Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mono

  1. On My Radio

  2. On My Radio

    From this: https://www.youtube.com/user/tourgigs/playlists And, this: https://www.youtube.com/user/umvideo/videos?view=0&flow=grid&sort=p
  3. On My Radio

    from this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq8xgh5PmcXM4LGW4kVaFFHZpfIn4QEXQ
  4. On My Radio

    from this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq8xgh5PmcXOB_8WyJiO_9hJkw54HdIDJ
  5. cycling to work

  6. On My Radio

  7. On My Radio

    “Give me two amps in the morning with a stereo pedal, and I need less psychedelics in my life, because I can get it all right there.” —Buddy Miller https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/24816-session-sages-nick-raskulinecz-dave-cobb-amp-buddy-miller-on-recording-guitars?page=2 The most notable player of Wandres is Buddy Miller. Buddy tells a story about buying his first Wandre from a pawnshop for $50. There are some Wandres selling now for $40,000. http://uniqueguitar.blogspot.com/2009/10/wandre-guitars-first-metal-necks.html
  8. On My Radio

  9. On My Radio

  10. cycling to work

  11. "The slow, secret death of the six-string electric. And why you should care." https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/lifestyle/the-slow-secret-death-of-the-electric-guitar/?utm_term=.d275eb015c67
  12. "Music Labels battle You Tube over royalties" "Why musicians are so angry at the world’s most popular music streaming service" As seen in this morning's Washington Post - Saturday July 15, 2017 Page A1, below the fold By Todd C. Frankel July 14 at 10:07 PM With the money from CDs and digital downloads disappearing, the music industry has pinned its hope for the future on online song streaming, which now accounts for the majority of the $7.7 billion U.S. music market. But the biggest player in this future isn’t one of the names most associated with streaming — Spotify, Amazon, Pandora or Apple. It’s YouTube, the site best known for viral videos, which accounts for 25 percent of all music streamed worldwide, far more than any other site. Now, YouTube is locked in an increasingly bitter battle with music labels over how much it pays to stream their songs — and at stake is not just the finances of the music industry but also the way that millions of people around the world have grown accustomed to listening to music: free of cost. Music labels accuse YouTube of using a legal loophole to pay less for songs than traditional music-streaming sites, calling YouTube the biggest threat since song piracy crippled the industry in the early 2000s. The industry has pressed its case to regulators around the world in hopes of forcing a change. “I do think YouTube is starting to panic a little bit,” said Mitch Glazier, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. But YouTube is not backing down, stressing the benefits to musicians of promotion on one of the Web’s most popular sites — which allows ordinary users to integrate music into their uploads. YouTube also warns against attacks that could reduce competition among streaming services. “The industry should be really, really careful because they could close their eyes and wake up with their revenue really concentrated in two, three sources,” said Lyor Cohen, YouTube’s global head of music, referring to Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Prime Music. (Amazon founder Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.) The music industry counters they are backed into a corner when negotiating with YouTube — a unit of Google-parent Alphabet — which is mostly shielded by federal law from being responsible for what users post on the site. “It isn’t a level playing field,” said one executive at a major music label who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to talk, “because ultimately you’re negotiating with a party who is going to have your content no matter what.” Now, the battle is heating up as the European Union is expected to release new rules later this year for how services such as YouTube handle music, potentially upending some of the copyright protections that undergird the Internet. Online streaming works like a digital jukebox, with fractions of a penny paid each time a song is played. The money comes from ads and subscriptions. The E.U. has formally recognized that there is a “value gap” between song royalties and what user-upload services such as YouTube earn from selling ads while playing music. YouTube is by far the largest user-upload site. How such a law would address the gap is still being decided, but the E.U. has indicated it plans to focus on ensuring copyright holders are “properly remunerated.” Even the value gap’s existence is disputed. A recent economic study commissioned by YouTube found no value gap — in fact, the report said YouTube promotes the music industry, and if YouTube stopped playing music, 85 percent of users would flock to services that offered lower or no royalties. A different study by an independent consulting group pegged the YouTube value gap at more than $650 million in the United States alone. “YouTube is viewed as a giant obstacle in the path to success for the streaming marketplace,” Glazier said. The dispute boils down to what YouTube pays for songs. Musicians from Arcade Fire to Garth Brooks to Pharrell Williams say they earn significantly less when their songs are played on YouTube than on a site such as Spotify — even though many listeners use these services in the same way. Both YouTube and Spotify allow users to search for music and find song recommendations. On YouTube, users can find music alongside cat videos and toy reviews in what is generally a free-for-all of content, while people go to Spotify and the like for a more refined experience. Some audiophiles argue the sound quality on music streaming sites is superior. YouTube pays an estimated $1 per 1,000 plays on average, while Spotify and Apple music pay a rate closer to $7. Irving Azoff, the legendary manager for acts such as the Eagles and Christina Aguilera, said he has one artist — whom he declined to name — who gets 33 percent of her online streams from YouTube but only 10 percent of her streaming revenue. Smaller acts see it, too. Zoe Keating, an instrumental cello player, showed The Washington Post a statement from YouTube showing that she earned $261 from 1.42 million views on YouTube. In comparison, she earned $940 from 230,000 streams on Spotify. “YouTube revenue is so negligible that I stopped paying attention to it,” Keating said. YouTube admits that it pays less for songs. But the reason for this disparity is where the two sides split. The music industry claims YouTube has avoided paying a fair-market rate by hiding behind broad legal protections. In the United States, that’s the “safe harbor” provision, which essentially says YouTube is not to blame if someone uploads a copy-protected song —unless the copyright holder complains. This, the music industry argues, leads to a costly game of “Whac-A-Mole”: hunting for illicit song uploads and filing notices with YouTube. “You can’t prevent something from going up on YouTube. All you can do is ask them to take it down,” said Stephen Carlisle, who runs the copyright office at Nova Southeastern University. “At some point, it’s not worth it to do this.” YouTube says it has the solution: Its Content ID system automatically checks for violations by comparing songs detected in new uploads against a database of claimed songs, capturing 98 percent of complaints. The company says it averages fewer than 1,500 traditional copyright claims from the music industry a week. YouTube also pointed out that it has licensing deals with music labels large and small. Earlier this year, Warner Music Group — one of the “big three” music labels — signed a new licensing deal with YouTube, and a memo from Warner chief executive Steve Cooper leaked out, saying the deal was signed “under very difficult circumstances.” “There’s no getting around the fact that, even if YouTube doesn’t have licenses, our music will still be available but not monetized at all,” the memo continued. Warner confirmed the memo’s authenticity, but, like the other major labels, declined to comment for this article. Cooper’s complaints surprised Cohen, who worked at Warner until leaving for YouTube last year. “I never heard that from his mouth during the entire negotiation,” Cohen said. Cohen’s move to YouTube created waves in the industry. After all, Cohen was famous for taking one of the hardest stands against YouTube when, in 2008, he pulled Warner’s entire song catalogue from the video service to protest low song royalties. It was the nuclear option. And it failed. After nine months and spending $2 million trying to keep its music off YouTube, Warner capitulated. Cohen said he was sympathetic to his former colleague’s complaints. But YouTube pays $1 billion in song royalties worldwide each year. Cohen said his company has been hindered by its global reach — ad rates are lower outside the United States — and its slower rollout of a subscription option, YouTube Red. Song royalties are higher with monthly subscriptions than ads. “What I’m trying to do with YouTube is be a cheerleader to build a subscription business that the industry can be proud of,” Cohen said. Nabila Hisham, 22, is a music fan on YouTube. Recently, the college student in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, has been playing one song repeatedly: “Despacito,” a chart-topping Latin pop remix featuring Justin Bieber. The YouTube video — which has a total of 412 million plays — is a photo of Bieber’s tattooed neck. The video is beside the point. For, Hisham, it’s about the music. “I’m glad that YouTube exists,” she said. Link to the attending comment section: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/why-musicians-are-so-angry-at-the-worlds-most-popular-music-streaming-service/2017/07/14/bf1a6db0-67ee-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.e1bfd32df890#comments
  13. from this: https://www.youtube.com/user/kirstendirksen/videos?flow=grid&sort=p&view=0
  14. Hippies

    "Five myths about hippies." (As seen in the Washington Post - Sunday, July 9th - Page B3) By Joshua Clark Davis July 7, 2017 Joshua Clark Davis is a professor of history at the University of Baltimore and the author of “From Head Shops to Whole Foods: The Rise and Fall of Activist Entrepreneurs.” During a special summer 50 years ago, young people from all over America flooded into San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury neighborhood in hopes of joining the hippies, a new group of rebellious dreamers vowing to teach anyone who would listen how to find peace, love and happiness. It was the Summer of Love. Reporters and curious tourists came to San Francisco check out these strange kids for themselves. But the deluge of media attention launched a set of spurious myths about the hippies, many of which have been perpetuated by overly nostalgic idealists and unduly harsh critics. Florida hippies hold a love-in during spring of 1968. (HLD/ASSOCIATED PRESS) Here are five of the most persistent: MYTH NO. 1 Hippies were a phenomenon of the 1960s. “When people in the early 2000s think about the 1960s, they might think first about the ‘hippies,’ ” suggests the widely used online educational company Gale. Likewise, the Princeton Review’s SAT guidebook prompts students: “Think about the 1960s. What comes to mind? Maybe it’s the Beatles, dancing hippies, and Vietnam.” Hippies might be the most famous symbol of the 1960s; after all, they emerged in the middle of that decade. But they didn’t really hit their stride until the early 1970s, when their numbers and influence peaked. The hippies’ drug subculture in the 1960s became youth pop culture in the ’70s; issues of the stoner magazine High Times, founded in 1974, sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Rock-and-roll, once seen as a frivolous hobby for teenagers, became a serious artform and publications such as Rolling Stone became national tastemakers. And a quick perusal of nearly any high school yearbook well into the late ’70s shows that long hair became standard for teenage boys across the country. Even some of the male teachers had shaggy cuts. Google Books’ Ngram Viewer reveals the trajectory of America’s fascination with the counterculture: The frequency of the term “hippies” peaked in books in 1971 and stayed above 1967 levels until 1977. MYTH NO. 2 Hippies lived only in coastal cities or rural communes. It’s easy to imagine hippies clustering in California’s Bay Area or among the Ivy League campuses of the Eastern Seaboard. In Scott MacFarlane’s “The Hippie Narrative ,” for example, the author points out that Norman Mailer distinguishedbetween “more visionary West Coast” hippies and “practical East Coast” hippies, with not a thought given to those who might have resided somewhere in between. Likewise, “The American Promise,” a high school history textbook , states that “hippie enclaves sprouted in low-rent districts of coastal cities and in rural communities.” But hippies lived all over the United States, even in small and mid-size cities in the South and Midwest. The earliest flowering of hippie culture took place in coastal cities such as San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles, but head shops — purveyors of psychedelic posters, black lightbulbs and rolling papers — were popping up by 1967 in such cities as Atlanta, Cleveland and Omaha, as well as Austin, Ann Arbor and other college towns. Almost every city had a neighborhood or public place where hippies came together. Washington’s hippies hung out on Dupont Circle, while Baltimore’s gathered at that city’s Washington Monument. Meanwhile, countercultural newspapers were launched all over the country. To name just a few examples, Middle Earth appeared in Iowa City, Iowa; Chinook in Denver; Kudzu in Jackson, Miss.; and the improbably named Protean Radish in Chapel Hill, N.C. MYTH NO. 3 Hippies were the ones protesting in the streets. In the popular imagination, hippies with flowers in their hair were at the heart of the antiwar movement. The tumultuous political climate conjures images of “spoiled hippies protesting the Vietnam War,” as journalist Tom Jokinen put it in Hazlitt , or “hippies protesting the war in Vietnam,” as writer Robyn Price Pierre wrote in the Atlantic. It’s true that some countercultural groups, most notably the Yippies and the White Panther Party, blended radical politics with the hippie lifestyle. But antiwar protesters and hippies were usually two distinct groups . Hippies, often known as “freaks,” prioritized spiritual enlightenment, community building, and, of course, sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. Activists, often known as “politicos,” opted for more traditional forms of left-wing political organizing. Many hippies were indifferent or even opposed to activists’ political organizing, public meetings and marching. Writer, LSD enthusiast and “Merry Prankster” Ken Kesey shocked the audience at an antiwar event at the University of California at Berkeley in 1965 by declaring: “You’re not going to stop this war with this rally, by marching. . . . They’ve been having wars for 10,000 years, and you’re not going to stop it this way.” Rather than marching or protesting, hippies hoped to change America by seceding from established political, social and cultural institutions, not by reforming them. No one expressed this sentiment more memorably than LSD guru Timothy Leary when he exhorted young Americans to “Turn on, tune in, drop out ” — meaning, in essence, to get high, disregard popular norms, quit bothering with mainstream society, and look inward for peace and wisdom. MYTH NO. 4 Hippies were all about sexual liberation. To many observers (and quite a few critics), hippies were synonymous with free love . In one incident during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, a Chicago police officer attacked a young woman who was protesting, saying: “You hippies are all alike. All you want is free love. Free love? I can give you some free love.” Indeed, in author Micah Lee Issit’s guide to the counterculture, “free love” is described “as the hippie sexual ideal.” While hippies were more sexually adventurous than mainstream Americans (one aspect of the counterculture that has had a lasting impact), they mostly stuck to heterosexual monogamy. As one aging hippie recounted decades later, that was more legend than fact . “We had parties where people would smoke too much or drink too much and sleep with their friends, but there were emotional repercussions the next day. Free love is like a free lunch — there’s no such thing. . . . Even nudity was rare.” Even within open relationships, hippie men often seized the freedom to sleep with multiple women but discouraged their girlfriends and wives from doing the same. Sadly, sexual relations in the counterculture weren’t always consensual. Women in hippie neighborhoods — especially teenage girls who had run away from their parents — were often vulnerable to sexual assault as they faced peer pressure to embrace drugs and abandon sexual restraint. Chester Anderson, a writer associated with San Francisco’s legendary Diggers collective, painted a devastating picture of sexual relations in the Summer of Love: “Rape is as common as bulls--- on Haight Street.” MYTH NO. 5 The hippie fad eventually vanished. “We are the children of the 60s and 70s kids, who were trying to figure out life after the 60s hippies died out,” writer Natalyn Chamberlain wrote in a lament for post-hippie culture in the online magazine Odyssey; a travel guide to oddball American locales similarly asserts that the hippies have “faded away,” while a Texas Monthly article by Peter Applebome reports that hippies “died out” sometime before 1982. Yet it’s less the case that the hippies died out, disappeared or faded away, and more that all of us became hippies. Indeed, a number of countercultural practices that were once seen as fringe are now widely accepted parts of American life. Yoga, to name one example, was championed by hippies long before it became a mainstream phenomenon. The same goes for organic food and vegetarian, whole-grain diets. And hippies celebrated casual dress, especially blue jeans and androgynous styles, rejecting the conventional wisdom that clothing should be formal and gender-specific. Their fashion sense paved the way for our current era, when many Americans wear casual clothing for all occasions and fewer and fewer workplaces require employees to dress up. All of these things, once considered symbols of the hippie lifestyle, are now fully entrenched in American culture. From this: (With it's own, attending, 'comments' section @ end of article ) https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-hippies/2017/07/07/776a1530-5a9a-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.cd1f38b5a45 Postscript: Use of the story's links at your own discretion.
  15. On My Radio

  16. On My Radio

  17. On My Radio

  18. Published on Apr 20, 2017 "Inspired by Norman Petty and Sam Phillips, studio owner Dean Amos has lovingly built a perfect recreation of a 1950s recording environment — right down to the dimensions of the pegboard! We eavesdrop on a session at Sugar Ray’s Vintage Recording Studio to find out why it’s still valid to record an entire band to tape, with one microphone. We also talk to engineer Lincoln Grounds and the band about the challenges they faced when recording this way. What we discovered may surprise you... See the interviews and session in the video and hear the recordings at http://www.soundonsound.com/technique... "
  19. Beats headphones

    Published on Jun 15, 2017 When two unexpected music moguls come together, history is made. The Defiant Ones, a four part documentary series about Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre, premieres July 9 at 9PM on HBO.