From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V6 #34 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, October 13 1997 Volume 06 : Number 034 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Mood Music [Capuchin ] Re: Thanks for the King Crimson advice! [Capuchin ] Re: Sartwell's folly [Capuchin ] Re: Sartwell's folly ["Eddie Tews" ] Re: Thanks for the King Crimson advice! [Eb ] Re: Sartwell's folly [Capuchin ] MIB [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan)] the return of disco [dee zed stroke zero one five ] Re: MIB [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:07:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Mood Music On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Donkey Hodie wrote: > Studies cited in the book show that students exposed to classical > music -- especially the music of Mozart -- showed significantly > higher instances of "higher-brain activities" and scored higher on > SAT scores. Students with any experience in music and music > performance exceeded national average SAT scores in both verbal and > math. That's why Sony Classical came out with a series for students entitled "Mozart Makes You Smarter". I've loved that phrase and have used it regularly since seeing the promo poster. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 12:54:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Thanks for the King Crimson advice! On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Eb wrote: > Probably my favorite record this year My New Year's Resolution this year is going to be to track how many times Eb says this in 1998. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:36:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Sartwell's folly On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, James Dignan wrote: > However this did catch me a bit offguard - quantitative > aesthetics requires a range of criteria which should not be set arbitrarily > by one researcher, although it *can* be, in order to prove a point, as it > seems to have been in this case. The criterion set for rock, that it needs > to be as close to the blues as possible, is to deny that rock music has any > worth other than as ersatz blues. That's why I noted that Gloster's (?) comment that Country music held a side rock's parentage at least as well as blues was the most intelligent one made in response to the Sartwell post. It's a legitimate gripe with what we know of the theory. > The "pretentiousness", which Sartwell > seems to think diminishes the worth of rock songs, is an integral part of > what much rock music is all about, and (IMHO) should be factored in as a > positive feature, up to a certain limit. Only once that limit is superceded > should it be regarded in a negative context. Then you should factor in the > influence from other fields, like country, reggae, folk, etc etc etc I also agree with that. Where would David Bowie be without all that huge artistic ambition? I don't think you'd call the 'pretentiousness' a positive factor "up to a certain limit". I think perhaps a new formula could be devised that integrated the old pretentiousness number with some kind of artrock factor that allowed bands with low pretentiousness to maintain their integrity and bands with high pretentiousness to counteract that otherwise negative score. Again, I'd really like to see the whole theory. > As for blues having zero distance and therefore being unable to be > calculated on this scale: it may be at an asymptote, but as x->0, lim x -> > infinity. Thus if a blues song is played with one bum note, it suddenly > becomes an infinitely worthy rock song. Yeah, I know, this is a bit of an > exaggeration, but it does stress the fact that according to Sartwell's > calculations, rock has little going for it other than as a replica of > blues. Yeah, that's quite an exaggeration and I was wondering if someone would pick up on the limit thing. And possibly that's a flaw in a system that links one style of music to only one other style. Just remember that this is Quantitative Asthetics and how he arrives at the actual numbers is vital. We don't even get a taste of that in what we've read. In fact, it might have all been simplified for the press release. > Then again, we're getting this info second hand. Press releases often bear > no resemblance to the papers they're supposedly reporting. Exactly. That PR was certainly designed to spark interest and not at all to spread information. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:11:20 PDT From: "Eddie Tews" Subject: Re: Sartwell's folly hey, maybe it's just me (ok, *probably* it's just me.) but, why should i give a shit? i'll grant you that i love reading poll results as much as the next person. probably more. but, trying to *quantify* art? i don't get it. you know, i guess five or six people on the whole planet like GROOVY DECAY, and i happen to be one of them. is that empirical proof that i'm a fucking blowoff? i know i am, but i don't think it's because i like GROOVY DECAY. and i really don't give a fuck how hard or not somebody was trying to make great art. i just know what i fell when i'm exposed to it. that's all the context i need. i know you kinda touched on this a few days ago, capuchin. but, why in the hell should we care what is "objectively" great rock and roll? is it going to help us get into new bands that we've never heard before? is it going to help us see groupings and linkages that we've never seen before? if so, then, sure, try to perfect the theory i guess. it just seems like a waste of time to me. but, The Big Lebowski comes out in december! you hear what i'm sayin'? we're two months away from a new coen brothers movie! that's something i can get excited about, no matter how lukewarm the critics ("experts") are towards them! Fuck You! I won't do what you tell me! (repeat fourteen times) --Rage Against the Machine ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:23:30 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Thanks for the King Crimson advice! >On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Eb wrote: >> Probably my favorite record this year > >My New Year's Resolution this year is going to be to track how many times >Eb says this in 1998. Aw, screw ya. I've never said it when I didn't mean it. And I've said that about Eric Matthews BEFORE, so I'm consistent. :P Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:34:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Sartwell's folly On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Eddie Tews wrote: [snipped a whole bit that basically said "Why bother?"] > if so, then, sure, try to perfect the theory i guess. it just > seems like a waste of time to me. Maybe it is a waste of your time. So don't do it. That's the beauty of this great big mean old world. Me, I'm a mathematician and logical philospher. I'm more academic than most. I'm perfectly happy to sit in my room and develop internally consistent value or number or any other logical systems and play with them. That's what I like to do. I think it makes me a better person and it certainly makes the unyielding march of time pass by with a bit more happiness than it might otherwise. But I'm not one of those folks that says it has anything to do with anything but itself. It's all just a game we play in our heads. Logic, mathematics, and all of philosophy isn't about describing the world around us or making it a better place. It's about exercising our minds. It's about the way we think. There's also the issue of semantics to address. We use all these words and we must give them all meaning. Communication would break down instantly if we started making up our own definitions for words. When we choose how to say something, we do our best to pick words that those we're addressing will understand. We give our words the greatest depth and descriptive power possible. So defining something like rock is important if any discussions about rock are going to take place. It's at best difficult to describe music in a world where 'rock' encompasses The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Poison, Depeche Mode, Pantera, Spandau Ballet, Robyn Hitchcock and Celine Dion. What does it mean to say something is more like rock than something else? More importantly, what does it mean to say a song rocks more than another? Anyway, just more food for thought. > but, The Big Lebowski comes out in december! you hear what i'm sayin'? > we're two months away from a new coen brothers movie! that's something > i can get excited about, no matter how lukewarm the critics ("experts") > are towards them! I know, I'm excited, too. Critics make the argument that the Coens are all style and no substance. I think that's an easy, knee-jerk reaction to films so heavily stylized. See, the movies are so different (from other cinema out there as well las from each other) that the differences are more striking and easier to grab than the more subtle aspects of story telling, the irony or relevance of the plot, the deep and intimate portrayal of the characters, or just the whipsmart dialogue. Frances McDormand says that a Coen Brothers film means "that you'll never be bored. Ever." and the truth in that statement is not to be underestimated. The critics view a Coen borthers film and are certainly entertained and come away with a whirling mind full of images and scenes and single lines and stunning photography and then they stop and see it for the blatant stylization that it is and write a review. Ms. McDormand's statement, I think, also means that you won't be bored EVER, even if you've already seen the movie a godbillion times. After the style is stripped away. After all the shallow effects are peeled back, there is subtlety and insight in each of their films that continue to teach and lead to better understanding of the film and the world. There is little in this world that I dig more than watching a Coen Brothers picture. Here's an interesting anecdote. I've stated dozens of times (ad naseum, I'm sure) that I worked at Wieden & Kennedy. It's a big old advertising agency. In the course of the agency business, it is often worthwhile to 'lay down the big bucks' and kick in for a big name director (John Landis did the Shaquille O'Neal Taco Neck commercial, for example). Well, a few years ago, WK hired the Coens to make a commercial. I don't remember which account, but it might have been Nike or Subaru. There was much concepting and the Coens left with good instructions on what the agency and the client wanted. All three were present during shooting and agency folks stuck around during the editting process. What came out was a completely unusable piece of garbage. The spot was scrapped and the money wasted. Why? Because it was a Coen Brothers commercial. Miller's Crossing a Gangster Film, right? But it's The Coen Brothers Gangster Film. Blood Simple is The Coen Brothers Film Noir. Raising Arizona is The Coen Brothers Zany Switcheroo Comedy. Fargo is The Coen Brothers Movie Of The Week. etc. Well, this commercial, it was a stylized version of every other commercial on TV and upon quick viewing, you got nothing from it. It was just like everything else. It didn't stand out and left no impression whatsoever... just like every other commercial on TV. See, they intended that. After the initial screening, agency folks sat around stunned at how uninteresting it was. Someone made a comment to that effect. To this, the Coens replied "I KNOW! Isn't it GREAT! It's JUST LIKE A REAL COMMERCIAL!" Oh boy. I heard that story second hand, so don't ask for too many details. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:52:45 +1300 (NZDT) From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: MIB Does anyone here know whether any of the scriptwriters of "Men in Black" is a fan of Robyn? And if not, where the fnudd did they get the idea for the line "Congratulations Reg, it's a...squid!"? James ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:16:21 -0400 From: dee zed stroke zero one five Subject: the return of disco fegs, well, the discography i've been threatening to drite is finally starting to happen. as i've just started it today, it's far from complete, but i wanted to hear comments and suggestions about layout and so forth. take a peek at and let me know what you think (if you think anything at all). eventually, there will be graphics of the cover album art and links to lyrics and guitar tab. for now, though, i'm just getting the text written up. woj ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:56:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: MIB On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, James Dignan wrote: > Does anyone here know whether any of the scriptwriters of "Men in Black" is > a fan of Robyn? And if not, where the fnudd did they get the idea for the > line "Congratulations Reg, it's a...squid!"? You know, I saw MiB five times (and almost again tonight) and each time noted the line and was going to mention it on the list, but it just plain slipped my mind. It just HAS to be Robyn related. Too oddly coincidental. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V6 #34 ******************************