-
Reading through this makes me curious about how we judge music at all. Maybe it's just how it plays out on the page, but it sometime sounds like there's a bit too much over-intellectualizing and taking of positions rather than just taking a listen. Music always seems more emotional and visceral to me. I'm gonna like or dislike something based on how I react to it when I hear it, not based on whether it fits into some preordained definition of what I have decided good music should be.
I'm not about to dismiss out of hand whole genres of music because they don't fit into my theoretical framework of music appreciation.
Still don't like Zepplin, but it really has nothing to do with music theory...they just never grabbed me by the ears, although I don't mind hearing Rock 'n' Roll now and then; it sounds great on that Cadillac commercial.
-
I'm against the whole royalties forever idea to begin with. If I do a job I get paid for it once. Not for years to come. If an artist writes a song and it makes money then they were paid. If someone else takes it and changes it and it makes more money, then great for them.
-
I dunno'...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
I'm against the whole royalties forever idea to begin with. If I do a job I get paid for it once. Not for years to come. If an artist writes a song and it makes money then they were paid. If someone else takes it and changes it and it makes more money, then great for them.
...if it were your work, how would you feel about it then? I mean there is a bit of a difference between selling your time or product which are tangible items or producing an intellectual property...a very gray area. I recall back in HS we would go to a place in Manhattan to purchase scripts for the drama club...if their intended use was educational (as it always was) you simply paid for them as though they were books...If the intention was to do the ol' "hey kids, let's put on a show" (the reality) there were royalties/licensing fees that applied as you were going to do it to realize some monetary gain, even if the benefit was for the school or club or whatever...
Perhaps like patents they should be given a finite lifetime within which money is due and then afterwards only be acknowledged with a required attribution...
jimHJJ(...who knows?...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...if it were your work, how would you feel about it then? I mean there is a bit of a difference between selling your time or product which are tangible items or producing an intellectual property...a very gray area. I recall back in HS we would go to a place in Manhattan to purchase scripts for the drama club...if their intended use was educational (as it always was) you simply paid for them as though they were books...If the intention was to do the ol' "hey kids, let's put on a show" (the reality) there were royalties/licensing fees that applied as you were going to do it to realize some monetary gain, even if the benefit was for the school or club or whatever...
Perhaps like patents they should be given a finite lifetime within which money is due and then afterwards only be acknowledged with a required attribution...
jimHJJ(...who knows?...)
I negotiate contracts to lower pricing on products we bring in. I get paid the one time. But our Sales department and company makes extra money on every sale after that.
Maybe I should get a cut for every sale. Even if I retire I should keep making money from it. That's what these artists are getting.
-
Don't get me wrong...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
I negotiate contracts to lower pricing on products we bring in. I get paid the one time. But our Sales department and company makes extra money on every sale after that.
Maybe I should get a cut for every sale. Even if I retire I should keep making money from it. That's what these artists are getting.
...I'm ambivalent...Why tip in a restaurant? You do your job, you get paid...period...Unfortunately that's the wage structure similar to your sales reps...the get a base-pay (usually a low ball figure) plus tips or commissions...You should try to negotiate something in your contract to reflect your part in the company's bottom line, a bonus perhaps.
If we go to one of our 4 or 5 regular restaurants and get good service from a familiar member of the wait staff (and there's no reason I shouldn't get good service period) I tend to tip toward a 20% ceiling on the whole tab...It's all service dependent...If you remember I use Tabasco, pour a second cup of coffee without my asking, keep refilling my iced tea, that sorta' thing...but things tend to work on a downward sliding scale...sometimes it's 20% based on food less tax and drinks...sometimes it's 15% of the entire tab, etc. If I know it's a place where the tips are pooled, its automatically 15%...period...
jimHJJ(...these threads go all which ways...)
-
Well, looks like you're wrong on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
Well to quote a line from Sugar Magnolia "...I ain't often right but I've never been wrong...",jimHJJ(...and if I hear Whole Lotta' Love one more time I'm gonna' scream...)
They took the music of others that was published and used the songs for personal gain without getting permission and ended up paying for it. Justice was served. See the definition of 'Public Domain' one more time if you didn't read it thoroughly the first time. And I don't care about ideas running through your head or the collective heads of Led Zep. It's pretty much a done deal. They admitted it and gave credit on their recently released 'greatest hits' records, so that pretty much wraps it up.
Swih
-
Just my POV. I do get a bonus. But just the one time. Never again after that. While people who had nothing to do with the contact keep making extra for years to come.
A music artist makes money on the CD sales, concerts, T-shirts, etc forever and ever. And if someone comes along and remakes their song so that it's completely different, they get paid yet again. Next thing you know I'll have to send them extra money every time their song gets stuck in my head playing over and over.
-
Let's try again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swish
They took the music of others that was published and used the songs for personal gain without getting permission and ended up paying for it. Justice was served. See the definition of 'Public Domain' one more time if you didn't read it thoroughly the first time. And I don't care about ideas running through your head or the collective heads of Led Zep. It's pretty much a done deal. They admitted it and gave credit on their recently released 'greatest hits' records, so that pretty much wraps it up.
Swih
...I didn't say it was my position...I repeated a theory or whatever that was stated in the audio clip...You said I was wrong before and you are repeating it again...It was postulated by someone else, I heard it and I repeated it here...so...I most certainly am not wrong in what I heard...I realize it gets convoluted, but it ain't that difficult...
As to what goes on in my or anyone else's head, try to delve into the abstract now and again...a "f'rinstance" ain't a done deal, however it could be cause for reasonable doubt legally...
And as I recall from the clip their entire catalog was sold to Atlantic who takes on both the assets AND liabilities...and if their label did through third-party agency collude to commit some sort of copyright infringement way back when, then it is fitting and proper that they now pay the price.
Again a nolo contendere or any form of consent decree, regardless of it's outcome is not generally considered an admission of guilt or impropriety...
jimHJJ(...and besides, who really gives a friggin' rat's @$$...)
-
There's at least one attorney or RR who will tell you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
Again a nolo contendere or any form of consent decree, regardless of it's outcome is not generally considered an admission of guilt or impropriety...
jimHJJ(...and besides, who really gives a friggin' rat's @$$...)
...that nolo contendere is basically an admission of guilt. In general, when you have no defense because you are guilty and can't weasel out of it, you cop that plea, usually because you're guilty as sin and the cops offered you a deal if you rolled over on somebody else. I have a very good friend who used to bust dopers all the time, and this was a very common ploy to get to someone higher up the food chain. According to him, it was the easiest way to get the big guys, and most of the low level dealers are eager to roll.
I didn't catch your drift in the prior post, so I stand corrected, but I'm really done with this topic, for better or for worse. One thing you have to admit is that it stirred up a lot of people on RR, and it was sorely needed. This place has been a morgue of late.
Swish
-
Holy crap! I go away for a few days and a four page discussion pops up...oh well, what's that tell ya....
Just bought a new (old) ski boat and have been tooling around the lake for a few daze with the wife'n chirlins.
I still count myself as a major LZ fan. Yeah, I remember the rumors floatin around in the late '70s about how much Zep 'borrowed' from blues artists w/o giving credit. I read Hammer Of The Gods in the '80s. Then, in the suit happy '90s, LZ was successfully sued by the estate of Willie Dixon (and one other but can't remember who).
I agree with Brad - its just wierd that they would do that, being naive enough to think no one would say anything about it at all (well, they were nearly right). But let's set one thing straight; the they in "they" was Jimmy Page, who was already an experienced session man and jaded businessman in the rock world. JPJ was too, but he wasn't steering the ship from a business perspective, Page was. I don't think that Plant and Bonham, still being wet behind the ears, thought as much as they should have concerning things like credit and royalties, but Page shoulda known better. It wasn't as wierd as it was...well...dumb. And reprehensible. Page tried to skip out on the tab, and it finally tracked him down.
Page was a notorious skinflint anyway, and from what I've read, hard to do business with. He was thought of as a very shrewd business man, except for that royalty thing. Page was a penny pinching, teeny-bopper dating, devil worshiper from all accounts, but I'm still a fan of LZ.
But I also agree that 'borrowing' from other artists was a common practice among blues and jazz artists, so much so that we prolly never heard the best that the roots era had to offer because some artisits didn't want to be recorded, only to have rivals be able to copy their music. So does that make what LZ did OK? No. So is the fact that LZ did it too more of a travesty than blues artists who did it decades before them? Nope. Who they were, and the fact they got rich off of it is the main issue. So no, LZ is not a guilty pleasure of mine. I didn't really care for the first three albums anyway. But from LZ-zoso and on, they kicked ass, took names, and from 1970 on, never put out the same album twice in a row and there are very, very few artists who can say that, living or dead, and that is something that even the blues masters cannot say.
Led Zeppelin need not apologize to anyone, nor should anyone apologize for liking them. And since Jimmy Page hasn't played an interesting riff in nearly three decades, its a moot point. Maybe he really did turn into Allister Crowely.
-
That might be the best post you've ever written...so I'd say maybe you should go away more often, but I won't. And I wouldn't mean it anyway if I did.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swish
. This place has been a morgue of late.
Swish
Needs more twang.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-LockBox
. So no, LZ is not a guilty pleasure of mine. I didn't really care for the first three albums anyway. But from LZ-zoso and on, they kicked ass, took names, and from 1970 on, never put out the same album twice in a row and there are very, very few artists who can say that, living or dead, and that is something that even the blues masters cannot say.
Led Zeppelin need not apologize to anyone, nor should anyone apologize for liking them. And since Jimmy Page hasn't played an interesting riff in nearly three decades, its a moot point. Maybe he really did turn into Allister Crowely.
That was almost inspirational...
Oh hell yeah....I feel some Helix comin' on..
Gimme an "R"
"R"
Gimme an "O"
"O"....:5:
-
I'm going to break my silence here just to say that 3-LockBox's even-handed summation deserves honors, and that IMO, would be a great point for putting this thread to bed. :thumbsup:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-LockBox
But let's set one thing straight; the they in "they" was Jimmy Page, who was already an experienced session man and jaded businessman in the rock world. JPJ was too, but he wasn't steering the ship from a business perspective, Page was.
No way, Grant steered the ship. They engaged in a lot of bad behavior knowing Grant would cover everything. Good point about Plant & Bonham being naive on that first album. But there's something about rock artists acting innocent and naive that just kills me. I remember when we won a contest to meet Supertramp in a hotel conference room after the show in 1983. There were about 20 people there. After the band wandered around a bit, they sat behind this table with a stack of autographed albums and Hodgson says, "Okay, come get your albums" like we're kids and he loves us or something. But these were signed album COVERS, there was no record inside. People were walking away in confusion and disgust and these guys are sitting right there like they're totally oblivious. Amazing. It was a stark example of how artists and celebs can be disconnected from a reality other than their own.
Anyway, great post, 3-Lock.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradH
No way, Grant steered the ship. They engaged in a lot of bad behavior knowing Grant would cover everything. Good point about Plant & Bonham being naive on that first album. But there's something about rock artists acting innocent and naive that just kills me. I remember when we won a contest to meet Supertramp in a hotel conference room after the show in 1983. There were about 20 people there. After the band wandered around a bit, they sat behind this table with a stack of autographed albums and Hodgson says, "Okay, come get your albums" like we're kids and he loves us or something. But these were signed album COVERS, there was no record inside. People were walking away in confusion and disgust and these guys are sitting right there like they're totally oblivious. Amazing. It was a stark example of how artists and celebs can be disconnected from a reality other than their own.
You're right that Grant was heavy handed as far as the business end went, but the first few Zep albums was Page's babies. I remember a passage in the HOTG book that Beck wouldn't speak to Page after LZIII came out, suggesting that Page had ripped off some of Beck's ideas, and other rock artists (The Who and The Stones) thought LZ were a bunch of wanks.
And yeah, I've known a few of those contest winners who felt less than winner-like after their encounter with a couple of completely detatched band members. Or better yet, bands who sent their roadies in their place. Let's face it, popular bands are/were used to people fawning on them 24-7, so the notion that they were going to freely give of themselves for anything prolly got under their skin. Now they really are, a bunch of wanks.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-LockBox
You're right that Grant was heavy handed as far as the business end went, but the first few Zep albums was Page's babies.
Artistically, yes. But the decision to forego crediting other songwriters was a business decision and that came under Grant's purview....and Atlantic's, frankly.
Beck was largely angry at Page because his own career was going down while Zep became huge using a blues guitar/vocals approach lifted from Beck & Rod Stewart while they were in The Jeff Beck Group. They're huge friends these days and have been since they were about 13, actually. Page got Beck the gig for the Yardbirds because Relf & Co originally wanted Page. Beck thanked Page by showing up on his doorstep with a Strat of some kind, it's the one recorded on Stairway...so there's a long history there. Then there's the whole Led Zeppelin name and the Hindenburg pic concocted by Keith Moon and John Entwistle when they wanted to leave The Who. Entwistle said Richard Cole was their limo driver. He became Zep's road manager and took the idea with him. And Townshend can say what he wants but "Naked Eye" and a couple of other riff-heavy Who songs from that post-Tommy period were markedly influenced by Zeppelin and he admitted it at the time.
-
!
Oh yeah, that Supertramp thing? Dude, they were calling those things "albums" and there was no record inside and they were acting like everything was normal. That was the disconnect.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradH
Artistically, yes. But the decision to forego crediting other songwriters was a business decision and that came under Grant's purview....and Atlantic's, frankly.
No matter how you slice it, its a shameful blemish on an otherwise, legendary rock band. Anyone within earshot of the process during those days are culpible if you really get down to it.
Plant's vocals sort get on my nerves from those first three albums, so its hard for me to really love them anyway. Plant matured as a singer though, and to my recollection, became more influential in the creating process. I can still listen to just about album from LZ's canon, except those first three. Since I Been Lovin You is a stellar song from III, but I never found out if it was 'lifted' or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
Oh yeah, that Supertramp thing? Dude, they were calling those things "albums" and there was no record inside and they were acting like everything was normal.
That was very cheap and sleasy. Did it change your outlook on the band?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-LockBox
That was very cheap and sleasy. Did it change your outlook on the band?
Not that much, I guess. It was more bizarre than anything. They were dazed and on the road and having to f*ck with this sponsor's contest thing after the show. A&M probably didn't want to ship the records because it wasn't their deal and the band just figured it was out of their hands, etc. etc. Lot of internal conflict in that band involving a wife/manager formula from hell so there's no telling. Tons of reasons to be self-absorbed. Next thing y'know they're giving away invisible albums and fans are staring at them from 4 feet away thinking "WTF?". Killer show, though. Very Genesis-like. Not a shy studio band at all.
|