Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

elusive quote and frustration evoked

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Universal just announced that they are raising their prices $1USD per CD.

    If the record industry had to operate like a manufacturing operation, the payrolls (exclusive of artists) would reduce by at least a half, and CD prices would be around $7.00 for a new release of a major act.

    There are bands - great bands who you have heard of and probably respect greatly - that would give a testicle for 400,000 units sold.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
      they just want to collect your CC info. Lame.
      Is that legal I don't think it would be over here in the UK. I think the guidence is that you can only collect data that is needed and can not just take on a whim which is what this sounds like, and with peoples financial details.
      MEEP !

      Comment


      • #18
        Yeah, I thought it was pretty sucky, so here's what I did to get the full quote I wanted:

        Searched for one word.
        Got as much of the quote as it would give me from that.
        Copied a string of three words from the start of that portion of the quote.
        Searched for that string and got an earlier section of the same quote.
        Grabbed all that and repeated the process in both directions until I had the full quote.

        I'd rather put in the extra effort than cough up my CC info.
        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

        Comment


        • #19
          I think the holders of copyrights are trying to do this - I think I read somewhere that under current or proposed U.K. law one cannot transfer copyrighted material from one kind of media to another. That is to say that one cannot go from vinyl or CD to MP3 - that would be infringing.

          But my view is: bullocks to that!

          Some things I had on vinyl I did duplicate by buying the CDs - vinyl is a pain in the ass in a lot of ways. Vinyl material can be transferred to something else, but it's not exactly a "set it and forget" procedure. So I am willing to accept that level of duplication for my own ease of use, even if from an economic standpoint it might be stupid. That said, I have dozens of things that are either not available as anything but vinyl in the first place, or otherwise hard to come by - much of that will slowly make it to MP3 over time. If I am not willing to take the minor time to transfer it to MP3 maybe I need to admit I'll never listen to it again - the process itself requires listening to at least some portions of the music, so it's kinda fun in itself. So if I won't do as little as that it's probably something I don't like that much.

          What irks me is the idea that the music industry can have a law shoved down everyone's throat telling them they cannot transfer from one kind of media to another - it would have a retroactive effect that I find obnoxious and itself contrary to standing laws on the subject. My objection is this: when I bought the vinyl, and the CDs for that matter, it was with the understanding that if I wanted to tranfer it to cassette tapes or whatever I could do that for my personal use. In fact, until only recently it would have been my understanding that such a copy could have been made for a friend too, under fair use. I know that when I was younger I was constantly trading cassette tapes with friends all the time (I say trading, but I really mean as a gift - nobody was holding a cassette hostage for a tape in trade). Now, they are going around and having the laws changed to a new understanding of how it should work and I am theoretically going to be left with stuff that is less useful to me because I can't transfer it to another form, even though when I bought the items it was perfectly okay to transfer the data over to another media. So basically the consumer is having the utility of something purchased in the past altered in terms of present and proposed law - there's the retroactivity, utility robbed from the consumer. And I said it was theoretical because I would never obey such a law even if it were passed.

          Of course, no one gives a shit when the people are robbed by the continual extension of copyright laws such that some things created in the last century appear as if they will *NEVER* enter into public domain. Madness. And a more obvious kowtowing of a nation's legislature to corporate whims you shall not find. This would be one of the reasons I insist that we are living under a kind of attenuated corporate plutocracy. How is it anything but a kind of subsidy to keep an industry alive counter to long-standing understandings of IP laws and traditions? I don't mind subsidizing an industry if it serves a public good in the creation of art and other useful things - but I think it's very wrong to alter existing IP laws in order to do it.

          Capitalistic democracies thrive on the marketplace of open ideas - ideas that are themselves open to exploitation by anyone. Shutting up that marketplace of ideas is a huge mistake.

          We have to stop enacting laws and altering cultural understandings just so that one, or a few, industries can prolong their survival. In all fairness, I did already purchase certain material at least once already, often even twice already - but now that I have a digital copy, I am sorry but there will not be a third duplication. That's just crazy. They cannot force my hand even with the passage of hundreds of silly laws.

          -------------------------------

          I was trying to come up some things that I have on vinyl that one could not easily obtain on CD. Man, I am coming up with almost nothing here. The last time I looked many things simply were not there, now I look again and find this:


          http://www.stockholm-monsters.freeserve.co.uk/


          http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...303121-9481427

          Comment


          • #20
            Except for the corporate bashing part, I wish I had written that. Fair use is a ludicrous, short-sided, and, from a practical matter, indefensible area to attack.

            Is that a Roger Dean cover on the second album?

            Comment


            • #21
              Patrick Woodroffe, who has done some of the weirder Cornelius covers also. Amazing artist, BTW. Lots of seemingly psychedlic-inspired detailed work.

              That particular book is truly wonderful at LP size - so I wonder if the CD-sized production would be worth it. I'd think not.





              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bill
                Is that a Roger Dean cover on the second album?
                Yup, Greenslade's album covers were illustrated and calligraphed by Roger Dean, according to Borderline Books:

                http://www.borderlinebooks.com/uk6070s/g7z.html
                "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                Comment


                • #23
                  Roger Dean created the "magician" figure that adorns many Greenslade covers, but the artist Bill specifically inquired about is Patrick Woodroffe.



                  The "Time and Tide" cover is Woodroffe, even though it too features the magician figure created by Dean. Woodroffe is a mad genius:







                  Somebody has more on Woodroffe and Greenslade's "The Pentateuch of the Cosmogony" at a blog apparently:
                  http://www.therant.info/archive/001320.html

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Ahhh, thanks for the clarification, krunky. The info I found wasn't exactly thorough.

                    That Time & Tide pic is... wow! Mad genius is right!
                    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      >he industry should stop and consider that declining sales could be attributed >to the crap they're selling, and the way they sell their souls to promote it >almost exclusively on Clear Channel stations, which have playlists that are >only about 25 songs deep.

                      Doc - you may have hit the nail on the head there - I think the blame may lie more with the channels through which music is promoted, than what the major labels are putting out - because there is still good and brave stuff being released (listening right now to the Beth Gibbons solo LP on Polydor. Warners stuck with REM and Flaming Lips for many years before the market picked up on them). There can be little more frustrating that being criticised for putting out crap, and then seeing the non-crap stuff stiff.

                      One thing that is funny is that CD sales in the UK increased last year, so they had to find an explanation for that which was court cases against downloading in the USA! (In fact it was largely down to the likes of Norah Jones, et al).

                      >And what ever happened to labels developing artists? Artists are losing >record deals after moving 400,000 units because they supposedly aren't >profitable. I'm not a business person, and I know label politics are tricky >(one Britney Spears supports 10 low selling "artistic" bands), but I'm >pretty sure that I could find a way to make a profit off of 400,000 cds.

                      Yes, those economics - 9/10 acts fail - don't work for me. Don't spend so much breaking artists then. I had friends who ran a record label and made a compfortable living on sales of 2000 per release, 10000 on the 'hits'. They could in no way afford for a 90% failure rate.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        For a short time only, get your Greenslade/Woodroffe desktop here:
                        http://www.freewebs.com/raininmysoup/

                        The file is optimized for use on a 1024 x 768 desktop, but since it is squarish in dimensions it is actually 868x725. It's still a big file. center it on your desktop, don't let it get stretched or it will look funny.

                        This is one pretty picture, and somehow very right for this site's overall interests: Prog-Rock meets fantasy art. This magician figure looks like Lord Jagged to me...

                        There's a gold ornament to the lower left, that wrapping around the gatefold album cover becomes a frame for the faces of the band members of Greenslade. Maybe if I get ambitious someday I will try and see if the whole cover could be scanned to good effect. My problem is that I hate writing and logos on my desktop, I'd want to edit that stuff out somehow which might take some time.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jules
                          Yes, those economics - 9/10 acts fail - don't work for me. Don't spend so much breaking artists then. I had friends who ran a record label and made a compfortable living on sales of 2000 per release, 10000 on the 'hits'. They could in no way afford for a 90% failure rate.
                          I can't disagree with that. I live in Austin, where there are many people who support themselves through their muisic, without the luxury of a record deal. I know some of them who do reasonably well with self-produced, self-released stuff. Their bread and butter will always be live shows, but they do a little more than simply supplement their income with CD sales. If acts like that can be viable, how does a record deal make things worse?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Jules, please, please accept my apologies before hand, as I am not coming after you, only using your post as a springboard for a huge pet peeve of mine. Got nothing to do with you, just waiting for an opportunity!!!

                            Having said that, I am f*****g done with people using this word, "brave" to define things that are decidedly NOT brave. Don't laugh, but I read Entertainment Weekly, and there isn't an issue that doesn't come by where some dork actor is describing some other actor's work as "brave" or "fearless". Standing in front of a camera or on-stage is not "brave" or "fearless". I know. I have done both. "Brave" is laying your life down for a loved one or for your country (I mean generally, not referencing current affairs). "Brave" is sacrificing a kidney for someone else to remain alive. "Brave" is being a cop and knowingly going into a situation with an armed suspect. "Brave" is being a fireman and knowingly going into a burning building. "Brave" is being a doctor and putting your hands into a wounded person not knowing if they are HIV positive.

                            Creating or releasing a book or movie or record or television show is not "brave" in any sense of the word. Again, Jules, not directing this at you. I get your point.

                            "Warners stuck with REM..." Picking nits, here, but I think they were on IRS during the lean years, and went to Warner before the Green album, receiving a pretty hefty advance in doing so; they were already an established act at that point, having released "Fall On Me", "The One I Love", and "It's The End Of The World..." But your point is well-taken, and I think quite correct.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              wow fucked up shit
                              Tell me more about Greenslade
                              I now have a nice new backdrop to brighten up my work pc

                              on the copying your own records thing I have only heard rumours so far and if anything does change as in most UK law issues it will only be certain when some poor pleb is dragged through the courts to make more money for all those legal scum types. sometimes I think thats the only reason so many laws get past and then they never get removed. Anyone remeber that Foot and Mouth farce well it is now still illegal to compost kitchen waste because of it, like being a vegetarian how could my kitchen waste spread foot and mouth, so instead all the meat eaters put there meat waste in the normal bin which goes to open cast dumps with hundreds of birds on them this all make no sense to me, do I need more drugs to see this logic ? sorry rant over.
                              MEEP !

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Bill - point taken. OK - 'less than brazenly commercial' rather than brave.

                                Yep, REM had something like 5 LPs before they went to a major, and were a big college band, but I think it took another couple of LPs before they became the new U2.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X