From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V3 #223 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Wednesday, July 19 2000 Volume 03 : Number 223 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Vaughan Oliver: Visceral Pleasures by Rick Poyner. [Chris.Ray@medas.co.uk] Trans Am ["giluz" ] REM (was Re: GbV) [Carl Archer ] RE: REM (was Re: GbV) ["giluz" ] Enon [Carl Archer ] Re: REM (was Re: GbV) [MarkBursa@aol.com] RE: REM (was Re: GbV) ["giluz" ] RE: Enon ["giluz" ] Re[2]: REM (was Re: GbV) [paul.rabjohn@ssab.com] Re: Trans Am ["Josh Zarbo" ] Re: idealcopy-digest V3 #221 [flaherty michael w ] Radiodread [Mark Short ] RE: REM (was Re: GbV) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: Radiodread [Chris.Ray@medas.co.uk] RE: Radiodread ["Ciscon, Ray" ] Re: Radiodread [paul.rabjohn@ssab.com] Re: OT: REM & The Mainstream [paul.rabjohn@ssab.com] RE: GbV [Aaron Mandel ] Re[2]: Radiodread [paul.rabjohn@ssab.com] RE: OT: REM & The Mainstream ["Ciscon, Ray" ] Re: REM (was Re: GbV) [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: REM (was Re: GbV) [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: Radiodread [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: GbV ["Katherine Pouliot" ] GbV, etc. ["Katherine Pouliot" ] Re: Radiodread ["Katherine Pouliot" ] Radiohead -obligatory Wire ref. [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: OT: REM & The Mainstream [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: GbV, etc. [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: GbV [Paul Pietromonaco ] Re: GbV, etc. [Aaron Mandel ] Re: GbV, etc. [Paul Pietromonaco ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:56:54 +0100 From: Chris.Ray@medas.co.uk Subject: Vaughan Oliver: Visceral Pleasures by Rick Poyner. - --0__=Vzh3Zzcf2jzfhWBQBtoV1HEybjwMKUgDv9uw5hJMJ6elvKCWi47dWILd Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline If anyone's interested. Chris. - ---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Ray/Finance/MEDAS on 19/07/2000 10:00 --------------------------- fourad@almaroad.co.uk on 18/07/2000 17:52:20 Subject: Vaughan Oliver: Visceral Pleasures by Rick Poyner. Vaughan Oliver: Visceral Pleasures by Rick Poynor Vaughan Oliver is one of the most consistently innovative and signicant graphic designers to have emerged in the last 15 years, a highly influential member of the small group (with Neville Brody, Malcolm Garrett and Peter Saville) that changed the face of British graphics in the 1980s. Oliver's remarkable and unmatched oeuvre as regular designer for London record label 4AD won him an international following among fellow designers and also, unusually, among music fans, who savour his emotive graphic imagery as an essential part of the 4AD experience. Divided into thematic sections, the book is designed by Vaughan Oliver and Martin Andersen at v23 and combines a cool, carefully edited exposition of his intensely visual work with a seductive, and always surprising, demonstration of his approach. Rick Poynor is the founding editor of Eye, the international review of graphic design, and contributing editor of I.D and Blueprint. His previous books include the best-selling Typography Now: The Next Wave (1991) and The Graphic Edge (1993). He lectures regularly in Europe and the US, and is a visiting professor at the Royal College of Art. The first definitive monograph of graphic designer Vaughan Oliver will appeal to professional designers, students of design and photography, and all those interested in contemporary music graphics. From its front cover to its final page, the book is a highly collectible Vaughan Oliver design in its own right. Book Specifications: Harback, full colour 224pp 305 x 231mm 1-186154-072-8 Publication date: September 2000 - --0__=Vzh3Zzcf2jzfhWBQBtoV1HEybjwMKUgDv9uw5hJMJ6elvKCWi47dWILd Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable =A335.00, $49.95 The Information in this communication is confidential and may be privil= eged and should be treated by the recipient accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient please notify me immediately. You should not copy it= or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person. = - --0__=Vzh3Zzcf2jzfhWBQBtoV1HEybjwMKUgDv9uw5hJMJ6elvKCWi47dWILd-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:27:38 +0200 From: "giluz" Subject: Trans Am Anyone heard of them? I just listened to some mp3 excerpts, and they sound quite good. giluz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:29:04 -0400 From: Carl Archer Subject: REM (was Re: GbV) I agree with giluz. I thought that some of REM's songs sounded mainstream when Chronic Town came out. 'Green' certified them as mainstream way before Everybody Hurts (a song that I loathe). - -Carl > From: "giluz" > Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:08:52 +0200 > To: "IdealCopy" , > Subject: RE: GbV > >> See also REM's 'Everybody Hurts' - something mainstream from a left-field >> band. >> >> Mark > > REM a leftfield band, sometimes trying to do mainstream? What's the world > coming to? REM have been filling stadiums for the last 10 years or so. Even > before their great success, I wouldn't have defined them as leftfield. You > can argue about the quality of what they do, but they're definitely > mainstream. I mean, of course I'd prefer them to most other mainstream acts, > but c'mon - get real... > > giluz > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:39:31 +0200 From: "giluz" Subject: RE: REM (was Re: GbV) > I agree with giluz. I thought that some of REM's songs sounded > mainstream > when Chronic Town came out. 'Green' certified them as mainstream > way before > Everybody Hurts (a song that I loathe). > Yeah, me too. And especially with that Wings of Desire arty clip. I used to like REM back in the 80's, but this is such crap, even worse than the film itself. I don't particularly care if something's kitch (even though I prefer it not to be) but if there's one thing I hate it's intellectual kitch. giluz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:39:27 -0400 From: Carl Archer Subject: Enon Has anybody checked out Enon yet? It's a couple of guys from Skeleton Key and one of the Brainiac members. They just put out their first album. I'd classify it as experimental lo-fi similar to Sebadoh, or Pavement. I figure anybody who enjoys the weirder Wire songs would appreciate it. Samples are at: http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=613320528/pagename=/RP/CDN/FIND/alb um.html/artistid=ENON/itemid=1162565 - -Carl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:23:16 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: REM (was Re: GbV) Carl & Giluz, Depends where you draw your line. To me Britney Spears or Boyzone is mainstream. REM is still a pretty credible art-rock ensemble. I make no apologies for loving REM, and find it an astonishing achievement that a band can become so popular without really compromising how it operates, or its music. I also see enormous parallels between REM and Wire. All members of the band participate in the creative process; the ability to produce pop classics at will etc... There is a clear debt there (repaid via Strange?) REM are in many ways Wire with a record collection. Mark << I agree with giluz. I thought that some of REM's songs sounded mainstream when Chronic Town came out. 'Green' certified them as mainstream way before Everybody Hurts (a song that I loathe). > > REM a leftfield band, sometimes trying to do mainstream? What's the world > coming to? REM have been filling stadiums for the last 10 years or so. Even > before their great success, I wouldn't have defined them as leftfield. You > can argue about the quality of what they do, but they're definitely > mainstream. I mean, of course I'd prefer them to most other mainstream acts, > but c'mon - get real.. >> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:46:50 +0200 From: "giluz" Subject: RE: REM (was Re: GbV) > Carl & Giluz, > > Depends where you draw your line. To me Britney Spears or Boyzone is > mainstream. REM is still a pretty credible art-rock ensemble. > > I make no apologies for loving REM, and find it an astonishing > achievement > that a band can become so popular without really compromising how it > operates, or its music. I don't think they had to compromise much, cause their music was not far from mainstream to begin with, so they just kept on doing their thing. You might think it's admirable but I don't - they got rich doing it, so why should they change their style if that's what made them big? > > I also see enormous parallels between REM and Wire. All members > of the band > participate in the creative process; the ability to produce pop > classics at > will etc... There is a clear debt there (repaid via Strange?) I could think of at least a dozen other bands that do all those things. These are not virtues or rare things - almost half the bands do those, doesn't mean they're like Wire or any other band. > > REM are in many ways Wire with a record collection. ??? Didn't get that. > > Mark > > << I agree with giluz. I thought that some of REM's songs > sounded mainstream > when Chronic Town came out. 'Green' certified them as > mainstream way before > Everybody Hurts (a song that I loathe). > > > > > REM a leftfield band, sometimes trying to do mainstream? > What's the world > > coming to? REM have been filling stadiums for the last 10 > years or so. Even > > before their great success, I wouldn't have defined them as > leftfield. You > > can argue about the quality of what they do, but they're definitely > > mainstream. I mean, of course I'd prefer them to most other mainstream > acts, > > but c'mon - get real.. >> > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:47:32 +0200 From: "giluz" Subject: RE: Enon > > Has anybody checked out Enon yet? It's a couple of guys from Skeleton Key > and one of the Brainiac members. They just put out their first > album. I'd > classify it as experimental lo-fi similar to Sebadoh, or > Pavement. I figure > anybody who enjoys the weirder Wire songs would appreciate it. > Samples are > at: > > http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=613320528/pagename=/RP/CD > N/FIND/alb > um.html/artistid=ENON/itemid=1162565 > > -Carl > Heard the samples - very interesting, thanks for the recommendation. giluz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:45:51 +0100 From: paul.rabjohn@ssab.com Subject: Re[2]: REM (was Re: GbV) Carl & Giluz, Depends where you draw your line. To me Britney Spears or Boyzone is mainstream. REM is still a pretty credible art-rock ensemble. I make no apologies for loving REM, and find it an astonishing achievement that a band can become so popular without really compromising how it operates, or its music. I also see enormous parallels between REM and Wire. All members of the band participate in the creative process; the ability to produce pop classics at will etc... There is a clear debt there (repaid via Strange?) REM are in many ways Wire with a record collection. Mark >>>>>just to say i agree with a lot of the above. if there's gotta be a stadium band then it might as well be rem; they've kept a lot of integrity whilst selling a lot of records , few acts have managed it for so long. wonder how much wire made out of the "strange" cover? p ps whilst we're on the stadium rock thing , how are we all looking forward to the return of radiohead? greatest band currently going in the world today? emperors new clothes? just curious.......... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:26:12 PDT From: "Josh Zarbo" Subject: Re: Trans Am Excellent band from Washington, D.C. I've had the pleasure of seeing them on three occasions. I'd describe them as Kraftwerk meets Chrome. I'd recommend their first album, simply titled Trans Am, and one of the later ones titled Future World. There are two other albums in between but I haven't listened to those enough to warrant a recommendation. Happy listening. Joshua > >Anyone heard of them? I just listened to some mp3 excerpts, and they sound >quite good. > >giluz > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:44:31 -0500 (CDT) From: flaherty michael w Subject: Re: idealcopy-digest V3 #221 > From: "giluz" > err... so, does this mean that A-Z is Plastic Ono Band, Singing Fish is > Imagine (!!!) and Dome is Wings? Dugga Dugga Dugga should be the > reincarnation of Sgt. Pepper Knew My Father. Wait .. so you see Colin as the Lennon and Graham/Bruce as the McCartney? I think I'd reverse that. :) Still waiting for Post Everything to open, Michael Flaherty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:47:59 -0500 From: "Ciscon, Ray" Subject: OT: REM & The Mainstream REM, despite their hits of the early 90's, despite their HUGE record contract, are back to being a 'left field' band. They haven't had what you might consider a 'hit' in the U.S. for several years and albums. Frankly, they've become boring. I was a semi-fan back in the 80's, but the whole 'jangly guitar' thing is not my bag. Michael Stipe has become a quasi-celebrity with his 'unusual', emaciated visage. I usually count on him to pop up on the news at the latest radical-chic protest to add his 'words of wisdom'. It appears that the rest of the band are enjoying their middle years in comfort and relative wealth, having adjusted to their present status. They've basically become 'Hootie and the Blowfish' for multiple degreed grad students who fear leaving the campus. Once a great and influential band, they are a pale and emaciated imitation/parody of their earlier selves. Something Wire has been able to avoid. Are they 'important' anymore? Not IMO... Cheers from Trantor, Ray Ciscon Giluz wrote: REM a leftfield band, sometimes trying to do mainstream? What's the world coming to? REM have been filling stadiums for the last 10 years or so. Even before their great success, I wouldn't have defined them as leftfield. You can argue about the quality of what they do, but they're definitely mainstream. I mean, of course I'd prefer them to most other mainstream acts, but c'mon - get real... giluz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:47:39 +0100 From: Mark Short Subject: Radiodread paul.rabjohn@ssab.com wrote: > ps whilst we're on the stadium rock thing , how are we all looking forward to the return of radiohead? greatest band currently going in the world today? emperors new clothes? just curious.......... I know I should like them...but when matey starts up with his whiney singing, I always think of Little Lord Fauntleroy type in his velvet suit. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:57:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: REM (was Re: GbV) On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, giluz wrote: > > Carl & Giluz, > > > > Depends where you draw your line. To me Britney Spears or Boyzone is > > mainstream. REM is still a pretty credible art-rock ensemble. > > > > I make no apologies for loving REM, and find it an astonishing > > achievement > > that a band can become so popular without really compromising how it > > operates, or its music. > > I don't think they had to compromise much, cause their music was not far > from mainstream to begin with, so they just kept on doing their thing. You > might think it's admirable but I don't - they got rich doing it, so why > should they change their style if that's what made them big? A couple of points: First, what do we mean by "mainstream"? What's mainstream has changed *massively* from th early '80s, when R.E.M. began, to now (for one thing). What's always been central to R.E.M. is that they're song-based; that is, the skeleton of the songs is chords and melody (rather than, say, sounds, structure, drone, rhythm, etc.). And in that sense (I guess), they're mainstream. Then again, one of the biggest mainstream trends these days is rap-metal hybrids, and rap works primarily on rhythm and words, while metal only occasionally worries much about melody and chords and depends primarily on technique and viscerality. Furthermore, most bubblegum pop (Britney Spears etc.) is based less on melody than on persona and danceability. So are chords and melody - a/k/a pop - mainstream anymore? Don't think so - - at least not in the US. (Maybe more so in the UK, from what I can gather. And I have no idea what's popular elsewhere - giluz, you're in Israel, right?) Second, Mark wrote "compromise" - not compromising is not the same thing as not changing. R.E.M. *has* changed: the classic arpeggiated thing through _Reckoning_ takes on a darker hue in _Fables_ plus more orchestration and more reliance on distortion, a trend that continues through _Green_. And _Green_ has hardly any of the signature "jangle" - it also introduces (in "The Wrong Child" and "You Are the Everything") the shift in musical center to mandolin that would dominate their next two releases along with more keyboards and orchestration (strings etc.) _Monster_ then attempted to return to a more rock-based sound (loud electric guitars as opposed to acoustic) with a heavy use of tremolo to distinguish from the then-popular grunge sound. I'll let Miles discuss _New Adventures in Hi-Fi_ because I've never liked it much - but _Up_, the first ablum they recorded after drummer Bill Berry left (Hey! Another Wire parallel!), is radically different, relying almost entirely on keyboards in an almost Magnetic Fields sort of way. The consistency arises from Stipe's distinctive vocals and from a fairly consistent kind of songwriting in terms of characteristic progressions etc. So: you might like them or not, but I'd say two things are true: they've changed, a lot, and have never been willing to stagnate. And those changes have not been motivated by commercial concerns, since (with the possible exception of the louder rock noise of _Monster_) nothign they changed *to* was currently charting. And I'll still argue that the change to harder rock on _Monster_ was motivated more by a need for change, away from the more subdued, nearly AAA-fare of the previous two (and most successful) albums, than by an attempt to cash in on trends (why bother? At that point they were one of the two-three most successful bands in the world). The band was also among the '80s pioneers of acts that charted independent tours, building a network that later became standard to follow among college radio stations, indie record stores, etc., and which led to the whole indie label thing that characterized American non-mainstream rock in the '90s. And for a long time there, they were a whole long ways from "getting rich doing it" - touring around the country for 5-6 years in a van is hardly luxury living. Their mass popularity was pretty much an accident (in the sense that they neither strove for mass, mainstream success nor could it have been predicted based on the level of popularity through, say, _Life's Rich Pageant_), and they could have capitalized on that popularity a lot more whorishly than they did...by recording the same album over and over again, instead of making at least two fairly dramatic turns away from the style that first made them huge. - --Jeff, who pretty obviously likes R.E.M....although I definitely listen to the '80s stuff more than the '90s. J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/reviews.html ::I play the guitar. Sometimes I play the fool:: __John Lennon__ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:59:20 +0100 From: Chris.Ray@medas.co.uk Subject: Re: Radiodread My sentiments exactly. I like REM to a certain extent but again Stipe's voice is a little whiney. I can only play a handful of tracks before I hit the eject button and file back with The Communards (no, I don't own The Communards). Chris. Mark Short on 19/07/2000 15:47:39 To: "idealcopy@smoe.org" cc: (bcc: Chris Ray/Finance/MEDAS) Subject: Radiodread paul.rabjohn@ssab.com wrote: > ps whilst we're on the stadium rock thing , how are we all looking forward to the return of radiohead? greatest band currently going in the world today? emperors new clothes? just curious.......... I know I should like them...but when matey starts up with his whiney singing, I always think of Little Lord Fauntleroy type in his velvet suit. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:00:36 -0500 From: "Ciscon, Ray" Subject: RE: Radiodread I too am amazed at the Radiohead phenomenon... OK Computer was a 'nice' album, but I just don't get the hype... Cheers, Ray - -----Original Message----- From: Mark Short [mailto:mshort@lucent.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 10:48 AM To: idealcopy@smoe.org Subject: Radiodread paul.rabjohn@ssab.com wrote: > ps whilst we're on the stadium rock thing , how are we all looking forward to the return of radiohead? greatest band currently going in the world today? emperors new clothes? just curious.......... I know I should like them...but when matey starts up with his whiney singing, I always think of Little Lord Fauntleroy type in his velvet suit. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:10:25 +0100 From: paul.rabjohn@ssab.com Subject: Re: Radiodread paul.rabjohn@ssab.com wrote: > ps whilst we're on the stadium rock thing , how are we all looking forward to the return of radiohead? greatest band currently going in the world today? emperors new clothes? just curious.......... I know I should like them...but when matey starts up with his whiney singing, I always think of Little Lord Fauntleroy type in his velvet suit. >>>>mmm. public school common room angst , is this what the world needs i wonder? p ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:15:33 +0100 From: paul.rabjohn@ssab.com Subject: Re: OT: REM & The Mainstream They've basically become 'Hootie and the Blowfish' for multiple degreed grad students who fear leaving the campus. >>>> bit harsh there i feel...... p ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:18:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: RE: GbV On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, giluz wrote: > I've been to gbv's site and downloaded some mp3's, and I really don't > understand what the fuss is about. Nothing I heard struck me as good > enough or bad enough to deserve any kind of reference. I can't find any mp3s on the GBV site other than a bunch of awful live tracks and some rarities. Oh, I guess "Teenage FBI" is in there. Still, not a good place to start. Is this a different batch of files than everyone else is looking at? a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:35:08 +0100 From: paul.rabjohn@ssab.com Subject: Re[2]: Radiodread voted greatest album of all time (!) in Q magazine less than 6 months after its release. as you say its certainly OK , but i struggle to see quite how its rated so highly. apparently the new stuff is more "challenging" , interesting to see what all those sixth formers in their travis t-shirts make of it........ p ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: Radiodread Author: MIME:rciscon@comark.com at INTERNET Date: 7/19/00 5:10 PM I too am amazed at the Radiohead phenomenon... OK Computer was a 'nice' album, but I just don't get the hype... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:18:15 -0500 From: "Ciscon, Ray" Subject: RE: OT: REM & The Mainstream Harsh? Guilty as charged. REM is such an easy target though... the only comparison I can make is that they are the U.S. equivalent of U2... started off strong, with tons of talent and good material, influence many a young musician, only to get huge, make a load of cash, quasi-sell out, then release disappointing albums. All the while, there exists a core group of people who will support anything the band does. The golden age of REM is long gone. They might change their sound, but not nearly in the manner that Wire has 'evolved'. You can see the evolutionary changes in Wire from 12XU, to Outdoor Miner, to Map Ref, to Ahead, to Drill, to Kidney Bingos, to You Hung Your Lights, to It Continues. I don't see that same type of radical change and experimentation from REM that I see in Wire. Perhaps that's why my interest in REM has waned, but my interest in Wire remains. Cheers, Ray -----Original Message----- From: paul.rabjohn@ssab.com [mailto:paul.rabjohn@ssab.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 12:16 PM To: idealcopy@smoe.org; rciscon@comark.com Subject: Re: OT: REM & The Mainstream They've basically become 'Hootie and the Blowfish' for multiple degreed grad students who fear leaving the campus. >>>> bit harsh there i feel...... p ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:23:35 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: REM (was Re: GbV) Jeff, Pretty much a perfect summation of the band. I don't disagree with a word of it. In the UK we've had 'Britpop' which allows more guitar-based bands to make the charts. Indeed, as if just to prove they had it in them, REM had their biggest hit here last year with 'The Great Beyond'. If they'd pressed enough copies (it sold out on day of release in most shops) it would have been Number 1. Mark << First, what do we mean by "mainstream"? What's mainstream has changed *massively* from th early '80s, when R.E.M. began, to now (for one thing). What's always been central to R.E.M. is that they're song-based; that is, the skeleton of the songs is chords and melody (rather than, say, sounds, structure, drone, rhythm, etc.). And in that sense (I guess), they're mainstream. Then again, one of the biggest mainstream trends these days is rap-metal hybrids, and rap works primarily on rhythm and words, while metal only occasionally worries much about melody and chords and depends primarily on technique and viscerality. Furthermore, most bubblegum pop (Britney Spears etc.) is based less on melody than on persona and danceability. So are chords and melody - a/k/a pop - mainstream anymore? Don't think so - at least not in the US. (Maybe more so in the UK, from what I can gather. And I have no idea what's popular elsewhere - giluz, you're in Israel, right?) Second, Mark wrote "compromise" - not compromising is not the same thing as not changing. R.E.M. *has* changed: the classic arpeggiated thing through _Reckoning_ takes on a darker hue in _Fables_ plus more orchestration and more reliance on distortion, a trend that continues through _Green_. And _Green_ has hardly any of the signature "jangle" - it also introduces (in "The Wrong Child" and "You Are the Everything") the shift in musical center to mandolin that would dominate their next two releases along with more keyboards and orchestration (strings etc.) _Monster_ then attempted to return to a more rock-based sound (loud electric guitars as opposed to acoustic) with a heavy use of tremolo to distinguish from the then-popular grunge sound. I'll let Miles discuss _New Adventures in Hi-Fi_ because I've never liked it much - but _Up_, the first ablum they recorded after drummer Bill Berry left (Hey! Another Wire parallel!), is radically different, relying almost entirely on keyboards in an almost Magnetic Fields sort of way. The consistency arises from Stipe's distinctive vocals and from a fairly consistent kind of songwriting in terms of characteristic progressions etc. So: you might like them or not, but I'd say two things are true: they've changed, a lot, and have never been willing to stagnate. And those changes have not been motivated by commercial concerns, since (with the possible exception of the louder rock noise of _Monster_) nothign they changed *to* was currently charting. And I'll still argue that the change to harder rock on _Monster_ was motivated more by a need for change, away from the more subdued, nearly AAA-fare of the previous two (and most successful) albums, than by an attempt to cash in on trends (why bother? At that point they were one of the two-three most successful bands in the world). The band was also among the '80s pioneers of acts that charted independent tours, building a network that later became standard to follow among college radio stations, indie record stores, etc., and which led to the whole indie label thing that characterized American non-mainstream rock in the '90s. And for a long time there, they were a whole long ways from "getting rich doing it" - touring around the country for 5-6 years in a van is hardly luxury living. Their mass popularity was pretty much an accident (in the sense that they neither strove for mass, mainstream success nor could it have been predicted based on the level of popularity through, say, _Life's Rich Pageant_), and they could have capitalized on that popularity a lot more whorishly than they did...by recording the same album over and over again, instead of making at least two fairly dramatic turns away from the style that first made them huge. --Jeff, who pretty obviously likes R.E.M....although I definitely listen to the '80s stuff more than the '90s >> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:27:18 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: REM (was Re: GbV) Giluz, << REM are in many ways Wire with a record collection. ??? Didn't get that. >> The working methods/tensions in the band are similar to Wire (three highly creative individuals) but whereas Wire have always looked forwards down their own path (with minimal influence from existing music) REM obviously have large record collections, and borrow heavily from influences as diverse as the Byrds, Big Star, The Beach Boys, Gang of 4, Television, folk, country, doo-wop etc...even Gallagher & Lyle....and Wire is in there too. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:36:36 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: Radiodread Paul, << >>>>mmm. public school common room angst , is this what the world needs i wonder? p >> Ouch! a tad harsh there too! I really liked OKC and the Bends - I'm all in favour of a bit of angst....high angst levels were what made the post-punk period so exciting and I see Radiohead as carrying that torch.... I saw the RFH gig three weeks ago and I thought they were stunning. Played 10 new songs (basically the whole new album - though by the sound of it they recorded enought stuff for a double and some of the songs they played will be held back...) Very different to OKC. A couple of tracks sounded a bit like 'Airbag' but most of the new stuff was more of a groove - lots of keyboards (electric piano etc) and live sampling - highlight of the gig was a song which basically had Jonny Greenwood sampling Thom Yorke's voice and keyboards and replaying loops into the song - so he was basically playing Thom as an instrument.... I would guess the album will get universal 5-star reviews - and on the strength of the live performance it probably will deserve them. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:43:21 -0400 From: "Katherine Pouliot" Subject: Re: GbV > I've been to gbv's site and downloaded some mp3's, and I really don't > understand what the fuss is about. Nothing I heard struck me as good enough > or bad enough to deserve any kind of reference. > > giluz > > well said! k ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:55:01 -0400 From: "Katherine Pouliot" Subject: GbV, etc. I've just come up with why GbV doesn't appeal to me. What I disliked so much about Hold on Hope, was that it reminded me of a Hootie and the Blowfish song. The old songs by GbV that I checked out on MP3 just sounded like old demo versions of those types of bands. Good for the people that like that kind of stuff, but I'm not one of them. You can probably guess that I can't stand Hootie, or Dave Matthews or any of those good ol' boys bands with the happy go lucky boring songs and the college/Budweiser/crunchy fans. I don't fit into any of those categories, and that is why they don't appeal to me. There! Ahhhhh... That feels better! I no longer feel the need to force myself to listen to any more GbV. :-) Katherine ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:58:36 -0400 From: "Katherine Pouliot" Subject: Re: Radiodread that's a good one! don't watch them, just listen. ;-) katherine - ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Short To: Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 10:47 AM Subject: Radiodread > paul.rabjohn@ssab.com wrote: > I know I should like them...but when matey starts up with his whiney singing, I > always think of Little Lord Fauntleroy type in his velvet suit. > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:00:45 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Radiohead -obligatory Wire ref. Oh, forgot to mention - one of Radiohead's new songs is called The Morning Bell.... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:08:48 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: OT: REM & The Mainstream In a message dated 07/19/00 4:27:02PM, you write: << REM is such an easy target though... the only comparison I can make is that they are the U.S. equivalent of U2... started off strong, with tons of talent and good material, influence many a young musician, only to get huge, make a load of cash, quasi-sell out, then release disappointing albums. All the while, there exists a core group of people who will support anything the band does.<< U2 quickly lost the plot, and have only recently started making interesting records again, whereas REM haven't released a dud in nearly 20 years. >>The golden age of REM is long gone. They might change their sound, but not nearly in the manner that Wire has 'evolved'. You can see the evolutionary changes in Wire from 12XU, to Outdoor Miner, to Map Ref, to Ahead, to Drill, to Kidney Bingos, to You Hung Your Lights, to It Continues. << But Wire are essentially a more experimental group, existing outside the mainstream. Who knows what would have happened if Outdoor Miner had gone Top 10 (which it would have if the BPI hadn't randomly fingered it for EMI's payola....) >>I don't see that same type of radical change and experimentation from REM that I see in Wire. Perhaps that's why my interest in REM has waned, but my interest in Wire remains.<< The change from jangly/arpeggiated Rickenbacker pop to folky mandolin/piano stuff around the time of Green seemed pretty radical to these English ears. And 'Up' wasn't a band resting on its laurels either... At the end of the day REM is a more "traditional" band than Wire. But no less interesting for that. Mark Cheers, Ray -----Original Message----- From: paul.rabjohn@ssab.com [mailto:paul.rabjohn@ssab.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 12:16 PM To: idealcopy@smoe.org; rciscon@comark.com Subject: Re: OT: REM & The Mainstream They've basically become 'Hootie and the Blowfish' for multiple degreed grad students who fear leaving the campus. >> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:14:44 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: GbV, etc. Katherine, Don't know what you've downloaded, but very little of the vast GBV output sounds anything like HoH. Try and get a copy of 'Bee Thousand' before you judge. Part of the appeal is the fact that there are lots of little songs...HoH is not at all represenatative of the band. Thankfully Hootie and Dave Matthews Band (what a name - you just know they're going to be dull) haven't made it big over here. Pub rock, really. Also, please explain 'crunchy'..... Mark << I've just come up with why GbV doesn't appeal to me. What I disliked so much about Hold on Hope, was that it reminded me of a Hootie and the Blowfish song. The old songs by GbV that I checked out on MP3 just sounded like old demo versions of those types of bands. Good for the people that like that kind of stuff, but I'm not one of them. You can probably guess that I can't stand Hootie, or Dave Matthews or any of those good ol' boys bands with the happy go lucky boring songs and the college/Budweiser/crunchy fans. I don't fit into any of those categories, and that is why they don't appeal to me. There! Ahhhhh... That feels better! I no longer feel the need to force myself to listen to any more GbV. :-) >> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:20:40 -0700 From: Paul Pietromonaco Subject: Re: GbV >>> If I'm not wrong, then give me a name of the, I mean THE song to check >>> out by them to prove me wrong... >> >>"Gold Star For Robot Boy" from Bee Thousand. > > >Hot Freaks from ... uh, whatever album it's on. (Alien Lanes? Vampire on >Titus?) > Bee Thousand, again. Cheers, Paul ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:36:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: GbV, etc. On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Katherine Pouliot wrote: > The old songs by GbV that I checked out on MP3 just sounded like old > demo versions of those types of bands. Good for the people that like > that kind of stuff, but I'm not one of them. You can probably guess > that I can't stand Hootie, or Dave Matthews or any of those good ol' > boys bands with the happy go lucky boring songs and the > college/Budweiser/crunchy fans. I'm not sure which bothers me more -- the fact that you're almost completely wrong about GbV's sound, or the fact that you're making personal attacks on the many members of this list who are not in fact "good ol' boys" or "college/Budweiser/crunchy" and yet enjoy the band as part of their regular diet of experimental pop music. That said, I've noticed that with some artists, there's this big cycle of fan recruitment where a newbie says "I just tried the first album, and I'm not really getting into it" and someone pops up to say "oh, that's not the one to start with; you have to get the fourth album" and so MAYBE they try that, but then someone else says "no, the best stuff is on this UK-only EP they did... sad but true" and at that point, the potential new fan thinks "I've tried *everything* and I still don't like them" when maybe what they need is to just forget about it until they find something for sale cheap and can take it home and concentrate on it for a while. I bought Bee Thousand because of all the hype and hated it the first time through. But I was on vacation and didn't have much to listen to, so I gave it another try a week later, and it clicked. I don't know if it was my expectations that scuttled it the first time or what. Oddly, it's pretty rare that a Wire or Wire-related record will grow on me. Most of them I like right away; a few still don't impress me despite dragging them out yearly for another try. aaron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:36:08 -0700 From: Paul Pietromonaco Subject: Re: GbV, etc. >I've just come up with why GbV doesn't appeal to me. What I disliked so >much about Hold on Hope, was that it reminded me of a Hootie and the >Blowfish song. The old songs by GbV that I checked out on MP3 just sounded >like old demo versions of those types of bands. Good for the people that >like that kind of stuff, but I'm not one of them. You can probably guess >that I can't stand Hootie, or Dave Matthews or any of those good ol' boys >bands with the happy go lucky boring songs and the college/Budweiser/crunchy >fans. Oooo - thems' fightin' words. (^_^) The one thing that GbV is *not* is Hootie & The Blowfish or Dave Matthews. (Or, Phish, for that matter (^_^)) Take a look at the lyrics page - not DMB or HTB material at all. Think more 60's garage psychedelic/touch of prog rock/ 1 minute punk blend. Also, would either of these bands ever cover Wire tunes? GbV re-writes them constantly. (Mute Superstar off of Mag Earwhig! for instance.) Again - the key thing here is demo quality. All of their early albums sound like this. The live versions may actually be better recorded than some of the original album versions. GbV was one of the first American "Lo-Fi" bands that includes Pavement, etc. >I don't fit into any of those categories, and that is why they don't >appeal to me. There! Ahhhhh... That feels better! I no longer feel the >need to force myself to listen to any more GbV. :-) That's always your choice, of course. (^_^). Still, if you have some spare cash, and a record store that you can trade CDs in if you don't like them, I would strongly urge checking out Under The Bushes, Under the Stars, Alien Lanes, and/or Bee Thousand. You might be surprised. Cheers, Paul ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V3 #223 *******************************