Felt nostalgic yet again and flipped through a crate of old vinyl in the basement. I was such a HUGE prog rock fan in high school and university that I would buy almost anything tied to prog family trees. Considering some of the branches that one could reach to through Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, and Emerson Lake and Palmer, it really wasn't too difficult to get sucked in. Here are some of the more "obscure" prog albums I own, although depending on where your from, they may have been your "local" prog band. I almost ALWAYS bought used. Enjoy!
Mainhorse - Mainhorse
Tai Phong - Tai Phong
Pallas - The Sentinel
Grobschnitt - Jumbo
Lucifer's Friend - Banquet
Triumvirat - Illusions on a Double Dimple
Omega - Live at the Kisstadion
Camel - I Can See Your House From Here
Nektar - Recycled
Van Der Graaf Generator - H to He Who Am The Only One
photolink
My podcast becomes story time this week, as I tell you the tale of how the US DMCA was used to takedown a post on the lovehatethings blog because it contained someone else's words, originally posted on a Government of Canada website, commissioned to garner public input on upcoming copyright legislation.
To be continued upon further investigation...
Garry and Sachin - you rock!
via nfb.ca
A great time capsule look at the Canadian view of hockey in 1953. Not much has changed. NHL training camps are opening. My hometown of Hamilton is getting screwed over for a team once again.
That aside, this short film gives insight on ice makers, junior hockey, equipment costs, and minor hockey teams featuring the legendary Jean Beliveau's transition from the Quebec Aces to the Montreal Canadiens. Some great early slo-mo sports coverage that's over 55 years old. Incredible video quality as well!
"Professional hockey's a more than 7 million dollar a year business!"
This Leslie McFarlane film is presented courtesy of nfb.ca - the National Film Board of Canada.
via en.wikipedia.org
"Part of a series of pictures depicting Frances Densmore at the Smithsonian Institution in 1916 during a recording session with Blackfoot chief Mountain Chief for the Bureau of American Ethnology."
Upon posting last night's exchange from the Government of Canada website on lovehatethings.com, I received an irate comment from another citizen claiming that by reposting the exchange, I was violating copyright. I offer up the following for your consideration. (Note: the original thread for this entire online discussion can be found at copyright.econsultation.ca)
Their contention:
(Taken down by request of the original commenter. Click the link up above to follow the conversation on the original site that is deathly slow. The basic idea included that I could not repost information submitted on a Government of Canada website set up to offer public submissions on copyright reform in Canada.)
My reply:
I directly quoted words from a Government of Canada website, without edit, for the purpose of sharing the content of a taxpayer fully-subsidized platform. I direct linked back to the thread. I looked for any copyright indicators on the site, and, where I expected to find none (as it is a government site) I found none. If the government wishes to issue me a takedown notice, I'll be expecting an email or letter from Tony Clement. I am not the first, or I'm sure last to quote from this site. I did not break the privacy policy requirements of the site by divulging anyone's personal information. In fact it would be almost impossible to divulge privacy because few people use their real name when posting accusations, innuendo, facts or research.
If she had posted it on a private website, I certainly would have excerpted at best with a linkback for context. Do you know the copyright regulations of this forum? You don't cite them. If someone writes an opinion letter to editor of newspaper, I may need the newspaper's permission to quote a passage from that letter depending on their copyright claim, but I don't need to go back and ask the original author. A government forum is about as public as one can get. The content herein has been quoted on blogs and newspapers across the country. It is a matter of PUBLIC record.
On my blog, which I make no revenue from, and contains no advertising except unpaid links to other blogs, I explore pop culture and express opinions on things current and historic. These deliberations could prove to be historic to Canadians.
The only context I give for the passage, under the title "Recent Comments on Canadian Copyright Reform (Part 2)" is the following:
"As a follow-up to my recent post on a response, my reply to a comment made on a statement I made on the copyright.econsultation.ca website about a week ago, I present the next response from someone else who misread my original post and my subsequent reply. All comments are presented unedited.
Her reply after reading my original post, the first commenter, and my reply back (all of which can be read by clicking the above link)"
How is this considered "blowing my own horn?"
My blog is set up to auto-publish to Twitter upon each new post. I did note that someone Retweeted my original auto-tweet and added the #copycon hashtag - which was not included in my original. [Gee, maybe I should sue them!]
How is promoting a dialectic between opposing sides in an argument over a matter of public debate anything but helpful to the debate? For all I know, more people may have agreed with her than with me. By being a citizen and taxpayer of Canada, she has now had a whopping 171 more people read her unedited ideas than previously.
Committee hansards are a matter of public record and available to all Canadians. I don't see how the contributions to this website are any different. If provided with a takedown notice, I will gladly comply. I'm quite willing to follow the rules that exist. You, unfortunately, want me to follow rules that don't exist or, at the very least, are not clearly spelled out.
That you would deny other citizens of Canada the right to read open debate in a public forum is shameful.
If you'll excuse me, I have a new post for my blog, and if you'd like to prove your theory, have the site owners here order me to take your, or my own, comments down. I'll be the first to congratulate you.
As a follow-up to my recent post on a response, my reply to a comment made on a statement I made on the copyright.econsultation.ca website about a week ago, I present the next response from someone else who misread my original post and my subsequent reply. All comments are presented unedited.
Her reply after reading my original post, the first commenter, and my reply back (all of which can be read by clicking the above link):
not really- I don't think contentcreator misconstrued. that's how I read it too. if we've misconstrued, by all means, clarify.
and if you think that the 'marketing' as it pertains to artists at the levels where this issue really matters - the ones who have to figure out 'how the F*&k do i try to make enough money to put music out- record a record, pay the studio & musicians and press the thing... even gas to get to the next gig- is separate from the music, then it would make sense as to why you think most musicians are no better than your neighbor or cousin- because you have spent very little time or energy considering your premise.
Insulting, and ignorant, in the classic sense of the word. the artists who are not already established (read- backed by corporate $$), do their own marketing and it's 75% of the work. Which is why your neighbor or cousin- whose talents you so dearly admire- aren't doing it. It takes a passion and dedication that defies logic.... and money, for god's sake.
yeah, sure, art has always existed- but art always had it's patrons who helped finance the artist while they created. The wealthy gave money to artists (as opposed to making money off of artists) because it was the honorable, ethical thing to do and because if they didn't they'd appear crass and cheap.
even touring in Europe you find more generosity towards the artist- for example, after finding out you are a musician, they don't immediately ask you what your day job is. North America has cheapened it.
You're right though- art was always available to the masses- for free. but there were mechanisms in place to allow that to happen.
look at radio. free. but there are mechanisms that are respected and hold broadcasters accountable. If someone is making money off of art and that money is bypassing the artist, that's the only issue I see mattering.
it's just, who? the recordable media producers? the internet service providers? the advertisers who do their advertising because free content draws hits to the sites?
we send people to space, I'm sure there's a way to figure it out.
regardless, the rights of the creator has to be acknowledged- things are changing and writers and creators of all disciplines need to be protected.
man. how the hell do you expect us to eat? marketing is not worth that much to you... worth what?! what have you paid?
personally I think there are a lot of people making money off of 'free' content before it ever gets to the user and they are the ones who should pay... but before you start talking about 'entitlement' consider what you are saying you're entitled to... free access to art at the cost of the artist.
My reply back to her...
My original comment was misconstrued in the sense that the point was about the presumption that copyrighted/industry music was being presented as the hallmark or Canadian culture. The secondary assertion was that art will always exist (even without monetization), and that to imply "professional" artists are necessarily better (or produce better work) than the "amateur" up the street is arrogant.
From those ideas, the first commenter implied that I was somehow all for stealing copyrighted work, that I was implying he should get ripped off, and that I said it was "easy to make a living writing or singing". I never said ANY of those things. That the original commenter and yourself are bringing those suppositions to argument is at once, telling, and, I suppose, not unexpected considering the venue.
I spent years playing in various bands across Ontario for little to no money and never would imply that the effort or drive in monetizing artistic talent is anything less than exasperating. It's the reason I chose to not do it for a living. But don't, for a second, try and make a logic leap that by not choosing to monetize my music anymore, I'm somehow less passionate or talented than anyone else. Not having a passion for business does not preclude abandoning passion for the art.
Choosing to spend money on recording, promoting, and touring is an investment you're making in a life YOU choose to follow. You're banking on your ability to sell your talent like a commodity and are taking the same risks as someone who pours money into research for an invention or buys a stock. You're letting the consumer market decide your monetary reward. And while I hope that you make millions, if no one wants to listen, your bottom line will be less impacted by copyright thieves than your ability to market yourself. Your music may be brilliant. And while you have a right to sell and buy your product as demand dictates, and protect your copyright to boot, you have NO right to expect to make a living from it and NO recourse if you're just simply decades ahead of your time or increasingly derivative and mundane.
With regard to your historical diatribe about patronage and "free art for the masses." Let me first preface by repeating (again) "I NEVER SAID I WANTED TO PIRATE COPYRIGHTED MUSIC OR TAKE MONEY FROM YOU!" Secondly, I'm thinking that the key divide between my original post and your interpretation is with regard to contending definitions of art. Art doesn't have to be "free to the masses" for it be art. Further, art can be locked up in a room for a hundred years and never see the light of day while still being art. The intrinsic value of art, for me, does not rely on the number of consumers ingesting it. While I understand that the entire mechanism around "The Arts" as a monetization industry does revolve around this concept, and that to monetize art does depend on consumers, I have no problem with Nickelback and Avril Lavigne making tens of millions of dollars around the world and in Canada. Can't stand the music, but I don't begrudge them making money nor do I plan on ever asking for it to be free.
Next, in considering a couple of your assertions...
Radio is NOT free or it would not exist as mass media. That I give up 10-20 minutes per hour listening to ads is perhaps the most expensive use of my time and the main reason I don't listen to most commercial radio. By the way, someone IS making money off of art that is bypassing the artist: The Record Companies - usually from 90-99% of it!
Where do I get free access to art? Not television, radio, or websites. Contending with ad-based promotion is not free for me. That a hundred thousand musicians choose to put their music up on MySpace and allow Rupert Murdoch to reap the benefits is not my fault or choice. If you can get money from him, be my guest, or take your music down from his site. If a musician puts music on MySpace it's for one of two reasons: 1) to share it without expectation, or 2) to use the service as a promotional tool - that's called a commercial and there's an expectation that goes along with it.
I'm curious to know what you consider to be the "rights of the creator" and what "protections" you expect (considering that's what these deliberations are truly about anyway). This discussion would be entirely ancillary to the current one however, as I never questioned creator's rights in my original post.
I have spent plenty of time considering the premises of my original post. Unfortunately you have either categorically disagreed (which is your right) or simply not taken the time to understand it. I'll simplify:
1) Art exists without money.
2) Everyone has artistic abilities to varying degrees.
3) To claim that monetized art, alone, is the core of our culture is at once shocking and repugnant. Marketing should not dictate culture.
Those were the ONLY key ideas from the original post. If you reread it without the hyperbole of the first commenter, you might be able to parse said meanings yourself.
Lastly, while I certainly engaged in a couple of exaggerated metaphors in my original post, I never had the gall to call anyone "ignorant" simply because they disagreed with me. If you note a sense of distaste in the above reply, it is returned in kind. You don't know me anywhere near well enough to call me ignorant, and you surely haven't formed a cogent argument behind your symbolized invectives and personal hard luck appeals to sway me from my aforementioned beliefs.
(In no specific order - thanks to Topher's Cereal Character Guide for pics and info)
The Lucky Charms Leprechaun
Not because he looked any freakier than any other leprechaun, but more the pervy way he was after MY Lucky Charms all the time.
Frankenberry
Okay, all the Monster Cereals by General Mills were infinitely cool and hold a nostalgic place in my memory. I even set up a Facebook page in their honor. And while they were all creepy, Frankenberry was the most freaky. Frankenstein's monster had nothing on the pink, doughy-looking, metamorphosis that was Frankenberry.
Sir Grapefellow and Baron Von Redberry
Let's celebrate WWI flying aces with crazy fruit cereal. If I don't like the cereal, will they be strafing my front lawn?
Crazy Cow
This bi-polar buck-toothed freakshow would turn your milk chocolate or strawberry depending on which side it/they were facing - Sybil anyone?
Colonel Corn Burst and Hattie the Alligator
What demented mind put this pair together? You've got a crudely-drawn alligator that's about to turn its head and swallow a microscopic adventurer. Either of these characters would be freaky enough in their own right. Together they're a total "corny" burst.
Cheeri O'Leary and Joe Idea
A demented beauty pageant tart and a boy who looks like he's got a John Merrick thing going on... yeah, that'll sell me Cheerios!
Mr. Wonderfull
From Mr. Wonderfull's Surprize Cereal, not only did he preach the doctrine of incorrect spelling, but here's a perv that needs be put into a registry before he moves into your neighborhood.
Magic Hat
Cool beer. Psychotropic-induced cereal character. Don't take the brown acid folks.
For almost two decades the CN Tower in Toronto was the tallest free-standing structure in the world. Big money in Malaysia and the UAE has made such a claim historic at this point, but the cool perspective in this pic relays the effective distance from ground to main deck on the tower.
