« The other lawsuit is semi-dismissed | Main | ICSOM goes public »

August 08, 2009

Comments

I hate to disappoint both of you, but we live in a republic, not a democracy. India is a democracy. The USA is not.

And not so incredibly, Dave Pomeroy sounds like a broken record. Sharp as a marble that Pomeroy. Needless to say my ideas about what is relevant diverge from Dave's. But Dave wants to explain that we live in a democracy. Thanks, Dave.

Dave knows little about me or my history but would like to presume he does know. Dave says the address I gave when joining 257 doesn't exist. This is factually, verifiably false. I can provide directions if anyone wants to drive over there. And who gives a crap anyway? Some of these Nashville guys (Dave, Bruce) seem obsessed with my address.

Dave apparently has nothing better to do than go after me. The more he writes the more he exposes his own mental limitations.

Incredibly, Rick Blanc continues to spout his pseudo political theories about the AFM and RMA involving Marxism and other irrelevant concepts while hurling wordy personal insults at anyone who questions his opinions. He consistently avoids all the basic realities of this particular dynamic, maybe because he is not actually involved on any meaningful level. The AFM is a democracy, as is our country. As the saying goes, those who don't bother to register to vote in US elections shouldn't complain about the results. Rick is not an AFM member, and was a member only sporadically in various locations over the years. He never gave Nashville a chance, and may have not even lived here at all, as the address he gave when he joined Local 257 for 60 days last year doesn't seem to exist. He has apparently nothing better to do than toss around pretentiously verbose insults to anyone who disagrees with him, while not offering any constructive solutions to solve the problems we are obviously having. Believe it or not, some of us are working within the structure to improve things for all AFM musicians. That is my goal, and I am backing up my words up with my actions. Are you, Rick?

Dave Pomeroy - President, Nashville Musicians Association, AFM Local 257

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" Thomas Jefferson

RL: "Never said you hadn't done "a lot" of recording, whatever that is; just said that your activity in the field was relevant."

You brought it up -- you and bruce -- not me. As to whether I'm "entitled" or relevant in speaking about union matters you can form your own opinions about that; I don't care.

Based on your comments you manifestly don't understand Marxism. Marxism is, among other things, a way of understanding political, economic and cultural phenomena. It is not necessarily prescriptive. And it's about process. But if you want to believe you understand it you can file that in with your other beliefs.

RL: "Do you think it increases the credibility of your argument to call me intellectually dishonest and defensive?"

I don't know if it does or not, and establishing credibility is not my primary objective. People believe in things that are incredible while disbelieving things that are credible all the time. "Stone walls do not a prison make nor iron bars a cage; minds innocent and quiet take that for an hermitage." (Richard Lovelace)

But to your intellectual dishonesty, let's be honest. It doesn't matter what the criticism of the RMA is, you are going to step in and deflect. You often do not deal with (reasoned) arguments, you spin, you circumlocute, you turn the topic around, you do verbal gymnastics. This is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

Why do you do that? You are the RMA waterboy, their crony, their partisan, their "useful idiot." Maybe you share their self-serving radical beliefs -- even though you are apparently not a recording musician yourself. Maybe you're motivated by a common radicalism. Great.

I know you can't be persuaded, but you and the RMA can be defeated.

For your edification Robert, I've done a LOT of recording. And I paid union dues for how many years? How many times do I have to repeat myself? As often as you and bruce insist on digging it back up I suppose. Maybe you can find a new way to discredit me? The old way is getting boring.

Never said you hadn't done "a lot" of recording, whatever that is; just said that your activity in the field was relevant. So is your membership status; whether or not someone chooses to be a member of an organization should be a consideration in evaluating the criticisms of that person of the organization and those within it.

...By the way Robert you really don't seem to understand Marxism.

One of us certainly doesn't.

I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Robert disagrees with me and continues to run interference for the RMA. ..But that's the way you are. It's a mix of intellectual dishonesty and defensiveness which is fine, and predictable.

Once again; why all the name-calling and pejoratives? Do you think it increases the credibility of your argument to call me intellectually dishonest and defensive? I would have thought that those who read what I write, and what you write, could make up their own minds about who's being honest and "defensive."

I continue to be surprised that someone as evidently bright as you are doesn't see that name-calling is not the same as reasoned argument.

For your edification Robert, I've done a LOT of recording. And I paid union dues for how many years? How many times do I have to repeat myself? As often as you and bruce insist on digging it back up I suppose. Maybe you can find a new way to discredit me? The old way is getting boring.

I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Robert disagrees with me and continues to run interference for the RMA. By the way Robert you really don't seem to understand Marxism. And the lawsuits didn't pass judicial muster. "Too bad" I guess. And as for my qualifications to speak: I know I'll be attacked because my opinions are unpopular -- at least on this blog. That's the only reason. If I were one of your cheerleaders nobody would question my qualifications. But that's the way you are. It's a mix of intellectual dishonesty and defensiveness which is fine, and predictable.

Levine Say's " Orchestra contracts started getting better only after symphony musicians took the negotiating process away from elected local officials who didn’t know anything about orchestras. Now the AFM seems to be moving from rank-and-file control of media negotiations to elected officers negotiating contracts covering workplaces they don’t understand. It didn’t work 50 years ago for orchestras, and it’s not working now for videogames."

Truer words have never been spoken. After spending four months crafting a video agreement that everyone seemed to agree with, the RMA was informed that the agreement had" disappeared into the abyss." This was said by an IEB member in front of a joint meeting with the RMA and the IEB.
Instead the IEB adapted their own agreement written by God knows who, which basically gave away the store.
ICSOM and Ropa members are lucky. They get some control of their business.

And once again Bruce has attempted to discredit me. I might point out that he is using the same irrelevant quasi-facts that he has repeated ad nauseum already, presumably because he has run out of fresh material. All very well and good Bruce but your little factoids have nothing to do with the substance, the topic.

Seems to me that your membership status, and whether or not you’ve been an active recording musician, are definitely relevant in terms of evaluating what you have to say about the AFM’s approach to recording musicians. How could they not be?

"The companies and employers who commercially exploit music for profit are part of a finite world." This is nothing more than warmed over Marxist zero-sum game thinking and is patently false. The marketplace is neither zero-sum nor is it static.

Nor did he say so. And I doubt that Marx would agree with your extremely flexible definition of Marxism, which seems to be anything you don’t agree with.

Marc was not talking about state ownership of the means of production. He’s not talking about state ownership, or even control, of his employers. He’s talking about what kinds of legally binding contracts the AFM should pursue with employers, and the internal process for making those decisions. That sounds very free-market oriented to me, unless of course you believe that collective bargaining has no place in a free market.

In other words, anyone anywhere can beat RMA pricing and demands.

Which is why there is no union film scoring work in the US anymore.

"As the Federation approach of weakening our contracts works its way through, all of you will suffer economically along with recording musicians." Even if one accepts the premise -- which I don't -- where is the evidence of this? It is a baseless pathetic assertion.

Why the pejoratives, Rick? It doesn’t make your argument any stronger. But I certainly see his point. Orchestra contracts started getting better only after symphony musicians took the negotiating process away from elected local officials who didn’t know anything about orchestras. Now the AFM seems to be moving from rank-and-file control of media negotiations to elected officers negotiating contracts covering workplaces they don’t understand. It didn’t work 50 years ago for orchestras, and it’s not working now for videogames.

First, he alleges the AFM is following an anti-player strategy. Obviously many, if not most musicians would take exception to that statement and reject the premise.

“Obviously”? You have poll numbers on the subject?

Then he throws out a red herring, a scare -- that the AFM will come after their money once the RMA funds dry up. This is demagoguery.

No; it’s history. The AFM has always funded itself by taxing a small minority of members without voting power. Before recording musicians, it was traveling musicians. If 1501 screws up the recording contracts and achieves the same “growth” that has taken place under 1501-promulgated videogame agreements, where do you think the next revenue source is going to be? It’s not going to be per capita dues. That doesn’t leave much else.

It's too bad none of the ROPA musicians asked Marc Sazar how much ROPA member's hard-earned work dues had gone down the drain fighting off the "non-RMA" lawsuits.

What’s “too bad” is that recording musicians were treated in such a way by the AFM that they felt the need to pay voluntary contributions to FarePlay in order to file lawsuits against their union to enforce the bylaws.

And once again Bruce has attempted to discredit me. I might point out that he is using the same irrelevant quasi-facts that he has repeated ad nauseum already, presumably because he has run out of fresh material. All very well and good Bruce but your little factoids have nothing to do with the substance, the topic.

But people like Bruce choose to try and discredit the person rather than the ideas. It reflects on the intellectual poverty of people like Bruce.

Once again , Ric Blanc, who set up an address in Nashville ,joined our local then quit the Federation right after Dave Pomeroy was elected has attempted to highjack and discredit yet another post.

I truly think that he has repeated himself so many times that most don't take him seriously. Newcomers to the blog should know that he's not an AFM member and does not seem to be an active member of the recording community.

Marc Sazer, on the other hand is a very well respected, active recording violinist from Los Angeles who is an AFM member . In spite of the fact that he is frustrated with the blatant politics that threaten to destroy this Federation, he continues to try and find a solution bring the Federation back together.
His speech to ROPA puts the current situation in black and white. I repeat Black and White there is no gray here.
I've been knee deep in this mess for six years and I can say with no uncertainty that Marc tells it like it is.
The guys that do the majority of the work and pay the majority of the work dues are shut out of the process.
The RMA has bent over backwards to try and resolve this senseless war between the recording musicians and the IEB.
The other player conferences need to know the truth.
Bravo to Marc Sazer for having the courage to point out the elephant in the room.


One of the arguments Marc Sazar offers to his audience about why they should care about RMA gripes is, "The companies and employers who commercially exploit music for profit are part of a finite world." This is nothing more than warmed over Marxist zero-sum game thinking and is patently false. The marketplace is neither zero-sum nor is it static.

He continues, "...and their attorneys and executives are interwoven with each other." Does that mean they communicate -- from Bratislava to London to Sydney to Seattle to San Francisco to Prague? Let's assume they are all in contact; what do you suppose they are ALL saying about the RMA? That the RMA offers the benchmark against which all international production can be competitive. In other words, anyone anywhere can beat RMA pricing and demands.

Sazar continues, "As the Federation approach of weakening our contracts works its way through, all of you will suffer economically along with recording musicians." Even if one accepts the premise -- which I don't -- where is the evidence of this? It is a baseless pathetic assertion.

Sazar: "After all, as work dues from recording contracts shrink as a result of the anti-player strategy the AFM is embarked upon, where do you think future AFM Conventions will look for financial support? As relationships with recording musicians are further damaged, where will the AFM look for the next "financial package"?

First, he alleges the AFM is following an anti-player strategy. Obviously many, if not most musicians would take exception to that statement and reject the premise. That mud won't stick.

Then he throws out a red herring, a scare -- that the AFM will come after their money once the RMA funds dry up. This is demagoguery. The reason the recording business is making money for the AFM is because the recording is taking place UNDER AFM CONTRACTS. The AFM is endeavoring to bring more work, especially videogame work, under AFM contract. And unlike the RMA, the AFM is endeavoring to achieve those goals while dealing realistically with today's marketplace, not on the basis of RMA cronyism.

In today's marketplace effective AFM strategy cannot myopically limit itself to management vs. labor. International competition cannot be ignored. Sazar seems to completely fail to grasp the fact that we are in an interconnected world wherein orchestras are ready to work from anywhere -- live or using Source Connect technology. Globally recording is expanding rapidly; geographical limitations are increasingly meaningless. Meanwhile the RMA is stuck in a kind of elitist provincialism, as it fights with the American Federation.

It's too bad none of the ROPA musicians asked Marc Sazar how much ROPA member's hard-earned work dues had gone down the drain fighting off the "non-RMA" lawsuits.

It's too bad none of the ROPA musicians asked Sazar to explain the goals and intentions of Fareplay, the RMA's legal warchest.

The RMA would have you believe it speaks for all recording musicians. It doesn't. And the longer it remains intransigent the fewer musicians it will represent. If the RMA doesn't like the "politics," that doesn't mean the process is breaking down, it just means the RMA is not getting its way. The good news is that the RMA doesn't run the AFM.

The comments to this entry are closed.