From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V11 #306 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Wednesday, November 9 2005 Volume 11 : Number 306 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Today's your birthday, friends... [Mike Matthews ] A method for grading artists [Bowen Simmons ] RE: A method for grading artists ["Michael Quinn" ] Re: A method for grading artists [Bowen Simmons ] Re: RE: A method for grading artists [gordodo@optonline.net] Re: A method for grading artists [Bowen Simmons ] Re: A method for grading artists [Doug ] Re: A method for grading artists [Neile Graham ] Re: A method for grading artists [Kim Justice ] Re: A method for grading artists [meredith ] Re: A method for grading artists [Dan S <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net>] RE: reactions to Aerial ["Lloyd, Bronwyn (DEH)" ] Re: A method for grading artists [Doug ] Re: reactions to Aerial [Doug ] Re: Aerial, too [John Higdon ] Re: Aerial, too [wojizzle forizzle ] Re: Aerial, too [meredith ] how to digest way too much music? [Kim Justice ] Re: A method for grading artists [Bowen Simmons ] Re: Aerial, too [Jeffrey Burka ] Re: Aerial, too [meredith ] Re: Aerial, too [Jeffrey Burka ] Re: Aerial, too [neal copperman ] Re: Aerial, too [Birdie ] Re: A method for grading artists [Neile Graham ] Passing Through Air...an Aerial View [Troy J Shadbolt ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 03:00:05 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Matthews Subject: Today's your birthday, friends... i*i*i*i*i*i i*i*i*i*i*i *************** *****HAPPY********* **************BIRTHDAY********* *************************************************** *************************************************************************** ********************** Jens Brage (no Email address) ********************** ********************* Lynn Garrett (no Email address) ********************* ********************** Sam Murgie (no Email address) ********************** *************************************************************************** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jens Brage Sun November 08 1964 Scorpio Rising Lynn Garrett Sat November 08 1958 Scorpio Sam Murgie Fri November 08 1957 Scorpio Rachel Kramer Bussel Mon November 10 1975 Scorpio Neb Rodgers Tue November 10 1959 Space Available - Inquire Within Ken Latta Sun November 11 1951 Scorpio Craig Gidney November 11 Scorpio Michael Doyle Wed November 12 1969 Scorpio Jenny Bruce Mon November 14 1966 fire-horse scorpio Dave Cook Mon November 15 1971 Scorpio Jeff Pearce November 16 Orpheus Naama Avramzon Mon November 18 1974 Scorpio Jeff Smith Mon November 19 1962 Crash Kevin Bartlett Fri November 21 1952 Scorpio with Saturn and Pluto issues Claudia Spix Wed November 23 1960 Schuetze Anja Baldo Tue November 23 1965 Garbanzo Tommy Persson Wed November 25 1964 Sagittarius Pat Tessitore November 26 Sagittarius Valerie Kraemer November 26 Sagittarius Justin Bur Fri November 27 1964 Sagittarius Sue Trowbridge Sun November 27 1966 Skytten Ward Kadel Tue November 29 1977 Sagittarius Jesse Hernandez Liwag Wed November 29 1972 Water Rat Mirko Bulaja Sat November 30 1974 Block Juha Sorva Thu December 02 1976 Sagittarius Chip Lueck Thu December 05 1968 Sagittarius Lenore December 05 sagi Michele Wellck December 08 Sagittarius - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 07:38:00 -0800 From: Bowen Simmons Subject: A method for grading artists So I had been letting my illegal downloaded copy of Aerial play over and over while counting the hours until my legal copy arrives, I took a break and listened to some other new music I had bought but hadn't yet heard. The other new album (which I won't mention) fatigued me before I had made it halfway through - sure there were more songs I had heard, but I felt pretty strongly that I knew what they would be like, and frankly, I was just too tired to listen to them right then - - maybe later, after I had a break. This experience led me to consider the difference between the two and suggest a grading scheme based on it. Obviously it is personal and experiential rather than analytical or descriptive, but it is pretty easy to do and have other people know what you mean by it. The Test. If you picked a random album by this artist, which of these comes closest to what you would expect to happen on listening to it: A - I'd be glad to attentively listen to it multiple times in a row without stopping (assuming I had the time). B - I'd be glad to attentively listen to the whole thing, but probably wouldn't want to start playing it again right away. C - I'd attentively listen to the whole thing, but before the end I probably would be enduring as much as enjoying the experience. D - Part of the album might be ok, but I doubt I would be able to stand the whole thing. F - I wouldn't want to even start listening to it. Some sample grades I would give (using some well-known artists): Kate Bush: A Cocteau Twins: B Melissa Etheridge: C Madonna: D Gwen Stefani: F (I own only a couple of D artists and no F's at present. Since both are purchase mistakes, preliminary screening usually keeps them out, and when one slips through, they tend to get rectified within a reasonable length of time, as the albums are sold or donated.) "A" artists are of course the most interesting, although it is always nice to discover a new "B". I already have more "C" artists than I need, and finding "D" and "F" artists takes no effort at all - I need only turn on the radio and there they are. For an "A" recommendation many folks might not have heard of, I'd recommend "Single Gun Theory". Bowen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:15:01 -0500 From: "Michael Quinn" Subject: RE: A method for grading artists Well the only problem with your system from my perspective is that my first impression of an album isn't always totally accurate. I, of course, have those "A" albums that I know after listening for two minutes that I love this album (Aerial is in that category for me or close). But there are also quite a few albums that I may have rated "B" or "C" or even "D" when I first heard them but They grow on me with repeated listening and eventually go into the "A" category. Conversely, there have been a few albums I loved when I first heard them and played them repeatedly for a few days or weeks and then just kind of got tired of them or realized that they weren't as good as I thought they were. That is an interesting observation you made though. I think after listening to a favourite album most other music you play right after will sound flat and uninteresting by comparison. Mike - -----Original Message----- From: owner-ecto@smoe.org [mailto:owner-ecto@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Bowen Simmons Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:38 AM To: ecto@smoe.org Subject: A method for grading artists So I had been letting my illegal downloaded copy of Aerial play over and over while counting the hours until my legal copy arrives, I took a break and listened to some other new music I had bought but hadn't yet heard. The other new album (which I won't mention) fatigued me before I had made it halfway through - sure there were more songs I had heard, but I felt pretty strongly that I knew what they would be like, and frankly, I was just too tired to listen to them right then - - maybe later, after I had a break. This experience led me to consider the difference between the two and suggest a grading scheme based on it. Obviously it is personal and experiential rather than analytical or descriptive, but it is pretty easy to do and have other people know what you mean by it. The Test. If you picked a random album by this artist, which of these comes closest to what you would expect to happen on listening to it: A - I'd be glad to attentively listen to it multiple times in a row without stopping (assuming I had the time). B - I'd be glad to attentively listen to the whole thing, but probably wouldn't want to start playing it again right away. C - I'd attentively listen to the whole thing, but before the end I probably would be enduring as much as enjoying the experience. D - Part of the album might be ok, but I doubt I would be able to stand the whole thing. F - I wouldn't want to even start listening to it. Some sample grades I would give (using some well-known artists): Kate Bush: A Cocteau Twins: B Melissa Etheridge: C Madonna: D Gwen Stefani: F (I own only a couple of D artists and no F's at present. Since both are purchase mistakes, preliminary screening usually keeps them out, and when one slips through, they tend to get rectified within a reasonable length of time, as the albums are sold or donated.) "A" artists are of course the most interesting, although it is always nice to discover a new "B". I already have more "C" artists than I need, and finding "D" and "F" artists takes no effort at all - I need only turn on the radio and there they are. For an "A" recommendation many folks might not have heard of, I'd recommend "Single Gun Theory". Bowen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 08:21:33 -0800 From: Bowen Simmons Subject: Re: A method for grading artists On Nov 8, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Michael Quinn wrote: > Well the only problem with your system from my perspective is that > my first > impression of an album isn't always totally accurate. I, of course, > have > those "A" albums that I know after listening for two minutes that I > love > this album (Aerial is in that category for me or close). But there > are also > quite a few albums that I may have rated "B" or "C" or even "D" > when I > first heard them but They grow on me with repeated listening and > eventually > go into the "A" category. This is quite true and I hadn't meant to imply that the grades could be accurately assessed after a single listen. It is of course difficult to try to do repeated listening with an album whose first listen merited a "D" or "F", but usually giving a "C", "B", or "A" artist more time to try to improve on you (and risk wearing out their welcome) isn't a chore. Bowen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:47:39 -0500 From: gordodo@optonline.net Subject: Re: RE: A method for grading artists which brings up an interesting question for me...what to do with the probably 1000 of C (and few D) albums...keep them or chuck them? sacrifice the storage space in the hope that it gets promoted into a higher category? or just move on knowing that there are 2000 A and B albums on the shelf... how often does one kick oneself after purging albums? perhaps I need to post a trading list and hope that my C's are someone elses As and Bs and that I can upgrade mine in return... - -jason np Nikka Costa - Like a Feather, Lunik - Life is On Your Side - ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Quinn Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 11:15 am Subject: RE: A method for grading artists > Well the only problem with your system from my perspective is that > my first > impression of an album isn't always totally accurate. I, of > course, have > those "A" albums that I know after listening for two minutes that > I love > this album (Aerial is in that category for me or close). But there > are also > quite a few albums that I may have rated "B" or "C" or even "D" > when I > first heard them but They grow on me with repeated listening and > eventuallygo into the "A" category. > > Conversely, there have been a few albums I loved when I first > heard them and > played them repeatedly for a few days or weeks and then just kind > of got > tired of them or realized that they weren't as good as I thought > they were. > > That is an interesting observation you made though. I think after > listeningto a favourite album most other music you play right > after will sound flat > and uninteresting by comparison. > > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ecto@smoe.org [mailto:owner-ecto@smoe.org] On Behalf > Of Bowen > Simmons > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:38 AM > To: ecto@smoe.org > Subject: A method for grading artists > > So I had been letting my illegal downloaded copy of Aerial play > over and > over while counting the hours until my legal copy arrives, I took > a break > and listened to some other new music I had bought but hadn't yet > heard. The > other new album (which I won't mention) fatigued me before I had > made it > halfway through - sure there were more songs I had heard, but I > felt pretty > strongly that I knew what they would be like, and frankly, I was > just too > tired to listen to them right then > - maybe later, after I had a break. > > This experience led me to consider the difference between the two and > suggest a grading scheme based on it. Obviously it is personal and > experiential rather than analytical or descriptive, but it is > pretty easy > to do and have other people know what you mean by it. > > The Test. > > If you picked a random album by this artist, which of these comes > closest to > what you would expect to happen on listening to it: > > A - I'd be glad to attentively listen to it multiple times in a > row without > stopping (assuming I had the time). > B - I'd be glad to attentively listen to the whole thing, but probably > wouldn't want to start playing it again right away. > C - I'd attentively listen to the whole thing, but before the end > I probably > would be enduring as much as enjoying the experience. > D - Part of the album might be ok, but I doubt I would be able to > stand the > whole thing. > F - I wouldn't want to even start listening to it. > > Some sample grades I would give (using some well-known artists): > > Kate Bush: A > Cocteau Twins: B > Melissa Etheridge: C > Madonna: D > Gwen Stefani: F > > (I own only a couple of D artists and no F's at present. Since > both are > purchase mistakes, preliminary screening usually keeps them out, > and when > one slips through, they tend to get rectified within a reasonable > length of > time, as the albums are sold or donated.) > > "A" artists are of course the most interesting, although it is > always nice > to discover a new "B". I already have more "C" artists than I > need, and > finding "D" and "F" artists takes no effort at all - I need only > turn on the > radio and there they are. > > For an "A" recommendation many folks might not have heard of, I'd > recommend"Single Gun Theory". > > Bowen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:50:10 -0800 From: Bowen Simmons Subject: Re: A method for grading artists On Nov 8, 2005, at 8:47 AM, gordodo@optonline.net wrote: > which brings up an interesting question for me...what to do with > the probably 1000 of C (and few D) albums...keep them or chuck them? I have been wrestling with the same question. As a practical matter, however, my collection is full. The amount of time it takes me to listen to my entire collection is so long that there is no merit in lengthening it. So, I've adopted the zero-sum policy: any new music I buy automatically has to displace the same quantity of old music. Since my collection is mostly Cs, it means that old Cs tend to get dumped in favor of new Cs, Bs, and the rare A. It isn't a completely formulaic process (there are some older C albums in my collection that I'm less sure aren't really unappreciated Bs than some Cs that I'm only listening to at the first time), it seems to be to a good general way to manage my collection. Bowen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:05:53 -0600 From: Doug Subject: Re: A method for grading artists If you chuck them, I suggest you donate them to your local thrift store...don't just toss them into the trash. - --Doug > which brings up an interesting question for me...what to do with > the probably 1000 of C (and few D) albums...keep them or chuck them? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:47:01 -0800 (PST) From: Neile Graham Subject: Re: A method for grading artists I think a trading list would be great. I have quite a few CDs that I can't sell (I usually sell CDs if I can so I can afford to buy more) because either no one has heard of them (obscure ecto) or they're not worth selling (under $2 selling price). I've been thinking about offering them up, either as trades or for the cost of postage for them and a ton of tapes (I've started gradually going through our 1000+ tapes to decide what I need to track down or transfer to digital) for someone wanting to do some exploring. - --Neile On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Doug wrote: > If you chuck them, I suggest you donate them to your local thrift > store...don't just toss them into the trash. > > --Doug > > > which brings up an interesting question for me...what to do with > > the probably 1000 of C (and few D) albums...keep them or chuck them? > > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- neile@drizzle.com / neile@sff.net .... http://www.sff.net/people/neile Editor, The Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music . http://www.ectoguide.org Workshop Administrator, Clarion West ...... http://www.clarionwest.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:51:24 -0600 From: Kim Justice Subject: Re: A method for grading artists On 11/8/05, Bowen Simmons wrote: > [...] > For an "A" recommendation many folks might not have heard of, I'd > recommend "Single Gun Theory". I second that gun theory. They're one of my very favorites. "Flow, River of My Soul" is especially wonderful. Nice to see someone else has heard of them! :) From a million miles, kj - -- Kim Justice justicekw@gmail.com "There can always be new beginnings -- even for people like us" - --Susan Ivanova ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:43:51 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: A method for grading artists Hi, Bowen Simmons wrote: > I have been wrestling with the same question. As a practical matter, > however, my collection is full. The amount of time it takes me to > listen to my entire collection is so long that there is no merit in > lengthening it. So, I've adopted the zero-sum policy: any new music I > buy automatically has to displace the same quantity of old music. But ... but ... the rules of the game are, the one who dies with the most music wins! Right??? :} - -- =============================================== 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: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:45:24 -0500 From: Dan S <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net> Subject: Re: A method for grading artists Jason wrote: >which brings up an interesting question for me...what to do with the >probably 1000 of C (and few D) albums...keep them or chuck them? >sacrifice the storage space in the hope that it gets promoted into a >higher category? If you take them out of their jewel cases and slip them into plastic or paper sleeves, you'll recover a lot of your storage space. Then you could donate your old jewel cases, or put them on Freecycle. If you decide to get rid of any of those discs, you may find they have some trade-in value at your nearest used CD store, assuming any still exist in your neighborhood. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 09:15:53 +1030 From: "Lloyd, Bronwyn (DEH)" Subject: RE: reactions to Aerial I too think it's the best thing she's ever done - I was howling within minutes during the first listen. I'm constantly listening to it on my portable now - and every listen brings a new experience. I've always thought that Kate is a genius, but Aerial confirms it for me. Bronny ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:13:38 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Aerial, too Hi, Well, I didn't quite make it to the record store at opening time, but I did get there this afternoon. Bought _Aerial_, found myself involuntarily giggling with joy as I held it in my hands, put both discs into the changer in my trunk, and headed off for a drive through rural Connecticut. (There are still a few leaves on the trees even after the windstorm we got here yesterday, and the colors are still amazing.) First impressions: Disc 1 is supremely silly lyrically, but musically it's gorgeous. I think if I can concentrate on ignoring the lyrics (e.g. "Pi": I know I said I could listen to KaTe sing the phone book, but I wasn't serious!!), everything with this disc will be all right. "The Coral Room" is overall beautiful, though -- I think it's by far the strongest and most moving track on the disc. Disc 2 is, in a word, stunning. Time will tell, but it may just prove to be the best thing she's ever done -- which is saying something, considering that we're talking about the same woman who gave the world _The Dreaming_. When it was over, I had chills. Most impressive, though, is her voice. She's still got it, even after all this time. :) I think this is the nicest packaging she's had, too -- I love the artwork in the booklet. (I do find it odd, though, that she didn't acknowledge Michael Kamen with anything more than a credit in the liner notes ... the orchestrations he did for this record were his final work, and I'd expected her to mention that in some way...) One question: the copyright is listed as "Kate Bush, trading as Noble and Brite". What does that mean -- is she a public entity now, like ABBA?? And what happened to Novercia Ltd.?? - -- =============================================== 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: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:20:06 -0600 From: Doug Subject: Re: A method for grading artists Speaking of which, I need tons of 6x9" bubble mailers, and am hoping to encounter someone online who has tons of them (hint hint). I don't mind if they are used, as long as they're intact-enough to be reusable. I realize this isn't Freecycle, but.... - --Doug On 11/8/05, Dan S <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net> wrote: > If you take them out of their jewel cases and slip them into plastic > or paper sleeves, you'll recover a lot of your storage space. Then > you could donate your old jewel cases, or put them on Freecycle. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:17:20 -0600 From: Doug Subject: Re: reactions to Aerial I didn't like it at first, but now I love it. Took about 3 spins. And I've concluded that new listeners should listen to disc 2, A Sky of Honey, repeated, until it's sunk in. Only then should they move onto disc 1. :-) - --Doug ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:46:56 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Aerial, too At 04:13 PM 11/8/2005, meredith wrote: >One question: the copyright is listed as "Kate Bush, trading as >Noble and Brite". What does that mean -- is she a public entity >now, like ABBA?? And what happened to Novercia Ltd.?? I noticed that too. Anyone any good with anagrams? I seem to recall from the fog of memory that "Novercia" was an anagram of "Veronica" (though I don't remember why it was). Could the new company name be an anagram too? I mean, both "Bertie" and "Albert" can be extracted from the letters in "Noble and Brite". (I noticed this when I noticed that "Brite" is almost "Bertie".) I just can't figure out what to do with the remaining letters.... John Higdon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:48:49 -0500 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: Re: Aerial, too one time at band camp, John Higdon (jchigdon@mindspring.com) said: >At 04:13 PM 11/8/2005, meredith wrote: >>One question: the copyright is listed as "Kate Bush, trading as >>Noble and Brite". What does that mean -- is she a public entity >>now, like ABBA?? And what happened to Novercia Ltd.?? >Anyone any good with anagrams? I seem to recall from the fog of >memory that "Novercia" was an anagram of "Veronica" (though I don't >remember why it was). Could the new company name be an anagram >too? I mean, both "Bertie" and "Albert" can be extracted from the >letters in "Noble and Brite". (I noticed this when I noticed that >"Brite" is almost "Bertie".) I just can't figure out what to do with >the remaining letters.... is bertie short for "robert"? assuming i remember correctly, the meaning of the name robert is "noble" and "shining". woj ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:51:06 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: Aerial, too Hi, wojizzle forizzle responded: > is bertie short for "robert"? Nope. Albert. > assuming i remember correctly, the > meaning of the name robert is "noble" and "shining". Oh really? You wouldn't have any personal stake in that whatsoever, would you? ;> - -- =============================================== 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: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:02:07 -0600 From: Kim Justice Subject: how to digest way too much music? Here's a poser for you: Back around March, I discovered the SXSW music festival's monstrous legal torrent sampler of most of the bands participating in the 2005 event (http://2005.sxsw.com/geekout/fest4pod/). We're talking about over 750 songs by artists from a broad array of genres, mostly pop/rock but a lot of other stuff, too. It's now November and I still haven't been able to get my arms around the problem of going through this huge collection of music and finding my favorites; I'm looking for suggestions from Ectophiles who have more experience with this sort of thing than I. So far I've tried just playing the whole thing on my iPod in alphabetical order (too huge), in random order (still too huge), and half the songs in shuffle play (still too huge). In the past few days, I've tried breaking the thing up into single-letter chunks -- that is, smaller lists of just bands that start with "A", then "B", etc. That seems to be almost working, to listen to those tiny subgroups individually to find songs within them that I like enough to put into regular rotation. Anyone got any better ideas? Thanks! kj - -- Kim Justice justicekw@gmail.com "There can always be new beginnings -- even for people like us" - --Susan Ivanova ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:29:55 -0800 From: Bowen Simmons Subject: Re: A method for grading artists spun.com takes most of it; the prices aren't good, but it is very low effort (and I just don't have time for anything else). Bowen On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:32 AM, gordodo@optonline.net wrote: > where do you usually purge stuff you are getting rid of? ebay? used > cd stores? > > a lot of the stuff i have borders on the obscure which means that > there is unlikely to be a used cd store interested in it or more > than one bidder on ebay looking for it... > > -jason > > ps i love single gun theory :) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bowen Simmons > Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 12:50 pm > Subject: Re: A method for grading artists > >> On Nov 8, 2005, at 8:47 AM, gordodo@optonline.net wrote: >> >>> which brings up an interesting question for me...what to do with >> >>> the probably 1000 of C (and few D) albums...keep them or chuck them? >> >> I have been wrestling with the same question. As a practical >> matter, >> however, my collection is full. The amount of time it takes me to >> listen to my entire collection is so long that there is no merit >> in >> lengthening it. So, I've adopted the zero-sum policy: any new >> music I >> buy automatically has to displace the same quantity of old music. >> Since my collection is mostly Cs, it means that old Cs tend to get >> >> dumped in favor of new Cs, Bs, and the rare A. It isn't a >> completely >> formulaic process (there are some older C albums in my collection >> that I'm less sure aren't really unappreciated Bs than some Cs >> that >> I'm only listening to at the first time), it seems to be to a good >> >> general way to manage my collection. >> >> Bowen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:51:08 -0500 From: Jeffrey Burka Subject: Re: Aerial, too > meth snaps back at our own woj: > Oh really? You wouldn't have any personal stake in that > whatsoever, would you? HEY! Don't make me separate you children! heh. I'd actually kinda forgotten that he had another name...you know, a normal one. So, yeah, actually Albert does mean "noble and bright." Guess that clears up the t/a on the copyright. I wonder if she's done something like set up a trust for Bertie so profits from _Aerial_ go straight to him... For the record, Robert is "bright famous." I'll let meth determine how appropriate that is... meth, I don't see how you can call "A Sea of Honey," and especially Pi "supremely silly." To my reading, it's KaTe's take on unrequited love in much the way Innocence Mission tackled it with "You Chase the Light." I hear the protagonist of "Pi" as someone who wishes she could be as enchanting to the object of her affection as he finds the mysteries of pi. Further, I think the imagery of the song conveys the ideal of love as circular -- endless, infinite, and yet, through the magic of the number, endlessly varying and unpredictable. I find it to be incredibly lovely. I really dig the imagery of the chorus of "How to be Invisible" with the list of things that are seen yet unseen, part of our daily existence yet walked all over. And yeah, "The Coral Room" pretty much makes me want to cry my eyes out. jeff n.p. _Aerial_, Kate Bush (well, duh) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:14:32 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: Aerial, too Hi, Jeffrey Burka wrote: >> meth snaps back at our own woj: > HEY! Don't make me separate you children! :) > heh. I'd actually kinda forgotten that he had another name...you know, > a normal one. Sometimes we do, too. > So, yeah, actually Albert does mean "noble and bright." Guess that > clears up the t/a on the copyright. I wonder if she's done something > like set up a trust for Bertie so profits from _Aerial_ go straight to > him... Huh -- that would be cool if so. I really like the photos of Bertie in the booklet (especially the one of him and Kate under water). He looks exactly like his mum in that one. :) > meth, I don't see how you can call "A Sea of Honey," and especially Pi > "supremely silly." I wasn't really talking about Pi (the numbers are initially cool, but I think it goes on too long -- maybe it will grow on me). I was mainly thinking of "Mrs. Bartolozzi", and to a certain degree "Lovely Bertie", though I know it's pretty much sacrilege to diss on a song that is obviously so personal for her. It occurred to me that if I think of "Mrs. Bartolozzi" as a late version of one of the Cathy Demos (which it really does resemble musically), it's much easier to digest ... so I'll just do that. :) > I really dig the imagery of the chorus of "How to be Invisible" with > the list of things that are seen yet unseen, part of our daily > existence yet walked all over. Oh yes -- I think that is one of the stronger tracks on the disc. - -- =============================================== 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: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:41:43 -0500 From: Jeffrey Burka Subject: Re: Aerial, too > meth sez: > It occurred to me that if I think of "Mrs. Bartolozzi" as a late > version of one of the Cathy Demos (which it really does resemble > musically), it's much easier to digest ... so I'll just do that. :) funny -- I've been thinking the exact same thing for the past three days and forgot to mention it in my last e-mail. The vocals and the piano, so immediate and simple, really sound just like something off the Cathy Demos (albeit with decent sound!) Lyrically, I'm not quite sure how to take it -- the first verse makes me think of nothing so much as _Mommie Dearest_I can just see Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford, down on her knees with Diana Scarwid, singing "it took hours and hours to scrub it out -- I cleaned and I cleaned!" But the second verse seems almost scandalous, particularly the thrusting of the waves and the "little fish between my legs." I've gotten the impression from KaTe in interviews that she intended the song to be an ode to domesticity, but it seems more like an ode to the horny daydreams of a lonely housefrau. Ooh. I love this album. jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:52:46 -0700 From: neal copperman Subject: Re: Aerial, too >I wasn't really talking about Pi (the numbers are initially cool, >but I think it goes on too long -- maybe it will grow on me). I'm sure a lot of people think that is true about Pi. neal np: Good Looking Blues - Laika ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:31:19 -0800 From: Birdie Subject: Re: Aerial, too > I wasn't really talking about Pi (the numbers are initially cool, but > I think it goes on too long -- maybe it will grow on me). I'm sure a lot of people think that is true about Pi. neal As it goes on, she changes her tone emotionally. When birds sing, they might sound like they are just singing a bunch of notes (or, the phone book or....a bunch of numbers) Music can all be broken down mathematically... Soooo, what do the numbers break down to, mathematically, that Kate sings???? Point being - just cos you don't know how to translate the numbers - doesn't mean they don't have meaning. Just because you don't know what birds are saying/meaning when they sing, doesn't mean they are not communicating - they are - just in a different language than yours. Aerial is going top keep everyone busy for awhile - as, it did Kate! Cheers, Birdie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:46:17 -0800 From: Neile Graham Subject: Re: A method for grading artists I sell things on half.com and amazon, and occasionally ebay. - --Neile At 5:29 PM -0800 11/8/05, Bowen Simmons wrote: >spun.com takes most of it; the prices aren't good, but it is very >low effort (and I just don't have time for anything else). > >Bowen > > >On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:32 AM, gordodo@optonline.net wrote: > >>where do you usually purge stuff you are getting rid of? ebay? used >>cd stores? >> >>a lot of the stuff i have borders on the obscure which means that >>there is unlikely to be a used cd store interested in it or more >>than one bidder on ebay looking for it... >> >>-jason >> >>ps i love single gun theory :) - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neile Graham .... neile@sff.net/@drizzle.com ... www.sff.net/people/neile Les Semaines: A Weekly Journal ........ www.sff.net/people/neile/semaines Editor, The Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music ........... www.ectoguide.org Workshop Administrator, Clarion West ................ www.clarionwest.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:46:46 -0800 From: Troy J Shadbolt Subject: Passing Through Air...an Aerial View I've now listened to both discs full through 3 times now, and 12 years of withdraw symptoms are just about forgotten. Maybe I'm just flying after feeding this addiction, but does anyone else view Aerial as a culmination of all the previous KaTe albums released? Structurally, it is similar to Hounds of Love, with the first "album" being a collection of tunes that aren't really linked (A Sea of Honey) while the second "album" (A Sky of Honey) is an entire performance piece? The Red Shoes tried to make an entire album as a performance piece (hence the short film) but it wasn't really satisfying. Sea of Honey could easily be pumped directly into my bloodstream and make me supremely happy. I also notice what appears to be an intentional dip into structures, topics and styles from past recordings. I listen and hear echoes in my head of some of my favorite old songs throughout with many nods to The Sensual World, Hounds of Love and the Kick Inside. I hope we don't have to wait another 12 years (or longer) for our next fix. - --- troy j shadbolt www.voyuz.net ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V11 #306 ***************************