From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V12 #126 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Tuesday, May 16 2006 Volume 12 : Number 126 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Today's your birthday, friend... [Mike Matthews ] RE: things we don't get... [Dave ] Re: things we don't get... [robert bristow-johnson ] Re: things we don't get... ["Xenu's Sister" ] not getting it [anna maria "stjärnell" ] Re: Things we don't get [Todd Pierce ] Re: things we don't get... [Greg Dunn ] gnarls barkley [Cheri Villines ] Re: not getting it [Doug ] Re: Things we don't get [Doug ] Re: things we don't get... [DanS <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net>] Re: things we don't get... ["Michael Quinn" ] Re: Veda Hille [Jeff Wasilko ] Re: things we don't get... [robert bristow-johnson ] bob dylan [Bernie Mojzes ] Re: things we don't get... [Bernie Mojzes ] Re: evolution ["Michael Quinn" ] Re: evolution [Greg Dunn ] Re: things we don't get... ["Jon Wesley Huff" ] Re: evolution [jjhanson@att.net] Re: evolution [Bernie Mojzes ] Re: evolution [Greg Dunn ] Re: gnarls barkley [neal copperman ] Re: things we don't get... [meredith ] Re: things we don't get... [andrew fries ] Re: things we don't get... [wojizzle forizzle ] Re: things we don't get... [meredith ] Not getting things [adamk@zoom.co.uk] Re: things we don't get... [russ ] Re: things we don't get... [angiegamgee@jherusalem.com] Re: evolution ["Jon Wesley Huff" ] Re: things we don't get... [andrew fries ] Re: Not getting things [Bernie Mojzes ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:00:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Matthews Subject: Today's your birthday, friend... i*i*i*i*i*i i*i*i*i*i*i *************** *****HAPPY********* **************BIRTHDAY********* *************************************************** *************************************************************************** **************** Michael Colford (colford@chlotrudis.org) ***************** *************************************************************************** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Michael Colford Wed May 16 1962 Taurus Christopher Boek Tue May 19 1970 Taurus Julia Macklin Mon May 20 1968 ethereus Yngve Hauge Fri May 21 1971 Gemini Lisa Laane Tue May 22 1973 Gemini Jewel Kilcher Thu May 23 1974 The Gem Chandra Sriram Thu May 27 1971 Gemini Taina Sahlander Mon May 28 1973 Gemini Urs Stafford Thu May 31 1973 Give Way Perttu Yli-Krekola Thu June 02 1966 Kaksoset Alex Gibbs Thu June 08 1967 Betelgeuse Gleb Zverev Tue June 09 1964 Gemini Sonja Juchniewich Mon June 10 1963 Pegasus Joerg Plate Mon June 12 1967 Gemini Chris Montville Tue June 13 1978 Gemini Ectoplasm (original name) Mailing List Thu June 13 1991 Fuzzier blue Paul Huesman Wed June 14 1967 coffee drinker Mark R. Susskind Wed June 15 1966 Gemini Dave Upham Sun June 15 1958 Gemini Mike Matthews Mon June 16 1969 Pr. SAFH - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:38:44 -0400 From: Dave Subject: RE: things we don't get... I have to agree with Meth on this one.. Radiohead. The first time I heard them was on SNL. I turned it on just after they started playing, so I didn't know who it was I was watching. The singer appeared to be either drunk off his ass, stoned out of his mind, brain damaged, or some combination of the three, there was a guy with some old synth equipment twiddling knobs and flipping switches with not a single musical sound coming out of it, and the rest of the band sounded like a garage band a couple of kids had just put together that morning. I found out who they were at the end of the show, and have been mystified ever since.. this is, according to many critics, the best band ever? What? I thought they might have been having an off night.. maybe their albums were better.. so I gave a listen.. no. No. no.... I'm also going to go along with Sigur Ros. Someone on myspace posted a link to mp3s of their last album just before it came out, so I gave it a try as they were highly recommended... the music was ok, nothing spectacular, but ok... then the singing started... um... ew. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 04:08:38 -0400 From: robert bristow-johnson Subject: Re: things we don't get... on 05/15/2006 14:48, Jon Wesley Huff at jonwesleyhuff@gmail.com wrote: > The Beatles. I just don't get it. I like their stuff okay. They make > nice pop music - but I just don't get why people are so devoted to > them. i'm a little older than most but still young to be coming of age in the Beatles hey-day. i would say songs like Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, Michelle (and that one didn't get #1 so it isn't on that red #1 CD), Come together, and Let it Be are all timeless. some of these songs i remember when they first came out and i was just a little kid. i came of age in the 70s and hated most pop (as i have ever since) - pretty much anything other than Emerson Lake and Palmer, Yes, Pink Floyd, Todd Rundgren (and maybe a little Led Zepplin, 10 Years After, Jethro Tull). those were the only albums that other people might have had that i would have wanted (note that Beatles, Stones, Dead, Doors, or Kinks isn't among the list). definitely into stoner music. when i discovered alternative music it was a space-metal band called Captain Beyond, another called Wishbone Ash (a little more famous), a British band called Camel (John Diliberto of the Echoes radio show had also, i just found out), a German band called Finch, a Dutch band called Kayak and other art-rock bands Gentle Giant, Brand X (Phil Collins was in that - i didn't like Genesis too much). bet most of you have never heard of them. then i started to grow up a little and got into Jean-Luc Ponty, Chic Corea, Al Dimeola, Jeff Beck/Jan Hammer, and then into Windham Hill (except for George Winston who is a big yawn) like Shadowfax, Michael Hedges and the Narada label. I was convinced that any music that i like to hear had no vocals (because vocals were strongly associated with pop and the lyrics were usually mind-numbingly stupid, the Beatle days were long over) and then, sometime in the 90s, i was listening to Echoes and i heard for the first time Happy sing "Save Our Souls" (living room concert version on The Keep) and my jaw began to drop. hasn't been the same since (slack-jawed yokel). THAT'S the thing i don't get. why isn't Happy as popular and as busy as, say, Lisa Gerrard or Tori Amos? doesn't make sense. - -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:41:19 +1000 From: andrew fries Subject: Re: things we don't get... robert bristow-johnson wrote: > I was convinced that any music that i like to hear had no vocals (because > vocals were strongly associated with pop and the lyrics were usually > mind-numbingly stupid, the Beatle days were long over) Yet for all their greatness the Beatles produced their share of mind-numbingly stupid lyrics; in facts if I had to find one weakness in their craft I would say, the lyrics. Much of their earlier output was completely meaningless, just the filler for the melody (love love me do, you know I love you), and much later they produced what I regard as the most awkward line EVER... consider this: But the fool on the hill, Sees the sun going down. And the eyes in his head, See the world spinning around. THE EYES IN HIS HEAD ?!?!?? I rest my case. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:54:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Xenu's Sister" Subject: Re: things we don't get... - --- Bernie Mojzes wrote: > while extremely confused, you said: > > > > > Charlotte Martin. > > > > I knew I'd hate this thread. *sad and embarrased* > > don't be sad. it's just a matter of taste, is all. :) > if we all had the same taste, life would be boring indeed. I do understand that, but that's not what I was sad about. I don't see why it's necessary to be rude about artists. Char has a lot of fans here, mostly lurkers, and it would kill me if word got out that "Happy Rhodes fans hate Char" when it's only a few more vocal people. Not that it's my place to tell people what to say and how to say it, but even if someone doesn't like Char, there's no need to be nasty. Ecto's better than that. Char deserves better. On a happier note, I've just had an add request and message from Caroline Lavelle. She sent *me* the add request, and *she* sent me a message and said she loved Happy's music, signed Caroline. How amazingly wonderful is that?! Vickie - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Music, all I hear is music, guaranteed to please... Happy's MySpace profile: http://www.myspace.com/happyrhodes Happy Rhodes song samples and rarities: http://wretchawry.com - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:50:11 -0700 (PDT) From: anna maria "stjärnell" Subject: not getting it hi.. here's mine.. bob dylan..awesome songs, but the voice spoils it for me. I'm just a Cohen kinda girl. u2-no, not getting it. sex pistols-the angry monkees said peter buck. I agree. John Lydon's an entertaining guy but that's that. the fall-i admire mark e smith, but he's made the same album these past twenty years. Celine dion-um..everbody hates her right? guilty pleasures-we all have a few. Mine's sarah brightman,robbie williams and sugababes. anna maria Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 05:30:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Pierce Subject: Re: Things we don't get This is probably blasphemy on this list - but for me it has to be Tori Amos. It seemed I should like her since I am into Kate Bush, Happy Rhodes, Fiona Apple, Charlotte Martin, and other such female singers. And yet, I think Scarlet's Walk is brilliant and Little Earthquakes/Under the Pink are almost as good - but the others leave me either cold (Choirgirl Hotel), confused (Boys for Pele), or catatonic (The Beekeeper). People kept saying 'give Boys for Pele a few listens, it will click for you'. Well I have, and it just seems like noise to me. (Painful noise, as opposed to the enjoyable noise of Kate's The Dreaming.) A close second is Sarah McLachlan. I played her first album, Touch, all the time when it came out. Then she seemed to go off into adult contemporary territory and never came back.... Todd Pierce Asheville NC Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 23:55:23 -0400 From: Greg Dunn Subject: Re: things we don't get... Heheh. I'll take two: Nope, I never got the Rolling Stones either. Aside from some interesting stuff around 1968-1970, their stuff always came across as pounding, incessant rock that never really said anything above the primal level. Don't hate them, just never found them more than peripherally interesting - even when they weren't 30 years past their sell-by date. :D But... why are the Beatles so revered? Simple. They did it FIRST. Sure, maybe others have taken pop songwriting to a new level, or turned effects, editing, unconventional instruments, and pitch shifting to great success. But every single one of them, consciously or not, owe the Beatles for trying it before anyone else got a clue. Or at least putting it on top-selling albums where the world could listen. If the Beatles owe anyone, it's the blues, jazz and country artists who inspired their love of rhythm and harmony - and who they popularized by reference. Evolve? I'm not sure pop music has evolved since the Beatles. Surely it's split into a hundred different sub-genres (many of them excellent), but I don't think there has been a band that has written a good solid simple 3-minute pop tune in years. And certainly not 50 of them. ;-) Oh, OK; I'll add one more to keep the kettle boiling: Oasis. To quote Douglas Adams: "People ask me if Oasis are as good as the Beatles; I don't think they're as good as the Rutles." Saw them once, and couldn't tolerate their ill-concealed contempt for the audience, or their arrogant stage presence. Didn't think the music was too bad, but it wasn't good enough for me to put up with the band. My, I must be grumpy tonight; that was quite a screed. :-) - -- - -- | Greg Dunn | People are so conditioned to take | | gregdunn@indy.net | sides that a balanced analysis | | The Sultan of Slack(tm) | looks to them like hatred. | | http://www.indy.net/~gregdunn/ | Scott Adams | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:45:38 -0500 From: Cheri Villines Subject: gnarls barkley Couple of video links. Cheri ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:59:59 -0500 From: Doug Subject: Re: not getting it I hate to say it, but now that you mention her name, I'm reminded that I just can't get into Sarah either. Same with Norah Jones. I've listened to at least one full CD from each and they just don't crank me. - --Doug On 5/16/06, anna maria stjdrnell wrote: > guilty pleasures-we all have a few. Mine's sarah > brightman,robbie williams and sugababes. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:07:18 -0500 From: Doug Subject: Re: Things we don't get Boys for Pele is remarkable if only for the piano work. Awesome. And the vocals on Father Lucifer are to die for. And dude, Sarah's Fumbling CD is the best CD of the '90s. Period. Give it a spin. - --Doug On 5/16/06, Todd Pierce wrote: > This is probably blasphemy on this list - but for me > it has to be Tori Amos. It seemed I should like her > since I am into Kate Bush, Happy Rhodes, Fiona Apple, > Charlotte Martin, and other such female singers. And > yet, I think Scarlet's Walk is brilliant and Little > Earthquakes/Under the Pink are almost as good - but > the others leave me either cold (Choirgirl Hotel), > confused (Boys for Pele), or catatonic (The > Beekeeper). People kept saying 'give Boys for Pele a > few listens, it will click for you'. Well I have, and > it just seems like noise to me. (Painful noise, as > opposed to the enjoyable noise of Kate's The > Dreaming.) > > A close second is Sarah McLachlan. I played her first > album, Touch, all the time when it came out. Then she > seemed to go off into adult contemporary territory and > never came back.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:21:27 -0400 From: DanS <2005.carnivore99@verizon.net> Subject: Re: things we don't get... Vickie said: >I don't see why it's necessary to be rude about artists. >Char has a lot of fans here, mostly lurkers, and it would >kill me if word got out that "Happy Rhodes fans hate Char" >when it's only a few more vocal people. I didn't mean to touch a nerve but I don't think expressing my opinion on this subject was so rude, it was simply critical of an artist's music in keeping with the very premise of the topic. I find it worthwhile to hear everyone's musical opinions on artists that matter whether they're positive or not, it's that kind of discussion that has always made ecto interesting to me. There are criticisms of other, even more venerable artists than Charlotte in this thread, some of my favorites among them. But I find it engaging, not embarrassing to hear them, and it would sadden me if that kind of musical dialogue were discouraged here. I don't believe my individual opinions on Charlotte's music implied that all Happy fans don't like her, and it wasn't my intention to make you or anybody else sad. I actually think it's a pretty good topic, and your counterpoints on Charlotte are well taken. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:22:26 -0400 From: "Michael Quinn" Subject: Re: things we don't get... Joana Newsome is one recommended on here often that I just can't stand. I must say the music is good but her vocals are so beyond annoying. Regina Spektor is anotther one in the same category for the same reason. I've also never been able to get into Bjork much although she doesn't annoy me quite as much as the other two. Maybe I should grit my teeth and force myself to listen to their whole discographies before making a judgement but it's hard. The first Charlote Martin albumb I babsolutely can't stand, it's just so "precious" and "cute" in a bad way. However "On Your Shore" and her last two EPs are 1000 times better in my opinion and I like those quite a lot. Mike . - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gagnon, Christopher R." To: Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 6:30 PM Subject: Re: things we don't get... > Confusing Patti Smith with Patti Smyth is nothing short of a SCANDAL! > (heh, heh, get it?) > > On Mon, May 15, 2006 4:59 pm, Bowen Simmons wrote: >> Patti Smith. Too bad I'm such a lousy speller and spell checkers >> don't handle people's names. Sorry about any confusion. >> >> Bowen >> >> >> On May 15, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Bernie Mojzes wrote: >> >>> >>> am curious... patty smyth or patti smith? >>> >>> >>>> Patti Smyth. The classic artist that you think I would like from >>>> knowing about my general tastes, but who just doesn't do anything for >>>> me. Boy did I try to like Patty Smyth. I had several Patti Smyth >>>> albums for years, thinking that even if I didn't like them that much >>>> at first, if I stuck with it I was bound to warm up to her. Didn't >>>> happen. Certainly nobody could accuse her of what I accused Bowie of, >>>> of being artificial: I believe right to the soles of my shoes that >>>> what she projects is what she is; the problem is that I just don't >>>> find what she is appealing to listen to, and I have really, really >>>> tried. >>>> >>> >>> brni >>> >>> i don't want the world, >>> i just want your half. >>> >>> www.livejournal.com/~brni ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:58:41 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Re: Veda Hille On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 04:42:04PM -0400, wojizzle forizzle wrote: > road trip! meredith and i have been meaning to go back to germany > sometime...now, wouldn't us showing up at a gig in, say, ingolstadt > completely freak her out! ;) plus, you could see where my car was made! ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:06:59 -0400 From: robert bristow-johnson Subject: Re: things we don't get... on 05/16/2006 01:27, kerry white at kerrywhite@webtv.net wrote: > Hi, Patti Smith. I loved and still love "Horses". I kept looking for > more of the same and never found any on 3 cassettes. ya know, i never got a Patti Smith album or CD, but there was something about her that i liked. kinda raw and raunchy with deep meaning. for some reason, i've been thinking of Noe Venable as a sorta mix of Happy Rhodes and Patti Smith (like that song "Feral" or "Black Madonna"). reminds me of another "i don't get it": Madonna. here another big-time "i don't get it" from, of all labels, the Windham Hill: Jim Brickman. what a bunch of commercial nu-age drivel marketed as alternative something-or-nother. when WH put out Brickman was as disillusioning as when Pink Floyd put out The Wall. - -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:31:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Mojzes Subject: evolution a number of people have mentioned "evolution" wrt music (in particular wrt the beatles and what had come after), some saying that music has evolved since then, getting better and better, while others saying that it hasn't really evolved, just divided up into billions and billions (to borrow from carl sagan) subgenres. i'd like to suggest that music has, in fact, been evolving, and that this evolution has nothing to do with quality. evolution is not a process of refinement or improvement. it's a process of adaption to environment, and this environment is a great many things, from political climate to economic climate to available technology to what-the-fans-like to... in the end, 90% of what is produced at any given time is Crappe. of the rest, we have an unprecedented ability to discover the things that speak to us (us as individuals, not us as a collective), and that resonate with whatever it is that makes us who we are. - -- brni i don't want the world, i just want your half. www.livejournal.com/~brni ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:37:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Mojzes Subject: bob dylan for those of you who, like me, "don't get" bob dylan, and think that his songs are pretty good when someone else does them, but that the very idea of him singing "all along the watchtower" constintues a thoughtcrime, check out some of the stuff he's done over the last decade or so. i'm thinking "Time Out of Mind" and the like. over the years he's trashed out his voice to the point that he's no longer giving us a nasally whine; he's got this raspy "smoke & whiskey" voice, and he's started doing some really interesting blues. - -- brni i don't want the world, i just want your half. www.livejournal.com/~brni ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:40:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Mojzes Subject: Re: things we don't get... my vote for most annoying lyrics of all time: da doo doo doo da da da da that's all i want to say to you. brni > But the fool on the hill, > Sees the sun going down. > And the eyes in his head, > See the world spinning around. > > THE EYES IN HIS HEAD ?!?!?? > I rest my case. > - -- brni i don't want the world, i just want your half. www.livejournal.com/~brni ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:58:48 -0400 From: "Michael Quinn" Subject: Re: evolution Well I thiink advanvces in electronic music, production quality and the like have given talented artists more ways to express themselves and potentially make better music than they have been able to in the the past. But, of course, the the talent has to be there in the first place. So there will always be a fairr amount of crap but it just helps you appreciate true talent more. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernie Mojzes" To: "Ecto" Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:31 PM Subject: evolution >a number of people have mentioned "evolution" wrt music (in particular wrt > the beatles and what had come after), some saying that music has evolved > since then, getting better and better, while others saying that it hasn't > really evolved, just divided up into billions and billions (to borrow from > carl sagan) subgenres. > > i'd like to suggest that music has, in fact, been evolving, and that this > evolution has nothing to do with quality. evolution is not a process of > refinement or improvement. it's a process of adaption to environment, > and this environment is a great many things, from political climate to > economic climate to available technology to what-the-fans-like to... > > in the end, 90% of what is produced at any given time is Crappe. of the > rest, we have an unprecedented ability to discover the things that speak > to us (us as individuals, not us as a collective), and that resonate with > whatever it is that makes us who we are. > > -- > > brni > > i don't want the world, > i just want your half. > > www.livejournal.com/~brni ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:07:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: Greg Dunn Subject: Re: evolution >in the end, 90% of what is produced at any given time is Crappe. of the >rest, we have an unprecedented ability to discover the things that speak >to us (us as individuals, not us as a collective), and that resonate with >whatever it is that makes us who we are. 100% agree. I had a conversation with a co-worker a few months ago who asserted that there hadn't been any good new artists since the 80s. Leaving aside the fact that this guy (10 years younger than I) pretty much stopped evaluating alternative viewpoints when he reached adulthood ;-) I went home that evening and put together a list of 50 artists from 1990-to-present that I thought fell into the 10% "worth a listen" category. Further, they were artists I considered near-essential, many of whom I first discovered here. Other than some non-musical objections to a few of them, he had nothing to say - but I doubt I swayed his opinion either. Some of us quit evolving at an earlier age than others. :D ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:41:16 -0500 From: "Jon Wesley Huff" Subject: Re: things we don't get... See, the thing is - I don't think being FIRST is enough. And I definitely think there have been a great number of pop tunes made since then. And I think music has evolved, if not pop music. I frankly find many of the Beatles song to be quite.... well, quaint. Not without merit, and certainly worthy of a great deal or respect... but some people act as though its the pinnacle of music, never to be eclipsed. That strikes me as very sad. I think they owe a lot of their popularity to nostalgia from people who grew up with them, and trickled down nostalgia passed onto kids who grew up their whole life being told how great they were. But that's just my opinion. I still don't get it. :) > But... why are the Beatles so revered? Simple. They did it FIRST. > Sure, maybe others have taken pop songwriting to a new level, or > turned effects, editing, unconventional instruments, and pitch > shifting to great success. But every single one of them, consciously > or not, owe the Beatles for trying it before anyone else got a clue. > Or at least putting it on top-selling albums where the world could > listen. If the Beatles owe anyone, it's the blues, jazz and country > artists who inspired their love of rhythm and harmony - and who they > popularized by reference. > > Evolve? I'm not sure pop music has evolved since the Beatles. > Surely it's split into a hundred different sub-genres (many of them > excellent), but I don't think there has been a band that has written > a good solid simple 3-minute pop tune in years. And certainly not 50 > of them. ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:22:29 +0000 From: jjhanson@att.net Subject: Re: evolution I'd be curious to see your list. Might make me check out some new artists. Jeff - -------------- Original message from Greg Dunn : -------------- > >in the end, 90% of what is produced at any given time is Crappe. of the > >rest, we have an unprecedented ability to discover the things that speak > >to us (us as individuals, not us as a collective), and that resonate with > >whatever it is that makes us who we are. > > 100% agree. > > I had a conversation with a co-worker a few months ago who asserted that there > hadn't been any good new artists since the 80s. Leaving aside the fact that > this guy (10 years younger than I) pretty much stopped evaluating alternative > viewpoints when he reached adulthood ;-) I went home that evening and put > together a list of 50 artists from 1990-to-present that I thought fell into the > 10% "worth a listen" category. Further, they were artists I considered > near-essential, many of whom I first discovered here. Other than some > non-musical objections to a few of them, he had nothing to say - but I doubt I > swayed his opinion either. Some of us quit evolving at an earlier age than > others. :D ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:29:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Mojzes Subject: Re: evolution imo, really talented artists will make great music with whatever is available, even if that's a herring can, a stick and a string. (i actually have an instrument made from these 3 items, and have yet to make great music with it, which proves something, i think. :) brni > Well I thiink advanvces in electronic music, production quality and the like > have given talented artists more ways to express themselves and potentially > make better music than they have been able to in the the past. But, of > course, the the talent has to be there in the first place. So there will > always be a fairr amount of crap but it just helps you appreciate true > talent more. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bernie Mojzes" > To: "Ecto" > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:31 PM > Subject: evolution > > > >a number of people have mentioned "evolution" wrt music (in particular wrt > > the beatles and what had come after), some saying that music has evolved > > since then, getting better and better, while others saying that it hasn't > > really evolved, just divided up into billions and billions (to borrow from > > carl sagan) subgenres. > > > > i'd like to suggest that music has, in fact, been evolving, and that this > > evolution has nothing to do with quality. evolution is not a process of > > refinement or improvement. it's a process of adaption to environment, > > and this environment is a great many things, from political climate to > > economic climate to available technology to what-the-fans-like to... > > > > in the end, 90% of what is produced at any given time is Crappe. of the > > rest, we have an unprecedented ability to discover the things that speak > > to us (us as individuals, not us as a collective), and that resonate with > > whatever it is that makes us who we are. > > > > -- > > > > brni > > > > i don't want the world, > > i just want your half. > > > > www.livejournal.com/~brni > - -- brni i don't want the world, i just want your half. www.livejournal.com/~brni ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:47:18 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: Greg Dunn Subject: Re: evolution If I can find the file, I'll be happy to post it... but I doubt there will be many unfamiliar names on it for an Ecto subscriber. ;-) - -----Original Message----- >From: jjhanson@att.net >Sent: May 16, 2006 2:22 PM >To: ecto@smoe.org >Subject: Re: evolution > >I'd be curious to see your list. Might make me check out some new artists. > >Jeff > > >-------------- Original message from Greg Dunn : -------------- > > >> >in the end, 90% of what is produced at any given time is Crappe. of the >> >rest, we have an unprecedented ability to discover the things that speak >> >to us (us as individuals, not us as a collective), and that resonate with >> >whatever it is that makes us who we are. >> >> 100% agree. >> >> I had a conversation with a co-worker a few months ago who asserted that there >> hadn't been any good new artists since the 80s. Leaving aside the fact that >> this guy (10 years younger than I) pretty much stopped evaluating alternative >> viewpoints when he reached adulthood ;-) I went home that evening and put >> together a list of 50 artists from 1990-to-present that I thought fell into the >> 10% "worth a listen" category. Further, they were artists I considered >> near-essential, many of whom I first discovered here. Other than some >> non-musical objections to a few of them, he had nothing to say - but I doubt I >> swayed his opinion either. Some of us quit evolving at an earlier age than >> others. :D ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:18:42 -0600 From: neal copperman Subject: Re: gnarls barkley Wow, there sure are a lot of people in that duo! neal At 8:45 AM -0500 5/16/06, Cheri Villines wrote: >Couple of video links. > > > > > > > >Cheri ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:40:31 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: things we don't get... Hi, Michael Quinn wrote: > Joana Newsome is one recommended on here often that I just can't stand. Oh, how could I forget her? Her voice makes me want to run screaming in the other direction. (woj knows to only listen to _The Milk-Eyed Mender_ when I'm not at home. :) Rufus Wainwright is another one. He's worshipped in my general circle, but he sounds like a lamb being slaughtered to me and I just can't deal at *all*. - -- =============================================== 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: Wed, 17 May 2006 06:39:19 +1000 From: andrew fries Subject: Re: things we don't get... Doug wrote: > What's awkward about it? "And the eyes in his head see the world > spinning around." Sounds fine to me, unless you want to quibble about > starting the sentence with "And". No, I quibble about 'eyes in his head'. As opposed to what, the more common ones found on the buttocks? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:40:40 -0400 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: Re: things we don't get... one time at band camp, andrew fries (afries@internode.on.net) said: >Doug wrote: >>What's awkward about it? "And the eyes in his head see the world >>spinning around." Sounds fine to me, unless you want to quibble about >>starting the sentence with "And". >No, I quibble about 'eyes in his head'. As opposed to what, the more >common ones found on the buttocks? "eyes in his head" = the mind's eye = thoughts. seems pretty straight-forward to me. woj ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:01:11 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: things we don't get... Hi, andrew fries wrote: > No, I quibble about 'eyes in his head'. As opposed to what, the more > common ones found on the buttocks? Funny, this line has always stood out to me but I've thought it clever and not inane. Sometimes stating the obvious works in an artistic way, because it's not something that's normally in the forefront of your mind. YMMV, obviously ... :) - -- =============================================== 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, 16 May 2006 22:33:00 +0100 From: adamk@zoom.co.uk Subject: Not getting things I didn't mean this to be such a negative thread, really, so perhaps I should explain myself a bit better: it's just one of those things that always frustrates me, and thought I'd see if anybody else had artists like this. I mean, I loved grunge: the guitars, bass and drums, the anguished, visceral vocals. The Pixies had these in spades, and are often credited with being ur-grunge. So, if all the ingredients are there, why don't I like them? Frustrating, to say the least. Same with the Smiths: thoughtful, sensitive guitar music about the human condition. Or so I'm told. I don't get it. There are loads of artists I just plain don't like, and there's a select few whose work I admire and acknowledge as great, but just can't be a fan of (Bowie) but these are artists I know I SHOULD like. As I said, all the ingredients are there and they stand shoulder to shoulder with similar artists whose work I love (and have often influenced these artists) but no matter how hard I try, it just doesn't work for me. I don't know if this makes it any clearer. Again, I apologise for any negative vibes I may have spread. adam k. - ----------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://webmail.zoom.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:35:33 -0700 From: russ Subject: Re: things we don't get... I don't get Devandra Banhart and "psyche-folk" as if this sound were something new and fresh. I don't get Death Cab for Cutie and other bands that have been around for 10 years ,but are just now breaking through... to new commecial heights because they've honed their sound to something that average joes will listen to on the radio in between morning jock banter. I don't get Phish, and most jam bands in general that sound like warmed over Grateful Dead retreads (A band I do actually get). I do not get My Morning Jacket (saw them open for Guided ByVoices a few years ago and they were awful), The Decemberists, and a surprising number of bands coming out of the Portland area. I'll stop here... - - Russ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:19:20 -0700 (PDT) From: angiegamgee@jherusalem.com Subject: Re: things we don't get... I don't get the Dresden Dolls, or the dark cabaret style of music that seems to be on the rise lately. I've tried to get into the DD a couple of times, but I don't see anything great about Amanda Palmer's voice. It really turns me off. Their stuff is just too bizarre IMO. ~Angie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:36:14 -0500 From: "Jon Wesley Huff" Subject: Re: evolution I agree with your sentiment. Add to this the fact that current technology makes it possible for a lot more people to be making music. Look at CDBaby. The sheer scope of the independent artists releasing CDs today is mind-boggling. I think that this can breed a lot of less-then-stellar music. But just by sheer numbers, I'd say percentage-wise we probably have more excellent music (and music choices) then ever. You just have to be willing to turn off the radio and go and search for it. If you judged music today by a Top 40, then it would seem pretty grim. I do think the fact that someone like Happy can't get radio play is sad, but at least with iPods and MP3 players and satellite radio there are other options for getting a wider variety of music out there. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:20:36 +1000 From: andrew fries Subject: Re: things we don't get... wojizzle forizzle wrote: > "eyes in his head" = the mind's eye = thoughts. seems pretty > straight-forward to me. I think you're giving them a lot of credit; I believe the only thing that went on in there was they simply wanted to say 'He sees', or 'his eyes see' - but that didn't scan! So they came up with 'eyes in his head' just to fill out the number of syllables they needed, not caring particularly how silly it sounds. Because, frankly, they were never craftsmen by inclination, by which I mean they were more about inspiration than attention to detail. And by the time the wrote 'Fool on the hill' they probably thought they could get away with anything anyway. In other words, they just got sloppy. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, it's just that it always stood out for me like a sore thumb. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:55:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Bernie Mojzes Subject: Re: Not getting things > I didn't mean this to be such a negative thread, really, so perhaps I should > explain myself a bit better: it's just one of those things that always > frustrates me, and thought I'd see if anybody else had artists like this. I > mean, I loved grunge: the guitars, bass and drums, the anguished, visceral > vocals. The Pixies had these in spades, and are often credited with being > ur-grunge. So, if all the ingredients are there, why don't I like them? > Frustrating, to say the least. Same with the Smiths: thoughtful, sensitive > guitar music about the human condition. Or so I'm told. I don't get it. hmm. i never thought of the pixies as anything pertaining to grunge. they're more "post-punk," and have a lot more in common with mission of burma and bauhaus than they do with nirvana and pearl jam. grunge (of this sort) is sort of an illegitimate child of niel young and the beatles, while the pixies seem to draw more on zappa and eno and salvador dali. > There are loads of artists I just plain don't like, and there's a select > few whose work I admire and acknowledge as great, but just can't be a > fan of (Bowie) but these are artists I know I SHOULD like. As I said, > all the ingredients are there and they stand shoulder to shoulder with > similar artists whose work I love (and have often influenced these > artists) but no matter how hard I try, it just doesn't work for me. with this stuff, it's not how good or bad stuff is. it's whether it resonates with you. eric clapton is an amazing guitarist. i don't care - what he does doesn't resonate with me. it doesn't talk to me, even though there's plenty of blues guitarists (bb king as an example) who do. doesn't mean eric clapton isn't a tremendous musician. linda and i have an african ring-neck dove (named "the dove"). she sings along with slightly-gravelly black male blues singers. and portishead. nothing else. why? thats what speaks to her, and she speaks back. everything else is just background noise. brni > > I don't know if this makes it any clearer. Again, I apologise for any > negative vibes I may have spread. > > adam k. > > ----------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through http://webmail.zoom.co.uk > - -- brni i don't want the world, i just want your half. www.livejournal.com/~brni ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V12 #126 ***************************