not logged in
| re: Meat's latest concert | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 03:53 am UTC 05/17/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Meat's latest concert - tealcyfre 03:06 am UTC 05/17/07 |
> I am not defending Meat's conduct. I strongly disagreed > with it then, and I strongly disagree with it now. I am > saying it ought be kept in appropriate perspective. I agree. I would very much like to find a perspective to put it into. > > Meat was in a hurry, and likely anxious. The people around > Meat were in a hurry, and likely anxious. The advice, one > presumes, was to press sharp, hard, and nasty, and get the > matter settled quickly. Was this morally dubious or simply > wrong? Very likely, in my judgement. It is not, however, > the end of the world. I agree on both points in your paragraph. Meat's camp does have a lot of influence upon Meat's actions and thoughts. I don't think that a closer ongoing contact between Meat and Jim would have brought about such a state of confusion as was brought about in the long term evolution of this set of issues. Why focus on Bat Out Of Hell as a be all and end all to Meat's project is the most mysterious of all....Meat could have brought Desmond in, taken some Jim tracks and gone wild with it, and publicize like many do the history of the work of Meat and Jim together......without all of the same hubbub. The hubbub may have been the goal, however. In some peoples' minds, controversy is an element of desireable marketing, and in some peoples' minds, it does not matter what gets done to who at its cost. But it was not the end of any worlds. > > It was also, from the perspective of Meat's camp, > effective in that it achieved the desired/necessary end. One could say it made its value in buzz. The trademark issue was a non-issue from the start. Other than the press factor, in getting his name out there, it got its mileage. Maybe Meat should start paying Jim 300+ an hour for what sweat Jim poured out while dealing with it. > > Jim's relationship with Meat is longstanding, and complex. > I am in no position and would not presume to judge what is > appropriate judgement on the part of either man with > respect to the conduct of the other. I see that as a > matter between the two of them, and I would expect to see > it reflected, in time, in public representations and/or > the unfolding of events. I would agree with the fact that that tie is indeed complex and longstanding and I have no real problem with reserving my own level of judgement. But I do have my own opinions, and I bring them in as for the sake of understandings. Jim and Meat were not the only ones affected. > > In matters of this sort it is often the case in my > observation that it is often simpler for the principal > parties to put the matter to rest than for > friends/allies/whatevers. Friends and allies ought to remain friends and allies and not resort to lawsuits or litigations with one another. Friends and allies are by definition those who are without adversarial polarizations between them, even if there are disputes and misunderstandings. Is that what you mean? | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Meat's latest concert - tealcyfre 03:06 am UTC 05/17/07 |
| Next: | re: Meat's latest concert - Smeghead 01:43 am UTC 05/17/07 |
| Thread: | |