Nap it in the bud; Lifehouse as a boat; Old McDaniels had a farm...

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> 1. If you think there is more money in music than in software, you
> are sorely mistaken.

Kevin:

Really? Does software have much of a shelf life? No, we both know a newer
version is always on it's way. Or are you still using Windows 3.0 or Works
1.0 etc etc. Hell, when I first started using computers it was all Basic
and Kobol. And then came DOS...
Music, on the other hand...well, need I say more? And that's merely ONE
aspect; there are others. More people buy music than software, that much is
definite.
What with MTV/VH1 and concerts and radio stations and T-Shirts, etc. I
think you'd have a hard time proving that there's more money in software
than in music.
However, what I meant was there was more money behind stopping Napster than
behind stopping software theft (and it's more organized, too), which they
do make progress on BTW. And before you cry "Microsoft," judging from the
behavior I think Gates is more apt to promote the theft than stop it.

> 2. The point is that the software industry is full of people who
> actually know how to do stuff like this. If they can't figure it
> out, there is no way the music industry is going to figure it out.

Well, you might have a point here. But I must point out that 1) the people
you mention are for hire, and 2) they want software for themselves, whereas
music is not their main focus. Not all of them, anyway. So how hard are
they really trying? And it only takes one, not a village.

> There's recently been a fuss about the FBI's Carnivore, which is supposed
to 
> do something about like this.

Keets:

There you are, it seems they're already close. Like Keith Moon, you're
always on top of things (no sexual content intended).

> Here's another interesting question.  Would Lifehouse the play have been 
> better done if Pete wrote it all himself?  Or is the density his fault?

My guess would be that he had something (or several things) in mind, but he
couldn't bring any to completion in a way anyone else could understand. He
brought in someone else, and this would indicate it's Pete's doing. As for
myself, I prefer the original story (at least as I understood it) to the
newer versions.

> they went along the script got simpler.  At the Hyde Park and MSG shows,
I 
> thought it was too wordy for the audience to really capture.

I didn't feel that way. To me it was much like the dialogue in the lyric
book, and I loved the fact it was Phil Daniels. The tour might have been
more technically perfect, but MSG was my favorite performance.

> Definitely does, but then, live humans (as opposed to digital media) need
a 
> break between songs

I thought it was a nice touch and a different version is good, isn't it?

> Anybody have any comment on that "heavy-handed" criticism of the film 
> narration?

If you insist...I didn't think it was. It was more than *I* needed, but if
you're talking about someone who is not intimately familiar with the
story...they might need it.

> The Quad movie can be a little hard to understand at times with the
strong 
> Brittish Accents. Otherwise it rocks.

Brian:

One thing I'd say is while Tommy was a nice little Rock film, Quad was a
movie that stands with any other, like Braveheart of you name it. Like the
album itself, it went beyond its medium.

>Phil Daniels.  No 'Mc'.

Dave:

E-I-E-I-O


"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
                         George W. Bush, Presidential Candidate

      
                    Cheers                  ML