Levon Helm

[Jules]

Maybe they are but, then, so are most of the rest of the English-speaking world.

That is not to say that you are wrong, because you are not, but what you say runs counter to everyday usage.

If you had asked the members of The Band, I am confident that the others would have said that Levon was the only American in the group. In fact, I am sure that I could find specific quotes from The Band where they use this terminology.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

1) If a Canadian is American and Canadian, what are the two  equivalent (and different) words for a citizen of the United States?

2) What are the two words in Spanish?

The answer to question 1 is in almost every US movie when someone says "Hey, I´m a US citizien" and also american. Actually, in spanish we refer to the "US Citizien" as "Estadounidense" (Estados Unidos: United States)

The answer to question 2, its in my previous post.

[twm]

OK. Estadounidense is not a word with which I am familiar.

I can only say that, when I learned Spanish at school (which was a very long time ago and only for a year or two, so I was never fluent and cannot speak it now, I'm sorry to say), we were taught that the word for "Citizen of the U.S.A." was "norteamericano".  I can recall being puzzled by this, because, in my schoolboy ignorance, I would have taken the word to mean everyone in North America, not just U.S. citizens.

The English language changes. I don't know if it is the same in Spanish but I would expect so. Language evolves and develops. Language and language usage are not fixed but are fluid - and not always entirely logical. New words come into the language. Old words lose their meanings or new meanings are applied to them. The particular significance of words change, too. In Shakespeare's time, some words that are still in use today had quite different meanings. We call these "false friends". You get "false friends" between different languages, too - as here.

There is no equivalent of Estadounidense in English.  For example, I would not, in ordinary conversation, say, "I met a couple of U.S. citizens today".  Rather, I would say, "I met a couple of Americans" today. You may regard this as wrong (and, technically, you are right) but I doubt if anyone over here would misunderstand me . The word "American" would be sufficient to distinguish the couple from being Canadian.  If, on the other hand, the couple had been Canadian but, instead of saying "I met a couple of Canadians today", I had said, "I met a couple of Americans today", then this would have caused misunderstanding.

The precision in the Spanish usage is not reflected in English.

[Jules]

Actually "Norteamericano" is wrong for a US citizien (same that use American just for the US...), as it means "That lives in North America" and Canadians also lives in North America.

In Spanish various terms are in use for America, Southamerican, Centralamericans, and Northamericans, and it obviously refers to the countries in the south, the centre, and the north of the American continent.

I

[twm]

You will be right but (again in my defence) I have pulled out my Spanish-English dictionary (from about 50 years ago, I should add) and this is the entry in question:

America [with an accent on the "e" that I can't do here] America: americano American, norteamericano citizen of the U.S.A.

Actually, if you met two Americans and one Canadian, you should not say, "I met three Americans" - in everyday English, that is. Whether you are technically correct or not, this would be misleading and would offend the Canadian.

[Jules]

You will be right but (again in my defence) I have pulled out my Spanish-English dictionary (from about 50 years ago, I should add) and this is the entry in question:

America [with an accent on the "e" that I can't do here] America: americano American, norteamericano citizen of the U.S.A.

Actually, if you met two Americans and one Canadian, you should not say, "I met three Americans" - in everyday English, that is. Whether you are technically correct or not, this would be misleading and would offend the Canadian.

I do agree with the offense to the Canadian thing

[twm]

This 1996 Mountain Stage broadcast includes "Blind Willie McTell":

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/20/151052344/the-band-on-mountain-stage

[vgonis]

twm, thank you for your answer-points on the illegal download issue. I understand that sometimes it is hard to discuss matters as this, publicly, but since the system has not found logical and viable ways to balance things, 40 years after the casette recording, 20 years after the CD-R and 15 years after the internet downloads, I always try to dig a bit deeper, to find a solution. A legal, logical and fair for everybody. I find that the enormous amounts of money that end up in the stock-holders pockets, that decide on the hows and whys, is the most unfair money ever made. They always work for profit and not for the music, and that is why things are going from bad to worse the last 30 years. Look at the prices of the CDs! They are were cheaper that the vinyl to produce, yet they were sold twice the price, for 25 years! Then they come back with newer technologies, trying to convince us that the CD is no good for the music lovers, sequences lost, sound compressed. And of course the SACD failed and the music DVD, does not do that well. The reason? They came into the scene too early, before the CD has done its circle, both in economical terms and as a medium. Maybe if the new technologies and reproduction machines were cheaper, the transition would be easier and profitable for both parties.

Also music should no be a lottery, where you write a couple of successful tunes and make it for life. Again, I believe that the artist should be paid for his work, and the success should be a factor, but when it comes to the amount of money they should be paid, I really have my doubts about the current system. Unfortunately I don't have an alternative to suggest, but there is a certain amount of unfairness to the way things work right now. (always, taking into account the technological developments of the last 20 years). The story about where the money is made (surely not in selling records, except if you are Elvis, Pink Floyd, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Eagles and MK...) is evident from the 30ies, publishing rights. Anyway, the well known story about Elvis appearing as a co-writer in most of his early hits because songwriters were obliged to give away one third of their customary royalties in exchange for having him perform their compositions (http://performingsongwriter.com/heartbreak-hotel/   &   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley)
 (in an occasion this was close to parody, when his version was published many months after the original, and of course he wasn't appearing in the credits then.)
   

[twm]

I didn't really go into the question of what preceded illegal downloads, namely cassettes. I did have quite a few cassette copies of albums, for a number of reasons:-

1. To be able to play music in the car. Having bought a commercially-available LP, I couldn't play it in the car, so made a cassette copy for that purpose. That was perfectly legal (in the U.K. anyway) on the grounds that it was for one's own personal listening.

2. To preview albums. In the "old days" record shops had listening booths in which you could "try out" a record, buying it if you liked it or just leaving it if you did not. I don't know when record shops stopped doing this but I would guess sometime in the 1970s. So, apart from catching odd tracks on the radio, how did you know if you'd like an album? Well, often, friends would recommend an album, send me a copy on cassette. If I liked it, I'd go out and buy the album (retaining their copy for car use - not strictly legal). If I didn't like it, I put it to one side and forgot it or passed it on to others to try out.

3. To obtain out-of-print or rare albums  In the days before the internet, it was really difficult to find copies of albums you wanted that had gone out-of-print. Similarly, obtaining U.S.A.-only releases was not easy and, in postage and insurance terms, very expensive. From time to time, friends would share this music by copying  "rarities" on to cassette.

I cannot recall an occasion when I wanted a particular commercial album that was readily available but decided to get a cassette dub from a friend instead. As well as the music, I wanted to hold the physical album and its sleeve, to read the sleeve notes and so on.

I can tell you a (funny?) story. I had heard that a particular performer was playing a particular album as the "walk-in" music before concerts. For reasons I won't go into, I was intrigued. The artist on the "walk-in" music was not available in the U.K. and I wasn't even sure of the title of the album, so I found out the contact details and wrote to the particular performer's management. They kindly sent me a copy of the "walk-in" music. It came in the form of a cassette-to-cassette dub of the original U.S. cassette release, complete with a black and white photocopy of the cassette insert. This was, of course, totally illegal, rather ironic but very much appreciated. Having heard the music, I didn't on this occasion go out of my way to obtain a "real" copy, though, if I ever saw it at a "cut-out" price, I'd get it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    This is a true story but, for obvious reasons, I have anonymised it.

[vgonis]

twm, all the reasons you mention about cassettes, might as well stand for the CD-R or even the downloads. Apart from the first point you make, all the rest are somehow illegal, but in no way illogical, immoral or even unfair. Always given that you have the will to go out and buy the ones you like. Of course, the problem with the illegal downloads is that you are instantly incriminated, when you download, while all other methods of "distributing" music "un-paid" is reduced for many reasons: less storage space, it is cheaper, there is no fetish issue for the younger ones-like cover art or even recording and playback quality , plus  the enormity of choice-I know many young people have many TB of music, that even a lifetime of music listening isn't enough to listen to them all. But regardless the reasons when you download you break the law, and the evidence  are easy to be found. Now, if one kid goes out to buy all the things he has downloaded, he should live 3 lives working his fingers out in order to pay for all this music. But do the companies and law makers take all these things in consideration? I dare say no. They try to enforce old laws or hastily re written ones, that really hurt both the listener-prospect consumer and the music business-be that the companies and certainly the artists. 

United States Copyright Law
US copyright law is found in Title 17 of the United States Code and is administered by the US Copyright Office.   " Terms for Copyright Protection", a U.S. Government publication, summarizes the current duration of copyright protection for published works as follows:

    * Works created after 1/1/1978  -  life of the longest surviving author plus 70 years -  earliest possible PD date is 1/1/2048
    * Works registered before 1/1/1978  -  95 years from the date copyright was secured.
    * Works registered before 1/1/1923 - Copyright protection for 75 years has expired and these works are in the public domain.

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was signed into law on October 27, 1998.  Prior to the Sonny Bono 20 year copyright term extension, copyright protection for works registered before 1/1/1978 was 75 years; therefore, compositions registered in 1922 or earlier entered the public domain on 1/1/1998.  The 1998 copyright extension did not extend copyright protection from 75 to 95 years for songs already in the public domain so . . .

    * The Good News -  works published in the United States in 1922 or earlier are in the public domain even if  they are not yet 95 years old.
    * The Bad News - no new works will enter the public domain until January 1, 2019.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7074786.stm
see also the distinction between recordings' copyright and authors copyright
http://imslp.org/wiki/Public_domain

I am a vinyl record fetishist. I adore the format. I don't like the downloads at all, I think that I buy thin air. But I understand that music is the content and I some times put more weight on the container. Younger generations do not think like that. I like the notion of it, but when I think of the legal, financial and social and  political implications (yes there are ) of the   whole matter I get the feeling that all these laws were passed not in order to help the composer, performer and his family, but the companies. It is paranoia to think that the only music in the Public domain, is the one prior to 1923! (with only 30 years of recorded music, up to that date and this in most but not all countries) The EU law about recordings is 50 years, but since the authors of the music and lyrics retain their composing rights for 70+ years after the death of all writing contributors, this means that we will be victims of the companies blackmail for a long long time. 

[twm]

Just out of interest, there is one "oddity" with downloads.

If you buy a physical album, DVD or book, you own the item and can pass it on to someone else - even after death, as part of your estate.

In contrast, if you download an album or book, legally that is, you cannot do this. There is no legitimate route, in the U.K. at least and I believe elsewhere, by which these can be passed on - even after you have died.

One of the consumer organisations in Britain has taken this up with Amazon and Apple but neither was prepared to answer the question of whether digital downloads can be passed on after death.

The reality is that you are not buying a digital download at all but merely renting it for your lifetime, without any right to bequeath it. Is this made clear in the "terms and Conditions" when you tick that box? I have no idea but, since the two companies named have not answered the question, I guess not.

However, if you share your passwords with someone else, this is a breach of security under Apple's "T&Cs" and Apple could terminate your account.

[twm]

Another slight aside, perhaps.

I do copy commercial CDs, in order to play the copy CD version in the car. I believe this to be entirely legal.

Howver, I do NOT use a computer to produce the "copy CD". Rather, I copy the commercial CD using a CD-to-CD recorder. To do this, you must use blank "audio" CDs, not the blank computer CDs that you can buy in large quantities even in supermarkets. Why do I do it this way?

Because blank "audio" CDs are the same weight and thickness as commercial CDs, whereas the blank CDs you use in computers are very slightly heavier and thicker.  This means that, should your CD get stuck in your in-car CD player, you may well have to pay to replace the player in your car. That, at least, is the position over here.

I came to this knowledge through experience. I once had a CD get stuck in my in-car player and the garage couldn't release it. What they did was to remove the whole in-car CD player, replace it with a new unit and send off the old in-car unit to Sony, with the warning that, if I had used copy CDs, then they would have to charge me for the new in-car CD unit. I protested, saying that the only copy CDs I used in the car were CDs copied on a Sony CD-to-CD recorder, not ones copied on a computer. They answered. "Let's wait to see what Sony say and, if you're unhappy, you can make your case then".  Sony returned the stuck CD, without any request for payment, and the garage said it must be because of the way I had copied the CDs in the first place.

I do not know if the same applies to PC-CDs that are played using home audio equipment but I make efforts to minimize the use of PC-CDs in general, trying to use them only in equipment from which they can be easily extracted if there's a problem.

[vgonis]

I don't think it makes any difference how and what type of CD-Rs you use to back up your original collection. A music CD recorder has been rendered completely useless, once the PC has become the entertainment center in a home.I have one, I bought it in order to back up my vinyl collection, without having to connect my computer, but after 3 years, just as the warranty expired, it stopped recognizing any of the discs I was using, and can only write on a specific type that is no longer available from the company!  I don't know about the thickness, as a matter of fact it is the very first time I ever heard of such a problem, and I am sorry it had to happen to you to find out! Most people that listen to music in their car players, use computer discs, because they can fit many MP3s inside.

When the e-reading machines became available, and you could buy books in digital form to read, there was a platform ready, so that a reader would be given the chance to re-sell the digital download. Of course I always thought that this is a smokescreen in order to justify the relatively high price of a non physical form, but I have not checked if what you describe about the rights to re sell is true. (passing it on to a third party could be easily solved by selling it for 1 cent each) 

But the question still remains. Does now with this modern technology, the physical or digital form justifies such a high price? Who gets the money? Should one man live of just a hit song he wrote in his youth? I was reading that Toto and Public Enemy, filled a lawsuit in order to get money owed by the record companies. The key element in their case is that the record companies used old contract terms, when paying the royalties for the digital sales and instead of 25%, they end up receiving around 8%!!! But I guess these are old acts and for the new acts other harsher rules apply. The companies have learned and have the best lawyers money can buy. And they have plenty.   

New society, new rules. But always the same old people get @1$#**   

[twm]

I've never heard of that problem with CD Recorder CDs, as along as you finalise the disc after the recording, it should be playable on all domestic CD players.

Computer-generated CDs are another matter entirely. I've had endless problems trying to get those to play and often just give up. I know that you can do it but I lack the knack - and the will. Sometimes, I have kind friends who can do something with them for me.

As for the weight  difference, things may have changed for all I know but I weighed the PC-CDs, the CD Recorder CDs and the commercial CDs on the kitchen scales and the PC-CDs were a touch heavier. Apparently, it was enough to invalidate whatever guarantee Sony give.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that Toto and Public Enemy had contracts originally that did not specify digital sales and did not have a clause that extended the use of their material to future formats. It probably also gave the record company the right to release their material in any available format. The result is that, when their stuff came out in a new format, the record comapny could more or less choose the royalty rate (or maybe revert to a basic royalty rate). I have no idea really but that sounds logical.

I agree that the price of digital product is too high, relative to production costs, let alone when you take shipping costs into account.  I'm sure the industry could put up an arguement to support their prices but, in reality, they charge what the market will bear.

I am equally concerned about the cost of physical product. The UK Record Store Day release of four 7" Bob Dylan singles in a box was very attractively done but the price was

[twm]

Flags to be flown at half-mast in Arkansas:

http://governor.arkansas.gov/newsroom/files/proc_halfstafflevonhelm.pdf

[twm]

BBC Radio 4 obituary, from last Friday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ghgkc/Last_Word_Lord_Ashley_Levon_Helm_Wendy_Grant_Charles_Colson_Val_May/

The Levon Helm segment starts around 06.54 and runs for 6 or 7 minutes.