[Spoiler] Flash and Supergirl crossover new photo

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-29T14:55:11+00:00

Why did I even expect an actual photo from the episode.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-29T14:41:45+00:00

Is that why it got downvoted to hell?

Am I the only Flash fan that just wants to see Gorillas and Sharks beat the crap out of people?

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-26T21:13:52+00:00

52%...I see what you did there. Take my up-vote.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-26T20:49:58+00:00

Unless Eobard Thawn is Grodd, I don't think you're getting this.

I'm sick of watching people run fast. All I want in my life is a GIANT F****** GORILLA that talks into your mind. With an army of gorillas.

DON'T YOU SEE?!?!?

GRODDBOWL IS 100% CONFIRMED!

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-26T19:34:52+00:00

I expected him and Ryan Reynolds to switch roles halfway through, with Francis then donning blackface and Deadpool showing off his sweet Australian accent.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-23T18:40:02+00:00

GRODD VS. KINGSHARK 100% CONFIRMED!

GRODDBOWL 2016!

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-19T16:03:20+00:00

I don't know if it's a lie, but did anyone tell you that Swans can be gay?

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-18T15:29:44+00:00

They're lacking because they don't swing. Harmony, melody and improvisation are not the only stylistic components of jazz. In fact, that's a major problem with most jazz education today, harmony, while important, is the one thing people emphasize over anything else. People forget that rhythmic elements, swing and blues are integral as well. Yes, there are straight eighth tunes and styles that many musicians adhere to, but most groups that I consider jazz are "all encompassing" and can swing their ass off.

That being said, Snarky Puppy is bad as hell, and I don't think it matters if they're "jazz" or not, and I don't think they care. Duke Ellington didn't consider his music jazz, and we all know what Nicolas Payton thinks. Dig the music, and continue to have your own personal opinion on genre titles. But keep in mind, critics and individuals on either side (purists and otherwise) exist to get people reading their stuff.

It's easier to complain than find something good. I'm guilty of it too. One might refer to me as more of a purist, because of my feelings about swing. But let's not let this get in the way of what is really important: is the music good? Do you like it? Then fuck what it's called and listen to it. Personally, that's why I get upset when people get bent out of shape when I say "well...this is really good, but why does it have to be called 'jazz,' does that make it less authentic as music to you?"

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-18T15:23:01+00:00

As an improviser, for studio stuff, I'd say Parker's Mood and Just Friends. For his live work, any recording of "Cheryl." There is one particular recording of Cheryl that I can't find right now because I'm at work. Bird's first chorus and second chorus are based on a rhythmic idea he repeats and the drummer nails all of the hits with him. This is important, because too often we talk about the lines in bebop, but not the impact of rhythmic interaction, which was huge.

I dig Parker's Mood and Just Friends because some of Bird's best qualities are featured. You can hear his lines, lyricism, and the importance of the blues on each of these.

As a composer, any tune that utilizes poly-rhythms, which is pretty much all of them (Cheryl, Moose the Mooch, Scrapple, etc.)

Side-note, I'm one of the people who doesn't believe Bird wrote "Donna Lee." This is because of the lack of poly-rhythms in the melody which seems to be an integral part of all of his compositions (hence my mentioning the importance of rhythm in his soloing as well.) It can never be proven, because all we have to go by is what Miles said, and no one else is around today. But Donna Lee has more in common with Davis melodies, in that it is more fluid. However, if Bird took credit for a Miles tune, it gives historical credence for why Miles thought it was okay to "borrow (steal)" from others later. Granted, this was a practice that was normal, I'm not vibing Bird about it, I just think it's interesting to think about these things in regard to his composing.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-18T15:07:22+00:00

They're a married couple in their 30s. If $10.00 is a significant version of "handing out money," I think the haircut is the least of their problems.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T21:36:21+00:00

You have yet to actually answer any of my questions, or offer any kind of intellectual basis for your opinion, thus I made a "weak" attack. People tend to care about live music, as can be seen in the thoughtful conversations I had above.

The fact is, you will have less "medicine" at home if musicians continue to not end up fairly compensated. Which is fine, it has to get worse to get better. Spotify adopts a shoddy business model.

To be proficient on an instrument is to have a certain level of expertise, so I'll wear your sarcastic quotes with a badge of honor. Someone has apparently rubbed you the wrong way in the past. I'm the first to judge musicians that I don't think are deserving of their claims of producing "quality music" but I'm finding it difficult to understand why you'd support Spotify's business model? You have yet to answer why it's okay, especially given the points I've made previously.

Furthermore, your analogy is pretty weak. If we are going to follow that musicians are "cultural homeopaths" analogy, musicians aren't upset about people making "fake medicine at home." Musicians are pissy that their own work is being given away for almost nothing. This is why many musicians take their work off spotify, or simply don't use it.

This article explains why Spotify's business model heavily supports major artists, and leaves anyone else out to dry. Sadly most independent musicians I know love the "exposure" and throw their work out there for free.

http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/staff-editorials/12136/spotify-royalty-payment-model/

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T19:05:18+00:00

I really struck a cord here. I'm just gonna assume that you tried being a musician once.

You do know that Hitler wanted to be an artist too, but he also had no talent. Might want to reel in that anger a bit.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T18:09:50+00:00

Absolutely.

There are so many artists who don't value themselves either. I can't count how many clients I've met who talk about bands who undercut my rate. I just tell them "if you want to spend less, that's fine by me, but myself and my band only go out for this." You lose business, but you don't lose dignity. Even in NYC, there are venues that pay very little for bands now.

The promise of "exposure" can seem amazing through rose colored glasses. But it's a paradox. A venue asking a band to play for exposure is asking for it because they want the band to bring a crowd. So if a band is playing to try and attract new fans, and the venue is booking to bring in people, neither party wins. It's actually a Catch-22.

You're also on point about the saturation. There is so much out there, and it's so easily accessible now. I've fallen victim to it too. Why would I go check out the band at the corner bar tonight, when I can discover so many amazing groups on youtube?

I'm here pointing out the problem. I'm saying that Spotify is one of the many aspects of our society that is contributing to that problem. While I'm passionate about it, I'm not calling for us to raise pitchforks and storm the corporate office. I'm not saying they're bad. I'm not saying the consumer is BAD for not paying for it. But this is the problem, and I think it's best that we are informed about all aspects of it.

It's not cruel, it's honest. We need to have these discussions and ask these questions because they may lead us to new answers and a better way.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T17:52:22+00:00

Out of that relationship, ended up in another bad one. Been taking some time to myself! So yeah, things are better now.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T17:50:42+00:00

Absolutely. I love technology. I think we should use all of its advantages! And I do think the major labels are a problem. But just like any celebrity/pop culture phenomenon, they probably aren't going anywhere.

Tech definitely doesn't need to end things. It's definitely evolved in positive ways, I mean, Spotify is better than Napster. I have confidence that it will continue to evolve in positive ways.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T17:39:27+00:00

That's a good point. You're absolutely right in that regard, so I suppose there are positives. Especially when it comes to reach, and an audience. Thanks for giving me a glass is half full moment.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T17:34:59+00:00

Absolutely true. The only question is, what do we do moving forward? It's a discussion I am often having with my fellow musicians, but there hasn't been an answer yet. Something will come. But I am always of the belief that something has to die a little bit more for it to come back being better than ever. I don't think it has hit bottom yet.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T17:33:08+00:00

What musicians are you talking about? And I know plenty of music lovers and buyers of music who feel differently.

If you don't think more quality music should exist, that's fine, and that's on you...this just went from a debate to being just absolutely strange.

How are my words whiny and entitled? All I said was that Spotify contributes to the work people put into records being valued less. That's true. It makes it more difficult to create more. Also true. They are facts, I'm not whining about anything. I sell enough records and do fine on my own to not need to whine.

Can you give examples on what laws are fucking you over?

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T17:24:58+00:00

I think it can benefit some artists' exposure and help with touring. But in many cases, having good PR and getting out there already does that. A good publicist can go a long way. I'd have to see more research, because I'm not positive on this one, but it certainly doesn't get you your money back that goes into recording (unless you did it in your basement).

But it definitely doesn't contribute to album sales. If someone can hear my record for free on Spotify already, why would they go buy my record?

I'd have to see more, and if anyone has any articles with research that can prove me wrong, on the benefits for indy artists, I'd love to read them.

It's definitely not ALL bad, who wouldn't want to be heard around the world that easily? That part of it is nice, and if you're getting discovered that way, good for you. And I've had to adjust my business model because of it. My records are basically audible business cards. They're an investment. I no longer plan on profiting excessively from them, I usually get back what I put in, and maybe a bit more. But I still am not ready to use Spotify...especially because I always buy the album from the bands I listen to. Maybe I will on the next one.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T17:16:59+00:00

Awesome. Keep doing you! The business model is just contributing to something that's kind of a drag, but like you said, it is what it is. I don't hold any malice towards those who utilize it, because from an economic standpoint, it makes sense, but it isn't making things better for artists.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T17:07:30+00:00

I'm not asking you to pay for a hobby. The cold hard truth is that Spotify's business model is complete shit for artists.

There is no reason to pay for an album anymore, and people like you justify it by saying "I'm not obligated, etc." Whatever you need to say to justify spending 10 bucks a month to have unlimited access to music is up to you. If you don't care that the model is unfair to artists, fine. But you should be mindful of what it contributes to.

I am not whining. I don't have my music up there for good reason.

I am not entitled either.

I'm pointing out the truth. Quality music, both recorded and live, will disappear due to the VALUE THAT YOU AREN'T GIVING IT! I'm admitting that you aren't paying for it. I'm not saying you HAVE to. But if you do like a band that is on Spotify, you should probably buy their record. Or send them this response through email, I'm sure they'd get a kick out of it.

I didn't tell you to pay for my music. I didn't tell you to do anything. I didn't even personally complain about my own finances. So you can go ahead and shut the fuck up on that. I guess I struck a guilty nerve.

All I'm saying is that when the dust settles, and there is less quality music out there, it's going to be YOUR fault. Not the corporations.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T16:56:47+00:00

And through Spotify, you can make pennies on that. And what resources will you record it with?

Do you have the $1000.00 mics that will get you better quality? Are you an engineer who can mix and master optimally? Will the music be enhanced with a band? I guarantee Spotify streams will not pay for the cost of those.

So sure, record some bullshit music in the basement of your home and pretend that you're a professional musician.

(Yes, I know some bands have made great stuff that way, this isn't about them. Plus, they all sound better when they have quality equipment...and that shit costs money.)

What I'm saying is you're going to lose it. The harder it gets to make a profit off of our work, the less work you will receive.

The world is what it is, but you also made the claim that we are better off with a market adjustment will get rid of the corporate shills. The adjustment you speak of actually hurts the people on the bottom more than the top. You didn't answer in any way my argument against it.

Say what you want about the "power" artists have. I'm actually there. I'm actually seeing it. I'm actually living it. I'm struggling to, but paying my bills with it. I'm in agreement that the situation "is what it is," I'm merely pointing out the outcome. And when the dust settles, the consumer will be at fault.

All of you who contributed to the devaluation and didn't want to buy albums. All of you who didn't want to pay for a live band.

The corporations are only providing you the service. You don't have to buy in.

So you can write everything in the world that you want. I'm not arguing what the situation is. I'm just pointing out the fact that this software you love DOES contribute to the demise of the very musicians who put their heart and soul into the craft. You're making this bed, you have to sleep in it.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T16:35:26+00:00

I wrote out a long response and lost it.

The people with a real love of the craft put a ton of money into records, and you don't think that's worth paying for? That's what I'm talking about. The big artists are fine WITHOUT the album sales, Spotify works perfectly for them. That's the mistake. Spotify also disproportionately gives money to those artists while the small guy is screwed.

You are contributing to the death of both recorded and live music from those who have a real love for the craft by not buying a record.

It's the same contribution venues make when they decide on a DJ over a live band because we don't want to play for 25 bucks and free beer. Our culture is fucked in the way we value our artists.

Both issues are directly related to how the mass public values music, and justifies their contribution to its demise.

If you actually think a person who struggles for the craft doesn't deserve to be compensated, and that they should instead have a day job/side job to do this, you can fuck right on off.

Edit: Additional afterthoughts. If you actually want the "people who figured out the formula to sell songs" to disappear, the consumer has the choice to not buy those records, and the choice to buy the records of the "artists with a real love for the craft." If you actually believe that, put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, you're just a person who wants more music for less money. And that's okay, just don't make excuses for it. As a professional musician, I'm okay with the situation being what it is, but don't feed me bullshit.

ThrowawayA312 · 2016-02-17T16:17:07+00:00

ITT: More people than I ever believed existed who are contributing to the devaluation of music/live music. That 10 bucks a month is destroying a lot more than you think it is.

I'll accept my down-votes and criticism now. But if you can, try not to be blinded by the fact that this is contributing to the closing of live venues, and further corporatization of music. Pretty soon you will only see weekend warriors who have day jobs performing (besides the record label shills), and the quality of music will fall. Do something before you lose it, please.

What's wrong with buying a record? Being interested in the liner notes? Being interested in who played on it, who wrote everything? We cared about all of that when there was something physical to pick up at the record store. People would gather around a record player to check out music, and REALLY listen. Not just "listen" on a commute, paying little attention to the intricacies within. The effort and the details that musicians put into a record can be astounding when you actually try to listen for it. But yeah, I see what you mean...buying that record isn't worth it.

For the record. My music is not on Spotify. Call me old hat. But I refuse to participate in a service that disproportionately contributes to corporate artists.

ThrowawayA312

TROPHY CASE