Music

Hendrix ’67 – in the LA Freep -
More than 40 Years Ago!

Jimi Hendrix In Concert

This is the work of John Williams… a colorization of a black and white concert ad from

the Los Angeles Free Press, January, 1967

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Editor - September 20, 2010 at 9:30 am

Categories: Entertainment, Music   Tags: , , ,

Hendrix Reviewed

Hendrix Reviewed, Los Angeles Free Press, 1967

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Editor - at 9:20 am

Categories: Entertainment, Music   Tags: , , , , , ,

Four hours of unreleased Hendrix music due out in November

Consequence of Sound

Click here to find out more!

By Dana Grossman on September 19th, 2010 in News

The year of Hendrix continues. Fans of Jimi Hendrix have been treated to quite a lot regarding the guitarist this year, from the Experience Hendrix tour to (official!) MP3s of demos and bootlegs being made available. And yeah, that’s only scratching the surface. Now, get prepared for something else of massive proportions, so massive that it’s going to take four CDs to cover it all.

Legacy Recordings has announced West Coast Seattle Boy – The Jimi Hendrix Anthology, a five-disc (one of them being a DVD) box set of rare and unreleased music. We’re talking over four hours of music here and 45 tracks in total. These tracks will include demos and alternate versions of album songs, alongside live performances and songs we’ve never heard before.

This deluxe box set will be made available on November 16th, rounding out an amazing year of Hendrix celebration. If you’re curious about what to expect on the album, look below for the massive track listing.

Go tohttp://consequenceofsound.net/2010/09/19/four-hours-of-unreleased-hendrix-music-due-out-in-november/

For the… West Coast Seattle Boy – The Jimi Hendrix Anthology Tracklist:

Technorati Tags: ,

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Editor - at 9:10 am

Categories: Entertainment, Music   Tags: ,

ASCAP’s attack on Creative Commons

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has launched a campaign to raise money from its members to hire lobbyists to protect them against the dangers of “Copyleft.” Groups such as Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are “mobilizing,” ASCAP describes in a letter to its members, “to promote ‘Copyleft’ in order to undermine our ‘Copyright.’” “[O]ur opponents are influencing Congress against the interests of music creators,” ASCAP warns. Indeed, as the letter ominously predicts, this is ASCAP’s “biggest challenge ever.” (Historians of BMI might be a bit surprised about that claim in particular.)

As a founding board member of two of those three organizations, and former board member of the third, I guess I should be proud that a 96 year old organization would be so terrified of our work. And I would be — if there were anything in this fundraising pitch that was actually true.

But there is not. Creative Commons, Public Knowledge and EFF are not aiming to “undermine” copyright; they are not spreading the word that “music should be free”; and there is certainly not yet any rally within Congress in favor of any of the issues that these groups do push.

I know Creative Commons best, so let me address ASCAP’s charges as they apply to it.

Creative Commons is a nonprofit that provides copyright licenses pro bono to artists and creators so that they can offer their creative work with the freedom they intend it to carry. (Think not “All Rights Reserved” but “Some Rights Reserved.”) Using these licenses, a musician might allow his music to be used for noncommercial purposes (by kids making a video, for example, or for sharing among friends), so long as attribution to the artist is kept. Or an academic might permit her work to be shared for whatever purpose, again, so long as attribution is maintained. Or a collaborative project such as a wiki might guarantee that the collective work of the thousands who have built the wiki remains free for everyone forever. Hundreds of millions of digital objects — from music to video to photographs to architectural designs to scientific journals to teachers lesson plans to books and to blogs — have been licensed in this way, and by an extraordinarily diverse range of creators or rights holders — including Nine Inch Nails, Beastie Boys, Youssou N’Dour, Curt Smith, David Byrne, Radiohead, Jonathan Coulton, Kristin Hersh, and Snoop Dogg, as well as Wikipedia and the White House.

These licenses are, obviously, copyright licenses. They depend upon a firm and reliable system of copyright for them to work. Thus CC could have no interest in “undermining” the very system the licenses depend upon — copyright. Indeed, to the contrary, CC only aims to strengthen the objectives of copyright, by giving the creators a simpler way to exercise their rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/ascaps-attack-on-creative_b_641965.html

Technorati Tags: ,

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Editor - July 21, 2010 at 11:50 am

Categories: Business & Finance, Civil Rights, Entertainment, Government & Politics, Law Enforcement, Media, Music, Social Change, Society and Culture   Tags: ,

Can You Survive a Benevolent Dictatorship?

http://www.publishersweekly.com/images/pwk_headerlogo.gif

The press loves the iPad, but beware Apple’s attempt to shackle your readers to its hardware

By Cory Doctorow

The first press accounts of the Apple iPad have been long on emotional raves about its beauty and ease of use, but have glossed over its competitive characteristics—or rather, its lack thereof. Some have characterized the iPad as an evolution from flexible-but-complicated computers to simple, elegant appliances. But has there ever been an “appliance” with the kind of competitive control Apple now enjoys over the iPad? The iPad’s DRM restrictions mean that Apple has absolute dominion over who can run code on the device—and while that thin shellac of DRM will prove useless at things that matter to publishers, like preventing piracy, it is deadly effective in what matters to Apple: preventing competition.

Maybe the iPad will fizzle. After all, that’s what has happened to every other tablet device so far. But if you’re contemplating a program to sell your books, stories, or other content into the iPad channel with hopes of it becoming a major piece of your publishing business, you should take a step back and ask how your interests are served by Apple’s shackling your readers to its hardware. The publishing world chaos that followed the bankruptcy of Advanced Marketing Group (and subsidiaries like Publishers Group West) showed what can happen when a single distributor locks up too much of the business. Apple isn’t just getting big, however; it’s also availing itself of a poorly thought-out codicil of copyright law to lock your readers into its platform, limit innovation in the e-book realm, and ultimately reduce the competition to serve your customers.

Jailbreak

Here’s what most mainstream press reports so far haven’t told you. The iPad uses a DRM system called “code-signing” to limit which apps it can run. If the code that you load on your device isn’t “signed,” that is, approved by Apple, the iPad will not run it. If the idea of adding this DRM to the iPad is to protect the copyrights of the software authors, we can already declare the system an abject failure—independent developers cracked the system within 24 hours after the first iPad shipped, a very poor showing even in the technically absurd realm of DRM. Code-signing has also completely failed for iPhones, by the way, on which anyone who wants to run an unauthorized app can pretty easily “jailbreak” the phone and load one up.

But DRM isn’t just a system for restricting copies. DRM enjoys an extraordinary legal privilege previously unseen in copyright law: the simple act of breaking DRM is illegal, even if you’re not violating anyone’s copyright. In other words, if you jailbreak your iPad for the purpose of running a perfectly legal app from someone other than Apple, you’re still breaking the law. Even if you’ve never pirated a single app, nor violated a single copyright, if you’re found guilty of removing an “effective means of access control,” Apple can sue you into a smoking hole. That means that no one can truly compete with Apple to offer better iStores, or apps, with better terms that are more publisher- and reader-friendly. Needless to say, it is also against the law to distribute tools for the purpose of breaking DRM.

Think about what that kind of control means for the future of your e-books. Does the company that makes your toaster get to tell you whose bread you can buy? Your dishwasher can wash anyone’s dishes, not just the ones sold by its manufacturer (who, by the way, takes a 30% cut along the way). What’s more, you can invent cool new things to do with your dishwasher. For example, you can cook salmon in it without needing permission from the manufacturer (check out the Surreal Gourmet for how). And you can even sell your dishwasher salmon recipe without violating some obscure law that lets dishwasher manufacturers dictate how you can use your machine.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/456751-Can_You_Survive_a_Benevolent_Dictatorship_.php

Technorati Tags: , ,

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Editor - at 11:47 am

Categories: Civil Rights, Entertainment, Government & Politics, Media, Music, Social Change, Society and Culture   Tags: , ,

Rock impresario says file sharing is inevitable

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/blogs/hdrs/2009/blog_hd_media_maverick_980x70.jpg

by Greg Sandoval
Peter Jenner helped launch some of the most influential and soul-stirring rock ‘n’ roll bands ever recorded in Great Britain or anywhere else. But what does the former manager of such acts as Pink Floyd and The Clash know about the economics of digital music?

Apparently, Jenner has spent some time considering the current state of affairs in music. The former Cambridge University economics lecturer has some ideas on how the industry should proceed.

“Attempts to stop people [from] copying are clearly a waste of time,” Jenner said on Wednesday at the Westminster eForum. “Not only are they a waste of time, they make the law offensive. It’s very similar to prohibition in America in the 1930s.”

The blog Music Ally covered the conference, and you can find more of what Jenner, 66, said there.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20010553-261.html

Technorati Tags: ,

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Editor - July 16, 2010 at 11:25 am

Categories: Business & Finance, Changing Society, Community, Entertainment, Media, Music, Social Change, Society and Culture   Tags: ,

« Previous PageNext Page »