From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V4 #298 Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. alloy-digest Friday, November 5 1999 Volume 04 : Number 298 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Alloy: Open Art - Copyright concerns ["Stephen M. Tilson" ] Re: Alloy: A Template for The Open Art [Chris Cracknell ] Re: Alloy: Hello (and Rasputina) [RThurF@aol.com] Alloy: Is this thing on? ["Brian R. Gilstrap" ] Re: Alloy: Is this thing on? [Brian Clayton ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 03:50:40 -0500 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: Open Art - Copyright concerns Dear Alloy, I have really been enjoying the conversation. This is certainly one of the most engaging threads I have ever seen here. Guess it hits close to home. I'm going to continue as devil's advocate. Better to hear these things from friends, eh? Better that than hearing it from the defendant's lawyer. Ignoring, for a moment, all the other issues we've opened up around this subject, I would like to address what I feel is the main flaw in this experiment. I feel that copyright must stand. I think I've understood most everything that folks have said so far regarding Open Art [although Omar's written word can get a bit choppy at times - no offense ;-)] Great thoughts - everyone! Crackers has really started something vital here. But I see a flaw in our reasoning thusly. Earlier I mentioned "keep(ing) Sony off my back." What I was thinking while composing that message is: What will prevent professional entertainment corporations from reproducing, publishing, and marketing YOUR Open Art - while not paying you one thin dime of the profits? By our proposed definition, *anyone* can do this - all they have to do is give the artist proper credit as the author of the work, plus meet the other requirements as you presented them. Let's face it - Sony and it's peers can out-produce, out-publish, and out-market your ass from Barrow to Tierra del Fuego to McMurdo and back up the other side, my friend. They'll be making ALL the money, with no need to even give you the time of day, or any artistic say whatsoever in how your art is presented. Unacceptable! The artists must retain all rights to their work - otherwise the old men will wank, um, I mean walk all over us. Have I misunderstood or missed something here? Have you, Crackers, or anyone reading along here seen a way to prevent this from happening and yet retain the spirit of Open Art - while discarding the notion of Copyright? As it stands, I think Sony is going to just *love* Open Art. ;-) Yours truly, Stephen - who is taking a couple days off - see you Saturday PS Robert Fripp has written extensively on the notion of Copyright. Has anyone here had the stomach to wade through it all that they might give us the Reader's Digest version? I think we might find it relevant. PPS Paul? Tim? Lee? Dennis? Erik? Lissu? Ladies and gentlemen, the floor awaits your regarded opinions. PPPS Lissu? Weren't there some Copyright complications in publishing "Shelter"? Has it made it to the shelves yet? PPPPS I keep waiting for someone to mention Keith Herring (or however you spell it). Hasn't he tried to do something similar to Open Art, successfully? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:53:46 +0200 From: jonathan.chiddick@nokia.com Subject: Alloy: Fake? Hi again all, does anyone have an item signed by Thomas himself that they could scan and send to me. I am thinking of buying a signed album but an sceptical whether or not the signature is real. It would be nice to have something genuine to compare it with. Cheers, Jon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:57:40 +0200 From: jonathan.chiddick@nokia.com Subject: Alloy: The Golden Age of Video Hi all, sorry that this reply is a bit late but, well, let's just say something came up... Lem wrote: >Last time I looked - a couple of months ago - there was a copy lurking in the shelves of the >Virgin Megastore on Oxford Street in London. Would you like me to try and buy it on your >behalf if it's still there? I should be able to pop in on Friday. The answer is a resounding YEEEEESSSSSSS!!!! (please) Trevor James Blagg also offered to check out Virgin in Coventry: Trevor, please take a look and let me know if they have it but please don't buy quite yet until I know what available. As I already mentioned I have a quest to collect ALL releases of TMDR's work on ALL formats. I was to keep as many of these sealed and untouched by human hand as possible but I also want to enjoy them (which is the whole point) which kinda means buying multiple copies... I have already ordered one copy but I'm a bit sceptical about whether it is ever going to arrive or not. Let's wait and see what happens. Thanks all for your support. Jon "partial to a pudding..." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 16:25:21 GMT From: "Ian Gifford" Subject: Alloy: Re: Open Art I was reading Robins note on open art today when I had a realization? Was the body of work by Jean-Michel Basquiat, not very similar to the discussion we are currently engaged in. I tried to find some biographical pages but only really found movie pages etc. One interesting page told of his last message to the world which was a wall that contian a small shattered window, a scrawling of the legend "broken heart" and puntuated by (c) If you are interested in knowing what Basquiat was about, the movie is a good one and there are a few books available. For those amongst us with a liitle "play-money" his artworks are also available! SOmething to be looked into further I think! Ian Ian Gifford Singer/Songwriter, Radio show host. Sundays 12am till 2am (est) http://www.chrw.fm.net mailto:igifford@hotmail.com "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song" Louis Armstrong, 1901-1971 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:45:03 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Cracknell Subject: Re: Alloy: A Template for The Open Art In article <199911032034363.SM00252@mail.electricson.com>, you wrote: >So here you have my musing on vehicle that could support the concept of Open Art and that motivates others into a cause worthwhile to the person as well as to others. Whether the Open Art would be free, that would be more a function of how much private donation or grants are obtain to support the labor intensive. As the non-profit organization grows we would hope certain things are charged for to keep the concept of Open Art continually viable. > ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Incidently, whatever mailreader you're using doesn't follow a wordwrap with a carriage return so all your text appears to be on one, very lengthy line that doesn't stop until you hit the carriage return. You might want to manually hit return at the end of each line instead of relying on the wordwrap function. This would make it much less difficult for those of us not using your particular mailreader to read your posts (or you could check if your program has an option to follow a linefeed with a carriage return). As for an "Open Arts" organization, hey, I'm all for that. However, I think it would be important before we start to form organizations to promote "Open Art" if we were to hash out a precise definition and terms of use for "Open Art". CRACKERS (One step at a time from hell!!!) - -- Atari 2600 Collector - Accordionist - Nrrrd and Proud - Borderline Otaku http://www.hwcn.org/~ad329/crab.html CRACKERS' ARTS BASE http://www.netcom.ca/~geekboy Official "I Love My Shih'Tzu" Webpage Nihongo ga dekimasu - Canadian, eh - Atari 2600 Programmer - Father of 2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:45:02 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Cracknell Subject: Re: Alloy: Open Art - Copyright concerns In article <199911040350_MC2-8BAE-A658@compuserve.com>, you wrote: >Yours truly, >Stephen - who is taking a couple days off - see you Saturday > >PS Robert Fripp has written extensively on the notion of Copyright. >Has anyone here had the stomach to wade through it all that they >might give us the Reader's Digest version? I think we might find it >relevant. > >PPS Paul? Tim? Lee? Dennis? Erik? Lissu? Ladies and gentlemen, >the floor awaits your regarded opinions. > >PPPS Lissu? Weren't there some Copyright complications in >publishing "Shelter"? Has it made it to the shelves yet? > >PPPPS I keep waiting for someone to mention Keith Herring (or >however you spell it). Hasn't he tried to do something similar to >Open Art, successfully? ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Indeed, I'd like to hear many more voices on the subject of "Open Art". Actually, you know, it would be most interesting to hear what Thomas's thoughts on this subject are as he is in a position to see this issue from a perspective that is unique to us. He was, for a brief time, the darling of the industry but then fell from grace when the record companies felt he was no longer marketable. Although I would imagine they are not what they once were I would suspect that he still receives a respectable sum in the form of royalty cheques from BMI or ASCAP or whoever he is registered with. Now he has his Beatnik company which produces a product that, if the technology gap between the haves and the have-nots is ever breached, would be a godsend to musicians who produce works of "Open Art". I suppose in a way Thomas could be seen as straddling the line between the big monolithic record companies that dominate the industry and the non-mainstreme artists who are either ignored or scorned by the Big Boys and have to find alternative means to distribute their works. I'd be very interested in hearing your opinions, Thomas, on the viability of "Open Art" as one of those alternatives. CRACKERS (Opinion monger from hell!!!!!!!!) - -- Atari 2600 Collector - Accordionist - Nrrrd and Proud - Borderline Otaku http://www.hwcn.org/~ad329/crab.html CRACKERS' ARTS BASE http://www.netcom.ca/~geekboy Official "I Love My Shih'Tzu" Webpage Nihongo ga dekimasu - Canadian, eh - Atari 2600 Programmer - Father of 2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:45:01 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Cracknell Subject: Re: Alloy: Open Art - Copyright concerns In article <199911040350_MC2-8BAE-A658@compuserve.com>, you wrote: >Earlier I mentioned "keep(ing) Sony off my back." What I was >thinking while composing that message is: What will prevent >professional entertainment corporations from reproducing, publishing, >and marketing YOUR Open Art - while not paying you one thin dime of >the profits? By our proposed definition, *anyone* can do this - all >they have to do is give the artist proper credit as the author of the >work, plus meet the other requirements as you presented them. Let's >face it - Sony and it's peers can out-produce, out-publish, and >out-market your ass from Barrow to Tierra del Fuego to McMurdo and >back up the other side, my friend. They'll be making ALL the money, >with no need to even give you the time of day, or any artistic say >whatsoever in how your art is presented. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ The same things that keep Microsoft from marketing "Open Source" software will keep the big companies from marketing "Open Art". Sony wouldn't be interested in marketing something they couldn't control. They won't invest the time and energy into marketing something when someone else can then freely copy their "product" and distribute. For Sony, the profit margin will just be too small to make it worth their while. Why would they be interested in publishing the "Open Art" of some wanker with an accordion whose music will only ever be appreciated by a small segment of the public anyways when they can flog Shania Twain and Celine Dion and Alanis Morresette and completely control every aspect of how those artists are presented and when they're presented and know that the masses at large will eat everything they feed them. The concept of "Open Art" is far too radical to appeal to the conservative music industry giants who only exist because they have complete control over their "product". "Open Art" is controlled by no one and that alone will keep the big record companies from exploiting it in any large way. But if you can't get past the fear that Sony will suddenly sell millions of copies of your album around the world without ever paying you one red cent then "Open Art" just isn't the choice for you. Personally, I couldn't care less if Sony sold a million copies of my album without paying me a red cent so long as Sony doesn't control my work. Heck, that would be 1 million people that I certainly wouldn't have been able to reach, who now are enjoying a copy of my music. It still doesn't change the fact that as musician I make my money from doing session work, jobber work, commision work, performance work, and production work. If anything the fact that my work has been exposed to a million more people may mean that the amount of work I get as a musician will increase. I'm already making sweet dick all in the way of royalties (I make more money off software royalties than I do off music royalties) so it's not like I would be out of pocket anything becuase Sony released my CD of "Open Art". I really just can't see Sony being eager to jump on the "Open Art" bandwagon. If anything they might pull a Bill Gates and blacklist open artists the way Bill Gates blacklists "Open Source" software developers. But I really couldn't care less if they decided to do that either. If they blacklist me then I just become forbidden fruit and we all know how much sweeter that tastes. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >Have I misunderstood or missed something here? Have you, Crackers, >or anyone reading along here seen a way to prevent this from >happening and yet retain the spirit of Open Art - while discarding >the notion of Copyright? ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ There would be no way, within "Open Art" to stop Sony from publishing your works except that the ideas behind "Open Art" go against everything that Sony is built upon. You have to be able to get over that fear that somebody will rip you off if you're going to release a work of "Open Art". It will require a whole new way of thinking. You have to be able to release your work of "Open Art" as a gift to the world, freed from all financual strings that are attatched to "product", or it simply won't work. If you make your living as a musician from royalty cheques (and I know no musicians personally who make enough from their royalty cheques to live off of) then stick with the status quo. If however, you're like me and make a living as a musician but your royalty cheques barely pay for a case of beer, then "Open Art" could be a very attractive alternative for you. The SOCAN cheques could stop tommorrow and never come again and it wouldn't affect my lifestyle one bit and of all the working musicians I know none of their lifestyles would be affected if their SOCAN cheques suddenly stopped. I just feel that the whole issue of copyright has become a lottery of fame and fortune. For every superstar there are hundreds if not thousands of more talented musicians who toil away in obscurity and never make a sizable amount of money from their royalties. Yet we have all clinged desperately to our SOCAN cheques because we dream that maybe we might make it big someday and then all these songs of ours will be worth a lot of money and we'll be able to live the life of a superstar and cash in our SOCAN cheques for a new car every month. I, for one, have gotten tired of that whole lottery and would much rather give my works away royalty free, knowing that by doing so I am spawning the creation of more works of "Open Art" which will spawn the creation of even more works of "Open Art" and so on like the rings of ripples that expand when you throw a stone in the water. And giving my work away as "Open Art" isn't going to affect my income in any meaningful way, I'll still continue to make my living at my art in all the ways I have been. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >As it stands, I think Sony is going to just *love* Open Art. ;-) ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ I can't see Sony ever wanting to have a thing to do with "Open Art" unless "Open Art" somehow becomes the mainstreme and the masses begin to buy more "Open Art" than the record industry's product. The very fact that it's something they can't control will keep their hands off my "Open Art" just the same way it has kept Microsoft's hands off "Open Source". CRACKERS (My eyes have been opened from hell!!) - -- Atari 2600 Collector - Accordionist - Nrrrd and Proud - Borderline Otaku http://www.hwcn.org/~ad329/crab.html CRACKERS' ARTS BASE http://www.netcom.ca/~geekboy Official "I Love My Shih'Tzu" Webpage Nihongo ga dekimasu - Canadian, eh - Atari 2600 Programmer - Father of 2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 09:46:50 -0800 From: Kathleen Presser Subject: Re: Alloy: Open Art - Copyright concerns Alloy all, I have to agree with Stephen on the copyright thing and the major corporations out there who would just love to capitalize on open art to make profits for themselves and nothing for the artists who make the open art. There oughta be a clause about copyright protection that prevents anyone, except the artists themselves, from marketing open art for monetary gain. I just naturally have a deep mistrust for any major corporation. Kate;-) - Just remember, wherever you go, that's where you are. Stephen M. Tilson wrote: > Dear Alloy, > > I have really been enjoying the conversation. This is certainly one > of the most engaging threads I have ever seen here. Guess it hits > close to home. > > I'm going to continue as devil's advocate. Better to hear these > things from friends, eh? Better that than hearing it from the > defendant's lawyer. > > Ignoring, for a moment, all the other issues we've opened up around > this subject, I would like to address what I feel is the main flaw in > this experiment. I feel that copyright must stand. > > I think I've understood most everything that folks have said so far > regarding Open Art [although Omar's written word can get a bit choppy > at times - no offense ;-)] Great thoughts - everyone! Crackers has > really started something vital here. But I see a flaw in our > reasoning thusly. > > Earlier I mentioned "keep(ing) Sony off my back." What I was > thinking while composing that message is: What will prevent > professional entertainment corporations from reproducing, publishing, > and marketing YOUR Open Art - while not paying you one thin dime of > the profits? By our proposed definition, *anyone* can do this - all > they have to do is give the artist proper credit as the author of the > work, plus meet the other requirements as you presented them. Let's > face it - Sony and it's peers can out-produce, out-publish, and > out-market your ass from Barrow to Tierra del Fuego to McMurdo and > back up the other side, my friend. They'll be making ALL the money, > with no need to even give you the time of day, or any artistic say > whatsoever in how your art is presented. > > Unacceptable! The artists must retain all rights to their work - > otherwise the old men will wank, um, I mean walk all over us. > > Have I misunderstood or missed something here? Have you, Crackers, > or anyone reading along here seen a way to prevent this from > happening and yet retain the spirit of Open Art - while discarding > the notion of Copyright? > > As it stands, I think Sony is going to just *love* Open Art. ;-) > > Yours truly, > Stephen - who is taking a couple days off - see you Saturday > > PS Robert Fripp has written extensively on the notion of Copyright. > Has anyone here had the stomach to wade through it all that they > might give us the Reader's Digest version? I think we might find it > relevant. > > PPS Paul? Tim? Lee? Dennis? Erik? Lissu? Ladies and gentlemen, > the floor awaits your regarded opinions. > > PPPS Lissu? Weren't there some Copyright complications in > publishing "Shelter"? Has it made it to the shelves yet? > > PPPPS I keep waiting for someone to mention Keith Herring (or > however you spell it). Hasn't he tried to do something similar to > Open Art, successfully? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:04:39 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Cracknell Subject: Re: Alloy: Open Art - Copyright concerns In article <3821C68A.6145607F@online.disney.com>, you wrote: >Alloy all, >I have to agree with Stephen on the copyright thing and the major >corporations out there who would just love to capitalize on open art to >make profits for themselves and nothing for the artists who make the open >art. There oughta be a clause about copyright protection that prevents >anyone, except the artists themselves, from marketing open art for >monetary gain. I just naturally have a deep mistrust for any major >corporation. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ I really can't see Sony (who seems to have become the generic Big Guy corporation we've been using in this discussion) being interested in "Open Art" since the amount of money they pay out to the artists anyways in terms of royalties is generally a paultry amount. They make their money by creating an image, promoting an image, then selling that image. The entire cornerstone of their operation hinges on them being able to exercise complete control over that image. Sony is no more going to wish to sell my "Open Art" CDs than Microsoft would want to sell Linux. It may seem like royalty free music would be a big attraction but paying royalties isn't what stops Sony from selling my music. Sony won't touch me because they can see no way to market me. The type of music I write would only ever appeal to a small percentage of the population and that's not going to change if I decide to make it "Open Art". Sony has no desire to invest time and effort into marketing something that's only going to appeal to a small audience, not when they can release a CD of Celine Dion belching the alphabet and have it go double platinum. I think the fear of being exploited by the Big Boys is a little over exagerated. There are already artists who produce work and place it in the public domain and I don't see Sony jumping all over them. "Open Art" is more restrictive in a way than public domain since the original artist must always be credited and any work that employs a work of "Open Art" becomes "Open Art". I think the fact that they won't be able to control "Open Art" will discourage Sony from touching it except maybe to release a compilation disc taking one or two songs from various "Open Art" musicians and packaging them together. Personally I think that being included on an "Open Art" compilation with the marketing and distribution power of Sony behind it would be far more beneficial than the miniscule royalty they might recieve. CRACKERS (Laying myself open from hell!!!!!!!) - -- Atari 2600 Collector - Accordionist - Nrrrd and Proud - Borderline Otaku http://www.hwcn.org/~ad329/crab.html CRACKERS' ARTS BASE http://www.netcom.ca/~geekboy Official "I Love My Shih'Tzu" Webpage Nihongo ga dekimasu - Canadian, eh - Atari 2600 Programmer - Father of 2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:31:11 EST From: RThurF@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: a quick question!... (was: Open Art - Copyright concerns) Do you think it might be a precaution for the proposed 'open art' organisations to instigate their own form of copyright within the group.. ie, have the material "copyright 1999 (artist's name) Open Art" ? followed by a statement along the lines of the rules you propose for the materials' use. That way, the big boys couldn't swipe it, put their own copyright on it & say they came up with it & that no one else can touch it as 'Open Art' ever again. As copyright 'Open Art', the original artist would be given credit and the work would always be available as open art to anyone (I like the idea of thinking of it as a 'collaborative' piece with another artist, as Miriam Schapiro did with Mary Cassatt - whether or not the work was done simultaneously, in the same part of the world, or even in the same era. It speaks well of art as something eternal, that can transcend any cultural, financial, political, distance or time barriers) Rappers and hip-hop bands have been doing this kind of thing since their beginnings, 'collaborating' with other artists (except those other artists' work happened to be under a company's license - this being a considered factor in the song's production based on socio-political stance-taking on the rappers' part) I think the question of whether an original artist would be offended by not having creative control of their work once they release it can be resolved very simply. If they'd be offended, then they shouldn't go with the Open Art concept. On the other hand if they'd like to release their work and watch what a variety of other artists might do with it over the course of time, how they might translate it into something different, etc, then the artist would definitely go with 'Open Art' & see what came of it. But having an "Open Art" copyright, to keep the work open, might be a good precaution. Robin T ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:33:59 EST From: RThurF@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: (OT) crackers writes: :: not when they can release a CD of Celine Dion belching the alphabet and have it go double platinum. :: Hey, I'd buy that!!!!! Robin T who thinks Ms Dion would be redeemed in the eyes of many if she did such a recording... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:36:23 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Linstruth Subject: Alloy: Hello Hi, folks, just checking in. Thank you Robin for the birthday greeting! It's nice to be remembered. I celebrated by watching my toddler have way more fun with a cake and candles and singing, than I've had on my birthday, in any previous year since I was a kid myself. Maybe that's the way kids keep you young. Anyway, I wanted to tell you that I got a Rasputina CD (on my list from your recommendation) and I think they're really interesting! Who would have thought there was such a thing as a band of rock cellists. :) It's obvious they've been gaining experience at this for awhile: sometimes the cellos sound just like electric guitars. I also got a Herbie Hancock CD (Maiden Voyage) and a copy of "Stop Making Sense" which has been released on DVD. (Finally!) It's a very well-done disc, for any of you Talking Heads fans out there. Has David Byrne's storyboard drawings, biographies, and a couple of bonus songs that didn't make the original movie; among other things. I'm not checking email very often lately, but I have skimmed the Open Art discussions a bit. I only wanted to chime in with a news item that I caught, which might show the "other" side of copyright laws: there is evidently a kiddie publication in New England called _The Small Street Journal_, with puzzles and riddles and kid stuff. (It's a subscription.) So, of course, that plays off _The Wall Street Journal_, who has now filed suit against the SSJ. The lawyers for SSJ claim that WSJ is a heartless, mean, cruel conglomerate, and ought to have better things to do than sue a small-time operation that has no real bearing on what WSJ does. WSJ counters that, yes they do have better things to do, and no they really don't care much about the SSJ -- however, the way copyright laws are, if you don't defend your copyright/trademark/logo etc. each time that it's challenged, then you risk losing it. I've seen a couple of references to this in your discussions. So, while the media likes to portray WSJ as a heartless behemoth corporation in this case, I ask you exactly what else are they supposed to do? Just some food for thought. For you people who do or had infant children: I'm awake til 2 AM, get to sleep til about 5 usually, back to sleep from 6 til the toddler gets up at 8. If I'm lucky I get to nap when the kids do, around 3 PM. Most days, nope! I'm bleary-eyed, sometimes punchy, occasionally whiny, but couldn't really be happier, I don't think. Remember the days? I'll let you know when the next batch of photos get scanned. Have a good day all, keep the discussions going. Welcome new people!! - -- Elaine Linstruth Palmdale, CA (USA) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:09:30 EST From: RThurF@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: Hello (and Rasputina) Elaine writes: :: I got a Rasputina CD (on my list from your recommendation) and I think they're really interesting! Who would have thought there was such a thing as a band of rock cellists. :) It's obvious they've been gaining experience at this for awhile: sometimes the cellos sound just like electric guitars. :: I'm glad you like them. If you ever get the chance, I highly recommend going to see them in concert - it's unbelievable seeing this music performed live, as you might well imagine. A very subdued but incredibly tranfixing show. In her work Melora Creager is completely hilarious and brilliant. I have so many favorites of theirs, I can't even begin to list them all. A lot of people have told me that Rasputina's music grew on them the more they listened to it. It is very different! Robin T ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 23:12:47 -0600 From: "Brian R. Gilstrap" Subject: Alloy: Is this thing on? Hello? Hello? Are you sure this is on? I'm a software guy; this is a hardware problem...How do you turn up the volume on this thing? What? Oh! Hello, all... - -- Brian R. Gilstrap gilstrap@inlink.com http://www.inlink.com/~gilstrap Husband and father, Tai Chi practitioner, Software architect Java developer, Macintosh User, Winnie-the-Pooh fan "Understanding is a three edged sword. There's your side, there's the other side, and then there's the truth." --Kosh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:39:47 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: Brian Clayton Subject: Re: Alloy: Is this thing on? On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Brian R. Gilstrap wrote: > Hello? Hello? Are you sure this is on? I'm a software guy; this is a > hardware problem...How do you turn up the volume on this thing? > > What? Oh! Hello, all... Just what Alloy needs, more Brians! Welcome! > "Understanding is a three edged sword. There's your side, there's the > other side, and then there's the truth." --Kosh Hmmm, I think only the first sentence of that statement was ever spoken by Kosh, though Capt. Sheridan attributed the whole thing to him. This, of course, has nothing to do with Thomas Dolby. :) B(5)C - --- Brian Clayton "I hope I can continue to confuse and exasperate stemish@lns.com you for a couple more decades." -- TMDR ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V4 #298 ***************************