Username:
Password:






 
Time for Musicians to Step Up the Fight
Posted by George D. Ziemann on January 8, 2008 at 3:36 PM   (printer friendly)

Five years ago, having already spent 30 years trying to figure out how to make a CD without spending half a million dollars, I believed that the mp3 format, CD-Rs, the Internet, and ProTools were the greatest things to ever happen to music. In the half-decade that transpired between then and now, nothing has happened to change my opinion.

The biggest obstacle to independent artists is the RIAA. Not because they're any kind of competition, but simply because they're in the way. Their misguided course of action against their customers really has nothing to do with us, or our music. In fact, it relies heavily on no one taking us into consideration at all, else the courts acknowledge that there is way more authorized music for p2p than unauthorized.

Mainstream media finally figured out that there are acts that don't belong to the RIAA out there. Unfortunately, they think "indie" is a new genre, proving that they're still a couple years out on getting a firm grasp on reality. The FCC promised us airtime, but is anyone getting any? And does radio even matter anyway? Or what the RIAA is doing?

While the RIAA's war does not involve us, the outcome still matters very much. In the unlikely event that the RIAA wins, we remain marginalized. Whatever they figure out to "protect" their work will also serve to lock us out of the market, since only "professionals" would be allowed access. Each "control" they successfully gain is a roadblock for the rest of us. Each time they claim downloading or p2p is illegal, it taints what the rest of us have to offer via download.

It is in the best interests of musicians and music in general to get all this brouhaha over and done with.

The very idea of "illegal music" is like an Orwell and Heinlein collaboration. The absurd arguments over legal issues and suing music fans have only served to completely eliminate general discussion about music.

The Problem
The problem is obvious. The industry is run by greedy morons with tin ears. To continue the popular metaphor, it's a dying dinosaur. In a perverse sort of way, it was fun to watch it stumble and fall but now, desperate and scared, it's starting to flail around, trying to destroy everything around it as it goes down. This is causing a lot of innocent people to be hurt, or at least sued. Good people whose only crime is liking music, as far as we know.

As much as we would all like to simply put the dinosaur out of its misery and create a new holiday, it's still a pretty damn large beast and you've got to get way too close to it to even have a chance of stabbing it in the eye, which will merely piss it off anyway. Maybe we can poke it with a long, sharp stick, distract it and save some of the women and children.

The Scenario
Unlike an RIAA press release, let's realistically examine the current state of affairs.

-- The mp3 format has finally won grudging acceptance, as evidenced by its adoption by three of the four majors, who made their best effort to kill it first.
-- This is our playing field. They despise it.
-- There are millions of us. The major labels have downsized their rosters so far that I'd be surprised if there were more than two or three thousand signed acts left on all of them combined.
-- Whatever the actual number, the artists who used to work for the labels in 1999 now outnumber the ones that currently work for them by at least two to one.
-- The RIAA is suing everyone they find listening to music.
-- This used to be ASCAP's job.
-- RIAA's lawsuits are on the basis of the Sound Recording copyright.
-- ASCAP worries about the publishing/writing copyrights.
-- ASCAP backs the RIAA but isn't very interested (at least not yet) in collecting from people for putting cover songs on the net. Periodically, they whine about it but they're letting the RIAA run this fight.

Historical Note
There's a saying about those who don't know history being doomed to repeat it. There doesn't appear to be one for those who do know history using it to fuck with the dumbasses who set themselves up to be the punch line.

My usual advice is to the p2p users, whom I tell to simply not share RIAA music. The p2p subculture consistently ignores this advice, because they take more delight in the rebellion. As a result, they cannot be counted upon to change anything, although they could virtually erase the RIAA from the net over a weekend if they wanted to.

So it's obviously up to the musicians. The average bar band knows more cover songs than they will actually confess to, much less play. But not a lot of them remember where the term "cover song" came from. For those that do know this little story, bear with me for a few sentences.

In the 50's, probably even before that, whenever an independent act would release a song that was starting to gain some traction (and attraction), the studios would release their version(s) of the same song, but maybe Dean Martin or Sinatra or Bing Crosby or Rosemary Clooney was singing it, literally "covering" the original in the marketplace. This might be a payoff for the writer but, in general, it marginalized the value of the original recording.

What We Can Do
I mentioned this a couple of years ago, but the balance of power has shifted significantly since then, giving it even more potential. We can't persuade people not to share RIAA music; we can't persuade the RIAA to stop suing people. Useless endeavors.

What we can do is simply unlock the songs from the RIAA, put all those "song fingerprinting" methods to the test, and make legal versions of all the "illegal" songs.

Give away free cover versions of current hit songs. Or classics. Or even obscure favorites. People that download or share your version instead of the original are immune to the RIAA. Plus, some of the audience will potentially decide that they like your version better anyway, especially if the original song is older than they are. To them it's new.

There are a lot of songs from the 60s and early 70s that sound better in my memory than they ever actually did on the record. Maybe it was a good song, but the band wasn't really that good. Or there was just something intangible about the singer's voice or even the way the record was mixed that made you dislike it, even though it was exactly that same quality that made a lot of other people like it.

If the idea takes off at all, any time, effort, resources, and/or flames of hell we can cause the RIAA or ASCAP to expend on us instead of music fans is for the greater good.

If we don't sell the songs, put them on a physical CD, or sell advertising around them, for the RIAA or ASCAP to challenge this practice would involve opening up a whole new facet of litigation over non-commercial derivative works that would take years to resolve.

Or we can even pay the 9 cents a song to the authors and sell a few copies. Maybe put together one of those "compilations that music lovers dream of," which just happens to resemble your third set down at the corner bar.

First of all, they would have to acknowledge our existence. The system to render the rest of us invisible is so well-entrenched that Billboard would have ignored the Eagles' first week sales if someone hadn't twisted their arm. The Eagles sold 700,000 CDs, but it almost didn't count because they were doing it wrong. By the same theory, Radiohead (reportedly 1.2 million copies) and Prince (3 million copies) did not actually release new music in the UK and are not eligible for any British awards.

Then they would have to concede that we, which they lovingly refer to as "music's sludge pit," are actually some sort of economic threat to them going forward, which just opens the doors to insist on ALL of us being counted, too. This would seriously fuck with their "85 percent of the music recorded and distributed in the U.S." slogan.

The RIAA probably had less than 10,000 new releases last year. This year, they're cutting staff again, and probably culling more artists from the roster, so there will be even less new music from them.

They still can't compete with free, but they are barely even bothering to compete at all. A 14-year-old has two albums in the top 25 this week. One of them is at number five.

No disrepect to the kids, but surely we can do better. The RIAA can't, but we can.

Our time is now.


User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)

Olde-Phart  
Date: January 3, 2008 @ 6:07 PM
I like good music. Period. If it's indie, so much the better. The RIAA stuff is crap. If indie artists start putting out more good covers of the music I grew up with, I guarantee you I will buy it.

I've bought some decent indie music, and I have no problem supporting it. Bring it on, George.

It's time for everybody to put their money where their mouth is. I've turned my 19 year old on to indie music. I listen to the samples, and he comes in and asks me who it is. Then he wants it, too.

Go for it.

independentm...  
Date: January 4, 2008 @ 11:27 AM
Folks, if you want to commercially release a cover and don't know how to contact the original songwriter directly, go to http://songile.com or google the Harry Fox Agency for info and licenses.

...but if you don't want to bother with the overly complicated (and expensive) process of licensing and just want folk to hear your cover (and are not worried about getting money for your version) by all means, stick it on p2p, YouTube, etc. or especially at DMusic.

autodidact  
Date: January 4, 2008 @ 11:38 AM
This idea has merit. Only the most prolific and talented songwriters can write enought good songs to fill out an album every two or three years. It would be better, from the listener's point of view, for them to record their good songs, leave the chaff and filler off the album, and do cover songs for the rest. There's no shame in it, and maybe your version will indeed be better than the original.

There's a music blog devoted entirely to cover songs, by the way. It's fun to check out sometimes.

http://copycommaright.blogspot.com/

Here's the deal -- sometimes I hear a cover that I like, and I've never even heard the original. Like NBC used to say about rerun TV episodes, "If you haven't seen it before, it's new to YOU." True enough.

gdZiemann  
Date: January 4, 2008 @ 1:39 PM
It's heartening to see positive responses to the idea.

Right now I'm loading up to go to Tucson and record (already emptied most of my hard drive) Carl Hayden's band (at Famous Sam's, Valencia Road, if you're in the neighborhood) tonight and tomorrow night.

I'm hoping for three or four hours of tunes, about 70 percent covers.

Distilled1  
Date: January 4, 2008 @ 2:05 PM
http://distill.dmusic.net :D yep have been and will continue George and anyone running p2p DL em and get them up... I know they aren't the best but What the hell they are my visions acoustically!

Distilled1  
Date: January 4, 2008 @ 2:06 PM
:o thats http://distill.dmusic.com ;)

Twarrior  
Date: January 4, 2008 @ 6:02 PM
My time isn't what it used to be but damnit as a musician i need to give this idea a test drive. Who's with me?

-Dave

Olde-Phart  
Date: January 4, 2008 @ 7:27 PM
Seriously, if you guys give it a shot, I know there are plenty of us out here who will support it.

I bet enough of us want so badly to see the RIAA crash and burn as they so richly deserve. What better way than to pound them into the ground with their own stuff?

Distilled1  
Date: January 4, 2008 @ 9:27 PM
Twarrior and Olde-(lol) I am on and please watch that page for tons if you p2p add them :D and I am going to be adding 2=6 covers to that page each week or 2 as soon as I can:D:D

independentm...  
Date: January 4, 2008 @ 11:19 PM
Folks, please grab all the covers we got and load 'em up on the p2p nets:

http://electricgypsy.dmusic.com

(I'm sure a LOT, if not all of the other DMusic artist's wouldn't mind ya grabbin their covers too!)

leflaw  
Date: January 5, 2008 @ 2:43 AM
I already started. I got three thousand tracks on itunes.

Lost Gold records.

I also am negotiating to license or purchase three thousand karaoke tracks. Without the lyrics, they are just cover tunes.

How about a boycott -riaa cover tunes contest with the winning tunes subnitted to itunes, walmart, rhapsody, zune, etc.????



leflaw  
Date: January 5, 2008 @ 2:59 AM
er submitted.

independentm...  
Date: January 5, 2008 @ 3:49 AM
Hmm...

How would that work? You'd have to sign the artist to Lost Gold (or, at least enter into a contract for the artists recording of the cover) to keep it all "legal"? (...assuming Lost Gold has some existing arrangement with HFA so that it gets to release covers? -- OR, is it that Lost Gold/DMusic would be willing to jump thru the licensing hoops and foot the bill of the winners to pay for the rights?)

Individual bands and artists (or their fans) might be able to get away with putting unlicensed covers out on p2p/youtube etc. But DMusic or Lost Gold would be slammed if it tried to do so.

(Sorry leflaw. But YOU gotta play by the rules.)

;)

gdZiemann  
Date: January 6, 2008 @ 5:37 PM
"But DMusic or Lost Gold would be slammed if it tried to do so."

Why? Refer to rules in article. He would be a bigger target because of the accumulation, but ASCAP is not doing anything at all. They do not consider a download as a performance. HFA will let you sell copies for 9 cents each, or whatever the royalty rate is this year.

So, until you sell a copy, there's no rule to follow, which is the beauty of it. They would have to start a whole new campaign of annoyance just to institute a rule to stop us, er, leflaw.

Then we're back to they have to acknowledge that we've created a new problem for them. We've got three or four years even if they read this and start working on it tomorrow morning.

independentm...  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 12:06 AM
Uh, don't know about ASCAP, but Harry Fox DOES do licensing for cover downloads:

"HFA offers licensing for various digital formats, including full-length permanent digital downloads (DPD's), limited use digital downloads, on-demand streaming, and more.

HFA offers licenses under Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act to make and distribute DPD's. If you would like to license less than 2,500 DPDs, you can now do so using HFA Songfile. Licensees with established HFA Online accounts can also obtain DPD licenses using eMechanical, or if you need to obtain licenses in bulk (over 100 titles) please submit HFA's DPD Application. To apply for an HFA Online account, click here."

http://www.harryfox.com/public/licenseeServicesDigital.jsp

==============

There's some good info about it at CD Baby:

http://cdbaby.net/dd-covers

(VERY important to read!!!)

--------------------

And something else about it from the forums there at CD Baby:

http://cdbaby.org/stories/05/12/20/6762552.html

=========

lol, I'm nor trying to be a stumbling block nor rain on the parade George. Just passing along what little I know on this complicated-as-hell subject.

leflaw  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 9:07 AM
The issue is free vs paid cover downloads.
Put if you can sell a download for 60 cents net (itunes), then its worth paying the nine cent mechanical.

Songwriter didn't do nuttin to me.

gdZiemann  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 3:45 PM
Exactly (what leflaw said). I have no problem paying the mechanicals if I sell copies.

Look at the title on the first CDBaby link, Shmoo. "How to Legally Sell Downloads of Cover Songs".

Harry Fox is for paying mechanical royalties. I'm only going to make one copy. Where do I send the dime?

Find me one story or court case or even a single printed accusation about copyright issues concerning people recording cover songs and giving them away for free.

This is not even on the radar. I intend to drive a truck through this loophole, just to see if the music equivalent of the Border Patrol even exists. Cause I don't think it does.

Distilled1  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 4:19 PM
With you George posted a bunch for free on a couple p2p over the weekend. that I recorded and that the band recorded (those are much better ;) )

I read it as sell as well. I have been looking into it as I am doing mainly covers when I play live on line in SL and wanted to pay the performance royalties if needed but there is no clear cut rule I could find anywhere, so I just do it.

Distilled1  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 4:25 PM
---------------------------
To say what I did find ... I found where I could buy the license to preform and have others preform... the issue is that this performance is virtual its over a web server there is an actual venue that is a 3-D simulator on a server where people with accounts in this virtual world can come and listen *if they choose to and click the allow audio stream*
so I start to fill out the form... how many peo-ple come daily : ___ well maybe 1 maybe 40 maybe 1000 maybe none.. hard to say. and a max of 40 at any one time can be on the Simulator (at least the one I have) and do you sell food drink? NO NO NO its all Virtual so how do I pay?? and then is there dancing and how often and do you use DJs and etc etc.. it was going to cost the same if I said it was 1 person a week coming to listen or 500 a night (well something like that)

so yep playing them covers live on line and giving them away!

independentm...  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 4:32 PM
PLEASE BELIEVE ME,

I am ALL FOR your idea George. (It's just that all this is in that "jittery undefined territory" of my knowledge and I do NOT want DMusic, along with YOUR own azoz.com and other fair-dealing and/or non commercial sites/entities to be destroyed by technically detailed lawsuits once we implement this strategy.)

With all my fuss, I'm both trying to learn and educate at the same time.

gdZiemann  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 7:25 PM
I hear ya, Shmoo.

It is an undefined area, but not just in your knowledge. The RIAA can't touch us. Since it's not their recording, they have no say.

ASCAP or BMI would send a cease and desist order before they filed any kind of lawsuit, providing an opportunity for a loud public discussion to establish a) exactly what the problem is, b) what the "proper" way to reimburse the writers/publishers is, and c) whether it applies to stuff you give away free. And that's just the easy ones.

This past weekend, I went to Tucson, like I said I was gonna. Got a lot on ADAT and in ProTools. It was a live show. The venue paid their ASCAP/BMI fees, therefore it was a licensed performance.

Is this different than something I record in my living room?

Paid the DART tax on the ADAT tape. Don't even know if the same sort of tax was applies to my hard drive. Isn't that what it's for?

I don't care what the legal answer is. But if someone sued me over it, I'd have a million questions about what the damn definitions are, since I sure as hell can't find any. You can't be breaking a rule if there isn't one.

Shmoo, the two things that currently make you most jittery -- this and the compulsory licensing thing -- are the two best opportunities for independents to put their foot in the door and be counted. Provided they ever happen.

There is no excuse for not being able to count our stuff as it goes by on the Internet, just as easily as they plan to count theirs.

If you count any of us, it's money taken away from the RIAA. If you count us all, we verify that the RIAA really doesn't produce or distribute anywhere close to 85 percent of the recorded music in the United States.

They prefer to ignore us so far because once we are acknowledged, then we begin to have a voice and be taken into consideration. This is a positive step for all independent musicians.

I wrote to CSN's web guy after we did the "Oh My Oh" cover of "Ohio," almost exactly 5 years ago, trying to get some kind of acknowledgement, permission, whatever. I must have had an attitude because he thought I was being snippy with him, although he did say he liked the "this song is fair for share" overdub.

I consider myself a fair target because I like to poke the RIAA and ASCAP in the eye repeatedly to get their attention and they still pretend they haven't noticed me yet. Well, one guy did. They got rid of him.

Anyway, the song has been on my site for five years. I added more covers this fall. Got a new batch recorded that I gotta get off of here to deal with, so I can get them posted too.

I'm not a lawyer, but I seem to know a bunch of them. If they would like to hammer out the details, I think it's a great idea. Until then, the game is on.

Sorry for such a long post onto my own article, but I do not believe that there is a rule being broken and I've kinda been obsessing on this topic the whole weekend cuz I was/am in the process of not breaking it again.

independentm...  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 9:37 PM
It doesn't really matter (well, it stings, so I guess it actually DOES

"...we verify that the RIAA really doesn't produce or distribute anywhere close to 85 percent of the recorded music..."

-------------------

WHY hasn't the "public" picked up on the mind-fuck yet?

independentm...  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 9:39 PM
(SOLUTION: give everyone a turn-table?)

Olde-Phart  
Date: January 7, 2008 @ 9:53 PM
The public takes a long time to break with convention. They're sheep. To them, indie is unconventional.

They've known radio and MTV for too long, and they can't really grasp anything else. Plus, it's all about comfort. The RIAA hasn't made them uncomfortable enough yet to want to do anything different.



gdZiemann  
Date: January 8, 2008 @ 11:55 AM
"WHY hasn't the "public" picked up on the mind-fuck yet?"

If I recall, correcting this misinformation was one of the higher purposes Bill Evans had in mind when he created Boycott-RIAA in the first place, along with warning musicians of how the labels' accounting systems work.

Then they started suing people and no one is interested in any of that. People even stopped arguing about why your favorite band sucks so they could agree that the RIAA sucks more.

"(SOLUTION: give everyone a turn-table?)"

Sound Recording copyrights did not exist before 1972. Ponder that for a while.

What Olde-Phart said...

"The public takes a long time to break with convention. They're sheep."

The public is not the problem. Even if the majority tend to act like sheep, it just means it's easy to lead them wherever you want them to go.

We don't need the majority. If you can get the attention of one-third of one percent of the herd and lead them out the side gate, that's a million people.

"They've known The Disney Channel for too long, and they can't really grasp anything else."

Fixed that for ya.

"The RIAA hasn't made them uncomfortable enough yet to want to do anything different."

...in spite of the RIAA's effort to be a pain in the ass.

College law students are finally trying to roadblock lawsuits, with mixed success. But that's just a defensive response to being poked with a stick. Maybe in another four years, they'll figure out that maybe they should just listen to something else.

Music should be entertainment, whether you're playing or listening. If every song selection involves questioning its legal origin and implications, well... that's no fun for anyone and casts aspersion on our music as being potentially "illegal."

It's not the public that has to change. It's up to the musicians to bring the music back.

independentm...  
Date: January 8, 2008 @ 3:22 PM
You're right George. We shouldn't blame the fans. (That's what the RIAA does.)

:shy:

I apologize to one and all for my attitude yesterday. (I get depressed and frustrated sometimes.)

Olde-Phart  
Date: January 8, 2008 @ 3:59 PM
Maybe, but if the fans had walked away from it when this whole mess started, the RIAA could have been history by now. If downloading had ceased and the demand completely dried up, the RIAA would be toast.

No, I say the fans still have to shoulder some of the burden. If they'd exercise even a little restraint, the whole issue would turn a 180. The RIAA can still blame the fans right now because they continue to engage in an activity that's convenient for the industry to use as an excuse.

If the fans would just stop for a couple of months, then people could say, "Hey, you're in trouble because your business practices suck and you put out a wholly substandard product."

Yes, they need to be exposed to indie music in a big way. George, that million musician march on DC sounds like a good plan. It would be hard for even the most recalcitrant mainstream media mavens to ignore numerous free concerts on the Mall, with musicians handing out free CDs right and left.

Yep, "Hey, hey, RIAA, time for you to call it a day!" Multiply that by a million voices.

leflaw  
Date: January 9, 2008 @ 7:31 AM
I am afraid that when repression and fascism finally take over in the U.S., it will not be on account of new laws. It will be through the copyright act.

gdZiemann  
Date: January 9, 2008 @ 1:10 PM
Olde-Phart -- If the people are sheep, then you can't expect them to shoulder some of the burden or exercise restraint. There's no mention of restraint in the rock and roll handbook, except for the part about naked groupies.

You've got to lead them by the nose, or ears, in this case.

If major label music sucks as much as we all say it does, we should have no problem creating something better.

Twarrior  
Date: January 9, 2008 @ 5:03 PM
Well it is not illegal to make parodies and remixes as long as they are rebuilt from the ground up (no sampling) and do not contain the verbatim original lyrics.

My mind is sort of like a track machine. I can hear a song, break down the individual tracks in my mind and re-create them using computer software.

The main bitch is that it takes time to get even one song right. I've got to locate digital instruments that match the originals as closely as possible and one tiny thing being off key can turn the entire creation to dog shit.

It takes a lot of time and patience to do what I'm able to do with this -- which is why I haven't released tons of this type of stuff. I don't have the time.

I will be trying to allocate more time but it will still take me awhile. Right now I'm working on re-creating "I'm Blue" by Eiffel 65.

I don't usually like posting pre-releases but for this particular cause I'll do it to inspire others of you to do similar endeavors..

That is... I'll post a link once the DMusic file Manager stops telling me this:

Warning: main(/mnt/default_content/index.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /mnt/files.dmusic.com/file_manager/index.php on line 4

Warning: main() [function.include]: Failed opening '/mnt/default_content/index.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/php:/usr/local/share/pear') in /mnt/files.dmusic.com/file_manager/index.php on line 4

:-)

-Dave

Twarrior  
Date: January 9, 2008 @ 5:07 PM
By the way -- until DMusic is repaired, I have re-created songs that Independent Artists have done. Heres an example of a megamix I made called "Tribute 2 Demoscene" which does this with several songs. Also added in some of my own stuff as well as a re-creation segment (music only) included of Bonnie Tyler's "Total Eclipse of the Heart" :-)

http://music.podshow.com/music/mp3/00010907/850202.mp3

Feel free to dowload, listen and share! Just rename the file to "Time Warrior - Tribute 2 Demoscene.mp3" ... thanks!

-Dave

Twarrior  
Date: January 9, 2008 @ 5:09 PM
Yes share! SHARE SHARE SHARE!! Silly RIAA, profits are for ARTISTS! :-)

-Dave

gdZiemann  
Date: January 9, 2008 @ 7:22 PM
Here's the first track from last weekend's Hurricane sessions. This was live at a club, the last song of Friday night. It's not even listed on my site yet.

Paranoid

I suppose I could dink with it for a few days and try to overproduce it, but then it wouldn't sound like early Black Sabbath now, would it?

independentm...  
Date: January 9, 2008 @ 8:11 PM
:groovin: :thumbsup:

INeedAlover  
Date: January 10, 2008 @ 6:21 PM
"Well it is not illegal to make parodies and remixes as long as they are rebuilt from the ground up (no sampling) and do not contain the verbatim original lyrics."

Parodies constitute "fair use", so why wouldn't sampling be a problem in parodies? Does anyone remember those parody songs that came out in the 70's? They would ask a question to some current famous person, and answer it with a part of a hit song at the time?

It would go like this: What's wrong with your head Britney? The music would reply with the part of the song from Alice Cooper's EIGHTEEN "I got a baby's brain and an old man's heart".

I always wondered how whomever made these got away with it. It was because it was used as a parody. I wish someone would recreate some of those songs again.

ChillinBuzz  
Date: January 11, 2008 @ 7:43 AM
Started uploading some of my stuff to the torrent networks a while back. Since I've dedicated 10GB of drive space to file sharing when uTorrent isn't busy battering and blue-screening my pc, if anyone with music on the network wants me to download/seed then note me.

ChillinBuzz  
Date: January 11, 2008 @ 7:44 AM
Forgot to add, have set my spare machine up mostly for Linux experimenting at the mo but going to be using it solely for file sharing for the house... Just need to get a new drive, then that's over 100GB of drive space for sharing...

cobrastrike  
Date: January 11, 2008 @ 11:41 AM
ChillinBuzz:
Wasn't this all settled back in the late 50's - early 60's?
Google - Dickie Goodman or Buchanan & Goodman.

independentm...  
Date: January 12, 2008 @ 4:46 PM
Hey George, was reading about your recordings with the Hurricaine's over at http://azoz.com

That Radiohead song, Creep is a cool tune.
Andrea did a version of it sitting in front of her PC cam one night a couple months ago with me on accoustic. It didn't turn out too bad (tho I muffed a chord or 2) so she stuck it at her MySpace.

I should be on a computer with speakers this coming Tuesday. I plan to download all you have done by that time of the Hurricaine recordings. Great stuff from what I have heard so far.

gdZiemann  
Date: January 13, 2008 @ 5:09 PM
Sadly, I do not hear music when I visit MySpace. That's why I use GetOuttaMySpace, the antisocial network.

Carl thinks that version of Creep is embarrassing. I thought it was awesome, in a punk kind of way.