Revision as of 18:08, 24 August 2002 editCamembert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,991 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:17, 24 August 2002 edit undoKoyaanis Qatsi (talk | contribs)13,445 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:I should probably add: I wrote this before I'd noticed the response to Vicki's concerns about the pictures. I'm not a legal expert, and am more than happy to defer to somebody who is and is sure we're in the clear. It's just that I worry... ] | :I should probably add: I wrote this before I'd noticed the response to Vicki's concerns about the pictures. I'm not a legal expert, and am more than happy to defer to somebody who is and is sure we're in the clear. It's just that I worry... ] | ||
::I worry too, but Lee usually has his ducks in a row. Still, I don't know if I'd be so bold. :-) ] |
Revision as of 18:17, 24 August 2002
I believe, if I am not mistaken, that "Magical Mystery Tour" was release between "Sgt. Pepper" and the White Album. While it is true that one side of "Magical Mystery Tour" was just a collection of singles, the other side was new material. If some further clarification of what constitutes a "followup album" is needed, perhaps it would make sense to change the text back to refering "Sgt. Pepper".
Also, I don't have time to research this at this moment, but I think there should be some discussion about how this album showed the growing individualism of the members of the group, and the dissension of the group members that presaged the breakup of the album (I think that some tracks were recorded with only a couple of the members present, for example, but the details are fuzzy on this and I would need to research it). Also, why did Eric Clapton play the guitar on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"? My memory tells me (and maybe this is wrong) that George, having played the sitar more than the guitar, was rusty on his guitar playing. But perhaps I am wrong on this.
I think this article gives a lot of praise to the album, but I always felt this album was a little more mixed in its quality than the earlier ones were.
- You are wrong about the Eric Clapton bit. George had Clapton play guitar because the tension was high in the group and the other three were not taking his song seriously; he invited Clapton to solo because they'd have to be professional with an outsider around (Clapton did the same thing for "Badge" when Cream was falling apart). --KQ
- Yeah, I'm probably not the one to add better balance here--if you ask me what the greatest artistic achievements of humankind are, I'd probably say Michaelangelo's Sistene Chapel ceiling, the white album, and GCC. --LDC
Do we have the legal right to include the set of four photos? An entire artwork probably doesn't fall under "fair use"? Vicki Rosenzweig
- This one's a tricky case, but I think these small images can be seen as references to the originals, not as reproductions (like a small photo of a painting in a museum), and "educational use" gets you a lot of leeway. Also, one could argue that the album is the entire work, and we're just noting that these photographs came with it. I was emboldened by the uploads of our resident lawyer, Isis, and I think she's pretty up to date on this stuff.
From the main article:
- Along with such standard rockers as the opening "Back in the USSR", it
contains classic ballads like "I Will" and "Julia" (the latter written by John--one of his few),
"one of John's few" what? ballads? songs on the album? --KQ 10:45 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)
Sorry--I meant one of the few ballads written by John; normally Paul writes the ballads. --LDC
As well as the photos, are we absolutely certain about the legal status of those sound clips? I know they ought to fall under fair use, but sadly, ought to doesn't always mean does. There have been a number of cases brought recently where people have been sued for using uncleared samples shorter than these - I know that the fact these samples were on profit making record labels, and that the plaintiffs could therefore expect a hefty dollop of cash if they won may have made them more willing to bring an action, but the RIAA and similar organisations have been bringing (or threatening) the strangest cases lately, and I wouldn't put anything past them. Certainly there have been cases brought against people who were never going to make any money at all from their allegedly illegal activities.
I'm sorry to even bring this up, but it seems to me that the wikipedia is eager to appear whiter than white on copyright issues (I'm thinking of the message on recent changes), and these samples seem to represent a risk that isn't worth taking. --Camembert
- I should probably add: I wrote this before I'd noticed the response to Vicki's concerns about the pictures. I'm not a legal expert, and am more than happy to defer to somebody who is and is sure we're in the clear. It's just that I worry... Camembert
- I worry too, but Lee usually has his ducks in a row. Still, I don't know if I'd be so bold. :-) --KQ