It looks like poor Carol Kaye doesn't understand the internet

[MikeBass]

In responce to my asking of anything reciently the she has played on:

Again -- the original point of this thread was not Carol's ability to play or whether she's "relevant" because she might not have played on anything recently. James Jamerson hasn't played since he died but he is still relevant to bass playing today. Same for Ray Brown.

I don't know if Joe Osborn has played on anything recently, but his playing is still relevant. Carol plays well -- her body of work supports that many people agree with this assessment. Whether you like her style or playing is an opinion, and I have no problem with opinions.

What I have a problem with is people saying that she is irrelevant, overrated and a lousy player simply because she can be abrasive and vocal or has been misinformed or just plain doesn't understand copyright issues and the Internet. Tiger Woods may be a bad husband, but he is a great golfer and is still relevant to the sport. Pete Rose bet on baseball, but he was still a great hitter and has had an influence on baseball. Are these guys relevant to the sports today? As long as kids say, "I want to play because of Tiger or Pete," they remain relevant. Same for Carol.

Another glaring example how simplicity can be taken on a hard left turn....
I just simply asked what she played on.
THAT'S ALL.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Never declaired her irrelevent or anything.

And per you comment above regarding James Jamerson not playing anything since he died......I'll let that one just sit for itself.

Geez..........getting nutty around here again!

 

[mister-o]

Just look at the instructional DVD's(or most segments from them) that are available for free on youtube and all the other internet forums. That has been uploaded with out the artist consent or knowledge.

I understand where you're coming from and am not trying to nitpick, but YouTube has a pretty good record (I think, I know I can't back this up) of removing offending content when asked. They don't make it their business to personally vet every video uploaded, but you can go to the following link to request copyrighted material to be removed: http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

They even have a separate channel for "if there are many videos to be removed, or you expect to have an ongoing need to remove potentially infringing content from YouTube".

 

[Jim Campbell]

In responce to my asking of anything reciently the she has played on:



Another glaring example how simplicity can be taken on a hard left turn....
I just simply asked what she played on.
THAT'S ALL.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Never declaired her irrelevent or anything.

And per you comment above regarding James Jamerson not playing anything since he died......I'll let that one just sit for itself.

Geez..........getting nutty around here again!

imho,for most artists their pre death work is usually the best stuff

 

[baalroo]

imho,for most artists the pre death work is usually the best stuff

I dunno, Paul McCartney had some pretty great output after he died.

 

[MikeBass]

I know it doesn't have relevance to this thread, but I too am interested in what she has been up to lately musically. Could someone maybe give me a quick rundown without me having to go and add traffic to a site owned by such a hateful and ignorant person?

According to her site, just two new songs as of late.
At least at quick glance anyway.

 

[mister-o]

I've got a great idea, anyone who reads my posts in this thread owes me $1. Obviously I'm expending energy and time to write my posts and I expect to be paid for it, nevermind the fact that I've chosen a medium in which you can obviously read my posts without paying for them. I am the artist of my posts and should be allowed to determine their worth. Man, you guys are going to owe me so much money, I'm so excited.

p.s. DON'T YOU DARE STEAL MY POSTS (and by "steal" I of course mean "use for your own personal enjoyment without paying me my dollar") you dirty no go thieves and pirates.

Go ahead and register the copyrights (Invalid Link Removed). Let me know how this works out for you, since it sounds like a promising new business model!

 

[WRBass]

I dunno, Paul McCartney had some pretty great output after he died.

That's not really Paul McCartney.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

I understand where you're coming from and am not trying to nitpick, but YouTube has a pretty good record (I think, I know I can't back this up) of removing offending content when asked. They don't make it their business to personally vet every video uploaded, but you can go to the following link to request copyrighted material to be removed: http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

They even have a separate channel for "if there are many videos to be removed, or you expect to have an ongoing need to remove potentially infringing content from YouTube".

You are correct. I am familiar with the yout ube policy. But it's really einforced softly.

 

[baalroo]

That's not really Paul McCartney.

...or IS IT?! <cue twilight zone music>

 

[projectMalamute]

I've got a great idea, anyone who reads my posts in this thread owes me $1. Obviously I'm expending energy and time to write my posts and I expect to be paid for it, nevermind the fact that I've chosen a medium in which you can obviously read my posts without paying for them. I am the artist of my posts and should be allowed to determine their worth. Man, you guys are going to owe me so much money, I'm so excited.

p.s. DON'T YOU DARE STEAL MY POSTS (and by "steal" I of course mean "use for your own personal enjoyment without paying me my dollar") you dirty no go thieves and pirates.

+2. One for being funny and one for being on point.

Digital data can now be transmitted, reproduced, and stored for essentially free. This is simply a fact, and it changes things on a massive scale.

The recording industry had a good run. For the better part of a century a lot of people were able to buy a lot of cocaine. I'm sure it was fun while it lasted.

Technology has now made such an industry irrelevant. Your opinion on the subject matters about as much as your opinion as to whether or not the sun should rise tomorrow.

Expecting large numbers of people to pay for something that can be transmitted, stored, and reproduced perfectly and indefinitely for free is a pipe dream. If you have been counting on this as a way to make a living you are going to need a back up plan. Maybe start by getting off your ass and playing some shows.

I'm sure that from the point of view of a record industry executive or an industry session musician this sucks a bit, but that's life. The invention of the automobile sucked for the farrier industry as well.

For me and most of the people making any sort of music I care about this is the best thing to have happened to music ever. Almost anyone (and more people every day) can create music and make it available globally without the influence of a corrupt and parasitic industry. At the click of a mouse I can check out the work of an obscure noise artist working out of his garage in Korea. In the entire history of music such a situation has never before existed.

As to getting paid you'll just have to get out there and figure something out. Musicians existed for a long time before the existence of a corporate culture known as the recording industry and I expect they will exist for a long time after.

 

[Gawd]

So true. We're really in a renaissance era of music right now. Never before have the different music styles of the world been able to integrate so easily, and fluently, with little barriers for anyone who wants to get involved. We can finally get the grubby hands of business away from art.

I will admit that I am slightly concerned for my financial well being, but a big part of me has no concern for money, I'm more excited about the flood of new art that has been coming from every corner of the world lately.

 

[Munjibunga]

I'm not going to comment on the central issue, but I almost died laughing reading the comments. I haven't seen such creative name calling since my days as a Marine.

 

[baalroo]

c'mon man....that's a poor comparison.

the only reason it's a bit poor IMO is because people could accidentally read my posts without intending to... so what if I added a "THIS POST COSTS $1" at the top of each post? then people could skip over it if they didn't want to pay me.

the reality is that it requires just as much computer know-how to navigate to this site and read this thread as it does to DL music. I can DL an album in one tab and read TB posts in the other with the exact same ease. When a person creates a CD they are creating digital media that can be just as easily accessed online as my posts on this forum. If I started copyrighting each of my posts for the $35 it cost (as illustrated by mister-o's link above) it would be EXACTLY the same as copyrighting my music in that each would be readily consumable for free in a way that perfect copies can be made with almost zero effort from any internet connected computer. It is therefore no less ridiculous to expect payment for my posts here on talkbass as it is to expect payment for my music when represented in digital form.

 

[standupright]

the only reason it's a bit poor IMO is because people could accidentally read my posts without intending to... so what if I added a "THIS POST COSTS $1" at the top of each post? then people could skip over it if they didn't want to pay me.

the reality is that it requires just as much computer know-how to navigate to this site and read this thread as it does to DL music. I can DL an album in one tab and read TB posts in the other with the exact same ease. When a person creates a CD they are creating digital media that can be just as easily accessed online as my posts on this forum. If I started copyrighting each of my posts for the $35 it cost (as illustrated by mister-o's link above) it would be EXACTLY the same as copyrighting my music in that each would be readily consumable for free in a way that perfect copies can be made with almost zero effort from any internet connected computer. It is therefore no less ridiculous to expect payment for my posts here on talkbass as it is to expect payment for my music when represented in digital form.

somebody cast a troll spell on you?

 

[baalroo]

the only reason it's a bit poor IMO is because people could accidentally read my posts without intending to... so what if I added a "THIS POST COSTS $1" at the top of each post? then people could skip over it if they didn't want to pay me.

the reality is that it requires just as much computer know-how to navigate to this site and read this thread as it does to DL music. I can DL an album in one tab and read TB posts in the other with the exact same ease. When a person creates a CD they are creating digital media that can be just as easily accessed online as my posts on this forum. If I started copyrighting each of my posts for the $35 it cost (as illustrated by mister-o's link above) it would be EXACTLY the same as copyrighting my music in that each would be readily consumable for free in a way that perfect copies can be made with almost zero effort from any internet connected computer. It is therefore no less ridiculous to expect payment for my posts here on talkbass as it is to expect payment for my music when represented in digital form.

somebody cast a troll spell on you?

I could ask the same of you with your short statements of rude dismissal, but was trying to actually create some sort of conversation about the realities of the situation through (arguably)creative use of analogy.

if my point is so ludicrous then I would assume it would be easily refuted, so why the runaround?

 

[DreadRaver]

What everyone has to remember is that at the end of this food chain is not "the Man", but Carol, Victor Wooten, Mike Watt, Nathan East, Michael Rhodes, Jaco's kids, and other fellow bassists and their families.

Since you use Mike Watt in your example...

Check this quote:

FP: Any thoughts on MP3s/ file-sharing and the supposed death of the majors, death of CDs and vinyl, etc.?

WATT: Me and d. boon divided the world into two categories: gigs and flyers - anything not a gig was a flyer, so if a mp3 file turns someone on to wanting to come see Watt play for them, then I think it&#8217;s a good thing. I like playing for people, who would be interested enough in seeing what I was doing. I don&#8217;t live off of record sales so maybe I&#8217;m biased that way. I make my living playing for people.

Source:
http://www.fishpiss.com/archives/183

Also from this source: Invalid Link Removed

WATT: The Internet in a lot of ways is an extension of these old ethics that was the early punk stuff, being on an independent label, touring in your own boat, your own van, these kinds of things they didn't just die they just changed, manifested into new forms. It's kinda cool. So I don't have a fear of Internet trading and stuff. In fact I just read an article online from the New York Times and some of these big labels &#8211; whoa! Don't get too heavy on these judgements for file sharing because this is a way that a lot of folks are hearing about the music.

When you think about it, the whole history of music, about 99.9% of it has been performed live. The idea of sticking it on some kind of media and selling it&#8230; that's really short-lived in the whole history of it. In the old days before phonograph records and all this it was just playing for people. And even written music isn't that old. A lot of it was that you simply performed it for people.

So in a way we're returning back to the root and this thing about a proprietary piece of media... it's just a little blip on the radar in the big scheme of things. But you know how some tendencies are to be greedy and not let go. They refuse to loosen the grip, but you know what? That's the way it goes. When I was a boy the same beef was on cassettes 'oh we don't want cassette recorders, this is going to kill record sales'. Believe it or not it was the same argument thirty years ago and they lost. Cassettes didn't kill records. In fact what happened is that kids (and guys my age) got to make mix tapes and all of a sudden they're trading 'em with their buddies so all of a sudden you're getting turned onto **** you might never have heard in the long run. It was a good thing see, but these people are short sighted or afraid of competition so out of one side of their mouth you get 'yeah free enterprise and an open market place of ideas', but not really. It's just propaganda. Really they want to own everything and have one company.

There's another tendency among humans to want to subvert that and it's going to happen. Either with attitude or technology or a combination of both.

Watt gets it!

 

[PhatBasstard]

somebody cast a troll spell on you?

I could ask the same of you with your short statements of rude dismissal, but was trying to actually create some sort of conversation about the realities of the situation through (arguably)creative use of analogy.

if my point is so ludicrous then I would assume it would be easily refuted, so why the runaround?

+1000
After seeing the last few exchanges, standupright's short, rude dismissals appear to show, like Carol Kaye he may be a great player, but has got in over his head.

baalroo has made a lot of logical sense as this has dragged on. As someone pointed out above, even Mike Watt gets it (especially since he had been used as evidence for the "opposition") .

Still, most of this has little or nothing to do with Carol Kaye's literal actions and ignorant stance on the OP.

 

[Roy Vogt]

yeah, that's becoming increasingly apparent.



well, i'm currently in the middle of creating said fruit, but as soon as i'm finished I'll make sure to send you a link!

Dude, that's great! I'll send your CD to a P2P network and we'll get it all over the world. Oh, and me and 50 friends want to come to your next gig, but we're not gonna pay cover, dig? We'll just sit and listen-cuz the music should be free, right?
Oh, BTW, can I have your bass?

 

[Roy Vogt]

Look, just because YOU don't understand how to create a business model in an industry where the digital media part of a package is free, doesn't mean there aren't any such models out there. Also, for the record if people like Carol Kaye and Victor Wooten aren't part of the system that you are referring to as "the man" (which is a bit of an immature viewpoint btw) then I don't know who is.


I really don't think it's necessary to explain that just because the paradigm has shifted, it doesn't automatically mean that there's no more money to be made. Let's take your example of instructional videos. If someone wants to make a great instructional site these days and SELL it to the public with minimal threat of people pirating their work, they can simply create an encrypted pay site that hosts all the instructional information in a streaming only format. The person who would have traditionally paid the $30 or $40 for a VHS or DVD now pays a monthly fee for access to the site, IN FACT with this model the instructors can continuously make updates and add lessons and keep a customer "on the hook" for WAY more than the simple one time purchase that would have been made in the previous generations business model. There are examples like this for every single issue you can bring up with pirating that level the playing field and create a money making environment for those who are entrepreneurially minded.

Y.

Dude, me and my 14 year-old little brother have worked out a crack so that we can access those subscriber sites for free. That's cool, isn't it?
BTW, if you think that a fine person like Victor Wooten and a 50 year Music Veteran like Carol Kaye are "the Man" I frankly don't know what planet you're from. They aren't Madonna.....Vic's on Indie Labels and constantly tours to support his family and Carol's just a working player retired on her pension. I'm friends with both of them and I KNOW they're not Donald Trump.

 

[standupright]

+1000
After seeing the last few exchanges, standupright's short, rude dismissals appear to show, like Carol Kaye he may be a great player, but has got in over his head.

baalroo has made a lot of logical sense as this has dragged on. As someone pointed out above, even Mike Watt gets it (especially since he had been used as evidence for the "opposition") .

Still, most of this has little or nothing to do with Carol Kaye's literal actions and ignorant stance on the OP.

just because i don't type out multi paragraph responses doesn't mean that i've been rude. short maybe.

my main stance on what has been discussed in this thread has been about two things that others have discussed

taking something that should be paid for without paying is stealing. period.

in certain posts (i'll point no fingers) the slander against Carole Kay was unnecessary.

and, i'm not in over my head. i just choose not to respond to every post that in some cases goes way beyond logical reach for trying to prove a point.