On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:05:48 -0500 (EST) "Terry A. Smith"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anonymity erodes credibility. And we promise not to laugh
if your name is Ethelbert or Seymour or Eula or something
like that. -- Terry Smith, whose mom's name is Eula -- a
good ol' fashioned Texas name
Or,
Bit late on this thread, but just wanted to chuck in my 2 cents...
I understand the whole thing about artists' rights. I also understand a
little about the conflict between the artist's creative process and the
marketing of the "product". With a few notable exceptions, legit live
recordings
In a message dated 3/24/99 12:04:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Also, I own all of the legit commercial products from both bands. Bought a
bunch of Todd Snider to pass on to friends as well.
Oh well, that makes it okay to steal, doesn't it?
Slim
In a message dated 3/24/99 12:04:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to track down some digital Todd Snider and Blue Mt. I would
prefer to receive in CDR format, but will trade my CDRs or videos (ask for
list) for DAT as well.
Well, I have been trying to keep my mouth shut, but this
I deleted the original e-mail, being uninterested in the subject,
but was he looking for a boot of the new album (which is
cheap and inexcusable) or digital versions of peoples' taped
concerts (which I'm all for, providing it's a fair trade, seeing
as how it's not money from the artist's/label's
From the clipped bit, it reads like he's looking for non-released
material, and wants to trade. As an artist, what's your take on
that?
If a record label released material without the consent of the artist,
wouldn't it be obvious that something rotten was going on? If so, what's
the
In a message dated 3/24/99 11:18:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the principle of an artist's control over what material
gets into the marketplace is another one, and there's a pretty obvious
violation of it here.
Right on someone taped me when I had flu, thought it was great and wanted
In a message dated 3/24/99 12:18:57 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a record label released material without the consent of the artist,
wouldn't it be obvious that something rotten was going on? If so, what's
the difference here?
the difference is that there's a contractual, legal
If a record label released material without the consent of the artist,
wouldn't it be obvious that something rotten was going on? If so, what's
the difference here? The financial principle is an important one, but it's
not the only one; the principle of an artist's control over what
once it becomes available anyway (the few boots I have are in
addition to owning entire available catalog - Lloyd Cole, the
Replacements, etc...)
There's a name I don't believe I've seen show up here before (or at least
not in a long time)anyone know what Lloyd Cole is up to these days?
TL
At 10:29 AM -0800 on 3/24/99, Hill, Christopher J wrote:
And - unless the artist AND venue have come out as tape-friendly -
I doubt someone would risk losing their MiniDisc recorder by asking
a performer for permission, so it'll remain an underground pursuit.
There's a list of taper-friendly
I don't have near enough time, or energy, to listen to all the "official"
recordings out there, even in our funny little genre. Where do you folks
find the time to not only listen to the legit stuff, but to ferret out all
the boots, too? How do you find time to watch "The Simpsons" or go see a
Lately, a few folks have been posting and then not putting their names on
their contributions. I think it's polite -- just from the standpoint of
more effective communication -- to sign your messages, so we'll know who
the hell is writing them, and be able to connect the P-2er with earlier
posts.
13 matches
Mail list logo
