From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V17 #88 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, March 27 2009 Volume 17 : Number 088 Today's Subjects: ----------------- ooh, Sinatra, too [Jill Brand ] The music I am listening to *right now* [Jeremy Osner ] Re: more fodder [Tom Clark ] Re: more fodder [Jeremy Osner ] Bad news for the ShamWow guy [Marc ] Ride [Jeremy Osner ] Re: Eb-shank ["Nectar At Any Cost!" ] Re: Ride [vivien lyon ] Re: ooh, Sinatra, too [Rex ] Re: Ride [Jeremy Osner ] Re: more fodder [Rex ] Re: Eb-shank [Rex ] Re: Ride [Rex ] Re: Ride [Jeremy Osner ] Re: Ride [Jeremy Osner ] Re: Animals [2fs ] Re: Quail, keep posting [2fs ] Re: Decemberists new CD [2fs ] Re: Quail, keep posting [Jeremy Osner ] Floyd and being 15 [vivien lyon ] Re: Quail, keep posting [2fs ] Re: Floyd and being 15 [2fs ] Re: Decemberists new CD [vivien lyon ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:19:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: ooh, Sinatra, too Yes, Frank Sinatra definitely belongs on the list, but I know why. My father can't stand Frank Sinatra, and I was brought up to hate him as well. My dad always said that Sinatra took a song and then sang the lyrics as if they had no meaning. This is pretty funny because Sinatra fans all seem to love him because of his lyrical interpretation. I like Tony Bennett a lot, though. And, well, NOBODY sings Gershwin, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, and Jerome Kern like Fred Astaire. He is one of my true heroes. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:55:40 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: The music I am listening to *right now* Hm, well the evening's plan to listen to "Goodnight Oslo" have been minorly altered by a disc gone with its owners partner to events at her friend's. I wonder how many people here have thought about "So You Think You're in Love" and "I'm Falling" (and maybe also "Birds in Perspex") in the same context as one another. (If you have not, this is an invitation to.) Regards J If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Joe Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:57:30 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Decemberists new CD - -- vivien lyon is rumored to have mumbled on 27. Mdrz 2009 17:12:45 -0700 regarding Re: Decemberists new CD: > Wow, I don't understand this mindset. What difference does it make if an > artist takes a long time to create something? And does this opinion extend > to other forms of art, like the novel or the visual arts? I don't think it's the length of time per se. But when an artist used to produce new ... artifacts in quick succession, but then becomes financially independent and has (too much) time to tinker on a new project for years, that's rarely if ever a good thing, regardless of medium. I guess there artists that are *always* slow, e.g. Terrence Malick. So that's a different situation as far as I'm concerned. I'm not awake enought to explain more clearly what I mean, so this will have to do for now ... - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Am alten Stellwerk 22, 50733 Kvln, Germany http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:06:00 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: more fodder On Mar 27, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > Hey speaking of: I've got a plan for tonight after my daughter goes > to bed and my wife goes to a show with her friend, and it is this: get > myself altered and listen to "Goodnight Oslo", and write on my blog > about the songs. That sounds like a spanking good idea! Make sure you include the bonus trax though. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:11:22 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: more fodder On Mar 27, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > Is there any music that you don't like, that you've tried to like, > and that you wish you liked? Tom Waits post "Nighthawks". The dissonance and gravely voice are interesting, but not something I find myself reaching for. Nick Cave is a bit too dramatic for me, although I guess I appreciate where he's coming from. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:17:50 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: more fodder Actually a roadblock is standing in the way which is that the Disk is in my car which is currently parked at the house of my wife's friend. So instead I am listening to old favorite Perspex Island (and asking people to think about "i'm falling" in the context of "so you think you're in love", and to think aout "Child of the Universe" in the context of Tolkien's character Tom Bombadil. J If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Josi Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Tom Clark wrote: > On Mar 27, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > >> Hey speaking of: I've got a plan for tonight after my daughter goes >> to bed and my wife goes to a show with her friend, and it is this: get >> myself altered and listen to "Goodnight Oslo", and write on my blog >> about the songs. > > That sounds like a spanking good idea! > > Make sure you include the bonus trax though. > > -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:20:37 -0400 From: Marc Subject: Bad news for the ShamWow guy http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0327092sham1.html As I saw in another source on the story, punching a prostitute to get her to stop biting your tongue is probably a learned survival skill, like how to survive a bear attack or how to fend off a shark attack. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:24:12 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Ride "But if you don't love yourself/ What's the use of someone else/ Lovin' you?" Do you think of these lines as oratorical or diagnostic? Is Robyn saying Go forth and love thyself, or noting that too often we are hampered in the pursuit of union with the other, by insufficient union with the self? Or both, he could be saying both things of course, they are hardly contradictory, and then there is of course the possibility that he is sayimg something totally else, that I'm way off. J If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Josi Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:08:12 -0700 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: Re: Eb-shank i hate to say it; but i find these "family spats" to be fascinating. "what's the difference between a duck?"? i rank it third, after *The Wall* and *Wish You Were Here*. and, yeah, i may as well come clean and admit that *The Wall* is my second-favourite record (after *Abbey Road*, for what it's worth). i think the records are pretty boring, save for *OK Computer*. you might try downloading some shows, though. they're really great in the live setting. i've never liked u2's music (do admire the dudes themselves). i do remember, back in the day, loving the, uh, whichever one it was where they kept repeating "voodoo economics" over and over. funny thing is, i thought that their music under the closing credits of *Three Kings* and *Bloody Sunday* were about as powerful as any moving-closing sequences i've seen. i think that i'll someday come around on them. but probably not on hip-hop, more's the pity. now listening to: juan calle and his latin lantzmen *Mazel Tov Mis Amigos*. i *love* the fucking internet! oh, speaking of which, is pretty interesting. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:16:03 -0700 From: vivien lyon Subject: Re: Ride I think there's an element of both in the meaning of that line, though for me it's meant primarily the second. In other words, if you don't love yourself, someone else loving you is neither going to make you happy, nor help you love yourself. Self-hatred is the root of all evil.... maybe. I love that song. On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > "But if you don't love yourself/ What's the use of someone else/ > Lovin' you?" Do you think of these lines as oratorical or diagnostic? > Is Robyn saying Go forth and love thyself, or noting that too often we > are hampered in the pursuit of union with the other, by insufficient > union with the self? Or both, he could be saying both things of > course, they are hardly contradictory, and then there is of course the > possibility that he is sayimg something totally else, that I'm way > off. > > J > > If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the > essential words. -- Josi Saramago > http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:17:32 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: ooh, Sinatra, too On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > My dad always said that Sinatra took a song and then sang the lyrics as if > they had no meaning. This is pretty funny because Sinatra fans all seem to > love him because of his lyrical interpretation. Yeah, that drives me bats. Maybe I'm just not finely-tuned enough to hear it, but can his phrasing be *that* extraordinary? He's no MES, that's for sure. But everything he's ever recorded has been overanalyzed to the same degree as The Beatles recordings... the key difference being that the Beatles invented... like... everything about recording, and I can see the enduring fascination there. Sinatra seems more of a personality to me. I have an unbridled nostalgic affection for the general sound of recordings from that era, though. I just like to hear other, lesser known voices and songs. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:19:32 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: Ride > I love that song. > Loe is totally the appropriate sentiment to feel in relation to Ride; sez I. J ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:22:28 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: more fodder On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Tom Clark wrote: > Tom Waits > Nick Cave > These are interesting. I like both of them a lot and have and listen to pretty much all of their recordings, but the fall just shy of my personal top tier of obsession. Which probably just means that, as much as I like them, I know other people who are truly wild about them and I don't feel I can match that enthusiasm. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:28:54 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Eb-shank On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > > > now listening to: juan calle and his latin lantzmen *Mazel Tov Mis Amigos*. > i *love* the fucking internet! > Link please! I have a surprising amount of Jewish-Mexican family and friends who will probably need this. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:46:02 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Ride On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > > I love that song. > > > > Loe is totally the appropriate sentiment to feel in relation to Ride; sez > I. There was a brief time when "Ride" was both my favorite song and my favorite band. Feels like 1992, I think. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:56:06 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: Ride > There was a brief time when "Ride" was both my favorite song and my favorite > band. Feels like 1992, I think. I do not know that band. A song written by me and titled "Feels like 1992" would be analogous to a song written by our Robyn and called "Feels like 1974". At any rate if my understanding is correct that he was born in 1952 it would be. J If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Jose Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:00:02 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: Ride > "But if you don't love yourself/ What's the use of someone else/ > Lovin' you?" Do you think of these lines as oratorical or diagnostic? Oh and also: consider these sets of lines side by side: Hold me hold me hold me hold me/ Please don't let me get away -- from Ride What is love made of/ Nobody knows/ What are you afraid of/ Everyone knows/ It's love -- from So You Think You're In Love I'm afraid of loving you/ And you're afraid I can't -- from I'm Falling J If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Joe Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:24:20 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Animals On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > Hi Chris! Nice to know you're only me... > > Here is something I experience as strange, now that I'm thinking about > Pink Floyd discography. I am 35; my first exposure to Floyd was > listening to "Another Brick in the Wall" at age 10 or so on a friend's > cassette deck. Then the whole discovery, rejection, reacquaintance > discussed in the previous mail. But here's the thing: I have some > friends who I play a lot of music with, who are in their 50's and > listened to Floyd a lot in the mid-to-late 70's. I was talking with > them a couple of years back and it came out that they didn't know > there were any Pink Floyd records before 1973. I was surprised. Was > Dark Side of the Moon a breakthrough hit for a previously unknown > band? Pretty much, yes. They'd been drifting in obscurity for several years (the albums immediately prior to DSOTM are *still* pretty obscure(d by clouds)...). Sure, a handful of music writers and obsessive fans knew or remembered the early, Barrett-led Floyd...but the world was a very different place pre-internet. Maybe in dingy, suspicious-smelling record stores there'd be weird magazines printed on paper with odd-looking proportions that babbled about all these bands you'd never heard of (Magma? Jobriath?), and maybe your local FM radio station had a 3am show specializing in "imports" that would play all this incredibly weird, obscure shit (Can?) - Barrett's Floyd was only slighter better known than that, in my memory. But yeah: DSOTM was the breakthrough album for the band. As an aside: Don't know why everyone feels so superior to the lyrical content of _Animals_ (or a lot of other stuff): are we really that older and wiser? We're older and (hopefully) wiser than our teenage-fan selves, yes...but those records were *written* by folks older than we were then and, in some cases, older than some of us are now. Waters was (is?) a lifelong socialist, whose father was killed in WWII: his pain and anger at the degradation of society under a you-ain't-seen-nothin-yet pre-Thatcher '70s government was legit. And though he's not a little self-obsessed, and though he definitely focuses on people's dimmest and most bastardly selves, it's not as all that stuff isn't true to some extent, of some people, some times. It's gonna get harder, and harder, and harder, as you get older. (Note: pre-Viagra.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:33:09 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Quail, keep posting On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Brian Huddell wrote: > > God, now I just feel like an idiot. > > You shouldn't. What Quail wrote was biting. It was effective. It stung. > If he meant it to be somehow lighthearted or fun, he failed. > > I apologized to the list for calling him out on it because I think I made > things worse, creating more tension than if I'd kept my mouth shut. But > I'm > certainly not sending in my humor-meter to be recalibrated. I'd say that was a both/and, folks. Yeah, it was humorous (I mean, it was!), and yeah, it was meant as a bit of a joke...but the sting some of you sensed, or felt, was not imaginary. I mean, duh: we know Quail doesn't like Rex, and sometimes (like many of us) he'll lash out a bit when people appear to insult his tastes - so, yeah. Plus, Quail does both pompous and mock-pompous, and sometimes he does the first one while not knowing it, while other times he thinks he's doing the second one while coming across as doing the first one. So it's perhaps easier to misread his mock-pompous as true pompous than with others who only ever do mock-pompous. Where perhaps he does have cause to be offended is that, as I said, a lot of us do sometimes lash out a bit here. It's just that he gets called on it. But I think he gets called on more than many of us because, often, it happens right after he's directly and unequivocally expressed his dislike of Rex and all that he stands for. And my guess is, even if some of us might not hold a superhigh opinion of Rex, for many of us the intensity of Quail's dislike is puzzling. I mean, it's not as if Rex stole Quail's girlfriend, crashed his car, and pissed all over his rare first-edition of Pynchon's _Gravity's Rainbow_. (Is it?) My guess is, for the rest of us the most annoying Rex gets (or nearly anyone else here, including myself) is tedious, or frustrating, or just unfunny - but for Quail he's somehow the Antichrist. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:44:46 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Decemberists new CD On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:12 PM, vivien lyon wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:33 PM, 2fs wrote: > >> >> Gabriel, though, is a good illustration of the problem of taking things >> too >> seriously: there's just no way a frakkin' record should take a decade to >> make. Beethoven wrote symphonies in plenty less time than that. Someone >> should lock Gabriel and Kate Bush in a room (not necessarily the same one) >> and tell them they're not being let out until they've written and recorded >> an album. Enough of this "ten years later, here's my masterwork..." >> >> >> > Wow, I don't understand this mindset. What difference does it make if an > artist takes a long time to create something? And does this opinion extend > to other forms of art, like the novel or the visual arts? > > I mean, I can understand if you listen to an album and wonder why it took > ten years to make because it doesn't seem very good to you, but perhaps, > even so, it is exactly what that artist meant to produce, and it just took a > long long long time for everything to gel to their satisfaction. I guess there are several ways to answer this. First, don't take me all that seriously when I make remarks like that...if I were making a truly serious argument, of course Gabriel has every right to take as long as he wants - he owes us nothing. And the work is probably better if he genuinely wants to do it rather than feel compelled to do it just to put something out. Anyway: plus I'm selfish. I like(d) both of those artists, at least at their best - and I want more. Dance, monkey! Also: Sebastian addressed a lot of what I think, too. As to whether my opinion extends to other art forms: well, a novel would seem to be a bit more work than an album, so the timeframe would be extended somewhat - but to a degree, yeah. Should it take twenty years to write a novel? Hell if I know - I've never written one. As for the "exactly what the artist meant to produce": well, maybe - and "long time for everything to gel" - okay - but none of that means I have to like it, or wonder how it is that it took so long, or wonder whether if the artist wouldn't have been better off treating the music more like work and less like art. Don't worry: in some other post I'll probably utterly contradict that last point, and say that dammit, music is an art, not just a damned job, and those folks just stamping out songs like so many toothbrushes need to step back and put some soul into it. Do I contradict myself? (Defense lawyer embraces scuffed corpse.) To sum up - I think things should not *seem* labored over, however labored over they actually are - and when you release an album after ten years, none of it can sound very alive and in the moment without a hell of a lot of effort (on the listener's part - at least on this listener's part). Unless, of course, it's a concept album about only recording songs at 10:33 pm on February 15, every year, for ten years, and then releasing the album only after the tenth song is done. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:46:02 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: Quail, keep posting Well I am liking Rex and Jill right now out of bonding over "Ride" and like and have liked The Quail and also Studyvin and the F's at various moments recently over other bits of e-mail. I am hoping none of this means I have to suit up in the colors of one crew or another. I found the message from Quail acidic and witty, and the one from Jill heartfelt and sincere (to name two messages of this longish exchange) and hope enough of it is in fun. J If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- J Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:48:14 -0700 From: vivien lyon Subject: Floyd and being 15 I am 34. When I was in middle school (so, 13 going on 14), a friend of mine gave me a cassette tape with Violent Femmes on one side and Wish You Were Here on the other. I loved loved loved loved WYWH, and subsequently when I was 15 a friend heard me playing that and gave me The Wall. I ended up watching the movie with my first boyfriend and crying so hard he couldn't make out with me (not that I really wanted to make out with him, I'd rather have made out with Bob Geldof. I know. Ew.). I don't remember having any particularly incisive or critical thoughts about PF at the time, but later I dismissed most of their music as over-the-top, melodramatic and/or hypocritical grandstanding. Much much later I listened to Syd Barrett and felt that I was experiencing the body and soul of the art before the dead bones had been excavated by archaeologists to create the later PF catalog. But the opening moments of Shine on You Crazy Diamond still send On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > Hi Chris! Nice to know you're only me... > > Here is something I experience as strange, now that I'm thinking about > Pink Floyd discography. I am 35; my first exposure to Floyd was > listening to "Another Brick in the Wall" at age 10 or so on a friend's > cassette deck. Then the whole discovery, rejection, reacquaintance > discussed in the previous mail. But here's the thing: I have some > friends who I play a lot of music with, who are in their 50's and > listened to Floyd a lot in the mid-to-late 70's. I was talking with > them a couple of years back and it came out that they didn't know > there were any Pink Floyd records before 1973. I was surprised. Was > Dark Side of the Moon a breakthrough hit for a previously unknown > band? > > (Oh and another anecdote as long as I am telling them: this morning I > was telling a friend of mine about a house concert we are having next > month, "Woody Rediscovered" -- any Woody Guthrie fans in my vicinity, > if you'd like to come hear shoot me a mail -- and he told me, when he > was growing up in Indiana as the son of the local John Birch Society > organizer, his parents listened to Pete Seeger and The Weavers, and he > has never been able to square that with their politics.) > > J ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:53:49 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Quail, keep posting On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > Well I am liking Rex and Jill right now out of bonding over "Ride" and > like and have liked The Quail and also Studyvin and the F's at various > moments recently over other bits of e-mail. I am hoping none of this > means I have to suit up in the colors of one crew or another. No, you don't - no such suiting-up is necessary But perhaps you haven't been informed, as a relatively new member, that that's primarily because all feg posts must be composed in the nude. It's true. (Also embarrassing - especially while leering in the mirror.) Anyway: for the most part these things blow over, although I won't pretend that everyone here's all lovey-dovey with everyone else. But why should we be? There are hundreds of us, with really the only thing in common a love for (some of) Robyn Hitchcock's music - and hell, I'm betting there's a few folks here who no longer even claim that (used to, but are sticking around because, you know, we hardly ever talk about that guy anyway). - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:55:53 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Floyd and being 15 On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:48 PM, vivien lyon wrote: > > > But the opening moments of Shine on You Crazy Diamond still send > I think what she meant to write was "the rest of my sentence to oblivion." Just a guess. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:57:02 -0700 From: vivien lyon Subject: Re: Decemberists new CD Points taken. I guess I'm just curious because over the past few years I've become aware of how different people take wildly different amounts of time to create art, and how it isn't necessarily an issue of one person having more intelligence or talent than another, just that the place that "art" comes from works differently for different folks. Some people have a muse that shows up every day, and some people have a muse that shows up once a month. I have a very very tardy muse who is overpaid and lazy. This means my novel will take twenty years to write, and you will probably read it and say, "Jesus, this took her twenty years?" And I will point to my muse and disavow responsibility. On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM, 2fs wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:12 PM, vivien lyon > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:33 PM, 2fs wrote: > > > >> > >> Gabriel, though, is a good illustration of the problem of taking things > >> too > >> seriously: there's just no way a frakkin' record should take a decade to > >> make. Beethoven wrote symphonies in plenty less time than that. Someone > >> should lock Gabriel and Kate Bush in a room (not necessarily the same > one) > >> and tell them they're not being let out until they've written and > recorded > >> an album. Enough of this "ten years later, here's my masterwork..." > >> > >> > >> > > Wow, I don't understand this mindset. What difference does it make if an > > artist takes a long time to create something? And does this opinion > extend > > to other forms of art, like the novel or the visual arts? > > > > I mean, I can understand if you listen to an album and wonder why it took > > ten years to make because it doesn't seem very good to you, but perhaps, > > even so, it is exactly what that artist meant to produce, and it just > took a > > long long long time for everything to gel to their satisfaction. > > > I guess there are several ways to answer this. First, don't take me all > that > seriously when I make remarks like that...if I were making a truly serious > argument, of course Gabriel has every right to take as long as he wants - > he > owes us nothing. And the work is probably better if he genuinely wants to > do > it rather than feel compelled to do it just to put something out. > > Anyway: plus I'm selfish. I like(d) both of those artists, at least at > their > best - and I want more. Dance, monkey! > > Also: Sebastian addressed a lot of what I think, too. As to whether my > opinion extends to other art forms: well, a novel would seem to be a bit > more work than an album, so the timeframe would be extended somewhat - but > to a degree, yeah. Should it take twenty years to write a novel? Hell if I > know - I've never written one. > > As for the "exactly what the artist meant to produce": well, maybe - and > "long time for everything to gel" - okay - but none of that means I have to > like it, or wonder how it is that it took so long, or wonder whether if the > artist wouldn't have been better off treating the music more like work and > less like art. > > Don't worry: in some other post I'll probably utterly contradict that last > point, and say that dammit, music is an art, not just a damned job, and > those folks just stamping out songs like so many toothbrushes need to step > back and put some soul into it. > > Do I contradict myself? (Defense lawyer embraces scuffed corpse.) > > To sum up - I think things should not *seem* labored over, however labored > over they actually are - and when you release an album after ten years, > none > of it can sound very alive and in the moment without a hell of a lot of > effort (on the listener's part - at least on this listener's part). > > Unless, of course, it's a concept album about only recording songs at 10:33 > pm on February 15, every year, for ten years, and then releasing the album > only after the tenth song is done. > > > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V17 #88 *******************************