Phil O'Keefe

Depends on how you define "recording" - under copyright law (as the guy points out in his TEDx talk) you're automatically granted copyright as soon as something is permanently affixed to a medium. That means recorded to tape / HDD / SSD, written down on score paper, carved as musical notes into a rock - whatever. Registering your copyright with the LOC only proves that your creation existed as of a particular date, which provides some independent proof of your copyright, as well as certain legal rights that you may otherwise lose without registration. You can't copyright an idea in your head, no matter how fully formed that idea may be - you have to write it down / affix it in some manner, and that includes audio recordings of the composition.

I'm going to invest big into banana futures while I still can... 😉

Good question IMO.

What you're discussing does apply, at least to some degree. Sound recordings can be / are covered by copyright (Form SR), and that, along with the arrangement (if new) are the only things that apply under copyright laws to recordings of works in the public domain. Even if you tried to recreate a recording "note for note" and sonically as precisely as possible (something I think is a fun and sometimes frustrating hobby and a great learning tool) the distinct vibrations that are picked up and etched into wax (or whatever) are going to differ in some ways, so I do acknowledge there are differences in one recorded version of a song from another - even if done by the same people in the same room, one take right after the other. At least until you go out far enough in the universe and the compression and rarefaction of the air molecules and the mic positioning HAS to repeat precisely due to the limited amounts of ways that atoms / matter can be configured... 😉

Here's a TEDx talk that one of the two guys behind this (a coder, a musician and a lawyer) gave on the subject: While I think his heart is in the right place, I still think there are some serious flaws with some of his thinking. He's arguing that melodies are nothing more than math, and that melodies have always existed, and as such they have limited to no copyright due to being "facts." He further argues that the limited number of notes (first he says only eight, then expands that to twelve to include the sharps and flats in a single octave, then acknowledges later that it could conceivably be expanded to include the entire piano keyboard, as well as all possible rhythms) means that there are a much more limited amount of possible melodies than there are words / sentences / paragraphs. There's a problem with that argument IMO. Practically everything can be represented mathematically. The entire universe is basically math. According to physicists, there is only a finite amount of ways that matter / atoms can be arranged. Everything is finite. Extend the universe far enough, and everything - including you and I - repeats eventually, and in an infinite amount of variations thereof. Literally everything must have infinite repeats and permutations in the infinite universe that many physicists think exists... and that doesn't even begin to take into account the possibility of the multiverse... So if melodies are finite and thus must "run out" and repeat eventually, so does everything else - and therefore IMO nothing could be subject to copyrights if you follow his logic to its logical conclusion.

And it may not even accomplish what they were trying to achieve - the end of lawsuits over copyright claims. That will still have to be adjudicated by the courts, and unless I miss my guess, that is going to be one big long-lasting can of very expensive litigious legal worms, and they are going to be crawling around for several years, if not longer. Here's something else to consider: If they generated every possible melody in a one-octave range, how do they know that their own copyright claims don't infringe upon previously filed claims for lesser-known compositions? That is only one of the possible issues that they may not have considered going into this - they themselves may be sued for infringement and false copyright ownership claims. They have no right to make a claim for the same melodies that are already covered by copyrights owned by other parties. And furthermore, this - if allowed to stand - would create a new world of musical haves and have-nots; with only those with previously registered copyrights being allowed legal protection, while everyone else going forward would be prevented from obtaining similar protections for their own compositions.

My daughter just texted me the link to this article and asked me what I thought. Unfortunately, I can not repeat what I said in reply without breaking the site rules... while their intent (attempting to prevent musicians from getting sued) may be admirable, it also could possibly stop songwriters from exercising their own creativity and writing their own new songs, and remove another one of the major income streams that many musicians rely upon to make a living. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmically-generate-every-possible-melody-release-them-to-public-domain What's next? Algorithmically writing every possible book and magazine article, artificially creating every possible movie and TV script, algorithmically creating every painting and photo and releasing all of those things to the public domain? Sorry.... I do not like this one bit because I think it could have considerable unexpected negative consequences for the arts. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject - pro or con.

When Doves Cry – Prince & The Revolution

"Wild Horses" - The Flying Burrito Brothers

I totally agree.

Not to quibble, but an increase of 10dB(A) SPL is generally considered to result in a doubling of perceived loudness, not 3dB. http://www.sounddeadsteel.com/what-is-a-decibel.html A 3dB increase in SPL (sound pressure level) will result from a doubling of power (or a 3dB increase in speaker sensitivity / efficiency), and will result in a doubling of sound energy (and reduces the allowable exposure time by 1/2, as per the 3dB rule), but it won't result in a doubling of perceived volume. A 100W amp isn't perceived by humans as being "twice as loud" as a 50W amp, given the same speakers... it's only 3dB louder, not 10dB. To quote myself... So let's assume we have a speaker with a sensitivity of 90dB @ 1W / 1m and a power handling capacity of up to 100W. If we power that speaker with 1W of power, it will generate 90dB when measured at a distance of 1 meter. If we double that power to 2W, the SPL measurement will increase to 93dB. If we increase the power to 10W, then the SPL measurement will increase to 100dB, which is "twice the perceived loudness" when compared to 1W. So it actually takes ten times more power to give us a perceived doubling of volume level. https://www.harmonycentral.com/articles/guitar-and-bass-amps/wattage-speaker-efficiency-and-amplifier-loudness-r195/ While a 3dB increase in speaker sensitivity will result in a noticeable increase in perceived volume, he'd need a speaker with a 10dB greater sensitivity rating vs. his current one in order to result in a doubling of perceived volume from the same amplifier.

If the power amp tubes have seen a lot of hard use, they could be affecting the overall output level too.

The Ballad of Danny Bailey - Elton John

Can you post a picture of it? I’d love to see it - I’ve always liked Mockingbirds, although I’ve never owned one.

My wife tolerates the guitar collection, but there is no way she’d let me have a harem. If I even suggested the idea...

I didn't know that - I'm sorry to hear it.

PS One thing that can definitely make a difference in the "loudness" of an amplifier is the efficiency of the speaker. If you swapped out the stock speaker, that alone could account for any difference in perceived volume between the two amps.

Does the back of the amp specify the fuse type and rating? If so (and it should...), stick with that! You can try contacting Pignose - they might have some information on the amps, including any changes that were implemented in their circuits over their production run. https://pignoseamps.com/contact/

"Joanne" - Michael Nesmith

"Rainbow In The Dark" - Dio

We'd need more information to have any chance of telling you how old your guitar is. Pictures would also be helpful. BTW, welcome to Harmony Central.

"Hillbilly Highway" - Steve Earle

"Have a Little Faith in Me" - John Hiatt

Also, can you get a picture of (or just post the numbers) on the back of the volume and tone knobs? Those can also be used to date the year of manufacture.

I can’t quite make out the serial number, but the neck is a slab board, which is correct for early 1962.