From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #77 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 Monday, May 14 2001 Volume 01 : Number 077 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Costello/Reed ["\(The Arch-Villain\) West" ] Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) [Roger Winston ] [loud-fans] oh no not again said the flowerpot [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] Chat [Jer Fairall ] Re: [loud-fans] Snob + Devo [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 02:48:19 -0700 From: "\(The Arch-Villain\) West" Subject: [loud-fans] Costello/Reed Whilst rooting around the Rhino website, I saw the following items on their list of upcoming releases: Due August 7th Elvis Costello - All This Useless Beauty (Warner Archives) - 2 CD Elvis Costello - My Aim Is True (Warner Archives) - 2 CD Elvis Costello - Spike (Warner Archives) - 2 CD Unfortunately, there is absolutely no other information about this available, at least not on the Rhino website. Does anyone know what's going to be on these CDs? Will I want to buy them again? And -- not as important -- how can My Aim Is True be a "Warner Archives" title when, as far as I know, it has never before been released on a Warner-related label? In other news: I don't know if anyone caught it, but earlier this evening on Saturday Night Live, Lou Reed appeared on Weekend Update to address an internet rumor that he is dead. He confirmed the rumor -- he's really dead. Thanks, Lou. I'm waiting for my man out of time, West. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:03:38 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: [loud-fans] ...and another one gone... The singing barber was a mainstay of my dad's Sunday morning sessions with the hi-fi. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010513/ts/obit_como.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:22:13 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) The only Ayers I own is a vinyl compilation of singles, B-sides, etc. from 1976 called ODD DITTIES. If this material is unavailable and if folks on the list are interested in it, I'd be happy to tape it for them. (Don't let's start into another harangue about the morality or legality of this offer, OK?) Track listing: Soon, Soon, Soon Singing A Song In The Morning Gemini Child Puis-je Butterfly Dance Stars Stranger In Blue Suede Shoes Jolie Madame Lady Rachel Connie On A Rubber Band Fake Mexican Tourist Blues Don't Sing No More Sad Songs Take Me To Tahiti Caribbean Moon MB ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:57:24 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Costello/Reed At 02:48 AM 5/13/01 -0700, \(The Arch-Villain\) West wrote: >Unfortunately, there is absolutely no other information about this available, >at least not on the Rhino website. Does anyone know what's going to be on >these CDs? Will I want to buy them again? And -- not as important -- how can >My Aim Is True be a "Warner Archives" title when, as far as I know, it has >never before been released on a Warner-related label? Because Rhino is the company that offered EC enough money to reissue the discs now that the Ryko discs are out of print and he has control of all his old masters. I don't think the track lists have been released yet, but each second disc supposedly consists of demos, live tracks and unused songs. According to a group of hysterical twits on another list, not only will you not want to buy them, they're a personal affront. More rational people might feel that if you don't want to buy them, hey, don't buy them. S ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:25:44 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) The only Ayers I own is a vinyl compilation of singles, B-sides, etc. from 1976 called ODD DITTIES. If this material is unavailable and if folks on the list are interested in it, I'd be happy to tape it for them. (Don't let's start into another harangue about the morality or legality of this offer, OK?) >>>>>>>>>>>>. I've checked the archives, but I can't find any harangues regarding the distribution of tapes of Kevin Ayers' vinyl compilations. I think you may be confusing loud-fans with some other list where they argue about things like that. The closest match I can find is an old discussion wherein certain misinformed individuals claimed that Napster users were not breaking the law by downloading copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. Said individuals were informed that they were incorrect, accepted their error gracefully, and adjusted their attitudes and/or actions to the extent that their personal senses of morality deemed it necessary. - --dana np: Roxy Music/Absinthe Makes the Heart Grow Fondle ________________________________________________________________ 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: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:51:13 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) >The closest match I can find is an old discussion wherein certain >misinformed individuals claimed that Napster users were not breaking the >law by downloading copyrighted material without the permission of the >copyright holder. If you're going to make these snide remarks on a regular basis, could you at least make them accurate? No one claimed that Napster use was legal. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:08:18 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) If you're going to make these snide remarks on a regular basis, could you at least make them accurate? No one claimed that Napster use was legal. >>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I'm at a disadvantage because I don't have internet access on weekends, and I'll probably be too busy moving over the next few weeks to go slogging through the archives, especially given that we've all probably made up our minds on the subject regardless of what gets said. But, it is not correct that no one claimed that Napster use was legal. Actually, though, no one ever said that Napster use was *illegal*. The use of Napster per se is legal. The use of Napster to download copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is not, and that was the subject of the discussion. - --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: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:35:10 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) At Sunday 5/13/2001 02:08 PM -0400, Dana L Paoli wrote: >Actually, though, no one ever said that Napster use was *illegal*. The >use of Napster per se is legal. The use of Napster to download >copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is >not, and that was the subject of the discussion. This discussion is boring me. Can we go back to the Mark/Stewart feud now, please? Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:47:45 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] oh no not again said the flowerpot On Sun, 13 May 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > Actually, though, no one ever said that Napster use was *illegal*. The > use of Napster per se is legal. The use of Napster to download > copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is > not, and that was the subject of the discussion. except it really wasn't, because there is legality and there is morality, which do not always coincide, and i think the discussion strayed substantially beyond points of law, which are, i agree, unambiguous. i'm not inclined to dive back in, but i would like to acknowledge my debt to nick hornby, who states my position better than i could ever hope to do in his story "nipple jesus" (his contribution to the recent volume of short stories he edited). i wish everyone in the world would read it, so that when such debates come up i can just say, "well, it's a 'nipple jesus' issue," and everyone will go, "ah, ok, i get it." very very briefly: this means that while i can't approve of the use of napster for unathorized distribution of copyrighted content, my disapproval of napster is nothing to my terror of the draconian tactics of napster's opponents. (substitute gnutella or whatever as required, because in all probability, napster is already effectively dead.) two to the power of three hundred and fifty million to one against, and falling, -- d. np ambient background = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:48:13 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) This discussion is boring me. Can we go back to the Mark/Stewart feud now, please? >>>>>>>>>>> Really? I thought that after a few more posts JRT might come up with an idea for an action adventure show wherin I persued Joe across the country, desparately trying to prevent him from illegally distributing King Crimson bootlegs. In the show, of course, both Joe and I would be gay. You sure you want to miss out on that? - --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: Sun, 13 May 2001 15:15:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Jer Fairall Subject: [loud-fans] Chat irc.eskimo.com (#loudfans) seems to have recovered from whatever was wrong with it last week, so if anyone's up for some chat, I'll be there. Jer ===== Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:20:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Snob + Devo On Sat, 12 May 2001 JRT456@aol.com wrote: > I don't usually encourage Internet romance, but I'll pay for the wedding > cake after Stewart and Mark finally meet. Or the commitment cake. > Whichever. I'd also like to buy the story rights to produce a really > cute made-for-TV movie. You mean you've finally stopped carrying your own torch for Stewart? Or are you angling for a three-way? - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous...got me? __Captain Beefheart__ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:45:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] stupid temperment question and stupider yet? On Sat, 12 May 2001, dmw wrote: > if i tune a guitar the way i originally learned to, i.e., get a low e from > somewhere, tune the a string so that it matches the a on e string fifth > fret, etc.., then , uhm, i'm not really tuning it in equal tempermant, am > i? i'm tuning it, i s'pose, since i started with an e, in some key of e. > uhm, assuming the instrument is well-intonated, i guess. right? but my > bands tend to play music in all sortsa different keys. does this trick > only work because we're all playing instruments that are stringed > instruments tuned in fourths? if we added a keyboard player would we have > to tune to that instead? Tim W. answered most of this, but I believe I hear you also asking whether things can be equal tempered regardless of what pitch you start on (which "somewhere" you get that initial E from). While there are standardized pitches for each note (i.e., an orchestra tuning to an A at 440 cycles per second - a pitch which, incidentally, has changed over time, an issue to which Matt Weber might address himself), what ET does is make the *intervals* between each note exactly the same. So if your initial E is flat in absolute terms (i.e., not in tune with an orchestral 440), so long as the rest of your guitar is in tune with itself, and so long as the other musicians tune to your flat guitar, you will all play in tune with one another, regardless of key - because every note is the same distance away from that initial measuring point. It's as if one person makred a point on the pavement and then took a yardstick and measured from it. Someeone else might mark an initial spot in a different location - but if everyone measures from the first spot, say, and not the second, everyone's in tune with everyone else. There are some people with turbogeek ears who can hear whether things are in true pitch or not, and they might profess to be bothered by songs that are noticeably flat or sharp, but they're in a minority. Surely you've had the experience of trying to play along with a record, tuning your guitar so it's in tune with that record - and then finding that you're completely out of tune with the next record you try to play along with? One or other group of musicians tuned to a different reference pitch - or the recording was mastered at a different speed. Those turbogeek-eared folks get all wiggy at latterday Beatles records - since they're pitch-shifted all over the place. They are, though, in tune with themselves - with a few exceptions: the best known is the seam in "Strawberry Fields Forever," of course - but the ending of "The End" is noticeably out of pitch with the rest of the track, too - and was more so before the recording was futzed with for its CD release, I think. I think Martin had to struggle (as a turbogeek-ear himself) to try to get those mastered in standard pitch rather than "between the cracks." - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, who doesn't have perfect pitch but does have both a good memory for pitches (I can usually successfully tune my guitar to a mental rendition of the first note of "Driver 8") and a good sense of relative pitch (so once I have that E in my head, I can derive other pitches from it pretty well). J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous...got me? __Captain Beefheart__ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 19:52:40 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] tv bulletin This week on Sally Jesse: Supposedly grown men who boost their fragile senses of manliness by regularly belittling people with schoolyard witticisms. Check local listings. - -- d. = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:16:23 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] kevin ayers tidbit (ns) Me: >No one claimed that Napster use was legal. In my sloppy haste, trying to get out the door this morning, I omitted the word "such" before "Napster". Of course, had I had more time I would probably have figured out that silence was a better option. But I'm getting a little tired of seeing this particular straw man take it on the chin. It's possible that I'm wrong and somebody, sometime, on-list, said that copying copyrighted material without permission via Napster is legal--but I very much doubt it. It certainly wasn't the thrust of anyone's anti-anti-Napster argument. I'll bite my tongue a little harder next time. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #77 ******************************