Brittanylips

Originally posted by Jotown YThis is why the de-regulation of radio and TV station ownership was such a big issue. By allowing one entity or voice to control what comes through the publicly owned airwaves you get (for the first time in US history) the ability to block dissenting views. I agree - it's scarry. Originally posted by Jotown Clear Channel and others are not blacklisting the DixChix because people don't want to hear their music (the success they are currently having proves this to be untrue) they are blacklisting them for what they said about bush; hence they are being punished by an organized entity - which has clear political ties - for what they said. Agreed. Originally posted by Jotown First they blacklist music, then the blacklist news. This is not a good trend for America and that the Chix have succeeded despite efforts to block them is an aberration. Someone not so high profile who can't get other media exposure will never get their music, or their political opinion heard. It's the old adage "democracy is the worst political system in the world, except for all the other ones." Incidentally, I doubt that in the other direction, all that many pro Bush rappers are broadcast on hip hop stations. Not too many threads about that, though. As for someone not so high profile, there's never been as many opportunities to get their music and political opinions heard. Look at what happens here, at MySpace, etc. But no one is guaranteed radio play. Originally posted by Jotown Why is this so hard to grock? Because i think that the stench of blacklisting is so abhorant among artists, that many confuse denying airtime with denying freedom of speech. I was tangentially involved with this issue before with some artists at Def Jam who were selling tons of records, but were banned from the radio. While there was nothing about it that didn't stink (except, I suppose, that in the end it didn't matter because like the DixChix, the public embraced them anyway), it wasn't about free speech. Good word, "grock." -plb

Originally posted by Rique Blacklisting does deny free speech. I'm a musician not a lawyer, but I think you and Jotown are missing a distinction: Gov'ts can insure or deny (and do deny) freedom of speech. But when private industry cuts off access to their distribution systems, and limits the size of an artist's audience (for whatever reason) that's not the same thing as denying free speech. Originally posted by Rique Let

Originally posted by Rique Go ahead and boycott their music if you want but Blacklisting them from radio stations is a clear attempt to deny all people of their Free speech. In what way does not playing their music deny them speech? They're free to say whatever they want, regardless of how much their record is played. In fact, as many have pointed out, the result of the radio stations' decision is that the CHiX speech has been expanded, if anything, with increased media exposure and CD sales. If not getting on the radio is a violation of free speech, then is Clear Channel denying you of your right to free speech if it chooses not to play your music? -plb

Originally posted by MrKnobs What happened was a corporate decision at high levels, a publicity stunt in its own right to promote radio shows and stations who were ragging on the DC for being anti-American. Pure mob mentality hate speech. Control of what the listeners get to hear by mega-corporations, exactly what many musicians decry as the evil system. Except even more evil in this case, because it was politically motivated. Terry D. You know, it's really the same underlying concept as the civil liberties vs. security debate - increasing one is at the expense of the other, so it becomes a matter of where you draw the line: more liberties/less security vs. less liberties/more security. And different people have different views on where the line should be. Similarly, free speech is also a matter of where you draw the line. The supreme court, for example, drew the line at yelling fire in a crowded theater in a landmark case - that is not protected by free spech. On the other hand, free speech accomodates KKK rallies and all sorts of heinous things, many of which are not even literally "speech" (flag burning, for example, is considered a form of speech). So important is the excercise of free speech that the courts are loathe to limit it. It's not that people love the KKK, but if the line were drawn to prevent the KKK from expressing their views, it would also prevent other, more bunny-friendly organizations from expressing their views. So when you describe what happened - "What happened was a corporate decision at high levels, a publicity stunt in its own right to promote radio shows and stations who were ragging on the DC for being anti-American" - I don't disagree and I don't like it any more than you do. But as evil, corporate, and politically motivated as it was, it is still protected by free speech and falls on the "you're allowed to do that" side of where the line is drawn. There are societies all over the world that would not tolerate that kind of speech. But I'd much rather live in one that does. -plb

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide For me politic should be a public service, at least on presidential level. Sure, although the benefits of salaries outweight the drawbacks: without salaries, only rich people could afford to be politicians, so there would be even worse representation of the general population. (although most politicians tend to be rich anyway, without salaries it would automatically exclude anyone but the rich. Clinton, actually, needed the salary. Bush doesn't. ). Originally posted by Angelo Clematide Apart that he is the president, are there "arenas" creating business he also participates on, or are there none ? . None: When he becomes prez, he has to put his business interests in a blind trust, so that any political decisions are not linked to personal enrichment (again, not a perfect system). -plb

Originally posted by Jotown When political action groups launch an attack on someones career that prohibits them from participating in the arena they have made their living in it is coercive whether the government supports it or not. That's arguably what the DixChicks were doing when they launched their attack on Bush, attempting to prohibit him from participating in the arena in which makes his living. When people speak out against politicians they are attempting to interfere with their carreers. Originally posted by Jotown And if this effort in effect takes away someons right to free speech we have a problem. It is the principal that one should be paying attention to here. It sounds like the principal is the very thing that you are ignoring, which is that speech is free for both sides, and suggesting rather that the side whose views you prefer should have greater freedom to express them. Calling for a boycott of the Dixie chicks whether we like it or not (and neither of us do) is nonethless an exercise of free speech - every bit as much as the chix dissing the Prez is an excercise of their free speech. The principal is that both sides are entitled to the same freedom. peaceloveandbrittanylips

Originally posted by amplayer I liked Depp alot in "Chocolate Factory". The Burton-Elfman-Depp team never ceases to amaze me. My favorite JDepp movie is What's Eating Gilbert Grape. What a great movie. Next to that I like his "Ed" movies: "Ed Wood" and "Edwards Scissorhands" I think with Chocolate Factory, the original is so amazing, that I'm biased against the remake. -plb

Originally posted by Lee Flier Sure. I just think a lot of celebrities aren't really very extraordinary. I don't think Tom Cruise is really all that talented, he just doesn't have that much depth to me (same as I feel about the Dixie Chicks). That doesn't mean I hate all famous pretty actors though - I like Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp. Just not Tom Cruise. Yeah yeah yeah... Quit bashing poor Tom Personally, I thought Johnny Depp was contrived in "Chocolate Factory" - it's like he's become too self-consciously wierd - but I generally like his movies. But I think Tom Cruise is consistently great, from Risky Business on. In Rainman, for example, it's easy to credit Dustin Hoffman's performance, but Tom Cruise was quietly amazing. Because of the movies he makes and his looks, I think the caliber of his acting is sometimes overlooked. Originally posted by Lee Flier But some celebrities, I have no friggin clue why they're famous except that they look good or do freaky-stupid things to get attention, and have a good publicist. Anyone who can find a good publicist deserves to be a celebrity. Originally posted by Lee Flier Why there are entire magazines dedicated to how much weight Britney gained when she had her baby, or who Jennifer Anniston is dating this week, and all that stuff in the grocery store checkout lanes, is beyond me. I can't fathom being interested in that stuff. Maybe it's the vicariousnessness that keeps people buying this junk or perhaps it taps into some deep human drive for information about exalted citizens (whether they deserve to be exalted or not). -plb

Originally posted by blue2blue Tom Cruise makes Rock Hudson look like Laurence Olivier. funny you mention Tom Cruise and Rock Hudson in the same breath... -peaceloveandbrittanylips

Originally posted by Anderton I mean, what's the big deal? They don't like Bush, said so, then did a song about what happened because they didn't like Bush and said so. Is this really such an earth-shaking big deal that they belong on the cover of freakin' Time magazine? I think not. Right now they're on Larry King, and the home page on AOL trumpets Dixie Chicks album back at No. 1. Is this what passes for news these days? And I don't care about Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie, Katie Holmes, Denise Richards, Heather Locklear, any of them. Why do people spend any time whatsoever being interested in this kind of stuff? I don't care about the Dixie Chicks either, because I don't really like their music. But I do care about Tom Cruise and Angelina Jolie because they're talented and entertain a lot of people including me. Don't care so much about the other folks on your list. It's easy to be cynical about

Originally posted by Kiwiburger What's wrong with motorised faders on a control surface? The Behringer one is cheap as chips. It's a transitional gui, recreating a familiar metaphor from analog mixing. As analog mixing slips further and further into the past, the value in referring to this type of mixing for the sake of familiarity will be replaced by new metaphors untethered in the past. If you stepped back and truly attempted to build the best mixer based on cutting edge computer and display technology, you wouldn't come up with a box of motorized faders. You'd exploit the technology to come up with a way of manipulating multiple audio streams that would be more intuitive and ergonomic, but it would not be familiar. -peaceloveandbrittanylips

Originally posted by sizzlemeister I know Phil. The forum is about studio craft, not about songwriting and vocalists. Personally, I don

I think it sounds great, particularly the lead singer. You recorded him fabulously and he's chock full of talent. I haven't seen any pics, but he sounds all sexual and stuff. If I had to nitpick, I'd say some of the guitars and drums sound a little tame by comparison. I'd make them dirtier and louder. I'd beef up the guitars and I'd make the drums, particularly the snares, snappier and just plain louder. How do they play live? Basically, I think the musical accompaniment just needs to be more sexual. It's more about sex than preamps. I'd also throw in a couple of pads at times to make the accompaniment more lush. Sometimes the unison arrangements get a bit much (e.g. on the third track I'd throw in piano chords, like half note pads playing rich chords not simple triads, when all that unison stuff goes on and on about two thirds into it). My own bias is to use a real piano. -peace, love and brittlips

Originally posted by scapier Or you could buy a Mac. I haven't read this whole thread so I apologize if I am belatedly prolonging a Mac vs. PC rant. But the thing about Macs that's nice is you don't have to worry so much about what to buy, where to buy it, what to put in it. There's a certain serenity about one stop shopping and limited options. You get one. A couple years later, you get another one. Then another one. It's just easy to buy. And then you can worry about other stuff, like what's for dinner. My .02. -plb

Well, my appointment came and went. Went well, by the way. I think I might hire this one... In any case, I apologize for the blogginess of my response. But I did want to add - or rather subtract - one thing. I would like to redact the word "sadly" from my response above. Mock is mirth. And the world needs more mirth. -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips