From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #114 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 Saturday, June 9 2001 Volume 01 : Number 114 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] upcoming shows [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] upcoming shows ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round N [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round N [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] upcoming shows [AWeiss4338@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awfulattemptatOTing) [jenn] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awfulattemptatOTing) [Jef] Re: [loud-fans] upcoming shows [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:44:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, dmw wrote: > but i can hold up a photograph and say "this isn't a painting." or an > oil painting and say "this isn't a water color." i see what i call > "sound sculpture" and what i call "music" as different but related > forms (and, as in a tinted photograph or multimedia paitning, not > mutually exclusive). if we were starting nearly from scratch (if, say, "music" and "sound sculpture" described types of cutting-edge web art) i'd say sure, this sounds okay. but "that's not music" is something that gets said a lot by people who just don't like rap or minimalism or whatever, and i think the distinction you're endorsing is too fine to survive without strengthening the stupid kind of "that's not music" in the process. > > what's the downside of letting Aube be music? > > what's the downside of my considering it something other than music? as above. i don't want to wade into the larger argument about verbalization, as long as crappy Merzbow records are still available next to crappy U2 records. and keep in mind that the criteria you gave are already roughly the ones used to justify the shit that is flung: "rap doesn't have a melody. that's just talking and drumming! not music!" a p.s. i'm sort of excitable about hip-hop lately because of discovering Aesop Rock. listen to his two songs at mp3.com, or Napster for "1,000 Deaths" and "Shere Khan" off his now-unavailable older records. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:52:17 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awful attemptatOTing) dmw wrote: > > okay. this is a different use of the word "verbal" than i'm used to Same here. And it's quite possible that some of us have varied ideas of what "thinking" means, as well. These are pretty hard concepts to nail down and we may be working off a number of different notions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:00:30 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] when you wake up feeling old Since I wasn't reading listmail for most of February and March, I just now read through that whole "Is there less great music today?" thread, which produced lots of great insight and well-reasoned arguments. Even if some feelings got hurt, it was still one of the most productive threads I'd read on Loud-Fans in ages. I hope to put in my proverbial two cents, albeit belatedly, without reviving some of the thread's more contentious aspects. I'm offering a narrative of my own life since age 21, rather than agreement or direct rejoinders with any of the contending parties. Brilliant move or cop-out? You be the judge... When I entered grad school in 1988, I didn't have the free time to read about, pursue, purchase, or listen to music the way I had before then. The first couple of years, the deleterious effects of this new stage in my life (including paying for my own purchases rather than being subsidized by family!) were somewhat offset by having college radio for the first time. Since WRVU was really good in 1988-90, that was a considerable factor! But after 1990 or 1991, I heard fewer and fewer albums that interested me, at least as far as new artists went. Heck, my "top ten" of 1992 only has nine selections (perhaps it's not coincidence that 1992 was the worst year of my adult life in purely economic terms -- couldn't *afford* to roll the dice on purchases). However, it wasn't until 1994-95 that I became consciously aware of how I might be getting stuck in a place and time. I remember looking over my newly-composed Best of 1994 list -- and then back at '93, '92 -- and becoming acutely aware that the majority of my selections from these years weren't from up-and-comers but from artists whose recording careers began well before 1990. In fact, a good number of my personal '90s chart-toppers (Richard Thompson, Julian Cope, Pere Ubu, Tom Petty, Prince, Bryan Ferry, Tom Waits, Kate Bush, XTC, Robyn Hitchcock) had been favorites since I was *13* years old, i.e., when I started this listmaking process in 1980! For the first time in my life, I felt "out of it." Furthermore, I had gotten on the Internet in 1993, and discovered Loud-Fans just as soon as Stewart Mason hipped me to the fact that a Scott Miller list existed. This put me into contact with lots of other music fans of a similar age, with similar interests. But the mid-'90s artists they were getting into -- Pavement, Stereolab, Guided By Voices -- did not resonate with me at all, even though I've tried over and over to like them. I've also not cottoned to the soft-is-the-new-loud progeny of Nick Drake and Bacharach/David (though I enjoy Nick Drake himself), which also has some overlap with the PET SOUNDS-arrangement-heavy crowd, all of whom seem intent on reviving sounds that I simply don't like. So you won't see the High Llamas, the Cardinal/Matthews/Davies folks, Elliott Smith, or Belle and Sebastian popping up in my year-end lists either, and so my divergence with my peers continues. And so does my worry that I'm missing out on something good, since I hear so many worthy, trusted voices singing the praises of these folks. Sharples and glenn both mentioned the excitement of an artist hitting his or her stride and the surrounding critical/music-fan buzz; I've not been a part of that for years. I have discovered new things during the '90s, as my ways of listening evolved. Three in particular stand out for me. In 1992, Wire finally clicked with me, and what I had previously found offputting and dissonant sounded fascinating and hypnotic. By 1998, I started to make connections via Wire to the Fall, a group I had actively disliked (based on hating THE WONDERFUL AND FRIGHTENING WORLD OF THE FALL when I bought it in 1985, and hating the singles I'd heard after that -- now I like all of them except for their cover of "Victoria"), and I spent a good deal of that year consuming everything I could find of theirs (an ongoing labor, thanks to their ridiculously enormous catalog!). The next year came a similar investigation into Momus' catalog -- except in this case, Momus was a wholly new discovery for me rather than a prior reject that I had finally come to understand and enjoy. Yet when I look at these three discoveries, trying to analyze them as proof positive that I have continued to grow, change, and to appreciate new things, I'm forced to confess that they may be evidence of my tastes being stultified. All three of these artists had their beginnings in the ferment of punk and new wave in the late '70s and thus are part of a sonic landscape with which I was already intimately familiar. Wire and the Fall are features I'd never explored within that landscape, rather than new continents altogether. I don't see a shortage of great albums in the '90s. I look at the top 25 '90s albums that I did for an Audities poll, and I love all of them as much as I do any albums I've ever owned, and Liz Phair's EXILE IN GUYVILLE didn't even made that list! But then I look at #1 and #2: NEVERMIND and SUMMERTEETH, my bookends of the '90s, two albums of enormous personal importance to me. And I think about how Kurt Cobain, Jeff Tweedy, and I were all born in 1967. I don't think that sharing a year of birth means that you instantly relate to everyone the same age as you -- anyone's first day at school should teach just how different human beings of the same age are from each other -- but I think that sometimes the well of shared experiences and hitting the same phase at the time (NEVERMIND in my 24th year, SUMMERTEETH in my 32nd) does explain something about the deep and instant connections I made to both of these albums and their respective creators. I feel at home with these records; I pick up a CMJ and just feel old. I now return you to your scheduled refutation of Berkeley. later, Miles p.s.: I hope no one takes the fact that my own yearly lists begin in 1980 as a claim that there was no worthwhile music before then! I start in 1980 because it was the year that LONDON CALLING and Springsteen taught me that there was more to music than my previous undiscriminating consumption of nearly everything on Top 40 radio, and I became the sort of listener that I fundamentally am now. Thus 1980 is the first year that I can forge a meaningful list out of first-hand experience; lists for years prior would be exercises in pure historical reconstruction. They wouldn't feel like they were authentically *mine* in the way the other lists are. Or I could do a 1973 list that would have the album you got when you subscribed to CRICKET magazine, three spoken-word albums of Greek myths, THE ARISTOCRATS soundtrack, hmm... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:02:49 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two(+awfulattemptatOTing) My original use and understanding, in this argument, of "categories" was verbal compartmentalization of experiences based on philosophical and cultural notions. >>>>>>>>>> Well, if Jeff had meant "verbal compartmentalization of experiences based on philosophical and cultural notions" then his statement "words are categories" reduces to "words are word-using compartmentalization..." which is circular. - --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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:10:32 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Aaron Mandel wrote: > to crappy U2 records. and keep in mind that the criteria you gave are > already roughly the ones used to justify the shit that is flung: "rap > doesn't have a melody. that's just talking and drumming! not music!" there are crappy u2 records? who knew! in case anybody at this late date still needs proof that i can be pretty dense, the fact that "that's not music" has frequently been used in a perjorative sense to dismiss what are later acknowledged as new forms of music did not occur to me until kinda late in this discussion. i do think that the aims of an aube composition, and the way that the listening experience needs to be approached, are very different from, say, a lennon-mcartney compostion (well, duh) and that it's not inappropriate for language to refelct that difference. i was throwing the word 'sculpture' out to connote that seriousness and rigor were applied to the composition/creative process, and presumably, ought to be applied to some degree in experience it as well. (on the other hand, i don't particularly want to connote that pop music can't be just as seriously intended.) but it occurs to me now that maybe the distinction between representational art and abstract art is a better metaphor to use. so i am here going to stop plumping fro the aube <> music notion and shove it in an 'abstract music' ghetto instead. ;) this has been a very interesting discussion, i've enjoyed reading everyone's viewpoints, and if anyone inferred that i was suggesting their own compositions might not be 'music' and that ruffled any feathers, i apologize. i really, really, really didn't mean it in a perjorative sense -- the listening audience will note that i do in fact listen to a fair amount of pretty outside stuff (no matter whatcha wanna call it.) - -- d. np bill nelson _the love that whirls (diary of a thinking heart)_ (these my first two tastes of nelson, suggestions for further exploration welcomed. especially stuff that;s not all one guy and a lot of mulitracking.) (oh, and for the lloyd cole-o-philes -- found _bad vibrations_ in a bargain bin. some of the songs sounded ok (tho not imho up to the new record) but production/arrangement crimes overwhelmed the compositions, for my taste.) = 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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:34:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] upcoming shows On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 AWeiss4338@aol.com wrote: > > WOTAPALAVA: > > Featuring Pet Shop Boys, Soft Cell, The Magnetic Fields, Rufus Wainwright > > Friday, August 3, 6:00PM > I forget what the acronym stands for, but this is apparently the first > openly gay/lesbian traveling rock show. it's not an acronym, is it? "What a palaver" is British for something. (won't embarrass myself by trying to gloss it.) i figured they just changed the spelling as a riff on Lollapalooza. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:45:14 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] upcoming shows >it's not an acronym, is it? "What a palaver" is British for something. >(won't embarrass myself by trying to gloss it.) i figured they just >changed the spelling as a riff on Lollapalooza. Hypertext Webster Gateway: "palaver" From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913) Palaver \Pa*la"ver\, n. [Sp. palabra, or Pg. palavra, fr. L. parabola a comparison, a parable, LL., a word. See {Parable}.] 1. Talk; conversation; esp., idle or beguiling talk; talk intended to deceive; flattery. 2. In Africa, a parley with the natives; a talk; hence, a public conference and deliberation; a debate. This epoch of parliaments and eloquent palavers. --Carlyle. From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913) Palaver \Pa*la"ver\, v. t. & i. [imp. & p. p. {Palavered}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Palavering}.] To make palaver with, or to; to used palaver;to talk idly or deceitfully; to employ flattery; to cajole; as, to palaver artfully. Palavering the little language for her benefit. --C. Bront? From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn) palaver n 1: flattery intended to persuade [syn: {blandishment}, {cajolery}] 2: loud and confused and empty talk; "mere rhetoric" [syn: {hot air}, {empty words}, {empty talk}, {rhetoric}] v 1: speak (about unimportant matters) rapidly and incessantly [syn: {chatter}, {piffle}, {prate}, {tittle-tattle}, {twaddle}, {clack}, {maunder}, {prattle}, {gibber}, {tattle}, {blabber}, {gabble}] 2: influence or urge by gentle urging, caressing, or flattering; "He palavered her into going along" [syn: {wheedle}, {cajole}, {blarney}, {coax}, {sweet-talk}, {inveigle}] 3: have a lengthy discussion, usually between people of different backgrounds Sign me up for the Hendrix medley! Andy "Some things can never be spoken Some things cannot be pronounced That word does not exist in any language It will Never be uttered by a human mouth." - --from "Give Me Back My Name," on Talking Heads' LITTLE CREATURES ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:18:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round N On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, jenny grover wrote: > I didn't, because it's not. My point was that people often engage in > things like writing off music that doesn't fit their preconceived > notions or preferences as "just noise", and that doing so can deter > someone who hasn't heard it from bothering to listen. I was also saying > that some things cannot be categorized in a way that is accurate, > because the boundaries of those categorizations are not set, but that it > doesn't stop some people from trying to compartmentalize everything > anyway. > > In my opinion, if someone puts forth a collection of sounds as music, > then it is music. I really see no distinction between calling something > music and calling it sound sculpture. There can be musical qualities to > collections of sounds that are happenstance, but if they are not put > forth as a composition, or recorded and put forth as a composition, then > calling them music is metaphorical. Okay - so I think you're saying something that might follow from what Aaron Mandel said: "this is not music" is a less-than-preferable category because it too readily shades into sheer bigotry or close-mindedness? In other words, you're less criticizing the notion of distinctions than the particular verbalization of them that dmw brought out? Oh yeah: Dana's right about what I meant by "language": so that Dennis's example, of visual & spatial thinking, does fit into that category. It's a language in that it's a network of representations and relations - but it's not the same network as the language that involves words. It's also not the same network as the language that involves farting and tap-dancing, but that's another story. - --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 ::Watson! Something's afoot...and it's on the end of my leg:: __Hemlock Stones__ np: my copy of a mixtape I sent out some months back ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:20:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awful attemptatOTing) On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, dmw wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > > > or 2) only attainable after years and years, and only if you're a wierd > > old guy who can sit with his legs crossed in a very strange way. > > and here i thought all it took was some good weed. WEED IS EVIL!!! - --Mike Breen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:41:22 +0100 From: "Phil Gerrard" Subject: [loud-fans] Palaver Generally, 'palaver' in the UK these days means nothing more than 'fuss', 'to-do', argy-bargy' ... (c'mon Ian, where are you to back me up on this one!), but thanks for the etymology! peace & love phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:50:21 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round N Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > Okay - so I think you're saying something that might follow from what > Aaron Mandel said: "this is not music" is a less-than-preferable category > because it too readily shades into sheer bigotry or close-mindedness? In > other words, you're less criticizing the notion of distinctions than the > particular verbalization of them that dmw brought out? largely, yes. i also was getting at my lack of need to categorize such experiences beyond a basic point and my impatience with people (not necessarily on this list!) who feel that they just MUST get things right down into some little niche, kind of like the coupland cartoon caption that you guys were discussing the other night. > Oh yeah: Dana's right about what I meant by "language": so that Dennis's > example, of visual & spatial thinking, does fit into that category. It's a > language in that it's a network of representations and relations - but > it's not the same network as the language that involves words. okay, i would agree with this definition of language, but to me language and verbalizing are two distinct things, the latter involving culturally recognized words. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:57:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Palaver On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Phil Gerrard wrote: > Generally, 'palaver' in the UK these days means nothing more than > 'fuss', 'to-do', argy-bargy' ... whereas in the US it means "Cool For Cats". i thought about going to see that tour, but it's expensive and package tours suck. it's not worth the hassle to see people from so far away. i also suspect that Stephin Merritt will be unbearable with more of a mass audience. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:21:49 EDT From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] upcoming shows In a message dated 01-06-08 18:39:04 EDT, aaron@eecs.harvard.edu writes: > it's not an acronym, is it? "What a palaver" is British for something. > (won't embarrass myself by trying to gloss it.) i figured they just > changed the spelling as a riff on Lollapalooza. > I'm pretty sure it is, and can't think of it. It's not 'what a plavaer' though. It is a take off on Lollapalooza though. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:12:38 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awfulattemptatOTing) Roger Winston wrote: > > I think we should table this discussion for now and reconvene later at the planetarium during the Laser Floyd show. > > I'll bring the Doritos, > Later. --Rog Who's bringing the weed? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 23:28:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awfulattemptatOTing) On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, jenny grover wrote: > Roger Winston wrote: > > > > I think we should table this discussion for now and reconvene later at the planetarium during the Laser Floyd show. > > > > I'll bring the Doritos, > > Later. --Rog > > Who's bringing the weed? WEED IS EV... Oh wait - I already did that. - --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 ::Watson! Something's afoot...and it's on the end of my leg:: __Hemlock Stones__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 23:22:05 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] upcoming shows >Sign me up for the Hendrix medley! It's on the bonus 12" that came with THE ART OF FALLING APART. I don't know if it ever made it to CD. "Hey Joe," "Purple Haze," and "Voodoo Chile (Slight Return)." Almond really goes for it on "Purple Haze." What, you thought I made it up? ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #114 *******************************