Doc

It's probably lucky that I only manage pop/acoustic bands then Thankfull none of my artists ahve ever been cool so we avoided it' date=' except of course for Hog... he's cooooool.

Cheers

Stuart[/quote']

You should not be on here. You're obviously ambitious and want to be successful and even worse, want your acts to be successful too!!! How dare you sully the purity, the wholesome DIY ethic, the better than the rest of the world ethos, the valid and coolness that is the three chord, downtuned, political ranting masquerading as music that is THE SCENE!!!!!!

opinions are like arseholes...everyone has one and they are only important to the owner.

Yeah' date=' thats one of the reasons I dont understand the whole ethos many bands on here have that having a manager is a bad thing, a good and professional manager can really help a band along in many ways and I've been told by many people in the industry that they tend to take bands with managers more seriously purely because they're ready to take that next stage. I think that bands coming across well on and off stage is very important and I think its too easy to get drunk at every gig and treat it as the big rock and roll lifestyle but the reality is that you're not going to take it to the next level with that attitude, at leats thats my opinion on the matter.

I think that sometimes bands let the idea of being in a band take over from the idea that you have to practise hard and try and be the best you can, getting out and playing gigs is good but its how you play those gigs and what you do from there that makes it important. Then again its what you want from it that defines that, if you're happy to play for just fun then thats cool, if you want to be a professional band then its different.

Cheers

Stuart[/quote']

Ah but if you get a manager then you're serious and have "sold out" and have become a "corporate whore" and you won't be "punk" anymore and suddenly your music won't be "vaild" or "cool". Then you'll be booed off the stage at drummonds because you're "up yourself" despite the fact that you'll now be playing 100 times better than zenophobic scenster bands.

What you need is a very accurate parametric equaliser with selectable frequency bands. It'll still remove bits you want to keep though.

Bear in mind re-mixing is done with the originally recorded tracks.

The best (and only enjoyable brits) was the one presented by mick fleetwood and samantha fox. Sheer genius.

Islam is the main religion !

and you could always say' date=' "Why did Allah Let this disaster happen" but then you could say "Is this Gods way for cutting down the population ?"

All I mean is there are two side to every story.[/quote']

You have plainly misunderstood everything. Jews, christians and muslims all worship exactly the same God.

Besides, there are way more hindus and buddihsts in the world than in any of the monotheistic religions. So how do you equate Islam being the main? Islam also teaches tolerance, so your" christian god is shite " statement hardly fits in with your claimed belief system.

hey

Fuck knows how I know things like this but here goes.....Colin Hay was the lead singer from men at work - as far as i know he's a scotsman' date=' but he emigrated to Oz, where he formed the band. he went solo for a bit in the 90's and had several largely forgettable records, and of course, he and his band are best known for their classic 1985 hit 'down under', no doubt a tribute to his second homeland. men at work definitely reformed about 3 years ago, whether or not they're still together, i'm not sure at all. they're probably trailing around on the butlins circuit somewhere, and if not, you can be sure they'll appear in aberdeen at one of those 80's reunited tours sometime in the future. (usually visits music hall or lemon tree)

hope that helped

Mike[/quote']

Very true. Colin Hay and his brother were the core of men at work and in fact hailed from Glasgow.

congrats mate. I've got two of the bastards, thankfully one's now in the army and we've just the girl to marry off and i get my life back!!!!

Hope it goes well for you.

In other words anyone who's had any degree of success whatsoever.

Well, you never diappoint, you lot, I'll say that for you! I'm just waiting for one of "the comrades" to call RL a sell out capitalist pig and I'll be happy...all is well with the world...the sun will rise....all is still and quiet.....and the small minded, green eyed, insular bitchiness of the aberdeen scene shines forth like a beacon to mendacity and narrow horizons...merry xmas everybody.

Or worse...call him emo.

I see the usual disparaging comments are appearing about someone who dares to send a demo away. Come on then Aberdeen scene...call him a fucking sell out, non punk, pop/manufatured corporate whore then. You know you want to.

but do you all agree that the reasons for the music matter as well? i mean does it make a difference to you that a certain song has been written by a bunch of people in a board room and produced by a cheque book for the sole reason that the 200 focus groups they studied showed that a certain type of music and song about this issue would sell more than one man who believed in his own music and recorded it in his bedroom with his mate who believed in him producing it on a computer they saved up a whole year to buy cause they knew they could make something amazing? who's music means more? do you treat music as an art or as a consumable you pick up use and throw away? is music about soul and passion or is it about a hummable tune and fake angst? how much soul do major labels have when they drop artists after one album and don't allow them the time to develop or trust in their abitility? what are their original motives for signing an artist on a multi album deal if they won't honour it after one album? would major labels be in as good a position just now if they didn't control most of the radio's output through bottomless pits of money thrown at pluggers and commercial radio stations? what does a major label have that you don't? what can they do that you can't? with a bit of drive and a bit of passion anything can be acheived' date=' all they have is money, we have the ideas and the songs.

fuck major labels. they are a plague of locusts on our music.[/quote']

I agree entirely. However I recall someone on here declaring that a very helpful local label was mickey mouse because they are small and don't charge a lot for new, young and original bands.

One must remember that post office employees go on a ten week course on how to be annoying, obstructive, anal and downright rude as well as pedantic.

This is how shirts were pressed in the armed forces until very recently. It's called box pressing because if done properly a pressed box is made of the pleats. It's very smart when done by someone who knows the technique but wearing a shirt straight out of the packet is, in fact, a minger's habit.

with a line up like that it deserves to have massive gale force winds.............

Yes, but you have to realise that the majority of people going to this will not want to hear hardcore/punk/metal/grindcore ect. Horses for courses.

Someone pick me up off the floor. Just kidding.

One point. I agree' date=' that if an anarchist alternative was made possible, it's influence would indeed need to be far reaching, across great areas. It's survival would depend on it.

Regarding the use of force - anarchists have indeed taken up arms, forming credible military forces. Take the actions of Nestor Makhno - his forces used against both the Bolsheviks and invading white armies.

And finally, can I say that I regret the rather harsh words I used yesterday. I have a temper. Not that I'm attempting to excuse my behaviour of course.[/quote']

Think nothing of it. I too have a temper and these discussions often get heated-a sign of passion.

It would be wise anarchists who set aside their philosophy of no authority in order to effectively fight a war of survival against an agressor. I assume, rightly I hope, that an anarchist society would abandon territorial and imperial aggression.

They could be the best producers in the world but...Skerries are more or less 100% scottish music and spook are mickey mouse and cant even cope with a drum kit!!!

And I assume you have worked with every producer in the N/E before declaring Sinton the best?

Sinton is currently re-mixing the corries back catalogue for DVD, was trained by Alan Spence who was trained at abbey road and engineered Abba. Sinton has won a golden rose for composing Faire Ah Bhata and there's not enough space to list the acts he has worked with but they include edi reader, john denver, the BBC, pilot, ect, ect. The spook studio is small and drum kits make it cramped, but their clients have included colin campbell, the SNP, Breeve, Little big men , philomena begley and many local acts too many to mention. They cope perfectly well with drum kits, albiet using a mobile system and in fact recorded the swing band I play in with 10 members (and drums) with a professionalism that was remarkable. Both these guys are properly trained and members of professional bodies and work mainly in the pro game where they are respected and have many contacts. I'm sure they would be amused to hear describe them as mickey mouse.

All you've done is manage to show this guy just how insular and incestuous the aberdeen scene is. As someone said this board is a tiny, tiny part of the music loving population and a bullshit-talking part too.

Naive? Not at all.

Okay' date=' let me set you straight on a few matters.

Darwinian's theory on evolution? You are quite mistaken in thinking that a species success -that is their ability to thrive, is determined by competition - species pitted against each other. In fact, what we find if we look closer is that co-operation is the most important factor in considering a species success. Suggest you pick up a copy of Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. Darwin was mistaken in his choice of words.

And can I also say that I find your words rather chilling - how you have sought to demonstrate your support of the theory that might is right. It is the arguement of fascists, used to excuse the use of genocide - to persecute and ultimately eradicate those believed inferior.

And I'm sorry, but you are quite wrong in believing that anarchist thinking is but a few decades old. It is several centuries old. Some say much older. And can I say that these supposed outmoded ideas have won considerable support in recent years. Witness the growth of the anti-capitalist movement.

So irrelevant in the 21st century? I don't believe so. If anything, it is now far more relevant than ever. Do you believe it correct that we do nothing - that we sit on our hands while others who seek only profit destroy this world in which we live? Say, hey, what can we do?

.[/quote']

I feel faint. I find myself agreeing with you ASF! How about that then? Quite right. Very often competition has resulted in the extinction of species. Enviromental pressures are a far greater cause of evolutionary pressure than competition, although it does play a part in either a positive or negative sense. Evolutionary history has shown us that a species that learns to co-operate can better resist the negative evolutionary pressures put upon it. Altruism in particular is a fine survival tool.

I also agree that most people in the world only want to get on with their lives in peace and harmony. And while I'm agreeing with you, I will state that I would have no problem living in a society such as you describe. Where I disagree is that an anarchist society (which whatever you say is a form of goverment) would have to be worldwide and homogenous. I do not believe that anarchy could survive if another and different system existed near it. They would most likely invade us and having no real government institutions like armed forces, we'd be defenceless. Can you imagine an anarchist army? 100,000 people standing in a field discussing whether to attack or not!

Extreme left wing? Anarchism is not a leftist variant' date=' but something quite different.

I have to say that I find your point regarding the application of anarchy unworkable quite amusing. It appears you have an extremely short memory. Do you not recall our discussion regarding Orwell's Homage To Catalonia - a book I cited as proof that anarchism can indeed work. And yes, you agreed. Really, think before you speak.

Regarding motivation, reward - it is important that if people are to see the benefits of anarchism, that they contribute fully. It is to their benefit to do so. That is their reward.

And anarchist STATE? lol

Education? Essential services such as education, transport, health etc exist not because of government, but in spite of it. They function because of the good work of ordinary working men and women.[/quote']

I see you now resort to pendantry, the refuge when arguement fails. Yes I do recall Homage to Catalonia, and yes for a time it enjoyed anarchy, but where is it now?

All sophisticated civilised societies inevitably end up with some form of government. As you yourself stated, wrong doers will be dealt with. How would this be done? By some kind of tribunual perhaps? Once you begin to regulate the way people behave, you are a governent. Once you provide any kind of service you are a government.

Anarchy is a pipe dream and if you were capable of deep and logical thinking you would see this.

The best record producer in the North East is davie sinton of skerries music, but he doesn't like hardcore punk or metal. Sinton's former engineer, stu richardson now has his own studio at spook music and is more enthusiastic about new music and is mobile too and is a close second to sinton.

I shall ask you again' date=' that until you have some level of knowledge or experience of anarchist politics, say nothing. Coz hey, you're just gonna look stupid.

Yes, I reject authority. I reject its use as the proper means to run a society. We need not government, bosses. Fuck em. And so you've misunderstood what I said. Do you see a pattern beginning to develop here?

While rejecting the use of law - its PRIMARY function to serve and protect the interests of the ruling class, anarchists will not stand idly by while others seek to disrupt or cause harm to the community or those living in it. Drunken driving may be one example. Behaviour believed harmful will not be tolerated and shall be dealt with, though not with the use of law. Again you confuse anarchist thought with chaos.[/quote']

Actually, I read with great interest the site you gave me the link for so I do see where you are coming from. I came to the conclusion that an anarchist society, like all extreme left wing societies is wonderful in theory but unworkable in practice. Why? They do not reward effort, intellect or prowess. Why should a young person go through all the effort of university and training to become a surgeon for example, if he will not be adequately rewarded for his skill and effort? Assuming your anarchist state manages to fund a uni in the first place.

Anarchist theory is fine in principle, but if applied can lead to nothing but chaos. This is the conclusion I reached after studying your site and thinking through the consequences, knowing what I know about human nature. It is my opinion and as valid as yours. What you cannot stand is that I dare to disagree with you.

Before you take a swipe at me' date=' I suggest firstly that you do some serious reading regarding my politics. Your point regarding my adherence to the law is complete nonsense, with no depth of understanding of what I'd actually said. Why should I wish to inflict physical harm? Why should I steal? Anarchism is not the law of the jungle as you believe - a thing which by the way I have corrected you on more than one occasion yet you have chosen to ignore. I seek freedom, and so respect others. I do not respect the law. I do not follow it blindly. Laws are made primarily to protect the interests of the established order. They are an instrument of control.

I agree, many christians are indeed good people. This however does not invalidate the main thrust of the arguement I've made - that is that the christian faith DOES demand obedience to a higher authority. And no, I did not compare those who are involved in charitable causes, who do good work, with the religious zealots found across the pond. I said nothing of the sort, so I shall ask you not to put words in to my mouth.[/quote']

Forgive me, but you said," I reject authority". Which means you reject any attempt to control your actions, for example by laws, made incidentally to protect people from harm by for instance drunken drivers. (How can you say the law against drunken drivers is to protect those in power?? That is stupid, isn't it? That law is to protect my daughter from being mown down by one.) You should have said, "I resent authority". So you then pick and choose which laws you obey and which ones you ignore?

Let us return to the drink drive law. Suppose a guy like you who chooses in his arrogance to ignore this particular law then drinks and drives, then mows down my daughter and kills her. Should he not be punished for his crime because he is an anarchist? My instinct as a father would be to hunt down this fuck and burn him alive, but the law prevents me from the act of vengeance. (And rightly so) Should I choose to ignore this law and behave worse than the drink driver?

I did not say YOU compared baptists to US zealots, I merely pointed out that those who did so were stupid in the extreme. In consulting my wife, she confirms that her faith does not require obedience to a higher authority and as she is a practising christian and a greater authority than you on the subject, I think we can lay to rest that particular misconception. In the past perhaps it was used as an instrument of social control and I think the catholics may still labour under this out dated misconception-the muslims certainly do.

I follow a general code of beliefs yes. However' date=' you cannot compare the leftist/anarchist politics of the punk community with a belief system built on oppression and lies. I seek freedom. Christianity teaches not freedom but service - service to a higher authority. I reject authority. So, the bottom line is not the same.[/quote']

You reject authority yet obey it nonetheless-or do you not buy things but steal them. Do you refuse to obey the law? Do you kill or assault those you don't like? No of course you don't, so you accept the authority of the law. My wife and her family are all baptists (although I'm agnostic) and a finer, nicer bunch of people you will never meet. Their view of christianity is not of subservience, but of tolerance and understanding, of non violence and charity and peace and love. In fact a several members of their congregation are recovering herion addicts, kicking their habit with the unconditional support of their church.

Their faith is simply a moral way of living and let living. To compare them with the US zealots is an insult and a display of ignorance, so profound as to be almost satanic.