From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #145 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, June 9 2005 Volume 14 : Number 145 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: stop me before I buy again [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Jeff ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Jeff ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Capuchin ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Benjamin Lukoff ] Die Hard Fandom ["Brian Nupp" ] Re: A European writes... (100% Nupp content) ["Brian Nupp" ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: stop me before I buy again ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Capuchin ] WTF? (with discussion of music without political content) [Jeff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > The solution isn't an effort by media to be more objective (although > certainly, when media aren't specifically speaking from a particular > perspective, they should either try, or make their perspective and > interests clear). The solution is a broader, more representative > media. And not just the media (insert semi-annual rant re > winner-take-all two-party "democracy"). I am wholly with you as far as how much our two-party system sucks. (And we should have broader media, too. I'd like to see a libertarian publication or two out there in addition to Reason...) > Take for example, White House press conferences. It's an abomination > that the WH *chooses* whose question to address. Time should be Well, the thing is, even if the selection were random, as you suggest, they'd simply choose to answer the questions they didn't want in such a way as to make the answer meaningless... which they sort of do now... it's standard press conference procedure. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:41:12 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On 6/8/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > > > Anyway: You say your consumption patterns are your own doing. At some > > level, of course this is true. But how conscious are you when making > > purchasing decisions? (I should note right now that I'm not claiming > > every individual can be expected to analyze every purchase they make - > > I mean, it'd be a good idea, but expecting it, and blaming people when > > they don't, would be impractical.) And how much choice do you have? > > Perhaps not many *choices*, but my choice is indeed free. I am actually > pretty conscious when I make purchasing decisions, I'd wager more than > average, but of course I am influenced by advertising... I probably should have clarified that I didn't particularly mean *you* you by "you" - I meant "people in general." > > The point of this isn't to claim that you're a mindless robot > > consuming whatever's pushed at you. It's to move beyond the simplistic > > notion that each individual freely chooses what to consume. With many > > consumer products, the choice you confront is highly constricted, and > > it takes way more time to find alternatives - time a lot of people > > aren't willing to spend, whether they're aware of those alternatives > > or simply proceed assuming Big Fronted Display Brand is the only thing > > around. > > There isn't 100% free choice, true. But if you care enough, you'll take > the time to find alternatives. They obviously don't care enough, if > they're aware of them. I think if I follow my thoughts on this, what I'm really arguing against is excessively concentration, integration, and hugeness, and their results on the consumer. While it's true that a free market can encourage choice and innovation (one perceives an unmet need; one strives to meet it), it's also true that that market can constrict and restrict those (a minimum threshold of interest in a particular choice), especially the larger the apparatus of production (that is: if your product has global reach, it'll be all the harder for someone to surmount it). Commercial radio might be the clearest illustration. Once upon a time, there was much more variety there, not only in any given location but from location to location (the all-but-vanished phenomenon of the regional hit is an example). But as it became possible to consolidate markets (helped along by the removal of some regulations re ownership), radio became more and more the domain of an increasingly smaller number of increasingly larger corporations, whose programming at each station became more and more similar, to the point now where many commercial stations no longer have DJs as such but have automatic playlisting and prerecorded (sometimes falsely "localized") announcements. This is great if you're a Clear Channel stockholder - but it sucks if you're a music fan. Again, the point isn't that it's impossible to find good music - only that it's much harder, the music may reach fewer people, and more musicians or potential musicians might be discouraged sooner. To chain all that together: how many great songs have never been written because of Clear Channel's overwhelming market dominance? If I thought that dominance had led to more great songs being written instead...well, I think it's pretty clear that's not the case. Surely others have noticed that public radio, public television, and even national radio systems a la BBC, all have far broader programming than US commercial stations? (For "far broader" substitute "give consumers greater choice.") - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:56:06 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On 6/8/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Take for example, White House press conferences. It's an abomination > > that the WH *chooses* whose question to address. Time should be > > Well, the thing is, even if the selection were random, as you suggest, > they'd simply choose to answer the questions they didn't want in such a > way as to make the answer meaningless... which they sort of do now... it's > standard press conference procedure. Well, yeah. But it would certainly kick ass to have rude, pointed questions actually asked more often - even if W tries to squirm around them. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:19:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > On 6/8/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: >>> Take for example, White House press conferences. It's an abomination >>> that the WH *chooses* whose question to address. Time should be >> Well, the thing is, even if the selection were random, as you suggest, >> they'd simply choose to answer the questions they didn't want in such a >> way as to make the answer meaningless... which they sort of do now... >> it's standard press conference procedure. > > Well, yeah. But it would certainly kick ass to have rude, pointed > questions actually asked more often - even if W tries to squirm around > them. We fix that problem, though, by slotting a certain time for each question and allowing follow-ups and real dialog between press and public servant. The "debate" formats chosen for the last election seem to have been carefully crafted to be content-free. The candidates listened to someone else say something that maybe sounded like a question and then responded by saying whatever they like, whether or not it was relevent to the "question" posed. I remember a billboard in Canada that was put up during a national broadcaster's conference (I think by AdBusters) that showed a press conference and a press member standing and gesturing firmly. The bold caption (is it a headline or a caption or what when it's across the middle of a picture like ads use? -- tagline, anyway) read "Ask harder questions." Damn straight. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:33:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > Surely others have noticed that public radio, public television, and > even national radio systems a la BBC, all have far broader programming > than US commercial stations? (For "far broader" substitute "give > consumers greater choice.") Yes and no. One question: would we really want to make everyone pay $150 a year or whatever it is so that we *could* run a BBC? Would people stand for it? (I think not, though I must admit that the BBC mostly kicks American broadcasting's ass, even NPR/PBS.) Also, as for "far broader," the BBC, perhaps yes. NPR/PBS, I'd say not. If it were broader, wouldn't it cross over more with commercial broadcasting? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:33:45 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: Die Hard Fandom Wow. I got my copy for $7.50 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=58593&item=4734 413610&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:36:06 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: Re: A European writes... (100% Nupp content) >Matt Sewell wrote: >> >> A cursory listen reveals it's a goodie > >Indeed. It's a fine album. > >cheers, > Stewart Thanks guys! - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:59:21 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: Go-Betweens at The Abbey Pub in Chicago, Tuesday June 14. Any Chicago area fegs planning on seeing the G-B's next Tuesday? Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:43:58 -0400 From: Christopher Hintz Subject: Nuppamania coming soon to your town! taking a break from the intelligent political discourse that has become the feglist, i would like to add to the kudos for brian nupp's new Lazerlove5 album. here is my glowing review! http://www.everythingnotrelated.com/2005/06/stroke-your-monkey- lazerlove5-my-pal he kindly gave me a copy on our way to a recent Decemberists show together. get your own! you won't regret it! we have a pop genius in our midst. did you know? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 19:18:36 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On 6/8/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Also, as for "far broader," the BBC, perhaps yes. NPR/PBS, I'd say not. If > it were broader, wouldn't it cross over more with commercial broadcasting? The reasoning here seems exactly backwards: if a commercial audience is being served by particular programming, it would be pointless for public broadcasting to duplicate that programming. I mean, if I had a non-commercial radio show, I would never play a song that was on the current charts - no matter how good it was - because people could hear it elsewhere. The whole point of non-commercial broadcasting is to expose listeners to things they aren't hearing elsewhere. A listener-supported radio station here (WMSE) features blues, country/rockabilly/alt-country, alternative, a syndicated "world music" show, punk rock, several flavors of electronic whatchacallit (add "several flavors" to alternative, rock, blues, etc.), jazz, old-school R&B/New Orleans/Memphis/Caribbean (in the same show, not as a hybrid genre - and the same DJ is fond of throwing Magnetic Fields into the mix god knows why), deep-album-cut classic rock, reggae and variants old & new, "industrial noise core," funk, rap, and contempo R&B, big band, prog, women's music, avant-garde classical, and ethnic programming aimed at Hmong, Latinos, and Italians. (Full schedule at - the station netcasts and has archives for download, too.) That's several dials' worth of commercial programming, except perhaps in the three or four biggest markets in the US. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:46:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > On 6/8/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > Also, as for "far broader," the BBC, perhaps yes. NPR/PBS, I'd say not. If > > it were broader, wouldn't it cross over more with commercial broadcasting? > > The reasoning here seems exactly backwards: if a commercial audience > is being served by particular programming, it would be pointless for > public broadcasting to duplicate that programming. I mean, if I had a > non-commercial radio show, I would never play a song that was on the > current charts - no matter how good it was - because people could hear > it elsewhere. The whole point of non-commercial broadcasting is to > expose listeners to things they aren't hearing elsewhere. I agree, but you were claiming they were *broader* when in fact they're not, really--I guess it's just semantics. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 10:18:35 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again I know you didn't say you trusted the media, but that you should expect objectivity from them is hoping for way too much - take f'rinstance the Murdoch press over here (Rupert Murdoch, who owns The Times & Sunday Times, The Sun, Sky etc oh, and doesn't pay a penny in tax) is run largely to promote and protect the vested interests of its owner. It would be nice if the media was more objective, but then it'd be nice if it wasn't controlled by wealthy power-obsessed moguls, eh? Cheers Matt >From: Benjamin Lukoff > >I didn't say I trust 'em. I said it'd be nice if they were more objective. > > > Would that be the media owned almost exclusively by obscenely > > wealthy white men? Known more for their pursuit of their own business > > interests than their pursuit of balanced objectivity? > > > > I think maybe you trust the media a little too much, Benjamin. > > > > cheers > > > > Matt > > > > >From: Benjamin Lukoff > > > > Objectivity is the responsibility of the audience, not the media. > > > > > >It would help if the media did it a little more, too. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:28:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: >> On 6/8/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: >>> Also, as for "far broader," the BBC, perhaps yes. NPR/PBS, I'd say >>> not. If it were broader, wouldn't it cross over more with commercial >>> broadcasting? >> >> The reasoning here seems exactly backwards: > > I agree, but you were claiming they were *broader* when in fact they're > not, really--I guess it's just semantics. Um, his second paragraph of the same email explained exactly how one station in his town has far broader programming than every other radio station in his town with no overlap. Think about it this way (which has nothing to do with content, but shows how "broader" doesn't imply any overlap): Consider the radio stations from 105.1 to 106.7 FM. They cover a certain frequency spectrum. The radio stations from 88.1 to 104.7 cover a much broader spectrum, collectively. But there is no overlap. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:54:43 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: WTF? (with discussion of music without political content) Did somebody clone fegmaniax? I've been getting lots of posts twice - and weirdly, the one with the NYT article about Coldplay came once with only a link, the second time w/the actual article cut-n-pasted. You know what? I know I've heard a Coldplay song or two - but I can't remember any of 'em. At all. I remember only going "what hath Thom Yorke wrought?" (not his fault, of course - and as Pareles points out, facile comparisons to Radiohead miss all but the most surface aspects of that band). - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #145 ********************************