Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.music.makers.soloact > #15111

Re: a cautionary tale

Show all headers | View raw

> 
> 
>> I had a decent talk with her today. I was driving to a solo gig, she 
>> home was doing whatever.   She started telling me about some young 
>> relative of hers who is about to ruin her life ( move in with some 
>> loser ). Told me it is tragic, that she wanted to warn the young girl 
>> off, but realized it was a waste of time.
> 
> All one can do is make the attempt.
> 
>> I said I feel her pain, that anguish of knowing something, trying to 
>> get others to take advantage of my hard earned wisdom, yet watching 
>> them ignore me.  She knew EXACTLY what I was talking about, said so. 
>> Then it came out. She told me she simply doesn't believe we are too 
>> loud. Said that she doesn't believe the management when they say there 
>> are volume complaints. She just doesn't believe anyone is complaining.  
>> Because in her opinion ..... we're not too loud.
> 
> But How can she PROVE the validity of what she's saying???
> 
>> So that's it.  Nothing will change her mind.  She, she ...... she 
>> .....SHE ..... wants loud and the audience be damned.
> 
> *She* - should learn how to use an SPL meter!
> 
>> I replied that I see now it was a mistake to say " we're too loud ".  
>> That is opinion.  In this case, it's my opinion.  Saying we're " too 
>> loud " is a judgment thing.  Everyone would have their own idea of what 
>> " right " is.
> 
> But an SPL meter's measurements are OBJECTIVE and can be used to form a 
> BASIS for correlating the psychology of sensation, i.e. Perception, to 
> Reality!
> That was one of the things I did for 11 years in the electroacoustics 
> industry - we used plenty of subjective evaluation judgments...even had 
> a listening room specifically for that, but accurate, objective, 
> scientific measurements nonetheless still formed the basis for 
> generating the hard parametric values for what we did.
> 
>> What would have been better would to have said the customer wants the 
>> music lower.  Move it from personal opinion to simply the job 
>> requirements.
> 
> That would be the best way to put it, because it literally uses the 
> 'Burger King' approach for the customer - to tell them; HAVE IT *YOUR*  
> WAY!!!
> 
>> If she wants to work for someone, then she'll need to meet their 
>> expectations.  Money for service rendered.
> 
> It would be much better to have things like that but most unfortunately 
> - Tragically, our Public so-called *servants* in so-called 'government' 
> certainly for the most part don't abide by that principle...yet they're 
> still *allowed* to keep their jobs...i.e. they get paid for their 
> DISservice!!!
> Not a very good Example for giving the *customers* what they want - 
> what they're paying for!
> 
>> Don't like that ?   Fine.  She can stay home and feel morally superior.
> 
> Maybe a 'vacation' is what she needs to think things over while feeling 
> the results.
> 
>> I'll move on and be out there playing, and being paid for the same.
> 
> 
> JimD
> 
> I hope she wakes up before that happens.
> 
> Ouisie

Huh, what a coincidence, her and I had lunch at a Burger King yesterday :-)

more in a bit, she just called.

JimD

Back to alt.music.makers.soloact | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-10 23:52 -0400
  Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-11 10:14 -0400
    Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-04-14 17:24 -0500
      Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-16 12:55 -0400
        Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-04-16 14:38 -0500
          Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-18 12:05 -0400
            Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-04-20 19:29 -0500
              Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-21 10:01 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-04-21 13:21 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-22 15:02 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-04-22 17:08 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-23 19:04 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-04-24 08:41 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-25 12:08 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-04-27 20:53 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-28 13:23 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-04-28 18:46 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-04-30 16:56 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-05-01 07:44 -0500
                Re: a cautionary tale Jim D <Not@ThisAddress.com> - 2019-05-13 10:49 -0400
                Re: a cautionary tale "Ouisie" <someone@anywheret.net> - 2019-05-13 17:55 -0500

csiph-web