I intended to tell you about it before it started, but time flies..
We have started again with our yearly tradition of the top 2000. It 
started tonight at midnight and will continue until dec 31 midnight.
And they will play ever song. Now listening to nr 1832 Whitney Houston- 
The greatest love of all. (Not my choice but there are people that like 
it).

There is some Dutch but it is mainly mainstream. (With comparatively 
little of my favorite artists ;) )

It is broadcasted also on the internet via: http://top2008.radio2.nl/
with a button labeled 'luister live' (listen live).

our top 10 for this year (that nobody will be listening to):

10	U2                      One
9	Guns n' Roses           November rain
8	Alan Parsons Project    Old and wise
7	Animals                 The house of the rising sun
6	Meat Loaf               Paradise by the dashboard light
5	Led Zeppelin            Stairway to heaven
4	Deep Purple             Child in time
3	Boudewijn de Groot      Avond
2	Eagles                  Hotel California
1	Queen                   Bohemian rhapsody

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 1 Queen                   Bohemian rhapsody

Never understood its appeal.  Musically at least, it's bad, like most pop/rock,
except it doesn't even stand out like other Queen hits for instance.

Must be one of those songs which act like a hymn to a generation or something,
with hidden messages or whatever...

Post a reply to this message

On 26-Dec-08 18:32, nemesis wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 1 Queen                   Bohemian rhapsody
> 
> Never understood its appeal.  Musically at least, it's bad, 

says who? ;)

> like most pop/rock,
> except it doesn't even stand out like other Queen hits for instance.

Such as?

> Must be one of those songs which act like a hymn to a generation or something,
> with hidden messages or whatever...
> 

When it came out in 1975 it changed the music scene. It may not be the 
truly first but it was a long song, with lots of tempo changes and a 
video that has become an icon. Effectively a sort of mini opera. Nobody 
would have believed at the time that something like that could be a hit. 
After that and because of it the music channels became viable.

Let me guess, you were born after 1970? If so you will never be able to 
experience the shock. Just as I am not able to really understand why 
Beethoven's fifth was so shocking at the time.

(BTW I don't have it in my collection and it would not have been my nr 1 
choice but as a collective nr 1 it is well deserved)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> When it came out in 1975 it changed the music scene.

Really?

I guess I'm too young to understand. I just like it because [parts of] 
it sounds good. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 31-Dec-08 14:21, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> When it came out in 1975 it changed the music scene.
> 
> Really?
> 
> I guess I'm too young to understand. I just like it because [parts of] 
> it sounds good. ;-)
> 
Yeah, that is the trouble with you youngsters. No sense of history.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 1       Queen                   Bohemian rhapsody

  I must wonder about that choice myself as well. IMO Queen had much more
epic songs, such as "I want it all", "I want to break free", "The show
must go on" and perhaps the best known one, "We will rock you" (although
that one has been abused way too much).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 26-Dec-08 18:32, nemesis wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> 1 Queen                   Bohemian rhapsody
> >
> > Never understood its appeal.  Musically at least, it's bad,
>
> says who? ;)

Decrepit music connoisseurs. ;)

> > like most pop/rock,
> > except it doesn't even stand out like other Queen hits for instance.
>
> Such as?

Warp pointed out some...

> When it came out in 1975 it changed the music scene. It may not be the
> truly first but it was a long song, with lots of tempo changes and a
> video that has become an icon. Effectively a sort of mini opera. Nobody
> would have believed at the time that something like that could be a hit.
> After that and because of it the music channels became viable.

Videos are not music.  Musically, I still don't see the appeal.  Most classical
music offer more tempo changes than that, and certainly much more harmonic
texture juice... :)

> Let me guess, you were born after 1970? If so you will never be able to
> experience the shock.

1974 to be precise.  But yes I can look at it today and grasp in shock. ;)

> Just as I am not able to really understand why
> Beethoven's fifth was so shocking at the time.

Shocking or not, that's not why I listen to good music.  If it can't sustain
itself without lyrics, videos, shock, dancing performances and all the showbiz
flash, it's not worth it.

No, I can't help to sound like an ass... :P

Post a reply to this message

On 01-Jan-09 16:40, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 1       Queen                   Bohemian rhapsody
> 
>   I must wonder about that choice myself as well. IMO Queen had much more
> epic songs, such as "I want it all", "I want to break free", "The show
> must go on" and perhaps the best known one, "We will rock you" (although
> that one has been abused way too much).

I am not a Queen fan, but I think all of these are straight and standard 
pop songs. Chorus refrain chorus refrain repeat until bored. Bohemian 
rhapsody is different and when it came out and was first shown on TV it 
touched a great many people. I know it was one of the few songs that my 
father was really impressed by, my wife told me that in the weeks after 
she had seen it the first time she tried to watch every music program 
hoping they would show it again. I think i did the same and so were 
many, many others. So, if there is one Queen song that stands out from 
all other Queen material it is this one. At least for my generation. As 
I remarked to Andy, if you weren't there you will not be able to 
understand what an impact this song had. Just as that I won't be able to 
experience the shock of hearing Beethoven's fifth or Heartbreak Hotel or 
Hey Jude for the first time.

Note I am writing this from a Dutch perspective, which is the only one I 
have. It may be that in other countries Bohemian Rhapsody is perceived 
differently, but here it is the one that stands out over all the other 
work. BTW the same holds for Hotel California that is also perceived 
here as the best Eagles' song. That is why they are at nrs 1 and 2, the 
Beatles, Presley, or the Floyd don't have a change of getting close to 1 
because everybody has it's own favorite.

Post a reply to this message

On 01-Jan-09 17:40, nemesis wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Just as I am not able to really understand why
>> Beethoven's fifth was so shocking at the time.
> 
> Shocking or not, that's not why I listen to good music.  If it can't sustain
> itself without lyrics, videos, shock, dancing performances and all the showbiz
> flash, it's not worth it.

It is slightly more complicated than that. IIRC: They made this piece 
and wanted to bring it out as a single. Which was more or less 
impossible because it was too long and these tempo changes were 
considered out of the question for a pop song (strange because this is 
by definition later than the Beatles, but let's not get sidetracked). 
They decided to use a trick: add a video to it with a theatrical ending. 
Then on TV they would not be able to cut it after a few minutes. That 
worked because everyone was in awe of the video and that meant that the 
single was also played in full on the radio. It also meant that my whole 
generation has listened to it often and very focussed, so it has stuck 
in our collective memory. Incidently I think it is still a good song 
also, and it would not have worked otherwise.

Basically they created the whole concept of a music video in its own 
right just to get their song played. You have been brought up with the 
concept of music videos as a given and probably have not realized that 
when you were born the idea did not even exist yet. BTW I know that 
there were videos made before BR but they were just performances of the 
song or sometimes artistic illustrations. Yet they were there to point 
to the song, which was the important thing. Starting with BR the video 
would be a (and often *the*) key factor in the success of a song.

Post a reply to this message

On 01-Jan-09 20:08, andrel wrote:
> Chorus refrain chorus refrain repeat until bored. 

Watching some translated songs of Leonard Cohen (into Frisian) on the TV 
it suddenly dawned on me that I should have used 'stanza' or something 
like that in stead of either 'chorus' or 'refrain'. My brain keeps 
surprising me.

Post a reply to this message

I'm definitely from a later generation, because the video that really brought
videoclips to my attention was Michael Jackson's Thriller.  *shame*... well,
not so much, I still love "Billie Jean" and "Beat it"... :P

Post a reply to this message

Am Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:08:23 +0100 schrieb andrel:

> On 01-Jan-09 16:40, Warp wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> 1       Queen                   Bohemian rhapsody
>> 
>>   I must wonder about that choice myself as well. IMO Queen had much
>>   more
>> epic songs, such as "I want it all", "I want to break free", "The show
>> must go on" and perhaps the best known one, "We will rock you"
>> (although that one has been abused way too much).
> 
> I am not a Queen fan, but I think all of these are straight and standard
> pop songs. Chorus refrain chorus refrain repeat until bored. Bohemian
> rhapsody is different and when it came out and was first shown on TV it
> touched a great many people. I know it was one of the few songs that my
> father was really impressed by, my wife told me that in the weeks after
> she had seen it the first time she tried to watch every music program
> hoping they would show it again. I think i did the same and so were
> many, many others. So, if there is one Queen song that stands out from
> all other Queen material it is this one. At least for my generation. As
> I remarked to Andy, if you weren't there you will not be able to
> understand what an impact this song had. Just as that I won't be able to
> experience the shock of hearing Beethoven's fifth or Heartbreak Hotel or
> Hey Jude for the first time.

It was also long before my time and maybe I'm totally of, but I would 
just put Queen in the category of commercially succesful glamrock. 
Musically there has been much more experimental stuff in progressive rock 
before and afterwards - from german perspective with its variant called 
"Krautrock" - highly experimental music, which blended rock, classical 
music and electronic music (a lot of musicians in progrock came from a 
classic background - for example two members of the Krautrock group "Can" 
were students of Stockhausen). What is comercial succesful and succesful 
in bringing certain styles of music to the masses (which is a very good 
thing) is sometimes not the latest stage of developement of music. For 
example take a band like Gentle Giant, which is quite difficult to 
understand musically. Nevertheless I think, they influenced also rock 
musicians outside of progrock quite considerable.

If you never heard of them, this recording is might be good to get a 
first impression (maybe it will just sound like noise the first time, but 
I think it is quite intelligent music):

 http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-4781222750582852771

I don't want to take the elitist opinion of the "stupid masses", but 
there are some pearls, which didn't make it in the charts, but were 
important nevertheless.

Post a reply to this message

On 02-Jan-09 23:05, Florian Pesth wrote:
> It was also long before my time and maybe I'm totally of, but I would 
> just put Queen in the category of commercially succesful glamrock.

For me this song changed my opinion. I used to think more or less along 
your line, but with Bohemian Rhapsody that changed. It proved that they 
were prepared to do something rather complicated and still get an 
audience for it. It may have helped expand the musical taste of a few 
people.

> Musically there has been much more experimental stuff in progressive rock 
> before and afterwards - from german perspective with its variant called 
> "Krautrock" - highly experimental music, which blended rock, classical 
> music and electronic music (a lot of musicians in progrock came from a 
> classic background - for example two members of the Krautrock group "Can" 
> were students of Stockhausen). What is comercial succesful and succesful 
> in bringing certain styles of music to the masses (which is a very good 
> thing) is sometimes not the latest stage of developement of music. For 
> example take a band like Gentle Giant, which is quite difficult to 
> understand musically. Nevertheless I think, they influenced also rock 
> musicians outside of progrock quite considerable.
> 
> If you never heard of them, this recording is might be good to get a 
> first impression (maybe it will just sound like noise the first time, but 
> I think it is quite intelligent music):
> 
>  http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-4781222750582852771

I do know them. I am somewhat of a Yes fan (and a lot of other progrock 
as well) and last.fm figured that I would probably also like Gentle 
Giant. I had at least one track marked as a loved track, but it seems to 
have dropped of the stack. I also though I had one album of them on my 
Amazon wish list. Also not true. As I said before 'My brain keeps 
surprising me'.

BTW are you sure this video is in the public domain?

> I don't want to take the elitist opinion of the "stupid masses", but 
> there are some pearls, which didn't make it in the charts, but were 
> important nevertheless.

There are two sides to this. On the one hand in this top2000 are a 
couple of Yes songs that have not made it into the charts or nor very 
far, like Roundabout and Close to the edge (played in full 18 minutes 
during this broadcast \o/ ). Nr 8 is Alan Parsons' Old and wise. Also 
'Child in time' was for a long time nr 1 in the list and only 10 years 
ago or so replaced by Queen. in 2000-2002 it was still nr 2 and it has 
now dropped to 4. All without being a memorable hit. So the list does 
include 'some pearls, which didn't make it in the charts, but were 
important nevertheless'.
On the other hand Mary Black, Loreena McKennitt, Ayreon and Eric Bogle, 
to name a few, are totally missing and Robbie Williams is at 24.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I do know them. I am somewhat of a Yes fan (and a lot of other progrock 

You might want to listen to Glass Hammer, then.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Jan-09 1:39, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I do know them. I am somewhat of a Yes fan (and a lot of other progrock 
> 
> You might want to listen to Glass Hammer, then.
> 
Do you know a legal way to just listen other than buying a CD?
I can find some things on youtube, but I am not sure if that material 
there is illegal. I know of a few instances where the IP holder itself 
uploaded videos, but as far as I can see youtube still does not register 
that. Wikipedia has for all images a note on the copyright status, IMHO 
it is time for youtube to do the same. Until they do, we have to treat 
anything there as illegal uploads.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Do you know a legal way to just listen other than buying a CD?

Most places selling CDs will have 30-second samples. They sound a lot like 
Yes, but without (afaict) most of the really innovative musical stuff. I.e., 
same instruments, much less talent. :-)

> Until they do, we have to treat anything there as illegal uploads.

You may prefer to do that, but in the USA, all the copyright holder has to 
do is send a letter saying "that's mine and I don't want you to share it" 
and down it comes. Since it has become trivially easy here for a 
right-holder to suppress sharing of anything, regardless of whether such 
suppression is legal or not, I personally don't worry too much if I go to a 
site like youtube and watch something to see if I want to buy it.

Of course, if I go to something like The Pirate Bay and find movies that are 
sitting on the shelf of the video rental place right now, I'm pretty sure 
they shouldn't be there. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Jan-09 18:47, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Do you know a legal way to just listen other than buying a CD?
> 
> Most places selling CDs will have 30-second samples. They sound a lot 
> like Yes, but without (afaict) most of the really innovative musical 
> stuff. I.e., same instruments, much less talent. :-)
> 
>> Until they do, we have to treat anything there as illegal uploads.
> 
> You may prefer to do that, but in the USA, all the copyright holder has 
> to do is send a letter saying "that's mine and I don't want you to share 
> it" and down it comes. Since it has become trivially easy here for a 
> right-holder to suppress sharing of anything, regardless of whether such 
> suppression is legal or not, I personally don't worry too much if I go 
> to a site like youtube and watch something to see if I want to buy it.

That sort of assumes that every IP holder should regularly google itself 
to find IP infringements. (just checked, no IP from me yet on youtube) 
It is a way to look at it, but I think experience teaches that 
everything that was once on the net has a big chance of still being 
somewhere. Besides if there is a copyright notice one could also add 
what is allowed to do with it and what not. e.g. only to be viewed on 
this side with the supplied viewer, deep copy, download, put on ones own 
website, used as background in another production etc. And not to forget 
who to consult if you want use beyond that what is granted to anyone.

> Of course, if I go to something like The Pirate Bay and find movies that 
> are sitting on the shelf of the video rental place right now, I'm pretty 
> sure they shouldn't be there. :-)

Never been there at all, but I can image the sort of place ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> It is a way to look at it, but I think experience teaches that 
> everything that was once on the net has a big chance of still being 
> somewhere. 

I've been rather surprised that some of my way-early code posts to netnews 
are still floating around in archives somewhere. Almost embarrassing. :-)

> Besides if there is a copyright notice one could also add 
> what is allowed to do with it and what not.

You could certainly try. In the USA (last I seriously studied it), copyright 
only gives you control over copying, not over how it gets used. *And* even 
that is limited in many ways.

> Never been there at all, but I can image the sort of place ;)

It has been in the news regularly, yes. And note that it doesn't actually 
host any copyrighted materials. :-)

But certainly, you can take an absolute moral stance and refuse to look at 
anything you aren't sure the copyright holder specifically authorized, if 
you want.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Am Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:20:07 +0100 schrieb andrel:

> On 02-Jan-09 23:05, Florian Pesth wrote:
>> It was also long before my time and maybe I'm totally of, but I would
>> just put Queen in the category of commercially succesful glamrock.
> 
> For me this song changed my opinion. I used to think more or less along
> your line, but with Bohemian Rhapsody that changed. It proved that they
> were prepared to do something rather complicated and still get an
> audience for it. It may have helped expand the musical taste of a few
> people.

Agree with that point.

> 
> I do know them. I am somewhat of a Yes fan (and a lot of other progrock
> as well) and last.fm figured that I would probably also like Gentle
> Giant. I had at least one track marked as a loved track, but it seems to
> have dropped of the stack. I also though I had one album of them on my
> Amazon wish list. Also not true. As I said before 'My brain keeps
> surprising me'.

Which song / album? Maybe I can give some (subjective) recommodations, I 
have some of their albums. Do you know some good italian progrock? 

> 
> BTW are you sure this video is in the public domain?

I'm sorry, you are right. Checking it, it is probably not, although it 
was produced for the second german television ZDF, which is financed 
publically, but of course that is no excuse.

> 
>> I don't want to take the elitist opinion of the "stupid masses", but
>> there are some pearls, which didn't make it in the charts, but were
>> important nevertheless.
> 
> There are two sides to this. On the one hand in this top2000 are a
> couple of Yes songs that have not made it into the charts or nor very
> far, like Roundabout and Close to the edge (played in full 18 minutes
> during this broadcast \o/ ). Nr 8 is Alan Parsons' Old and wise. Also
> 'Child in time' was for a long time nr 1 in the list and only 10 years
> ago or so replaced by Queen. in 2000-2002 it was still nr 2 and it has
> now dropped to 4. All without being a memorable hit. So the list does
> include 'some pearls, which didn't make it in the charts, but were
> important nevertheless'.
> On the other hand Mary Black, Loreena McKennitt, Ayreon and Eric Bogle,
> to name a few, are totally missing and Robbie Williams is at 24.

Oh well, not too bad than. I admit, that I also sometimes are guilty for 
listening to simple mass compatible stuff (Shocking Blue anyone? :)).

Post a reply to this message

Am Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:38:15 -0500 schrieb Florian Pesth:

> Which song / album? Maybe I can give some (subjective) recommodations, I
> have some of their albums. Do you know some good italian progrock?
> 
> 
>> BTW are you sure this video is in the public domain?

Just to make it clear - I buy all my music - and agree with your point on 
copyright.

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Jan-09 23:46, Florian Pesth wrote:
> Am Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:38:15 -0500 schrieb Florian Pesth:
> 
>> Which song / album? 

it may have been Funny Ways, but I am not sure.

>> Maybe I can give some (subjective) recommodations, I
>> have some of their albums.
>> Do you know some good italian progrock?
Actually: no at least not that I am aware of.
US, UK, Dutch, Scandinavian even German would not have been a problem, 
but Italian??
>>
>>> BTW are you sure this video is in the public domain?
> 
> Just to make it clear - I buy all my music - and agree with your point on 
> copyright.

No problem. I will assume that you did not watch the link you posted 
then. ;)

There are actually two points on the copyright issue, one is the obvious 
and the other is that rigorous application makes recommending music to 
'friends' very hard.

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Jan-09 23:38, Florian Pesth wrote:

> 
>> BTW are you sure this video is in the public domain?
> 
> I'm sorry, you are right. Checking it, it is probably not, although it 
> was produced for the second german television ZDF, which is financed 
> publically, but of course that is no excuse.

Why does the info then describe it as for a belgium TV channel?
No, I am not going to recheck the link, it was too much of a fight to 
get youtube back to english after it. :(

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> it is time for youtube to do the same. Until they do, we have to treat 
> anything there as illegal uploads.

Actually, thinking on it, there are an awful lot of places that use youtube 
to serve their own content to the public, like
http://www.rhfleet.org/site/imax/animalopolis.cfm
does. So it's really far from clear how much of the commercial content is 
actually illegal. It wouldn't surprise me to learn many of the rock videos 
are actually uploaded by the artists to be linked from their own sites.

(That's an amusing video there, too.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On 04-Jan-09 18:06, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> it is time for youtube to do the same. Until they do, we have to treat 
>> anything there as illegal uploads.
> 
> Actually, thinking on it, there are an awful lot of places that use 
> youtube to serve their own content to the public, like
> http://www.rhfleet.org/site/imax/animalopolis.cfm does. 

I know, if the website of my research center finally will be publicly 
available, the videos will be hosted by youtube. That was not my idea.

> So it's really far from clear how much of the commercial content 
> is actually illegal. 

Indeed

> It wouldn't surprise me to learn many of the rock 
> videos are actually uploaded by the artists to be linked from their own 
> sites.

It might be, but then it appears that quite a lot of people were in very 
famous bands and in a lot of them. ;)
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QpRCK1IbiE is uploaded by the 
artist herself whereas e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV3WkBZrcp0 
comes from the same DVD but is almost certainly illegally uploaded by 
someone else. (I feel totally relaxed viewing these as I have the DVD ;) 
) How would anyone not knowing about quinlanroad know which one is the 
legal one (unless there is a note in the video), especially if artists 
do not use their own name but the name of the street they once lived in 
as a tag? And does that matter?

> (That's an amusing video there, too.)

That also illustrates the IP difficulties. It consists of footage and a 
soundtrack. The montage is clearly IP by this site, but did they have 
permission to use the footage and the vocals? How do I know? Again, does 
that matter?

Post a reply to this message

On 04-Jan-09 21:40, andrel wrote:

> Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QpRCK1IbiE is uploaded by the 
> artist herself whereas e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV3WkBZrcp0 
> comes from the same DVD but is almost certainly illegally uploaded by 
> someone else. (I feel totally relaxed viewing these as I have the DVD ;) 
> ) How would anyone not knowing about quinlanroad know which one is the 
> legal one (unless there is a note in the video), especially if artists 
> do not use their own name but the name of the street they once lived in 
> as a tag? And does that matter?
> 
Apparently everything can be found on the internet, but this is getting 
a bit silly. Throughout the day I have done some (very limited) work 
while in the background I had the Black Symphony DVD from Within 
Temptation playing for the first time. (Nice work btw). Also when typing 
this response to Darren. I listened a bit to Loreena as a consequence of 
this post. What have they in common? not much I would say, one combines 
celtic folk and oriental and traditional music and the other group plays 
'gothic metal' and then I stumbled upon 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hGgvASvUIR8 and 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fSlXkoGiFY

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> one combines celtic folk and oriental and traditional music

  I have wondered why celtic-style music is so popular, and why does it
evoke such idyllic mental images of medieval Europe, with castles, villages,
bards and exotic paganism. It also usually evokes images of the high fantasy
genre, which usually uses as its universe something very similar to medieval
Europe.

  Did real celtic music of the period really sound anything like that?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 04-Jan-09 23:56, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> one combines celtic folk and oriental and traditional music
> 
>   I have wondered why celtic-style music is so popular,

Main reason for me is that because they have a musical tradition of 
songs there are more exceptional singers per 1000 inhabitants than in 
e.g. the Netherlands. I happen to like good voices.

>  and why does it
> evoke such idyllic mental images of medieval Europe, with castles, villages,
> bards and exotic paganism. It also usually evokes images of the high fantasy
> genre, which usually uses as its universe something very similar to medieval
> Europe.
> 
>   Did real celtic music of the period really sound anything like that?
> 
I am not a true expert but I think that music of that period sounded 
like contemporary celtic music. E.g. Blackmore's Night is a group that 
tries to capture in some songs the feeling of medieval music though it 
probably is still a bit of guessing. They get sometimes accused of 
playing folk.

I would not be surprised if even the old finish music that was played in 
pubs and on gatherings in the 18th century was more like celtic music 
than Sibelius. So my guess is that the Scots and the Irish have more 
been able to keep the tradition than mainland europe where the music 
became more intellectual and a form of art than something to bond a 
group of fiends.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> How would anyone not knowing about quinlanroad know which one is the 
> legal one (unless there is a note in the video),

Errr, how would you know the note is correct? :-)

It used to be that at least in the USA, you actually had to put a copyright 
notice on the copyrighted material to be protected. That too went out the 
window, sadly enough.

>> (That's an amusing video there, too.)
> 
> That also illustrates the IP difficulties. It consists of footage and a 
> soundtrack. The montage is clearly IP by this site, but did they have 
> permission to use the footage and the vocals? How do I know? Again, does 
> that matter?

I'm assuming that a specialty movie theatre posting preview of the movies 
they are showing have permission to do so. Just like when I go in person to 
a movie theatre, I expect the movie theatre has obtained permission to show 
the movie to the public.

I'm not going to get so paranoid that I'm going to call up Mr Lucas to see 
if the 20th anniversary showing of Star Wars at the local movie theatre is 
authorized.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> That also illustrates the IP difficulties. 

For that matter, you asked how to listen without buying the CD. How do you 
know the CD is authorized? :-) I have a few movies I bought on DVD in China. 
Probably bootleg, of course, but *I* wasn't the one copying them. Is that "bad"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 04-Jan-09 23:56, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> one combines celtic folk and oriental and traditional music
> >
> >   I have wondered why celtic-style music is so popular,
>
> Main reason for me is that because they have a musical tradition of
> songs there are more exceptional singers per 1000 inhabitants than in
> e.g. the Netherlands. I happen to like good voices.

I don't like human voices in music.  Specially as the words spoken tend to take
the audience attention's away from the music itself, a good excuse for the
musical poorness of too many songs.

That said, I enjoy celtic instrumentation and style...

Post a reply to this message

On 05-Jan-09 1:09, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> That also illustrates the IP difficulties. 
> 
> For that matter, you asked how to listen without buying the CD. How do 
> you know the CD is authorized? :-) I have a few movies I bought on DVD 
> in China. Probably bootleg, of course, but *I* wasn't the one copying 
> them. Is that "bad"?
> 
hmm, yes. You were aware that they were (probably) illegal, so you are 
guilty of something that I don't know the English word for.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 05-Jan-09 1:09, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> That also illustrates the IP difficulties. 
>>
>> For that matter, you asked how to listen without buying the CD. How do 
>> you know the CD is authorized? :-) I have a few movies I bought on DVD 
>> in China. Probably bootleg, of course, but *I* wasn't the one copying 
>> them. Is that "bad"?
>>
> hmm, yes. You were aware that they were (probably) illegal, so you are 
> guilty of something that I don't know the English word for.

What makes you sure they were illegal in China? And what makes you think 
that *I* did anything illegal by buying them, even if they were?  As Warp 
points out, different countries have different standards. If I buy something 
off a shelf in a public store, I don't expect that buying it is illegal 
where I buy it. When I go in a restaurant, I don't imagine they're serving 
me food that I'll get arrested for eating. How am I to guess that the USA 
movies with Chinese subtitles are or aren't authorized for sale in China?

Copyright law (in the USA at least) prevents you from copying things without 
permission. Most everything else is pretty much fair game, as evidenced by 
the lengths that people selling software go through to try to get you to 
agree to more restrictions on your use of the software.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Actually, thinking on it, there are an awful lot of places that use youtube 
> to serve their own content to the public, like
> http://www.rhfleet.org/site/imax/animalopolis.cfm
> does.

  Too bad that many artists don't actually own their own music. Their
recording companies do. It's really twisted, but that's how the contracts
work (and the musicians usually don't go challenging that).

  For example Warner Music is infamous among artists for removing music
from youtube which has been composed by the artists specifically for youtube,
and uploaded by the artist himself. Warner seems to think that they own
*all* the music created by the artists they have contracts with, regardless
of when and for what purpose they compose.

  I suppose no artist has even taken this to court, and I can't blame them.
Would you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 05-Jan-09 18:23, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 05-Jan-09 1:09, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> That also illustrates the IP difficulties. 
>>>
>>> For that matter, you asked how to listen without buying the CD. How 
>>> do you know the CD is authorized? :-) I have a few movies I bought on 
>>> DVD in China. Probably bootleg, of course, but *I* wasn't the one 
>>> copying them. Is that "bad"?
>>>
>> hmm, yes. You were aware that they were (probably) illegal, so you are 
>> guilty of something that I don't know the English word for.
> 
> What makes you sure they were illegal in China? And what makes you think 
> that *I* did anything illegal by buying them, even if they were?  As 
> Warp points out, different countries have different standards. If I buy 
> something off a shelf in a public store, I don't expect that buying it 
> is illegal where I buy it. When I go in a restaurant, I don't imagine 
> they're serving me food that I'll get arrested for eating. How am I to 
> guess that the USA movies with Chinese subtitles are or aren't 
> authorized for sale in China?

You could be right, but my guess is that even if pirated DVD's are not 
illegal in China (which I doubt) you still cannot import them into the 
US. In many countries things made from coral or shells or leather are 
sold that you can not import into e.g. the Netherlands because they are 
made from protected animals. As a tourist you have to know that. If you 
are caught with such items in your luggage you will be prosecuted. "I 
didn't know that and there were hundreds of these shells on the beach 
anyway" simply does not work, as many tourists have found out. I assume 
importing pirated movies may be handled the same. IANAL though.

> Copyright law (in the USA at least) prevents you from copying things 
> without permission. 

I think the main discussion is: can you legally own pirated copies? IIRC 
the rule here is that you can always have at most one copy of an IP 
protected work that you do own as a backup. I assume the Rijksmuseum has 
a copy of the Nightwatch somewhere in case it gets lost in a fire.

> Most everything else is pretty much fair game, as 
> evidenced by the lengths that people selling software go through to try 
> to get you to agree to more restrictions on your use of the software.

Often followed by a note that these restriction do not apply in 
countries where such restrictions are illegal. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> You could be right, but my guess is that even if pirated DVD's are not 
> illegal in China (which I doubt)

What makes you think they're pirated?

> you still cannot import them into the US. 

That's a different thing than copyright violation, tho. :-)

> importing pirated movies may be handled the same. IANAL though.

Again, whoever tries to confiscate them or whatever would first have to 
prove that the manufacturer in China didn't have a license to copy them in 
the first place. (Of course, you could confiscate on suspicion, but that's 
just abuse of power.)

>> Copyright law (in the USA at least) prevents you from copying things 
>> without permission. 
> 
> I think the main discussion is: can you legally own pirated copies?

It wouldn't be copyright law that prevents it, is my point. There are laws 
against theft of services, and against taking possession of stolen goods 
(with various penalties depending on whether you knew they were stolen), but 
AFAIK there's no law against owning a copy of something that the seller 
shouldn't have copied. I'd like to hear if there is.

 > IIRC the rule here is that you can always have at most one copy of an IP
> protected work that you do own as a backup.

The rule *here* is you can have *at least* one copy as a backup. At least 
for software.

You can also make copies if it's fundamentally necessary for using the 
copyrighted product. E.g., the owner can't claim you violated copyright by 
loading the software into the computer's memory or the DVD player's memory.

> Often followed by a note that these restriction do not apply in 
> countries where such restrictions are illegal. ;)

That too.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On 05-Jan-09 21:59, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> You could be right, but my guess is that even if pirated DVD's are not 
>> illegal in China (which I doubt)
> 
> What makes you think they're pirated?

because they were too cheap is the usual answer.

>> you still cannot import them into the US. 
> 
> That's a different thing than copyright violation, tho. :-)

never claimed that, I think I said "you are guilty of something that I 
don't know the English word for"

>> importing pirated movies may be handled the same. IANAL though.
> 
> Again, whoever tries to confiscate them or whatever would first have to 
> prove that the manufacturer in China didn't have a license to copy them 
> in the first place. (Of course, you could confiscate on suspicion, but 
> that's just abuse of power.)

Customs here is trained in recognizing pirated material.

>>> Copyright law (in the USA at least) prevents you from copying things 
>>> without permission. 
>>
>> I think the main discussion is: can you legally own pirated copies?
> 
> It wouldn't be copyright law that prevents it, is my point. 
indeed ;)
> There are 
> laws against theft of services, and against taking possession of stolen 
> goods (with various penalties depending on whether you knew they were 
> stolen), but AFAIK there's no law against owning a copy of something 
> that the seller shouldn't have copied. I'd like to hear if there is.

I'd say that here you don't even need to have bought it for money.

>  > IIRC the rule here is that you can always have at most one copy of an IP
>> protected work that you do own as a backup.
> 
> The rule *here* is you can have *at least* one copy as a backup. At 
> least for software.

interesting.

> You can also make copies if it's fundamentally necessary for using the 
> copyrighted product. E.g., the owner can't claim you violated copyright 
> by loading the software into the computer's memory or the DVD player's 
> memory.

true
> 
>> Often followed by a note that these restriction do not apply in 
>> countries where such restrictions are illegal. ;)
> 
> That too.
>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 05-Jan-09 21:59, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> You could be right, but my guess is that even if pirated DVD's are 
>>> not illegal in China (which I doubt)
>>
>> What makes you think they're pirated?
> 
> because they were too cheap is the usual answer.

But the "real" DVDs are cheap in china too. Nobody has the money to pay a 
week's salary for a USD$20 DVD in china.

> never claimed that, I think I said "you are guilty of something that I 
> don't know the English word for"

True. I still don't know what that might be, tho. Patents cover importation 
of counterfeit goods.  I don't think they cover copyrighted materials, and 
copyright is about copying, not transporting.

>> The rule *here* is you can have *at least* one copy as a backup. At 
>> least for software.
> 
> interesting.

Of course the copyright holder can give you permission to make more than one 
copy for your own use. The trick is that they're not allowed to make it 
impossible for you to back up your software. (I'm pretty sure something like 
DVDs are a different set of rules - it all boils down to a big pile of 
special cases called "fair use".)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:04:15 -0800, Darren New wrote:

>>> What makes you think they're pirated?
>> 
>> because they were too cheap is the usual answer.
> 
> But the "real" DVDs are cheap in china too. Nobody has the money to pay
> a week's salary for a USD$20 DVD in china.

I don't know that the real discs make it to China.  China doesn't exactly 
have strong intellectual property laws.  I've heard it said (by people 
who have worked with companies in China) that if you operate an 
international company in China and you have proprietary data that might 
cross the network there, *don't* let it cross the network there.  The 
Chinese government can mandate that you put a government-provided sniffer 
on the network, and turn over any encryption keys that might be in use to 
protect your IP.

In one case, I heard of a company not complying with the government 
"request" to put the sniffer on the network, and the company got a visit 
from the Chinese military to enforce the request.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> In one case, I heard of a company not complying with the government 
> "request" to put the sniffer on the network, and the company got a visit 
> from the Chinese military to enforce the request.

  When the name of a country has the word "republic" in it, that's a very
good sign that it isn't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:34:04 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> In one case, I heard of a company not complying with the government
>> "request" to put the sniffer on the network, and the company got a
>> visit from the Chinese military to enforce the request.
> 
>   When the name of a country has the word "republic" in it, that's a
>   very
> good sign that it isn't.

True enough.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message