From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V18 #67 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, April 3 2010 Volume 18 : Number 067 Today's Subjects: ----------------- April Moog's day [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] Fwd: Snap judgement on Propellor Time [michaeljbachman@comcast.net] Re: April Moog's day [Rex ] Re: Shitty Wok [Rex ] Re: Production [Rex ] Re: Production [kevin studyvin ] Sketchbot Custom Show Video Online! (No RH) [Steve Talkowski ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 09:42:11 +1300 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: April Moog's day Among the host of not entirely kosher items presented this April 1, this one stands out. I want one! :) James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 00:31:02 +0000 (UTC) From: michaeljbachman@comcast.net Subject: Fwd: Snap judgement on Propellor Time - ----- "Jeremy Osner" wrote: > From: "Jeremy Osner" > To: "Pigworkers Local 47" > Sent: Friday, April 2, 2010 3:45:14 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Snap judgement on Propellor Time > > 8 good-to-great songs on a 10-song album... > Does the instrumentation on "Primitive" remind anyone else of Simon > and Garfunkel? > "Sickie Boy" would be a great song if it were on BSDR; here and now, > it is only good. > J I'll give it another spin on the way home Sunday. I listened to Shadowc at on the way up north and played the title song a half dozen times. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 08:33:27 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: April Moog's day On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM, wrote: > Among the host of not entirely kosher items presented this April 1, this > one stands out. I want one! :) > > > "Mrs. Miller" preset FTW. A must! - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 08:55:55 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Shitty Wok On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:11 AM, 2fs wrote: > > I should probably give them a chance...but "Black Rebel Motorcycle Club" is > the most desperately hip-seeking, look-at-me band name around, isn't it? Sorta. BMRC were sorta okay in that J&MC ripoff vein until they... erm... stayed there, adding nothing else. Which is, true, nowhere near as bad as the Black Angels, who started off as a BMRC ripoff and stayed *there* all the way to the bank. Mistyped that as "Black Angles" at first, which is better. - -Rex Broome, guitar & vocal, The Jesus & Mary Chair ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 09:04:32 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Production On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, kevin studyvin wrote: > ...and that's why recordings from the 1930s still sound so good. I've been increasingly noticing that myself. It extends well into the '50s. Fifties country songs ALL sound good. I really haven't heard a bad one yet. Almost all the songs are good, too. It's kind of scary. The '60s sounds I used to love only sound good to me now because everything thereafter is infinitely worse. Except for the weird shit of all subsequent eras which is usually derided as "lo-fi". - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:33:08 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: Production On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Rex wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, kevin studyvin wrote: > >> ...and that's why recordings from the 1930s still sound so good. > > > I've been increasingly noticing that myself. It extends well into the > '50s. Fifties country songs ALL sound good. I really haven't heard a bad > one yet. Almost all the songs are good, too. It's kind of scary. > > The '60s sounds I used to love only sound good to me now because everything > thereafter is infinitely worse. > > Except for the weird shit of all subsequent eras which is usually derided > as "lo-fi". > There's probably a formula, like the slicker the production, the shorter the listenable lifespan... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:09:08 -0700 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Sketchbot Custom Show Video Online! (No RH) I just posted some excellent video coverage (shot with a Canon 5DMKII DSLR no less!) of last Friday's Sketchbot Show opening: http://vimeo.com/10653400 We had an amazing turnout and overwhelming response to all the customs on display. The show is up through April 23rd, so please do try and see them up close in person if you get the chance! Thx, - -Steve P.S. Here's a detailed post about the creation of my Gigantor-Bot custom: http://sketchbot.blogspot.com/2010/03/sketchbot-custom-gigantorbot.html P.P.S. iPad will have to wait until I return home from our current West Coast Grandparents Tour... :( - -- Steve Talkowski Character Design & Animation http://sketchbot.blogspot.com http://sketchbot.tv ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 14:47:48 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Production On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Rex wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, kevin studyvin > wrote: > > > ...and that's why recordings from the 1930s still sound so good. > > > I've been increasingly noticing that myself. It extends well into the > '50s. > Fifties country songs ALL sound good. I really haven't heard a bad one > yet. Almost all the songs are good, too. It's kind of scary. > On the "sound" point: I'm not going to agree re '30s - a bit limited in range and tinny - but it seems that once we hit the mid/late '40s and bebop, a lot of *that* stuff still sounds really good. As to the quality bit: that's probably true, both objectively and perceptually. Objectively, because there was much less music being released, fewer outlets for it, etc....and, as I said, the gatekeepers tended to look at "musical" criteria or even interpret commercial criteria in terms of (their notion of) "musical" criteria. Perceptually, because the better stuff tends to survive while the crap fades. The whole punk-rock revolution was definitely a double-sided thing: on the one hand, you didn't need a bajillion dollars, a Berklee degree, and twenty years of practicing 64th-note scales in the mixolydian mode in order to record; on the other, a lot of those bands who couldn't really play their instruments when they started couldn't play them later, either, and couldn't write songs ever. But for a while, at least, calling them on either point automatically entitled you to being strangled in a greying hippie beard by some dude with a mohawk. Except, I don't care. There is *still* way more good music out there than I could possibly have time to listen to - than anyone other than a millionaire who listened to music 24/7 to listen to - so who really cares if there's also a lot of crap? I have faith that there will always be some kids somewhere who figure out what good music is - on their own, or digging through old crates of...uh, used laptops on which users never deleted their mp3s. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V18 #67 *******************************