"Sorry folks, Jim couldn't be with us tonight, as he's been dead for over 30
years."
Let the marketplace decide.
I have a good Jim Morrison story, but I was much more impressed by his wife
and dog.
Tom





"Mike Cressey" wrote in message
om...
Who is "Them"?
Them is the Doors - he sued the rest of the Doors to keep them from
using the name when they toured.

Mike
http://www.MusicIsLove.com

"Analogeezer" wrote in message
om

I think the bigger question is why does an iPod cost $250 - $300?

Mostly driven by the relatively high prices of small, capacious hard drives.

Also, lithium ion batteries are far more costly than say, AA alkalines. Have
you checked the price of lithium ion batteries for camcorders?

The iPod is too small to use the 2.5" drives that are used in laptops. The
smaller a hard drive is physically, the higher the price per gigabyte.

There's not that much componentry there and what there is shouldn't cost
that much.

The competitive hardware is not that much less expensive.

No, but what a great election song it would have been:

Give me back the Berlin Wall
Give me Stalin and St. Paul
I've seen the future, brother, it is murder

Offhand, I'd guess the Republicans would find it more in sync with their
program than the Democrats. Can't you just hear Dick Cheney singing
that, with a chorus of wonder-bread white cheerleaders behind him?

At least until you get to the lines you mentioned:
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that's left
And shove it up the hole in your culture...

Clearly in favor of the lumber industry. And I think those last two
lines pretty well sum up the Republican party perfectly. But that
embrace of sodomy militates against the same-sex marriage amendment.
And of course, white Republicans prefer coke to crack.

Still, the best lines as they apply to this campaign, and the vote today:
When they said, "repent"
I wondered what they meant....

It is a great, scary song though.

Tommy B wrote:
Failure of imagination on my part.

That might be true Bill,
Not all great songs make good commercials, just like some great records are
crappy songs.
Makes you want to travel blind!
Very funny!
I like Mr. C's"crack and anal sex" tune,
got a product for that one?

Tom



"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...

Failure of imagination on my part.

I can see it now--

Suzanne takes you down
To her place near the river
You can hear the boats go by
You can spend the night beside her
And you know that she's half crazy
But that's why you want to be there
And she feeds you tea and oranges
That come all the way from China

And whenever I'm spending time with my muse, I always serve Tetley tea.
That mellow flavour and pleasant aroma-- ahhh! -- Makes you want to
travel with her! Makes you want to travel blind!

And you know that you can trust her
For she's touched your perfect body
With her mind

Always serve Tetley tea....



Tommy B wrote:

But how on earth can you possibly reconcile the
sentiments of it with having sold it to a bank?

Because it's a GREAT song, and speaks a universal truth, it makes great
advertising! A song is nothing with out being played.You'd be suprised

how

sentiments evaporate, as zeros are being written.
A song to a publisher is like real estate to a landlord,
except that it's very hard to hum a building.

Tom


"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...


It is a GREAT song. But how on earth can you possibly reconcile the
sentiments of it with having sold it to a bank?

I loved "What's Up Tiger Lily"-- nearly killed myself laughing the first
time I saw it.

But lately, I feel like I'm in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".


Tommy B wrote:


Does lip-syncing give you a limp-sinking feeling?
Check out "What's up Tiger-Lilly?"
Woody's first movie. That will change you mind...lol.
"The Times They Are A'Changin'" is still a GREAT song. I hope Bob's

making


some bucks off it too.
They were hit songs before they became commercials, which is exactly

why

they became commercials.
It's all about the cost of renting space in your head!

Tom


"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...



Fair points. The "projection" argument doesn't answer the question of
whether they are good values or not, but fair enough.

I'd like to make just one last point: I'm not sure that, in the long
run, the "sell-out" is really as lucrative as the artists and
corporations think it is. For Apple, sure, it's a no-lose

proposition,

but U2's value is diminished, and the advertising companies know it.

That's why they invariably seek and give highest value to people who
have not "sold out" like Robert Redford and Woody Allen.

What good is that value if it's not "cashed in"? It's possible that
Redford's movies, or U2's music, might well be worth vastly more in

the

future, if it hasn't become known to people primarily as the product

of

hucksterisms, the way "When You're Smiling" is now.

How valuable are future royalties of "The Times They Are A'Changin'"

now

that Bank of Montreal has used it?

If you were a band performing in a live club, would you play one of
those songs now known primarily as a vehicle for beer or cars? Not a
chance.

It's possible that all the future earnings of one of those songs can't
match a single fat check from Labattes. It's possible that it might
wildly exceed it.

Anyway, as I said, I'm a small minority.

hank alrich wrote:



Bill Van Dyk wrote:





It has nothing to do with how they feel about the ipod. It has

nothing


to do with them liking any particular product. It is really

simple--

they write songs about truth and integrity and honesty. That's what
earns them a reputation, a cache, a standing with their fans.


That's what might cause some of their fans to project upon them

values

the fans wished they could manifest in their own lives.





That's what Apple wants to buy.


That coin has another side, and it's what U2 might want to buy into:
promotion and distribution.





And you have every right to defend them. What you don't have the

right


to defend is the idea that they have retained their integrity.

That's

absurd. The aren't electrical engineers or software developers.

They

have no special expertise about electronic digital music players.

They


are musicians who earned their standing by singing about truth,

beauty,


and honesty. And then they accepted money to try to make the ipod

look


"cool". And they didn't need this money.


Consider the possibility that they consider the iPod _cool_.

Plenty of folks who have plenty of money still want to earn more

money.

Not long ago you were arguing that stars don't make much money

becuase

they get screwed by the record lables. Now you're claiming that U2
members should already have enough money not to want or need to earn

any


more money. What's up with that?

Where do you derive moral authority that demands they not work with
other businesses in order to reatin their "integrity" as defined by
_you_.

They might see in this just as much benefit to U2 as Apple sees for
Apple, and be happy to share that commercial energy. Have you

projected

onto them some portion of your life? Did you think they represent

some

idealization of Christian values that would eschew earning a fancy
living? Are tickets to U2 shows less than twenty bucks? Where should

the


line be drawn?

--
ha

But really, what does he know, he's Canadian!
For such a small populace, they sure got a lot of old fokies, and great ones
too.

Tom



"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...
No, but what a great election song it would have been:

Give me back the Berlin Wall
Give me Stalin and St. Paul
I've seen the future, brother, it is murder

Offhand, I'd guess the Republicans would find it more in sync with their
program than the Democrats. Can't you just hear Dick Cheney singing
that, with a chorus of wonder-bread white cheerleaders behind him?

At least until you get to the lines you mentioned:
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that's left
And shove it up the hole in your culture...

Clearly in favor of the lumber industry. And I think those last two
lines pretty well sum up the Republican party perfectly. But that
embrace of sodomy militates against the same-sex marriage amendment.
And of course, white Republicans prefer coke to crack.

Still, the best lines as they apply to this campaign, and the vote today:
When they said, "repent"
I wondered what they meant....

It is a great, scary song though.

Tommy B wrote:
Failure of imagination on my part.

That might be true Bill,
Not all great songs make good commercials, just like some great records
are
crappy songs.
Makes you want to travel blind!
Very funny!
I like Mr. C's"crack and anal sex" tune,
got a product for that one?

Tom



"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...

Failure of imagination on my part.

I can see it now--

Suzanne takes you down
To her place near the river
You can hear the boats go by
You can spend the night beside her
And you know that she's half crazy
But that's why you want to be there
And she feeds you tea and oranges
That come all the way from China

And whenever I'm spending time with my muse, I always serve Tetley tea.
That mellow flavour and pleasant aroma-- ahhh! -- Makes you want to
travel with her! Makes you want to travel blind!

And you know that you can trust her
For she's touched your perfect body
With her mind

Always serve Tetley tea....



Tommy B wrote:

But how on earth can you possibly reconcile the
sentiments of it with having sold it to a bank?

Because it's a GREAT song, and speaks a universal truth, it makes great
advertising! A song is nothing with out being played.You'd be suprised

how

sentiments evaporate, as zeros are being written.
A song to a publisher is like real estate to a landlord,
except that it's very hard to hum a building.

Tom


"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...


It is a GREAT song. But how on earth can you possibly reconcile the
sentiments of it with having sold it to a bank?

I loved "What's Up Tiger Lily"-- nearly killed myself laughing the
first
time I saw it.

But lately, I feel like I'm in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".


Tommy B wrote:


Does lip-syncing give you a limp-sinking feeling?
Check out "What's up Tiger-Lilly?"
Woody's first movie. That will change you mind...lol.
"The Times They Are A'Changin'" is still a GREAT song. I hope Bob's

making


some bucks off it too.
They were hit songs before they became commercials, which is exactly

why

they became commercials.
It's all about the cost of renting space in your head!

Tom


"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...



Fair points. The "projection" argument doesn't answer the question
of
whether they are good values or not, but fair enough.

I'd like to make just one last point: I'm not sure that, in the long
run, the "sell-out" is really as lucrative as the artists and
corporations think it is. For Apple, sure, it's a no-lose

proposition,

but U2's value is diminished, and the advertising companies know it.

That's why they invariably seek and give highest value to people who
have not "sold out" like Robert Redford and Woody Allen.

What good is that value if it's not "cashed in"? It's possible that
Redford's movies, or U2's music, might well be worth vastly more in

the

future, if it hasn't become known to people primarily as the product

of

hucksterisms, the way "When You're Smiling" is now.

How valuable are future royalties of "The Times They Are A'Changin'"

now

that Bank of Montreal has used it?

If you were a band performing in a live club, would you play one of
those songs now known primarily as a vehicle for beer or cars? Not
a
chance.

It's possible that all the future earnings of one of those songs
can't
match a single fat check from Labattes. It's possible that it might
wildly exceed it.

Anyway, as I said, I'm a small minority.

hank alrich wrote:



Bill Van Dyk wrote:





It has nothing to do with how they feel about the ipod. It has

nothing


to do with them liking any particular product. It is really

simple--

they write songs about truth and integrity and honesty. That's
what
earns them a reputation, a cache, a standing with their fans.


That's what might cause some of their fans to project upon them

values

the fans wished they could manifest in their own lives.





That's what Apple wants to buy.


That coin has another side, and it's what U2 might want to buy
into:
promotion and distribution.





And you have every right to defend them. What you don't have the

right


to defend is the idea that they have retained their integrity.

That's

absurd. The aren't electrical engineers or software developers.

They

have no special expertise about electronic digital music players.

They


are musicians who earned their standing by singing about truth,

beauty,


and honesty. And then they accepted money to try to make the ipod

look


"cool". And they didn't need this money.


Consider the possibility that they consider the iPod _cool_.

Plenty of folks who have plenty of money still want to earn more

money.

Not long ago you were arguing that stars don't make much money

becuase

they get screwed by the record lables. Now you're claiming that U2
members should already have enough money not to want or need to
earn

any


more money. What's up with that?

Where do you derive moral authority that demands they not work with
other businesses in order to reatin their "integrity" as defined by
_you_.

They might see in this just as much benefit to U2 as Apple sees for
Apple, and be happy to share that commercial energy. Have you

projected

onto them some portion of your life? Did you think they represent

some

idealization of Christian values that would eschew earning a fancy
living? Are tickets to U2 shows less than twenty bucks? Where
should

the


line be drawn?

--
ha

Can't you just hear Dick Cheney singing ................
I've had enough of Mr. Ashcroft's "Where The Eagle Soars" , but thanks
anyway.
How 'bout, "Where The Eagle Poops ",
as a duet with "Triumph" the "ICD".
I've always enjoyed when two animals can work together and I'm sure this
would be no exception.

Tom




"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...
No, but what a great election song it would have been:

Give me back the Berlin Wall
Give me Stalin and St. Paul
I've seen the future, brother, it is murder

Offhand, I'd guess the Republicans would find it more in sync with their
program than the Democrats. Can't you just hear Dick Cheney singing
that, with a chorus of wonder-bread white cheerleaders behind him?

At least until you get to the lines you mentioned:
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that's left
And shove it up the hole in your culture...

Clearly in favor of the lumber industry. And I think those last two
lines pretty well sum up the Republican party perfectly. But that
embrace of sodomy militates against the same-sex marriage amendment.
And of course, white Republicans prefer coke to crack.

Still, the best lines as they apply to this campaign, and the vote today:
When they said, "repent"
I wondered what they meant....

It is a great, scary song though.

Tommy B wrote:
Failure of imagination on my part.

That might be true Bill,
Not all great songs make good commercials, just like some great records
are
crappy songs.
Makes you want to travel blind!
Very funny!
I like Mr. C's"crack and anal sex" tune,
got a product for that one?

Tom



"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...

Failure of imagination on my part.

I can see it now--

Suzanne takes you down
To her place near the river
You can hear the boats go by
You can spend the night beside her
And you know that she's half crazy
But that's why you want to be there
And she feeds you tea and oranges
That come all the way from China

And whenever I'm spending time with my muse, I always serve Tetley tea.
That mellow flavour and pleasant aroma-- ahhh! -- Makes you want to
travel with her! Makes you want to travel blind!

And you know that you can trust her
For she's touched your perfect body
With her mind

Always serve Tetley tea....



Tommy B wrote:

But how on earth can you possibly reconcile the
sentiments of it with having sold it to a bank?

Because it's a GREAT song, and speaks a universal truth, it makes great
advertising! A song is nothing with out being played.You'd be suprised

how

sentiments evaporate, as zeros are being written.
A song to a publisher is like real estate to a landlord,
except that it's very hard to hum a building.

Tom


"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...


It is a GREAT song. But how on earth can you possibly reconcile the
sentiments of it with having sold it to a bank?

I loved "What's Up Tiger Lily"-- nearly killed myself laughing the
first
time I saw it.

But lately, I feel like I'm in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".


Tommy B wrote:


Does lip-syncing give you a limp-sinking feeling?
Check out "What's up Tiger-Lilly?"
Woody's first movie. That will change you mind...lol.
"The Times They Are A'Changin'" is still a GREAT song. I hope Bob's

making


some bucks off it too.
They were hit songs before they became commercials, which is exactly

why

they became commercials.
It's all about the cost of renting space in your head!

Tom


"Bill Van Dyk" wrote in message
...



Fair points. The "projection" argument doesn't answer the question
of
whether they are good values or not, but fair enough.

I'd like to make just one last point: I'm not sure that, in the long
run, the "sell-out" is really as lucrative as the artists and
corporations think it is. For Apple, sure, it's a no-lose

proposition,

but U2's value is diminished, and the advertising companies know it.

That's why they invariably seek and give highest value to people who
have not "sold out" like Robert Redford and Woody Allen.

What good is that value if it's not "cashed in"? It's possible that
Redford's movies, or U2's music, might well be worth vastly more in

the

future, if it hasn't become known to people primarily as the product

of

hucksterisms, the way "When You're Smiling" is now.

How valuable are future royalties of "The Times They Are A'Changin'"

now

that Bank of Montreal has used it?

If you were a band performing in a live club, would you play one of
those songs now known primarily as a vehicle for beer or cars? Not
a
chance.

It's possible that all the future earnings of one of those songs
can't
match a single fat check from Labattes. It's possible that it might
wildly exceed it.

Anyway, as I said, I'm a small minority.

hank alrich wrote:



Bill Van Dyk wrote:





It has nothing to do with how they feel about the ipod. It has

nothing


to do with them liking any particular product. It is really

simple--

they write songs about truth and integrity and honesty. That's
what
earns them a reputation, a cache, a standing with their fans.


That's what might cause some of their fans to project upon them

values

the fans wished they could manifest in their own lives.





That's what Apple wants to buy.


That coin has another side, and it's what U2 might want to buy
into:
promotion and distribution.





And you have every right to defend them. What you don't have the

right


to defend is the idea that they have retained their integrity.

That's

absurd. The aren't electrical engineers or software developers.

They

have no special expertise about electronic digital music players.

They


are musicians who earned their standing by singing about truth,

beauty,


and honesty. And then they accepted money to try to make the ipod

look


"cool". And they didn't need this money.


Consider the possibility that they consider the iPod _cool_.

Plenty of folks who have plenty of money still want to earn more

money.

Not long ago you were arguing that stars don't make much money

becuase

they get screwed by the record lables. Now you're claiming that U2
members should already have enough money not to want or need to
earn

any


more money. What's up with that?

Where do you derive moral authority that demands they not work with
other businesses in order to reatin their "integrity" as defined by
_you_.

They might see in this just as much benefit to U2 as Apple sees for
Apple, and be happy to share that commercial energy. Have you

projected

onto them some portion of your life? Did you think they represent

some

idealization of Christian values that would eschew earning a fancy
living? Are tickets to U2 shows less than twenty bucks? Where
should

the


line be drawn?

--
ha

Short article in Rolling Stone addresses many of the issues covered in this thread.

http://tinyurl.com/5y794

R