Thunderbird recording
waspstar
1. Thunderbird
2. Reprehensible
3. Rat Patrol
4. Oranges
Its pricey, but I'm tempted because I love Thunderbird so much. Does anyone
know what this recording is? Is it a demo, a Mink Car reject, or a live
recording?
Dar
Troy
Oooh! I think it's time to give my brother a ring to see if he has it. :)
--
Troy
Sylvan
Holy crapamole! They released a version of Thunderbird? Buy it! Steal it! Do
whatever you have to!
--
Sylvan
http://www.webcomics.org
"The hamster is still dead." --Leonard Nimoy
Mark!
"Sylvan" <psi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BA43273B.15C52%psi...@mindspring.com...
Kevin Sullivan
course you still wouldn't want just a plain old CD-R copy of that if
there was a case and artwork to go a long with the original release.
How much is pricey? $50+ $100+? I've never even heard of this existing
so it must be more like What We Did this Summer than the 2000/2001
sampler discs which were always easy to get.
Hmmmmm....
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:38:21 -0500, "Mark!" <imight...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
scratch
Well, they recorded a studio version of thunderbird during the joe
nicolo sessions... so... my guess would be it's that. me want.
-scratch
Cameron
Buy it, rip it. I'll be happy to host it.
"waspstar" <dar...@menfromearth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:avkcfk$7e1$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
waspstar
Dar
"Kevin Sullivan" <ke...@beestung.net> wrote in message
news:hmir1vggqgnsbiivn...@4ax.com...
Frank Einstien
Where the hell is this for sale?
Kevin Sullivan
waspstar
> Damn. Do you think the seller made a CD-R copy? :P
No. And I've just found out who the buyer was, and I can guarantee you that
they wont be making a CD-R of it either.
Dar.
Kevin Sullivan
Yeah I've heard tell...
Another one will pop up eventually and those of us who don't get off
on having stuff that other people don't will be able to hear it as
well. :)
waspstar
MP3 of his own page. I woke up and my bed was filled with pee. Not done
THAT for a few years.
Dar
Kevin Sullivan
ROFL.
And is that all they were asking for it? I would've bought that in a
second! Although I can understand the hesitation of not wanting to
drop $45 on something that might end up being BS or not really what
you expected.
slcd.com had the Songs From Malcolm in the Middle promo for $100 a few
years ago. I was a little leery about purchasing that one :)
PR Mega
>I've come accross a Promo with this tracklisting:
>
>1. Thunderbird
>Its pricey
First of all: how pricey is it?
Second: If you decide to pass it up, let me know ;)
PR Mega
Official TMBG Ambassador of New York
<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/or/prmega">The Power Core</a><br>
<a href="http://www.commandcenter.vze.com">The Command Center: Official
Webpage Of AFPR</a>
DaveEBoyy65
David Levy
> Another one will pop up eventually and those of
> us who don't get off on having stuff that other
> people don't will be able to hear it as well. :)
I just learned of this disc's existence today, and it does contain a
studio recording of "Thunderbird." My brother genuinely wanted to
distribute the track, but Dot explicitly told him not to make any
copies. Stubborn as it seems, he feels very strongly about following
the band's wishes to the letter.
He even refused to give *me* a copy, despite my promise not to share
it with anyone. I feel fortunate simply to have heard it!
If I'd been in his position, I would have posted an MP3 without
consulting Dot. Obviously, Mike has a different philosophy than I.
Despite popular belief, however, he's not trying to be a jerk; he
honestly believes that he's doing the right thing.
only just a hat
>studio recording of "Thunderbird." My brother genuinely wanted to
>distribute the track, but Dot explicitly told him not to make any
>copies.
I don't suppose she gave a specific reason? Like maybe because it will be on
the next album? Dare I dream?
~Rappaccini's Daughter
^-^~^-^~^-^~^-^~^-^~^-^~^-^~^-^~^-^
a.m.tmbg's official Robot Harboring A Deathwish
Dave
David Levy <d_l...@lifeisunfair.net> wrote:
so now we know that 2 copies exist... i'm really surprised that an mp3
hasnt made it's way into the hands of someone who WILL share it... and
i'm wondering why they specifically don't want this song shared (unless
it's the only one he asked dot about, and she just said no, because i'm
sure she wouldnt say 'oh yes you can give that one to whoever you want.
john and john dont care') and, i'm sure he's not trying to be a jerk,
but as of now, he's the only person we know who has it, and how do you
think it makes all of us feel, not being able to hear it until it shows
up on the next album (and my guess, based on past experience, is that if
it does end up on the album, it will not be the same recording as the
one he has... i mean most of the songs on mink car were different
versions of songs that were already recorded)
scratch
Nope, TDK bought the copy Darrell was going to buy.
-scratch
David Levy
>so now we know that 2 copies exist...
I'm sure that more than two exist, but my brother purchased the one
that Darrell considered ordering.
And I wish that Darrel _had_ ordered it. I'd have an MP3!
> i'm really surprised that an mp3 hasnt made it's way
> into the hands of someone who WILL share it...
So am I.
> and i'm wondering why they specifically don't want this song shared
Reportedly, the Johns were dissatisfied with the recording. I have no
idea why; its style is minimalist, but I like it a great deal. It
would have made a fine addition to "Mink Car."
At the very least, it should have been included in "TMBG Unlimited,"
even if the band plans to record a new version at some point.
> (unless it's the only one he asked dot about, and she just said
> no, because i'm sure she wouldnt say 'oh yes you can give
> that one to whoever you want. john and john dont care')
My brother spoke to Michael Kahn first. He was told that Restless
doesn't own the rights, and that Dot probably would grant permission
to post the song online.
> and, i'm sure he's not trying to be a jerk, but as of now,
> he's the only person we know who has it, and how do
> you think it makes all of us feel, not being able to hear it
I understand your frustration. I certainly would have handled the
situation differently.
> until it shows up on the next album
Knock on wood!
> and my guess, based on past experience, is that if it does end up
> on the album, it will not be the same recording as the one he has...
That's almost definite.
Kaylum
>situation differently.
I understand all the frustration as well, but can TDK be the only one here who
respects the band's right to decide when and how they release a song?
Kay
scratch
No offense to anyone intended here, but I kind of get the feeling that
it's not the band deciding. It seems like it's the management, and
they're looking out for copyright interests or something...
-scratch
JohnANDJohn
J&J
** updated **
http://www.tdkworld.musicfans.co.uk
** updated **
kay...@aol.com (Kaylum) wrote in message news:<20030119030810...@mb-mc.aol.com>...
Robert Hutchinson
I kind of get the feeling that the people who have obtained the recording
are explicitly *asking* the management first, and the management doesn't
dare give an explicit okay, for fear of opening the floodgates.
(Twistid comparison removed, since I might be misremembering it and don't
want to start an argument)
--
Robert Hutchinson | "[Destiny's Child] got booed at the NBA
| playoffs. Even men in plush animal costumes
| don't get booed at the NBA playoffs."
| -- Fametracker.com
waspstar
news:b0dge6$nusdb$1...@ID-159473.news.dfncis.de...
> Dave wrote:
>
> Nope, TDK bought the copy Darrell was going to buy.
Can I just point out that while I feel mildly disappointed at missing this
item, I accept that it was for sale, and first-come-first-served etc etc. I
can't be mad at another person for buying it while I hesitated. I'm annoyed
at myself, really for not snapping it up.
However... I AM annoyed that elsewhere on this post people are prescribing
moral values to the same person on the grounds that they are respecting the
band's wishes by not distributing it. Moral values were not displayed when
he bought the item. I asked this newsgroup for advice on the item, and he
took advantage of that. And on the subject of sharing the recording; if the
band didnt want it distributed at any time, They shouldnt have put it out on
a 'promotional' CD.
Dar
PR Mega
>band's wishes by not distributing it.
On the one hand, Dot did say no when asked if it was ok to distribute it (I'm
wondering exactly what she said...if someone could post her e-mail).
On the other hand, Dot may *not* actually be representing the wishes of the
band, but rather the managment. After all, TMBG turned a blind eye to Twistid
for a long time. It was only after it was brought to the attention of the
management that they could no longer deny the fact that they knew about it's
existence. For them to come out and specifically say that it's ok to distribute
something just seems like it could cause future problems. But if they pretend
they don't know that their rare and obscure stuff it being passed around on the
net, it just seems like it would be easier for them not to care. And besides,
they did release a promo CD....a CD used to PROMOTE the songs on it :)
Well, these are just my thoughts. It's still possible that John and John told
her to say no. I obviously don't know either way, just speculating. But nothing
changes the fact that everyone on here wants a copy of Thunderbird, so there's
really only one solution: David, sneak into your brother's room and rip the mp3
while he's sleeping :) (Editor's Note: The above comment was a joke, and on the
off chance that that advice is taken seriously, the author of this post takes
no responisbility. So there.)
Slondo1
songs? I'm really vauge on that, I know. Maybe its only for using songs in TV
shows, or something. But I'd like to hear at least a clip of Thunderbird, just
to check the feel...(it's not like I don't know every word already)
-Ben
Lex
YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DISEASED CHICKENS!!
waspstar
news:20030120114105...@mb-fv.aol.com...
>
> On the one hand, Dot did say no when asked if it was ok to distribute it
(I'm
> wondering exactly what she said...if someone could post her e-mail).
>
> On the other hand, Dot may *not* actually be representing the wishes of
the
> band, but rather the managment. After all, TMBG turned a blind eye to
Twistid
> for a long time. It was only after it was brought to the attention of the
> management that they could no longer deny the fact that they knew about
it's
> existence. For them to come out and specifically say that it's ok to
distribute
> something just seems like it could cause future problems. But if they
pretend
> they don't know that their rare and obscure stuff it being passed around
on the
> net, it just seems like it would be easier for them not to care. And
besides,
> they did release a promo CD....a CD used to PROMOTE the songs on it :)
Yeah, this whole 'asking' them is really giving them a second chance they
dont deserve. You put something out, you can't take it back.
I know that sounds harsh, when I'm talking about a band I love and also two
guys that I respect. But it WAS pressed onto a CD, which means it was
distributed to someone for promotional purposes. You can't do that and NOT
expect it to get passed around. If it was sent to a radio station, it was
meant for them to play it. If it was sent to a record company, it was meant
for a person or persons to hear it. Any of these people could have played
it to others and asked for feedback. And lets not forget that one of these
people let it get sold in the first place.
I have not seen so much discussion about a single song in YEARS - and not
just this thread. Its clear that 'Thunderbird' is a fan favourite, and They
would be fools not to include it on a future release. In fact, I think it
could be a breakthrough single for the band, given the right production on
the track (please Linnell, dont put goofy hammond organs over it - you write
such amazing guitar-driven tracks! Dont Lets Start, End Of The Tour, Rest
Awhile, Ana Ng)
Dar
Thomas Zeitner
waspstar wrote in message ...
>
>I have not seen so much discussion about a single song in YEARS - and not
>just this thread. Its clear that 'Thunderbird' is a fan favourite, and
They
>would be fools not to include it on a future release. In fact, I think it
>could be a breakthrough single for the band, given the right production on
>the track (please Linnell, dont put goofy hammond organs over it - you
write
>such amazing guitar-driven tracks! Dont Lets Start, End Of The Tour, Rest
>Awhile, Ana Ng)
>
Listen to the man. He knows what he's talking about. I fully agree that it
could be a breakthrough single, even more so than "Boss of Me."
Then again, maybe that's what they're afraid of.
btw, when's the last time they played "Thunderbird" live? I haven't heard
since April 2000, I think, and tmbg.net doesn't have any listings later than
3/17/2001.
Shaft
Official Bad Mother-(Shut yo mouth!) of alt.music.tmbg
"Does it not make a large procession dance?" -Robert Hutchinson
PR Mega
Yes, it's definitely one of my favorite songs (which is probably why I'm
spending so much time in this thread :) ). Anyway, I was thinking while at work
tonight: we know Dot said not to distribute the track, but we don't know if
that's just management covering their asses, or the bands wishes. So I thought:
why not ask the Johns themselves? I mean, one fan already has it...why not just
ask Flans if it would be alright to give it to the rest of us die-hards? Just a
thought. I mean, it couldn't hurt.
scratch
> waspstar wrote in message ...
>
>>I have not seen so much discussion about a single song in YEARS - and not
>>just this thread. Its clear that 'Thunderbird' is a fan favourite, and
>
> They
>
>>would be fools not to include it on a future release. In fact, I think it
>>could be a breakthrough single for the band, given the right production on
>>the track (please Linnell, dont put goofy hammond organs over it - you
>
> write
>
>>such amazing guitar-driven tracks! Dont Lets Start, End Of The Tour, Rest
>>Awhile, Ana Ng)
>>
>
>
> Listen to the man. He knows what he's talking about. I fully agree that it
> could be a breakthrough single, even more so than "Boss of Me."
>
> Then again, maybe that's what they're afraid of.
>
> btw, when's the last time they played "Thunderbird" live? I haven't heard
> since April 2000, I think, and tmbg.net doesn't have any listings later than
> 3/17/2001.
They soundchecked it on 4/20/01, and as far as i know that was the last
time they ever played it.
-scratch
David Levy
> Moral values were not displayed when he bought the item. I asked this
> newsgroup for advice on the item, and he took advantage of that.
That isn't what occurred; you made no mention of the specific retailer
in your post, and it happens to be one that my brother checks on a
regular basis. (and has purchased rare TMBG items from in the past)
> And on the subject of sharing the recording; if the band didnt want it
> distributed at any time, They shouldnt have put it out on a 'promotional' CD.
Having seen the disc first-hand, I can attest to the fact that it most
definitely is *not* a promotional disc; it's an internal sample. (a
compilation of prospective releases that's intended to be distributed
only to music producers, band management, etc.) A promo CD
(considerably more common) typically is sent to music retailers and/or
radio stations. Therefore, the content is far more likely to be
leaked to the general public.
In either case, the material is copyrighted. Purchasing an original
article (not a home-made copy) usually is legal, but posting MP3s of
the songs without permission is not. That's not to say that I'm
entirely opposed to such activity, but I can understand both sides of
the issue.
David Levy
> And besides, they did release a promo CD....a CD used to
> PROMOTE the songs on it :)
Please see my reply to Darrell.
> But nothing changes the fact that everyone on here wants a copy
> of Thunderbird, so there's really only one solution: David, sneak
> into your brother's room and rip the mp3 while he's sleeping :)
LOL!
> (Editor's Note: The above comment was a joke, and on the off
> chance that that advice is taken seriously, the author of this
> post takes no responsibility. So there.)
I have to admit that the idea briefly crossed my mind. I'd like to
maintain diplomatic relations with my brother, however. Besides, I
don't know where he's hidden the CD. ;)
David Levy
> Yeah, this whole 'asking' them is really giving them a second
> chance they dont deserve.
Sure, that whole 'copyright' thing is a bunch of nonsense.
> You put something out, you can't take it back.
Regardless of whether a recording is from a one-of-a-kind test
pressing or a platinum-selling album, it's illegal to distribute an
unauthorized copy.
Sure, I'd have done it anyway, but choosing not to clearly is
justifiable.
> I know that sounds harsh, when I'm talking about a band I love and
> also two guys that I respect. But it WAS pressed onto a CD, which
> means it was distributed to someone for promotional purposes.
As I explain in another reply, this isn't the case. (not that this is
particularly germane to the matter at hand)
> You can't do that and NOT expect it to get passed around.
Based upon the fact that it took this long for a single known disc to
surface, I'd say that such an expectation would've been reasonable.
Again, however, I fail to see the relevance. Even if the band fully
expected unauthorized copies to circulate, that doesn't make it okay.
> And lets not forget that one of these [industry insiders] let it get sold
> in the first place.
...and most likely violated a contractual agreement in the process.
waspstar
news:n0gq2v42ifb2tck6f...@4ax.com...
>
> Sure, that whole 'copyright' thing is a bunch of nonsense.
Bollocks.
> Regardless of whether a recording is from a one-of-a-kind test
> pressing or a platinum-selling album, it's illegal to distribute an
> unauthorized copy.
Bollocks. "Test pressing"? Of what?! And you know its not the latter.
This was a promotional release, wether intended for radio, or the record
company, whatever.
> > You put something out, you can't take it back.
Bollocks! Oh wait, I said that bit. No, read the next bit....
> Based upon the fact that it took this long for a single known disc to
> surface, I'd say that such an expectation would've been reasonable.
Definately bollocks. I'm saying, the band put it out, clearly giving it to
someone outside of their trusted sphere. You're saying that because its
taken this long to surface, that I must be wrong? The French are still
buying back items looted from the Palace of Versailles 1789.
Dar
David Levy
> > Sure, that whole 'copyright' thing is a bunch of nonsense.
> Bollocks.
Would you care to elaborate?
> > Regardless of whether a recording is from a one-of-a-kind
> > test pressing or a platinum-selling album, it's illegal to
> > distribute an unauthorized copy.
>Bollocks. "Test pressing"? Of what?!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothetical
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analogy
> And you know its not the latter.
I said "a recording," not "this recording."
I explained precisely what this CD this, but you refuse to believe me.
> This was a promotional release
...except for the fact that it was neither promotional nor a release.
(as defined in the music industry)
> wether intended for radio, or the record company, whatever.
That doesn't make sense. If a disc is created purely for internal
purposes, (as this one was) what, pray tell, is being promoted?
> > > You put something out, you can't take it back.
> > Based upon the fact that it took this long for a single known disc to
> > surface, I'd say that such an expectation would've been reasonable.
> Definately bollocks. I'm saying, the band put it out, clearly giving it to
> someone outside of their trusted sphere.
Your point being?
> You're saying that because its taken this long to surface, that I must
> be wrong?
Wrong about what? I merely disagreed with your assertion that TMBG
had no reasonable expectation of preserving the track's
unavailability.
Dave
thunderbird is an awesome songs, and from what i can tell, everyone
wants it. if it is not on the next album, a lot of people will be
dissappointed.
according to dave levy, this cd was an 'internal release' and not even a
promo or anything like that. but the fact remains that it ended up for
sale, and someone bought it. unfortunately for every other fan, it now
belongs to tdk, who will not share it with anyone, even though he never
should have been able to obtain it himself. (even though he has no
problem with distributing hundreds of live tracks. yes, there is a
difference, but he is being inconsistent. i wonder how he would feel if
he got a notice telling him to remove all his mp3s) i'm sure anyone
else here would gladly send copies to everyone. and i'm sure nearly
everyone here would buy it in an instant if it appeared on an album or
ep or any sort of commercially available product.
let me stop rambling and say that there are a lot of different issues
with this. tmbg should be able to have control over their music, but
why do they insist on torturing their fans by recording songs that
everybody loves and wants to buy, and keeping it for themselves? what
do they have to gain by not selling music that people want to buy?
scratch
>
> Regardless of whether a recording is from a one-of-a-kind test
> pressing or a platinum-selling album, it's illegal to distribute an
> unauthorized copy.
In Darrell's words, bullocks. At least in the United States.
http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm
As long as he isn't making a profit and doesn't expect anything in
return, it's legal.
-scratch
David Levy
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 permits the creation of personal
audio copies for private use. It *does not* allow distribution to
others.
scratch
It allows you to distribute it to friends and family members. Napster
even tried to use this in their trial, but the judge denied it because
it could be downloaded by anyone. It would be illegal for TDK to put it
up on his site, but it wouldn't be illegal for him to send it to other
newsgroup members. At least, that's my understanding of the law. IANAL.
(man, that acronym and "IMHO" always make me feel like I'm insulting
myself.)
-scratch
David Levy
> [The AHRA] allows you to distribute it to friends and family members.
The United States Senate report that accompanied the AHRA [102-294]
explicitly notes that use of copies by "family members" was an act
that they intended to protect with the law. No mention of "friends"
(or any synonymous term) is made in this context.
I attempted to locate an online record of the report's full text, but
I was unsuccessful.
Panic
> explicitly notes that use of copies by "family members" was an act
> that they intended to protect with the law. No mention of "friends"
> (or any synonymous term) is made in this context.
But David... alt.music.tmbg -is- a family.
Now go steal that fucking CD and make us some copies.
Can we forget about the fucking law for a minute, please. Any sensible
person knows that the law and morality share a loose relationship at best.
From my point of view, the only thing that matters, morally, is what They
want for the recording. If They don't want anyone to hear it, then nobody
should, including its 'owner': he should smash the CD to pieces and carve
out whatever chunk of his mighty brain remembers hearing it. If They don't
mind whoever wants to hear it hearing it, then he should make with the
sharing already, the silly arse.
And can I also add, of course They don't fucking mind. It's not like
anyone's going to mass-copy it and sell it at HMV. We're talking about a
handful of hardcore fanatics. Then again, maybe They do mind and I'm an
idiot. Either way, I don't care: I'm not one of the people that wants to
hear this recording. I'm just sick of this thread going round and round in
circles.
Moose,
Patrick
David Levy
> i wonder how [TDK] would feel if he got a notice telling him to
> remove all his mp3s
Not only would he remove *anything* from his website at the request of
the band or its managment, he specificaly asked Dot to inform him of
all such material.
David Levy
> Can we forget about the fucking law for a minute, please. Any sensible
> person knows that the law and morality share a loose relationship at best.
This is true; from a legal standpoint, the live recordings that my
brother offers via his website infringe to an identical extent.
> From my point of view, the only thing that matters, morally, is what They
> want for the recording.
This is Mike's sole concern.
> If They don't want anyone to hear it,
It's been established that TMBG's management specifically objects to
the copying and distribution of the track. (which might reflect the
wishes of the band)
> then nobody should, including its 'owner': he should smash the CD to
> pieces and carve out whatever chunk of his mighty brain remembers
> hearing it.
I was startled to learn that he offered to mail the disc to Dot.
(without making a single copy) She declined.
waspstar
>
> I was startled to learn that he offered to mail the disc to Dot.
> (without making a single copy) She declined.
If she had accepted, you KNOW he would have made a copy for himself, first.
Despite being a preposition, this is a material fact.
Dar
waspstar
news:vTtX9.30231$jM5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>Any sensible
> person knows that the law and morality share a loose relationship at best.
> From my point of view, the only thing that matters, morally, is what They
> want for the recording.
Right. And if you ask the band, they've got to tell you the right thing to
do. I once asked Linnell if he would mind his photograph taken while he was
on stage setting up (I was let into the venue early, as a guest of
ex-bassist Tony M). He said that I wasnt alowed to. But later back stage,
he posed with me and my sister for pics. Then I realised that earlier he
had his manager and tour manager stood behind him. So he's obviously going
to give the 'right' and 'legal' answer, but later he showed that the law
didnt reflect his personal opinion.
Now, what is Michael Levy (I hereby refuse to use his self-given nickname
anymore) claiming to be adhering to - the law, or the wishes of the band?
He hasnt asked the band; he's asked an employee of the band (Dot you're a
lovely, lovely lady) who is obviously going to give the correct and legal
answer.
These type of laws do not enforce themself. They sit there until someone
needs them, or chooses to use them. And behind every law is a principle.
Behind copyright laws is the principle that the theft of material could
damage the owners right to an income from it. But if it clearly wont do
that (and I think we've pretty much established that every last one of us
will be queueing up to buy any future TMBG releases with new material on it)
then the principle behind the law is gone, and there is no reason for anyone
to flex their legal muscles.
Dar
NJSteve
you're saying? You're mad because Mike got a CD and won't share it
with anyone? So what! If he buys a CD, it's nobody's business but his
own! He can do whatever he wants with it. He has no obligation to
share it with anyone. You think just because you want something really
bad, that means your entitled to someone else's copy of it?? And why
the hell would he want to give copies to any of you when you've done
nothing but harrass him.
David Levy
> If she had accepted, you KNOW he would have made a copy for himself, first.
You're underestimating my brother's fanatical loyalty to the band.
Kaylum
>damage the owners right to an income from it. But if it clearly wont do
>that (and I think we've pretty much established that every last one of us
>will be queueing up to buy any future TMBG releases with new material on it)
>then the principle behind the law is gone, and there is no reason for anyone
>to flex their legal muscles.
That hasn't been established at all. Of course the people who are speaking up
would buy any new material, and of course the ones who wouldn't pay for it
*aren't* going to say anything (why would they?). And there are a lot more than
you know. If there was any doubt about that before, TMBG Unlimited proved it,
at least for me.
Kay
Asa Pillsbury
Yeah... what he said.
--
http colon backslash backslash www dot ithaca dot edu slash students slash
apillsb1
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
waspstar
news:73db506e.03012...@posting.google.com...
>
>You're mad because Mike got a CD and won't share it
> with anyone?
Imagine you hate living in your town. And then you find out TMBG are
playing somewhere you can't reach. You'd hate your town even more.
Many of us have found Michael Levy annoying for years, but have learned to
live with it. When something like this happens, it just reminds us what a
shitty place the world of TMBG is for having him around.
> So what! If he buys a CD, it's nobody's business but his
> own!
True!
>He has no obligation to
> share it with anyone.
No, but this is a community, and he's been the first to 'expect' other
people to hand over bootlegs to feed his addiction to lo-fi recordings in
the past. The guy's double standards are one of his better qualities.
>You think just because you want something really
> bad, that means your entitled to someone else's copy of > it??
Don't be silly, that WOULD be theft. And as you can see from this thread,
most people here are against theft, according to its true definition. But
some form of duplicate would be nice, if you could arrange it.
> And why
> the hell would he want to give copies to any of you >when you've done
> nothing but harrass him.
I'm certainly not harrassing him to get a copy of Thunderbird. Its just an
old habit I've slipped back into for this thread. It wasnt always this way;
I used to attempt civil conversation back in the days when I frequented the
chat room. But even then, he would just sit atop the room list, speaking
only to correct the room-peasants on their painfully poor knowlege of TMBG
trivia.
But you're right that this has gone on long enough. Just remember that this
thread started with a simple call for help. To hopefully bring this to a
conclusion, this will be my last word on the matter.
Dar
The Demonic Kangaroo
> one of us will be queueing up to buy any future TMBG
> releases with new material on it)
Even if what you're saying is true and every person reading this would buy
any new release, you seem to be overlooking the fact that once the song is
leaked, everyone and their cousin will have access to it via file sharing
programs and the like in no time flat. Not just the people you're referring
to above, but every one of the millions of internet users who are inclined
to pirate music. If there were a way to let just those people who you refer
to hear the song, there wouldn't be a problem. And the song will be leaked
eventually, just not by me.
-Mike
The Demonic Kangaroo
> made a copy for himself, first.
Shows how much you think you know about me. I had every intention of
sending my one and only copy to
Hornblow, if that's what They wanted. That's a fact, jack.
-Mike
The Demonic Kangaroo
> 'expect' other people to hand over bootlegs to feed his
> addiction to lo-fi recordings in the past.
How can you keep comparing the trading (or distribution) of live material
which is something the band condones, with the trading of their studio
material in general (let alone unreleased material) which They are against?
> this will be my last word on the matter.
Okay, better get back to your work on the next update of your website
dedicated to slandering me.
-Mike
ChessPieceFace
you to post a 30-second clip of the song on your site or through some
other distribution channel. Many people are really just curious as to
the sound of this recording. I mean, obviously I'd love to hear a full
version, but I really just want to know how it turned out.
scratch
I think that really depends on a lot of things. If you were to put it
on your site or something, it would probably be true. If you send it to
specific regulars on this newsgroup, and request that they don't put it
up on file sharing services, I think that has a good chance of working.
I do tend to have more faith in people than I should, though.
-scratch
lawrence solomon
> Even if what you're saying is true and every person reading this would buy
> any new release, you seem to be overlooking the fact that once the song is
> leaked, everyone and their cousin will have access to it via file sharing
> programs and the like in no time flat. Not just the people you're referring
> to above, but every one of the millions of internet users who are inclined
> to pirate music. If there were a way to let just those people who you refer
> to hear the song, there wouldn't be a problem. And the song will be leaked
> eventually, just not by me.
and so what if they download it? they were never going to buy the CD in
the first place, so TMBG lose no more as a result of them than they
would have otherwise. besides, maybe those people will, after hearing
the song, feel inclined to go to a concert that they might not have gone
to otherwise. you never know.
PR Mega
>didnt reflect his personal opinion.
This is exactly what I was thinking during my previous post...maybe the band's
opinion on this whole thing isn't the same as the legal response the management
has to give us. So why not ask the band for permission to spread the track
among ourselves? Flans is always hanging around after the show, someone could
explain our situation and see what he has to say about it...
PR Mega
Official TMBG Ambassador of New York
<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/or/prmega">The Power Core</a><br>
<a href="http://www.commandcenter.vze.com">The Command Center: Official
Webpage Of AFPR</a>
JohnANDJohn
> How can you keep comparing the trading (or distribution) of live material
> which is something the band condones, with the trading of their studio
> material in general (let alone unreleased material) which They are against?
The band condones bootlegging even though its technically illegal.
Thanks, Mike, for making the clear distinction between these two
illegal acts.
> Okay, better get back to your work on the next update of your website
> dedicated to slandering me.
Who else has got a website slandering Mike? They better not be copying
our material, or we'll sue!
http://www.tdkworld.musicfans.co.uk
J&J
Robert Hutchinson
Well, they said that they would quit.
--
Robert Hutchinson | "[Destiny's Child] got booed at the NBA
| playoffs. Even men in plush animal costumes
| don't get booed at the NBA playoffs."
| -- Fametracker.com
Jay G
"JohnANDJohn" <tdkw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f361924a.03012...@posting.google.com...
> >"The Demonic Kangaroo" <t...@theymightbegiants.org> wrote in message
>
> > How can you keep comparing the trading (or distribution) of live
material
> > which is something the band condones, with the trading of their studio
> > material in general (let alone unreleased material) which They are
against?
>
> The band condones bootlegging even though its technically illegal.
> Thanks, Mike, for making the clear distinction between these two
> illegal acts.
It's illegal to record and distribute bootlegs without the band's consent.
Since the band has no problem with live recordings being distributed,
they're not illegal.
-Jay
scratch
Is it the band's opinion that matters for legality, or the management's?
The band technically doesn't even own the copyrights to the songs
anymore...
-scratch
Kaylum
> The band technically doesn't even own the copyrights to the songs
>anymore...
Doesn't the band still own the rights to the songs themselves, just not the
specific recording on the cd? I know it sounds strange, but I think that's the
case. If I remember correctly, Prince (or whatever the hell he's calling
himself these days) had plans to rerecord his albums exactly the same way so he
could do what he wanted with them without record company interference.
Kay
scratch
That's not the way it was for XTC, at least. They hadn't even done the
final recordings for Apple Venus yet, but Virgin owned the rights to the
songs because they had already recorded demos. Maybe it varies from
contract to contract?
-scratch
David Levy
> That's not the way it was for XTC, at least. They hadn't even
> done the final recordings for Apple Venus yet, but Virgin owned
> the rights to the songs because they had already recorded
> demos. Maybe it varies from contract to contract?
Yes, of course it does.
Kaylum is correct; TMBG has retained the rights to all of their
musical compositions. (but not to most of their studio recordings of
said compositions) I recall this being mentioned in an online
interview or chat.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the posting of bootleg recordings
is technically legal, however; I believe that this would require
formal permission from the band. (and possibly some of the venues at
which the songs were recorded, often against managerial rules) The
Johns have taken a hands-off approach, (clearly implying on numerous
occasions that they don't object on a moral level) but they probably
have been advised not to explicitly waive their legal rights.
Jim Ellwanger
Robert Hutchinson <ser...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> NJSteve says...
> > What the hell is wrong with all you people? Will you listen to what
> > you're saying? You're mad because Mike got a CD and won't share it
> > with anyone? So what! If he buys a CD, it's nobody's business but his
> > own! He can do whatever he wants with it. He has no obligation to
> > share it with anyone. You think just because you want something really
> > bad, that means your entitled to someone else's copy of it?? And why
> > the hell would he want to give copies to any of you when you've done
> > nothing but harrass him.
>
> Well, they said that they would quit.
I know, I know they said that they would quit; all right, they promised
no more after this.
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com>
<http://trainman1.home.mindspring.com> welcomes you daily.
"The days turn into nights; at night, you hear the trains."
One Angry Dwarf
>I know, I know they said that they would quit; all right, they promised
>no more after this.
Yeah, there you go. Tease us with Thunderbird quotes.
Atoook
-------------
FREE THUNDERBIRD!
Robert Hutchinson
> >I know, I know they said that they would quit; all right, they promised
> >no more after this.
>
> Yeah, there you go. Tease us with Thunderbird quotes.
You know, there is another version of Thunderbird to be had.
Sentate
>You know, there is another version of Thunderbird to be had.
yeah, i remember now, i remember now.....why the called it thunderbird (i just
had to finish that one although the end was out of context).
greg
Nathan
news:alpaca2500-9957A...@netnews.attbi.com...
> let me stop rambling and say that there are a lot of different issues
> with this. tmbg should be able to have control over their music, but
> why do they insist on torturing their fans by recording songs that
> everybody loves and wants to buy, and keeping it for themselves?
Because they're insane. <g>
> what do they have to gain by not selling music that people want to buy?
I'd say there are a few factors. One is that they sometimes think their
unreleased material isn't good enough to release. The Johns seem to be
their own worst critics in this respect, and I sometimes wish they'd leave
it up to their audiences to decide what's good and what isn't. Along the
same lines, if they don't think a song will appeal to the record-buying
public at large, they might think it isn't worth the trouble and money of
producing and distributing it. While this is a valid argument, they should
realize by now that, even if they use the Info Club to release a recording
of Linnell singing a song into a tape recorder into his bedroom, and then
burn it to a CD-R, SOMEONE is going to buy it. Another possibility is that
they want to save their songs for future releases. So there are reasons why
the Johns don't release all their songs right away, but I don't think they
always make very good judgment calls.
Nathan
Sylvan
>> what do they have to gain by not selling music that people want to buy?
>
> I'd say there are a few factors. One is that they sometimes think their
> unreleased material isn't good enough to release. The Johns seem to be
> their own worst critics in this respect, and I sometimes wish they'd leave
> it up to their audiences to decide what's good and what isn't. Along the
> same lines, if they don't think a song will appeal to the record-buying
> public at large, they might think it isn't worth the trouble and money of
> producing and distributing it. While this is a valid argument
[...]
I've always assumed that they left Thunderbird off of Mink Car because it
would have meant the album had two different songs about drunkenness.
--
Sylvan
http://www.webcomics.org
"The hamster is still dead." --Leonard Nimoy
Nathan
news:BA59F757.17134%psi...@mindspring.com...
> I've always assumed that they left Thunderbird off of Mink Car because it
> would have meant the album had two different songs about drunkenness.
Oh, ALL their songs are about drunkenness! Except the ones that aren't.
Nathan
Richard E Green
But the question is....if you were so concerned that this was a CD that
TMBG did NOT want to be heard by a fan, why did you buy it in the first
place???
--
-Richard E green
Dave
wrote:
> But the question is....if you were so concerned that this was a CD that
> TMBG did NOT want to be heard by a fan, why did you buy it in the first
> place???
because if anyone else bought it, there would be some rampant piracy
goin on. and then nobody would buy any more tmbg albums and they'd get
poor and stuff.
Troy
> You know, there is another version of Thunderbird to be had.
(in Yoda voice)
There is. . .another. . .Thunderbird. . . .
--
Troy
shabow
> is technically legal, however; I believe that this would require
> formal permission from the band. (and possibly some of the venues at
> which the songs were recorded, often against managerial rules) The
> Johns have taken a hands-off approach, (clearly implying on numerous
> occasions that they don't object on a moral level) but they probably
> have been advised not to explicitly waive their legal rights.
There are some prior legal precedents- i.e. Twistid's archive being
asked to remove certain songs but not others. Also, venues have no
rights to recordings, it's only their "rules" - of course they can sue
you in a civil matter but there's no explicit law against it (local
laws may vary). i.e. a venue can't force someone to take down a
recording made at their venue.