Hard To Handle Guitar Solo 1971/08/06

Postby amyjared » Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:39 am

Strumminsix, (and others): Thank you for your thoughtful and well voiced reply. I am not trying to upset you or anyone else, and I hope you don't take my responses personally. I just have a difference of opinion. Let me see if I can respond as eloquently.
Thirdly, Phil, keep reading you stopped after you read one article. Since that time he said Bobby made the right decision after all this went down and made a very tough, but correct decision. Phil did not say what you said he said ("It was brought to my attention that all of the Grateful Dead shows were taken down from Archive.org right before Thanksgiving. I was not part of this decision making process and was not notified that the shows were to be pulled. I do feel that the music is the Grateful Dead's legacy and I hope that one way or another all of it is available for those who want it . I have enjoyed using Archive.org and found it invaluable during the writing of my book. I found myself being pulled back in time listening to old Grateful Dead shows while giggling with glee or feeling that ache in my heart listening to Jerry's poetic guitar and sweet voice.
We are musicians not businessmen and have made good and bad decisions on our journey. We do love and care about our community as you helped us make the music. We could not have made this kind of music without you as you allowed us to play "without a net". Your love, trust and patience made it possible for us to try again the next show when we couldn't get that magic carpet off the ground. Your concerns have been heard and I am sure are being respectfully addressed."

So, where does Phil agree with Bobby and say that SB's should be pulled?
Fourthly, trading, downloading from a server is not trading. The band never allowed mass distribution of their music they allowed person-to=person trades without an exchange of money even if it were just the cost of the media
This is a matter of semantics. There where no downloads during the Dead's heyday and the argument is moot. It's like discussing whether Thomas Jefferson would have approved of the microwave oven. It wasn't available. I think that downloading and trading is one in the same. You are free to disagree with this and I don't think we could reach a mutual agreement. Sorry.
Fifthly, Dick's Picks, why would anyone in their right mind buy a $30 CD when you can have nearly the same quality free?
You're gonna laugh at my answer, but here goes: To support the band. I own almost all their DVD's, and most of Dick's Pick's. They are far better than the free downloads that I got off of Archives.
Sixthly, the GD paid royalties to people whose music they cover. It's the same reason Ed & Gregg took down many tabs all because of royalties. It's simple finances. The GD performed the music people got SBDs and now artists are not getting their royalties they deserve.
This goes back to the tablature argument of which I also disagree with. If I play Midnight Hour in my bar band in some dive in Carborro, do I have to pay for it? Should every band who does a cover have to pay? I say no.
Finally, the point that too many emotional people lost is that we never should have had the SBDs to begin with and just fucking appreciate what we have.
You may be right about this, but the fact is that they are incredibly prevalent, so much so that I don't think it was done without some knowledge and "looking the other way" by the band.
AUDs are what Jerry was referring to
AUDs are what you cannot get on DPs
AUDs are what the fans own
How can you be so sure?
It's really laughable that people are mad at someone who made a decision that they were legally obligated to do.
I'm not mad at all. If I came off as such, I apologize. I'm just disappointed in a decision I feel is not warranted.
Ya, sure you were a loyal fan but they worked their assess off while a bunch of kids got stoned and listened for 30 fucking years and your position is well I bought concert tickets and CDs and should never have had SBDs to begin with but was fortunate enough to so now I think I deserve them even if that means that people who supported the organization get canned
I like this point. One must realize that Bobby and the rest have a life I could only dream about. They get to play music on many nights to hundreds of thousands (though tapes) of people, party, get laid, and adored by fans all over the world. They make millions in the process. They started a whole generation on taping and searching out the best quality tapes of each show, and then when an avenue becomes available, they shut it down and quickly change their mindset. Barlow still is bummed about it. I do thank them for their talent. I am still a huge fan.
That attitude of gimme, gimme, gimme is what KILLED the scened. Add one part GIMME and one part TouchHead and you wonder why the scene turned to shit.
If that is the case, then I truly apologize. I was in/on the scene from '81 on and I think I'm not part of the 'gimme' people. I paid for shows. I bought cd's. I can site numerous examples of giving to the Dead and the scene where others didn't. I never expected a free ticket. In fact, I never, NEVER said "I NEED a miracle, or even I NEED a ticket." I always said "WANT" because that is really what it boiled down to and I disagreed with the "gimme" people. I'm sorry if I give off that vibe, because that is not what I'm trying to portray. I don't feel they should gimme, or that I need. I only want it and I still haven't seen an argument that has swayed me. But, again, thanks for the eloquent response. -amyjared

PS. Did you check out the link?
"The only funeral you should ever try to interrupt is your own, and that should be a full-time job." -Kinky Friedman
User avatar
amyjared
Senior Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:11 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Postby ebick » Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:17 am

This goes back to the tablature argument of which I also disagree with. If I play Midnight Hour in my bar band in some dive in Carborro, do I have to pay for it? Should every band who does a cover have to pay? I say no.


I'm afraid you've missed the point there. No one's saying that if you play Midnight Hour in a bar you have to pay royalties, although I would speculate that if it weren't an impossible thing to police, you would.

If someone records you playing it for personal use, it's up to you whether or not you want to allow it (as a policy....they could always attempt to do it without your knowledge). If you (or someone else) records you playing it and then attempts to sell it (or professionally distribute it), then you have a royalty issue.

That's where the tabs come in. No, we were not selling them, but there's another party who owns they copyright to those songs and thus the rights of sale or distribution. Without receiving permission from the party in question*, (permission which we have received from Ice Nine Publishing with regard to the Grateful Dead material) we were distributing copywritten material and thus in a compromised position.

So think about that when you go hatin' on the evil corporate Bobby! The Dead sell what we have here (sheet music to their songs), and yet they continue to allow us to post tabs of their songs.


*Take a look at a CD where an artist under contract with a competing label appears on that CD, like Mark Knopfler on Bob Dylan's Infidels:

Mark Kopfler appears courtesy of Warner Bros. Records, Inc.


They have to receive permission as well.
User avatar
ebick
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby phpbb » Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:43 am

I think that the law states that you are allowed to stand up anywhere in the United States and sing any song you want without having to ask permission from the artist, even if you get paid to do it. (Of course this doesn't stop someone else from telling you to shut up) However, if you can't learn the song by ear, and have to use lyrics and chords to help, you must either buy the lyrics and chords from the artist's authorized avenues, or have their permission to use them. which could be for pay or for free depending on the artist.

If you or someone records the event where you randomly stood up and sang a song, the person recording the song would need permission from each artist to burn that on a CD.

This type of arguement was just fought in court regarding internet porn. A judge ruled that a person infringed on an owners copyright because he downloaded porn from the web and burned it onto a CD. By this recent ruling, People who download Midnight Hour sung by the Grateful Dead from Archive.org without permission from the copyright holder would be infringing on Copyright laws.
User avatar
phpbb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 9:37 pm

Postby ebick » Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:18 am

again, an unpoliceable action....unless you attempt distribution.

But the points you make about performing.....I don't what Kenny's source was, but he mentioned McCartney having to ask permission and or pay Yoko to perform certain Beatle's songs......and I'm not sure that that could be true.
User avatar
ebick
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby amyjared » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:25 am

I'm afraid you've missed the point there. No one's saying that if you play Midnight Hour in a bar you have to pay royalties, although I would speculate that if it weren't an impossible thing to police, you would.

I'm sorry, I did miss the point, and was only trying to show that I disagree. The record companies have long since screwed the artists out of their rights and are now claiming they are going after tab sites FOR their artists, which is a lie. They are trying to make more money. I own tons of tab books and will continue to buy them, but often the artist doesn't have one and I'm a poor player by ear, I learn from the books and magazines and websites. I think if a fan has a website with personal interpretations of songs, they should be allowed to do that. The Dylanchords site was one of the best, as is your site. I think if the record companies accorded the person their original rights, you wouldn't have to pay for using Midnight Hour and I don't believe you should because it's the Dead's version, not the original. It's like when some supermarket says they lost x millions last year to theft and then turn around and report it was their biggest year ever for profits. They didn't "lose" anything, they just think they should have made more and that is a dirty lie. Michael Jackson bought all the rights to the Beatles songs. How can that be?!? Paul and John wrote them and don't own them anymore?!? That's ugly, plain and simple. What I feel, and I realize I'm in the minority on this, is that if an artist has a song big enough for mass consumption, sells x amount of cd's, performs live to sell out crowds, etc., they have made plenty on that song and if someone chooses to interpret it on the web, without making any profit, it should be tolerated. That's all I was trying to convey. Sorry to rub you guys the wrong way. I feel the same about the Dead's live music and was trying to convey that message. Peace, -amyjared

However, if you can't learn the song by ear, and have to use lyrics and chords to help, you must either buy the lyrics and chords from the artist's authorized avenues, or have their permission to use them. which could be for pay or for free depending on the artist.


That works fine, as I own tab books, but what if they don't put them out? Or they deny permission because the performers are fine with it, but the company isn't and they deny's you permission (which happens)? IMHO, I think it's the highest form of flattery to tab out a song and post it on the web.
"The only funeral you should ever try to interrupt is your own, and that should be a full-time job." -Kinky Friedman
User avatar
amyjared
Senior Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:11 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Postby strumminsix » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:11 am

[quote]It's like when some supermarket says they lost x millions last year to theft and then turn around and report it was their biggest year ever for profits. They didn't "lose" anything, they just think they should have made more and that is a dirty lie.[/quote]

Most absurd comment I've ever read here.

Please you are turning this into a capitalist = bad thing.

If someone steals your car and you can affort a new one you weren't stolen from? No you just cry cuz it's big business and that's bad. Whatever, that's pathetic.

If the boys want to make more money go for it!

If you can't figure out how to play a song, sucks to be you.

What you fail to comprehend is that nobody here is complaining about people in person-to-person relationships teaching a song or performing a song or even trading SBDs. It's the mass population on the internet that is the problem.

For crying out loud I am amazed at the mentality of people who can say things like that. How is it not an economic loss when a company has things stolen from them just cuz they can cover it?

Well that loss makes for higher prices for you and I. It makes for people being laid off work. It risks a companies ability to stay open. But then if it closes and 50,000 lose their jobs you'll complain about that too won't you?
User avatar
strumminsix
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6647
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Chicago

Postby ebick » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:51 am

well, you're not rubbin' anybody the wrong way, least not me and I think I can safely speak for Gregg when I say that. All opinions are welcome, and the issue is a very hot, and still not completely defined topic.

If I was to comment on your last post I'd have to say it sounds like ya got a pair of Rose colored glasses. Don't take offense, in principal I agree with you on most points. It's just not the way the world works.

It doesn't matter if ABC grocier made a million dollars. If 100K worth of stuff was stolen, that's money they lost, no matter how you slice it. They don't have a "net" loss, but it is a loss.

The Beatles/Michael Jackson thing sucks, but at some point, The artist sold all or some of the rights to the song to another party. Once that happens, it's tough nuggies. That party can then do what they want with it including selling it to anyone they want or charging for usage.

Let's say you start a business. You own it. You make all the decisions. At some point, because you have done such an outstanding job at building your business, you have an opportunity to make a boatload of money by going public. You take it. The business is now owned by the shareholders and it doesn't matter that it was your blood, sweat and tears......if Michael Jackson comes along and wants to buy the company, and offers enough to make the shareholder's mouth's water......Jacko will own YOUR business.

It's just the way it is, and once you made that decision to give control of the rights for money, then you can't have it both ways.

The thing that sucks is that a young artist or group likely has no means to promote themselves. They think they're good, people tell them they are, but they need a record company to take a chance on them to make it. The record company feels, and rightfully so, that they deserve something for taking that risk (How many artists have had failed attempts at forming their own record company? GDR, Apple...)

Now, that's where I part ways with the record company. I think once the artist or group reaches a certain level where both parties have benefited greatly from the partnership, I think the record company should give back to the artist....in terms of any rights that the artist might have sacrificed, but I digress.
User avatar
ebick
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby amyjared » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:10 am

Ed,
An awesome response and thanks for not taking offense. I realize it is a hot topic and try to seperate my opinion from any personal feelings. I agree with your whole assessment, but I will mention one more thing. In the past (and this happens less and less these days) the artist was unaware that they were handing over their rights to their own songs and many, mostly african american blues artists, died in poverty while their record companies continued to profit from royalties. And most, like you say, wanted help to make it big, so they signed what they needed to to make it happen. Haven't we seen many an artist in a litigal dispute with their company? That only works if you can afford to dispute them legally, which only the biggest can. If the Beatles signed away rights, then it's fine for Jacko to own them, but if they were duped by the record company, then they should own them.
"The only funeral you should ever try to interrupt is your own, and that should be a full-time job." -Kinky Friedman
User avatar
amyjared
Senior Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:11 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Postby phpbb » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:16 am

I found this link last week, which seems to somewhat apply to this conversation:

http://www.tunecore.com/

They charge a one time delivery fee for each song, then you can sell it on itunes and rhapsody...
User avatar
phpbb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 9:37 pm

Postby ebick » Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:19 pm

amyjared wrote:In the past (and this happens less and less these days) the artist was unaware that they were handing over their rights to their own songs and many, mostly african american blues artists, died in poverty while their record companies continued to profit from royalties. And most, like you say, wanted help to make it big, so they signed what they needed to to make it happen.


Absolutely. And another group of folks who got screwed along these lines were actors, and especially, the child actors, folks like the Brady kids, Butch Patrick (Eddie Munster), the cast of Gilligan's Island, etc.....

Their shows ran in syndication for YEARS and who knows what, if anything they received for it.

Hopefully, artists and actors, and individuals like you and me can learn from what happened to them when we need to enter into a contract.

The Beatles/Jackson thing is especially sickening, though. The only good thing about it is that it broke up the friendship between McCartney & Jackson and they stopped recording together.

But.....Sir Paul has a few nickles to his name. If the catelog was for sale such that Wacko Jacko could buy it, then so could he have.
User avatar
ebick
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Hard To Handle Guitar Solo 1971/08/06

Postby mikeohiostate » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:46 pm

sarraqum wrote:Goddamit, this has to be one best Pigpen-era guitar solos I've ever heard. Absolutely amazing!
And the show is still available for download at archive.org, highly recommended!



well... i agree with this quote, if not anything else!
mikeohiostate
Brent
Brent
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 6:24 pm

Previous

Return to Grateful Dead General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest