Should 4 Old Men Control All Music?
t_hendricks
Of course not. But that's what we've got now. And that's why the
mainstream music lately has been so bad. Quick recite some lyrics from
the Grammy awards show. You probably can't because lyrics don't mean
anything anymore. These 4 companies don't want you to say anything
meaningful. But I will
The 4 companies are:
AOL/Warners (USA)
Seagrams (Canada)
Sony (Japan)
BMG (Germany)
and their monopoly of music is ruining music.
But it gets worse. There are virtually only 8 companies that control all
the arts and media. And that's the last thing in the world you'll hear on
anyones lyrics.
Ask yourself why is mainstream music so bad and all the good stuff is in
the shadows? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Come , leave your wallets and preconceptions behind, and join the Art
Revolution: no ads, no sponsors, no government grants, no lies, no
dullness, lots of surprises and even some humor.
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
Dallas, Texas is the home of the art revolution. Tell me what you think.
Art S Revolutionary (tom hendricks)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jim Wraith
>the Grammy awards show. You probably can't because lyrics don't mean
>anything anymore.
'La la la la la la la vida loca!'
You telling me these aren't deep lyrics?
--
Jim Wraith.
Marc Palmer
j...@kildare.demon.co.uk says...
Haha... but really the sad fact is that 90% of the population don't care
for deep meaningful songs, or even shallow songs with good lyrics. This
kind of goes hand in hand with most people not actually buying anything
except pop. Sod all the awards, it's pretty rare to find any good
musicians winning. Faith in humanity? No way! :-)
Here's something to chew on...
"Waiting and aching and all green with life
Her mouth is red, make us remember well and
See how strange it sounds
Strange as the word, no it's not the world is strange
Not as strange as the word.
Soft as moths, spike all dreams in head
Blood her mouth is red, she bleeds her bed
I'm here, that is clear and left is you
So with swim we'll froth with limbs the blue"
from "Snakes-a-sleeping" by CARDIACS, from the "Heaven Born and Ever
Bright" album. http://www.cardiacs.com/button.html
Cheers
--
Marc Palmer
If you haven't heard CARDIACS may I respectfully advise you
to visit http://www.cardiacs.com/button.html
Jim Wraith
>
>"Waiting and aching and all green with life
>Her mouth is red, make us remember well and
>See how strange it sounds
>Strange as the word, no it's not the world is strange
>Not as strange as the word.
>
>Soft as moths, spike all dreams in head
>Blood her mouth is red, she bleeds her bed
>I'm here, that is clear and left is you
>So with swim we'll froth with limbs the blue"
>
Okay, so it's got very nice imagery, but it doesn't say much to me,
personally. How about some Imbalance:
"I feel my life is out of control. I fall into a bottomless pit, and I
don't know where it'll end, this pressure is too much. Occupation it
dragged me down, I'm sinking in uncharted seas and the net is
drawing in tight, will I escape this money trap? I've gotta find a
way to make it all stop, gotta find a way right now. These feelings
of despair envelope my minds eye, it seems there's a way out but I
don't want to die. An income tethered me, now I'm at the ropes
end, and to earn is to survive. Taken for granted by so many, used
for gain and nothing more, stripped of all my dignity and pride, I'm
feeling like a fiscal whore. It sickens me that society is geared
towards the survival of the richest."
Well, it speaks to me, anyway, even if it isn't as beautifully put
across...
--
Jim Wraith.
Marc Palmer
j...@kildare.demon.co.uk says...
>
> Okay, so it's got very nice imagery, but it doesn't say much to me,
> personally. How about some Imbalance:
>
> "I feel my life is out of control. I fall into a bottomless pit, and I
> don't know where it'll end, this pressure is too much. Occupation it
> dragged me down, I'm sinking in uncharted seas and the net is
> drawing in tight, will I escape this money trap? I've gotta find a
> way to make it all stop, gotta find a way right now. These feelings
> of despair envelope my minds eye, it seems there's a way out but I
> don't want to die. An income tethered me, now I'm at the ropes
> end, and to earn is to survive. Taken for granted by so many, used
> for gain and nothing more, stripped of all my dignity and pride, I'm
> feeling like a fiscal whore. It sickens me that society is geared
> towards the survival of the richest."
OK, that's "real" but I prefer something a little more abstract. I
(personally) find that kind of stuff a bit "whinging sixth-form poetry"
myself. Valid points, but hardly news to us corporate slaves :-)
Plus, and I'm no lyricist at all so I'm not one to criticize, but there's
quite a few cliches in there...
Never heard imbalance though... any MP3s about? What kind of stuff?
Cheers!
--
Marc Palmer (UK) - fungi photos: http://www.fungiphotos.com
If you haven't heard CARDIACS may I respectfully advise you
to visit http://www.cardiacs.com/sounds.html
Rhodri
> from "Snakes-a-sleeping" by CARDIACS
hey - you never miss an oppurtunity :) Is there a sniff of forthcoming
gigs?
I've been able to tolerate unbelievably bad pyrics in the past, often
without knowing it, purely cos the person delivering them had the
panache to carry it off.
--
Rhodri http://www.gyoker.demon.co.uk/ rho...@mac.com
"Congratulations! You're lucky and you didn't know it, did you?"
"No, I wasn't absolutely sure about it...." --------- W C Fields
t_hendricks
But why put up with it? Why can't good music have good lyrics too? Why
settle. We in Dallas, that are leading this art revolution say quality
counts. And I'm glad to see some in this post actually caring about the
quality of lyrics and challenging those they thought not that good. (If
you come to the revolution check out the lyrics of Dallas's Hunkasaurus
and Pet Dog Guitar, the only performers in the world that play their
concerts in a MOVIE THEATER BOX OFFICE.
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com But if you do come to my site be
prepared to be revolutionoized in EVERY aspect of every art. No one here
settles!)
Most of the problem is These 4 old men, who don't care, don't listen,
can't be bothered about the records their companies put out. They just
want the $$$$$$, so those that control what music is made, play it safe,
give the audience the sanitary versions of what it already seems to like
and innovation is out the door. Wham.
Y'all keep talking and please remember
Dallas isn't just a stupid TV show, it's the world art revolution center!
And been doing revolution since '92
Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks) Musea.
Rhodri
> And I'm glad to see some in this post actually caring about the
> quality of lyrics and challenging those they thought not that good. (If
> you come to the revolution check out the lyrics of Dallas's Hunkasaurus
> and Pet Dog Guitar
your lyrics?
> http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com But if you do come to my site be
> prepared to be revolutionoized in EVERY aspect of every art. No one here
> settles!)
that's quite some claim :) (for starters I don't call putting a 309K
.jpg on your front page particularly revolutionary)
Jim Wraith
>OK, that's "real" but I prefer something a little more abstract. I
>(personally) find that kind of stuff a bit "whinging sixth-form poetry"
>myself. Valid points, but hardly news to us corporate slaves :-)
Corporate slaves? Blimey, good thing I didn't put the lyircs to 'Cog
In The Machine' up.. It's a matter of opinion anyway - I don't care
what they are if they're done well..
>Plus, and I'm no lyricist at all so I'm not one to criticize, but there's
>quite a few cliches in there...
Oh yeah, that's what yer hardcore's all about (especially posicore -
UNITY!! BROTHERHOOD! STAND STRONG!!)
>Never heard imbalance though... any MP3s about? What kind of stuff?
Umm, they're considered a hardcore band, but are much more
melodic, and usually play with emo bands.. They're Grimsby's finest,
and you can get MP3's at http://www.uphold.f9.co.uk/imbalance/ho
me.html
Have fun..
--
Jim Wraith.
Jyoti Mishra
>But why put up with it? Why can't good music have good lyrics too?
There's no reason. Just as there's no reason that music on a major
label is automatically less arty, less worthy or worse than music on a
true indie. Although I don't buy much major label music now (that's a
new release), I wouldn't throw out all my Beatles, Beach Boys, Pink
Floyd etc. etc just cos they're on major labels.
Also, you're either being dishonest or incredibly naive if you think
that indie labels hold some kind of higher moral ground. Over the last
11 years, I've worked with over 10 different indies and the only one
never to give me any hassle (or try and swindle me) are Parasol. I've
had labels change artwork without my permission, not declare what
they've sold, lie about how many they pressed, ask me to change
"offensive" lyrics, not send me finished records and even release my
music without my permission.
The sad truth is that I'd guess that 70-80% of the people running
indie labels are just small capitalists. They treat their bands like
shit and rob money off them as much as a major. In fact, having been
sigined to EMI (for 10 months of hell), I can tell you first hand that
they're probably more trustworthy in terms of paying you, if only cos
I can now afford accountants to audit them.
>Why
>settle. We in Dallas, that are leading this art revolution say quality
>counts. And I'm glad to see some in this post actually caring about the
>quality of lyrics and challenging those they thought not that good.
Hmmm... even if your heart's in the right place, I don't think
retreading Situationism for the Nth time is particularly
revolutionary. And, as an ex-Trot myself, I've always been wary of art
students shouting how revolutionary they are. This usually just means
they paint their arses purple and pretend to be standard lamps. It's
hardly gonna worry the multinationals is it? Ten years later, they've
got jobs at ad agencies peddling cigarettes to nine year-olds.
If you're talking revolution, let's hear some politics rather than
vague "oooh, aren't big companies NASTY" stuff. Big companies, small
companies - they all follow the same rules. What are you gonna replace
them with? Anarcho-syndicalism? Dictatorship of the proletariat?
Cadres of indie kids wielding Hello Kitty Kalashnikovs?
On your page you talk about arts technology liberating artists. The
truth is that this is actually *capitalist* technology so really
you're making a point (that capitalism develops the forces/classes
that will replace it) that Marx beat you to by a good hundred and
fifty years. If you're trying to establish an island of purity in a
capitalist world, dream on. Until the *whole damned system* is swept
away, that's impossible. Look, we're having this exchange courtesy of
the US industrial/military complex and that great invention of theirs,
the internet.
>(If.
>you come to the revolution check out the lyrics of Dallas's Hunkasaurus
>and Pet Dog Guitar, the only performers in the world that play their
>concerts in a MOVIE THEATER BOX OFFICE.
>http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com But if you do come to my site be
>prepared to be revolutionoized in EVERY aspect of every art. No one here
>settles!)
Hmmm... I wasn't that revolutionised myself. Perhaps because what
you're doing seems to be good but I've seen it done before (and often
better) by people like Sarah, El, Dischord, Yo Yo, Guided Missile and
Slampt. And they didn't claim that Newcastle was the centre for world
art revolution. (How, in fact, can a democratic world arts revolution
have a centre?)
>Most of the problem is These 4 old men, who don't care, don't listen,
>can't be bothered about the records their companies put out. They just
>want the $$$$$$, so those that control what music is made, play it safe,
>give the audience the sanitary versions of what it already seems to like
>and innovation is out the door. Wham.
Yep. You're absolutely right. When profit is king, art will always
lose. But there's *plenty* of so-called indie labels that act no
differently and just have more meagre resources for exploitation. The
problem isn't big or small capitalism, it's capitalism.
>Y'all keep talking and please remember
>Dallas isn't just a stupid TV show, it's the world art revolution center!
>And been doing revolution since '92
>Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks) Musea.
Not too convinced about your rather centralist view of revolution but
full marks for actually getting off your arse and doing something you
believe in. I hope your goal of a vast co-operative network of artists
does succeed. Count me in, for whatever that's worth. I also like the
fact that you see the need for a true alternative media. If zines like
the ones on your site and Freaky Trigger, Robots, Lexicon etc can get
more support, then that can't be bad.
**********************************************************
Have a look at the newly formed White Town newsgroup at:
alt.music.white.town
If you would like to be kept informed about White Town
happennings please ask to join our WT Updates e-mail list.
The White Town website can be found at:
http://www.white-town.com/
The Official Un-Official One is at:
http://www.idiscover.co.uk/scopedist/white-town.htm
**********************************************************
Jim Wraith
This sounds like the revolution would be worthwhile.
Seriously, it makes me wonder when you hear some people say
that they are in music for the love of it, then complain that the
majors won't let them get rich. I'm not begrudging them their
opportunity to make a living, but they shouldn't put up a facade,
claiming they *don't* want to make money, then feeling cheated
when they don't. (By the way, I'm not a purist, and it's an extreme
example.. personally, I'd love a crack at making a half-decent living
from my music..)
Or maybe Propagandhi were right: "And yes, I recognize the irony -
the system I oppose affords me the luxury of biting the hand that
feeds, and that's exactly why privileged fucks like me should whine
and kick and scream..." And so on and so on.. Maybe we need more
bands getting big and spreading a message (cough cough Rage
Against The Machine cough splutter).. But is it really effective? Just
one of many questions I don't want to even start answering..
--
Jim Wraith.
Marc Palmer
> Marc Palmer <ma...@anyware.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > from "Snakes-a-sleeping" by CARDIACS
>
> hey - you never miss an oppurtunity :)
Too right I don't ;-)
Lovely bit of wordage though eh?
> Is there a sniff of forthcoming gigs?
Not yet. Timmy is busy finishing off producing/mixing Ginger's new solo
album "Silver Ginger 5".
> I've been able to tolerate unbelievably bad pyrics in the past, often
> without knowing it, purely cos the person delivering them had the
> panache to carry it off.
Hehe... I have to say that of course some really simple lyrics are just
brilliant too... some of the Zuno Men stuff is most amusing!
Cheers
--
Marc Palmer (all views are my own and not representative of Cardiacs)
If you haven't heard CARDIACS may I respectfully advise you
to visit http://www.cardiacs.com/button.html
t_hendricks
rho...@mac.com (Rhodri) wrote:
> t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > And I'm glad to see some in this post actually caring about the
> > you come to the revolution check out the lyrics of Dallas's Hunkasaurus
> > and Pet Dog Guitar
>
Yes. Note that they communicate. A part of the revolution (in music) is
that lyrics should communicate something to someone other than the
author. A problem I have with most lyrics today is they're too surreal to
mean anything. Not profoud, merely foggy.
>
> > http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com But if you do come to my site be
> > prepared to be revolutionoized in EVERY aspect of every art. No one here
> > settles!)
>
> that's quite some claim :) (for starters I don't call putting a 309K
> .jpg on your front page particularly revolutionary)
The cover of my monthly zine goes on the cover of my internet site every
month. Now did you notice the upper corner: No ads, no sponsors, no
government grants. Tell me what other publication has that printed on
every issue. Time Magazine? Rolling Stone?
Look some more and you'll begin to see what I'm saying about revolution.
It's NOT ABOUT BEING WEIRDER it's about ending the control of 4 old men
and getting quality back into the mainstream and out of the shadows.
Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks)
Rock and Roll has become everything it started out opposing!
>
> --
> Rhodri http://www.gyoker.demon.co.uk/ rho...@mac.com
> "Congratulations! You're lucky and you didn't know it, did you?"
> "No, I wasn't absolutely sure about it...." --------- W C Fields
>
t_hendricks
jy...@dial.pipex.com (Jyoti Mishra) wrote:
> t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >But why put up with it? Why can't good music have good lyrics too?
>
> There's no reason. Just as there's no reason that music on a major
> label is automatically less arty, less worthy or worse than music on a
> true indie. Although I don't buy much major label music now (that's a
> new release), I wouldn't throw out all my Beatles, Beach Boys, Pink
> Floyd etc. etc just cos they're on major labels.
NOW is the key word. Rock has become everything it started out opposing.
Of course the old music was great. If it wasn't for reissues none of
these 4 old men would have companies. I'm talking about the mainstream
mess. The grammy award winners that are awful, the ones you don't buy now
because they're promo sales music. That means the only way anyone buys
them is if they're promoted enough - no quality there.
>
> Also, you're either being dishonest or incredibly naive if you think
> that indie labels hold some kind of higher moral ground. Over the last
> 11 years, I've worked with over 10 different indies and the only one
> never to give me any hassle (or try and swindle me) are Parasol. I've
> had labels change artwork without my permission, not declare what
> they've sold, lie about how many they pressed, ask me to change
> "offensive" lyrics, not send me finished records and even release my
> music without my permission.
Yeah 99% of indies are bad too. I'm talking about quality music. It's
last refuge is outside the 4 old men's control.
>
> The sad truth is that I'd guess that 70-80% of the people running
> indie labels are just small capitalists. They treat their bands like
> shit and rob money off them as much as a major. In fact, having been
> sigined to EMI (for 10 months of hell), I can tell you first hand that
> they're probably more trustworthy in terms of paying you, if only cos
> I can now afford accountants to audit them.
>
> >Why
> >settle. We in Dallas, that are leading this art revolution say quality
> >counts. And I'm glad to see some in this post actually caring about the
> >quality of lyrics and challenging those they thought not that good.
>
> Hmmm... even if your heart's in the right place, I don't think
> retreading Situationism for the Nth time is particularly
> revolutionary. And, as an ex-Trot myself, I've always been wary of art
> students shouting how revolutionary they are. This usually just means
> they paint their arses purple and pretend to be standard lamps. It's
> hardly gonna worry the multinationals is it? Ten years later, they've
> got jobs at ad agencies peddling cigarettes to nine year-olds.
I ain't a kid. I've lead this revolution since '92 in my zine Musea.
>
> If you're talking revolution, let's hear some politics rather than
> vague "oooh, aren't big companies NASTY" stuff. Big companies, small
> companies - they all follow the same rules. What are you gonna replace
> them with? Anarcho-syndicalism? Dictatorship of the proletariat?
> Cadres of indie kids wielding Hello Kitty Kalashnikovs?
2 words NO ADS. Find me anyone that'll say that openly and honestly.
2 more No signing with these 4.
2 more: 4 companies is a monopoly. And since one of the mergers recently
was EMI, (now Britain has no record major) you ought to be outraged about
that. You want these 4 old men telling you what new releases you'll hear?
Now for more go to my site and the listing for Hunkasaurus's Resume.
Ex. Playing concerts in a theater box office instead of a club. You ever
hear of anyone else doing that? PLus lots more.
>
> On your page you talk about arts technology liberating artists. The
> truth is that this is actually *capitalist* technology so really
> you're making a point (that capitalism develops the forces/classes
> that will replace it) that Marx beat you to by a good hundred and
> fifty years. If you're trying to establish an island of purity in a
> capitalist world, dream on. Until the *whole damned system* is swept
> away, that's impossible. Look, we're having this exchange courtesy of
> the US industrial/military complex and that great invention of theirs,
> the internet.
The tech rev. led to desktop publishing, that led to my zine. Right the
dog they fed is going to bite them.
>
> >(If.
> >you come to the revolution check out the lyrics of Dallas's Hunkasaurus
> >and Pet Dog Guitar, the only performers in the world that play their
> >concerts in a MOVIE THEATER BOX OFFICE.
> >http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com But if you do come to my site be
> >prepared to be revolutionoized in EVERY aspect of every art. No one here
> >settles!)
>
> Hmmm... I wasn't that revolutionised myself. Perhaps because what
> you're doing seems to be good but I've seen it done before (and often
> better) by people like Sarah, El, Dischord, Yo Yo, Guided Missile and
> Slampt. And they didn't claim that Newcastle was the centre for world
> art revolution. (How, in fact, can a democratic world arts revolution
> have a centre?)
All those names. Good music? But none in the mainstream. Seems they're
all being blocked from proper fairplay/airplay by these 4 old men. Back
to where we started. End the monopoly.
As for the arts rev. center. It has started here. Everything starts
somewhere. And these 4 old guys have the big cities locked up. It takes
someone from outside the mainstream to attack the mainstrea.
>
> >Most of the problem is These 4 old men, who don't care, don't listen,
> >can't be bothered about the records their companies put out. They just
> >want the $$$$$$, so those that control what music is made, play it safe,
> >give the audience the sanitary versions of what it already seems to like
> >and innovation is out the door. Wham.
>
> Yep. You're absolutely right. When profit is king, art will always
> lose. But there's *plenty* of so-called indie labels that act no
> differently and just have more meagre resources for exploitation. The
> problem isn't big or small capitalism, it's capitalism.
Yeah true, but when you have COMPETITION AND VARIETY all the music gets
better and some of those lousy indies get bad reps and lose out.
>
> >Y'all keep talking and please remember
> >Dallas isn't just a stupid TV show, it's the world art revolution center!
> >And been doing revolution since '92
> >Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks) Musea.
>
> Not too convinced about your rather centralist view of revolution but
> full marks for actually getting off your arse and doing something you
> believe in. I hope your goal of a vast co-operative network of artists
> does succeed. Count me in, for whatever that's worth. I also like the
> fact that you see the need for a true alternative media. If zines like
> the ones on your site and Freaky Trigger, Robots, Lexicon etc can get
> more support, then that can't be bad.
You are an official Art Revolutionary. Your first job is to tell 5 people
that 4 companies should not control all the music and that mainstream
music has suffered from their monopoly of greed...And keep in touch.
> **********************************************************
> Have a look at the newly formed White Town newsgroup at:
> alt.music.white.town
>
> If you would like to be kept informed about White Town
> happennings please ask to join our WT Updates e-mail list.
>
> The White Town website can be found at:
> http://www.white-town.com/
> The Official Un-Official One is at:
> http://www.idiscover.co.uk/scopedist/white-town.htm
> **********************************************************
>
>
t_hendricks
Jim Wraith <j...@kildare.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Cadres of indie kids wielding Hello Kitty Kalashnikovs?
>
Thank you. Its overriding goal is quality first, then $$$$ comes later.
>
> Seriously, it makes me wonder when you hear some people say
> that they are in music for the love of it, then complain that the
> majors won't let them get rich. I'm not begrudging them their
> opportunity to make a living, but they shouldn't put up a facade,
> claiming they *don't* want to make money, then feeling cheated
> when they don't. (By the way, I'm not a purist, and it's an extreme
> example.. personally, I'd love a crack at making a half-decent living
> from my music..)
Yeah I'd like to make zillions too, but the majors aren't going to sign
me (thank God because of a 100 reasons that they treat artists like
idiots - first you have to be under 25 or you'll know what a scam it is
etc.) for the reason that a I'm vocally opposed to them (when was the
last time you heard a musician do a song with lyrics called "I hate Sony
and the 4 man Monopoly".I don't have a song like that but the point is
nobody could do lyrics like that in the industry today. Try it and see
how powerful the monopoly is. I want to make money the old fashinoned
way, good quality music with NOT all beat (too hard) NOT all melody (too
sappy) but the best of rock & roll. Also why any format? Formats are
designed not for listeners, but to better sell ads. I'm also for no
format music. I call it WOW, world open music. In the end it's a variety
of lots of sources of music making and production that insures quality
music, and 4 companies is not a lot, it's a monopoly.
>
> Or maybe Propagandhi were right: "And yes, I recognize the irony -
> the system I oppose affords me the luxury of biting the hand that
> feeds, and that's exactly why privileged fucks like me should whine
> and kick and scream..." And so on and so on.. Maybe we need more
> bands getting big and spreading a message (cough cough Rage
> Against The Machine cough splutter).. But is it really effective? Just
> one of many questions I don't want to even start answering..
Unfortunately you won't get big if you spread this message. In my little
town of Dallas I'm invisible to all the ad driven media. I've been
printing my zine since '92, playing concerts in a theater box office,
doing art revolutionary festivals, and for the most part I'm totally
invisible to the local print and tv and radio media. Attacking
advertising is more revolutionary than you can imagine.
Also there's the problem of say Pearl Jam that fought Ticketmaster and
LOST. It's best to fight outside of the control of the 4 companies.
And all that we're talking about is just music. Come to my site for more
on film, theater, art, fashion, media, newspapers, zines, Zine Hall Of
Fame, etc. When you dump corp. art EVERYTHING gets exciting again! Y'all
welcome.
Dallas isn't just a goofy tv show and an assasination, it's the art rev.
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
Tom Hendricks.
> --
> Jim Wraith.
Jyoti Mishra
>Oh yeah, that's what yer hardcore's all about (especially posicore -
>UNITY!! BROTHERHOOD! STAND STRONG!!)
I like the idea of hardcore and especially sXe so much more than the
reality. Most of the modern stuff I've heard sounds like post-Slayer
metal. And sure, though I enjoyed Kafka live, you really have to have
the lyrics printed to know what the hell their politics are. And an
Italian - English dictionary :-)
But I guess that's the hazard of being an old fucker - you long
nostalgically for the ham-fisted greatness of Minor Threat, Black Flag
and the Circle Jerks. Punk bands turn shit when they learn how to
play. I don't like jazz hardcore.
>>Never heard imbalance though... any MP3s about? What kind of stuff?
>
>Umm, they're considered a hardcore band, but are much more
>melodic, and usually play with emo bands.. They're Grimsby's finest,
>and you can get MP3's at http://www.uphold.f9.co.uk/imbalance/ho
>me.html
>Have fun..
What I've heard of Imbalance seems okay but that's as far as it goes.
I think I prefer Kneejerk in terms of English emo-ish bands, even
though I know some hardcore purists who say they're veering towards
indie. It's a hardcore minefield out there :-)
That's the great thing about punk, innit? It's all so
anti-establishment and non-elitist ;-) I think I'll pop along to a
hardcore gig with a Fat Wreck t-shirt on just to see who I can
annoy...
love and kisses,
Jyoti
Jyoti Mishra
<snip>
>**********************************************************
>Have a look at the newly formed White Town newsgroup at:
>alt.music.white.town
>
>If you would like to be kept informed about White Town
>happennings please ask to join our WT Updates e-mail list.
>
>The White Town website can be found at:
> http://www.white-town.com/
>The Official Un-Official One is at:
>http://www.idiscover.co.uk/scopedist/white-town.htm
>**********************************************************
Ummm...the above sig is completely bollocks. This is the more useful
one:
>
>
>
love and kisses,
Jyoti
The White Town website can be found at:
Jyoti's Homepages are at:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/elejyo
**********************************************************
Jyoti Mishra
>Seems to me rock n roll has only ever opposed "not jumping around
>enough" and "not getting laid enough"...
Absolutely! Since when has maximising hedonism been a revolutionary
theory?
<snip>
>Drives me nuts... Oh well...
>It's not like I have any lefty answers... If I knew how to make a
>successful revolution, I'd be a very wealthy man...
Or have an icepick headache.
<snip>
> That the indies just wind up doing
>fieldwork for the majors, and the culture industry prevails in the
>end, is both annoying and probably also inevitable given that the
>indies are only hustling for bucks & looking to exploit markets the
>majors have ignored...
The people I met at the majors used to openly joke about how they
regarded purist indie labels as their nurseries. 'Let them do all the
avant-garde minority music, and we'll pick up the occasional proper
pop band' was their attitude.
>The very "discovery" of rock n roll was also
>the creation of The Teenager as a market-- and the tension for the
>last 45 years & into this newsgroup (well, this odd thread) is whether
>the demands & expectations also so created can be satisfied or, um,
>colonized by those same market players... Sorry, I can feel the brain
>cells dying as I type... Hm.
Again, I agree completely because you're highlighting the *economic*
basis of culture, whether you say you're being lefty or not. Without
the post-war Western teenage disposable income, there would have been
*no* rock'n'roll. To make it sound as if it's some mythic primeval
force, sprung from the loins of bluesmen is ignoring that it was
managed, marketed and manipulated from day one. I absolutely love the
Monkees but they were more manufactured than most of the chart acts
indie purists moan about.
>... One last thought I'm probably not fit to hazard-- it seems that
>part of what everyone's missing from the mainstream has to do with
>production and consumption somehow, or maybe a relation of an artist
>to an audience that only discovers that it's an audience after a
>million moments of self-recognition-- I think both...
Umm... I think I follow you here. Is this the Benjamin/Frankfurt
School kind of stuff about aura and the investment of meaning in an
art form? Or have I totally missed the point?
>I'm in over my
>head here, but... DIY is an old aesthetic (even DIY in the face of
>corporate monopoly is an old problem, faced by Berry Gordy as well as
>by Bob Pollard)... But when Woody Guthrie was launching a thousand
>guitars, he had at least one or two guitar-playing peers in every town
>he played. The Beatles, Stones, & Yardbirds inspired all those garage
>Nuggets bands (who in turn set off Iggy & the NY punks). The Pistols
>famously had bands forming in their wake in every town they played.
>The Velvets likewise, & etc... I'm not saying everyone should get
>broken guitars from Woolworth's & learn to play the Backstreet Boys
>(though things could be worse)... But it seems that part of the
>problem is that as DIY technology becomes more accessible it also is
>somehow less social... Or something. Maybe there are fewer "market
>cracks" for participation?... Maybe there are fewer venues for it as
>monopolies gobble & consolidate? ... But there are suddenly all these
>bedroom songwriters, all dressed down with nowhere to go (fd: me among
>them)...
Well, I fell all this too. When Ant came and visited recently, it was
*good* to meet someone in Real Reality that I normally just know from
Usenet or occasional phone calls. I think there is an increased
isolation amongst today's DIYers. UKMA can bridge that at all
different levels but I'm afraid I'm still old-fashioned and like
meeting actual, physical people.
I'm starting teaching a course next week, purely for all the above
reasons. All the forces arrayed against musicians spend hours
networking, schmoozing and boozing together in posho London bars. I do
think musicians have to build an equivalent network, at least at the
local level. But too often we're bitching about each other :-(
Divide and conquer...
>And also now in the mainstream there's no one to inspire
>passive consumers to become active producers, or some such... All I
>feel like now is an active consumer/passive producer :)... I dunno...
>Lost the thread... Anyway I'm sure all this will change (again)-- or
>rather, I figure that it's always been this bad even when it was much
>better... Um... I guess what I mean is you can always count on
>jumping and humping to find a way...
Hmmm... the negation of the negation? Dialectial materialism on ukma?
Who said Usenet was just for pictures of dog porn?
love and kisses,
Jyoti
The White Town website can be found at:
Rhodri
> Who said Usenet was just for pictures of dog porn?
er, it wasn't me, was it?
Jyoti Mishra
>Jyoti Mishra <jy...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> Who said Usenet was just for pictures of dog porn?
>
>er, it wasn't me, was it?
woof !
Or as a posh mate of mine once said,
"Cruel??? The blahdy dog's going back for seconds!"
love and kisses,
Jyoti
t_hendricks
jy...@dial.pipex.com (Jyoti Mishra) wrote:
> rho...@mac.com (Rhodri) wrote:
>
> >Jyoti Mishra <jy...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> woof !
>
> Or as a posh mate of mine once said,
>
> "Cruel??? The blahdy dog's going back for seconds!"
> love and kisses,
> Jyoti
Guys, you're missing the point of my post.
Let me put it this way, How few companies controlling all the music
before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will you
worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
Isn't it always the case that when there is competition there is better
art than when there is the monopoly of the few?
Come here and see what the art revolution that began in Dallas in "92 is
all about, then let me hear your comments
Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks, editor of Musea the zine)
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
Dallas isn't just a goofy TV show anymore!
Rock has become everything it started out opposing.
The new no format music builds on rock like rock built on R&B and
country.
For those who oppose the status quos.
(p.s. The art rev. isn't left or right)
Rhodri
> Guys, you're missing the point of my post.
> Let me put it this way, How few companies controlling all the music
> before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will you
> worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
they aren't "controlling the music"!! Music isn't fuckin washing powder
or toothpaste - it's an art form. What BMG get up to has absolutely no
relevance here - of course the majors a&r policies stink, but they
always have.
> Isn't it always the case that when there is competition there is better
> art than when there is the monopoly of the few?
No, the art will always be happening whatever.
> Come here and see what the art revolution that began in Dallas in "92 is
> all about, then let me hear your comments
Well we've already made a shitload of comments and you haven't addressed
them.
skwunge
wrote:
>> If I knew how to make a
>>successful revolution, I'd be a very wealthy man...
>
>Or have an icepick headache.
Now there's a name for a band... Shame it's not 4 letters...
>>... One last thought I'm probably not fit to hazard-- it seems that
>>part of what everyone's missing from the mainstream has to do with
>>production and consumption somehow, or maybe a relation of an artist
>>to an audience that only discovers that it's an audience after a
>>million moments of self-recognition-- I think both...
>
>Umm... I think I follow you here. Is this the Benjamin/Frankfurt
>School kind of stuff about aura and the investment of meaning in an
>art form? Or have I totally missed the point?
Yeah, uh, Benjamin... :) You're being very generous here, actually,
probably due to the lived-in, scarf-over-the-shoulder way I flung
about the phrase "culture industry" elsewhere in the post... (I lived
several years among social theory types, studying their habits, hoping
one day to be accepted as a member of their species... ) I was just
garbling 2 half-ideas here. The first, the production/consumption
thing, I wallowed in elsewhere to little avail. The other was an idea
which hit me midsentence (though I should have ducked)-- just that the
revolutionaries in pop culture basically disrupt corporate market
expectations & either point up the existence of an audience that no
one suspected or else create their own audience, which then takes
awhile again to get mapped by the marketeers & under control... Not a
very useful thought, really, as it's either saying that
revolutionaries tend to make revolutions, or that what people want is
the very thing they want... (You can see why I never won the trust of
the social theory types... ) Anyway, I definitely prefer the Benjamin
angle... I'm sure, deep down, that's what I was working toward... :)
"If not merely the art object is mechanically reproduced, but also the
[artist] [moment of its reception] then to the extent the experience
of that art is auratic, that experience must also be [extrinsic]
[purely subjective]..." Hm... I'll work on it...
As an aside, the Rhino box set "Loud, Fast & Out of Control" (50s
rock) came in the mail yesterday & it's hard to even *look* at without
dwelling on the issues in this thread (technology, indies v. majors,
the social effects of culture, artists & audiences, etc.... ) So, I
figure, like, great... You guys have, like, completely ruined it for
me... I was hoping that when it arrived I'd at *least* get to jump
around a lot...
Take care (& good luck & have fun, Jyoti, with your course). Rick
Jyoti Mishra
>Guys, you're missing the point of my post.
Uh - nope. I just don't agree with what you're saying, mainly cos it's
a confused mish-mash of vague rhetoric.
>Let me put it this way,
That's right, patronise us some more.
>How few companies controlling all the music
>before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will you
>worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
Music cannot be controlled. It's not a physical substance like land or
water.
What you're talking about is the *commercial sale* of music which is
an entirely different matter. And has fuck-all to do with art.
>Isn't it always the case that when there is competition there is better
>art than when there is the monopoly of the few?
Ummm...firstly, someone else said this but the word monopoly means
control by *ONE* company. Why not try using the word *oligopoly*
(control by a few), it's feeling tearful and neglected at your misuse
of its sibling.
Secondly, no it is most definitely *not true* that economic
competition makes for "better art" (whatever the hell that is). I find
you saying this outrageous after all the preachifying you've done
about major corporations. What you're repeating is one of the most
basic, essential tenets of capitalism - that "competition" betters
society as a whole. Which, if you look at the state of world poverty,
war and environmental damage is patently untrue.
So, are you against capitalism or not? Or are you just defending small
capitalists against big capitalists? In fact, what does your world art
revolution actually mean at all if it's not a revolution against
capital. I don't expect you to answer since you didn't answer the
responses me or skwunge made last time. I sense you're not really
interested in dialogue but in just shouting "DALLAS REVOLUTION LEAD BY
ME!!!" a few gzillion times.
>Come here and see what the art revolution that began in Dallas in "92 is
>all about, then let me hear your comments
I came, I saw, I was very unimpressed. I'm now beginning to think
you're just another vapid self-promoter. All you talk about is
yourself and your meaningless, addled faux-revolution.
You seemingly have no grasp of the distinction between art and the
sale of art. Or the nature of capitalism, multi-national corporations
and the mass media.
>Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks, editor of Musea the zine)
Yes, well we can all think up silly names for ourselves, can't we?
>http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
>Dallas isn't just a goofy TV show anymore!
Presumably now that *you* say so.
>Rock has become everything it started out opposing.
As said before, rock was born sucking the teat of capitalism. Wrong
again, duh!
>The new no format music builds on rock like rock built on R&B and
>country.
Eh? More empty soundbites.
>For those who oppose the status quos.
You're *supporting* the status quo - you just want smaller companies
and more competition. You're as revolutionary as George Bush.
>(p.s. The art rev. isn't left or right)
Oh, I get it - the LIBERAL REVOLUTION. That's catchy, innit?
Here's four points to consdider:
1. What you're saying isn't revolutionary
2. What you're saying isn't about art, it's about COMMERCE.
3. Everything you do serves to promote yourself, your fanzine and your
*own* music. You should get a job as an A&R man.
4. You haven't answered one single point any of us made earlier. You
just reply with another crap slogan.
I'm now very angry and disappointed because I naively believed you
might actually mean what you say. Still, it's not the first time I've
been let down, nor the last. Where's Ulrike Meinhof when you need her?
love and kisses,
Jyoti
Stephen Kennedy
news:38bd053e...@news.demon.co.uk...
> t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >How few companies controlling all the music
> >before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will you
> >worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
>
> Music cannot be controlled. It's not a physical substance like land or
> water.
>
> What you're talking about is the *commercial sale* of music which is
> an entirely different matter. And has fuck-all to do with art.
Isn't the real issue with the majors one of price and access to the market?
(both economic issues). As for the *music* they sell, that will be whatever
they think we will buy. Some of it will be (to my senses) rubbish, some of
it not - much the same with an indie label I'd have thought.
> >Isn't it always the case that when there is competition there is better
> >art than when there is the monopoly of the few?
>
> Ummm...firstly, someone else said this but the word monopoly means
> control by *ONE* company. Why not try using the word *oligopoly*
> (control by a few), it's feeling tearful and neglected at your misuse
> of its sibling.
There is of course the concept of the cartel, where more than one company
acts together (sometimes publically and officially, but usually
surreptitiously) as a monopoly. Whilst the record industry is certainly not
monopolistic it may be argued that it displays some of the traits of a
cartel.
> Secondly, no it is most definitely *not true* that economic
> competition makes for "better art" (whatever the hell that is). I find
> you saying this outrageous after all the preachifying you've done
Not unless you consider Billy Bragg and Carter USM and all the other
anti-Thatcher artistes to be a direct result of free competition, no :)
As I've said before I don't particularly care what label music I buy is on,
as long as it's the music I want and I pay a reasonable price for it.
However, I think the consolidation of the record industry is worrying
because it gives too much power to a few individuals whose overriding
concern is profit not art - the key phrase being "a few individuals"
because, as Jyoti notes, I'm sure over 50% of indie label bosses are in it
for the money too.
Steve
Stephen Kennedy
t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:89ib2n$19i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> For those who oppose the status quos.
And whilst we're at it, how dare you diss the mighty Quo? ;-) ;-)
Steve
(tongue very much in cheek)
t_hendricks
rho...@mac.com (Rhodri) wrote:
> t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > Guys, you're missing the point of my post.
> > before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will you
> > worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
>
> or toothpaste - it's an art form. What BMG get up to has absolutely no
> relevance here - of course the majors a&r policies stink, but they
> always have.
It's not an art form to these 4, it IS toothpaste and it is marketed like
toothpaste, and when you hear the grammy award winners it sounds like
tooth paste being spit out.
>
> > Isn't it always the case that when there is competition there is better
> > art than when there is the monopoly of the few?
>
> No, the art will always be happening whatever.
It isn't happening anywhere in the mainstream today. This is a golden age
of NOTHING. and it's due to no competition.
>
> > Come here and see what the art revolution that began in Dallas in "92 is
> > all about, then let me hear your comments
>
> Well we've already made a shitload of comments and you haven't addressed
> them.
Hey I'm talking to people all across the world. Hang in there.
And you can always read about 1000 pages at my website at
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com And remember I am not a corporation I'm
an art revolutionary, a real person.
> Rhodri http://www.gyoker.demon.co.uk/ rho...@mac.com
> "Congratulations! You're lucky and you didn't know it, did you?"
> "No, I wasn't absolutely sure about it...." --------- W C Fields
>
t_hendricks
jy...@dial.pipex.com (Jyoti Mishra) wrote:
> t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >Guys, you're missing the point of my post.
>
> a confused mish-mash of vague rhetoric.
>
>
>
> >before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will you
> >worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
>
> water.
It can too. Look no one outside of these 4 can get A airplay on
commercial radio B stocked in major record distributors or in major
retailing giants, C review in major magazines, D etc. etc. If that's not
control what is. Don't be naive. These 4 have the power to make the
music, review it, and give it awards when it's lousy.
>
> What you're talking about is the *commercial sale* of music which is
> an entirely different matter. And has fuck-all to do with art.
You must be young. There used to be a time when a strange phenomenon
happened. The best quality music counted. That started at the beginning
of TIME and lasted till about 1980. I assure you this is a special time
and a dangerous time. It's promotion over quality all along the line.
>
> >Isn't it always the case that when there is competition there is better
> >art than when there is the monopoly of the few?
>
> Ummm...firstly, someone else said this but the word monopoly means
> control by *ONE* company. Why not try using the word *oligopoly*
> (control by a few), it's feeling tearful and neglected at your misuse
> of its sibling.
>
> Secondly, no it is most definitely *not true* that economic
> competition makes for "better art" (whatever the hell that is). I find
> you saying this outrageous after all the preachifying you've done
> about major corporations. What you're repeating is one of the most
> basic, essential tenets of capitalism - that "competition" betters
> society as a whole. Which, if you look at the state of world poverty,
> war and environmental damage is patently untrue.
>
> So, are you against capitalism or not?
What you're asking is am I against capitalism without restraint that
allows the larger companies to use commercials and leverage to control
all competition. YES
Am I against fair competition. NO. This is nothing new. In 1948 in the US
the courts said that Paramount (or some film company) could not both own
the films and the theaters they played in. That was an unfair monopoly
and against the law. NOw it's called synergy, but it's the same thing
except now it's world wide and more monopolistic.
Or are you just defending small
> capitalists against big capitalists? In fact, what does your world art
> revolution actually mean at all if it's not a revolution against
> capital. I don't expect you to answer since you didn't answer the
> responses me or skwunge made last time. I sense you're not really
> interested in dialogue but in just shouting "DALLAS REVOLUTION LEAD BY
> ME!!!" a few gzillion times.
>
> >Come here and see what the art revolution that began in Dallas in "92 is
> >all about, then let me hear your comments
>
> I came, I saw, I was very unimpressed. I'm now beginning to think
> you're just another vapid self-promoter. All you talk about is
> yourself and your meaningless, addled faux-revolution.
>
> You seemingly have no grasp of the distinction between art and the
> sale of art. Or the nature of capitalism, multi-national corporations
> and the mass media.
Enough talk. Here's the challenge I;ve made in my zine for 20 some
months. Find me a hit since 1980 that fits 3 criteria. No one has because
the music is soooooooooo bad. Here's the rules. 1. It has to be a big hit
(because a lot of people think it's a good record.) 2. It has to have
enough range or scope to fit at least 3 formats (this rules out format
music that is mindless repetition) and 3. It is a song that is sooo good
that at least 5 others have recorded a version of it. OK prove to me that
music is still great and find that tune! NO one has yet.
>
> >Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks, editor of Musea the zine)
>
> Yes, well we can all think up silly names for ourselves, can't we?
I don't have time now but maybe later...
>
> >http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
> >Dallas isn't just a goofy TV show anymore!
>
> Presumably now that *you* say so.
>
> >Rock has become everything it started out opposing.
>
> As said before, rock was born sucking the teat of capitalism. Wrong
> again, duh!
It was scary music when it started. It made cities ban it. It was
considered as 'race records' It was truely dangerous. Now it's just used
as the backdrop of commercials. And if you want to fit in, what do you do
- join a polka band or a barbershop quartet? No that would be truely
challengeing to the establishment. No you join a band like everyone in
the world that wants to fit in, does. That isn't just a clever phrase
it's the truth.
>
> >The new no format music builds on rock like rock built on R&B and
> >country.
>
> Eh? More empty soundbites.
>
> >For those who oppose the status quos.
>
> You're *supporting* the status quo - you just want smaller companies
> and more competition. You're as revolutionary as George Bush.
Tell people you're against ads and ad driven media and see how they treat
you. You'll see how revolutionary it is to side AGAINST ALL ADS.
Try this one on any media source. Ads have no positive effect on children
whatsoever. And they should be banned from selling children anything
ever.
>
> >(p.s. The art rev. isn't left or right)
>
> Oh, I get it - the LIBERAL REVOLUTION. That's catchy, innit?
>
> Here's four points to consdider:
>
> 1. What you're saying isn't revolutionary
Then tell somebody you think 4 companies are too few and watch how they
try to shut you up.
>
> 2. What you're saying isn't about art, it's about COMMERCE.
No it's about art being run as commerce and that's the danger.
>
> 3. Everything you do serves to promote yourself, your fanzine and your
> *own* music. You should get a job as an A&R man.
How many ads did you see on my site. NONE did you say? Now that's a
moneymaker hey. If YOU want to stand up for 8 years and fight these 8
conglomerates of corp. art and be treated as completely invisible by all
your peers, you are welcome to the job. But I don't see a big line
waiting to lead the revolution.
>
> 4. You haven't answered one single point any of us made earlier. You
> just reply with another crap slogan.
I'll answer anything you want, but you'll have to wait sometimes.
>
> I'm now very angry and disappointed because I naively believed you
> might actually mean what you say. Still, it's not the first time I've
> been let down, nor the last. Where's Ulrike Meinhof when you need her?
> love and kisses,
> Jyoti
Lighten up. You haven't heard anything yet. I've been doing this since
'92. You've thought about it for an hour or 2 at best not years and years
and years. That isn't exactly a lark or a whim. This is my LIFE, as a
musician, painter, writer, I'm fighting for the right to have a fair
chance to be acknowledged for what talents I have. Same for my talented
friends that are being blocked out of the arts due to the whims of $$$
greedy 8 CEO's
Go ahead ask some more.
Art S REvolutionary (tom Hendricks)
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
t_hendricks
"Stephen Kennedy" <st...@sdk-software.com> wrote:
> Jyoti Mishra <jy...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:38bd053e...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > >before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will you
> > >worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
> >
> > Music cannot be controlled. It's not a physical substance like land or
> > water.
> >
> > an entirely different matter. And has fuck-all to do with art.
>
> (both economic issues). As for the *music* they sell, that will be whatever
> they think we will buy. Some of it will be (to my senses) rubbish, some of
> it not - much the same with an indie label I'd have thought.
NO. First of all CD's cost 50 cents to make. If it wasn't for the 4
company monopoly the price of new CD's would fall drastically and the
market would open to more artists, (remember all the fuss about stores
selling used CD's. These 4 wanted to shut them down).
As to access to markets. In the US MOST records are bought: A. because
they were heard on the radio and only these 4 get on commercial radio -
so no indie music is ever heard on the radio - and B. at the major
chainstores like Target, Wal-Mart, etc. And they only carry music from
the majors. Wal-Mart has gotten so dictatorial that they won't carry CD's
with covers they don't like, so they demand the record companies to
change them to suit wal mart AND THESE 4 WEASEL COMPANIES DO IT. Now is
that fair competition? If it was any other industry except the arts (it's
true not only of music but film, books, etc - see my site) it would be
unfair trade practices and illegal.
>
> > >Isn't it always the case that when there is competition there is better
> > >art than when there is the monopoly of the few?
> >
> > Ummm...firstly, someone else said this but the word monopoly means
> > control by *ONE* company. Why not try using the word *oligopoly*
> > (control by a few), it's feeling tearful and neglected at your misuse
> > of its sibling.
>
> There is of course the concept of the cartel, where more than one company
> acts together (sometimes publically and officially, but usually
> surreptitiously) as a monopoly. Whilst the record industry is certainly not
> monopolistic it may be argued that it displays some of the traits of a
> cartel.
Synergy is a code word for MONOPOLY.
>
> > Secondly, no it is most definitely *not true* that economic
> > competition makes for "better art" (whatever the hell that is). I find
> > you saying this outrageous after all the preachifying you've done
>
> Not unless you consider Billy Bragg and Carter USM and all the other
> anti-Thatcher artistes to be a direct result of free competition, no :)
>
> As I've said before I don't particularly care what label music I buy is on,
> as long as it's the music I want and I pay a reasonable price for it.
> However, I think the consolidation of the record industry is worrying
> because it gives too much power to a few individuals whose overriding
> concern is profit not art - the key phrase being "a few individuals"
> because, as Jyoti notes, I'm sure over 50% of indie label bosses are in it
> for the money too.
>
> Steve
STEVE ask your favorite band to do a song called I HATE THE BIG 4 (
the 4 company monopoly of music), or ADS SUCK, etc. and watch how fast
their chance to make a living in the music business fades.
If any of you think it's not revolutionary then call up your fav.
commercial radio station and ask them to play anything besides music from
these 4. You'll change your TUNE real fast I can assure you.
Art S Rev. (tom Hendricks)
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
(PS new issue of Musea out soon. - NO ADs, no sponsors, no government
grants (that's government grants from the NEA here in the US the National
endowments for the ARTs)
t_hendricks
"Stephen Kennedy" <st...@sdk-software.com> wrote:
>
> t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:89ib2n$19i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> Steve
> (tongue very much in cheek)
LET ME COUNT THE WAYS....
Art S Revolutionary, (tom Hendricks)
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
t_hendricks
skw...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:24:17 GMT, jy...@dial.pipex.com (Jyoti Mishra)
> wrote:
> >>successful revolution, I'd be a very wealthy man...
> >
> >Or have an icepick headache.
>
>
> >>part of what everyone's missing from the mainstream has to do with
> >>production and consumption somehow, or maybe a relation of an artist
> >>to an audience that only discovers that it's an audience after a
> >>million moments of self-recognition-- I think both...
> >
> >Umm... I think I follow you here. Is this the Benjamin/Frankfurt
> >School kind of stuff about aura and the investment of meaning in an
> >art form? Or have I totally missed the point?
>
> probably due to the lived-in, scarf-over-the-shoulder way I flung
> about the phrase "culture industry" elsewhere in the post... (I lived
> several years among social theory types, studying their habits, hoping
> one day to be accepted as a member of their species... ) I was just
> garbling 2 half-ideas here. The first, the production/consumption
> thing, I wallowed in elsewhere to little avail. The other was an idea
> which hit me midsentence (though I should have ducked)-- just that the
> revolutionaries in pop culture basically disrupt corporate market
> expectations & either point up the existence of an audience that no
> one suspected or else create their own audience, which then takes
> awhile again to get mapped by the marketeers & under control... Not a
> very useful thought, really, as it's either saying that
> revolutionaries tend to make revolutions, or that what people want is
> the very thing they want...
I think you're right here. But that's the normal cycle of any revolution
and any society must have it's upheavels. They're healthy. Now it's time
for one in the arts. And if this art rev. is successful and it produces a
golden age of art, it will gradually decline to mediocrity and
foolishness sometime in the future and someone will come along and change
it again for the better BUT ONLY IF WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR
CHANGE AND Corporate Art (now down to 8 companies) does not allow for
that real change. So the danger is more real now.
Art S Revolutionary, Tom Hendricks http://musea.digialchainsaw.com
(You can see why I never won the trust of
> the social theory types... ) Anyway, I definitely prefer the Benjamin
> angle... I'm sure, deep down, that's what I was working toward... :)
> "If not merely the art object is mechanically reproduced, but also the
> [artist] [moment of its reception] then to the extent the experience
> of that art is auratic, that experience must also be [extrinsic]
> [purely subjective]..." Hm... I'll work on it...
>
> As an aside, the Rhino box set "Loud, Fast & Out of Control" (50s
> rock) came in the mail yesterday & it's hard to even *look* at without
> dwelling on the issues in this thread (technology, indies v. majors,
> the social effects of culture, artists & audiences, etc.... ) So, I
> figure, like, great... You guys have, like, completely ruined it for
> me... I was hoping that when it arrived I'd at *least* get to jump
> around a lot...
>
> Take care (& good luck & have fun, Jyoti, with your course). Rick
When you listen to your box set, and really this thread should enhance
the music, good music always retains it's jump-a-bility, I assure you
what you're listening to was considered evil and sincerely dangerous to a
lot of people at that time. (and for best effect listen to it in mono,
because that was how it was heard on the radio and out of every kids
phonograph) Today's music even the heaviest, is about as threatening as
a shy barbershop quartet in comparison.
Rhodri
> > > Isn't it always the case that when there is competition there is better
> > > art than when there is the monopoly of the few?
> >
> > No, the art will always be happening whatever.
>
> It isn't happening anywhere in the mainstream today.
name one time, in any field, where the mainstream has anything to do
with art whatsoever
> Hey I'm talking to people all across the world. Hang in there.
> And you can always read about 1000 pages at my website at
> http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
I can hardly contain my excitement.
--
Rhodri
> > >How few companies controlling all the music
> > >before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will you
> > >worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
> >
> > Music cannot be controlled. It's not a physical substance like land or
> > water.
>
> It can too. Look no one outside of these 4 can get A airplay on
> commercial radio B stocked in major record distributors or in major
> retailing giants, C review in major magazines, D etc. etc. If that's not
> control what is. Don't be naive. These 4 have the power to make the
> music, review it, and give it awards when it's lousy.
and we have the power to make other music, an alternative, which is what
a lot of us have been doing for years on end with no noticable
side-effects
> > What you're talking about is the *commercial sale* of music which is
> > an entirely different matter. And has fuck-all to do with art.
>
> You must be young. There used to be a time when a strange phenomenon
> happened. The best quality music counted. That started at the beginning
> of TIME and lasted till about 1980.
you are talking absolute shit. The 60s and 70s were as full of complete
manufactured pop shit and the 90s were. To pretend there was a golden
age of rock/pop music where everything artistically valid was piped into
homes the length and breadth of the country is absurd. If you'd rather
we went back to the years before recorded sound when tunes were passed
from person to person then fine - not a bad thing - but personally I
prefer the information age where I can hear a Japanese noise band if I
want to.
> Enough talk. Here's the challenge I;ve made in my zine for 20 some
> months. Find me a hit since 1980 that fits 3 criteria. No one has because
> the music is soooooooooo bad.
erm, what music is so bad? If you don't like it go out and find it.
> Here's the rules. 1. It has to be a big hit
> (because a lot of people think it's a good record.) 2. It has to have
> enough range or scope to fit at least 3 formats (this rules out format
> music that is mindless repetition) and 3. It is a song that is sooo good
> that at least 5 others have recorded a version of it. OK prove to me that
> music is still great and find that tune! NO one has yet.
you are just on a different planet to us. I've no idea why you're even
in this NG.
> > Here's four points to consdider:
> >
> > 1. What you're saying isn't revolutionary
>
> Then tell somebody you think 4 companies are too few and watch how they
> try to shut you up.
there are more than four companies, fuckwit. Christ, you're the one who
needs to wake up.
> Lighten up. You haven't heard anything yet. I've been doing this since
> '92.
'92? WOW! A good few people on this NG have been 'doing this' since the
mid eighties when we were still at school, so:
> You've thought about it for an hour or 2 at best not years and years
> and years.
?
kindly take your half-arsed pseudo 50s country skiffle and fuck off into
the night.
Rhodri
> NO. First of all CD's cost 50 cents to make. If it wasn't for the 4
> company monopoly the price of new CD's would fall drastically
yeah, and the artists wouldn't get royalties, and those artists scraping
a living as musicians would be even worse off. OK, you make your CDs for
50 cents (presumably that's without a bag/sleeve or any labelling) and
see how long you last without having to dip into yr family fortune.
> STEVE ask your favorite band to do a song called I HATE THE BIG 4 (
> the 4 company monopoly of music), or ADS SUCK, etc. and watch how fast
> their chance to make a living in the music business fades.
Are you bitter because your half-arsed songs have failed to impress more
than 8 of your mates?
> If any of you think it's not revolutionary then call up your fav.
> commercial radio station and ask them to play anything besides music from
> these 4. You'll change your TUNE real fast I can assure you.
Well, if that's what it's really like in Texas, mate, get the fuck out.
I've just heard 2 hours of cutting edge independently produced music on
the UK's national radio station. I might go out and buy some of it at an
independent record shop, or maybe even Tower as they stock it all
anyway. Life's great! Let's create!
Off to bed.
skwunge
<11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> Not a
>> very useful thought, really, as it's either saying that
>> revolutionaries tend to make revolutions, or that what people want is
>> the very thing they want...
>
>I think you're right here.
D'oh!
Rick
(nostalgic for lurking)
skwunge
> happened. The best quality music counted. That started at the beginning
> of TIME and lasted till about 1980.
You know, though, he may have us here... I mean... Anyone remember
1977? Quality music. Meaningful awards. Many of us who were pulling
for the Starland Vocal Band really thought that the powers-that-be
would deny them the Best New Artist Grammy that year, but damned if
they didn't get it in the end... Of course, they came crashing down
with the rest of it a scant 3 years later. But for a brief, beautiful
moment the whole world shared in our delight...
Rick
(wondering, yeah, how come no one else has ever pointed out before
just how green this Jyoti fellow is... )
skwunge
>name one time, in any field, where the mainstream has anything to do
>with art whatsoever
1936-1942, synchronized swimming... Then that bitch Esther Williams
came in and it wasn't the art anymore, it wasn't the passion, it was
all bathing caps, bathing caps, bathing caps...
Um, sorry.
Rick
(blaming the chlorine fumes)
skwunge
>Enough talk. Here's the challenge I;ve made in my zine for 20 some
>months. Find me a hit since 1980 that fits 3 criteria. No one has because
>the music is soooooooooo bad. Here's the rules. 1. It has to be a big hit
>(because a lot of people think it's a good record.) 2. It has to have
>enough range or scope to fit at least 3 formats (this rules out format
>music that is mindless repetition) and 3. It is a song that is sooo good
>that at least 5 others have recorded a version of it. OK prove to me that
>music is still great and find that tune! NO one has yet.
Got it! It's "Eye of the Tiger" isn't it?
It was a huge hit, it slotted nicely into the AOR, MOR, A/C, Top 40,
ICU, and A3 "formats" (also the hard rock, soft rock, frat rock, dance
rock, wedding rock, soundtrack music, wrestling music, and, now,
oldies "formats"), and it's been covered by Gloria Gaynor, Jive Bunny
and the Mastermixers, the London Symphony Orchestra, Tora, Paul Cacia,
and the London Theatre Orchestra and Singers-- who must embody another
3 "formats" among them... So: I claim my prize! Wooohooo! Switch
off "Old Yeller," Velma, we'll be buying the QUALITY dog porn soon
enough... You know, the kind with a plot and stuff... Um... Oh.
Sorry again... I'm really not sure what it is with me today...
Anyway, a personal check would be just fine. Cash preferred. Rick
Rhodri
> > You must be young. There used to be a time when a strange phenomenon
> > happened. The best quality music counted. That started at the beginning
> > of TIME and lasted till about 1980.
>
> You know, though, he may have us here... I mean... Anyone remember
> 1977? Quality music. Meaningful awards. Many of us who were pulling
> for the Starland Vocal Band really thought that the powers-that-be
> would deny them the Best New Artist Grammy that year, but damned if
> they didn't get it in the end...
not to mention the Brotherhood Of Man.
Jyoti Mishra
>> Music cannot be controlled. It's not a physical substance like land or
>> water.
>
>It can too. Look no one outside of these 4 can get A airplay on
>commercial radio B stocked in major record distributors or in major
>retailing giants, C review in major magazines, D etc. etc. If that's not
>control what is.
So let me see - nobody get's released on major labels or through major
distributors but major label acts. That's a stunning revelation,
Einstein. Next you're gonna reveal that only women are female and
everything that's dead is no longer alive.
Also, everything you're saying may (or may not) hold true for the US
but in case you haven't noticed, this is UK.music.alternative.
Do you know *anything* about the British music scene, major or
independent?
>Don't be naive.
Okay, I'll try not to if you try to stop being so patronising.
>These 4 have the power to make the
>music, review it, and give it awards when it's lousy.
No - they control MAJOR LABEL MUSIC. Music on major labels is *not*
ALL MUSIC.
Can you not understand this simple point of logic?
>> What you're talking about is the *commercial sale* of music which is
>> an entirely different matter. And has fuck-all to do with art.
>
>You must be young.
Well, thank you for the compliment but I'm 33. A young shaver compared
to you, maybe, but I thought you didn't like "old men" anyway?
>There used to be a time when a strange phenomenon
>happened. The best quality music counted. That started at the beginning
>of TIME and lasted till about 1980. I assure you this is a special time
>and a dangerous time. It's promotion over quality all along the line.
hmmm.... so before your year zero there was *no* major-label control
or manipulation of music? What about:
The Monkees?
The Archies?
Bay City Rollers?
Dawn?
Middle Of The Road?
Ohio Express?
Boney M?
All of the above bands were either grossly manipulated, manufactured
or didn't even exist! That didn't stop them making great pop records
that I still sing today.
You're wrong. There was no 1980-end-of-good music. That was just when
you hit your early twenties and for some reason lost touch with pop
music. I bet as a teenage kid you used to sing along with the Beatles,
Monkees and all those major label bands - you were a pop kid. But a
lot of "real muscians" in those times moaned that those bands were
just teenybop bands, with no musical merit. Does that sound familiar?
>> So, are you against capitalism or not?
>What you're asking is am I against capitalism without restraint that
>allows the larger companies to use commercials and leverage to control
>all competition. YES
>Am I against fair competition. NO. This is nothing new. In 1948 in the US
>the courts said that Paramount (or some film company) could not both own
>the films and the theaters they played in. That was an unfair monopoly
>and against the law. NOw it's called synergy, but it's the same thing
>except now it's world wide and more monopolistic.
So you're a capitalist then. Why don't you change your slogan to :
JOIN THE DALLAS NICE SMALL CAPITALIST REVOLUTION !
WHAT DO WE WANT - FREE MARKET COMPETITION!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT - NOW!
You are not a revolutionary, you are a reformist. I'll say this really
slowly so you can understand:
1. A few companies having control of a market is called oligopoly
*not* monopoly
2. Wanting to stop big capitalism but encourage small capitalism is
*not* revolution, it's REFORM.
Here, let me give you an analogy cos I sense you're fairly dense:
If you wanted to abolish the right to bear arms in the USA, you could
yourself a Gun Control Revolutionary (or at least abolitionist)
BUT...
If you want to tighten the law on who is allowed to bear arms you
would call yourself a Gun Control REFORMIST.
So, for the millionth time, just in case you've still missed it: you
are not a revolutionary by any political, social or (listening to your
music) musical standard. You are a reformist.
>Enough talk. Here's the challenge
No - you first. I give you the challenge of answering ANY of the
points anyone on ukma has made. You haven't answered even *one* point.
You just ignore the bits you don't understand or can't answer.
>> As said before, rock was born sucking the teat of capitalism. Wrong
>> again, duh!
>It was scary music when it started. It made cities ban it. It was
>considered as 'race records' It was truely dangerous.
Uhhh - HELLO??? Have you heard of NWA? Ice-T? Have you heard of this
dangerous music called RAP? I've heard it's become quite popular in
America but's it's obviously passed you by, you old rocker.
Name one of the 'dangerous' bands you cite that were ever on the FBI's
official list like NWA were. Or brought down the wrath of the PMRC and
Tipper and Al Gore?
God, you're so out-of-touch that you don't even recognise the most
revolutionary music since punk when it's from your own back yard.
I bet you write off the whole of hip-hop, retro as you are.
>Tell people you're against ads and ad driven media and see how they treat
>you. You'll see how revolutionary it is to side AGAINST ALL ADS.
>Try this one on any media source. Ads have no positive effect on children
>whatsoever. And they should be banned from selling children anything
>ever.
But you don't want to get rid of ALL advertising do you? You're not
against ALL capitalism therefore you're not against ALL ad agencies
therefore you are not a revolutionary.
Or are you saying you want to shut down the whole of the advertising
world? I don't think so - you just want to reform it.
>> 1. What you're saying isn't revolutionary
>
>Then tell somebody you think 4 companies are too few and watch how they
>try to shut you up.
Who is? Have you ever read any Noam Chomsky? Thought about the way
bourgeios democracies maintain free speech? Have you noticed that you
can put out your fake-revolutionary fanzine, have your gigs and spout
all your nonsense on Usenet and *nothing happens*? The NSA aren't
tapping your phone or intercepting your email cos they don't *care*
what you say.
You aren't even a Marxist - why should they be frightened of you? You
don't even want to fight capitalism, you just want small business to
have equal rights. That's not going to worry anyone in the capitalist
world.
>> 2. What you're saying isn't about art, it's about COMMERCE.
>
>No it's about art being run as commerce and that's the danger.
Nobody runs art. Nobody controls music. A few companies control the
majority of heard and released recorded music. Can you understand the
subtle differences here? It's about the fifth time I've said it. Shall
I draw you a Venn diagram?
>> 3. Everything you do serves to promote yourself, your fanzine and your
>> *own* music. You should get a job as an A&R man.
>
>How many ads did you see on my site. NONE did you say?
I saw about thirty ads. There was one for your revolution, one for you
as editor, an article by you, another one interviewing you and so-on.
You advertise YOURSELF.
> If YOU want to stand up for 8 years and fight these 8
>conglomerates of corp. art and be treated as completely invisible by all
>your peers, you are welcome to the job.
What have you ever achieved in your fake revolution? Nobody at any
record label either knows or cares who you are. You've tilted at
windmills.
You have huge delusions of grandeur.
And how come you've now changed it from "4 Old Men" to 8
conglomerates? Finally done some research to back up your bullshit,
eh?
>But I don't see a big line
>waiting to lead the revolution.
You are no-one's leader.
>Lighten up. You haven't heard anything yet. I've been doing this since
>'92. You've thought about it for an hour or 2 at best not years and years
>and years.
Again, you are ingorant and offensive. You've been doing this fake
revolution since '92 you say? Oooohhh - I'm impressed. I had my first
commercial musical release on an independent label called Graduate in
1982. I formed my current band in 1989. I formed my own independent
label in 1990.
In fact, a lot of people on this newsgroup have been independent
musicians since the mid-eighties. They didn't just start making music
as a thirty-something hobby like you apparently did.
>That isn't exactly a lark or a whim.
Yes it is - you've only been doing it for eight years. Come back and
lecture me when that's eighteen years.
>This is my LIFE, as a
>musician, painter, writer, I'm fighting for the right to have a fair
>chance to be acknowledged for what talents I have.
No, you're fighting for your right to be in the charts, to be famous.
>Same for my talented
>friends that are being blocked out of the arts due to the whims of $$$
>greedy 8 CEO's
>
>Go ahead ask some more.
No-one is being blocked from the arts, you're being blocked from the
charts. Since you can't understand the difference, I can only conclude
you're too thick to understand any argument.
love and kisses,
Jyoti
Stephen Kennedy
> In article <951935800.24813.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Stephen Kennedy" <st...@sdk-software.com> wrote:
> > Jyoti Mishra <jy...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> > news:38bd053e...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Isn't the real issue with the majors one of price and access to the
market?
> > (both economic issues). As for the *music* they sell, that will be
whatever
> > they think we will buy. Some of it will be (to my senses) rubbish, some
of
> > it not - much the same with an indie label I'd have thought.
>
> market would open to more artists, (remember all the fuss about stores
> selling used CD's. These 4 wanted to shut them down).
Err... You're posturing that you disagree with me, whilst enforcing my point
that the main serious issues about oligopoly or cartel in the music indistry
is artificially high prices and lack of access to the market by new
entrants. You obviously didn't understand my point in the first place.
> As to access to markets. In the US MOST records are bought: A. because
> they were heard on the radio and only these 4 get on commercial radio -
> so no indie music is ever heard on the radio - and B. at the major
> chainstores like Target, Wal-Mart, etc. And they only carry music from
> the majors. Wal-Mart has gotten so dictatorial that they won't carry CD's
> with covers they don't like, so they demand the record companies to
> change them to suit wal mart AND THESE 4 WEASEL COMPANIES DO IT. Now is
> that fair competition? If it was any other industry except the arts (it's
> true not only of music but film, books, etc - see my site) it would be
> unfair trade practices and illegal.
Kind of what I was saying :) Don't have time at the moment to go further int
o the economic theory (one area I do actually know quite a lot about, and
there aren't many of them) and it's dangerously close to being off topic.
Anyway, as you seem to have absolutely no idea how things operate over here.
Have you ever been to the UK? If not, why have you started this thread here
when it belongs in alt.music.alternative?
Some of the major differences over here are: a thriving music press with no
particular bias towards the majors (can of worms maybe); a national
commercials-free music station (BBC Radio 1), with amongst the dross,
esteemed indie warriors like John Peel, Steve Lurpak, and Mark & Lard; a
reasonable range of retailers with a large network of indie stores (although
this part troubles me, as the megastores are rapidly taking over); plenty of
indie labels, etc.
Plus, whilst I would like to see more players in the market as I generally
don't like "near-monopoly" in any sector, the over-pricing of CDs in this
country is to me endemic of a high-priced culture. The majors have economies
of scale and huge promotional budgets, so very often their releases are
cheaper than the independents.
Also, not all majors handle their artistes back catalogues irresponsibly. As
a big Dylan fan I'm generally fairly satisfied with Columbia (Sony)'s
handling of his music, and think it's great for helping his music spread
that his albums are available at mid price.
> Synergy is a code word for MONOPOLY.
???? I thought Synergy was a hugely excellent tour by the Shamen, but I
might be wrong ;-)
> STEVE ask your favorite band to do a song called I HATE THE BIG 4 (
> the 4 company monopoly of music), or ADS SUCK, etc. and watch how fast
> their chance to make a living in the music business fades.
> If any of you think it's not revolutionary then call up your fav.
> commercial radio station and ask them to play anything besides music from
> these 4. You'll change your TUNE real fast I can assure you.
Unfortunately (or, to my mind, fortunately) in the UK we tend not to record
songs with names like "Ads Suck" or "I Hate The Big 4". I don't have a
currently operating favourite band either (which doesn't mean I don't love
current music, it means I pick and choose from the new releases). So, no can
do, me old China.
And again sorry to disappoint you, but in this utopia we call rainy old
Britain, there's no need to listen to commercial radio. I don't have a
favourite commercial radio station, they're all crap. I listen exclusively
to BBC Radios 1 and 5 and am very much the happier for it.
> (PS new issue of Musea out soon. - NO ADs, no sponsors, no government
> grants (that's government grants from the NEA here in the US the National
> endowments for the ARTs)
Who gives a f*ck? This is uk.music.alternative - note the "UK"?? Means
United Kingdom mate, not United States.
Steve
Stephen Kennedy
news:1e6ualu.1vhwrfg1e2w4vgN%rho...@mac.com...
> name one time, in any field, where the mainstream has anything to do
> with art whatsoever
The Beatles, at the peak of their career. The music was art, the sleeves
were art, their lives were art. Mainstream.
HOWEVER - You'll next be asking me what art is, and since I don't want to
open that debate, let's say art is like beauty, it is in the eye of the
beholder :)
Steve
Stephen Kennedy
> It was scary music when it started. It made cities ban it. It was
> considered as 'race records' It was truely dangerous. Now it's just used
> as the backdrop of commercials. And if you want to fit in, what do you do
> - join a polka band or a barbershop quartet? No that would be truely
> challengeing to the establishment. No you join a band like everyone in
> the world that wants to fit in, does. That isn't just a clever phrase
> it's the truth.
We've had a music scene in the last 15 years that had the authorites a
darned sight more worried than a few white boys shaking their hips. I refer
of course to "acid house", and the attendant free festival/rave scene. That
one actually had them so scared they outlawed it.
(OK, that too has become advert music, but c'est la via. I'm waiting for the
next big thing myself, although in time that will become commercials fodder
too, just as punk has, and rock and roll, and everything else)
Steve
Stephen Kennedy
> t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > > >How few companies controlling all the music
> > > >before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will
you
> > > >worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
> > >
> > > Music cannot be controlled. It's not a physical substance like land or
> > > water.
I think that's a very good point. There will always be new bands putting out
there own demos, people running very small labels from their bedrooms, and
so on, just for the love of music or because they want to be "big". Even if
it ever got to the unlikely point that a couple of majors controlled all of
the USA and Europe's production capacity, discs could be pressed in say Hong
Kong or on CDR (blanks are surely going to reach peppercorn prices
eventually). There will always be live shows, word of mouth, newsgroups, a
grass roots.
More importantly, and if no one's mentioned this already I'm surprised (I
jumped into the thread a bit late), the internet is likely to give the music
industry a big shaking anyway. Because _anybody_ can set up a web site the
net is probably the most open market there is. Anyone can upload MP3s of
their own material, and this is likely to become an increasingly important
form of music distribution, bypassing the majors altogether (or perhaps
creating new majors). The net also acts as a good judge on the pricing and
policy fairness of the music industry; if we ever got to the unlikely
position where there was one or two major record companies, charging 50 quid
for a CD and sitting on the music we wanted, it would soon be pirated on the
web. Not something I particularly condone or condemn, but true.
So: the majors don't totally control music, which is uncontrollable; they
are limited by the emerging technologies in their price and release fixing;
plus there are competition laws in place. In all, I think the debate is a
load of hot air :)
> > It can too. Look no one outside of these 4 can get A airplay on
> > commercial radio B stocked in major record distributors or in major
> > retailing giants, C review in major magazines, D etc. etc. If that's not
> > control what is. Don't be naive. These 4 have the power to make the
> > music, review it, and give it awards when it's lousy.
>
> and we have the power to make other music, an alternative, which is what
> a lot of us have been doing for years on end with no noticable
> side-effects
I know this is uk.music.ALTERNATIVE so that is the (valid) point you'd
expect to hear made, but I'd add that major label does not equal bad.
Granted, a few of my favourite bands have been on "indies" or "junior
majors" ;-) (Smiths, KLF, Shamen, Carter USM, Public Enemy, Bjork, Primal
Scream) but many have been on majors too (Nirvana, Dylan, Beatles, Pulp,
Radiohead, Beastie Boys).
In fact, I'd rate Parlophone as one of my favourite labels because they have
signed up some great acts over the years. For collecting, my faves are KLF
Communications and Apple, because I love the artistes who founded them.
Beyond those affiliations I don't care what label it's on.
[the boundaries aren't clear - One Little Indian operate like a major to me;
Nirvana were on Sub Pop, an independent, but then licenced or signed off to
Geffen; Def Jam, Creation, the Smiths on Rough Trade, were taken over by
majors; Carter were with two indies before signing with a major after Rough
Trade went belly up]
> > > What you're talking about is the *commercial sale* of music which is
> > > an entirely different matter. And has fuck-all to do with art.
> >
> > You must be young. There used to be a time when a strange phenomenon
> > happened. The best quality music counted. That started at the beginning
> > of TIME and lasted till about 1980.
>
> you are talking absolute shit. The 60s and 70s were as full of complete
> manufactured pop shit and the 90s were. To pretend there was a golden
> age of rock/pop music where everything artistically valid was piped into
> homes the length and breadth of the country is absurd. If you'd rather
Absolutely. Because old music is "filtered" (perennial favourites remain in
the collective consciousness, the "muzak" has been forgotten) it's easy to
think that the 1960's and 70s (hell, even the 80s) were golden ages. Because
of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and many of the other great acts of
the 60s I used to think it must have been a golden age, but watching the
Sounds Of The Sixties and listening to a few compilations quickly showed me
how wrong I was. The highlights may have been bigger highs than we get now,
because a lot of things musically were being done for the first time (or
brought to the masses for the first time), but this was still happening in a
sea of dross. The sixties may have had The Beatles, but it also had The Dave
Clarke Five and other hopeless tosh I've exterminated from my memory :)
Sure, the sixties are still to me the "halcyon days" for pop culture, but
they were not a golden age free of formula pop, old crooners or novelty
records (not that any of those are automatically a bad thing). Looking
through the Guinness Book of Hit Singles, there was a time in the mid 70s
when I liked hardly a single record that topped the chart. Apart from punk,
I'd say the 90s are better than the 70s.
Indeed, apart from a bit of a downturn at this very moment (the problem
being, I think, that dance and hip hop, the decade's most challenging and
innivative genres, have gone a bit cheesy and formulaic, probably only
temporarily) the 90s has been pretty good for music. Music also is not
everything in life, and we have the wonderful innovations of the internet to
occupy us too.
> we went back to the years before recorded sound when tunes were passed
> from person to person then fine - not a bad thing - but personally I
> prefer the information age where I can hear a Japanese noise band if I
> want to.
We are however in danger of being swamped by music :) It's also got a bit
obsessive (I'm very much at fault here myself) whereas really music ought to
be about emotion and feeling and entertainment... (shouldn't it? there's no
givens after all, each to their own and all that).
> > Enough talk. Here's the challenge I;ve made in my zine for 20 some
> > months. Find me a hit since 1980 that fits 3 criteria. No one has
because
> > the music is soooooooooo bad.
What a ludicrous statement.
> erm, what music is so bad? If you don't like it go out and find it.
>
> > Here's the rules. 1. It has to be a big hit
> > (because a lot of people think it's a good record.) 2. It has to have
> > enough range or scope to fit at least 3 formats (this rules out format
> > music that is mindless repetition) and 3. It is a song that is sooo good
Mindless repetition? Oh dear, the phrase "repetitive beats" is echoing
through my brain :(
(a pernicious early 90s law banning raves that you obviously won't know
about)
> > that at least 5 others have recorded a version of it. OK prove to me
that
> > music is still great and find that tune! NO one has yet.
The first two may arguably be reasonable criteria, but the third definately
isn't. It automatically disqualifies recent hits because it takes *time* for
cover versions to emerge. Plus covering recent hits is a DIEING PRACTICE -
it happened a lot in the early to mid 60s, but the Beatles and Dylan made it
the norm for people to write their own songs; then at some time it became
the norm to cover songs not *because* the target audience would remember
them but because they *wouldn't* (so, boy bands will cover songs written
before their target audience was born or when they were very young, so that
for all they know it's an original). Furthermore, sampling is just as
important as covering now.
I daresay you've thought long and hard to come up with criteria that are
hard to fill. I mean, what's with this "3 formats" thing?? I don't even
understand what you mean - a song which as first recorded could be
considered to belong to 3 or more genres, or which is versatile enough that
3 very different acts could take the song on? What song EVER has fitted that
category?
"Yesterday" is AFAIK the most covered song ever. It wasn't a big hit (was
not released as single), was a beautiful but straight ballad, and has been
recorded thousands of times. Even the most covered song ever only fits one
of your categories.
It's easier if you look at bands rather than songs, and I'm sure Nirvana
would fit if you did that.
I'm also sure someone here will come up with answers, and so will I
eventually :) (if only I had my music database - lost it in a HDD crash - I
could get to work finding multiple covered hit songs in a flash).
> you are just on a different planet to us. I've no idea why you're even
> in this NG.
He loves the attention, doesn't he? :) It's that simple.
> > > Here's four points to consdider:
> > >
> > > 1. What you're saying isn't revolutionary
> >
> > Then tell somebody you think 4 companies are too few and watch how they
> > try to shut you up.
>
> there are more than four companies, fuckwit. Christ, you're the one who
> needs to wake up.
And even if there was only four, whilst few would disagree that it was too
few it would not be the end of music or even alternative music. The world
keeps on turning and the status quo is never permanent. Maybe the net will
change everything, maybe something else will, maybe there will be a new
Beatles (there NEVER will be, but maybe something close) who aren't on one
of the big labels, some other shakeup will always happen. Look at EMI - the
UK's one-time music giant, eventually reduced to being eaten up by the
America Online of all people!
> > Lighten up. You haven't heard anything yet. I've been doing this since
> > '92.
>
> '92? WOW! A good few people on this NG have been 'doing this' since the
> mid eighties when we were still at school, so:
I first started getting into alt music around 90-91, having been listening
to records for as long as I can remember (back to 75-77, when I was 3-5). I
suspect I'm typical :) 1992?! What a vintage, not! That was almost yesterday
to me, I still think of 1992 releases as "recent" (because we've not had a
big musical revolution since then, a big year 0 (blues, rock and roll, the
sixties, punk, rave, .... TBA).
> > You've thought about it for an hour or 2 at best not years and years
> > and years.
>
> ?
Hee hee, the guy must have been in medidation.
> kindly take your half-arsed pseudo 50s country skiffle and fuck off into
> the night.
Well said Rhodri. Succinct as ever, I salute you :)
Steve
t_hendricks
> > > > art than when there is the monopoly of the few?
> > >
> > > No, the art will always be happening whatever.
> >
> > It isn't happening anywhere in the mainstream today.
>
> with art whatsoever
Everytime before 1980. From the beginning if the king/priest didn't like
it it didn't go. Specifics: all Greek Plays, Chaucer, all court lit./
painting/ Dutch painting, Shakespeare and all his contemporaries, etc.
etc. etc. etc. Even the Impressionist painters were somewhat involved
with the Salon, and it acknowledged them (corp. art treats indies as
invisible)
>
> > Hey I'm talking to people all across the world. Hang in there.
> > And you can always read about 1000 pages at my website at
> > http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
>
> I can hardly contain my excitement.
>
> --
> Rhodri http://www.gyoker.demon.co.uk/ rho...@mac.com
> "Congratulations! You're lucky and you didn't know it, did you?"
> "No, I wasn't absolutely sure about it...." --------- W C Fields
>
t_hendricks
> > name one time, in any field, where the mainstream has anything to do
> > with art whatsoever
>
> were art, their lives were art. Mainstream.
>
> HOWEVER - You'll next be asking me what art is, and since I don't want to
> open that debate, let's say art is like beauty, it is in the eye of the
> beholder :)
>
> Steve
And I'll add one more thing. The idea of a struggling artist of any kind
(example Van Gogh) is really a very recent developement in the arts. I
tend to think it came in with the developement of a middle class around
the turn of the last century. It really is not the norm in history at
all!
Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks)
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
t_hendricks
> > company monopoly the price of new CD's would fall drastically
>
> a living as musicians would be even worse off. OK, you make your CDs for
> 50 cents (presumably that's without a bag/sleeve or any labelling) and
> see how long you last without having to dip into yr family fortune.
The money isn't going to musicians, it's going to these 4 monopolies. I
assure you the artists would get fair payment if the CD prices came down.
Example, dump the book long color brochures, dump the jewel pack (CD's do
NOT need to be sterilized, put them in a cardboard jacket like small
lp's) and dump the promotion costs and artists would get MORE. Here's an
example, a typical Hollywood movie spends 50 million to promote it. I
could make a hit out of a PTA meeting (school meeting - Parents/Teacher
Association, they are incredibly dull and boring) with a budget like
that. These companies are BUYING hits with promo dollars.
>
> > STEVE ask your favorite band to do a song called I HATE THE BIG 4 (
> > the 4 company monopoly of music), or ADS SUCK, etc. and watch how fast
> > their chance to make a living in the music business fades.
>
> Are you bitter because your half-arsed songs have failed to impress more
> than 8 of your mates?
No because those that hear them love them and wonder why I'm not better
known. When people hear me play in the film box office they usually
respond with "Oh I thought you were the radio" And you didn't ask anyone
did you about the 4 company monopoly. Also go hear my music for yourself
at http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com and find out what no format music
means.
>
> > If any of you think it's not revolutionary then call up your fav.
> > commercial radio station and ask them to play anything besides music from
> > these 4. You'll change your TUNE real fast I can assure you.
>
> Well, if that's what it's really like in Texas, mate, get the fuck out.
> I've just heard 2 hours of cutting edge independently produced music on
> the UK's national radio station. I might go out and buy some of it at an
> independent record shop, or maybe even Tower as they stock it all
> anyway. Life's great! Let's create!
Cutting edge means? No guitars, no drums, no writing your own material,
no distortion, no bands no formats (with music in all languages about
every subject encluding anti business lyrics)? Probably not. The problem
with all those is that the only way I consider those cutting edge is if
my time machine is set on 1964. I think the best of rock and roll was
over by 1970 and lasted from 1956? to about 1970
PS tower doesn't stock much of anything really cutting edge when it comes
to zines.
> Off to bed.
>
> --
> Rhodri http://www.gyoker.demon.co.uk/ rho...@mac.com
> "Congratulations! You're lucky and you didn't know it, did you?"
> "No, I wasn't absolutely sure about it...." --------- W C Fields
>
Andrew Gambier
>If they are on government radio they aren't indies. They are depending on
>the government to get airplay.
This is Britain, not Iraq, dufus
> In the art revolution I say no ads, no
>sponsors no government grants
So should I change my signature? Should I refuse my single person's
allowance?
--
andrew
http://www.mp3.com/thelefthandedgun
Andrew Gambier
(to Jyoti)
>
>I know you're under the same 4 company domination of music that I am and
>that you are so brainwashed by them that you are vehemently defending
>them when even one voice thousands and thousands of miles away opposes
>them. You should be welcoming a different viewpoint.
This is actually pretty funny. Do you have any idea just what Jyoti has
done for music? Presumably next you'll be claiming that Ant and Rhodri
are government drones determined to destroy all music...
--
andrew
http://www.mp3.com/thelefthandedgun
t_hendricks
"Stephen Kennedy" <st...@sdk-software.com> wrote:
>
> t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> > In article <951935800.24813.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > "Stephen Kennedy" <st...@sdk-software.com> wrote:
> > > Jyoti Mishra <jy...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> > > news:38bd053e...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > Isn't the real issue with the majors one of price and access to the
> market?
> > > (both economic issues). As for the *music* they sell, that will be
> whatever
> > > they think we will buy. Some of it will be (to my senses) rubbish, some
> of
> > > it not - much the same with an indie label I'd have thought.
> >
If they are on government radio they aren't indies. They are depending on
the government to get airplay. In the art revolution I say no ads, no
sponsors no government grants
a
> reasonable range of retailers with a large network of indie stores (although
> this part troubles me, as the megastores are rapidly taking over); plenty of
> indie labels, etc.
But no major label anymore. Who controls EMI now? Warners. That means
that unless these 'indies' suck up to one of these 4 they are virtually
out of business. The revolution in arts says that's a monopoly.
>
> Plus, whilst I would like to see more players in the market as I generally
> don't like "near-monopoly" in any sector, the over-pricing of CDs in this
> country is to me endemic of a high-priced culture. The majors have economies
> of scale and huge promotional budgets, so very often their releases are
> cheaper than the independents.
>
> Also, not all majors handle their artistes back catalogues irresponsibly. As
> a big Dylan fan I'm generally fairly satisfied with Columbia (Sony)'s
> handling of his music, and think it's great for helping his music spread
> that his albums are available at mid price.
This is an important fact. Most of the money these 4 are making is in
their back catalogues. And from sales of people buying their favorite
lp's on CD's. Note sals on NEW product is very poor. Also while I'm
thinking about it NOTE THIS no new artist anywhere is older than say
about 20. Another problem I have with the 4 company monopoly of music.
>
> > Synergy is a code word for MONOPOLY.
>
> ???? I thought Synergy was a hugely excellent tour by the Shamen, but I
> might be wrong ;-)
>
> > STEVE ask your favorite band to do a song called I HATE THE BIG 4 (
> > the 4 company monopoly of music), or ADS SUCK, etc. and watch how fast
> > their chance to make a living in the music business fades.
> > If any of you think it's not revolutionary then call up your fav.
> > commercial radio station and ask them to play anything besides music from
> > these 4. You'll change your TUNE real fast I can assure you.
>
> Unfortunately (or, to my mind, fortunately) in the UK we tend not to record
> songs with names like "Ads Suck" or "I Hate The Big 4". I don't have a
> currently operating favourite band either (which doesn't mean I don't love
> current music, it means I pick and choose from the new releases). So, no can
> do, me old China.
Those subjects are off limits. That's why. I encourage you to try to find
such lyrics. If music is to develope should there be limits on subject
matter? Isn't it true you can talk about almost anything except any anti
big business lyrics?
>
> And again sorry to disappoint you, but in this utopia we call rainy old
> Britain, there's no need to listen to commercial radio. I don't have a
> favourite commercial radio station, they're all crap. I listen exclusively
> to BBC Radios 1 and 5 and am very much the happier for it.
That's my point. Why should mainstream radio force all people who love
music to go to alternate sources to find it. I assure you this has never
been the norm in history before. Most of the best rock from the 50's and
60's was universally played on all mainstream radio. Top40 radio (which
by the way was developed in Dallas) was by far the mainstream radio all
over this country. I really fear you never knew a time that art was not
controlled by so few. I do.
>
> > (PS new issue of Musea out soon. - NO ADs, no sponsors, no government
> > grants (that's government grants from the NEA here in the US the National
> > endowments for the ARTs)
>
> Who gives a f*ck? This is uk.music.alternative - note the "UK"?? Means
> United Kingdom mate, not United States.
Good art,music, and lit is good no matter where it comes from or what
language, etc.
I'm beginning to think UK stands for U Knucle-under to anything Corporate
Art says and defend them at every turn.
But not me.
>
> Steve
t_hendricks
> > > >before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will you
> > > >worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
> > >
> > > Music cannot be controlled. It's not a physical substance like land or
> > > water.
> >
> > It can too. Look no one outside of these 4 can get A airplay on
> > commercial radio B stocked in major record distributors or in major
> > retailing giants, C review in major magazines, D etc. etc. If that's not
> > control what is. Don't be naive. These 4 have the power to make the
> > music, review it, and give it awards when it's lousy.
>
> a lot of us have been doing for years on end with no noticable
> side-effects
No side effects such as hearing good music on the radio, selling records
in the stores, seeing good music win awards.
>
> > > What you're talking about is the *commercial sale* of music which is
> > > an entirely different matter. And has fuck-all to do with art.
> >
> > You must be young. There used to be a time when a strange phenomenon
> > happened. The best quality music counted. That started at the beginning
> > of TIME and lasted till about 1980.
>
> you are talking absolute shit. The 60s and 70s were as full of complete
> manufactured pop shit and the 90s were. To pretend there was a golden
> age of rock/pop music where everything artistically valid was piped into
> homes the length and breadth of the country is absurd. If you'd rather
> we went back to the years before recorded sound when tunes were passed
> from person to person then fine - not a bad thing - but personally I
> prefer the information age where I can hear a Japanese noise band if I
> want to.
>
> > Enough talk. Here's the challenge I;ve made in my zine for 20 some
> > months. Find me a hit since 1980 that fits 3 criteria. No one has because
> > the music is soooooooooo bad.
>
> erm, what music is so bad? If you don't like it go out and find it.
>
> > Here's the rules. 1. It has to be a big hit
> > (because a lot of people think it's a good record.) 2. It has to have
> > enough range or scope to fit at least 3 formats (this rules out format
> > music that is mindless repetition) and 3. It is a song that is sooo good
> > that at least 5 others have recorded a version of it. OK prove to me that
> > music is still great and find that tune! NO one has yet.
>
> you are just on a different planet to us. I've no idea why you're even
> in this NG.
A much more revolutionary planet for sure. Come on and try to find a hit
from 1980 to now. Surely England had ONE. The US did not.
>
> > > Here's four points to consdider:
> > >
> > > 1. What you're saying isn't revolutionary
> >
> > Then tell somebody you think 4 companies are too few and watch how they
> > try to shut you up.
>
> there are more than four companies, fuckwit. Christ, you're the one who
> needs to wake up.
These 4 really do have a virtual block on the industry. Ask anyone who
knows about the business side of it. And yes that really does cover the
art side too. Look who won the grammy awards. That's terrible music.
>
> > Lighten up. You haven't heard anything yet. I've been doing this since
> > '92.
>
> '92? WOW! A good few people on this NG have been 'doing this' since the
> mid eighties when we were still at school, so:
>
> > You've thought about it for an hour or 2 at best not years and years
> > and years.
>
> ?
>
> kindly take your half-arsed pseudo 50s country skiffle and fuck off into
> the night.
Do you work for any of these 4?
>
> --
> Rhodri http://www.gyoker.demon.co.uk/ rho...@mac.com
> "Congratulations! You're lucky and you didn't know it, did you?"
> "No, I wasn't absolutely sure about it...." --------- W C Fields
>
t_hendricks
"Stephen Kennedy" <st...@sdk-software.com> wrote:
>
> Rhodri <rho...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1e6uar5.1cez0hm1x7x9bkN%rho...@mac.com...
> > t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >How few companies controlling all the music
> > > > >before you begin to see it as a danger. If 4 is acceptable then will
> you
> > > > >worry when it gets to 3? 2? 1?
> > > >
> > > > Music cannot be controlled. It's not a physical substance like land or
> > > > water.
>
> I think that's a very good point. There will always be new bands putting out
> there own demos, people running very small labels from their bedrooms, and
> so on, just for the love of music or because they want to be "big". Even if
> it ever got to the unlikely point that a couple of majors controlled all of
> the USA and Europe's production capacity, discs could be pressed in say Hong
> Kong or on CDR (blanks are surely going to reach peppercorn prices
> eventually). There will always be live shows, word of mouth, newsgroups, a
> grass roots.
But what if you think "BANDS" are passe, no longer innovative, are the
opposite of everything that is good in music? Don't you see how
brainwashed every one has become? Tell someone that bands are out of
date, old fashioned, washed up, and you'll begin to see what real
innovation is about. Bands reinforce the mainstream at every turn. And
with a monopoly there will be no one allowed to voice opposition to
bands. Try it and see how far you get. Look at the opposition I'm getting
here and its from so called innovative supporters, and indie supporters.
>
> More importantly, and if no one's mentioned this already I'm surprised (I
> jumped into the thread a bit late), the internet is likely to give the music
> industry a big shaking anyway. Because _anybody_ can set up a web site the
> net is probably the most open market there is. Anyone can upload MP3s of
> their own material, and this is likely to become an increasingly important
> form of music distribution, bypassing the majors altogether (or perhaps
> creating new majors). The net also acts as a good judge on the pricing and
> policy fairness of the music industry; if we ever got to the unlikely
> position where there was one or two major record companies, charging 50 quid
> for a CD and sitting on the music we wanted, it would soon be pirated on the
> web. Not something I particularly condone or condemn, but true.
Didn't you hear, the same company that bought the UK record company EMI
now is owned by AOL. That big money will buy the main sites, they'll be
able to do all the promotion that brings most of the people to their
sites and the freedom you see now will be lost (and what if they buy up
the distributors of the net, the servers etc.) Don't be complacent. The
net is a real chance, but no guarantee.
>
> So: the majors don't totally control music, which is uncontrollable; they
> are limited by the emerging technologies in their price and release fixing;
> plus there are competition laws in place.
They are not being enforced in the US and I doubt their either.
In all, I think the debate is a
> load of hot air :)
Then take the challenge. Find a hit from 80 to now. Or challenge somebody
on bands, or the 4 company monopoly, and you'll see that yes everything
is fine and dandy until you make a WAVE of disagreement against these 4.
Look at the response here. You should welcom a new voice instead of
trying to stomp it out.
True but now you just have the dross. P.S. I say 56-70, then the music
died.
You are making excuses for bad music. Find that hit. Sampling is mostly
stealing someone elses better work, unless you add something original to
it.
>
> I daresay you've thought long and hard to come up with criteria that are
> hard to fill. I mean, what's with this "3 formats" thing?? I don't even
> understand what you mean - a song which as first recorded could be
> considered to belong to 3 or more genres, or which is versatile enough that
> 3 very different acts could take the song on? What song EVER has fitted that
> category?
>
> "Yesterday" is AFAIK the most covered song ever. It wasn't a big hit (was
> not released as single), was a beautiful but straight ballad, and has been
> recorded thousands of times. Even the most covered song ever only fits one
> of your categories.
Yesterday and 100 other songs from the 50's and 60's fit the bill, even a
number of show tunes were so good (These are a few of my favorite things
was covered by Jazz Great Coltrane) they were covered. Ex. Blue Suede
Shoes by Carl Perkins was big/recorded by everyone/ and was #1 on the
pop/country/ r&B charts at the same time. Find one like that from 80 on.
Tom
>> they aren't "controlling the music"!! Music isn't fuckin washing powder
>> or toothpaste - it's an art form. What BMG get up to has absolutely no
>> relevance here - of course the majors a&r policies stink, but they
>> always have.
>
>It's not an art form to these 4, it IS toothpaste and it is marketed like
>toothpaste
Um, it's not actually - if it was marketed like toothpaste it wouldn't
sell anything. At least the pretense that it's an art form is pretty
much a hygiene factor for entry into the market - thats why you get
people like the Vengaboys saying music is their life just as much as
you get people from, I don't know, Hunkasaurus saying it. (And given
that the Vengaboys can afford not to have a day job they're being more
truthful, too...)
Cheers,
Tom
Freaky Trigger: http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~tewing/freaky.html
D'Angelo, Richard Ashcroft, love, love, love.
Blue Lines: http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~tewing/blueline.html
I do not like Harry Potter.
t_hendricks
skw...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:27:56 GMT, t_hendricks
> <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >months. Find me a hit since 1980 that fits 3 criteria. No one has because
> >(because a lot of people think it's a good record.) 2. It has to have
> >enough range or scope to fit at least 3 formats (this rules out format
> >music that is mindless repetition) and 3. It is a song that is sooo good
> >music is still great and find that tune! NO one has yet.
>
>
> It was a huge hit, it slotted nicely into the AOR, MOR, A/C, Top 40,
> ICU, and A3 "formats" (also the hard rock, soft rock, frat rock, dance
> rock, wedding rock, soundtrack music, wrestling music, and, now,
> oldies "formats"), and it's been covered by Gloria Gaynor, Jive Bunny
> and the Mastermixers, the London Symphony Orchestra, Tora, Paul Cacia,
> and the London Theatre Orchestra and Singers-- who must embody another
> 3 "formats" among them... So: I claim my prize! Wooohooo! Switch
> off "Old Yeller," Velma, we'll be buying the QUALITY dog porn soon
> enough... You know, the kind with a plot and stuff... Um... Oh.
> Sorry again... I'm really not sure what it is with me today...
> Anyway, a personal check would be just fine. Cash preferred. Rick
I'll consider it but first when was this released? what year. And it
really was not a very big hit or a good song, or etc. etc. And those
other songs in the 2 previous threads were awful. (P.S. there really is
no answer because there hasn't been a decent hit in 20 years, that's how
bad 4 company monopoly has been. They have killed mainstream music.)
Rhodri
> > name one time, in any field, where the mainstream has anything to do
> > with art whatsoever
>
> Everytime before 1980.
Let's dig out our Bay City Rollers albums and check that out.
Rhodri
> The money isn't going to musicians, it's going to these 4 monopolies.
I'm bored now.
> > Are you bitter because your half-arsed songs have failed to impress more
> > than 8 of your mates?
>
> No because those that hear them love them and wonder why I'm not better
> known. When people hear me play in the film box office they usually
> respond with "Oh I thought you were the radio" And you didn't ask anyone
> did you about the 4 company monopoly. Also go hear my music for yourself
> at http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com and find out what no format music
> means.
i've heard it. It derivative and dull, IMHO.
> Cutting edge means? No guitars, no drums, no writing your own material,
> no distortion, no bands no formats (with music in all languages about
> every subject encluding anti business lyrics)? Probably not.
goodbye.
Stephen Kennedy
record
> > songs with names like "Ads Suck" or "I Hate The Big 4". I don't have a
> > currently operating favourite band either (which doesn't mean I don't
love
> > current music, it means I pick and choose from the new releases). So, no
can
> > do, me old China.
>
> Those subjects are off limits. That's why. I encourage you to try to find
> such lyrics. If music is to develope should there be limits on subject
> matter? Isn't it true you can talk about almost anything except any anti
> big business lyrics?
No, it's because "sucks" is an American word that most of us over here were
introduced to by Beavis & Butthead! (Making it a low priority word choice
for the serious lyricist! :)
> > And again sorry to disappoint you, but in this utopia we call rainy old
> > Britain, there's no need to listen to commercial radio. I don't have a
> > favourite commercial radio station, they're all crap. I listen
exclusively
> > to BBC Radios 1 and 5 and am very much the happier for it.
>
> That's my point. Why should mainstream radio force all people who love
> music to go to alternate sources to find it. I assure you this has never
I thought your point was that the BBC were "government funded" and therefore
_bad_?? (Actually, the BBC is paid for by us, through TV licences (and
commercial exploitation), and run with a large degree of autonomy, we're not
talking Radio Moscow here y'know).
> > Who gives a f*ck? This is uk.music.alternative - note the "UK"?? Means
> > United Kingdom mate, not United States.
>
> Good art,music, and lit is good no matter where it comes from or what
> language, etc.
Of course!! But you're arguing from an American perspective. Yes, we live in
a global economy, but we also have local traits which are quite different to
yours. In particular, our radio is - how do I put this... - well, you get
more variety on UK radio than you do in the States. We have lots of other
reactions to corporate rock that you failed to acknowledge from my previous
post.
> I'm beginning to think UK stands for U Knucle-under to anything Corporate
> Art says and defend them at every turn.
Hee hee, yeah. We're known the world over for being the pawns of big
business aren't we?
Also, I must say you've done a great job getting some of the alt heads here
to argue the "major labels will not destroy the world" case - you are one
entertainingly obsessed individual.
But I agree with Rhodri, 'nuff already (or something like that).
Steve
t_hendricks
jy...@dial.pipex.com (Jyoti Mishra) wrote:
> t_hendricks <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >> Music cannot be controlled. It's not a physical substance like land or
> >> water.
> >
> >It can too. Look no one outside of these 4 can get A airplay on
> >commercial radio B stocked in major record distributors or in major
> >retailing giants, C review in major magazines, D etc. etc. If that's not
> >control what is.
>
> So let me see - nobody get's released on major labels or through major
> distributors but major label acts. That's a stunning revelation,
> Einstein. Next you're gonna reveal that only women are female and
> everything that's dead is no longer alive.
>
> Also, everything you're saying may (or may not) hold true for the US
> but in case you haven't noticed, this is UK.music.alternative.
>
> Do you know *anything* about the British music scene, major or
> independent?
I know you're under the same 4 company domination of music that I am and
that you are so brainwashed by them that you are vehemently defending
them when even one voice thousands and thousands of miles away opposes
them. You should be welcoming a different viewpoint.
>
> >Don't be naive.
>
> Okay, I'll try not to if you try to stop being so patronising.
>
> >These 4 have the power to make the
> >music, review it, and give it awards when it's lousy.
>
> No - they control MAJOR LABEL MUSIC. Music on major labels is *not*
> ALL MUSIC.
You want a percentage? 80 - 90 %. Ask anyone in the business.
>
> Can you not understand this simple point of logic?
>
> >> What you're talking about is the *commercial sale* of music which is
> >> an entirely different matter. And has fuck-all to do with art.
> >
> >You must be young.
>
> Well, thank you for the compliment but I'm 33. A young shaver compared
> to you, maybe, but I thought you didn't like "old men" anyway?
>
> >There used to be a time when a strange phenomenon
> >happened. The best quality music counted. That started at the beginning
> >of TIME and lasted till about 1980. I assure you this is a special time
> >and a dangerous time. It's promotion over quality all along the line.
>
> hmmm.... so before your year zero there was *no* major-label control
> or manipulation of music? What about:
>
> The Monkees?
>
> The Archies?
>
> Bay City Rollers?
>
> Dawn?
>
> Middle Of The Road?
>
> Ohio Express?
>
> Boney M?
There was competition with all thse lame acts. Now you have Britney
Spears, Spice Girls, and no competition. Surely you see the difference.
>
> All of the above bands were either grossly manipulated, manufactured
> or didn't even exist! That didn't stop them making great pop records
> that I still sing today.
>
> You're wrong. There was no 1980-end-of-good music. That was just when
> you hit your early twenties and for some reason lost touch with pop
> music. I bet as a teenage kid you used to sing along with the Beatles,
> Monkees and all those major label bands - you were a pop kid. But a
> lot of "real muscians" in those times moaned that those bands were
> just teenybop bands, with no musical merit. Does that sound familiar?
Beatles were good. The Monkees ok when they had a reasonably good song.
>
> >> So, are you against capitalism or not?
> >What you're asking is am I against capitalism without restraint that
> >allows the larger companies to use commercials and leverage to control
> >all competition. YES
> >Am I against fair competition. NO. This is nothing new. In 1948 in the US
> >the courts said that Paramount (or some film company) could not both own
> >the films and the theaters they played in. That was an unfair monopoly
> >and against the law. NOw it's called synergy, but it's the same thing
> >except now it's world wide and more monopolistic.
>
> So you're a capitalist then. Why don't you change your slogan to :
>
> JOIN THE DALLAS NICE SMALL CAPITALIST REVOLUTION !
> WHAT DO WE WANT - FREE MARKET COMPETITION!
> WHEN DO WE WANT IT - NOW!
>
> You are not a revolutionary, you are a reformist. I'll say this really
> slowly so you can understand:
>
> 1. A few companies having control of a market is called oligopoly
> *not* monopoly
>
> 2. Wanting to stop big capitalism but encourage small capitalism is
> *not* revolution, it's REFORM.
If I agree on your defintions will you put down you vocabulary builder
and see the main point. You refuse to allow my viewpoint against the 4
company control of mainstream music. Don't you see how vapid and
dangerous it is to ALL music. It has a lot of people thinking those
grammy awards are actually awarding the Dixie chicks (a local band by the
way that is a band that didn't fall into monopoly control they Jumped -
anybody that likes them deserves them) mean they are the best talent out
there.
>
> Here, let me give you an analogy cos I sense you're fairly dense:
>
> If you wanted to abolish the right to bear arms in the USA, you could
> yourself a Gun Control Revolutionary (or at least abolitionist)
>
> BUT...
>
> If you want to tighten the law on who is allowed to bear arms you
> would call yourself a Gun Control REFORMIST.
>
> So, for the millionth time, just in case you've still missed it: you
> are not a revolutionary by any political, social or (listening to your
> music) musical standard. You are a reformist.
No, you haven't gone to my site and see why I want to end the Gallery
system of art, or alter couture in fashion, or make a new type of film
called short story films, or set up an internet tv, or make Dallas the
center for art distribution outside of the mainstream, or set up on
demand publishing or etc. etc. etc.
>
> >Enough talk. Here's the challenge
>
> No - you first. I give you the challenge of answering ANY of the
> points anyone on ukma has made. You haven't answered even *one* point.
> You just ignore the bits you don't understand or can't answer.
>
> >> As said before, rock was born sucking the teat of capitalism. Wrong
> >> again, duh!
> >It was scary music when it started. It made cities ban it. It was
> >considered as 'race records' It was truely dangerous.
>
> Uhhh - HELLO??? Have you heard of NWA? Ice-T? Have you heard of this
> dangerous music called RAP? I've heard it's become quite popular in
> America but's it's obviously passed you by, you old rocker.
Rap and etc. has caused a whole generation to do what?? Oppose the loss
of melody mixed with beat.
>
> Name one of the 'dangerous' bands you cite that were ever on the FBI's
> official list like NWA were. Or brought down the wrath of the PMRC and
> Tipper and Al Gore?
>
> God, you're so out-of-touch that you don't even recognise the most
> revolutionary music since punk when it's from your own back yard.
>
> I bet you write off the whole of hip-hop, retro as you are.
>
> >Tell people you're against ads and ad driven media and see how they treat
> >you. You'll see how revolutionary it is to side AGAINST ALL ADS.
> >Try this one on any media source. Ads have no positive effect on children
> >whatsoever. And they should be banned from selling children anything
> >ever.
>
> But you don't want to get rid of ALL advertising do you? You're not
> against ALL capitalism therefore you're not against ALL ad agencies
> therefore you are not a revolutionary.
>
> Or are you saying you want to shut down the whole of the advertising
> world? I don't think so - you just want to reform it.
I want an option. A place where there are no ads. Also an end to all
advertising to children.
>
> >> 1. What you're saying isn't revolutionary
What you're saying supports the continued OLIGarchy of corp. art at every
turn by refusing any alt to it.
> >
> >Then tell somebody you think 4 companies are too few and watch how they
> >try to shut you up.
>
> Who is? Have you ever read any Noam Chomsky? Thought about the way
> bourgeios democracies maintain free speech? Have you noticed that you
> can put out your fake-revolutionary fanzine, have your gigs and spout
> all your nonsense on Usenet and *nothing happens*? The NSA aren't
> tapping your phone or intercepting your email cos they don't *care*
> what you say.
Yeah Noam is on American TV all the time. Oh wait a minute, an outside
voice like that is seldom or never heard on mainstream media. That's why
I've started an alt. art news section in my zine.
>
> You aren't even a Marxist - why should they be frightened of you? You
> don't even want to fight capitalism, you just want small business to
> have equal rights. That's not going to worry anyone in the capitalist
> world.
I assure you if you oppose big business you have enemies even total
strangers on newsgroups in countries across the globe.
>
> >> 2. What you're saying isn't about art, it's about COMMERCE.
> >
> >No it's about art being run as commerce and that's the danger.
>
> Nobody runs art. Nobody controls music. A few companies control the
> majority of heard and released recorded music. Can you understand the
> subtle differences here? It's about the fifth time I've said it. Shall
> I draw you a Venn diagram?
>
> >> 3. Everything you do serves to promote yourself, your fanzine and your
> >> *own* music. You should get a job as an A&R man.
> >
> >How many ads did you see on my site. NONE did you say?
>
> I saw about thirty ads. There was one for your revolution, one for you
> as editor, an article by you, another one interviewing you and so-on.
> You advertise YOURSELF.
>
> > If YOU want to stand up for 8 years and fight these 8
> >conglomerates of corp. art and be treated as completely invisible by all
> >your peers, you are welcome to the job.
>
> What have you ever achieved in your fake revolution? Nobody at any
> record label either knows or cares who you are. You've tilted at
> windmills.
You sure know a lot of my background. Oh yeah you don't at all do you.
>
> You have huge delusions of grandeur.
>
> And how come you've now changed it from "4 Old Men" to 8
> conglomerates? Finally done some research to back up your bullshit,
> eh?
No, 4 control all music. They are part of the 8 that control all the
arts. Example one of the OTHER four is Viacom that owns MTV/ VH1 etc.
They too block out all music not from these 4. If you want to extend the
discussion we can go there too. And Disney does rap records too (part of
the 8) You ought to talk to Rap artists about how Disney respect them as
artists - whether I think they are or not.
>
> >But I don't see a big line
> >waiting to lead the revolution.
>
> You are no-one's leader.
So you've talked to the 100's that read my zine every month, and the
100's of clicks on my website daily. That may not sound like much but its
all grass roots stuff. Also look at all the contributors to my site. It's
far from being a one man mission. Go to
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com/stats and it'll show you who's looking
at my site, how many, and what they're looking at. Then ask the Warners
website if they'll do the same thing.
>
> >Lighten up. You haven't heard anything yet. I've been doing this since
> >'92. You've thought about it for an hour or 2 at best not years and years
> >and years.
>
> Again, you are ingorant and offensive. You've been doing this fake
> revolution since '92 you say? Oooohhh - I'm impressed. I had my first
> commercial musical release on an independent label called Graduate in
> 1982. I formed my current band in 1989. I formed my own independent
> label in 1990.
I was recording in the 60's.
>
> In fact, a lot of people on this newsgroup have been independent
> musicians since the mid-eighties. They didn't just start making music
> as a thirty-something hobby like you apparently did.
>
> >That isn't exactly a lark or a whim.
>
> Yes it is - you've only been doing it for eight years. Come back and
> lecture me when that's eighteen years.
>
> >This is my LIFE, as a
> >musician, painter, writer, I'm fighting for the right to have a fair
> >chance to be acknowledged for what talents I have.
>
> No, you're fighting for your right to be in the charts, to be famous.
>
> >Same for my talented
> >friends that are being blocked out of the arts due to the whims of $$$
> >greedy 8 CEO's
> >
> >Go ahead ask some more.
>
> No-one is being blocked from the arts, you're being blocked from the
> charts. Since you can't understand the difference, I can only conclude
> you're too thick to understand any argument.
> love and kisses,
> Jyoti
You working for one of these 4?
t_hendricks
skw...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:59:35 GMT, t_hendricks
> <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
(snip)
For people who claim to have independent minds this forum sure protests
against the "anti 4 company control of music' idea a LOT.
Do you really think the music would suffer if there were a 100 companies
instead of just 4?
Even if you don't agree of the danger, you should welcome an alternate
view to their viewpoint - that controls virtually all the mainstream
media outlets - which they conveniently own.
I can't answer each post as I did today as often as I did today. But any
specific question or comments are welcome. And I'll do what I can. Also
email me if you like.
In the meantime I encourage any who have had encounters with these 4
companies to tell their stories. (A lot of artists get laid off when
these big companies merge for example) And any who want to know more
about the Art Revolution to come to
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com.
Oh yeah I encourage you to ask the same questions to Warners/BMG/Sony/
and Seagrams that you asked me and lets' hear what they tell you.
Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks) Dallas, Tx. USA
Jyoti Mishra
>Also, I must say you've done a great job getting some of the alt heads here
>to argue the "major labels will not destroy the world" case - you are one
>entertainingly obsessed individual.
Oh I know, it's funny, innit? The amount of hassle I've had from major
label shit and I end up arguing with some nutter who can't even look
up the word monopoly in a dictionary. Even the regular troll comps
from uk.misc don't get so much response :-)
>But I agree with Rhodri, 'nuff already (or something like that).
>Steve
Too right. Life's way too short. Hey, any new info on all the ukma
stuff you were suggesting?
love and kisses,
Jyoti
Jyoti Mishra
<snip>
>(wondering, yeah, how come no one else has ever pointed out before
>just how green this Jyoti fellow is... )
I've got the monopoly on youth, y'know. Well, me and a few others...
love and kisses,
Jyoti
Jyoti Mishra
>On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 00:21:33 +0000, rho...@mac.com (Rhodri) wrote:
>>name one time, in any field, where the mainstream has anything to do
>>with art whatsoever
>
>1936-1942, synchronized swimming... Then that bitch Esther Williams
>came in and it wasn't the art anymore, it wasn't the passion, it was
>all bathing caps, bathing caps, bathing caps...
>
>Um, sorry.
>
>Rick
>(blaming the chlorine fumes)
Why bow to the 10 weasel corporations who control the monopoly on
watersports??? Here in NORWICH we have the world swimming REVOLUTION!
Norwich is the centre for that movement and I - Lonnie 'Lenin'
Donnegan - am it's LEADER! You can find a GREAT picture of me with my
cossie on at:
http://www.soggyrevolution.com/me-me-me-me&me.html
FOLLOW ME you brainwashed dupes of the 64 middle-aged women who run
the 23 companies that have the monopoly of aerobic water-based
exercise!
Nobody swims without their permission! They own all the pools (which
they pee in at night, I've heard) and therefore these 256 men in 56
conglomerates have a monopoly on ALL PHYSICAL MOVEMENT!!!
DON'T BE NAIVE! I've been swimming now for nearly THREE WEEKS! This is
no whim - it's my prime recreational fluid-based movement! I got
cramps TWICE in one day! How many of you corporate patsies can say
that, huh!?!?
What you mindless stoats don't realise is that I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS!
BUT ENOUGH TALK! Answer me this IF YOU CAN:
Name me ONE swimmer since 1970 (or 1980) who's appeared on at LEAST 12
different Muppet Christmas specials AND whose left leg looks EXACTLY
like ITALY AND who can roll their tongue into a tube while doing a
double backflip and pike.
YOU CAN'T !!! And that's cos ALL WATERY ACTIVITY IN THE COSMOS is
controlled by the 512 withered vampires who run the 8192 companies who
have a MONOPOLY on EVERYTHING!!!!
When swimming was invented in 1953 it was REVOLUTIONARY ! When a swim
team came to town, they were often stoned and had sex with GIRLS! But
since 1954 that's all CHANGED. In those last 327 years, swimming has
ceased to be a pleasant social activity and instead has been WARPED by
the 0.45 alien grays who control the ten million companies who have a
monopoly on pool cleaning rakes!!!
They give each other MEDALS for their rubbish swimming!! Call that
swimming??? MY SWIMMING IS ACE - WHERE'S MY FUCKING MEDALS!!!???
NO-BASTARD-WHERE! My talent and brilliant doggy paddle are ignored in
favour of SO-CALLED Olympic athletes. OLYMPICS!!!??? More like
MONOPOLYMPICS!!! I sent them my resume and a photocopy of my 25 yards
certificate and what did they reply - NOTHING!!!
But if you try and say that on this group you get SHOUTED DOWN by
WATER CORPORATION apologists! You guys should give new swimmers a
chance and not keep flicking me with your towels in the showers!
THEY TRY TO SILENCE ME BUT THEY WON'T! Read about their brutal
censorship on one of my 23 websites, fanzines, window shades or range
of Franklin Mint SWIMMING REVOLUTION moustache cups, all available at
reasonable prices. Post care of NORWICH, WORLD SWIMMING REVOLUTION
CENTRE, NORFOLK,ENGLAND,BRITAIN, EUROPE, EARTH, THE UUUUNIVERSE!!!
GO ON ASK ME ANYTHING!! I BET I IGNORE IT!!!
love and kisses,
Jyoti
Rhodri
> NORWICH, WORLD SWIMMING REVOLUTION
> CENTRE,
Jyoti, I think I love you.
Rhodri
> Presumably next you'll be claiming that Ant and Rhodri
> are government drones determined to destroy all music...
he already has (!) I beg you all to make use of the killfile...
Mike Landers
<11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Art S Rev. (tom Hendricks)
>http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
>
>(PS new issue of Musea out soon. - NO ADs, no sponsors, no government
>grants (that's government grants from the NEA here in the US the National
>endowments for the ARTs)
No Ads? What the fuck is this, then?
You may have had a point, right at the beginning of this thread. But
a revolution is about more than declaring yourself a revolutionary.
Mike
np: Depon Eye, "Mad Sad Charley May"
--
Mike Landers - plis...@biscuitbarrel.netcomuk.co.uk
Manchester Storm, Fire on Ice - http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~plissken/index.html
Reply address mangled, empty the BISCUITBARREL.
Graeme Fowler
> I can't answer each post as I did today as often as I did today. But any
> specific question or comments are welcome. And I'll do what I can. Also
> email me if you like.
I refer the Honourable Regular Members of UKMA to look to:
for an original, amusing, witty reply to one of this twat's postings on
sci.bio.evolution
A quick search on dejanews turns up 4006 postings, mostly rants, roughly
along the lines of "I know. I know. I know. You're all wrong. It's like
this." in all manner of newsgroups.
*plonk*
That, Mr Art S. Revolutionary Prick, is the sound of a global killfile
in action. Goodbye.
[Maybe I'll look in the spambucket once or twice to see what inane
ramblings have been posted by you. Maybe not]
Graeme
Jyoti Mishra
>Andrew Gambier <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> Presumably next you'll be claiming that Ant and Rhodri
>> are government drones determined to destroy all music...
>
>he already has (!) I beg you all to make use of the killfile...
Yeah, well I think we already know the winner of this year's UKMA " I
Write Good Copy" award...
Andrew... I don't suppose?...naah, I'm just being cruel now,
love and kisses,
Jyoti
Graham Clark
> I refer the Honourable Regular Members of UKMA to look to:
>
> http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=580954793&search=thread&CONTEXT=952084795.1282998321&HIT_CONTEXT=952084795.1282998321&HIT_NUM=59&hitnum=4
>
> for an original, amusing, witty reply to one of this twat's postings on
> sci.bio.evolution
Just to wander offtopic for a moment, did anyone point out that his idea
is very similar to ones discussed by Stephen J Gould in one of the essays in
Leonardo's Mountain Of Clams And the Diet Of Worms?
G.
--
Next Calling : 7th March
12345678902234567890323456789042345678905234567890623456789072345678908234567890
Jim Wraith
>And I'll add one more thing. The idea of a struggling artist of any kind
>(example Van Gogh) is really a very recent developement in the arts. I
>tend to think it came in with the developement of a middle class around
>the turn of the last century. It really is not the norm in history at
>all!
The middle class has always existed, but the "development" of it did
not happen on a real scale until after WWII.
--
Jim Wraith.
Jim Wraith
>> name one time, in any field, where the mainstream has anything to do
>> with art whatsoever
>
>it it didn't go. Specifics: all Greek Plays, Chaucer, all court lit./
>painting/ Dutch painting, Shakespeare and all his contemporaries, etc.
>etc. etc. etc. Even the Impressionist painters were somewhat involved
>with the Salon, and it acknowledged them (corp. art treats indies as
>invisible)
You've completely missed the point again. If I went home, did a
painting, made a sculpture then recorded some songs on my 4
track, that would be art, and the only people who would have
"acknowledged" it, would be me. You're saying, and correct me if
I'm wrong (and I know you will), that the mainstream must like a
work of art *for it to become part of the mainstream*.
--
Jim Wraith.
t_hendricks
You're not wrong when it's your opinion. Here's mine. No what I'm saying
is that the Corporate Art 8 must grant you their permission before
anything you do has a chance to be seen, or heard by anyone outside of
your bedroom (unless you want to spend your whole life doing what you
love and what you are good at in total obscurity). In music that means
access to commercial radio, their review media, their film soundtrack
albums, their talk shows, and awards shows that spotlight their artists
only, etc. etc.
AND they will not grant that permission unless you'll make them $$$$$
You notice that nowhere do I say that the head of Sony must like your
music (he couldn't care less) or that the BMG overlord likes your book
(they own Doubleday the biggest publisher in the US), they only care
about satisfying the needs of the board of directors.
And while I'm here let me say how this can all be changed:
Here's what Musea advocates to make things right:
Make it clear that these companies can
EITHER make the art
OR distribute the art ( I'm talking film, tv, cable tv, music,
publishing, media, theater, etc. etc.)
BUT THEY CAN'T CONTROL BOTH and THE MEDIA THAT SUPPOSEDLY IS THE WATCHDOG
FOR ANTI TRADE PRACTICES.
If this was the case, you would see an incredible golden age of art NOT
hiding on the perimeter but in the limelight, and art would once again be
judged on quality not promo dollars.
Come see more at
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com (we have the zine hall of fame)
Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks)
>
t_hendricks
Andrew Gambier <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In <89n631$hko$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks wrote:
>
> (to Jyoti)
>
> >
> >that you are so brainwashed by them that you are vehemently defending
> >them when even one voice thousands and thousands of miles away opposes
> >them. You should be welcoming a different viewpoint.
>
> are government drones determined to destroy all music...
Well then tell me who they are and why are they opposing a voice against
the 4 company control?
Methinks they protest TOO much!
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
>
> --
> andrew
> http://www.mp3.com/thelefthandedgun
t_hendricks
> >>name one time, in any field, where the mainstream has anything to do
> >>with art whatsoever
> >
How cute and clever. But when the Brit awards show happens tonight and
Clapton, And Elton John , and Sting get all the awards for their worst
work, will you laugh about that?
When you refuse to condemn the control of these conglomerates you condone
their behavior.
For those who agree with me come see what the art rev is really about.
go to The Index of the Best of Musea, or Back issues and Articles, both
listed on our contents page at
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com (and we're working on that long loading
front page.)
(P.S. all the arguments dried up real quick after I responded last nite.
An essay on swimmers and that's the best arguments you can do? You should
be supporting the art revolution instead of talking against it or AROUND
it.
Art S Revolutionary (tom hendricks) Dallas, Texas.
Andrew Gambier
>
>Well then tell me who they are and why are they opposing a voice against
>the 4 company control?
You can't know who they are because they're not allowed to advertise.
--
andrew
http://www.mp3.com/thelefthandedgun
Jim Wraith
>You're not wrong when it's your opinion. Here's mine. No what I'm saying
>is that the Corporate Art 8 must grant you their permission before
<snip blah blah blah>
>rt would once again be
>judged on quality not promo dollars.
>
>Come see more at
>http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com (we have the zine hall of fame)
>
>Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks)
Right, you win, now fuck off.
Come on lads, we're all moving to a commune.
--
Jim Wraith.
Robf
is
> >all about, then let me hear your comments
>
> I came, I saw, I was very unimpressed. I'm now beginning to think
> you're just another vapid self-promoter. All you talk about is
> yourself and your meaningless, addled faux-revolution.
If your revolution began in 1992 - aren't you a bit fucked off that it's
not caught on yet?
I know they say revolutions don't happen overnight but, I mean, 8 years??
You must be smashing the state *VERY* slowly.
Jim Wraith
>You must be smashing the state *VERY* slowly.
"Smashing the state, brick by brick"
--
Jim Wraith.
Andrew Gambier
>How delightful a response. Did you feel the same delight when Warner
>Brothers, earlier this year, bought EMI the last British Record Company?
>You should be outraged. I was.
Why? I don't really buy much music released on either EMI or Warner
brothers. And why are you getting your knickers in a twist here about
it? This isn't really the forum for EMI worship.
--
andrew
http://www.mp3.com/thelefthandedgun
t_hendricks
"Robf" <a...@mcmail.com> wrote:
> > >Come here and see what the art revolution that began in Dallas in "92
> is
> > >all about, then let me hear your comments
> >
> > I came, I saw, I was very unimpressed. I'm now beginning to think
> > you're just another vapid self-promoter. All you talk about is
> > yourself and your meaningless, addled faux-revolution.
>
> If your revolution began in 1992 - aren't you a bit fucked off that it's
> not caught on yet?
>
> You must be smashing the state *VERY* slowly.
It isn't easy that's for sure. BUT I'm doing good art work: music,
painting, writing, AND I'm promoting a lot of zines, artists, etc. on my
sight that are doing good work. Corporate Art has no legacy to hold on
to, while me and my friends are enjoying a golden age of creativity and
quality art.
Also I'm far from alone. Virtually all the press outside of corporate art
is raising questions about so much control in so few hands, even
Corporate art owned media , raises that question with every merger (yet
they always end up saying its no problem ) plus a constant fear on the
part of these 8 conglomerates that the Government will refuse to allow
these recent mergers. Though it hasn't done much yet.
Also don't forget who owns the media. Have you ever heard of zines? They
are the 1,000's and 1,000's of underground publications, that evolved
from punk fanzines, that have sprung up in every country on the planet.
Zinesters have been making zines since 1980. Yet they have yet to be
mentioned in the mainstream media. Imagine 20 years after Rock and Roll
began - 1976, and still no one in the press has talked about Elvis,
Beatles, James Brown, Doors, etc. That's the way it is today with zines.
It's Orwell's 1984 and Corporate Art is re writing history with zines as
invisible (as well as any art outside their control. For more on zines go
to www.undergroundpress.org)
Also it's tough when people, like those on this post, refuse to see the
danger of so few controlling so much.
It's uphill all the way.
Art S Revolutiionary (tom hendricks editor of Musea)
t_hendricks
Graeme Fowler <gra...@lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
> t_hendricks wrote:
> > I can't answer each post as I did today as often as I did today. But any
> > specific question or comments are welcome. And I'll do what I can. Also
> > email me if you like.
>
>
> http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=580954793&search=thread&CONTEXT=952084795.1282998321&HIT_CONTEXT=952084795.1282998321&HIT_NUM=59&hitnum=4
>
> for an original, amusing, witty reply to one of this twat's postings on
> sci.bio.evolution
>
> along the lines of "I know. I know. I know. You're all wrong. It's like
> this." in all manner of newsgroups.
>
> *plonk*
>
> That, Mr Art S. Revolutionary Prick, is the sound of a global killfile
> in action. Goodbye.
>
> [Maybe I'll look in the spambucket once or twice to see what inane
> ramblings have been posted by you. Maybe not]
>
> Graeme
So your are supporting the 4 company control of music and the sale of EMI
the last British music, company to Warners?
You think I'm funny but when Spice Girls get awards for musical ability
you take that serious?
Art S Revolutionary (tom Hendricks editor of the zine Musea
t_hendricks
Graeme Fowler <gra...@lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
> t_hendricks wrote:
> > I can't answer each post as I did today as often as I did today. But any
> > specific question or comments are welcome. And I'll do what I can. Also
> > email me if you like.
>
> I refer the Honourable Regular Members of UKMA to look to:
>
> http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=580954793&search=thread&CONTEXT=952084795.1282998321&HIT_CONTEXT=952084795.1282998321&HIT_NUM=59&hitnum=4
>
> for an original, amusing, witty reply to one of this twat's postings on
> sci.bio.evolution
In fairness, be sure to read the entire thread. This post he's got above
gets very interesting.
>
> A quick search on dejanews turns up 4006 postings, mostly rants, roughly
> along the lines of "I know. I know. I know. You're all wrong. It's like
> this." in all manner of newsgroups.
>
> *plonk*
>
> That, Mr Art S. Revolutionary Prick, is the sound of a global killfile
> in action. Goodbye.
>
> [Maybe I'll look in the spambucket once or twice to see what inane
> ramblings have been posted by you. Maybe not]
>
> Graeme
>
t_hendricks
Andrew Gambier <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In <89q09i$i7v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks wrote:
> >
> >Well then tell me who they are and why are they opposing a voice against
> >the 4 company control?
>
> You can't know who they are because they're not allowed to advertise.
How delightful a response. Did you feel the same delight when Warner
Brothers, earlier this year, bought EMI the last British Record Company?
You should be outraged. I was.
>
> --
> andrew
> http://www.mp3.com/thelefthandedgun
A.J. Norman
> But when the Brit awards show happens tonight and Clapton, And Elton
> John , and Sting get all the awards for their worst work, will you
> laugh about that?
Yes. Are you really so shallow you take any notice of these awards?
--
Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
n...@le.ac.uk || andrew...@le.ac.uk
http://www.le.ac.uk/engineering/nja/
t_hendricks
n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) wrote:
> In article <89q0tv$ikr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks
> <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > But when the Brit awards show happens tonight and Clapton, And Elton
> > John , and Sting get all the awards for their worst work, will you
> > laugh about that?
>
> Yes. Are you really so shallow you take any notice of these awards?
Are you really so dense you don't see the danger? These awards are re
writing musical history. They are LYING to everyone that these acts
count. That is LYING, that is art companies lying and cheating and
manipulating the public with false propaganda. Your country just lost its
last record company. Real talented artists are being discriminated
against because they are too old, or not pretty enough for the CD cover,
or they have messages that have been censored by these 4 weasel
conglomerates. This is the real news. Do you believe in karma? Karma is
the awards that count. How far will you allow major corporations to
rewrite history before you're alarmed. If you haven't read 1984 please
do. Will you continue to allow a handful of corporations to sell you a
product (recordings) that are so defective as these and then give them
awards? What next? How about awards for nuclear disasters, or ruining the
environment or turning the public into mindless zombies with pap for
media. You don't mind those either do you? Well get ready for them. And
you think it won't happen.
EXAMPLE ALMOST 1 MILLION PEOPLE WERE HACKED TO DEATH IN RWANDA IN 1994
AND THE MEDIA LOOKED THE OTHER AWAY. How about giving the media and the
western governments, and the religious leaders, that looked the other
way- awards. Why not? NO ONE TAKES THEM SERIOUSLY oh except the corpses.
This is real life Åndrew. If you don't take a side against them then you
side with them and then I'm against you.
Art S Revolutionary, tom hendricks
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com/newdex.html
> Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
> n...@le.ac.uk || andrew...@le.ac.uk
> http://www.le.ac.uk/engineering/nja/
>
t_hendricks
Andrew Gambier <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In <89v9hf$vnt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks wrote:
>
> >How delightful a response. Did you feel the same delight when Warner
> >Brothers, earlier this year, bought EMI the last British Record Company?
> >You should be outraged. I was.
>
> brothers. And why are you getting your knickers in a twist here about
> it? This isn't really the forum for EMI worship.
I see your point. Why doesn't the US just buy your whole country and kick
you out. You wouldn't care would you? If this isn't the forum then what
is? There is NO FORUM TO TALK AGAINST THE 8 COMPANIES THAT CONTROL
CORPORATE ART. They refuse to be criticised, they refuse to talk about
opposition to their practices from the thousands and thousands of people
that are alarmed, they treat the world as a Disney Theme Park for
Stepford Wives - and if you don't obey Goofy's rules you're out. And you
seem so brainwashed you don't even see it.
I assure you the more you know about music and the music industry the
more alarmed you'd be. I encourage you to talk to anybody that has
actually had some contact with Corporate Art 8. You'll hear what I'm
saying reinforced a 100 times
They are: Disney, WB, Sony, Seagrams, Viacom, Fox, BMG, GE/NBC
Art S Revolutionary (tom hendricks editor of the zine Musea)
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com/newdex.html
>
> --
> andrew
> http://www.mp3.com/thelefthandedgun
Barry Young
>In article <8a01o8$3k...@owl.le.ac.uk>,
> n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) wrote:
>> In article <89q0tv$ikr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks
>> <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> > But when the Brit awards show happens tonight and Clapton, And Elton
>> > John , and Sting get all the awards for their worst work, will you
>> > laugh about that?
>>
>> Yes. Are you really so shallow you take any notice of these awards?
>
>Are you really so dense you don't see the danger? These awards are re
>writing musical history. They are LYING to everyone that these acts
>count. That is LYING, that is art companies lying and cheating and
<blah blah blah>
>western governments, and the religious leaders, that looked the other
>way- awards. Why not? NO ONE TAKES THEM SERIOUSLY oh except the corpses.
>This is real life Åndrew. If you don't take a side against them then you
>side with them and then I'm against you.
>
>Art S Revolutionary, tom hendricks
>http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com/newdex.html
This guy's barking. Cool. And as for four old men controlling the music
industry, well it's good that they're finding something to do with
themselves. There's nothing worse than old people just sitting around
smelling of piss, eh?
Baz
PS And as for the yanks taking over our country, they're welcome to it.
I'm fucking off somewhere nice and warm first chance I get (maybe not
that straightforward, but nevermind, eh?).
PPS I don't suppose anyone's an expert on this, but y'know those demo
tunes you get on 30 quid Casio keyboards? Well, does one of them do a
cheesy disco version of American Pie? 'Cos I think I've sussed out that
nice Mr Orbit guy...
--
Barry Young
School of Biological Sciences
University of Manchester
Manchester
UK
Andrew Gambier
>I encourage you to talk to anybody that has
>actually had some contact with Corporate Art 8.
I thought it was four men? Did they just undergo mitosis?
Anyhow. The Big 4/8 are irrelevant. They can't stop four spotty kids
with bad hair and three broken strings hacking out Louie Louie in their
bedroom (and thence onto -hopefully- better things). And this is where
great music is born. Not in the majors. The irony of the situation is,
often when the best music is being made, the majors simply aren't
interested.
--
andrew
http://www.mp3.com/thelefthandedgun
Anthony Chapman
<11237...@compuserve.com> writes
>
>It isn't easy that's for sure. BUT I'm doing good art work: music,
>painting, writing, AND I'm promoting a lot of zines, artists, etc. on my
>sight that are doing good work. Corporate Art has no legacy to hold on
>to, while me and my friends are enjoying a golden age of creativity and
>quality art.
>
checked out your music, and it's very very poor.
>Also I'm far from alone. Virtually all the press outside of corporate art
>is raising questions about so much control in so few hands, even
>Corporate art owned media
[SNIP]
Listen buddy - haven't you got the message yet.
WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR PARANOID LITTLE WANK-FANTASIES! Did one of the
"4 Men" controlling music tell you the truth about your derivative and
unimaginative music? Did you cry? Did you vow to smash their
"stranglehold" on the music industry via a barrage of annoyingly
incomprehensible posts on irrelevant newsgroups?
Also, how dare you come here and try to tell us how we can "revolt"
against these companies. You should do some research before weighing
in. There are people on this group who are completely independent from
the companies you refer to, and seem to be doing OK. Also, there's one
person who gave EMI a right good fucking up the proverbial arse - but
that's another story.
So - before I killfile you, just ask yourself this question, and be
honest with yourself. "Is my art really any good?". Do it. Think it
over, and really be honest with yourself. I think we all know what the
answer will be.
Goodbye
[plonk]
--
Anthony Chapman
t_hendricks
Andrew Gambier <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In <8a11k9$74p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks wrote:
>
> >I encourage you to talk to anybody that has
> >actually had some contact with Corporate Art 8.
>
> I thought it was four men? Did they just undergo mitosis?
4 For music. Add 4 more and you have all film, most tv, cable, major book
publishing, and most media.
>
> Anyhow. The Big 4/8 are irrelevant. They can't stop four spotty kids
> with bad hair and three broken strings hacking out Louie Louie in their
> bedroom (and thence onto -hopefully- better things). And this is where
> great music is born. Not in the majors. The irony of the situation is,
> often when the best music is being made, the majors simply aren't
> interested.
>
> --
> andrew
> http://www.mp3.com/thelefthandedgun
>
Rhodri
> I'm glad your "sight" is helping you and your friends good work. I
> checked out your music, and it's very very poor.
nah, it's worse than that.
--
Rhodri http://www.gyoker.demon.co.uk/ rho...@mac.com
"Congratulations! You're lucky and you didn't know it, did you?"
"No, I wasn't absolutely sure about it...." --------- W C Fields
A.J. Norman
> In article <8a01o8$3k...@owl.le.ac.uk>, n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman)
> wrote:
>> In article <89q0tv$ikr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks
>> <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>> But when the Brit awards show happens tonight and Clapton, And
>>> Elton John , and Sting get all the awards for their worst work,
>>> will you laugh about that?
>> Yes. Are you really so shallow you take any notice of these awards?
> Are you really so dense you don't see the danger? These awards are
> re writing musical history.
about people in the industry sticking their hands down each other's
trousers, nothing more.
> They are LYING to everyone that these acts count. That is LYING,
> company.
> Real talented artists are being discriminated against because they
> are too old, or not pretty enough for the CD cover, or they have
> messages that have been censored by these 4 weasel conglomerates.
> This is the real news.
offices, preferably. Judging by the MP3s on your website you ought to
be contacting Van Morrison and Lonnie Donegan about their attempts to
revive skiffle.
> Do you believe in karma? Karma is the awards that count. How far
> will you allow major corporations to rewrite history before you're
> alarmed.
> If you haven't read 1984 please do.
Read it. Have you read "A Confederacy of Dunces"? One of the
characters reminds me of you.
> Will you continue to allow a handful of corporations to sell you a
> product (recordings) that are so defective as these and then give
> them awards? What next?
I don't allow a handful of corporations to sell me anything. Most of
the music I listen to comes from the UK's thriving independent record
labels.
> How about awards for nuclear disasters, or ruining the environment
> or turning the public into mindless zombies with pap for media. You
> don't mind those either do you? Well get ready for them. And you
> think it won't happen.
No, I think they already happen and I don't take any notice of them.
> EXAMPLE ALMOST 1 MILLION PEOPLE WERE HACKED TO DEATH IN RWANDA IN
> 1994 AND THE MEDIA LOOKED THE OTHER AWAY. How about giving the media
> and the western governments, and the religious leaders, that looked
> the other way- awards. Why not?
Which media looked the other way? I saw and heard plenty about this
and I still see articles about it in the papers. I think you need to
get out more and not simply accept what you are force-fed.
> NO ONE TAKES THEM SERIOUSLY oh except the corpses. This is real life
> Åndrew. If you don't take a side against them then you side with
> them and then I'm against you.
Cool! I have a typographical gimmick now, just like Mötörhead!
--
A.J. Norman
> Anthony Chapman <a...@achap.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'm glad your "sight" is helping you and your friends good work. I
>> checked out your music, and it's very very poor.
> nah, it's worse than that.
It's the sort of thing my granny would think was middle-of-the-road
pap. I was at least expecting some sort of deranged lo-fi
eccentricity, but most of it sounds like one of those "learn to play
the keyboards" tapes.
Robyn Wilder
>Stepford Wives - and if you don't obey Goofy's rules you're out. And you
>seem so brainwashed you don't even see it.
*Sigh*
And this, kids, is what happens when you drink too much Sunny Delight.
robyn
www.brainfudge.co.uk
*sometimes a sitar is just a sitar*
t_hendricks
n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) wrote:
> In article <8a10mr$6ib$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks
> <t_hen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8a01o8$3k...@owl.le.ac.uk>, n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman)
> > wrote:
> >> In article <89q0tv$ikr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks
> >> <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >>> But when the Brit awards show happens tonight and Clapton, And
> >>> Elton John , and Sting get all the awards for their worst work,
> >>> will you laugh about that?
> >> Yes. Are you really so shallow you take any notice of these awards?
> > Are you really so dense you don't see the danger? These awards are
> > re writing musical history.
>
> Only for the idiots who take them seriously. Awards of any variety are
> about people in the industry sticking their hands down each other's
> trousers, nothing more.
They didn't used to be. They've brainwashed you into thinking that awards
are set up to benefit the worst of talent.
>
> > They are LYING to everyone that these acts count. That is LYING,
> > that is art companies lying and cheating and manipulating the public
> > with false propaganda. Your country just lost its last record
> > company.
>
> Wrong. You know nothing about UK record companies, do you?
>
> > Real talented artists are being discriminated against because they
> > are too old, or not pretty enough for the CD cover, or they have
> > messages that have been censored by these 4 weasel conglomerates.
> > This is the real news.
>
> Name a few. A few who have a better gimmick than playing in cinema box
> offices, preferably. Judging by the MP3s on your website you ought to
> be contacting Van Morrison and Lonnie Donegan about their attempts to
> revive skiffle.
How about this. Name me ANY new artist on any major label that's under
25.
> > Do you believe in karma? Karma is the awards that count. How far
> > will you allow major corporations to rewrite history before you're
> > alarmed.
>
> Who's been airbrushed out, then?
Any artist with talent. You said yourself the awards shows are shams. Why
shouldn't the talented musicians get the awards for being talented?
As it is now it's like dead dogs winning dog shows!
>
> > If you haven't read 1984 please do.
>
> Read it. Have you read "A Confederacy of Dunces"? One of the
> characters reminds me of you.
Sure, that's nearer where I live and a great book. But back to 1984. In
it there were THREE countries that controlled everything. In music there
are FOUR companies. You think you have freedom to hear what you want. You
don't. The minute you want to hear any music that attacks these
conglomerates you will be shut up. Hey but don't trust me. Go ask the BBC
if they've covered the 8 company monopoly of arts, or the art revolution,
or zines. IF they haven't you'd better start worrying about your media
too.
>
> > Will you continue to allow a handful of corporations to sell you a
> > product (recordings) that are so defective as these and then give
> > them awards? What next?
>
> I don't allow a handful of corporations to sell me anything. Most of
> the music I listen to comes from the UK's thriving independent record
> labels.
Thriving? By allowing 4 to control everything you're condemming any
indie to permanent poverty, obscurity and a lack of support.
>
> > How about awards for nuclear disasters, or ruining the environment
> > or turning the public into mindless zombies with pap for media. You
> > don't mind those either do you? Well get ready for them. And you
> > think it won't happen.
>
> No, I think they already happen and I don't take any notice of them.
Head in the sand hey?
>
> > EXAMPLE ALMOST 1 MILLION PEOPLE WERE HACKED TO DEATH IN RWANDA IN
> > 1994 AND THE MEDIA LOOKED THE OTHER AWAY. How about giving the media
> > and the western governments, and the religious leaders, that looked
> > the other way- awards. Why not?
>
> Which media looked the other way? I saw and heard plenty about this
> and I still see articles about it in the papers. I think you need to
> get out more and not simply accept what you are force-fed.
So what did the western countries do during that holocaust. Uh nothing.
>
> > NO ONE TAKES THEM SERIOUSLY oh except the corpses. This is real life
> > Åndrew. If you don't take a side against them then you side with
> > them and then I'm against you.
>
> Cool! I have a typographical gimmick now, just like Mötörhead!
>
> --
> Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
> n...@le.ac.uk || andrew...@le.ac.uk
> http://www.le.ac.uk/engineering/nja/
>
t_hendricks
n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) wrote:
> In article <1e7457n.134tgy518ha3aqN%rho...@mac.com>, Rhodri
> <rho...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Anthony Chapman <a...@achap.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm glad your "sight" is helping you and your friends good work. I
> >> checked out your music, and it's very very poor.
> > nah, it's worse than that.
>
> It's the sort of thing my granny would think was middle-of-the-road
> pap. I was at least expecting some sort of deranged lo-fi
> eccentricity, but most of it sounds like one of those "learn to play
> the keyboards" tapes.
>
> Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
> n...@le.ac.uk || andrew...@le.ac.uk
> http://www.le.ac.uk/engineering/nja/
You don't get it do you. The site is a no format music site. That means
the one or two songs you heard where part of a variety of formats.
Another listener said it was Van Morrison or skiffle like. He heard
totally different music.
Here's where I think my work is good. It is NOT psychotic rhythm only
tracks, it is NOT sappy, it is rhythm with melody in no format
whatsoever. Where there are lyrics, the lyrics are well written and
actually communicate something (ex. listen to Stories or Dallas or the
History of Rock And Roll) And if that isn't revolutionary enough go to
Hunkasaurus's resume. And by the way, Yes I play in a theater box
office. Anyone else in the world doing that? If not then that is another
way my work is original. Something music has not been in a long time.
Rhodri
> > Which media looked the other way? I saw and heard plenty about this
> > and I still see articles about it in the papers. I think you need to
> > get out more and not simply accept what you are force-fed.
>
> So what did the western countries do during that holocaust. Uh nothing.
I beg all right thinking people to killfile this arse and not to rise to
his bait.
A.J. Norman
> How about this. Name me ANY new artist on any major label that's
> under 25.
The UK charts are full of major label artists under 25. The main cash
cows at the moment are the boy bands and female equivalents, and they
can't all be lying about their ages.
> You said yourself the awards shows are shams. Why shouldn't the
> talented musicians get the awards for being talented? As it is now
> it's like dead dogs winning dog shows!
Why should any artist with talent give a toss about being awarded a
gong?
>>
>>> If you haven't read 1984 please do.
>> Read it. Have you read "A Confederacy of Dunces"? One of the
>> characters reminds me of you.
> Sure, that's nearer where I live and a great book. But back to 1984.
> In it there were THREE countries that controlled everything. In
> music there are FOUR companies. You think you have freedom to hear
> what you want. You don't. The minute you want to hear any music that
> attacks these conglomerates you will be shut up. Hey but don't trust
> me. Go ask the BBC if they've covered the 8 company monopoly of
> arts, or the art revolution, or zines. IF they haven't you'd better
> start worrying about your media too.
There is no monopoly. BBC radio plays plenty of music on independent
labels. I don't think anyone is desperate enough to make a TV program
about your Texas skiffle revival, unless you redecorate people's
sitting rooms or rearrange their gardens while you play.
>> I don't allow a handful of corporations to sell me anything. Most
>> of the music I listen to comes from the UK's thriving independent
>> record labels.
> Thriving? By allowing 4 to control everything you're condemming any
> indie to permanent poverty, obscurity and a lack of support.
They don't control everything. Domino (as far as I know a completely
independent label) currently has huge promotional campaigns in all
the major chains of shops which you claim are "controlled". Hardly
obscure.
Mike Landers
<11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>So what did the western countries do during that holocaust. Uh nothing.
Godwin invoked. You lose.
*plonk*
Mike
np: The Bloodhound Gang (sorry)
--
Mike Landers - plis...@biscuitbarrel.netcomuk.co.uk
Manchester Storm, Fire on Ice - http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~plissken/index.html
Reply address mangled, empty the BISCUITBARREL.
t_hendricks
n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) wrote:
> In article <8a4oer$trl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, t_hendricks
> <11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > How about this. Name me ANY new artist on any major label that's
> > under 25.
>
> The UK charts are full of major label artists under 25. The main cash
> cows at the moment are the boy bands and female equivalents, and they
> can't all be lying about their ages.
I meant OVER 25. As you point out, every new artist is under.
>
> > You said yourself the awards shows are shams. Why shouldn't the
> > talented musicians get the awards for being talented? As it is now
> > it's like dead dogs winning dog shows!
>
> Why should any artist with talent give a toss about being awarded a
> gong?
Hey same for the Nobel Prize too. Let's give it to the Spice Girls
>
> >>
> >>> If you haven't read 1984 please do.
> >> Read it. Have you read "A Confederacy of Dunces"? One of the
> >> characters reminds me of you.
> > Sure, that's nearer where I live and a great book. But back to 1984.
> > In it there were THREE countries that controlled everything. In
> > music there are FOUR companies. You think you have freedom to hear
> > what you want. You don't. The minute you want to hear any music that
> > attacks these conglomerates you will be shut up. Hey but don't trust
> > me. Go ask the BBC if they've covered the 8 company monopoly of
> > arts, or the art revolution, or zines. IF they haven't you'd better
> > start worrying about your media too.
>
> There is no monopoly. BBC radio plays plenty of music on independent
> labels. I don't think anyone is desperate enough to make a TV program
> about your Texas skiffle revival, unless you redecorate people's
> sitting rooms or rearrange their gardens while you play.
You heard the guitar music but none of the keyboard bagatelles, or the
recitation, or the jazz, or the Spanish sounding stuff, or the full band
stuff. No format means a lot of different formats. Doing just one format
is what these 4 market best.
>
> >> I don't allow a handful of corporations to sell me anything. Most
> >> of the music I listen to comes from the UK's thriving independent
> >> record labels.
> > Thriving? By allowing 4 to control everything you're condemming any
> > indie to permanent poverty, obscurity and a lack of support.
>
> They don't control everything. Domino (as far as I know a completely
> independent label) currently has huge promotional campaigns in all
> the major chains of shops which you claim are "controlled". Hardly
> obscure.
Again I challenge you to go to the BBC and ask them hom many stories
they've done on 1. zines 2. the 4 company control of all music and the
continual conglomeration of all art and media, and 3. the art revolution.
If you're getting the complete truth you would have heard all 3 stories.
And in the end if you support Indies then you'll want them to get a fair
deal. And the only way they'll get a fair deal is if you and others
oppose the monopolistic control of these 4 conglomerates. ASK ANY INDIE
or anybody in the business.
Art S Revolutionary (http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com/newdex.html
>
> --
> Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
> n...@le.ac.uk || andrew...@le.ac.uk
> http://www.le.ac.uk/engineering/nja/
>
John Daglish
>
> In article <8a2m9q$3l...@owl.le.ac.uk>,
> n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) wrote:
> > In article <1e7457n.134tgy518ha3aqN%rho...@mac.com>, Rhodri
> > <rho...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > Anthony Chapman <a...@achap.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm glad your "sight" is helping you and your friends good work. I
> > >> checked out your music, and it's very very poor.
> > > nah, it's worse than that.
> >
> > It's the sort of thing my granny would think was middle-of-the-road
> > pap. I was at least expecting some sort of deranged lo-fi
> > eccentricity, but most of it sounds like one of those "learn to play
> > the keyboards" tapes.
> >
> > Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
> > n...@le.ac.uk || andrew...@le.ac.uk
> > http://www.le.ac.uk/engineering/nja/
>
> the one or two songs you heard where part of a variety of formats.
> Another listener said it was Van Morrison or skiffle like. He heard
> totally different music.
>
> Here's where I think my work is good. It is NOT psychotic rhythm only
> tracks, it is NOT sappy, it is rhythm with melody in no format
> whatsoever. Where there are lyrics, the lyrics are well written and
> actually communicate something (ex. listen to Stories or Dallas or the
> History of Rock And Roll) And if that isn't revolutionary enough go to
> Hunkasaurus's resume. And by the way, Yes I play in a theater box
> office. Anyone else in the world doing that? If not then that is another
> way my work is original. Something music has not been in a long time.
> >
Hmm playing in a theatre box office, I'm sure over here that's called
busking, which can be a hugely succesful way of life if you do it right.
Do you have a dog on a string, and what do you collect the coppers in?