From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #35 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Thursday, April 12 2001 Volume 01 : Number 035 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] nepotism drills, guided by kids (ns) [Steve Holtebeck ] Re: [loud-fans] Old Ramon, Isolation Drills [Dan McCarthy ] Re: [loud-fans] RE: Eminem in Lone Star Saloon [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] RE: Eminem in Lone Star Saloon [Michael Mitton Subject: [loud-fans] nepotism drills, guided by kids (ns) The latest issue of Exclaim! (Canadian music mag) contains an in-depth history of Guided By Voices by Sean Palmerston, who's name may sound familiar since he is or was on this very loud-fans list, with some nice black & white GBV live shots by our friend ana morales. The magazine is available for free throughout Canada, and for the rest of us, the article is also online at.. http://www.exclaim.ca/common/display.php3?articleid=619 And here's another GBV article I found, outlining what a focus group of 10 and 11 year olds thinks the band needs to do to finally break the youth market. It's only funny because it's true! http://www.thestranger.com/2001-03-29/music3.html Steve np: Isolation Drills (I like) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:11:14 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "This summer, Nenah Cherry IS Toiling In Obscurity!" >Nothing's quite as brilliant as "Buffalo Stance," which is >one of the defining singles of its era, but it's all, yes, pretty damn fine. Fun fact: "Buffalo Stance" began life as an obscure b-side by a band called Morgan-McVey. Cherry's collaborator (and at the time, lover) on RAW LIKE SUSHI was a fellow named Cameron McVey, aka Booga Bear, so I suspect, though I can't prove, that he had something to do with Morgan-McVey. I belong in the bins, the bins, Andy "I have nothing against logic and intellect and reason. They're great food gathering tools. But please don't deify them. Nothing annoys me more than people who think they can get it all added up in their little brains like a computer and understand everything. If there is a truth it's a small and conditional and relative one pertaining only to us and our immediate desires and needs. A universal truth is an oxymoron." "My God, you're a Nihilist!" "[laughs] I am, but a very gentle one. I don't ask that everything be destroyed; I just want people to admit it doesn't exist to begin with." - --Nomeansno bassist/vocalist/leader Rob Wright, talking with Dawn Anderson about his song "0+2=1"; from the Fall 2000 issue of Backfire. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:10:42 -0500 From: zkk46@ttacs.ttu.edu Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: Eminem in Lone Star Saloon > Gallons by which daily U.S. oil comsumption would drop if SUVs' > average fuel efficiency increased by 3 mpg: 49,000,000 First this: from http://detnews.com/2000/autos/0009/10/a01- 117492.htm In the first eight months of the year, SUV sales jumped 9 percent to 2.3 million from last year's record levels. The number of SUVs on the road has nearly doubled in the last five years, and more are on the drawing boards. "Sport-utility sales are still steaming along," said Joseph Phillippi of PaineWebber. "However, you may see some people shying away from the bigger, trucklike SUVs and migrating into the car-based versions." Now me 2.3 million suvs sold in 8 months at the height of their popularity... which means maybe 40 million total on the road (I couldn't find the actual number, I am guessing)? so each one uses roughly 1 gallon of oil per day? considering that the average suv only has 5 qts of oil (1 qt more than a gallon) in its motor, and you only have to change that every 4000 miles, that's pretty amazing. what all are they considering in their statistic? the rubber used to make the car? the plastic cup the guy drank out of whom made the car? they could have changed that to gasoline to make it true, but somebody wanted to be ultra-reactionary...... Now some more stats: And if you really love SUVs...In an accident, SUVs are more likely to kill the other driver than an automobile, as you might expect. Given that you're in an accident, you are safer in an SUV, again as you might expect. But as you may not expect, SUVs are more likely to get in fatal accidents than cars are, so that overall, you are more likely to die in an SUV than a car. If our (U.S.) roads were 100% SUVs instead of the current mix, accident and fatality probabilites suggest there would be somewhere between 2.5 to 6 times the number traffic fatalities as we have now. And we still continue to subsidize SUVs relative to cars. and this, same website: Federal government safety data shows that SUVs have a lower fatality rate than passenger cars. Passenger cars, for example, have a rate of 1.6 fatalities per 100 million miles of travel. Compact SUVs, including the Explorer, as a group have a rate of 1.3 deaths. But SUVs are involved in the bulk of rollover fatalities, which account for nearly 25 percent of the nation's annual traffic deaths. - -------------- so what your friend is saying is that if suvs were 100% (akin to saying if humans were 8 feet tall, current door frames would cause more head injuries) of the vehicles on the road (- trucks o'course, you can't haul cows in a station wagon), there would be more traffic deaths? False. The gov't. would lower the speed limit and change traffic rules so that traffic deaths would stay about the same % of deaths as they are now, and have been the past 25 years. once again, pointing out that suvs currently account for the bulk of a type of accident that causes 25% of traffic deaths should have been bad enough, but once again, someone decided that wasn't quite disturbing enough. Really, I'm not FOR suvs as much as i'm AGAINST bad statistics. Which is possibly why the presidential election is not decided by % of votes. Statistics can be changed around and slanted to fit whatever point you want to make. and now my favorite argument made (not made, written by), and the one i really wanted to say something about, written by Mark W Staples: A friend of mine says it's just that I'm jealous and want one, and I said, "You gotta be kidding me. If I had that kind of money, I'd be in a new Beetle 5-speed diesel with a sunroof and CD player." I guess I like "chick" cars, girly man that I am. :O) ah, yes, the jealousy argument: if you don't have something and say something against it, it OBVIOUSLY means that you harbor secret desires for it. I see huge lincoln navigtor in your future Mark!! haha, actually, my own experience with this argument has more to do with guitars than cars. I like to check out guitar websites, and there's always plenty of people there saying such and such type of music sucks, and they champion the power and ability of one Ing-Vay Malmsteen (possibly spelled yngwie or something, i can't remember) "you can't play 64th notes at 220 bps" they say, "you say you would rather play the beatles and rem, but you are just jealous" they say. maybe for some playing bach and beethoven and jaromir jagr on guitar is the penultimate of abilty and skill next to composing your own neo-classical metal with supa-crazee-fast-guitar (while bass and drums chug along in straight 8ths), but i have to say this is the one point in this entire message that i really really disagree with. music isn't about speed or jealousy, its about using what skills you have to make the best songs that you can. along those lines, i just don't hear the along the 20- 22nd fret chromatic solo busted out for 15 minutes by a mr. scott miller in the middle of north san bruno dishonor trip...maybe it's just me. Andrew ps to Mark: don't get a diesel Beetle if you are against pollution per http://www.britannica.com/eb/article? eu=30889&tocid=0 They are, for example, handicapped somewhat by their higher initial cost and greater weight per horsepower, by their emission of high levels of air pollutants (e.g., nitric oxide and soot) and odour, and by their greater operating noise and vibration. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:17:03 -0400 From: Dan McCarthy Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Gilliamghast At 09:28 AM 4/11/01 -0400, Dan Schmidt wrote: >"Phil Gerrard" writes: > >| There *was* a BBC radio adaptation of 'Gormenghast' some time in >| the mid-1980s, and despite the regrettable casting of Sting as >| Steerpike, it worked far better than the TV adaptation did. >| Sometimes radio is by far the best medium for this kind of thing. > >There's also an opera by Can member Irmin Schmidt, which seems to be >based on the first two books. Yeah, I listened to that a while ago and was quite underwhelmed... is it worth a second listen? Did I miss something the first time, or is it as mediocre as I remember? Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:21:51 -0400 From: Dan McCarthy Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Old Ramon, Isolation Drills At 11:23 AM 4/11/01 -0400, glenn mcdonald wrote: >OK, I'm now listening to what I suspect I'll end up saying is one of the >year's more important albums: Red House Painters' _Old Ramon_, finally >released on Sub Pop after several years of label limbo. If you like Mark >Kozelek but didn't feel entirely satisfied by a whole solo album of languid >AC/DC covers, you definitely want this. Yeah, I agree. I was dubious after the two Kozelek solo efforts, but I nabbed the promo from my work so had nothing to lose! I like it better than Songs for a Blue Guitar (which I like very much!) becuase it returns a bit to the strummier, more acoustic sound of the earlier RHP albums. I still havent had a good sit-down to listen to the lyrics but I suspect they're of the typical Mark Kozelek standard as well. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:41:55 -0400 From: Dan McCarthy Subject: [loud-fans] A disturbing evening... Okay, so the big record labels threw a listening party for employees of my CD shop tonight. The good news: free food/drinks (ohhh, my, yes, free drinks... *drool*). The bad news: virtually everything they played for us from their upcoming releases was derivative rubbish. It was soul-destroying; they'd play some horrendous guitar/cheesy-drum-loop tune for us, all the while bobbing their heads to the music and explaining about how brilliant it was, and then they would replace the current disk with another artist that sounded exactly the same. Genres seem to have narrowed to: hip hop/dance crap- the new Janet Jackson, some band called SiSe, others I've already had the good fortune to forget; drum-looped blends of recycled electronica and rock power chords. That's about it. There was virtually no middle ground. They played the "new" (30-year-old) Shuggie Otis for us, which was probably the evening's highlight, but that was about the only breath of fresh air. The new Afro-Celt Sound System album revealed a few nice moments (they played a Peter Gabriel track and a Robert Plant track) but quickly dissolved into that same homogenic drum-looped copycat-ism. And then came the crowning moment of the night, the reason I went in the first place (other than, did I mention, the free drinks?)- they played some tracks from Radiohead's upcoming "Amnesiac". I'm sure I'll still buy it when it comes out, but I confess to being disappointed. It's definitely more accessible than Kid A, but it still has that Thom-Yorke-with-a-drum-machine feeling and lacks the beautiful and innovative guitar work of OK Computer. The track they played all the way through for us underwent virtually no changes for the whole five minutes of its running time, just a looped drum track over an electronic ambience and Yorke's vocals (I can't judge the lyrical quality, unfortunately, because the record execs felt that the music could best be experienced at extremely loud volume, and the bass drowned out most of the treble in the low-ceilinged room we were in). Okay, I should probably tone down the cynicism for a change, but I just wanted to rant a bit. Thanks for listening. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:35:26 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: Eminem in Lone Star Saloon 2.3 million suvs sold in 8 months at the height of their popularity...which means maybe 40 million total on the road (I couldn't find the actual number, I am guessing)? so each one uses roughly 1 gallon of oil per day? considering that the average suv only has 5 qts of oil (1 qt more than a gallon) in its motor, and you only have to change that every 4000 miles, that's pretty amazing. what all are they considering in their statistic? the rubber used to make the car? the plastic cup the guy drank out of whom made the car? they could have changed that to gasoline to make it true, but somebody wanted to be ultra-reactionary...... >>>>>>>> I don't think that I'm understanding this. Can you elaborate? As I read it, you appear to be implying that gasoline is not made from oil, and I therefore assume that I'm misreading. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:53:16 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] A disturbing evening... Wow, the majority of major label releases suck? When did *that* happen? S (note: the irony-impaired may mentally insert the emoticon of their choice after that statement) NP: YOU--Gong ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:19:20 -0400 From: Dan McCarthy Subject: Re: [loud-fans] A disturbing evening... At 09:53 PM 4/11/01 -0600, Stewart Mason wrote: >Wow, the majority of major label releases suck? When did *that* happen? > >S Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. I should have known. I just wasn't prepared for the onslaught of utter banality that awaited me. I thought that at least SOMETHING new would be brought to the table. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:14:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: Eminem in Lone Star Saloon On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 zkk46@ttacs.ttu.edu wrote: > cup the guy drank out of whom made the car? they could > have changed that to gasoline to make it true, but > somebody wanted to be ultra-reactionary...... True, but too close to tautalogical to be interesting. If Americans cut their chocolate ice cream consumption in half, then americans cut their chocolate ice cream consumption in half. True, but more interesting would be, if Americans cut their chocolate ice cream consumption in half, milk consumption would drop by X gallons. There's really nothing reactionary about how they put it, let alone ultra. (And if you wanted consumption in gasoline, then Harpers would have converted refuge production to gasoline, and then of course, we would have had the exact same numbers, except each multiplied by 70 or whatever.) Me, then Andrew: > If our (U.S.) roads were 100% SUVs instead of the > current mix, accident and fatality probabilites suggest > there would be somewhere between 2.5 to 6 times the > number traffic fatalities as we have now. And we still > continue to subsidize SUVs relative to cars. > > and this, same website: > Federal government safety data shows that SUVs have > a lower fatality rate than passenger cars. Passenger > cars, for example, have a rate of 1.6 fatalities per > 100 million miles of travel. Compact SUVs, including > the Explorer, as a group have a rate of 1.3 deaths. > But SUVs are involved in the bulk of rollover > fatalities, which account for nearly 25 percent of the > nation's annual traffic deaths. > Of course, the numbers I cited and these numbers, do not conflict in any way. > -------------- > so what your friend is saying is that if suvs were 100% > (akin to saying if humans were 8 feet tall, current > door frames would cause more head injuries) of the > vehicles on the road (- trucks o'course, you can't haul > cows in a station wagon), there would be more traffic > deaths? > False. The gov't. would lower the speed limit and > change traffic rules so that traffic deaths would stay > about the same % of deaths as they are now, and have > been the past 25 years. Ah, political opinion. A sure foundation to separate the false from the true, as opposed to those wishy-washy statistics. > Really, I'm not FOR suvs as much as i'm AGAINST bad > statistics. Which is possibly why the presidential > election is not decided by % of votes. Statistics can > be changed around and slanted to fit whatever point you > want to make. Not at all. You only need to know what the statistics mean. Certainly "statistics" in the media sense get dressed up to make whatever point they want to make, but there's still a raw fact that they can't alter. You might call the house small and your realtor might call it cozy, but 1200 square feet is still 1200 square feet. A statistic can be slanted to fit your point only in so far as your audience isn't going to spend any time thinking about what the statistic means. For most of America, admittedly, that means they can be slanted a lot--but don't blame the statistic. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:31:56 EDT From: MarkWStaples@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] MOTORCYCLES!, shakespeare, and Henry Rollins In a message dated 4/11/01 4:45:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sleeveless@citynet.net writes: << ersonally, i think he looked better before he bulked up to the point of having no neck >> Years ago, maybe around '94? he appeared on the cover of AP. I remember this because right by the price at the bottom corner in tiny type it said, "YO! SPOT ME." - -Mark, saddened his "Loud-decor" thread idea ended up in the cutout bin. I know y'all must have some great stuff ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:47:58 EDT From: MarkWStaples@aol.com Subject: Fwd: [loud-fans] Love SUVs? Read on! I sent my brother the forwards on this topic and here's his response. The beginning is based on me driving my Daihatsu Charade and Geo Metro convertible to deliver food in while I got my B.A. (never wreck in a Geo Metro btw, I got hit in it and they had to get the jaws of life to get me out...I permanently injured my back...can't sleep more than about two hours lying down to this day...I sleep in a chair! It was cute and fun and low payments and easy on gas and dependable, but there's NO protection there) Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33]) by air-yh04.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:40:39 -0400 Received: from mail.rdc2.mi.home.com (ha1.rdc2.mi.home.com [24.2.68.68]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:40:17 -0400 Received: from bigkahuna ([24.9.43.109]) by mail.rdc2.mi.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010412004016.DIGT11726.mail.rdc2.mi.home.com@bigkahuna> for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:40:16 -0700 From: "Tony Staples" To: "Mark Staples" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Love SUVs? Read on! Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:40:51 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Mark, I'll give up my Suburban when they pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands! I want to know how many billions of barrels would be saved if we got the 10 million or so food delivery drivers off our overly congested roads. Hmmmm???? Besides, how else am I supposed to take 6 family members plus myself to the lake while towing my boat? I just did that last Sunday. (It was 79 degrees, and I put my new [gas eating] boat into the lake for the first time! Yes!) Seriously. All of the anti-SUV rhetoric is just BS coming from people whose lifestyle doesn't include the need for one. People who drive one without ever using the towing or people hauling capabilities, are the ones I question. I don't argue the safety issue, as some really stupid people drive an SUV as if it were a more nimble vehicle, like a car. The accident rate are a direct result of that fact. Drive an SUV as what it is, a truck/overgrown stationwagon, with luxury appointments, and not like Porsche 911, and you will be safer, on average, than in a smaller lighter vehicle. At that point it becomes physics, and the bigger (more crush space) vehicle wins. If only I could have the crush space of my Suburban, with lighter mass. Now that would be safer still. It is coming. Expect to see more composites in trucks/suv's in newer designs currently being developed. - -Tony - -----Original Message----- From: owner-loud-fans@smoe.org [mailto:owner-loud-fans@smoe.org]On Behalf Of Richard Gagnon Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:17 AM To: loud-fans@smoe.org Subject: [loud-fans] Love SUVs? Read on! Here's a little something from this month's Harper's Index: Gallons by which daily U.S. oil comsumption would drop if SUVs' average fuel efficiency increased by 3 mpg: 49,000,000 Gallons per day that the proposed drilling of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is projected to yield: 42,000,000 Mmm, nice. Rick p.s. sources, since we like to know these things: the first is from The Sierra Club (Washington), and the second from The White House - -- "I don't need to be understood/Strange or familiar, it's all good" ***************** John Newlands, "Obvious Single" ***************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:04:40 EDT From: MarkWStaples@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: Eminem in Lone Star Saloon In a message dated 4/11/01 10:22:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zkk46@ttacs.ttu.edu writes: << ps to Mark: don't get a diesel Beetle if you are against pollution >> I wanted one because they get really good mileage...I didn't consider pollution as a factor. I thought they had come a long way from the days where you'd see black smoke around the bumpers of diesel cars. Make it a gas one, then. And blue. And, while you're at it, make those sky high payments for me as well. lol The price we pay for the irrational desires of art and beauty, when a Kia Rio will do the very same job. But, new Beetles ARE the safest in their class. M ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #35 ******************************