Wallmart Censorship
Drew Golden
Hello fellow Netizins:
Just a gentile reminder/warning/something I did not know.
Apparently, what you purchase at Wallmart may have been censored for your
protection!
I purchased the Jerkey Boys new tape - and was horrified driving home that
all of the "not Christian" words had been bleeped over.
The horror part was that there was no warning on the package that this
material had been "edited" for my protection.
Apparently, this gentle censorship can go on without warning or prior
notice. Bastards.
Well, they lost me as a customer.
drew
Richard Bossard
I thought everyone knew about this. Wal-Mart only sells "sanitized"
versions of tapes and CD's. If you want to be guaranteed of getting the
real version of any of the above DO NOT buy it at Wal-Mart.
Drew Golden <gol...@nospam.nb.net> wrote in article
<34803...@news4.kcdata.com>...
pa...@telerama.com
"Drew Golden" <gol...@nospam.nb.net> writes:
> Hello fellow Netizins:
>
> Just a gentile reminder/warning/something I did not know.
>
> Apparently, what you purchase at Wallmart may have been censored for your
> protection!
>
> I purchased the Jerkey Boys new tape - and was horrified driving home that
> all of the "not Christian" words had been bleeped over.
>
> The horror part was that there was no warning on the package that this
> material had been "edited" for my protection.
>
> Apparently, this gentle censorship can go on without warning or prior
> notice. Bastards.
>
> Well, they lost me as a customer.
>
> drew
>
>
being open on Thanksgiving the #1 family holliday in this country just so they can get
a few dollars more. I say BOYCOTT Walmart.
Sean McCune
It would be censorship if the government censored it everywhere.
Wal-Mart is free to sell or not sell what merchandise it chooses. You
are free to buy there or not, and to buy somewhere else...or not.
That's true freedom all around. To suggest that a particular merchant
must sell ALL manner of products, even those it finds objectionable, is
as tyrannical as government censoring it everywhere. In a free market
and society, the merchant is free not to sell such merchandise. And if
there is a market for it, there will be someone else selling it.
I agree, however, that it should be labelled. The record companies put
out two versions of these tapes/CD's, so it is their fault if they do
not label them properly.
Drew Golden
Sean McCune wrote in message <34823D64...@usa.net>...
>It would be censorship if the government censored it everywhere.
>Wal-Mart is free to sell or not sell what merchandise it chooses. You
The big joke was on me. It is somehow 'common' knowlage that they do this
all the time (along with purchasing cheap child-slave made clothes.) I know
some stores do not carry nudie magazines because they are more easily found
objectionable; but to actually review adjendas to make sure they follow
whatever self promoting christian dogma - and to quitely do this on the
sly - this is what I find offensive.
>
>I agree, however, that it should be labelled. The record companies put
It was pointed out to me while I was insistantly demanding my money back,
that WallMart does label, in very small print next to the price, the word
EDITED (it was in very small, lowercase print.) This is supposed to be the
clue. Nothing else. I had scanned the packaging tediously searching for an
indication and had somehow missed it completely.
You will never catch me in Wallmart again. I disagree with quiet
sensorship.
drew
Sean P Hart
Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 29-Nov-97 Wallmart Censorship by
"Drew Golden"@nospam.nb.
> Hello fellow Netizins:
>
> Just a gentile reminder/warning/something I did not know.
>
> Apparently, what you purchase at Wallmart may have been censored for your
> protection!
>
> I purchased the Jerkey Boys new tape - and was horrified driving home that
> all of the "not Christian" words had been bleeped over.
>
> The horror part was that there was no warning on the package that this
> material had been "edited" for my protection.
>
> Apparently, this gentle censorship can go on without warning or prior
> notice. Bastards.
>
> Well, they lost me as a customer.
>
> drew
>
This censorship takes place at the record label. It's not like Wal-Mart
goes and burns the CDs themselves. I stand very much against
censorship, but in this case, Wal-Mart is a private company -- they have
the right to sell or not sell whatever they want. If a record label
wishes to conform to Wal-Mart's standards, then so be it. However, I do
agree that it would be nice if they included a label that said "Clean
Version" or something like that.
Sean McCune
Drew Golden wrote:
> Sean McCune wrote in message <34823D64...@usa.net>...
> >It would be censorship if the government censored it everywhere.
> >Wal-Mart is free to sell or not sell what merchandise it chooses.
> You
>
> The big joke was on me. It is somehow 'common' knowlage that they do
> this
> all the time (along with purchasing cheap child-slave made clothes.)
> I know
> some stores do not carry nudie magazines because they are more easily
> found
> objectionable; but to actually review adjendas to make sure they
> follow
> whatever self promoting christian dogma - and to quitely do this on
> the
> sly - this is what I find offensive.
>
You may find it offensive, but that's tough.They're free to sell what
merchandise they want to, and to NOT sell what merchandise they don't
want to. If they make their choices based on Christian teaching, that's
their business, because, well...it IS their business. And again, the
record company, not Wal-Mart, is the one putting out the different
versions. Wal-Mart is just choosing which one it will sell, which is
perfectly legitimate. And if the record company only puts out the
unedited version, then Wal-Mart would probably choose not to sell it at
all, which is also perfectly legitimate. Its not censorship, its just
business decisions. If the GOVERNMENT wasn't permitting the unedited
one to be sold anywhere by anyone, that would be censorship.
> You will never catch me in Wallmart again. I disagree with quiet
> sensorship.
>
Its not censorship, its a business decision.
> drew
Anonymous
In article <slrn68716...@unix3.netaxs.com>, py...@netaxs.com
(Matthew Schnierle) wrote:
> YM moral decision. They would probably sell more music if they sold the
> "uncut" stuff.
That statement certainly says something about our society.
> On the flipside, Walmart might be aiming for the "thumping" market share by
> selling the Tipper versions of popular albums....
I certainly think they are setting a trend for good business. They will make
money on this, wait and see. I'd better buy some stock now.
Anonymous
In article <3482b...@news4.kcdata.com>, "Drew Golden"
<gol...@nospam.nb.net> wrote:
> The big joke was on me. It is somehow 'common' knowlage that they do this
> all the time (along with purchasing cheap child-slave made clothes.)
I suppose you will only buy the most expensive clothes from now on?
> It was pointed out to me while I was insistantly demanding my money back,
> that WallMart does label, in very small print next to the price, the word
> EDITED (it was in very small, lowercase print.)
Didn't they give you your money back, or at least a credit?
> You will never catch me in Wallmart again. I disagree with quiet
> sensorship.
It is in every media. Are you going to refuse all of them as well?
Anonymous
In article <34803...@news4.kcdata.com>, "Drew Golden"
<gol...@nospam.nb.net> wrote:
> Hello fellow Netizins:
>
> Just a gentile reminder/warning/something I did not know.
>
> Apparently, what you purchase at Wallmart may have been censored for your
> protection!
>
> I purchased the Jerkey Boys new tape - and was horrified driving home that
> all of the "not Christian" words had been bleeped over.
>
> The horror part was that there was no warning on the package that this
> material had been "edited" for my protection.
>
> Apparently, this gentle censorship can go on without warning or prior
> notice. Bastards.
>
> Well, they lost me as a customer.
Did you know that those recording companies also censor their
product?
So does TV, Radio, Movies, and publishing houses. None of these
places warn you, at least Wallmart has a (albeit small) sticker.
Guess you had better get a life. Everyone censors, it is part of
business.
Anonymous
In article <65qe5v$ci1$1...@scramble.lm.com>, pa...@telerama.com
<pa...@telerama.com> wrote:
> Somthing else to ponder. Here we have Wallmart the comercial paragon of
family values
> being open on Thanksgiving the #1 family holliday in this country just
so they can get
> a few dollars more. I say BOYCOTT Walmart.
So what does this have to do with family values? There were alot
of people that had to work that day. What did Wallmart do that many
other companies don't? Didn't you ever have to work on a holiday??
pa...@telerama.com
Once upon a time there used to be holidays. On these days mommys and daddys
used to do things together with their children. Everyone thought it was nice.
Now mommys don't see daddys because the day daddy has off mommy works. daddy
gets to go to the park on holidays but mommy can't go because the people who
have the day off would rather shop and she works at K-Mart. It used to be nice
when there were holidays and mommys and daddys stayed home and did things as a family,
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> Did you know that those recording companies also censor their
> product?
> So does TV, Radio, Movies, and publishing houses. None of these
> places warn you, at least Wallmart has a (albeit small) sticker.
>
> Guess you had better get a life. Everyone censors, it is part of
> business.
As an anonymous person you apparently have a life as a Wall Mart flack and
apologist. Yes every business chooses what it well tell the public which can
either be a business decision or censorship. It is a business decision when it
is made to better the bottom line by hiding the truth from the public, aka,
lying to the public. It is censorship when it takes license with someone elses
artistic output.
Because of Wall Marts huge market they have placed an economic gun to the head
of many artists to change their words. Many buckle under for the almighty
dollar, some because their record contracts give them little choice, but there
are some who rather flip off Wallmart.
Anyway I have choosen not to spend my money at Wall Mart. I have been inside a
few. Never saw anything that I would want to own.
Anonymous
In article <662i0d$oug$1...@scramble.lm.com>, pa...@telerama.com
<pa...@telerama.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time there used to be holidays. On these days mommys and daddys
> used to do things together with their children. Everyone thought it was nice.
> Now mommys don't see daddys because the day daddy has off mommy works. daddy
> gets to go to the park on holidays but mommy can't go because the people who
> have the day off would rather shop and she works at K-Mart. It used to be nice
> when there were holidays and mommys and daddys stayed home and did
things as a > family,
That is an american myth. Holidays have never been completely free from someone
having to work.
Anonymous
> As an anonymous person you apparently have a life as a Wall Mart flack and
> apologist. Yes every business chooses what it well tell the public which can
> either be a business decision or censorship. It is a business decision
when it
> is made to better the bottom line by hiding the truth from the public, aka,
> lying to the public. It is censorship when it takes license with
someone elses
> artistic output.
WalMart didn't release this recording, the record companies did. They did it
because they perceived a market for it. There is a sticker that states
this on the CD and they (WallMart) have a return policy.
> Because of Wall Marts huge market they have placed an economic gun to thehead
> of many artists to change their words. Many buckle under for the almighty
> dollar, some because their record contracts give them little choice, but there
> are some who rather flip off Wallmart.
The artists have a choice whether to adhere to Wall Marts policy on this.
That is freedom of choice - not censorship. Artists have to realize that
if they want
to make money, they have to produce a product that sells. If you are
trying to sell explicit lyrics to children then the parents may choose to
shop at WalMart.
I imagine that there have been alot of parents read these posts and make
mental notes to allow their children to purchase their CD's from WallMart
(I know I have). This has probably done WallMart more good publicity than
bad. Your groaning about freedom of expression and censorship will have
had little effect.
Anonymous
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > Did you know that those recording companies also censor their
> > product?
> > So does TV, Radio, Movies, and publishing houses. None of these
> > places warn you, at least Wallmart has a (albeit small) sticker.
> >
> > Guess you had better get a life. Everyone censors, it is part of
> > business.
>
> As an anonymous person you apparently have a life as a Wall Mart flack and
> apologist.
I suspect you have some other gripe with WallMart. They didn't edit these
recordings for content. You didn't even address the fact that what you
call "Censorship" exists at all media levels.
Drew Golden
>I suppose you will only buy the most expensive clothes from now on?
>
You missed my point. They push all this "Buy American" crap - but tons of
their shit seems to originate from third world countries.
>
>Didn't they give you your money back, or at least a credit?
>
They grudglingly gave me a credit after I refused to leave the counter until
I spoke with a manager. And I gave him a taste of what I expected on the
tape and did not get. He agreed. At least he is smart enough to know that
the customer is always right.
>> You will never catch me in Wallmart again. I disagree with quiet
>> sensorship.
>
>It is in every media. Are you going to refuse all of them as well?
At least we have come to expect editorializing in the media. That can not
be helped. But when I walk into a national chain store that Believes Gay
People will Burn in Hell, or that the word FUCK is against their idea of
God's will, and then they silently support their views by quitely filtering
objectional material, then I get mad.
And then they paint up their trucks like they support American jobs and the
American way, (part of which seems to be without words like FUCK and SHIT
and pushing Jesus ) and then they purchase the crap they sell in third world
countires - well, that makes me feel like they are out and out lieing.
(Check the labels. Check out Kathy Lee's crap.)
Don't get me wrong here or miss my point either. We live in a global
economy. It is just that when I walk into a store with a banner proclaming
BUY AMERICAN I find it funny that they really don't seem to.
You seem to think it is a big joke or something, but I assure you that I
will not be caught in another one of their stores.
Anonymous
In article <34856...@news4.kcdata.com>, "Drew Golden"
<gol...@nospam.nb.net> wrote:
> >I suppose you will only buy the most expensive clothes from now on?
> >
>
> You missed my point. They push all this "Buy American" crap - but tons of
> their shit seems to originate from third world countries.
It is hard to make money selling "american" . Most people when given the choice
go for the lower price. I'll bet WallMart sells alot more imported clothes
than higher priced "american".
> >Didn't they give you your money back, or at least a credit?
>
> They grudglingly gave me a credit after I refused to leave the counter until
> I spoke with a manager. And I gave him a taste of what I expected on the
> tape and did not get. He agreed. At least he is smart enough to know that
> the customer is always right.
No, that is just a saying to mollify customers. They aren't always right, you
just tell them they are. Alot of times they are really ignorant and
stupid, so you stroke them a little. Too bad that a lot of sales people
are really ignorant
(of their product) and stupid as well. Put two of these types in a room together
and it's like spitting in a hurricane.
> >It is in every media. Are you going to refuse all of them as well?
>
> At least we have come to expect editorializing in the media. That can not
> be helped.
Well, now you just need to expect it in WallMart. Problem solved.
> But when I walk into a national chain store that Believes Gay
> People will Burn in Hell, or that the word F*** is against their idea of
> God's will, and then they silently support their views by quitely filtering
> objectional material, then I get mad.
Their views also happen to line up with a sizable portion of the consumer
base as well. That is a good business decision. (Notice how I censored
you)
> And then they paint up their trucks like they support American jobs and the
> American way, (part of which seems to be without words like F*** and S***
> and pushing Jesus )
Wow that's fun!
> and then they purchase the crap they sell in third world
> countires - well, that makes me feel like they are out and out lieing.
> (Check the labels. Check out Kathy Lee's crap.)
As I said before, you obviously have more of an attitude against W-mart than
some single CD. Did you ever work for them?
> Don't get me wrong here or miss my point either. We live in a global
> economy. It is just that when I walk into a store with a banner proclaming
> BUY AMERICAN I find it funny that they really don't seem to.
They are asking you to buy american goods. (Goods made by american companies)
They also happen to offer several options for those that want to ignore
"american" and buy cheap.Several studies have shown that most of the
buying public makes their decision based on price, not the label. Why
don't you rail
against all of the stores that don't even go so far as to post a "Buy
American" banner.
> You seem to think it is a big joke or something, but I assure you that I
> will not be caught in another one of their stores.
Matters not to me, I personally think that W-Mart could be improved by that.
You don't exactly line up as a person with good moral character you know.
Brian E. Clark
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
> WalMart didn't release this recording, the record companies
> did. They did it because they perceived a market for it.
Wal-mart controls access to millions of music buyers, and it
uses that market leverage to coerce producers into offering
expurgated or censored versions. In a matter of speaking,
the Wal-mart IS the market here. See also: Blockbuster
Video.
Thus, the record companies "perceive a market" for censorsed
material only because corporate giant Wal-mart threatens to
deny access to a not insignificant chunk of the musc market
unless the record companies play ball.
> The artists have a choice whether to adhere to Wall Marts
> policy on this.
The artists, unless they have already sold millions of CDs,
have at best limited choice, except to forego any hope of
national success. Artistic control comes after demonstration
of marketability, not before.
A tiny group of executives at Wal-Mart, with power to block
access to a major market, decides what people should hear.
This tiny group warns the tiny groups that control record
companies that they must provide music that falls within
certain guidelines. The record company execs, in turn, warn
the artists that they must either conform to the guidelines
or consent to have parts of their work bleeped outright.
This is, at the very least, censorship via market
manipulation. You may choose to argue that this censorship
can be justified according to market principles, but it
remains a form of censorship.
Further, this censorship differs strikingly from the type
that would exist in a free market, because in this case the
end buyers are not the ones making the decisions about
content. That judgment rests in the hands of a few officers
at Wal-mart.
> That is freedom of choice - not censorship.
No, what you describe is the reduction of all detail to the
demands of the bottom line in a free market. In some
people's eyes, that amounts to "freedom." In the real world,
the situation remains more complicated -- not the least
because, as in the present case, corporate giants manipulate
access to the end-user markets. And it's probably futile to
remind you that freedom entails a great deal more than
freedom in the marketplace.
Brian E. Clark
brian<at>telerama<dot>lm<dot>com
____________________________________________________
Il faut aller voir.
Anonymous
In article <MPG.eef63dc2...@news.lm.com>,
br...@real.address.in.sig (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
> Wal-mart controls access to millions of music buyers, and it
> uses that market leverage to coerce producers into offering
> expurgated or censored versions. In a matter of speaking,
> the Wal-mart IS the market here. See also: Blockbuster
> Video.
Are you claiming that the market for these versions doesn't exist?
The only reason that Wal-Mart would do this is to make money.
They see a market and they are catering to it.
> Thus, the record companies "perceive a market" for censorsed
> material only because corporate giant Wal-mart threatens to
> deny access to a not insignificant chunk of the musc market
> unless the record companies play ball.
....but they aren't threatening the customers to buy are they?
The market already exists. If they would advertise that they do
this even more, they would make even more money.
> The artists, unless they have already sold millions of CDs,
> have at best limited choice, except to forego any hope of
> national success. Artistic control comes after demonstration
> of marketability, not before.
You can certainly be a "national" success without WM.
> A tiny group of executives at Wal-Mart, with power to block
> access to a major market, decides what people should hear.
They do this because there already IS a market for it.
> This is, at the very least, censorship via market
> manipulation. You may choose to argue that this censorship
> can be justified according to market principles, but it
> remains a form of censorship.
Censorship via market manipulation. That is what the free
market economy is. Make a market, control it....sell.
> Further, this censorship differs strikingly from the type
> that would exist in a free market, because in this case the
> end buyers are not the ones making the decisions about
> content.
They certainly are! They are choosing to buy at WM.
> No, what you describe is the reduction of all detail to the
> demands of the bottom line in a free market. In some
> people's eyes, that amounts to "freedom." In the real world,
> the situation remains more complicated -- not the least
> because, as in the present case, corporate giants manipulate
> access to the end-user markets. And it's probably futile to
> remind you that freedom entails a great deal more than
> freedom in the marketplace.
You go ahead and allow your children (if you have any) access
to all the distorted values, pornography, and mixed moral messages.
It is truly me that censors for my children. WM has only provided
for me a way to it. I thank them!
Ray Dawson
I feel that any form of censorship is merely an attempt to force one's
values and beliefs on someone else. However, Walmart should also have the
ability to sell their products as they see fit as long as they're CLEARLY
labeled.
The Jerky Boys with no off-color language somehow reminds me of a decaf
skim milk latte... Why bother?
I take it that you didn't get your $ back? That's the part that I find
most objectionable.
--
Ray Dawson
On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Drew Golden wrote:
> It was pointed out to me while I was insistantly demanding my money back,
> that WallMart does label, in very small print next to the price, the word
> EDITED (it was in very small, lowercase print.) This is supposed to be the
> clue. Nothing else. I had scanned the packaging tediously searching for an
> indication and had somehow missed it completely.
>
Brian E. Clark
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
> Are you claiming that the market for these versions
> doesn't exist?
I doubt the end-user demand equals the Wal-mart supply. As
we have witnessed several times on this thread, Wal-Mart
customers often have no idea that the CDs contain censored
materials. Notice how shocked and angry they become when
they find out!
> The only reason that Wal-Mart would do this is to
> make money.
You're judging everything according simplistic market
assumptions. The managers of companies can (and often do)
use economic power to advance non-economic agendas,
everything from reducing profanity to saving the spade-foot
toad. More importantly, managers often accept reduced sales
in one arena (such as music sales) to foster an image they
perceive as generating greater overall sales (such as
"family friendly").
> They see a market and they are catering to it.
They are forcing record producers to cater to it as well,
compelling actions that the "free market" had not produced.
And to head off your objection that producers have the
option to refuse to sell to Wal-Mart, I again remind you
that Wal-Mart cannot sensibly be treated like a corner music
store.
> > Thus, the record companies "perceive a market" for
> > censorsed material only because corporate giant
> > Wal-mart threatens to deny access to a not
> > insignificant chunk of the musc market
> > unless the record companies play ball.
> ....but they aren't threatening the customers to buy are
> they?
What difference does that make?
But yes, in a way censorship via market manipulation "harms"
customers. Or rather, it removes from their hands the very
control you assert they possess. E.g.: In another post, I
referred to Blockbuster Video. In some areas, Blockbuster is
the only video rental store, and in those areas people have
only two choices: rent the chopped-up versions of movies or
watch nothing. Small towns may not have the population to
support several stores, and mom 'n pop stores often find it
impossible to compete with the likes of Blockbuster. But
what can these people do to get Blockbuster to provide uncut
versions? Nothing. Nothing at all.
> The market already exists.
Where was it before?
> If they would advertise that they do
> this even more, they would make even more money.
In all likelihood, Wal-Mart doesn't draw much attention to
its policy because it knows people get well and truly
irritated by it.
> > The artists, unless they have already sold millions of CDs,
> > have at best limited choice, except to forego any hope of
> > national success. Artistic control comes after demonstration
> > of marketability, not before.
> You can certainly be a "national" success without WM.
It's frightfully difficult to become a national success
without the cooperation of record companies.
> > A tiny group of executives at Wal-Mart, with power
> > to block access to a major market, decides what
> > people should hear.
> They do this because there already IS a market for it.
Again, you've simply assumed that. I don't recall an outcry
for bleeped material in preceding years.
> Censorship via market manipulation. That is what the free
> market economy is.
<Frown> "Market manipulation" and "free market" don't go
together.
Question: If Wal-Mart sold both the censored and uncensored
versions of a CD, which do you think would sell more?
> Make a market, control it....sell.
Wal-Mart didn't make the market -- they simply control
access to a signficant portion of it. I'm speaking of the
general music-buying market, by the way, not the tiny
portion of it that would actually welcome corporate-level
censorship.
[...]
> > And it's probably futile to remind you that freedom entails
> > a great deal more than freedom in the marketplace.
> You go ahead and allow your children (if you have any) access
> to all the distorted values, pornography, and mixed moral messages.
Give me a break. You ignored my point and cried, "Remember
the children!" Perhaps you've seen the episode of _The
Simpsons_ on which the parodied that silly tactic?
If you don't want your children to listen to foul language,
then prohibit them from buying the CDs that contain it.
> It is truly me that censors for my children. WM has only
> provided for me a way to it. I thank them!
First, what makes you think Wal-Mart's notion of bleepable
material attunes so much with your own?
Second, why have you reneged on your parental
responsibilites, placing them in the hands of Wal-Mart's
censors?
Finally, how can such abdication of duty justify Wal-
Mart's compelling the corruption of artistic work?
Damon R Hudac
Brian E. Clark <br...@real.address.in.sig> wrote:
>Wal-mart controls access to millions of music buyers, and it
>uses that market leverage to coerce producers into offering
>expurgated or censored versions. In a matter of speaking,
>the Wal-mart IS the market here. See also: Blockbuster
>Video.
One friend of mine who almost always knows what he's talking about told me
that somewhere around 40% of new CDs purchased in this country are from
Wal-Mart.
>This is, at the very least, censorship via market
>manipulation. You may choose to argue that this censorship
>can be justified according to market principles, but it
>remains a form of censorship.
Yes, it is a form of censorship. However...
>Further, this censorship differs strikingly from the type
>that would exist in a free market, because in this case the
>end buyers are not the ones making the decisions about
>content. That judgment rests in the hands of a few officers
>at Wal-mart.
The judgememt rests in the hands of the consumers. If they want the
uncensored version, then they can march down the street to National Record
Mart or any other music store and get the version they want. Wal Mart is
not limiting anyone's options except for those who think the only place to
buy music is from Wal Mart.
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
And exactly how does this so-called censorship in other media manifest itself.
Editorial judgement is not censorship, unless you think the "left-leaning,
liberal:" media is in some big conspiracy to keep you from the truth, wahtever
the heck that might be, you clueless idiot.
pa...@telerama.com
True enough but the % of people working during national holidays today is far more
than it used to be. Moreover it co-incided with the rise of the working two family
household and the rise of single parents whose children had national holidays off
while they had to work. All of this contributes to the esrtangement within the family
structure.
Tim Scoff
In article <34864C6C...@gardener.com>, allt...@gardener.com wrote:
-Anonymous wrote:
-
-> That is an american myth. Holidays have never been completely free from
someone
-> having to work.
-
- Yeah, maybe doctors, nurses, cops and other "essential" service personnel and
-selected (usually 24 hour-type) restaurants but certainly not shop clerks
and other
-non-essentials. it is only the greed of the retail marketers that
require those
-store to be open on Holidays.
Heck, even the Wendy's across the street from me was closed on
Thanksgiving. They are open 24/7 and they close on about 3 days out of
the year.
--
Tim Scoff
cas...@nb.net
<http://www.nb.net/~casper/>
Please remove the words STOP.SPAM from any e-mail you send me
Windows 95: Five years ago corporate software giant Microsoft spent
millions of dollars and put a team of hundreds of highly specialized
programmers on an extensive and highly ambitious project to find another name for the Apple Menu.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation.
Anonymous
In article <666a3q$pdk$1...@scramble.lm.com>, pa...@telerama.com
<pa...@telerama.com> wrote:
> Moreover it co-incided with the rise of the working two family
> household and the rise of single parents whose children had national
holidays off
> while they had to work. All of this contributes to the esrtangement
within the family
> structure.
Hey , this is Dr. Laura's message as well! I guess you guys think
on the save wave length.
Anonymous
> The artists, unless they have already sold millions of CDs,
> have at best limited choice, except to forego any hope of
> national success. Artistic control comes after demonstration
> of marketability, not before.
Wow, are you telling me that if they want to sell CD's they
have to sell something the public wants? What a revelation!
I imagine these bleeped recordings are very happily agreed to
by the artists because they know they will make that much more
money when WM sells them.
Anonymous
In article <6651fq$f...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, drhs...@pitt.edu (Damon
R Hudac) wrote:
> Wal Mart is
> not limiting anyone's options except for those who think the only place to
> buy music is from Wal Mart.
And why might they think that WM is the only place to buy?????
Because WM sells cleaner versions.
Anonymous
In article <3486477E...@gardener.com>, allt...@gardener.com wrote:
> That is economic choice, not artistic choice. The so-called explicit (what a
> beautiful euphemism that is) lyrics are simply the lyrics.
Lyrics that condone Rape, murder, hatred, bigotry,cop killing etc. are not
"simply the lyrics"
Anonymous
In article <MPG.eefe05ba...@news.lm.com>,
br...@real.address.in.sig (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
> Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>
> > Are you claiming that the market for these versions
> > doesn't exist?
>
> I doubt the end-user demand equals the Wal-mart supply. As
> we have witnessed several times on this thread, Wal-Mart
> customers often have no idea that the CDs contain censored
> materials. Notice how shocked and angry they become when
> they find out!
Yeah, boy I have seen this WM thing crop up time and time
again! whew!
> You're judging everything according simplistic market
> assumptions. The managers of companies can (and often do)
> use economic power to advance non-economic agendas,
> everything from reducing profanity to saving the spade-foot
> toad. More importantly, managers often accept reduced sales
> in one arena (such as music sales) to foster an image they
> perceive as generating greater overall sales (such as
> "family friendly").
Which of course will make them more money in the end. I certainly
have become a bigger fan of WM after reading these threads.
> > They see a market and they are catering to it.
>
> They are forcing record producers to cater to it as well,
> compelling actions that the "free market" had not produced.
> And to head off your objection that producers have the
> option to refuse to sell to Wal-Mart, I again remind you
> that Wal-Mart cannot sensibly be treated like a corner music
> store.
They are not forcing anyone, they actually get to sell to a
consumer base that originally may have stayed away from such
recordings.
> Where was it before?
You ever attend any local meetings or hear countless programs,
articles, statements, about the moral decay of our society.
The market has always been here.
> In all likelihood, Wal-Mart doesn't draw much attention to
> its policy because it knows people get well and truly
> irritated by it.
To the contrary, I would bet a years wages that WM customer base
would actually increase if they pushed it even more.
> It's frightfully difficult to become a national success
> without the cooperation of record companies.
Since when did WM become a "record company"?
> > They do this because there already IS a market for it.
>
> Again, you've simply assumed that. I don't recall an outcry
> for bleeped material in preceding years.
You don't get involved in the community much do you?
> > Censorship via market manipulation. That is what the free
> > market economy is.
>
> <Frown> "Market manipulation" and "free market" don't go
> together.
I offer a product = I like it and buy it = free market
> Question: If Wal-Mart sold both the censored and uncensored
> versions of a CD, which do you think would sell more?
If the parents are truly watching out for their children, there
would be no contest.
> Give me a break. You ignored my point and cried, "Remember
> the children!" Perhaps you've seen the episode of _The
> Simpsons_ on which the parodied that silly tactic?
Yeah, I get all of my moral justifications from "The Simpsons"
(just like you do huh?).
> If you don't want your children to listen to foul language,
> then prohibit them from buying the CDs that contain it.
What parent is willing to take the time to truly listen to every word on every
CD. Not many, they are probably glad that WM will do it for them.
> First, what makes you think Wal-Mart's notion of bleepable
> material attunes so much with your own?
Doesn't matter to me, just like you I have the choice to buy or not.
> Second, why have you reneged on your parental
> responsibilites, placing them in the hands of Wal-Mart's
> censors?
Most people will, because it is easier than listening to that garbage.
> Finally, how can such abdication of duty justify Wal-
> Mart's compelling the corruption of artistic work?
So, who has abdicated? There are many tools that parents use
to raise their children. Some are selected because they make
life easier and simpler.
Do you allow you children to listen to WHATEVER they want to?
Watch whatever they want to? Read whatever they want to?
Anonymous
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > That is an american myth. Holidays have never been completely free
from someone
> > having to work.
>
> Yeah, maybe doctors, nurses, cops and other "essential" service personnel and
> selected (usually 24 hour-type) restaurants but certainly not shop
clerks and other
> non-essentials.
Gee, I seem to remember factories, gas stations, local food markets, etc.
Tom Colter
Damon R Hudac wrote:
> The judgememt rests in the hands of the consumers. If they want the
> uncensored version, then they can march down the street to National Record
> Mart or any other music store and get the version they want. Wal Mart is
> not limiting anyone's options except for those who think the only place to
> buy music is from Wal Mart.
While that may be true in Southwest PA, that is not true in many parts of the
country where Wall Mart has run off all competition (free market at work?)
and NRMs and other record supermarts are not available. But let's give
Anonymous his/her due, there is censorship everywhere. After all when was the
last time you got the real story from US News and World Report, the Reader's
Digest of news magazines.
Brian E. Clark
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
> > More importantly, managers often accept reduced sales
> > in one arena (such as music sales) to foster an image
> > they perceive as generating greater overall sales (such
> > as "family friendly").
> Which of course will make them more money in the end.
That's the point. And it speaks directly against the notion
that corporate-level decisions about a niche market (e.g.,
music) always pertain directly to the demands of that
market.
> I certainly have become a bigger fan of WM after reading
> these threads.
I cannot conceive of what it means to be a "fan" of any
business, let alone to assign personal feelings of
admiration to a multinational. ;-)
> > They are forcing record producers to cater to it
> > as well, compelling actions that the "free market"
> > had not produced. [...]
> They are not forcing anyone, they actually get to sell to a
> consumer base that originally may have stayed away from such
> recordings.
Big companies that control access to large markets can
strong-arm suppliers. I haven't the desire to repeat what I
(and others) have already taken pains to explain to you
several times.
> > In all likelihood, Wal-Mart doesn't draw much attention
> > to its policy because it knows people get well and truly
> > irritated by it.
> To the contrary, I would bet a years wages that WM
> customer base would actually increase if they pushed
> it even more.
The reality is that even frequent WM customers seem unaware
of the company's censorial policies.
Here's what I would bet: I'd bet there is indeed a small
market for expurgated music, but that this market is about
equal to, or smaller than, the size of overall market *loss*
that would result if WM drew a lot of attention to its
censorship.
> > It's frightfully difficult to become a national success
> > without the cooperation of record companies.
>
> Since when did WM become a "record company"?
I'm not going through this a third time. Do you remember the
bit about market coercion?
> > Again, you've simply assumed that. I don't recall an outcry
> > for bleeped material in preceding years.
>
> You don't get involved in the community much do you?
I'm well aware that a minority in the community adores the
idea of prohibiting the expression of disfavored ideas, by
almost any means. That is not the same, by any sensible
measure, as saying that a music-buying market the size that
WM commands favors such censorship.
> > <Frown> "Market manipulation" and "free market" don't
> > go together.
>
> I offer a product = I like it and buy it = free market
Yeah, and true love never dies, right? :)
> > Question: If Wal-Mart sold both the censored and
> > uncensored versions of a CD, which do you think
> > would sell more?
> If the parents are truly watching out for their
> children, there would be no contest.
Once again you refuse to answer the question. But your
maneuver implies a tacit response, one you're reluctant to
make.
> > Give me a break. You ignored my point and cried,
> > "Remember the children!" Perhaps you've seen the
> > episode of _The Simpsons_ on which the parodied
> > that silly tactic?
> Yeah, I get all of my moral justifications from
> "The Simpsons" (just like you do huh?).
Not a hint nor a whisper about "moral justification" may be
found in my reference to _The Simpsons_. Rather, I compared
an empty, irrelevant, emotional appeal to "the children"
with a similar incident on the show. Your intention, like
that of hysterical woman on the show, was to divert
attention from the matter at hand by invoking deep-seated
fears.
> > If you don't want your children to listen to foul
> > language, then prohibit them from buying the CDs
> > that contain it.
> What parent is willing to take the time to truly listen
> to every word on every CD.
I know parents who turn to watchdog organizations for
information about the contents of the CDs. They learn how
much profanity a CD contains, and of what type; they learn
whether the artist speaks of rape or murder, and whether the
artist condones these activities; they learn whether the
artist defames a race or a religion. Armed with such
details, the parents (not the WallMart executives) decide
whether or not the music is appropriate for their children.
That is active parenting.
> Not many, they are probably glad that WM will do it
> for them.
There is no reason to assume that other parents must behave
as you behave.
> > First, what makes you think Wal-Mart's notion of
> > bleepable material attunes so much with your own?
> Doesn't matter to me, just like you I have the choice
> to buy or not.
I'm asking why you believe that the WM executives, in
deciding what to bleep out, will choose the same words/ideas
that you would choose.
> > Second, why have you reneged on your parental
> > responsibilites, placing them in the hands of
> > Wal-Mart's censors?
> Most people will, because it is easier than listening
> to that garbage.
I doubt that "most people" are so lazy. Also, you seem to be
saying that you default to WallMart so as to spare your own
tender ears from nasty material.
> > Finally, how can such abdication of duty justify Wal-
> > Mart's compelling the corruption of artistic work?
> So, who has abdicated?
You have.
> There are many tools that parents use
> to raise their children.
Abandoning an active role as the mediator of one's
children's music is not a tool.
You're saying, in effect, "I care, but not enough to waste
my time to sort the good from the bad, not enough to endure
foul language myself. I'll let others decide that for me."
> Some are selected because they make life easier
> and simpler.
Well, I guess ease and simplicity should take precedence
over a child's access to music. ;-)
No, I'm not saying that you're a bad parent. No, I'm not
saying that your actions will harm your children. But I am
saying that your renunciation of active participation in
choosing your child's music guarantees that they will be
denied something. If that denial stems not from outright
necessity (some parents have little free time) but from a
desire for "ease" and "simplicity," then you cannot continue
to foist the idea that you choose "the WallMart solution"
simply to protect your children. Rather, you have decided
that (on this issue) your personal comfort comes before your
duties as a parent.
Even that is not grounds for condemnation, of course. All
parents stiff their children at some point, so to speak --
indeed, they must, because parents cannot always be expected
to discard their own concerns.
But it becomes absurd when parents who attend to their own
needs try to pass off their actions as noble, as gestures of
concern in the interests of their children. Some go further
(as you have) and try to paint their choice of "ease" in
terms of a greater social imperative.
> Do you allow you children to listen to WHATEVER they
> want to? Watch whatever they want to? Read whatever they
> want to?
The choices are not "Give them anything they want" versus
"Let outside agencies make all the decisions." As I said in
a previous post, I prefer that the parent take an active
role in determining the child's access to music. Buying
sanitized CDs for one's children is as passive as one can
get, short of simply refusing to buy any music at all.
Again, I stress that a parent who chooses passivity
regarding his children's music cannot, on that account
alone, be considered a bad parent. But neither can he hope
to get away with describing his resignation as anything but
an instance of sparing himself some work.
Brian E. Clark
Damon R Hudac <drhs...@pitt.edu> wrote:
> The judgememt rests in the hands of the consumers.
I do not deny that customers exert a signifcant push and
pull. But whenever I look at real markets, I always note the
curious lack of ultimate consumer control that (for
instance) laissez fair purists insist must guide those
markets.
And as I said before, I get the idea that most consumers
don't even know about WM's policies. But that judgment comes
only from my personal experience, and it is offered with due
consideration of its <cough> worth. ;-)
> If they want the uncensored version, then they can march
> down the street to National Record Mart or any other music
> store and get the version they want.
If there is another store, that sells CDs at comparable
prices, yes. And what of my other example, Blockbuster
Video? Remember, not everyone lives within easy reach of a
major population center.
Regards,
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> WalMart didn't release this recording, the record companies did. They did it
> because they perceived a market for it. There is a sticker that states
> this on the CD and they (WallMart) have a return policy.
It is Wall Mart's policy that forces record companies to censor the records, if they
wish to market them through Wall Mart. Thus Wall Mart promotes the censorship.
> The artists have a choice whether to adhere to Wall Marts policy on this.
> That is freedom of choice - not censorship. Artists have to realize that
> if they want to make money, they have to produce a product that sells. If you are
> trying to sell explicit lyrics to children then the parents may choose to
> shop at WalMart.
That is economic choice, not artistic choice. The so-called explicit (what a
beautiful euphemism that is) lyrics are simply the lyrics. Whether placed there to
shock, to increase sales or to express feeling, thought or meaning should not be
Wall Marts decision, but that of the artist (and yes the word artist is used very
loosely in many of the cases, but the first amendment is the first amendment, so get
over yourself).
> I imagine that there have been alot of parents read these posts and make
> mental notes to allow their children to purchase their CD's from WallMart
> (I know I have). This has probably done WallMart more good publicity than
> bad. Your groaning about freedom of expression and censorship will have
> had little effect.
I seriously doubt it, but lets take a poll.
All those who read this simply post an agree or disagree with that gutsy person
Anonymous's position. Are you now shopping Wall Mart because they promote
censorship?
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> That is an american myth. Holidays have never been completely free from someone
> having to work.
Yeah, maybe doctors, nurses, cops and other "essential" service personnel and
selected (usually 24 hour-type) restaurants but certainly not shop clerks and other
non-essentials. it is only the greed of the retail marketers that require those
Tom Colter
Tom Colter
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> In article <3486477E...@gardener.com>, allt...@gardener.com wrote:
>
> > That is economic choice, not artistic choice. The so-called explicit (what a
> > beautiful euphemism that is) lyrics are simply the lyrics.
>
> Lyrics that condone Rape, murder, hatred, bigotry,cop killing etc. are not
> "simply the lyrics"
Oh yes they are. They are lyrics. That is all they are. You can buy into them
or not. Your choice as a "free" American.
Also because the song includes lyrics about rape, murder, bigotry, cop killing,
(you forgot suicide), etc. does not necessarily mean they are being "promoted",
condoned or otherwise encouraged by the author of the song
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> In article <6651fq$f...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, drhs...@pitt.edu (Damon
> R Hudac) wrote:
>
> > Wal Mart is
> > not limiting anyone's options except for those who think the only place to
> > buy music is from Wal Mart.
>
> And why might they think that WM is the only place to buy?????
> Because WM sells cleaner versions.
Yeah Right. You are so clueless.
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> In article <MPG.eef63dc2...@news.lm.com>,
> br...@real.address.in.sig (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>
> > The artists, unless they have already sold millions of CDs,
> > have at best limited choice, except to forego any hope of
> > national success. Artistic control comes after demonstration
> > of marketability, not before.
>
> Wow, are you telling me that if they want to sell CD's they
> have to sell something the public wants? What a revelation!
> I imagine these bleeped recordings are very happily agreed to
> by the artists because they know they will make that much more
> money when WM sells them.
Happily? Relunctantly in most cases I would imagine. Who do you know
is HAPPILY having their lyrics bleeped in order to kowtow to the WM?
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> In article <34864C6C...@gardener.com>, allt...@gardener.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Gee, I seem to remember factories, gas stations, local food markets, etc.
Only factories where to shut down aan operation would have resulted in a costly
startup and then only manned by a skeleton crew. A few of the many gas stations
maybe; as I remember, it was always hard to find that one open gas station and
wouldn't you know it , the car was nearly out of gas on the way to Grandma's house.
Few if any food markets since blue laws tended to prevail at least in PA. So what
is your memory, about 10 years old.
Anonymous
They write the music for the money. They can now sell to 10 year old kids
and make more.
Lady Nina
"nobody" (how appropriate) wrote:
>Lyrics that condone Rape, murder, hatred, bigotry,cop killing etc. are not
>"simply the lyrics"
OK...this clarifies a lot. "Nobody" apparently is happy to accept what the
church bulletin and the Republican Party feeds him as fact. Lyrics are pulled
out of context and held up as sure signs that the musicians are leading us down
the path to Hell...
If you can't take the time to truly understand the inspiration behind the
lyrics, then you have no right to censor them. And Walmart's force-feeding of
a Xian agenda with big bucks behind them is reprehensible. Yes, the labels
will kow-tow to sell more units. You can bet the artists whose works are being
whitewashed aren't willing participants.
Moral : Support your local independent music store.
- Marci
"So this is hell...and there's a crucifix here..."
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
http://members.aol.com/ladynina
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> > > I imagine these bleeped recordings are very happily agreed to
> > > by the artists because they know they will make that much more
> > > money when WM sells them.
> >
> > Happily? Relunctantly in most cases I would imagine. Who do you know
> > is HAPPILY having their lyrics bleeped in order to kowtow to the WM?
>
> They write the music for the money. They can now sell to 10 year old kids
> and make more.
Okay "Nobody" I get it now. It is all about money.
Yeah clueless suck. Selling to ten year kids is hardly most bands goal ..
unless they are Hanson or some other bubblegum group ... and they wouldn't
come within sniffin' distance of lyrics to which you apparently object.
If all you are trying to protect is 10 year old rugrats, you don't need Big
Daddy Wall Mart. you just need to be a better parent.
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> > > I imagine these bleeped recordings are very happily agreed to
> > > by the artists because they know they will make that much more
> > > money when WM sells them.
> >
> > Happily? Relunctantly in most cases I would imagine. Who do you know
> > is HAPPILY having their lyrics bleeped in order to kowtow to the WM?
>
> They write the music for the money. They can now sell to 10 year old kids
> and make more.
Okay "Nobody" I get it now. It is all about money.
Yeah right you clueless suck. Selling to ten year kids is hardly most bands
Tom Colter
Anonymous wrote:
> > > I imagine these bleeped recordings are very happily agreed to
> > > by the artists because they know they will make that much more
> > > money when WM sells them.
> >
> > Happily? Relunctantly in most cases I would imagine. Who do you know
> > is HAPPILY having their lyrics bleeped in order to kowtow to the WM?
>
> They write the music for the money. They can now sell to 10 year old kids
> and make more.
Okay "Nobody" I get it now. It is all about money.
Yeah right . Selling to ten year kids is hardly most bands goal .. unless
Anonymous
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > > > I imagine these bleeped recordings are very happily agreed to
> > > > by the artists because they know they will make that much more
> > > > money when WM sells them.
> > >
> > > Happily? Relunctantly in most cases I would imagine. Who do you know
> > > is HAPPILY having their lyrics bleeped in order to kowtow to the WM?
> >
> > They write the music for the money. They can now sell to 10 year old kids
> > and make more.
>
> Okay "Nobody" I get it now. It is all about money.
>
> Yeah right . Selling to ten year kids is hardly most bands goal .. unless
> they are Hanson or some other bubblegum group ... and they wouldn't come
> within sniffin' distance of lyrics to which you apparently object.
Sorry to tell you this, but most bands' goals are to make money. If they tell
you they are doing it for the "art" they are saying that to make excuses that
they can't appeal to a large group of people. (been there, done that)
> If all you are trying to protect is 10 year old rugrats, you don't need Big
> Daddy Wall Mart. you just need to be a better parent.
Problem is, most people don't take that time. Kind of a 2 edged sword isn't it?
If people would be better parents for their children, government
institutions and even retail establishments wouldn't have to step in and
help them.
Please note:
I have never bought (nor rented) anything from Wal Mart or Blockbuster (I
don't buy that kind of stuff for my children - I censor it myself - by not
buying) but I am glad that someone is trying to do something. I will
certainly support their efforts. ( I do admit that it could get out of
hand - but I haven't seen any sign of that yet)
Anonymous
If parents don't want to deal with their own children, who does
that leave?
They have no choice but to pick up their values from CD's,
Books (if they read), Television, and any local gangs that
happen to be about. Lack of parenting is the problem here.
Matthew Joseph Tarpy
Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 9-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
Anon...@REPLAY.COM
> don't buy that kind of stuff for my children - I censor it myself - by not
so the eternal question is:
if you don't buy/rent it, how do you know it's bad (or good)?
--M
Chas Stokes
In article <3482b...@news4.kcdata.com>, gol...@nospam.nb.net says...
> It was pointed out to me while I was insistantly demanding my money back,
> that WallMart does label, in very small print next to the price, the word
> EDITED (it was in very small, lowercase print.) This is supposed to be the
> clue. Nothing else. I had scanned the packaging tediously searching for an
> indication and had somehow missed it completely.
I never knew they did that myself. But then I buy my music from Camelot.
Did you get your money back?
Chas
Anonymous
In article <YoXiGpm00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Matthew Joseph Tarpy
<tar...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Oh, let's see, hmmmmm............guess you got me there, YOU WIN!
Of course I never flip through the TV and catch stuff on MTV, I never listen
to the radio, I never hear the recordings of other people, I never talk to
people, I never read the newspaper, I never see and hear the news. DUHH!
(yep, you win)
Matthew Joseph Tarpy
Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 11-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
Anon...@REPLAY.COM
>
> Of course I never flip through the TV and catch stuff on MTV, I never listen
> to the radio, I never hear the recordings of other people, I never talk to
> people, I never read the newspaper, I never see and hear the news. DUHH!
> (yep, you win)
*sigh* such a simple mind.
So, in a broad stroke you get rid of EVERYTHING they sell...simply
because of SOME things you see in the media.
--M
Anonymous
In article <EoY4JkC00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Matthew Joseph Tarpy
<tar...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
If other people want to make sense out of this, they will have to back track
thru the thread. Tarpy didn't quote the pertinent parts.
Anonymous
> Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 11-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
> Anon...@REPLAY.COM
> > Oh, let's see, hmmmmm............guess you got me there, YOU WIN!
> >
> > Of course I never flip through the TV and catch stuff on MTV, I never listen
> > to the radio, I never hear the recordings of other people, I never talk to
> > people, I never read the newspaper, I never see and hear the news. DUHH!
> > (yep, you win)
>
>
> *sigh* such a simple mind.
>
> So, in a broad stroke you get rid of EVERYTHING they sell...simply
> because of SOME things you see in the media.
Simple mind? Who said anything about getting rid of EVERYTHING? Getting
rid of Everything THEY? Who is THEY? I have never condoned "getting rid" of
anything....in relation to the CD business. I merely support the right of
a retailer not to sell anything that is morally offensive.
Matthew Joseph Tarpy
Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 12-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
Anon...@REPLAY.COM
> a retailer not to sell anything that is morally offensive.
that's the point!
HOW do you know if it's "morally offensive" (god, what a slippery term),
if you don't buy from them, or have any experience with this?
--M
Matthew Joseph Tarpy
> thru the thread. Tarpy didn't quote the pertinent parts.
Oh, I didn't....please do post these "relevant parts".
--mG
Charles R. Galbach
Anonymous wrote:
>
> In article <EoY4JkC00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Matthew Joseph Tarpy
> <tar...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Anon...@REPLAY.COM
> > > Oh, let's see, hmmmmm............guess you got me there, YOU WIN!
> > >
> > > Of course I never flip through the TV and catch stuff on MTV, I never listen
> > > to the radio, I never hear the recordings of other people, I never talk to
> > > people, I never read the newspaper, I never see and hear the news. DUHH!
> > > (yep, you win)
> >
> >
> > *sigh* such a simple mind.
> >
> > So, in a broad stroke you get rid of EVERYTHING they sell...simply
> > because of SOME things you see in the media.
>
> Simple mind? Who said anything about getting rid of EVERYTHING? Getting
> rid of Everything THEY? Who is THEY? I have never condoned "getting rid" of
> a retailer not to sell anything that is morally offensive.
It doesn't necessarily even have to have anything to do with morality.
If I open a store to sell tools, and I don't like Black & Decker, it
doesn't matter why I don't like them, I have a right to not carry their
stuff. On the other hand, if I tell them I don't like the black color of
some of their tools, and they come to me and say they will sell me tools
painted white, I can decide to carry the white ones. And, I don't even
owe the customers a reason why my B&D tools are all white. All that
matters is that you can only get white ones in my store. If you want the
black ones, you have to go somewhere else. Tough. Even if the black ones
cost more somewhere else. It's still tough.
I fail to see why this sort of logic doesn't or can't apply to edited
cd's. If the manufacturer tells me they can sell me doctored cd's, and I
decide that's the only ones I will carry, it's my store. They either
sell or they don't. I'm bound to get some customers that like the white
tools & doctored cd's. The ones that don't can go elsewhere. Why would I
have to cater to the customers that want black tools or un-doctored
cd's. Do I have to sell lumber too? Just because some customer demands
it? Baloney. I can sell whatever I feel like. Any product; any brand;
any model; even a doctored cd. If it doesn't sell, I'll go broke & out
of business. If it sells, I'll stay in business. And all the time, it's
my choice about what to sell. The only exception might be something
dangerous or illegal, like poison. Some laws might keep me from carrying
something like that. Anything else is my choice. Period. There's no
censorship involved here, whether it's the lumber, the black tools or
the un-doctored cd's I refuse to sell. They're all the same.
I think Walmart is doing nothing more than trying to satisfy the
customers that like doctored cd's, and not trying to satisfy the
customers that want the undoctored ones. And they don't even owe anyone
an excuse. It's their business. I suspect they think they will get more
customers with this policy. Especially the Moms.
Have a nice day,
Chuck
Damon R Hudac
Charles R. Galbach <galb...@westol.com> wrote:
>It doesn't necessarily even have to have anything to do with morality.
>If I open a store to sell tools, and I don't like Black & Decker, it
>doesn't matter why I don't like them, I have a right to not carry their
>stuff. On the other hand, if I tell them I don't like the black color of
>some of their tools, and they come to me and say they will sell me tools
>painted white, I can decide to carry the white ones. And, I don't even
>owe the customers a reason why my B&D tools are all white. All that
>matters is that you can only get white ones in my store. If you want the
>black ones, you have to go somewhere else. Tough. Even if the black ones
>cost more somewhere else. It's still tough.
[Rest of the most sensible post seen for 2 weeks on this ng snipped]
Here's another example, all you people who say, "I refuse to buy from Wal
Mart!" think of this...
Ever watch TV? How about the movies they play on ABC and NBC. They play
some good movies. But you won't see any nudity on broadcast television.
They cut those parts out. Likewise with "offensive language." Offensive
by whose standards? The TV station's and the government's. If you want
to see unedited movies in all their artistic splendor, subscribe to HBO or
Cinemax.
Next time you get a break from picketing Wal Mart, perhaps you could write
to your congressman and tell them to remove regulations on TV broadcasts.
And once they do that, write to the TV stations and demand that they play
the uncut movies, which some still wouldn't do even in the absence of
regulation, in order to keep the more family-oriented members of the
audience happy. Why hasn't anyone mentioned a boycott of broadcast TV
stations? They're just as evil as Wal Mart is.
Free speech is the right to shout "theater" in a crowded fire.
-Yippie Proverb
Matthew Joseph Tarpy
Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 13-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
"Charles R. Galbach"@wes
> customers that like doctored cd's, and not trying to satisfy the
Sure, but don't you think they should be a little more OPEN about their
doing that?
I have no problems with this if they but up a sign that said, "Some CDs
have been edited for content." But this just smacks of "morality
censors".
(and yeah I know it's not true censorship)
--M
Matthew Joseph Tarpy
Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 14-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
Damon R Hu...@pitt.edu
> some good movies. But you won't see any nudity on broadcast television.
> They cut those parts out. Likewise with "offensive language." Offensive
> by whose standards? The TV station's and the government's. If you want
> to see unedited movies in all their artistic splendor, subscribe to HBO or
> Cinemax.
>
> Next time you get a break from picketing Wal Mart, perhaps you could write
> to your congressman and tell them to remove regulations on TV broadcasts.
> And once they do that, write to the TV stations and demand that they play
> the uncut movies, which some still wouldn't do even in the absence of
> regulation, in order to keep the more family-oriented members of the
> audience happy. Why hasn't anyone mentioned a boycott of broadcast TV
> stations? They're just as evil as Wal Mart is.
That's not the point (-and- I think you know it).
It's about Wal-Mart's in-ability to clearly tell the consumer that they
are getting cleaned versions of CDs.
I -know- that when I watch broadcast TV that I won't see much nudity (if
any at all), but I am still free to make the choice to watch it, because
I -know- they edited it (there's a screen at the beginning of those
movies that say something like "This film has been edited for time and
content."), many times at Wal-Mart you DON'T know.
And I'm not boycotting them, heck I was just there!
--M
Dan-O
Matthew Joseph Tarpy <tar...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 12-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
>Anon...@REPLAY.COM
>> anything....in relation to the CD business. I merely support the right of
>> a retailer not to sell anything that is morally offensive.
>
>that's the point!
>
>HOW do you know if it's "morally offensive" (god, what a slippery term),
>if you don't buy from them, or have any experience with this?
>
Hello Matt - miss you in the opinion group.
Anyway, you've probably heard the phrase, I don't need to smell a turd
to know it stinks... Wal-Mart is using simple standards that most
would agree on - such as constant use of the "F" word, raping women,
etc. It's the same logic that we wouldn't sell an X rated novel to
children. As adults, we have the freedom of choice to buy such stuff.
"Morally offensive" should not be a relative term.
=============================================
-Dan Keller
remove SPAMBUSTER to email me
Please check out http://www.msys.net/yrac
=============================================
Charles R. Galbach
I stand by my original post, which you chopped out, that says they don't
owe you any excuse. The only experience I've had with something I didn't
like from them was a clock radio I bought. I didn't like it, and they
gave me my money back. I thought the reception was not too good. They
didn't fall on the ground apologizing, and I didn't expect them to. They
didn't have a sign warning that you might not like the reception. I was
even surprised they gave me my money back. I thought I should have done
a better job checking out the merchandise before I bought it. Maybe you
should try that too, instead of demanding they warn you of everything
you might not like. That just comes across like cry-baby talk - like you
can't fend for yourself, so big companies should act like your mommie
and protect you from all your perceived troubles.
As far as morality censors, bull. I think both Walmart, and you, know
they will sell a heck of a lot more copies of a cleaned up cd than a cd
that has profanities or other sometimes objectionable lyrics on it. I'll
bet there are relatively few customers of a Walmart that actually want
the original stuff. In fact, from the type people I've usually seen
there (I don't go real often), it appears to be more of a family store,
and those customers probably expect the cleaned up version of anything,
like books, magazines, tapes, cds, etc. So, the question becomes, why
are you shopping in a family store for what customers of such a store
would typically consider pornography & violence anyway. If you have a
beef, it probably ought to be with those millions of customers of
Walmart. If anyone is doing any censoring, they are, with their wallets.
My experience with big companies is that they do react to their
customers. Sometimes slowly, but in the end, that's what makes them do
what they do. GM got in big trouble in the 70's, trying to ignore their
customers wanting to switch to smaller cars. Toyota and Honda still own
a piece of their tail over that one. Big companies don't react to niche
markets; not for long. They leave those to niche suppliers. So, instead
of Walmart, you should probably be looking in those little niche stores
for the kind of stuff you want. And the higher price you pay there,
represents the tiny size of that kind of market. Low prices only ever go
to the things that sell a lot, never to low volume products. It's also
why you can't buy a size 36 men's suit at Sears. They only carry down to
size 38. They also don't carry the really big & tall sizes either.
Should Sears be required to post warnings that they only carry the main
selling sizes? Or, should all the small men & really big men band
together & boycott Sears? It would be a pretty small parade. Just like
yours. Maybe noisy, but small.
Anonymous
In article <ooZ0J9e00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Matthew Joseph Tarpy
<tar...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> I -know- that when I watch broadcast TV that I won't see much nudity (if
> any at all),
How do you know this? With a couple exceptions of an ocassional movie they
don't bother to tell you.
> but I am still free to make the choice to watch it, because
> I -know- they edited it (there's a screen at the beginning of those
> movies that say something like "This film has been edited for time and
> content."), many times at Wal-Mart you DON'T know.
They don't tell you how they are controlling the TV shows as well. I never
see them warn you that they are editing offensive material out of TV
shows, but they do it all the time. The CD's at Wal Mart ARE labeled.
Tom Colter
Charles R. Galbach wrote:
> Matthew Joseph Tarpy wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 13-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
> > "Charles R. Galbach"@wes
> > > I think Walmart is doing nothing more than trying to satisfy the
> > > customers that like doctored cd's, and not trying to satisfy the
> >
> > Sure, but don't you think they should be a little more OPEN about their
> > doing that?
> >
> > I have no problems with this if they but up a sign that said, "Some CDs
> > have been edited for content." But this just smacks of "morality
> > censors".
> >
> > (and yeah I know it's not true censorship)
> >
> > --M
>
> I stand by my original post, which you chopped out, that says they don't
> owe you any excuse.
Who's looking for excuses. It would be nice to know, hoewever, that the CD
you just bought is not the CD you thought you bought because you missed the
tiny message, such as, this record has been abridged, expunged and revised
to please the Wall Mart Master Race.
> The only experience I've had with something I didn't
> like from them was a clock radio I bought. I didn't like it, and they
> gave me my money back. I thought the reception was not too good. They
> didn't fall on the ground apologizing, and I didn't expect them to. They
> didn't have a sign warning that you might not like the reception. I was
> even surprised they gave me my money back. I thought I should have done
> a better job checking out the merchandise before I bought it.
Right. You will play the radio in the store before you buy it next time.
> Maybe you should try that too, instead of demanding they warn you of
> everything
> you might not like. That just comes across like cry-baby talk - like you
> can't fend for yourself, so big companies should act like your mommie
> and protect you from all your perceived troubles.
I think the point is that Wall Mart should not act as our Mommie and protect
us from everything. And what are the chances of Wall Mart allowing you to
play the CD before you buy so as to learn what was taken from the CD.
> As far as morality censors, bull. I think both Walmart, and you, know
> they will sell a heck of a lot more copies of a cleaned up cd than a cd
> that has profanities or other sometimes objectionable lyrics on it. I'll
> bet there are relatively few customers of a Walmart that actually want
> the original stuff. In fact, from the type people I've usually seen
> there (I don't go real often), it appears to be more of a family store,
> and those customers probably expect the cleaned up version of anything,
> like books, magazines, tapes, cds, etc. So, the question becomes, why
> are you shopping in a family store for what customers of such a store
> would typically consider pornography & violence anyway. If you have a
> beef, it probably ought to be with those millions of customers of
> Walmart. If anyone is doing any censoring, they are, with their wallets.
>
This arguement continues you to be the biggest pile of malarky that has been
presented in this thread. I have seen it time and again and there is no
statistic presented and probably none known that can verify that more CDs are
sold when they are censored. Prove it.
> It's also why you can't buy a size 36 men's suit at Sears. They only carry
> down to
> size 38. They also don't carry the really big & tall sizes either.
> Should Sears be required to post warnings that they only carry the main
> selling sizes? Or, should all the small men & really big men band
> together & boycott Sears? It would be a pretty small parade. Just like
> yours. Maybe noisy, but small.
More like noisy, big and tall, small and puny.
Barbara Boesche'
Tom Colter wrote:
> I think the point is that Wall Mart should not act as our Mommie and protect
> us from everything. And what are the chances of Wall Mart allowing you to
> play the CD before you buy so as to learn what was taken from the CD.
>
People who waste their time complaining about Walmart can freely go to a
place like "McKnight News", where nothing is censored. In fact they even
allow you to preview in the back for .25 cents.
Of course you have to be 21 years of age. You are 21 aren't you?
Anna M Houck
Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 17-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
Tom Col...@gardener.com
> I think the point is that Wall Mart should not act as our Mommie and protect
> us from everything. And what are the chances of Wall Mart allowing you to
> play the CD before you buy so as to learn what was taken from the CD.
>
Huh? If you never heard the CD and could listen to it for the first time
at Walmart, how would you know what was missing from it? And once you know
that Walmart sells edited CDs why buy them there, unless that happens to
not bother you?
I know that peoples' musical tastes differ so maybe a lot of people can
find good music at Walmart. When we went on vacation last summer we left
the house without our music. We stopped at a Walmart along the way somewhere
to buy a few tapes. Boy, did their selection bite. I wouldn't look for
music at Walmart not because they censor or don't censor, but because
I don't care for their selection. I will admit, though, that now that I
am aware of their censoring policy I probably wouldn't buy CDs there even
if they carried what I was looking for. I will not, however, crusade
against their policy.
Anna
Tom Colter
Barbara Boesche' wrote:
> Tom Colter wrote:
>
> > I think the point is that Wall Mart should not act as our Mommie and protect
> > us from everything. And what are the chances of Wall Mart allowing you to
> > play the CD before you buy so as to learn what was taken from the CD.
> >
>
> People who waste their time complaining about Walmart can freely go to a
> place like "McKnight News", where nothing is censored. In fact they even
> allow you to preview in the back for .25 cents.
>
> Of course you have to be 21 years of age. You are 21 aren't you?
Very amusing. You work as a comic I take it.
Tom Colter
Anna M Houck wrote:
> Excerpts from netnews.pgh.general: 17-Dec-97 Re: Wallmart Censorship by
> Tom Col...@gardener.com
> > I think the point is that Wall Mart should not act as our Mommie and protect
> > us from everything. And what are the chances of Wall Mart allowing you to
> > play the CD before you buy so as to learn what was taken from the CD.
> >
>
> Huh? If you never heard the CD and could listen to it for the first time
> at Walmart, how would you know what was missing from it? And once you know
> that Walmart sells edited CDs why buy them there, unless that happens to
> not bother you?
You are right. Taken out of the context of the long, convulated analogy to which
I was replying, it does not make much sense. So drop the second sentence.
> I know that peoples' musical tastes differ so maybe a lot of people can
> find good music at Walmart. When we went on vacation last summer we left
> the house without our music. We stopped at a Walmart along the way somewhere
> to buy a few tapes. Boy, did their selection bite. I wouldn't look for
> music at Walmart not because they censor or don't censor, but because
> I don't care for their selection. I will admit, though, that now that I
> am aware of their censoring policy I probably wouldn't buy CDs there even
> if they carried what I was looking for. I will not, however, crusade
> against their policy.
>
> Anna
But then you will miss the fun of twisting the tails of the self-rightous who find
Wal-Mart's policy the greatest thing since sliced bread. Besides I am not at all
sure writing in this NG constitutes a crusade.
Tom Colter
Barbara Boesche' wrote:
> Tom Colter wrote:
>
> > I think the point is that Wall Mart should not act as our Mommie and protect
> > us from everything. And what are the chances of Wall Mart allowing you to
> > play the CD before you buy so as to learn what was taken from the CD.
> >
>
> People who waste their time complaining about Walmart can freely go to a
> place like "McKnight News", where nothing is censored. In fact they even
> allow you to preview in the back for .25 cents.
>
> Of course you have to be 21 years of age. You are 21 aren't you?
Oh and BTW, I doubt that "McKnight News" has any CDs in which I would be
interested, but perhaps you can fill me on on their stock since you seem mighty
familiar with it .
cheetles
I have to agree with this here....when I purchase a CD, I want the REAL
thing, not Wal-Mart's version of it. I shop at Wal-Mart too, and I
believe they have a right to sell what they want as long as they let you
know exactly what you are purchasing.
I did a research paper on this. What happens is an artist is left with
the choice of missing the Middle America market because the predominant
store (Wal-Mart) won't sell the CD, so the artist makes a clean
version. The artist is pressured into this for $$$sales$$$, so they are
just as much to blame as Wal-Mart is for insisting on the clean version
of CD.
They are supposed to place a label indicating "clean version" on these
CD's and I think they do comply with this. The solution (and this is
what I do) is to go to Camelot, NRM, or Sam Goody to get your CD's.
cheetles
>
> It's about Wal-Mart's in-ability to clearly tell the consumer that they
> are getting cleaned versions of CDs...
>
> --M
New Life
In article <6651fq$f...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Damon R Hudac <drhs...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>One friend of mine who almost always knows what he's talking about told me
>that somewhere around 40% of new CDs purchased in this country are from
>Wal-Mart.
Would you please ask your friend to quote his source of this
statistic? I find this difficult to believe for many reasons. First,
Walmart, large as it is, is still a relative newbie in the market....there
have been many large chains and many independant sellers out there for
years who aren't suddenly going out of business because Walmart's in the
music business.
tunaman :)
--
What if....it's possible that the person or people you disagree
with could be a lot more like you than you thought? And what if
we did agree on everything? I'd be bored to tears, personally.
Try to find common ground. Just my opinion.
New Life
>Sorry to tell you this, but most bands' goals are to make money. If they tell
>you they are doing it for the "art" they are saying that to make excuses that
>they can't appeal to a large group of people. (been there, done that)
>
Are you SERIOUS? There are thousands of musicians and bands
across the country who's sole purpose is to make music, nothing more,
nothing less. Maybe you've never tasted the joy of being a part of a
great musical experience, but many of us have and really don't care if we
get paid for it or not. Sure, there's lots of bands out there with their
"We want to be rock stars," mentality, but they are the minority of
musicians. Maybe you're just too cynical to believe that there are still
musicians who's primary interest is to express themselves. I write music
myself, and I don't care in the slightest if it ever makes me a penny,
because I wrote the music to fill my need to express myself.
tunaman
Anonymous
> Are you SERIOUS? There are thousands of musicians and bands
> across the country who's sole purpose is to make music, nothing more,
> nothing less. Maybe you've never tasted the joy of being a part of a
> great musical experience, but many of us have and really don't care if we
> get paid for it or not. Sure, there's lots of bands out there with their
> "We want to be rock stars," mentality, but they are the minority of
> musicians.
I stand to correct.
Their primary interest is to be (in their own minds)
a star and to make money. Most of the musicians I know
(and I am aquainted with quite a few) play for other reasons
than "the art". Although many, when confronted, resort to the old
argument that they are doing it for the art (when they can't
make money at it that is). Why do they play in public if they
are doing it for the "art" (music? or did you mean some other
art?) If their "sole purpose" is to make music, why do they
resort to cheap "shock" tactics. What is the "art" in the lyrics that
condone killing cops? smacking the bitch? and violence and
moral decay of other sorts?
They do this for the "shock" factor, not the "art".
The shock factor is there to make money.
> Maybe you're just too cynical to believe that there are still
> musicians who's primary interest is to express themselves. I write music
> myself, and I don't care in the slightest if it ever makes me a penny,
> because I wrote the music to fill my need to express myself.
I imagine then that you will not be resorting to "cheap shock tactics"
and will agree with me when I say that these things don't need to exist
to be an art. In fact the true test of a piece (in any musical period) is
whether it can stand on its own merits.
Lazer Ace
>>One friend of mine who almost always knows what he's talking about told me
>>that somewhere around 40% of new CDs purchased in this country are from
>>Wal-Mart.
>
>
> Would you please ask your friend to quote his source of this
>statistic? I find this difficult to believe for many reasons. First,
>Walmart, large as it is, is still a relative newbie in the market....there
>have been many large chains and many independant sellers out there for
>years who aren't suddenly going out of business because Walmart's in the
>music business.
Wal-Mart has been around for years. They are just relatively new to this
area. K-mart was the only BIG retail chain in this area. Hills is big in
this area but they are only IN this area. All your big music stores are not
NATIONAL chains. National Record Mart is only in this area, you're lucky to
find one out East. So considering how big Wal-Mart is...it's no surprise
those figures are like that. I think they are actually low. K-Mart
probably has the other %40 and all your other record stores and that have
the %20.
D. Rusnak
I, too, find this hard to believe considering that Wal-Mart's selection
and prices are not that great.
I predict BEST BUY and CIRCUIT CITY, both relatively new to this area,
but well-established elsewhere, will blow them all away with both
selection *and* price.
DR
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Save the Yellowstone Wolves! Sign petition at:
http://www.nawa.org/petition.html
More info at:
http://www.poky.srv.net/~jjmrm/maughan.html
http://www.nwf.org/
http://www.defenders.org/
http://www.wolfcenter.org/center.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New Life
In article <689uaj$m...@basement.replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>In article <6882lm$3...@frogger.lm.com>, t...@telerama.lm.com (New Life) wrote:
>
>> Are you SERIOUS? There are thousands of musicians and bands
>> across the country who's sole purpose is to make music, nothing more,
>> nothing less. Maybe you've never tasted the joy of being a part of a
>> great musical experience, but many of us have and really don't care if we
>> get paid for it or not. Sure, there's lots of bands out there with their
>> "We want to be rock stars," mentality, but they are the minority of
>> musicians.
>
>I stand to correct.
>Their primary interest is to be (in their own minds)
>a star and to make money. Most of the musicians I know
>(and I am aquainted with quite a few) play for other reasons
>than "the art".
How old are you and the musicians you speak of? How many
musicians do you know over 40? Have you ever been to Bedford, Pa, or any
of the other places around here who have a lot of free music every summer?
Do you know what they get paid? Zip. How many people get paid to perform
music in church? If you're a college student, then you're probably right,
most musicians in that age bracket have nothing on their minds but being
the next "big thing," or whatever, and dream of riches.
However, if you check out some older musicians, you'll find most
have LONG ago given up on their dreams of riches and glory. So why are
they playing? Well, personally, I have a NEED to play. And most of the
musicians I've spoken to over the years agree with that. They were born
with a NEED to make music, just like we NEED to eat.
>Although many, when confronted, resort to the old
>argument that they are doing it for the art (when they can't
>make money at it that is).
Wait, let's look at this--you're starting off with the assumption that all
musicians are in it for the money. Look at that statement. When they
can't make money at it that is. So their "excuse" is that they want to
make art. And the only way art is validated is if it makes money.
>Why do they play in public if they
>are doing it for the "art"
They want to share their efforts with others.
>(music? or did you mean some other
>art?) If their "sole purpose" is to make music, why do they
>resort to cheap "shock" tactics. What is the "art" in the lyrics that
>condone killing cops? smacking the bitch? and violence and
>moral decay of other sorts?
>They do this for the "shock" factor, not the "art".
>The shock factor is there to make money.
Could be. But, maybe it's just possible it also reflects their
world. Got me, I'm not into violence, and the only time I deal with the
question musically is to attempt to wake people up to the fact that
violence solves nothing.
>I imagine then that you will not be resorting to "cheap shock tactics"
>and will agree with me when I say that these things don't need to exist
>to be an art. In fact the true test of a piece (in any musical period) is
>whether it can stand on its own merits.
Well, first let's check with the dictionary:
from Webster's:
art (definition 5) creative work or it's principles, a making or doing
of things that display form, beauty, and unusual
perception
I don't see anything about it having to live up to anyone's standards but
the artist's. After all, if it were up to the auidence, there would be no
real art, because even the Messiah has it's critics. So therefore, if
it's beauty to the musician, then it is art. It doesn't really matter
what your tastes are. Music reflects the age in which it was written. We
live in a violent age, ergo, there's lots of music about it, both pro and
con. Just because you don't agree with the musician's point of view and
tactics doesn't invalidate it as art.
One question here--are you familiar with Frank Zappa? He made a living as
a musician for many years. Some of his songs were very shocking to
mainstream, but from my point of view, he was merely reflecting the views
of many of us who had grown up in plastic suburbia. We were shocking to
our parents generation. But that really wasn't the point of the music, it
was to convey his thoughts on modern life. While he did manage to get
enough of a following to earn his keep through music, he'll never come
close to the sales a band like Pink Floyd racked up. That doesn't take
anything away from the fact that when I listen to his music, I enjoy
the fact that I'm not alone in my views. Frank was quite aware of the
fact that mainstream looked at the picture frame and missed the picture.
My father was a perfect case in point, "Yellow snow?? This is art??" Of
course it's art Dad, it's just art you don't like. Sorry, two questions:
do you believe in censorship?
One last point--the test of time? If that were the case, "Happy Birthday
to You" would be one of the BEST pieces of music known to man....after
all, it certainly has withstood the test of time. It's probably one of
the most performed pieces of all time. And I have little doubt that 100
years down the road, when most of the musicians of our day are but
footnotes in the history books (assuming books exist), Happy Birthday will
still be performed at those yearly rituals.
tunaman :)
do you know what you are?
you are what you is
you is what you am
a cow don't make ham
you ain't what you're not
so see what you've got
you are what you is
and that all that 'tis
Frank Zappa
Anonymous
> In article <689uaj$m...@basement.replay.com>,
> Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
> >In article <6882lm$3...@frogger.lm.com>, t...@telerama.lm.com (New Life) wrote:
> >
> >> Are you SERIOUS? There are thousands of musicians and bands
> >> across the country who's sole purpose is to make music, nothing more,
> >> nothing less. Maybe you've never tasted the joy of being a part of a
> >> great musical experience, but many of us have and really don't care if we
> >> get paid for it or not. Sure, there's lots of bands out there with their
> >> "We want to be rock stars," mentality, but they are the minority of
> >> musicians.
> >
> >I stand to correct.
> >Their primary interest is to be (in their own minds)
> >a star and to make money. Most of the musicians I know
> >(and I am aquainted with quite a few) play for other reasons
> >than "the art".
>
>
> How old are you and the musicians you speak of? How many
> musicians do you know over 40?
Quite a few actually. (Several over 70 as well)
> Have you ever been to Bedford, Pa, or any
> of the other places around here who have a lot of free music every summer?
> Do you know what they get paid?
About what they are worth. Either that or they really need the PR. They
are not doing it solely because they like music.
>Zip. How many people get paid to perform
> music in church?
Quite a few. Do you think the organists in most churches don't get paid.
The only people that usually don't get paid are getting something out of it.
Good feeling of accomplishment, good graces with God, recognition from
friends etc. They however do not call themselves professional, or play in
public for pay outside of their church.
> However, if you check out some older musicians, you'll find most
> have LONG ago given up on their dreams of riches and glory. So why are
> they playing? Well, personally, I have a NEED to play. And most of the
> musicians I've spoken to over the years agree with that. They were born
> with a NEED to make music, just like we NEED to eat.
They may need to do it, but usually (as was my original point) it is for
non musical reasons (not for the art).
> >Although many, when confronted, resort to the old
> >argument that they are doing it for the art (when they can't
> >make money at it that is).
>
> Wait, let's look at this--you're starting off with the assumption that all
> musicians are in it for the money.
Not true. I never stated "all musicians".
> Look at that statement. When they
> can't make money at it that is. So their "excuse" is that they want to
> make art.
Many of them are in it for money or to feel famous. Both of which or non
art related. Many musicians are in music for the high of playing
publically, not for the music.
> >Why do they play in public if they
> >are doing it for the "art"
>
> They want to share their efforts with others.
No, they want recognition of their talent (or in some cases their lack
thereof).
> >(music? or did you mean some other
> >art?) If their "sole purpose" is to make music, why do they
> >resort to cheap "shock" tactics. What is the "art" in the lyrics that
> >condone killing cops? smacking the bitch? and violence and
> >moral decay of other sorts?
> >They do this for the "shock" factor, not the "art".
> >The shock factor is there to make money.
>
>
> Could be. But, maybe it's just possible it also reflects their
> world. Got me, I'm not into violence, and the only time I deal with the
> question musically is to attempt to wake people up to the fact that
> violence solves nothing.
A good way to go. I applaud you.
> >I imagine then that you will not be resorting to "cheap shock tactics"
> >and will agree with me when I say that these things don't need to exist
> >to be an art. In fact the true test of a piece (in any musical period) is
> >whether it can stand on its own merits.
>
> Well, first let's check with the dictionary:
> from Webster's:
>
> art (definition 5) creative work or it's principles, a making or doing
> of things that display form, beauty, and unusual
> perception
>
>
> I don't see anything about it having to live up to anyone's standards but
> the artist's.
When you record your work and try to sell it you have gone way beyond your own
standards, you are now dealing with public standards. If your own personal
expression of the art was all that was important, you wouldn't need to try
and inflict it on anyone else. You would be satisfied to play in the
garage. What is it that makes you want to play for an audience? Perhaps
not so much your enjoyment of the "art" as your enjoyment of the
performance. You do get most of your reward from that don't you?
> So therefore, if
> it's beauty to the musician, then it is art.
It may be, but to some people it is trash.
> It doesn't really matter
> what your tastes are. Music reflects the age in which it was written.
It also changes value systems, promotes social decay, and is one of the
primary forces used by government throughout history to change the
attitudes of the people. (I'm proud to be an Am-er-i-can!!!!)
> We
> live in a violent age, ergo, there's lots of music about it, both pro and
> con. Just because you don't agree with the musician's point of view and
> tactics doesn't invalidate it as art.
Nor does it validate it because the musician likes it. You could read your
above definition to mean that it has to be judged to be worthwhile and
beautiful by the public, by history, or by other artists.
> One question here--are you familiar with Frank Zappa? He made a living as
> a musician for many years.
I would call his whole life many years.
> Some of his songs were very shocking to
> mainstream, but from my point of view, he was merely reflecting the views
> of many of us who had grown up in plastic suburbia. We were shocking to
> our parents generation. But that really wasn't the point of the music, it
> was to convey his thoughts on modern life.
Which is a NON musical part. True music as art can raise above in spite of
the lyrics. Zappa was great not because of his idealogical beliefs but
because the music he wrote was terrific. Otherwise he is only a poet.
> While he did manage to get
> enough of a following to earn his keep through music, he'll never come
> close to the sales a band like Pink Floyd racked up. That doesn't take
> anything away from the fact that when I listen to his music, I enjoy
> the fact that I'm not alone in my views
That's why you listen to his music? Because you "are not alone in your views"?
> Frank was quite aware of the
> fact that mainstream looked at the picture frame and missed the picture.
Which was the music. Just as you are doing, you are focusing in limited
aspects of the "art" of music. Zappa was an excellent music composer.
> My father was a perfect case in point, "Yellow snow?? This is art??" Of
> course it's art Dad, it's just art you don't like. Sorry, two questions:
> do you believe in censorship?
Your dad had a flawed definition of art. It goes way past lyrics, but the
lyrics should encourage the society we want to live in as music is a VERY
powerful tool. To promote moral decay and lack of values is causing more
harm than you realize.
> One last point--the test of time? If that were the case, "Happy Birthday
> to You" would be one of the BEST pieces of music known to man....after
> all, it certainly has withstood the test of time. It's probably one of
> the most performed pieces of all time. And I have little doubt that 100
> years down the road, when most of the musicians of our day are but
> footnotes in the history books (assuming books exist), Happy Birthday will
> still be performed at those yearly rituals.
It stands the test of time for its ceremony and its lyrics. That doesn't
necessarily make it good music (music as an art form). Play it about 200
times and you will soon realize this.
There are many pieces of music as well that need a listener with different
backgrounds to be able to enjoy and understand. Some pieces need many
listenings. Pop music unfortunately usually catches on when it is in its
simplest form (when people can understand those 3 chords) and begins
losing its audience when the musicians mature and most of the audience
does not. You basically have 2 audiences, the one that doesn't want to
have to think (by far the larger audience), and the one that wants to be
captivated and drawn in, and hearing new things everytime they experience
the music. I don't think Happy Birthday could do that (at least in its
most common form), do you?
There is a difference between liking the art of music, and liking to perform.
New Life
In article <4$7r.11$e11.1...@news.sgi.net>,
Lazer Ace <er...@falstaff.english.cup.edu> wrote:
>
>Wal-Mart has been around for years. They are just relatively new to this
>area. K-mart was the only BIG retail chain in this area. Hills is big in
>this area but they are only IN this area. All your big music stores are not
>NATIONAL chains. National Record Mart is only in this area, you're lucky to
>find one out East. So considering how big Wal-Mart is...it's no surprise
>those figures are like that. I think they are actually low. K-Mart
>probably has the other %40 and all your other record stores and that have
>the %20.
>
>
>
>
Well, you forced me into making some phone calls on this, but this
is what I got:
I contacted several record compainies, all big ones, and asked them about
distribution. While none had figures handy (and two different ones
promised to fax me info today or tomorrow, I'll post as soon as I get
them) the answer I got was consistant: Walmart accounts for appx 8
percent of the new CD market. The biggest? Columbia Record Club. Sorry,
they only have about 10 percent of the share tho. Nobody rules the record
business except the execs at the record companies. And that will be
changing more every day, thanks to technology that now makes it possible
for a band to produce it's own cd's at a reasonable cost. They all agreed
on one point--no distributor has more than 10 percent of the share of the
market.
tunaman :)
Bop Tista
Polkadot chocolate helps you conquer your day or make it an adventure depending on how you choose to dose. Polka dot magic belgian chocolate bars are not only delicious, but also very powerful. These mushroom chocolates are equivalent to 4 grams of Psilocybin & Psilocin from Psychedelic Mushrooms. Aside from the full-fledged high of eating a number of chocolates, these are helpful for those who are fans of microdosing, as the chocolate hide the fungi flavor and you can eat 1 square at a time. Now available here at affordable prices. Being the official producers and suppliers of polka dot chocolate bars, it has also come to our attention that magic mushrooms have been decriminalized in Washington, DC. Each bar contains 15 easily-breakable pieces.
Polka dot shroom bars review
To continue, this is 1 of the oldest and safest medicines in the world. This psilocybin and psilocin from psychedelic mushrooms reduces stress, depression, stimulate brain cell growth. She will also increase focus, and sharpen your senses.
POLKADOT CHOCOLATE DOSAGE
MICRODOSE: 1-3 PIECES. STIMULATE THE MIND.
THERAPEUTIC: 4-9 PIECES. MINDFUL AND ELEVATED.
GOD MODE: 10-15 PIECES. WALLS MIGHT MELT.
Micro dosing psychedelics is the practice of consuming very low, sub-hallucinogenic doses of a psychedelic substance. Substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), mushroom chocolates or psilocybin containing mushrooms. Polka dot shroom bars have different verities. Each flavor taste different since they all have different ingredients. With the Cinnamon toast crunch flavor, the main ingredients are mushrooms, a naturally flavored chocolate sweetened wheat and rice cereal with a hint of cinnamon. This mushroom chocolate bar has a sweet taste due to a whopping 17 grams of sugar and 6 grams of sugar that is present in the chocolate bar.
Polka dot chocolate bars at https://rythmsofficial.com/
Buy Polka dot chocolate bars
Buy trippy flip mushroom chocolates
We provide next-day overnight drop-off at your secured delivery address with no signature required. You don’t sign up for a package and delivery is 100% secured and guaranteed, 100% money back if anything happens with the package or the package not deliver, and with the help and confirmation from the delivery company, we reship within 4 days or refund money back if you will not like to use our services.
Phone N0: +15156614951
https://rythmsofficial.com/product/polka-dot-mushroom-bars/
where to buy mushroom chocolate
buy mushroom chocolate bar
where can i buy mushroom chocolate
buy mushroom chocolate
where to buy mushroom chocolate bars
buy mushroom chocolate bars
where can you buy mushroom chocolate
can you buy mushroom chocolate i colorado
can you buy mushroom chocolate
how to buy mushroom chocolate