From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #82 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, March 31 2000 Volume 09 : Number 082 Today's Subjects: ----------------- ebay posting? ["Thomas, Ferris" ] Re: ebay posting? [Bayard ] Re: ebay posting? [Tom Clark ] re: return of the prodigal gnat [Carole Reichstein ] Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [overbury@cn.ca] Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!! [dmw ] Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!! [Eb ] Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Capuchin ] Selling Out [The Great Quail ] cdnow [Eb ] Re: Selling Out [Glen Uber ] Re: Selling Out [Eb ] Re: Selling Out [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: cdnow [Capuchin ] Re: cdnow [Eb ] Re: cdnow [Terrence Marks ] Re: Selling Out [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:45:10 -0500 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: ebay posting? Ahoy, all. I was sailing the seas of cheese that are eBay and came up with this: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=294893302 Soft Boys CD from Atlanta, c. 1985. Any ideas as to what it is? At $35+ it would have to be exceptional to lure me at this point. - -f. ______________________________________ Ferris Scott Thomas programmer McGraw-Hill Technology Division Farmington, CT 06032 860.409.2612 860.677.5405 (fax) mailto:ferris_thomas@mcgraw-hill.com (work) mailto:ferris@snet.net (home) Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:57:38 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: Re: ebay posting? sounds like _a soft boy no more._ the tracks probably come fom this show: http://www.alternatech.net/jh3/robyn/base/gig.asp?chubb=152 On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > Ahoy, all. > > I was sailing the seas of cheese that are eBay and came up with this: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=294893302 > > Soft Boys CD from Atlanta, c. 1985. Any ideas as to what it is? At $35+ it > would have to be exceptional to lure me at this point. > > -f. > > ______________________________________ > Ferris Scott Thomas > programmer > > McGraw-Hill Technology Division > Farmington, CT 06032 > 860.409.2612 > 860.677.5405 (fax) > mailto:ferris_thomas@mcgraw-hill.com (work) > mailto:ferris@snet.net (home) > > Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. > --Benjamin Franklin > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:00:05 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: ebay posting? On 3/31/2000 11:45 AM, Thomas, Ferris wrote: >Ahoy, all. > >I was sailing the seas of cheese that are eBay and came up with this: > >http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=294893302 > >Soft Boys CD from Atlanta, c. 1985. Any ideas as to what it is? At $35+ it >would have to be exceptional to lure me at this point. Isn't this the "Soft Boy No More" recording? If it is, I'll bet someone just recorded the vinyl onto CD, and it's not a great recording to begin with. Besides, you'll NEVER outbid John Partridge!! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:16:07 -0800 (PST) From: Carole Reichstein Subject: re: return of the prodigal gnat Welcome back to Portland, Gnat! I see you brought the nice weather with you too. How many Portland Fegs does this make now? At least half a dozen. Anyway, welcome! Glad you're here! :) (when Randi comes to visit, she won't want to leave either) Carole, delurking briefly ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:58:47 -0500 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Grim, grim news. Frau Rapillo spake: NEW YORK--There is "substantial doubt" about whether CDNow can continue to stay in business, according to reports. The company, however, said in its annual report, filed yesterday, that its current cash and cash equivalents are sufficient to meet its payment obligations until about Sept. 30. It does concede though that it may be unable to secure necessary financing for continuing operations, according to the online music seller's independent public accountant, Arthur Anderson, The Wall Street Journal reported today. The filing indicates the issue was broached in connection with CDNow's terminated merger agreement with Sony and Time Warner. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:16:09 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!! >NEW YORK--There is "substantial doubt" about whether CDNow can continue to >stay in business, according to reports. > >The company, however, said in its annual report, filed yesterday, that its >current cash and cash equivalents are sufficient to meet its payment >obligations until about Sept. 30. It does concede though that it may be >unable to secure necessary financing for continuing operations, according to >the online music seller's independent public accountant, Arthur Anderson, >The Wall Street Journal reported today. > >The filing indicates the issue was broached in connection with CDNow's >terminated merger agreement with Sony and Time Warner. Yup, unfortunately true. The clock is ticking, while CDNow looks for a new investor. Whatever happened to all those gonzo forecasts about online CD sellers revolutionizing the music industry, and putting all the physical retail chains out of business? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:56:46 -0500 From: overbury@cn.ca Subject: Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On 31 Mar 00, at 15:58, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > Grim, grim news. > > NEW YORK--There is "substantial doubt" about whether CDNow can > continue to stay in business, according to reports. Tragedy? Are you a shareholder? Buy from online from Michael! NP: The Who, but I was just listening to some old Rod Stewart. I've read this from some critic in the past, but the thought just wouldn't leave me alone this afternoon: has anybody else ever sold out so completely? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:18:15 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!! On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Eb wrote: > Yup, unfortunately true. The clock is ticking, while CDNow looks for a new > investor. Whatever happened to all those gonzo forecasts about online CD > sellers revolutionizing the music industry, and putting all the physical > retail chains out of business? > > Eb the physical retail chains, with more brand name recognition/consumer trust, put up their own websites, that's what. plus, since the backers haven't pulled the plug on amazon yet, their one-stop shopping approach has yanked an uncomfortably large market share from other online retailers. i'm glad i didn't take the job at cdnow, anyhoo. i'm sorry for my friend who did... - -- d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:19:26 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!! >NP: The Who, but I was just listening to some old Rod Stewart. >I've read this from some critic in the past, but the thought just >wouldn't leave me alone this afternoon: has anybody else ever >sold out so completely? Yeah, Rod's certainly up there. Though I often consider the Bangles to be the standard-bearer, when it comes to younger acts.... Eb (aka The Eternal Flame?) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:23:40 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 overbury@cn.ca wrote: > NP: The Who, but I was just listening to some old Rod Stewart. > I've read this from some critic in the past, but the thought just > wouldn't leave me alone this afternoon: has anybody else ever > sold out so completely? Sting? U2 is a special case. They sold out completely, but now their whole message is hyper-ironic consumerism-as-god. So the argument can go either way. (And remember, if their message is poorly relayed, it's still more message than a true sell-out would even offer.) Hmm... someone at work kept throwing out acts I know nothing about... Stones, Aerosmith... no idea. J. - -- ______________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:41:18 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: FW: say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!! On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Eb wrote: > Yup, unfortunately true. The clock is ticking, while CDNow looks for a new > investor. Whatever happened to all those gonzo forecasts about online CD > sellers revolutionizing the music industry, and putting all the physical > retail chains out of business? People are dumb. Business people, I mean. They forcast shit they know nothing about. Nobody's ever going to make money putting a retail store online. Lemme 'splain. This will be a touch simplistic, but the idea's there. When you sell physical goods (atoms), there are usually three parties involved: the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retailer. Distributors often have licenses that prevent them from being retailers. In exchange for this retail restriction, they are granted wholesale pricing from the manufacturer. The incentive of the manufacturer is to make larger single sales to a distributor instead of lots of little sales to every retailer that sells their goods. The retailer buys from the distributor at a bit above the distributor's wholesale price and then passes that cost on to the consumer with his own retail mark-up. That's how the world works today. The distributor doesn't care whether he's selling to a physical store or a virtual one. His mark-up is going to be based on volume and not based on who gets the shipment. In fact, because virtual stores don't like to keep inventory, they have to have drop-shipping arrangments with their distributors to send goods directly from the distributor to the customer. While the actually shipping cost from a third part are usually passed on to the consumer, the cost of the drop-ship agreement itself is in the wholesale price the retailer pays the distributor. These arrangments usually eat up any extra cost discount the virtual store might have for the volume generated by a worldwide customer base. If a drop-ship agreement with distributors does not exist, then warehousing must be in place for the virtual store to maintain inventory. This cost is right up there with the cost of running a physical store (due to the volume required) and that also increases retail cost of goods to consumers. So, in the end, the price a consumer pays is most of the time just about the same or slightly higher (with shipping) for selling physical goods on the net as it is selling physical goods in a physical store. It's a different game when you're talking about manufacturers that sell direct. So why haven't all the manufacturers put up web sites selling to the general public at reasonable discounts? Their distributors would throw a fit. They have control over goods entering the marketplace and an attempt by a manufacturer to go into retail sales is almost always met with distributor revolt. So, whenever a manufacturer does attempt to enter the retail sales maket, they sell at full retail price to consumers. No sales, no discounts. This keeps the distributors happy because they can sell for less to retailers who can pass some of that savings on in the form of bonuses or sales or coupons or whatever and that keeps them in business. In order for things to truly change, distributors have to be cut from the picture. Retailers have to belong directly to the manufacturers (without distribution contracts to artificially increase the cost of goods). And selling soft goods (bits) on the net is absolutely absurd because you will sell one copy to someone on Usenet or Hotline or even IRC and then you will never sell another copy to the users of those services. That is all. J. - -- ______________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:55:34 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Selling Out Jeme sells out: >Sting? Oh yeah, I gotta concur on that one. >U2 is a special case. They sold out completely, but now their whole >message is hyper-ironic consumerism-as-god. Yeah, true, but then again, U2's music is just as good -- better, I say! -- than ever. (I can already sense those stuck in the 80s gritting their teeth.) I mean, Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and POP are *great* albums. So while U2 took "selling out" to a level of unappeasable irony, their music is still vibrant. I would say the Stones definitely sold out; but not as hard as Sting. David Bowie -- a god of mine, so I tread carefully here -- is selling out in a very matter-of-fact above-board sense, which is something I really can't get all that angry at him for, as who knows with Bowie what, exactly, is what. The Moody Blues sold out in a Vegas way, but they really didn't have much to sell any more. - --Quail, happy that King Crimson and Neil Young still crankily walk the earth ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:33:04 -0800 From: Eb Subject: cdnow Jeme put on his scoffers' hat again: >> Whatever happened to all those gonzo forecasts about online CD >> sellers revolutionizing the music industry, and putting all the physical >> retail chains out of business? > >People are dumb. Business people, I mean. They forcast shit they know >nothing about. > >Nobody's ever going to make money putting a retail store online. Hi Jeme...let me introduce you to the A&R guy who rejected the Beatles, because "guitar groups are on the way out." ;) >So, in the end, the price a consumer >pays is most of the time just about the same or slightly higher (with >shipping) for selling physical goods on the net as it is selling >physical goods in a physical store. Well, your model leaves out a very important variable: revenue from advertisers. Also, the fact that many people will buy something at the same or higher price on the Web, because they simply can't *find* it in a nearby physical store. *Also*, I suspect that non-US consumers buy "import CDs" for a good chunk less on the Web -- believe me, I *know* that overseas folks do a lot of CD bargain-hunting on the Web. I've been exchanging some email with the content editor at CDNow. He's not worried at all, and I'm trying to take his reassurance to heart. According to him, CDNow is a tight second to Amazon in online CD sales, and "no one else even comes close." That includes Tower, Virgin and the other companies which also have physical outlets. He also said that because CDNow has so much editorial content (especially compared to Amazon), the CDNow site's million visitors a day are lingering a lot longer on the site. And major advertisers go nuts for this, because their ads get more exposure time. He's very confident that CDNow will pay off in the long run. He says CDNow can make much more money off advertisers than actual sales at this point, and that's a model for longterm success. For what it's worth, Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:35:55 -0500 From: Glen Uber Subject: Re: Selling Out On 31.03.00 14:55, The Great Quail wrote: > Jeme sells out: > >> Sting? > > Oh yeah, I gotta concur on that one. I think Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland need to stage an intervention for ol' Gordy. "Look, Gordo. We're worried about ya, man! You need to lay off the excess production techniques and the lame-ass congwriting cliches. Your friends are embarrassed and your contemporaries are laughing at you. You've lost your fans, your bandmates, and your reputation. We know that you think your new fans are great, but they're leading you on. They only want you for your radio-friendliness and your muzak potential. Oh, sure, they'll listen to what you have to say for as long as the CD is popular, but they'll drop you for the next Rod Stewart album faster than you can say, "De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da". We're only telling you this because we care about you. We want to help you, but you need to be willing to help yourself!" Or something like that... I agree with Jeme's co-worker about the Stones. RETIRE ALREADY! I would also like to add Phil Collins and Eric Clapton to the list. "You'll Be In My Heart"? "Tears In Heaven?" I've got three words for Phil Collins: BRAND X REUNION! John Lee Hooker recording with Bonnie Raitt might be considered selling out if it weren't for the fact that most blues artists were screwed out of royalties and receipts early in their careers. Jimmy Page performing with Puff the Magic Daddy could also be considered selling out if it weren't so goddamned sad. Maybe he needed rent money. "If you do a commercial, you're off the artistic roll call forever. And that goes for everybody EXCEPT Willie Nelson. With a $24 million dollar tax bill, Willie was a little looser than the rest of us." --Bill Hicks - -- Cheers! - -g- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:50:26 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Selling Out Glen: >I think Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland need to stage an intervention for >ol' Gordy. > >"Look, Gordo. We're worried about ya, man! You need to lay off the excess >production techniques Yeah...he should return to the gritty garage punk of Ghost in the Machine and Synchronicity, darn it! >I would also like to add Phil Collins Yes...that's another top candidate. I'm not so sure about Sting, actually...I think his music still comes from the heart. It's just that his musical objectives have matured in an annoyingly conservative way. It seems like he became fatally enamored of a sophisticated jazz-muso approach to pop, and it systematically sucked all the life out of his music. Eb, whose Police/Sting collection can be summed up as: Outlandos D'Amour (used vinyl, 99 cents). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:05:11 EST From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: Selling Out In a message dated 3/31/00 3:07:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, quail@libyrinth.com writes: << >U2 is a special case. They sold out completely, but now their whole >message is hyper-ironic consumerism-as-god. Yeah, true, but then again, U2's music is just as good -- better, I say! -- than ever. (I can already sense those stuck in the 80s gritting their teeth.) I mean, Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and POP are *great* albums. So while U2 took "selling out" to a level of unappeasable irony, their music is still vibrant. >> Huh. I have the exact opposite feelings about U2. Or close to that, anyway. I don't really know to what extent they sold out *to* some sort of media machine versus *becoming* some sort of a media machine. They don't do Pepsi or long distance ads. I'm sure they have tons of corporate sponsorship, but they, themselves, are a gigantic corporate entity and probably can't operate on the scale that they do without getting entangled with other big corporate entities in one way or another. Well, maybe they *could*, if it were something they wanted to make a stand against. But they're also always claiming that they're doing something like throwing pop culture consumerism back into its own face (not paraphrasing; just rambling). I can't really sort the whole thing out anymore, to be honest. I've just tried to assume, over the years, that they've had a fairly well-intentioned plan that's maybe run astray on occasion and/or was completely ill-conceived from the getgo. At any rate, I don't at all agree that they're making their best albums of late. And I ain't stuck in the 80's, neither, Mr. Quaily Quailguy Smartypants! I thought "Zooropa" and "Pop" both sucked, but that's mostly just because I didn't like what they were doing stylistically (mostly; that, and the albums just sucked ;-)). I'll just grant you that they've never stopped trying to do something different, and that's at least fairly interesting. Oh, and I like the "Million Dollar Hotel" soundtrack, so maybe they'll win me back here in the 00's. - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:23:59 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: cdnow On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Eb wrote: > >Nobody's ever going to make money putting a retail store online. > Hi Jeme...let me introduce you to the A&R guy who rejected the Beatles, > because "guitar groups are on the way out." ;) And let me introduce you to all the guys saying online retailing will change the face of commerce. It hasn't happened. Nobody but the porn merchants have made a penny... and the porn merchants make all their money selling bits to unsavvy horndogs (whereas savvy horndogs turn to usenet and keep their money). Even powerhouse Amazon is still staying black from investor income. The sales just don't cover the cost of business. > Well, your model leaves out a very important variable: revenue from > advertisers. You're right there. I didn't include that money and that money isn't trivial. But I also didn't include the cost of bandwidth to the site, which is extremely nontrivial when you're talking about sites like Amazon or Slashdot or Hotmail (serving tens of millions of pages a day). There are definitely costs and revenues that aren't outlined. It isn't a business plan, for goodness' sake. I'm just explaining the factors that cause the problem... and the problem is still that online stores selling physical goods haven't made profits. > Also, the fact that many people will buy something at the same or > higher price on the Web, because they simply can't *find* it in a > nearby physical store. *Also*, I suspect that non-US consumers buy > "import CDs" for a good chunk less on the Web -- believe me, I > *know* that overseas folks do a lot of CD bargain-hunting on the > Web. And that's what I mean when I talk about the "increased volume of a worldwide customer base". I think I mentioned that specifically. It has impact, both positive and negative. > I've been exchanging some email with the content editor at CDNow. He's not > worried at all, and I'm trying to take his reassurance to heart. According > to him, CDNow is a tight second to Amazon in online CD sales, and "no one > else even comes close." That includes Tower, Virgin and the other companies > which also have physical outlets. He also said that because CDNow has so > much editorial content (especially compared to Amazon), the CDNow site's > million visitors a day are lingering a lot longer on the site. And major > advertisers go nuts for this, because their ads get more exposure time. > He's very confident that CDNow will pay off in the long run. He says CDNow > can make much more money off advertisers than actual sales at this point, > and that's a model for longterm success. Well, he's a content editor. (Not to totally discount him, but he's really preaching the party line of the internet retailer. If it were really true that they had drooling advertisers and sales about to put them into the black, they'd have investors knocking on their door all day every day.) Folks with large physical outlet presence (chain stores, I mean) don't have the same incentive to build reasonable and good online retail outlets. They've got stores to keep open. They don't want you shopping online. You can't play the transition game. One day, you have to just decide to go one way or the other (unless you are also the manufacturer or an individual or very small chain store, which is, as I've said, a whole different ballgame) and sell online or in your physical location. Egghead would be totally dead right now if they'd tried a more gradual transition to online sales. Now they concentrate on the business sales and are doing alright. The big office supply companies that used to be catalog based are doing the same. Those people have different distribution angles and different customer sets. But as for Tower and Virgin, they have neither the cache of indie stores nor the savvy of a start-up. And of course, 90% of all small businesses fail in five years. CDNow is just over that, right? I remember buying from them in the spring of 1995 (my only purchase from them, ever... I realized soon that their distributors are the same as local record shops and I could place special orders for the same cost and keep at least a portion of my money local.. but, of course, it's always important to remember that a little bit of every dollar you spend on goods not wholly created locally or purchased directly from the craftsman goes right up out of your area and into a fatcat's portfolio... right out of the usable economy and into the entropy of wealth.. and it never EVER comes back down). A web business built by a large corporation is not a small business, so those are all still churning away whether they make money or not. But the real reason we haven't seen this effect coming on strong in the internet community is this investor hype that keeps unprofitable businesses floating far longer than they would have if they weren't "internet companies". So if a large-scale online store starts making money on its own, I'll eat my words and be completely interested in what has changed. But until then, I stand by the idea that a store like Amazon cannot be profitable without direct manufacturer interest in the store. The big problem, as you may or may not know, is that people like Amazon and Barnes & Noble and Borders are reserving so many copies of new books coming out of the major publishers that independent stores cannot get copies at all until the entire first printing sells out. See, book prices are already inflated far outside their cost of manufacture (due to royalties, mostly) and so it is cost-effective for publishers to advance thousands of copies to a store without payment and only charge for those books actually sold and giving credit for those books not sold with proof of book destruction (the old coverless copy thing). It's wasteful and really hurts independent stores. The publishers won't produce more books to cover the big three's orders PLUS the orders from independent stores because they don't know what'll end up getting sold and what will be destroyed for credit. It's getting to a point now that if you want the new book from some big popular writer, you either have to buy it from one of the big three or wait for the second printing. That's not what I'd call fair business. But that's a separate problem. Talk to me when Amazon (by FAR the biggest online retailer) turns a profit. J. - -- ______________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:38:21 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: cdnow Jeme: >And let me introduce you to all the guys saying online retailing will >change the face of commerce. It hasn't happened. It's still way too early to make any permanent conclusions. >Folks with large physical outlet presence (chain stores, I mean) don't >have the same incentive to build reasonable and good online retail >outlets. They've got stores to keep open. They don't want you shopping >online. Well, I only brought up this issue because someone else said CDNow was in trouble, due to retail chains like Tower and Virgin going online and having more brand-name recognition. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:41:23 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: cdnow On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Capuchin wrote: > And let me introduce you to all the guys saying online retailing will > change the face of commerce. It hasn't happened. I'm making some money with the cartoons. Not enough to justify $100-a-share stock offerings, but some. Going to be making more soon. The folks who run the big comics make a lot more. The guy who runs User Friendly (userfriendly.org. It's like "Cathy" for geeks) is reputedly making six figures a year. His methodology on readership calculation is a bit suspect, but presumably he can't be too far off on his personal salary. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:42:37 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Selling Out On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Glen Uber wrote: > I would also like to add Phil Collins and Eric Clapton to the list. "You'll > Be In My Heart"? "Tears In Heaven?" I've got three words for Phil Collins: > BRAND X REUNION! I just wish everyone in the world could see the episode of Mr. Show with Bob and David where they do a fantastic piece on the 28th and 29th Annual Song Awards and the presentation of two consecutive "Teardrop awards" for Saddest Song. The contestants are Horace Loeb (a brilliant Eric Clapton satire) and Willips Brighton (Brian Wilson to a teeee). I can't say much more without trying to dance about architecture, but if you get the opportunity, watch it. Hell, send me a video tape and I'll send it to you. > "If you do a commercial, you're off the artistic roll call forever. And that > goes for everybody EXCEPT Willie Nelson. With a $24 million dollar tax bill, > Willie was a little looser than the rest of us." --Bill Hicks God Bless Bill Hicks. When pop music becomes commercial art, you've hit a very dangerous snag. Hey, that reminds me... I have this theory that may or may not have been discussed on the list before. See, I was trying to look up the definition of pop music one day and, of course, there was no entry in the dictionary (except for pops music, which is something else). However, the entry before the place I would have inserted "pop music" was "pop art". And the definition of pop art made me think. The definition read something like: fine art conceived and produced under the aesthetic of commercial art. Damn, that was good. It's just right, too. Pop art looks like package design or wallpaper or billboards or something. And this made sense to me when applied to pop music (just as no one would argue that music is art, pop music could be a specific case of pop art). Commercial music is an ad jingle, usually... or elevator music... or, in the extreme case of, say, IBM, a company song. Well, pop music has the same characteristics as an ad jingle. It attempts to have a catchy melodic hook. The lyrics attempt to relate a quick and simple message that may or may not be deep. The associated emotions are shallow enough to have a kind of LCD appeal. I'm sure there are other direct analogies. But really, I think that regardless of its actual etymology, pop music is a specific implementation of pop art. Sorry if this has all been said before. I really don't have any responsibilities at work right now (except bitching about my raise). J. - -- ______________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ______________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #82 ******************************