From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #112 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 Friday, June 8 2001 Volume 01 : Number 112 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] if a tree falls in a forest, does it really rock!? [dmw Subject: [loud-fans] if a tree falls in a forest, does it really rock!? Matthew first, in a tricky cut & paste operation: >> The term "music" does exclude any succession of sounds which are not intended to be music, and any succession of sounds which are not interpreted as music. It also excludes work in media which do not use sound. << well, okay, but that's sophistry, isn't it. because hypothetically any sound can be considered as music, as long as there's interpetation on the one side, or intent on the other. a lot of people use similar criteria to define what is or is't art, which i find problematic in a highly parallel fashion. to reductio to the absurdum, why can't i say that a piece of rock is music? it's decaying and being attacked in various ways, at least some of which almost have to excite some vibrations in a fluid medium. is the fact that none of those vibrations are audible or reproducible really relevant? if so, how is that less abitrary between my making distinctions beteen puprosefully produced sound that is music, and purposefully produced sound that isn't music? On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Jon Tveite wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > > > If achieved, the separation is likely to marginalize "non-music", > > whether that's intended or not. {the flip part of me wants to exclaim that aube, cage, etc. are already pretty damn marginalized.} > I still haven't seen anybody even try to argue that it's really important > to be able to differentiate between music and sound sculpture, or > performed noise, or what have you. Is the distinction merely academic? No, and you won't catch me arguing that it's important, except possibly on a purely personal level. and yes, i think it's arbitrary and academic. the distinction between "music" "noise" and "sound sculpture" is about as important and useful as the distinction between "punk" and "hardcore" or "bebop," "bop" and "hard bop" -- that is, it's without any intrinsic meaning, and's only as useful inasfar as it allows us to think we know what we're talking about when we try to communicate with each other. so choose: either a) i think that aube is far enough from the common cultural understaning of "music" that labelling it as such reduces the communicative value of the word, or b) i've been playing devil's advocate to at least some degree all day. (alternatively, tell me how...GOOD...you thought my poem was) it's got a funky beat! and i can dance to it! - -- 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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:42:18 -0700 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] if a tree falls in a forest, does it really rock!? At 06:27 PM 6/7/01 -0400, dmw wrote: >Matthew first, in a tricky cut & paste operation: > >> >The term "music" does exclude any succession of sounds which are not >intended to be music, and any succession of sounds which are not >interpreted as music. It also excludes work in media which do not use >sound. ><< > >well, okay, but that's sophistry, isn't it. because hypothetically any >sound can be considered as music, as long as there's interpetation on the >one side, or intent on the other. a lot of people use similar criteria to >define what is or is't art, which i find problematic in a highly parallel >fashion. I guess I don't find it that problematic. I think the question then becomes whether the work's any good; in many cases I wouldn't say so, but that's my subjective opinion. >to reductio to the absurdum, why can't i say that a piece of rock is >music? it's decaying and being attacked in various ways, at least some of >which almost have to excite some vibrations in a fluid medium. is the >fact that none of those vibrations are audible or reproducible really >relevant? if so, how is that less abitrary between my making distinctions >beteen puprosefully produced sound that is music, and purposefully >produced sound that isn't music? Well, you can say so. I'm sure similar constructions have been assayed. I might object on aesthetic grounds, but not on ontological grounds. >so choose: > >either a) i think that aube is far enough from the common cultural >understaning of "music" that labelling it as such reduces the >communicative value of the word, or > >b) i've been playing devil's advocate to at least some degree all day. I'll plump for option B. :) Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley Nothing *really* matters. Stefan Kageman, journal entry, 13 May 1993, a college student ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:47:30 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] funny snarling clowns!- a swap review jenny grover on 2001/06/07 Thu PM 06:00:49 MDT wrote: > 3- Poster Children- Junior Citizens- Sounds like a lot of late 80's > college radio rock I've heard, with elements of U2 and the Three Johns > mixed in. Not bad, but something about it misses the mark. As many have heard me say countless times before, Poster Children are one of my favorite live bands. They are extremely energetic and they "rock hard" as the boomers like to say. Their records really don't do justice to their live shows. Go see them if they come to your town (unfortunately they are not currently on tour, for once). Junior Citizen definitely falls on the poppier side of what they do, and is not very representative of their overall catalog. posterchildren.com has more info. > 13- Favorite Color- Valis- My other favorite off this tape. Dark indie > pop that reminds me of the Loud Family, Game Theory, and For Against. I > like this a lot. Tell me about this band. I'm sure that List member Steve Matrick (aka Matrix, aka doudie@aol.com) will be happy to answer that one... Valis is definitely my favorite FC tune, though the whole album (COLOR OUT OF SPACE?) is very nice. Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:24:14 +0100 From: "Phil Gerrard" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] funny snarling clowns!- a swap review Jen wrote: > 4- Brian Stevens- The Piper- Beatley 60's stylings. Bright. The > Harmonica solo brings to mind the Fleshtones, once again, but the > overall sound is "Baby You Can Drive My Car." Perky drumming. So, > who is this guy? Ex-Cavedog, one excellent solo album, 'Prettier than You', from which this song is taken. The album features some of Dave Gregory's best playing IMO, along with the expectedly excellent contributions of Merrie Amsterburg and Jon Brion. If you're into Matthew Sweet, Aimee Mann, XTC, or (hell, OT!) Scott Miller, this one's worth checking out. I don't know how easy it is to obtain a copy now, but if it's hard to find, and anybody's interested and is prepared to wait a little while for a cassette copy (I'm busy and strapped for cash!), I'd be happy to oblige. > 13- Favorite Color- Valis- My other favorite off this tape. Dark > indie pop that reminds me of the Loud Family, Game Theory, and For > Against. I like this a lot. Tell me about this band. Ahhh... the mighty Tris McCall, a serious fan of Scott himself, and in fact the recipient of Scott's production on his recent and superb solo album 'If One of these Bottles Should Happen to Fall'. One hell of an intelligent and insightful guy, too (and if anybody on this list is still in touch with him regularly please check whether he's still intending to come over to London!). The album 'Color out of Space', from which this track is taken, is a loud-fans must, a supremely intelligent and heartfelt record of genre-blending anglo-american pop, and the aforementioned solo album, while it hops genres rather than straddling them, should be required listening for anybody with an ear for good songwriting. I think both should still be available via Tris' website - www.lightning.prohosting.com/~tris peace & love phil np: the UK general election results - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:47:25 -0700 From: bbradley@namesecure.com Subject: [loud-fans] FW: Micro Chip League from my brother - >Do you know anything about Micro Chip League (from the 80's)? sounds like a big group of little football players to me. bueller? - -- brianna bradley web designer, web ops http://namesecure.com IT ALL STARTS WITH A WEB ADDRESS tel: 925.609.1101 x206 fax: 925.609.1112 "The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing." Cole's Axiom http://startrekonice.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:02:29 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Aube, a little dab'll do ya (ns) >>Sadly, ELECTRONIC SOUNDS seems to be out of print all over the world, >>though >>if anyone finds out different, please let everyone know. > >It was in all the hip little shops that I go to, just a few months ago. >My friend said, "Don't buy that!!" I think that it was reissued >recently. But Wonderwall wasn't. Go figure. Au contraire, mon frere! http://www.rhinohandmade.com/RHIP/7750/index.html Selling England By The Fool, Andy "His friend was always trying to put him on. They had invented a mind game called Glissendorf whereby they would say crazy things to see how people reacted. 'Say a word,' Bob would say. Whatever answer [John]Bucklen gave, Bob replied: 'Wrong word. I won.' Another line might be: 'Is it raining out?' 'No.' 'Well, okay then.'" - --from DOWN THE HIGHWAY: THE LIFE OF BOB DYLAN, by Howard Sounes ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:20:00 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] funny snarling clowns!- a swap review 2- Stratotanker- Armour of Gusto- One of my two favorite tracks on this mix. Decidedly lo-fi and spare Stooges meets Fleshtones style. Made me shimmy. Who are these guys? >>>>>>>>>>> I think they're from Brooklyn. I always thought of them as a low budget John Spencer Blues Explosion, and the track on your tape is by far my favorite song on Baby, Test the Sky (on Homestead). They have another CD that I've seen, but I haven't heard it. - --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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:46:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com wrote: > One of the oldest vectors in modernism, dating back to Rimbaud's "systematic > derangement of the senses" (or however one translates that) and perhaps before, > has been the flight headlong into incoherence. See, Dennis and me - we're *modernists*. - --Jeff Jeffrey Norman, Posemodernist University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Dept. of Mumblish & Competitive Obliterature http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ np: John Vanderslice _Time Travel Is Lonely_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:10:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awful attempt at OTing) On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, jenny grover wrote: > Jon Tveite wrote: > > > > I still haven't seen anybody even try to argue that it's really important > > to be able to differentiate between music and sound sculpture, or > > performed noise, or what have you. Is the distinction merely academic? > > to my mind, the distinction is only important if you have some need to > verbally categorize your experiences. the academic world is rife with > this, as is the world of the music or art critic, and the parameters are > always in question. on an internal personal level, i think > compartmentalization of all sensual material can become silly and > obsessive. It can, surely - but a couple things: just try thinking without some sort of verbal construct coming into play. Words are categories: with very few exceptions, words name not individual items but groups of like items ("tree" means not any one particular tree but any object that fits the criteria the language has established for the word "tree") - in other words, categories. That is, you're experiencing *something*...what is it? If nothing else, you probably categorize it as "good" or "bad" (i.e., "I want this to continue" or "I want this to stop"), but more likely, you're "compartmentalizing" all the time: these are "words," the box in front of you is a "computer," etc. ("the guy who wrote this is a 'windbag'...") That notion leads to my other question: you say the distinction is necessary only if one needs to "verbally categorize" experience. As I suggest, I think this is often just what thinking is: at some level, it's verbal categorization. I suppose one could argue that until you sit there and think of it, you're not verbalizing it - you can just sit back and let things flow, etc. - but the moment you do try to think of it, remember it, etc., most likely you're going to be verbalizing at some level. (YOu may also rely on sense memories: sounds, smells, etc.) Yeesh - I gotta turn down my pretentiometer. Uh...Philly in six, cuz little Iverson (wait...can we call him..."Little Ivery"??) beats big Shaq. Given my geographical locale, you might understand why I want this to be so... - --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 ::I feel that all movies should have things that happen in them:: __TV's Frank__ np: Novillero _The Brindleford Follies_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:43:01 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awful attempt atOTing) Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > It can, surely - but a couple things: just try thinking without some sort > of verbal construct coming into play. i practice doing just this. it's not easy, but it can be done for short periods of time, and the sensation is quite rewarding. > Words are categories: with very few > exceptions, words name not individual items but groups of like items > ("tree" means not any one particular tree but any object that fits the > criteria the language has established for the word "tree") - in other > words, categories. That is, you're experiencing *something*...what is it? > If nothing else, you probably categorize it as "good" or "bad" (i.e., "I > want this to continue" or "I want this to stop"), but more likely, you're > "compartmentalizing" all the time: these are "words," the box in front of > you is a "computer," etc. ("the guy who wrote this is a 'windbag'...") yes, that is certainly true, but how far you continue in your compartmentalization, and what your purpose is in continuing your compartmentalization is largely up to you. if it helps you clarify and understand the experience, or helps you convey something of that experience to someone else, that's fine, but after a point it can become just a mental exercise that in itself often serves little purpose other than as a mental exercise. there are people who can't seem to enjoy things that they can't compartmentalize into tiny sub-niches. push that experience into the wrong cubbyhole and elitism might come trumpeting in to drown out the real experience, or find a piece that doesn't fit the categories you know, and you might reject it simply on the grounds that it doesn't fit ("this doesn't fit my notion of musical composition, so it must not be music"). ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #112 *******************************