Brittanylips

I agree - it's scarry.

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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. ).

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

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

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.

Anyone who can find a good publicist deserves to be a celebrity.

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

funny you mention Tom Cruise and Rock Hudson in the same breath...



-peaceloveandbrittanylips

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

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

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

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

Hold on one second....

OK.... Almost there...

[Hoisting self back on soapbox...]

Almost....

OK!!! [standing firmly on soapbox]

Yes.

[exhales]

[inhales]

Giving him the option of refund is reasonable.

FWIW, I find that emergencies, unfortunately, often have a second wind, beyond what ever went wrong in the first place. The emergency is bad enough by itself, but then there's all the other little things - the sub-emergencies - that the main emergency sets in motion. You're driving to someone's house for dinner, for example, get in an accident, and not only did you get in an accident, but you're late for dinner.

So your emergency has this afterglow of problems that developed from it. Once Todd realized that your emergency was not concocted, it seems like he was willing to cut you slack.

But even if he wasn't, that's your emergency, not his, and if the emergency causes you additional problems, like loosing the sale, that's just something you must accept.

I apologize for budding in. If it's any consolation, my guess is that Todd is probably even less happy than you are that I am expressing my thoughts. As he reads this, he is probably thinking "yes, good, wonderful, now shut the hell up." Perhaps your mutual dislike for 3rd party intervention could be just the thing to bring you two together!

In any case, when personal disputes are aired in these forums, it often becomes a starting point for a larger, non-personal, and often more interesting debate. Admittedly, that's not what this is, but when you post something on a well travelled internet forum, you are inviting the world to participate.

So, I suppose, you have to put up with tripe like myself seeping in. I hope it isn't too unpleasant. There is a wierd vicarious entertainment value to it all that I can't quite pin down. And as I find myself yet again waiting for someone to arrive, adding my .02 (I think I'm up to .06), this is strangely diverting.

But back to the topic.

Sadly, Mr. Todd can mock anything he likes, and none of that has anything to do with your actions as a seller. Nothing he does justifies or excuses your bad behaviour. You should act honorably, and consistently, no matter what he does.

The delay in shipment, the misunderstanding, and the emails are water under the bridge. Where we are now is that you shipped him something that he doesn't want and are grumbling about his right to return it.

Forget about his mockery, his emails, and any skulduggery or rapscallion- like behaviour you have attributed to him. None of that matters. Quit grumbling and be an honest seller, or as the late Betty Friedan might have said, be a man.

Any honest seller would say "I am so sorry for any misunderstanding, any delay, and most of all, any damage. Please send it back to me at your earliest convenience so that I may reimburse your money ASAP. Again, my apologies."

That's what I would do.

That's what you should do.

And of course, what Phil said.

-Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

Killing time before a musician arrives, I'll add my .02. Actually, I think I'm at .04 in this thread....

The situation with your kid is more important than any of this. I'm sorry he was injured and hope he recovers quickly.

But as far as this transaction goes, you're son has nothing to do with it. And what Todd says or doesn't say about your son is irrelevent.

In practice, FedEx drivers deliver torn and damaged packages. I know that I've gotten them. But that's not the issue as far as Todd is concerned. He gave you money and did not receive the item as advertised. From his perspective, it doesn't really matter who damaged it. He has a right to reject it.

If you buy a TV from Circuit City, and it arrives busted, you return it. Imagine if the sales guy at Circuit City justified a damaged TV with personal sob stories and passing the buck, and would not take it back. Are you OK with that? You just paid for a TV and it shows up busted, but, well, the salesman just had a personal problem, the shipping company was a little rough, I know you paid all that money but really, the gash on the plasma screen isn't really that bad....

Good faith buying and selling includes the right to return broken products without hassle. If you were acting in good faith, you would simply take back the thing, and return his money without fuss.

So, why not do the right thing, now and forever? Sell stuff with the good faith understanding that if it a customer is not pleased, you allow them to return it quickly and easilly. No sob stories. No tears. No passing the buck. Just honest, gracious, good faith buying and selling.

-PL&B

I guess you really have to trust your instincts in these situations. I've bought a few things over the net, and so far so good, but you always worry that something like this will happen. Obviously, it's not your fault, but I guess you really have to trust your instincts.

In my mind, internet commerce is predicated on simple returns.

The very best argument, i suppose, that Mastersonics can make is: "we promptly shipped you a perfect unit as advertised." And even then, you should be able to return it if you aren't satisfied, and without any consternation.

There's absolutely no reason in the world why you should have to defend yourself in any way, or be drawn into any melodrama launched by the seller. Accepting the possibility that the buyer might reject a product is a normal and acceptable risk for any honest seller.

At any point in the process, you should be allowed to stop it, and without any resistance from the seller.

If Mastersonics doesn't accept your right to reject the product, then he is either not an honest seller, or he doesn't understand the dynamics of honest commerce on the net.

-Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

Hi Todd,

Sorry you are having these problems. If you made any mistake it was accepting the package after sufficient red flags had been raised. If you're dealing with someone who has already proven themselves to be irresponsible - before you receive the package - it doesn't make sense that they will be any more responsible after it arrives. Therefore, as soon as things go south, I would cut your losses (which amount to time and aggravation more than anything else), reverse charges on your card, and either reject the package or, since you already have it, send it back immediately.

These things can become black holes of time and aggravation that no one needs.

I stopped reading this thread after a certain point because I don't think the details are all that important after a certain point. You initiate a transaction, the seller does not deliver as promised, and you should simply get out of it - returning the product and reversing charges - immediately.

good luck!

My .02

-Peace, Love, and Brittanylips