Slashdot Mirror
Paul McCartney On Music In the Digital World
Rachhpal writes "Former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney will release his new album today — it's called 'Memory Almost Full.' In an interview with the L.A. Times, he talked about ending his long-time relationship with EMI and making the new album fully downloadable through his new relationship with Starbucks' Hear Music label. Some of his comments on the music industry: 'I was bored with the old record company's jaded view,' McCartney says... 'They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do. So they've got millions of dollars and X budget... for them to come up with boring ways — because they've been at it for so long — to what they call "market" it. And I find that all a bit disturbing.'"
For those of you still in the dark out there...
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.latimes.com
It has a list of account logins and passwords that you can use for this article.
They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do...
Raise the white flag and surrender? that would be nice.. actually they do seem like a confused rabid dog, might have to put them down..
s/©//g
Please, no matter how interesting some piece of news is, unless it's posted on a site that everyone can access, don't link to it. It just annoys the hell out of most people, and gives the website in question undeserved registrations. If they don't want to show the information to everyone equally, I'm not interested.
c++;
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-mccartn ey3jun03,1,5298355.story
e-mail Macca and explain their ideas for open distribution of music?
I can't believe it, here I am reading Paul McCartney's words and nodding in agreement. I feel a little dirty, but that's ok.
And the freedom to do as I please I would find lots of things boring and disturbing as well. Its funny how those who are no longer dependent upon anyone after reaping the rewards of the current systems are the ones telling us all how things should be.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
We boycott the recoding indutry untill they are bankrupt. Once the companies are in liquidation we pool our resources, by up the IP, and sell it back to the artists who can then publish it in the format they want on the web. We make a profit, the artists get their art back, and a whole bunch of asshole have to look for new work.
Is Mr McCartney trying to be ironic?
Sir Paul: I'm sick of this scene of corporate greed, market-driven business plans, aggressive practices and monopolistic behaviour, always pushing out the little guy and the independent ventures. That's why I've signed with Starbucks.
This album is available DRM-free from emusic (I know, I was shocked too!)
http://www.emusic.com/album/11044/11044254.html
If there's anything that you want (to ear),
if there's anything I can do (with music):
just call your ISP
and it'll send it along
with love from me to you!
(And your money from you to me)
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
I was listening to the Howard Stern show yesterday and they had Adam Levine, lead singer and songwriter from Maroon 5.
Now Howard is one of those dinosaurs when it comes to distributing music; he constantly rails against YouTube, thinks file sharing is ruining the music business, etc etc.
Anyway, Howard said to Levine (and I won't have these quotes quite right): "I feel really bad for you guys, it's tough to make it in the music business because people won't pay for music anymore, they want to get it for free"
And Levine said something interesting "Don't feel bad for the musicians. The music industry is screwed up, but musicians have so many ways to make money from the internet. We couldn't have made it without the internet".
Levine didn't stop there, he said what other musicians have confirmed... "Of all he ways we made money, despite selling 10 million records [might've heard this wrong], we made *no money from CD sales*. All of our money came from touring and merchandising"
Unfortunately, Howard can be quite insightful on when to follow up, but he ignore this little exchange, probably because it doesn't fit his opinions, but maybe because he was bored with it. But to sell so many CD's and not make any money from it. I just wish somebody would take these quote from successful musicians and play them in front of Congress so that somebody will say "Well gee, who are we protecting with these draconian copyright and copyright extension laws? It doesn't appear to be the musicians at all!"
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Sir Paul has come in for a bit of criticism in this thread so far, but I think the fact that he is saying what he is, is actually a good thing. The music industry will not listen to most musicians but perhaps they _will_ listen to him. It matters not whether you like his music, whether you think he is past it and irrelevant to today's music scene, or whatever. He is actually saying what many of us have been saying for a long time. The way music and musicians are managed today is out-of-date. The public has changed, the medium has changed, and now the industry must change. Is that such a bad thing, no matter who says it?
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Sir Paul (continued): I'm really excited about the energy and commitment involved in making new music, and hate all these guys who try to hang onto the past. That's why I'm supporting the extension of copyright on music recordings in the UK.
Paul McCartney supports a call for copyright on music recordings to be extended from 50 years to 95 or even 'life plus 70 years'
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
McCartney says... "They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do. So they've got millions of dollars and X budget... for them to come up with boring ways -- because they've been at it for so long -- to what they call "market" it. And I find that all a bit disturbing."
...what he said!
As much as I realize that the music industry needs to adapt, its much easier to state the problem and analyze it rather than come up with a solution. Competing with free can be done... but I haven't heard a viable solution that makes me realize the industry still has potential. Honestly, I could care less. If music was knocked back into the stone age and no name bands struggled to get any publicity at all... I think that would be the greatest thing that ever happened since Robert Johnson.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
Last Tuesday. I got it off of emusic.com. And it was DRM-free LAME MP3, too. $14.99 for 50 downloads meant that it cost me just under $5.
Trent Reznor has been very angry over some of UMG's decisions as of late. Trent does a good job of providing reasons to buy his album in this digital age. He even puts up all his new music on his Myspace page. http://www.myspace.com/nin Here is a link to some of his current concerns regarding UMG. http://nin.com/tr/
Something witty goes here.
Say what you like about McCartney's music (particularly his solo career). One thing that sets him apart from Elvis, Lennon, Cliff Richard or even Mick Jagger is his pure songwriting output. He's penned most material on his 21 albums, he was a key catalyst in getting the best out of Lennon/McCartney collaboration and some books even go so far as to make him the "number one" Beatle.
His music has been commercially successful over four decades, so he spans a longer career than Elton John, Billy Joel or Jimmy Buffett. He's been with a major label - EMI - and been through vinyl, cassette, CD and now MP3/AAC digital formats. He is a songwriter as well as a musician, and he has a big catalogue.
So, it's refreshing to hear him state that the music business is out of marketing ideas and out of tune with possibilities. Even if you don't like him...
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
Paul McCartney is worth over $1.5 Billion.
Not $800 million.
He's pretty much the richest entertainer alive to my knowledge - I think richer than Oprah (who I wouldn't really consider an entertainer anyway).
The music industry is looking at making music the same way the automotive industry is looking at making cars. For them it is just all about assembling the parts (3 cup of sexy (make sure you remove any talent), 5 spoons of digital remixing, 10 liters of marketing, mash it up, stick it in bowl then devour). Besides that, what is really up with this love theme in music? There is around zero pop songs that isn't about sex, love, boyfriends, breakup etc. If you name one I will give you a cookie. Metãl for life \m/
Doonesbury recently ran a little parody of this:
http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2007/06/04//
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Suddenly, last weeks' Doonesbury strips seem prescient:t ml?uc_full_date=20070604
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.h
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
They're working on a new version of the manager that runs Linux: http://developer.emusic.com/ and I know that there's also a Python eMusic, Dromanova, that's getting rave reviews and can be downloaded here: http://boykin.acis.ufl.edu/?p=97
ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
Stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Beatles and Lennon/McCartney some of the last music to be electronically available due to obstructionism from *both* the original group and the label.
It's almost like Saul being converted on the way to Damascus.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
And I find that all a bit disturbing
Oddly enough Sir Paul didn't find it disturbing when he was sucking off the teat of the industry and wasn't disturbed when the brokering of the rights to "his" music was making him the richest musician in history.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Or you can use 10minutemail to create an account yourself, and then post it on bugmenot.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
From the summary:
he talked about ending his long-time relationship with EMIAt that point, I thought that he was disappointed that EMI would be publishing music without draconian DRM, and that this was the reason why he ended his relationship with them.
Turned out to be slightly different. :)
Or this being Slashdot, perhaps a backup strategy relying on a Beowulf cluster of somethings.
Going in and out of style, but still guaranteed to raise a smile.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
To make things easier and handle all the possible channels, the artists could band together into a group. Perhaps they could call it the Independent Recording Artists of America. This group would facilitate pushing the music out through various electronic media, and would fund its activites by taking a percentage of the gross income. Perfect plan!
Paul McCartney supports a call for copyright on music recordings to be extended from 50 years to 95 or even 'life plus 70 years'
"Will you still need me, will you still feed me
when I've been dead for 64 years" ?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I don't mind the logins as long as BugMeNot has accounts for me to use. Anyways, I am surprised no one copied and pasted the article. Here it is:
... for them to come up with boring ways -- because they've been at it for so long -- to what they call 'market' it. And I find that all a bit disturbing.
Paul McCartney is a man on the run
He has a new album, a new record label, new living arrangements and even a new plan about putting the Beatles' music catalog online this year.
By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer
June 3, 2007
What's in a name?
What's in a name?
click to enlarge
Winchelsea, England -- HE noticed it when his cellphone, stuffed with too many text messages, voicemails and phone numbers, started flashing at him: "Memory almost full." It was remarkably like his own brain, weighted down with half-written songs, daughter Bea's schedule, the lyrics to old Beatles B-sides, the blurring faces of long-buried loves and friends.
Delete? Re-record? Which parts go, and which -- the carpets of bluebells outside Liverpool in spring, sitting on twin beds in a hotel room with John Lennon writing "She Loves You" -- stay locked in the hard drive of time?
"Your memory is always almost full these days. There's so much going on, so I thought it was a poetic way to sum up modern life. Just overload, information overload," Paul McCartney says of his 21st solo album, "Memory Almost Full," which explores the persistence of memory, preparing for the settling of scores and a life too full to hold it all.
"It's been pointed out to me that since the album is heavy on retrospective stuff, there's a sort of finality about it. 'Memory almost full,' any second now it will be full, and, 'Goodbye cruel world.' It's not what I meant about it at all, but I can see that meaning, and I like, you know, people to have different interpretations. "Abbey Road" to us was a crossing outside the studio. I'm sure to some people, it meant Monastery Lane, and we liked that sort of quasi-religious feel of it too."
The album (out Tuesday) marks the 64-year-old McCartney's plunge into another kind of digital age. Ending his relationship with Capitol Records/EMI that began in 1962, McCartney has hooked up with Starbucks' new Hear Music Label and unlocks the new album (along with the rest of his solo catalog) for online downloads. McCartney also says the Beatles catalog is on deck for online release near the end of the year, although EMI has not announced a date.
The video for "Dance Tonight," the party-tune, mandolin-laced foot-tapper that opens the record, made its world premiere on YouTube, in a bid to charm a third generation with the kind of winsome songs their grandmother should know.
"I was bored with the old record company's jaded view," McCartney says, plopped on a sofa in the large, comfortable farmhouse that doubles as a rehearsal studio here in the rolling, tree-studded hills of rural East Sussex. Outside, there is an old windmill, and in the near distance, the hazy blue carpet of the English Channel.
"They're very confused, and they will admit it themselves: that this is a new world, and they're a little bit at a loss as to what to do. So they've got millions of dollars and X budget
"I write it, I play it, I record it, and that's all fun. And you go to the record company, and it gets very boring. You sit around in rooms with people, and you're almost falling asleep" -- he rolls his head down midchest --"and they're almost falling asleep.
"My record producer [David Kahne] said the major record labels these days are like dinosaurs sitting around discussing the asteroid. They know it's going to hit. They don't know when, they don't know where it's coming from. But it's sort of hit already. With iTunes, and all of that."
McCartney heard that Starbucks' content development guy, Alan Mintz, loved his music; better, he was a bass player. They arranged to meet in New York, along with Howard Schultz, the chief executive who turned Starbucks from
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
He is one of the most important figures in pop music, respect to that.
So what is exactly wrong with him?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What he is saying is truth: the music industry execs have not got a clue and he, as the old pro he is, he finds it disturbing.
Your ad hominem does not address the valid points he is making.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think he's probably reaped 1.5 billion in spite of said system not from it.
If one took all the money that the Beatles made from their work (collectively and individually as solo artists) and stacked it in a nice neat pile I'm sure that pile would fit easily inside the shadow cast by the mountain of money that other people have made off of their work.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Wings - the band the bbeatles could have been.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
What would have you done hero?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Have you ever wondered why the "targets" in Palestine are always surrounded by their cousins, nephews and nieces, assorted random children from the street, etc? They're not *really* just always going to a wedding or a family reunion obviously. It's for protection and giving their people something to get angry about when they're injured or killed.
The whole situation is sad, but that does not make Israel a "bad guy". Yes, they could just never attack anybody because they are always surrounded by their extended family, or you could say the people planning attacks on Israel should have the decency towards their own people to endanger them as little as possible. I agree with the latter more than the former. Using women and children as shields is more despicable than anything Israel does.
That, and in the US you can be fined $50,000 and imprisoned for 5 years for knowingly participating in a boycott of Israeli goods.
Boycott Israel!
There. Now every US citizen or resident who reads this post must go and report to the Dept of Thought Pol^H^H^H^H^H Commerce within 3 months, good little comrades that you are.
Or one could view "Taxman": http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=101
I find it interesting that the Beatles, or at least the royalties on their music, may well be one of the driving forces for copyright extension/abomination in the UK.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
1) Hezbollah fired a bunch of low tech rockets at Israel.
2) Israel responded by dropping thousands of 1-ton bombs
Given that anyone with an IQ above his shoe size could work out that 2) was a fairly likely response, why did Hezbollah start it in the first place? Are they completely stupid, or do they care about the ordinary Lebanese people even less than the Israelis do?
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Because.... they live in cities?
May the Maths Be with you!
Hezbollah shares one very important characteristic with the Nazi's. They like to put their weapons stockpiles near schools and hospitals in order to dissuade more civilized opponents.
Israel infact LET LEBANON OFF EASY. They should have not bothered with anything outside of Hezbollah weapons range. Mebbe they could have buggered the Beruit airport a bit just as a symbolic gesture. Other than that, anything north of the Litani should have been off limits.
South of that line, Israel should have done their best to make sure that any enemy weapons implacements were destroyed. Attempts by Hezbollah to use civilians as human shields should not have been a consideration.
The politics and liberal whining surrounding this entire situation (and modern warfare in general) rather sabotages such a straightforward and pragmatic approach.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
DRM free vinyl!
? Title_ID=39579&sct=music
http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm
How is a christian or sunni Lebanese supposed to influence what Hezbollah does?
Or even a non-member shiah, for that matter.
Again, for the 100th time, Israel didn't just target Hezbollah, they bombed ALL of Lebanon. And those Iran-supplied weapons you speak of? How do they compare to US-supplied frag bombs dropped by US-supplied F-16s? Do they have US-supplied GPS targetting? Do they have US-supplied laser guidance systems? You say Hezbollah fired on civilian targets. Israel bombed the CITY of Beirut, including, again, its refinery. Is this not a civilian target? Were militants hiding in between the distillation towers? Are you kidding me?
Israel *deliberately* targetted civilians in this war. So did Hezbollah, true. That's my point: what we have here is two equally evil (but not equally powerful) terrorist organizations. One is Hezbollah, the other is the Israeli gov't.
It also might have something to do with the geopolitical chess game between the US and the USSR that went on for several decades.
That's because he owns the copyrights to Buddy Holly's catalog, and February 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the day Holly's plane went down in an Iowa field. My understanding is that the Holly catalog is a significant source of Sir Paul's 800 million.
:wq
Well son of a bitch, I thought this was a troll, but when I read the requirements, it's spelled out pretty clearly:
"The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy."
If that isn't as interventionist as it gets, I don't know what is. That's just flat out nuts!
I always find comments like this extremely curious. Do you think the U.S. has some minimum distance a hospital or school must be from a military base? Pick any military base in the United States and do some Google searches for nearby schools and hospitals. You know, for your kids to go to while your stationed. Hell, often enough your kids can attend K-12 right there on the military base itself.
And that's in the U.S. where we have plenty of room to put schools a good distance from any sort of military location. Try checking more densely populated areas like Europe or, oh, the Middle East and it's damn near impossible to find a military base that isn't adjacent to some brand of civilian facility.
One would also point out that if Hospitals are considered military targets if they treat soldiers (wtf else are they supposed to do with injured soldiers?), then you better have a nice stockpile of weapons nearby to defend it. Further, if hospitals are so overwhelmed that every bed is vital, what are you supposed to do with civilians that need treatment? "Sorry, sir. This is a military hospital only. Could you please move a safe distance away to die, we wouldn't want you to be inadvertently targeted."
Here's the facts buddy: Israel didn't exist till 70'sh years ago. That's less then many a single life span. There are islamic peoples alive today who remember being forcefully removed from their homes by the Israeli aggressors and many, many more who were raised in soil poor squalor while being told their grandfather tilled the land that Israel stole from the family. Israel can't even claim the shield of time for their actions like Europeans/Americans can for the Indians. They are, in fact, the new Crusaders reclaiming the Holly Land from Islam. Don't doubt that for a second. They may politicize it, plea to history, etc. but when it comes right down to it there is only ONE reason they would choose that little ball of dirt out of all the available places on earth to go: God gave it to them and they're willing to murder, kill, and commit genocide to get it.
Does that justify and absolve all atrocities by the Islamists? Of course not, but when genocide is being perpetrated by a vastly militarily superior opponent with a willingness to bulldoze peasants, kill your children, and assassinate your leaders uncompromisingly a nation can be pushed to take some pretty horrific countermeasures. To say that Israel is defending against aggressors is a gross misrepresentation of historical fact. It would be akin to if Mexico invaded Texas, kicked all the Texans out of the fertile areas, took over all the ports, rerouted roads etc to circumvent their shanty towns, denied the fact that "Texan" is an actual culture, and then bitched about the U.S. constantly attacking and trying to reclaim the area for the next 100 years.
Of course, Mexico would have a vastly more legitimate justification for doing so then then Israel could ever dream. But I think you get the point of my loose analogy.
You're making a moralistic assumption here: that it's the musicians who ought to be making at least as much money as everybody else in the industry, if not more.
The facts remain the following:
Now that is why most of the money in the music business isn't made by musicians. Not because of some insidious and evil plot to deny the musicians of what ought to be theirs.
Are you adequate?
So they've got millions of dollars and X budget... for them to come up with boring ways -- because they've been at it for so long -- to what they call "market" it.
Oh yes, "marketing." Such a useless function when you're already a musical legend who has been thoroughly marketed for decades.
Oddly, it's not available as an iTunes+ purchase... at least not that I could find.
Luckily, I also subscribe to eMusic and can now make use of the subscription...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I worked in show business for over 25 years, you know, last I checked they still pay the Band cash for live performances, care to ask why?
l ove/print.html
... this would happen. ...."
This link info is old but ultimately relevant.
Courtney Love Does the Math (2000)
"They can't torture me like they could Lucinda Williams."
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/
Not the "dumb chick" they make her out as.
McCartney's no fool. Surround yourself with quality people.
"Because we were bloody brilliant. Pure genius, that's all. 'We were very good,' he [McCartney] said modestly,' " and he smiles for his failure to conjure up the requisite humility. "The good thing is, now you can say that. People used to say, 'Don't you think you're a bit conceited?' And I'd say, 'I know what you mean, you could say it's conceited, but I really do know we're good. I can feel it every time we write a song.' Because John and I were very good collaborators. We really helped each other massively and admired each other greatly."
No brag, just a fact. [flamewar ensues]
Funny thing about his music, a personal thing, I'd buy his latest album/CD - whatever, slap it on and without fail I'd HATE it, put it away, then come back to it - find myself playing it more and more - to where finally it was my favorite album - most every time
"Something in the wayyy
My all time favorite? His first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCartney_(album)
~hylas
All this "I'm just sooooo excited about Starbuck's great new music model!!!!" crap is just a bunch of horseshit that some Starbucks PR exec wrote for him.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
With games consoles and PC games you still often buy a disc and install.
With the Wii Nintendo have sort of shown us the future, download games through the console. They're not ruling out distributing Wii games in this manner either.
This album came out LAST week.
Starbucks had a little get together called 'bowling for Israel', to raise funds for Israel.
you'd never guess who the Israeli side of things was organised by, yes the very same person who organises fund raising for Israel's troops.
maybe not a megacorp that sells weapons but certainly one that supports oppressive regimes. Nice troll OP. If my country were 50 miles wide and I were in danger of losing my life every time I left my house, I'd be making weapons too. How can you be so insensitive?
If you stand by what you say then that very same logic will tell you to stop buying gas because you're indirectly funding the people invading Israel and causing all the problems in the first place. You should probably stop buying Happy Meals too since those little toys say "Made in China" on the bottom. Can't be supporting Communist China now can we?
That sounds strangely familiar. Oh yes! Never mind, it doesn't really matter that Hezbollah attacked from civilian areas on purpose to draw Israeli fire there... Israel is evil no matter what!
Clever signature text goes here.
Clever signature text goes here.
is this 'article' the sort of rambling, meandering nonsense you'd expect in a second-rate blog rather than a well-known newspaper? I know we complain about /.'s editorial process, but whoever published this shit deserves a swift kick in the butt.
Mentioning Steve Jobs is a non-sequitur, and the article goes downhill from there. Either talk about the Apple/Apple deal, or don't. Just don't half-refer to it without giving any real information. And the allegations about his marriage are a cheap shot.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
I'm sorry but according to eyewitness accounts Israeli aircraft bombed areas where there was no rocket fire. In the situation reported in the account there was rocket fire outside of town in the wilderness but when the pilot couldn't stop the rocket fire with bombing the wilderness the pilot decided to bomb inside the town where there was no rocket fire.
Whatever you are describing is a separate case.
I call bullshit. What's documented is that Hezbollah attacked, and then ran away quickly and/or hid their weapons, so that when Israeli troops returned fire they would hit where the Hezbollah cowards used to be.
Clever signature text goes here.
Obviously I didn't mean "surrounded by" in the way you seem to have interpreted it, which would be "within a few miles of".
That's a good point about US military bases, but I would ask (and I don't know the answer): If the US was in the middle of a war and we were actually being bombed on our own territory, would there be children in the schools that are ON military bases? I really doubt it, but who knows. I certainly wouldn't let my children go to school there in that time! Furthermore, and again I don't know, but in the US military bases are fairly large, so if these weapon stockpiles are bombed, would that even damage the schools, which are likely at least a mile away (this is only judging from the few large military bases I've seen)? It's not the same as storing weapons literally in the school's (or mosque's) gym or basement.
I don't get your point about military hospitals -- they're not considered valid targets are they? Are you saying that the US stores weapons INSIDE its military hospitals DURING a war? I would be very surprised by that because as you say that makes them a target.
Your whole paragraph about Israel is stuff I've heard before, but genocide? That's really abusing the term, since they're not going around killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with their superior military.
What you just described in no way out-rules the eyewitness account in the news report. So the cowardly Hezbollah moved around? That just reinforces the notion that the Israeli air attacks didn't get the Hezbollah fighters in wilderness.
Hezbollah fighters in the wilderness? What do you mean? These terrorists attacked from their own civilian areas and UN bases to draw Israeli fire there!
Clever signature text goes here.