[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: But quote: Originally posted by Yorick: That only becomes copyright infringement if you sell the recording. If you make money off the song. However, the law requires you to pay a compulsory license out of sales. There is nothing that suggests you cannot sing or record a song for your own personal enjoyment. You just don't own the song, so can't advertise with it, sell it etc

The highlighted sentence is actually a direct contradiction to everything you have been saying since your opening post, Yorick. You have said from Post One that individuals are NOT ALLOWED to make a copy of a song for ANY reason...not even their own personal enjoyment. [/QUOTE]You are again, yet again, confusing the song with the physical copy of the recording. I was speaking about singing and recording the SONG, not making a physical COPY of the recording.

If I get a tape recorder and sing a song onto a blank tape, I have not infringed copyright. If I sell it - without paying the writer a share - I have infringed copyright.

If I take a recording and make a copy of it, under Australian copyright laws, I have infringed copyright.

I am not suggesting people don't make backup CDs of their CDs. Just be aware that doing so infringes copyright (in Australia at least). That knowledge creates an understanding of the distinction between intellectual property and physical property, and possibly could have prevented the widespread music theft, had that awareness been higher.

If you know it's illegal to copy just one CD it makes you think twice before handing out 10 copies to all your friends.

I've also noted that you have consistently told people their opinions aren't valid if they aren't a musician and "living the life". To my knowledge, that would mean the ONLY IW member whose opinion IS valid here would then be yours. I don't know of any other members that are trying to make thier living as a musician.

That would be correct. Opinions on this issue are irrelevent. It is not a matter of opinion, but knowledge of facts. Either something is illegal or it isn't.

"To my knowledge" should be used in such a discussion of facts, not "in my opinion." You can have an opinion on whether something is MORAL, but need knowledge as to whether it's LEGAL.

As such, only a few Ironworkers have posted FACTS. Timber is a lawyer for example. He is more familiar with US law than I am. I have however, accumulated enough legal knowledge over the years, to negotiate my own contracts - both here and in Australia, and teach Australian music business at tertiary level.

I am not presenting my opinion, but facts. Hence the appearance to you, that I am only counting my opinon as valid.

I also noted that when examples WERE given of other musicians that disagreed with your viewpoint, you basically said their opinions weren't valid either. The Grateful Dead, Journey, and Van Halen were called dinosaurs (of course, they all still get a bucket-load of play time on the radio). And Madonna is a good businesswoman, but nobody considers her a great vocalist...well, nobody except the fans that have purchased about a gazillion of her albums.

Madonna is not regarded as a great vocalist. By any stretch. Fans are not an accurate judge of talent, peers are. Nonmusical fans simply don't have the listening skills to accurately determine vocal skill.

Now, before you carry on about me unfairly judging nonmusicians, let me assure you, listening IS A SKILL that gets better. People in the musical field literally hear things the average human does not. I have personally experienced this. My listening is far, far better than at age 18, when I was not a musician. This is despite my HEARING suffering some damage. Listening is the mental ability to assess soundwaves. It occurs in the brain, after the ears have sent all the signals there.

I can assess within a few words whether someone has a good voice or not. Because I have taught and produced numerous vocalists, and possess the ability to change tone quite substancially over various musical styles, I know what I am listening for. While the average fan hears the RESULT of the process when they hear Madonnas records, I and my peers can hear the PROCESS.

Can you hear autotune for example? Can you hear the tonal difference it's application makes? Autotune, when applied in the extreme is the sound that was on Chers voice in "Life After Love". It corrects pitch. Used sensatively it can be practically unheard. However, even though you cannot hear the application of it, a good listener will be able to hear the TONAL change it leaves. Occaisionally, an engineer will make a judgement error, and you may even hear it working on a great singer. The band Train have a particular song on their first record, in which you can hear the autotune correction.

Now, this is just one example of engineering technique. Vocal technique is altogether different. Singers hear all the good and bad stuff. We can hear nodes on a throat, whether someone sings from their throat, or uses their diaphragm.

Just yesterday, I was recording a lead vocal in front of a room full of world class professional singers, and actually got nervous. I knew they could hear every inflection, every tonal choice, every piece of uncertainty, every deviation from intent. It meant my focus was so fine. I in turn became conscious of the smallest details.

Regarding Maddonnas singing, I hear limited tonal choices, limited range, control limitations, emotional performance limitations. She does well with what she's been given, but she does the job. She doesn't excel as purely a vocalist.

As an ARTIST however, she is brilliant. Her record sales are testimony to the emotional connection she has with her audience. She picks good producers and co-writers, changes her style regularly, and delivers consistently sucessful work. "RAY OF LIGHT" was an incredible work that resonated with my own taste.

All this makes the point that the average fan does not have the skill sets to accurately assess the merits of an instrumentalist. One must know and understand an instrument, or craft, to accurately assess it. Just as the academy votes in their respective field for the Oscars, so too a piano player can tell a great pianist, better than a drummer will. Although, by virtue of working with pianists, a drummer will understand the instrument better than one who doesn't work with them.

I stand by my declaration that Journey, Van Halen, and Grateful Dead, all getting "bucketloads of radioplay" and the $$$$$ that come from that airplay, are not reliant on a record company as a newly signed act without an audience, income source or means of promoting themselves are.

It is easy for those "dinosaurs" to do away with record sales, because they have established careers. As I said, airplay alone, plus concerts would make dollars. Not to mention, their albums all recouped long ago.

Recouped, meaning paid back their advances to the record company, and so now see profit.

[ 02-06-2004, 03:10 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]