The Mellotron Group

 From: ClayE <ecclesreinson@rogers.com>
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:21 AM
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Peter Gabriel - So what?
  

 
   
 
For those who give a shit - 
North American tour tickets available very soon.

http://petergabriel.com/livedates/

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

 
   
 


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 7:53 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] 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> 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>
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?



  


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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

On May 26, 2012, at 8:38 AM, R l <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
> From: 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> 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>
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
> Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Dale
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 2:53 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] 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?

From: John Wright 
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:07 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

  

Hi Chris,


I wholeheartedly agree with you.  


A couple more exceptions, IMHO, would be RUSH and Robin Trower.  I see both whenever I can.  RUSH is gearing up again for yet another tour and I know they  have some help when playing live, but I sure enjoy the music.  Robin Trower is just plain solid.  He plays better now than in the 70s.


Happy Memorial Day to all.  If any vets on the board, thank you.


John#911 


From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Dale
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 2:53 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] 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?






CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege or otherwise. If you have received this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy, or distribute this e-mail or any attachments, and please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you.

From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, May 26, 2012, 11:55 PM



  



I'm with Fritz on that one entirely.  You seem to be arguing against 'digital' as if that's the culprit.


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> 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> 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
From: 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> 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>
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?




  



--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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

 From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
  

 
   
 
On 27 May 2012 15:28, gino wong <wonggster@gmail.com> wrote:

 
>  
>My definition is much simpler, a composer is someone who can be paid for a composition.  The resyncing DJ may get a reduced mechanical fee, a work for hire fee, but no publishing. Some hip hop types pay for sample clearance  and usuall end up with severely reduced publishing fees unless they hose the original composer somehow. At best you can call a dj a technician of some sort.   

Good lord. Given that they play what you tell them to play you could also call a sessionist a 'technician of some sort' as well!

Linking payment into what defines 'composer' makes it even more complicated. What if the composer doesn't want to be paid for it?  What if the composer couldn't be paid for it?  What if the composer doesn't compose for money?  And doesn't the question of payment entirely move the argument from 'what a composer does' (ie, composes) to 'how a composer might be compensated'? (ie, payment) 

And if a 'resyncing DJ may get a reduced mechanical fee' then doesn't that mean he could be paid?

On May 28, 2012, at 5:37 AM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris makes a few good points but a few downright weird ones too.
> 
> I would agree that a musician is someone who 'makes music'. I wouldn't say that he necessarily 'crafts' it, though.  That's the composer's job.  I think there are probably more musicians out there who play what they are told (or what they expect, in the case of any number of bar bands I've witnessed) than people who are actually engaged in creating music from nothing other than ideas and influences. 
> 
> Perhaps a DJ can be a composer, but to say 'but often times they aren't' is a little like saying a good composer (say, Bruckner) was sometimes great but often he wasn't.  (Anyone doubting this should read the story about Anton and his 'zeroth' symphony) I wasn't trying to refer to the sort of DJ who just plays records, but to the DJ who tries to do something creative with the sound he is playing.  There probably ought to be a term for this type of person, to differentiate. Maybe there is. I dunno.
> 
> However, the humdinger is that DJ music 'lacks credibility'.  Chris - who hands out the Credibility Tokens in your neck of the woods?  The Credibility Cops?  When does music 'become credible'?  Do they have some sort of certificate to show this?  Maybe a party of some kind.  What is it that makes music 'credible'?  
> 
> Is it music?  Yes it is.  
> Do people like it (as if that even matters) Yes they do.
> 
> That's kind of the end of the argument, unless you want to argue 'what is music?' and I am afraid I will have you completely cornered on that one, and the answer is but one word long. Maybe you are trying to say 'is it credible to me and people like me?', in which case you are making an argument of taste, and that's no argument at all. (If that is an argument then I am afraid that most of the Sacred Bovines round here aren't credible either as I cannot stand them)  
> 
> You say that credibility is associated with 'physical innovation'.  I'm not entirely sure what that entails, but innovation is certainly a pretty shaky nail upon which to hang any musical argument. Show me 'innovation' and I'll show you plagarism and what is charitably called influence, and I don't mean in the last ten years.  If you don't believe me then have a look at this video and tell me what you make of it.  (Good film series, incidentally)
> 
> Sampling without consent is unethical maybe.  And I mean maybe.  Brian Wilson was a bit bent out of shape when he found out that Air had sampled the snare drum from 'Do It Again' on 'Remember', until it was pointed out to him that (1) it's a pretty good tribute to him and anyway (2) it might mean he's going to sell a few records when Air say where the drum samples came from.  In that case, the sound was the innovation (and a great one too) and Air made Fair Use of it.  If they tried what is known as 'passing off' then it might be 'unethical', but fortunately they didn't.  Hell, I released a tune which has CLEARLY got a huge sample of a very famous tune indeed in it.  It's so obvious that 'passing off' isn't even an option. (Incidentally, I don't think the Mona Lisa is Leonardo's greatest - he has done some far superior work, but that's another argument)  Sampling is a broad argument.  Try reading Remix by Lawrence Lessig.  It's a better explanation of everything. (Tangentially, this book is also a great read and is close to unbelievable.  At what point did someone say 'hang on....')
> 
> You do go on to say that it isn't 'morally right'.  Oooh. That's a personal itch of mine.  Don't confuse ethics and morals.  The two are not equivalent.
> 
> Marketing and selling has always been a science, Chris.  Don't kid yourself otherwise.  Stockholders existed in the 1970s, same as now, same as always.  The music 'industry' (a term I hate) cannot sell anyone anything they don't actually want.  They might however oversell it, but that's their problem.  More worrying to me is the way everything ties together commercially, where the song, the burger gift, the film, the tee shirt and the computer game are all part of the same 'immersive experience'.
> 
> I am dying to hear how 'dragons and fairies' take you out of the Matrix, though.  That angle has been sold to death since JRR put pen to paper and engendered an entire division of depressing guff about..well...dragons and fairies.  And Peter Jackson's film is about as 'corporate' a tie-in film as you can hope to imagine.  Are you picking your bovines with enough care? :-)
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 28 May 2012 12:11, Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> 
> 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> 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> 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> 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
>> From: 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> 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>
>> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
>> Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
>

On May 28, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Owen Hodgson - Tron <tron@thinking-aloud.co.uk> wrote:

> When I was at school, my teacher for music class gave us the following definition:
> 
> "Music is organised sound; noise is disorganised sound."
> 
> I've always found that useful, even if it goes against my own particular tastes: if someone deliberately generates a sound, or combination of sounds, for the purpose of making those sounds (and not incidental to some other process that happens to make a sound), then it's music.
> 
> I'm sure others disagree!  :)
> 
> On 28 May 2012, at 13:37, Mike Dickson wrote:
> 
>>  
>> 
>> That's kind of the end of the argument, unless you want to argue 'what is music?' a
> 
> 
> Owen
> 
> Thinking Aloud - Mellotronic & Orchestral Rock, Mostly
> 
> http://www.thinking-aloud.co.uk/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

From: mike.dickson@gmail.com
Date:  Mon, 28 May 2012 13:37:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter  Gabriel - So what?


 

Chris makes a few good points but a few downright weird ones too.


I would agree that a musician is someone who 'makes music'. I wouldn't  say 
that he necessarily 'crafts' it, though.  That's the  composer's job.  I 
think there are probably more musicians out there  who play what they are told 
(or what they expect, in the case of any number of  bar bands I've 
witnessed) than people who are actually engaged in  creating music from nothing 
other than ideas and influences. 


Perhaps a DJ can be a composer, but to say 'but often times they aren't'  
is a little like saying a good composer (say, Bruckner) was sometimes  great 
but often he wasn't.  (Anyone doubting this should read the story  about 
Anton and his 'zeroth' symphony) I wasn't trying to refer to the  sort of DJ 
who just plays records, but to the DJ who tries to do something  creative with 
the sound he is playing.  There probably ought to be a  term for this type 
of person, to differentiate. Maybe there is. I dunno.


However, the humdinger is that DJ music 'lacks credibility'.  Chris  - who 
hands out the Credibility Tokens in your neck of the woods?  The Credibility 
Cops?  When does music 'become credible'?  Do they have some sort of 
certificate to show this?  Maybe a party  of some kind.  What is it that makes 
music 'credible'?  



    *   Is it music?  Yes it is.    
    *   Do people like it (as if that even matters) Yes they do.



That's kind of the end of the argument, unless you want to argue 'what  is 
music?' and I am afraid I will have you completely cornered  on that one, 
and the answer is but one word long. Maybe you are  trying to say 'is it 
credible to me and people like me?', in which case  you are making an argument of 
taste, and that's no argument at  all. (If that is an argument then I am 
afraid that most of the  Sacred Bovines round here aren't credible either as I 
cannot stand  them)  


You say that credibility is associated with 'physical innovation'.  I'm not 
entirely sure what that entails, but innovation is  certainly a pretty 
shaky nail upon which to hang any musical argument.  Show me 'innovation' and 
I'll show you plagarism and what is charitably  called influence, and I don't 
mean in the last ten years.  If you  don't believe me then have a look at 
_this video_ (https://vimeo.com/14912890)  and tell me  what you make of it.  
(Good film series, incidentally)


Sampling without consent is unethical maybe.  And I mean maybe.  Brian 
Wilson was a bit bent out of shape when he found out that Air  had sampled the 
snare drum from 'Do It Again' on 'Remember', until it was  pointed out to him 
that (1) it's a pretty good tribute to him and anyway  (2) it might mean 
he's going to sell a few records when Air say where the drum  samples came 
from.  In that case, the sound was the innovation (and  a great one too) and 
Air made Fair Use of it.  If they tried what is  known as 'passing off' then 
it might be 'unethical', but fortunately they  didn't.  Hell, I released a 
tune which has CLEARLY got a huge sample of a  very famous tune indeed in it.  
It's so obvious that 'passing off'  isn't even an option. (Incidentally, I 
don't think the Mona Lisa is Leonardo's  greatest - he has done some far 
superior work, but that's another  argument)  Sampling is a broad argument.  
Try reading _Remix by Lawrence Lessig_ (http://remix.lessig.org/) .  It's a 
better explanation of  everything. (Tangentially, _this book_ 
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Rave-Shawn-Fannings-Napster/dp/0609610937/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid
=1338208583&sr=8-1)  is also a great read and is close to unbelievable.  At 
what point did someone say 'hang on....')


You do go on to say that it isn't 'morally right'.  Oooh. That's a  
personal itch of mine.  Don't confuse ethics and morals.  The  two are not 
equivalent.


Marketing and selling has always been a science, Chris.  Don't kid  
yourself otherwise.  Stockholders existed in the 1970s, same as now, same  as 
always.  The music 'industry' (a term I hate) cannot sell anyone  anything they 
don't actually want.  They might however oversell it, but  that's their 
problem.  More worrying to me is the way everything ties  together commercially, 
where the song, the burger gift, the film, the tee  shirt and the computer 
game are all part of the same 'immersive  experience'.


I am dying to hear how 'dragons and fairies' take you out of the Matrix,  
though.  That angle has been sold to death since JRR put pen to paper and  
engendered an entire division of depressing guff about..well...dragons and  
fairies.  And Peter Jackson's film is about as 'corporate' a tie-in film  as 
you can hope to imagine.  Are you picking your bovines with enough  care? :-)


Mike

On 28 May 2012 12:11, Chris Dale <_unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com) >  wrote:


 
 


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@...> 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























-- 
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:21 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


So who likes Peter Gabriel? Anyone want to comment?

Frank

In a message dated 5/28/2012 9:52:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bluesrock77@hotmail.com<mailto:bluesrock77@hotmail.com> writes:

Hi y'all,

I'm very happy to see that my posting sparked such a great discussion!
SOme of what I said where in jest...like Ecstasy being a bad drug for music making...some where not...I still want to see a musical instrument being played, whatever it is, even a single tambourine,  rather than watch someone playing records with one note beat...it's not just the mechanical act of it...it's the lack of harmony and the one note beat that bothers me...besides it doesn't move me a bit...I just can't relate to DJ's...sorry...besides nothing to do with the Tron, which a a note reproduction system in most cases, not full songs...
as for the downloading..well, anyone who's ever been to a music store knew what a great experience it could be...browsing all the different rows...discovering new bands and maybe interacting with the buyers (I made quite a few friend in record stores)  etc, when I lived in London I'd listen to John Peel and other DJs (quite different eh?) and then on the next day go to Virgin, HMV, Portobello Road etc in search of the records.....now that they are gone...what do you do? Just download something for free (nothing against it) and then delete? (Totally against it, if you know what I mean) In that case music has no value, it's just a disposable thing... I still have hundreds of my vinyls because I had to work hard to get them...
I'll stop here...I have a PhD to finish...great to be part of this group...

best,

Roberto
________________________________
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
From: mike.dickson@gmail.com<mailto:mike.dickson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 13:37:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?



Chris makes a few good points but a few downright weird ones too.

I would agree that a musician is someone who 'makes music'. I wouldn't say that he necessarily 'crafts' it, though.  That's the composer's job.  I think there are probably more musicians out there who play what they are told (or what they expect, in the case of any number of bar bands I've witnessed) than people who are actually engaged in creating music from nothing other than ideas and influences.

Perhaps a DJ can be a composer, but to say 'but often times they aren't' is a little like saying a good composer (say, Bruckner) was sometimes great but often he wasn't.  (Anyone doubting this should read the story about Anton and his 'zeroth' symphony) I wasn't trying to refer to the sort of DJ who just plays records, but to the DJ who tries to do something creative with the sound he is playing.  There probably ought to be a term for this type of person, to differentiate. Maybe there is. I dunno.

However, the humdinger is that DJ music 'lacks credibility'.  Chris - who hands out the Credibility Tokens in your neck of the woods?  The Credibility Cops?  When does music 'become credible'?  Do they have some sort of certificate to show this?  Maybe a party of some kind.  What is it that makes music 'credible'?


  *   Is it music?  Yes it is.
  *   Do people like it (as if that even matters) Yes they do.

That's kind of the end of the argument, unless you want to argue 'what is music?' and I am afraid I will have you completely cornered on that one, and the answer is but one word long. Maybe you are trying to say 'is it credible to me and people like me?', in which case you are making an argument of taste, and that's no argument at all. (If that is an argument then I am afraid that most of the Sacred Bovines round here aren't credible either as I cannot stand them)

You say that credibility is associated with 'physical innovation'.  I'm not entirely sure what that entails, but innovation is certainly a pretty shaky nail upon which to hang any musical argument. Show me 'innovation' and I'll show you plagarism and what is charitably called influence, and I don't mean in the last ten years.  If you don't believe me then have a look at this video<https://vimeo.com/14912890> and tell me what you make of it.  (Good film series, incidentally)

Sampling without consent is unethical maybe.  And I mean maybe.  Brian Wilson was a bit bent out of shape when he found out that Air had sampled the snare drum from 'Do It Again' on 'Remember', until it was pointed out to him that (1) it's a pretty good tribute to him and anyway (2) it might mean he's going to sell a few records when Air say where the drum samples came from.  In that case, the sound was the innovation (and a great one too) and Air made Fair Use of it.  If they tried what is known as 'passing off' then it might be 'unethical', but fortunately they didn't.  Hell, I released a tune which has CLEARLY got a huge sample of a very famous tune indeed in it.  It's so obvious that 'passing off' isn't even an option. (Incidentally, I don't think the Mona Lisa is Leonardo's greatest - he has done some far superior work, but that's another argument)  Sampling is a broad argument.  Try reading Remix by Lawrence Lessig<http://remix.lessig.org/>.  It's a better explanation of everything. (Tangentially, this book<http://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Rave-Shawn-Fannings-Napster/dp/0609610937/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338208583&sr=8-1> is also a great read and is close to unbelievable.  At what point did someone say 'hang on....')

You do go on to say that it isn't 'morally right'.  Oooh. That's a personal itch of mine.  Don't confuse ethics and morals.  The two are not equivalent.

Marketing and selling has always been a science, Chris.  Don't kid yourself otherwise.  Stockholders existed in the 1970s, same as now, same as always.  The music 'industry' (a term I hate) cannot sell anyone anything they don't actually want.  They might however oversell it, but that's their problem.  More worrying to me is the way everything ties together commercially, where the song, the burger gift, the film, the tee shirt and the computer game are all part of the same 'immersive experience'.

I am dying to hear how 'dragons and fairies' take you out of the Matrix, though.  That angle has been sold to death since JRR put pen to paper and engendered an entire division of depressing guff about..well...dragons and fairies.  And Peter Jackson's film is about as 'corporate' a tie-in film as you can hope to imagine.  Are you picking your bovines with enough care? :-)

Mike

On 28 May 2012 12:11, Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com<mailto:unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com>> wrote:



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%40yahoogroups.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





--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:21 AM
To:  newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup]  Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
 
 
 
So who likes  Peter Gabriel? Anyone want to comment? 
 

 
Frank
 

 
 
In a message  dated 5/28/2012 9:52:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_bluesrock77@hotmail.com_ (mailto:bluesrock77@hotmail.com)   writes:

 
 
Hi y'all,   
 

 
I'm very  happy to see that my posting sparked such a great  discussion!
 
SOme of what  I said where in jest...like Ecstasy being a bad drug for 
music making...some  where not...I still want to see a musical instrument being 
played, whatever  it is, even a single tambourine,  rather than watch 
someone playing  records with one note beat...it's not just the mechanical act of 
it...it's  the lack of harmony and the one note beat that bothers 
me...besides it  doesn't move me a bit...I just can't relate to DJ's...sorry...besides 
 nothing to do with the Tron, which a a note reproduction system in most  
cases, not full songs...
 
as for the  downloading..well, anyone who's ever been to a music store knew 
what a great  experience it could be...browsing all the different 
rows...discovering new  bands and maybe interacting with the buyers (I made quite a 
few friend in  record stores)  etc, when I lived in London I'd listen to John 
Peel and  other DJs (quite different eh?) and then on the next day go to 
Virgin, HMV,  Portobello Road etc in search of the records.....now that they 
are  gone...what do you do? Just download something for free (nothing against 
it)  and then delete? (Totally against it, if you know what I mean) In that 
case  music has no value, it's just a disposable thing... I still have 
hundreds of  my vinyls because I had to work hard to get them...
 
I'll stop  here...I have a PhD to finish...great to be part of this  
group...
 

 
best,
 

 
Roberto 
 
  
____________________________________
 
To: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
From:  _mike.dickson@gmail.com_ (mailto:mike.dickson@gmail.com) 
Date:  Mon, 28 May 2012 13:37:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re:  Peter Gabriel - So what?


 
 
 
Chris makes a  few good points but a few downright weird ones too.
 

 
I would agree  that a musician is someone who 'makes music'. I wouldn't say 
that he  necessarily 'crafts' it, though.  That's the  composer's job.  I 
think there are probably more musicians out  there who play what they are 
told (or what they expect, in the case of any  number of bar bands I've 
witnessed) than people who are actually  engaged in creating music from nothing 
other than ideas and  influences. 
 

 
Perhaps a DJ  can be a composer, but to say 'but often times they aren't' 
is a little like  saying a good composer (say, Bruckner) was sometimes great 
but often he  wasn't.  (Anyone doubting this should read the story about 
Anton and  his 'zeroth' symphony) I wasn't trying to refer to the sort of DJ 
who  just plays records, but to the DJ who tries to do something creative with 
 the sound he is playing.  There probably ought to be a term for  this type 
of person, to differentiate. Maybe there is. I  dunno.
 

 
However, the  humdinger is that DJ music 'lacks credibility'.  Chris - who 
hands out  the Credibility Tokens in your neck of the woods?  The 
Credibility  Cops?  When does music 'become credible'?  Do they have some sort  of 
certificate to show this?  Maybe a party of some kind.  What is  it that makes 
music 'credible'?  
 

 
    *   Is  it music?  Yes it is.    
    *   Do  people like it (as if that even matters) Yes they  do.

 

 
That's kind  of the end of the argument, unless you want to argue 'what is 
music?'  and I am afraid I will have you completely cornered on that one,  
and the answer is but one word long. Maybe you are trying to say  'is it 
credible to me and people like me?', in which case you  are making an argument 
of taste, and that's no argument at all.  (If that is an argument then I am 
afraid that most of the Sacred  Bovines round here aren't credible either as 
I cannot stand them)  
 

 
You say that  credibility is associated with 'physical innovation'.  I'm 
not entirely  sure what that entails, but innovation is certainly a pretty 
shaky nail  upon which to hang any musical argument. Show me 'innovation' and 
I'll show  you plagarism and what is charitably called influence, and I don't 
mean  in the last ten years.  If you don't believe me then have a look at 
_this video_ (https://vimeo.com/14912890)  and tell me what you make of it.  
(Good film series, incidentally)
 

 
Sampling  without consent is unethical maybe.  And I mean maybe.  Brian  
Wilson was a bit bent out of shape when he found out that Air  had sampled the 
snare drum from 'Do It Again' on 'Remember', until it  was pointed out to 
him that (1) it's a pretty good tribute to him  and anyway (2) it might mean 
he's going to sell a few records when Air  say where the drum samples came 
from.  In that case, the sound was  the innovation (and a great one too) and 
Air made Fair Use of it.  If they tried what is known as 'passing off' then 
it might be  'unethical', but fortunately they didn't.  Hell, I released a 
tune  which has CLEARLY got a huge sample of a very famous tune indeed in it. 
 It's so obvious that 'passing off' isn't even an option.  (Incidentally, I 
don't think the Mona Lisa is Leonardo's greatest - he has  done some far 
superior work, but that's another argument)  Sampling is a broad argument.  
Try reading _Remix by Lawrence Lessig_ (http://remix.lessig.org/) .  It's a 
better explanation  of everything. (Tangentially, _this book_ 
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Rave-Shawn-Fannings-Napster/dp/0609610937/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid
=1338208583&sr=8-1)  is also a great read and is close to  unbelievable.  
At what point did someone say 'hang  on....')
 

 
You do go on  to say that it isn't 'morally right'.  Oooh. That's a 
personal itch of  mine.  Don't confuse ethics and morals.  The two are  not 
equivalent.
 

 
Marketing and  selling has always been a science, Chris.  Don't kid 
yourself  otherwise.  Stockholders existed in the 1970s, same as now, same as  
always.  The music 'industry' (a term I hate) cannot sell anyone  anything they 
don't actually want.  They might however oversell it, but  that's their 
problem.  More worrying to me is the way everything ties  together commercially, 
where the song, the burger gift, the film, the tee  shirt and the computer 
game are all part of the same 'immersive  experience'.
 

 
I am dying to  hear how 'dragons and fairies' take you out of the Matrix, 
though.  That angle has been sold to death since JRR put pen to paper and  
engendered an entire division of depressing guff about..well...dragons and  
fairies.  And Peter Jackson's film is about as 'corporate' a tie-in  film as 
you can hope to imagine.  Are you picking your bovines with  enough care? :-)
 

 
Mike
 
On 28 May  2012 12:11, Chris Dale <_unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com) >  wrote: 
 
 
 
 
 

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















-- 
Mike  Dickson,  Edinburgh

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Doncourt
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 2:59 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


I Like Peter Gabriel! Not all the time but alot of the time....
how does one "shut up and sing"? :)

\ufffd

...so no Street Fighting Man...no Ohio...no Biko...no Kick out the Jams...no Blowing in the WInd...

On May 28, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Tom Doncourt <tomdcour@amnh.org> wrote:

> I think there is a difference between writing songs like "Blowing in the Wind" and "Biko" and using your celebrity status to broadcast your political views. Even if I agree with those views it still seems inappropriate.  
> 
>

On May 28, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Tom Doncourt <tomdcour@amnh.org> wrote:

> I think there is a difference between writing songs like "Blowing in the Wind" and "Biko" and using your celebrity status to broadcast your political views. Even if I agree with those views it still seems inappropriate.  
> 
>

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Curtis
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:48 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?



Dave's right.  If you don't like the opinion then who really gives a shit?  It's his show, his art, and his choice of what he's going to communicate.  I would venture a guess that Peter Gabriel is not going to be saddened that you're not buying his new record.

If I go so see some hillbilly show in Texas I can be assured that I'm going to hear some "Rah Rah USA" crap that will offend the hell out of me.  I probably wouldn't go.

If you've heard PG's music then you can probably have a good idea where he lies in the political spectrum.

And to be honest, how is PG sharing his political opinions during a concert of his music any less appropriate than someone sharing their opinions on a forum dedicated to a musical instrument?

-T

On May 28, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Gary Brumm wrote:




Come on Dave, really??  I am the first person to agree with you on Freedom of Speech whether I agree with the topic or not.....
HOWEVER I PAID to hear MUSIC and not a political speech.  Everyone was cheering including me until he started blubbering
on about how awful the US was (off whom he made his most of his fortune) at which time he got booed until the music started.
This was not only in bad taste (not long after 911) but disrespectful to his paying audience.  I never said he didn't have the right.  In this
country he certainly does....in some others he would have been beheaded.  I now will exercise my right to spend my money on
other entertainers who better appreciate their audience.  I will still listen to his music (I already paid for) but will no longer buy it.

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]<mailto:[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]> On Behalf Of Hammonddave
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:11 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


And finally...  It's called "Freedom of Speech". Something our fellow countrymen fought and died for. Kind of appropriate for Memorial Day.

Sent from my iPad

On May 28, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Tom Doncourt <tomdcour@amnh.org<mailto:tomdcour@amnh.org>> wrote:

I think there is a difference between writing songs like "Blowing in the Wind" and "Biko" and using your celebrity status to broadcast your political views. Even if I agree with those views it still seems inappropriate.

=

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Curtis
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:48 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?



Dave's right.  If you don't like the opinion then who really gives a shit?  It's his show, his art, and his choice of what he's going to communicate.  I would venture a guess that Peter Gabriel is not going to be saddened that you're not buying his new record.

If I go so see some hillbilly show in Texas I can be assured that I'm going to hear some "Rah Rah USA" crap that will offend the hell out of me.  I probably wouldn't go.

If you've heard PG's music then you can probably have a good idea where he lies in the political spectrum.

And to be honest, how is PG sharing his political opinions during a concert of his music any less appropriate than someone sharing their opinions on a forum dedicated to a musical instrument?

-T

On May 28, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Gary Brumm wrote:



Come on Dave, really??  I am the first person to agree with you on Freedom of Speech whether I agree with the topic or not.....
HOWEVER I PAID to hear MUSIC and not a political speech.  Everyone was cheering including me until he started blubbering
on about how awful the US was (off whom he made his most of his fortune) at which time he got booed until the music started.
This was not only in bad taste (not long after 911) but disrespectful to his paying audience.  I never said he didn't have the right.  In this
country he certainly does....in some others he would have been beheaded.  I now will exercise my right to spend my money on
other entertainers who better appreciate their audience.  I will still listen to his music (I already paid for) but will no longer buy it.

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]<mailto:[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]> On Behalf Of Hammonddave
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:11 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


And finally...  It's called "Freedom of Speech". Something our fellow countrymen fought and died for. Kind of appropriate for Memorial Day.

Sent from my iPad

On May 28, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Tom Doncourt <tomdcour@amnh.org<mailto:tomdcour@amnh.org>> wrote:

I think there is a difference between writing songs like "Blowing in the Wind" and "Biko" and using your celebrity status to broadcast your political views. Even if I agree with those views it still seems inappropriate.

=

On May 28, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net> wrote:

> Because that is what you come to the forum for….if you don’t understand that ……..
> 
> I could care less if he is saddened by anything I do.  If you are offended in general by
> 
> anyone supporting the US then I really don’t give a shit about your views either…..
> 
> but in this country you have the right to state those views.  Maybe in your country you don’t??
> 
>  
> 
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Curtis
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:48 PM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dave's right.  If you don't like the opinion then who really gives a shit?  It's his show, his art, and his choice of what he's going to communicate.  I would venture a guess that Peter Gabriel is not going to be saddened that you're not buying his new record.
> 
>  
> 
> If I go so see some hillbilly show in Texas I can be assured that I'm going to hear some "Rah Rah USA" crap that will offend the hell out of me.  I probably wouldn't go.  
> 
>  
> 
> If you've heard PG's music then you can probably have a good idea where he lies in the political spectrum.
> 
>  
> 
> And to be honest, how is PG sharing his political opinions during a concert of his music any less appropriate than someone sharing their opinions on a forum dedicated to a musical instrument?
> 
>  
> 
> -T
> 
>  
> 
> On May 28, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Gary Brumm wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Come on Dave, really??  I am the first person to agree with you on Freedom of Speech whether I agree with the topic or not…..
> 
> HOWEVER I PAID to hear MUSIC and not a political speech.  Everyone was cheering including me until he started blubbering
> 
> on about how awful the US was (off whom he made his most of his fortune) at which time he got booed until the music started. 
> 
> This was not only in bad taste (not long after 911) but disrespectful to his paying audience.  I never said he didn’t have the right.  In this
> 
> country he certainly does….in some others he would have been beheaded.  I now will exercise my right to spend my money on
> 
> other entertainers who better appreciate their audience.  I will still listen to his music (I already paid for) but will no longer buy it. 
> 
>  
> 
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hammonddave
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:11 PM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> And finally...  It's called "Freedom of Speech". Something our fellow countrymen fought and died for. Kind of appropriate for Memorial Day.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> 
> On May 28, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Tom Doncourt <tomdcour@amnh.org> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> I think there is a difference between writing songs like "Blowing in the Wind" and "Biko" and using your celebrity status to broadcast your political views. Even if I agree with those views it still seems inappropriate. 
> 
>  
> 
> =
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Daily <pocotron@yahoo.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 12:11 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

Hi all-
   A DJ should probably be considered a type of orchestra conductor.  They mostly do arranging, practice, and presentation of pre-existing material, but very little composing.  What is a conductor worth?
 
  To be fair, some orchestra conductors are composers.
 
  -Bruce D.
 


  
 
 
  
  From:  Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com>
 To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:27 PM
 Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
  
 

     
                  
On 27 May 2012 15:28, gino wong <wonggster@gmail.com> wrote:

 
  
    
                  
My definition is much simpler, a composer is someone who can be paid for a composition.  The resyncing DJ may get a reduced mechanical fee, a work for hire fee, but no publishing. Some hip hop types pay for sample clearance  and usuall end up with severely reduced publishing fees unless they hose the original composer somehow. At best you can call a dj a technician of some sort.  





Good lord. Given that they play what you tell them to play you could also call a sessionist a 'technician of some sort' as well!


Linking payment into what defines 'composer' makes it even more complicated. What if the composer doesn't want to be paid for it?  What if the composer couldn't be paid for it?  What if the composer doesn't compose for money?  And doesn't the question of payment entirely move the argument from 'what a composer does' (ie, composes) to 'how a composer might be compensated'? (ie, payment)


And if a 'resyncing DJ may get a reduced mechanical fee' then doesn't that mean he could be paid?

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <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> 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> 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> 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
From: 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> 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>
 To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
 Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
  
 

     
                  


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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

-----Original Message-----
From: lsf5275 <lsf5275@aol.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 10:21 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

So who likes Peter Gabriel? Anyone want to comment? 
 
Frank
 

In a message dated 5/28/2012 9:52:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bluesrock77@hotmail.com writes:
    
  
  
Hi y'all,   


  
I'm very happy to see that my posting sparked such a great   discussion!
  
SOme of what I said where in jest...like Ecstasy being a bad drug for   music making...some where not...I still want to see a musical instrument being   played, whatever it is, even a single tambourine,  rather than watch   someone playing records with one note beat...it's not just the mechanical act   of it...it's the lack of harmony and the one note beat that bothers   me...besides it doesn't move me a bit...I just can't relate to   DJ's...sorry...besides nothing to do with the Tron, which a a note   reproduction system in most cases, not full songs...
  
as for the downloading..well, anyone who's ever been to a music store   knew what a great experience it could be...browsing all the different   rows...discovering new bands and maybe interacting with the buyers (I made   quite a few friend in record stores)  etc, when I lived in London I'd   listen to John Peel and other DJs (quite different eh?) and then on the next   day go to Virgin, HMV, Portobello Road etc in search of the records.....now   that they are gone...what do you do? Just download something for free (nothing   against it) and then delete? (Totally against it, if you know what I mean) In   that case music has no value, it's just a disposable thing... I still have   hundreds of my vinyls because I had to work hard to get them...
  
I'll stop here...I have a PhD to finish...great to be part of this   group...
  


  
best,
  


  
Roberto

  
  
  
  To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
From: mike.dickson@gmail.com
Date:   Mon, 28 May 2012 13:37:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter   Gabriel - So what?

    
  
  

  
Chris makes a few good points but a few downright weird ones too.
  


  
I would agree that a musician is someone who 'makes music'. I wouldn't   say that he necessarily 'crafts' it, though.  That's the   composer's job.  I think there are probably more musicians out there   who play what they are told (or what they expect, in the case of any number of   bar bands I've witnessed) than people who are actually engaged in   creating music from nothing other than ideas and influences. 
  


  
Perhaps a DJ can be a composer, but to say 'but often times they aren't'   is a little like saying a good composer (say, Bruckner) was sometimes   great but often he wasn't.  (Anyone doubting this should read the story   about Anton and his 'zeroth' symphony) I wasn't trying to refer to the   sort of DJ who just plays records, but to the DJ who tries to do something   creative with the sound he is playing.  There probably ought to be a   term for this type of person, to differentiate. Maybe there is. I dunno.
  


  
However, the humdinger is that DJ music 'lacks credibility'.  Chris   - who hands out the Credibility Tokens in your neck of the woods?    The Credibility Cops?  When does music 'become credible'?    Do they have some sort of certificate to show this?  Maybe a party   of some kind.  What is it that makes music 'credible'?  
  


  
  
    
Is it music?  Yes it is.       
Do people like it (as if that even matters) Yes they do.

  


  
That's kind of the end of the argument, unless you want to argue 'what   is music?' and I am afraid I will have you completely cornered   on that one, and the answer is but one word long. Maybe you are   trying to say 'is it credible to me and people like me?', in which case   you are making an argument of taste, and that's no argument at   all. (If that is an argument then I am afraid that most of the   Sacred Bovines round here aren't credible either as I cannot stand   them)  
  


  
You say that credibility is associated with 'physical innovation'.    I'm not entirely sure what that entails, but innovation is   certainly a pretty shaky nail upon which to hang any musical argument.   Show me 'innovation' and I'll show you plagarism and what is charitably   called influence, and I don't mean in the last ten years.  If you   don't believe me then have a look at this video and tell me   what you make of it.  (Good film series, incidentally)
  


  
Sampling without consent is unethical maybe.  And I mean maybe.    Brian Wilson was a bit bent out of shape when he found out that Air   had sampled the snare drum from 'Do It Again' on 'Remember', until it was   pointed out to him that (1) it's a pretty good tribute to him and anyway   (2) it might mean he's going to sell a few records when Air say where the drum   samples came from.  In that case, the sound was the innovation (and   a great one too) and Air made Fair Use of it.  If they tried what is   known as 'passing off' then it might be 'unethical', but fortunately they   didn't.  Hell, I released a tune which has CLEARLY got a huge sample of a   very famous tune indeed in it.  It's so obvious that 'passing off'   isn't even an option. (Incidentally, I don't think the Mona Lisa is Leonardo's   greatest - he has done some far superior work, but that's another   argument)  Sampling is a broad argument.  Try reading Remix by Lawrence Lessig.  It's a better explanation of   everything. (Tangentially, this book is also a great read and is close to unbelievable.    At what point did someone say 'hang on....')
  


  
You do go on to say that it isn't 'morally right'.  Oooh. That's a   personal itch of mine.  Don't confuse ethics and morals.  The   two are not equivalent.
  


  
Marketing and selling has always been a science, Chris.  Don't kid   yourself otherwise.  Stockholders existed in the 1970s, same as now, same   as always.  The music 'industry' (a term I hate) cannot sell anyone   anything they don't actually want.  They might however oversell it, but   that's their problem.  More worrying to me is the way everything ties   together commercially, where the song, the burger gift, the film, the tee   shirt and the computer game are all part of the same 'immersive   experience'.
  


  
I am dying to hear how 'dragons and fairies' take you out of the Matrix,   though.  That angle has been sold to death since JRR put pen to paper and   engendered an entire division of depressing guff about..well...dragons and   fairies.  And Peter Jackson's film is about as 'corporate' a tie-in film   as you can hope to imagine.  Are you picking your bovines with enough   care? :-)
  


  
Mike

  
On 28 May 2012 12:11, Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com>   wrote:
  
    
      
    
    

    

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>     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> 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>         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
From:           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>           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>
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com             
Sent: Friday, May             25, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: [newmellotrongroup]             Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

            

            
            
              
            


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily             <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




      






    





  


-- 
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

-----Original Message-----
From: R l <bluesrock77@hotmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 8:54 pm
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

...so no Street Fighting Man...no Ohio...no Biko...no Kick out the Jams...no Blowing in the WInd...




To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
From: gabru@comsec.net
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 00:48:08 +0000
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
  
    
                  

Stop talking and start playing! (and sing the songs)…..I don’t want to hear
his political views….or those of most in the “entertainment” industry……
There are some actors I like on film but can’t stand to listen to when they
are out of character or off script!  It’s their job to “entertain” me and I
certainly don’t go to a movie or concert to listen to political propaganda
(unless of course it is in the script)! J
 


From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom Doncourt
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 2:59 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
  


I Like Peter Gabriel! Not all the time but alot of the time.... 

how does one "shut up and sing"? :)

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Curtis
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 10:21 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?



My Country?  I'm from Milwaukee.  And as an American I have the right NOT to be proud of everything that my country does.  If you have a problem with someone stating that then that's simply "un-american," isn't it?

And personally as a keyboardist and tech I don't come to this forum to hear about anyone's political views.  I'd hate to have them change my opinions of people.

My point is that just about any artist shares their views somehow.  If you don't like them then that's too bad.


On May 28, 2012, at 11:48 PM, Tim Curtis wrote:




Dave's right.  If you don't like the opinion then who really gives a shit?  It's his show, his art, and his choice of what he's going to communicate.  I would venture a guess that Peter Gabriel is not going to be saddened that you're not buying his new record.

If I go so see some hillbilly show in Texas I can be assured that I'm going to hear some "Rah Rah USA" crap that will offend the hell out of me.  I probably wouldn't go.

If you've heard PG's music then you can probably have a good idea where he lies in the political spectrum.

And to be honest, how is PG sharing his political opinions during a concert of his music any less appropriate than someone sharing their opinions on a forum dedicated to a musical instrument?

-T

On May 28, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Gary Brumm wrote:




Come on Dave, really??  I am the first person to agree with you on Freedom of Speech whether I agree with the topic or not.....
HOWEVER I PAID to hear MUSIC and not a political speech.  Everyone was cheering including me until he started blubbering
on about how awful the US was (off whom he made his most of his fortune) at which time he got booed until the music started.
This was not only in bad taste (not long after 911) but disrespectful to his paying audience.  I never said he didn't have the right.  In this
country he certainly does....in some others he would have been beheaded.  I now will exercise my right to spend my money on
other entertainers who better appreciate their audience.  I will still listen to his music (I already paid for) but will no longer buy it.

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]<mailto:[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]> On Behalf Of Hammonddave
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:11 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


And finally...  It's called "Freedom of Speech". Something our fellow countrymen fought and died for. Kind of appropriate for Memorial Day.

Sent from my iPad

On May 28, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Tom Doncourt <tomdcour@amnh.org<mailto:tomdcour@amnh.org>> wrote:

I think there is a difference between writing songs like "Blowing in the Wind" and "Biko" and using your celebrity status to broadcast your political views. Even if I agree with those views it still seems inappropriate.

=

On May 28, 2012, at 10:52 PM, 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>
> To: newmellotrongroup <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> 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> 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> 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
>> From: 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> 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>
>> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
>> Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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
> 
>

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim  Curtis
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:48 PM
To:  newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup]  Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
 
 
Dave's right.  If you don't like the opinion then who really gives a  shit? 
 It's his show, his art, and his choice of what he's going to  communicate. 
 I would venture a guess that Peter Gabriel is not going to  be saddened 
that you're not buying his new record. 
 

 
If I go so see some hillbilly show in Texas I can be  assured that I'm 
going to hear some "Rah Rah USA" crap that will offend the  hell out of me.  I 
probably wouldn't go.  
 

 
If you've heard PG's music then you can probably have a  good idea where he 
lies in the political spectrum.
 

 
And to be honest, how is PG sharing his political opinions  during a 
concert of his music any less appropriate than someone sharing their  opinions on 
a forum dedicated to a musical instrument?
 

 
-T
 
 
 
On May 28, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Gary Brumm  wrote:



 
 

 
Come on Dave, really??  I am the  first person to agree with you on Freedom 
of Speech whether I agree with the  topic or not….. 
HOWEVER I PAID to hear MUSIC and not a  political speech.  Everyone was 
cheering including me until he started  blubbering  
on about how awful the US was (off  whom he made his most of his fortune) 
at which time he got booed until the  music started.   
This was not only in bad taste (not  long after 911) but disrespectful to 
his paying audience.  I never said  he didn’t have the right.  In this  
country he certainly does….in some  others he would have been beheaded.  I 
now will exercise my right to  spend my money on  
other entertainers who better  appreciate their audience.  I will still 
listen to his music (I already  paid for) but will no longer buy it.   
 
 
 
From: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   _[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]_ 
(mailto:[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com])   On Behalf Of Hammonddave
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:11  PM
To: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
Subject:  Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So  what?

 
 
 
 
And finally...  It's called  "Freedom of Speech". Something our fellow 
countrymen fought and died for. Kind  of appropriate for Memorial Day.

Sent from my iPad
 

On May 28, 2012, at 8:49 PM,  Tom Doncourt <_tomdcour@amnh.org_ 
(mailto:tomdcour@amnh.org) >  wrote:

 
 
 
I think there is a difference between  writing songs like "Blowing in the 
Wind" and "Biko" and using your celebrity  status to broadcast your political 
views. Even if I agree with those views  it still seems inappropriate.   
 





=

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













=

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 2:14 am
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

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 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>
To: newmellotrongroup <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> 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 acomposer?


 

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 evernot 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-outwrong.  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 indirect 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> 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> 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
From: 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> 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>
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 

  



--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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



 




=

-----Original Message-----
From: lsf5275 <lsf5275@aol.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 2:43 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

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   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>
To:     newmellotrongroup <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>     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> 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>     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
From:       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>       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>
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com       
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject:       [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
      
      
      
      
      
  
      
      
      


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com,       Bruce Daily <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



    




  
=

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 2:45 am
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

OK then Fritz…we are expecting to hear a hip-hop hit from you soon!J 
Keep on scratchin’
 


From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 11:43 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
  


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 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>
To: newmellotrongroup <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> 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 acomposer?


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 evernot 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-outwrong.  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 indirect 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> 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> 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
From: 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> 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>
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


 



--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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







=

On May 29, 2012, at 4:40 AM, fdoddy@aol.com wrote:

> Not kidding at all.
> 
> Go ahead, try it.
> 
> fritz
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 2:14 am
> Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
> 
>  
> 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 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>
> To: newmellotrongroup <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> 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> 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> 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
> From: 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> 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>
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
> Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>  
>  
> 
> 
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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
>  
> =
>

On May 29, 2012, at 8:08 AM, John Wright <john.wright@consona.com> wrote:

> I like the Wizard of Oz.
> 
>  
> 
> John
> 
>  
> 
> <image001.jpg>
> 
>  
> 
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:56 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I like Peter Gabriel
> 
> 
> fritz
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsf5275 <lsf5275@aol.com>
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 10:21 am
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
> 
>  
> 
> So who likes Peter Gabriel? Anyone want to comment?
> 
>  
> 
> Frank
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege or otherwise. If you have received this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy, or distribute this e-mail or any attachments, and please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you.
>

 From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
To: "newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com" <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:10 AM
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
  

 
   
 
Just messin with you Tim….sharing views in a song I would have known beforehand….Insulting the country  
he was visiting was just rude and the crown in general didn’t like it.  I am NOT proud of everything in this country…. 
…now more than ever but that is the way it goes.  If I was pais to entertain in another country I would at least have  
been respectful…..that’s all I was saying….someone asked if anyone out there liked PG and that was my PG story…… 
  
From:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Curtis
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 10:21 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?   
  
   
My Country?  I'm from Milwaukee.  And as an American I have the right NOT to be proud of everything that my country does.  If you have a problem with someone stating that then that's simply "un-american," isn't it? 
   
And personally as a keyboardist and tech I don't come to this forum to hear about anyone's political views.  I'd hate to have them change my opinions of people.  
   
My point is that just about any artist shares their views somehow.  If you don't like them then that's too bad.    
   
  
On May 28, 2012, at 11:48 PM, Tim Curtis wrote:  

 
   
Dave's right.  If you don't like the opinion then who really gives a shit?  It's his show, his art, and his choice of what he's going to communicate.  I would venture a guess that Peter Gabriel is not going to be saddened that you're not buying his new record. 
   
If I go so see some hillbilly show in Texas I can be assured that I'm going to hear some "Rah Rah USA" crap that will offend the hell out of me.  I probably wouldn't go.    
   
If you've heard PG's music then you can probably have a good idea where he lies in the political spectrum.  
   
And to be honest, how is PG sharing his political opinions during a concert of his music any less appropriate than someone sharing their opinions on a forum dedicated to a musical instrument?  
   
-T  
  
On May 28, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Gary Brumm wrote:  

 
   
   
Come on Dave, really??  I am the first person to agree with you on Freedom of Speech whether I agree with the topic or not….. 
HOWEVER I PAID to hear MUSIC and not a political speech.  Everyone was cheering including me until he started blubbering  
on about how awful the US was (off whom he made his most of his fortune) at which time he got booed until the music started.   
This was not only in bad taste (not long after 911) but disrespectful to his paying audience.  I never said he didn’t have the right.  In this  
country he certainly does….in some others he would have been beheaded.  I now will exercise my right to spend my money on  
other entertainers who better appreciate their audience.  I will still listen to his music (I already paid for) but will no longer buy it.   
  
From:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hammonddave
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:11 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?   
  
   
And finally...  It's called "Freedom of Speech". Something our fellow countrymen fought and died for. Kind of appropriate for Memorial Day.

Sent from my iPad  

On May 28, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Tom Doncourt <tomdcour@amnh.org> wrote:  
   
>I think there is a difference between writing songs like "Blowing in the Wind" and "Biko" and using your celebrity status to broadcast your political views. Even if I agree with those views it still seems inappropriate.   
>       
=

 From: Tom Doncourt <tomdcour@amnh.org>
To: "newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com" <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
 

  
I think some of this thread is being misunderstood... I believe that Peter Gabriel has artistic integrity, I do not disagree with his political views, I like his songs and his lyrics for the most part with the most notable exception being "That'll Do " from Babe -Pig in the City. Songs are an artist's avenue for expressing their views, what ever they may be. The only thing I find questionable is using the status that being a great musician gives one to preach at a captive audience. That's kind of like a Professor of political science pulling up to a piano and breaking into song during a lecture.  Peter Gabriel's songs have enough power for us to get his message through them without the speech. I don't think anything he said would have been offensive to me certainly but i was trying to see things from Gary's point of view- a tactic I recommend to all Americans at this point in time. By the way- I know a lot about memorial day -luckily my family and I
 survived 9/11, my son survived Iraq, my father survived WWII and some of my friends were not so lucky in Vietnam. Let the music pull us together my friends

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 11:02 am
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

It would be a departure from tour normal material for sure.  You should throw together some tracks
and demo that turntable.  Do you use a real turntable or one of those simulated ones that I have seen
in the catalogs?
 


From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:43 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
  


I wish i could.  It's a difficult genre to do legitimately.  I've tried, but most of my attempts were very lame, even with talented technicians in the studio.

fritz

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 2:45 am
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 



OK then Fritz…we are expecting to hear a hip-hop hit from you soon!J 

Keep on scratchin’

 



From:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 11:43 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


 

 



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 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>
To: newmellotrongroup <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> 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 acomposer?



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 evernot 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-outwrong.  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 indirect 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> 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> 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
From: 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> 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>
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?



 




--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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








=

-----Original Message-----
From: John Wright <john.wright@consona.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 11:08 am
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

I like the Wizard of Oz.
 
John
 

 

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:56 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
  


I like Peter Gabriel


fritz

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lsf5275 <lsf5275@aol.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 10:21 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 


So who likes Peter Gabriel? Anyone want to comment?

 

Frank

 






 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege or otherwise. If you have received this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy, or distribute this e-mail or any attachments, and please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you.

On May 29, 2012, at 6:13 PM, fdoddy@aol.com wrote:

> I've only ever worked on a real turntable.  It'll be years before I do anything on a turntable that makes it to the public's ears.   I would like to get one and practice.  One of the composers i work with is a sublimely talented DJ and to watch/listen to him spice up a track is the closest thing to RnR as it gets..pure adrenalin.
> 
> fritz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 11:02 am
> Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
> 
>  
> It would be a departure from tour normal material for sure.  You should throw together some tracks
> and demo that turntable.  Do you use a real turntable or one of those simulated ones that I have seen
> in the catalogs?
>  
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:43 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>  
>  
> I wish i could.  It's a difficult genre to do legitimately.  I've tried, but most of my attempts were very lame, even with talented technicians in the studio.
> 
> fritz
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 2:45 am
> Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>  
> OK then Fritz…we are expecting to hear a hip-hop hit from you soon! J 
> Keep on scratchin’
>  
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 11:43 PM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>  
>  
> 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 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>
> To: newmellotrongroup <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> 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> 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> 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
> From: 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> 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>
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
> Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>  
> 
> 
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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
> =
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 7:04 pm
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

I think this thread has run its course.  I have lost friends in more than one war and had a very close call with one on 911. 
I am very sensitive to the issue.  I was just stating that for myself (and from the reaction of most of the audience many others)
were mortified by his blatant disrespect for what many of us experienced on 911.  No amount of musical talent will overcome that for
me.  He is one of many options to listen to musically and I still do (mainly old Genesis stuff) but he has lost my respect….no big deal
to him or me of course.  I listen to music that I disagree with politically as far as content but still enjoy the tune.  I just didn’t appreciate being
lectured to and as I said earlier that was my PG story….someone requested feedback on PG and I gave mine….that’s all…..
 


From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom Doncourt
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:28 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
  


I think some of this thread is being misunderstood... I believe that Peter Gabriel has artistic integrity, I do not disagree with his political views, I like his songs and his lyrics for the most part with the most notable exception being "That'll Do " from Babe -Pig in the City. Songs are an artist's avenue for expressing their views, what ever they may be. The only thing I find questionable is using the status that being a great musician gives one to preach at a captive audience. That's kind of like a Professor of political science pulling up to a piano and breaking into song during a lecture. Peter Gabriel's songs have enough power for us to get his message through them without the speech. I don't think anything he said would have been offensive to me certainly but i was trying to see things from Gary's point of view- a tactic I recommend to all Americans at this point in time. By the way- I know a lot about memorial day -luckily my family and I survived 9/11, my son survived Iraq, my father survived WWII and some of my friends were not so lucky in Vietnam. Let the music pull us together my friends

On May 29, 2012, at 6:28 PM, fdoddy@aol.com wrote:

> So Mr.Gabriel and Mr. Waters and Mr. Nugent and all various shades of red and blue should keep their rhetoric amongst themselves and their close friends and allow the audience to empathize, or not, based on the intent of their songwriting.  It's pretty obvious where Mr. Gabriel's political sentiments lie, so why feel the need to muck it up so and piss people off.  He certainly doesn't have the market cornered on "awareness".  There are lot of artists, whose music I love, that I don't agree with, politically, socially or otherwise, And so I agree, let the music do its work.  Shut up and dance!
> 
> 
> Let the music pull us together my friends
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 7:04 pm
> Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
> 
>  
> I think this thread has run its course.  I have lost friends in more than one war and had a very close call with one on 911. 
> I am very sensitive to the issue.  I was just stating that for myself (and from the reaction of most of the audience many others)
> were mortified by his blatant disrespect for what many of us experienced on 911.  No amount of musical talent will overcome that for
> me.  He is one of many options to listen to musically and I still do (mainly old Genesis stuff) but he has lost my respect….no big deal
> to him or me of course.  I listen to music that I disagree with politically as far as content but still enjoy the tune.  I just didn’t appreciate being
> lectured to and as I said earlier that was my PG story….someone requested feedback on PG and I gave mine….that’s all…..
>  
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Doncourt
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:28 PM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>  
>  
> I think some of this thread is being misunderstood... I believe that Peter Gabriel has artistic integrity, I do not disagree with his political views, I like his songs and his lyrics for the most part with the most notable exception being "That'll Do " from Babe -Pig in the City. Songs are an artist's avenue for expressing their views, what ever they may be. The only thing I find questionable is using the status that being a great musician gives one to preach at a captive audience. That's kind of like a Professor of political science pulling up to a piano and breaking into song during a lecture. Peter Gabriel's songs have enough power for us to get his message through them without the speech. I don't think anything he said would have been offensive to me certainly but i was trying to see things from Gary's point of view- a tactic I recommend to all Americans at this point in time. By the way- I know a lot about memorial day -luckily my family and I survived 9/11, my son survived Iraq, my father survived WWII and some of my friends were not so lucky in Vietnam. Let the music pull us together my friends
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Hammonddave <hammonddave2004@yahoo.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 10:04 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  

It's a good thing you never saw The Doors live.  You would have walked out in 5 minutes. Same for Pete Seger, Arlo Guthrie, Bob Dylan, Steppenwolf, Bruce Springsteen, Jefferson Airplane, John Lennon, Dixie Chicks, and on... And on....

You would have missed a lot of great music....





Sent from my iPad

On May 29, 2012, at 6:28 PM, fdoddy@aol.com wrote:




     
                  
So Mr.Gabriel and Mr. Waters and Mr. Nugent and all various shades of red and blue should keep their rhetoric amongst themselves and their close friends and allow the audience to empathize, or not, based on the intent of their songwriting.  It's pretty obvious where Mr. Gabriel's political sentiments lie, so why feel the need to muck it up so and piss people off.  He certainly doesn't have the market cornered on "awareness".  There are lot of artists, whose music I love, that I don't agree with, politically, socially or otherwise, And so I agree, let the music do its work.  Shut up and dance!
 


Let the music pull us together my friends

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 7:04 pm
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


 
  
    
                  

I think this thread has run its course.  I have lost friends in more than one war and had a very close call with one on 911. 
I am very sensitive to the issue.  I was just stating that for myself (and from the reaction of most of the audience many others)
were mortified by his blatant disrespect for what many of us experienced on 911.  No amount of musical talent will overcome that for
me.  He is one of many options to listen to musically and I still do (mainly old Genesis stuff) but he has lost my respect….no big deal
to him or me of course.  I listen to music that I disagree with politically as far as content but still enjoy the tune.  I just didn’t appreciate being
lectured to and as I said earlier that was my PG story….someone requested feedback on PG and I gave mine….that’s all…..
 


From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom Doncourt
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:28 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

 
  


I think some of this thread is being misunderstood... I believe that Peter Gabriel has artistic integrity, I do not disagree with his political views, I like his songs and his lyrics for the most part with the most notable exception being "That'll Do " from Babe -Pig in the City. Songs are an artist's avenue for expressing their views, what ever they may be. The only thing I find questionable is using the status that being a great musician gives one to preach at a captive audience. That's kind of like a Professor of political science pulling up to a piano and breaking into song during a lecture. Peter Gabriel's songs have enough power for us to get his message through them without the speech. I don't think anything he said would have been offensive to me certainly but i was trying to see things from Gary's point of view- a tactic I recommend to all Americans at this point in time. By the way- I know a lot about memorial day -luckily my family and I survived 9/11, my son survived Iraq, my father survived WWII and some of my friends were not so lucky in Vietnam. Let the music pull us together my friends





    
             
  
 


    
         
=

On May 29, 2012, at 7:32 PM, fdoddy@aol.com wrote:

> I don't feel as if I've missed anything. Ignorance truly is bliss!
> 
> fritz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hammonddave <hammonddave2004@yahoo.com>
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 10:04 pm
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
> 
>  
> It's a good thing you never saw The Doors live.  You would have walked out in 5 minutes. Same for Pete Seger, Arlo Guthrie, Bob Dylan, Steppenwolf, Bruce Springsteen, Jefferson Airplane, John Lennon, Dixie Chicks, and on... And on....
> 
> You would have missed a lot of great music....
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 29, 2012, at 6:28 PM, fdoddy@aol.com wrote:
> 
>>  
>> So Mr.Gabriel and Mr. Waters and Mr. Nugent and all various shades of red and blue should keep their rhetoric amongst themselves and their close friends and allow the audience to empathize, or not, based on the intent of their songwriting.  It's pretty obvious where Mr. Gabriel's political sentiments lie, so why feel the need to muck it up so and piss people off.  He certainly doesn't have the market cornered on "awareness".  There are lot of artists, whose music I love, that I don't agree with, politically, socially or otherwise, And so I agree, let the music do its work.  Shut up and dance!
>> 
>> Let the music pull us together my friends
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net>
>> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 7:04 pm
>> Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>> 
>>  
>> I think this thread has run its course.  I have lost friends in more than one war and had a very close call with one on 911. 
>> I am very sensitive to the issue.  I was just stating that for myself (and from the reaction of most of the audience many others)
>> were mortified by his blatant disrespect for what many of us experienced on 911.  No amount of musical talent will overcome that for
>> me.  He is one of many options to listen to musically and I still do (mainly old Genesis stuff) but he has lost my respect….no big deal
>> to him or me of course.  I listen to music that I disagree with politically as far as content but still enjoy the tune.  I just didn’t appreciate being
>> lectured to and as I said earlier that was my PG story….someone requested feedback on PG and I gave mine….that’s all…..
>>  
>> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Doncourt
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:28 PM
>> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
>>  
>>  
>> I think some of this thread is being misunderstood... I believe that Peter Gabriel has artistic integrity, I do not disagree with his political views, I like his songs and his lyrics for the most part with the most notable exception being "That'll Do " from Babe -Pig in the City. Songs are an artist's avenue for expressing their views, what ever they may be. The only thing I find questionable is using the status that being a great musician gives one to preach at a captive audience. That's kind of like a Professor of political science pulling up to a piano and breaking into song during a lecture. Peter Gabriel's songs have enough power for us to get his message through them without the speech. I don't think anything he said would have been offensive to me certainly but i was trying to see things from Gary's point of view- a tactic I recommend to all Americans at this point in time. By the way- I know a lot about memorial day -luckily my family and I survived 9/11, my son survived Iraq, my father survived WWII and some of my friends were not so lucky in Vietnam. Let the music pull us together my friends
> =
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, May 30, 2012 3:12 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  
Good response Mike. I'll try to answer your points:


On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:

 
  
    
                  

Chris makes a few good points but a few downright weird ones too.




I wasn't trying to refer to the sort of DJ who just plays records, but to the DJ who tries to do something creative with the sound he is playing.  There probably ought to be a term for this type of person, to differentiate. Maybe there is. I dunno.




That's what I mean. I see a difference between what I'd call a DJ and what I'd call a turntablist. 
 





However, the humdinger is that DJ music 'lacks credibility'.  Chris - who hands out the Credibility Tokens in your neck of the woods?  The Credibility Cops?  When does music 'become credible'?  Do they have some sort of certificate to show this?  Maybe a party of some kind.  What is it that makes music 'credible'?  



Is it music?  Yes it is.  
Do people like it (as if that even matters) Yes they do.

I mentioned being credible alongside historic genres (classical, jazz etc.).





I guess my question is: Where is the virtuoso/writer/composer with composed works for students to play and practice to.
Turntablist music is still in it's infancy. There ARE some interesting things out there, but there are far more hacks then virtuosos. 
 
Where is the guy that records his own stuff, has it pressed it on to a record with different sized grooves on that record physically created to sound different, and then uses a sophisticated turntable as an instrument to amplify the sound? Where is the innovative craftsmenship?
Where is the tangible effort? 
Most DJ's are focused on making people dance. They're not focused on making art.

I probably should say  that all music is credible music but that there are degrees of credibility and this will be down to taste, education, and culture.   








Sampling without consent is unethical maybe.  And I mean maybe.  Brian Wilson was a bit bent out of shape when he found out that Air had sampled the snare drum from 'Do It Again' on 'Remember', until it was pointed out to him that (1) it's a pretty good tribute to him and anyway (2) it might mean he's going to sell a few records when Air say where the drum samples came from.  In that case, the sound was the innovation (and a great one too) and Air made Fair Use of it.  If they tried what is known as 'passing off' then it might be 'unethical', but fortunately they didn't.  




That's exactly what I'm talking about. Someone who works hard and creates something special and then has it stolen by another  for use in something else. The original musician doesn't profit financially, doesn't receive credit, and was never asked. It's an
artistic rape, and a parasitic relationship. 

The exception is when sampling is done where the original artist gives his okay, profits financially, and receives credit, and gets equal publicity for his original work. 

 



Hell, I released a tune which has CLEARLY got a huge sample of a very famous tune indeed in it.  It's so obvious that 'passing off' isn't even an option. (Incidentally, I don't think the Mona Lisa is Leonardo's greatest - he has done some far superior work, but that's another argument)  Sampling is a broad argument.  Try reading Remix by Lawrence Lessig.  It's a better explanation of everything. (Tangentially, this book is also a great read and is close to unbelievable.  At what point did someone say 'hang on....')


You do go on to say that it isn't 'morally right'.  Oooh. That's a personal itch of mine.  Don't confuse ethics and morals.  The two are not equivalent.




If someone claims to have been hurt in any way by another taking their work, then 'they can claim it's immoral'. How about this definition?
 





Marketing and selling has always been a science, Chris.  Don't kid yourself otherwise.  Stockholders existed in the 1970s, same as now, same as always.  The music 'industry' (a term I hate) cannot sell anyone anything they don't actually want.  They might however oversell it, but that's their problem.  More worrying to me is the way everything ties together commercially, where the song, the burger gift, the film, the tee shirt and the computer game are all part of the same 'immersive experience'.




That's exactly my complaint - the ubiquitousness of product placement in music and movies. 






I am dying to hear how 'dragons and fairies' take you out of the Matrix, though.  That angle has been sold to death since JRR put pen to paper and engendered an entire division of depressing guff about..well...dragons and fairies.  And Peter Jackson's film is about as 'corporate' a tie-in film as you can hope to imagine.  Are you picking your bovines with enough care? :-)




That's very true Mike :)

No, dragons and fairies, Peter Jackson's film etc. will make me want to read the original books and take an interest in other works like it. And the spin off will be searching out other intelligently written books, films and music that have related ideas in them.

The escape from the  "Matrix" is that I won't have to see any hobbits wearing Nike sneakers or drinking Coca-Cola with the logos prominently displayed. The corporation may make money, but I won't have it shoved in my face every other frame. That's the payoff for me. 

Tony on our list once said he didn't care much for music with vocals. He preferred Tangerine Dream's music because of it.

I can say that I like that too because I don't have someone's cliche'd love affair told to me. The music and the images I imagine when I hear an instrumental piece are the escape.

I like your Birotron take on My Prayer for the exact same reason. And I'll gladly listen to turntablists where I don't hear the same sounds used the same way in second dance song.

I was listening to the electrifying Mojo in Detroit - a DJ who would creatively mix records, genres and music samples back in 1982. He's play Tangerine Dream and morph it into Derrick May. That was good turntablism. It was innovative and didn't pander to homogenization. Because there was no 'sales agenda', and it wasn't corporate owned. And we didn't hear those sounds everywhere.  When all that became popularized, formulaic, and used as a vehicle to trumpet the lowest common denominator - then any innovation seemed to halt as a progressing artform. 


   


 










On 28 May 2012 12:11, Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com> wrote:

 
  
    
                  


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> 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> 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> 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
From: 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> 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>
 To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
 Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
  
 

     
                  


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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


    

             

  



    
             

  






-- 
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, May 30, 2012 3:57 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


  
    
                  
Hi Fritz,


Yes, I agree that turntablists can be musicians or composers or artists.

But I'm not sure I include DJ's if they're just playing a record for a dance crowd.

I think the very first albums to be made entirely of samples go back to the BBC Radiophonic workshop and Hugh Lecaine's Dripsody tape recordings.


I've never heard Paul's Boutique, but I'd be willing to give it a listen.
I will say though that I was not at all impressed with the Beastie Boys. They did not appear to be real artists to me, but just a bunch of frat hall, obnoxious losers who also pushed stupid teenage weekend behaviour because they had nothing else to offer. I may be wrong, but that was my impression. I just don't identify with that after listening to the great output of the Beatles, The Who and prog music.
 
There is a DJ/turntablist neighbour from my home town that is worthy of some real respect in my opinion. His name is Richie Hawtin (Plastikman), and IMO he does interesting music because he has a philosophy of minimalism in his approach. He won't use sounds everyone else uses. He prefers to create his own from 'scratch' (pun intended).
 He grew up listening to Tangerine Dream and early free-from turntable R&B music.

(He once helped me bundle the heavy Rick Wakeman Mellotron electronics when the box I was carrying gave way - so I'll say he's a nice guy too).


More to this point, an aquaintance of ours modified a turntable and put TWO tone arms that ran simultaneously so that the music could be played in more innovative and interesting ways.

I also have records that play their start from the center (in) to the edge (out) and others that have different grooves with hidden tracks/compositions in them. By intentionally scratching the record and having it skip into different tracks, some interesting sounds and music can be made.

So this is what I mean be truly musical craft and  innovation. Not just playing a record and keeping a 4/4 beat to please the dance crowd. Innovating with the raw materials before it even reaches the computer can possibly take it into something we haven't thought of yet. 

More innovation needs to happen.



 


On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM,  <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>


To: newmellotrongroup <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> 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> 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> 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
From: 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> 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>
 To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:11 AM
 Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?
  
 

     
                  


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Daily <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