From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #293 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 Tuesday, November 6 2001 Volume 01 : Number 293 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Let's get Spiritual (ns) [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] celery fact,or celery fiction [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.co] [loud-fans] celery, Brenly, Emmy [Miles Goosens ] [loud-fans] re: celery [Dennis ] Re: [loud-fans] celery fact,or celery fiction [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive ["Aaron Milenski" ] [loud-fans] Tape Swap Review: Isomorphism (Jeff Norman) ["Jeff Brenneman"] Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Let's get Spiritual (ns) Spiritualized are on Jay Leno tonight, promoting their new CD which has some great stuff and some not so great stuff. - --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/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 10:59:53 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] celery fact,or celery fiction Rog, then Jeff: > Which reminds me that I have pictures of swimsuited non-elastic Brianna in > the bathtub with celery (and not liking it). It's amazing what you can do > with Photoshop these days. Y'know, it was Rog who pointed out the Paula-Carino-in-the-bathtub photos as well. I guess we know what *his* deal is. <><><><><><><><><><> Yeah, just like that time when Rog groused about his copy of CMJ arriving with some lame-o crew of britpop also-rans on the cover instead of Neko Case in a bathtub. Oh wait, that wasn't Rog, was it? - --Mean Mr. Mustard in a Still Life With Woodpecker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 11:08:26 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] celery, Brenly, Emmy At 10:20 PM 11/3/2001 -0600, Jack Lippold wrote: >I'm passionately indifferent to celery. I just eat it now and then, because >I should. >But I'd much rather eat (in this order) asparagus, spinach, broccoli and - >horror of horrors - Brussels sprouts and beets. Celery has a bad taste, and can ruin anything -- V8, turkey dressing, salads, anything it's been on or near. Broccoli is noble and tasty, and I wonder how many people would really hate it if they weren't shown cartoons and TV shows filled with broccoli hate. There ought to be a Broccoli Anti-Defamation League. Asparagus is very good, and peas too. And corn on the cob (but not creamed corn). And greens -- kale, mustard greens, turnip greens, yum! Spinach is a marvellous ingredient, but by itself it's kinda slimy. I love pickles, but don't like cucumbers. However, I will eat cucumber if it's in a salad, whereas I won't eat celery under any circumstances. Glad to see the Yankees go down -- and I always like to see Curt Schilling pitch because I think "there goes a man who knows his ADVANCED SQUAD LEADER!" -- but the Diamondbacks might have won it in five with a competent manager. Today one of my coworkers was parroting the weird Joe Buck mantra about how Brenly "isn't afraid to make moves." As ESPN.com's Rob Neyer said a few days ago, "What does that mean, exactly? Don't all managers make moves?" (See and for more of the keenest baseball writing going). A bit of dialogue from our house during last night's Emmy telecast when Steve Martin jumped onstage to accept Judi Dench's award (background: many winners weren't present, since they understandably went on with their lives and schedules after the second postponement of the ceremonies, so Martin was riffing on the whole absent-winner trend)... Me: "When Robin Williams does sh*t like this -- like he's done at every awards show since the late '80s -- I want to strangle him. Yet I'm enjoying this. Why?" Melissa: "Steve Martin is funny." later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:17:51 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] celery fact,or celery fiction > Yeah, just like that time when Rog groused about his copy of CMJ > arriving with > some lame-o crew of britpop also-rans on the cover instead of Neko > Case in a > bathtub. Oh wait, that wasn't Rog, was it? collection of > random punctuation to indicate that this is a light-hearted jest > here> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>. If memory serves, it was Jeff who didn't get the Nekotub. Shari and I rented a bad movie called The Gift last night, and on the DVD there's a video by Ms. Case, under the bonus material. She does not appear in a bathtub in the video. Just to clarify, while the movie was bad, there were great performances by some of the stars, including Giovanni Ribisi who is one of my favorite actrons lately. So, although it was bad, it was still sort of worth renting. Sort of. - --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/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:20:53 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Thee Headcoats? Mark the K asks: Apologies, again, for more nonScott queries, but the local CD store is suddenly stocked with various Thee Headcoats issues and reissues, I assume. I understand they are garage-y, which is a-okay with me. Any picks or pans regarding their oeuvre? <><><><><><><><><><> I'm fond of The Kids Are All Square and The Earls of Suavedom, but I find Mr. Childish to be remarkably consistent. Which is the polite way of saying that all his fifty quintillion records are basically interchangeable. He does his Kinks, his Bo Diddley, and his Chuck Berry in about equal parts, usually sounding live recorded with a single overhead mic, generally blowing the Cynics, Lyres, etc., completely out of the water at every derivative turn. - --Dennis, also diggin' cilantro while despising celery ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 13:25:43 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Thee Headcoats? >Mark the K asks: >Apologies, again, for more nonScott queries, but the local CD store is >suddenly stocked with various Thee Headcoats issues and reissues, I assume. >I understand they are garage-y, which is a-okay with me. Any picks or pans >regarding their oeuvre? > Dennis responds: >I'm fond of The Kids Are All Square and The Earls of Suavedom, but I find >Mr. >Childish to be remarkably consistent. Which is the polite way of saying >that >all his fifty quintillion records are basically interchangeable I find him to be remarkably consistent too. Consistently mediocre. He's never even attempted to make a good album, as he's more interested in being prolific than in any one recording being a quality piece of work. On all of his albums, you'll find a few really good songs, a few mediocre ones and a few unnecessary and boring covers. More than half of each album could be called filler. That said, I enjoy Thee Headcoatees better than Thee Headcoats or The Milkshakes, though even with them I only enjoy three or four songs per album. Avoid their early singles, though: stupid obscenities wherein Billy lives up to his last name. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:26:07 -0700 (MST) From: Dennis Subject: [loud-fans] re: celery When I was a child, my grandmother and I would dip raw celery in olive oil (with some salt sprinkled on it). Also: http://www.popsoda.com/drbrownscelray.html I've tried it. It does taste like celery. - -- - --- Dennis Sacks dennis@illusions.com "Things are falling down on me, heavy things I could not see" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:48:21 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] celery fact,or celery fiction On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com, who either spends way too much time in the archives or has a scary memory, wrote: > Rog, then Jeff: > > Which reminds me that I have pictures of swimsuited non-elastic Brianna in > > the bathtub with celery (and not liking it). It's amazing what you can do > > with Photoshop these days. > > Y'know, it was Rog who pointed out the Paula-Carino-in-the-bathtub photos > as well. I guess we know what *his* deal is. > > <><><><><><><><><><> > > Yeah, just like that time when Rog groused about his copy of CMJ arriving with > some lame-o crew of britpop also-rans on the cover instead of Neko Case in a > bathtub. Oh wait, that wasn't Rog, was it? random punctuation to indicate that this is a light-hearted jest here> Yes - but the pictures of both Paula and Brianna featured them *clothed* in bathtubs. The picture of Ms. Case lacked that element. Q.E.D.P.D.Q.L.H.O.O.Q. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::playing around with the decentered self is all fun and games ::until somebody loses an I. np: Radiohead ...uh, I forget the title ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 14:11:48 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive From a while back: Michael says: > It's worth noting, I think, that it was supposed to be a TV series, for ABC I think, but after contracting for the pilot, ABC rejected the series. So the movie is reworked from the pilot. This is similar to what he did for "Twin Peaks" where he released (in Europe) the pilot with an extra 20 minutes tacked on to turn it into a movie. This version of the pilot really sucks. I'm afraid that something similar happened with Mullholland. > This movie made me angry, as did WILD AT HEART and TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME. I just get the impression that Lynch is so arrogant that he believes that he can throw a bunch of nonesense out there, and lazily not even bother to put the pieces together, and just know that critics and public alike will feel like if they don't understand it that makes it profound. Like the European version of the TWIN PEAKS pilot, MULHOLLAND DRIVE can not and should not be explanied by the closing twenty minutes, and rather than editing this into something that has a logic to it Lynch chose what for him is the easy route: comfuse rather than enlighten. He probably threw in the lesbian sex scenes just to attract a horny audience or to make this otherwise barely-PG, OK-for-TV material seem edgy enough for a theatrical release. It's no coincidence that every single male reviewer who writes about this film sees fit to mention these scenes, because they seem to me to be a pretty cheap attempt to get a visceral response from half of his audience, one that will make them forgive (or not pay full attention to) the nonsense they will experience next. What bothers me most about Lynch, not only here, but in WILD AT HEART and TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME,is that he's just plain lazy. He knows that he doesn't have to put any pieces together because no one expects him to or will fault him if he doesn't. I don't mind film haveing dream-like logic. What I mind is twenty minutes of hocus pocus at the end attempting to pretend that the previous two hours really did mean something when it absolutely did not. Anyway, usually the more I look back at a difficult film the more the pieces fall into place. The more I think about this one, the more I think it's just Lynch writing himself into a hole and hoping no one will notice. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:56:26 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] celery fact,or celery fiction Jeff sez: On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com, who either spends way too much time in the archives or has a scary memory, wrote: [some obnoxious bullshit or another, deleted] <><><><><><> The latter, but I usually repress it. O.E.D.? P.U.! "It's gonna rain.", - --Dennis P.S. Lotus notes sucks. I was trying to have my response to Mark Kunkel's question come through addressed to "Jeff Norman's Tax Dollars at Work", but this didn't apparently work. I had a fresh pineapple tamale and a vast supply of black coffee for breakfast. Last night I went to see From Hell. I expected them to ruin it, but they didn't, though the severely graphic violence did not sit well with my friend Virginia. I think my car needs a new distributor cap. The '78 and '79 live Buzzcocks shows that were released last year as a 2 disc box are stunning. ------------------------------ Date: 05 Nov 2001 16:06:27 -0500 From: Dan Schmidt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive "Aaron Milenski" writes: | Anyway, usually the more I look back at a difficult film the more the | pieces fall into place. The more I think about this one, the more I | think it's just Lynch writing himself into a hole and hoping no one | will notice. http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/10/23/mulholland_drive_analysis/index.html makes a good case for the film being a lot more coherent than it first appears. After reading it, I pretty much buy their theory. (The first 2 1/2 pages are just recap, so skim if you get bored.) - -- http://www.dfan.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 16:17:19 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive >| Anyway, usually the more I look back at a difficult film the more the >| pieces fall into place. The more I think about this one, the more I >| think it's just Lynch writing himself into a hole and hoping no one >| will notice. > >http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/10/23/mulholland_drive_analysis/index.html >makes a good case for the film being a lot more coherent than it first >appears. After reading it, I pretty much buy their theory. (The >first 2 1/2 pages are just recap, so skim if you get bored.) I just want to note that I read the Salon piece (before I wrote my post) and it hasn't changed my opinion of this film at all. It seems like justification, not explanation. For example, what's the point of the scene with the two guys in th coffee shop? Great scene, yes. Connected to the rest of the film in any reasonable way at all, no. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 15:27:27 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive Aaron said a lot of things about David Lynch and his various works since 1989. Among them: >This movie made me angry, as did WILD AT HEART and TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK >WITH ME. I just get the impression that Lynch is so arrogant that he >believes that he can throw a bunch of nonesense out there, and lazily not >even bother to put the pieces together, and just know that critics and >public alike will feel like if they don't understand it that makes it >profound. So I like David Lynch *because* I'm afraid to admit that I don't understand his movies? Funny, I thought it was because I genuinely enjoyed them and was profoundly affected by them (*especially* TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME, which not only left me in tears but is plotted tighter than a mosquito's hiney). Well, self-deception has no limits, I suppose... I really don't want to argue with Aaron point-by-point... well, I will take this on: >is the easy route: comfuse rather than enlighten. He probably threw in the >lesbian sex scenes just to attract a horny audience or to make this >otherwise barely-PG, OK-for-TV material seem edgy enough for a theatrical >release. It's no coincidence that every single male reviewer who writes >about this film sees fit to mention these scenes, because they seem to me to >be a pretty cheap attempt to get a visceral response from half of his >audience, one that will make them forgive (or not pay full attention to) the >nonsense they will experience next. I can't speak for every male viewer of the film, and I haven't offered an on-list MULHOLLAND DRIVE review, so you'll have to take my word for it, but I don't think I've mentioned those scenes -- at least not in a "gawd, those are some hot babes!" sense -- in any of my off-list correspondence. Most of what I've been discussing and thinking about has to do with what actually happens, plot-wise. In fact, I think it's a compliment to Lynch that even faced with what are some really steamy lesbian scenes featuring two very attractive actresses, I'm still mostly thinking about the plot. Well, at least I was until you brought up this subject! ;-) Anyway, as I was saying, I really don't want to argue with Aaron point-by-point, because I don't think there's a "winnable" argument to be made given how much these films depend on the viewer's interpretation. But I do want to stress that I could not disagree more with Aaron's dismissal of MULHOLLAND DRIVE, TP:FWWM, and WILD AT HEART as "lazy," "hocus pocus," and "nonsense." I think all of these films were done with care and obsessive attention to detail, and are rich, rewarding viewing experiences. If you're a Lynch fan who enjoyed TP:FWWM and especially LOST HIGHWAY, then by all means, go see MULHOLLAND DRIVE. I almost let the bad press surrounding TP:FWWM (some of which came from adherents of the series) keep me from seeing it in a theater. I loved the TV series and didn't want to see something that would tarnish the characters and plots that I enjoyed so much, so I was very reluctant to view the film. Nevertheless, when I read in the Wednesday TENNESSEAN that TP:FWWM would be leaving town, curiosity got the better of me and I went to a matinee showing that afternoon. And I'm so glad I did -- I was blown away by how astoundingly good the film was, so much so that I took Melissa (who couldn't go with me that day or evening because of grad school commitments) to see it the following evening. She concurred with my judgment, and as for me, I was even more amazed by a second viewing. I should have trusted Lynch in the first place, and I'm very glad I didn't miss out on what has become one of my most cherished films. I don't think MULHOLLAND DRIVE is as good as TP:FWWM, or the Moebus strip of LOST HIGHWAY, but it's quite excellent and has haunted my thoughts for days. Most movie fare vanishes from my brain without a trace, and even well-done films (to take two very different examples from this past summer: THE OTHERS and LEGALLY BLONDE, each of which does its respective genre proud) often don't linger there much longer. It's been a couple of weeks since I've seen MULHOLLAND DRIVE, yet details from the film flicker through my synapses with regularity -- sometimes they're harbingers of new theories, other times they're complete unto themselves. Lynch always engages my attention and stimulates my imagination in a way few directors can match. However, if you already think Lynch is a messy, lazy filmmaker who trades in moody nonsense, nothing in MULHOLLAND DRIVE is going to change your mind, and I don't think you should waste your money on it. I'll freely admit that I don't understand what's happening in at least half of DR. ZHIVAGO. Maybe more than half. It sure looks great, though. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 16:39:33 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive Miles' post makes me want to say that I wasn't really intended to start a debate here (or at least teh kind that has any of us arguing with each other rather than expressing our own thoughts about this one-of-a-kind film.) I didn't even say I didn't enjoy if or find it stimulatig. I just said it made me angry. It's just that I've seen this film get nothing but praise and I wanted to express my view simply because I don't think everyone out there will like this film, and I think that if they don't they shouldn't feel stupid for their feelings about it. At least Roger Ebert's review suggested that you're probably not supposed to analyze it and figure it out (the way the Salon.com piece did), that if you do you're probably missing the point. In my opinion, that assessment gives Lynch a lot of leeway and forgives him in a lot of ways, which is why I think he gets away with being lazy, or, at least able to justify things he can't or won't explain. I should also say that I shouldn't have lumped TP:FWWM in the way I did. That truly was a very tightly plotted film. I didn't like it for other reasons, mostly that I just don't relate to Lynch's dark vision of humanity and that film, unlike the TV show, didn't offer enough of an alternative, or foil (i.e. comic relief, and, more importantly, the genuine goodness that came from Dale Cooper) to keep the bad taste out of my mouth. >I don't think I've mentioned those scenes -- at least not in a "gawd, those >are some hot babes!" sense -- in any of my off-list correspondence. Then you're the first! Salon.com actually made the claim that this film was Lynch's most sypathetic towards women, and also that the lesbian sex may have intended to point out that men weren't allowed into the world of these characters. But they certainly are allowed in as voyeurs. Jill (my wife) said she's never (at the movies) felt more like a voyuer than she did during those scenes. I'm not suggesting it's not good filmmaking; I'm just suggesting that it ends up overshadowing (or at least altering) most viewers' vision of the film as a whole. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 17:51:35 -0500 From: David A Seldin Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Thee Headcoats? Yes. Tomatos must not resemble their natural state in any manner, or I will not enjoy them. But I love celery, including celery soda. I was first surprised, but then understanding, when I learned that there were people who didn't like celery. I have two very good friends who hate it, and I find them (the friends) absolutely normal in every other regard. David p.s. For Mark: You're one, and Daniel R. is the other. And I am devoid of knowledge regarding Thee Headcoats. I do like the name, though... On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 12:27:18 -0600 "Kunkel, Mark" writes: > Apologies, again, for more nonScott queries, but the local CD store > is > suddenly stocked with various Thee Headcoats issues and reissues, I > assume. > I understand they are garage-y, which is a-okay with me. Any picks > or pans > regarding their oeuvre? > > Thanking you all in advance, etc., > > PS I love cilantro. I hate celery. I also hate cucumbers, unless > they are > finely chopped and mixed into a nice gazpacho. I believe fellow > Loud Fan > Dave Seldin has the same peculiarity regarding tomatoes in that he > can't > stand 'em unless they are finely chopped. > > _____________________________________________________ > Mark D. Kunkel > Legislative Attorney > Legislative Reference Bureau > (608) 266-0131 > ________________________________________________________________ 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/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 17:58:12 -0800 From: "Jeff Brenneman" Subject: [loud-fans] Tape Swap Review: Isomorphism (Jeff Norman) Tape Swap Review: Isomorphism (Jeff Norman) OK, well I guess nows a good as time as any to finally review this incredible tape! As much as I love the tape, Im still finding it hard to gather words together for this (especially from a tape from Mr. Eloquence himself!) I have to start out by saying that the artwork was exceptional as was the detailed explanation of the tracks and associations with each other. See the basic concept is that, track by track, each artist on side B reflects or mirrors some trait of the corresponding artist on side A. I couldnt have explained it any better, hence the plagiarism. As far as explaining the sounds and correlations, Id be better off just retyping Jeffs commentaries, but rather than that, Ill give my brief opinions: Track listing: Side A 1. Sloan  Autobiography 2. Belle Da Gamma  The Mozart Defect 3. The Move  I Can Hear The Grass Grow 4. Small Faces  Lazy Sunday 5. The New Pornographers  Mystery Hours 6. Pavement  Shoot The Singer 7. The Fall  Spoilt Victorian Child 8. The Caribbean  Front Row At The Rodeo 9. Shuggie Otis  Strawberry Letter 23 10. Bob Dylan & The Band  Yazoo Street Scandal 11. Bandfinger  Ill Be The One 12. Nick Drake  Way To Blue 13. Jeff Buckley  Vancouver 14. The Fletcher Pratt  Take It Away From Us, Taxday, Liberated, Rings True Side B 1. Cotton Mather  Password 2. Tris McCall  Janie Abstract 3. The Idle Race  Imposters in Lifes Magazine 4. The Dukes Of Stratosphear  Brainiacs Daughter 5. Zumpano  The Millionaire Poets 6. The Wrens  Ruth 7. The Membranes  Wounded Bull in Victorian England 8. The Townies  (Oh Dear) Miss Morse 9. Shawn Lee  Disappearance Of The Man 10. Billy Bragg & Wilco  Hoodoo Voodoo 11. The Loud Family  Were For The Dark 12. Ivory Library  Black-eyed Dog 13. Tim Buckley  Song To The Siren 14. The Blow Pops  Under The Big Top: Come In, Ride The Trapeze, How High Are You, He Said, Lynnie Figure My Thoughts: Sloan (by request)  Autobiography ` This is the first time Ive heard Sloan with the exception of their tracks that were included on The Virgin Suicides. From what Ive heard, this is band I need to look more into. Great song. Loves those Harrison style distorted licks! Belle Da Gama  The Mozart Defect ` Great segway from Autobiography into The Mozart Defect! As with a majority of the mix, this was a band I had not heard of and greatly enjoy. This track may be one my favorites of the tracks included from the last decade. Gotta hunt this one down! The Move (by request)  I Can Hear The Grass Grow ` Nothing more to say than..amazing! I think this is the first Ive (knowingly) heard from The Move. THANKS JEFFREY! Small Faces (by request)  Lazy Sunday ` This really reminds me of early Floyd. Truly a great song and another I need to hunt down. Am I better off getting a compilation of theirs or am I better off getting the individual releases? The New Pornographers (by request)  Mystery Hours ` I requested a track by these guys because I own Goin Through Changes by Zumpano and love it so much! Not in the least disappointed with The New Pornographers. My guess is this will be my next purchase! Pavement (by request)  Shoot The Singer ` Ive been wanting to hear Pavement for awhile Since seeing Stephen Malkmuss show in San Diego a few months back. I really enjoyed the show! This song hasnt convinced me that I need to further investigate Pavement, but the jurys still out. The Fall  Spoilt Victorian Child ` Im very glad that Jeff included The Fall on the mix, because theyre another band Ive been interested in investigating. Like the Pavement track, Spoilt Victorian Child has not convinced me to continue the investigation (and I realize that wasnt necessarily the intention of including it in the mix.) Ive heard so many bands I love list The Fall as one of their major influences, so I owe it to them to remain open. And that I will. The Caribbean  Front Row At The Rodeo ` From the title of the track, I expected the next big thing in alt-country (a genre which Ive come to love!) I was very pleasantly surprised by what The Caribbean (of course another band that Ive never heard of) delivered. GREAT TRACK! Shuggie Otis  Strawberry Letter 23 ` At first I found Strawberry Letter 23 to be redundant, but has grown considerably on me. I have found myself several times humming the song, and not being able to figure out what song it is for hours! Another gem! THANKS JEFF! Bob Dylan & The Band (sort of by request)  Yazoo Street Scandal ` Classic! I love the collaboration of these 2 amazing artists! Badfinger (by request)  Ill Be The One ` The 3 or 4 songs Ive heard by Badfinger were all incredibly catchy. No deviation here! Now I need to again figure do I go with a compilation (best of) disk or venture into the full catalog? Nick Drake (by request)  Way To Blue ` After hearing this song, I went out and bought Nicks 3 releases. Truly an amazing songwriter. Every track on every disk is a delight! Jeff Buckley (by request)  Vancouver ` I love this! I really need to hunt down further offerings from the Jr. Buckley! The Fletcher Pratt  Long Medley: Take It Away From Us, Taxday, Liberated, Rings True ` Pieces of this medley are very impressive, but I think overall I think the task taken was over ambitious. Perhaps working these ideas into individual pieces MAY have been a better idea? (Bonus Unlisted Track)  Poodle Man? ` Sounds very much like The Residents. Whoever it is, it rocks! Side B: Cotton Mather  Password ` I write the same thing every time I write about a Cotton Mather. I own Cotton Is King. I absolutely love every song on the disk, but I cant listen to it from beginning to end (too much of something the same?) They are such a great mix group because like I mentioned, every song Ive heard is amazing, Password is certainly no exception. GREAT TUNE! Tris McCall  Janie Abstract ` This should be loved by all Game Theory/Loud Family fans! I dont know if Scott Millers influence as producer is so dominant or if the bands sound is up the same alley. Another great song! The Idle Race  Imposters of Lifes Magazine ` This is what music should be! From the opening riff, I was hooked (pun intended.) I must find more from The Idle Race. The Dukes Of Stratosphear  Brainiacs Daughter ` I forgot all about DOS! I never, in fact, realized they had a 2nd release! Hunt them both down I will (must be voiced in Yoda fashion.) Zumpano  The Millionaire Poets ` The only song I was actually familiar with prior to hearing the mix. The entire Goin Through Changes CD is excellent. Although, Jeff listed this was from the CD, I could swear it sounds SLIGHTLY different(?!) Zumpano does have any release, dont they? How does it compare to Changes? The Wrens  Ruth ` I love this song! I hear a little Weezer in the chorus. Is the rest of their stuff as good as this track?! The Membranes  Wounded Bull In Victorian England ` This doesnt grab me too much yet. In fact, it annoys me. The Townies  (Oh Dear) Miss Morse ` Sounds like great soundtrack music! Do they play like this live? Shawn Lee  Disappearance Of The Man ` Now Im starting to think Im being challenged to actually get through to the end of the mix. Still havent quite got into this, although there is plenty of cool stuff goin on in there! Billy Bragg & Wilco  Hoodoo Voodoo ` Ive had the Mermaid Avenue disks on my list forever. Ill have to move up the priority on this! The Loud Family  Were For The Dark ` Cool, a Loud Family song I havent heard. As expected, wonderful! Ivory Library  Black-eyed Dog ` Beautiful. I love it! Reminds me of one of my faves, The Revolutionary Army Of The Infant Jesus. Jeff, you mention that this was from a cassette only release. Any CDs? Tim Buckley  Song To The Siren ` Hauntingly beautiful! Its songs like this and my first listen to the Drake stuff that makes me realize that theres so much wonderful music out there that Im missing out on! Viva mix CD! Thanks Jeff!! The Blow Pops  Under The Big Top: Come In, Ride The Trapeze, How High Are You, He Said, Lynnie Figure ` Great ideas, but I think the medley drags a bit. The opening bars of the medley are jangly defined, my kind of sound! Again, I bet these guys make great songs, but Id like to hear em work out the individual songs. Just my taste. Jeff, amazing mix! Thank you so much for opening my eyes, rather ears, to some quality tunes! I apology for the delay in reviewing and my inadequate (but sincere) commentary. After 3 months of working up my opinions and 3 days of trying to put them into words, I'll go ahead and hit send.... Take care yall! Jeff _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 22:24:16 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Aaron Milenski wrote: > This movie made me angry, as did WILD AT HEART and TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK > WITH ME. I just get the impression that Lynch is so arrogant that he > believes that he can throw a bunch of nonesense out there, and lazily not > even bother to put the pieces together, and just know that critics and > public alike will feel like if they don't understand it that makes it > profound. You realize, of course, the sort of epistemological problem here. Lynch cannot predict what any given viewer will and won't understand - and unless you imagine that a film should be "understood" by all viewers, inevitably there will be viewers who don't understand something. But if a viewer doesn't understand a movie, how can that viewer be in a position to judge whether or not something is nonsense, thrown together, etc.? The other alternative is that you're claiming *you* understand it - that it is nonsense - and few others do, or if they do, they're unwilling to admit it. But that perspective is, of course, rather more arrogant than I think you're comfortable with. So I'm guessing it's the first case. > release. It's no coincidence that every single male reviewer who writes > about this film sees fit to mention these scenes, because they seem to me to > be a pretty cheap attempt to get a visceral response from half of his > audience, one that will make them forgive (or not pay full attention to) the > nonsense they will experience next. I think I've read one or two that don't mention it - and like Miles, it's hardly the first thing I think of when I think of the film. (Actually, the reviewrs who *did* mention it led me to believe it was more of a big deal than it is.) > will fault him if he doesn't. I don't mind film haveing dream-like logic. > What I mind is twenty minutes of hocus pocus at the end attempting to > pretend that the previous two hours really did mean something when it > absolutely did not. I'm not following this criticism. If anything, the "previous two hours" made a whole lot more conventional sense than the last part of the film - so the formulation would seem to run more like "two hours of conventional plot pretending that the twenty minutes of hocus pocus means anything." One more point, re "laziness": I noted in an offlist post to another Loudfan that even though, after one viewing, I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to put the whole thing together (in fact, I'm pretty sure that's not the point), it's definitely the case that the film *is* careful about its seemingly random elements - since nearly every one of them comes back, often rather transformed. Even the blue key (okay, saying this is a minor spoiler) makes two appearance: once in its rather Star-Trek-y form, the second time as a mundane, if blue, house key. - --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 ::glibby glop gloopy nibby nobby noopy la la la la lo:: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 23:15:41 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mulholland Drive (spoilers) On 5 Nov 2001, Dan Schmidt wrote: > http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/10/23/mulholland_drive_analysis/index.html > makes a good case for the film being a lot more coherent than it first > appears. After reading it, I pretty much buy their theory. (The > first 2 1/2 pages are just recap, so skim if you get bored.) I pretty much buy it - except for the bit about . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the whole thing essentially being Diane's dream. That, to me, puts it into way too conventional a box. That perspective means we, the viewers, are privy to the film's "reality" at certain points (that is, a certain reality within the film is privileged over others) - and I sort of think that defeats what seems to be the whole point of the film. I do think might plausibly view some moments in the film as interior episodes - but they may well also be nested, reversed, etc. - alternately, we might regard them all as fragmentary movie or TV plots. (The setting of the film is almost portentously apt.) Speaking of a box, my first take on that mysterious blue box is fairly simple: blue box = black box + blue screen. That is, an all-purpose x-in/y-out device, crossed with the blank screen against which actors act with a reality to be named later. Nearly every event in the movie is doubled across the divide of the blue box's being opened, usually in a sort of reverse polarity. (Most stunningly, "Rita"'s descent down the hill after the car wreck near the beginning is almost perfectly matched by the *ascent* to the party near the end. Or maybe I got the directions backward - - so sue me.) Oh, also: the Salon article make sthe following point (along the lines of Aaron's post): "The scene [with the bungling hitman] is also another movie nod, this time to the absurdist modern black noir; here it allows Lynch, at his bleakest, to film a senseless carnage that out-Tarantinos Tarantino. It's also part of the confusing background noise Lynch likes to put into his movies. It is a deeply felt contention of his that not everything makes sense. Less charitably, you can say it's a loose end from the TV series that never got made." Certainly, much of the movie does seem like loose ends - as do many moments in FWWM (another victim of studio meddling: it was supposed to be rather longer). But I do think the notion that "not everything makes sense" is a more profound way of making movies than it would at first seem. We are so used to assuming that a well-constructed movie leaves no ends loose and untied: but why shouldn't it? I think some theorists of fiction note that one way to construct a convincing reality is a superfluity of detail: in the real world, we notice, take in, and sometimes weirdly linger and circle around things of little or no significance, with no particular connection to anything else. Why shouldn't movies work along similar lines? (And who says such things might not be followed up later, in other films?) Enough for now... - --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 ::Oxygen isn't a text:: __David Robbins__ ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #293 *******************************