Posts by Simon Grigg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Check out the original track
That original vocal demo (which I think is the same backing track as the Starr version) goes pretty well to the argument that Ringo is underated: that intro, the guitar and then the drum roll, even if you'd never heard it before, could only possibly be Harrison and Starr. That roll is utterly distinctive.
-
Agree on all that Scott - Ringo was the RIGHT drummer for the Beatles, didn't make him a GREAT drummer.
Drummer Steve Smith said:
“ Before Ringo, drum stars were measured by their soloing ability and virtuosity. Ringo's popularity brought forth a new paradigm in how the public saw drummers. We started to see the drummer as an equal participant in the compositional aspect. One of Ringo's great qualities was that he composed unique, stylistic drum parts for The Beatles songs. His parts are so signature to the songs that you can listen to a Ringo drum part without the rest of the music and still identify the song.”Many drummers list Starr as an influence, including Dave Grohl of Nirvana/Foo Fighters, Orri Páll Dýrason of Sigur Rós,Max Weinberg of the E Street Band, Danny Carey of Tool, Liberty DeVitto of Billy Joel's band, Nicko McBrain of Iron Maiden, Eric Carr of Kiss, Phil Rudd of AC/DC, Phil Collins, Mike Portnoy from Dream Theater and others. According to Collins, "Starr is vastly underrated. The drum fills on the song "A Day in the Life" are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' He wouldn't know what to do."
There was a John Bonham quote years back too as to how he didn't think he'd ever play as well as Ringo, but buggered if I can find it.
-
but also the marketer.
Yes, but physical retailers do that too, often in conjunction with the copyright owner or licensee. Much of the placement on iTunes front, and the other crucial placement is either bought, or as the result of behind the scenes machinations.
In the same way physical stores advertise with what they term co-op advertising in the media and elsewhere where the label pays a price, either in cash or discounts or, the great bugbear of all acts, free stock, on which they pay no artist royalties.
Similarly instore product placement and windows are bought. Your album doesn't get racked by the door in most shops unless it's part of a deal, or end up on the listening posts.
the value of being in their space - because they aggregate buyers.
Yep...the true value of iTunes is the way it sits on just about every personally owned computer in the world with an internet connection. I just wish it was more user friendly.......
-
its interesting that there's resistance to seeing the new world of music distribution in comparison to old world and how in some areas its not that different at all.
Probably because, as a label and copyright owner, it's about as different as it gets. See notes above. It's a completely different ball game, aside from the royalty wrigglings the majors apply to their accounting practices. That someone takes a cut is hardly a major point of similarity.
-
ha! if only both parts of that sentence were true.
worked for me, but I guess that's just me. You'll note I didn't say the sale was the easy part, that really comes down to how good your product is and what you do with that, but promoting a record / song is, second only to the recording, and even then not always, the easy and fun part.
The chase was more fun than the kill.
-
not really so good for the artist but great for the middle men once again.
It's waaaay better than getting 20% of 75% of the 70% that Apple pays, out of which all costs come, if you are signed to a major and it's a waaaaay better situation to be in than I was in when actively trying to get my edgier stuff into the dozen or so so shops nationwide that might've cared enough to stock the stuff. A global superstore with no stock costs..hell yeah, and one that pays me on every sale. That's about 70% of the battle won. Promoting the stuff is the easy and fun part.
-
I guess that leaves you in the room by yourself.
if he'd have said "at one time blah blah blah," would hat have made his statement correct?Oh, you mean if they'd said something completely different, would it have been correct? Only if it was actually correct. But he / she didn't so there we go.
But anyone who puts themselves up as a commentator on the corporate relationships between certain organisations and then presents nonsensel as fact doesn't really warrant further investigation. The relationships they presented were a key part of their argument and they were false. That's all that matters.
one buy out away from being a family affair, if it isn't already. That's hardly a crap point
It's a crap point if it hasn't happened. So, yes, it's a crap point. It's just making shit up to suit.
Google=WMG=MySpace=Universal=Clear Communications=Sony=whoever is just nonsense.
CBS / Sony used to use "Fuck The Bunny" as an in house corporate sales slogan. The Bunny is Warner Music, which gives you an idea how close and pally the relationship between the majors really is. We like to think it's all one matey evil co-operative but that's just not true, they spend more time, internationally, trying to screw each other than anyone else.
-
The lead guitar was Lennon mostly on Hey Bulldog, but Harrison chipped in IIRC. McCartney was on bass.
I'm not sure how I knew that...
-
Don, it was a Lennon throwaway for the Yellow Submarine movie ('Boys, you don't have to be in the next movie but we need four new songs by tomorrow'), but his throwaways were often anybody else's moment of brilliance
-
Hey, what about 'Maybe I'm Amazed'? That's pretty good too..
Solo...1970.
McCartney showed some style when he approved and apparently loved this twist on his tune: