And at last, air acrobatics isn't for everyone (from Dagbladet, short commerical before the clip)...
Have a nice weekend, y'all!
One has to question the logic in this. Even from an "eye for an eye" perspective, this is more than irrational. You don't see Palestinians exacting revenge on Israeli invaders by torching the next-door Palestinian kebab shop (or whatever the hell would be the equivalent).
What really irks me is the flimsy rationalization from file-sharing proponents, like a) "we're only taking a small fraction of the already too large profit of big music corporations", or b)"bands like Metallica are just greedy bastards who make way too much money anyways." For a) you have to be an absolute imbecile to be unable to connect the dots between a financial backer, artist revenue and the ability to keep releasing records using high-quality equipment. For b) it ain't up to you to decide whether or not an artist or a record company is making too much money. Especially seeing as how you in fact have no idea what the financial situation of said enterprises is to begin with. But for almost everyone, there exists a subsection of the population who feels that you make too much money.
Please don't be that guy (or gal) who tries to justify downloading/file sharing with moronic logic such as "I don't feel that file sharing is a crime, because I don't want to subsidise Big Corporations who push out a million identical artists but refuse to back True Individuals." At least have the cojones or whatever to admit that you're stealing stuff - don't make it into a Holy Crusade for All that is Righteous. Speeding is also a crime, but most would admit that they do it without throwing a Christ complex into the discussion. Don't even try to tell me that filesharing is noble - just man up to what you're doing. If you make a copy of your own CD and play it in the car, or you rip your CD collection for personal use, and if you put mp3s of your entire CD collection on a hub with 1000 users, we're talking about two quite different things - if you don't see this as separate issues (also in accordance with Norwegian law, actually), then don't even bother.
Some other facts/arguments that might be brought to light in this discussion, but which are typically drowned by strong partisan reasoning: You can identify at least three separate economies for artists based on their size/fame. The primary variables in these economies are CD/DVD/download sales, merch sales, and live performance revenue. Note that these variables are interrelated, so seeing them as separate doesn't make sense. Merchandise and CDs get moved at concerts, etc.
Three separate economies based on the size of the bands - and my feeling is that a LOT of artists are in the middle bracket. I know that this is the case for many, many metal artists, who probably won't be able to live off of music if the CD sale goes further down.
On a side note: This album is available for download on iTunes, Amazon, etc, etc. Yeah, super-excited me though: Now I don't even have to wait for the shipment of the CD! Jippi! But, of course, I should have learned. Every time I'm letting my guard down, faith jumps up and kicks me in the groan. Of course they only let
This is one of the best examples I've ever seen on why giving more money to local government instead of providing capital from a central source is a bad idea, because in this case, local government obviously consists solely of low-IQ losers who only have a fleeting relationship with reality. To paraphrase a Simpsons episode, a small community with a lot of money is like a giraffe with a computer. Nobody knows how it got it, and damned if it knows how to use it. If a small set of communities can dump more than five hundred MNOK into a high-risk investment deal without even checking the paperwork properly before they sign, then don't you DARE have old school buildings, hospitals, etc., and especially STFU about asking the government for more money. This is a lot of people's tax money they're dealing with also. One small municipality that I know of once spent a lot of money upgrading a very small section of one byroad to ridiculously high standards. The result: They didn't have money for plowing snow that winter.
Calling into play my Powers of Deduction, here's a play-by-play of the situation that took place this summer in four municipalities.
Shortly after the deal is made (approved by the people who have finance educations and whatnot) the investment turns out to be a high-risk loser-trap, and the municipalities go "Uhhhhhhhh da douchebag done screwed us. How cud we have known. Who wud've thought such a thing about someone who had so nice bidness cards."
Imbeciles. No $hit Terra Securities are crooks, but the people in charge should have seen that coming from a mile away...
People I would have loved to include but had to give way due to greater influence by other people: Roy Khan (Kamelot), Robert Smith (The Cure), Sammy Hagar (Van Halen). I'd also like to include Annie Lennox of Eurythmics, but I count Eurythmics as a pop band. So there.
Now to the reasons some of the people on dagbladet's list ain't there:
Michael Hutchence: INXS wouldn't have had lasting fame if the singer hadn't killed himself. I challenge you to point to two major bands that cite INXS as an influence.
Paul McCartney/John Lennon: Beatles never were rock.
Ozzy Osbourne (Black Sabbath): Never a good singer, and people would come to see him do some crazy $hit, not because he was a great frontman. More of a sideshow.
Michael Stipe (REM). Why would I include him?
Jim Morrison (The Doors). In what universe were they a rock band?
Iggy Pop (The Stooges). When dude tours it says Iggy Pop and the Stooges. Dude's damn near a solo artist
Gwen Stefani: Pop artist, never rock
Michael Jackson: Solo artist, and also the King of POP.
Janis Joplin: Solo artist
Chuck D: Public Enemy is one of the first major rap acts - not rock. If you even try to argue this point, then I suggest you name the guitar player or the drummer of PE. ...and there was silence
Johnny Rotten (Sex Pistols). Punk rock came waaaaay after punk. Not the same thing, and a genre onto itself.
Roger Daltrey (The Who). Quick - name one band that claims to be influenced by The Who outside of their guitar style....
Perry Farrel (Jane's Addiction). Corgan is way more influential, bro
Steven Patrick (Morissey). Another band that people love to cite as an influence, but is impossible to trace the influence of. Just like the New York Dolls. Nobody outside of journalists cite Morissey as an influence.
Björk. Solo artist plus ARE Y A FREAKIN KIDDDIN' ME?
Shirley Manson (Garbage). Pathetic attempt to include female front figures so as not to appear biased on dagbladet's part.
Karen O (Yeah Yeah Yeah's). Whuut?
Ian Curtis. Who?
EDIT: After Pigeon frenched and complained and even sent me Wikipedia links (of all unreliable things) to back up his cliam that The Police were a rock act and Roxette isn't, I replaced Roxette with Heart.
Now I've got to practice more unplugged and with my good friend the metronome, before I move on to the next aspect - choosing the sound.
If you get this right AND you can explain to me what "Formative evaluation" means, I'll buy you a beer or another alcoholic beverage of your choice. If you don't see what the fuzz is about since all the four statements made perfect sense and you use formative evaluation all the time, your medication might not be working.
The "student body" in this module was quite diverse, and fit very well with preconceived notions - there was the MD with who showed up too late and had to leave way early to play squash, there was the biologist with a Bergans windbreaker, five-day stubble, boots and a hyooge backpack, an art history professor dressed like a blind hobo, a marketing guy in a flashy suit, and an electronics/IT/physics guy who - in descending order of appearance - had Einstein-y, curly hair, coke bottle glasses, a very busy and colorful sweater, black dress pants, navy blue socks and medium brown shoes. Tremenduous. This dude should have been put in a jar of formaldehyde and studied for the benefit of future generations.
Being that I was in a diabolical mood - approximately equivalent to how you feel after four Long Island Iced Teas but without the relaxed sensation you get from alcohol - I decided that the best way of getting the time to pass by would be to actively participate in the discussion. This turned into a heated debate on several occasions, particularly when the topic of how grades are relevant was thrown open for discussion.
This debate got started by an MD who - in response to another course participant complaining about how her students would turn in formal complaints just for the hell of it unless they got an A - stated that "So why do you use grades at all? We only use pass/fail when training our medical students, and they demonstrate time and again that this system is sufficient." Dude was quite arrogant in how he addressed the problem, and since I was in my boredom-induced diabolical state, I couldn't let that go.
You don't need to know much about the standard grading systems to be able to drink fully from the elegance of my arguments here - it was a debate between a pass/fail at a limit of ~70% versus a letter-system between A-F, where A is above 90% and F represents Fail ( below 40%). What I said was the following.
"But what about other job markets than for GP's where there are many applicants per job - wouldn't it be good to be able to rank the applicants? In many branches of industry - plus when the economy is down - you've got 70+ applicants per job, so you can't give all of them a job interview. And so; if you draw the line at pass/fail and you give a "pass" criterion in the job announcement, then every applicant is gonna be qualified. So then what do you do?"
Now in a defensive position, the MD starts to attack the premise of a grade - i.e. a grades and understanding/performance are not related, and someone might have gotten bad grades because they were having kids and stuff, and having passed that stage, they're now working dynamos. Strike two:
"What the grades are a measure of is the student's willingness and ability to learn a new subject and demonstrate this aquired knowledge within a given time limitm which is quite pertinent to any job situation following higher education. Consequently, a student with all A's and B's has demonstrated that he or she is much more capable of doing this than someone with a consistant track record of D's and E's. And with all due respect, the odds of someone who consistantly pulls D's and E's being an Academic Behemoth are phenomenally low. The students go through - what - 30-50 exams by the time they graduate, and the odds of one student pulling all D's only due to bad luck or other causes beyond their control are infinitesimal."
Now the dude was starting to back down and mumbling about how in the medical profession it was as much about people skills and an ability to see the whole picture rather than just being good at each subdiscipline. So strike three:
"Please - its not as if you disregard grades, considering that in order to be able to get accepted into med school, you need to have a perfect average from high school. All you've done is to preselect the students with a high propensity for doing well on exams, which is exactly what you just criticized others for."
I'm not blind to the problems with grading students, and I've got no nostalgic reasons for holding on to the present assessment system - I've been through a number since my undergraduate days. What I do feel strongly about, is that we need some kind of objective ranking system that's more finely divided than the binary pass/fail, and unless you have a better system than grades for accomplishing this, then don't state nonsense like "We need a school system without grades". 'cause that just demonstrates that you've never, ever hired people with a higher education.