Stupot

It's only hobby bands and amatuers that give a shit in any case.

I enjoyed the fact that all his band appeared to be over 45 and enjoying themselves hugely. No winehouse/docherty mumbling, stumbling or happy slapping there. I'd pay to watch Neil Diamond but not to watch Amy Winehouse commit suicide very slowly. It's not her not being the real deal stuff I object to but the sheer waste.

Blasphemy!!

Love it. Well said. Music almost has the status of religion on here. For an art form that is entirely subjective there seems to be no shortage of high priests telling us whats bad for us and what and how to think. They find it impossible to simply like what they like and ignore the rest, taking it upon their shoulders to educate the "masses" in proper musical thinking. In their limited, retarded world, everything is "shite" apart from their own narrow tastes. Mind your own musical business all you music Nazis out there. For the record, I thought Neil Diamond's set was one of the hightlights of Glastonbury. Oh and don't bother to post a sermon telling me how I'm wrong to think this or how Diamond is a has been. Better to be a has been than a never will be like, well, all music Nazis, really. nb: if you're a musical high priest with leanings to the left, please feel free to substitute " music trot" for "music nazi". Thank you.

In my recent experience this appears to be indeed the case.

I have to agree. Just another Brit School product who's never paid her dues and can't handle the fame.

I know and work with many bands who play up and down the country. All of them make a living from music, either cover or originals or both. In the case of a band who invest in themselves there can be an element of debt, but this is capital debt and in no way related to playing for nothing or even worse pay to play. If you're playing gigs and each gig costs you, you're doing something wrong. Simply saying it's pish doesn't make it so. If the truth makes you laugh then there's no hope for you.

I suppose whilst pandering to the various jealousies, misconceptions and irrational hatreds inherent in any musical discussion it helps one's prejudices if one ignores artists like Elvis and Frank Sinatra who never wrote a tune in their lives. In this state of mind, I suppose it's forgiveable that one grants "art" status to any three chord tuneless thrash as long as it's original and denies art form status to someone like Pavarotti when he sings (covers) Puccini. Perhaps the people who make such juvenile statements don't realise how stupid they sound.

I guess you're one of them then, eh?

In amongst all this missing the point shit, covers bands work in the entertainment industry. They get paid for entertaining at weddings, holiday camps, old fogie clubs, lowest common demonimator pubs, anywhere people of a vast range of ages want to dance. There is a huge market for it. They have to play for up to five hours. They need to be self contained. Original bands are in the music industry. They create new music sometimes crap, often brilliant. They're rarely self contained and most play for less than two hours. Sometimes they get famous, most of the time they don't. They're in it for love and fun. It's horses for courses. An average original band playing at an average wedding or holiday camp would get slayed, just as a cover band playing at a trendy venue would get slayed. Pretending you would hate being payed to play music original or otherwise in order to appear cool doesn't fool anyone. The bottom line is, if it's costing you money to play any kind of music, you are doing something wrong. The bands with their heads screwed on play lots of covers all over the country to make a living (better than being a wage slave anyday) and also write their own material which they slot in when it suits, ensuring their own stuff reaches a far bigger audience than any deluded, I'm in it for art man, stay in Aberdeen and play twice a month for 15 minutes original band could reach in a year.

Ah well, that's classical music, jazz, blues and folk all fucked then.

But worth way way way way way way less.

three 78s of bessie smith half a dozen of spike jones and the city slickers on 78 the original 78 of sonny james doing puppy love.

On one occasion, whilst playing in a dodgy pub, a pissed punter took it upon himself to grope my wife and singer's tits in mid song. I struck him smartly upon the side of his face with my les paul headstock, knocking him to the floor and the guitar out of tune. The imprint of the tuners were clearly visible on his fizzer as the bouncers dragged him out. Does this count as a guitar related injury?

Tried a lot of them and some are pretty damn good. Non, however, have ever beaten my 2 inch tape studer.

Good CD Mark. Would any of the bands or yourself mind if I played some tracks on the radio shows I produce for Elgin Radio?

They are pretty damn good plugs I must say. I still prefer my current signal chain though as it's not based on computers. Still can't bring myself to trust them for tracking properly and unless you bankrupt yourself for a protools HD system or such, computers don't do so well recording 24+ tracks at once. For editing and mixing though, much faster and easier and as you say the plug ins are getting better all the time. Not up to the standard of an Eventide or even the best Lexicons but getting there. I came up working with tape so anything that takes me away from razor blades and glue is fine by me. I still reach for my trusty Studer J37 for mastering though. The tape for it is getting a bit pricey these days though, but if you want warmth and punch it's the dog's.

As long as he tells you he's done it. I know that when I finally could afford the Waves platinum suite, I put every single thing I had ever recorded through it then sent the new masters to the respective owners free of charge. There's nothing wrong with re-doing stuff with better quality equipment to get a higher quality end result. As long as you don't mess with the original artistic intentions of the composers.

It's easy to get caught between a rock and a hard place when releasing compillations. Artists can often give verbal permission then recant after release. When I released our Ghost In The North compillation I sent out release forms to everyone who wanted to be on it-no signature- no inclusion. They were all back signed within a fortnight, including one that came all the way from Cyprus. On a supportive note, I've never heard a bad word said about exile and every track I've heard from there has been great, most recently some tracks from Avoid The Morning. And no rip off pricing either.

Technically, recordings are like photographs. They're owned by the guy who made them. However, if you use a recording on a commercial CD you're obliged to pay royalties to the artists playing on it and to the holder of the intellectual property rights, eg the songwriter. It doesn't matter if the band still exists or not. Even if the CD is free you should still seek permission of the song's owner to put it out. It may be for instance that they hate that particular recording and don't want it in the public domain.

The real tragedy here is that she will still sell way more records and make way more money than the entire musical community of Northern Scotland put together. Or is that the real reason?

It's just a tool. It's no difference from recording ten takes of a vocal or guitar part then comping them all together to make one perfect take. It just means recording a track will be quicker and cheaper. Can't be a bad thing surely.

Try us. Flash Page

What he said.