Beck

Guilty as charged!

Yup, the fix-it-in-the-mix thing goes back a ways. For me it depends a lot on the genre and the time period of the style. Now days we can do so much with a lot less effort. You can add the sound of string scratch for a guitar, or church benches creaking at the beginning of a hymn. Whereas back in the day people might go to great lengths to remove those same sounds for a cleaner more highly produced result. Either way could wander into the realm of, "over produced." The more tools available and the more those tools are pitched by marketing people, the more over-production is likely to happen. One thing I believe stays the same and and is good practice is the art of subtle. Subtle is to use tools in a way that doesn't draw attention to the tools, but to the artist.

I've always thought so, but back when we were using tape (I'm still using tape) we did take after take until it was "Right" or until everyone was so tired it was considered close enough. On the other hand, some of the best albums were live.

[h=1]"New York's A Lonely Town" - The Trade Winds (I listened to this stuff in high school. I'm not that old... was just into retro surf rock... my older sister's music) [video=youtube;yRlXHl9Ehbs] [/h]

Sheryl Crow - Everyday Is A Winding Road [video=youtube;khrx-zrG460]

"The Last Stand" - Sabaton [video=youtube;7U9lVjZg-Kg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U9lVjZg-Kg

Oh Hush!

"Do You Really Want To Hurt Me" - Boy George

[h=1]"Winged Hussars" - Sabaton [/h]

"White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane

[h=1]"Anything Goes" Cole Porter [/h]

That's cool!

Pedophilia involves pre-pubescent children. I'm not defending the guy for sleeping with a 14 year old, but he's not a pedophile. He thought she was 17; a pedophile would have done it because he thought she was 9. Thats good to know, but it depends on how old he is as well. A teen having sex with another teen is a different story. The law is more lenient. My problem with mikemorris to begin with is he seemed to think it was funny. But you are incorrect about what defines a pedophile. The criminal justice system makes no distinction between prepubescent or the onset of puberty. All US law regardin age of consent references age (Why its called AoC) and people reach puberty at different ages. And you and everyone else should know that saying you didn't know how old she was is not a legal defense. It's your moral and legal responsibility to know if she is of age. There are plenty of people doing time now thinking that sounded like a good defense. I don’t think taking advantage of girls/women is funny anyway, but if you must try not to wind up in the slammer. You’ll thank me later.

So you're saying there is no difference between 14 and 12? Are you saying there is no difference in personal development? It's a highly individual thing, and generalizing like that is, quite frankly, demeaning to women and to individuals everywhere. Everyone is different, and you should respect that. I know young people, who are extremely mature and older people who are acting as dumb teenagers, making generalizing statements that a 14 or 15 year old in no way can know whether or not they want to have sex with someone, is ridiculous. Nijyo is saying there is no difference between 14 and 12 by basing his argument on the onset of puberty, whether he knows he's said that or not doesn't matter. I'm talking about older men with younger girls, which is how the conversation started in the first place. Sex between two 15-year-olds is not a crime in most places, even though we still have moral and emotional issues to consider. Nijyo won't go to 12 or 13, even though I've pointed out that girls can reach puberty as young as 11. His argument has been countered, but he has no answer for it. His argument is still about the onset of puberty, but I've clearly shot it down. He's ignoring it. That's not logical debate. Some people will never get it. It will take an arrest and some hard time before they wonder if maybe they should have given it more thought. And if you think you'll get any sympathy from the general prison population for a sex offence involving a child (and they'll find out what you're there for), think again. You'll wish you were dead. And it's an adult's responsibility to know if a girl is legally able to consent. You can whine about it all you want, but it's not a legal defense to say she looked old enough or she didn't resist. Most importantly if you know that you are taking advantage of a woman of any age, it's indefensible. Like I said, if she's of legal age, and can consent in every other way... meaning you haven't drugged her, well then {censored} like the wind... you have my blessing. Too often though men are opportunists, like this is the jungle and they become predators trying to pick off the vulnerable. That’s not being a good man; it’s having a dark criminal heart. Women can be convicted of sex with minors too. Check out your county or state’s sex offender list on the web…. And hey, try not to wind up on it. I’m beginning to wonder if some of you already are. By the way, I'm speaking as a former college law enforcement officer and paramedic with a degree in social psychology. I'm not going to continue indefinitely if you guys can't manage a logical debate. I know all about human development, both physical and emotional development. If you just want to make {censored} up this won't go anywhere. ~Beck

See, the problem is that you're coming from the wrong angle. Historically, in the 20th and 21st century, we've made adults into children. Biologically, once we hit puberty, nature considers us to be adults. Completely incorrect – outdated. We now know that it is harmful to young girls physically to conceive and give birth when they themselves are not fully developed. We cannot discuss sexual activity without the possibility of pregnancy. They may be able to conceive, but since we are not animals, but human beings we make decisions when or if to procreate. Many girls can conceive at 11 or 12 years old. History has in fact shown that there are ideal minimum and maximum childbearing years. Societies in which sexual activity begins too soon are weaker and more subject to disease and birth defects, not to mention long term injury to the mother. There's nothing magical about the age of 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18. There's people at 30 who make horse{censored} decisions about their sexual lives. The 18-year old limit is entirely a product of two things: Our modern public school structure, and left-over laws about women as their fathers' property. I direct you to the fact that until very recently, many states had *no* age of consent laws for homosexual relationships (male-male and female-female -- historically female-female relationships in some countries were not something legal authorities were even concerned with, since it was assumed they didn't even happen). In any event, your argument is flawed, because it takes the position that "because it's illegal, it's morally/ethically wrong". There's all sorts of obviously contrary examples to this position. The simple act of making some "thing" illegal (or legally sanctionable) does not make it a morally or ethically wrong "thing". And, as should be obvious, I'm not arguing that it is or isn't illegal, I'm arguing that assuming that the current legal state of affairs (which is historically aberrant) is not necessarily the correct way to go, socially. So a 40-year old woman who is black-out drunk has the cognitive power of a 13 year old? That should be pretty easy to back up scientifically. Please provide the citation. No, we artificially state that in terms of sex and alcohol, this is the case (and often only in very certain circumstances -- i.e. a 16 and 14 year old are perfectly okay to fool around in the majority of jurisdictions). In all other cases, we assume that when a 14 year old says yes, it means yes. To the point that when they say yes, and then procede do something different, we hold them responsible in a variety of ways (perhaps not legally -- tho in some cases we do -- but there are frequently punitive measured assessed, regardless). No argument there. Except when they're mentally deficient (which can be subjective) or intoxicated (which can be hard to judge) or otherwise impaired (ditto). What can seem to be clearly capable in one situation (with one set of knowledge) can be seen to be clearly incapable in another (which a different set of knowledge). So, basically, you only endorse sex with perfect women who have no psychological problems (or men, for that matter)? What word do you live in here those people exist? The logical conclusion as the result of your reasoning is that any sexual encounter with someone who is not perfectly self-actualized is, in fact, "rape" to some degree. People get together because they see something in other people that they need, and no one really has their whole life together and figured out. You seem look at fuzzy lines and assume they are solid and bright. As per above, you're effectively a misandrist. Which is a perfectly valid thing thing to be, I guess, but it doesn't seem like you realize that's what you're endorsing. This is exactly what I'm talking about. And "Misandrist" Ha! C’mon now, that's your Misandristanding. You seem to have no lines at all... everything is fuzzy to you. Fortunately your thinking doesn't represent society or even most musicians for that matter. You’re not going to call me a pedophobe next, I hope… meaning I have an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward pedophiles and pedosexuality. After all, some people are naturally sexually oriented to children, right? Sounds funny now I’m sure, but I predict it won’t be long before the terms are used in a derogatory way for people that still believe sex between adults and children is wrong. I don't know what the point would be to try to answer you line by line from here, because in nearly every point you’ve misconstrued my statements... reworded them into something that perhaps makes sense to you, but yet is not what I said. I think you, or any reasonable person should know exactly what I mean by taking advantage of people that are impaired, through substances or mental state. And it's against the law. It’s against the law in every state to have sex with an adult woman who is blacked out drunk, as you put it. Unless of course she says when she is sober, “Please wait until I black out before having sex with me.” The law was created by society to protect the vulnerable and defenseless in this case. Contrary to your statement above, the ethical and moral (higher thinking), which is what makes us human, comes first, only then comes the law. There is nothing artificial about it. I see you failed to answer my question, “Why not 13 or 12 year old girls.” If you truly believe what you are stating, those ages are off limits by man’s artificial imposition of law as well, are they not? No one said anything about people having to be self-actualized. Good luck with that. You're taking a very simple matter and trying to blur the lines. However, what might be sufficient double talk to confuse you may not be sufficient to confuse anyone else, least of all me. Thus it only seems blurry to you, but still perfectly clear to me. For you to assume that I am in the same fog you have managed to stumble into puts you at a great disadvantage. The law is not 18 in all states. It's as young as 16, with provisions. In most cases the man cannot be 5 or more years older. This is simply society protecting its children from older manipulative males who are attracted to children (pedophiles). Back to age 14, which is where we started. Your thinking would be fine if we were just animals, but again we are not. We're talking about humanity and society. Personally I don't need the threat of prosecution for me to keep my hands off of children, even if an individual might look more mature than her years. Apparently you have no problem with it. I see the young and vulnerable as something to guard and protect… to guide them safely through adolescence until they are truly adults. You apparently see the young and vulnerable through the eyes of a predator, or are just playing devil’s advocate. I hope it’s the latter. What you don’t seem to realize is that you are endorsing sexual abuse and exploitation of children. ~Beck