I don’t care: Whenever I get up on Saturday, it’s morning to me.
1. Those fake recordings...I have almost gotten used to the fake versions of famous songs an by iconic artists that show up as background in TV shows and movies, but I still resent them. They are lies, in essence, designed to fool less discriminating and knowledgeable audience members. Many people aren’t even aware of the practice, which is virtually routine, of long-standing, and considered standard practice. A friend of mine , a musician/ actor with a gift for mimicry, once explained the whole industry supported by these frauds, which exist because it is cheaper to record a faux version of a famous recording than to pay to use the real thing in a movie.
For some reason, however, the last 24 hours forced me to hear some unusually obnoxious examples. I just heard fake Roy Orbison, for instance. Nobody sounds like Roy Orbison. I heard fake versions of The Platters’ immortal and inimitable Tony Williams twice, and that really ticks me off. Williams, whose rendition of “Only You” may be my favorite male vocal ever, had a freak voice, and younger listeners who hear inferior versions of his “Twilight Time,” “The Great Pretender,” and “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes” are tragically misled. It is an insult to Williams’ memory and legacy to represent through deceptive imitations that he wasn’t as great as he really was.
Anytime you hear a song playing behind a scene, listen closely. I just heard Fake Any Williams, a really bad imitation. Interestingly, I have noticed that there are some departed artists that nobody dares to imitate. Bing Crosby, for example, is always the real Bing (although I have heard several fake Frank Sinatras). They don’t try to fool anyone with fake Judy Garlands, either; I haven’t heard a fake Freddie Mercury, and hope I never do. But it’s unethical to fake anyone without being transparent about it..
Especially Tony Williams.
2. Still looking for some partners…in the Ethics Alarms Impeachment Project. I have now heard from three volunteers, and I’m grateful…a few more would be ideal. Of course, when and if the website gets published, I expect it will be easier to interest active participants.
The idea is to provide an easily accessible way for “low-information voters” and others to follow this dangerous and depressing drama while having access to the essential materials, facts, context and legitimate analysis without being confused by spin, selective reporting, misinformation and partisan agendas. Here’s an example of information that is relevant to the Democratic impeachment efforts that has hardly been reported at all, because the news media overwhelmingly wants to see the President of The United States impeached, and has made that objective clear to most objective observers for more than three years.
Six months ago, the NY Daily News revealed that Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)received at least $65,000 in campaign donations “from the music industry and other intellectual property businesses that he oversees as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.” That was the end of the story; even the Daily News never followed up. Nadler also spent about $30K to host a Grammy Awards gala in LA in February during the Grammy Awards, giving him access to music executives for more campaign donations. Those execs, meanwhile, had their companies pony up $5,000 a ticket to attend the party. This is influence peddling, of course. It’s legal, because Congress won’t criminalize sleazy politics. TechDirt called it soft corruption:
“These are the kinds of practices that are most likely legal, and possibly even common among the political class, but which absolutely stink of corruption to the average American. And that’s a huge problem, not just because of the general ethical questions raised by such soft corruption, but because it creates a cynical American public that does not trust politicians to adequately represent their interests.”
Nadler’s conduct is relevant to the impeachment efforts because it reveals the hypocrisy behind Democratic efforts to impeach President Trump for political practices that are neither illegal nor unusual while making pious pronouncements that belie their own behavior. The purely political assault on the 2016 Presidential election results is obscured by the media’s efforts to hide the true character and motives of the President’s foes, including the journalists and editors themselves.
3. Here’s another example...My New York Times this morning is dominated by yellow-highlighted text messages between the Ukraine’s ambassador with U.S. Ambassador Volker, and a two-column width headline, “Another Official Considers Filing a Report On Ukraine.” When have you ever seen front page news about an anonymous figure “considering” something? That’s not fact, that’s not news, it is entirely prejudicial spin intended to create distrust and suspicion.
Meanwhile, the Times could have made legitimately made the front page stories about last week’s Congressional testimony from Ambassador Kurt Volker, who served for two years as the top U.S. diplomatic envoy to Ukraine, which directly contradicts the pro-impeachment narrative . He testified, under oath, that he was never aware of and never took part in any effort to push the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter, and stressed that the interactions between Giuliani and Ukrainian officials were facilitated not to find “dirt” on Biden, but to address concerns that the incoming Ukrainian government would not be able to get a handle on corruption within the country. The Federalist obtained the full transcript of the testimony, which certainly could have been revealed by the Times as well, if it wanted to.
More later-––I have a terrible headache that has lingered for two days, and I can’t tell if it’s this crap or a brain tumor. Coffee, Tylenol, and the Twins beating the Yankees should help.
11 thoughts on “Late Start Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 10/5/19: Dissing Tony Williams, and An Impeachment Headache”
1. A myriad of problems could be solved by reducing the copyright period to match the patent period of 20 years.
I always took for granted that cover songs in movies were just that, covers. Are we really MEANT to think that we’re listening to the original artist? I can understand this being a problem if the actual performer isn’t listed in the end credits, but if they are, is it really so bad?
They usually aren’t. I do think it’s bad…there is an implied representation that it’s the original recording and the original artist. The top directors, like Scorcese, play it straight. They pay the money to use the real recording.
3. “Find dirt.” What a funny phrase. Shouldn’t they be complaining about requests to “Create dirt,” or “make up dirt?” I also get a kick out of Joe Biden saying “No one has found any evidence of a conflict of interest.” He has yet to say, “I haven’t done anything sleazy.” he’s just said “No one’s found any evidence, yet.” Sounds like a defense lawyer being careful. And no evidence of a conflict of interest? Hasn’t Joe ever heard about the appearance of impropriety? Okay, rhetorical question. answer: Obviously not.
I’d love to see the directions given to that Steele guy. “Go find dirt?” “Make some shit up?” “Can you get some guys with Russian sounding names to make some shit up about Trump?” What exactly was the task he was charged to do? Or what was he selling? “I have some really juicy stuff from a bunch of former intel guys I know in Russia that sounds kind of plausible and people might believe?”
Manhattan Contrarian does a great analysis of Joe’s and everyone else’s “there’s no evidence of corruption!” talking point. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-10-5-the-bidens-stone-cold-crooked
1) The recent Bohemian Rhapsody movie used a Freddie Mercury sound-alike for some of the singing – https://www.bustle.com/p/does-rami-malek-really-sing-in-bohemian-rhapsody-heres-how-freddie-mercurys-legendary-voice-was-recreated-12800650
Marc Martel is an amazing imitator of Mercury.
Part of me would love to help with content for a site like that. It sounds like an important and necessary project. But I’m just not sure I want that much Donald Trump in my life. I’m not sure how you do it.
#2 I would love to do it, I haven’t responded because I just don’t know what kind of time and with what consistency I could contribute. And I don’t want to be an unreliable assistant.
Same here… and not sure I have the skill set, either
#1. So this morning on the local news I find Little Richard (or an impersonator) doing backup for a Ford commercial. Is nothing sacred? Up until this post, I used to enjoy the snippets of songs from my past. Next, someone will tell me there is no Santa Claus.