"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.The above, by definition does not make him a professional
recording engineer, although we should applaud the work he does for
charity. The dictionary definition of a professional is
a person who earns a living by his craft (in this case recording)
I am told that Mr Kreuger assembles computers in his daytime job

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.


Iain

Iain Churches said:

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???

I've heard two. Krooger denies that the first one exists. The "debating
trade" is such a labyrinth. ;-)

Professional is not a word that comes to mind.

"Bull****! Bull****! Bull****!"

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.

AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
others.

It's my understanding that in contrast, John Atkinson has actually made some
recordings of note. He has personally lined up artists, venues, and
equipment. Atkinson, at least some of the time personally selected, obtained
and set up the equipment, loaded and unloaded recording media of his
personal choice, was the sole technician who personally placed, adjusted,
and started and stopped the equipment.

AFAIK Atkinson has edited at least some (I think all) of his recordings
himself using editing facilities that he personally selected and/or owned,
personally mastered some or all of the recordings, and on occasion delivered
the masters for reproduction by subcontractors that he personally selected
and made the arrangements for.

There's a good chance that Atkinson even owns the copyrights to some of his
recordings, which are thus truely his.

Note that while I've explained these differences to Iain before on several
occasions, he continues to act like they don't exist. In short, he's either
BSing, or he's seriously delusional.

Iain is like I guy who slaps fenders on Jeeps in the Chrysler plant about 6
miles from my house, and tells his friends that he makes cars from start to
finish.

In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
for the finished product.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong in seconds, and
none of your hair-splitting about legal rights or collaborative work or
who hired the equipment changes that.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
performed using equipment, artists, and venues that were
obtained by others and at the expense of others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong in
seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed to being correct you
pulled your usual debating trade schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and eliminated a thorough
discussion of exactly what I meant.

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a deceptive troll.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised Stephen, then do so.
Otherwise you can make an even bigger fool of yourself on your own.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
performed using equipment, artists, and venues that were
obtained by others and at the expense of others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong in
seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed to being correct you
pulled your usual debating trade schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and eliminated a thorough
discussion of exactly what I meant.

No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google. My reference to
your hair-splitting was for your secondary "points".

As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland recordings?

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a deceptive troll.

Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad hominem.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised Stephen, then do so.
Otherwise you can make an even bigger fool of yourself on your own.

Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who engineered the
L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've heard his work.

Your secondary points:

Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If you don't
understand recordings are often collaborative efforts, then you probably
don't have much experience with professional recordings.

No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked for big
important recording companies as part of a production team. It's also
common for freelancers to work for the artist and record in an
independent studio using available gear.

If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem foolish, so be it.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
performed using equipment, artists, and venues that
were obtained by others and at the expense of others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I meant.

No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.

OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light on my specific
claims.

My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
secondary "points".

More hair-splitting.

As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
recordings?

Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a minor step in
production.

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
deceptive troll.

Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad hominem.

No, I'm simply being accurate.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
bigger fool of yourself on your own.

Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
heard his work.

The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of the larger picture
called producing a recording.

Your secondary points:

Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
with professional recordings.

If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its clear you have some
severe perceptual challenges. I covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get
it Stephen, it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
couldn't see it's relevance.

No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually challenged than I
thought if you have to raise that question. BTW, since you seem to need it
spelled our, the answer is yes.

Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
for big important recording companies as part of a
production team.

Which means that the works he takes credit for are in fact the work of a
team.

It's also common for freelancers to work
for the artist and record in an independent studio using
available gear.

So what?

If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem foolish,
so be it.

You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?

Sad.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
performed using equipment, artists, and venues that
were obtained by others and at the expense of others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I meant.

No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.

OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light on my specific
claims.

Your point was that Iain has made no recordings. Well, Google says he
has engineered at least one major series of recordings.

My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
secondary "points".

More hair-splitting.

No, it's answering you exactly.

As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
recordings?

Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a minor step in
production.

An engineer can properly be said to have "made a recording."

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
deceptive troll.

Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad hominem.

No, I'm simply being accurate.

Nope. I'm addressing your argument directly.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
bigger fool of yourself on your own.

Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
heard his work.

The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of the larger picture
called producing a recording.

Indispensable and not necessarily small. Why are you belittling
recording engineers all of a sudden?

Your secondary points:

Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
with professional recordings.

If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its clear you have some
severe perceptual challenges. I covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get
it Stephen, it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
couldn't see it's relevance.

You say he doesn't "have" any recordings when he has in fact made
recordings.

And, no, your side issues are not relevant to the question of whether
Mr. Churches "has" any recordings.

No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually challenged than I
thought if you have to raise that question. BTW, since you seem to need it
spelled our, the answer is yes.

So an engineer working on a recording generally wouldn't be expected to
own the rights to the product.

Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
for big important recording companies as part of a
production team.

Which means that the works he takes credit for are in fact the work of a
team.

He is entitled to credit as part of a team. He is also entitled to
credit for work he has done on his own.

It's also common for freelancers to work
for the artist and record in an independent studio using
available gear.

So what?

So hiring gear isn't an important issue. However, an engineer would be
expected to own, hire or use whatever it takes to make the recording.

If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem foolish,
so be it.

You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?

Sad.

I see you attacking someone in retaliation for saying something you
don't like. As you don't have a substantive point, you make up stuff, in
this case belittling recording engineers.

Recording engineers are not a small part of a recording team. For you to
suggest otherwise smacks of sour grapes.

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.

AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.


THIS PURE BULL****, ARNY. I REMEMBER WELL WHEN YOU MADE THAT POST ON RAP.
BECAUSE IT STRUCK ME AS LUDICROUS AT THE TIME (AND STILL DOES TODAY).


snip remainder as too silly to comment on, and subsequently refuted).

A sound recording engineer is a man who for his daily bread or an
habitual part of his daily bread makes sound recordings. He is a
professional. It doesn't matter whether he works on a team or alone.
Ownership of copyright is irrelevant. Ownership of machinery is
irrelevant.

Someone who records his church choir for free and then claims the money
they didn't pay a professional, for a job they probably didn't want
done in the first instance (1), makes him a professional is a
professional fool; this person is no more than a hobbyist. Arny Krueger
fits this category.

The person who puts together the artists and venue and pays the
salaries is the producer. He usually doesn't own anything either, being
a salaried employee or freelance for hire to the distributor, the
record company. He too is a professional, not to be confused with a
hobbyist going along to his pre-existing church choir and recording
them.

These are pretty standard definitions in great many industries.

Iain Churches, who has a veriable track record as a professional sound
recordist, fits the first category. He is a professional in sound
recording.

Arny Krueger fits this the second category of a hobbyist. It is
significant that Krueger tries to inflate his standing by denigrating a
professional. A real professional would never in a million do anything
that silly.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

(1) ... for a job they probably didn't want done in the first instance!
We all know amateur idiots who insist on photographing or recording
events whether the victims want it or not. To this class of
insensitive, bullying hobbyist a church choir, full of Christians too
charitable to put him back in his box must seem a godsent.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.

AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
others.

It's my understanding that in contrast, John Atkinson has actually made some
recordings of note. He has personally lined up artists, venues, and
equipment. Atkinson, at least some of the time personally selected, obtained
and set up the equipment, loaded and unloaded recording media of his
personal choice, was the sole technician who personally placed, adjusted,
and started and stopped the equipment.

AFAIK Atkinson has edited at least some (I think all) of his recordings
himself using editing facilities that he personally selected and/or owned,
personally mastered some or all of the recordings, and on occasion delivered
the masters for reproduction by subcontractors that he personally selected
and made the arrangements for.

There's a good chance that Atkinson even owns the copyrights to some of his
recordings, which are thus truely his.

Note that while I've explained these differences to Iain before on several
occasions, he continues to act like they don't exist. In short, he's either
BSing, or he's seriously delusional.

Iain is like I guy who slaps fenders on Jeeps in the Chrysler plant about 6
miles from my house, and tells his friends that he makes cars from start to
finish.

In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
for the finished product.

On 20 Dec 2005 16:01:27 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Iain Churches, who has a veriable track record as a professional sound
recordist

"Veriable"? Hmmm...this kind of throws the question open again,
Andre. :-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of
no note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal,
mill the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as
compared to a new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can
honestly take credit for the finished product.


I hope they aren't stealing your intellectual
property, i.e., your astray designs.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of
no note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet
metal, mill the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as
compared to a new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can
honestly take credit for the finished product.


I hope they aren't stealing your intellectual
property, i.e., your astray designs.

LOL! I'm sure his "engineering" degree from Oafland U. came in handy.

Cheers,

Margaret

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

I am told that Mr Kreuger assembles computers in his daytime job

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.




Have you ever used one of his komputerz?