Also, remasters of albums immediately after the album was released... wth is that about? Oh, right, we can get them to buy it AGAIN, right away.
I take it this is a jab at the fact that Distant Tides was remastered and released again recently. So, here is the explination (not like I imagine you'll believe it, since you seem to be convinced I don't give a shit about music):
Distant Tides was a self-financed and self-released endeavor. The distribution rights to the album were signed away to a company called CDInzane. I own the copyright, but they are the ones who have the right to distribute the actual product. Anyway, Zane and I had a falling out for reasons that Im not going to get into here, and he refused to print and distribute any more copies of the album. The initial was totally wiped out, and I had no means to repress the album myself, and even if I did, distribution was on ice (until the contract runs out, which at the time was over a year away). Enter Rock Machine records from Brazil. Brazil was outside of Zane's contractual territory, and they wanted to license the album. All well and good, but I wanted copies of the album to be available in the US and Europe as well. The contractual loophole was to release a different product than the one described in the contract I signed with Zane. To make the product different, it was agreed to remaster it, so that sonically, it could be argued (should it ever need to be), it was different. The artwork was revised as well and a bonus track added, all in an attempt to make it a different enough product to get out of contract. Not to mention my producer, Jeremy Krull, H-A-T-E-D the original master, so for us to be satisfied with the end product, it wasn't a bad idea either. I don't think fans who already own the original version of Distant Tides need the remaster, it was done for people who don't have the album and were unable to get it anymore because the first pressing was totally gone.
2. It might be hard to explain this to someone who seems to see only in green.
My eyesight is pretty good at detecting all the colors in the spectrum, I see you're pretty good at detecting shades of red.
The "heart of live music" etc etc is that which propagates the scene, such as fans showing up early, supporting bands, spreading the word, bands promoting the scene (and again I hate to use the word scene because that is itself a business bullshit factory) generally the amount of activity and interest in a particular kind of music. IE, something like hair metal, which was popular in the 80s, became perceived as 'sold out' and 'false' in the same period of time grunge was making its entrance. People just stopped supporting the genre because they felt it was more about fashion and money than music, and grunge seemed more 'real'. That is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about here. The introduction and proliferation of heavy business within a genre of music (or music in general for that matter, or art in general) is detrimental to the support and therefore propagation of that particular art.
Let me try to spell out my stance more clearly, because apparently you think I think I like the "corperate" side of the music industry, and I don't, for the most part because of the same reasons why I'm defending Dream Theater in this debate. I know what its like to work hard at something I love to do. I've put in a lot of fucking hours in my life so far at it. I love it so much that I don't want to do anything else for the rest of my life besides that. I don't feel anything should stand in my way of trying to reach my potential with that goal. The only one allowed to tell me what to do with my music, my work, and my craft, is myself. Now logically, for me not to be a raging hypocrite of my own morals, I must respect everyone elses' right to their potential in their craft, no matter if its playing guitar, flipping hamburgers, or running a company.
The corperate side of the music business sucks huge donkey dong because they often infringe on the rights of the artist, because companies get greedy. However, I still have no business trying to regulate their business. Is it convenient? No. But if I want to maintain my respect for my own ambition I have no business insinuating that their business should be regulated, because that implies that I think its ok for my art to be regulated as well. I am defending Dream Theater because they have the right to do what they want to bring whatever kind of show they want to their fans.
You know clear well what I'm talking about but now you're picking a fight with me like those other 'tards on the forum did, just to 'win'. There is a problem with music business, this Dream Theater incident represents it, the FYE incident represents it, the Starland Ballroom incident represents it, and I could list off another page of incidents that represent the problem, but YOU'RE willing to bury your head in the sand. Go ahead
I'll agree with you on all of these accounts (aside from the Dream Theater one, of course), but I don't consider it burying my head in the sand. On the contrary, I do what I can to ensure I maintain as much creative freedom and control as possible with my craft. I'd like to hear what your alternative to "burying your head in the sand" is, and for it to hold any sway with me, it'd be nice if it didn't include any double standards.