Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by frankblack on Feb 25, 2013 23:05:16 GMT -5
i'm trying to get along with everyone. they don't seem to appreciate my point of view. you seem like a swell guy tho. let's share a beer at the broo'ers tent. i'll buy the first round.
i'm trying to get along with everyone. they don't seem to appreciate my point of view. you seem like a swell guy tho. let's share a beer at the broo'ers tent. i'll buy the first round.
I don't want to drink with you punz. Tho I liked you better when you were a dick.
let's share a beer at the broo'ers tent. i'll buy the first round.
I take that back. I'd love to have beers with you and I'm willing to pay for EVERY round as long as you don't mind saying, "badpunz is an insignificant, worthless piece of shit. Jones is incredible and a complement to humanity."
From a purely objective standpoint, Blur/Stone Roses is a rarer combination (even one of them would be rarer) especially for North America where neither of them have had any scheduled shows for the at least a decade.
But why does it always have to be a comparison? All three of them will put on must see shows.
all three who?
i don't see how mumford andsons could put on a must see show.
like, how could you say someone who doesn't like shizzy poppy folk music 'must see' that show?
Yeah, that's the whole point. They SELL what they have created, that's what it means to be a professional musician. If that's your only source of income, and you spend years crafting music that you are proud of, and then some jerkstore uses it to sell some Hyundais without your permission, you are well within your rights to sue their ass AND their balls.
I love the opinion that it's wrong to sell your music to be used in advertisements. If you don't do it, they're just going to pay some weenie 20% what they would have paid you to make some sh*tty knock-off version of your song, a-la White Stripes.
lol @ the black keys taking years to craft the music they sell to commercials.
they kicked out those last two albums in weeks, tops.
it's generally accepted that musicians like modest mouse selling gravity tides everything to toyota or who the Quack ever is a band trying to make it. it was their first major label release and it didn't do that well, sales wise. obviously amazing album.
a band like the black keys doing the same in 2013 is not equal. they sell out arenas, headline festivals. they don't need the moneym, it's a marketing strategy. people hear those songs everywhere and they become ingrained in our culture, similarly to the way we associate clydesdales with budweiseer.
similar to how the daily show 'covers' back in black during lewis black's segment of the same name, they don't play the same notes and odn't have to pay royalties.
this is what the black keys are suing for. they want their music to be well known but don't want people doing the things people do to get around paying them. they don't need to be paid, they're being dicks just for the sake of it, which is basically what was being posted about by other people above me, which is why i brought it up.
Your argument is flawed. How can you use the Black Keys being multi-millionaires as an argument against them suing for unlawful use of their music when the companies using the music are companies like Home Depot and Pizza Hut who are multi-billion dollar corporations? So, you're arguing that two guys that are multi-millionaires shouldnt sue because of the money they have when the parties who have stolen from them are using their property to promote their businesses and increase the value of businesses that are already worth billions. You're argument might be legitimate if the Black Keys were suing a non-profit organization for using their music to advertise their charity. But, that's not the case. It is multi-billion dollar organizations stealing property in order to increase their wealth.
The music belongs to the Black Keys and someone stole it. Saying they should just let it pass because of already have millions is foolishness. If they allow that to pass then companies will think they dont care and other companies will no longer pay them to use their music because they will think they dont have too. In other words, it devalues their product and brand they have worked over a decade to build.
Also, the Black Keys are hot right now but in music, you can fade into obscurity at any time or they could lose the ability to put out good music and end up out of the industry. It has happened many times and people in the entertainment industry have to take advantage of the opportunities they have in front of them because they may not be there in the future.
Turtles are, actually quite sexy, if you think about it. I’m getting an erection just thinking about turtles. No, not a stripper named turtles, that’s not funny. Actual turtles.
—?Thom Yorke
i don't see how mumford andsons could put on a must see show.
like, how could you say someone who doesn't like shizzy poppy folk music 'must see' that show?
All three as in Blur, The Stone Roses, and Paul.
oh my mistake. agree about blur. stone roses is iffy. i know they haven't been here in a long time, but i just don't get it with them. i don't say this to be inflammatory, but their songs sound like mothing to me. like they were recorded for no reason. again, personal opinion, i know people irl who love them and that's cool.
lol @ the black keys taking years to craft the music they sell to commercials.
they kicked out those last two albums in weeks, tops.
it's generally accepted that musicians like modest mouse selling gravity tides everything to toyota or who the Quack ever is a band trying to make it. it was their first major label release and it didn't do that well, sales wise. obviously amazing album.
a band like the black keys doing the same in 2013 is not equal. they sell out arenas, headline festivals. they don't need the moneym, it's a marketing strategy. people hear those songs everywhere and they become ingrained in our culture, similarly to the way we associate clydesdales with budweiseer.
similar to how the daily show 'covers' back in black during lewis black's segment of the same name, they don't play the same notes and odn't have to pay royalties.
this is what the black keys are suing for. they want their music to be well known but don't want people doing the things people do to get around paying them. they don't need to be paid, they're being dicks just for the sake of it, which is basically what was being posted about by other people above me, which is why i brought it up.
Your argument is flawed. How can you use the Black Keys being multi-millionaires as an argument against them suing for unlawful use of their music when the companies using the music are companies like Home Depot and Pizza Hut who are multi-billion dollar corporations? So, you're arguing that two guys that are multi-millionaires shouldnt sue because of the money they have when the parties who have stolen from them are using their property to promote their businesses and increase the value of businesses that are already worth billions. You're argument might be legitimate if the Black Keys were suing a non-profit organization for using their music to advertise their charity. But, that's not the case. It is multi-billion dollar organizations stealing property in order to increase their wealth.
The music belongs to the Black Keys and someone stole it. Saying they should just let it pass because of already have millions is foolishness. If they allow that to pass then companies will think they dont care and other companies will no longer pay them to use their music because they will think they dont have too. In other words, it devalues their product and brand they have worked over a decade to build.
Also, the Black Keys are hot right now but in music, you can fade into obscurity at any time or they could lose the ability to put out good music and end up out of the industry. It has happened many times and people in the entertainment industry have to take advantage of the opportunities they have in front of them because they may not be there in the future.
I do like some tracks on Lonerism. Elecphant is obviously catchy as hell. i have a habit of walking away from albums halfway through, so i listen to the first half of an album like 50 times, and maybe make it to the back half, 5 or 6. it's a sad state of affairs, really.
oh my mistake. agree about blur. stone roses is iffy. i know they haven't been here in a long time, but i just don't get it with them. i don't say this to be inflammatory, but their songs sound like mothing to me. like they were recorded for no reason. again, personal opinion, i know people irl who love them and that's cool.
You should give them another go. Ian Brown isn't the best singer, but his lyrics are absolutely gorgeous. It's a hard sell if you don't dig that kind of British music, but they're in the direct lineage of bands like The Byrds, Love, and Buffalo Springfield (all, ironically, not from Britain) and they really helped usher in a more rock-slanted view to dance music along with Primal Scream's Screamdelica. Not to mention, they have one of the best rhythm sections of all time (Reni and Mani) and John Squire can really shred. Funnily enough, they're probably the closest Coachella or Bonnaroo have to a jam band headliner. They stretch some of their tunes (specifically, Fools Gold and I Am The Resurrection) into twenty minute jams. I wouldn't call them a jam band, but they can certainly jam.
