There are albums where the most exciting question is not how they sound, but whether you can trust what you hear. "Think" Dubby, Vol. 3" (Positive Reality Records) is one such example – and that makes things complicated, but also interesting.
Haris Pilton presents his third tribute to King Tubby. The titles leave no doubt as to where we are: “Hometown Hi-Fi” Dub“Legend of Dromilly,” “Return to Kingston 11,” “Osbourne’s Magic”—Osbourne Ruddock, real name, from Dromilly Avenue in Waterhouse. Pilton’s liner notes portray Tubby once again as the man who declared the mixing console an instrument and discovered that silence can hit harder than sound. He explicitly states that he doesn’t want to recreate the past, but rather engage in a dialogue with it.
In fact, the thirteen tracks perhaps pay less homage to Tubby himself than to the reggae sound of the 1970s as a whole. Some classic Studio One riddims are quoted, others are new, but built entirely in the spirit of this sound, so that while listening, one sometimes wonders what one is actually hearing. Are they all instrumentals or DubNo vocals, no excursions. The instruments sound strummed, the studio sound authentic, everything beautifully retro and analog.
And this is precisely where the irony begins. Because it could be that the exact opposite is true. Haris is known to be accused of having his music played by AI. He never officially denied it. On the other hand, his statements sound... DubIt's anything but generic – and anyone who's ever tried to get something out of a machine that smells so strongly of Kingston knows that it can't be achieved with a quick fix. So, the matter can't be proven or disproven. We can guess all we want, but we'll never know.
What seems more important to me is the question of how and to what extent AI is used. Anyone who generates an entire album at a prompt deserves to be damned. That's nothing more than AI slop, which I don't want to hear. However, anyone who uses AI as a tool—to have instrumental tracks played or to develop melodies—and then shapes the resulting material into good pieces of music through a human, creative process, can still be considered an artist in my eyes. I enjoy listening to their music and consider it a fully-fledged work of art. DubVolumes 1-3 are (for me) included.
In particular, “Think Dub“by, Vol. 3” is really enjoyable. It's more focused than much of Pilton's sprawling catalog, it stays true to its subject matter, and it sounds like someone who doesn't just quote the Foundation, but understands it. A good one. Dub-Album. That's all it needs to be.
27 Responses to “Haris Pilton: Think Dubby, Vol. 3 (Tribute to King Tubby)"
Oh gosh
I liked the other two albums better. But that's okay too... And if it's not cool, I don't care, it rocks.
"Anyone who generates an entire album via prompt deserves to be damned. That's nothing more than AI slop, which I don't want to hear."
Why? That would be exactly the trap you shouldn't fall into: You either like it – or you don't. That wouldn't change just because the AI had generated the entire album on its own.
Incidentally, this does occasionally sound a bit like Suno; in the newer models, several teething problems have been eliminated, and furthermore, as far as I know, the individual tracks can also be edited directly there.
It is indeed the case that an AI can replicate the _sound_ from back then – even via prompt – provided it ever ended up in the model, and it certainly did.
There are indeed a few vocal phrases here and there (e.g. in the last track at about 2:26).
Otherwise: It's alright, nothing to write home about. But okay: it's from the 70s. Dub I only find it of limited interest anyway.
Finally, some normal feedback!
just like your comment *oh gosh* above
I've already left my comment about the album on Radar.
Now, in the review and the comments, I find myself agreeing with three or four points. Firstly, I also think "the instruments sound strummed." Which is probably intentional and, moreover, quite successful. Secondly, I also found the two previous albums slightly better. Only slightly, because Vol. 3 is also good. And "the 70s Dub I also find it only of limited interest.” Nevertheless, there were many exceptions that proved, and still prove, the rule. Actually, that's still true today. Not everything that somehow resembles Dub It sounds enchanting, but even the most banal things fascinate me. DubThere's still a little bit of magic in it for me.
I don't know if it's due to my upbringing, but I've simply been used from the beginning to the idea that my favorite music, and music in general, was "generated" by people. A bass is plucked by a bassist with strong fingers, and the drums are played by talented drummers. And behind all the other instruments were well-trained musicians, too. Music was made by people for people. Drum machines and keyboard basslines, superficially speaking, were something like technological progress. For me, it was a bit like chocolate without cocoa. Then they started having all the instruments generated by computers. Techno and techno-Dub It came up. Even then, I don't have to run away, and occasionally I even quite enjoy listening to it. How better to describe it than with the current political situation?! If, on top of everything else, music is now completely generated by AI, without any human or musician contributing, then for me it's a bit like the AfD playing the music. I'm writing this to make it clear where I place AI-generated music. For me, it's simply immoral and ethically below the belt. No matter how good it sounds or might even feel. Personally, I don't want to listen to or even support music that a computer has stolen from humans and ultimately just reassembles according to a predetermined formula. As you can read above, other people couldn't care less. I have to accept that just like various election results. But hey, please don't misunderstand! I want to clearly distinguish between AI supporters and fascist voters. After all, comparing music to politics is a minor crime. But I often don't know any other way to get to the point. I don't just like the DubNot only Haris Pilton's music, but also various other pieces by him and his colleagues. Haris Pilton's music has power. It's not just "winding along." The music is full of uplifting energy and gives mental strength. "I'll tell it like it is" ;-)
However, given my background, I've always found it a shame that it seems possible for good musicians to produce an entire album of higher musical quality than some ten-piece bands. Ultimately, for me, it's all about the final product.
It's possible, or rather, I'm even aware, that you can now save AI-generated instruments individually on various tracks and then reassemble them completely individually using the mixing console with the various channels and sound effects. And yes, I can hear many of you laughing at how simply I've summarized today's technical capabilities for myself. I'm not interested in this technology. I'm also not interested in how this technology works. I believe that this technology will not bring any progress for humanity. At least not the progress that would be important for humanity: a humane coexistence among all peoples of this earth. No struggle between rich and poor! And reason before profit! How "smart" do we want to become? Or will we even become "smarter" if we ask AI about every little thing? Will life become more worth living if we create music and art from ones and zeros?
Lulling us into complacency. Can an AI show us the right path to the future? How can it do that if it can only "learn" from all our past mistakes?! Eventually, it will most likely be the case that all our questions will be answered with "42" by the algorithms in an AI. Then there won't be a dozen or two lashes for disobedient, independently thinking people, but always 42.
"In the future! It's going to be terrible! In the future, it's going to be horrible!" ... although I've been informed about this by Rastas for a very long time, I find it very difficult to accept the idea.
Is there still a way out?
42 ……………………….. lemmi
With your extensive comments, I always think you basically want to apply to be a reviewer here.
I consider several points valid, some not... or you draw invalid conclusions from valid points.
"I don't know if it's due to my upbringing, but I've simply been used from the beginning to my favorite music and music in general being "generated" by people.[..]".
Seriously, you can't tell me that was ever truly decisive, because a) you simply didn't know who was playing, and b) many musicians are self-taught and just have a passion for "their" instrument; you can't really call them "trained." Music isn't a craft where you produce a definitive piece of work, but rather "freestyle," where "botched" can actually lead to interesting results. I'm referring, for example, to "Y" by The Pop Group, about whom Mark Stewart (RIP) later said that they actually wanted to sound like Jimmy Castor Bunch and Undisputed Truth, but never knew how to achieve it, and besides, they'd already been in a punk band. He hated the later comparisons made by journalists (reminiscent of Captain Beefheart) because he couldn't stand Beefheart.
Long story short: Who or what did it, and how, was completely secondary in most cases. Why that should suddenly matter now, I really don't see the point…
"On the surface, drum machines and keyboard basslines were something like technological progress."
Of course. But it also opened up completely new possibilities for creating music that didn't exist before.
"Then they started having all the instruments generated by the computer."
But this is also a purely economic question. It's idiotic to hire a string section when you can do the whole thing faster, cheaper, and with less stress using a keyboard.
"If, on top of that, music is now completely generated by AI, without any contribution from a human or musician"
But that's not quite right, at least not currently. First of all, generations of musicians have contributed to creating a database, and secondly, an AI doesn't just do that "for no reason." An AI lacks the motivation; it doesn't have the need to make any kind of music, it can simply idle indefinitely without getting bored.
"For me, that's simply immoral and ethically below the belt."
That's simply nonsense; an argument that was also made when the first sound films came out, or the first drum machine that provided the beat on a Wurlitzer organ.
"Personally, I don't want to listen to or support music that has been stolen from humans by a computer and ultimately just reassembled according to a predetermined scheme."
AIs don't "steal" anything. This is essentially just the old sampling debate. If you steal a loaf of bread, it's gone, but digital content can be copied at will; nothing is actually "stolen" there.
"Haris Pilton has power in his music. It's not just 'drifting along'. The music is full of upliftment and gives mental strength. 'I'll tell it like it is' ;-)"
If that's how you feel, fine. But how does that square with your previous opinion that you reject AI music on principle?
And yet: I think Pilton's Dub relates to Dub Like Kenny G's take on Miles Davis's 72 album: light music to listen to or let play, little original energy, hardly any potential for conflict. And Kenny G did often have good grooves, especially in the intro, but then it just sort of meanders along pleasantly.
"I believe that this technology will not bring progress for humanity. At least not the progress that would be important for humanity."
Yes, AI is indeed a crucial advancement, but roughly speaking, despite enormous, almost daily innovations, we are still relatively at the beginning.
"Or will we actually become 'smarter' if we ask AI about every little thing?"
That is indeed an interesting issue, but above all, it's a question of (personal) culture.
I'll skip the rest of your presentation, because that's really going too far afield.
Oh, one more thing: Take a look at the covers of the ones presented here. Dub-Releases to: I'm telling you that at least 90% are AI-generated.
"Yes, hello first of all."
To be honest, I've been waiting for someone to give me some kind of "opinion" ever since my first comment here. In the beginning, and occasionally since then, I've received very positive feedback and people have encouraged me to keep going and not give up. So here I am, still here.
Well, maybe you haven't read that much here yet, and I don't write this all that often. But the fact is, I've said it more than once: I absolutely don't want to write reviews. That requires a seriousness that I wasn't born with. I like to think I'm just having a bit of "fan talk" here. Sometimes deliberately a little provocative, and often a bit of a stretch. So far, there's been practically no opposition, and no one else has written, "I see it differently, Lemmi!" That's why I'm actually very happy about your comment.
Finally, it gives me "new material" to continue with my "fan talk" and/or to do a little self-reflection.
I can't find anything "wrong" or even objectionable about my musical upbringing. It was simply a matter of listening to recorded music, and you knew almost all of the musicians. The ultimate experience was seeing them live and in person in concert! Today, it's often just the DJ playing their tracks and pretending to be pressing all the important buttons on their console. In my opinion, self-taught musicians are also more or less well-trained, just by themselves. Practice makes perfect! And it's not just me who often writes that music is "technically well-played." However, that's not the deciding factor for me either. A perfectly trained jazz band can sound and feel much worse than an average reggae band. And let's be honest, if you know, for example, the early Black Uhuru albums and become a "devout Rastafarian" every time you listen to them, then it's fantastic when you get to experience the guys and the girl live and in person. I have a feeling that soon I'll have to say, "I'm going to a concert today" by an AI. Maybe a band will be projected onto the stage via hologram or something similar. There's nothing I can do about it. It doesn't feel real to me. I've had the privilege of seeing Sly and Robbie live and direct on stage more than once in my life. It was like a musical sermon on the mount for me every time. (About Sly Scott and the...) Dub Syndicate, I won't even start raving about it now, otherwise I won't be finished by the weekend. (Exaggeration is part of my style, etc.).
Drum machine, pseudo-bass, and artificial strings. I can top that. Brass on a keyboard! (Just a sec, I need to grab the hammer I need to fix my toenails.) Brass on a computer sounds awful and very economical, but also very cheap. To my ears, that is! And a string orchestra can't really be replaced by a keyboard. I know that better than anyone. Sometimes you just jot something down quickly so you can get it done.
Hiring a string orchestra or section is certainly not "idiotic." Mind you, that is, if you can afford it and don't see music solely as a cost-effective product. In that case, the musicians themselves are generally considered a bothersome factor of production, as business economists would say, if I'm not mistaken. But perhaps I'll write another time about what I think of business economists and their economic "views."
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's not good for art—whether music, paintings, or anything else—if the primary goal, or even the necessity, is to make money from it. Then you tend to produce what you think people want. It doesn't really come from the artist's soul anymore. And AI doesn't have a soul, which is why I reject it, at least in the realm of my favorite music. That's my decision! With pop music, punk, heavy metal, and especially paintings and cover versions, I couldn't care less. So, where exactly is the difference for me? I really have to think about that to put it into words…
It's probably due to my own soul. It's influenced by music, specifically reggae and... Dub I stroked it very intensely and sometimes even massaged it a bit more firmly. Otherwise, I'm a philistine when it comes to art! And if I really like a cover, then I'm very happy, but I would also buy the vinyl in the white sleeve if that's the only option.
I can live with the fact that my perception of AI is "nonsense." But the comparison with sound film is—in my view—very flawed. For me, sound film, and later color film, represents a clear improvement in the result. While AI, at least in my opinion,
(Our) favorite music doesn't actually improve anything. It merely allows the "thing" to be produced more cheaply. But as we've all more or less admitted, we can't definitively identify the result as AI-generated. If the result were better, however, it should be clearly distinguishable. Personally, I hear and see a clear difference and an exorbitant improvement in color and sound films compared to those ancient relics they made before.
I interpret your statement as meaning you're not a fan of Haris Pilton and probably never will be. No problem! But what do I have against him? First of all, his music doesn't sound like AI to me. And for that, it's far too exciting, and I feel good, even very good, listening to it. I'm often fascinated, in fact! And on top of that, he privately sent me a video of his production process. He's rightly tired and bored of useless and cheap "comments" about his music.
"Oh gosh" or something like that. Don't go out. He also has his production process here in... DubThe blog has already announced this via video. And yes, even my favorite magician, Adrian Sherwood, has admitted to using AI in some way. But as long as I can recognize his signature style (or rather, his craft!), I'm willing to accept it. Like I said, I don't know how AI works, but as long as it, metaphorically speaking, only cuts screws to the required length in my work, I'm also prepared to let AI handle this tedious task, since it doesn't diminish or otherwise influence my creativity in my usual work. And if AI takes over noise reduction or whatever else in music production, then fine by me. The main thing is that Adrian Sherwood or Haris Pilton are tweaking the effects knobs. And are also primarily responsible for the music's arrangement. As far as I know, the bass lines still come from Doug Wimbish! Not just played by hand, but also from the depths of his soul, if I'm not mistaken. Well, I've been pressed for time again. So it's possible that I haven't formulated some things as clearly as I would have preferred. But Hey, I'm just doing fan talk here, nothing else ;-)
No Rastafarian has ever fallen from the sky... lemmi
Hi
Yes, noted.
I don't want to discuss every single twist and turn, otherwise the comments would eventually become longer than the reviews.
There are a few points I would still like to address again:
For example, the transition from silent to sound film (not from black and white to color film), because you mentioned earlier that it was "immoral and ethically below the belt"—and that was precisely the argument at the time. It wasn't due to technical improvements, but simply because cinemas previously had small orchestras that accompanied the films, and their musicians were practically deprived of their jobs. On the other hand, ticket prices could be lowered, which naturally led to a kind of "democratization" of these cultural venues—many more people could now afford to go to the cinema. And this kind of technological advancement is ubiquitous, simply pervasive. If we had always acted "morally and ethically," we'd still be carving our Excel spreadsheets into stone slabs.
Of course, replacing a string orchestra with a keyboard isn't necessarily a "cheaper" solution; it's certainly more economical. As long as it's only about the music, it doesn't really matter, and here too, a "democratization" has taken place. If the music is successful enough that a string orchestra is actually back in the budget, then it's perfectly acceptable; for example, Portishead actually used one at live concerts, and not just simple Isaac Hayes samples.
Then there's the matter of the "soul": I'm telling you, that's pure imagination. To support my argument, I always use the following example:
You have a) a CD copy of "Dark Side Of The Moon" and b) a completely AI-generated, bit-perfect "Dark Side Of The Moon" (and by "AI-generated" and "bit-perfect" I don't just mean a copy, but that the AI is supposed to have actually _generated_ the work. This is extremely unlikely, i.e., less than 6 correct numbers plus the bonus number over 52 draws, but still within the realm of possibility).
By its very nature, you cannot distinguish what is what based on the result, and one could be sold to you as the other.
Or, another example: What exactly is the "soul" of Kraftwerk's "Robot" if they were trying to sound as mechanical and artificial as possible, while, say, an AI-generated work inspired by Aretha Franklin isn't supposed to have that? "Soul" isn't an objective criterion; it's simply a narrative one can believe, but doesn't have to.
So, if you want to sell your AI-generated music, you currently have to lie rather than tell the truth, and in my opinion, that could be exactly what Mr. Pilton is doing. And the idea isn't new, at least not since Milli Vanilli, and it's just become more affordable.
Marco Werner has already investigated the matter in more detail on his YouTube channel (you can find it on yt under "was ist musik light breaking").
Okay, a few more words about Sherwood and On-U. In fact, it was through the first album by the New Age Steppers that I really became interested in them. Dub I became aware of it. In contrast, many 70s (Jamaican) productions seemed rather dull, and somehow you couldn't find anything like that in the record shops of my hometown.
On-U had its best period between approximately 1980 and 1988, and with Tackhead's move to EMI, only to deliver a rather conventional album that flopped miserably, that was largely over.
Regards, h
"If we had always acted 'morally and ethically', we would still be carving our Excel spreadsheets into stone slabs today."
This whole sentence sounds too much like cold-blooded BP philosophy to me.
"Screw ethics and morality! The main thing is that the profit is right!" Or, in other words, "The main thing is progress," regardless of whether it's good or bad for flora, humans, and fauna.
I'd rather still be carving Excel spreadsheets into stone slabs than have to fall asleep in 30°C heat in the summer. And most likely, the drinking water would last for over 1000 years longer. Just like with silent films, the increasing use of AI will render all of today's musicians, and even more so in the future, obsolete. Generating music with AI might be in the interest of "succerberg" and streaming services, which in turn are in the interest of "succerberg" and their ilk, but musicians can't possibly be interested in such nonsense. This isn't necessarily an irrefutable fact, but it's a theory I consider more plausible than the idea that an AI could create such brilliant music without the help of Pink Floyd. The AI can't even steal, as you yourself wrote. I could do that at age 6! Okay, it's nonsense, but I needed to say it. So, let's move on to Kraftwerk! My feeling is that if a piece of music is called "We Are the Robots," and you have the technical means to sound like a robot, it fits the message quite well. And I don't think I wrote anything about the sounds produced by musicians having a soul, but rather that the sounds come from within the musicians themselves. That's certainly true for vocals. The other sounds are produced indirectly via the instruments, but still originate from the musicians themselves. And I firmly believe that musicians do have souls. The bosses at BP don't give the slightest indication that they possess anything like a soul. And Succerberg, Musk, and all those other computer nerds with savant skills but no soul or human consciousness—which we constantly hear about in reggae with the word "consciousness"—don't know what I'm talking about. Just like so many AfD voters can't know, and never will understand, that to prevent downfall, you mustn't vote for downfall. But back to the soul as an "objectifiable criterion." There's a huge misunderstanding here, because I'm writing all of this solely from my subjective perspective as a fan of reggae and... Dub That's why I often include phrases like "in my opinion" in my sentences.
As an On.U Sound fan, I won't comment on what you write about them. But this sentence:
"So if you want to sell your AI music, you currently have to lie rather than tell the truth, and in my opinion, that could be exactly what Mr. Pilton is doing." You should really reflect on whether what you're writing is truly credible.
Because that contains an assumption that you haven't been able to substantiate in a single word, let alone a sentence. Or did I miss that? Speculation doesn't get me anywhere in this context. The videos I have of Haris Pilton are far more convincing, and on top of that, I also have my own perception, which leads me to believe that Haris Pilton is very good. Dubs produced. Even if you don't think I'm capable of it... Even if you write that Harris Pilton "might possibly be lying," that's not okay with me, because we all know how hypocritical rhetoric often is. In any case, you won't be able to convince me with that.
So! And now we begin!
Although I am absolutely certain that what follows is complete nonsense, I am writing it here.
My distrust of everything that happens on the internet is so great that I at least consider this possibility. Concerts by Burning Spear and Bob Marley serve solely to ensnare people like me so they can try out their shitty advertising and brainwashing on me too. Even the DubThis blog could theoretically be a ruse by "succerberg" to trap me and learn a little more about my brain activity. All the acquaintances I've made here and elsewhere online could be part of the web they're trying to weave me into. All to milk me for all I'm worth!
Okay, stop and return! At the same time, I'd like to apologize to everyone who feels addressed by me right now. Of course, I don't really believe this, and above all, I don't want to believe it, but I can't even be 100% sure that I'm not somewhere wriggling in a giant spider's web like some kind of spun-up victim, while the bosses of BP and their ilk suck my blood, or generate energy from my excrement, or simply print money from it, while I think I'm complaining here about AI nonsense.
"We don't know anything for sure" …………….. lemmi
I skimmed it, but any further response is unnecessary. At best, it's unintentionally funny – it has only a tangential connection to reality.
"So if you want to sell your AI music, you currently have to lie rather than tell the truth, and in my opinion, that could be exactly what Mr. Pilton is doing." You should reflect on whether what you're writing is really credible.
That's actually very reputable – whether he really leaves everything to AI or not, I can neither confirm nor deny. But seriously: accepting just any videos as evidence in a time when you can have AI create them, even if they're just deepfakes or even borrowed videos that have been slightly edited... I happen to know that there are actually people who invest more in deception than in the actual product.
“But seriously: Accepting just any videos as evidence…”
Yes, I understand that! That's why I added my own observations!
But even if that was "unprofessional" of me,
That doesn't make your approach any more reputable in the slightest.
And certainly not "very serious"! That would be like me saying I'm good because you're bad!
"I happen to know that there are actually people who invest more in deception than in the actual product."
Yes, man! Welcome to the club! I've known that for over 45 years!
There are corporations that invest billions in this!
See you tomorrow! ……………….. lemmi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTY0wYsXks
I don't know! But is this supposed to be our future?
Why should it? Some mainstream radio station that mixes mainstream artists into... more mainstream music that, for example, doesn't interest me at all?
You're acting as if it will wash everything else away, as if it weren't even there.
It's a shame we can no longer see or hear it!
That item is no longer available, at least not for me.
Therefore, this question will remain open for now.
hehehe:
"This video has been removed due to contractual obligations to a music licensor."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkB__eAQIEE&list=RDpkB__eAQIEE&start_radio=1
There's so much of this crap! Even if the subtitle is only meant to be a clickbait, I don't think that's right.
I'm not saying this is the only possibility for our future, but I fear it will become part of it. Music is simply too important to me. I take music and what the artists want to convey with it very seriously. What's being done with AI makes no deeper sense to me. Everything that comes out of it is, at best, suitable as background music. That's exactly how most people listen to music anyway. Music plays in the background as ambient noise.
The content and the message are completely irrelevant. And so is who or what is behind it.
This isn't for connoisseurs... lemmi
You seem to be really looking for this kind of garbage. It's almost worse than Stars on 45.
A Message To You Rudy. As if music always had a “message”… The medium is the message.
Terry Riley doesn't have a "message" either, and if he does, what would it be? Or musique concrète as such.
Or "Pick Up The Pieces" by the Average White Band – which tracks are you supposed to record? Am I the cleaning lady or what?
No, you don't need to look for that!
This will only lead to more and more litter!
There are many people who really couldn't care less about any of this.
It can't be changed. For example, someone who's never seen the original "Papillon" will probably like the remake, even though it's really just a cheap imitation of the original. "Maybe even an AI version already..."
Yeah man! I get the message! What you're listing interests me about as much as AI music! I'm all for AI taking over that. But I think Terry Riley, for example, feels completely differently. AI can be used everywhere, as far as I'm concerned. And if it can, for example, improve tumor treatments, then bring it on!
Reggae and Dub That's something completely different for me! Reggae has a very strong message, and it wasn't just Style Scott who always made it clear that the good message of reggae is also conveyed in the instrumentals and, not least, with the DubIt can be conveyed. Those who feel it, know it!
Rudeboy Shufflin' ………………………. lemmi
If by "message" you mean something more, how should I say, "transcendent," something beyond words, then okay.
You can find that in Miles Davis, for example, or in Herbie Hancock's "Sextant".
So I'm not bothered by it at all, not in the slightest. Occasionally I get some AI-generated music in YouTube's suggestions, but unless there's some obvious pattern, I just ignore it.
Yes, there are many people who really couldn't care less. If I were a serious artist, I wouldn't even want to address those people. If they buy it, fine, if not, that's fine too. So what? You can't really please everyone anyway, so you just please yourself.
Doesn't matter…
For me it's quite simple – I no longer listen to my colleagues. In other areas I might be more open to such behavior, but not in my sacred niche of music.
"In other areas I might be more open to such a habit, but not in my sacred musical niche."
We're completely in agreement on that point. However, I seem to be missing some information about Haris Pilton's "habitus," which you apparently have. Perhaps you could clarify that for me, or rather for us.
“The people have a right to know the truth” ………….. lemmi
“The people have a right to know the truth”
"That could upset people..."
Hey, that's actually a funny answer.
I like it! ……………….. lemmi
I'm currently working on an AI-Dub-Album called "We verdub"Our grandma's little house." Template: Nothing you know.
Okay, have a nice weekend and lots of fun! ... lemmi