From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #217 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Friday, August 31 2001 Volume 01 : Number 217 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Barrett was a race car driver? (ns) [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] Real gnarly [Vivabonpop@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair] Re: [loud-fans] Barrett was a race car driver? (ns) ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump [Tim_Walters@digidesign.] Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffr] Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump ["glenn mcdonald" ] [loud-fans] top 10 [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux [Dan Sallitt ] [loud-fans] Louie Louie [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com] [loud-fans] RE "Louie Louie" ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux ["glenn mcdonald" ] [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Barbara Manning at Slim's (ns) [Michael Bowen ] Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) [Jon Tveite ] Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] RE "Louie Louie" [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Barrett was a race car driver? (ns) "I think his solo records are musically very, very good, but it's kind of like you're eavesdropping on a mental patient." - --Pearl Jam drummer Matt Cameron on Syd Barrett, from www.uplister.com . A new Barrett compilation, WOULDN'T YOU MISS ME, featuring one previously unreleased track, "Bob Dylan Blues," appears on September 11. >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if this is an old quote, an inaccurate quote, or if the CD I've been seeing is a bootleg, or an import, or what, but it has been in stores for quite a while. I'm not going to buy it, but I have to admit that I'm wondering about that new cover of the "Animals" album, by Les Claypool, is it? - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:25:30 EDT From: Bucolicmusic@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] top 10/classics I'm not sure I'm ready to get into whether consensus is attainable or desirable. I tend to think that there are certain benefits to competing perspectives, but this was mainly as a scientist. I haven't thought about how this applies to the art-world. Many would say that a classic is saturated with meaning or has many interpretations. This would be more like what's been discussed: where's the timelessness, where's the eternal truth in teeny bop? I do think style and periods also come into play here. This would probably be the only way Brit Spears would be a classic, as a definitive example of a phase. My thinking too is that styles can only last so long and still be fruitful. Most likely, those "classic" albums seem so because of novelty or sense of breaking ground. It does become tougher to continue to make things new just as it gets easier to make a recording. Maybe it is harder to get blown away with such good music already heard or so many good things already done, but I've been quite impressed with what I've been hearing from these 2001 second halfers: Mercury Rev, Super Furry Animals, Bjork, Quasi, Stereolab, Beta Band, Sparklehorse, and Built to Spill. Looks like rocknroll should still be interesting for a while. Maybe these will be on classic rock stations in 20 yrs... - -Andy Snyder Less consensus is exactly what you'd > expect if > there were more good albums, not if there were fewer. Exactly! Like I've said all along, there are far more good albums being released now than at any time previous--as glenn correctly points out, due to increased access--I'm just saying there are fewer great ones. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:52:03 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux >Hell, if 90% of the people who have been mentioned on this list could write >something half as genius as "Louie Louie," it would be a better world. My comment wasn't really meant to disparage "Louie Louie", which I like just fine. (Hell, I like "YMCA".) It was meant to make people ask themselves, "if I were a thirty-something music enthusiast in 1955, would I have predicted that 'Louie Louie' would be considered a timeless classic in 2001? Would I even have heard it at all, or would I have been too busy with my Charlie Parker and Thelonious Monk records to pay any attention to the top 40?" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:00:23 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux At 09:52 AM 8/31/01 -0700, Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: >It was meant to make people ask themselves, "if I were a thirty-something music >enthusiast in 1955, would I have predicted that 'Louie Louie' would be >considered a timeless classic in 2001? Would I even have heard it at all, or >would I have been too busy with my Charlie Parker and Thelonious Monk records to >pay any attention to the top 40?" Isn't the question "Would you have heard it at all?" due mostly to the fact that outside of his native L.A. R&B scene, Richard Berry's original "Louie Louie" wasn't a hit? S "Fill my plate with gravy, gravy man." --Ivor Cutler, 1962 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:37:00 EDT From: Vivabonpop@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Real gnarly In a message dated 8/30/01 11:04:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Vivabonpop@aol.com writes: << It even has the Enigma catalog card inside. >> As well as the Enigma merchandise order form. If anyone would like the AGENT ORANGE skateboard, "A real gnarly skateboard with bright Day-Glo colors and exciting graphics designed by AGENT ORANGE themselves," it's only $119.98. It's a blue board, with pink wheels. White hot. Please allow infinity for delivery. "I was young, but I got old." (from A YELLOW RAFT IN BLUE WATER, Michael Dorris) - -Mark np Josie Cotton "From the Hip" (not as good as "Convertible Music," but still a lot of fun to clean house to. Did Gwen Stefani wear holes in her copies of these albums as a kid or what?) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:59:41 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump Jeff / Brian / Jeff > Jeffrey: > >That's a position that's been somewhat absent: a few >folks here have said > >such-and-such a top-ten track has >good production, a nice tune, etc. But > >I've yet to hear >anyone contend that as many songs from this year's top > >ten are likely to be listened to and respected fifteen, >twenty years from > >now. (I'm sure I will now) > > *shrug* They probably will be. It was widely stated that Bush and Stone > Temple Pilots were blatant rip-offs who would be forgotten in five years, > but i'm still hearing "Comedown" and "Interestate Love Song". Every > generation so far has fixated on the music they heard at age 18, including > some really bad music, and made sure they have retro radio for it; why would > this generation be different? It will come to be respected as the kids who > grew up with it become old enough to vent grouchy opinions like we do. I said "listened to and respected," not just "listened to." And of course some stuff from five, ten years ago gets listened to (and some respected), and I'm sure that'll be true of some stuff on the charts now. But acts can remain popular w/o critical respect, or influence: you might still hear "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" on the radio, but hardly anyone would contend that Rod Stewart should be remembered for that song. <><><><><><><> I would, and I'm not just saying this to be contrary (I *am* saying it to be contrary, but I do believe it); it's probably the most honest song to come out of that phase of the guy's career. And as to the Stone Temple Pilots, despite their excruciatingly stupid name, I've for a while been contemplating revising my subjective take on them to upgrade their status from guilty pleasure to legitimate artists (or at least legitimate rock stars). They were certainly guilty of the Pearl Jam sound alike thing on their first outing. But of the big commercial alternative acts, they utilized cookie cutter song templates far less than the majority of their competition without resorting to tricky b.s. like the gratuitous insertion of either oddball meters or dissonance. Robert Deleo has consistently exhibited a fairly subtle and complex harmonic palette in his writing, as well as excellent taste in shoes. His brother has both a better sense of tone, and does a way better faux Jimmy Page riff than, say, Lenny Kravitz (another guilty pleasure). At the moment, I'll suggest it's highly possible that they'll be treated well by history. And that's what's really at stake here. How will history assess the work of today's chart popsters? And this is nearly impossible to foresee. In the late '80s I had figured what was then being termed "industrial music" to be all but played out. Wax Trax was retreading monotonous distorto-disco. Most of the really interesting noise-art artists were willfully inaccessible. The lack of either song-as-singable-along or overtly evident artist's personality as audience identifier object (the latter being similar to the pre-"star DJ" [ghhuurkk! ] dilemma in the initial attempts for electronic disco to cross over as pop) meant that it would not suit the requirements of the majority of the potential audience members. Then along came Reznor, still identifiably within the genre, but fulfilling the potential mass audience's needs. Then Ministry caught the big obnoxious guitar band money train. Suddenly a bunch of lesser similar acts have their one hit per each, and POOF, Current 93 and Nurse With Wound go from being an interesting historical side track to being seminal classics. So what I'm saying here is: We can't presently tell what will be future classics, because their classic status depends in large part on their influence on the minds of people whose future work will prove the current crop's ability to be influential. Relatedly, I am with Sharples on the "plenty of goodness / little greatness" issue. This is sort closed-circuit, but I'd argue that one of the characteristics of "greatness" should be the ability to forge consensus in the popular mind, and the lack of that consensus means that nobody is great enough to do this. Not that there is a lack of amazing music currently being made, but that there is a lack of music which speaks compellingly to all who hear it, thus facilitating its being further heard, ad snowball-itum. This is not merely a matter of economics, unlike the created-by-comittee, calculated to least offend the greatest number of large demographic groups (except where such offense will only alienate a group nominally unlikely to buy, while simultaneously locking in the purchase of those whose individuation occurs primarily in contrast to the targets of offense) nature of most of today's musical blockbusterdom. I live for blowing off month end project deadlines, - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Barrett was a race car driver? (ns) On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > I'm not going to buy it, but I have to admit that I'm wondering about > that new cover of the "Animals" album, by Les Claypool, is it? Very well done. Faithful, but not slavish. Anyone else notice that SOUTH PARK's Cartman uses the line "Ha ha charade you are" occasionally? Big man pig man, J. Mallon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:28:53 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux >Isn't the question "Would you have heard it at all?" due mostly to the fact >that outside of his native L.A. R&B scene, Richard Berry's original "Louie >Louie" wasn't a hit? I didn't realize that, but no, I don't think it is. I don't think thirty-somethings listened to top 40, or respected it, any more then than now. Less in both cases, if anything. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:56:48 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump Dennis: >This is sort closed-circuit, but I'd argue that one of the >characteristics of "greatness" should be the ability to forge consensus in the >popular mind, and the lack of that consensus means that nobody is great enough >to do this. I would argue that the contemporary popular mind is so resistant to consensus that no record could possibly do it. I would also argue that such consensus often (always?) comes slowly. The Beatles and Elvis were as loathed as loved at the beginning of their careers, and they have the strongest claim to "greatness" in your sense. Lesser greats like the Sex Pistols didn't become consensus favorites until long after the fact, if indeed they ever did. I hope it's clear that I'm not claiming anyone in the current charts is the next Elvis--just that we wouldn't know if he or she was. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:02:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > >Isn't the question "Would you have heard it at all?" due mostly to the fact > >that outside of his native L.A. R&B scene, Richard Berry's original "Louie > >Louie" wasn't a hit? > > I didn't realize that, but no, I don't think it is. I don't think > thirty-somethings listened to top 40, or respected it, any more then than now. > Less in both cases, if anything. I think the difference is that the Monk/Parker-listening hipsters in your earlier post pooh-poohed top 40 as a matter of principle, not just because whatever happened to be there was lame to them. I will state that I have no principled opposition to a song becoming popular, nor do I think that a band whose record was way-cool when five people heard of it suddenly sucks because that record sells five trazillion. Back-dating the issue to 1955 also conveniently causes the generational issue to gape across the rock'n'roll divide. IN a way, this points out something that we haven't said, which is that comparisons with past era's top tens are somewhat dubious, because the social settings, adn therefore the meaning of music fandom, are very different in different times. (Like Unca Lou said...) Note, too, that it's disingenuous to compare Richard Berry's "Louie, Louie" vs. jazz hipsters of 1955 with today's charts vs. uh, Loudfans - in the 1955 example, *both* sets of music fans were championing relatively subcultural musics (R&B, jazz). The pop charts were full of folks like the McGuire Sisters, Pat Boone, Bing Crosby, the Fontane Sisters, the Four Lads... (yes, I looked this up. You might look at http://pages.map.com/~freek/1955.html and see how many names you recognize...) - --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 ::the sea is the night asleep in the daytime:: __Robert Desnos__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:03:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > I hope it's clear that I'm not claiming anyone in the current charts is the next > Elvis--just that we wouldn't know if he or she was. Become fat, play Vegas, and die young? Oh, I'd say *lots* will... - -j ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:11:06 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump > I hope it's clear that I'm not claiming anyone in the current charts is the next > Elvis--just that we wouldn't know if he or she was. From today's press it seems pretty clear that Aaliyah was the next Elvis. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:12:49 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump Actually, in the last decade, the surest way to achieve "universal" acclaim is to die. For example, in the last week, Aaliyah has gone from being somebody my freshman students held in disdain to Santa Aaliyah. They suddenly all have her CD, know all her songs, and talk about her as a great role model and genius performer. So, in the 21st century, dead=great. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:12:26 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump > I would argue that the contemporary popular mind is so resistant to consensus > that no record could possibly do it. I would also argue that such consensus > often (always?) comes slowly. The Beatles and Elvis were as loathed as loved at > the beginning of their careers, and they have the strongest claim to "greatness" > in your sense. Lesser greats like the Sex Pistols didn't become consensus > favorites until long after the fact, if indeed they ever did. There's an interesting parallel between movies and rock music in terms of consensus. To the extent that anyone combined popular success and critical canonization, it happened very early: Griffith up to 1915 or 1916, and Chaplin for a while longer. At a certain point it became impossible for the same filmmaker to be huge at the box office and adored by the critical establishment. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:19:30 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: [loud-fans] The Future of Mp3 If anyone will know, this list will.... Really now...are Mp39s going away? I heard that the MP3 codec is a copyrighted technology and that some people think that MP3 will go away in favor of a new compression standard. Is this true? In other words, I9m wondering if devices that play MP39s are going to be come obsolete in the very near future. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:25:55 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] top 10 Found this link to the number 1 hits, week by week and year by year. Can't vouch for it, but it's interesting... http://svc403.bne025u.server-web.com/number_1_hits/1955.htm - --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, 31 Aug 2001 12:28:42 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux >I think the difference is that the Monk/Parker-listening hipsters in your >earlier post pooh-poohed top 40 as a matter of principle, not just because >whatever happened to be there was lame to them. I'm not sure I follow the distinction--what would the principle be?--but I've read enough snide parodies of early rock and roll in novels of the period to make me believe that there were plenty of people who thought it was lame. "Rock and roll... and other children's music." --Tom Lehrer >Back-dating the issue to 1955 also conveniently causes the generational >issue to gape across the rock'n'roll divide. A good point.... but what about "YMCA", despised by the cognoscenti (and many average folk, yours truly included) at the time of its release, revered as early gay liberation signifier and/or sporting event crowd-pumping music now? >IN a way, this points out >something that we haven't said, which is that comparisons with past era's >top tens are somewhat dubious, because the social settings, adn therefore >the meaning of music fandom, are very different in different times. (Like >Unca Lou said...) And, more generally, that extra-musical concerns have a lot to do with which albums get canonized. >Note, too, that it's disingenuous to compare Richard Berry's "Louie, >Louie" vs. jazz hipsters of 1955 with today's charts vs. uh, Loudfans Not disingenuous--ignorant. I honestly didn't know that it wasn't a mainstream hit. Here's where I confess that part of the reason that I don't really think today's charts are any worse than usual is because I've never liked top 40 at the time (aside from the rare instances where it overlaps my usual listening, e.g. Queen and Steeleye Span appealing to my prog and folk tastes in the mid-Seventies). Only in retrospect can I go back and separate the wheat from the chaff (which is complicated by the opposite problem--everything starts to acquire a nostalgic sheen), and there are huge gaps in my knowledge. For example, I just found out a few weeks ago that that song about the Tallahassee bridge is called "Ode to Billy Joe." Who knew? Also, until recently I was forced to listen to the local Seventies "classic rock" station on a regular basis, which is enough to send anyone screaming into the arms of Britney Spears. As it were. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:46:48 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux At 12:28 PM 8/31/01 -0700, Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: >>I think the difference is that the Monk/Parker-listening hipsters in your >>earlier post pooh-poohed top 40 as a matter of principle, not just because >>whatever happened to be there was lame to them. > >I'm not sure I follow the distinction--what would the principle be?--but I've >read enough snide parodies of early rock and roll in novels of the period to >make me believe that there were plenty of people who thought it was lame. I think what Jeff means is that the current philosophy is "I like rock, but the current Top 40 stuff is weak," when the hipster philosophy in the mid-50s was more like "all rock and roll is for retarded teenyboppers who'll grow out of it and start digging jazz like they're supposed to." Stewart "Fill my plate with gravy, gravy man." --Ivor Cutler, 1962 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:53:35 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux > I think what Jeff means is that the current philosophy is "I like rock, but > the current Top 40 stuff is weak," when the hipster philosophy in the > mid-50s was more like "all rock and roll is for retarded teenyboppers > who'll grow out of it and start digging jazz like they're supposed to." Yeah, but the differences between the rock we listen to and the rock we're rejecting are so great in some cases that the gap between jazz and early rock seems comparable. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:59:45 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: [loud-fans] Louie Louie O.K., I'll disclose up front that I have no idea what its highest national chart position was, if it ever charted at all (which I thought it did), but the version of Louie Louie we all know and love ain't the original by its author, Richard Berry. The Kingsmen recorded and released their version (as did a battalion of other rock bands from the northwestern U.S., including the Sonics and Paul Revere & the Raiders) in the Early '60s. That one would have been the hit, which, again, I'm pretty sure it was. At very least, the Kingsmen's cut's near total unintelligibility of the lyrics, a simple story about missing a loved one while being away at sea, got a whole bunch of folks who were sure those lyrics must have been obscene (mumbling as sonic ink blot test, essentially) pissed off to the point where they attempted, successfully in some communities, to ban it from the radio. Is this apocryphal? I didn't make it up, but nor can I cite sources. Anybody? - --Dennis "Every night, at ten I fuck her again" - --Iggy Pop, covering the aforementioned song on some damn bootleg or another ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:58:06 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: [loud-fans] RE "Louie Louie" Here's a story about the supposedly obscene lyrics: http://www.apbnews.com/media/gfiles/louie/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:01:58 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump At 03:12 PM 8/31/01 -0400, Dan Sallitt wrote: >> I would argue that the contemporary popular mind is so resistant to consensus >> that no record could possibly do it. I would also argue that such consensus >> often (always?) comes slowly. The Beatles and Elvis were as loathed as loved at >> the beginning of their careers, and they have the strongest claim to "greatness" >> in your sense. Lesser greats like the Sex Pistols didn't become consensus >> favorites until long after the fact, if indeed they ever did. > >There's an interesting parallel between movies and rock music in terms >of consensus. To the extent that anyone combined popular success and >critical canonization, it happened very early: Griffith up to 1915 or >1916, and Chaplin for a while longer. At a certain point it became >impossible for the same filmmaker to be huge at the box office and >adored by the critical establishment. Well, but weren't Griffith and Chaplin canonized after the fact? My understanding is that film criticism as we think of it these days didn't really start until the late '40s at the earliest...although now that I think of it, i'm not sure why exactly I think that. Did, for lack of a better term, "serious" film criticism exist in Griffith's day? (Similarly, most folks date the beginning of "serious" rock criticism to circa '65, with the early days of Paul Williams and Richard Goldstein, with everything prior to that being rewritten press releases for the teenybopper mags.) So what would that point be, film-wise, anyway? S "Fill my plate with gravy, gravy man." --Ivor Cutler, 1962 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:10:21 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux >Yeah, but the differences between the rock we listen to and the rock >we're rejecting are so great in some cases that the gap between jazz and >early rock seems comparable. - Dan The shift from rock to hip-hop is the obvious parallel, and aren't the charts mostly hip-hop-derived these days? (That's not a rhetorical question--I'm so out of it that for all I know there's an Oi! revival sweeping the nation.) I haven't been keeping track of the Aaliyah thing--I'd actually never heard of her until the crash--but maybe she's the new Ritchie Valens. Or Lynyrd Skynyrd. Or something. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:20:27 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux At 01:10 PM 8/31/01 -0700, Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: >I haven't been keeping track of the Aaliyah thing--I'd actually never heard of >her until the crash--but maybe she's the new Ritchie Valens. Or Lynyrd Skynyrd. >Or something. Well, for the New York Post, she's the new "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD" http://www.nypost.com/seven/08312001/index.shtml S "Fill my plate with gravy, gravy man." --Ivor Cutler, 1962 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:24:49 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux > the local Seventies "classic rock" station ... is enough to send anyone > screaming into the arms of Britney Spears. Ah, many a quiet evening she's spent cradling my head in her lap, wiping my fever'd brow with cool cloths, reassuring me that "Credence Clearwater Revival" was nothing but a terrible dream I had after eating too much eel sushi. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:42:00 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) From the NY Post article: Byron shares with the Brooklyn-born songbird an interest in the agonies of romantic loss. On her latest album, Aaliyah trills, "Hey sexy baby / Why'd your girl leave you in pain / To let a fine man like you go / She must be insane." That quatrain, is, alas, unlikely to win Aaliyah a place alongside Byron among the immortals. To her fans, though, the young woman who once declared, in song, "I'm-a make it hot like fire, oooh-oooh,"... >>>>>>>>>>>> It's nice to see that the Hornby school of textual analysis is catching on throughout academia. - --dana ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:59:59 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) Yo, the writer that Dana quotes wasn't really being all Hornbyesque. He was merely making the point that Byron might have been slightly more deserving of a massive funeral procession like the one that shut down some Manhattan streets earlier today. And, having witnessed part of the procession, I guess it was a pretty absurd gathering. Nothing against Aaliyah, though. She seemed like a nice young woman who could keep up her grade point average. And, of course, a decent grade point average really rates a big funeral procession in NYC. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:06:57 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Barbara Manning at Slim's (ns) At 04:54 PM 9/30/2001 -0500, Jeff Downing wrote: > along with Hermenaut (featuring Michael Bowen), is one of the >two best irregularly published journals going Hmmm...must be writing in my sleep... MB ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:26:45 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] charts, or, the sophomoric slump > Well, but weren't Griffith and Chaplin canonized after the fact? My > understanding is that film criticism as we think of it these days didn't > really start until the late '40s at the earliest...although now that I > think of it, i'm not sure why exactly I think that. Did, for lack of a > better term, "serious" film criticism exist in Griffith's day? "Serious" is hard to define, of course, but there were film critics around from pretty early on. One of the first critics that people take seriously today was the poet Vachel Lindsay; his well-known book came out in 1915, but I believe he was writing for papers before then. The early Soviet writers on film probably date back to the teens, though I haven't got a reference at hand. Anyway, if you let the "serious" part lapse, there was a lot of film reviewing in the teens - in fact, it used to be my job to go though the 1911-1920 trade papers and pull out the reviews for the AFI Catalog of American Films. The preeminence of Griffith and Chaplin was acknowledged by all back then (though Griffith's rep started sliding after BIRTH OF A NATION and INTOLERANCE). Lewis Jacobs' detailed account of Griffith's early career cites raves for Griffith's films as early as 1909 in the trades; and he gives the impression that Griffith's name was well-known by 1911 or 1912. > So what would that point be, film-wise, anyway? I was thinking that maybe every new popular art form starts with a few big names and critical consensus, and then evolves/devolves a split between the hipsters and the masses. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:38:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > >From the NY Post article: > > Byron shares with the Brooklyn-born songbird an interest in the agonies > of romantic loss. On her latest album, Aaliyah trills, "Hey sexy baby / > Why'd your girl leave you in pain / To let a fine man like you go / She > must be insane." > That quatrain, is, alas, unlikely to win Aaliyah a place alongside Byron > among the immortals. > To her fans, though, the young woman who once declared, in song, "I'm-a > make it hot like fire, oooh-oooh,"... > >>>>>>>>>>>> > It's nice to see that the Hornby school of textual analysis is catching > on throughout academia. Oh, so _The New York Post_ is "academia" now? Well, what with Bernhard Goetz talking about running for mayor, I guess, why not? - -j ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:46:24 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) Yo, the writer that Dana quotes wasn't really being all Hornbyesque. >>>>>>>>> Hornbyesque - adj. Used to describe a writer who, for "humorous" effect, quotes song lyrics, which were never intended to stand alone on the printed page, in an attempt to make them and their author seem unworthy of serious consideration. Frequently the lyrics chosen will contain the word "baby." Often done vocally, in which case an English accent is often assumed, in order to emphasize the distinction between high and low culture. In some cases, the lyrics will be compared to "real" poetry, to additionally emphasize the distinction between high and low culture. See also: "cheap shots" Example: When dana said, "'Hot Stuff'" by Donna Summer contains some truly sublimely poetic bits that are on par with the best of Shakespeare, especially the lines, 'I need some hot stuff baby tonight, I want some hot stuff baby this evenin', Gotta have some hot stuff, Gotta have some lovin' tonight, I need hot stuff, I want some hot stuff, I need some hot stuff," he was being Hornbyesque. - --dana Boy, I hope that formats right. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:52:39 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) At 05:46 PM 8/31/01 -0400, Dana L Paoli wrote: >Hornbyesque - adj. Used to describe a writer who, for "humorous" effect, >quotes song lyrics, which were never intended to stand alone on the >printed page, in an attempt to make them and their author seem unworthy >of serious consideration. Frequently the lyrics chosen will contain the >word "baby." Often done vocally, in which case an English accent is >often assumed, in order to emphasize the distinction between high and low >culture. In some cases, the lyrics will be compared to "real" poetry, to >additionally emphasize the distinction between high and low culture. Wow, Nick Hornby was the first writer to ever do this? Jesus, he oughta sue that Steve Allen bastard! S "Fill my plate with gravy, gravy man." --Ivor Cutler, 1962 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:58:29 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) In a message dated 8/31/01 2:47:55 PM, dana-boy@juno.com writes: << Hornbyesque - adj. Used to describe a writer who, for "humorous" effect, quotes song lyrics, which were never intended to stand alone on the printed page, in an attempt to make them and their author seem unworthy of serious consideration. >> In that case, Yahweh, guide my hand! http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/010831/15/1dyua.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:10:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > >I think the difference is that the Monk/Parker-listening hipsters in your > >earlier post pooh-poohed top 40 as a matter of principle, not just because > >whatever happened to be there was lame to them. > > I'm not sure I follow the distinction--what would the principle be?--but I've > read enough snide parodies of early rock and roll in novels of the period to > make me believe that there were plenty of people who thought it was lame. > > "Rock and roll... and other children's music." --Tom Lehrer That's exactly the point: I'm not saying "hip-hop is children's music" or "contemporary R&B is children's music" (although I may be saying teenybop music is teenybop music, and metal's appeal is primarily adolescent). Both jazzbos and the musical establishment dismissed rock'n'roll tout suite as the inarticulate mumblings of subliterate, knuckle-grazing morons - all I'm saying is that most of the songs on the current charts suck. I will admit that currently favored production techniques mitigate against my liking anything intended for the charts - but that's a different argument than those made against early rock'n'roll - more like "I don't like pre-19th century music played on contemporary instruments" than "that noise isn't music." - --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__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:18:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Jon Tveite Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aaliyah (ns) On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 JRT456@aol.com wrote: > And, having witnessed part of the procession, I guess it was a pretty > absurd gathering. Nothing against Aaliyah, though. She seemed like a > nice young woman who could keep up her grade point average. And, of > course, a decent grade point average really rates a big funeral > procession in NYC. Celebrities are the closest thing we have to saints and royalty. If people weren't freaked out by such an untimely death of a celebrity, it would suggest that the entire culture is out to lunch for focusing so much attention on celebs. We can't have that. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:19:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: dux On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Stewart Mason wrote: > At 01:10 PM 8/31/01 -0700, Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > >I haven't been keeping track of the Aaliyah thing--I'd actually never > heard of > >her until the crash--but maybe she's the new Ritchie Valens. Or Lynyrd > Skynyrd. > >Or something. > > Well, for the New York Post, she's the new "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD" > > http://www.nypost.com/seven/08312001/index.shtml Ah. I see The Onion has hacked the Post's website. A FUNERAL TO DIE FOR is one of their all-time classics, I think. Note also that this means Aaliyah will be releasing records well into the 2010s - didn't I just read that Big Pun has a new album out? (Granted, it's just a remix of bootleg Burger King drive-through tapes - one slammin' track is based entirely on Big Pun saying, "Yo, extra mayo on that Whopper.") - --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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:40:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE "Louie Louie" On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Aaron Milenski wrote: > Here's a story about the supposedly obscene lyrics: > > http://www.apbnews.com/media/gfiles/louie/ What truly amazes me about this episode is that, even after the FBI obtained the published lyrics (and it took them months to even figure out that maybe they could do so), the "investigation" continued - even though, once the lyrics are in front of you, it's obvious that that's exactly what the Kingsmen's singer is singing. Never underestimate the determination of a paranoid closet-case. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::I'M ONLY AS LARGE AS AN ANT AND I'M HIDING INSIDE YOUR CAR:: __cryptic placemat phrase, Madison WI, 1986__ np: Sixteen Deluxe _The Moonman Is Blue_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:44:11 +0000 From: "robert toren" Subject: [loud-fans] Marianne Faithful Picture a sort of shocking picture with which to start off the labor day weekend go to the loudfans yahoo site http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loud-fans look in Files for Ms. Faithful yikes! also on gametheoryphotos in Photos/Misc... Have a great holiday RT blah blah blah Mr. Sensitive :-P _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #217 *******************************