Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
ThemisSal

Hooo boy. Ryan Adams

Recommended Posts

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, and since I actually spent a career working as a reporter and have four decades of first-hand experience in how reporters and editors work -- as opposed to your experience of maybe reading a newspaper now and then -- I'll go with my assessment. If this story were about Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates or some other titan of industry or powerful person or celebrity, I doubt you'd be complaining about a story exposing their "manipulative behavior." Adams, according to multiple named sources, owned a record company and made promises to women, then hit on the women. I'm betting you can count the males he gave such offers to on the fingers of Billy Joe Shaver's right hand. If that. The guy was a predator, and people in the industry knew it.

 

If actual criminal behavior is your bar for when an article can be written, that's bizarre. Journalists have been reporting on the inappropriate behavior of the powerful since there have been journalists. Promising an aspiring singer-songwriter a lucrative opening spot on a tour, or saying you'll produce her record, are big promises that he was entirely capable of delivering on. But now we've seen the fine print of those deals. That's not appropriate behavior.

 

And the Times' story today says the FBI has opened an investigation into whether Adams had sexually explicit communications with an underage kid. That's against the law ("criminal") if it happened, right?

 

Mate, its pretty clear, if he undertook in cirminal activity, and the police or the FBI can provie it then he should face justice. I actually am of the opinion that these allegations are probably true.

 

The issue i have is, especially in the Metoo era is the current pracitce to throw accusations at a celebrity and assume guilt befere it has been established. And the left wing feminist publications are leading that appraoch. Maybe in the past journalism had an element of respect but these days its hard to find any real respect for a journalists effort when such ridiculous approaches are being practiced.

 

Lastly, such accusation of 'manipulative behviour' could have been labelled at nother 1000 people at least in the music business. Pick a name, you will find dirt on them.

 

I still reckon some editor in NYT got shitty at Adams coz they wouldnt get a backstage pass, everyone has an agenda, everyone.

Edited by EuroAussie
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate, its pretty clear, if he undertook in cirminal activity, and the police or the FBI can provie it then he should face justice. I actually am of the opinion that these allegations are probably true.

 

The issue i have is, especially in the Metoo era is the current pracitce to throw accusations at a celebrity and assume guilt befere it has been established. And the left wing feminist publications are leading that appraoch. Maybe in the past journalism had an element of respect but these days its hard to find any real respect for a journalists effort when such ridiculous approaches are being practiced.

 

Lastly, such accusation of 'manipulative behviour' could have been labelled at nother 1000 people at least in the music business. Pick a name, you will find dirt on them.

 

I still reckon some editor in NYT got shitty at Adams coz they wouldnt get a backstage pass, everyone has an agenda, everyone.

 

So lemme see if I've got this straight.... It's ok for you to make baseless accusations of unprofessional behavior by editors at the NYTimes ("I still reckon some editor in NYT got shitty at Adams coz they wouldnt get a backstage pass...") and not present a shred of evidence except your own biased cynicism, BUT if the paper reports on a pattern of manipulative and possibly illegal behavior by somebody like Adams and provides multiple on-the-record sources and text messages -- and gives Adams multiple opportunities to respond -- then the paper is nothing but a "feminist publication." Got it.

 

And just what makes something a "feminist publication," anyway?

 

I've had friends who worked at the Times. They, and the people they work with, are honest, hard-working and ethical people. Unless you have direct evidence that the paper had multiple reporters spend weeks or months investigating Adams just because some editor "wouldn't get a backstage pass," then zip it. They are professionals and they police their own. You've never spent 30 seconds in a newsroom, and I doubt you even know any reporters or editors personally. If you do, you just insulted them.

 

If you want to discuss a subject you know something about or have personal experience with, great. American journalism does not appear to be in that category, though.

Edited by dhanners623

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lemme see if I've got this straight.... It's ok for you to make baseless accusations of unprofessional behavior by editors at the NYTimes ("I still reckon some editor in NYT got shitty at Adams coz they wouldnt get a backstage pass...") and not present a shred of evidence except your own biased cynicism, BUT if the paper reports on a pattern of manipulative and possibly illegal behavior by somebody like Adams and provides multiple on-the-record sources and text messages -- and gives Adams multiple opportunities to respond -- then the paper is nothing but a "feminist publication." Got it.

 

And just what makes something a "feminist publication," anyway?

 

I've had friends who worked at the Times. They, and the people they work with, are honest, hard-working and ethical people. Unless you have direct evidence that the paper had multiple reporters spend weeks or months investigating Adams just because some editor "wouldn't get a backstage pass," then zip it. They are professionals and they police their own. You've never spent 30 seconds in a newsroom, and I doubt you even know any reporters or editors personally. If you do, you just insulted them.

 

If you want to discuss a subject you know something about or have personal experience with, great. American journalism does not appear to be in that category, though.

 

Youre missing my point. I have no doubt there are honest, ethical hard working folks at many publications including the NYT, but there is so much rubbish, agenda and fake new out there now that for the average reader its really difficult to determine what to believe. Unfortunately the whole discipline of journalism has taken a credibiliy pounding and its hard to have respect for it.

 

The guilty before proven has been one of those 'trends' in the last couple of years, especially in leftist media, inpartiular when it has anything to do with a glimmer of sexual innaprpriate behaviour. Its gotten to the point where its a joke, and as I wrote, you gonna have a go at Ryan Adams you might aswell do a piece on another 200 musicians or people in the business.

 

Oh, and to demonstrate how fake news is spread Ive worked in media, communications AND in a newsroom for the past 20 years. So get you facts stright before making statements.

 

Anyways, mods, I reckon its time to close this thread, its not doing any good to anyone and it certainly is not a discussion about Gibsons.

Edited by EuroAussie
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you did anything wrong by starting the thread, but it should have been started in the Lounge, its not a Acoustic matter.

 

 

I agree, it was an interesting topic, many of us like his music and there is a topical element, but not in this section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you move the thread to the Lounge, no one will see it. This forum is not uber-high activity. Any thread that has activity provides the benefit of activity, creating a sense of movement. Otherwise, a forum stagnates. Movement is good.

 

I don't get why many of you guys are so sensitive to controversy. OMG, somebody might not have a skippity-do-dah-day today if we let this thread stand!

 

It's real simple... don't click on the thread if you don't like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot does that mean I have to unlearn "Come Pick Me Up"? Maybe I can have his Buck Owens Americana guitars after he goes to jail. Just sayin'

s-l1000.jpg

 

Ironically the first quip voice by the Harmony guitar crowd was does this mean my Buck Owens guitar will drop in value? For whatever reason these are the Harmonys which bring the most money these days. I owned one and never did get it.

Edited by zombywoof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the junk shop yesterday looking for LPs. Great places to get those records which while you are not crazy about but have a couple of songs you do like. I snagged four. For grins I decided to see how scandal free the artists were. Got the first two Monkees LPs - no problem there. Also a copy of the first Chicago Transit Authority LP for the two songs I like. Again, OK at least as far as I know. The fourth though - crash and burn. It was the Mamas & the Papas. John Phillips was pretty sleazy. Just not all that easy to buy only music performed by clean, respectful, upstanding pillars of the community. Would leave me spending a lot of time listening to ABBA. Gawd, how boring. Face it. If half the stories about Led Zep were true those guys, other than the bass player, would have been locked up decades ago.

Edited by zombywoof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a great StewMac video of Dan Erlewine rehabbing Adams' three Buck Owens guitars and getting them in shape to tour. Some really great stuff. But I went to StewMac's site and they've removed the video. ALL the other Trade Secrets videos are there, but the one of Adams' guitars, from April 2017, has been removed

 

That's a bummer. I like the iconic look of the Buck Owens models, and would have liked to see that video. I understand that they are trying to avoid backlash associated with RA, but it's our loss when we lose a demonstration of craftsmanship and history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate, its pretty clear, if he undertook in cirminal activity, and the police or the FBI can provie it then he should face justice. I actually am of the opinion that these allegations are probably true.

 

The issue i have is, especially in the Metoo era is the current pracitce to throw accusations at a celebrity and assume guilt befere it has been established. And the left wing feminist publications are leading that appraoch. Maybe in the past journalism had an element of respect but these days its hard to find any real respect for a journalists effort when such ridiculous approaches are being practiced.

 

Lastly, such accusation of 'manipulative behviour' could have been labelled at nother 1000 people at least in the music business. Pick a name, you will find dirt on them.

 

I still reckon some editor in NYT got shitty at Adams coz they wouldnt get a backstage pass, everyone has an agenda, everyone.

 

I'm gonna need names of American newsrooms you've worked in and positions held because if you have worked alongside actual, real American journalists, you know their only "agenda" is printing/broadcasting factual articles that informed the public and told people things they didn't know. You know, "news." I had way too many eyes -- young, old, liberal, conservative, spiritual, atheist, etc. -- looking over my stuff and my colleagues' stuff to get away with pursuing any sort of "agenda." I know people like to think reporters at mainstream publications are "agenda"-driven and have some political or social axe to grind, but they don't. And if they do, their editors quickly weeded them out.

 

It's a popular plotline in TV and movies, but in real life, it just ain't so.

 

Throughout my career, I had lots of people, mainly from the political right, claim I had some nefarious agenda. When they'd accuse me of it, I challenged each and every one of them to read a week's worth or a month's worth (or more) of my work and point out the "agenda." Show me how I was demonstrating an agenda. I'd even buy coffee. In 40 years, nobody ever took me up on it. It's hard to find something that's not there.

 

Just because an article does not hew to your bias does not mean the article is biased.

 

The only agenda the NYTimes had was to shed light on a celebrity and record label owner who was using his power to take advantage of women who had little influence and power. Are there lots of other people they could write about? Heck yeah. And when their alleged victims call up and provide evidence, I'm sure we'll read those stories, too. You're whole dismissiveness of #metoo shows you doubt the movement and its motives. That's your right, but the Times isn't carrying water for #metoo.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah like I said earlier if you are going to listen to music based on how decent a human being a person is your list of going to be short.

 

And certainly if you are going to vote for any one in DC based on weather they are a good or bad person Capitol Hill would be a ghost town.

 

I do understand why people do not want to listen to an artist whom they came to despise. A case in point is my reluctance these days for anything David Allan Coe. Without a doubt, the guy has talent and he is responsible for turning me away from rock/pop to embracing country. Back then it was called progressive country. The guy is such a sleaseball, I have trouble giving his songs any listens or playing/singing his songs. My distaste for him is his overall scumbagginess.

 

Another thing about stars and their sexual activity, women absolutely throw themselves at these guys. That is bound to affect your personnna. I have personal knowledge of how easy it is for these guys. I mean, women just line up and the guys can have their pick. And they're not going on the bus to chat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And this is my point, the guy is accused, judged and executed before he even had a chane to defend himself and before a court even listen to one word.

 

Just an accusation and a hint of negative press and his sponsors drop him, no proof.

 

 

I hope he sues NYT for milions for damages if he gets out of this ... or go to jail.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is my point, the guy is accused, judged and executed before he even had a chane to defend himself and before a court even listen to one word.

 

Just an accusation and a hint of negative press and his sponsors drop him, no proof.

 

 

I hope he sues NYT for milions for damages if he gets out of this ... or go to jail.

 

Did you even read the NYTimes story? Did you miss the bit where it said he was asked for his responses to the allegations prior to the article's publication? He had every opportunity to reply, and if he didn't want to, his lawyers could respond on his behalf. I can assure you that had Adams provided a reply, it would have been featured -- prominently -- in the article.

 

He won't sue the NYTimes. For one, he is clearly a public figure, and as Times v. Sullivan is still the law of the land (you're no doubt familiar with the case since you've spent so much time in newsrooms...) he has to prove the paper not only acted with a "reckless disregard" for the truth, but also acted with "actual malice." He can do neither.

 

He'll also not file suit because he (or his lawyer) knows that the second he sues, he gives the NYTimes subpoena power. They will have access to his emails and texts. They will have the right to place him under oath for a deposition. I don't see his position improving if either of those things happens.

 

And stop with the "no proof" thing already. Are multiple on-the-record sources and texts they provided not good enough for you?

 

I am soooo tired of people behaving badly and then blaming the messenger when their misbehavior is exposed.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for the rule of law, and the accused behavior in the article is definitely appalling to read about - I already feel this guy is guilty without due process. What I don't get is that why do corporate medias have to expose someone, publicly humiliate a potentially innocent/guilty person/party instead of just letting the law enforcement agencies handle the situation first, then report on the s***. If the guy gets arrested, then make something known possible - or better yet, once the entity is proven guilty/innocent. Now, someone I am sure that in this particular instance like many corporate media outlets are profiting on someone else's expense. Not defending those who commit heinous acts as I believe in the rule of law and offenders need to be punished to the extent the law allows, but it is a shame that we have amounted to allowing profiteering on these types of stories we cannot refuse to pay attention to. Especially since media travels at the speed of light - thanks internet - you can destroy someone in seconds. That's my beef. Reporting truth or not, it's not our business to judge and jury. Allow the rule of law to handle these offenders. If there is compelling evidence of a crime, that person will be arrested and tried. So I don't know here... I blame corporate powers that make our world a worse place to be these days. They are the enemy here, and their only premise is profit any which way they can.

 

EDIT: The NYTimes doesn't profit by reporting criminal activity. They profit by YOU paying attention to what they put out. THAT is what they care about. We are all in business for ourselves, like it or not. This is the world we live in. Retire on a gamble with the stock market, privatize health care that increases in cost every year, education that in-debts generations... Corporate tyranny at its best, and it will only get worse.

 

Edited by NighthawkChris
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is my point, the guy is accused, judged and executed before he even had a chane to defend himself and before a court even listen to one word.

 

Just an accusation and a hint of negative press and his sponsors drop him, no proof.

 

Agree with these statements. Keep it real, don't speculate is my only criticism of what you have said. Otherwise, bravo sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lusted after 14 year old girls when I was 14 years old, maybe even when I was 15 years old.

And I never got to first base.

Heck.....I was just glad to get into the same ballpark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for the rule of law, and the accused behavior in the article is definitely appalling to read about - I already feel this guy is guilty without due process. What I don't get is that why do corporate medias have to expose someone, publicly humiliate a potentially innocent/guilty person/party instead of just letting the law enforcement agencies handle the situation first, then report on the s***. If the guy gets arrested, then make something known possible - or better yet, once the entity is proven guilty/innocent. Now, someone I am sure that in this particular instance like many corporate media outlets are profiting on someone else's expense. Not defending those who commit heinous acts as I believe in the rule of law and offenders need to be punished to the extent the law allows, but it is a shame that we have amounted to allowing profiteering on these types of stories we cannot refuse to pay attention to. Especially since media travels at the speed of light - thanks internet - you can destroy someone in seconds. That's my beef. Reporting truth or not, it's not our business to judge and jury. Allow the rule of law to handle these offenders. If there is compelling evidence of a crime, that person will be arrested and tried. So I don't know here... I blame corporate powers that make our world a worse place to be these days. They are the enemy here, and their only premise is profit any which way they can.

 

EDIT: The NYTimes doesn't profit by reporting criminal activity. They profit by YOU paying attention to what they put out. THAT is what they care about. We are all in business for ourselves, like it or not. This is the world we live in. Retire on a gamble with the stock market, privatize health care that increases in cost every year, education that in-debts generations... Corporate tyranny at its best, and it will only get worse.

 

Your comment is troubling because what you are basically saying, when it is boiled down, is that the media should report on something only after the government takes some sort of action. If you want to have an uninformed society, that's the fastest way to get it. Just trust the judgment of the government or the courts. Or police. There are countries where that is the approach to media, and the government tightly controls the media. I currently live in a country that closes newspapers and puts bloggers in jail for "insulting" the ruling family. Seriously. The citizenry has little clue about what is really going on in THEIR country.

 

Yeah, modern media moves at the speed of light. And the end-users (readers, viewers, listeners, etc.) carry some responsibility to educate themselves about what media outlets traffic in lies and rumors and misinformation, and which provide solid information and abide by ethical standards of journalism. They also need to be able to distinguish between "reporter" and "pundit." For example, Rush Limbaugh is NOT a reporter and subscribes to no ethical standards. His only accountability is to his advertisers. When I was working, depending upon the publication, I had as many as five sets of eyes (six if the story was big enough) reading over my stuff, and each had the ability to demand more information or evidence or documentation or interviews -- or cut something out if he or she thought it was inappropriate. Trust me, they were not shy about exercising their power.

 

The last time I worried about selling papers was when I was 12 and was a paperboy for the Decatur (IL) Herald. As a reporter, I wanted to write articles people would read, but I did not lay awake at night worrying about how to sell papers, and my colleagues didn't either. We did everything we could to divorce ourselves from the business side of the business because we didn't want people making the allegation we were just doing stories to sell more papers. (A humorous aside: When I was working in Dallas, two colleagues and I spent nine months reporting and writing a series of stories about how drugs had impacted Hidalgo and Starr counties, on the Texas-Mexico border. We basically moved in and spent time with cops, DEA agents, judges, prosecutors, dopers, smugglers, ranchers, priests, defense attorneys, business executives and everybody else; I couldn't begin to tell you how many people we interviewed, how many property records we looked at or how many court files we read. Among other things, our stories uncovered corruption on the part of the Starr County sheriff, showing he was connected to smugglers. In fact, he couldn't even enter Mexico because he was actually charged there with killing a witness handcuffed to a bed in a Reynosa hospital. He sued us. One of the claims his lawyers made in their unsuccessful case was that we just did the stories to boost circulation. They sought our daily circulation figures to prove their claim. We had to turn them over, and when we did, they were disappointed to find -- as were we -- that the day our article on the sheriff was published, our circulation was actually lower than normal. And it was for the whole week the series ran. So much for doing stories just to sell papers. The sheriff later did federal time, by the way.)

 

People have funny ideas about how actual reporters go about their business.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They shouldn't let young girls have laptops with no off button on them or no ability to lock people on their mobiles

 

 

Again , I'm thinking Ryan is so out of order here it's ridiculous , and his morals are obviously way off the map

 

 

The snipes at the papers and journalists here are not that folk believe there should be no freedom of press, just how it's written

 

Emphasis on the age she was when they first corresponded , which I doubt was a screenshot of his Calvin Klein's, and not the age she was when she and he messed around

 

 

And the quotes from his other female friends , well you could interview any of my ex's and a few would say I'm a bit of an asshole . And no , I don't mean that they will say I forced them to do anything .

No big deal and not newsworthy , but when it's one of the 2's as is here that make up the 5

 

Well ....

 

 

I still hope he gets the consequence that is undoubtedly due

And the young girl needs help also

Edited by blindboygrunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is quite a revealing thread, revealing on so many levels...

 

I liked his music, but now? I don't know, its weird, he always appeared to be some kind of weird ***hole, but all this? And there seems to be more coming....I'm out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is quite a revealing thread, revealing on so many levels...

 

I liked his music, but now? I don't know, its weird, he always appeared to be some kind of weird ***hole, but all this? And there seems to be more coming....I'm out!

 

 

Sad isn't it

I'm sure this will be an iceberg situation yet again

 

I've a gig later and I'm looking for a couple songs to replace his as I'm not sure about even singing them later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad isn't it

I'm sure this will be an iceberg situation yet again

 

I've a gig later and I'm looking for a couple songs to replace his as I'm not sure about even singing them later

 

Was thinking the same but will keep them as theyre great songs and 99% of the public has no idea who he is.

 

Probably better not to play any Brian Adams instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...