“…Negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community.”—
“Use what ever is around you, and use your lack of funds to your advantage. Start with an idea, write a movie that’s simple to shoot, and shoot it. Then you’ll have a movie people can see, and if you’ve done your job you won’t need to break into the biz, the biz will come looking for you.”—
Despite having limited input in the creation of “Blurred Lines,” Thicke was given a co-writer credit, which he says entitles him to about 18-22 percent of publishing royalties. Why would Williams be so generous?
"This is what happens every day in our industry," said Williams during his own deposition. "You know, people are made to look like they have much more authorship in the situation than they actually do. So that’s where the embellishment comes in."
I’m not sure when it started, but there’s this ongoing soft fraud about song authorship in the music business. Maybe it started when The Matrix gave Avril Lavigne co-writer credit on “Complicated” (which even Avril admitted was for changing a single line). Maybe it was Taylor Swift, who has a curiously small number of unshared writing credits— even for someone who came out of the Nashville system. Regardless, professional songwriters now routinely share writing credit (perhaps in exchange for a bigger chunk of cash up front?)
The result is a murkier idea of authorship in music, and a default assumption that some/most pop performers are also composers. It makes sense from a marketing standpoint— I’d argue Ashlee Simpson’s fleeting success was owed to the concomitant reality series that positioned her, fictionally, as a solo songwriter. They sold her as much as her songs, and her songs were supposedly a reflection of her. Music-as-product is a vector for selling identity as much as anything else, so it follows that the self-expression of writing music would and should be wrapped up in the performer’s marketed identity.
It’s an illusion that we’re all sorta okay with now, I guess? It’s the kayfabe era of singer/songwriters.
“First of all, don’t worry about the money. Love the process. You don’t know when it’s gonna happen. Louis C.K. started hitting in his 40s; he’d been doing it for 20 years. And don’t settle. I don’t want to ever hear, “It’s good enough.” Then it’s not good enough. Don’t ever underestimate your audience. They can tell when it isn’t true. Also: Ignore your competition. A Mafia guy in Vegas gave me this advice: “Run your own race, put on your blinders.” Don’t worry about how others are doing. Something better will come.”—Joan Rivers (via austinkleon)
Scott Brown’s campaign called me a “liar” because Mayday.US used the word “Washington lobbyist” in a way I thought ordinary people ordinarily understand it — to describe a person who sold his influence to a business in the business of changing legislative policy in Washington.
Let's say there's a tree (we'll call it "Tree A"). We cut a branch off that tree and plant it in the ground, that branch takes root and begins to grow. At what point does that planted branch stop being "a piece from Tree A" and become Tree B? Does it EVER become "Tree B"? That newly planted branch would be genetically identical to the tree it was cut from although its' growth would be different as it was exposed to slightly different amounts of wind, rain, sunlight, nutrients, etc.
Tree B would simply be a clone of Tree A…genetically identical but a different organism pretty much the moment you disconnected it from Tree A. Just because two things are genetically identical does not make them the same organism (see Jack and Finn Harries.)
Also, a genetically identical tree wouldn’t look the same as another tree as the shape of the tree is determined by environmental, not genetic, factors (as you say.)
“…If you want to make a human being into a monster, deny them, at the cultural level, any reflection of themselves. And growing up, I felt like a monster in some ways. I didn’t see myself reflected at all. I was like, “Yo, is something wrong with me? That the whole society seems to think that people like me don’t exist?” And part of what inspired me, was this deep desire that before I died, I would make a couple of mirrors. That I would make some mirrors so that kids like me might see themselves reflected back and might not feel so monstrous for it.”—Junot Diaz
Shortly after I released the first episode of this podcast, Matt Jatkola hit me up right away telling me that he thought it was a great idea and was wondering if he could be on the show. It was pretty cool to get feedback from someone I didn’t know so quickly, so while it took a while to schedule, we finally got it done. We’re talking about The Rentals’ “Seven More Minutes”, a great album by a great band.