From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V11 #297 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Tuesday, November 1 2005 Volume 11 : Number 297 Today's Subjects: ----------------- reviewers [anna maria "stjärnell" ] Re: "aerial" review. [Ethan Straffin ] Recent changes to the Ectophiles' Guide ["The Ectophiles' Guide" ] Re: "aerial" review. [Doug ] RE: "aerial" review. ["Michael Quinn" ] Re: "aerial" review. [Doug ] Re: the Guardian review of Aerial [meredith ] RE: "aerial" review. ["Michael Quinn" ] Re: "aerial" review. [Sue Trowbridge ] RE: "aerial" review. [Ellen Rawson ] Fw: thanks from Ashley Maher ["Peter Clark" ] Re: "aerial" review. [Doug ] Re: "aerial" review. [Kim Justice ] Re: "aerial" review. ["Gagnon, Christopher R." ] Re: "aerial" review. [meredith ] Re: "aerial" review. [Ethan Straffin ] WOMEX [neal copperman ] More details on Sony DRM (might be relevant for Aerial) [Sander Subject: reviewers Hi.. amy wrote.. Holy cats!! Hear, hear..i didn't find that review terribly pretentious compared to what people who write about literature are capable of. Anna __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 02:36:01 -0800 From: Ethan Straffin Subject: Re: "aerial" review. Hrm. I'd agree that Doug's comments are overgeneralized and somewhat harsh. Still, with respect to this particular review, I think his point is well made. That infamous chorus of "Love me, love me / Say that you love me" comes to mind when I read stuff like this Observer review: there's just too much name-dropping, show-offiness, and general irrelevance. I mean, c'mon: "There are many male music fans out there - and just a smattering of male music journalists - who believe quite matter of factly that Damon Albarn wrote Elastica's first album"? WTF? This is not the writing of a critic who is dedicated to reviewing each work on its own terms; this is the writing of an Elastica fan with a day job and far more gender issues than are necessary or helpful to someone who simply wanted to find out whether the new Kate Bush album was any good or not. This person proves many times over in the space of 740 words that he/she/won't-ask/won't-tell simply can't write. It's no reflection upon Collected Sounds. ;) Ethan Collected Sounds wrote: >Doug said; > >"I frickin' hate professional music reviewers...always so damn pretentious >and pompous. " > >Holy cats!! > >I'm now scared to even put in a CD and begin writing about it! Please cut us >reviewers some slack and realize that it's VERY hard to write about several >CDs and come up with something new to say every single time. We have to >resort to dictionaries or thesauruses (thesauri?) or every review would >sound too similar. > >I only do a few a week, I know there are people out there who do a h*ll of a >lot more than I and it's very difficult. Even if you love the music. >Sometimes it's hard to put into words the way it makes you feel. > >I did not read the review in question, so I can't comment on the state of >the reviewer but this comment really triggered something in me. Walk a >mile... and all that. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:19:18 -0800 From: "The Ectophiles' Guide" Subject: Recent changes to the Ectophiles' Guide Latest changes to the Ectophiles' Guide 30 October 2005 New Guide entries added for: * Alu * The Fiery Furnaces * Killjoy Confetti * They Might Be Giants (by request) Changes made to the entries for: * Afro Celt Sound System (additional album) * Lori Amey (new album) * Bjork (new album plus additional sets) * Joan Osborne (additional album) * Sigur Ros (new album) - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this email because you have asked to be notified of updates to the Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music at http://www.ectoguide.org/. If you are no longer interested in receiving these notifications, please unsubscribe yourself using the form at http://www.ectoguide.org/guide.cgi?newsubscribe&action=unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:51:26 -0600 From: Doug Subject: Re: "aerial" review. Excellent point about Damon Albarn, Ethan. And maybe I was harsh, I dunno. But people should understand that I, too, write for a living. That IS my day job, unlike (I think) most people on this list. I'm a technical writer; the principal I live by is to make my writing as easily understandable as possible. And that can't be done unless you know your audience. When a writer refers to a group as non-mainstream as Elastica, they should know that most of their audience won't understand the reference. More, if you have to refer to a dictionary or thesaurus, you're looking for a word you've never heard of, or at least it's not in your working vocabulary. Point: if you're never heard of it, what makes you think your audience has? This is where knowing your audience comes into play. Using obscure words makes people think that the words ARE part of your working vocabulary, and since they aren't, it's all pretense and show. People read a music review to learn about music, not about a writer's personal vanity. I've not read your writing, Collected Sounds, so please don't think I'm referring to you. And if you haven't read the review to which I referred, please reserve your stated apprehension. :-) But any writer would do well to make the reader's understanding paramount; making the writing "new" or worrying about how it might be similar to other writing should be less important, MUCH less important. I could say more on this, but I think it might not be well-received, so I'll skip it. - --Doug On 10/31/05, Ethan Straffin wrote: > I mean, c'mon: "There are many male music fans out there - and just a > smattering of male music journalists - who believe quite matter of > factly that Damon Albarn wrote Elastica's first album"? WTF? This is > not the writing of a critic who is dedicated to reviewing each work on > its own terms; this is the writing of an Elastica fan with a day job and > far more gender issues than are necessary or helpful to someone who > simply wanted to find out whether the new Kate Bush album was any good > or not. This person proves many times over in the space of 740 words > that he/she/won't-ask/won't-tell simply can't write. It's no reflection > upon Collected Sounds. ;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:52:41 -0600 From: Doug Subject: Re: "aerial" review. Crap...that should be "principle". - --Doug On 10/31/05, Doug wrote: > people on this list. I'm a technical writer; the principal I live by ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:49:25 -0500 From: "Michael Quinn" Subject: RE: "aerial" review. Maybe this is getting a little off-topic but I feel the need to respond to this. I have been a writer of various things in my life. I also find a fascination in language, all the little nuances that can express just a certain nuance of a thought better than any synonyms could. I'm not claiming to be a good writer but I have strong opinions about this. I find a thesaurus an indispensable tool when writing almost anything. Not to show off by using words which I don't know of but to find a perhaps more obscure word that captures the essence of what I'm trying to say perhaps better than a "similar" more common word. I believe you should write for yourself. If other people are interested in what you write that's a bonus but trying to "dumb-down" your writing because you think it may be less challenging for your audience to understand is, in my view, not much different from musicians who make the worst kind of bubblegum-pop. And don't take this personally because I can't comment on your work of course, but I find most of the technological manuals I've ever read to be the most boring, obtuse and tortured prose imaginable. Just try to last 5 minutes reading ANYTHING that Microsoft has written. And just take song lyrics, would anyone want song lyrics to be clear unambiguous and straight to the point? I know I certainly wouldn't. I love trying to figure out hidden subtexts and allusions in albums I enjoy. Personally I thought it was a good review and made me want to hear the album more. Bear in mind I guess that, while I like and respect Kate Bush, I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore fan of hers but the article made the album seem very special. I guess partly because I heard a lot of the people Kate Bush influenced before I actually heard her I have always felt a little on the fence with her. I love some of her songs but I feel I don't totally "get" what she's about, hoping this album will change all that... Mike - -----Original Message----- From: owner-ecto@smoe.org [mailto:owner-ecto@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Doug Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:51 AM To: ecto@smoe.org Subject: Re: "aerial" review. Excellent point about Damon Albarn, Ethan. And maybe I was harsh, I dunno. But people should understand that I, too, write for a living. That IS my day job, unlike (I think) most people on this list. I'm a technical writer; the principal I live by is to make my writing as easily understandable as possible. And that can't be done unless you know your audience. When a writer refers to a group as non-mainstream as Elastica, they should know that most of their audience won't understand the reference. More, if you have to refer to a dictionary or thesaurus, you're looking for a word you've never heard of, or at least it's not in your working vocabulary. Point: if you're never heard of it, what makes you think your audience has? This is where knowing your audience comes into play. Using obscure words makes people think that the words ARE part of your working vocabulary, and since they aren't, it's all pretense and show. People read a music review to learn about music, not about a writer's personal vanity. I've not read your writing, Collected Sounds, so please don't think I'm referring to you. And if you haven't read the review to which I referred, please reserve your stated apprehension. :-) But any writer would do well to make the reader's understanding paramount; making the writing "new" or worrying about how it might be similar to other writing should be less important, MUCH less important. I could say more on this, but I think it might not be well-received, so I'll skip it. - --Doug On 10/31/05, Ethan Straffin wrote: > I mean, c'mon: "There are many male music fans out there - and just a > smattering of male music journalists - who believe quite matter of > factly that Damon Albarn wrote Elastica's first album"? WTF? This is > not the writing of a critic who is dedicated to reviewing each work on > its own terms; this is the writing of an Elastica fan with a day job and > far more gender issues than are necessary or helpful to someone who > simply wanted to find out whether the new Kate Bush album was any good > or not. This person proves many times over in the space of 740 words > that he/she/won't-ask/won't-tell simply can't write. It's no reflection > upon Collected Sounds. ;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:10:55 -0600 From: Doug Subject: Re: "aerial" review. > I find a thesaurus an indispensable tool when writing almost anything. Not I own one myself, and by all means I suggest people use one when necessary. But IMO music critics, the one I've seen, tend to use them to show off. > I believe you should write for yourself. If other people are interested in > what you write that's a bonus That's all well and good, but only if you're writing fiction. If you're writing non-fiction, of which any *good* music critique should be, then you want to write for others. Write for your readers, your audience. The interest of others in the non-fiction you write is *not* a bonus, it's the whole point. And for non-fiction for which you're being paid, it is *essential*. > but trying to "dumb-down" your writing because you think it may be less > challenging for your audience to understand is, in my view, not much > different from musicians who make the worst kind of bubblegum-pop. You can enjoy music without understanding it. That's a given. But music is aural fiction. It's not non-fiction. This is apples and oranges. > And don't take this personally because I can't comment on your work of > course, but I find most of the technological manuals I've ever read to be > the most boring, obtuse and tortured prose imaginable. Just try to last 5 Problem is, you never know which manuals are written by engineers and which manuals are written my technical writers. And to make things worse, some writers are just plain bad. Some of them are engineers who have changed fields. > minutes reading ANYTHING that Microsoft has written. And just take song Well, Microsoft is a story unto itself. lol > lyrics, would anyone want song lyrics to be clear unambiguous and straight > to the point? I know I certainly wouldn't. I love trying to figure out > hidden subtexts and allusions in albums I enjoy. Again, this is the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Music critiques shouldn't be fiction. What's good about the music? What's bad? What should I look for? Where are the surprises and the dull moments? Don't make me pull out reference materials just so I can understand what you're trying to say. Don't make me guess at hidden subtexts and allusions in your music critique. Limit those to the music, not to the review. - --Doug ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:22:13 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: the Guardian review of Aerial Hi, Richard Konrad wrote: > Has anyone here attended a Lucy Kaplansky concert from about 2000 to > 2003? She was fond of doing a ditty called "Pi", > composed by her dad, a professional mathematician and amateur musician. > It was hilarious and very closely matched the > reviewer's description of Kate's "Pi" Coincidence or cover? Anyone > know anything about this? Coincidence, definitely. I seriously doubt Kate Bush has ever heard of Lucy Kaplansky. And I also seriously doubt she would put a cover on one of her albums. - -- =============================================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth =============================================== hear at the HOMe House Concert Series http://hom.smoe.org =============================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:48:57 -0500 From: "Michael Quinn" Subject: RE: "aerial" review. Well I agree with you up to a point. But despite what some of the more pompous reviewers would like to believe. A review is just an opinion, no fact. It's no more valid than your or my opinion. An opinion isn't exactly fiction but it certainly isn't fact. This particularly bugs me in those "top 50 albums of all time" or whatever. What gives these people the arrogance to think they can tell other people what the best albums are? But anyway, appreciation of music like other art is subjective. If reviewers must write reviews it only makes sense to me that they express their opinion of the album in whatever way they feel most comfortable. Maybe some people won't understand it; Maybe it will turn other people on to the album; Maybe none of those things. But I certainly don't want the reviewer to waste my time telling me what they think I want to hear or can understand. Ultimately of course I'm going to make up my own mind about the album and what some reviewer says won't mean a Hell of a lot. I only find reviews really useful in either deciding whether to listen to something new or getting someone else's take on an album I like. Some reviews are certainly very pompous and stupid and make my blood boil. I just didn't get that impression from this particular reviewer. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-ecto@smoe.org [mailto:owner-ecto@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Doug Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:11 PM To: ecto@smoe.org Subject: Re: "aerial" review. > I find a thesaurus an indispensable tool when writing almost anything. Not I own one myself, and by all means I suggest people use one when necessary. But IMO music critics, the one I've seen, tend to use them to show off. > I believe you should write for yourself. If other people are interested in > what you write that's a bonus That's all well and good, but only if you're writing fiction. If you're writing non-fiction, of which any *good* music critique should be, then you want to write for others. Write for your readers, your audience. The interest of others in the non-fiction you write is *not* a bonus, it's the whole point. And for non-fiction for which you're being paid, it is *essential*. > but trying to "dumb-down" your writing because you think it may be less > challenging for your audience to understand is, in my view, not much > different from musicians who make the worst kind of bubblegum-pop. You can enjoy music without understanding it. That's a given. But music is aural fiction. It's not non-fiction. This is apples and oranges. > And don't take this personally because I can't comment on your work of > course, but I find most of the technological manuals I've ever read to be > the most boring, obtuse and tortured prose imaginable. Just try to last 5 Problem is, you never know which manuals are written by engineers and which manuals are written my technical writers. And to make things worse, some writers are just plain bad. Some of them are engineers who have changed fields. > minutes reading ANYTHING that Microsoft has written. And just take song Well, Microsoft is a story unto itself. lol > lyrics, would anyone want song lyrics to be clear unambiguous and straight > to the point? I know I certainly wouldn't. I love trying to figure out > hidden subtexts and allusions in albums I enjoy. Again, this is the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Music critiques shouldn't be fiction. What's good about the music? What's bad? What should I look for? Where are the surprises and the dull moments? Don't make me pull out reference materials just so I can understand what you're trying to say. Don't make me guess at hidden subtexts and allusions in your music critique. Limit those to the music, not to the review. - --Doug ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:35:55 -0800 From: Sue Trowbridge Subject: Re: "aerial" review. On 10/31/05, Doug wrote: > I'm a technical writer; the principal I live by > is to make my writing as easily understandable as possible. And that > can't be done unless you know your audience. When a writer refers to > a group as non-mainstream as Elastica, they should know that most of > their audience won't understand the reference. More, if you have to > refer to a dictionary or thesaurus, you're looking for a word you've > never heard of, or at least it's not in your working vocabulary. Don't forget that this review was written for a British newspaper. Elastica were much more popular in the U.K. than in the U.S. -- their first album was one of the fastest-selling debuts in UK history; they were on "Top of the Pops" and everything. I strongly doubt that any U.K. music fan wouldn't know who Elastica were. And in my experience as a reader of the music press on both sides of the Atlantic, English reviewers tend to be a little more "flowery" than American ones. I think you were a little unfair. - --Sue T. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:09:05 -0800 (PST) From: Ellen Rawson Subject: RE: "aerial" review. To be honest, I didn't mind this review. And heck, if you have the print copy of the Observer, as I have (we have it delivered), you'll notice it's the CD of the week, with a coloured box around the review and a picture of Kate with it. I don't mind Kitty Empire's reviews. I write reviews for webzines. I'd love to break into print. I teach secondary students how to write reviews; whenever we're working on a review module, I bring in some of my reviews. The students complain that I use big words, but I don't need a thesaurus. Heck, I'm an English teacher. ;) Ellen, who is behind on writing reviews. I need to write up one on Heather Dale in Reading a while ago and one on the McGarrigles/Thea Gilmore gig. Karine Polwart plays the Purcell Room this Thursday in London, everyone! "Literature stops in 1100. After that, it's just books." - -- JRR Tolkien ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:07:06 -0700 From: "Peter Clark" Subject: Fw: thanks from Ashley Maher Get im while they're hot! Peter C High Performance Analogue www.redpoint-audio-design.com - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ashmaher5@aol.com To: phclark@cox.net Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 8:49 AM Subject: thanks from Ashley Maher Dear Peter, Bless you!!! Thanks so much for ordering a copy of Flying Over Bridges. I wanted to let you know that you were the very first person to order it via my website. We had a few glitches the first day, which got in the way of orders, but yours made it at last on day #2! Ashley ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:16:44 -0600 From: Doug Subject: Re: "aerial" review. > But anyway, appreciation of music like other art is subjective. If reviewers What burns me up are music critics who forget that they review art, they don't create it. - --Doug ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:30:26 -0600 From: Kim Justice Subject: Re: "aerial" review. On 10/31/05, Doug wrote: > What burns me up are music critics who forget that they review art, > they don't create it. Counter-example: Chet Flippo (http://tinyurl.com/94onl). There are others. kj - -- Kim Justice justicekw@gmail.com "There can always be new beginnings -- even for people like us" - --Susan Ivanova ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:12:58 -0600 (CST) From: "Gagnon, Christopher R." Subject: Re: "aerial" review. On Mon, October 31, 2005 12:10 pm, Doug said: > I own one myself, and by all means I suggest people use one when > necessary. But IMO music critics, the one I've seen, tend to use them > to show off. Which words were so hard to understand or so pompous? I didn't see anything in that review that required a thesaurus or dictionary. I disliked bits of the review, but not because of the language used. And mostly it just made me want to hear the album more, if that's possible. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:02:32 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: "aerial" review. Hi, > What burns me up are music critics who forget that they review art, > they don't create it. Then you will want to avoid this web site at all costs: http://www.furia.com/twas - -- =============================================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth =============================================== hear at the HOMe House Concert Series http://hom.smoe.org =============================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:37:09 -0800 From: Ethan Straffin Subject: Re: "aerial" review. Uh oh: the glenn card appears. You just had to, huh, meth. ;) At least for me, there are considerable differences between glenn's body of work and the Observer piece. I've never felt that glenn has pretended to be more than he is. When he draws an analogy, I can pretty much trust that it has something to do with the work at hand, even if it sometimes takes a pickaxe and a nine-volt flashlight to figure out what. When that Kitty Empire person draws an analogy, all I can trust is that I'm supposed to be impressed, and I'm really not. Granted, there's no single word in the review that makes me want to burn its author's thesaurus. It's more of a cumulative effect. Ethan meredith wrote: > Hi, > >> What burns me up are music critics who forget that they review art, >> they don't create it. > > > Then you will want to avoid this web site at all costs: > > http://www.furia.com/twas ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 01:31:32 +0100 From: neal copperman Subject: WOMEX I'm on my 17th hour of travelling back from Newcastle, so I'm zoning a bit. Thanks to everyone that gave me tips. I didn't have a huge amount of time, but I did run around Newcastle a bit. For me, it was just nice to be in a town with such rich architecture and cool public art. I probably spent more time roaming around looking at things then anything else. I saw some nice museums and galleries and went to the New Castle (which is still pretty old). Walked across all the bridges many times, but never did get to see the Millennium Bridge open. The bridge actually pivots to let ships through. It has a vertical arch for support (maybe?) and a horizontal arch for walking. Basically, two graceful curves at right angles from each other. The whole thing tilts 45 degrees so the ships can go through. It's right in front of the Sage Gateway - the Silver Slug that dominates the riverfront. Home to multiple performance spaces and curvey and open. It's where I spent most of my time. I didn't make it to see the exhibit in the Baltic, but I did see both Kathryn Tickel (sp?) and Eliza Carthy there. And I took the bus out to see the Angel of the North, which was a very cool sculpture. It looks kind of neat in pictures, but you really have to see it to understand the scale. It is literally the size (and sort of the shape) of an airplane standing on it's tale. I'm not going to tell you everyone I saw, but here are some of the highlights and notable ones: Robert Plant and Strange Sensations kicked off WOMEX. It was cool to see him. The set was solid, and he tossed two Zep songs into the 45 minutes set. Gallow's Pole into the middle and a breathtaking Whole Lotta Love to end it. It's easy to forget how huge the riffs in that song are, but they were pretty monstrous live. Highlights with an ecto flavor (maybe). By and large, I don't have any idea what these folks have in the way of albums. David Krakauer's Klezmer Madness! (featuring Canada's DJ Socalled rapping in yiddish) - These guys rock. Raucous and fun. Actores Alidos (from Sardinia, Italy) - 5 women singing in a polyphonic chant style in Italian. Breathtaking. And very charismatic. They had one guy playing a ton of instruments to back them up. Cherifa (Morocco) - Not at the top of my list, but quite. It was just what I was in the mood for. I was running low on steam and having a Saharan tribeswoman working some very traditional Moroccan trancey grooves was good for dancing and zoning out. Cristobal Repetto (Argentina) - Male tango singer with with a bunch of understated (surpisingly enough) acoustic guitarists. I'm not big on tango, but this guy had one fo the most beautiful voices I have ever heard. It was ethereal and magical. It seemed like the kind of haunting music someone would crank up in a bungalow on an old 78 - but without the fuzziness :) I was usually tired and uninterested in DJ's, but friends encouraged me to stay for DJ Shantel from Germany, and he really was a lot of fun. Much more interactive then everyone else, and silly and impish. Plus I don't think he let anything sit for more then 3 minutes and did a lot of mixing. One of the first DJ's to actually catch my attention. Fiamma Fumana (Italy) - This group was a real favorite of mine and definitely ecto fare. Three women, all singing. Lots of harmonies. Pipes and flutes that give it almost a Celtic feel, but catchy choruses that you could sing along to (if you can deal with Italian). And electronics too. One of my favorites and probably the most ecto band I saw all week. Flook (Ireland) - I've seen them a few times before, so I only watched a song to remind myself how much I like this double-flute led Irish band. They are all killer musicians, and Sarah Allen's percussive flute playing is still striking and surprising. She actually plays the flute so it sounds like bass or percussion. Plus, they have an amazing bodhran player. Mariem Hassan (West Africa/Sahara) - Tinariwen led by women. More groove/trance with that Tuareg/Mali feel. But it has a different flavor with a group that is mostly women. Spakka (Italy) - Hmmm, I didn't realize there were so many interesting Italian bands. This one has more of a rocking feel. Sort of that rocked up trad music that has come out of a lot of cultures, but still feels nicely country specific. Tengir-Too (Kyrgyzstan) - not really ecto, but one of my faves of the week. My favorite very traditional group. While I never understood what was going on, it was always captivating, and you could tell a sad song from a happy song quite easily. Really unique singing and playing. DC folks should look for a couple of free shows at the Sackler in March to celebrate their Smithsonian Folkways release. There were a few things I was supposed to like more but somehow didn't... The Unusual Suspects were fun, but didn't wow me. Considering they were a 20-piece orchestra of many of the premiere Scottish musicians, it seems like it should have worked better. It worked fine, and there was certainly a lot of power in having 5 fiddlers, 2 pipers, and multiples of everything on stage. But the music mostly layered it, rather then really exploring what you could do with all those musicians. Mitsoura (Hungary) - I was really expecting to like this and it didn't gel for me at all. Gypsy vocalist from Ando Drum mixes up traditional singing (with heavy heavy reverb), trad intsruments and electronics in a way that I typically like. Nitin Sawhney (UK) - The program said "on the Asian Underground to the concert hall", but it sounded like the next generation of Soul2Soul to me. Which isn't a bad thing. Just a big elaborate production to present music that would work best DJ'ed in a dance club. So that's a summary of what I saw. Oh - this was written while listening to Phonix, a very cool Danish band that I think would be popular on the ecto front. I've got in their latest release - Collage. It's got the lilting Nordic flavor of a lot of the Northside releases, but no electronics. Female vocals. And the coolest thing about it is the prominant bass clarinet all over their releases. Something to check out. www.gofolk.dk neal np: Collage - Phonix nr: Suttree - Cormac McCarthy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:26:58 -0600 From: Sander Subject: More details on Sony DRM (might be relevant for Aerial) As per /. - http://tinyurl.com/auyjl or http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html Heavy on the technical details, but this is basically a look at the inner workings of the DRM-implementation that came with at least one Sony CD (I have no information on if the same will be used with Aerial or not, but I consider it likely). Basically the software acts as a "rootkit", the most vile kind of scumware in existence, ordinarily only used by the kind of criminals that crack computers, designed to change the Operating System at the lowest level and be undetectable (virus scanners and adaware won't find it). Moreover, it appears to be a badly coded rootkit, opening the door wide open for potential further abuse from companies with even less honest objectives than the RIAA. I realize this is about Kate Bush and all, but if Aerial has the same kind of DRM, then I _strongly_ urge you to not let the CD anywhere near a Windows computer. (I also wouldn't be surprised if this is going to get Sony into a class action lawsuit sooner or later.) Sander ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V11 #297 ***************************