From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #117 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, June 11 2001 Volume 01 : Number 117 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [popanda@juno.com] [loud-fans] sound of music [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] yikes [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] yikes...it's Bibi ["Larry Tucker" ] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music ["glenn mcdonald" ] [loud-fans] New BOC? ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] music to wiggle to [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] but i recanted! [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] music of sound [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] Music... ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] music to wiggle to [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] Music... [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] music of sound [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] [loud-fans] LF MP3 help [Chris Prew ] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Music... [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com] Re: [loud-fans] sound of music [jenny grover ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 04:06:04 -0400 From: popanda@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears A mullet? Was it all stinky, with flies all over it attached to his toolbelt? Were the Paris models wearing them as accessories, like a handbag? A fish with a piece of leather attached to it to wear over the shoulder? FABULOUS!!! Dada fashion has returned! Now I won't feel so self-conscious about wearing my swim trunks made out of crayons. M "Yeah, but is it art, Eddy?" (Patsy, ABFAB) On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:49:16 -0700 Carolyn Dorsey writes: > > > A fashion trend recently spotted on Paris runways-the return of the > mullet! > (I'm not kidding) ________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:10:52 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] sound of music JG:actually, isn't there a Grammy for spoken word performance? so, apparently they do hand out Grammy's for things they don't think of as "songs".>>>>>>Which is irrelevant. The original question was: "An even weirder question -- do you think there's any chance of a Grammygoing to something about which there would be any controversy as towhether it was a song?" The fact that there might be a Grammy for spoken word performance has nothing to do with that. Im not clear on why you brought it up. JG:first off, the top ten lists i've seen posted on here were primarily for new releases. have eno or cage released anything lately?>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, there have been recent releases. JG:i would be hard pressed to present you with anhonest and inclusive top ten bands, much less reduce it down to albums.>>>>>>>>>>That is irrelevant to the fact that a large number of people on the list do.Not to sound like 7 of 9 (that is irrelevant), Jenny, but I keep making statements about the list, and you keep telling us about yourself. All of that personal information (i.e. you can think non-verbally, you can't construct top ten lists, you listen to and appreciate an incredibly wide variety of music, you weigh philosophies with the gravity of Solomon, you can fly when no one is watching) is terrifically interesting, but has nothing to do with the fact that whether you like it or not, this is not a list composed primarily of people who prefer experimental music. If you want to keep believing and arguing with that, you can, but I warn you that there's a distinct possibility that if you do, JR Taylor will write a song about you and me, in which we get compared to television characters, and in which it's implied that we're secret lovers. I'd really like to avoid that, and I hope that you would as well. I wonder though: if I told you that loud-fans was composed primarily of men, would you writeto tell me that I'm wrong because you are a woman? That's actually not a rhetorical question, as I honestly don't know the answer. Jeff:we don't expect television repairers to be able to makea good TV show>>>>>>>>>>Nature abhors a vacuum, but loud-fans love a flawed analogy. We expect a TV repairer to be able to construct a television that works, if we give him the parts. Jeff:Fortunately, there's no Central Scrutinizer coming around my place to tell me which recordings inmy collection are and are not music - I'm free to regard any of them as whatever I please.>>>>>>>>>Ah, I forgot that, like Jenny Grover, you stand outside of culture, and that your tastes were created in a vacuum. If nothing else, though, its been interesting to learn that people disagree with my simple assertion that most of us on this list prefer less-experimental, more traditional music. So, given the news that we actually prefer experimental music, why dont we stop diddling around with all this talk of the Loud Family and Aimee Mann and Lucinda Williams? I propose that we open up and talk about our true loves and stop hiding them. Come out of the closet, all you secret Morton Feldman and Iannis Xenakis and Rhys Chathamlovers. No need to keep making top 10 lists with Lucinda Williams and The Negro Problem, just to cover up your true feelings. We accept you!! --dana ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:24:52 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] yikes Yikes, something awful happened to the formatting of my last message. Oh well, maybe it's for the best that it's unreadable. - --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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:49:16 -0400 From: "Larry Tucker" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] yikes...it's Bibi >From: Dana L Paoli >To: loud-fans@smoe.org >Subject: [loud-fans] yikes >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:24:52 -0400 > >Yikes, something awful happened to the formatting of my last message. > >Oh well, maybe it's for the best that it's unreadable. I'm just glad I'm not the only one this has happened to. If you get time, read Bibi Farber's amusing behind-the-scenes story on the Rolling Stones on her website www.bibifarber.com . Click on "News" and then go to "Stories". Bibi is currently on tour with Richard Lloyd and Steve Wynn as a member of Lloyd's band. - -Larry _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:02:15 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] the irrelevance of sound it's true that, even if i could make top-ten lists, there probably wouldn't be a lot of serious outside/avant/abstract/whatever material on the lists, and it's true that day-to-day, i spend more time listening to music that scribbles, messily, for the most part within the lines. but so what? ...i probably listen to more whatever/avant/abstract/outside stuff than the vast majority of the population. i certainly feel entitled to have opinions on the compositions themselves, as well as opinions on statments made by eno, cage, or whoever. i do still think, in practical terms, that it might be useful to consider 'music' as a subset of 'sound' not an equivalent set, but if we take as given that a) to suggest that sound intended for listening is not 'music' is inherently perjorative and b) that any set of sounds can at least theoretically be interpreted on a level of deliberate listening, than it's an unwinnable argument. i've been gently persuaded of the truth of propostition a, i knows it when i hears it, say i, but there must it rest. or there will i let it rest, anyway. y'know, at a bar the other night i spent about ten minutes unsuccessfully trying to recall glenn branca's name. the best i could do was to say that thurston moore played on his second symphony. and by sheerest coincidence, before i read the post, when i was trying to explain to the folks in my living room last night what aube sounded like, i did suggest close-micing the refrigerator. no, you have to go to the *back* bar to get pernod. - -- d. np unwound _leaves turn inside you_ again. speaking of top ten lists. = 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 9:20:07 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music Dana L Paoli on 2001/06/11 Mon AM 10:10:52 MDT wrote (I think, it's kinda hard to tell): > If nothing > else, though, it's been interesting to learn that people disagree with my > simple assertion that most of us on this list prefer less-experimental, > more traditional music. So, given the news that we actually prefer > experimental music, why don't we stop diddling around with all this talk > of the Loud Family and Aimee Mann and Lucinda Williams? I propose that > we open up and talk about our true loves and stop hiding them. Come out > of the closet, all you secret Morton Feldman and Iannis Xenakis and Rhys > Chathamlovers. No need to keep making top 10 lists with Lucinda Williams > and The Negro Problem, just to cover up your true feelings. We accept > you!! --dana I don't think anyone ever said we *prefer* experimental music, though there was probably the assertion made that we're less adverse to it than other motley collections of pop geeks. That said, let it be known that I pretty much hate listening to experimental music (no matter what anyone finally decides the definition of it is). But I really don't like the Beatles, the Beach Boys or Big Star much either. Later. --Rog (Broken Record) - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:37:36 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music > I propose that we open up and talk about our true loves and stop hiding them. At last, honesty! OK, I'll start the most obvious conversation: which of the five Conlon Nancarrow discs is best for necking?! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:30:26 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: [loud-fans] New BOC? Any of our other Blue Oyster Cult supporters heard the new album? I just finished listening to it for the first time. I don't think there will be a second, as it seems like a total dud to me. I'm not sure I would even have realized it was BOC if I'd heard it anonymously. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:49:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > Jeff:we don't expect > television repairers to be able to makea good TV show>>>>>>>>>>Nature > abhors a vacuum, but loud-fans love a flawed analogy. We expect a TV > repairer to be able to construct a television that works, if we give him > the parts. Let's see...you questioned whether what Cage, Eno et al were viable theorists of what music is because, you said, their music isn't what most people, or most people here, listen to most often. That is, you implied that in order for a music theorist's theories to hold water, the music the theorist produces ought to be popular, or popular among those who've been exposed to it, or something like that. I pointed out that there is a distinction between those who *know* or *theorize* about an object and those who *produce* those objects - and that there's no necessary relation between those two. I actually offered two analogies: the TV repairer, and the TV critic. Yes, the critic example is more apt than the repairer example. But the point is there's a distinction between practice and knowledge: to turn the example around, it's quite common to find a musician who plays an instrument quite well but can't write songs. that's not an analogy; it's merely another example of breaking down music into a series of practices, competency in one of which does not guarantee competency in others. Jeff:Fortunately, there's no Central Scrutinizer coming > around my place to tell me which recordings inmy collection are and are > not music - I'm free to regard any of them as whatever I > please.>>>>>>>>>Ah, I forgot that, like Jenny Grover, you stand outside > of culture, and that your tastes were created in a vacuum. As a bot, yes, I do, and yes they were (quite literally - easier to keep the circuitry clean without all that nasty air). At this point, it's probably helpful to go back to the original post that started this whole explosion of typing: > >i don't think that aube (or sensorband) are "music;" they have none of the > >attributes i think of as defining "music" other than that they're > >delivered through the medium of vibrations in air. i prefer to think of > >aube as "sonic sculpture," which is pretentious, but i think more > >accurately describes (my flawed interpretation of) aube's artistic goals > >than "music." The implied question here seems to be: what attributes define "music"? Note that doug did not say "what's the definition of the word 'music'?" - that is, he seemed to be wondering what qualities make up this phenomenon we call "music": as I said, a definition of a term, not of merely a word So the bit about deciding that my refrigerator is music, to me, isn't about "standing outside culture": in fact, *in* this culture, one common definition of music is the one Matt Weber offered - and in deciding to interpet the noise of my fridge as "music" under that definition, I'm being quite massively enculturated, in that I have no doubt that one hundred years ago, or in any number of non-Western cultures now, it would be regarded as rather absurd if not insane to imagine that such a sound is "music." Yes, I know that if I went to a mall and played my treasured fridge CD-Rs to a gaggle of teenage girls hanging around checking out the Backstreet Boys posters, they would have serious doubts that what they were hearing could be called music. Ditto any number of other groups. But "culture" isn't a monolith, and it doesn't work by majority rule either. There is a strong, if minority in terms of numbers and popularity, current that holds exactly what Matt and I have been saying in terms of what constitutes music - so when doug asked the question "what is music?" that was one viable answer. If someone were to suggest, no, it's a series of tones pitched in specific scales, ordered in particular rhythms, and performed on instruments designed to make music, and that those tones and rhythms must generally conform to the practices audible in the songs popular in North America and Europe in the last several hundred years...well, I suppose that's a viable, if rather restrictive and doubtfully coherent, definition. It just isn't mine (or rather, it defines a particular segment of what I regard as music). - --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 ::sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism:: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:56:59 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New BOC? "glenn mcdonald" on 2001/06/11 Mon PM 12:30:26 MDT wrote: > Any of our other Blue Oyster Cult supporters heard the new album? I just > finished listening to it for the first time. I don't think there will be a > second, as it seems like a total dud to me. I'm not sure I would even have > realized it was BOC if I'd heard it anonymously. I ordered CURSE OF THE HIDDEN MIRROR from CDNow, along with the new Radiohead, and I should get them today. (Actually, I should've gotten it Fri or Sat - damn post office!) I hope it's not as bad as you say. I wasn't that thrilled with the last new one (HEAVEN FORBID) a couple of years ago, but I had higher hopes for this one. Time marches on, and affects everyone except Neil Young... Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:15:18 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] music to wiggle to Roger (god bless him for reading my garbled post) said: I don't think anyone ever said we *prefer* experimental music >>>>>>> Here's my basis for saying that. I had said: > it's safe to say that even within a group like > loud-fans, where we assume that we know a thing or two about music, we > prefer their more traditional work. and Jenny replied: >you are assuming you know what the taste of the list is. and then told me all sorts of stuff about her personal preferences and her love of Eno's later works, and the fact that she once saw a movie about John Cage and liked it. Now, while many people would read her response as disagreeing with me, there's clearly enough wiggle room to prove that she never meant to say that we *prefer* experimental music. Shall we wiggle?? - --dana ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:39:30 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] but i recanted! On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > > > >i don't think that aube (or sensorband) are "music;" they have none of > the > >attributes i think of as defining "music" other than that they're > > >delivered through the medium of vibrations in air. i prefer to think of > > >aube as "sonic sculpture," which is pretentious, but i think more > > >accurately describes (my flawed interpretation of) aube's artistic goals > > >than "music." > If someone were to suggest, no, it's a series of tones pitched in specific > scales, ordered in particular rhythms, and performed on instruments > designed to make music, and that those tones and rhythms must generally > conform to the practices audible in the songs popular in North America and > Europe in the last several hundred years...well, I suppose that's a > viable, if rather restrictive and doubtfully coherent, definition. It just > isn't mine (or rather, it defines a particular segment of what I regard as > music). i certainly hope nobody thought i was advocating such a narrow definition. mabye i just listen wrong -- the fundamental difference i was perceiving, and trying to explore, between something like aube, and something like the excellent new album by unwound is that, while both are fairly noisy, unwound are using sound to communicate, which to me is an important attribute of music.) (i am NOT suggesting that this communication has to be verbal -- sometimes it is, sometimes it's emotional, sometimes it's...well, mathematical. an appreciation of the logic of hte organization (eg. js bach.) but there is somethign (imho) being communicated to the listener beyond the content of the sound itself; the sound is a medium through which some "message" (in the broadest possible snese) is conveyed. whereas with the likes of aube, the message seems explicitly meta-textual - -- aube appears to be asking questions about our relationship to sound itself. um. i want this to make sense badly, but i'm really struggling with it, and 'the medium IS the message' seems like such a cop out. i find it impossible to listen to aube without thinking about the relationship of the the sounds themselves to the provided context (this was produced using a flourescent light as the sole sound source). when listeing to 'more' conventional music i always have the option to analyze it in the same way ('how does Scott get *that* guitar sound) but listening more typically involves focussing more on how the sounds are arranged/*organized* than on the sounds *themselves* - -- d. np neu! (the part with the jackhammers, funnily enough) = 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:02:38 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to my ears dana sez: It's as if I asked for directions to the bus stop and you started talking about string theory. <><><><><><><><><><> That would be way too complicated. "Just go to the bus stop, and you'll be there." filleting Gordian fish, - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:20:44 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music Jeff said a bunch of stuff leading up to: If someone were to suggest, no, it's a series of tones pitched in specific scales, ordered in particular rhythms, and performed on instruments designed to make music, and that those tones and rhythms must generally conform to the practices audible in the songs popular in North America and Europe in the last several hundred years...well, I suppose that's a viable, if rather restrictive and doubtfully coherent, definition. It just isn't mine (or rather, it defines a particular segment of what I regard as music). >>>>>>>>>>>> I do agree with most of your last post. I suppose that the reason why I initially got into this whole thing is that I've been finding lately that, whenever I talk w/post-collegiate folks about music/noise/etc. someone pulls out the 'music can't be defined' argument and the conversation ends there. I'm not completely convinced that that kind of attitude leads to people making great music, since the things that I like tend to come from people working under severe restrictions (inability to sing properly, inability to play their instrument properly, etc.). Or by people working within very well defined musical traditions like the pop song. While the "music can't be defined" angle allows what they do to be recognized as music, I have trouble reconciling the fact that it was produced under very severe restrictions, and usually by people attempting to follow rules about what music should be (imagine, for example, that the Shaggs weren't trying to write normal songs. Would they be nearly as interesting?). I think that the "anything is music" side have their points, but that's not the end of the story. But they have all the good quotes at present. I think that this problem comes up in numerous contexts: for example, in America we now are able to enjoy and appreciate a huge number of cuisines that were previously considered gross or strange. But, at the same time, we're not really coming up with new contributions of our own: just combinations of things that already exist. That's the difficulty you run into when you take away restrictions: you also take away some of the incentive to create truly new things. I know that that leads to a huge philosophical argument that's best kept off the list (do we need restrictions) but I do think that it's worth noting as a reservation against the Cage point of view. I'm relatively sure, though, that I'm about to receive a response from someone who is constantly creating and appreciating new foods, or has at least seen a movie about them. - --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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:26:16 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: [loud-fans] music of sound What an interesting discussion to find in my mailbox on a Monday morning. I don't quite follow it all, but I have a question: when a slab o' sound (for example, "Kontakte" by Stockhausen or "the Ninth Symphony" by Beethoven) is found in a music section of the record store, is awarded music prizes, is studied in musical education curricula, and is generally referred to as "music", isn't the burden of proof squarely on anyone who claims it isn't music? glenn hit the nail on the head when he said "it seems to me there are more interesting insights to be gained from treating [Aube CDs] as music than there are from building a wall and tossing 'sound sculptures' over it." I think having categories that earn their keep by aiding insight is much more important than having a definition that tells us what's really music and what's not--whatever that might mean. And yes, I listen to John Cage more than I listen to the Beatles. For that matter, I've performed Cage a couple of times. It wasn't much different from performing Monteverdi, really--you follow the composer's instructions, you practice a few times so it sounds good, you perform it at a "concert." The fact that I was playing recorder in the Monteverdi pieces and radio and spoken word in the Cage pieces seems unimportant, compared to all the two had in common. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:31:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Let's see...you questioned whether what Cage, Eno et al were viable > theorists of what music is because, you said, their music isn't what most > people, or most people here, listen to most often. That is, you implied > that in order for a music theorist's theories to hold water, the music the > theorist produces ought to be popular, or popular among those who've been > exposed to it, or something like that. This is what happens when I start a post, stop it, start it again, stop it again, etc. Let's try "you questioned whether Cage, Eno et al were viable theorists of music because..." Is there a sin tax on poor syntax? - --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 ::You think your country needs you, but you know it never will:: __Elvis Costello__ np: Jason Falkner _Necessity: The 4-Track Demos_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:58:50 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music Dana L Paoli wrote: (a lot of stuff) Dana, chill out dude! Stop reading what you think people must mean behind what they are saying and just read what they are saying. All I was asking for was some statistical proof from you that backs up your opinions about what the majority of people on the list do and don't like. You still can't tell me what percentage of Loud-fans actually make Top Ten lists, and you can't prove to me that a Top Ten list really conveys the scope of a listerner's tastes. It's not a matter of wanting to argue with you for the sake of arguing, it's a matter of my wanting better data from you to back up your arguments. If you were to tell me that the majority of Loud-fans are men, I would ask for numbers, not tell you that you must be wrong just because I am a woman. What an absurd idea. I can only speak for myself, which is why I do so (not because I have any deep need to get all confessional or because I'm conceited enough to think people in general even want any personal information about me) as an example of someone who doesn't fit your stereotype of a Loud-fan, and I'm sure there must be others who don't fit the blanket statements you make. I can't and won't speak for the list, because I don't know that many people on the list. I would have to say that the mix tapes I have received so far have been filled with surprises- songs I would not have expected a Loud-fan to choose if I were to go by the Top Ten lists. It also seems strange and presumptious of you to assume that if Loud-fans generally like one kind of music (which I have seen a lot of evidence to refute) that we don't like another, or that philosophies that seem to you to clash can't provide a person with elements of each that work together. I don't understand why you think it is strange for people who prefer a certain type of music in general to not understand or gain something from music they don't like so much or find value in the philosophies behind it. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just plain don't understand why the situation seems so black and white to you. It might interest you (or maybe not, since it's me talking about me again) that I was drawn to GT/LF because of the experimental elements in those works, the way they really are NOT straight pop songs. But it's pretty ridiculous of you to say that Jeff and I "stand outside of culture". I feel that we probably stand in a very large, inclusive culture and just aren't preoccupied with whether or not the things we choose from within it "fit". On the other hand, I don't know Jeff very well, so maybe he does stand outside of culture. And it's pretty rude of you to just dismiss whatever you can't assimilate into the discussion as "irrelevant." > The original question was: "An even > weirder question -- do you think there's any chance of a Grammygoing to > something about which there would be any controversy as towhether it was > a song?" Okay, I did stray a little on this one, as it was very late and I didn't go back and look at the original post. You don't say for whom the controversy need exist, the public or the Grammy voters. I think that if a piece in question as to whether or not it was a song was a quality work that seemed to have consumer culture validity to it, and the industry wanted to push it and thought they could build sales around it, the Grammy people would find a category or create a category for it. They did that with rap, certainly, but I don't think it was so much a matter of the Grammy powers-that-be creating the category because they didn't think rap songs were undeniably songs, as that it became such a large genre of music with its own demographic that it didn't seem appropriate to lump it in with, say, R&B. If, as you contend, many people in the public at large are divided as to whether rap songs are actually songs, and it is only their opinion which you are counting in this argument, then yes. Grammy's go out for those every year. Did "Desiderada" ever win any kind of awards? It got categorized as popular music in the stores where I lived, but probably because that's where people looked first for any kind of pop/rock radio hit. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] Music... ...helps the people get together...or not. How about "music is any group of sounds organized for a purpose, said purpose to be decided by the organizer(s)"? That takes into account Aube, The Beatles, and Beethoven. It also disposes of incidental sound as music, e.g. the noise made by demolishing a building (unless said demolition is for the express purpose of creating the sounds therefrom arising). The new Radiohead - not rocking my face so much... J. Mallon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:08:57 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music to wiggle to Dana L Paoli wrote: > there's clearly enough wiggle room to prove that she never meant to say > that we *prefer* experimental music. I never meant to infer that we, as a list, prefer experimental music. I only meant to say that I don't believe, based on what I have read on the list, that the list in general is inclined to toss it out, patently avoid it, deny that it is music, or find its tenets in direct conflict with those of power pop, or whatever. > Shall we wiggle?? If you want a trashy TV song written about us, this is a good way to get that started! Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:20:48 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music... "Joseph M. Mallon" wrote: > > How about "music is any group of sounds organized for a purpose, said > purpose to be decided by the organizer(s)"? That takes into account Aube, > The Beatles, and Beethoven. It also disposes of incidental sound as > music, e.g. the noise made by demolishing a building (unless said > demolition is for the express purpose of creating the sounds therefrom > arising). But it still doesn't cover the guy announcing the bus stops. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:35:22 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] music of sound I have a question: when a slab o' sound (for example, "Kontakte" by Stockhausen or "the Ninth Symphony" by Beethoven) is found in a music section of the record store, is awarded music prizes, is studied in musical education curricula, and is generally referred to as "music", isn't the burden of proof squarely on anyone who claims it isn't music? >>>>>>>>> I *think* that the above means that you agree with me: that "music" is defined by the people with the power to define it (in the above examples they would be record store owners, music prize judges, curricula directors, and the hoi polloi). The only reason that that's important is that it means that we shouldn't be asking *what* music is, but rather *who* is defining it, and to what purpose. If we want to ask that at all. At this point, we probably don't. - --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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:42:33 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music >That's the difficulty you run >into when you take away restrictions: you also take away some of the >incentive to create truly new things. I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't think someone inventing, say, a new microtonal scale is going to feel that he's been anticipated in some way by Cage's opening of music to all sounds. We may have bought the Louisiana Territory, but we certainly haven't mapped it yet. It's quite true that limitations are important, but I don't think there's any advantage to having those limitations imposed on musicians from outside. (Although our test case, Aube, uses a scheme--limiting himself to a small set of sound sources--that's as traditional in musique concrete as 4/4 time is in rock.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:12:19 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: [loud-fans] LF MP3 help The copy of the MP3s of "My Free Ride" and "Total Mass Destruction" that I got off the website have disappeared mysteriously (ha) from my hard disk. Anybody know where I can find another copy? Thanks in Advance And yes, I did check Napster, which is kind of a worthless endeavor lately. Chris who loves experimental music, and feels the debate over what is and isn't music and what is and isn't art is purely in the ears and semantics of the beholder. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:11:50 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music jenny grover on 2001/06/11 Mon PM 02:58:50 MDT wrote: > On the other hand, I > don't know Jeff very well, so maybe he does stand outside of culture. When Jeff stands outside of culture, he stands OUTSIDE of culture, if you know what I mean and I think that you do. You know, I was getting kind of bored by this thread until I realized the wealth of snide comment opportunities it affords me. Keep it up! Later. --Rog (soon to be voted off the island, I'm sure) - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:13:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > I'm not completely convinced that that kind of attitude leads to > people making great music [...] > That's the difficulty you run into when you take away restrictions: > you also take away some of the incentive to create truly new things. I'm still incredulous at the idea that we can or should define music, the whole tortilla, in a way which increases the production of *good* music. The overwhelming majority of bad music recorded is "music" under pretty much any definition -- none of this dickering around the fringes is going to define away lite rock or smooth jazz or Mike Watt (90s version). Those things will still be music unless we go for a definition that 99% of humanity would disagree with and that would exclude a lot of things each of us loves. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:18:44 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music Okay, I did stray a little on this one, as it was very late and I didn't go back and look at the original post. >>>>>>>>> And with that, I find myself reassured that you can, in fact, kind of sort of admit that you've made a mistake, albeit with a two-hundred-twelve word long justification following. I honestly didn't think it could be done. - --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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:23:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music... On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Joseph M. Mallon wrote: > How about "music is any group of sounds organized for a purpose, said > purpose to be decided by the organizer(s)"? But isn't this just a rephrasing of Matt Weber's "anything intended as music, or heard as music" (I paraphrase), except that you specify sound? I can, after all, "organize" the noises on the street into a sort of music, that purpose being, of course, to pull something experienced as (however I experience) music from it. It was so much easier when all anyone said was "Black Sabbath roolz!!" "No, Sabbath sucks!!" - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Let's quit talking about it and start watching it on TV:: __Susan Lowry__ np: Long Fin Killie _Valentino_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:30:42 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music dana sez: Jeff:we don't expect television repairers to be able to makea good TV show>>>>>>>>>>Nature abhors a vacuum, but loud-fans love a flawed analogy. We expect a TV repairer to be able to construct a television that works, if we give him the parts. <><><><><><><><><><><> If the point being analogised was that given that, say, "'experimental' music is boring", then theories advanced by "experimental" musicians are thereby of lesser value, a more appropriate analogy might be the question of whether a theoretical particle physicist who could not operate an atom smasher could give good theory. My point here being that one need not. Tangientially, I think citing Cage and Eno is nothing if not convenient, as historically both have expellled a lot of breath on abstractions, whereas how many pop musicians offer us even the slightest epigram to reference, other than carping about "playing for the song" as a smokescreen to obfuscate the fact that none of 'em can play a proper guitar solo? weedla-weedlee-WAAAAAANG! bzzzzrrpp, - --D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:54:07 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sound of music Dana L Paoli wrote: > > Okay, I did stray a little on this one, as it was very late and I didn't > go back and look at the original post. > >>>>>>>>> > > And with that, I find myself reassured that you can, in fact, kind of > sort of admit that you've made a mistake, albeit with a > two-hundred-twelve word long justification following. > > I honestly didn't think it could be done. um... excuse me? my justification for this error was a mere 15 words long, all contained within one sentence. the previous items in the post were answers to your laundry list of allegations and swipes at my character. the subsequent items were an attempt at discussion of your original question, as you felt compelled to restate it, presumably so i could correct my previous mistake and comment on it as it was intended in the first place. apparently, i was wrong in the latter assumption, as you didn't even bother to read what i wrote there as it was intended. so, forgive me oh mighty dana, for i have sinned. i have dared to question your almighty wisdom in the light of scant and skewed evidence. i have foolishly thought that as a humble member of this list that my opinion was allowed to be publicly expressed on topics which i did not begin. i have vainly expected a crumb of respect and consideration. i am so covered in the filth of my iniquities as to have thought that i have no reason to lie and say that i am wrong when i don't feel that i am. and i have equally been mistaken in thinking that trying to redress a post in which i was wrong would bring me something other than a snide remark. i am off to tie myself up in a sack-cloth bag and smite myself with a rod. Jen ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #117 *******************************