Johnny Coli

Right on the money, CTM. They can be so positively bad, that they are brilliant. An example...Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music. Four side of barely listenable electronically looped white noise (Lou at one time claimed there are classically influenced patterns buried in there but I've never heard them and he's later recanted). A mint condition original pressing (vinyl) of this sells for a ton of cash now, when most people could just tune their radios between two AM stations simultaneously and get the same thing for free. On some perverse level it's so atonal that it's soothing. Anyway, brilliant.

Same as Joe Six Pack. Loner/Punk/Stoner. If you're buying I'm flying, JSP.

There was a whole no-wave movement a few years back, where some of these bands were so bad that they were brilliant (The Contortions, Teenage Jesus and the Jerks, Lydia Lunch). Some people thought the Velvet Underground were god-awfull. It depends on your definition of bad (or "not good").

If I like them, then they are good. Until everyone else likes them. Then they've sold out and they suck. The whole gist of this was to make the point that there are a ton of bands out there that just don't have the right "look" or whatever that fits the big record company idea of what "should" sell. If they control who gets recorded, and control who gets seen on MTV, and control who get's played on the radio, does that make those bands "good", or does that just mean that is all we have to choose from. Those are the bands that are bitching about file-sharing. If the whole industry completely collapsed, we'd be left with a lot of great unheard of bands and college radio, not to mention cheaper records/CDs. They've done it to themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Okay, William. A good band is one that writes and plays it's own music and has played crappy little clubs for only enough money to get a loaf of wonder bread and fill up the tank of their rusted out econo-van to get them to the next show. They've entertained the six people who show up to these gigs the first time around to get some play on a local college station so that the next time through maybe a couple hundred kids will show up, buy some T-shirts and 45s so they can buy ham to go with their wonder bread this time. Then they put out another record from the money they made on the tour, get more college radio play and get some indie industry buzz and do a bigger tour…maybe hit the European clubs which are way more into seeing club bands play and treat them like kings. Then they get some major label interest, play some great shows but piss off the big industry types because they’re too volatile and take too many drugs (industry wants the image of a bunch of alcoholic junkies, they can’t stomach the real thing). So they go back to touring in a van and they still have a handful of loyal fans because they never sold out, and stuck it to the man. That’s a good band. That band doesn’t care about file sharing.

How many of these acts actually play live, Bill? How many of these acts are actually canning a show and bringing it on the road? How many of these bands played small clubs, then mid-sized venues, then worked their way up to arenas? No, I don't call that good.

What artist said "Sorry your ticket prices are so high, but it's because you're stealing my music?" I don't buy that, Ed. Ticket prices are high becasue people are willing to pay that kind of money to see a show. Ticket prices are high because bands can't play live and need to bring a ton of equipment with them to mask that they suck and can't play live.

That's not the point I was trying to make. But to answer your point, those artists raised their ticket prices because they saw how much money people were willing to pay for scalped tickets to their shows. Why can the Rolling Stones or Aerosmith charge $75 a ticket? Because people are willing to pay that to see them. When the tickets were $25, the shows were selling out, and people were buying scalped tickets for over $100. Ergo, they raised them. Their ticket prices are not related in any way to file sharing of their music.

Again I say, "So what?" The music industry is a bloated dinosaur still doing things like they did in the 70s. Blow it up. Nobody tours anymore. Nobody writes their own songs. The music companies look for a packagable stereotype to mass distribute. They own the radio stations, so it gets played ad nauseum until someone buys into their crap and then purchases it because some clown on MTV is paid to say that it's "hip." Who cares if they go under? Like you said, the artist sees little to no money from these sales, anyway.

This will probably be a pretty unpopular take on this, but I wonder what percentage of the actual artists even care if they're music is getting spread around for free (please don't use Metallica or Everclear as good examples). It seems like the only ones upset about this are the record companies, who could be guilty for ruining commercial music today as it is. I'm not condoning free swapping of downloaded music, but as a former musician, I wouldn't care. I wonder what percentage of people actually go out and then buy other material by the artists. I'm probably in the minority here.

Some people already mentioned The Ramones, perhaps the greatest band ever (live or on record). I saw Johnny Thunders was mentioned as well. Both excellent choices. To add to that I wouldn't mind seeing The Dead Boys (Stiv died back in 1990 in Paris) and Wendy O Williams and the Plasmatics.

I think the time has come to push for a constitutional amendment to force people to display God's Ten Commandments. We should package it with the Defense of Marriage amendment. We need a good catch phrase though. How about "The Civil Righteous" Amendments"?

Without a doubt. We're going to see more of this when the money run's out because we're going to have to arm them all so they can hunt for their own food. God (or who ever) help us all.

The rioting has begun.... Nursing home bloodbath “I did it and I’d do it again!” Lena Driskell yelled to officers who arrived at the home June 10, according to testimony. Police said she was wearing a bathrobe and slippers, waving an antique handgun with her finger still on the trigger.

You beat me to it.

Yes, I believe that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection explains evolution and how species evolve. But Man, the species, has evolved to the point where we don't have to let weaker (or stupider) members of society just wander off and die because we don't have any use for them. And for the record, I'm certainly not worried about senior citizen's rioting in the streets and overturning bowls of mashed apples (as funny as that image is). I'm more worried about the next generation having the burden of using their savings to bail out the previous generation. If your Grandparents made poor choices regarding retirement, what would you do? Would you let them starve to death because "It's just natural selection." I doubt it. We haven't even mentioned how health care would impact all of this.

I'm not completely disagreeing with what you are saying about government, but the "fug'em if they can't do it for themselves" approach will create a very large problem in the long run, would it not? I am just saying that ignoring people's ignorance could actually cost us more in the future.

Would it be safe to say the people most vocally FOR a flag burning amendment are also most likely FOR a marriage amendment? The best way to get something to pass that has only a marginal chance is to get it on the same ballot with something that has a better chance of passing, and a better chance of getting people of the same mindset to the polls.

It will ultimately become the government's responsiblity when these people have nothing to retire on if they make poor choices. What are you going to do with a population of geriatrics, no longer able to work, yet having zero money to live on?

Flag amendment and marriage amendment.

None. The problem with this issue is the same with every other issue. Someone will use a "catch phrase" that doesn't really describe the idea in a campaign to throw meat at the crowd and try to influence voters. "Partial Birth Abortion!"

I was responding to Joe's coment with a flip response. Where did I ever state that SS and retirement savings are "income redistribution"?

I agree with that plan, provided that you don't give people the opportuinity to NOT take part. I believe that some level of deduction should be mandatory.

You better have some plan in place to deal with what could become a huge homeless population. Whould you suggest we go back to slums and tent cities?

What do you do with those people? We already have people bitching about stepping over the mentally ill on their way to the ATM.