The Mellotron Group

Fritz doesn't ever kid. The "F" in Fritz stands for something, and that  
"something" is seriousness. 
 
 
 
In a message dated 5/29/2012 2:14:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
gabru@comsec.net writes:

 
 
 
 
I have got to  agree with you here Dave…Fritz…you are kidding right…
.turntable lessons???  J 
 
 
 
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  Hammonddave
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 11:11 PM
To:  newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup]  Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
 
 
 
You must be kidding.....

Sent from my  iPad
 

On May 28, 2012, at 10:52 PM, _fdoddy@aol.com_ (mailto:fdoddy@aol.com)   
wrote:

 
 
Chris,

You are so off  base here, imho, that I can't even respond  coherently.  
The  Beastie Boy's "Paul's Boutique" was the first album to be assembled 
entirely  using samples (Mix master Mike) and it is a work of art!!  It has  
influenced everything that came after it. I will go to my grave trumpeting  
DJs/turntablists as REAL musicians and composers, because they are. I have  
taken a few lessons on the turntable and I know how extremely difficult it  is 
to play.  Wake up folks!!

fritz 
 

 
 
We all know  of some great technical guitarists, but there are very few 
proficient or  innovative DJ's.
 
Most are  just playing back two records at a time, and re-mixing. That is  
something that anyone can learn to do.  


 

 

 

 
-----Original  Message-----
From: Chris Dale <_unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com) >
To:  newmellotrongroup <_newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) >
Sent:  Mon, May 28, 2012 7:11 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter  Gabriel - So what? 
 
 
 
 
 

I think a  musician is someone who 'intends to make sound and craft'  music.
 

 
As far as the  attention span goes - yes people seem to be getting 'dumber' 
these days and  failing education systems where music and reading have been 
cut back are  partly to blame. There's no question about that.
 

 
I agree that  a DJ 'can' be a musician and composer, but often times they  
aren't.  I don't think DJ music as a genre has been explored fully  and 
because of that it lacks credibility alongside historic genres of  music.
 

 
We all know  of some great technical guitarists, but there are very few 
proficient or  innovative DJ's.
 
Most are just  playing back two records at a time, and re-mixing. That is  
something that anyone can learn to do. 
 
The  difference is there is a world of musical technique involved in 
physically  playing an instrument, and so far there is a real lack of manufactured 
 dynamic turntables that respond the same way a guitar, piano, etc.  do .
 

 
So I  personally don't attach the same amount of musical credibility to 
DJ's  partly because we don't see too much physical innovation there. But I do  
welcome it and can see it happening in the  future. 
 

 

 
As far as  sampling goes - the idea of sampling someone else's art without 
their  consent is unethical to me.
 

 
If I took a  piece of the Mona Lisa and put it into my own painting, I 
wouldn't think I  would be that great or inspiring. It would suggest I'm at 
worst a  thief, and at best, someone who needs to rely on the work of others 
because  I can't come up with something better or original. If I painted 
Leonardo  DaVinci painting the Mona Lisa - well that might be  interesting.
 

 
To me  Mellotrons and their ilk are different from contemporary sample  use 
because the performers knew and intended the recordings they made  would be 
used in the creation of other music.  Sampling someone  else's work or even 
re-mastering it or altering it after they've  died is an artistic rape 
because it's not in keeping with what the  original artists intended.
 

 
For example,  the Isley Brothers, Kraftwerk, etc.etc. didn't consent to 
having their music  sampled and just because it's a common practice, that 
doesn't make it  morally right. 
 

 

 

 
As far as  album credits go, they go from both outright lies to total  
truth.
 
You will  never have me believe someone like Justin Timberlake (who can't  
play an instrument) can compose and arrange a  movie soundtrack. I  don't 
care what the movie credits say. That's where politics and  back scratching 
are an influence.
 

 
The music  industry as a whole is completely different than what it was in 
the 1970's.  Marketing and selling is now a science.  
 

 
In the mid  70's smaller music labels were bought up and absorbed by bigger 
music  labels.
 
This happened  again on a big scale in the 80's when Warner took over Time 
/ Life and  Seagrams Liquor bought up most of the major record labels. And 
it happened  again in the 90's and again in the  early  2000's.
 

 
Today music  is completely corporate, and the multinational companies that 
own the  music industry are not interested in selling music with ideas about 
 dragons and fairies, or brewing your own beer, saving your  money, 
meditation, or anything that takes you out of the 'Matrix"  so to speak.
 

 
The simple  reason why is that they can't make big money from  it.
 

 

 
They are  interested in selling ideologies related to consumerism  of 
products like tobacco, alcohol, and fashion, and also a group-think  homogenized 
mentality where everyone should largely react or think the same  way in the 
world.
 
Politically,  you would do this by removing  or censoring diversity of  
expression on multiple levels.
 

 
As record  company owners or controllers - they don't want to foster talent 
and  individualism. They would rather have a universe of talentless 'idols' 
where  there is a collective lemming mentality, easily to manipulate  
contractually, and favouring style similarity over diversity. Why?  Because once 
you create something unique or diverse, you must be  willing to defend it 
and promote it on your own - requiring a much more  costly noble and valiant 
quest.
 

 
Record labels  don't want to have to fight with individualistic creative 
artists. The  idea of the tradional guitar hero or keyboard hero is not really 
 encouraged.
 

 
It's in their  best interest to sell and promote a 'mass mentality' where 
they can push  products on to a receptive audience, and make money for their 
businesses and  stockholders. So we really can't compare the time of the 
70's and back with  now.
 

 

 
This is the  reason for the all the observations here. 
 

 

 
If you want  to control a country and it's people you must make them 
subservient to a  belief system.
 

 
You  homogenize values through TV, music and magazines so that eventually 
they  all think the same.
 

And then  you've replaced the individualism of invention, innovation, etc. 
with a  dumbed down - go along to get along  - collectivism.
 

 

 
Plato said it  himself - 
 

 
“Musical  innovation is full of danger to the State, for when modes of 
music change,  the laws of the State always change with them.”  
 
“Those  who tell the stories rule society.”
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
On Sat, May  26, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Mike Dickson <_mike.dickson@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mike.dickson@gmail.com) >  wrote: 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
1. Digital life made musicians  almost obsolete.
 


 
    *   What's a 'musician'?    
    *   Why  is someone who puts together music digitally less of a 
musician than  anyone else?  
    *   If  '[a]ny moron can "play, record and post it in the web"' then  
doesn't that fly in the face of the point entirely?  Far from  '[making] 
musicians almost obsolete' doesn't that increase the  number of musicians there 
are out there?  
    *   Are  you confusing 'musicianship' with 'personal  taste'?

 
 
2. Ecstasy is not a good drug for  music. People get so stupid that they 
see a DJ as  musician!!!
 


 
    *   Why  is it 'not a good drug for music'?  Says who?  What about the  
myriad people who take it every weekend and get off on it and the music?  
Are you perhaps (again) confusing what is 'good' with  'what you personally 
like'?  
    *   Why  can a DJ not be a musician?    
    *   In  fact, given the definition of the word, why is a DJ not viewed 
as a  composer?

 
 

 
3. People are so anxious and  neurotic that they can't  'listen'to anything 
without pressing the FWD  key to the next song.
 


 
    *   Maybe.  I suspect attention spans are getting  shorter because 
music (among other things) is so easy to get your hands on  now that it's a 
disposable commodity.  But has it ever not  been?  Who says it has to be 
anything but?  
    *   Maybe the music lends itself to the whole ideal.  Do you have to be 
'anxious and neurotic' for that to be true?  Are you seeing a stereotype 
where none  exists?

 
 
4. "Total  lack of identification with the band. Digital made bands/record  
covers/credits useless...nobody knows who's playing and nobody  cares.."
 


 
    *   To  come out with an absurdly sweeping statement like 'digital made 
 bands/record covers/credits useless' requires some form of evidence.   
    *   To  say 'nobody knows who's playing and nobody cares' is plainly  
flat-out wrong.  If anything, the speed at which music  (digitally played and 
recorded or otherwise) can be put together and  uploaded to the web so a 
musician is in direct contact with his or her  audience is such that it cuts 
out the middle man entirely.  Who  needs a publication deal when you can 
publish it yourself?  Why is it  that a musician speaking directly to his 
audience (or market) is a bad  thing?  Do you think record labels and music 
publication deals are a  necessary thing?
 
You sign off  with 'All in all...nobody cares for music at all I'd say'.  
How  do you know?

 

 
Mike
 
 
 
 
On 26 May  2012 15:06, Fritz Doddy <_fdoddy@aol.com_ 
(mailto:fdoddy@aol.com) > wrote: 
 
 
 
 
 
I agree with  point #3, but vehemently disagree with 1,2 and 4

Sorry for the  brevity as I am replying from a remote region of 
iPhonekstan.   
 

 
fritzdoddy

 
 
 

On May  26, 2012, at 8:38 AM, R l <_bluesrock77@hotmail.com_ 
(mailto:bluesrock77@hotmail.com) >  wrote:

 
 
 
Hi Chris,   
 

 
I totally  agree. So much so that I said I'd rather visit the Pompeii arena 
empty and  feel the vibes of a bygone concert by the Floyd than see the 
band nowadays  (last 30 years). 
 
As for why  this is happening, there are many possibilities of course, my  
theory.
 

 
1. Digital  life made musicians almost obsolete. ANy moron can "play, 
record and post  it in the web". Just like picture taking.
 
2. Ecstasy  is not a good drug for music. People get so stupid that they 
see a DJ as  musician!!! Bloody hell...
 
3. People  are so anxious and neurotic that they can't  'listen'to anything 
 without pressing the FWD key to the next song...3000 songs in the Ipod and 
 most never listen till the end...
 
4. Total  lack of identification with the band. Digital made bands/record  
covers/credits useless...nobody knows who's playing and nobody  cares...
 

 
All in  all...nobody cares for music at all I'd 
say...Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad: but  true!
 

 
best,
 

 
Roberto 
 
  
____________________________________
 
To: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
From:  _unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com_ (mailto:unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com) 
Date:  Sat, 26 May 2012 02:53:12 -0400
Subject: Re:  [newmellotrongroup]hris,
 

 
Re:  Peter Gabriel - So what?


 
 
 
I almost  never go see big name classic rock concerts  anymore.
 

 

 
Usually,  some of the original band members are missing, (Moody Blues, 
Beach  Boys, The Who, Pink Floyd) or the performers can't sing as well or  play 
as well anymore (The Police, Led  Zeppelin).
 

 
Or  - the band is naturally using some shitty vapid digital equipment in  
place of the original instruments, and the sound is an updated,  sterilized, 
modern version that has all the life sucked out of  it.
 

 
I  saw The Band once and Garth Hudson (and some other unknown  keyboardist 
alongside him) were using the shittiest, most depressing 80's  reverbed Korg 
and Roland organ sounds to do Chest Fever. It  was unbelievably bad.
 
It sounded  like kids playing a casio keyboard in a Walmart toy  section 
aisle.
 
The same  with Jerry Corbetta of Sugarloaf. Green Eyed Lady was played with 
tinny  hip-hop organ sounds - just sonic garbage.
 

 
Some of  these bands also use augmenting hack musicians on stage and girl 
dancers  that have nothing to do with helping the original band or music  
style. It's just insulting to the original spirit or identity of the  band. 
 

 
A different  example a  few years ago was when I went to see Paul McCartney 
 in Toronto. It was enjoyable up to the point when people started trying to 
 sing along. It was sufferable for a while.
 
But then  came 'Hey Jude' which was the absolute worst.  The song was  
literally murdered by the sing-along of the absolute worst choir  of out of tune 
morons I've ever heard. And their collective breath  stank like a sewage 
pipe.
 

 
I remember  seeing a Beach Boys concert clip where one of them asked those 
who could  sing to sing along, and those who couldn't to 'please keep  
quiet'.
 
I thought  it was very rude for them to say that at the time, but after  
that Hey Jude performance, I now understand why.
 

 

 
Overall,  the expense, time and the trouble you go through to see a  
concert just isn't worth it.
 

 
These bands  today mostly exist as shadows of their former selves - almost 
their own  tribute bands.
 

 
I now  prefer a good DVD of a classic quality performance from the by-gone 
days  to what's passing as a live show. 
 

 
Of course,  if it's a band I respect and never got the chance to see, (like 
Nektar)  then I'll make an exception, but generally a glorified tribute 
band  version, with tinny keyboards, vocal harmonizer effects, and  anonymous 
helpers and dancers doesn't make for a decent  concert.
 

 
And the  irony is with the technology today - we can have a great sounding 
concert  more times than not.
 
So why is  this happening?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
On Fri, May  25, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Bruce Daily <_pocotron@yahoo.com_ 
(mailto:pocotron@yahoo.com) >  wrote: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(GROAN)
 
I'm sure he's READY for  it.
 

 
I was surprised to hear one  of his songs on a TV commercial recently.  It 
was "Big Time", and I  think it was on one of those god-forsaken Swiffer 
ads.  Money trumps  integrity once in a while.
 

 
-Bruce  D.
 

 

 
 
 
From: trawnajim <_jimab@rogers.com_ (mailto:jimab@rogers.com) >
To: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject:  [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
 
 
 
 
 


--- In _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) ,  Bruce Daily <_pocotron@..._ (mailto:pocotron@...) > wrote:
>
> Hi  all-
>   It would be fun to see him at Red Rocks here in  Colorado, except for 
the unreasonable ticket prices and the  bullshit on-line ticket sale methods. 
 Those reasons  alone reduce the enjoyment of the event.  I haven't seen a 
major  concert in years.
>  
>   -Bruce D. 
>  (with a trace of sarcastic bitterness)

I suppose it's likely that  he will do Red Rain at Red Rocks. Perhaps they 
can get Red Rider as  openers.

Jim Bailey


































-- 
Mike  Dickson, Edinburgh













=