Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does anyone need any more evidence that this will be Obama Part 2?

I mean Vilsack aka Mr Monsanto, and Rice, let us bomb Libya for kicks and see what happens?

Biden opposed the Libya operation, or so he said during the ‘16 campaign.

Biden: I was right about Libya

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/joe-biden-libya-wrong-224595

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Time to move to Costa RIca? Do they have good internet there?

 

 Can’t give Obama credit for anything.  Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, David Andrews said:

...But wait, there's more!  Bob Dylan ringtones; www.bobdylan.com YouTube videos as clickbait; PBS documentary films on the folk scene every pledge drive season; Spotify, iTunes and and Tidal playlists...   Even at a penny a point, it's a $100 mil profit on a $300 mil investment, and when it seems to be milked dry, another company will buy it for $350 mil and make a $50 mil profit, adapting it to new media for a third generation...lossy, lossless, hi-res, hi-def - "Bob Dylan as you've never seen him before!  The hologram tour, spanning 50 years of performances!"

I'm  not really sure how well they're  monetizing the internet right now. Maybe though. That was a huge problem for years. That's  why everyone started touring again and playing casinos.

I run a bit in those circles and I don't see a bunch of cash rolling in over the transom. Dylan is in a different class but I don't  think he's  that popular with younger audiences. Somebody with 300 mil thinks I'm  wrong though hahaha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Dylan... My understanding is that the 300 million cited in the press is much lower than the actual price.

Although he may not have sold as many records as say Michael Jackson, or The Eagles, Dylan's catalogue will in the long run be worth far more. His style of writing and the quality of his lyrics and the sheer volume of material will lead to cover after cover after cover for the next 100 years or more, in numerous styles--reggae, blues, folk etc. 

What may not be clear to those looking from the outside is that once a major publisher commits to spending the big bucks on a catalogue, they don't just sit back and collect royalties...they make the royalties happen. Let's take, for example, a new James Bond movie. Well, the producer will want a big name for the songs over the opening and closing credits. Now, to get the artist they want, they may have to agree to include two songs on the soundtrack by two brand new artists on that artist's label, and the publishing side of the company may insist, for that matter, that those songs be Dylan covers.

Or, let's say, someone wants Like a Rolling Stone for an ad campaign. Well, the publisher may insist that this company use Knocking on Heaven's Door for a related campaign. 

Having a new publisher almost always increases exposure...

Over the last 25 years there have been waves of old songs by The Who, The Kinks, and The Stones, in movies, TV, and TV commercials. Heck, even someone like Lou Reed--who sold bupkus in his early years--found gold towards the end with Perfect Day. Ditto Iggy Pop--who made a small fortune from Lust for Life's being featured in a Carnival Cruise commercial. 

The Dylan catalogue is a gold mine, and his songs will be everywhere for a long long time. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The Dylan catalogue is a gold mine, and his songs will be everywhere for a long long time. 

 

"And that's the glory of the arts."

1n the 1960s and 1970s, it used to be popular among novelists to quote pop song lyrics in their books, three or four lines here and there just to lend atmosphere.  (Stephen King, e. g.)  I found out that this went out of style once conglomerates that own record companies and publishers started insisting that song lyrics be copyright-credited in the books' front matter, permissions applied for and use fees paid, similar to sound sampling in rap records.  The payments cut into a book's publishing overhead.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P. S. - Dylan's songs were previously owned by Sony Music.  Apparently he had a renewal deal expiring this year, and Sony wouldn't meet the price Dylan got from Universal.  It's possible part of that $300 mil goes to a buyout from Sony.

And - germane to this thread - there's a political motive for his acting now:

"An extra impetus to get deals done quickly is the election of a new US president, with Joe Biden aiming to significantly raise capital gains tax for composers whose songs sell for more than $1m."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/11/going-for-a-song-why-music-legends-are-lining-up-to-sell-their-rights

Stevie Nicks cashed in ahead for $150 mil, and the article says Dolly Parton and David Crosby are scrambling.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see why you guys would "slide" my partisan posts, or when I make fun of some of you.

It's part of the antagonistic nature of many message boards.

If I just post a politically neutral news item, and you still try to slide the comment without actually attempting to engage or address the news item, it comes across as censorship. 

It says to the thread participants and guest observers, "I don't want others to see news that does not conform to the narrative I'm trying to spin."

As most of you should know, the State of Texas filed suit against WI, NI, PA and GA. The map below shows where each state stands.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I can see why you guys would "slide" my partisan posts, or when I make fun of some of you.

It's part of the antagonistic nature of many message boards.

If I just post a politically neutral news item, and you still try to slide the comment without actually attempting to engage or address the news item, it comes across as censorship. 

It says to the thread participants and guest observers, "I don't want others to see news that does not conform to the narrative I'm trying to spin."

As most of you should know, the State of Texas filed suit against WI, NI, PA and GA. The map below shows where each state stands.  

 

From a friend. This sums it up pretty well:

“Hey, everyone. Former attorney & Constitutional Law professor here. I see a lot of people starting to panic/get worried about the Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court because 106 House Republicans & 17 states have "joined" the suit. First of all, they have not actually joined the suit in the legal sense - that means becoming a party to the lawsuit. They have not done that. They have merely filed or added their names to an amicus brief (which is basically an affidavit of support for a lawsuit which may or may not provide some additional argument for a court to consider in a suit).
1) Courts are free to ignore amicus briefs (and frequently do) AND such an amicus brief does NOT lend additional credence to an argument. I want you to remember this simple equation when looking at these headlines: 17 x 0 = 0. Likewise, 106 x 0 = 0.
2) Ken Paxton, who filed this action, is Texas's Attorney General. What he is not is Texas's Solicitor General. That's Kyle Hawkins. It is the actual job of the Solicitor General of a state to represent that state in appellate cases - including at the Supreme Court. So, filing suits of this nature is Kyle Hawkins's ENTIRE JOB. Yet, Kyle Hawkins (who is, not incidentally, a Republican) not only did not file this lawsuit, he has kept his deputy solicitor generals from participating. You have to ask yourself why the man whose entire job it is to represent Texas before SCOTUS isn't the one doing this (spoiler alert: it's because the lawsuit is frivolous).
3) In order to sue someone like this, you need to have what's called "standing" to do so. Which means that you have to show you have a dog in this fight - an actual, direct injury you suffered because the other party did the thing of which you're complaining (that you would not have suffered had they not taken that action). Texas suffered NOTHING from PA, MI, WI, and GA made (perfectly legal and constitutional) changes to their election laws. It does not count as an injury to Texas that Trump wasn't elected. It does not count as an injury to Trump that he wasn't elected, either - he would have to have proof that there was widespread voter fraud, which he has been unable to do in 51 prior lawsuts. Texas does not have standing to bring this suit. I fully expect it to be dismissed as a result.
4) SCOTUS hates original jurisdiction cases. Most of their cases are appellate, which means they've been through, at minimum, a hearing at the district court level and the outcome of that is being disputed due to some sort of procedural/legal error made by the lower court ("I don't like that they ruled against me" is not grounds for appeal - "they made a mistake in interpreting the law or applying procedural rules that was big enough to potentially change the outcome of the whole case" is grounds for appeal). Original jurisdiction means it is filed directly with SCOTUS. And, in order to show you have a right to original jurisdiction, you have to show that the suit could NOT have been brought at a lower court level (a bar I'm not sure they can jump over). Also, Texas has to get 5 of the 9 Justices to agree that they will take up the case (in appellate jurisdiction, you only need 4 justices). Further, SCOTUS really hates stepping into the political arena and deciding issues that are better handled by the legislature or the voters. I do not see SCOTUS even taking up this case. Full stop.
5) The GOP knows they will not get a win here. They know that Biden will be the next president. So, why are they doing this? Politics. Ken Paxton may or may not be angling to get a pardon from Trump for alleged SEC violations. But, he and the rest of the politicians who are supporting this suit are angling to keep the support of Trump's voters for elections in coming years. You see, Trump voters are loyal to Trump, not the GOP. They will turn on GOP candidates as fast as Trump does. The GOP doesn't care whether Trump is in office at this point - because they know it's not going to happen (and any method for it to happen would damage our democracy beyond repair, which they don't really want, either). What they care about is getting and keeping power in the future. The only way they see victory for themselves in the upcoming GA runoffs, the 2022 midterm elections, and the 2024 Presidential election is if they can keep the Trump voters happy. And if they can keep the Trump voters without having to keep Trump himself? So much the better. This is a Machiavellian trend I do not like and am concerned about - but it will not result in Biden's not getting to be President.”
 
 
Edited by Bob Ness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

From a friend. This sums it up pretty well:

“Hey, everyone. Former attorney & Constitutional Law professor here. I see a lot of people starting to panic/get worried about the Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court because 106 House Republicans & 17 states have "joined" the suit. First of all, they have not actually joined the suit in the legal sense - that means becoming a party to the lawsuit. They have not done that. They have merely filed or added their names to an amicus brief (which is basically an affidavit of support for a lawsuit which may or may not provide some additional argument for a court to consider in a suit).
1) Courts are free to ignore amicus briefs (and frequently do) AND such an amicus brief does NOT lend additional credence to an argument. I want you to remember this simple equation when looking at these headlines: 17 x 0 = 0. Likewise, 106 x 0 = 0.
2) Ken Paxton, who filed this action, is Texas's Attorney General. What he is not is Texas's Solicitor General. That's Kyle Hawkins. It is the actual job of the Solicitor General of a state to represent that state in appellate cases - including at the Supreme Court. So, filing suits of this nature is Kyle Hawkins's ENTIRE JOB. Yet, Kyle Hawkins (who is, not incidentally, a Republican) not only did not file this lawsuit, he has kept his deputy solicitor generals from participating. You have to ask yourself why the man whose entire job it is to represent Texas before SCOTUS isn't the one doing this (spoiler alert: it's because the lawsuit is frivolous).
3) In order to sue someone like this, you need to have what's called "standing" to do so. Which means that you have to show you have a dog in this fight - an actual, direct injury you suffered because the other party did the thing of which you're complaining (that you would not have suffered had they not taken that action). Texas suffered NOTHING from PA, MI, WI, and GA made (perfectly legal and constitutional) changes to their election laws. It does not count as an injury to Texas that Trump wasn't elected. It does not count as an injury to Trump that he wasn't elected, either - he would have to have proof that there was widespread voter fraud, which he has been unable to do in 51 prior lawsuts. Texas does not have standing to bring this suit. I fully expect it to be dismissed as a result.
4) SCOTUS hates original jurisdiction cases. Most of their cases are appellate, which means they've been through, at minimum, a hearing at the district court level and the outcome of that is being disputed due to some sort of procedural/legal error made by the lower court ("I don't like that they ruled against me" is not grounds for appeal - "they made a mistake in interpreting the law or applying procedural rules that was big enough to potentially change the outcome of the whole case" is grounds for appeal). Original jurisdiction means it is filed directly with SCOTUS. And, in order to show you have a right to original jurisdiction, you have to show that the suit could NOT have been brought at a lower court level (a bar I'm not sure they can jump over). Also, Texas has to get 5 of the 9 Justices to agree that they will take up the case (in appellate jurisdiction, you only need 4 justices). Further, SCOTUS really hates stepping into the political arena and deciding issues that are better handled by the legislature or the voters. I do not see SCOTUS even taking up this case. Full stop.
5) The GOP knows they will not get a win here. They know that Biden will be the next president. So, why are they doing this? Politics. Ken Paxton may or may not be angling to get a pardon from Trump for alleged SEC violations. But, he and the rest of the politicians who are supporting this suit are angling to keep the support of Trump's voters for elections in coming years. You see, Trump voters are loyal to Trump, not the GOP. They will turn on GOP candidates as fast as Trump does. The GOP doesn't care whether Trump is in office at this point - because they know it's not going to happen (and any method for it to happen would damage our democracy beyond repair, which they don't really want, either). What they care about is getting and keeping power in the future. The only way they see victory for themselves in the upcoming GA runoffs, the 2022 midterm elections, and the 2024 Presidential election is if they can keep the Trump voters happy. And if they can keep the Trump voters without having to keep Trump himself? So much the better. This is a Machiavellian trend I do not like and am concerned about - but it will not result in Biden's not getting to be President.”
 
 

Sums it all up well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, David Andrews said:

P. S. - Dylan's songs were previously owned by Sony Music.  Apparently he had a renewal deal expiring this year, and Sony wouldn't meet the price Dylan got from Universal.  It's possible part of that $300 mil goes to a buyout from Sony.

And - germane to this thread - there's a political motive for his acting now:

"An extra impetus to get deals done quickly is the election of a new US president, with Joe Biden aiming to significantly raise capital gains tax for composers whose songs sell for more than $1m."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/11/going-for-a-song-why-music-legends-are-lining-up-to-sell-their-rights

Stevie Nicks cashed in ahead for $150 mil, and the article says Dolly Parton and David Crosby are scrambling.

Exactly.  It's all about the money, taxes, etc. Remember, all these hugely successful entertainers are business and money minded to a very tough degree.

But, yes, Dylan's work will last and be of interest for way longer than most all the other singer/song writers. His poetry sets him apart.

Don't think songs like "oh sugar, oh honey honey ... you are my candy girl" or "tip toe through the tulips" will be studied and replayed 3 and 4 generations from now.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...