Neal Pomea

I should get this. I have Misterioso, with the same people and from the same dates, and it's one of my favorite Monk albums.

Actually, there is a movement afoot in the U.S. to find some kind of intellectual property protection -- patent, copyright, something -- not only for recipes but also for food on the plate that you are served in a restaurant. See http://www.foodandwine.com/articles/new-er...-recipe-burglar My take on this is that food on the plate doesn't endure enough to be the subject of copyright. It is by definition consumable, not enduring. Would it be logical to give a term of ownership of 50 years, or maybe 70 years after the death of the chef/creator, to a dish destined for waste in a short time if everything comes out all right? People in other fields are emboldened to lobby for surprising things when they see the model of U.S. copyright.

If I make it 10 more days, I will have lived longer than Bill Evans.

I would rephrase his premise. The public domain concept is more radical, in a sense. Something belonging to no one and to all? Could that be socialist? To me, copyright is conservative. Those strange, powdered-wigged founding fathers, some of whom owned slaves, wanted works to become public domain in 9 years. They were more radical and socialist than the punk rocker who wrote that piece. He wants his piece of property. Can't blame him. In the United States, it was understood that from the time the work is made public, the work is public domain, but the government gave a grant to the creators to have property-like monopoly rights for a limited time. This grant of monopoly property-like rights is not socialist, it is conservative, modeling itself after real property rights. Over the course of time, the copyright law for music has come to cover the published music and lyrics, and the medium or sound recording. Property-like monopoly rights were assigned. Isn't that conservative? (How is that for me being predictable?) Are you in favor of EU's c term extension proposal?

No thanks. It scared me to watch it, and it sure made the audience sick. I don't think I am at all detached from reality, friend. Not at all. Confident that I am not, thank you. I am trying to understand what Richards thought he was doing. If I were out of touch with reality, I would not realize how much his performance hurt people. But I do realize it. Even with a benign interpretation, he should not have done it. He was genuinely mad at the hecklers, and if he was trying to make social commentary about oppression of "gangstas," he is not the one to do it and not under those circumstances. On the Letterman show he seemed shocked and upset that he could call up such anger and hate as emotions in order to give such a performance that looked so realistic, but that doesn't mean he is racist, in my opinion. And on the issue of referencing lynching, it has been before done in comedic ways. In Blazing Saddles, there is a scene where the town is going to lynch the black sheriff (and they use the N word), but he outwits the rubes and racists by kidnapping himself. It was a funny scene, and I don't recall anyone accusing Mel Brooks of racism. Richards' performance was not funny at all because it was too realistic and it sickened the audience. If he wanted to shock, he shocked all right, but to no good end. And I don't put any stock in what Paul Rodriguez or Sinbad were saying about it. We don't even know if they were paying close attention, or if they suspect Richards because of something they know about him backstage. And on top of that, he doesn't have the stature or the voice to be lecturing blacks about whether they are oppressed. Voices like Bill Cosby can't even be heard.

He wasn't saying they should be lynched and he wasn't calling them the N word, either. He was being satirical, saying in effect "Don't act like you are oppressed. You want to know what oppression is? It's what happened 50 years ago when the all white audience would have cried out 'Look, there's a N. N. N. N.' Let's lynch them for interrupting a white man. That's what oppression was." Or something like that. They should apologize for interrupting his act, not sue him for oppressing them. And he shouldn't try to be satirical again because he just pissed off people (if, that is, anybody gives him a chance to perform again.) I don't understand this talk about referencing lynching. He wasn't advocating that they should be lynched, any more than a history book recounting those days advocates it. He was commenting on it, satirizing it. In my opinion.

The YouTube videos of the rant that I find are only 2:47, and the Letterman appearance with the apology didn't make much sense as far as I could see and only confused it all. What? Is this supposed to be some kind of Rorschach Test or something? See whatever you bring into it? Is there more to the rant than the 2:47 video?

This is one of my all time favorite jazz albums. I rate it that highly.

Now everybody tells me there's other ways to get high. They don't seem to understand I'm too far gone to try. Now these lonely memories, they're all I can't lose, And I'm down to seeds and stems again, too.

Nope. Bauza, apparently eying Tina Turner at his 75th birtday party Here's another

King of the Mardi Gras!

4. reminds me of the SNL skit with Jeopardy, "Sean Connery" picking the category The Rapists when it reads Therapists. Lots of good ones on that top ten list! Thanks!

She should have stayed with that nice Louisiana boy she married and divorced in Las Vegas :bwallace2:

It's not just the Ah ha's. At least on the Tiffany Transcriptions, he makes comments sort of like Popeye muttered under his breath, and sometimes they are hilarious! You can hear Tommy Duncan laugh on some of them while trying to sing.

Happy birthday, and keep up your great posts! Next year? Nationals in 9. You heard it here first.

Thank you thank you! But I can't say I like what my horoscope says about people born today: The typical Scorpio is helpful to a fault, trusting in matters of love, and outgoing. That said, you probably got your powerful thirst for gin from your father.

Borat learns of America music? Please to be laughing please.

When A burns B a copy of a CD, and B buys works by the artist because her interest was aroused, it seems ethical and economical to me for the artist, the publisher, and owner of the master to pay A for the publicity and marketing. For 2, 3, or 4 generations. Facetious? The US copyright law seems facetious.

Wake me up when the discussion turns to the ethics and economics of long copyright terms and the public domain. No, seriously, this has been an interesting thread

Thanks! Is there any reason we can't have a thread called Baseball (Non-Dan, Non-Yankee/Red Sox melodrama)? I don't think that's a cantankerous suggestion at all. Cool it

Economics? Lower volume, higher prices. It's a formula that works all over, not unrealistic. If you don't want 11% Nielsen ratings, shorten the season 10-20 games, raise ticket prices in the regular season because the games become more meaningful, shorten the playoffs, and watch ad prices in September increase to make up the difference once the drama is restored and the competition is less. ISBY

Interleague play works differently each year, depending on which division in the other league you play. One year for the example the teams in the NL East will play the AL East teams, the next year they'll play the AL Central teams, and the next year they'll play the AL West teams. Etc. So the number of games reserved for interleague play will change yearly and affect the number of games played within their own league. National League East has 5 teams Central has 6 teams West has 5 teams American League East has 5 teams Central has 5 teams West has 4 teams

Well, some compromise might be in order, because if my proposal was unrealistic, so is the expectation of MLB that fans' interest will be held until November (fans unlike us, who remained interested). If the wild card is what keeps people interested, then keep it the way it is with 3 division winners and a wild card in each league, but go 7 games for each round (possibly 21 in all), but shorten the regular season by 10-20 games.

This makes the most sense to me. Of course, higher ticket prices would result. But I think it reflects the reality that attention turns to football in September. It just reflects badly on baseball that its World Series could dip into November. As an alternative, go back to 2 divisions per league, a 7 game playoff between the 2 division winners, and a 7 game World Series. That would finish before the end of September. Alternate each season between AL and NL advantage of 4 games at home.

Congratulations St. Louis!