From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #308 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, August 15 1999 Volume 08 : Number 308 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: Neutral Milk Hotel. No Robyn Hitchcock [David Librik ] wots, uh, the (big) deal? [David Dudich ] sticks with tents on them [ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com] Quail in a Cage [The Great Quail ] long island newsday review [four episode lesbian ] Re: Momus? spare us... [ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:32:50 -0500 From: David Librik Subject: RE: Neutral Milk Hotel. No Robyn Hitchcock _In The Aeroplane_ was really darn good for the first few months, though I found I liked it primarily because Mangum's catchy folk-guitar pop melodies got stuck in my head. As they have faded so has my desire to hear the CD. Lyrically it's emotionally strong but inaccessible to me; I have no cathartic feeling of empathy with his words, as I do with many of Robyn's songs. Paradoxically, the more I can treat the words as pure surrealism the more I can enjoy the disc. One thing no one has mentioned in all their discussions: this album has the strange effect of distorting time. It's only 35 minutes long, but whenever I play it, it seems like a journey of at least 50 minutes. It's rich and strange, and I couldn't mentally summarize it; its connected songs seem more like movements in a single work than a sequence of separable pieces. I always had the feeling that more rewards and insights would repay further listening ... so why not put it on again, and again? In its production it's awful and there's very little redeeming I can say. What's the point of having all those interesting instruments and layers of sound happening when they all blend together into a buzzing distorted mess? The recording is inexcusably lousy -- it's not just "lo-fi," which is fine -- and much of my enjoyment of the tunes seems to come from my imagination of what could have been done with them rather than their actual presentation. The tunes _are_ good, memorable, and their arrangements have just that sort of quirkiness that distinguishes them in your head (as Susan pointed out). On the other hand, I think _On Avery Island_ is just a terrible, unlistenable dump: the "catchy folk-guitar pop melodies," which are the main appeal of NMH, are almost entirely lacking. In their place are long and boring tracks (the final one is seventeen minutes long and apparently shapeless). By no means as bad as The Worst Band I Have Ever Heard In My Life, but a terrible disappointment. I do hope the Avery->Aeroplane trajectory will continue and Mangum's next will reflect even more the Syd-Barrett-like combination of good tunes with otherwordly musical style. - - David Librik ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:55:25 -0700 From: Paul Adams Subject: Re: NMH etc Not in response to anyone in particular, just weighing in: I have a long-standing feeling of animosity towards Neutral Milk Hotel (although, or even partly because, some of his melismas get lodged unwelcome in my head) for the same reason that I can't stand Will Oldham--it's too self-indulgent. He doesn't sound like he's singing to an audience, just to himself, and he loves the sound of himself singing. But of course singing to himself is just a bizarre conceit, because he's not leaving it in the bedroom at all--here is the album, that's $14.99 please; I can't stand touring, but I'll be at the Great American on the ninth... What other music do I dislike for the same reason? Will Oldham, Silver Jews, Royal Trux. I had a longer list somewhere but hopefully I've made a point. As long as I am sharing my opinion, I have nothing against those who like self-indulgent music. It's just me that doesn't. Paul Adams (raised in NYC, stint in Hyde Park IL, now in SF, writer. Robyn fan since 1986) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:42:05 -0500 From: David Dudich Subject: wots, uh, the (big) deal? > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:25:02 -0700 (PDT) > From: fred is ted > Subject: Re: My other Cars a GBV. > > - --- Bayard wrote: > > > not to revive the whole religion thing, but I hear > > Kansas has outlawed the > > teaching of evolution in school. Hmmmmm... > > Well, at least I, as a transplanted Minnesotan, don't > have to wince so much when I hear that a certain > governor is hosting the WCWWWCWFF SummerSlam7. Let > another state wear the ol' dunce cap. Nyah nyah nyah. > > Ted > What is the big deal? So a governor (who is by many accounts doing a good job) is a former pro-wrestler. What's the difference between a pro wrestler and a B- movie actor? not much. Remember, there are signals going out to space of Ronnie Ray-gun co-staring in a movie with a CHIMP! LATER, the space aliens are going to get signals of the same guy as President...... What are they to think? And what IS so wrong with "the mind" ventura having a little fun, and steping back into a role he loved for a night? Is this" worse" than Clinton's (or Gingrinches or Bushes or every-other-president-except Carter's "extracurricullar fun activities"? I think not... And I don't say this just cuz I am an admitted "Feg-Neck" 'Raslin fan. BTW, thanks to those who came out for the Feckless Beast/ Number Nine Line farewell show last night. It's time for me to split from the band thing for quite a while and do the "IoDoT/ Eye" thing for a while... What's some good acoustic open mikes in the Baltimore/DC area?? -luther > l > > ____ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 16:30:58 -0600 From: ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com Subject: sticks with tents on them >Hey, Susan, I got this real neat invention I'll sell ya for a mere >$100, if you promise to keep the secret. It's a short little stick >that you hold above your head, and when you press the button, a little >tent pops up and shields you from the rain! ;) Great idea. Only problem is I was carrying four large bags of recycling out which would make it a bit difficult to hold the thing. Incidentally, anyone here speak Spanish well? Well enough to tell me how to write "Only Paper- No Cans in Here", "Only Glass and Plastic- No Cans in Here", and "Cans In This Bag" in that language? I don't want to deprive anyone of their living, but it does get irritating to find bags opened. So I figured I'd just separate the cans and put notes in English AND Spanish on the bags, and everyone gets what they want- the people looking for cans don't have to dig for em, and I don't waste my time sorting recycling that ends up as regular trash because the bag got opened. Hey, I think I just had one of those marketing idea things. Don't steal it from me, please. You're all making a fortune on hundred dollar umbrellas anyhow, let someone else make a little. Love on ya, Susan P.S. You can have the rain, Chris. We've been getting too much, it's time to share. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 19:36:43 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Quail in a Cage John writes, >That's fair: I don't like post WWII "art". OK, and that's fair too. >Rothko and Warhol >produced stuff that was fun to look at, really cool stuff, but >it wasn't art. No, John, come on. You can say you don't like it, but saying that Rothko's not art, that's just untenable. And look -- I used to dislike Rothko myself until I actually saw some in person, and really began *looking,* and I was amazed. It was a revelation. So I am not someone who comes to things easy just because I've heard it's cool, if that makes sense. But to claim that these things are not "art" only removes your statements from the realm of possible discourse, and it makes it pretty easy for others to marginalize your opinions without really engaging them. >Which is why it's mostly butt-ugly or embarrassed (like the soup can). I love Warhol's soup cans. Knowing Warhol as well as I do -- I've read as much as I can! -- I can't imagine calling his work "embarrassed." Like much of his work, it functions primarily on a conceptual level, calling in to question our ideas about art itself, rather than engaging our critical abilities on a technical or "sublime" level. >John Cage's work was a mockery of music: Oh, my. Look, John Cage -- who, like Byron, Wilde, and Duchamp, may be more important for who they were rather than their work itself -- hardly was out to make a mockery of music. Rather, he wanted to show us that music, sound, noise, and silence were all of the same essence. He wanted to explore the relationships between music and noise, silence and sound . . . he wanted to test the frontiers of our preconceptions. >listen to the audience members >rustle, cough, and sneeze; His notorious piece 4'33, yes. The equivalent of Rauchenberg's white canvas. A conceptual piece that asks us to focus on the difference between organized sound and random noise. It was a very important statement that needed to be made at that time. It does not, however, stack well against the Pathetique or the Ring Cycle. But that is not it's point. >here's what a piano sounds like if you put >a hammer and a coke bottle over the strings; I happen to like some of his prepared piano works. They are startling and enjoyable. The idea is to test the limits of the device, to explore new possibilities . . . he helped open that door for composers, and some of our most interesting composers today are still working out that legacy. Luciano Berio, George Crumb, Christopher Rouse, Sophia Gubaidulina, John Zorn, Tan Dun . . . . >here's how painful atonal >music can be; etc. Now, first of all, I happen to find atonal music beautiful. I am a huge fan of the Second Viennese School, and I find as much beauty in Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and their descendents as I do in any other music. It just takes some adjustment, some mental re-arranging. But the whole world of music after them became dominated by serialism, and many composers sought some pure Holy Grail of total control, increasingly alienating the public and writing only for themselves. And Cage challenged that. By creating atonal works based on purely random principles, he demonstrated that the human mind could find no difference between those and works created on purely mathematically controlled principles. To the human mind, a Cage composition based on the "I Ching" and a work by Milton Babbit based on *total* serialism sounded exactly the same! Again, Cage served the music world as the Trickster, as the Holy Fool and the Laughing Buddha all rolled into one odd fellow. >I used him as an example of a post WWII trend in the >music world that was ugly (you *really* enjoy listening to a prepared >piano?) Yes. I don't like all his pieces, but in any cage work there is something unique, something startling, and in that I can appreciate them. Again, he was probably more important than his actual work. . . . >and stagnant (John Adams (who?) is the *big* name in the music >world). Whoah! First of all, while very popular in some circles, John Adams is hardly *the* big name in the music world. The fact is, the world of composition these days is so fragmented that there has yet to emerge one catholic doctrine . . . no one composer leads the way. There is also a lot of conflict between the Europeans, the Brits, and the Americans. In Europe, Ligeti is considered one of the "biggest" names, as he should be -- he may be pone of this century's greatest composers, and he is woefully under-represented in America. In Britain, they are still hung over from trying to find the "next Britten," and some big names include Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Sir Harrison Birtwhistle, James MacMillan, and Thomas Ades -- all very polystylistic composers that are as far from stagnant as you can be. (And all that sound a bit strange to American ears.) And here, we are dealing with the effects of minimalism, the New York Serial school, and simple American postmodernism . . . so while Adams may be big, we are still looking for a new American Voice. (May I again suggest Christopher Rouse?) I would even say that more people have heard of Arvo Part and Gorecki than Adams, but people are fickle. I could list thirty-some American composers who are neither stagnant or consistently ugly. . . . And besides, Adams is a post-minimalist, which is as far from Cage as you can possibly get. In fact, in the world of "minimalism," Philip Glass and Steve Reich are still much "bigger" than Adams. (And much more talented and interesting.) Adams is important because of his ability to range out from his minimalist roots into uncharted hybrid territory; because his music is fairly accessible -- much more so than, say, Elliot Carter (GENIUS!!!) or Roger Sessions; and because his music is more inherently interesting to most people than Glass and Reich. (But I disagree with this. I think Glass and Reich are far more interesting in the long run.) But to call him "stagnant?" What have you heard by him? May I suggest his Violin Concerto? >Before: Shakespeare, Byron, Yeats. >After: Ashberry, Plath, Heaney. >Not dead, just convulsing. Like Aaron said . . . that's an unfair ranking. And besides, what about Neruda? And the Beats? And Heaney, an Irish winner of the Nobel prize, happens to be a great poet. It sounds more like you are lamenting a change in styles than some mystical dearth of talent. . . . which I think characterizes your whole discussion on the modern arts. >I hasten to agree and I have immense sympathy for the people who have >suffered unimaginable hardship; my life has been a bed of roses in >comparison. *BUT*: just because they suffered more than me doesn't >make them an artist, much less a good artist. That is a good point, and I don't think anyone would argue. >I recognize I am at the very fringe and I appreciate your kind words. Well, I enjoy these sort of discussions! And I jump at any chance I can get to talk about classical music! >Great question! No I can't and only a really good artist does. But >I don't think universality is in itself the acid test of art. No, but it is *an* acid test. >I agree: making it interesting is not easy, requires great >intelligence and artistry, and succeeds or fails independent of >how much sincerity is brought to the task. For this listener, >Jeff did not succeed at all. Fair enough! best, - --Quail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth: http://www.libyrinth.com "Countlessness of livestories have netherfallen by this plage, flick as flowflakes, litters from aloft, like a waast wizzard all of whirlworlds. Now are all tombed to the mound, isges to isges, erde from erde . . . (Stoop) if you are abcedminded, to this claybook, what curious of signs (please stoop) in this allaphbed! Can you rede (since We and Thou had it out already) its world? . . . Speak to us of Emailia!" --James Joyce, Finnegans Wake ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 00:33:43 -0400 From: four episode lesbian Subject: long island newsday review [thanks to mark for transcribing this!] A Skewed World VIEW By Steve Knopper Robyn Hitchcock's eccentricity is at once his most potent weapon and his most glaring weakness. The British singer-songwriter-guitarist doesn't write kiss-offs in the plain old "Positively 4th Street" style he actually questions his enemy's entire existence. "At least when I die, your memory will too," he sings, in the opening "Mexican God." After that, as usual, his language is so filled with nonsensical poetry, it's hard to keep up. By the finale, a rambling title track that drops the names Lucas (George?), Barney (Rubble?), Stipe (Michael?) and Nixon (Richard? Mojo?), it's totally unclear what he's talking about. But because Hitchcock is such a fine judge of backup bands--none of his venerable Egyptians show up here, but members of R.E.M., Grant Lee Buffalo and The Young Fresh Fellows do--he often gets away with it. An early "Jewels For Sophia" song begins with a buildup of rythms and dramatic guitar chords, reminiscent of Peter Gabriel's "Biko." The punchline: it's called "The Cheese Alarm." A superb acoustic guitarist who always sung like a non-peaceful John Lennon, Hitchcock is a master of party crashing rock and roll, from the explosive, garage-style "Elizabeth Jade" to the bluesy, harmonica-spiced "NASA Clapping." Amid all this the love song "You've Got a Sweet Mouth on You, Baby" seems like another twisted joke. It's surprisingly sweet, lightning the romantic solemnity with images of coffins, frogs and demons. The older Hitchcock gets, the more he substitutes poignancy for sarcasm. Hitchcock, 46, has been slamming unrelated surrealism's together in a straightforward folk-rock style since the late 70s,first with the British punk band the Soft Boys then fronting the Egyptians. Lately, thanks to Jonathan Demme's 1998 film "Storefront Hitchcock," he has passed into a "cultural treasure" career phase. On a typical Hitchcock album, two or three songs are immediately captivating, with a catchy "yip, yip, yip" chorus or a line like the memorable new "time will destroy you like a Mexican God." Beyond that, the least painful listening approach is to submit to his twisted world view, sharing his fascinations with flesh, corpses, people named Steve and the distorted beauty of the Seattle-Tacoma area. "Viva! Sea-Tac," a sharp, lurching rocker, is hilarious if your in the computer, coffee, grunge industries. Otherwise,who can relate? As universal urban anthems go, it's not exactly "New York, New York" or "Sweet Home Chicago." But Seattle radio stations will have fun with it, and the "vivas" are almost as irresistible as the "yips." To conclude, here's one more quote from Hitchcock: "Don't talk to me about Gene Hackman. He's got an evil grin. He's got curly hair." So you see, it all makes sense. [Long Island Newsday, August 8, 1999] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 11:47:30 -0600 From: ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com Subject: Re: Momus? spare us... >album, Ping Pong. I know it wasnt' your favorite, but it was all they had at >Rock records. Well, I wouldn't have recommended that one to start, but it's almost all that's available as a non-import, for some odd reason that has never been fully clarified to me. >Some of hus lyrics are among the most ingenious I've ever read. But the music >was awful (to me*), I think the "to me" is generally implied when we're talking opinions :). The approach he takes on this record, in particular, is this very......sticking some very dark lyrics onto really tacky casio "bossanova" presets and discolounge-y stuff, for the strange dislocation effect of it. I can certainly understand if you think it's overly precious, or merely very irritating, but it's not random. The sounds he uses for that are new, but the strategy itself is ooooooold. Perhaps for you that kind of thing works conceptually but not in practice? Er maybe you just think it was badly executed here *shrug*. Something about this record in particular is really -distant-, as well. I'd have recommended perhaps starting with "Tender Pervert" or "Circus Maximus" and skipping ones like "Ping Pong" if that's something that bugs you, as those are a good deal more lyrical and personal. >and something about his delivery made me want to go into >a violent coma. That's a very common complaint. Dunno what to say about it except....well, you have a lot of company there. That's sorta something you either like or don't. >aside, I hate him. I'm sure he's crushed. Lots of people hate him. Actually, if you really wanted to bother writing him about it, he might be interested in why. You probably hate him for more interesting reasons than the folks at NME have got. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #308 *******************************