I don't steal. If you want to appease your conscience by taking a shot at me, knock yourself out. I have broad shoulders.


As I said before: the only difference between me and you is I don't _pretend_ I'm righteous. I know when I'm posting something I shouldn't. You're just wilfully ignorant.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> I see kids walking along, socializing with each other every day. Of course their heads are down and they're texting each other ............ or somebody else for that matter.



Hahahaha too true WAY TOO TRUE indeed.

You know, we need to take the hockey helmets off the kids, let them ride their bikes in peace. We (the collective society) need to stop building high-rises and condos where you live 15 feet way from some one and yet never say hello; we need to really change the mentality of trust no one and dog eat dog and get ahead at any cost; we need to end our dependence not so much technology, as lazy technology, end voice mail and bring back receptionists. SO MUCH more of society has changed and done so quiet well without any help from the internet.

One of my fav writers, as she was beginning to lose her mind, went "home" to her childhood home once. She epilogued the experience. Talked of her memories of the willows and tall grasses, the little river and the sound of the tires on the gravel. Then commented that in the 3 hours of continuous row houses she had passed she had yet to glimpse a single childhood memory.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

iaresee said:


> No, that's not my position at all.
> 
> I'll sum it up succinctly for you: My position is that you are violating the exact same laws as the downloaders when you post your videos on YouTube.
> 
> ...


I'm not a lawyer. I think if you want to find holes in my logic from a legal perspective you can easily do so. 

Please explain how my posting video clips is in any way negatively impacting the composer or original artist in the way that steailing their recorded works and distributing them does.

I stand by my position. I support the artists to whom I pay tribute with actual dollars. If I learn one song, I buy the album.


If you download songs and don't pay for them, you are the one being willfully ignorant and rationalizing your poor behaviour.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

There is probably no winner or loser to this debate. There are loopholes that can be punched so deep that every single one of us would be in violation of some kind of law. I think in this case you really have to separate the two. We all know that you can go on youtube all day long and watch 100,000 people playing copyrighted material. Is it in violation of some law somewhere? Probably. Is it the same as downloading pirated music and video? Nowhere near it IMO. I guess for me it comes back to profits. If someone is playing those songs and making money from it, then that money has to be spread around. I assume from what I have gathered here that a venue with a cover band has to remit some kind of fee so to me, that part of it is taken care of.

I guess you can push the legality of it, but in the grand scheme of things its on the low end.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> There is probably no winner or loser to this debate. There are loopholes that can be punched so deep that every single one of us would be in violation of some kind of law. I think in this case you really have to separate the two. We all know that you can go on youtube all day long and watch 100,000 people playing copyrighted material. Is it in violation of some law somewhere? Probably. Is it the same as downloading pirated music and video? Nowhere near it IMO. I guess for me it comes back to profits. If someone is playing those songs and making money from it, then that money has to be spread around. I assume from what I have gathered here that a venue with a cover band has to remit some kind of fee so to me, that part of it is taken care of.
> 
> I guess you can push the legality of it, but in the grand scheme of things its on the low end.


Too true - we're splitting hairs here ........... some longer than others but nonetheless..........

Anyway, I'm willing to bet that by the end of today most of us will have broken at least one law somewhere .................... by a kilometer per hour, or a rolling stop, or a jaywalk. And we'll all sleep just fine.

Cept' for me - I've got my tinhat on so the aliens can't steal my thoughts ......... at least not without paying for them first :food-smiley-015:


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2010)

Ahh screw it...mods asked me to drop this but...



Milkman said:


> If you download songs and don't pay for them, you are the one being willfully ignorant and rationalizing your poor behaviour.


WTF? Where did this come from? I don't download music illegally. Not that this has anything at all to do with the conversation. I'm just not letting you throw that lame jab out there without responding to it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Ahh screw it...mods asked me to drop this but...
> 
> 
> WTF? Where did this come from? I don't download music illegally. Not that this has anything at all to do with the conversation. I'm just not letting you throw that lame jab out there without responding to it.



But you ARE comparing me with those who do. That's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but if you think what I do is the same as those who steal recorded music from artists and "share" that music with others, well, frankly, you're not quite as bright as your impressive grammar skills would imply.

You should listen to the mods.


----------

