'pseudo-talent seeks 2 b included'
'Greetings, Read your v. interesting post about thwe transcription. Needless to say, there are hordes and legions of those brainiacs that want to wrestle with this subject, 24/7 and 365 plus. Wot's 'bout the free adverts that you'd bring to MA? Yes, that's the argument about Napster, too. But really, there's NO WAY that a pseudo-talent, wannabe could get their act included unless they dream up some ludicrous argument. Don't worry yerselves 'bout them. You could even get a copyright on the transcription 'cause the Library of Congress terms are to talk about bootlegging a MIRROR IMAGE of the product. Not some re-interpretation of your sensory inputs. What slips slime-ely beneath the debacle amounts really to THE REPUTATION of the artist; namely YOU. If you kept doing that transcription routine, the g. publicke would merely say, 'Oh, they're some arranger character. NOT the genuine article, the REAL DEAL, the true prophet, THE KREATIVE GENIUS. No, they're a 1-inna-million. So the nasty, vile, sour, pickle-pusses that cogitate that crap-ola up are always wanting to smell a FAKE. For example, the broo-haha about the Andrew Lloyd Weber use of some churchey tune. The church folk then wanted him, a multi-millionaire, to pay them so of the DOH that he'd got from the like-sounding tunes. BUT, they couldn't really PROVE that he'd imitated them. The resolution of the case was an 'Out-Of-Court' settlement. You know, A.L.W. was co-erced to 'make an offering' for the churchies. Well, that's a simplification, but remember, your transcription could be put up to the Juilliard panel for exact accuracy, NOTE FOR NOTE. There're those enharmonics and whattif the MA version had counterpoint errors, you know ascending , descending and enigmatic? You must really like MA, 'cause your producing some free advert for them. Why not go ahead and fake a user name and then post the transcription. Let the morons figure out what to do, they probably aren't even listening to the SOUND. Lots of luck. D. D.'
|