From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #201 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, August 18 2001 Volume 01 : Number 201 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Name That Tune! (dana screws up) [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby ["glenn mcdonald" ] [loud-fans] White Stripes [Dan Sallitt ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] White Stripes [Dan Schmidt ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby [John Cooper ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby [John Cooper ] [loud-fans] don't aks me nuthin' 'bout nuthin' - I just might tell you the truth [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] movie recommendation [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] Hornby [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] movie recommendation ["Andrew Hamlin" [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Name That Tune! (dana screws up) Hmmm, looks like I cleaned up my files a few months ago, including my list of the songs on Jon's CD. Doing my best to remember what I sent him. I hope that my bold text and the formatting don't end up getting mangled by the loud-fans text mangler... 1) Foreign language: French? Cool first half. Freaky ending with a poor-man's version of Tuvan throat singing.** >>Ulan Bator from Ego:Echo. French band collaborating with M. Gira ex of Swans. The song is "Soeur Violence." 2) A Levi's jingle that sounds like it was recorded by Herman's Hermits*** >>Curt Boettcher, from the Poptones label compilation of outtakes, etc. 3) Weird alternate tuning, minor-key guitar instrumental; Cool vocals; Cacophonous ending*** >>Sonic Youth from NYC Ghosts and Flowers, "Free City Rhymes" 4) Another Levi's jingle that sounds like Apples (in stereo). The lyric crux: "Wearin' Levi's/is-a-bettah than wearin' pants"*** >>The Millenium (Boettcher's old band) from the Poptones label comp of outtakes, etc. 5) Redd Cross "Play my Song". Now I see why everyone on this list likes them so much*** >>From Neurotica 6) Peter Rowan & David Grisman "Time And Again" from Earth Opera (1968). Extra points for obscurity. >>An album desparately in need of a re-issue on CD. 7) Clinic "Cement Mixer". Cool, Devo-ish number. Absurd. Cool analog synths.** >>From their singles comp on Domino, which I like ever so slightly better than "Internal Wrangler" 8) The Vapours "Trains". Can't go wrong with the Vapes.*** 9) Reminds me of Happy Mondays. Same passive vocal delivery. *** >>I can't remember who this might be. Possibly the Charlatans, who I like to put on comps? 10) Three "It Feels Like I'm in Love". Fun, punky. ** >>18th Dye from Done, their singles etc. comp. 11) Women, indie feel. "Wanna go to the zoo with you no one else will do" * >>Can't remember. Urgh. 12) Sounds like a rougher version of Hole: "I'm weak, I'm weak, I know I'm so weak" >>Lint, from their self-titled album. An "all star" album from Boston in the early '90s, I think. Noteable because the CD has a flexi disc glued to the top, so you can play one song on your turntable. Seanna ex-Swirlies, Syrup USA is on one track. 13) Nick Heyward "The Goodbye Man". Brit power pop. ** >>From his great "The Apple Bed" 14) Maria McKee "Everybody". What a voice! ** >>From that wierd album "Life is Sweet" where she thought she was Ziggy Stardust. 15) Lyrics include, "Pinch me hard / pinch me real hard." Another Hole-esque offering. 16) Lyrics include, "Stripping for cash..." Sneering vocal delivery. Tinny sound. * >>15 and 16 are both Half Japanese, taken from their Greatest Hits collection. #15 is "Evidence" 17) Strong guitar wall. Sonic Youth-sounding. Conversational female vox.** >>Possibly "Dirty Jeans" by Magic Dirt, which I've been putting on a lot of comps lately. Not sure though. It might also be the Nightblooms. - --dana ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:16:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Name That Tune! (dana screws up) On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > Hmmm, looks like I cleaned up my files a few months ago, including my > list of the songs on Jon's CD. Doing my best to remember what I sent > him. I hope that my bold text and the formatting don't end up getting > mangled by the loud-fans text mangler... I won't touch it, I promise. - --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 ::[clever or pithy quote]:: __[source of quote]__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:43:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Steve Holtebeck wrote: > glenn mcdonald wrote: > > OK, I've read the Hornby piece in the New Yorker now, and I'm just not that > > angry at it. The article's premise is totally idiotic if you were hoping to > > get incisive criticism, but as a little > > our-curmudgeonly-hero-visits-strange-lands travel piece I thought it was > > fine. It's hard for me to imagine what particularly useful purpose was > > served, however, by Hornby writing this piece *instead* of the one about the > > Pernice Brothers, Joe Henry, Shuggie Otis and Olu Dara. > > In case anyone's curious about this Hornby piece, it's on the New Yorker > website at http://www.newyorker.com/THE_CRITICS/A_CRITIC_AT_LARGE/ I think I'm gonna agree with glenn here - although I'm not sure why he thinks the article's premise is idiotic. That premise seems to be something along the lines of: in comparison with popular music of the past, today's popular music is shallow, reactive, derivative, and catering to the lowest common denominator. Insofar as popular music is supposed to be about "rebellion" (a notion I'd question), its rebellion is wholly gestural - literally, in the manner of an extended middle finger - rather than responding at all with thought or substance to anything actually worth rebelling against. I suppose Hornby didn't write about the Pernice Bros. et al. because every other music critic already is...pissing their words into the gale-force winds emanating from D12's assholes. > Also, the satisfied customer at amazon.com dealing with rape, abuse, > peer pressure, and self-mutilation was raving about the Staind album, > not the Linkin Park album, in case there's a difference between those > bands. A bunch of us were at Milwaukee's Summerfest, a lakefront festival featuring a zillion bands over eleven days, and we were walking past a stage at which a generic metal/rap band was playing. My friend Susan was laughing at the idiotic stereotypicality of it all and wondering what the band's name was (turned out to be Staind). I nominated Thirty Seven Tattoos, Twenty Three Piercings, and Songs that Say "Fuck" a Lot - but that's probably a bit unwieldy, isn't it. "Staind" has admirable economy, and the hinted angst and inability to spell as much as proves the longer proposed band name anyway. What troubles me about these bands (Limp Bizkit, Staind, Linkin Park, et al) is I'm faced with two possibilities: they really are that stupid, even though they're adults and not thirteen; or they're cynically dumbing down in an attempt to appeal to the inner Beavis. (Except Beavis - the dumber of the two, if I recall - is a freakin' Einstein compared to Limp Bizkit etc.) I'm not sure which possibility worries me more. I do think the rip on the troubled Staind fan - I'm sorry, troubld Staind phan - was a bit beyond, and unless Hornby was attempting to emulate the coarseness and lack of empathy most of his top ten exemplify, it seems a cheap shot. - --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 ::Some see things as they are, and say "Why?" ::Some see things as they could be, and say "Why not?" ::Some see things that aren't there, and say "Huh?" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:18:08 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby > I think I'm gonna agree with glenn here - although I'm not sure why he > thinks the article's premise is idiotic. That premise seems to be > something along the lines of... By "premise" I didn't mean the argument within the article, I meant the idea behind it: somebody who claims to be out of touch with popular music pays a tourist visit to the top ten albums. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:49:34 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: [loud-fans] White Stripes So I see from the archives that Dana and Amy Lewis have in fact already mentioned them here, but I'd like to do a bit more publicity for the White Stripes. WHITE BLOOD CELLS is sounding really good on repeat listenings, and the live White Stripes show on the Hudson River last night was really exciting - Jack White is a really imaginative, intuitive guitarist as well as being a fine songwriter. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:50:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, glenn mcdonald wrote: > > I think I'm gonna agree with glenn here - although I'm not sure why he > > thinks the article's premise is idiotic. That premise seems to be > > something along the lines of... > > By "premise" I didn't mean the argument within the article, I meant the idea > behind it: somebody who claims to be out of touch with popular music pays a > tourist visit to the top ten albums. And that's idiotic why? I note that you write "claims to be out of touch": are you saying Hornby's position is an imposture? Or is it the more straightforward notion that such musical tourism is itself idiotic? I think I disagree: while it's true that one can't really understand an unfamiliar musical style on the basis of a couple of listens, especially if the style is relatively removed from whatever the familiar style is (the punk-rock fanatic decides to analyze the symphonies of Beethoven; the Bach fan decides to explore Hank Williams; the Britney Spears fan looks into Indian Raga), I think the notion of a critic at least making the attempt at accounting for music he doesn't normally listen to can be laudible - particularly if that music is very popular and therefore says something about the culture at large. But as I said, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. - --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 ::Californians invented the concept of the life-style. ::This alone warrants their doom. __Don DeLillo, WHITE NOISE__ ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 2001 13:09:45 -0400 From: Dan Schmidt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] White Stripes Dan Sallitt writes: | So I see from the archives that Dana and Amy Lewis have in fact | already mentioned them here, but I'd like to do a bit more publicity | for the White Stripes. WHITE BLOOD CELLS is sounding really good on | repeat listenings, and the live White Stripes show on the Hudson | River last night was really exciting - Jack White is a really | imaginative, intuitive guitarist as well as being a fine | songwriter. Yeah, I'm enjoying it a lot as well. It has a great rawness to it in addition to the excellent songs. There was an article about them in the New York Times Arts section a Sunday or two ago, so they seem to be doing okay on the publicity front... - -- http://www.dfan.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:22:17 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby > I think the notion of a critic at least making the attempt at accounting > for music he doesn't normally listen to can be laudible Yes, just as it can be laudible to travel to unfamiliar places. But you don't tend to get sophisticated insights into a culture from people who are only briefly visiting it. So perhaps, to be more clear, I should have said "The article's premise is totally idiotic if you were hoping to get incisive criticism, but as a little our-curmudgeonly-hero-visits-strange-lands travel piece I thought it was fine." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:22:13 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby I think the notion of a critic at least making the attempt at accounting for music he doesn't normally listen to can be laudible - particularly if that music is very popular and therefore says something about the culture at large. >>>>>>>>>> It's more laudible if the critic is a tad less interested in making snippy little "humerous" comments than Hornby seems to be. Besides which, this is clearly an example of the New Yorker "slumming" with the help of a literary name, so they can reassure their readership that the natives aren't particularly dangerous or interesting, and it's safe to keep the radio dial set to NPR. It's an approch that wasn't particurly interesting or funny in the '60's, when jokes about long hair were all the rage, and it's even less funny now that the jokes are about self-mutilating fans. The entire article was so dated in the way that it was constructed that I just don't see the point of doing it at all. - --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, 17 Aug 2001 12:48:44 -0700 From: John Cooper Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby On 8/17/01, Dana L Paoli wrote: >It's more laudible if the critic is a tad less interested in making >snippy little "humerous" comments than Hornby seems to be. But that's why the New Yorker hired him. That's why Anthony Lane is their movie critic. The tradition goes back at least as far as Dorothy Parker. >Besides which, this is clearly an example of the New Yorker "slumming" >with the help of a literary name, so they can reassure their readership >that the natives aren't particularly dangerous or interesting, and it's >safe to keep the radio dial set to NPR. It's safe to say that if the New Yorker ceased being at some level an elitist magazine, it would lose what little remains of its readership and quickly fold. A smugly comfortable, above-the-rest image is part of its brand identity, and has been since the 1920s. It's why Cadillac borrowed their typeface, wordiness and art style for their annoying Catera "Caddy that zigs" ad campaign. That said, I can't get too worked up about the New Yorker's slumming in the top 10. I'm exactly the reader they're aiming at--I have informed, well-developed musical taste that precludes my spending a lot of time listening to the albums at the top of the general charts. (So are most of you.) Nick Hornby has listened to the top 10 so that I don't have to, and yes, my prejudices have been reaffirmed. I'm prepared to defend them anyway. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:23:06 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby That said, I can't get too worked up about the New Yorker's slumming in the top 10. I'm exactly the reader they're aiming at--I have informed, well-developed musical taste that precludes my spending a lot of time listening to the albums at the top of the general charts. (So are most of you.) Nick Hornby has listened to the top 10 so that I don't have to, and yes, my prejudices have been reaffirmed. I'm prepared to defend them anyway. >>>>>>>> All of this is true, however, the original reason why I brought up the Hornby article was to point out that he has written yet another poorly thought out piece. Not to express dismay that the New Yorker has betrayed its readership of highly-informed indie-rock fans. I'd be the last person to deny anyone the pleasure of taking solace in an under-researched, mean-spirited and derivative hatchet job on the state of today's youth culture. - --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, 17 Aug 2001 16:42:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > All of this is true, however, the original reason why I brought up the > Hornby article was to point out that he has written yet another poorly > thought out piece. Okay, now I'm confused (again, you say? yes). You said, originally, that Hornby admits he knew nothing about the top ten (izzat a "culture," btw? Several, at least, perhaps - but not *a* culture), that the bands inhabiting said cultures are shallow and "shocking," and that they're not as good as the bands in the top ten of his youth. Let's see...I don't think many of us here are intimately familiar w/the top ten either, and at least he admits it, rather than pretending to expertise he doesn't have (see glenn's point re tourism). So Dana, are you arguing that the bands he describes as shallow aren't? that the kinds of "shock" they go in for have any purpose other than flipping the bird writ large? And are you suggesting that the top ten of today isn't worse than the top ten of July 1971 that he lists? I mean, let's give the rap/metal acts the benefit of the doubt and assume that their concern with the state of the world is genuine, and that their analysis of that state, if puerile, can be attributed to their youth - which we're all entitled to suffer through. (Suffer through others' youth, I mean - hopefully, we enjoyed our own.) And let's assume that the records he gives measured praise to are, in fact, praiseworthy as he says (why shouldn't they be, for him? It's just an opinion). That leaves your P. Diddys (all rise who think that *isn't* a stupid name), your Blink 182s, and whoever it is who does the fart skit and the dog-fucking song. It could be, of course, that these last are scarifyingly humorous, a contemporary Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, commentary on our culture's sad discomfort with bodily functions and bestiality...but I'm not so sure. (Or maybe "Fuck a Dog" is a metaphor, and it's a comment on the 'beauty myth" Naomi Wolf was going on about? Who's in Blink 182's library? Or maybe it's a joyously bawdy, explicit update of "Muskrat Love," sung from the point of view of a horny bassett hound - or a sensitive love song about the hopelessly unrequitable love of a chihuahua for a Great Dane.) I guess I'm wondering whether, if the same article had appeared in, say, _Magnet_, written by someone other than Nick Hornby, and with the somewhat well-worn Pernice Bros., Joe Henry, et al. replaced with slightly more obscure, hipper alternatives, we'd be reacting the same way. It seems at least part of Dana's animosity has to do with what he reads as cultural condescension on the part of _The New Yorker_. That may be - but please ensure one's aim is true (the words of the prophets are written on the men's room walls). And I'm further wondering what those of us here (at least those of us who haven't already defended various artists in the top ten) would make of that top ten if we underwent Hornby's experiment. (Funny - *before* this was published, I mentioned thinking about doing something similar, on this list...) Gotta go - my latte's ready. yrs. in elitism, - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::This is America. People do whatever the fuck they feel like doing.... ::As a result, this country has one of the worst economies in the world. __Neal Stephenson, SNOW CRASH__ np: Britney Shakespeare _Oops! The Multitudinous Seas Incarnadine My Hand Again_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:58:43 -0700 From: John Cooper Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby On 8/17/01, Dana L Paoli wrote: >I'd be the last person to deny anyone the pleasure of taking solace >in an under-researched, mean-spirited and derivative hatchet job on >the state of today's youth culture. Spare us, please, unless you can demonstrate that the skewered subjects deserve the compliment of "research," that they aren't several times as mean-spirited as this rather harmless article, and that derivativeness in a weekly periodical is a crime. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:15:42 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] don't aks me nuthin' 'bout nuthin' - I just might tell you the truth Although our pet peeves seem to have suffered a fatal epidemic, I will attempt to resurrect one by noting the following: http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-aks1.htm The site in general will probly provide hours of ennertainment for the many word-obsessed Loudfans. - --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 ::As long as I don't sleep, he decided, I won't shave. ::That must mean...as soon as I fall asleep, I'll start shaving! __Thomas Pynchon, VINELAND__ np: Braving the Seabed s/t ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:30:16 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby So Dana, are you arguing that the bands he describes as shallow aren't? that the kinds of "shock" they go in for have any purpose other than flipping the bird writ large? And are you suggesting that the top ten of today isn't worse than the top ten of July 1971 that he lists? >>>>>>>>>> You'll have to ask me in 30 years, or even better, ask someone who's a teenager today in 30 years. In 1971 there were any number of people willing to claim that the current popular music was crap. The same holds for 1961, 1951, and so on. The music 30 years ago was always better than the music today, for the people who were alive 30 years ago. And people have always disparaged the current top 10, and always will. Some will do it better than others. That leaves your P. Diddys (all rise who think that *isn't* a stupid name), your Blink 182s, and whoever it is who does the fart skit and the dog-fucking song. >>>>>>>>>>>> I defy anyone to demonstrate that "P. Diddy" is any stupider than "The Monkees" or "The Beatles" for that matter. Don't forget that when "The Beatles" was first coined, it made the older generation think of bugs, not great musicians. And what do bugs have to do with great music? Nothing. As for farting and dog-fucking songs, I'm sure that quite a few list members like "We're Only In It For the Money" (I like it ok, don't love it) and wouldn't have a problem with, say, a Frogs or Moldy Peaches album. So why are those ok, but not P. Diddy? Hornby doesn't say. The point is, all of Hornby's criticisims (stupid names, raunchy lyrics, shallow politics) could be aimed at music that we like just as easily. Songs with "Fuck" in the lyrics? How about Super Furry Animals "The Man Don't Give a Fuck" which uses the word about 400 times. And so on. A decent article would have to explain why these particular examples of raunchy lyrics, shallow politics and stupid names are any worse than the numerous highly regarded bands with stupid names and questionable politics, who use dirty words. Hornby doesn't do that. Instead he settles for superficial cheap shots throughout. That's essentially the whole of my problem with the article: it doesn't justify it's dismissive attitude and it's riffs are tired and old. - --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, 17 Aug 2001 17:59:44 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: [loud-fans] movie recommendation Although I think I've developed a reputation as an art-film snob in some circles, I love a good popcorn movie. And so I fervently and without reservation suggest that anyone with a halfway-developed sense of humor rush out tonight and see RAT RACE. Best movie Jerry Zucker's done since RUTHLESS PEOPLE, and it may well be better. Excellent use of a great cast (though I personally could have done with a little less Rowan Atkinson and a little more Kathy Najimy) and the script actually does a good job of developing and working its gags instead of just slinging 'em out there one after another. And thankfully, not one scene where they rip off THE MATRIX. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:01:28 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby >I defy anyone to demonstrate that "P. Diddy" is any stupider than "The >Monkees" or "The Beatles" for that matter. Or "Bo Diddley." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:18:25 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] movie recommendation >Although I think I've developed a reputation as an art-film snob in some >circles, I love a good popcorn movie. And so I fervently and without >reservation suggest that anyone with a halfway-developed sense of humor >rush out tonight and see RAT RACE. Not sure if I'll see RAT RACE, but I thought I'd pass along buzz for an upcoming film that might be up Stewart's alley: Chris Huang's LEGEND OF THE SACRED STONE (amazing what you'll find in Rolling Stone's "Hot Issue") a Taiwanese picture rife with flashing swords and mystical levitating whuppass in one of the many Chinese film traditions (Stewart can probably name the genre, though I can't)...except, this picture is executed entirely through glove puppetry. Okay, some CGI. But mostly glove puppetry. The most interesting filmmaker IMDb's never heard of? Andy "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be." - --Kurt Vonnegut Jr. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 01:16:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hornby On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > >I defy anyone to demonstrate that "P. Diddy" is any stupider than "The > >Monkees" or "The Beatles" for that matter. > > Or "Bo Diddley." Sure. Both "The Monkees" and "The Beatles" at least refer to something (btw, I'm on record as suggesting that "The Beatles" is one of the stupidest band names ever - The Monkees is at least an obvious copy), as does "Bo Diddley": the one-string stand-up bass, made from a bucket, a mop handle, and a string, was called the "diddley bow." What the dogfuck is a "P. Diddy"? Back to Dana: You'll have to ask me in 30 years, or even better, ask someone who's a teenager today in 30 years. In 1971 there were any number of people willing to claim that the current popular music was crap. The same holds for 1961, 1951, and so on. The music 30 years ago was always better than the music today, for the people who were alive 30 years ago. And people have always disparaged the current top 10, and always will. Some will do it better than others. - ---- Who, in 1971, was claiming that Marvin Gaye was crap? If anyone was, it was surely a minority opinion. What serious music critic, in 2001, is claiming that...I dunno, Linkin Park...is making music that anyone will want to hear in 30 years? (Probably not even the members of Linkin Park) And your statement about "The music 30 years ago was always better" is not what I'm saying: I'm not making a global claim that "music today is worse than it was 30 years ago"; I'm stating that the top ten is at one of its lowest ebbs ever. That, obviously, is an opinion - but I think it's a fairly widely shared opinion. And I don't think that it was widely agreed in 1971 that Marvin Gaye, the Rolling Stones, etc. (I no longer have the URL handy) were crap. Certainly, there was loads of crap on the radio in 1971 - and we probably don't remember much of it, except with loathing. Also (Dana again): Nothing. As for farting and dog-fucking songs, I'm sure that quite a few list members like "We're Only In It For the Money" (I like it ok, don't love it) and wouldn't have a problem with, say, a Frogs or Moldy Peaches album. So why are those ok, but not P. Diddy? Hornby doesn't say. - --- I don't believe there are any references to dog-fucking on _We're Only In it for the Money_. I don't know the Moldy Peaches - but you say that Hornby doesn't say why (you assume he thinks) the Frogs are okay (but hey, they're contemporary too), Zappa was okay, and Blink-182 isn't. He does say so, however: he says, essentially, that what was once rebellion and social criticism (and the Zappa album is nothing if not the latter - and not so much of mainstream society as of the then-burgeoning hippie movement) is now only gestural. Furthermore, while rebelling against one's parents was once seen as also rebelling against the norms and standards of society, and that rebellion was viewed as being in service to a better, more just, more open world, the "rebellion" of your Blinks 1 through 182 is a reaction *against* rebellion - specifically, against the rebellion that's become quasi-institutionalized as "political correctness." It's sheer reaction: Mom and Dad say "be nice"; I'll be a jerk - Mom and Dad say "don't shit on stage"; I'll shit on stage - etc. etc. Now you can disagree that this is the case - but it is the argument Hornby makes. For myself, I'd say at least insofar as there was, in the '50s, '60s, even into the '70s, stupid mindless rebellion, it still had a certain novelty to it. When Iggy Pop was slashing himself with razors, crawling across broken glass, playing with himself onstage, it was new. By now, it's about a tenth-generation copy - and, aware of that, the acts keep trying to go further, and don't understand why most people, after a little while, just yawn. (Remember that piece in _The Onion_ a few months back about Marilyn Manson going door to door trying to "shock" people?) Further, consider that in 1969, _Midnight Cowboy_ received an X rating. In the early '70s, it could be a huge scandal when a star at the top of the charts (Elton John) said he was bisexual. At the height of their popularity, Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day said he was bisexual - how many of us even *remember* that? The world yawned, said so what, and went about its business. Those battles have been won, for the most part. In 1969, would mainline protestant churches even be having a debate about approving gay marriage? I don't believe any of the acts running around trying to be shocking are doing so because they believe that the world needs to be made safe for flinging poo, for teenage girls in the audiecne to take their shirts off, etc. etc. (With the possible exception of Marilyn Manson who, I think, is quite serious in his beliefs about the harmful effects of mainstream religion.) What it comes down to, actually, is that I don't believe P. Diddy and his ilk are trying to do anything but sell loads of records, and they're appealing to a lot of people's worst sensibilities to do so. (Mr. Diddy is, refreshingly, forthcoming about his interest in keeping his wallet well-lined with presidential portraits.) The usual excuse proferred is something about "keeping it real" blah blah blah - as if the sort of pimpadelic cash-fisting extravaganza on those album covers is anything like reality, as if the "real" is in danger of dissipating into thin air if not for the heroic efforts of million-selling gangsta rappers. It's also the case (and Hornby doesn't touch on this) that a lot of rap records of this kind are selling to a bunch of white, suburban teens who are thrilled and overjoyed to see their most lurid urban stereotypes confirmed. The funny thing is, why the need to defend the top ten? I don't think many of us here are fans of it; I think most of us here can think of a zillion records we'd rather see in the top ten - so why this need to imagine that, no, it really isn't shallow, meretricious crap? Another way of putting this is simply: surely, someone is going to try to put together disposable unit-shifting crap lobbed creampuff-like directly into the LCD's sweet spot. If this stuff isn't it, what is? I've been going on too long already, but I think what makes this different in kind, not just degree, from chart-topping crap of days past is that up until, oh, the '70s or so, records were records, put out by record companies, and someone somewhere in the company thought of their product as music. Does it matter now if "the new Mariah Carey" refers to a CD, a movie, or an image makeover? Not to her management, not to her record label/film studio. "Two words," he said: "Vertical integration." Long story short: shock and rebellion once were intended to mean something. Now they're just the sizzle covering up the lack of steak. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Why should we value the work ethic ::when employers care so little about the pay ethic? __Barbara Ehrenreich__ ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #201 *******************************