Billster

Here's a handful of stuff on eBay: SOLD! Roland/Boss Dr. 550 Dr. Rhythm Drum Machine Roland TR-505 Drum Machine, modded with individual outputs Yamaha FB-01 FM Synthesizer

Oh gee, how did I miss this well of misinterpretation... Yes, agree with everything. Funny too because the stock market is built entirely on faith. We have this system set up where everyone is borrowing money from each other and paying it back on interest. The entire market is built on the idea of popeye. If you give me a dollar today, I`ll give you a dollar and a dime on Tuesday. However, to take this one step further, we have borrowed more than the system can comfortably allow and the system is starting to crack. So at this point, its not about faith anymore, its about being practical. If your output exceeds your input, then your upkeep will be your downfall. The stock market is what's called a leading indicator. The state of the stock market indicates what is anticipated. I won't deny that there will be some difficult times for many people, but the fact is that we are at a time of historically low inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. So any increases in those areas are starting off below previous baselines. If interest rates go from near zero to 6%, yes that's a lot - but 6% is a lot lower in historical context than 12% or 18%. Same with unemployment. You could argue that there is a basic unemployment rate of 4-5%, consisting of people who can't work for reasons unrelated to the economy and people who just plain don't want to work. In that context, 6% unemplyment = about 2%. So while 8% might be a shock compared to what the last decade has brought, it is still historically average.

Most of them fall under the umbrella of Medicaid, but they give it a catchy sounding name so as not to be confused with Medicare, which is mostly for older folks. Massachusetts used to call it MassHealth until they changed the insurance rules and now they call it Commonwealth Connections. We're supposed to have "universal coverage" here now. Oops, wrong forum. Start at the state government Department of Human Services.

Find a way to get some insurance coverage and ditch the walk-in clinic. Those places are horrible. If you live in the US, every state has a program for providing insurance to those unable to buy their own. You might qualify for a group plan with the local musician's union if you are in that. Get thee a proper doctor.

On the subject of pay, I think it's not unreasonable to do things for free when you're still learning / starting out... but that dosn't have to be for the public at large. It can be for close friends or at school or whatever... but I think that you have to be careful about that because it can become "expected" and it might seem hard to break out of it and start charging for your time / services as your skills increase. Plus, it does devalue things in the eyes of your clients, and in a way devalues what engineers do in general. Not freebies, but many moons ago I was producing some music for a guy who was in small time wrestling and wanted customized music for his introductions. It was basically a mash-up before the term had been coined. I began at a pretty bargain rate for a one-shot tune. He called back a year or so later to freshen it up, and I gave him the same rate. The third time he called, he had a little sticker shock when the rate had tripled. But by then I had a little resume and reputation for doing exactly his type of project

You know what I'm thinking is that someone like Daniel Lanois seems to always extract performances out of people that are so much more emotionally potent than the performances they do with other people. And it's that very thing that I want to do with people. Is it simply because he's working with higher calibre musicians? Or is there something that I'm not doing? Is there something else I should be doing? I'm just not pushing most people really hard when they come in to record here...they're feeling relaxed and comfortable, sure, but is that enough? I'm not sure. Does this make any sense? Hopefully I'm explaining myself well. I see what you are getting at. If I was in the player's seat with Lanois producing, I'd wager I'd feel pressured. But OTOH, I'd wager Lanois would have a way of defusing that pressure. So intimidate the talent with your rock star skillz, then ease the pressure with your relaxed personality.

I'm not a very pushy person, so trying to push the talent on to greater and greater heights is not something I do really well. This is something I think I can do. This also relates to the later post about "how do you know the limits of the talent you are working with?" I've been on the other side of the coin too, where a producer has had to push me to do my best. Relating to somebody you are producing or recording is not about being pushy, or even about your personality. It's about relating to a person at some (any) level. "Push" is the common term for getting the most out of a performer, but it's really more to inspire. It's about finding the right language to communicate with each individual. Some people can relate to more technical stuff like "that was very tight rhythmically, try playing a little looser against the groove". Other people need artsy/flowery stuff like "That was very rigid, try to go with the flow", or "that was like a rock, try to be more wispy". One person asked me to make the sound more "green" , but after a little more discussion, I was able to access what "green" meant in terms I could relate to.

Sorry for the duplicate post from Craig's forum, but... Hey, my CD is done, officially available, etc., etc. Tainted Rose Full song for free! (but it's just an mp3. You want the quality stuff - go buy the CD ) Take the "3 Minute Tour" A brief clip of each song on the disc. Prowl around the website - you might find an interesting sub-page, you crazy jammers Buy the disc at CD Baby. Really. You'll love it.

What sort of style are you doing? There's always voice lessons. NO, WAIT! You could record in seperate passes, verses then chorus, setting up your input gain for each section, so that you can keep a consistent distance from the mic. And if you have too much room sound, go with a deader room (as suggested) or make sure your microphone is a hyper-cardioid (or at least cardioid).

Originally posted by Jotown You have called this contrived (when it clearly wasn't) you have called it a publicity stunt (when it clearly wasn't) you have combined statements and events that happend three years apart and you still don't want to coment on the fact that before the success of this CD it was blacklisted by country radio; only then did anyone make a free speech connection to this story. Again; you have a clear bias here and if you don't care about this why have you posted so many times; Craig hasn't. I stand by my earlier statement (page 3? I'm not looking.) This whole Dixie Chicks kerfuffle is contrived to the degree that an off-the-cuff remark to a concert audience was exploited into a Rolling Stone cover story, etc., etc. I'm not doubting their convictions, I'm doubting the need to keep it in the front of their marketing machinery. Originally posted by Jotown the fact that before the success of this CD it was blacklisted by country radio; only then did anyone make a free speech connection to this story. What does that mean? How can it be a free speech connection when the CD is successful (in terms of sales and media coverage) despite being "blacklisted"? :confused: Again, the whole "blacklisted" thing is being played up in the media appearances in print and everywhere else. Has anyone seen an op-ed piece in the NY Times or anywhere similar about how these ladies are being crushed by government censorship? I could stand on a street corner and claim I'm being blacklisted by Clear Channel, and people would say I was crazy. I could stand in front of a horde of Entertainment Weekly and People magazine reporters and make the same claim, and suddenly it's gospel. What's going on here?

Originally posted by blue2blue IOW, the broadcaster's own free speech rights (limited as they are by statute and administrative rulings) could be used to argue for greater latitude in exercising their right to play or not play a record. (But it's clearly a complex field.) I see what you are getting at. The limitations imposed on the broadcaster in exchange for using a public resource (radio spectrum) warrant a review of how banning content serves the public interest. But it's clearly a complex field. The problem with this thread (for about 6 pages) is that there's a lot of claims that the free speech of the "banned" artist is in question, and that is not the case.

Originally posted by Jotown They are being punished by a corporation for their political opinion. Period. Which has nothing to do with the issue of free speech. It doesn't matter if you think the corporation in question is politically well-connected. It doesn't matter if the corporation in question has been allowed too much domain over their field because of relaxed regulation. Only governments can restrict speech in an abusive manner. Until people are fined, imprisoned, or otherwise acted upon by a government entity, they are not having their right to free speech infringed. You might disagree with the decision of the radio ownership to stop playing the Dixie Chick's music, but that's their decision to make, based on how they perceive their business.

Originally posted by Rique Ann Coulter recently said that the 911 widows have enjoyed their husbands deaths. She

Originally posted by blue2blue I don't know if they did violate laws or rules -- but I think it's extremely unlikely that there would be legal consequences from this FCC, even if they did. Particularly given the givens. Somebody has to lodge a complaint, like that Janet Jackson Super Bowl fiasco, or the Victoria's Secret fashion show programs But the other option is a civil suit by the aggreived party. However, that probably would take something more than simply not playing a given artist, but something like making derogatory statements about why they aren't playing the artist. The deregulation of ownership rules is the big problem here. But even at the border of monopolization, I don't see this as a free speech problem, because the government is not directly banning anything. And certainly all parties have had plenty of exposure.

Originally posted by blue2blue Bill, I understand your thinking here -- but there's one crucial distinction between a magazine (or internet or cable station) -- and a broadcast station. Broadcast stations are granted a limited license to use a (limited supply) public asset, the airwaves in order to pursue their 'private' business. Because of that, the courts have consistently upheld greater restrictions and qualifications to the license granted than would ever be constitutionally tolerated were they somehow applied to a form of commercial speech which did not use such a public asset (the airwaves). But those restricitions are on areas like obscenity and such. See the thread about that idiot DJ with the threats against his crosstown "rival" DJ. One can't just broadcast things of no redeeming value to the community ("no redeeming value" as defined by the legal system - I know it when I see it ) The licensing includes a provision for presenting some content that is "in the public interest" We used to call the local rock station's news program (which aired at like 1:00 a.m. on Sunday) the "FCC Compliance Hour". UHF TV stations are always trying to get kids shows labeled as "educational" for the skimpiest of reasons - Look, it's a talking carrot! The show is about eating healthy! - so they can satisfy the public interest requirements.

Originally posted by Rique If a person knows that they will get blacklisted for expressing an anti Bush or war comment, it denies them their free speech because they know they will be punished for expressing those ideas. If someone chooses to sit on a controversial opinion because of fear of backlash, that's their choice, not censorship. For the umpteenth time, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. Those who attempt to ban free expression do so at their peril. Remember the uproar about putting "parental advisory - explicit lyrics" stickers on albums? Wal-Mart refuses to sell those albums. Is there a free speech uproar, or do the artists just sell through other avenues? The silly policy costs Wal-Mart some customers, but apparently they can accept that in exchange for expressing their "values" in that way. And for the record I don't shop at Wal-Mart, and I certainly wouldn't buy music there.

Yes Angelo, the claim is that country music radio stations are blacklisting the Dixie Chicks. That would be like a classic rock station blacklisting Led Zeppelin.

Originally posted by Jotown So when someone does not agree with you they have "gone off the deep end"? You are indeed a wise and kind soul. NOT> I am not going to explain this to you again because it is clear your reading comprehension is not very good. I have nothing more to say here. Live in your bubble. You keep harping on this being about suppressing "free speech", and it is not. As I see it in this case, a large radio conglomerate decided not to play music by an artist expressing views they (the radio owner) felt would alienate the target audience. This speaks to jingoism and cynicism, but it is not censorship. It is a business entity making a misguided decision.

Jotown, you've gone off the deep end. As I have stated repeatedly in this and other threads, corporate conglomerate ownership of radio stations is a bad thing, but it is not a threat to free speech. There are so many media outlets in this country, the idea of anybody being shut out is ridiculous. Roman Polanski continues to make films that are shown in America despite the fact that he dare not set foot in the country because of outstanding child rape accusations. Every major city and most smaller ones have "alternative" newspapers independently published and throwing rocks at the powers that be. You should Google "Boston Phoenix and Catholic Church" and see what you find. If your political voice isn't heard, it's because you choose not to participate. Go to a town council meeting, go to a county commisioners or school board meeting. Call your representative and senator. Vote.

Originally posted by Rique If your music doesn

Originally posted by Rique Go ahead and boycott their music if you want but their Blacklisting from radio stations is a clear attempt and deny people of their Free speech. I'll say it again - free speech is protected by the government. Megalomaniac corporations may act badly, but they do so at the risk of a civil rights lawsuit. If the alleged "victims" here (who by the way have a number one album and leveraged themselves onto the cover of Rolling Stone as a result of this nonsense) were really being squished, they could pursue legal action. Just because many people might agree with the opinion being "blacklisted" by a radio conglomerate, doesn't mean the station owners can't disagree and take action to express that opposition.

Originally posted by Jotown Thank you Terry for typing out my response to both Billster and Blips. There is a huge difference between free speech and institutiional character assasination. I will let you figure out who is doing which. I admit that corporate conglomeration of radio stations is bad news. But do you really believe those corporations are acting at the behest of the government? The radio corporations are politically connected, but what they are really pandering to is their perception of the marketplace. They believe the target audience is flag-wavers. They deliver that audience to the advertisers who pay the money. If they believe the audience will turn away from a controversial act, they will downplay that act to keep the real product (listeners) flowing toward the real customer (advertisers). And let's be clear about the difference government regulation by the FCC and government control a la state run media like they have in North Korea.

Originally posted by Brittanylips 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. 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 Thank you for typing my response to Jotown

Originally posted by Jotown Again; that most all of country radio (which was their main source of getting their music heard) is blacklisting them makes this a free speech issue. Only if the radio stations were controlled by the government. The radio stations (despite the many problems with radio related to corporate conglomerate ownership) are exercising their own free speech to disagree with the artists politicizing themselves. Are you aware of any coercion by the FCC to get the radio stations to pull an artist?

I agree, I don't think it was a plan to say something outrageous and then run with it. I think it was a case of saying something from the heart and then the marketing people ran with it. I've seen Santana in concert, and he made this weird speech in the middle of the show about Nelson Mandela and "angels all around us if you look for them", and so on and so forth. I'm sure that is part of the show everywhere he goes...and no one makes a stink about it. BUT, if he wanted to, he could have his publicist get it on CNN that "Santana says Bush is a loon" and get a lot of attention for himself.