Does anyone know what key this song is in. Or better yet what key harp does Butterfield play on this song. Could that man play or what.
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2010 9:43 AM
I've been listening to "From the Cradle" recently and I think this is the best version I've ever heard. Better than Butterfields version def. Just listened to that lesson from Adam...Clapton's version is not better, just diferent.
Last Edited by on Mar 01, 2010 8:43 PM
looks like the youtube police pulled it! Geez! I bought an album because of that lesson(several because of Adams lessons). Nice to see it "lives" out there somewhere.
It's a huge pet peeve of mine when the copyright holders yank a lesson of song.
A while back I was trying to learn a little guitar, in particular, Sunshine of Your Love. Not the lead breaks, just the basic riffs. Some young kid had posted a beautiful how to vid on YT. He sounded great, the vid was very easy to follow, he was a natural born teacher. So I saved it to my YT page...couple of days later.... BOOM! gone... yanked for copyright infringement.
I posted about it on here. It evoked little sympathy. The consensus seemed to be that the musician and the record company were entitled to their royalties. For the record, I already owned Disraeli Gears and The Cream of Clapton, two CD's that the song appeared on, meaning that I'd already paid Clapton and his record company twice for the pleasure of listening to this great tune.
All I wanted to do was to try and learn the song so I could play along with the CD's I already owned. Was I any less likely to buy Clapton's or the copyright holders music as a result of this video? Did they have to squeeze the last nickel out of me so that might be able to play along with one of my favorite rock songs? That was the tipping point for me.
It has gotten completely out of hand. I understand that artists and record companies should be compensated. I have never illegally downloaded a single song to my computer. I had, prior to this experience, always been on their side in that battle. But now I say F___ 'em all. I still won't download anything illegally, but I now take great pleasure in the economic misery of the record labels. They deserve it.
Honkin' On Bobo, I can understand it, but when you used it on the video without getting a release from them, that's when the lawyers got your butt on that. If you went thru the channels, such as contact the artist, the label, and also the Harry Fox Agency first, and got a release for the use, you'd be unlikely to get that problem. That was the single, biggest mistake all the rapper/hip hoppers made when they did all that sampling and then all the lawyers clamped down on them, and the rappers never bothered to list anything on the credits, including the words "used by permission," and then they tried to claim copyright, and they never considered the ramifications.
I'm not trying to "pee on your wheaties," but that's how the business is.
If you look back many years and see artists recording with other artists under a different name, and as an example, the earliest issue of the Junior Wells LP, "Hoodoo Man Blues," wher Buddy Guy is identified as Friendly Chap, it was because Buddy was still under contract to Chess Records at the time and by doing this, it was a way to work around it.
If you were to use a recording of mine in that same example, to be honest, if you came to me first, and asked for permission to use it prior to you posting the video, I'd send you a formal letter of release and the right thing to do on the video would to list on the credits that it was used by permission. If you didn't, I have every legal right to put the kibosh on that big time.
Am I saying that you used it maliciously?? Hell, no! However, not getting a release from all parties concerned and not placing the proper credits is what gave them the legal right to do that to you. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. Comparing me to rappers that sampled songs and used the material to sell CD's? Did you comprehend anything or read anything I wrote? I didn't post a video anywhere. I simply accessed a video on YT a kid posted that showed how to play a song.
No lawyers got on my butt for anything, nor should they have. The copyright holder probably went to YT and asked them to remove it, which they did and I don't blame them (YT).
what you're suggesting is that kid (around 17 or 18 i'm guessing) should have tracked down the copyright holder and asked for written permission to put a homemade two minute video on youtube showing how to play a song.
My post wasn't about whether the copyright holders were legally right, I'm sure they were. It was about the heavy handedness with which they wield that power being counter productive to their business and slapping music fans in the face. sort of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law argument.
"but that's how business is"
Exactly right, and it's part of the reason the labels have been getting creamed economically over the last decade. Their inabilty to distinguish between somebody sampling something to make their own commercial recording and a kid making a harmless homemade instructional video is typical for them, and is the same mentality that had them dragging their feet at the dawn of the digital revolution. And it's part of the reason the general public is not on their side (morally) on this issue, legalities notwithstanding.
By the way, anytime some harper on this forum posts a video of themselves playing an old blues tune they are doing the same thing that kid did. Are you suggesting all forum members need to be tracking down copyright holders before posting their effort on say..whammer jammer?
Last Edited by on Mar 03, 2010 2:18 AM
Thanks for the sentiment and all the great information. The funny thing is I've never been an advocate for "download disobedience". I'm the first person to support and advocate the position that both the artists and record companies deserve and have a legal right to compensation for what they produce.
I was advocating for something far less onerous, basically, the exercise of a little common sense and judgement by music publishers, when invoking copyright authority. In this case a teenager making a harmless instuctional video. While I appreciate the link to the study that says illegally downloaded songs do not translate into lost sales, I do understand the logic of that argument. What is unfathomable to me is the logic behind the exercise of copyrights in instances when there is no logical connection to lost revenue.
In this case, can it possibly be argued that an instuctional video to a decades old rock tune promotes one fewer sale of that song? Really?
Or how about this example? I'm a huge Aerosmith fan. They appeared on MTV's Unpluggged series back in the 80's and played a wonderful set (some great blues covers in there too). I would gladly buy a CD or DVD of that show or both. But..it's not available...... doesn't exist. So I notice that someone has posted a few vids from the show on YT. They were quickly pulled down for copyright reasons. Basically the publisher decides.... "we don't want to put out a DVD or CD of that show...but you know what..we don't want you to watch it on YT either". Are they legally right to do that? Absolutely. A kick in the balls to fans of that band? Absolutely.
Now I know people will say well they own it, they can do with it what they want. OK good point. But in the apparent absence of any common sense in exercise of those rights, can't we get some modification to the existing copyright laws. How about this one for starters. If you own the rights to a live performance and have not produced media of the performance within 10 or 15 years of it's performance date, it reverts to the public domain. Is that so onerous? Even patent protection for inventions has an expiration date (17 years).
OK i've ranted on long enough. Never meant to hijack the thread which started out as an ode to Paul Butterfield playing Drifting Blues.
Honkin On Bobo: I'm not an anarchist either. "Download disobedience" is just one of many sources for this information and it just seems to be the one that's the easiest to read since everything is on one page.
And you're right - there is no shortage of cases where the current copyright scheme's lack of common sense just plain gets in the way of the "proper" distribution of cultural works.
On a different tangent, is there a need for a thread where alternative sources for Adam's deleted videos can be posted? Sort of like a repository for lost youtube videos?
