jwhitcomb3

None of the music mentioned in this thread is enjoyed? There are non-musicians that dig fusion. The groove for example. "Often," not "always."

An instrumental rock song that contains something other than a major chord? Fusion is generally thought of as a blending of jazz and rock, and jazz itself is notoriously difficult to define. I think the two defining features of fusion are the beat and the instrumentation. So start with jazz, then chop off anything that doesn't have a rock and/or funk edge to it. Fusion usually also incorporates at least one electronic instrument, such as guitar, keys or bass. Fusion also seems to veer toward the virtuoso player, and has often suffered for the same reasons as rock virtuosos: too much emphasis on meedly meedly and not enough on overall arrangements and songcraft, and intended more to impress than for enjoyment.

Agreed! I still defy anyone to watch the Winterland performance on Kissology Vol. 1 and point out what's a joke about that. The "KISS" part.

I don't "get" stomp boxes. I've had several over the years, but I always find that they each have several settings I want to use, and it I don't like tweaking them during a gig and sure don't want to have multiple of the same box to handle different settings. Then, when it comes to boxes that work best in an amp effects loop, I find that the boxes respond differently depending on how the amp is set up. For example, in a two channel amp, the effect might work great for the first channel, but not for the second. It all seems like too many variables. Then add in cabling and power supplies or batteries, and I want no part of it. Another factor is I don't care for overdrive or distortion pedal tones. I prefer the sound of an amp, and I am very pleased with the amp models on my Roland GR-55, Fender Cyber-Twin SE and Fender Cyber-Deluxe. Each of these has an arsenal of internal effects that I can tailor to each specific patch, and then control with stomp or pedal assigns from a MIDI foot controller. Full disclosure: I do own a Boomerang III looper, so I suppose that counts as a stomp box. I also have a Tech 21 CompTortion that I pack if I'm borrowing an amp to make sure I can at least get somewhere familiar.

Just FYI, the Fender Mustang Floor price has dropped to $200.

Saw the Night and Day tour in Syracuse NY. Very different arrangements of his earlier material, and I was impressed he performed his biggest hit at the time, "Is She Really Going Out With Him" a capella. I also remember during the encore of "I'm The Man" the balcony above us was oscillating up and down by about a foot. Besides Graham Maby, Joy Askew really stood out in his band.

Agreed. I bought several of his albums after Night and Day but none of them stuck with me. Even Night and Day hasn't aged as well as his first four. But Look Sharp is a classic.

Thanks, and it's all good. Lord knows I'm overdue collecting a few F-bombs for my snarky comments over the years.

Sorry, didn't think I was arguing against you. You asked what I thought was a really good question about the difference between the artist not being compensated when you sell a used CD and not being compensated for an illegal download.

Sort of like any other property. When I resell my car, FoMoCo isn't going to get a cut (unless I trade it back to the dealer). Jeeze Cary, I was composing my post above while you were writing this. Do we really think so much alike?

Buying a used CD is not illegal. There's a concept in intellectual property called "exhaustion," and it says that once the CD has been purchased, the IP owner (the artist) has been fully compensated, and (ignoring duplication for the moment), when the original buyer sells the CD, he no longer has it and is no longer enjoying it, and the second owner is enjoying it in his stead. Think of it like buying a used car: sure, the buyer of a second hand car hasn't paid the manufacturer, but once he owns it, the original owner has to buy another car if he wants to use a car. The manufacturer has put one car into the stream of commerce, and one owner at a time is using it. Once the first user has bought the car, the manufacturer is fully compensated. It is serial ownership, and the manufacturer only has a right to compensation from the first in line. This works, because in general, there is no concurrent ownership. If everyone played by the rules, when you buy a CD, you can reproduce it (rip/tape/copy) for your own use. If you sell the CD, you are supposed to destroy your reproduced copies as well. Serial ownership of the music. It is supposed to work the same way without the physical media: you pay a license for an electronic copy so you can use it indefinitely. The IP owner gets compensated for his work. If the laws regarding licensing of electronic files were entirely consistent with the laws of music stored on a physical medium (e.g., a CD) then if you sell your right to use it to someone else, the 2nd buyer does not have to compensate the IP owner, but you have to delete your own copies. I'm not sure if that's how the iTunes store licenses work though...they may not be transferrable at all. In all these models, the IP owner gets his due from first sale, but not any subsequent sales, just like before. The problem with electronic copies, is that scads of perfect copies can be made, so instead of just one user enjoying the work, tens, hundreds, or thousands can have a perfect copy of a single purchased song. The notion people have trouble wrapping their brains around, is when you buy a CD, you are buying a license to the music.Same as when you pay to download a song. The medium itself is incidental. The artist shouldn't care at all what medium the end user enjoys the music on. As long as the artist has been paid, the buyer can use it any way he wants for his own, personal use. The disconnect here is that some people seem to think that if the song isn't attached to a physical media, then the artist hasn't lost anything when someone enjoys the music without having paid. But he has. Someone is enjoying the artist's music without ever compensating the artist. IP laws are designed to prevent this. Realistically, these laws aren't enforced because they are very difficult to enforce, and nobody is going to go after a user for a single 99 cent download. And nobody is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to go after a college student who has thousands of dollars in illegal downloads, because they'll never collect the money. To me, it comes down to morality. I believe in compensating people for my use of their labor. I have cases of CDs in my basement that I no longer listen to, but I don't sell because I've ripped them and am still using the music. I've been a subscriber of eMusic for years. And I was doing all this years before I even considered going to law school.

Perhaps my tone would have been more respectful if your first reply to my post hadn't been "fuck you."

Actually, in the eyes of the law, it is exactly the same thing.

I'm not sure you understand what a straw man is: after pointing out that a tangible loss is a financial loss, you asked me to explain the tangible loss of the owner, and I did so. Somehow you seem to be arguing that the owner is only harmed when the person who robbed them could have plausibly paid for what he stole. This is a nonsequitur. The owner is harmed by the theft of his property regardless of who the robber is or the robber's circumstances. Put more simply, the owner experiences the same loss whether the thief is a rich or a poor man.

The very premise of your argument is flawed. You say that you would not have purchased the music you stole anyway, so therefore your theft has no tangible effect on the owner. This is simply untrue. Your theft and use of the music deprives the owner of his lawful rights to prevent unlicensed use of his property. The owner has a right to restrict use of his music to those he grants a license to (and yes, legally downloading a track or buying a CD is obtaining a license). So your illegal download deprived the artist of the money he was entitled to when you illegally obtained his music. That is a real and tangible effect, as would be recognized in any court in the country. Since its inception, the United States has recognized that stealing intellectual property is equivalent to stealing real property. Your inability to grasp this basic fact does not make it any less true. If you like, you can confirm this with an intellectual property attorney.

I read your words, and am merely pointing out that they are incorrect. Clearly, you do need a legal lesson. The US constitution grants Congress the power to protect intellectual property. Your assertion that theft of intellectual property does not have a tangible effect on the owner you are stealing from is naive and self serving.

So perhaps you are merely borrowing music from the artists, and will purchase a legitimate copy sometime in the future when you have the money, regardless whether you ever intend to listen to that music again? Rationalize it any way you want. Stealing music has a real and tangible effect on the people you steal from. Even some of us lefties think so. Criminal laws are generally not enforced based upon the direct effect on the victim.

Are you saying it's okay to steal if you don't have the money to buy? It's still stealing. Where in the hell did I say that it is okay to steal? Quote what you want but don't put words in my mouth or infer what you think I was trying to say. You are a broken record about politics and the government... I could care less about your political views. You said you stole the music and then rationalized it by saying it was okay to steal it because you didn't have money, so...are you saying it's not okay to steal? FWIW, Cary and I have exactly the same politics.

Although it is marketed as a Guitar synth, and it requires a hex pickup, the Roland GR-55 is very flexible and impressive as an amp and effect modeler.

Over the years I've played: Next To You Message in a Bottle Synchronicity II Roxanne Every Breath You Take Next to you is a great, high energy song, but not many can sing it. My favorite to play is Synchronicity II, as it is a brilliant rhythm guitar part and can be a great display of band dynamics.

Funny how everyone talks about Steven and Joe as if they are Aerosmith. For me, what makes the band tick is the rhythm section. Tom and Joey kick it and just drive that band. I saw the Cult in Boston in the 90's, and they were fine, but when they invited Tom and Joey to sit in for an encore, suddenly the band was on fire. Night and day. I love the first four Aerosmith albums. Draw the Line didn't do much for me (I saw that tour with a then-obscure Styx opening for them). I like bits of Permanent Vacation and Pump, and was surprised how much I liked Just Push Play. I hope they don't try to make an album that rehashes the glory days. I'm much more interested in hearing what moves them now then hearing yet another band trying to live in the past.

I suppose I've been all digital for years, starting with the Fender Cyber-Deluxe. I like having effects and multiple amp models in one box, with only a MIDI controller underfoot. I like going from clean Twin with reverb to distorted Vox with compressor and delay with one button push. Any sound gets a volume boost with a second tap on the same button (and will toggle back with another tap). And to Lockbody's point, I set it up with stomp box options so I can bring in, say, a chorus, vibrato, or wah if I like. Rocker pedals are set up to adjust parameters on the fly, such as rotating speaker speed or gain level. It does take some planning, and a fair amount of tweaking to get the levels even across patches. My problem with stomp boxes is that I usually find several sounds I like in each one, but I don't want to line up several of the same pedal, and I don't want to monkey with the knobs during a performance. And no worries about batteries, power supplies, wonky patch chords, or noise in the signal chain. Instead I worry about digital clipping and level balancing. Nothing's perfect, and it does take planning to make it work. But once it's set up, it is a joy to use. I am entirely satisfied with the tone. My main beefs with the Cyber-Deluxe are the patch switching speed, limited number of programable presets (32), and the occasional crash. Nowadays I am spending most time with a Roland GR-55, mostly ignoring the synth features but enjoying the COSM amp, effects and acoustic guitar models. I particularly like having an acoustic guitar and an electric guitar sound going with a toggle switch on the guitar to select either or a blend. The COSM acoustic guitar models are a step up from piezos (though still have room for improvement). And having alternate tunings a foot tap away is also handy. The electric guitar COSM models are fun, and it is nice to have a truly noiseless option for single coils and P90s, but I still prefer running my guitar's magnetic pickups through the COSM amps and effects. I'm a fan of the Fender Cyber-Twin SE, but somewhat annoyed how they added more effects types but fewer ways to combine them than the Cyber-Deluxe. Lots of great sounds in there, though, and these can now be found for around $600. I will be investigating the Fender Mustang Floor when it is released. The AxeFX looks cool, but I haven't felt the need to spend that much when there are so many good options for much less.

Nobody needs it to make music. Some think musicians need to have it before they will listen. Some think the whole notion is silly.

As far as favorite years for music, I'd have trouble deciding between 1972 and 1973 (I was 9 and 10). It's not so much that the music was particularly enduring, it was that you could turn on the radio and hear ANYTHING...all on one station. Rock (progressive, hard rock, pop rock, power pop, etc.), soul, folk, funk, country, blues, jazz fusion, novelty...it was wide open. DJs could spin what they liked, and rock hadn't divided itself into camps. Nobody freaked out if an album was all over the place. Instramentals were hit singles. Foreign language songs were hit singles. Heck, the Lord's Prayer was even a hit song! Some of it was great, and some of it sucked, but it certainly wasn't pigeonholed the way it is today. Musicians could be ugly, awkward, from any walk of life, young, old, and it would still get played. Some of the lyrics from that period are so crazy and goofy and gloriously dumb, and it didn't seem to matter.

Can you elaborate on this? Huge ELO & Jeff Lynne fan who is just curious if I missed something obnoxious that he did. :-) He brought orchestral string instruments into rock music. Ewwww. Probly has cooties too.