Vent...ramble...vent...ramble...etc.

First off, of course, considering this is atd and all, this will be an off-topic post.

Second, I apologize for not being on here quite as much as I'd like for the past couple weeks. I've been busier than a son-of-a-gun (Dad's invention) and thusly haven't had a chance to *lurk* on atd, let alone post.

Third, I've been going to other forums...discussing all manner of ideas and thoughts with like-minded individuals...it's been nice, a wonderful change of pace...and everything.

Fourth, um, I *DO* have AIM and ICQ...*ahem*...only two people I've chatted with from here in the past couple weeks (i.e. who know I'm alive and all) are Jordan and Mindy, two totally bitchin' and happenin' folks.

Fifth...I've been looking 'round a bit to see if I could find a Visage mp3..."Fade to Grey"...I like *adore* that song and all...no such luck...but I've been hitting the New Romantics sites quite well, thankyouverymuch.

Sixth...FATHER MARTIN, YOU ROCK!!! YOU WILL BE MY ICON!!!!

Seventh...EBAY ROCKS TOO! *giggle* Just got my hands on a Japan/David Sylvian *VIDEO COLLECTION*...OMG...this one has not *ONLY* "Visions of China" on it, but *also* "Gentlemen Take Polaroids", "Quiet Life", "Cantonese Boy", and so many other songs on there...*and* it's been so cool seeing some of the live concert footage...Masami Tsuchiya...wow.

Eighth...abunchofotherstuffhappenedandit'sreallyboringandordepressingsoI'lljustshutupaboutitnowandjusttellyousomeoftheotherstuffthathappenedtomewasn'tquitenice.

(yikes, that's gonna mess up the formatting of this message)

Okie doke, I'm done.

LI

"Lady Interference" wrote in message news:[email]...

\|/
8-)
/|\

I think the 1980s map of Birmingham and the West Midlands (I put it in with the video) might be a better icon for a hardcore Duranie!

Sorry to hear that. 8-(

Martin.

On Mon, 01 May 2000 04:37:10 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:

Did you try Napster? A quick search shows it on two dfferent servers, both T3 or faster.

Brian wrote:

As a matter of fact, the following morning after posting that, I downloaded the Napster program because I was sick of trying to wade through the ftp ballyhoo I was running up against online, and just like THAT I finally found the "Fade to Grey" mp3! It's beautiful, too. Also found the original "Der Kommissar" by Falco (FINALLY) and some nifty, neato Kraftwerk mp3s. I've also been sharing my own mp3s, and today someone actually downloaded one I made (the 12" version of "Life in Tokyo" by Japan)...it works pretty good so I'm hoping they're satisfied.

Addicted to Napster, now (although it got kinda irritating when I was trying to download an mp3 ["Pocket Calculator" by Kraftwerk] and two people were uploading from my mp3s...I only have a 56K modem),

LI

On Tue, 02 May 2000 21:12:51 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:

Well it's good you're not into heavy metal, apparently Metalica are trying to take action against _all_ the Napster users who have their songs. Around 300,000 of them!

I guess, but the whole thing only works if you share. But I'm on ethernet so can afford to be a bit smug. But it is great for grabbing things like end credit songs you happen to like after using Outpost Daria to find out what they are.

In article ,

Humm somehow I don't think thy'll succeed, they may be able to bring a succesfull case against napster.com, but agains 300,000 people each case would probably have to be considdered independently....if they persued this they could end up bankrupt alas. Also I would think that if this comes to be know it might put potential fans off them.....the thinking going something like..."Metallica...oh yeah the band that tries to prosicute it's fans for listening to it's music", I'm sure that'll go down real well with people.

Actually the copyright laws (cirtainly in the UK) really do need a big overhaul, with the internet and new forms of reproduction available.

Silly music releated UK law, strictly if you have a casette/cd player in your car playing a copy of an original (i.e. bought in shops) cassette/cd, and you have the windows of the car open, then you can tecnically be prosicuted for giving a public performance :)

Yeah that's how I fist came by a copy of Cake's "Daria" :) actually I find if I download enough to get into a group, I'll generally go out and buy their music anyway, and just use the mp3 to listen to at work or on the computer, same has always been true if I have copied music from friends/ library or whatever, I'll generally at a later date either re-use the tape or go out and buy an official copy :)

Disclaimer: the contents of this post are my opinion and in no way are intended to advocate or support piracy.

Phill.

Technically they're in the right, an as Napster *pretend* their software is intended for legal mp3's they will throw off anybody who shown to be trading copyrighted tracks. So Metallica's trying to get these 300,000 users thrown out.

Of course just because they're acting within their rights doesn't mean they're not action like complete idiots.

BTW It only took about 12 hours for somebody to hack the Metallica website and put up "Leave Napster Alone!".

On Thu, 04 May 2000 13:33:42 +0100, Michel Morton wrote:

Personally, I think they have a lot of guts. They are going to provoke quite a reaction with this suit. I, personally, tend to support the concept of a copyright (which Napster flagrantly violates). Sure, the folks who made Napster didn't do anything that was *technically* illegal, but the results is obvious.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with making a cassette from a CD and giving it to a friend. Extending beyond that, there's nothing wrong with making an MP3 and giving it to a friend. But there is a *world* of difference between that, and making an MP3 and making it generally available.

But, my musings take me to this concept. The purpose of the copyright is twofold. One, intellectual integrity must be maintained. This means no copying a song, tweaking it a bit, and saying you wrote it. Two, the producers of great things should be rewarded, the same rationale as for a patent. But, I can't help but wonder if, in this age where information can be transfered at the speed of light anywhere in the world, any time (okay, maybe not quite yet, but you get the picture), perhaps the second concept isn't truely necessary. Perhaps things like Napster, while pissing off the big names, are actually facilitating the distribution of the music of a smaller name... making it possible for such smaller bands, if they have the talent, to profit off of concerts, sooner (since there simply is nothing like a live performance).

i think it was pretty much inevitable. people want music, record shops/companies charge way too much for it, so people 'steal' it. if music didn't cost so much, napster wouldn't have been so much of a problem. i think metallica are fucking hypocrites. i doubt they've never copied tapes off their friends.

[email] (Bright Happy Colorful Pony of Love) wrote in :

Indeed and as Paul McGiuniss(sp?) (manager of U2), once said in answer to the "home taping is killing music" campain of the early 80's, it's not killing music, it's spreading it...as I previously said, if I copy a tape/cd/record/whatever if I like the artist in question I'll actually go out and buy their cd's, quite oftern everything I can get my hands on.

What really pisses me off is that CDs though cheapest to produce cost the most, yes I know the quality argument and it's bullshit (sorry about that people). I wouldn't mind so much if the artist got a larger cut of what I pay for a CD/tape/record, but they don't.

Indeed. Going back to U2, they don't do live albums any more (ok, they do do live videos, but that's a different thing), they just get the BBC to broadcast (normally) 1 UK/Ireland(sp?) concert per tour and basically say "if you want a live album, tape it off air", hell they even printed a cassette inlay in one of the music mags for one such concert and got slated for encouraging piracy. Thing is it's their music which they own the copyright to so they have perfect right to give it away if they want.

Phill.

In article ,

Try to respond to 3 at once here. I tend to agree here as well with the concept of copyrights. It's not just in music, it's in many aspects of culture, people who come up with new technological advances should reap those benefits, not someone who copied the idea off the internet, same in the medical, musical, entertainment fields. The ones whodo the work are the ones who deserve to reap the benefits of their hard work. Imagine working hard on a project for lets say a year of your life, it's finally perfected, and shortly after you see your hard work sprouting up all over, what that is and what Napster has done is equal to stealing. These laws have to be changed in order to protect the creators of these ideas better, this case ma go towards getting the ball rolling on such laws.

You see I do that too, if I hear someone I like, I'll check out their CD as well, but not everyone is like you or me. A lot of people will just take it off that site, download it and never pay a cent for it. That's what's wrong here, and that's who Metallica are fighting this over. The cheap people unwilling to go out and buy the CD.

I agree with this point and Alli's, if the music industry wasn't overcharging their product, there would be less people like I described above. (Most entertainment stars, music, film, sports, TV, and many associated with them, are all vastly overpaid for the work they do, getting paid millions of dollars to be on a TV show, or do a movie, or sing is way too much, yes, they deserve to be compensated more for their efforts as they're at the top of their fields, but not in millions. Pass some of that money back to the people who made you rich in the first place, lower the prices, this is just my opinion, sorry for going off on a tangent) This may sound hypocritical to what I said above, I just agree with the idea of copyrights and they shouldn't be violated, but go easier on the prices of their product, and you wouldn't have as many of these problems, hopefully new laws are drawn up soon to combat this, so lawsuits like this don't become commonplace.

Call them whatever you want, I believe they're right in this matter, I admit to bias here, however, as they're one of if not my favorite band ever. Sites like that ruin it for all the fans who go out to concerts and purchase all the merchandise fairly. The true fans will show their support by buying what they can and showing it off proudly. These fans can introduce others to the music without violating copyright laws like this. It may not be a popular opinion, but as said above I support Metallica's decision on this matter, you do the work, you deserve all that is due to you, my rant above nonwithstanding.

A.J.

[email] wrote in :

Speaking as someone who is currently part (ok, ok a very small part) of an open source quake port, I'd rather see people using my work/ideas than have evryone just ignoring what I've worked on. The project incidentally (as all quake & now doom source ports), is GPL, which means that yes if we wanted to we could charge for it, but so can anyone who has a copy, also we must provide a copy of the source on request.

No, Napster have done no stealing themselves, they have just provided a service to allow people to exchange files (specifically mp3 files). This is like saying that the post office is stealing if I send an illeagal copy of something by post. Ok, maybe you could get them on 'aiding people to break the law' but that's about all.

I agree that perhaps the laws need changing, but as ever the changes will probably be either way too hevey handed or too little too late.

Also often I'll download copies of stuff that I have at home on CD (if I say CD I really mean 'original media' so CD/Tape/Record/Video/Whatever), to either listen to at work, or on the computer, which I suppose is no different from makeing a copy on tape to listen to in the car/on a portable. Yes I realise that this is also techincally illeagal, but while I'm lisening to the mp3, I'm not playing the CD, so if you view purchasing the CD as a licence to listen to 1 copy then morally I'm not doing anything wrong.

Though there would always be people that won't pay for stuff, yes making the prices cheaper would cut the problem down. I personally would rather have an original, than a copy even if the copy is a perfect one. Which it is with a CD copy...ever noticed how you can get CD recorders that are Hi- fi units, but they need special disks that are about 4x the price of normal recordables, despite the fact that normal recordables work as well. It's an atempt to try and cut down on this sorta thing. Also you where aware that most major record companies used to and probably still do have major shares in the companies making the blank media, they are not stupid they realise that people will copy stuff, so they thing that they may as well have a cut of it. I think why mp3 annoys them so much is that it removes this need for blank media (ok you still need something to store your mp3 files on but a CD full of mp3 files is several normal CD's worth of music). Another reason I'd rather have an original as well is that the quality of mp3 is not as good as CD, hell some badly recorded mp3's I've heard sound worse than some of my 10 year old tapes.

I'm *NOT* getting into an argeument of what constitutes a "true" fan :)

Well we shall see....

Phill. again nothing in this post is intended to imply support for ileagal activities.

Actually, I think what you are doing is technically legal, as long as you don't distribute the copied materials to anyone (i.e. they're for your own "personal use" only). I think the problems some artists are having with Napster has nothing to do with people making copies of things but with people exchanging them. So you can make as many copies of recorded music as you want as long as you don't give them away or profit from them (without permission, and royalties)

Mike Quinn [email]

In article ,

It's still technically breaking the law. They're distributing copies of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owners, it may be a different crime, but it is still a crime.

Unfortunately, you're right here, there is just so much material going on with the internet that it would be virtually impossible to regulate it all, it may be too little too late already, but they must at least try and do something.

So would I, but then again you get the cheap and lazy people, who will take what they can get, I'm not implying you are, or anyone else here, I'm just saying that for some people out there it doesn't make a difference, htey willtake what they can get because it's free.

Which it

It's still lost money for the people who worked hard to produce and create these songs. It's much easier to get an illegal copy today than it was even 10 years ago, with the internet and all, yet that also means there are more ways to find out about certain bands than taking the copyrighted stuff.

Fair enough:-P These fans

A.J.

[email] wrote in :

[snip!]

That's like saying that if I send you an MP3, then the person who wrote my email program is breaking the law. The way I believe napster works is that napster.org just acts as a contact point and centeral database, the actual transfers of files go pretty much direct user to user. An analogy(sp?) might be handy...

• I email you and say 'you got a copy of xxx, can you mail it to me'
• you say yeah I have a copy want me to send it to ya'
• I say yeah sure
• you send it to me.

The people breaking the law here are you and I, not the people who wrote our mailer software, our OS's (ok this is a debateable point with MS :) ), built our computers etc...

And in some ways it can't be as regualted as some people would like, after all some people would like to be able to shut down all sites of a cirtain type, this hopefully is not gonna happen. Finding that happy ballance between regulation and censorship is going to be quite difficult. [Snip!]

True. [more snippage]

Phill.

In article , [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

True, butt...

..I think there's an important distinction you're glossing over with this analogy

The problem with Napster is that it was created with the intent of exchanging pirated music while your normal email program wasn't. The creators of Napster knew what there software was going to be used for and created it for that purpose, so in that sense, they are just as responsible as their users.

It is a very important distincion.

Mike Quinn [email]

[email] (Michael J. Quinn) wrote in :

I dunno there are mp3 files that it is ligitimate to own and distribute, napster was created to allow people to share files, ok I acknolege that they are shareing illeagal files, but that doesn't make napster IMHO responsible for those files.

Phill.

In article ,

Granted, it would be hard to definitively prove that Napster was intended to violate copyrights (they just say that it's for the legitimate MP3's) but it doesn't look to good for them, either.

You're right, it doesn't make them responsible for the files themselves. But, they've become a target because of their users.

Mike Quinn [email]

In article ,

Yep. Essentially while they may not actually be committing the crimes themselves, they are accessories to the crime, which any way you slice it, is still illegal. The middleman in this case is getting all the blame, and rightfully so, now if there was a way to get to all those committing the actual crime....

A.J.

In article ,

I think I get what you're getting at now, about who actualy commits the crime. Napster in this case is still an accessory to the crime, the middleman in this case. Not as serious, yet still illegal.

Very true, these are complex times were living in, too bad we can't settle things back like we did as little kids, very simply, instead of throwing in all sorts of complexities.

People like those above, the cheapies, are the ones who most contribute to this problem, and the music industry as well, due to these cheap people, the prices go up to make up for lost sales, which may alienate more people, and cause more to go the cheap route, which raise the prices even more...

<Quinn> Pretty soon it's like one of those vicious THINGS! </Quinn>

Had to throw something on topic in here :-)

A.J.

[email] wrote:

yes.. i can't afford to pay �15 for a CD very often. i don't often download mp3s, but that's only because i'm lazy and i can't be bothered with all the downloading, burning onto CD, etc. if CDs were realistically priced, i would *buy* them.

CD singles are usually very cheap, but they're just there to make people buy the album. i don't *want* current music anyway, it's all crap. ;p

they're right, but they're still hypocrites.

*of course* they deserve royalties etc, but i don't see them going around to all the bands they've ripped off by copying tapes etc (i don't believe there's any normal adult who's never taped copyrighted music) and giving them the money *they* deserve. until they do this, they are selfish hypocrites.

On Thu, 11 May 2000 16:07:09 +0100, Bright Happy Colorful Pony of Love wrote:

I haven't :P

Then again, I'm not entirely normal.

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

[email] (Nicole Lee) wrote in :

Never ? and I take it we mean by 'taped' recorded in any manner, so mp3, CDR and the like also count, infact hell so would videoing somthing off the telly. Ok this is permisable by law in most places, but cirtainly under UK law you are supposed to delete the copies within 14 days, as it is intended to allow you to have a copy that you can watch at your convenience, not a permenant copy.

That is normal for this group.

Phill.

On Fri, 12 May 2000 08:49:36 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

I believe the question was as to whether I have ever taped any copyrighted *MUSIC*. As far as that goes, I've never done it. Yes, that includes MP3s, CDRs, etc. I admit I have downloaded mp3s before, but that doesn't mean I was the one that actually recorded them.

But as for taping shows off telly, of coures I've done that. How else am I going to get that Daria collection, considering those buffoons at MTV aren't even showing reruns nowadays.

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

[email] (Nicole Lee) wrote in :

And there isn't copyrighted *MUSIC* in Daria ? And Videotapes count as 'taping' you know :) All the same it's still technically illeagal, well to keep them for any length of time anyway.

Phill.

THat's probably why the entertainment industry is so keen on those new hard disk based, digital video recorders with a built in 20 hour capacity. And also why there's no chance whatsoever they'll ever catch on with the public.

[email] (Michel Morton) wrote in :

Yes unless they offer some way of saving the recorded work, for example streamin it to video tape....in which case why not just buy a video tape recorder :)

Phill.

Bright Happy Colorful Pony of Love wrote:

Nobody can really object to paying artists for their efforts. It's just contributing to the record profits (sorry) of the profiteering record companies that pisses people off.

What's really needed is a secure mechanism for distribution that can collect money, this can cut out the record companies as they're nothing but middle men. In the past, when mass distribution of music needed a factory to make actual physical media and mass publicity to sell the things then they had a role. Now they're just parasites on both the artists and the public. The sooner they're all bankrupt, the better.

There is a ghastly neologism for this process, deintermedisiation. It's likely to be a trend in the near future. But I suspect media distribution companies will try to use various means to try and preserve their position even though their existence is unnecessary..

In article , [email] wrote:

I agree, if the damned things weren't so expensive, there would be less of this problem, it wouldn't go away completely, but there would be less of it going about.

Point taken. If they did, and I agree that they probably did, then you're right, they are hypocrites.

Back when they were starting off in 1981 or 82, MTV was in its infancy, no one knew what it would become, so copying on tape from the radio was pretty much the only way to copy music, and you could distribute it amongst your friends, and maybe a few others, not very damaging, in fact very helpful back then to distribute a bands sound to the public 1) Today with the internet, MTV and other music channels across the globe, there are many more chances to hear a band these days, 2) with the internet it can be distributed to nearly anywhere on the planet, an illegal copy can be spread much more rapidly and to many more people than back in 1981, thus resulting in a PITA for bands, and the loss of a great deal of money for them. I don't deny that what they did is hypocritical, but it does more damage to them today, then to those that they copied from in the 70's and early 80's.

All I'm saying is that some type of new laws must be enacted, to somehow slow this trend on the internet of taking copyrighted material, but there is so much of it out there that they would have a real tough time regulating it, I agree, but something must be done.

A.J.

On Sun, 07 May 2000 12:41:09 +0100, Bright Happy Colorful Pony of Love wrote:

Metallica hasn't been heavy metal since their black album.

Mainstream hard rock, perhaps, but not metal.

That I'll agree with, though.

[email] (Glenn Olson) wrote in :

Carefull with your attributions there I didn't say any of that :)

Phill.

On Thu, 11 May 2000 08:33:38 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Dammit. Do you know how many times I've flamed others for making that same mistake? And I *even knew* when I was half done it, that I'd have to go back and fix the attributions before posting it.

I deserve to be whipped. (And *not* by any of the female readers here, cause I'd enjoy that too much.)

[email] (Glenn Olson) wrote in :

Heheheh I forgive you.

<butthead> uhuhuhuhu that would be cool uhuhuhuh </butthead>

Phill.

I think that would be a good thing, I hate people who play their car stereos so loud you can hear it in the street, especially as it's always incredibly braindead music that consists of little more than a beat. Better still would be to have music-activated machine guns at each street corner that were triggered by any passing music over 90dB.

-Shez.

[email] (Shez) wrote in :

Machine guns Heheheh :)

Yeah but the people you talk about...the one's who's stereos draw more power than driving the car does :) would probably think your music crap as well....ok so you don't go around inflicting it upon all...but then again your skull is probably not all bone, so you respond to other components of music besides the ones that set off eathquake warnings.....(this *HAS* been done, by one quite well known group back in the 80's at an outdoor concert they played in the US). Actually I'm convinced that the people with the loud stereos just use them as a propulsion system :)

Phill.

On Thu, 4 May 2000 02:28:53 +0100, Shez wrote:

In small-town Illinois, I just yell at those people "Guess what, you aren't black!"

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Kyl� wrote in message news:8esr6j$ied$[email]...

cassette/cd,

Why should that be only allowed to black people? Isn't that kind of racist? I like listening to hardcore techno stuff on systems like that. I don't have on yet as I'm getting a new car but my boyfriend has one. I don't listen to rap but I like stuff with lots of bass in it. (Interesting thing...the Japanese pokemon album has TONS of bass on it and rattled everything more than anything else in my boyfriends car...truck as he calls it since it's an SUV)

I just had to respond because I feel that saying one type of music or style or etc. is limited to one race is a form of racism and that is one of those things I adamantly hate.

Melissa

On Fri, 5 May 2000 07:32:39 -0500, "Melissa Cowan" wrote:

Fair enough. But the even though the word denotes a race, the context describes a culture. The people, through the way they are listening to that music, are declaring themselves to be of a culture they are not truly of. I don't apologize for pointing that out.

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

I just thought of this, would you yell at black people if they chose to listen to classical music quietly while driving in their car? That music isn't from their culture.

Melissa

On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:49:11 -0500, "Melissa Cowan" wrote:

Even though I've already bowed out on this one, I will point out that I didn't say "from a culture", I said "implies a culture". Perception and reality are two different things.

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:49:11 -0500, "Melissa Cowan" wrote:

No. It's quiet, and doesn't suck.

Rap (hip-hop, R&B whatever) sucks. Whether it's Lauryn Hill, Dr. Dre or Eminem.

[email] (Glenn Olson) wrote in :

In your opinion of course, in the opinion of the people playing the music it doesn't suck :)

Phill.

On Tue, 9 May 2000 08:33:04 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Everything sucks.

Oh dear, we're going to get back into that thread again, aren't we?

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

[email] (Nicole Lee) wrote in :

hehehe of course :)

Phill.

On Tue, 9 May 2000 08:33:04 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

They don't count. They obviously have lousy hearing, considering the volume they usually play it at; therefore, they can't possibly hear why it sucks.

R & B is pretty rarely played loudly. It happens to be the most poo-est genre on earth, but that's not the point. Rap can be excellent when it's politically conscious, I'd say. Like all French Rap is excellent, largely 'cos French shows much better so you don't have to punctuate lines with "uh-huhs" the whole time...

On Thu, 11 May 2000 23:07:04 +0100, "Greg Pallis" wrote:

R&B can be good once in a while. Usually it's Pop-Diva-Crap, but occasionally they get a good song.

That's the only thing Rap is good for. (Well, that and occasionally stumbling apon a decent beat that will quickly get swarmed by all the dance/pop vultures and beaten to death.)

Which is why, even when he writes like a spoiled brat who finally got told 'no,' (you disappear for a year in the music industry *of course* people are gonna forget you) I can actually listen to Dr. Dre.

What about the fact that the roots of rock, which is now predominately white, were in music that was predominately black? People were biased against rock when it first started because of that. Now it has become a predominately white form of music and you probably wouldn't have a problem with these same people if they were driving around without subwoofers in their car listening to rock would you? Is that really any different? And how does they *way* you listen to music associate you with a particular culture? If we never shared our forms of culture with other people it would be a truly sad and boring place to live don't you think? You live near Chicago right? Don't you enjoy all the many forms of food, music, art etc. that aren't from whatever your ethnic background or your culture is? I enjoy going to see Blues concerts but I may not be the same culture as the performers, I like the Latin music festival but I'm not Latin, I enjoy Oriental art but I'm not Oriental. Why can't I listen to music with a loud subwoofer without criticism from people who feel that I shouldn't because I'm "not black?"

Melissa

On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:38:02 -0500, "Melissa Cowan" wrote:

You know what, I guess I'm just gonna have to plead guilty as charged, promise not to do it again, and throw myself upon the mercy of the court. You totally nailed my scrotum to the wall on this one. Lesson learned graciously.

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Okay, you are forgiven :) I just get very annoyed when people make comments like that. I just can't abide racism in any form. But thank you for being open-minded enough to listen/read my responses.

Melissa

i don't think she has nailed your scrotum to the wall, so to speak.. i think you're talking about slightly different things.

And I really wasn't trying to be mean, just rallying againt percieved injustices or slight racism. I wasn't really trying to sound harsh. Sorry if I did.

Melissa

Not at all, actually. We all have our pet peeves.

On Mon, 8 May 2000 16:06:34 -0500, "Melissa Cowan" wrote:

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

"Kyl�" wrote in message news:8f700b$45c$[email]...

I propose that, since you've shown contrition and admitted your guilt, your punishment be confined to having your recently acquired extra syllable confiscated for a week.

(It's weird, Kyl�, thinking of you phonetically as Kie-lay when I used "hear" Kile.)

All those in agreement gather in the parade ground to see Kyl� stripped of his accent, to become Kyle again for a week.

<sound fx of muffled drums rolling>

Martin.

On Mon, 8 May 2000 22:23:33 +0100, "Martin Sylvester" wrote:

Actually, I'm pretty sure the proper pronunciation of my old name was "Kie-yul". Lazy english speakers (which is everyone), remove the "y" sound.

Besides, you can take my freedom, but you'll never take... MY TILD�!!!!!!!!!

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

yes. rock music has evolved, and is now associated mostly with white people.

it's not sharing culture in this case, it's acting as you believe a black person would, because you think being or acting black is 'in'. the black people probably laugh at them.

do you dress up and act like a stereotypical oriental person, though?

as i understand it: kyle is not annoyed with white people listening to 'black' music, he is annoyed by white people listening to 'black' music and going "yo sup bro we's so cool", and trying to be fucking.. gangsta rappers or something. as i said, black people on the whole probably find it amusing/ insulting. a while ago over here there was this pseudo-indian fad, where everyone went around in bindis and stuff. i was in a clothes shop at around this time, and there were these two muslim girls looking at the indian style clothes and laughing and going 'look, they're stealing our culture! hahaha".

culture?

<snip> i understand it:

Actually, the original message was about people who play their stereo loud with subwoofers, not what they listen to as much as how they listen to it. I/my boyfriend listen to music this way and we aren't trying to be anything or culture we aren't but simply like heavy bass music. I think that made me more um...not really mad just a little ticked than anything. I suppose it had some to do with the style of music but more to do with the fact that these people are driving around with subwoofers blaring their music and rattling everything around them.

Melissa

"Bright Happy Colorful Pony of Love" wrote in message news:[email]...

Oh, come on, really! Alli! "Bright Happy Colorful Pony of Love?" What have they done to you? <shudders> The horror, the horror.

I do assure you, alli, in all seriousness, I didn't! <g>

That fad was so well satirised in _Goodness Gracious Me_. I'm thinking especially of the "Trendy bloke dumps Asian girlfriend for Irish one, now Celtic culture is hotter than Asian culture" sketch, and I suppose to a lesser extent the "English restaurant in India" one. Though I suppose the latter was more about lager-induced bravado and condescension to restaurant staff.

Martin.

Martin Sylvester wrote in message news:8f7cav$ktk$[email]...

restaurant

Do you mean the one in which the indian parents warn the boy not to order the most boring food on the menu, as he will not be able to eat it?

I still laugh, when i recal that

"Paul Gate" wrote in message news:8f7gbe$ggn$[email]...

That's one I missed! I was thinking of the one with the lads out for an English after a night in the pub, with one of them ordering the blandest thing on the menu to show off to his mates.

GGM is arguably the funniest sketch show on TV. Wish I'd got a chance to see GGM Live!

Martin.

good. ;) me neither, fwiw.

oh yes, i was thinking of that when i wrote it.

don't recall either of those.. i do remember that version they did of pulp's 'common people', as 'hindi people' or something.. about a white girl dressing like an indian girl because it was trendy.

"Bright Happy Colorful Pony of Love" wrote in message news:[email]...

Oh, I'd forgotten that one! Equally good.

Martin.

Bright Happy Colorful Pony of Love of

I hope we're not going to get into an Ali-G discussion here.

-Shez.

Shez said:

But then the guys in the armored cars wouldn't feel special and elite anymore! I think machines that spew that nasty liquid butter and balls of spam would be pretty funny...

cheryl