Daniel Amos Message Board (http://www.danielamos.com/wbb2/index.php)
- DA Related Discussion (http://www.danielamos.com/wbb2/board.php?boardid=4)
-- General Discussion (http://www.danielamos.com/wbb2/board.php?boardid=1)
--- Randy Stonehill -Between the Glory & The Flame (http://www.danielamos.com/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=12386)

Posted by jyroflux on 04-10-2008 at23:23:


Someone is selling CD-R's made from BTGATF.

Posted by Dr Rich on 04-11-2008 at06:13:



Posted by jiminy on 04-11-2008 at10:54:


lets find him/her
beat the crap out of him / her

but video tape it and put it on U tube)

so we can make money too.

Posted by Jerry Davison on 04-11-2008 at11:21:


Originally posted by Dr Rich
Originally posted by Jerry Davison
I asked this person who told me all this if it would be possible for us to just buy our (Jacob's Trouble) stuff but they seemed to believe they would not parcel it out like tat. They want to sell the whole package together.

I would love a "Door into Summer" vinyl re-issue.

I actually have a copy of that on vinyl! It's cool! I got it from a friend in the Netherlands where the European Christian distributors had vinyl pressings made. Legend has it that Knock Breathe Shine is also available on vinyl but I've never seen a copy.

It's funny, I remember thinking when I got it, "Now we've hit the big time!" Pleased Forget CDs and radio airplay. It was all about the vinyl, baby!

Posted by Jerry Davison on 04-11-2008 at11:29:


Originally posted by jyroflux
Someone is selling CD-R's made from BTGATF.

Yes, they claim to be complying to copyright laws by selling you a cassette or vinyl version along with it. If they were so keen to comply with the law, they would not charge for it. Or not do it at all. There are plenty of easily accessible ways to convert vinyl to digital yourself.

Still, I have to say I would be tempted if they had a copy of Fireworks' "Sightseeing at Night." I would gladly pay for a copy of that if it were available legitimately. I wouldn't buy a pirate copy but if I ever found it on Limewire I would be sorely tempted.

Posted by Mountain Fan on 04-11-2008 at14:44:


I have probably missed out on discovering a lot of music because I decided not to go out and download everything I could that I might like. I listen to some radio and the CDs I have. I am thankful for some limited, select "among friends" sharing that I have been on both the giving and receiving end of. I don't have much time anyway. If I had more time I would check out bands on myspace and whatnot.

The Paste sale was an opportunity for me to get some stuff that I wouldn't have bothered with otherwise. But the physical packaging part of the industry is going downhill fast. If the average CD only has 10 songs, then I just paid $0.50 per song when I could have maybe bought only songs I liked for what - $1.00 per song? Not the best deal in those terms but I'm still a little of a dinosaur. Red Face

Our CD collection is getting larger and we are going to have to store some out of the main area. So it is at the point I don't really want anymore physical stuff except from my most favorite of bands because of the simple space requirements to keep it.

Posted by Mountain Fan on 04-11-2008 at14:47:


Here's an article from a guy I don't normally read or agree with but the headline caught my eye and illustrates some common attitudes.



Decent music isn’t dead, but the packaging sure is killing it
by Tim Rawal
published April 11, 2008 12:15 am

I re-learned how to read recently, and the first book I tested out my semi-new skill on was an insider’s account from some of the darkest days of the record industry.

Though highly entertaining, the author details at one point that a major label executive, who had just taken over the company, walked into the room and addressed the employees with this statement: “I don’t tell people I’m in the record business. I tell people I’m in the business of delivering a lifestyle.” A lifestyle that has nothing to do with music, but branding. You know, like Jimmy Buffett.

This statement right there is why the music industry is dead. Complete disrespect for its constituents. People who love music don’t fall for that lifestyle stuff. That alienates the very large base of true music lovers. The people who are easily tricked into the “lifestyle” idea are ones who shell out $18 on albums with maybe, just maybe, one decent track. And Parrotheads.

Folks who love music found a way around the marketing campaigns and phony lifestyle schpeels that record execs threw at them. It was called Napster. Then Songspy, then Limewire and so on and so on. And instead of embracing and finding common ground with these people, the very large and very powerful consumer base for the industry, they told them to get lost. Out of fear. Fear that a couple of junior college dropouts outsmarted a bunch of crusty old dudes with Wharton degrees. And when it came time to make nice, after they realized that the kids had figured out a way to pull a fast one on the man, it was too late.

I have not read too many articles or seen stories on artists who are truly upset over lost money (if there has been any on their part) since the inception of peer-to-peer file sharing. The ones that do get upset aren’t necessarily artists anyhow. It’s usually one-hit wonder types and Metallica and Dr. Dre, who never had any artistic credibility to begin with.

Music is the most powerful and popular thing on Earth. Therefore, it creates the largest market and possibility for moneymaking on the planet. But, like I’ve said, there are several different types of music lovers. Some are more loyal than others, and when you make someone mad who has been loyal to you most of their life, they, and others like them, will use their power to destroy you.

And that’s what has happened to the record industry. It underestimated the power of its true fan base, and now it’s dying and near dead. I’d assume most musicians are doing fine behind their tours and merchandise sales, but it’s the executives, the ones who decided to turn their backs on the ones who made them rich, who are scrambling and crying poverty.

I don’t begrudge them for making millions of dollars off the blank souls of America’s youth; that was their job, and that’s just how it goes. I just don’t feel sorry for them.

It’s not like those old guys wrote “Satisfaction.”

Posted by Jerry Davison on 04-11-2008 at17:29:


Interesting stuff. I think he makes a good point that Napster tapped into something that record labels could have found a way to make work for them if they had not been so greedy. It will be fun to watch the YouTube phenomenon and see if TV and movie studios learn anything from history.

Posted by audiori on 04-11-2008 at18:14:


...but it’s the executives, the ones who decided to turn their backs on the ones who made them rich, who are scrambling and crying poverty.


Articles like this always paint with too broad of a brush.

Posted by Eis on 04-11-2008 at23:18:


No Randy concerts for me...both of them got canceled due to a death in the family. I couldn't figure out whether that was a death in the family of the coffee shop owner, or a loss to Randy.

Posted by wakachiwaka on 04-12-2008 at19:08:


Originally posted by audiori
...but it’s the executives, the ones who decided to turn their backs on the ones who made them rich, who are scrambling and crying poverty.


Articles like this always paint with too broad of a brush.

Not sure how broad it is. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with these sentiments, but I think of statements made by artists like Roger McGuinn, who basically argues that apart from occasional modest advances against future royalties (which were normally used as recording budgets for the next album), he hardly ever saw a dime from record sales when he was working for Columbia or Arista. In his mind, if someone obtained a copy of his music illegally, it really didn't hurt him a bit. Now, of course, he issues new material independently, so he may be a bit more wary of someone illegally downloading "Limited Edition", but he's popular enough that (again, according to himself) any new recordings he releases pay for themselves in short order and the rest, as he says, is gravy - and he's able to sustain himself and his family through constant touring.

I also think of a guy like Layton Howerton, who released "Boxing God" through Sparrow records. Shortly after word came that his album was being dropped (after less than 2 years in print), I was with him when someone asked him if it was okay with him if they duplicated the CD to give away - his response was, "Sure, fine - I never made any money off that thing anyway." Of course, he wasn't relying primarily on his music for income, having kept his day job as a church pastor, but you get my drift.

I'm not trying to justify illegal downloading, but I do question the notion that it ALWAYS hurts the artist directly. I suspect that more often than not the artist suffers not a bit. The Byrds' back catalog has never gone out of print (and it continues to be repackaged in confounding ways), and neither has McGuinn's solo work (apart from his 1990 "comeback" album), yet the auteur himself never gets a check. Are Taylor and Stonehill in any different situation?

Well, obviously Terry Taylor would be an exception now with regards to his current output, since he does release it independently almost exclusively now, and he doesn't get out much except with the Dogs. Regarding his past catalog, though, an interesting question to pick apart might be: During the time DA was recording and releasing albums through other, bigger companies, how much income did Terry ever see from album sales (apart from advances for recording)? If it ever comes back in print, it's possible that Terry may benefit from future sales (especially if he is able to obtain ownership of it, rather than leasing it from another company, as in the past), and we are assured that wheels are turning to make this happen. We await with bated breath.

What happens with Stonehill's back catalog (especially those albums that have been OOP since the late Eighties) will never touch the man himself as long as it remains in the possession of another entity in an unreleased state. And I'm sure that, like Phil Keaggy, he's had to sit through an endless number of boardroom meetings at his label where the suits berate him as yesterday's news and try to persuade him to make a record that will fly with upper-middle-class soccer moms. I can't really picture him getting too up-in-arms about someone offering his 20+ year old Myrrh albums (transferred from vinyl or cassete) for download without compensation - he's likely pretty sure anyone who cares will certainly plonk down 20 big ones for those albums if/when they come out brand spankin' new on CD on his own independent label with killer bonus materials and updated artwork, while those who don't care probably don't even listen to their downloaded bootlegs. Cool

I'm just rambling now - don't mind me. Carry on.

Posted by audiori on 04-12-2008 at19:32:


But thats exactly my point about the article. It is broad, because it claims that the only ones crying fowl are the rich executives. Thats feeding the incorrect stereotype that its only the big rich companies that are hurt.

The problem with this issue is that its not a "one-size-fits-all" problem. The affects of illegal downloading on Britney Spears are different than the affects on Mark Heard. The affects of illegal downloading on U2 are different than the affects on Terry and DA. Its also very different for a complete and total unknown band who might actually benefit from illegal downloading. Unfortunately, most people that argue against it or in favor of it only see it from one perspective.

I don't know any rich executives. I guess Dan Michaels might be about as close as I could get Big Grin . But, nearly everyone I know in the business recognizes the very real and hurtful issue of unauthorized and illegal downloading and distribution. I'm talking almost exclusively about artists themselves here.

though, an interesting question to pick apart might be: During the time DA was recording and releasing albums through other, bigger companies, how much income did Terry ever see from album sales (apart from advances for recording)?

In general, I doubt that folks like DA ever saw the money they should have from releases in the old days. Some labels were worse than others. But, I think Terry would say that, at least in some ways, things have been harder on him after going independent. While he gets more off of each sale, the sales are fewer and distribution and advertisement is much more expensive and difficult. Its also harder to get production work (Check out all of that stuff he used to produce in the discography.) Its also harder and more expensive to make new material.. we'd probably have a new DA record every year if anyone could afford it.

I believe the independent route makes more sense for guys like this these days.. but it also requires a lot of cooperation from the fanbase. Every single sale is more important now than it used to be. Unfortunately, there are a good number that believe that he can't be hurt by crap like this. Or, they realize that he is and don't seem to care.

Posted by MarkyMark77 on 04-14-2008 at14:59:


I had a long post here, but I deleted it. It would have made this whole conversation more convoluted. Big Grin

So, here's a different long post! Pleased

A couple of things:
Thats feeding the incorrect stereotype that its only the big rich companies that are hurt.

Most artists do have less or almost nothing to lose because they make way less than their label's executives. That's why there is a stereotype, coupled with stories upon stories of artists getting screwed out of ownership of songs that they wrote, royalties from reissues, etc. A lot of people think those guys aren't seeing any of the money anyway, so they're really only stealing from "the man". I think that there is some truth to that because, again, a lot of artists really don't see serious money from their work. BTW, this opinion is based on talking to bands who were friends of mine, or friends of friends, who were signed to labels.

I think that illegal downloading (although this was not its original intent) should send a message that something is fundamentally wrong with the recording industry. If people see music as detached from its makers, and as mere product, that really is the industry's fault. They've propigated that culture ever since Col. Tom Parker licensed Elvis products in the 1950's. For engaged music fans, there is a lot of dislike for record executives.

In our culture, we've made bad behavior (executives cheating artists out of their money, charging high prices for CD's, putting out a substandard product on all levels) allowable simply because it was legal, because someone signed a contract. Now, we're making more bad behavior (downloading music) allowable, even if it is illegal, by and large as a reaction to initial bad behavior. It's a vicious circle.

If you guys (DA & the Townsends) can put together a CD bookset and sell it for $25, or a two disc reissue for $20, why can't big companies do it? They can, but they won't because they're greedy. Even Christians (and the Christian music industry) have allowed greed to be alright because it's not illegal. But that's not how it's supposed to work. Shame on us consumers for losing our idealism and our standards. With DA, I know where my money is going. It's a whole lot easier to plunk down cash for any of Terry's projects, even if I don't like every one of them (which I actually do!) It's a whole lot harder to plunk down cash for another compilation of Tom Petty's greatest hits that has one or two unreleased tracks so I can have those two unreleased tracks. To me, that's not dealing with the your fans with integrity. That kind of behavior is bound to breed resentment from music fans eventually, which it has, and they will probably find those two tracks on a music blog, for free, instead of buying the disc.

So, legal downloads should have been the answer. But, with DRM and an inflated cost per track (over a buck a piece), illegal downloading hasn't been relegated to history. On e-music, I can download 30 tracks (two-three CD's worth of music) for 10 bucks. I can print the packaging, unless there is special packaging with a CD, in which case I'll probably buy the physical CD. The point is that there are ways to handle this correctly, but the industry, for the most part, really has done not of it. There are exceptions (the aforementioned e-music, Rhino has some great, thorough reissues for a decent price) but come on! You only get shocked so many times before you don't go for the piece of cheese again!

The problem with this issue is that its not a "one-size-fits-all" problem.

I totally agree with this. It glows with warmth that Terry (or Mike, or Mark's widow or whoever) suffers because of a corporate music culture that they did not create. And, really, I like the way you guys do what you do. I can talk to you. I can talk to Mike on the message board, meet him at shows, get his autograph on all of my 77's CD's, and the same is true for Terry (except the message board thing. When is he gonna get high-speed internet?!? Big Grin )

The way these guys do it, even if it is what they were almost forced to do, is way better than most artists. I see their music as important as really famous bands that I like, but I'll never get to meet thost bands, or see them for only $10. As hard as it is, yours is the model that should be the example that the industry should take note of.

Forum Software: Burning Board 2.3.6, Developed by WoltLab GmbH