Alternate Reality, Music, My Stories

Alternate Reality – What If Randy Rhoads Didn’t Get On That Plane?

I like “The Family Guy” and I like Brian the family dog. So when Brian got killed off in a recent episode, I was not happy. However when Stewie found a way to go back in time and save Brian, a conversation started at work about which person we would go back in time and save.

I was first to go and my answer was Randy Rhoads. There was no hesitation. What a different musical history we would have if Randy Rhoads lived.

One of the people in the conversation said that if Randy Rhoads lived, then Ozzy’s next album would not have been called “Bark At The Moon” because Jake E Lee would not be on it.

I replied back that the “Bark At The Moon” album would still have been written as Ozzy Osbourne had the song titles already at hand and lyricist Bob Daisley was also on hand to write lyrics again. The big difference would be the music. Instead of hearing the Jake E Lee riff used for “Bark At The Moon” we would be hearing a Randy Rhoads riff instead.

Then another person in the conversation goes that if Jake E Lee wasn’t identified as a hot guitar player, then the Badlands project that I love so dearly would not have existed.

That is true from a certain point of view. It is pretty clear from all the interviews that I had read that Randy Rhoads was growing tired with the touring and the Osbourne camp. However, it was also pretty clear that he was committed to delivering one more album for Ozzy.

So if Randy Rhoads walks away from Ozzy after the “Bark At The Moon” album, who would step in for the next album. Jake E Lee would have seen the band Ratt take off without him and Rough Cutt was nowhere near the level of a platinum selling act.

Maybe Jake E Lee was always meant to break out in 1989 via the Badlands project. Maybe that is how his life was meant to play out. However, Randy Rhoads stepping on that small plane in March 1982 changed everything. Then again if Badlands didn’t exist, would Ray Gillen still be alive today.

So let’s say that Randy leaves Ozzy after the “Bark At The Moon” album to study classical. That means by the end of 1985, Ozzy is in need of a guitarist.

So which guitarist was out of job by then. Vivian Campbell comes to mind as he had a nasty split with Ronnie James Dio.

Keeping with the alternate reality theme, Jake E Lee at this point was not available to join Ozzy’s band as he was hired to replace Vivian Campbell in “Dio’s” band on the recommendation of keyboardist, Claude Schnell. The song “Dream Evil” would have the music that we know as “Bark At The Moon”. Or would it have something entirely different. Jake has said in interviews that for the “Bark At The Moon” album he was throwing riffs and ideas out there and he was getting a lot of rejections and some approvals.

Would it be wise to say that the “Bark At The Moon” music would not have been written in the way that it was without the input from Bob Daisley and Ozzy Osbourne?

Where does this leave Zakk Wylde or Phil Soussan?

What about Quiet Riot (the band)? When Randy Rhoads died in the plane crash, it more or less sealed Rudy Sarzo’s fate and he preceded to quit the Ozzy Osbourne band. Kevin DuBrow then contacted Sarzo and asked him to play on a track called “Thunderbird”, which was a tribute to Rhoads which then led to a full albums worth of material and a name change back to Quiet Riot from DuBrow. So if Quiet Riot never made “Metal Health”, then heavy metal in 1983 would have been in a different state, instead of the multi-platinum army it started to become.

It’s pretty scary when you think of “The Butterfly Effect” principle in relation to this. When I started to play guitar, the live tribute album was my bible. I learned every lick and every riff. If Randy Rhoads lived, then that album would have been released and I would be a totally different guitar player.

Standard
Alternate Reality, Copyright, Derivative Works, Music, Piracy, Stupidity, Treating Fans Like Shit

Imagine A World With Copyright Terms Reduced To 40 Years..

Should songs still be under Copyright forty years after they have been released?

In Australia (as well as a lot of other countries) a copyright for a sound recording or a film lasts for the life of the creator + 70 years.

In my opinion this is ridiculous.

Is this what Copyright has become? A pension fund for the creator and their family members. Also with large Corporations technically owning a lot of the copyrights of creators, it is safe to say that Copyright has become a weapon to stifle creativity.

It is common for people to see that the purpose of Copyright as a means to compensate the creator of the content. Hell, that is what Wikipedia states as well, along with the large labels and movie studios . In fact, Copyright was never designed solely for this purpose.

In Australia it was stated that the purpose of Copyright law was;
…to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further creative works. On the other hand, as copyright in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered.”

In the U.S, the Constitution’s clause on Copyright and patents states:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)

In today’s terms, both countries are saying that the purpose is to reward the creator and to ensure that maximum creativity is happening.

John Lennon didn’t sing imagine a world with reduced copyright terms however he should have.

Let’s just say that the copyright of a song is 40 years from when it was first released. To make the law even simpler, let’s just say that the 40 years starts from when the song is first released. So if the song is remastered 10 years later or released as a live version, it doesn’t matter. The 40 years starts from when the song is released.

That would mean that all songs from 1972 and before would have been in the public domain at the start of 2013.

That would mean albums from Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Eric Clapton, Cream, Rolling Stones, Yes, Pink Floyd and many others would be in the Public Domain.

Would that affect those bands in any way?

Would it affect the people who wrote the songs?

Lets look at Led Zeppelin. If copyright is 40 years from when the song was first released that would mean that Led Zeppelin I to Led Zeppelin IV would be copyright free. That means all of those songs are available to use.

Imagine all the music that would be created by building on the material. Image all the music that would be created by remixing, sampling and re-using the songs. All of those songs would available for people to re-record without any restrictions. It will not diminish the original songs in any way. It would give them a second life and a new audience.

Why should any creator in 2013 be stifled by over-reaching copyright laws when it comes to creating art?

The acts from the Sixties and Seventies, brazenly borrowed and built upon songs that already existed. Keith Richards even said that you can’t copyright the blues. All of those bands infringed heavily on other people’s copyright. However back then the Copyright monopolies didn’t exist, so it was okay.

Surely the 40 year monopoly that artists from the Sixties and Seventies have on the music they created is sufficient compensation for their creations. However copyright is still seen as a major profit line in the business model of artists. Since the Government and the large players have focused almost exclusively on monetizing via copyright, they will argue until they are black and blue any attempt to change copyright as they see change as an attack on their incomes.

Seriously, who do you think will be holding the copyright to the Led Zeppelin songs, 10 years after Jimmy Page and Robert Plant have passed. Trust me, it will not be the family members. It will be the corporations and the record labels. They will hold the monopoly on these songs. You can see it happening now with Disney and how they are stopping Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain by lobbying for longer copyright terms.

So what new songs would these corporations be creating by holding a monopoly on the copyright. The answer is simple. NOTHING.

Remember that Copyright was also designed so people are inspired to create more. So what has Jimmy Page created in the last 15 years. The answer is nothing. There is nothing wrong with that either, because he can rely on his copyright monopoly and issue box sets every 2 to 3 years. Since 1990, Jimmy Page has issued 13 box sets of Led Zeppelin’s seventies output. In 23 years, Jimmy Page has released the same music, over and over again 13 times.

Remember, copyright is to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further creative works. So what happened to the further creative works.

I love Jimmy Page and he is a huge influence on me. However, apart from the excellent Coverdale/Page project and his reunion with Robert Plant, his creative output has been poor since the start of the Nineties. Even in the Eighties, Jimmy Page’s output pales in comparison to Robert Plant’s recorded output and work ethic.

By the way did you see that BitTorrent traffic is down in the U.S? How can that be, especially when the labels and the movie studios are still screaming piracy and copyright infringement.

It’s funny what some innovation can do. That is how you compete today. You innovate, not stagnate. NetFlix and YouTube account for 50% of all net traffic.

However in Europe and other parts of the world, access to the latest films and TV shows is not as instant so unauthorised BitTorrent users continue to grow there.

The labels and their back-handed politicians will argue that their six strike policy is the reason why BitTorrent traffic is down. I would argue back that all that has done is increase the use of Dark Nets.

This is what the article said on that;
“The use of “dark nets” such as Tor and encrypted digital lockers is growing in popularity. These can be harder to track.”

So get ready for the next round of b.s from the labels and their lobby groups. We need Google to do more to stop copyright infringement, we need dark nets to be busted to save our children, we need cloud services stopped because they encourage racketeering and copyright infringement on a grand scale.

They will complain about everything, except innovate. Spotify wasn’t created by the music industry. Pandora wasn’t created by the music industry. iTunes wasn’t created by the music industry. The iPod wasn’t created by the music industry. NetFlix wasn’t created by the movie industry. Napster wasn’t created by the music industry. YouTube wasn’t created by the music business.

But the entertainment industries spin it like it was them that created these legal alternatives. The truth is they where dragged kicking and screaming into these new technologies.

BitTorrent traffic down: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24911187

Standard