A Mark In Time
Mark Knopfler Discussion => Mark Knopfler Discussion Forum => Topic started by: twm on June 23, 2015, 10:34:56 AM
-
This follows from the "Taylor Swift v. Apple" news but I thought that AMIT posters might find it interesting:
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/22/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/
-
Its interesting but its like any line of work. If you are not happy with a contract dont sign it. Dont do it even. Do something else. A contract is an agreement betwen two parties. If you sign it you are agreeing to its terms. If you sign it and arent happy then moan about it what sort of person does that make you? Just my thoughts.
-
I wasn't taking a side in this. I just found the "nuts and bolts" of this activity interesting and I thought others might, too.
-
Lots of reports suggesting the whole SwiftApplegate was a setup, based in her exuberant praise for Apple whilst protesting. This contracted with her managements battle with Spotify, where Spotify didn't back down.
The music industry is a fascinating monetary beast, which is why, I think, when artists such as Dylan & Knop go against the trends, I find it refreshing.
-
Hi TWM sorry it wasnt meant to come across as a response to you personally i fully appreciate it was someone elses article you were directing us to. I was just expressing an opinion. i dont know if you are in the UK but our national TV company the BBC has a programme called Panorama and it is basically once a week where they investigate or uncover something and then present lots of hearsay and anecdotal evidence to back up their theory. Now bearing in mind they are the British Broadcasting Corpration and are therefore meant to be independant and unbias in their reporting they actually go the opposite way. 95% of their evidence is in support of their theory and the other 5% is gained from the unlucky person or persons they are persecuting. It is so one-sided it is unbelievable. Thats why i always stick to the '2 sides to every story' argument. :)
-
Thanks, Simon. I wasn't really taking it personally but just wanted to make my position clear.
And, yes, I do live in the UK so I am familiar with "Panorama" and similar programmes - not to mention some news coverage.
Many, many years ago, I read a novel by Pierre Salinger, who had been the press secretary for US presidents JFK and LBJ and is mainly known for his non-fiction writings. The novel was set in a South American country in which there had been a coup. One scene in the book (and I hope I recall this correctly) is a demonstration outside (I think) the American embassy. It goes on for some hours and is largely peaceful but, for a few minutes, violence breaks out. It is, of course, the footage of the violence that is shown on US television. I may have got the details wrong but the point of this episode in the story has stayed with me. They say the camera never lies but does it tell the whole truth? Most assuredly not.