Corporate no no

  • Thread starter Thread starter RICK FITZPATRICK
  • Start date Start date
RICK FITZPATRICK

RICK FITZPATRICK

New member
For those of you...cont.

OK,ok, I've read the wkole thing so far, and at first, I was consumed by the comedy in
this saga, and all the opinions of whats going on here. Untill today. Today something occured to me that because americans are so used to cheating, its taken for granted everywhere I look. Government. Corporations. Taxes. Even the company I worked for, untill I found out. And this may seem absurd to you, however, I assure you its not.
Has it occured to anyone else out there, that the corporation and or principles that own this studio, and the band, by entering into a negotiation to replace the musicians in the band, with other musicians who are better equiped talent wise, have commited what I view as a conspiricy to commit FRAUD. At least in my book. Wheather or not the fans, and or consumers of this dubius product really give a damn, is of no concern. The
fact of the matter is this company, stands to loose or make millions of dollars on this project, depending on the recordings reaching a level of musicianship, which mixerman has already pointed out on numerous occassions, the BAND can not possibly attain. Otherwise, WHY would they go to the trouble and expenditure, to do exactly this. So, by way of recording other musicians in place of the BAND, in my mind, they are commiting fraud, and if this is indeed an industry wide practice, as mixerman also points out, then it is an industry which is also plagued by the same corporate fraud and cheating as Enron, Worldcom, and all the others cheats whose principles have already been indicted by the congress of the united states. No difference. Ok, thats my 4 cents, let the flames begin.
fitz:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
well, there really isn't anything illegal about it.

you know, it's sad that this post made any sense to me. given that the subject said nothing about mixerman, or the "saga", or whatever...

but by the second sentance I knew what you were talking about ;)
 
Sad? I made a mistake

Opps, I posted a new thread instead of adding it to the intended thread. Sorry. But if I purchase something that is not what it is advertized to be, that is fraud to me. Period. I beg to differ, legal, or illegal. Its still bullshit. And its about money. And lots of it. Not just one little purchase. Would you call it ok, if the beatles were not the beatles? For that matter, they could make many records of many"bands", using nothing but the same studio musicans. Would that matter if its legal or not? Maybe its ethics I'm talking
about, not legalitys. If so, then thier ethics suck. And furthermore, since it IS about money, and lots of it, they do this to keep from loosing millions of dollars, because they found out the BAND sucks too!
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends on what you feel constitutes and/or fraud. Also what you feel defines a "band."

Isn't the band, itself, a corporation? In that case, they are doing exactly what a corporation does -- churning out a product that we can either choose to purchase or not. And as a mild form of a corporation, they can either choose to be the performers . . . or select others as their talent. Their job is to get out a product with the name "Bitchslap" on it. :D

If, however, you feel that the record company is the corporation, and the band is merely the talent, then yes . . . I do feel that it is a mild form of fraud and/or misrepresentation.

Depending on how it is worded in the credits, mind you. If you read the credits, and it lists something like this:

Guitars: Harmon
Additional Guitars: Willie

It's deceiving, yes. But technically, it is accurate. Harmon is the guitar player of the band, and he did play on the album (some of it) and as such he is getting his credit. But Willie also played on it, and he is getting his due, as well. Are you saying they should break down the percentages? Guitar: Harmon 30%, Willie 70% ? :D That would be more accurate, I suppose.

But I also suppose it is a very mild form of fraud. Just like listing Rick Alan as the drummer of Def Leppard on Pyromania, when in fact a lot of the drums were sampled. And of course Mutt Lange sung the bulk of the background vocals as opposed to the actual band.

Just like an author hiring a ghost writer is a form of fraud. Just like buying a Jenna Jameson movie believing that her boobs are realy hers . . . is a mild form of fraud. Speaking of porn, I've admittedly read a lot of the credits, and some of the names of these actors. . . are they their real names? I doubt it. I suppose that's fraud, too, right?

Just as watching a Keanu Reeves movie where a lot of hired hands and/or computer animation do most of his dangerous-looking stunts is a mild form of fraud. Hell, even listing Keanu as an actor is certainly a subjective, debatable matter. :D A lot of people watched Pretty Woman and believed that it's really Julia Roberts' body throughout the whole movie (when in fact many of the scenes had Angie Everhart's body, correct me if I'm mistaken? ?)

Fraud . . . Fraud . . . Fraud . . . everywhere.
 
Well in that case, I guess you wouldn't mind eating a hamburger with horsemeat in it, as long as it was listed in the additive as protein. Nevermind. I knew I was in for a slaughter when I wrote this. Thats what I like about this forum. It IS a forum, unless I missed something. And everyone has thier opinion. This was mine. And you are correct, chessrock- fraud, fraud, fraud, everywhere. Don't you just love it. I have to admit, unless it is rubbed in thier face, or pocketbook, America takes it for granted. There is fraud everywhere, they just paint it a different color. Then it doesn't stink so bad. Like horsemeat. Thanks chessrock, its always nice to have an opposite view. Otherwise, I wouldn't have one.
fitz:)
 
You just getting around to figuring this out? C'mon Rick, you know what they say, "That's Entertainment!"
 
You mean the Beatles didn't play ALL the instruments on their records? BTW this pratice goes back as far as there were pop groups. Read your Rock and Roll history.
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
I knew I was in for a slaughter when I wrote this.
Click to expand...

Now that I read it again, I guess my tone does kinda' sound like I'm disagreeing. Actually, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. Just saying that I think it's a rather common form of fraud . . . and probably not as severe as what corporations have been doing -- I mean, no one is really getting hurt, financially. And in the case of horsemeat, that is potentially harmful, I guess, if you were allergic to horse meat. :D

It's an interesting point you make. I definitely respect it and think highly of the points you make. It's a thought-provoking spin on things.
 
foot n mouth disease

Howdy gents, thanks for the comments. I by no means meant to start anything that would sound like I'm pointing fingers. Shit, I don't walk on water. Sorry for that tone.
I just find it kind of like, well not right. Just because its been going on for so long, doesn't make it right. And you are right about the credits. I was referring to the possibility that they were completely replacing all traces of the "band"on the tape. But to each his own. Maybe thats why I have NEVER bought a CD. And gentleman, I respect yours and anyone elses opinion here. Some mornings I should have my second cup of coffee, before opening my big mouth:D And thanks for not burning me at the stake.
fitz:)
 
rhythm ranch said:
And then there's Auto-Tune...
Click to expand...

Hey man, the pros don't use that shit. Autotune is only for us loser homereccers.
 
Well, actually, it is I supppose "illegal". But the problem is that the term "illegal" has various connotations. I imagine that when used in the context above wherein the writer stated that the practice of switching musicians without placing the public on notice and, in fact, misleading the public, deliberately at that, he or she meant that it was not "crinimal". There are many different types of illegal not all of which carry criminal penalties.

Illegal can also refer to a civil wrong that would be redressed in the civil court.

The main difference is in the penalties for a criminal action carries a penalty which one pays generally to society, usually by losing thier right to feedom within society whereas a civil wrong generally carries a penalty payable to an individual and is generally or most often a monetary penalty.

There may not be criminal sanctions for a record company putting out a fraudulent record by failing to name the real players and delibereately and "fraudulently" nameing the "band", there could be civil penalties for the fraud. Enforcement is the problem becuase no one person has been damaged enough economically to justify the expense of litigation. Theorectically, one could go into court and sue the record company for the fraud and win however this woul involve the expenditure of probably twenty five to fifth thousand dollars to be repaid the cost of a CD. Also theorectically, all of the people that purchased a certain CD, upon discovering such fraud that they could prove, could bring a class action but not only is this prohibitively expensive but logistically absurdly complex and overwhelming.

The point is, illegal can have many meanings and criminal is only but one. Nuff said.
 
Well, Jack, while i can see your point of view, it's hard for me to get my panties in a bunch about this issue. First of all, we're talking entertainment here. Second of all, the whole "art" industry is one of creating illusions, whether you are talking about movies, music, dance, or sculpture. So I find it hard to draw a firm line as to which illusions are ethical or unethical.

As engineers we add false ambience to tracks (we call it reverb), we add false frequencies to sounds (we call it EQ), we alter the natural dynamics of the performance (we call it compression), sometimes we even add false instruments (we call them synths and drum machines), we retune, we cut and paste, we edit out coughs and sneezes... need I go on? I hope that doesn't mean I'm going to get arrested for fraud!:D

Anyway, it is an interesting discussion and I'm glad you raised the issue. I hope you feel that different points of view can be raised in response without you feeling like you are being personally "flamed".
 
The pros use auto tune...Trust me. I have a friend who makes good money tuning vocals for pros.
 
The only "Byrd" to play on "Mister Tambourine Man" was Roger McGuinn on 12 string - the rest were studio musicians. That was in 1963.

My, how things have changed. :)
 
I only hope someone frauds out my band someday:)

F.S.

Just joking.
 
Guitars: Harmon
Additional Guitars: Willie

Harmon's the bass player. Eyore is the guitarist.
Or am I incorrect? Jeez Chess, get your Bitchslap facts right.
 
Mr. Gerst

Hello Mr. Gerst. I don't know you, and I admit that my opinions suck sometimes. I take
it you are a seasoned studio gentleman. I on the other hand, am a homestudio audio enthsiast musician. I have neither the experience, or knowledge to speak in the manner I started this thread with. But sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut.
In defense of my opinion, the only thing I can say is this. I see from this saga, that my perception of real world rock and roll "business", has been enlightened to say the least. As a person who played music in the real world for 20 yrs, and whos only close encounter with a pro studio was when I was 17 yrs old, I am in no positition to judge other behavior by what little I know of it. I am much older now, and there is a world out there that I don't care to explore. But if I see something that I think is in contrast to my sense of whats right and wrong, I open my mouth. And usually, things can be pointed out to me which modifies my original opinion. Thats the point. I learn. Thanks to people such as yourself. Thankyou for responding to my post. Say, you wouldn't be mixerman, would you?;) From some of the replys here, I get the feeling everyone here knows you. And respects you. Although, my perception success rate is not awardwinning. As this thread illustrates:D
 
Opps, thanks everyone else. You are right. I am wrong. Now, where was that fatty.
fitz;)
 
Rick,

You raise some good issues. I can easily agree that the recording corporations don't mind misleading the buying public and the bands themselves seem often too egotistical to admit they had to use "ghost players".

Integrity is unfortunately a rare commodity and accountability is seen as restrictive instead of keeping yourself balanced.

The thing that gets me I suppose is people expecting the recording companies to be artisticaly motivated or charitible. They are a business and they are in it for the money and they to my knowledge NEVER claimed anything different although many labels start out with more charitible and artistic visions by their creators.

The great thing about the advances and price drops in home recordings is you CAN stay true to your vision without giving in to corporate compromise. MP3 allows us to "demo" our work worldwide from our garage or bedroom and market our creations and choose our own path.

I agree with your disapointment and desire for integrity and I have been "ghosted" myself on a "live" church recording that replaced 100% of my parts with a MUCH better player. I only wish they had taken my name off the credits and listed the real player. Everytime someone complimented me on the recording and in particular the bass parts I had to tell them thanks but it was not me despite what the credits say.

I think it would be nice if there was a "truth in recording law" like the truth in lending law that requires the details to be in LEGIBLE print and available before we make a purchasing decision.

It will never happen and if it did the government would screw it up worse.....:(

All I can say is Caveat Empetor.............buyer beware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top