Archive and Search
« Girl: Sheer Greed | Main | This Could Be Huge... »

A Week of Girl

GIRL.jpgA lovely soul has contributed to my Girl problem...and now I own several of the albums in a digital format -- the quest for vinyl continues!

To celebrate this massive gift, I hereby declare this "Girl Week." Starting today and through Friday, I'll review the various Girl albums and talk about legendary performances and perhaps even venture into post-Girl spinoffs like Man Raze, Sheer Greed, L.A. Guns, and Def Leppard.

Albums that will be reviewed include Sheer Greed, Wasted Youth, Killing Time, and Live at the Marquee.

Not surprising, there are several good Girl clips on YouTube. Many are taken from the BBC program The Old Grey Whistle Test.

Let's kick off our week with some of these videos. Here's Girl performing "Take Me Dancing."

Now, Girl performing "Strawberries." While I was listening to this clip last night, Eric remarked that is sounded just like L.A. Guns. True, Phil Lewis' voice is incredibly unique and definitely a major part of the charm that is Girl.

Our final video on this Monday, a clip of "Do Ya Love Me."

Tomorrow, I'll review Sheer Greed.


Reader Comments (24)

Does that mean you got MP3s or real CDs?
October 8, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Hey, hope you are enjoying the girl albums. ha ha ha Hey, about that Rock N Roll History thing you have up there, i thought his name was Joey Romanone?
October 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChey
She got the MP3's
October 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChey

Johnny was the guitarist for the Ramones. He died in 2004. Joey was the singer. He died in 2001.

I really can't thank you enough for the Girl albums.

October 8, 2007 | Registered CommenterAllyson B. Crawford
So you got the MP3s and didn't pay for them?
October 8, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Weird that we could get between a glam band and the Ramones, considering I just noted in my review of the new It's Alive Ramones DVD at The Metal Minute that they looked like a post glam band in the very early years and sounded like a wreck. Strange thread.
October 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRay Van Horn, Jr.
Bob who pays for mp3 these days?
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterBillyKiss
That's not the point. I don't care that the MP3s weren't paid for, but there is an inconsistency between her Girl MP3s and her "my stuff is copyrighted, so you better not steal it" message of a few days ago. Surely the owner of the rights to the Girl songs owns their "brand" every bit as much as Allyson owns Bring Back Glam.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Dear Bob,

They are not illegal MP3s. Chey owned the albums and made me copies. I burned my friend copies of Motley Crue to take on his drive to Washington D.C. Those are discs that I paid for and he's not passing out to anyone else. It's not like I went to Limewire or whatever and just randomly download crap. I don't steal music and I resent that assumption. I spend too much money on music to be accused of such nonesense and I won't stand for it.

October 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterAllyson
If you don't own the originals, the MP3s are illegal. The FB warning that you see on CDs now states that. You won't get caught if you're only sharing them with one or two people versus on a file sharing service, but the bottom line is that you didn't pay for the Girl MP3s any more than someone who stole your work paid you.

Personally, I would prefer that things be open and shared, but you made it clear that you don't agree. It's inconsistent of you to want to protect your work, but to take someone else's work without compensating them. I know you've spent more than your share on music, as have I, but you didn't spend a thing on your Girl MP3s. I don't thik you can have your cake and eat it too. If you want people to respect your unenforceable copyright, you have to respect theirs. You didn't do that in this case.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
For many years, copyright law was a hobby of mine. As much as it pains me to agree with Bob, I have to do so in this case.

Legally, it makes absolutely no difference whether you download it from Limewire or a friend gives you the MP3s; at the point where you possess an unauthorized copy of music for which the copyright holder(s) did not receive payment, you are violating copyright law.

The good news is that your friend and co-conspirator will not be committing a felony until she gives out more than 10 copies of her Girl albums, so neither of you are facing criminal charges. Yet.

Yeah, it sucks when something is out of print, but if you buy an original used copy in the legitimate market, the copyright holder can at least track demand and determine whether the music should be re-issued. When out-of-print music is re-issued, the copyright holder makes money.

So you can rationalize and justify all you want, but you are violating both the spirit and the letter of copyright law.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChuck
Bob, are you serious ? Allyson has publically stated that she's chasing used copies of Girl on vinyl on ebay. I have recently found that some of it is on CD, and she and I have discussed that, also ( we will both buy the reissues due next year ). While sharing mp3s is technically always illegal, I think it highly doubtful that any band would care if fans would acquire mp3s of out of print albums, while they search for copies. Hell, buying a second hand CD actually violates the licensing of the CD, and makes the band no money at all. If Allyson were to download the new Poison rather than buy it, then she would be a hypocrite. As it stands, I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChristian Graus
My point isn't that she shouldn't have the MP3s. My point is that she can't pick and choose what copyright laws she wants to follow. If she expects people to respect her copyright, she should afford them the same consideration. You could make the case that the Girl material isn't easily available, but she also admitted to copying Motley Crue CDs for a friend. Those are anything but hard to find. The thing is, there's nothing anyone can do about it and that goes for the blog too. Yet she's indignant about violations of her rights to something that has pretty much no commercial value and she's lax about something that may actually have commercial value. She either needs to delete the MP3s, rescind her copyright notice or live with being inconsistent. Personally, I like the second option.

Just so there's no question where I stand on the issue of copyrights and business in music, my opinion is best expressed by Woody Guthrie, "This song is Copyrighted in US, under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, 'cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do." Yeah, I'm with the good guys.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
So you're 'with the good guys' but you want to be an ass because you don't like something she said a few days ago ? You're a programmer, do you think that the copyright on your code is worth defending ? Allyson is a journalist. You have made some gross assumptions about her motivation for commenting on people encroaching her copyright, in an area where she moves professionally. I give a lot of code away via online sites, but I maintain control, I decide what is free and what is not. I don't see how you can disagree with that.

I agree that copying a Motley CD is obviously a copyright violation. Have you never copied music for a friend, to try and get then turned on to something you like ? The net result of such behaviour is either someone who doesn't like the band, or more sales for the band, another sitation where everyone wins.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChristian Graus
I don't own the copyright on my code at work, but I've given away stuff I wrote before without blinking. I have no interest in the copyright on things I've done on the side. Anyone who wants them is welcome to them. I feel much like Woody Guthrie about everything I do.

Allyson is a blogger. There is no commercial interest in this blog. There's nothing to protect. Even if there was, it isn't practical to pursue. I think the idea of copyrighting your blog is silly and I tried to get some conversation going about it, but no one would bite. I take my blog seriously, but I also recognize that the freedom of it is what's cool. It's not a business. It's more like free-form radio before corporations got involved.

Now, it's another story, because she expects protection for her work that she won't afford to others. She's only getting singled out here, because she's the one who posted about it, but she's not the only one who engages in this self-important silliness. Until very recently, there was no copyright notice on my blog. In light of all this, I added one:

"Nothing I've written here has any kind of copyright that I could enforce even if I wanted to. If you want to steal from me, go ahead. Frankly, I'd be flattered. I'm just happy you're reading my stuff."

Of course I've "shared" and "borrowed" music, but I'm willing to share what I have in exchange. Even though I'm not under the delusion that people are likely to steal it, it's there for the taking.

You might not like me, but I am in fact one of the good guys. There's a big difference between good and nice. I never claimed to be the latter.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
So you're good, but not nice ? How quaint. Your references to Woody Guthrie are also heart warming.

If you're known in your industry, then your rights extend beyond your code, your name is, in effect, a brand. Bring back glam is a brand. It's not Coke, but it's something that exists and has value, because of Allyson's efforts. If you print a 'bring back glam' t-shirt and sell it, or if you contact bands and ask for an interview posing as someone from 'Bring back glam', that is an infringement on the value that she has created. It's not just about people taking what she writes, it's the brand as a whole. I feel you've missed that, hence your embarking on this misguided crusade. I do a lot of contract work, so I get that, if someone posing as me asked a lot of clueless questions online, or got work and made a mess of it, I would suffer for it,

My sole point wrt you coding, is that as a professional in one area, you'd realise that you're unlikely to fully understand the issues in an area where you're not qualified, or even to think of what they are. I'm all for the web being open and free, to a point. We all need to eat. Woody Guthrie is a folk hero, but he didn't look well fed in any photo I ever saw of him, idealism only goes so far. The balance is simple in my book. Anyone who creates value, has the right to decide what others are free to do with it.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChristian Graus

To me, you nailed it with your comment, "I maintain control, I decide what is free and what is not."

Allyson wants to decide what is and is not free on her site. This is as it should be, and the law completely supports her right, as the copyright owner, to make that decision.

The problem arises when Allyson also wants to choose what is and is not free from the Motley Crue and Girl catalogs. That is not her decision to make; those decisions belong solely to the copyright owners. Unless she has explicit, written consent from the owners of the respective copyrights, she does not have the legal right to choose what she does and does not share with fellow fans.

In a well-functioning society, we cannot only obey laws when it is convenient. We must either obey a law at all times (especially when it is inconvenient) or reject it completely and accept the consequences.

This is an interesting comment thread, and I'm enjoying seeing the conflicting interpretations of copyright law.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChuck
Chuck, strictly speaking, I think you're right. The law is obviously going to lean towards a strict interpretation, the courts and copyright holders then have a strong basis onn which to sue, if they feel their rights need defending. The woman who was recently fined for sharing mp3s ( and I have no sympathy for her FWIW ) obviously copped a huge fine because the law assumes for someone to distribute copyrighted material, they have to have bad intent, and go to some effort. This is no longer true, but the law is unlikely to change, because piracy is rampant. The issue is people blindly sharing the catalogues of new and established artists. This is hurting the industry, plainly. Woody Guthrie notwithstanding, bands need to make money and so do the people who support them for a living, in business or in other ways.

But, that's not what Allyson has done. Her intent on one side, is to make a new fan for a popular band. Her intent on the other is, as a fan, to get to hear some music she is trying to purchase second hand, and has so far failed to do. I think your point on bands judging the 2nd hand market to consider rereleases, is a good one, I'd not thought of it. As she has said, she is already trying to buy these albums on vinyl, she blogged about that.

The issue in my eyes is intent, and harm. Allyson is neither intending to hurt these bands, nor is she doing so. Worst case scenario is that this guy loves the one album she copied, but never buys it, or never buys another. I'm not about to argue that Motley being rich excuses this, but it seems unlikely. He's far more likely to either trash the CD, or like it and buy others. Fans have always made new fans this way.

The whole Girl discussion is just ridiculous. She is trying to buy the vinyl, she is intending to buy the CD rereleases that have already been announced. Her blogs may create interest which will sell more of those CDs ( she sure reminded me that I like them based on what I own ( a track in a NWOBHM compilation and a alive CD ), and I am looking forward to buying them as a result.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChristian Graus
Good is a major virtue. Nice is a minor one. It's that simple. The fact that I'm not always nice has nothing to do with whether I'm good.

As far as my code goes, the company owns it for their own use. They don't sell it. It's used for patient care in a hospital and the hospital is non-profit, so the world of commercial software dev is actually pretty alien to me. I actually work pretty cheap just to work in a place where I feel like making money isn't the primary goal. That's my choice and it's fine that everyone doesn't feel that way. The point is, the software angle is a bit lost on me, partially because of where I work and partially because of the way I think. I don't really think in terms of "my" code. I think, "Wow, I'm lucky to do something I enjoy, make okay money and help people in the process. Lucky me."

I said before, you can have it one way or the other. I choose Woody's way, but it's fine that others don't. That's the kind of discussion I had hoped would come out of that other post.

I don't know if you realize this, but it doesn't take much to get promos and interviews and press passes. Go set up a blog, buy a domain name to point to it and in a month you'll have more promos than you could possibly review in a timely fashion. After you write the review, ask the band for an interview. Most will say sure. Then hit up their manager for tickets to the gig and you'll get a few of those too. The point is, there's nothing to protect here. Bloggers don't really have much of an industry reputation, because they are (as I was recently called, much to my amusement) ephemeral. Let's face it, none of us would be writing for anything better than a local zine (at the very, very best) five or ten years ago. Blogging has lowered the bar and allowed a lot of us to say whatever we want, answering only to ourselves. All in all, it's been a really good thing, because the constraints are no longer there. However, this new power to write and be read has a lot of people (and this isn't directed at Allyson in particular by a long shot) thinking they're "journalists." To me that tries to turn blogging against itself. The whole point is that we're NOT professionals. That doesn't mean we don't take the work seriously, but it does mean that there's a lot less of the business end of things for us. Write and be happy that someone's reading it, because it wasn't that many years ago that you wouldn't have had this opportunity.

All that aside though, we now have someone who wants to protect one copyright (whose commercial interest is negligible at best) and ignore another (whose interest might actually involve their livelihood). Yeah, we all have to eat, but I'm not asking anyone to starve. I'm not even asking anyone to do things Woody's way. I'm just pointing out that the two posts are inconsistent.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Why does Allyson get to decide how she can best serve Girl or Motley Crue? So she can violate their copyrights if she thinks it's in their best interest? Luckey her, she gets to decide what in Girl's best interests, Motley Crue's bets interests and her own best interests.

I agree that she isn't actually hurting the bands by "borrowing" and "sharing," but no one is hurting her either. Blogger's reputations aren't much to start with. It's enough to get a lot of free stuff, but it doesn't translate into a real job that puts food on the table.
October 9, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.