have a look at this(!) (1 Viewer)

[IU]

pete (11 Feb, 2002 02:09 a.m.):

IU (11 Feb, 2002 02:00 a.m.):
Ehh personal insults? Attacks? From me? Where, exactly?
---------------------
I really, really hope for dave's sake that you're not involved in the PR end of the operation.

The whole reaction to the info about IrishUnsigned ahs been one of attack. You know it, I know it. Dax wax, Vested Interest etc? Not you personally, if you say so. You see, I don't lookm at the name of the person I am posting to/replying to. Why? Because I don't like to cloud my judgement on a post by a previous 'run-in' with that person. I take every post on it's merits, without bias. The overall atmosphere in the Things area was one of attack and ridicule. Hell, just in case you forgot, I checked your posts. I found this

"Right. So he's doing it for the kids. For the good of humanity. And if Chrysalis / Echo happen to pick up on any of his recommendations, he gets no finders fee. No commission. No few points off the top? Fine. Fair play to Dave."

The sarcasm in that barbed insult was plain. All you were short of doing was saying "Fucking Liar!" in it.

And your comment about my being involved in the PR end of the project was a compliment, was it? PR = Public Relations. And here am I erlating to the Public. Sheesh! What next? Unsigned Irish bands on the site? God forbid.

 

[pete]

IU (11 Feb, 2002 02:22 a.m.):
The whole reaction to the info about IrishUnsigned ahs been one of attack. You know it, I know it. Dax wax, Vested Interest etc?

So I see a site set up by an A&R person to help unsigned bands get signed.

So I put two and two together and I call it like i see it.

So I'm wrong.

So what?


And I don't even know what dax wax is.

Not you personally, if you say so.

No, not if I say so. I think you'll see that anything even remotely approaching negativity from me was merely a response in kind.

You see, I don't lookm at the name of the person I am posting to/replying to. Why? Because I don't like to cloud my judgement on a post by a previous 'run-in' with that person. I take every post on it's merits, without bias. The overall atmosphere in the Things area was one of attack and ridicule. Hell, just in case you forgot, I checked your posts. I found this

"Right. So he's doing it for the kids. For the good of humanity. And if Chrysalis / Echo happen to pick up on any of his recommendations, he gets no finders fee. No commission. No few points off the top? Fine. Fair play to Dave."

The sarcasm in that barbed insult was plain. All you were short of doing was saying "Fucking Liar!" in it.

Of course the sarcasm was plain - it's pretty ineffective if it's not!

Look if it makes you feel any better - I don't believe you, OK? I'd stop short of calling you a fucking liar, though. I'm far too nice a person for that.

The bottom line is that Dave either works in A&R or he doesn't. If he works in A&R (as claimed on your news page) then gets some form of compensation for his efforts.

If there's no payment involved, then it's not exactly truthful to say he works in A&R, is it? He's some guy they're accepting demos from. He'd probably be more accurately described as a freelance agent.

Either way, someone's being a little creative with the facts. Hence the sarcasm.

And your comment about my being involved in the PR end of the project was a compliment, was it? PR = Public Relations. And here am I erlating to the Public. Sheesh! What next? Unsigned Irish bands on the site? God forbid.

A compliment? No, it was a genuinely expressed hope.

PR = Public Relations = A process of creating and maintaining goodwill and understanding between an organisation and its publics.

Can you see where I'm going with this? Good.

 

[IU]

pete (11 Feb, 2002 02:44 a.m.):

IU (11 Feb, 2002 02:22 a.m.):

So I see a site set up by an A&R person to help unsigned bands get signed.
So I put two and two together and I call it like i see it.
So I'm wrong.
So what?.

At least you have the decency to admit you're wrong I suppose.

Look if it makes you feel any better - I don't believe you, OK? I'd stop short of calling you a fucking liar, though. I'm far too nice a person for that.?.

It makes me feel a lot worse, actually, as here I am patiently trying to explain things and you're simply not interested. More to the point, don't want to be interested.

The bottom line is that Dave either works in A&R or he doesn't. If he works in A&R (as claimed on your news page) then gets some form of compensation for his efforts. If there's no payment involved, then it's not exactly truthful to say he works in A&R, is it? He's some guy they're accepting demos from. He'd probably be more accurately described as a freelance agent.
Either way, someone's being a little creative with the facts. Hence the sarcasm..?.

Dave Reid is the official A+R man for Echo records in Ireland. He submits what he thinks would suit them. The accept or decline. His involvement ends there. There is no fee, no kickback. Fuck it, ask them. They can't lie about it openly. Incidentally, just as a matter of curiosity, are you suggesting that someone who 'works' is someone who does something to get paid, or to get something back - and that's the only definition? Are voluntary workers not workers in your world? If I build a website for the stduents in my college and got fuck all for it (it ended up costing me), am I not working on it. When I do some work in the garden (as if) am I not working? Fuck off. This is just too silly.

The reason why the wording was chosen, and why he chose the position, was to add weight to our letters and phone calls. Without such 'tinkering' with the words we would never have been able to speak to the likes of RTE News and TV3 and TG4 and all those top-bods in industry. They respect position and title. Sad, but that's life.

pete (11 Feb, 2002 02:44 a.m.):
A compliment? No, it was a genuinely expressed hope.
-------------------

Can you see where I'm going with this? Good.

There was anything but hope in what you said. I daresay you hope that the whole thing collapses as it is a potential threat to your little coven in here. Even if it is what it claims to be, I have no doubt you'd want IU to fail anyway. Your kind always do.
--------------------
And, yes, I can see where you are going. You made a mistake. Admitted it. Then said I was lying, in your opinion. It's so logical I can't understand what posessed me to miss it.
----------------
I note you glossed over the paragraph about Truth? Look, I couldn;t be arsed. Believe what you want, tell whoever, whenever, wherever. I really couldn't care less. Thankfully, not everyone in the country is as blinkered and self centered about IU. Some people, god forbid, actually think it's a good idea, in a way, including one of your members, since it straddles the middle of the Industry, which nothing else does.

Finally, if we were what you seem to think, would we really be featuring other record companies on the site? Not very logical, eh? But that's the way you like your world.

respond if you want to, but if you really want to discuss it, rather than just infantile showing-off, then email me privately where there's no-one to show off to.

 

[pete]

that's it.

i give up.

Paranoid
par·a·noid Pronunciation Key (pr-noid)
adj.
Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.
Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.

n.
One affected with paranoia.

edit: Actually, the more I think about this the more pissed off I get. I'm not involved with things. At no time have I criticised what you are trying to do - in fact I think you'll find that information on Irish Unsigned has been prominently displayed at http://www.thumped.com/index.asp for several days now, and the article on Irish Unsigned you submitted last night will be uploaded to the site this evening.

I note you glossed over the paragraph about Truth?

Where? I think you'll find I responded to each of the points raised in your post.

And, yes, I can see where you are going.

No, Ron - you can't.

My "Can you see where I'm going with this" comment was in direct reference to the definition of public relations given immediately before it - nothing more.

 

[snap-apple]

hey now, my only point was that Things exists to help independent acts (any independent acts - they do not have to be part of Things) whereas IU seems to be aimed at increasing industry exposure of unsigned artists - i.e. those that want to be signed.

Things is not designed to be a springboard to getting signed, part of the ethos of Things is the d.i.y. independent nature. Things is interested in media exposure if it means more people will listen to local bands and buy their independently produced music (any independent irish bands). Things is not interested in gaining the interest of A&R people or other music industry types. Things ain't in it for the money, simply to promote the fact that there are a lot of good local acts out there and to help these acts do it themselves.

This to me means there is a huge difference in the ethos of the two.

IU bands want to gig, get noticed, sign, release records, make videos, etc
Things bands want to gig, release records, make videos inedependently.
See the difference? I'm not slaggin' IU, just pointing out the BIG difference in the ways Things and IU are run. Please don't accuse us of only promoting acts that sound a certain way, Things intends to promote any independent irish acts irrespective of musical genre - and has done.

 

[Stephen]

IU (11 Feb, 2002 03:32 a.m.):And, yes, I can see where you are going. You made a mistake. Admitted it. Then said I was lying, in your opinion. It's so logical I can't understand what posessed me to miss it.
----------------

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I too sir think you are a liar.

I can agree to disagree with you and to be honest that's all you'll be able to get out of me.

I really hate the industry see. I want no part of what you are offering.

None of your posts have or will change my mind.

Oh and what conor said.

 

[old]

Hmm.
I don't think the hostility here is beneficial to either party.
But constant harping about The Industry on here is like a red rag to several bulls.
Unsigned to me implies 'wanting to be signed'.
To my mind, bands involved with Things *don't* want to be signed.
Nor do they need to. Why not release the records yourselves or at least independently?
See http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Pressing records, getting distribution, getting press... it's not so hard.

But I don't see why there can't be a link on the Things site saying 'if you want to get a record deal go here instead', nor one on the UI site saying the opposite.
Unless anyone feels both groups are diametrically opposed.

 

[pete]

If there was some way i could move my posts off the things board and onto the thumped general board I would, as in retrospect it wasn't fair for me to post that stuff here. It could in some ways imply that i was speaking as a representative or on behalf of things. which i wasn't. because i'm not.

unfortunately i'd have to move the entire thread, so i'll leave it here

 

[Cormy]

IU (09 Feb, 2002 03:06 a.m.):
Is Unsigned not what these bands are? Such fucking snobbery is a pain in the arse and is the reason why nothing ever gets done in this bloody Country. Look at your name... What does it suggest? That you know what everyone else is missing? The IU name was chosen for simple convenience of understanding the purpose of the site. Seems it passed you by.

Yeah, but "Unsigned" suggests inferiority, and a desire to be "Signed", which hence means that music and success can be legitimised solely by the parasitic profit-motivated "industry". Perhaps that's what your aim is, but that's fundamentally different to what (most of) the Things people and people who use this site are about. Perhaps you'd be better off creating another resource for independent music with a view to keeping it independent and out of the hands of the industry fat cunts. Otherwise it undermines what many people on this site are trying to do, and further solidifies the myth that sucking industry cock is the only way to be "successful". I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to challenge something that might indeed have the best of intentions, but looks like merely lining up more cannon fodder for the bloodsucking "music industry".

 

[IU]

Stephen (11 Feb, 2002 10:01 a.m.):

I really hate the industry see. I want no part of what you are offering. None of your posts have or will change my mind.

yes, it's obvious that you hate the industry, and because of that you are prepared to do what you can to ensure that those who don't hate the industry (maybe because they don't know enough) don't get the opportunity to make up their own mind. Obviously, you'd rather make it up for them.

And I know that my posts won't change your mind. They are not meant to change your mind. They are targetted, rather aptly I would think, at anyone who has the misfortune to read your posts and think yours is the only opinion that counts, or is even the correct one.

Incidentally, I don;t think you have the capability to examine the facts and then assume I am a liar. I seriosuly think you are a bandwagon-jumper and simply couldn't figure out the logics of it. Most people in Things, at this point, would accpet that, while IU may be either ill-advised or ill-judged, it is at least genuine. Certainly, from the private emails I got on the subject, that would seem to be the case.

 

[IU]

Stephen (11 Feb, 2002 10:01 a.m.):

I really hate the industry see. I want no part of what you are offering. None of your posts have or will change my mind.

yes, it's obvious that you hate the industry, and because of that you are prepared to do what you can to ensure that those who don't hate the industry (maybe because they don't know enough) don't get the opportunity to make up their own mind. Obviously, you'd rather make it up for them.

And I know that my posts won't change your mind. They are not meant to change your mind. They are targetted, rather aptly I would think, at anyone who has the misfortune to read your posts and think yours is the only opinion that counts, or is even the correct one.

Incidentally, I don;t think you have the capability to examine the facts and then assume I am a liar. I seriosuly think you are a bandwagon-jumper and simply couldn't figure out the logics of it. Most people in Things, at this point, would accpet that, while IU may be either ill-advised or ill-judged, it is at least genuine. Certainly, from the private emails I got on the subject, that would seem to be the case.


Any time you want a proper, educated, intelligent debate (on any subject) then give me a call, or email me (where there is no-one to show off for).

 

[IU]

Cormy (12 Feb, 2002 12:33 p.m.):

IU (09 Feb, 2002 03:06 a.m.):Yeah, but "Unsigned" suggests inferiority, and a desire to be "Signed",
---------------------
Perhaps you'd be better off creating another resource for independent music

First, there's that snobbery again. Some people do want to be signed. We will only advise them about what to look out for, if and when the opportuntiy arises. We are not interested in who they sign with or even if they refuse to sign. Good luck to them.
----------------
Why on earth should IU set up another indie-focused resource? Aren't there enough of them? Isn't there a shortage of info-sites (other than those with vested interests, like IRMA) focused on thsoe who do want to get into mainstream and would otherwise become the fodder the Industry thrashes to the almost gleeful amusement of 'indie' bands?
Nowhere, not once, did IU say it wanted to represent the Indie side of music. You see the word Independent and think it means Things? Unfortunately, quite the opposite. Independent means having no real concern for any other organisation or group other than a person, persons or act that ask us (Ask, not get force fed) for our help or advice. Go back and read the stuff.

 

[IU]

joss (11 Feb, 2002 01:46 p.m.):
Hmm.
I don't think the hostility here is beneficial to either party.
But constant harping about The Industry on here is like a red rag to several bulls.
Unsigned to me implies 'wanting to be signed'.
To my mind, bands involved with Things *don't* want to be signed.
Nor do they need to. Why not release the records yourselves or at least independently?
See http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Pressing records, getting distribution, getting press... it's not so hard.

But I don't see why there can't be a link on the Things site saying 'if you want to get a record deal go here instead', nor one on the UI site saying the opposite.
Unless anyone feels both groups are diametrically opposed.

I leave that post entirely intact as it is the most intelligent thing said here in a while. Yes, IU and Things are different in scope and focus. Yes, Things members will likely not be IU members, although I would like to feature them all as we also provide acess to Orgs (like SU's, EntsReps, Clubs etc) wanting to book Gigs. We are even going to feature Graphic Designers and Movie Score writers. Equally, I would be open to telling people on IU to pop over to you if they felt (like Sutras) they wanted to stuff the industry and go it alone.

Perhaps, if it is at all feasible for me or Dave, we could even attend one of your meetings to see where we can cross over.

The most annoying thing about this whole debate is not the opposition (although I don't think it is diametric). It was the personal angle. There are still, on this page, juvenile personal attacks about integrity despite the fact that most of you now accept that we are relatively genuine, if differing in opnion (which is allowed!).

Links, by the way, are no problem.

 

[IU]

pete (11 Feb, 2002 02:09 p.m.):
If there was some way i could move my posts off the things board and onto the thumped general board I would, as in retrospect it wasn't fair for me to post that stuff here. It could in some ways imply that i was speaking as a representative or on behalf of things. which i wasn't. because i'm not.

unfortunately i'd have to move the entire thread, so i'll leave it here

Point taken and perhaps it is better if you and I don't continue this discussion. This might be difficult as I tend not to look at the name of the poster if I am responding. Maybe email is a better forum, and I accept they are personal opinions, not official ones. I never did (probably by virtue of the fact that I answer the post, not the poster) think it was Thumped opinion.

Finally, and you could answer this by email if you would, are you the same Pete who works on Phantom FM, by any chance, and has been contacted by Dave Reid about the NMP judging panel? The attitudes and direction seem the same....

 

[IU]

joss (11 Feb, 2002 01:46 p.m.):

Unsigned to me implies 'wanting to be signed'.
To my mind, bands involved with Things *don't* want to be signed.
Nor do they need to.

Agreed, to the whole thing. what about the possibility of a sub-group of the Things collective becoming 'advisors' to us in relation to those bands who want to do some or all of the stuff themselves? You could advise them to stuff teh inditry, thru IU. Sure, someone here will say that is us using Things. That's fine by me, if it works out.

One of the plans we have, for example, is this (as one example): A band wants a CD cover or poster. They have no clue what to do and are crap at drawing. We use our contacts to access the Graphic design students aoround the country and arrange an IU competition with the winner (chosen by the band) going into print. The band gets a Cover (or poster or video) chosen by themselves, while some students get a portfolio piece. Similar plans exist for colleges where production, recording, marketing, management etc are though. Simply because Things wants to do it themsleves, doesn't suggest everyone does, but they might want to do some of it themselves. We have planned for that.

IU took off before I wanted it to and that is why it is so bare. By all means, send me details of any organisation affiliated to Things that we can direct people to.

Another plan you could help with is to arrange a 'package' where a band simply turns up and plays a studio session and everything else is taken care of, on their instructions. We would make a business arrangement with studios, producers, distributors, etc to produce their part of an album, for exampl, at a set cost and we'd arrange a 'sliding scale flat rate package deal' for artists. This is my idea beacuase a band I used to advise (not manage) got stitched up when they went to studio. They were called Surface, from Carlow, and I still have that tape (with me in the credits, cool!) to remind me how naive people can be. I can't even make out the lyrics, and some of them were evolved from my own.

Yes, we can do business (loose term, relax!) together and maybe even help everyone better simply because we are different in scope and focus

As I said before, an email to continue the discussion would be much appreciated.

 

[Stephen]

IU (13 Feb, 2002 03:49 a.m.):

Stephen (11 Feb, 2002 10:01 a.m.):

I really hate the industry see. I want no part of what you are offering. None of your posts have or will change my mind.

yes, it's obvious that you hate the industry, and because of that you are prepared to do what you can to ensure that those who don't hate the industry (maybe because they don't know enough) don't get the opportunity to make up their own mind. Obviously, you'd rather make it up for them.

Nah I rather just spend my time doing things I want to do.
I don't get paid for any of my involvment in music so I reserve the right not to do things I don't aggree with(or be involved with people I don't want to be).

And I know that my posts won't change your mind. They are not meant to change your mind. They are targetted, rather aptly I would think, at anyone who has the misfortune to read your posts and think yours is the only opinion that counts, or is even the correct one.

Fair point. As Joss pointed out we are kinda speaking for the group here. Which I'd forgotten and everything I post here is my very personal opinion. Within Things (and our advisors) is vast ranges of opinions on everything. And definitely I do not represent all of them.

Incidentally, I don;t think you have the capability to examine the facts and then assume I am a liar. I seriosuly think you are a bandwagon-jumper and simply couldn't figure out the logics of it. Most people in Things, at this point, would accpet that, while IU may be either ill-advised or ill-judged, it is at least genuine. Certainly, from the private emails I got on the subject, that would seem to be the case.

I guess liar my be too strong a word. Let's just say I don't trust you.

 

[Stephen]

IU (13 Feb, 2002 03:50 a.m.):
Any time you want a proper, educated, intelligent debate (on any subject) then give me a call, or email me (where there is no-one to show off for).

I'd rather keep it public so I can be told if I'm being a dick.

 

[Stephen]

IU (13 Feb, 2002 04:28 a.m.):
They were called Surface, from Carlow,

Ahh I remember Joey, Graham & Alan.

How are they these days?

 

[IU]

Stephen (13 Feb, 2002 11:01 a.m.):

IU (13 Feb, 2002 04:28 a.m.):
They were called Surface, from Carlow,

Ahh I remember Joey, Graham & Alan.

How are they these days?

Last I heard Pluto (Joe Travers) was doing a Summer residency in the Cabaries, Alan Shelley was about to go to College (accountancy or something) and Graham Ball (I think) was about to marry Ciara something-or-other who was actually the major cause of the band getting nowhere.

Did you know them? I have a cassette of their jam sessions which is quite funny, and I got my name acknowledged on their demo "Poetry Of A Nutcase" which I have here and might try convert to mp from tape. Fucking kills me that the most naturally gifted guitarist I ever heard play (Travers) never had the determination to follow it up.... Ah well, that's rock'n'roll

 

[Stephen]

IU (15 Feb, 2002 10:10 p.m.):
Last I heard Pluto (Joe Travers) was doing a Summer residency in the Cabaries, Alan Shelley was about to go to College (accountancy or something) and Graham Ball (I think) was about to marry Ciara something-or-other who was actually the major cause of the band getting nowhere.

That sounds about right.
Sure I knew them we're all from Carlow. And I went to the same school as them. And as you might guess people who are into music in a small school eventually meet.
But I guess if you ask them about me you might understand my view point on your endeavours.
Graham getting married to which Ciara. Was she from Carlow? I'm trying to rack me brains to think who it could be but I'm at a loss.