Cleira
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 14:04
|
|
My God - there are plasma screens showing adverts in the underground stations? Flippin eck, that sounds like some sort of weird futuristic film type senario (you can tell I don't go to cities very often, lol). Urhg! And sponsorship of buskers without giving them owt ... bloody hell the man made world is a strange place sometimes. Quick, put on shades, plug in the earphones, don't look at any one and run away quickly ...
|
Chris
|
Re: Or
Nov 04, 2005, 14:27
|
|
Or subscribe to the RSS feed - never miss an article or Drudion again.
|
Merrick
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 14:39
|
It would indeed have been wrong to base the article on assumption alone. Good job that I didn't then.
The Eno point is one among many, the rest of which are verified - thus the piece is not 'baseless' - and the point the article is making remains just as valid without the Eno thing.
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 14:41
|
Depends what you stand for in the first place.
Manic Street Preachers and Henry Rollins have made themselves artistically bankrupt hypocrites in recent years, whereas the commercially omnipresent Katie Melua/Mike Batt axis was always shit and never meant anything (so it doesn't matter what they do).
|
PMM
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 15:54
|
|
At least he attempts to answer questions, rather than just ignoring and repeating the same criticisms regardless of the response. If you ain't lemon, you just gotta be his soulmate.
|
PMM
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 16:28
|
But I don't read anger into anything Merrick has posted. I read a patient attempt, time after time, to deal with the issues you raise, after which you just reiterate the same points, along with personal attacks such as "You can't handle criticism"
There... I just pointed one of yours out. Can you quote one single time where merrick has accused you personally of anything?
|
Merrick
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 18:20
|
Er, I haven't actually got angry about any of this, and I apologise if anything has come across as anger. None of it was intended as such in the least.
As you rightly say, if we write something here we should be prepared to explain ourselves, to defend ourselves against intelligent detractors and to admit we were wrong if we are shown to be so. I relish doing these things; I get to chew around ideas, see perspectives I hadn't thought of myself, and I get clearer about the things I believe to be right and get to jettison things I'm wrong about.
Do please put any couterarguments or questions. However, please do not accuse me of not answering points that I've either already answered or were never made in the first place.
I did answer your points.
To reiterate; it is not a baseless assumption that Eno sold Music For Airports, it is a based assumption. The basis is that Eno is the sole composer, performer, producer and the owner of the record label; thus it is highly likely he owns the rights to the piece.
It's not 'a small bit of research' to verify this 100%, which is why I didn't do it, but included it with clear explanation of what I was sure of, what I wasn't, and why.
It was included alongside verified parts because Eno's Orange ads were the initial impetus to write the piece and, for the reasons I have given to you more than once, it is very unlikely that he did not choose to sell it. Were that the case, he would be very likely to have spoken out by now.
"He didn't say why he thinks he has the right to tell people what they can and can't do with their intellectual property."
Indeed I didn't say why I think that.
That's because I don't think that, and have already specifically said so to you earlier on this thread.
To reiterate: I do not question the right of an artist to sell their work. I do question the integrity and morality and creative worth of artists who do so, and the article explains why in quite some detail.
|
PMM
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 21:03
|
I am a fan of Merrick's writing. He writes calmly and coherently, even in the face of those that blatently have no interest in listening.
What I don't understand is why you insist on responding as if you've been attacked.
I'm a small businessman too. My trade is to put more people in cars, driving on Britain's congested roads, using up the earths deposits of metal and fossil fuels, and adding to the sum total of co2 released into the atmosphere. It's what I've spent a long time working towards, from before I became more aware of such issues, and I know that really I should be finding another way to feed my family. But I'm not going to, until the oil peak and it's attendant dislocations force me to, or until some other reason intervenes.
Yet I take on board what the good people on this board have to say. I've read beyond what I see on here, and I have no doubt that what Merrick, Grufty Jim, etc say will happen, will happen. I don't attack them for challenging the role I play. Such posts criticise not me, but the society of which I'm a part.
"that's another big problem, the people who can't separate the authority and the people who have the authority vested in them. You see that a lot on the demonstrations, they have the concept that The Law and Law Enforcement are one. They're demonstrating against the Police Department, actually against policemen". - Lenny Bruce
So the discerning writer and reader can understand that opposition to Capitalism is not the same thing as a personal attack on small businessmen. Opposition to our current lifestyles takes place in full knowledge and sympathy for those living it, who know of no other way.
|
Holy McGrail
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 23:12
|
So what you're saying is basically "well he might have written the music, produced it and released it on his own label, but how do we know he didn't gave the publishing away to his mam?" I think anyone who understands anything about the basic mechanics of the music industry would follow Merrick's assumption there without question. All the evidence supports that view. Yeah, he may not own the publishing rights to his music, but, given everything else it would be a sensible view to assume that he does. How you can't follow that sensible deduction is beyond me.
And if you really are lemon, your card is marked. And yes, I'm a bastard in a banning mood.
MCG
|
Shafty
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 05, 2005, 00:59
|
Hello folks,
This is kind of a spam.
I have a little comedy skit about Adverts on a blog. You may or may not enjoy it, you may be offended by it or you may just think it's crap and worthless, whatever. I just thought it was relevant on this topic.
Its at www.thegreatwhiteshaft.blogspot.co.uk , if yer interested that is.
Cheers
Shafty
|
