From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V18 #152 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, August 9 2010 Volume 18 : Number 152 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: On referencing "I Watch the Cars" [kevin studyvin ] Re: Siouxie ["craigie*" ] Re: Siouxie [2fs ] Treble tribal trouble [hssmrg@bath.ac.uk] Re: Siouxie [Miles Goosens ] Re: Siouxie [2fs ] Re: Siouxie [Stewart Russell ] Fwd: Siouxie and '80's sound [michaeljbachman@comcast.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 11:48:36 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: On referencing "I Watch the Cars" On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > Was writing a lyric this afternoon and it occurred to me that an image > in the song comes straight out of "I Watch the Cars", and wondering if > thinking/writing/singing that commits me wholesale to the neurosis > described by that song. > > This is unusual in terms of songs I have written in that I am writing > a melody and a lyric at the same time, to go together... > > Cicadas for Lep (in D) > > The night outside is crazy with delight > It moans and cries for the evenings dying light > And home, is heavy; oh, home is heavy > Home is heavy on my mind > > Cicadas rustle and the roaring train goes past > The rhythm carrying the rhythm of a thousand evenings past > And home, is heavy; oh, home, is heavy > Home, is heavy on my mind > > I hear the footsteps of my neighbor now he's walking down the street > This silhouetted predator -- mind is crying out for meat > And home, is heavy, oh, home is heavy > Home, is heavy on my mind > Wholesale? Nahh. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:50:08 +1200 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V18 #151 >A brilliant Two Ronnies sketch set in the Zulu wars which had >tongue-twisting rhyming dialogue...Ronnie B had just been into battle >against the 'rotten hotten-tot lot' and staggered back into HQ... with his >last breath he said... Ronnie Barker was brilliant at that sort of tongue-twisting stuff (possibly only second to Danny Kaye). I can dimly recall one beautiful "in late news" item about a survey detailing how people pronounced the word "either" - "12% said either either or either; 11% said neither either nor either neither..." 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: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:11:26 +1200 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: Long-shot English-comedy-related favour... >Parenthetically, does anybody know where a citizen might find the uproarious >mock-protest song Hugh Laurie did in one of the Bit Of Fry And Laurie shows >a while back? At this point all I recall is that it made me laugh... That would be the protest about not being able to find the lids from jars? I've got it onn DVD - it was in the sixth episode of series two. Where is the lid? Oh where is the lid? Where is the, where is the, where is the where is the lid? Where is the lid? Oh where is the lid? Where is the, where is the, where is the, where is the, where is the, where is the where is the lid? Does anyone know, does anyone know Does anyone know where is the lid? Where is the lid? Oh where is the lid? Where is the, where is the, where is the where is the lid? Oh where...oh where... Try 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: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:17:21 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Siouxie Liked it well enough ... but nothing really grabbed me. Nothing, except the alarming fuckwittery that was the early 1980s 12" mix - the clunk into gated effect horrors is very audible. I wonder if anyone thought it was a good idea at the time. I will admit to having a monster crush on Siouxsie when I was about twelve. Wasn't gonna happen. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 01:28:27 +0100 From: "craigie*" Subject: Re: Siouxie I still do. and hope that it might... On 9 August 2010 01:17, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Liked it well enough ... but nothing really grabbed me. Nothing, except > the alarming fuckwittery that was the early 1980s 12" mix - the clunk > into gated effect horrors is very audible. I wonder if anyone thought it > was a good idea at the time. > > I will admit to having a monster crush on Siouxsie when I was about > twelve. Wasn't gonna happen. > > Stewart > - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... I like my girls to be the same as my records - independent, attractively packaged and in black vinyl (if at all possible)... Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc (the motto of the Addams Family: "We gladly feast on those who would subdue us") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 00:19:57 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Siouxie On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Liked it well enough ... but nothing really grabbed me. Nothing, except > the alarming fuckwittery that was the early 1980s 12" mix - the clunk > into gated effect horrors is very audible. I wonder if anyone thought it > was a good idea at the time. > Whatever drugs it was they were taking in the '80s that made that crap sound interesting, I sure wasn't on them. My favorite anti- '80s-sound crack comes from Scott Miller (erstwhile Loud Family patriarch and Game Theorist), who said "the first [rule of '80s production] is that there has to be a big gated-reverb snare. And the mix has to leave plenty of room for this snare, there cant be too much guitar. This is like saying you cant hang a painting in a room with an 800-pound gorilla, because it will distract from the gorilla." See here: < http://www.loudfamily.com/mwh/1983.html>. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:04:27 +0100 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: Treble tribal trouble Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 23:36:55 +0100 From: "craigie*" Subject: Re: Long-shot English-comedy-related favour... A brilliant Two Ronnies sketch set in the Zulu wars which had tongue-twisting rhyming dialogue...Ronnie B had just been into battle against the 'rotten hotten-tot lot' and staggered back into HQ... with his last breath he said... "Upon my fore-fathers four feathers repeatedly, reputedly, And I myself ws a yellow fellow, Who thought nought of going up-river to deliver a shipment of equipment, Leaving Dave Grainger in grave danger and Hedley Merril in deadly peril, And the Mad Mullah mauling Maud Miller, my splendid intended, BUT, I triumphed over treble tribal trouble, And reduced the rebel rabble to rubble, So never again would they flaunt to taunt, That Major Bertie Raven-Howard Was a dirty craven coward" (Dies) * Stunning, craigie*! I used to adore those cod "scientific" lectures which Ronnie Barker gave. Can't remember a particular one, however. For some unknown reason, the only sketch which ever gets re-shown nowadays is the very mildly amusing 'Four candles / fork handles' one. - - Mike Godwin n.p. Barry Melton "Who makes the moves?" from Widcombe Social Club, 25th July 2010. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:18:39 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: Siouxie On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:19 AM, 2fs wrote: > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > >> Liked it well enough ... but nothing really grabbed me. Nothing, except >> the alarming fuckwittery that was the early 1980s 12" mix - the clunk >> into gated effect horrors is very audible. I wonder if anyone thought it >> was a good idea at the time. >> > > Whatever drugs it was they were taking in the '80s that made that crap sound > interesting, I sure wasn't on them. > > My favorite anti- '80s-sound crack comes from Scott Miller (erstwhile Loud > Family patriarch and Game Theorist), who said "the first [rule of '80s > production] is that there has to be a big gated-reverb snare. And the mix > has to leave plenty of room for this snare, there can t be too much guitar. > This is like saying you can t hang a painting in a room with an 800-pound > gorilla, because it will distract from the gorilla." See here: < > http://www.loudfamily.com/mwh/1983.html>. It's opening up a can of worms, to be sure, but I really don't get what drives so many people bananas about '80s production. I just don't. Sure, it sounds of its time, but so does that c. '65 jangly Rickenbacker sound, and no one ever seems to bitch about that. The whole gated drum thing was overused, yeah, but no more so than any era's popular production tricks. I don't see why we should subtract points from the '80s because it sounds like itself. later, Miles - -- over a year of feeling guilty about not blogging enough! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:31:34 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Siouxie On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Miles Goosens wrote: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:19 AM, 2fs wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Stewart C. Russell > wrote: > > > >> Liked it well enough ... but nothing really grabbed me. Nothing, except > >> the alarming fuckwittery that was the early 1980s 12" mix - the clunk > >> into gated effect horrors is very audible. I wonder if anyone thought it > >> was a good idea at the time. > > > My favorite anti- '80s-sound crack comes from Scott Miller (erstwhile > Loud > > Family patriarch and Game Theorist), who said "the first [rule of '80s > > production] is that there has to be a big gated-reverb snare. And the mix > > has to leave plenty of room for this snare, there can t be too much > guitar. > > This is like saying you can t hang a painting in a room with an 800-pound > > gorilla, because it will distract from the gorilla." See here: < > > http://www.loudfamily.com/mwh/1983.html>. > > It's opening up a can of worms, to be sure, but I really don't get > what drives so many people bananas about '80s production. I just > don't. Sure, it sounds of its time, but so does that c. '65 jangly > Rickenbacker sound, and no one ever seems to bitch about that. The > whole gated drum thing was overused, yeah, but no more so than any > era's popular production tricks. I don't see why we should subtract > points from the '80s because it sounds like itself. > Lord! Here come the worms! The more I think about it, I think it's because a lot of '80s sound manipulation was objectively bad. That sounds wrong, of course - how can that even be? - but I think it has to do with the sorts of fine-tuned digging-about-in-the-frequencies one can do with digital recording and editing. To me, for instance, listening to too much '80s sound actually gives me a headache - and I think it's because the frequency distributions are way unnatural: far too much high end, for a start. The synths all have that super-treble sheen, as does the drum production, as well as a lot of guitar effects, there's that Lexicon digital reverb focused in at ~10k - hell, even the bass often ends up with this very bright trebly coating on it. The midrange is all but evaporated, and the overall effect is of a virtual needle poking one in the eardrum. I'm not audio expert enough to go into more detail - but some folks who are point to the shift from tube/valve-based electronics to solid-state as well. At any rate, it seems to me that most '60s effects, while not "natural," bring along enough frequency range that they don't tend to unbalance the overall audio picture - mostly because it was less possible to do so w/that era's equipment. (As an aside: I've heard a lot of folks who know say that in many ways, even stereo sound gimmicked things up in ways that degraded sound, and that the pinnacle of audio recording technology was hit sometime in the late fifties. Dunno bout that - but it's a theory.) Part of this was intentional: '80s artists were trying for a certain effect, not naturalistic sonic reproduction, but I think it went to extremes. (And I'd disagree re "no one complains about the '60s": wild phase-shifting, corny channel-dodgery, etc., were '60s examples of overusing tech trends in ways similar to '80s overuse of its era's trends...and records that do too much of that are, if not themselves criticized for the same, templates for parody of "'60s rock" - which is a sort of criticism as well.) I think people got a bit better at using digital equipment into the early '90s...but then it all got killed by the incipient (and ongoing) "volume wars," as well as the fact that hardly anyone listens to music on high-end equipment anymore - if it sounds good as an mp3, who cares what it sounds like all blowed up to full CD audio? I'm sure part of this is musical taste as well: my favorite '80s acts tended not to follow the stereotypical '80s sound, and when they did (we can all dig out certain known list-specific offenders...), it's those albums that tend to date more than others. But in the end, I think that stereotypical '80s sound foregrounded an unnaturalness far more than stereotypical sounds of other eras - even the '60s. Go back to your jangly Rick electric 12-string: that sound is still much closer to the resonances of an acoustic 12-string than a lot of '80s sounds are to...anything in the acoustic world. There must be a couple-few folks here with actual audio skillz to yea or nay these ideas, no? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:47:04 -0400 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: Siouxie On 9 August 2010 09:18, Miles Goosens wrote: > > It's opening up a can of worms, to be sure, but I really don't get > what drives so many people bananas about '80s production. I just > don't. I was particularly complaining about those ropey 12" mixes, where the grafted-on gated snare break didn't even blend with the surrounding rhythm. The 80s couldn't help sounding like the 80s (hey, it wanted to, because we did!) but I just find the clunkiness of the 12" mix unendearing. Stewart - -- http://scruss.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 19:22:59 +0000 (UTC) From: michaeljbachman@comcast.net Subject: Fwd: Siouxie and '80's sound - ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "2fs" To: "Coughing Vikings" Sent: Monday, August 9, 2010 12:31:34 PM Subject: Re: Siouxie On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Miles Goosens wrote: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:19 AM, 2fs wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Stewart C. Russell > wrote: > > > >> Liked it well enough ... but nothing really grabbed me. Nothing, except > >> the alarming fuckwittery that was the early 1980s 12" mix - the clunk > >> into gated effect horrors is very audible. I wonder if anyone thought it > >> was a good idea at the time. > > > My favorite anti- '80s-sound crack comes from Scott Miller (erstwhile > Loud > > Family patriarch and Game Theorist), who said "the first [rule of '80s > > production] is that there has to be a big gated-reverb snare. And the mix > > has to leave plenty of room for this snare, there can t be too much > guitar. > > This is like saying you can t hang a painting in a room with an 800-pound > > gorilla, because it will distract from the gorilla." See here: < > > http://www.loudfamily.com/mwh/1983.html>. > > It's opening up a can of worms, to be sure, but I really don't get > what drives so many people bananas about '80s production. B I just > don't. B Sure, it sounds of its time, but so does that c. '65 jangly > Rickenbacker sound, and no one ever seems to bitch about that. B The > whole gated drum thing was overused, yeah, but no more so than any > era's popular production tricks. B I don't see why we should subtract > points from the '80s because it sounds like itself. > Jeff came back with: Lord! Here come the worms! The more I think about it, I think it's because a lot of '80s sound manipulation was objectively bad. That sounds wrong, of course - how can that even be? - but I think it has to do with the sorts of fine-tuned digging-about-in-the-frequencies one can do with digital recording and editing. To me, for instance, listening to too much '80s sound actually gives me a headache - and I think it's because the frequency distributions are way unnatural: far too much high end, for a start. The synths all have that super-treble sheen, as does the drum production, as well as a lot of guitar effects, there's that Lexicon digital reverb focused in at ~10k - hell, even the bass often ends up with this very bright trebly coating on it. The midrange is all but evaporated, and the overall effect is of a virtual needle poking one in the eardrum. I'm not audio expert enough to go into more detail - but some folks who are point to the shift from tube/valve-based electronics to solid-state as well. At any rate, it seems to me that most '60s effects, while not "natural," bring along enough frequency range that they don't tend to unbalance the overall audio picture - mostly because it was less possible to do so w/that era's equipment. (As an aside: I've heard a lot of folks who know say that in many ways, even stereo sound gimmicked things up in ways that degraded sound, and that the pinnacle of audio recording technology was hit sometime in the late fifties. Dunno bout that - but it's a theory.) Part of this was intentional: '80s artists were trying for a certain effect, not naturalistic sonic reproduction, but I think it went to extremes. (And I'd disagree re "no one complains about the '60s": wild phase-shifting, corny channel-dodgery, etc., were '60s examples of overusing tech trends in ways similar to '80s overuse of its era's trends...and records that do too much of that are, if not themselves criticized for the same, templates for parody of "'60s rock" - which is a sort of criticism as well.) I think people got a bit better at using digital equipment into the early '90s...but then it all got killed by the incipient (and ongoing) "volume wars," as well as the fact that hardly anyone listens to music on high-end equipment anymore - if it sounds good as an mp3, who cares what it sounds like all blowed up to full CD audio? I'm sure part of this is musical taste as well: my favorite '80s acts tended not to follow the stereotypical '80s sound, and when they did (we can all dig out certain known list-specific offenders...), it's those albums that tend to date more than others. But in the end, I think that stereotypical '80s sound foregrounded an unnaturalness far more than stereotypical sounds of other eras - even the '60s. Go back to your jangly Rick electric 12-string: that sound is still much closer to the resonances of an acoustic 12-string than a lot of '80s sounds are to...anything in the acoustic world. There must be a couple-few folks here with actual audio skillz to yea or nay these ideas, no? Wasn't Lou Reed one of the first to rebel against the 80's sound and stick with tube based recording decks at old school studios for some of his comeback albums? I'm thinking this was done for the New York album but Legendary Hearts and Blue Mask might also have been recorded using old tube equipment. Speaking of old equipment, I finally dropped off my 1974 direct drive Dual 701 turntable for repair and upgrade (new solid wood walnut base with a masonite deck and Monster cables) . The Dual 701 has an overkill EDS1000 motor that is used to repair uber expensive Goldmund turntables, so I'm thinking it's worth repairing and upgrading. Michael B. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V18 #152 ********************************