You lengthy post doesn't come up with a single counter-example of a musician that got really big without a major record label. I didn't want to claim record labels are the work of Sweet Jesus himself, or that indie music is no good, just to say that big labels are the only game in town if you want to be a huge pop star.
Prince, while he released some terrible self-released CDs, got big with a big record label promoting him. He wasn't selling "Purple Rain" from the back of a van.
Linking to an internet cartoon which speculates about the size of Star Wars character's penises is about the lowest depths one can reach in life. Maybe they have 12-step programs for people who would do that. Christ.
Are you a famous musician? No, for you it's a hobby. I listen to a lot of music and I'm sure I haven't heard any of yours. The amount of such music is overwhelming. The reason musicians sign on to record labels is because record labels are able to promote an album the way most people couldn't.
You really can't get more than a cult following on the Internet. For the all the thousands (tens of thousands?) of bands on MP3.com and similar sites, I can't think of one that got big without jumping to a major record label.
A lot of these bands have expert representation before they sign anything. If you're a musician with a day job, making your own CDs and self-promotion works fine. If you harbor dreams of getting *big*, major record labels are the only game in town, which is why people still sign to them.
Give me a break. India has thousands of people getting killed and even more raped in mass riots. Perhaps you are familiar with Mumbai? The US does not have any equivalent. If you're at all familiar with Indian politics, you know that the Indian Muslim President is a powerless token position, put in there the same way one Black guy who doesn't golf is allowed into a Southern Country Club. And that the Hindu Nationalist party formed and came into power based off people who sympathized or were involved with the riots of Mumbai. Whether the US is secular or not (I could see an argument either way), India most certainly not secular.
That's not to say the India is a permanent religious riot, but it certainly isn't characterized by peaceful co-existence.
China taking over Kashmir is one of the oddest ideas I've ever heard about Kashmir. The comparison to Tibet is poor because Tibet was a part of China from 700 AD (about the time Tibet became an entity) until the early 20th century. China was just re-establishing control over an area that had been part of China 18 years earlier. The resistance basically amounted to a feudal, theocratic slave-state with CIA backing (please read the history if you feel this is a misreading of history). Despite the pleas of that cute bald Tibetan guy with an ancestral right to a palace of Tibetan slaves, it wasn't an invasion (besides which, the Dalai Lama also lays claim to substantial parts of India, although strangly enough this escapes people's notice.)
Regardless, shouldn't the people of Kashmir have the right to decide their fate?
To point out some counter-arguments your generally informative post,
Pakistan and India were not ever unified nations until British Colonialism. Pakistan was intended as a grouping of the Muslim parts of the formerly British colony, India as a collection of the Hindu portions. Kashmir is the only majority Muslim state in the Hindu nation, which is about 12% Muslim.
Initial agreements don't hold as much weight as they would in other nations. Kashmir's leaders at the time weren't democratically elected to reflect the will of the Kashmir people. Instead, they were Hindus, controlling a Muslim state. Certainly their agreements don't carry the final say 60 years later.
Claiming that India is secular, with Muslims and Hindus engaging in peaceful co-existence, is simply not true. It's far, far more stratified than racial divisions in the US. India was until recently ruled by a still-powerful Fundamentalist Hindu Government. Also most estimates put India's Muslim population as somewhat less than Pakistan's, although that's a bit of a tangent. China's Muslim Population is larger than Saudi Arabia's, who cares?
Personally I think the people of Kashmir, today, should be allowed to democratically choose a course for their nation - to join either nation, or choose independence. Although India wouldn't let that happen, as Kashmir would likely leave India.
Re:This is dumb...
on
DVHS on a Budget
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It might just have more sensitive read/write equipment than the other recorders.
If it was a religious discussion I culd understand. But your post brought up religion in a nonsensical way - what does "real happiness comes only from god" have to do with kids rushing to play video games even if they don't particularly enjoy them?
Since Slashdot is full of High-School kids who shriek at the mere mention of religion, and because no real point was being made in your post, it came across as a troll.
Rapping over P-Funk beats is soooo fifteen years ago. Have you heard the new Snoop Dogg song? You can't flip through the radio dial without hearing it twice it seems. It definitely qualifies as one of his best, and it's got weird minimalistic beats, there's nothing P-funk about it.
And how is calling them "crackheads with turntables" not a cheap racist put-down? I thought Slashdot's racism was limited to dotheads and chinks.
Re:A Huge fan of mc chris.
on
Ask mc chris
·
· Score: 1
Huh? Almost all music uses a 4-4 beat. The Dead Kennedys certainly did. How many waltzes did the Dead Kennedys write?
Anyway, rock is dead and has been for a while. Good riddance, it's so corny!
If the price for music increases right now for digital distribution, sales will fall and piracy will increase
The amount of music paid for, compared to the amount of music downloaded for free, is still just a drop in the bucket. $10/album of low quality music was always substantially more than free high-quality music. The people who were paying so much money for 128kbps songs aren't going to start stealing it at $1.25.
And inevitably, sales will fall with higher prices. But it's in the seller's obvious interests to maximize profits. They won't let sales drop too much.
On a similar note, please name to me a single Scientist targeted by the Spanish inquisition. You do know that the Spanish Inquisition was a policy of the Spanish state and not of the Catholic Church, right? And that is was directed at the cultural unification of Spain and taking money from rich converted Jews and Muslims?
The self-righteousness and complete disregard for facts from many atheists is funny.
You're kidding. You must never use Wikipedia. Despite its official objective, Wikipedia is overflowing with biases and agendas large and small.
Some I was never even aware of, such as a paper on Stalin, which casually mentions Viktor Suvorov's theory that Soviets were in the process on invading Germany when they were attacked. Viktor Suvorov is a cult Russian nationalistic pop-fiction author, not a historian, with a weird history of anti-semitism, and no historian backs his view, because there's no evidence it's true. Still it persists through revision after revision.
Dedicated frings groups may not be able to directly alter main facts in Encyclopedias. But they do insert and re-insert these asides that are more rooted in propoganda than history, and which a casual reader wouldn't immediately suspect. Wikipedia is free, so I use it, but it's full of lies, and even for a casual reading it's far less than ideal.
For a long time the first four Chinese dynasties were dismised as 'mythological' by Western academics.
And rightly so. The early dynasties were credited as emperor-magicians who lived tens of thousands of years. The Yellow Emperor and his wife were supposed to have invented writing, cultivated silkworks, and various other essential inventions. Modern scholars still refer to him as legendary (including Wikipedia, so maybe you should direct some of your righteous anger against them, or at least edit the entry?). If there's any question, it's how much was invented, and how much based on fact. To me it seems like a huge load of BS, if there's any truth to the claims it's only incidental.
I don't have access to a first edition of the Encyclopedia, do you? A product of the Englightenment like an Encyclopedia was very likely not relying on set dates for the creation of the universe, which was considered a fanciful how-many-angels-fit-on-the-head-of-a-pin type of question.
I don't really understand how you're taken seriously, when you're obviously much more a zealot than any religious person I've ever met. Christianity doesn't have a stance on life on other worlds, although the Catholic church says it's a possibility. Mormons specifically believe in other populated worlds. Muslims believe God created other worlds. Many forms of Buddhism and Hinduism believe in parallel worlds. Scientologists believe in Zetans or some shit.
Considering it was formerly a commonplace view that other planets were populated, how would it even make sense for religions to be fundamentally opposed to the concept?
Can you please name a single religion with a dogma that specifically condemns the possibility of life on other worlds? Or are you just blindly opposed to religion?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you make Star Wars sound almost watchable. I'd like to hear you describe a good movie, I bet that would really be something!
Prince, while he released some terrible self-released CDs, got big with a big record label promoting him. He wasn't selling "Purple Rain" from the back of a van.
Linking to an internet cartoon which speculates about the size of Star Wars character's penises is about the lowest depths one can reach in life. Maybe they have 12-step programs for people who would do that. Christ.
You really can't get more than a cult following on the Internet. For the all the thousands (tens of thousands?) of bands on MP3.com and similar sites, I can't think of one that got big without jumping to a major record label.
A lot of these bands have expert representation before they sign anything. If you're a musician with a day job, making your own CDs and self-promotion works fine. If you harbor dreams of getting *big*, major record labels are the only game in town, which is why people still sign to them.
That's not to say the India is a permanent religious riot, but it certainly isn't characterized by peaceful co-existence.
China taking over Kashmir is one of the oddest ideas I've ever heard about Kashmir. The comparison to Tibet is poor because Tibet was a part of China from 700 AD (about the time Tibet became an entity) until the early 20th century. China was just re-establishing control over an area that had been part of China 18 years earlier. The resistance basically amounted to a feudal, theocratic slave-state with CIA backing (please read the history if you feel this is a misreading of history). Despite the pleas of that cute bald Tibetan guy with an ancestral right to a palace of Tibetan slaves, it wasn't an invasion (besides which, the Dalai Lama also lays claim to substantial parts of India, although strangly enough this escapes people's notice.)
Regardless, shouldn't the people of Kashmir have the right to decide their fate?
Militants isn't a politically correct term, is it?
Pakistan and India were not ever unified nations until British Colonialism. Pakistan was intended as a grouping of the Muslim parts of the formerly British colony, India as a collection of the Hindu portions. Kashmir is the only majority Muslim state in the Hindu nation, which is about 12% Muslim.
Initial agreements don't hold as much weight as they would in other nations. Kashmir's leaders at the time weren't democratically elected to reflect the will of the Kashmir people. Instead, they were Hindus, controlling a Muslim state. Certainly their agreements don't carry the final say 60 years later.
Claiming that India is secular, with Muslims and Hindus engaging in peaceful co-existence, is simply not true. It's far, far more stratified than racial divisions in the US. India was until recently ruled by a still-powerful Fundamentalist Hindu Government. Also most estimates put India's Muslim population as somewhat less than Pakistan's, although that's a bit of a tangent. China's Muslim Population is larger than Saudi Arabia's, who cares?
Personally I think the people of Kashmir, today, should be allowed to democratically choose a course for their nation - to join either nation, or choose independence. Although India wouldn't let that happen, as Kashmir would likely leave India.
It might just have more sensitive read/write equipment than the other recorders.
But surely their lawyers can find an example of prior art!
I don't want to think what sort of repetitive mechanical hand motion would be used to power such a device.
Since Slashdot is full of High-School kids who shriek at the mere mention of religion, and because no real point was being made in your post, it came across as a troll.
Do you speak English?
WTF? Crackheads?
And how is calling them "crackheads with turntables" not a cheap racist put-down? I thought Slashdot's racism was limited to dotheads and chinks.
Anyway, rock is dead and has been for a while. Good riddance, it's so corny!
The amount of music paid for, compared to the amount of music downloaded for free, is still just a drop in the bucket. $10/album of low quality music was always substantially more than free high-quality music. The people who were paying so much money for 128kbps songs aren't going to start stealing it at $1.25.
And inevitably, sales will fall with higher prices. But it's in the seller's obvious interests to maximize profits. They won't let sales drop too much.
The self-righteousness and complete disregard for facts from many atheists is funny.
Is "tons of money" some kind of metric unit of wealth?
You buy beer by the .2L??? Germany is a nation of girly-men!
Really? How many years was it between Adam and Noah?
Some I was never even aware of, such as a paper on Stalin, which casually mentions Viktor Suvorov's theory that Soviets were in the process on invading Germany when they were attacked. Viktor Suvorov is a cult Russian nationalistic pop-fiction author, not a historian, with a weird history of anti-semitism, and no historian backs his view, because there's no evidence it's true. Still it persists through revision after revision.
Dedicated frings groups may not be able to directly alter main facts in Encyclopedias. But they do insert and re-insert these asides that are more rooted in propoganda than history, and which a casual reader wouldn't immediately suspect. Wikipedia is free, so I use it, but it's full of lies, and even for a casual reading it's far less than ideal.
And rightly so. The early dynasties were credited as emperor-magicians who lived tens of thousands of years. The Yellow Emperor and his wife were supposed to have invented writing, cultivated silkworks, and various other essential inventions. Modern scholars still refer to him as legendary (including Wikipedia, so maybe you should direct some of your righteous anger against them, or at least edit the entry?). If there's any question, it's how much was invented, and how much based on fact. To me it seems like a huge load of BS, if there's any truth to the claims it's only incidental.
I don't have access to a first edition of the Encyclopedia, do you? A product of the Englightenment like an Encyclopedia was very likely not relying on set dates for the creation of the universe, which was considered a fanciful how-many-angels-fit-on-the-head-of-a-pin type of question.
Who pays for their music downloads, anyway? Crikey.
Obvious tripe like this, about time-travelling aliense or some such silliness, gives you hope and inspiration? How so?
Considering it was formerly a commonplace view that other planets were populated, how would it even make sense for religions to be fundamentally opposed to the concept?
Can you please name a single religion with a dogma that specifically condemns the possibility of life on other worlds? Or are you just blindly opposed to religion?