|
U-Know! Forum » Merrick.... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 06, 2005, 12:15
|
||
|
"It is a fair assumption, and one that is more than likely the case. I agree with that. I really do" Why the sudden change of heart? I find it curious that you can think the assumption is fair when, despite repeated explanation, you said it wasn't; it is 'baseless', made 'for no good reason' and indeed 'you can't just assume things'. I wonder why my previous explanations did not change your mind, yet there's a sudden epiphany once Holy's been on. "what I don't agree with is putting it in an article without being 100% sure." Are you really saying that assumptions, likelihoods and probabilities have no place in journalism, even when they are declared as such and the reasons and evidence given? "blown out of all proportion (thanks Holy)" Less Holy, more the guy who now accepts what he repeatedly denied despite the reasoning, and perhaps also the guy who accused people of saying things they didn't say. Wait a minute folks, it's the same guy! "felt the need to take you to task over the tone of it." Then you did a poor job of it. Beyond the use of the word 'sneery' you didn't challenge the tone of it at all. The only things you challenged were one thing that I didn't actually say, and the validity of using an assumption based on strong evidence but not fully verified. "I'll continue to read you, and, if you don't mind, question you on things I don't like. I hope next time it remains a bit more civil (once again hooray for Holy)" As i said, I presume I have more to learn on anything I write about, so I relish the questions my writing raises, provided the discussion is done intelligently. That means not using insults (which we've done well on with this, by and large) and responding to counterpoints rather than ignoring them and restating the initial point repeatedly (which is pretty much all you've done in this). The repetition encourages responses in an exasperated tone that would inevitably make things heated. As such, and more importantly so we can make progress towards clearer ideas, it's to be avoided. Holy came in after that threshold had been crossed and as such isn't really to blame.
|
|||
Mark1971 252 posts |
Nov 06, 2005, 18:10
|
||
|
Great article. Brownie points to the late Beta Band too. (Ever more so in the light of their split & huge debt to EMI). They were offered a small fortune for a track to be used in an ad (cars I think), which they refused... http://www.leftoffthedial.com/BetaNMEArticle.htm Right On!!!
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 06, 2005, 20:36
|
||
|
*chortle* oh at last we have found a successor to the comic genius of Eric Morecambe. You know the bit where is said about 'the guy who accused people of saying things they didn't say'? "Was just surprised to read that he would ban someine for disagreeing with your article." I would be surprised to read that too. Especially as he said that he disagreed with the acrticle himself. Sadly, I can't find where he said that. It certainly wasn't on this thread. A tip for you; when someone challenges or disproves your point, it doesn't help your case to merely repeat that initial point. In fact, it makes you look quite silly. In making blatantly false accusations, and having had them pointed out only going on to repeat them, you undermine what credibility your arguments may have had.
|
|||
Holy McGrail 1257 posts |
Nov 06, 2005, 23:13
|
||
|
>I would be surprised to read that too. Especially as he said that he disagreed with the acrticle >himself. Sadly, I can't find where he said that. It certainly wasn't on this thread. Sorry, yeah I haven't actually explained what I disagreed with; having said what I did, I probably should, though this thread didn't really seem like the place! In brief I think that the time when e.g. a Doors track was taken and the words rewritten for to promote a product is a little different from that which the modern struggling musician finds themself in. Specifically, someone over on Unsung recently accused Joanna Newsom of 'sucking corporate cock' for allowing her music to be used on an ad for Orange. A pretty hideous accusation, and not just because she looks about 7 years old. Now, although she may have sold something between, what, 5,000-10,000 copies of her album (warning hongnam - that's a guess on my part!), that won't amount to a great deal of dosh and won't carry her personally for more than a couple of years, surely. Along come Orange with a rough cut of an ad featuring her music, a beautiful and poigniant short film that ends with an Orange logo, and she allows it to happen. I personally don't think that's really selling out; it's getting value for her art in a climate where unfortunately she's more likely to make more money that way than from the sales of her own records. That's more symptomatic of the current climate than indicative of any evil on her part. Plus the ad is tasteful, uncheesy & essentially a piece of sponsored/commissioned art that has the advantage of taking her music to new audiences. With the Eno ad I suppose it's different, I can't really see any justification other than maybe he genuinely liked the film - it's certainly a stunning piece of work, and I think it's easy to forget the art and creative energies exercised in creating the film that the music accompanies. Also, I'm not sure what in the context of the article one would make of allowing music to appear on a film soundtrack, something I'm fairly sure Eno has done in the past (again hongnam, assumption on my part!); while there may be no specific product other than the films themselves, surely there are few nice things anyone could really say about the vendors; such gigantic international behemoths as 20th Century Fox, Warners, MGM etc. Dunno, I just don't think things are as clear-cut these days as they may have been when Bill Hicks said what he did. And personally I have more of a bee in my bonnet about the imperial-style arrogance of the BBC having the 'right' to use any music for any purpose they see fit than anything else discussed in this article & subsequent thread. Anyway, I'm not particularly voicing off about this, I was disagreeing silently but thought I'd mention that I didn't agree to try and show hongnam that no, you weren't going to be banned for disagreeing with your article otherwise I'd be in the unusal position of having to ban myself. A silly sentiment, and a little too obtuse for the chap, but what can you do. :)
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 07, 2005, 12:36
|
||
|
Emergency, get me some gaffa tape for my sides they are splitting. Really now, you've gotta stop with this great comedic performance. You know the bit where I said about 'the guy who accused people of saying things they didn't say'? And you know the bit where I pointed out that this had already been said, and that restating initial points, especially if they're untrue, doesn't make your point, it just makes you look silly? Think about that for a while, if you can. See if you can see why you're making yourself look sillier each post. Holy said 'And if you really are lemon, your card is marked. And yes, I'm a bastard in a banning mood.' As you've said it is a threat to ban you, and it is only a threat to ban you if you are Lemon, you have admitted that you are Lemon. Shame the Manao log-in wasn't big enough to admit that. Why anyone would want to stay on a political board that they don't really understand and are not welcome on is beyond me. What a pathetic Billy No-Mates I would feel if I could only find a place where I wasn't wanted and had nothing to contribute, (and one hosted by a musician whose new albums I'm no longer interested in), as my best option for time online. Certainly, ideas need to be examined and challenged but, as I and others have said to Lemon, Manao and Hongnam several times to no avail, making a provocative first statement and then repeating it in the face of contradictory ideas and evidence does not constitute debate. It is merely macho chest beating. Allowing it is not allowing free speech, it actually discourages worthy contributors from making valid points if they do not want to be shouted at. Really, the internet is full of places for reactionary table-thumping about things you won't/can't discuss intelligently, places where you'll be wanted and be valued. Unless, of course, that doesn't matter to you and you just enjoy making yourself look stupid in order to mildly irritate people and get in the way of their talking about things sensibly. If that's the case, then well done. But I do think that, for own sense of self-worth in the longer term, perhaps there are things a tad less futile to be doing with your time. Given that, just as with the Lemon and Manao sign-ins, Hongnam ignores considered requests to make sense and answer counterpoints, and instead picks on a small side-issue of dubious factual basis and holds on to it like an unhinged pit-bull at the expense of intelligent discussion, I for one think Holy's been to lenient already. Trying to carry the slanging matches to other boards on this site, as has been done by Lemon and Hongnam, is wholly unacceptable. It's not what the boards are for, it actively works to take the boards away from their intended and useful purpose.
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7718 posts |
Nov 07, 2005, 14:34
|
||
|
It could all be part of some huge, convoluted scheme, but hongnam's business seems not to be in books. On the other hand, I am fairly certain that Lemon had a bookshop. Anyway, whatever the truth of that, I'd like to say how impressed I am with you, Merrick. For someone who likes swearing so much, I think you've shown remarkable restraint. You stinking, arsewipe fuck-bastard. xxx
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 07, 2005, 16:02
|
||
|
>> It is an open forum, and I have as much right to contribute as anyone. We've had this one before and it's a classic. <b>None</b> of us have a right to post here! Julian could close the site tomorrow and your rights would not have been infringed would they? We are all allowed to post here. It's a privilage that can be removed from us at anytime.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 07, 2005, 20:39
|
||
|
Sorry, yeah I haven't actually explained what I disagreed with" I think you misunderstand; the 'what he didn't say' referred to you banning people for disagreeing with me. Anyway, let's deal with what you raise, let's talk about something rather than talking about talking about something. "someone over on Unsung recently accused Joanna Newsom of 'sucking corporate cock' for allowing her music to be used" Certainly, there are shades to it. Like I said in the piece, Cope's offer must've been darn tempting for someone with his creative suprlus but lack of financial security. Ditto Joanna Newsom. Even Hicks said 'if you're a struggling actor well I'll look the other way'. But with people like Eno, or Paul McCartney, or Paul Simon, they certainly have got enough money to get them through the next couple of years, and the rest of their lives, and their families too. "With the Eno ad I suppose it's different, I can't really see any justification other than maybe he genuinely liked the film." There is then the little 10 second version that Orange use, just the music voiceover and logo; the original being so striking as to make them get the same value from this edited version, one with no artisitic merit at all. "a beautiful and poigniant short film that ends with an Orange logo" let's not kid ourselves it's Orange sponsoring an exhibition or something. It's a carefully worked out advertising strategy that maximises their sales. "I personally don't think that's really selling out; it's getting value for her art" No, it's getting *more money* for her art. Now a struggling artist like her has a stronger case for making more money. But in taking the Orange money, she becomes a musician who is also a salesperson for consumer goods. " I think it's easy to forget the art and creative energies exercised in creating the film that the music accompanies. " With consumer-capitalism being the dominant power, it's also the one that hires many of the most interesting creative minds, just as absolute monarchs would hire the great composers. But those who did write to please the king ,or these days do it to please the corporation's publicity department, abdicate much of their worth as artists. They get to make stuff they'd never otherwise have made, but much of the meaning is hollowed out as it has to fit the brief of the admen. "Also, I'm not sure what in the context of the article one would make of allowing music to appear on a film soundtrack, something I'm fairly sure Eno has done in the past " yeah - Deep Blue Day in the toilet scene in Trainspotting for one. Films are different. They are made by the film companies but they are not adverts for them, in the same way that Julian recorded for Island but Jehovahkill is not an Island advert. Films are a piece of art in their own right. To allow your music in is to condone the art of the film; it is somewhere between endorsing an artist and collaborating with them. I'd rate it like letting your work be sampled. That's very different to letting it be used by people whose sole objective is to provoke emotional responses simply to get your money off you. "personally I have more of a bee in my bonnet about the imperial-style arrogance of the BBC having the 'right' to use any music for any purpose they see fit than anything else discussed in this article & subsequent thread." Yep, in a fair world getting your tune used for a highlights package should certainly require the same level of permission as getting it used for an ad or a film. With you there.
|
|||
laresident 861 posts |
Jun 08, 2006, 05:14
|
||
|
I notice that it is the turn of the late Joe Strummer to be in the crosshairs of the "did you ever sell your music to an advertiser" inquisition. http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=74 Maybe he or his his family did need the money or he thought that his grimy jeans really were a good product. I do agree with the point the rest of the article makes though. Our civilisation is truely fucked.
|
|||
radical supergirly 1 posts |
Jun 14, 2006, 21:03
|
||
|
funny you should resurrect this thread, I originally wrote the carbon offsets piece for Corporate Watch (http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2069) at around the same time as Merrick was writing the advertising-sell-out piece for U know. Our writing tends to morph into one these days. You can definitely pick out Merrick's voice in my writing and mine in his. Also check out the latest edition of the New Internationalist for more offset bashing xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
