Say Anything Blog

As someone who was sick and tired of the Beatles and their crap 30 years ago I could care less. All this will do is put more money into Micheal Jackson’s pocket.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

So you care a little?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Where is that extensive and exhaustive list of the ThOUSANDS of innocent Americans persecuted under Patriot Act and FISA, beeatch?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Personally… I go with the ”likwidshoe motto” and by that I mean, @#$% RIAA (his words not mine, lol), but my thoughts exactly

Beatles on itunes.....eeehhh.  George Harrison and McCartney and wings?  Now were talkin.

I pay for my music fair and square.  I’d be ticked if someone was stealing my posts and republishing them on their blog, so I’m not going to steal someone else’s music.

Plus, a lot of the artists I listen to aren’t exactly well known.  So buying one of their tracks puts some money in their pocket to help them keep making the music I like.

It’s how the market works.  If you aren’t going to support the artists you like with your money the market is going to keep making crap.

And I don’t care what you guys say: I love the Beatles.  Cliched, I know, but I grew up with ‘em.  Can’t help myself.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s how the market works.  If you aren’t going to support the artists you like with your money the market is going to keep making crap.

But somehow the techno world doesn’t run like this at all. Most of the music is free. There’s a thriving jungle scene, house scene, and a minimal scene that’s blowing away anything else at the moment.

Money doesn’t fuel good artistry.

Can you imagine doing a crappy job at your employment and then telling your employer that it’s because you’re not paid enough (the music artist argument)? Or doing a crappy job and then saying that you “lack funds to do the job right” (the government argument)? No, because they’re silly-assed arguments.

Ah, the Beatles.  The original “Boy Band.” Hyped because of their hair and the fact that the teeny bopper girls went sterile just thinking about them.  The only thing separating them from N*Sync etc. is that they didn’t dance.

Well, okay...they did play actual instruments too.  Talented bunch, but nowhere NEAR worth the hype.  But it was a smaller world back then.

Oh come on...boy band?  N’Sync?

Listen to Across the Universe.  Nowhere Man.  I Want To Hold Your Hand.

It was poetry.  They weren’t overhyped.  They connected with the masses in a way I’m not sure any other band has.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Can you imagine doing a crappy job at your employment and then telling your employer that it’s because you’re not paid enough (the music artist argument)?

I don’t think anyone in the music industry is making that argument.  They just want to get paid for what they created.

Seems fair to me.  Unless you’re a socialist who thinks there is no such thing as intellectual property.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I have every vinyl The Beatles ever released. I had 8 tracks and cassettes too. When do I get to stop paying them for the same thing over and over?
I don’t mind paying for the technological contraptions to play the newest versions, but I refuse to continuously pay the artist for something I’ve already purchased.

Well I’m not going to argue that it’s stupid to prevent you from converting your vinyl into other mediums (CD, digital, etc.).  You purchased it, the rights to that copy are yours.

I don’t think you should be able to distribute it to other people, but you should certainly be able to use it in different ways for your personal use.

But for some of us, it’s worth it to spend the money on the same songs in a different medium.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob - I don’t think anyone in the music industry is making that argument.

It was the argument you were making.

If you aren’t going to support the artists you like with your money the market is going to keep making crap.

Seems fair to me.  Unless you’re a socialist who thinks there is no such thing as intellectual property.

Negative.

I just don’t believe that music should fall under the intellectual “property” category for decades upon decades. At some point, the culture owns it and can do what it wants with it.

In the end, if “intellectual property” on music was strictly followed, a lot of techno wouldn’t have ever been created. Knowing that creates contempt for the whole concept.

Entire books have been written on the beatles!

It wasn’t my time, so I don’t have much to say with real conviction, but they are a band who was hot and stayed hot for years to come.  Quite a feat.

Who was it? Bob Marley that smoked them up and lead them to an experimental phase (that the nation followed) that inspired their next three CD’s?

New in its time, but in retrospect--I can say that nothing really genuine has come out of the deep reflections that we all live in a yellow submarine or that there are strawberry fields forever, however fanciful it seems.

Sorry guys, but marijuana (drugs etc.) isn’t the muse of creativity!

Sorry guys, but marijuana (drugs etc.) isn’t the muse of creativity!

It most certainly can be.

Creativity gathers it’s energy from many sources: sorrow, happiness, love, hate, bemusement, anger, hallucinating, and on and on. Even boredom can spark creativity.

With a certain human aspect to mediate it, likwidshoe, marijuana can certainly be one.

But I am going to stop before I go too far into the topic and lose my intuitive concept of creativity.

It was the argument you were making.

Actually, it wasn’t at all.  But I guess you need to mischaracterize my argument to make your point.

What I was saying was that a lot of the artists I listen to aren’t like Paul McCartney.  They don’t have legions of fans, so because I am a fan I like to help them out by giving them something in return for their efforts instead of stealing their songs and giving them nothing.

Again, this is how the market works.  If people want to give their music away, great.  But there’s nothing wrong with selling the music and making a living from it.

After all, would Led Zeppelin be Led Zeppelin if they’d had to do their concerts and record their music in between shifts at the local factory?

I just don’t believe that music should fall under the intellectual “property” category for decades upon decades. At some point, the culture owns it and can do what it wants with it.

If I build a house I own it.  It’s mine for the rest of my life, and I can leave it to whoever I want.  The same property rights apply to my intellectual works as well, such as songs or writings or poetry.

That’s called individual freedom, and you’re a complete and utter hypocrite for not supporting it in this instance.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

dirl126 - With a certain human aspect to mediate it...

Doesn’t that go without saying?

It also takes willful energy to be creative. Without that will, no creativity ever springs forth.

But I am going to stop before I go too far into the topic and lose my intuitive concept of creativity.

Fearing that your “faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes” just might be wrong?

Rob - But I guess you need to mischaracterize my argument to make your point.

No.

I simply thought that it was an accurate portrayal. Nothing more, nothing less. No ulterior motives.

If I build a house I own it.  It’s mine for the rest of my life, and I can leave it to whoever I want.  The same property rights apply to my intellectual works as well, such as songs or writings or poetry.

Can your house be effortlessly copied and shared?

It’s hard to compare intellectual property to brick and mortar property. They may be treated similar in the eyes of the law, but they aren’t anywhere near the same thing for these kinds of comparison purposes.

Your house is one of a kind and unique. An MP3, for example, isn’t. It isn’t “stolen” when a copy is made. Maybe in the intellectual sense it is “stolen”, but not in any physical sense. The comparison to brick and mortar breaks down at this point.

That’s called individual freedom, and you’re a complete and utter hypocrite for not supporting it in this instance.

That’s a little harsh.

I have attacked nobody’s individual freedom.

No…

Because words undermine the intuitive grasp and does not and can not explain that which we cognizantly know.  Creativity isn’t just a left-brained activity.

For example, God is not something that can not be adequately expressed, but only experienced.  People with religious experiences can not relate them to others.

“One loves something much less once they communicate it”
~Nietzche

It is something I hold close to me and don’t care to discredit it with words.  I have no fear that I am wrong, I just know that words aren’t right.

Words are the shoes that must be taken off before entering the carpet of the inexpressible.

I take this back - “It also takes willful energy to be creative. Without that will, no creativity ever springs forth.”

It may not apply to Lee Hadwin.

As someone who already has the majority of the Beatles collection, it doesn’t really matter to me. As for them being over-hyped, I’d agree about that with their earlier work. However, everything after Rubber Soul was pretty solid, and Abbey Road and Let It Be are definately some of the greatest albums from that time. After the Beatles, George Harrison’s All Things Must Pass is an amazing album, John Lennon’s stuff is okay, and Ringo Starr’s stuff is utter crap. As for Paul McCartney… fuck that guy. He has sullied the Beatles legacy at every chance he’s gotten.

After all, would Led Zeppelin be Led Zeppelin if they’d had to do their concerts and record their music in between shifts at the local factory?

Oh Zepp… such an amazing band. They owe it to their fans to go on an extensive world tour, not just one sold-out show. I would seriosly pay $300 for their tickets.

I also agree with you, Rob, that the honest thing is to pay for all your music. Though I must admit that I’m a very big hypocrite. I don’t really download music illegally, but I do get copies from my friends. It was kind of hard to fill an 80 GB iPod any other way. Though I do buy a lot of albums from smaller bands.

You purchase an item, of whatever type, once. End of story.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I simply thought that it was an accurate portrayal. Nothing more, nothing less. No ulterior motives.

Except that it wasn’t an accurate portrayal at all.  I wasn’t talking about “lazy” artists demanding to be paid.  I was talking about good artists getting paid by me for their work which I appreciate.

Can your house be effortlessly copied and shared?

It’s hard to compare intellectual property to brick and mortar property. They may be treated similar in the eyes of the law, but they aren’t anywhere near the same thing for these kinds of comparison purposes.

I fail to see why ease of distribution has anything to do with property rights.

Your house is one of a kind and unique. An MP3, for example, isn’t. It isn’t “stolen” when a copy is made. Maybe in the intellectual sense it is “stolen”, but not in any physical sense. The comparison to brick and mortar breaks down at this point.

See, now you’re trying to squirm away from my point.  The stealing is not in the copying.  On that the RIAA is wrong.  If you want to make yourself 10 copies of your music that should be fine.  If you want a copy on a CD, an MP3 player and a computer that’s fine.

The stealing is in the distribution to people who didn’t pay for the music.

That’s a little harsh.

I have attacked nobody’s individual freedom.

Except the individual freedom for people to own the rights to their intellectual property.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Who was it? Bob Marley that smoked them up and lead them to an experimental phase (that the nation followed) that inspired their next three CD’s?

Rob - Except that it wasn’t an accurate portrayal at all.

Sure it was.

If you aren’t going to support the artists you like with your money the market is going to keep making crap.

To which I liken as an argument of doing “a crappy job at your employment and then telling your employer that it’s because you’re not paid enough”.

It might not be exact, but it fits.

In any regard, none of this dynamic flies in the techno world. The argument’s merit becomes null and void.

I wasn’t talking about “lazy” artists demanding to be paid.  I was talking about good artists getting paid by me for their work which I appreciate.

Understood.

I fail to see why ease of distribution has anything to do with property rights.

It’s not the distribution that matters, but rather the medium.

See, now you’re trying to squirm away from my point.

Not at all. I was merely elaborating on my own point. Nothing more, nothing less.

Except the individual freedom for people to own the rights to their intellectual property.

When that “individual freedom” prevents me from singing “Happy Birthday” in public without first getting a license, then I don’t support that so-called individual freedom. I don’t care what hypocrisy you may think that shows. In fact, I could level the same charge right back at you because you support something that muzzles my personal freedom to sing whatever I damn well please.

I’m not going to call you a “a complete and utter hypocrite” for this view of yours. I’ll just recognize that we see this issue a bit differently and that both of our positions trades on the freedom of one party or another.

This is great news for all current and future Beatles fans! Go Apple!

Another spambot, sucking money from the beatles cashcow.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

only a matter of time before he sold out

god knows what lennon would make of this