From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V6 #263 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Sunday, September 10 2000 Volume 06 : Number 263 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: madonna [Joseph Zitt ] Re: We are Madonna, for we are many...(Re: madonna) [ToriCure@aol.com] Re: madonna [Joseph Zitt ] Re: We are Madonna, for we are many...(Re: madonna) [Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: madonna On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:50:46PM -0400, RedWoodenBeads@aol.com wrote: > << How has Morrissey done anything for women? Or for men, for that matter? > > Morrisey's work has been an insight into human existance and the daily lives > of the average human person. As far as the music he's made with The Smiths, > its originality and innovation is clearly valuable to the art world. This is > particularly clear when one takes into account the tremendous amount of > artists who have been influenced by their work. If Morrissey's lyrics show insight, it's only into the depths of human emotion. And who is the "art world" to whom you refer? > Ah, you haven't seen the video of "Like a Prayer". If you can describe > that as "over-sexed" and "mentally midgited" (do you mean "midget-like"?), > it will be a clear sign of prejudices over-riding perceptions.> > > Ok, let's get one thing straight. This has nothing to dow ith prejudice. this > is about opinion. Just because I enjoy The Smiths work and not Madonna's > doesn't mean I am prejudice, it means I have a different opinion from yours. > I have seen the video to "Like a Prayer", I would say it's typical 80's MTV > such and such. It shows her rolling around an alter in a dress that's about > to fall off with a man. Not a far fetch from what was on MTV in those days > (Prince/Michael Jackson/etc). Sexy is might be, but art, I am afraid not. It > denotes sudden emotions, passing urges. It doesn't really say anything about > what is means to be a person, what life is. To me that's what art is and > that's what I value. There is so much confusion evident in that paragraph that there is little more that can be said, other than to let its argument collapse of its own momentum. (BTW, from my recollection, no scene in it shows her "rolling around on an altar in a dress that's about to fall off with a man". (And how does a dress "fall off with a man"?) And if that's all you remember of it, it says a lot about the validity of the opinion based on it.) And are you possibly contrasting "sudden emotions, passing urges" with "what it means to be a person, what life is"? What view of what life is would deny the existence and power of these? And have you missed, in your quest to find only sex in her videos, the statements about religion and race in it? Are you aware of the original context and controversy around it? How would you fit it within the canon of director Mary Renault's other work? (And no, the hit-and-run copout of "it's only an opinion" doesn't work.) > > Morrisey has done nothing less than elevate > > music in the 1980's, and his influence on the music community has been > > tremendous. > > "Elevate"? In what sense?> > > The Smiths were different, unique and took pop music to a higher level. They > went beyond what was being done at the time, adding to it rather than > dragging it down. They incorporated historical and poetic lyricism with a > sophisticated shimmering guitar style. In my opinion, that was extremely > progressive. Personally, I believe Madonna brought music down to her level. > She couldn't write words like Morrisey writes and she couldn't write songs > like The Smiths could. Again, my opinion. In what sense did they go beyond what had been done at the time? How would you contrast their songs with, say, Leonard Cohen's work up to and during the same period? What historical and poetic factors did they bring in, other than, perhaps. attempts to dress like Victorians at times? Of course, you view not being able to write like Morrissey to be a bad thing, for some reason... > Ah, this sounds like the tired idea that a commercially successful > artist must be bad. >> > > Not at all. R.E.M. has been comercially successful and they are wonderful. I > would say its true that most mega successful stuff tends to be on the lame > side though. But normally, the more artistic artists tend to last longer than > the comercially minded ones. I mean Britney Spears has made billions of > dollars. Mary Margaret O'Hara hasn't. I rest my case. John Lennon made millions of dollars. Patrick Channing (a really bad singer-songwriter who attempted to write commercial pop and disappeared after a few Austin gigs) didn't. Your case collapses. *sheesh* - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:58:32 EDT From: ToriCure@aol.com Subject: Re: We are Madonna, for we are many...(Re: madonna) Can we just get off the Madonna soap box because it's already as tired as the bags which are starting to form under her eyes? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:15:52 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: madonna On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:50:46PM -0400, RedWoodenBeads@aol.com wrote: > http://www.angelfire.com/indie/impryan Ah, I just looked at your web page, and much becomes clear. When I was 16 I too thought I knew how everyone else in the world should behave, and what was important in art, including having a clear idea of the cultural milleu surrounding events from before I was born. A few weeks short of 42, I have more information as to how little we know, and how easy it is to insult rather than to learn. Hopefully you'll find this out more painlessly. - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:25:45 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: We are Madonna, for we are many...(Re: madonna) On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 07:49:27PM -0400, Paul Kim wrote: > If you want to hear a blatant example of what the Antares Pitch Shift can > do, think of Cher's "Believe"...you know those weird vocal jumps that > happen? that's pitch shift. (I think it's also used on the Vertical > Horizon song "You're a God") It can be a powerful tool to subtly correct > pitch issues, or it can be an effect for its own sake. However, it can't > make a bad vocal performance sound good. I wonder how many people think Happy uses one :-). On the other hand, Joni Mitchell useta have such a difference between her registers that I was convinced, until I heard her live, that there was some hanky-panky going on in the mix. > Something that I learned (and which surprised the hell out of me) in one of > my classes from a teacher who does a lot of digital editing (he's worked on > albums for Jesseye Norman and Itzhak Perlman, among others) is that a > symphonic recording will often have more than 500, usually more than 1000, > edits. Even "live" performances will be compiled. > > Kinda makes you think, huh? I understand that Glenn Gould gave up on live performance partially because a live version can't possibly meet the perfection of a recording. And a whole lot of what happens in electronica can't be done live at all, anyway. Curiously, in the CDs we've recorded so far with Comma and Gray Code (one released Comma CD, plus a completed CD each from Comma and Gray Code in the can awaiting release), we've never done edits: our material is so improvisational that a take either works or it doesn't. But that's a whole 'nother genre. (Gevalt -- my neighbors across the hall (and from directly above and below me (it's apparently a single extended family)), in the midst of a loud party they're having with their door open, are recounting the entire "Wazaaaap?" commercial series. In Chinese. Such is life in DC :-]) - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:19:00 -0500 (CDT) From: "Mitchell A. Pravatiner" Subject: The stuff that Centralfests are made of? Today I acquired a copy of the compilation CD _Big Fish, Little Fish: Emerging Women in Chicago Music_. While I have not given it an extremely careful listen as yet, it is very, very good. Its contributors are examples of the sort of people who might appear on the program for a central states Ectofest. Great Lakers of the ecto world unite: no reason for the proposed Westfest to grab all the marbles when it comes to regionalizing the ectofest concept :-). Info on this CD is available at www.sweetpicklemusic.com . Mitch ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:50:52 -0400 From: Ted Subject: Re: We are Madonna, for we are many...(Re: madonna) Joseph Zitt wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 05:31:03PM -0400, Ted wrote: > > While not a great singer, she is a singer. Now here's where I'm afraid I have to split hairs, you admit she's not a great singer. How good would she be on a home demo? How about unplugged (and I mean REALLY unplugged)? I think we both know 'tis mammon that floateth her boat. Regarding other Celeb's Voices, I think it's a dead heat between her and most of them, except Herve Villechaze, he just plain sucks. > > > If you took only Madonna out of the mix and substituted Mrs. Miller, I don't think anyone would notice the difference. > > Put Mrs. Miller in the studio and get her to sing "Live to Tell", then let > me know if you can notice the difference. Let McCabe duet with her, if you > wish. > I just re visited Mrs. Millers "Yellow Submarine" and will now humbly retract my last statement. Madonna has a better sense of tempo. I think a duet with Leonard Nimoy could inch Mrs. Miller's version of "Live to tell" within qualitative striking distance of Madonna's version (That is to say that I'd buy it!) But then again I've never been a fan of Madonna. There was much better stuff out there in the 80's, as there is now. - -ted - -- They Might be Giants Dial a Song Service 1-718-387-6962 "Free when you call from work!" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:31:04 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: We are Madonna, for we are many...(Re: madonna) On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 12:50:52AM -0400, Ted wrote: > > > Joseph Zitt wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 05:31:03PM -0400, Ted wrote: > > > > While not a great singer, she is a singer. > > Now here's where I'm afraid I have to split hairs, you admit she's not a great singer. > How good would she be on a home demo? > How about unplugged (and I mean REALLY unplugged)? I recall hearing her sing a few lines here and there during talk show interviews and the like. Unless they suddenly switched on processing (unlikely, since the ambient sound didn't change), she did pretty well without gimmickry. > I think a duet with Leonard Nimoy could inch Mrs. Miller's version of "Live to tell" within > qualitative striking distance of Madonna's version (That is to say that I'd buy it!) I'd love to hear William Shatner try "Material Girl"... - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V6 #263 **************************