You can get a good guitar for under $1000. You can get a good amp for under $1000. You can get one or more multi-effect boxes (Like a Digitech RP###, or a POD) for less than $500 each.
I'm sorry, but a Crate combo amp and a $200-$300 Digitech floor processor sounds like poo. Fine for a garage band or your bedroom. It's not for going on the road playing better bars and clubs. I *could* play in a band with a starter-pack for about $200, including guitar, amp, gig-bag for the guitar, strap, tuner, and cable. We probably wouldn't get any repeat gigs even at dives, and forget doing occasional well-paying openers for national acts like we do now.
You forget there's tons of competition for gigs by very well-equipped bands for an ever-shrinking number of places to play. Why would a veteran bar owner who's not clueless hire you and your bargain-basement-equipped mediocre-sounding band when they can hire the other great-sounding band with awesome equipment for the same money?
1. The band is doing cover tunes and so don't "deserve" the money, they need to pay the people who wrote the music who do deserve it.
Why? The people who wrote the music aren't there slogging through 4 sets to 1:30-2:30AM, 3-4 nights a week in a smoke-filled bar sweating their butts off, and didn't invest in the instruments and equipment needed to play it.
In fact, one possible reason why the bars pay the bands so little is because they have to pay the collections societies so much.
Bars pay a flat rate that really isn't that much comparatively-speaking. Bars also pay bands roughly the same or less now as when I started out about 30 years ago.
2. The band is doing their own music and will get paid once by the bar owner and a second time by the collection society.
Now, somehow, I think it might not all work out this way and be cool but whose "fault" is that exactly?
Bars, to my knowledge, pay the same flat rate whether the band plays covers or original material. A band/musician has to register copyrights on their material and license it through ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, jumping through all their hoops to do so. Despite how much these organizations collect, because of the way they count plays (Hollywood accounting?) you might, as a small original artist, get a check for $20 at the end of a year. Maybe.
Here's a link that describes better than I could what happens and how:
Yes, but you haven't met most 'mainstream' musicians. sure, there's lots of people who play just for fun, and I used to be one of them. In fact, I still play from time to time; it's just not my favorite thing in the world.
I'd have to ask what you mean by "mainstream musicians". In the band I'm in, we play in both smaller venues like the better bars and clubs as well as playing some large festivals and even occasional openers at some pretty big venues for national acts you'd probably recognize (we're not a cover band). Add to that the fact that I'm also a fairly well-known (among guitarists in this region) "tube amp guy" who builds "boutique" (I actually hate that term) amplifiers for a wide variety of musicians, including some bigger names as well as guys who only play in their living room, bedroom, etc...I'd have to honestly say I've met a very wide range and variety of musicians, both in genre and in scope of market, in 30-plus years.
"That's the best part of $10,000 for just *ONE* guitar players' personal rig in an average good-quality bar/club cover band!!"
Not only would I highly doubt that the average bar/club cover band is carrying a multi-thousand dollar guitar (and amp), I doubt even more that any patron in that bar is capable of telling the difference between a a $500 and a $5000 guitar. In fact, I'm gonna go further and state that the vast majority of non-musicians probably could not tell the difference in a double-blind study.
I think we're talking about different things here. What I mean by a "good-quality bar/club cover band" is one that is full-time, touring across an entire region, playing in multiple states and dozens of towns and cities. I may be mistaken, but I think you're talking about the average local band that plays in the same 8-10 or so bars/clubs in a few surrounding towns while holding down day jobs.
As to the crowd not being able to tell the difference between a $500 and $5,000 guitar (or amp), I agree for the most part. However, it's not so much a matter of if some random guy in some hole-in-the-wall dive can tell the difference, it's what sounds good and helps the musician play to his full ability. A great-sounding instrument and rig can inspire a player to play beyond his normal abilities on mediocre-sounding gear.
Also, many bands/musicians play many types of venues and must buy an instrument and amp that sounds good enough to do the occasional opener for a national act, as well as be well-built enough to *survive* the 3-4 night per week bar grind. Good-quality instruments and equipment is cheaper to maintain in the long run, and usually far more reliable than more mediocre-quality examples.
There's not many things more embarrassing and awkward, to say the least, than to be standing in front of a bar/club full of patrons having paid to hear you play, with a blown amp or broken guitar! I've been there...trust me, it's not an experience you want to repeat!
I'm not talking about the few dedicated dyed in the wool musicians who love their craft and would do it even if they couldn't make a living off of it but they are, in fact, the minority.
I'd have to disagree that they are the minority. In my 30-plus years experience as a musician having met and played with more musicians than I could possibly count, almost all do it because they love music and playing for people. Do many have hopes they might get lucky? Sure, but they realize they're more likely to be struck by a meteor than become rich and/or famous from music. Most who enter "the biz" for fame and fortune are quickly disillusioned.
Yeah, I think that statement should be in the running for some sort of award for "Most massive understatement in a/. post".
most of us are just trying to break even.
Anything that's music-related...instruments, amps, etc...is extremely pricey. A decent brand-name USA-made professional-quality electric guitar will set you back $2,000-$3,000, and the same with an amp (thinking of an example of a new Gibson Les Paul and a 50 watt Marshall half-stack). That's the best part of $10,000 for just *ONE* guitar players' personal rig in an average good-quality bar/club cover band!!
That's not counting effects pedals and/or rackmount effects/processors, cabling, strings, picks, stands, microphones ($100-$150 each), PA gear, and the maintenance costs of keeping all the equipment (which can be quirky) and the instruments in shape. Heck, just a new set of tubes for a guitar amp can easily run $200-$300! That's just for starters. Then there's transportation and storage costs for all the equipment, and personal transportation and lodging plus food costs, and even laundry for those on the road, on top of that for all the band members.
Most average bar/club bands don't come anywhere near to paying even ongoing expenses, never mind also recovering their investment in the equipment and instruments when you factor in all the costs. Most bars only pay a band $350-$500, many even less. Many times a band will get stiffed altogether by shady bar owners. These guys do what they do because they love playing and entertaining. Please keep this in mind the next time you go to a bar or club and see a tip jar at the edge of the stage.
Sorry for posting as AC but I just would like to point out that this agreement is only for On-Demand services and not pre-programmed web radio services (which most web radio stations are).
So for most stations this does not change anything and the insane royalty rates that threatens the whole web radio industry is still very much in place.
Good point, and great catch. As usual, the/. summary is vague and misleading.
Most non-office/labor/factory/retail employers place attendance above most any other measure of an employees' worth. I'll take a reliable employee that shows up every day on time, but is only average, or even a little under-average, in other areas over a primadona that may be extremely talented and brilliant, but has poor attendance or is habitually late to work. Dependability is one of the most important qualifications to most employers.
but I disagree that there is nothing in the emails. Many of the headings seem to rather strongly imply that government work was being handled through back channels.
Headings mean nothing, zip, zero, nada. For example, an email from the (deputy? assistant?) governor to Palin with the subject line: "Budget" could be discussing the fact that his personal budget won't allow him to buy that rifle to go moose hunting with Palin that weekend.
Why is it that you have such a hard time accepting there's nothing there? Even the hacker himself, whose *whole motivation* was to *set out to find* dirt/wrongdoing in the first place, and who I'm certain would've been willing to crow at the top of his lungs about anything that could have even *remotely* be questionable even stretching the definition, said there was nothing there. Do you think he suddenly turned into a loyal Palin lackey and covered for her?
Is it really so hard to believe that Palin may *not* be the corrupt criminal scumbag that so many are trying to portray her as? It seems to be really really reaching, especially at this point, to try to claim, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that there's evidence of wrongdoing in those emails.
I agree in a court of law his findings mean nothing and should mean nothing. That said she is up for election for a pretty major (if rather cushy)office. In a situation like that fishy email subjects are something to be asked about. If this were Obama, Biden, or even Kucinich, I would still condemn the act and hope for a discussion of the contents of any damning material found.
That's the problem right there. Who decides what's "fishy"? There's no "there" there in the Palin emails, yet all her correspondence is now published on the internet. If someone hacked Obmamas' or Bidens' email account(s), found nothing, but published everything anyway (including their childrens' email addresses) you'd be ok with that?
By the way, this has been refreshing to have a discussion with someone on the "left" who can have a reasoned and respectful debate. Even though we may disagree on many political topics, I salute you sir. I wish more people on the left could conduct themselves with the dignity, intellectual honesty, and intelligence you've shown here. Bravo, sir, bravo!:)
Obama is just another lawyer... who... ha[s] a... stance of... "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice."
[citation needed] buddy. This truthiness crap is ridiculous. Unless you can prove the RIAA has employed Obama, that's libel. Watch yourself bub.
He didn't say the RIAA *employed* Obama...only that he got paid, which he did, *$5,161,298 from the media corporations that own the labels that are members of the RIAA (and studios, etc in the case of the MPAA).
Anyone who promotes partial birth abortion (intact dilation and extraction procedure) has no character.
You know, we don't all have the same moral views. For instance, I would consider Sarah Palin failing to abort her most recent kid, and encouraging her daughter to keep her fetus, to be immoral.
So nice to have your input on these matters, Colonel Green.
Wow, AC's geek card must be made of solid gold-pressed latinum!:D
I agree wrong is wrong. That is why I condemn the acts of hacking. I think most of the people that are drawing attention to potential misdeeds hold the view as I do that the topic of conversation should be on the pre-existing allegations of wrongdoing, because it is already obvious that the kid is in the wrong. The more interesting hazy moral ground is what it means for her and us if, as some of the subject headings seem to imply, this kid did find evidence of wrongdoing. Do you think it is irrational to discuss what his unethical actions may have brought to light about her own actions?
I believe that evidence obtained illegally or through illegal actions should never be allowed to stand in a court of law. It's the whole "I had to break the law to serve the law" theme. Once that's allowed, what/who is next, for what reasons? A little hacking this time, next time maybe they'll find it necessary to go a little farther. How far is too far? What if it's you or someone you love?
Apparently nothing of any significance at all was found in Palins' emails, as evidenced by quotes from the hacker himself and what's been posted of her emails. With all the opposing parties' legal wolves ready to rip Palin apart at the slightest excuse, the silence regarding the emails themselves speaks volumes. It's not ok to break the law and invade someones' privacy just because you really, really, really, *REALLY* hate them and what they stand for politically. Ask yourself if you'd be as ok with it if the situation were switched to Obama and the Rezko case and a Republican politicians' kid as the hacker.
Actually as a hate filled person on the left I find the hacking of the email account and website to be a silly juvenile tactic, and one that should be punished. That said I would rather see her strung up for any misuse of email through proper legal channels. Life is so much sweeter when you can both win and do the right thing.
If evidence were legally obtained through due process showing she's actually broken a law, then I'm all for having her pay the legal penalty, as I would any other person. Politicians do NOT lose all personal rights and freedoms under law because one disagrees with their political positions. Performing illegal acts because one thinks *maybe* she *might* have done something wrong because someone dislikes their views, is in itself flat wrong. I would be just as outraged if it were Biden or Obama this happened to. Wrong is wrong.
I also do not generalize that all or even most people who hold left-leaning views are hate-filled, unreasonable, or approve or condone these illegal and reprehensible actions.
Would it be ok for a neighbor to break into your house and ransack it looking for evidence of a crime and publishing pictures of the entire contents and all documents found because they think you *might* have done something illegal, because, you know, they never did like or trust people who were a part of $SOCIAL|ECONOMIC|RACIAL|SEXUAL|POLITICAL group anyway and were hoping to dig up dirt to damage or destroy you and/or anyone close to you?
no i didnt. i see the nazi party in action everyday on cnn. if you are still not aware, their general secretary sits in white house.
he has executive powers to snatch anyone from the streets, without asking, or telling anyone, on any grounds, and holding them for undefined durations for example.
examples are endless. this is just one.
If you seriously equate Bush/Republicans with nazis, then you're simply too far gone into moonbat territory to even reason with. I wouldn't be surprised if you're a "truther" too.
See kids, this is what happens when you let blind, unreasoning hatred drive your life and world view.
dont keep the illusion that you are living in a modern democratic country.
Oh I don't, since we haven't lived in a democratic country in the USA since the its' founding as a democratic *republic*.
its not forward thinking and liberal to allow fundamentalist propaganda to propagate itself. if it is, then you have to allow nazis to propagate their neonazi ideologies too, because not doing so, would be contrary to freedom of speech, and liberalism.
Apparently you've missed the marches held by the American Nazi Party, all legal and everything.
Why is Sarah Palin using a private account when she is Governor?
Because there are laws in place that say what you can and cannot do with government services and equipment. What you do not seem to get is she was abiding by these laws. Thats why she has 2 (or more) email accounts. The hacker ought to be prosecuted, he even said he did it with malicious intent
I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be
but guess what? he found squat and diddly.
I read though the emails... ALL OF THEM... before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor.... And pictures of her family
I'm sure I'll get modded down to non-existence for this reply, but I've got tons of karma to burn.
Burn, baby, burn!
You know that the fact that no state business was being conducted through those email accounts means diddly and squat to the haters. They'll just say "well she has other accounts we don't know about, or she deleted them" and despite all the evidence to the contrary, maintain that somehow she's a criminal because she doesn't bow to the lefts' agenda.
Truth doesn't matter to the haters on the left, only their rabid hate and their wish to silence and destroy anyone who dares disagree with them. Laws, rights, and freedoms should only protect *their* guys, because *they're* the "good guys". She's a conservative Republican, which to the haters on the left makes her not-human, so she doesn't get to have rights or enjoy the protections of law and due process. Since she's a conservative Republican, any methods used to injure or destroy the woman and anyone close to her, including handicapped children, are perfectly fine and justified tactics to the haters.
The level of hypocrisy, douche-baggery, outright denial of reality, and visceral hatred by many on the left is beyond the pale. They even hacked Bill O'Reilleys' website and grabbed user registration information and email addresses because he dared have an opinion they don't like about the obtaining and subsequent publishing of the Palin personal emails.
Maybe Obamas' and/or Bidens' personal email accounts should be hacked, if hacking Palins' personal account is ok. I wonder if the haters would be fine with *their* guys' personal emails being published? I'd be willing to lay strong odds that there would be a lot more red meat there than anything found in Palins' emails.
I had a much longer reply, however i shall simply point to the quotes below and state that your comment
And I'm not quite sure about Wilson being a "recognized intellectual" -- he was known as a historian, but not a general thinker outside his field, the way, say, Richard Feynman knew more than physics.
and
Probably most of America hadn't even heard of Darwin until the Scopes trial put evolution in the newspapers.
simply points to your lack of knowledge of early 20th century American history:
1) Fundamentalism began as a rejection of modernism and specifically evolution at the end of the 19th century.
2)
A leading intellectual of the Progressive Era, he served as President of Princeton University and then became the Governor of New Jersey in 1910
How dare you bring facts, especially historical and documented facts, into a good Christian/Palin bashing!
Never mind that Obama attended a church for 20 years headed by a racist anti-American hatred-spewing reverend and supposedly either didn't notice or didn't hear all the hate being screamed forth every Sunday for twenty years, or he didn't think it was wrong enough to find a less hate-filled place to worship.
Sarah Palin attended *CHURCH*!!!11 Oh noes!! Plus, she actually thought that if a school kid brought up Creationism/I.D. in class that it might get discussed, rather than having the kid expelled and sent to a foster home after being forcibly re-educated and the parents arrested!! Holy crap, she'll do away with McCain five minutes after the oaths of office are taken and start a thermonuclear war to initiate the Rapture!!!
Seriously, people attacking Palin and Christianity in this way are doing more for McCains' campaign than all the money spent by both major parties combined and tripled could ever hope to. You people engaged in this sort of bashing should all get a plaque from the McCain/Palin '08 campaign in thanks. (Not referring to you, Hungus. Thanks for attempting to bring a little reason and perspective to the discussion.)
The person who cracked Palins' email account even stated that there was nothing there to use against her, and finding dirt was his whole objective. That suddenly, emails *supposedly* copied from that account appearing on Wikileaks seems to show exactly the opposite should be setting off BS-meter alarms, but many here seem to be able suspend logic and reasonable disbelief in their semi-religious zeal for the Anointed One and psychotic hatred of Palin.
Why is it that every time federal taxes are reduced, actual revenue, that is the actual amount of money flowing into the federal coffers, increases? I know it's non-intuitive, but it's been repeatedly proven true.
Let's see the actual numbers over time and do some statistics then. I'll wait.
No need. Plenty of history (at least since Reagan) is available through Treasury and IRS records. *Every single time* taxes have been reduced, revenue to the Treasury has increased. If you can cite an example where it has not, please do.
Why do people refuse to acknowledge the fact that reducing taxes actually increases revenues when it's been repeatedly proven to be true?
Because it's not. Jeff Frankel wrote some good commentary on this just recently.
Mr. Frankel does a lot of hand-waving and makes a lot of claims, but doesn't cite any facts except a paper he wrote himself. He cites no hard data to back up his claims. Being a Democrat and a former member of the Clinton Administrations' Council of Economic Advisors from 1997-1999 as well as currently being a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, hardly makes him an unbiased source.
You'll need to do much better to make a convincing argument.
For whatever reason, apparently "economist" is a field that attracts liberals.
Maybe that's why republicans think you can cut taxes and increase spending and everything will work out okay.
Why is it that every time federal taxes are reduced, actual revenue, that is the actual amount of money flowing into the federal coffers, increases? I know it's non-intuitive, but it's been repeatedly proven true.
If the goal was to actually increase the amount of money flowing into the federal coffers to decrease national debt and help pay for federal programs, then lowering taxes would help.
Why do people refuse to acknowledge the fact that reducing taxes actually increases revenues when it's been repeatedly proven to be true? Or is it more a matter of throwing up a smokescreen to opposition while simultaneously salving ones' conscience to believe the opposite of reality while using the tax system to punish those who are more successful than others and use class warfare to divide voters?
I wonder how SoundExchange determines what has been played and how often. Do they monitor the stations? If so, maybe internet radio stations could require a small monthly fee for providing the constant connection to SoundExchange. Maybe something like an administrative fee or 'constant-connect' fee paid in advance that just happens by coincidence to roughly equal what SoundExchange demands in royalties. They say that the stations aren't properly monetizing their business, so this could be part of a new rate structure. What!? You say that's excessive and unfair, SoundExchange!? Gee, that's too bad. Internet radio stations don't *have* to provide *free* service to anyone.
Just a thought on one way this might be turned back around on the bullies.
Simply voting on a bill does not say as much, as writing a bill shows a much higher level of motivation than simply voting on a bill that is authored by someone else because *they* were passionate on an issue. It bothers me that there's no legislation he's written...are/were there no issues he felt that strongly about to take the time to write a bill? This, coupled with the number of "present" votes, means that basically we have to take him at his word about his stances on various issues. It makes me feel rather like here, when a post comes up with claims and is followed by a "citation needed" post.
I'd have the same concerns over any candidate from any party with so little history, including Palin. However Palin isn't the main candidate and won't have the same amount of influence on policy as VP as Obama would as President, so it's not as concerning to me. McCain has a long history whether you agree with his positions or not, and Palins' job as VP is basically to back up McCains' positions.
Note that the choices we have are, as was alluded to farther up-thread, between a giant douche and a shit sandwich, so I'm not happy with either side.
Who cares what legislation he wrote? If he becomes President, that task will no longer be in his job description.
Who cares what legislation he wrote!?!?
Seriously?
What legislation a congressperson writes is one of the best indicators of his/her stance on issues. Speeches, soundbites, and campaign promises mean very little from any politician. It's a way to not only verify that said person walks the walk, but also a good indicator of possible future positions on similar issues.
That he won't be voting as a congressperson isn't the point. Otherwise, why care at all what positions a candidate for President takes? The President can create executive initiatives, use the veto power, etc. to influence legislation and national/foreign policy.
...but chances are that even if you make it to that point, you may still end up dead fucking broke.
"Broke" may be a huge improvement over the situation that many artists who sign with a label find themselves in. Many end up in debt to the label, while the label is raking in cash from their work. Crappy contracts with onerous terms coupled with the "creative accounting" methods infamously used by labels means that your work may sell well, but you wind up practically indentured to the label for the next several albums, all while earning about what a McDonalds employee does...if you're lucky.
I post this link whenever the topic of artists and labels come up. It should be required reading for any artists thinking about signing with a label.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get a good guitar for under $1000. You can get a good amp for under $1000. You can get one or more multi-effect boxes (Like a Digitech RP###, or a POD) for less than $500 each.
I'm sorry, but a Crate combo amp and a $200-$300 Digitech floor processor sounds like poo. Fine for a garage band or your bedroom. It's not for going on the road playing better bars and clubs. I *could* play in a band with a starter-pack for about $200, including guitar, amp, gig-bag for the guitar, strap, tuner, and cable. We probably wouldn't get any repeat gigs even at dives, and forget doing occasional well-paying openers for national acts like we do now.
You forget there's tons of competition for gigs by very well-equipped bands for an ever-shrinking number of places to play. Why would a veteran bar owner who's not clueless hire you and your bargain-basement-equipped mediocre-sounding band when they can hire the other great-sounding band with awesome equipment for the same money?
Cheers!
Strat
Being a bit of a devils' advocate here;
1. The band is doing cover tunes and so don't "deserve" the money, they need to pay the people who wrote the music who do deserve it.
Why? The people who wrote the music aren't there slogging through 4 sets to 1:30-2:30AM, 3-4 nights a week in a smoke-filled bar sweating their butts off, and didn't invest in the instruments and equipment needed to play it.
In fact, one possible reason why the bars pay the bands so little is because they have to pay the collections societies so much.
Bars pay a flat rate that really isn't that much comparatively-speaking. Bars also pay bands roughly the same or less now as when I started out about 30 years ago.
2. The band is doing their own music and will get paid once by the bar owner and a second time by the collection society.
Now, somehow, I think it might not all work out this way and be cool but whose "fault" is that exactly?
Bars, to my knowledge, pay the same flat rate whether the band plays covers or original material. A band/musician has to register copyrights on their material and license it through ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, jumping through all their hoops to do so. Despite how much these organizations collect, because of the way they count plays (Hollywood accounting?) you might, as a small original artist, get a check for $20 at the end of a year. Maybe.
Here's a link that describes better than I could what happens and how:
http://everything2.com/e2node/ASCAP%252C%2520BMI%2520and%2520SESAC
Cheers!
Strat
Yes, but you haven't met most 'mainstream' musicians. sure, there's lots of people who play just for fun, and I used to be one of them. In fact, I still play from time to time; it's just not my favorite thing in the world.
I'd have to ask what you mean by "mainstream musicians". In the band I'm in, we play in both smaller venues like the better bars and clubs as well as playing some large festivals and even occasional openers at some pretty big venues for national acts you'd probably recognize (we're not a cover band). Add to that the fact that I'm also a fairly well-known (among guitarists in this region) "tube amp guy" who builds "boutique" (I actually hate that term) amplifiers for a wide variety of musicians, including some bigger names as well as guys who only play in their living room, bedroom, etc...I'd have to honestly say I've met a very wide range and variety of musicians, both in genre and in scope of market, in 30-plus years.
Cheers!
Strat
"That's the best part of $10,000 for just *ONE* guitar players' personal rig in an average good-quality bar/club cover band!!"
Not only would I highly doubt that the average bar/club cover band is carrying a multi-thousand dollar guitar (and amp), I doubt even more that any patron in that bar is capable of telling the difference between a a $500 and a $5000 guitar. In fact, I'm gonna go further and state that the vast majority of non-musicians probably could not tell the difference in a double-blind study.
I think we're talking about different things here. What I mean by a "good-quality bar/club cover band" is one that is full-time, touring across an entire region, playing in multiple states and dozens of towns and cities. I may be mistaken, but I think you're talking about the average local band that plays in the same 8-10 or so bars/clubs in a few surrounding towns while holding down day jobs.
As to the crowd not being able to tell the difference between a $500 and $5,000 guitar (or amp), I agree for the most part. However, it's not so much a matter of if some random guy in some hole-in-the-wall dive can tell the difference, it's what sounds good and helps the musician play to his full ability. A great-sounding instrument and rig can inspire a player to play beyond his normal abilities on mediocre-sounding gear.
Also, many bands/musicians play many types of venues and must buy an instrument and amp that sounds good enough to do the occasional opener for a national act, as well as be well-built enough to *survive* the 3-4 night per week bar grind. Good-quality instruments and equipment is cheaper to maintain in the long run, and usually far more reliable than more mediocre-quality examples.
There's not many things more embarrassing and awkward, to say the least, than to be standing in front of a bar/club full of patrons having paid to hear you play, with a blown amp or broken guitar! I've been there...trust me, it's not an experience you want to repeat!
Cheers!
Strat
I'm not talking about the few dedicated dyed in the wool musicians who love their craft and would do it even if they couldn't make a living off of it but they are, in fact, the minority.
I'd have to disagree that they are the minority. In my 30-plus years experience as a musician having met and played with more musicians than I could possibly count, almost all do it because they love music and playing for people. Do many have hopes they might get lucky? Sure, but they realize they're more likely to be struck by a meteor than become rich and/or famous from music. Most who enter "the biz" for fame and fortune are quickly disillusioned.
Cheers!
Strat
It's an expensive habit,...
Yeah, I think that statement should be in the running for some sort of award for "Most massive understatement in a /. post".
most of us are just trying to break even.
Anything that's music-related...instruments, amps, etc...is extremely pricey. A decent brand-name USA-made professional-quality electric guitar will set you back $2,000-$3,000, and the same with an amp (thinking of an example of a new Gibson Les Paul and a 50 watt Marshall half-stack). That's the best part of $10,000 for just *ONE* guitar players' personal rig in an average good-quality bar/club cover band!!
That's not counting effects pedals and/or rackmount effects/processors, cabling, strings, picks, stands, microphones ($100-$150 each), PA gear, and the maintenance costs of keeping all the equipment (which can be quirky) and the instruments in shape. Heck, just a new set of tubes for a guitar amp can easily run $200-$300! That's just for starters. Then there's transportation and storage costs for all the equipment, and personal transportation and lodging plus food costs, and even laundry for those on the road, on top of that for all the band members.
Most average bar/club bands don't come anywhere near to paying even ongoing expenses, never mind also recovering their investment in the equipment and instruments when you factor in all the costs. Most bars only pay a band $350-$500, many even less. Many times a band will get stiffed altogether by shady bar owners. These guys do what they do because they love playing and entertaining. Please keep this in mind the next time you go to a bar or club and see a tip jar at the edge of the stage.
Cheers!
Strat
Sorry for posting as AC but I just would like to point out that this agreement is only for On-Demand services and not pre-programmed web radio services (which most web radio stations are).
So for most stations this does not change anything and the insane royalty rates that threatens the whole web radio industry is still very much in place.
Good point, and great catch. As usual, the /. summary is vague and misleading.
Mods, please bump this up, kthnx.
Cheers!
Strat
Even so, it puts attendance above achievement.
Most non-office/labor/factory/retail employers place attendance above most any other measure of an employees' worth. I'll take a reliable employee that shows up every day on time, but is only average, or even a little under-average, in other areas over a primadona that may be extremely talented and brilliant, but has poor attendance or is habitually late to work. Dependability is one of the most important qualifications to most employers.
Cheers!
Strat
but I disagree that there is nothing in the emails. Many of the headings seem to rather strongly imply that government work was being handled through back channels.
Headings mean nothing, zip, zero, nada. For example, an email from the (deputy? assistant?) governor to Palin with the subject line: "Budget" could be discussing the fact that his personal budget won't allow him to buy that rifle to go moose hunting with Palin that weekend.
Why is it that you have such a hard time accepting there's nothing there? Even the hacker himself, whose *whole motivation* was to *set out to find* dirt/wrongdoing in the first place, and who I'm certain would've been willing to crow at the top of his lungs about anything that could have even *remotely* be questionable even stretching the definition, said there was nothing there. Do you think he suddenly turned into a loyal Palin lackey and covered for her?
Is it really so hard to believe that Palin may *not* be the corrupt criminal scumbag that so many are trying to portray her as? It seems to be really really reaching, especially at this point, to try to claim, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that there's evidence of wrongdoing in those emails.
Cheers!
Strat
I agree in a court of law his findings mean nothing and should mean nothing. That said she is up for election for a pretty major (if rather cushy)office. In a situation like that fishy email subjects are something to be asked about. If this were Obama, Biden, or even Kucinich, I would still condemn the act and hope for a discussion of the contents of any damning material found.
That's the problem right there. Who decides what's "fishy"? There's no "there" there in the Palin emails, yet all her correspondence is now published on the internet. If someone hacked Obmamas' or Bidens' email account(s), found nothing, but published everything anyway (including their childrens' email addresses) you'd be ok with that?
By the way, this has been refreshing to have a discussion with someone on the "left" who can have a reasoned and respectful debate. Even though we may disagree on many political topics, I salute you sir. I wish more people on the left could conduct themselves with the dignity, intellectual honesty, and intelligence you've shown here. Bravo, sir, bravo! :)
Cheers!
Strat
Obama is just another lawyer ... who ... ha[s] a ... stance of ... "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice."
[citation needed] buddy. This truthiness crap is ridiculous. Unless you can prove the RIAA has employed Obama, that's libel. Watch yourself bub.
He didn't say the RIAA *employed* Obama...only that he got paid, which he did, *$5,161,298 from the media corporations that own the labels that are members of the RIAA (and studios, etc in the case of the MPAA).
*[citation] http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Ninth on the list.
Also of note:
"Lawyers/lawfirms"-$24,060,136
"Education"-$10,375,038
"Securities and investment"-$9,873,356
"Business services"-$6,746,937
He seems to be beholden to many "interests" that Slashdotters love to hate.
Cheers!
Strat
Anyone who promotes partial birth abortion (intact dilation and extraction procedure) has no character.
You know, we don't all have the same moral views. For instance, I would consider Sarah Palin failing to abort her most recent kid, and encouraging her daughter to keep her fetus, to be immoral.
So nice to have your input on these matters, Colonel Green.
Wow, AC's geek card must be made of solid gold-pressed latinum! :D
Cheers!
Strat
I agree wrong is wrong. That is why I condemn the acts of hacking. I think most of the people that are drawing attention to potential misdeeds hold the view as I do that the topic of conversation should be on the pre-existing allegations of wrongdoing, because it is already obvious that the kid is in the wrong. The more interesting hazy moral ground is what it means for her and us if, as some of the subject headings seem to imply, this kid did find evidence of wrongdoing. Do you think it is irrational to discuss what his unethical actions may have brought to light about her own actions?
I believe that evidence obtained illegally or through illegal actions should never be allowed to stand in a court of law. It's the whole "I had to break the law to serve the law" theme. Once that's allowed, what/who is next, for what reasons? A little hacking this time, next time maybe they'll find it necessary to go a little farther. How far is too far? What if it's you or someone you love?
Apparently nothing of any significance at all was found in Palins' emails, as evidenced by quotes from the hacker himself and what's been posted of her emails. With all the opposing parties' legal wolves ready to rip Palin apart at the slightest excuse, the silence regarding the emails themselves speaks volumes. It's not ok to break the law and invade someones' privacy just because you really, really, really, *REALLY* hate them and what they stand for politically. Ask yourself if you'd be as ok with it if the situation were switched to Obama and the Rezko case and a Republican politicians' kid as the hacker.
Cheers!
Strat
Actually as a hate filled person on the left I find the hacking of the email account and website to be a silly juvenile tactic, and one that should be punished. That said I would rather see her strung up for any misuse of email through proper legal channels. Life is so much sweeter when you can both win and do the right thing.
If evidence were legally obtained through due process showing she's actually broken a law, then I'm all for having her pay the legal penalty, as I would any other person. Politicians do NOT lose all personal rights and freedoms under law because one disagrees with their political positions. Performing illegal acts because one thinks *maybe* she *might* have done something wrong because someone dislikes their views, is in itself flat wrong. I would be just as outraged if it were Biden or Obama this happened to. Wrong is wrong.
I also do not generalize that all or even most people who hold left-leaning views are hate-filled, unreasonable, or approve or condone these illegal and reprehensible actions.
Would it be ok for a neighbor to break into your house and ransack it looking for evidence of a crime and publishing pictures of the entire contents and all documents found because they think you *might* have done something illegal, because, you know, they never did like or trust people who were a part of $SOCIAL|ECONOMIC|RACIAL|SEXUAL|POLITICAL group anyway and were hoping to dig up dirt to damage or destroy you and/or anyone close to you?
Cheers!
Strat
since the its' founding
Darn! I even previewed that too. /:|
aaaaah.
no i didnt. i see the nazi party in action everyday on cnn. if you are still not aware, their general secretary sits in white house.
he has executive powers to snatch anyone from the streets, without asking, or telling anyone, on any grounds, and holding them for undefined durations for example.
examples are endless. this is just one.
If you seriously equate Bush/Republicans with nazis, then you're simply too far gone into moonbat territory to even reason with. I wouldn't be surprised if you're a "truther" too.
See kids, this is what happens when you let blind, unreasoning hatred drive your life and world view.
dont keep the illusion that you are living in a modern democratic country.
Oh I don't, since we haven't lived in a democratic country in the USA since the its' founding as a democratic *republic*.
Cheers!
Strat
its not forward thinking and liberal to allow fundamentalist propaganda to propagate itself. if it is, then you have to allow nazis to propagate their neonazi ideologies too, because not doing so, would be contrary to freedom of speech, and liberalism.
Apparently you've missed the marches held by the American Nazi Party, all legal and everything.
Nice Godwin-ing of the thread, though.
Cheers!
Strat
Why is Sarah Palin using a private account when she is Governor?
Because there are laws in place that say what you can and cannot do with government services and equipment. What you do not seem to get is she was abiding by these laws. Thats why she has 2 (or more) email accounts. The hacker ought to be prosecuted, he even said he did it with malicious intent
I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be
but guess what? he found squat and diddly.
I read though the emails... ALL OF THEM... before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor.... And pictures of her family
I'm sure I'll get modded down to non-existence for this reply, but I've got tons of karma to burn.
Burn, baby, burn!
You know that the fact that no state business was being conducted through those email accounts means diddly and squat to the haters. They'll just say "well she has other accounts we don't know about, or she deleted them" and despite all the evidence to the contrary, maintain that somehow she's a criminal because she doesn't bow to the lefts' agenda.
Truth doesn't matter to the haters on the left, only their rabid hate and their wish to silence and destroy anyone who dares disagree with them. Laws, rights, and freedoms should only protect *their* guys, because *they're* the "good guys". She's a conservative Republican, which to the haters on the left makes her not-human, so she doesn't get to have rights or enjoy the protections of law and due process. Since she's a conservative Republican, any methods used to injure or destroy the woman and anyone close to her, including handicapped children, are perfectly fine and justified tactics to the haters.
The level of hypocrisy, douche-baggery, outright denial of reality, and visceral hatred by many on the left is beyond the pale. They even hacked Bill O'Reilleys' website and grabbed user registration information and email addresses because he dared have an opinion they don't like about the obtaining and subsequent publishing of the Palin personal emails.
Maybe Obamas' and/or Bidens' personal email accounts should be hacked, if hacking Palins' personal account is ok. I wonder if the haters would be fine with *their* guys' personal emails being published? I'd be willing to lay strong odds that there would be a lot more red meat there than anything found in Palins' emails.
Cheers!
Strat
I had a much longer reply, however i shall simply point to the quotes below and state that your comment
And I'm not quite sure about Wilson being a "recognized intellectual" -- he was known as a historian, but not a general thinker outside his field, the way, say, Richard Feynman knew more than physics.
and
Probably most of America hadn't even heard of Darwin until the Scopes trial put evolution in the newspapers.
simply points to your lack of knowledge of early 20th century American history:
1) Fundamentalism began as a rejection of modernism and specifically evolution at the end of the 19th century.
2)
A leading intellectual of the Progressive Era, he served as President of Princeton University and then became the Governor of New Jersey in 1910
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson
How dare you bring facts, especially historical and documented facts, into a good Christian/Palin bashing!
Never mind that Obama attended a church for 20 years headed by a racist anti-American hatred-spewing reverend and supposedly either didn't notice or didn't hear all the hate being screamed forth every Sunday for twenty years, or he didn't think it was wrong enough to find a less hate-filled place to worship.
Sarah Palin attended *CHURCH*!!!11 Oh noes!! Plus, she actually thought that if a school kid brought up Creationism/I.D. in class that it might get discussed, rather than having the kid expelled and sent to a foster home after being forcibly re-educated and the parents arrested!! Holy crap, she'll do away with McCain five minutes after the oaths of office are taken and start a thermonuclear war to initiate the Rapture!!!
Seriously, people attacking Palin and Christianity in this way are doing more for McCains' campaign than all the money spent by both major parties combined and tripled could ever hope to. You people engaged in this sort of bashing should all get a plaque from the McCain/Palin '08 campaign in thanks. (Not referring to you, Hungus. Thanks for attempting to bring a little reason and perspective to the discussion.)
The person who cracked Palins' email account even stated that there was nothing there to use against her, and finding dirt was his whole objective. That suddenly, emails *supposedly* copied from that account appearing on Wikileaks seems to show exactly the opposite should be setting off BS-meter alarms, but many here seem to be able suspend logic and reasonable disbelief in their semi-religious zeal for the Anointed One and psychotic hatred of Palin.
Cheers!
Strat
Why is it that every time federal taxes are reduced, actual revenue, that is the actual amount of money flowing into the federal coffers, increases? I know it's non-intuitive, but it's been repeatedly proven true.
Let's see the actual numbers over time and do some statistics then. I'll wait.
No need. Plenty of history (at least since Reagan) is available through Treasury and IRS records. *Every single time* taxes have been reduced, revenue to the Treasury has increased. If you can cite an example where it has not, please do.
Why do people refuse to acknowledge the fact that reducing taxes actually increases revenues when it's been repeatedly proven to be true?
Because it's not. Jeff Frankel wrote some good commentary on this just recently.
Mr. Frankel does a lot of hand-waving and makes a lot of claims, but doesn't cite any facts except a paper he wrote himself. He cites no hard data to back up his claims. Being a Democrat and a former member of the Clinton Administrations' Council of Economic Advisors from 1997-1999 as well as currently being a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, hardly makes him an unbiased source.
You'll need to do much better to make a convincing argument.
Cheers!
Strat
For whatever reason, apparently "economist" is a field that attracts liberals.
Maybe that's why republicans think you can cut taxes and increase spending and everything will work out okay.
Why is it that every time federal taxes are reduced, actual revenue, that is the actual amount of money flowing into the federal coffers, increases? I know it's non-intuitive, but it's been repeatedly proven true.
If the goal was to actually increase the amount of money flowing into the federal coffers to decrease national debt and help pay for federal programs, then lowering taxes would help.
Why do people refuse to acknowledge the fact that reducing taxes actually increases revenues when it's been repeatedly proven to be true? Or is it more a matter of throwing up a smokescreen to opposition while simultaneously salving ones' conscience to believe the opposite of reality while using the tax system to punish those who are more successful than others and use class warfare to divide voters?
Cheers!
Strat
I wonder how SoundExchange determines what has been played and how often. Do they monitor the stations? If so, maybe internet radio stations could require a small monthly fee for providing the constant connection to SoundExchange. Maybe something like an administrative fee or 'constant-connect' fee paid in advance that just happens by coincidence to roughly equal what SoundExchange demands in royalties. They say that the stations aren't properly monetizing their business, so this could be part of a new rate structure. What!? You say that's excessive and unfair, SoundExchange!? Gee, that's too bad. Internet radio stations don't *have* to provide *free* service to anyone.
Just a thought on one way this might be turned back around on the bullies.
Cheers!
Strat
Simply voting on a bill does not say as much, as writing a bill shows a much higher level of motivation than simply voting on a bill that is authored by someone else because *they* were passionate on an issue. It bothers me that there's no legislation he's written...are/were there no issues he felt that strongly about to take the time to write a bill? This, coupled with the number of "present" votes, means that basically we have to take him at his word about his stances on various issues. It makes me feel rather like here, when a post comes up with claims and is followed by a "citation needed" post.
I'd have the same concerns over any candidate from any party with so little history, including Palin. However Palin isn't the main candidate and won't have the same amount of influence on policy as VP as Obama would as President, so it's not as concerning to me. McCain has a long history whether you agree with his positions or not, and Palins' job as VP is basically to back up McCains' positions.
Note that the choices we have are, as was alluded to farther up-thread, between a giant douche and a shit sandwich, so I'm not happy with either side.
Cheers!
Strat
What did he *write*?
Who cares what legislation he wrote? If he becomes President, that task will no longer be in his job description.
Who cares what legislation he wrote!?!?
Seriously?
What legislation a congressperson writes is one of the best indicators of his/her stance on issues. Speeches, soundbites, and campaign promises mean very little from any politician. It's a way to not only verify that said person walks the walk, but also a good indicator of possible future positions on similar issues.
That he won't be voting as a congressperson isn't the point. Otherwise, why care at all what positions a candidate for President takes? The President can create executive initiatives, use the veto power, etc. to influence legislation and national/foreign policy.
Cheers!
Strat
...but chances are that even if you make it to that point, you may still end up dead fucking broke.
"Broke" may be a huge improvement over the situation that many artists who sign with a label find themselves in. Many end up in debt to the label, while the label is raking in cash from their work. Crappy contracts with onerous terms coupled with the "creative accounting" methods infamously used by labels means that your work may sell well, but you wind up practically indentured to the label for the next several albums, all while earning about what a McDonalds employee does...if you're lucky.
I post this link whenever the topic of artists and labels come up. It should be required reading for any artists thinking about signing with a label.
The Problem With Music-Steve Albini http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Cheers!
Strat