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

  1.  @iielysiumx5811  And you buy the superior CD for actual play?
    1
  2. I suspect George invited Billy Preston -- who they knew from their Hamburg days (he played for Little Richard) -- to stop by the sessions.
    1
  3. 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
  4. George Martin explained to McCartney that it is better to "approximate" the note just before hitting it dead-on.
    1
  5.  @southernreddog9319  They are not friends; they. Even if indirectly they are accessing your wallet.
    1
  6. Watch the Cavett interview with Jimi Hendrix.
    1
  7. You don't know me.
    1
  8. Beck uses whammy bar and volume control, and no pick. And a few peddles. Beck CRUSHES Clapton and Page combined.
    1
  9. "The Beatles" -- without whom one would never have heard of warmed-over "Yardbirds" "Led Zeppelin," or publicizing of private neurosis ""Pink Floyd"'.
    1
  10. "Yacht Rock" = Music made by multimillionaire musicians who own yachts. Of a "higher" profit-motive than "Corporate Rock".
    1
  11. Not enough about Les Paul. Thank him for electrifying the guitar, and for multi-tracking and overdubbing.
    1
  12. The "pluck bass" is a programmed "keyboard" probably on a computer.
    1
  13. It's the "greatest of all time" if you ignore all the others.
    1
  14. 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
  15.  @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
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @whyyeseyec  If he doesn't make any money, then what money goes where?
    1
  22.  @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
  23.  @whyyeseyec  Jackass: don't take my word for it: READ THE COPYRIGHT ACT.
    1
  24.  @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
  25.  @GutzmanK  Will you be allowing others to put it online for free? Or will you be standing by your property rights?
    1