Me and My Kar-Zoo-Skee (1/9/2001)


"Busted flat in Oregon, waiting for a train
Anita's feeling nearly as tired as Ray's rants
Ray thumbed a diesel down just before it rained,
Woulda caught it sooner wearing pants.

I pulled my manifesto out of my dirty red bandanna,
I was writin' down all of Ray K's spews.
Windshield wipers slapping time, talkin' 'bout the FBI,
We told that driver 'bout the Mirror of Trvth.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose,
Nothing don't mean nothing honey if it ain't free, now now.
And spamming Usenets easy, Lord, for a retired man in blue
You know spamming was good enough for me,
Good enough for me and my Kar-Zoo-Skee"

Cyn
Everybody sing!

Can women throw 1.5 lb objects over ten foot objects?

Why, yes. Yes we can. And I highly recommend it. It's a blast.

Dr. Charlie wrote:

DAMN YOU ALL!

Cyn wrote:

SECONDED!

The standard Mark 11A1 fragmentation grenade used by the U.S. Army in WWII weighed 1.31 lbs. The "baseball" greande used today is, I'm sure, even lighter (but I don't have specs for it handy). Now lets all go find something that weighs about 21 oz and see how high we can throw it in the air.

A can of Albertson's brand Beef stew weighs 24 oz, or 1 lb 8 oz. Says so right on the can.

Dr. Charlie

Having a hard time believing Gary's girlfriend.

Me too.

Control3 wrote:

You just lost your own argument.

Wrong.

How far can a normal woman throw a baseball (I say "normal" versus a Betty Battleship who might be a professional softball pitcher)?

I thought we agreed on Annie Amazon.

A major league baseball weighs between 5 and 5.25 ounces. Therefore, a grenade is 4 times as heavy as a baseball. I don't think it's so shocking that the women had a hard time throwing it over the wall.

I do. How high is a regulation basketball hoop?

There were a couple of guys I remember in basic training who couldn't throw the grenade more than a few feet.

Then they were wussies.

Not an Annie Amazon, I'm 5 5 and weigh 128 lbs. I am a confessed wussy girl, and I regularly get my ass handed to me on the basketball court by a bunch of 11 year olds.

In response to this post, I felt the need (how's that for obsessive)to take said can of stew to the park, where I proceeded to bounce it off the backboard twice, and sail it over the top on the third try with at least a foot to spare. I did it about five or six more times just to prove I could, and my son was laughing so hard he nearly had to be carried home.

If I have just been the victim of a cruel troll devised by Gary and Charlie to see who's life is the most pathetic, y'all win.

Cyn~

Now its back to the park with more canned goods, that was fun

On Napster and "Good" art (11/2000)

Beldin wrote: (yeah, its a Beldar thread, which means this post is seven friggin pages long, so put yer feet up...)
 
*snip*
>
>Trust me, you're in the vast minority. An overwhelming majority thinks
>this is far different than cassette tapes.
>
Cyn wrote: 
Yeah, well, I don't believe you.
 
>>
>> >MP3's produce perfect copies, distributable to homes from thousands
>> >of miles away for almost no cost.
>> >Tapes require investment in tapes, and the actual time to copy the tape
>> >again, and generational distortion and degradation.
>> >The billions of downloads since napster far outpaces cassette copies.
>> >
>> This is exactly why unsigned acts love it so much, its a cheap way to
>> get your stuff out there-- and it sounds great. Its a good thing for
>> struggling artists.
>And the above paragraph is completely irrelevent to the discussion as
>to whether mp3's are more, less, or about the same, in terms of their
>effect on illegal reproduction.
>
 
What exactly do you want done about it, Beldin?
 
>>
>> > and second of all, I don't think it would hurt the music industry to make a slightly less obscene
>> >amountof money at all.
>> >
>> >To make none, however, or almost none would kill it.
>>
>> The amount of money my spouse has made on music wouldn't even pay for
>> his equipment. He plays because he likes to play. He's not unusual
>> that way.
>>
>He would be quite unusual that way, if he were good enough and
>connected enough to make a living at it.
>
 
Its not his main priority. This is the nature of the business, Beldin, it isn't unusual at all. There are truly brilliant, (not claiming he's necessarily one of them) almost completely ignored musicians all over the world who just have better things to do than chuck it all and chase the rainbow. They do this because they love it, and choose to support themselves in less fickle professions for security.
 
We heard a little house band called "The Tune Cats" at an open jam last night, and for the most part, they were exactly what you'd expect from a bar band, until their lead singer, Tara, opened her mouth. The woman had a voice like honey oozing down a dry riverbed. I requested "Me and Bobby McGee" on a hunch, and she completely broke my heart.
 
But, yeah, she's got a day job, and she's keeping it. There are unsung artists with other priorities everywhere, Beldin.
 
 
>He is unsuccessful, so he keeps trying. This is far different than,
>He's quite successful, but people keep stealing from him.
>
 
Once again, what do you want done about it? If your plan involves removing this option from musicians who want their stuff out there, I disagree with it. If it involves record companies encoding the
recordings of artists who don't,  I'll agree with it.
 
>> >And how would you like it if someone stole your artwork, made prints
>> >it, gave it away to anyone who wanted it so that you could never sell
>> >it, and by the way left you no control over who could have it?
>> >
>>
>> This is exactly what tends to happen with the graphics I've designed
>> for web pages. I started putting watermarks on them, and found a nifty
>> little script that prevents right clicking, but the answer to this is
>> linkware-- permission to use the art for non-commercial use in
>> exchange for a link back, and charging for custom designs and
>> customizing existing designs.
>>
>> Its pretty standard practice among those who wish to make money at
>> this that they are also willing to let certain stuff go for the
>> advertising it could bring in. For artists of any medium, the first
>> step is to get out there, be seen, be heard, be read. Art has to hook
>> you before you'll buy it.
>
>But Napster isn't about unsigned unknowns, nor is this conversation,
>really.
 
Napster is about a lot of different types of music. And  this
conversation is about you wanting to argue, nothing more, nothing less. Until you tell me just what you want done about all this, I haven't the faintest idea what this conversation is about, other than that. You seem to be against the technology and the practice of
trading music in general, and I am not.
 
>The acts that have already become popular and are CHARGING for their
>stuff (like you claim you wish to, and do, above) are losing revenue,
>and quite a bit of it.
>
 
How much? See, I still buy cds. I have about half of "Globe Sessions" in mp3s, I also have both the tape, for the car, and the cd, for my stereo. Aside from not having a cd player in my car, I don't think I'm that odd. At least not in this way.
 
>>
>> > Musicians haven't always had the godlike celebrity status they have today.
>> >
>> >A lot of them still don't.
>> >Quite a number of B- Acts don't make obscene amounts of money.
>> >
>>
>> I know this. You'd think they'd be bitter or something, but they're
>> usually not. Well, goth bands are, but thats just an integral part of
>> the music.
>They aren't volunteering to work for free either.
>
 
Beldin, it is *tradition* for new and lesser known bands to work for free, and to pass out free tapes, and now CDS at shows. They *do* volunteer to work for free. Many of them are working for *less* than free.
 
>
>>
>> > There will always be a venue for them to make
>> >> money, mp3s or not. People don't *live* in their computers. (Okay,
>> >> well *I* do, but I'm not normal)
>> >>
>> >Cyn, you've got to learn to keep up to date before you make statements
>> >like that. MP3 players are out, and they're relatively inexpensive, and getting
>> >cheaper all the time.
>> >Players that load from computers, players that can read mp3's from cd's
>> >burned by anyone... "jukebox" players capable of holding 100 hours of
>> >music.
>> >
>> >Even regular jukeboxes that connect to the internet and download from
>> >MP3.com....
>> >
>> >It isn't just computer geeks, and it IS most of the college student
>> >base, the group that buys the greater percent of new music.
>>
>> Beldin, those things have been out for over a year to my knowlege, and
>> they still aren't sellin' like hotcakes.
>
>Nope, the new mp3 players just came out. These are the big jukeboxes,
>and the CD-MP3 player.
>
> They're gawd awful expensive.
>
>Wrong again, Cyn. Do you read up on this, or just guess?
>They range from about 100 bucks to 500 bucks for the Nomad Jukebox
>(holds 100 hours of mp3's, and is the size of a portable player).
>Relatively inexpensive, given what it can hold.
>
 
I hadn't seen the new ones, then, no. I can tell you I won't be
shelling out for one. Why? Do you wish to outlaw them?
 
>> >> A writer writes, a painter paints and a musician plays, thats just all
>> >> there is to it.
>> >
>> >Not always. Quite a number of the above work; they do it because it's
>> >how they make their living.
>> >Doyle chose to kill of Sherlock Holmes, and his fans made him bring
>> >back . Eddings wrote sequals in part because he got a lot of money
>> >thrown his way.
>> >
>>
>> Eddings'  sequals to the Belgariad largely blew.
>
>
>Aw, that's bullshit.
>I and all the fans who bought his books like crazy disagree.
>
>Were they as good as the original? Of course not. Would this be a
>better world without them? Surely you jest.
>
> Before you start,
>
>Too late.
>
>>I loved them because they were about the characters I loved, but there's
>> no way they could stand alone. I'm glad he wrote them, and I'll buy
>> the next one, but come on.
>>
>What next one?
>It's been 2 years, hon, there won't be any more.
>
 
You don't know that, sugar.  Four years between Seeress of Kell and Belgarath, two between Belgarath and Polgara. It could happen.
 
>
>> Another one of my favourite guilty pleasure type authors, Stephen
>> King, has admitted to several books written "because the publisher
>> wanted them" -- for money. I knew he was going to say "IT" was one of
>> them before it came out of his mouth. It was silly and awful. And yes,
>> I paid for it. Twice. (Kid threw the first copy into the pool,
>> brilliant lil bugger)
>>
>> OTOH, one of my all time fav albums, "Bat out of Hell", was made
>> purely for money, and it would be a shame if that had never been made,
>> but otoh again, Meatloaf didn't make much of it, and he's still
>> around. He was screwed pretty badly, and it shut him up for a long
>> time, but he did keep at it.
>
>Query : is the world better for the work in question?
>I say yes, yes, yes.\
>
 
My world is, yes. In the grand scheme of things? No. I'm not prepared to take this quite that seriously.
 
>>
>> >If no one likes what you're creating well enough to
>> >> pay for it, you won't make money, but artists don't just *stop*
>> >> creating.
>> >
>> >Sure they do.
>> >And some who still create simply won'd share it. Why give it away?
>> >
>>
>> You seem to think I'm arguing something Im not. I'm not suggesting
>> that musicians be *forced* to allow unlimited reproduction and
>> distribution of their work. I think if Metalica wants to act like huge
>> wussy hypocrites now that they are rich, they have every right to, and
>> getting their music pulled off Napster was their prerogative.
>
>
>Hon, you still don't get it here.
>You can't get music "pulled" off Napster.
>Napster is peer-to-peer. There's no central storehouse of music.
>
 
Sugar, yes I do. Do you know what happened to people trading Metalica on Napster? I do. Their accounts were terminated, therefore, their libraries longer accessable to other users-- hence music pulled off Napster.
 
Of course, it was easy to get a new account, but Kim doesn't  put Metalica up anymore.
 
>>Any band who finds songs there they'd rather not be giving away should have the
>> right to have it removed from the server.
>>
>They aren't on the server.
>Napster simply serves to connect those who wish to illegally transfer
>music.
>
 
(sigh) The music is in individual libraries. A search will reveal who has what. Napster can  deny those users who have illegal material access to the server. The material is thereby removed from the server.
 
>>  But its only "theft" if the artist doesn't want it there. This is
>> stll a fantastic medium for people who just want to get out there, and
>> yes, I *do* think it will give them an edge over bands who don't. It's
>> a much needed edge.
>>
>As I said earlier, anyone who wants to give it away is allowed to.
>Why anyone selling it would want their old stuff given away is beyond
>me.
>
 
Why do they send free cds to radio stations? Is that beyond you too?
 
>
>> >
>> >I don't think the state of music would be harmed if people
>> >> who get no enjoyment from the creative process itself dropped out, but
>> >> of course, that's just my personal opinion.
>> >
>> >Of course it is, and it's wrong.
>>
>> Opinions aren't "wrong".
>True.
>They can be based on elitist thinking however, and that's wrong.
>
 
Its not elitist to admit that *I*, personally, would not miss the Backstreet Boys if they stopped making music tomorrow, and its not elitist to say that people would not actually *suffer* if this
happened, because its true. No one will become sick and die with no Backstreet Boys.
 
> A lot of the music I enjoy is decidedly--
>> well, crap. Crap written to make money.  Yes, it would be very sad if
>> I never got to listen to the Waitresses drone "I know What Boys Like"
>> ever again, but California wouldn't fall into the sea.
>>
>Did it touch you? Or anyone else?
>
 
Did it touch me? Um... no. I was quite moved by "Valley Girl" though.
 
>> But otoh again, it might if I'd never heard "Paradise by the Dashboard
>> Lights", which is not crap by my standards, which are hazy and
>> imprecise anyway, but is crap by a lot of other people's standards.
>>
>My point exactly.
 
That was a joke, Beldin. I do not believe California would have fallen into the sea if I'd never heard "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights".
 
I've always loved that album, but it has special meaning for me now. We were listening to it in the car on the way to the hospital while I was in labour with my youngest. See, Kim picked it because I knew all the words, and could distract myself from the contractions by singing along. I love it more than ever.
 
But I have no illusions about this, Beldin, if he'd grabbed something else it wouldn't change the memory, only the soundtrack, and thats all most pop music really is, I think. A soundtrack to our lives. It isn't about whether or not one thing has more artistic merit than another, its about what we relate to.
 
>
>> >You're using your own values to say people who appreciate the product
>> >of those doing it for a living won't care if they're denied more.
>> >
>>
>> But I'm not denying anyone the right to make, sell, or protect  crappy
>> music, so I don't see how my judgement that, yes, a lot of it is crap,
>> hurts anyone. Free or not, as I mentioned to Greg, there is value in
>> something easy and inoffensive enough for a universal audience, but
>> even the people who like it don't tend to have many illusions about
>> its artistic merit. If it makes you feel any better, I prefer the
>> label of "fun", for the type of music I like. I'm using "crap" just
>> for purposes of this conversation.
>>
>I think anyone who enjoys something makes it good by their enjoyment.
>
 
So you are basically saying that you think anything that anyone thinks is good, is good.
 
Beldin therefore thinks all music is good music, because someone somewhere has probably enjoyed everything at one time or another.
 
You know, most people make more distinctions than that, but thats fine, too.
 
>> Look, what you've got are a bunch of musicians whove made a lot of
>> money who don't want to give their stuff away for free. Fine. People
>> who are looking for free music will find that there are plenty of
>> other musicians who just want to be heard.
>
>They haven't been.
>All they've done is take from those who they already like, and avoid
>paying for it.
 
That isn't true, theres tons of new music on Napster, and like I said, I know personally many musicians who are trading their own stuff, and that of their friends. If you weren't aware, this is how a lot of underground bands get popular-- trading music, passing it along. Eventually, some of them hit it big this way and decide they don't want to do that any more, and they have every right.
 
>
>  If they download, say
>> Gary's songs, instead of buying a Metalica album, that hurts them
>> about as much as it does when someone decides to go to a free concert
>> in the park instead of dropping 30 bucks at ticket master, right?
>
>If it were about transferring music nobody wanted to pay for, there'd
>be no suit.
>Since it's about stealing music being sold...
>
 
(sigh) Stealing is wrong.
Trading music on Napster is not always stealing.
And if there is enough interest shown in Gary's songs, he might decide to do more, maybe even a whole cd's worth, and all those people who liked his stuff on Napster might buy it.
 
>>
>> If thats going to stop Metalica from making music altogether, they're
>> bigger pussies than I thought.
>
>
>Losing all their revenue due to theft, and then making a business
>decision, would make them pussies?
>
 
Metalica's broke, then? Huh. Had no idea.
 
No, Beldin, what makes them pussies is that when getting the music out there, sharing it, was important to them, they did this themselves. They encouraged people to pass their music around, to bypass the music industry, to make copies for each other, and don't give me any of your "But the *quality..." garbage, because there *were* no quality Metalica recordings for a good long time.
 
Just about any other artist in the *world* would've had a good point, here. Metalica just looked like sell outs. But, for the umpteenth time, they had every right to sue.
 
 
>There are still plenty of people who
>> pay to see big acts as opposed to supporting cheaper local music. I
>> don't see how this changes things, except that the cheaper local bands
>> now get global exposure, too.
>
>Because you aren't looking.
>You still see this as not being a whole lot of traffic. The music
>industry did too, until Napster. That's why the suit... with Gnutella
>and worse already getting ready to surpass Napster, the bands either
>need massive protection, or they'll have to accept their entire
>libraries to date are destined to be rapined and plundered.
>
 
What kind of protection?
 
>
>>
>> >There is a difference
>> >> between art created for consumption and art created for enjoyment, and
>> >> the former has less value to me than the latter.
>> >
>> >That's you, that isn't everyone, and it's elitist. Most of us can't
>> >create at the level of those who do it for consumption, and if we want
>> >art, we have to buy it from someone else.
>> >
>>
>> You still seem to think I'm arguing something I'm not, Beldin. Buy it.
>> Sell it.
>>
>You're arguing that "pure" art is more worthwhile than "applied" art.
>That's what you said, that's what I disagreed with. It's right above
>this.
 
I said art created solely for the purpose of making money had less value to me than art created for love of the medium. Thats just how it is. I get a lot of enjoyment out of going to see musicians who love to play, even when they aren't as polished as studio musicians, or as technically skilled. I take pleasure in the energy. I value it. It's alive.
 
>
>> > This is not
>> >> snobbery--
>> >
>> >Yes it is.
>> >Absolutely unquestioningly.
>> >
>>
>> It is not snobbery. Claiming to have no opinion at all about music
>> would be dishonest. As it is, my tastes are too erratic to pick a
>> genre, but I probably get the most enjoyment from early eighties pop
>> and new wave. I don't think it's the "best* music out there, but it's
>> what I like.
>
>What you like isn't relevent to the comments made.
 
Yes it is. I made a comment stating what I value in art, contrasting it with a statement about something I like, that may or may not fit the criteria. See Greg's very succinct post on distinctions.
 
 
>Your statement "There is a difference
>> between art created for consumption and art created for enjoyment, and
>> >> the former has less value to me than the latter."
>Whether the artist feels joy or not after creating something in no way
>changes the art in question.
>
 
I disagree, when what the artist feels about his creation comes through, honest enjoyment of the medium  is more appealing an emotion than greed or indifference.
 
 
>>
>> > I've made a lot more money creating for mass consumption
>> >> than I ever will creating what I consider to be "good" stuff.
>> >>
>> >You're allowed your opinion as is what is good. So is everyone else.
>> >
>>
>> Exactly. And if you think *anyones* opinion of what is good and what
>> is not will weed out the "less good" stuff, you're wrong. There is a
>> place for it, there always has been, and there always will be.
>>
>Never said otherwise.
>You did, however.
>
 
I said California wouldn't fall into the sea if they stopped making mindless pop music just for money. I also said I didn't think that was likely to happen, and I still don't. It will always be there, and there will always be someone who'll buy it.
 
Cyn