Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Rick Beato" channel.

  1. I love vinyl because of the snaps, crackles and pops -- takes me back to my favorite childhood breakfast cereal.
    33
  2.  @TomFord-uh1to  And the expense of open reel is prohibitive. CDs are superior to both vinyl and tape -- vinyl wears, tape wears.
    20
  3. Bonnie Raitt is one of the most badass slide guitarists every to grace the universe.
    9
  4.  @sandechoir  You like stealing. That makes you a criminal. You aren't stealing from the corporations; you're stealing from the recording artists.
    8
  5. @Abe Froman Hopefully you'll get over the naive nostalgia for a pain in the ass. Just to let you know: the "warmth" of vinlk is DISTORTION. What we DON'T want in fidelity is DISTORTION.
    7
  6.  @thomaslutro5560  Most Capitol Beatles LPs -- I'm sure you have all those, in whatever condiction -- are typically 23-25 minutes TOTAL.
    4
  7.  @sandechoir  Joking about stealing isn't funny to the victim.
    4
  8. 56-ish hours of video, 150 hours of 1/4" mono tape. During the process they developed a software that is able to distinguish between instruments and voices on the mono tape, thus the possibility of making each a separate track, adjusting balances, even making a surround mix.
    3
  9. @Abe Froman Critical thinking, based on decades of experience with vinyl, is "aggression"? Sure dude -- show us how to "chill"/thinknotthink.
    3
  10. That's the only benefit over CDs.
    3
  11. @Abe Froman And for a lot more money than they are worth. Vinyl WEARS. And the amount of permanent damage by the static attraction of dust and dirt is significant.
    3
  12.  @sandechoir  If it's promotional it's usually garbage.
    3
  13.  @mattjones366  It wasn't right before youtube. It never fails that you law-illiterates who have contempt for the rights of others can never generate an "argument" that comports with morality, or ethics, let alone logic and law. "Those artists" have the exclusive right to determine the uses of their work -- especially when those who didn't do the work of creating those works PROFIT from that work. How many of these MONETIZED youtubers send a cut of their profits to those who CREATED the work from which they are profiting?
    3
  14. Dick Cavett was not a daytime program. It was late night. And he was unique in being intelligent. And you have to be my age to remember that.
    2
  15.  @robbieclark7828  Gatefolds take twice the space on the shelf.
    2
  16.  @iielysiumx5811  Try 320 kHz.
    2
  17. "The joke in 50 years will be that 'The Beates' broke up because Yoko sat on an amp." -- Paul McCartney. That actually became part of the false myth during the last 50 years.
    2
  18. Sabrina Carpenter -- sex sells. Same goes for Taylor Swift.
    2
  19. And whammy-with-volume control.
    2
  20.  @JTLaser1  When a record is played on the radio, there are royalties paid for each play. Do these MONTIZED youtubers making money from SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY PAY A CUT to the creator of the music? We get it: if you covet someone else's property, you'll steal it; and if challenged will spew bullshit "arguments" that have no grounding in morality, ethics, reason or law.
    2
  21.  @JTLaser1  It remains the fact that exclusive control over the use of a copyrighted work belongs to the copyright owner. As I've made clear, your "argument" has no merit. The law -- and other rights -- need not take a "chill" to your contempt for both.
    2
  22.  @michaelkonomos  I have an education in law and am also a published author. I know copyright law. And I note that the attacks on artists haven't mentioned companies but rather present their weaselly "arguments" against the arguments themselves. That indicates that they actually don't know anything about the arrangements between record labels and their recording artists or about copyright law. Their lawless "information should be free" view applies to others' property, and they have contempt for copyright law and the rights it protects. That's why I make the point that they'd squeal like stuck pigs if it were THEIR property that OTHERS were exploiting for their own ends and profits. Why I make the point that they are hypocrites.
    2
  23.  @GutzmanK  Yes, that's why you ignore facts Glenn is also ignoring in order to perpetuate the bashings. As I've said: the legal profession has an OBLIGATION to educate the general public as to the workings of legal process. But it doesn't do so because there's no PROFIT in it. Bashings draw a crowd but do not enlighten.
    2
  24.  @GutzmanK  I'll bet those who insist that their songs not be used don't feel any shame about it. Yes: those who are arguing against the copyright owner's exclusive control of their property ARE arguing against that exclusive control. Any yada-yada after that isn't a DEFENSE of that right; it is the injection of the bullying, the excuse, for the attack on that exclusive control. The next step is to simply steal use of the property. While, of course, claiming to "love" the person from whom one is stealing. Beato has also been criticized for using his videos as advertisements for the books he sells. Thus a criticism can be raised about the COMMERCIAL -- profit-making -- use of that "borrowed" material. All, of course, based on "love" . . .
    2
  25.  @GutzmanK  It's your OPINION that they are "foolish". Perhaps they have different values than you. There were whiners and bashers who complained that "The Beatles" didn't release their work IMMEDIATELY on CD. The concern was protecting the integrity of the whole work rather than see the value of the work dissipated. But I do love those who affirm "my" property rights, and "my" exclusive control of them, while at the same time bashing "my" protection of them. Weasel, weasel, weasel. Currently I'm confronted with a health care system that REFUSES to NOT REQUIRE that I surrender patients rights that are secured in written law -- such capitulation required in order that I then be provided necessary care that does not meet my medical needs. Which needs necessarily include NOT violating my rights as secured in written law. Their "arguments" (actually they have none; but they have POWER to withhold needed health care) are as self-serving as those who attack those who protect their copyrights according to their own prerogatives. The constant attack on established RIGHTS should be disturbing to anyone who professes to be a legal professional: after all it is the existence of the rule of law itself that puts bread on their table.
    2
  26. "Alternative rock"? Alternative to what? To rock. Yet another pseudo-genre marketing label bites the dust.
    1
  27. EpSTEEN, not EpSTINE. Epstein was their manager -- he took care of the business side. He died of an overdose shortly after "Sgt. Pepper's" was released.
    1
  28. Unique to "The Beatles" was the spirit: the joyful celebration of life. Part of the bond between Paul and John were the losses of their mothers at 15 and 16. The murder of John took him -- and "The Beatles" -- out of the world.
    1
  29. FM was empty territory until the 1960s. When it opened up, stations would play entire LPs. As example, when "The Beatles" (aka "White Album") was released, the local FM station played all four sides -- no ads -- five nights per week for two weeks. And on the weekends, they played all "Beatles," including everything on "The Beatles". And some of that continued through the 1970s. One morning DJ would tell the listeners to turn on their tape machine, and then would play an entire LP.. The record compaines didn't like it -- but if you heard and liked it, you bought the LP.
    1
  30. See "The 5th Dimension" and especially their "Magic Garden" LP for more Jimmy Webb. In other words, look beyond the hits.
    1
  31. Paul Peterson was a "star"; many "stars" made records, even if they had no talent even as a "star".
    1
  32. See his "Rockabilly Session" at Ronnie Scott's -- on youtube.
    1
  33. The Beatles are not declining your fair use claim; it is YOUTUBE that is routinely finding against youtubers.
    1
  34. Facts about the "Boomer" generation and music: the generation produced a disproportionate amount of good-to-great music -- and also a disproportionate amount of CRAP.
    1
  35. A brother-in-law was killed by a hit-and-run in 1978, which was a shock. John inspired me to be a writer; his being murdered was devastating. It was a massive shock to the WORLD.
    1
  36. During the 1980s or 1990s Dylan commenting on recording about his first LP being recorded in one day, "but now it takes two weeks to get a drum sound".
    1
  37. I learned of it while watching Monday Night Football. I experienced the JFK assassination during first year of high school.
    1
  38. What is the "alternative" to rock music? Anything that isn't rock. There is no "alternative" to rock that calls itself "rock". It is yet another bogus MARKETING label.
    1
  39. Creativity is the "play impulse".
    1
  40. I was in 10th grade when JFK was assassinated. 20 when MLK and RFK were assassinated. I was 32 when Lennon was murdered.
    1
  41. Oh, please: "solo spots" were a reduced result of the boring "freeform" "noodling" begun during the 1960s. And if you listen to "The Beatles" and their contemporaries, you'll note that they had "solo spots" in their songs.
    1
  42. When I bought "Sgt. Pepper's" on first release, I ran into a friend on my way home. And before I got the LP home it was first recorded by him on his open-reel tape recorder.
    1
  43. In interview, Alan Parsons (of "Alan Parsons Project") said he was on the "Abbey Road" sessions. And THAT was John, and "sidemen," and Paul, and "sidemen," etc.
    1
  44. It's all plotted out on computer in advance of anything else. They have perhaps as many as three "different" blueprints.
    1
  45. First serious rule of life: Never miss an opportunity to be silly.
    1
  46. Nope: musicians "owned" the production, but the money still went to the same place: the moneymen. Production wasn't the industry; money was and is. Hendrix made it because "outrageousness" had already been established. In more restricted, conservative times, he'd be as unacceptable as he was before he went to England where the environment was more receptive.
    1
  47.  @frossbog  Only if there is a flaw in the manufacture. And nothing can be done by the added distortion to vinyl playback, which those who tout vinyl -- it "purity" of sound -- mistake for "warmth". That's their distinction between analog and digital: distortion that masks the uncolored source.
    1
  48. For me it was a constant juggling of either buying records or buying books. And I also had to buy my own clothes and pay rent. And that was in high school.
    1
  49. Taylor Swift is pretty thin on ideas. That explains a 4-LP release. And there are those who say "The Beatles" 2-LP "White" LP should have been reduced to one LP.
    1
  50.  @soostdijk  Bigger isn't always better. I'd rather use a Volkswagen van than am 18-wheel tractor trailer. Subwoofers have their place, but in most instances are not used correctly.
    1
  51.  @iielysiumx5811  And you buy the superior CD for actual play?
    1
  52. I suspect George invited Billy Preston -- who they knew from their Hamburg days (he played for Little Richard) -- to stop by the sessions.
    1
  53. Many people use CD players. Moreover, many prefer having hard copy of their music. The attack on actually listening to entire LP is actually stupid: I have a friend who loves "In My Life" by The Beatles; but he can't be bothered to listen to anything else on the album. It's all part of the speed-it-up/dumb-it-down attack on relaxation.
    1
  54. George Martin explained to McCartney that it is better to "approximate" the note just before hitting it dead-on.
    1
  55.  @southernreddog9319  They are not friends; they. Even if indirectly they are accessing your wallet.
    1
  56. Watch the Cavett interview with Jimi Hendrix.
    1
  57. You don't know me.
    1
  58. Beck uses whammy bar and volume control, and no pick. And a few peddles. Beck CRUSHES Clapton and Page combined.
    1
  59. "The Beatles" -- without whom one would never have heard of warmed-over "Yardbirds" "Led Zeppelin," or publicizing of private neurosis ""Pink Floyd"'.
    1
  60. "Yacht Rock" = Music made by multimillionaire musicians who own yachts. Of a "higher" profit-motive than "Corporate Rock".
    1
  61. Not enough about Les Paul. Thank him for electrifying the guitar, and for multi-tracking and overdubbing.
    1
  62. The "pluck bass" is a programmed "keyboard" probably on a computer.
    1
  63. It's the "greatest of all time" if you ignore all the others.
    1
  64. If the copyrights being violated were yours you'd scream like a stuck pig. Fundamanetally you reject the fact that others have rights that are to be respected.
    1
  65.  @JTLaser1  Some of us take risks by trying new music we've not already heard. Why not ask people why they would bother to read a book they haven't already read?
    1
  66.  @mattjones366  It is a question of what those who create works in which they own copyright -- it is their property -- want, not for those who use someone else's work for their own profit.
    1
  67.  @FC-cz6zd  But it is their decision to make, not yours. I wonder if you would blow off someone else exploiting your work -- property -- for their profit.
    1
  68.  @michaelkonomos  And they represent the artist's interests. Get a clue: if the corporations are stolen from, that is taken out of the artist's royalties. Interesting how free some are with the use of other peoples' property -- about which they themselves would scream like stuck pigs if exactly the same were done with their property. Ask yourself: what does "love" mean when one steals from those one "loves"?
    1
  69.  @mattjones366  There are no LEGAL two ways about it: the owner of the copyright -- the property -- has exclusive say about how it is treated. All the "arguments" against that are specious -- and hostile to that exclusive right. Those who make that "argument" and don't like being rebuffed in their greed, their covetousness toward others' property -- tend then to look for ways around that right. They are sleazy scumbags who present "arguments" just like yours based upon some implied FALSE "moral" ground. If you were able to create copyrightable works, you'd scream like a stuck pig if someone else were to put your "argument" in your face. But you would be free to ALLOW OTHERS to profit from your work. That would be stupid, but that too is a potential personal decision.
    1
  70.  @JTLaser1  I have an education in law, know the Copyright Act, and am a published author. I adhere to fact and law -- only a "closed mind" to those who reject both.
    1
  71.  @whyyeseyec  If he doesn't make any money, then what money goes where?
    1
  72.  @whyyeseyec  Copyright infringement is not limited to making money from someone else's property. It is also the unauthorized use of someone else's property.
    1
  73.  @whyyeseyec  Jackass: don't take my word for it: READ THE COPYRIGHT ACT.
    1
  74.  @GutzmanK  I agree: it is BLASPHEMY -- perhaps even ANTI-AMERICAN -- to forgo profit-making. And that "losing proposition for the intended audience" -- how is the audience "intended" opposite the wish of the copyright owner? "[I]ntended" by whom?
    1
  75.  @GutzmanK  Will you be allowing others to put it online for free? Or will you be standing by your property rights?
    1