From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #411 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, December 4 2002 Volume 11 : Number 411 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Would I like... ["Brian Hoare" ] Re: Amazon... ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] Would _I_ like the Flaming Lips? [Dolph Chaney ] Re: Would I like... ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] Re: Would I like...Bob Monkhouse in stereo? [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Drunk Middlebrows ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: The Last-but-one Waltz [Michael R Godwin ] throwing the quotation [Miles Goosens ] Newspapertaxi.net (Music Reviews By Musicians) [MarkP ] Re: Would _I_ like the Flaming Lips? [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: anal bum cover [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:15:50 +0000 From: "Brian Hoare" Subject: Would I like... >Subject: Amazon... > >...says Nextdoorland is the 34th best album of 2002. > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/1200212/21/ > >Eb, grumbling about "the Wilco thing" again Looking at the list is a catalyst to ask a question that has been on my mind of late. Would _I_ like the Flaming Lips? They seem to have a lot of critical aclaim and seem to get mentioned on this list a fair bit but that isn't quite enough to tempt me. There are bands that appear on the same lists as them that I can appreciate but not enought to delve into. Judging from what I've read they seem to have developed/evolved over the years, which is usually a good thing. I've not heard anything by them but I am curious. What are the reasons for liking them, do they have good replay value, do they scratch a musical itch that nothing else quite reaches, where in the catalogue does one begin? I'm ready to be convinced. Brian _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 04:09:32 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: Amazon... I knew it was better than Blackalicious! I just knew it! At 3:08 AM -0800 12/4/02, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves Eb and whispered: >...says Nextdoorland is the 34th best album of 2002. > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/1200212/21/ > >Eb, grumbling about "the Wilco thing" again - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:41:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Would I like... On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Brian Hoare wrote: > Looking at the list is a catalyst to ask a question that has been on my mind > of late. Would _I_ like the Flaming Lips? > I've not heard anything by them but I am curious. They appeared on Jools Holland last(?) season and came over as a psychedelic version of Soft Cell, two blokes with a big spinning stripy wheel behind them which brought back disturbing memories of The Golden Shot. Not as good as the woman 3 or 4 series ago who produced sounds by hitting various parts of her thorax. > I'm ready to be convinced. Mmmm and other non-dictionary words... - - MRG n.p. Carol Deene, "Norman" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 06:48:55 -0600 From: Dolph Chaney Subject: Would _I_ like the Flaming Lips? At 06:15 AM 12/4/2002, Brian wrote: >What are the reasons for liking them, * When Kay asked why nobody drums like Moon and Bonham anymore, I wanted to scream "FLAMING LIPS!!" Steven Drozd is a walloper extraordinaire, in addition to being a great guitarist and keyboardist. * The emotional range is massive. Very little music since Nirvana has allowed itself the kind of happiness that the Lips can generate, without dissolving into Cute. They've also done very affecting work about the down stuff. It's Human. * So. Much. Ear. Candy. * Wayne Coyne is a great lyricist and melodist. If you like idiosyncratic singing (say Neil Young and Doug Martsch), you'll be fine. Some people don't like the Lips because of his voice. I find it one of the most endearing traits of their music -- again, very Human. * They always bring a fun live show. >do they have good replay value, Lord, yes. The productions are layered to the extreme, even on their older, pre-Warner-Bros-budget albums. You'll find lots of detail buried that will pop up only on the 35th listen. >do they scratch a musical itch that nothing else quite reaches, Yup. At 3am, if I'm driving, it's the only thing that will keep me awake. >where in the catalogue does one begin? You've heard "She Don't Use Jelly." If you don't like that, you probably won't like the Lips (it distills quite a bit of their essence), but you might want to listen to THE SOFT BULLETIN in a store that lets you preview CDs. If you *do* like "She Don't Use Jelly," it's pretty easy to find TRANSMISSIONS FROM THE SATELLITE HEART (from which it comes) used. My favorite favorite of theirs is CLOUDS TASTE METALLIC. Their whole catalogue is now in print, thanks to spiffy Ryko compilations of their pre-WB work. ymmv hmv pdq, dolph ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 04:52:23 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: Would I like... I don't know the Flaming Lips as well as some but I can tell you two things: - - They put on a great stage show last Tuesday, pretty much comprising of a video screen, 20 teenagers dressed up in animal costumes onstage holding high-intensity flashlights and boogie'ing through sporadic bursts of the smoke machine, 5 giant disco balls and about 25 balloons bouncing around the audience; and - - a few years ago they released an album on 4 CDs which had to be played simultaneously. IE on a conceptual level they're pretty cool. The music, to my ears, is a bit spotty - trippy, not bad at all but not always great, from what I've heard. Although a lot of my friends love them. The new songs are nice but not mindblowing, about 8 years ago someone played me an album of theres that definitely veered towards the mindblowing end of the spectrum but I don't know which one it was. Unfortunately it was a $45 show to see them and Beck (don't ask - the most I have ever paid for a concert) but if it had been a $20 or $25 show I would have said it was great. I like what I've heard enough to check out some more of their albums if I got a fairly reliable tip on one. Mike At 12:15 PM +0000 12/4/02, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves Brian Hoare and whispered: >>Subject: Amazon... >> >>...says Nextdoorland is the 34th best album of 2002. >> >>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/1200212/21/ >> >>Eb, grumbling about "the Wilco thing" again > >Looking at the list is a catalyst to ask a question that has been on my >mind >of late. Would _I_ like the Flaming Lips? They seem to have a lot of >critical aclaim and seem to get mentioned on this list a fair bit but that >isn't quite enough to tempt me. There are bands that appear on the same >lists as them that I can appreciate but not enought to delve into. Judging >from what I've read they seem to have developed/evolved over the years, >which is usually a good thing. I've not heard anything by them but I am >curious. What are the reasons for liking them, do they have good replay >value, do they scratch a musical itch that nothing else quite reaches, >where >in the catalogue does one begin? > >I'm ready to be convinced. > >Brian > >_________________________________________________________________ >Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 8:28:51 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Re: Would I like... Michael R Godwin > > ... disturbing memories of The Golden Shot. I think you're going to have to explain that one to the non-European / not-70s-TV literate members of the list. I remember it, just. Phone controlled weaponry? Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:45:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Would I like...Bob Monkhouse in stereo? > Michael R Godwin > > ... disturbing memories of The Golden Shot. On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > I think you're going to have to explain that one to the non-European / > not-70s-TV literate members of the list. I remember it, just. Phone > controlled weaponry? A quick websearch came up with this alarming Golden Shot-Keith Moon-Oliver Reed-Ringo Starr link: According to http://www.ukgameshows.com/atoz/programmes/g/golden_shot/index.htm "Long-running ITV Saturday night skill game. The contestants would mostly be telephone callers on the show, and they would play the game by instructing a blindfolded cameraman to adjust their aim in order to fire a 'telebow' (a crossbow tied to the camera) at targets. The bow was loaded by the show's feature character, Bernie the Bolt. The programme is noted for it not only having three Bernies but a number of different hosts, including Bob Monkhouse twice". I only saw it once, honest. Well, maybe twice... - - Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:19:57 +0000 From: "Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" Subject: Drunk Middlebrows Stewart: >And still most of the Uncle books remain out of print, fetching $200+ > >used. It's a crime. Huh? What Uncle books? Surely not U.N.C.L.E books. - ------------ Rex: >I really like to hear stories about peoples' fathers who were both >alcoholic and intellectual (not that you're specifically saying that, >Kay, >but it just brought this to mind). I'm sure there's a lot of sadness that goes with such >scenarios, but it really tugs at my heartstrings for some reason. Possibly because I myself go oddly literary when I've had a few. And >it kind of evokes a lost era where people read more and literature was more of a common glue to society than, like, Gilligan's Island or >whatever. And that post tugged at my heartstrings. My dad isnt an intellectual thou he loves to read. But he was well educated(thou he flunked/dropped out of college--party boy) in imaginative literature: myths, poetry, stories. He went to what was a liberal school (well, for 1917-26 or so!) -Ethical Culture in NY, which placed alot of emphasis on this sort of stuff, and then Principia, which is a Christian Science boarding school and may have been open to more unusual ideas than the standard prep school. Yes--its great to think of a time when there was an unapolagetic middlebrow culture, when you didn't have to have a doctorate and specialized vocabulary to love good writing, to talk good writing, and to have faith that others would have a clue what you were talking about. I'll take Kipling over Gilligans Island(even if staring Led Zepplin,)any day, thou as a kid, I just ran them all together. It may be partly cause of my dads insistence that we play King Arthur and his knights in Central Park or read Lambs "Tales of Shakepeare" together that now makes me loathe not to be middlebrow. Ive still got a great painting I did as a kid of a knight on a horse with a balloon out of his mouth that says "Hi Ho Silver." >Possibly because I myself go oddly literary when I've had a few. Care to explain, that sounds interesting? - ---------- No Lee as Dumbledore. Hes too typecast as a bady. And I agree that it was not one of Harris's better performances. Dumbledore done right is tough-- streangth, wisdom and love all together. sowhich older Brit since McKellen is already spoken for? - -------------- Tom: >hat's funny, I've always wanted to recreate Altamont. But with hamsters. Godthats funny. - ------------------- Kay, gnashing her teeth, thou not rending her clothes, over missing the Maxwell's show. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:22:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Would I like...The Soft Boys? It has been drawn to my attention that the Fleece & Firkin in Bristol is advertising a Soft Boys gig on Sunday 26 Jan 2003: #10 in advance, phone Credit Card Hotline 0117 929 9008 However, there is no confirmation of this at www.thesoftboys.com - - Mike Godwin n.p. Sue Thompson, Paper Tiger ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:30:34 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: The Last-but-one Waltz Altamont with hamsters - genius... I was thinking maybe a recreation of Stop Making Sense with monster trucks. Or Storefront Hitchcock with speciality cheese. Cheese Matt ne: shropshire blue >From: Tom Clark >Reply-To: Tom Clark >To: Detonating in a Ten Ton Truck >Subject: Re: The Last-but-one Waltz >Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:32:31 - -0800 > >on 12/3/02 2:58 PM, Stewart C. Russell at scruss@sympatico.ca wrote: > > > forwarded from a HMR list, where the response is "This is one of the most > > depressing articles I've read in ages": > > > > > > .column> > > > > summary: > >> [Delray Beach commodities trader] Jerry Leeman > >> had this crazy idea back in August: to recreate, > >> with local musicians, the 1976 farewell concert > >> of The Band ... > > >That's funny, I've always wanted to recreate Altamont. But with hamsters. > >-tc > >np Talking Heads "Stop Making Sense" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 9:37:26 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Drunk Middlebrows Kay wrote: > > Huh? What Uncle books? Surely not U.N.C.L.E books. No, *these* Uncle books -- > No Lee as Dumbledore. Hes too typecast as a bady. He was a memorable good guy in Gormenghast. Stewart (yay, my DVD player's working properly now! No more glitches in "Harold & Maude"!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:21:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: The Last-but-one Waltz On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, matt sewell wrote: > Altamont with hamsters - genius... I was thinking maybe a recreation of > Stop Making Sense with monster trucks. Or Storefront Hitchcock with > speciality cheese. I don't get this. Are the hamsters playing the Angels? If so, I would call it miscasting - surely something more in the line of the Wild Wooders is needed. Or are they playing the musicians? I can just about see a hamster cast as Grace Slick, but not as the Dead or the Stones. Maybe the hamsters are just the poor bloody infantry in front of the stage? Here are my suggestions: The Maysles Brothers Pinky and Perky The Jefferson Airplane Peg and the singing jaildogs from L&tT Mick Jagger Clarence the Cross-Eyed Lion That bad-tempered looking Angel at stage left The Chief Weasel Jerry Garcia and Pigpen Quick Draw McGraw and Baba Lewis Keith Richards Puddleglum the Marshwiggle plus assorted hamsters, guinea pigs, prairie dogs, coypu and intermittent capybara... - - Mike Godwin n.p. Eric Burdon, San Franciscan Nights PS The only possible casting for Dumbledore is Peter O'Toole (or possibly Ian Richardson?) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:54:10 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: throwing the quotation Jeffrey: >Quoting James Dignan : > >> Saome songs just cannot be covered successfully - either because they are >> so strange that it is physically impossible (if you tried covering >> "Revolution no. 9", you'd end up with a different piece) > >Which didn't prevent The Shazam from trying, on their _Rev9_ EP - worth >hearing >if you like guitar pop along the lines of the Who circa '66 and '67. I'll vouch for this cover of the "uncoverable" -- imagine that super-poppy Who turning "Revolution #9"'s more structured parts and bits of found sound into a series of riffs. Actually, you don't have to imagine it at all -- just buy this EP. Perhaps James would say that these choices make it a "different piece," but I think it's a piece that's still very identifiably "Revolution #9." Mike Kupietz: >Stairway to Heaven. Sure, it's been covered numerous times, but only as a >novelty - a disco version? Zappa doing it note for note with the guitar >solo played by 4 horns, playing farting noises on his keyboard throughout >it? - and even then retaining as much of the original as possible. I think Dolly Parton's recent cover transcends "novelty" easily, and is a really excellent version. However, at an '89 acoustic show, Richard Thompson responded to a barrage of requests (for RT/FC material, it should be noted) by playing about six bars of the "Stairway" intro, and even though it was a joke, it sounded *magnificent* -- as resonant and glorious as guitar playing can be. Ever since, I've wished he'd cover it at full length, even as an instrumental... Drew: >> Who will play Sirius Black? > >Alan Rickman in Sherriff-of-Nottingham facial hair! Oh, wait a minute... While reading the books, the only character I visualized in terms of "what actor would play him?" was Rickman as Sirius. I was disappointed that he got cast as Snape, even though it does have the beneficial effect of putting him in all of the movies (at least through GOBLET, and presumably into the yet-to-be-released fifth book as well), and Rickman plays the part well. Eb: >>Subject: Amazon... >> >>...says Nextdoorland is the 34th best album of 2002. >> >>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/1200212/21/ >> >>Eb, grumbling about "the Wilco thing" again Grumble all ya want, but barring something really blowing me away over the next 27 days, YANKEE HOTEL FOXTROT is going to be my #1 of 2002, or at least in a tie with Wire's two READ AND BURN EPs. Brian Hoare: >Looking at the list is a catalyst to ask a question that has been on my mind >of late. Would _I_ like the Flaming Lips? They seem to have a lot of >critical aclaim and seem to get mentioned on this list a fair bit but that >isn't quite enough to tempt me. There are bands that appear on the same >lists as them that I can appreciate but not enought to delve into. Could you name some of these bands? That might help us venture more sound guesses. FWIW, I could have easily added the Lips to my list of "artists other people whose taste was previously similar to mine liked in the '90s, but I didn't like" (or some such similarly awkward list moniker). I don't think it's a Corgan voice aversion going on with Coyne; it's more like their musical ideas never grab me, whether it's in "She Don't Use Jelly" mode or SOFT BULLETIN big arrangement mode. I like the joy they bring to playing their music, but Neutral Milk Hotel is more of what I'd envision and enjoy along those lines. That's all pretty vague, I know... Also FWIW, after Amazon's #1 (YHF), I had to go all the way to NEXTDOORLAND at #34 to find another album I'd endorse. (BTW, I haven't bought #22, Interpol's TURN ON THE BRIGHT LIGHTS, and the descriptions I've read of the album make it sound like something with which I might become smitten.) later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 03:59:43 -0800 (PST) From: MarkP Subject: Newspapertaxi.net (Music Reviews By Musicians) http://www.newspapertaxi.net/ A web site devised and brought to us in part by Marty Willson-Piper of my beloved (once again!!) Church. Although this might by some be construed as a tad elitist and a smidge uppity (NOT Mart!?! ;-) )yrs truly thinks it's a great concept! Who better to gleen (on this subject) some spot on perspective from I ask? I wish all involved the best of luck with this endeavor as it's the rare and interesting as such that make this wonderous WWW a bit more wonderous ... and heck, they might even allow reviews by some of us MERE mortals! So go ... register ... investigate ... it's pretty damned cool. m P.S... FORGET The Radio! Sleep Well ~ Don't Burst http://www.mitchworldusa.net/ Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:51:32 -0500 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: RE: Would I like... > of late. Would _I_ like the Flaming Lips? They seem to have a lot of > critical acclaim and seem to get mentioned on this list a fair > bit but that isn't quite enough to tempt me. There are bands > that appear on the same lists as them that I can appreciate but > not enough to delve into. Judging from what I've read they seem > to have developed/evolved over the years, which is usually a good > thing. I've not heard anything by them but I am > curious. What are the reasons for liking them, do they have > good replay value, do they scratch a musical itch that nothing > else quite reaches, where in the catalogue does one begin? I just picked up Yoshimi last week so I don't know if it has replay value beyond, er, a couple of weeks. The songs are complex though so I expect that they'll continue to be interesting as years go on. It is to my ears a stunning record but is more impressive taken as a whole, like maybe Dark Side of the Moon (if I was a Pink Floyd fan) or OK Computer. I am not a Lips fan - their earlier music sounds too cute and jokey - at least the stuff that I've sampled off Kazaa, and I'm suspicious of the whole Marty Kroft look of their current tour. But I really dig this album. Tim NP Lurkers 'Fulham Fallout' - now there's a deep record! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:30:13 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Would _I_ like the Flaming Lips? It should also be noted that fans of guitar freakouts should steer towards material preceding _The Soft Bulletin_, while fans of lush textures who do not require much in the way of guitar noise will be more interested in the last few releases from SB onward. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:36:42 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: anal bum cover Kay: >>Right--you used "anal." ;-P This is one of those linguistic shifts that I've just had to accept, but it' still truly weird if you first encounter it out of context. "Anal retentive" was, if memory serves, one of Freud's stages of emotional development... in pop culture terms it was translated roughly as "uptight", gaining a coversational foothold, I think, when Phil Hartman played "the Anal Retentive Chef" on SNL. But the "retentive" was quickly jettisoned, and detail-oriented people started saying, "I don't mean to be anal, but..." Heh heh. Anal butt. Anyhow, suddenly you have a word for uptight which literally means "of the anus"... a distinction which, ironically, few genuinely anal-retentive people would be able to countenance. In fact it's closer in meaning to another slang term which means something more like "jerk" or "obnoxious person". Anyhoo... >>I'm not so sure about the "uncoverable" songs that are so intrinsically linked >>with a particular performance: some examples? Eb's Lennon tunes were good examples. I'd also say stuff like "Born in the USA", or "time-piece" tunes like "Ohio" or "Sunday Bloody Sunday", all songs that have become albatrosses around the necks of their original performers themselves, kind of twisted out of shape by widespread misinterpretation. When I heard the Dandy Warhols doing "Ohio" a few years ago, I just thought it was weird. Why? Non-specific songs like "I Wanna Destroy You" travel through the years a lot better. You can, and people do, cover these types of tunes, but it is really difficult to raise them above the level of "novelty". Think of your average "cross-gender" cover song. You're just waiting to hear if the artist switches the gender of the pronouns, and then it's ha-ha if they do or ha-ha if they don't. Not always, but the vast majority of the time. _________ Tom C: >>Big Sur is beautiful, but there's no "there" there. That's part of the appeal. There's also no "there" there on the internet, so when I imagine living in Big Sur I similarly imagine doing a lot of writing which I presumably would send to my imaginary publishers via the internet, thus being totally nowhere by most human measures. Sitting in my no-there-there land. _______ Eb: >>What's more, I believe it's going to end up in my top 10. Yup, Mary, >>I caught your addiction: Interpol. Interesting. I like the record a lot but it sounds so much like the Chameleons (yes, more than it sounds like Joy Division) that it still sits in the "guilty nostalgic pleasure" column for me. In fact the more reviews I read that say "it's not just a retro trip", the more I think that it is, or why would we have to point that out? Also it kind of personally rankles that I was in bands where we played guitar like that about seven years ago, and people were constantly telling us not to. The quality of our songs aside, people were honestly telling us, about the guitar textures, to dry it up and go lo-fi or you could never make it as an indie band in the modern age. Now those sounds are everywhere. What a lot of wusses we were. Anyway, Interpol... does anyone else hear the breathtaking originality on that record, or does the lack thereof not matter terribly? Like I said, I enjoy the album a good deal; I just dunno if I respect it as much as a lot of people do. - -Rex, who was once in a high school cover band that did, indeed, play "Sunday Bloody Sunday", although it wasn't my idea, and neither was the Eagles tune ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:59:17 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: anal bum cover Quoting "Rex.Broome" : > >>I'm not so sure about the "uncoverable" songs that are so intrinsically > linked > >>with a particular performance: some examples? > > Eb's Lennon tunes were good examples. I'd also say stuff like "Born in the > USA", or "time-piece" tunes like "Ohio" or "Sunday Bloody Sunday", all songs > that have become albatrosses around the necks of their original performers > themselves, kind of twisted out of shape by widespread misinterpretation. > When I heard the Dandy Warhols doing "Ohio" a few years ago, I just thought > it was weird. Why? Non-specific songs like "I Wanna Destroy You" travel > through the years a lot better. I'm not sure about "Born in the USA" - I mean, yeah, it's specifically about Vietnam vets, but I think Bruce's lyrics are hardy enough to survive a certain amount of adaptation - or even change the word "yellow." Actually the worst thing about "Sunday..." is the weird choice (by a Christian, no less) to refer to Easter ("the victory Jesus won") as a "bloody Sunday"... > Think of your average > "cross-gender" cover song. You're just waiting to hear if the artist > switches the gender of the pronouns, and then it's ha-ha if they do or ha-ha > if they don't. Not always, but the vast majority of the time. Hmmm. I really don't think of them that way. I mean, sometimes one has to: I suppose if an openly gay or lesbian singer covers a song originally done by someone of the other sex, there's a point being made - but more often, if it's changed, I consider it minor editorial license in the manner of adding a seventh to a chord, say, and if it's not changed, I usually don't take it to mean anything in particular, except possibly the artist singing in character (a la Joan Baez's massacre of "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"). Some interesting things crop up, though. I've always thought the Mekons' cover of the Stones' "Heart of Stone" brought out the weird, near-psychotic aggression of the original lyric: because we associate that sort of cool-guy aloofness with, say, male blues-based singers of the early sixties, to hear a woman singing it in the eighties is an eye-opener of sorts. Or take the case of the woman who covered Freedy Johnston's "Lucky One" a year or so back (can't remember who): she changed a lyric, because the original's line about standing "with my shirt off" means something very different when a guy's singing it than when a woman's singing it. > Anyway, Interpol... does anyone else hear the breathtaking originality on > that record, or does the lack thereof not matter terribly? Like I said, I > enjoy the album a good deal; I just dunno if I respect it as much as a lot > of people do. I think I've said before that originality in popular music is vastly overrated. Anyway, I do think the record's more original than most people give it credit for. Yes, a lot of its sounds (guitar in particular) are similar to approaches more common in the eighties - but the compositions themselves are sometimes structurally rather intriguing, and (more importantly) good. A couple tunes in the middle should have been resequenced: too many of the same steady-eighth guitar rhythm in a row. I just listened to it during a car trip, and it just gets better for me. Another thing: I respond to it primarily emotionally anyway. I just find it a very affecting record, regardless of its inspiration, originality, or technical aspects. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: PLEASE! You are sending cheese information to me. I don't want it. :: I have no goats or cows or any other milk producing animal! :: --"raus" np: nothing cuz the damned disc drive in my office computer doesn't work ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #411 ********************************