From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #324 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 Thursday, November 29 2001 Volume 01 : Number 324 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Re: List-fans ["W. David Barnes" ] Re: [loud-fans] Movies from books: why bother? ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] Movies from books: why bother? ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] Couldn't resist [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com] Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... [Dan Schmidt ] Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... [Chris Prew ] [loud-fans] tune-seeking missiles [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... [jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] Re: List-fans on 11/28/01 10:18 PM, Chris Murtland at chris@studiomoxie.com wrote: > Since making lists seems to be a common interest among loud-fangs, I am > interested in the mechanics of list maintenance. What do you use? Paper, > software...? > > Try: > * NetManage Ecco - out of print, but it can still be found. Don't be > fooled by the Calendar and Phonebook - this thing is much more than your > typical scheduler/contact manager - it's a magical piece of software > made for making lists. > * Zoot - www.zootsoftware.com - You may start it up and have no idea > what's going on (I've been using it for a year, and I still feel that > way a lot) but it is cool; eventually it might scare you. The good thing > about this one is its still being actively developed. I have to be a real list-driven person and have tried lots of electronic formats and always comes back to paper. Mostly small spiral notebooks that I carry with me that I write down everything from appointments and phone numbers to book and movie recommendations. Lately however, I've been using and liking a new software application called Sticky Brain (for Mac-don't know about pc). It's hot key driven and very handy when surfing or reading e-mail and enables you to capture URLs as well as notes. Oh, and the interface is easy to customize...Easy and cool. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:45:07 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Movies from books: why bother? Jon mentions: >Here are a few that I like a lot: > >Slaughterhouse 5 Interesting to see this here, because I thought this was one of the worst book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen, completely stripping the book of its wit and insight. I don't mention this to quibble with Jon, just to show that it has a widely split audience. Some people say the same about CATCH 22, which was equally divergent from its source material, but that's one I thought stood on its own, so what do I know? >World According to Garp In a literary journal I read about ten years ago, a college professor wrote about ten pages of why this was the best book-to-film adaptation he'd ever seen. The article noted not just what was removed from the book, but the specific small additions that put the film into a slightly different framework and context, a specifically visual one. I wish I could find the article and re-read it. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:53:25 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Couldn't resist >And what I don't get (I know I am repeating myself), is why people in >bands still WANT stardom. Even if it's about money, it seems that you >can see greater profits by: It's not about money. Only the very, very few get that. You said it yourself. It's about stardom, pure and simple. It's not as if most rock stars or would-be stars are of the intellectual level of our Scott or most of the people on this list, and even most of those who are have a craving for celebrity that makes them comfortable bastardizing their musical sound, selling their soul to the promotions department, etc... >And if it's not about money, and you want to express yourself >artistically, then it seems to make sense to make money doing something >else, and then your art is just as pure as can be. Well, no. Most artists don't feel fulfilled unless their work is at least theoretically available to a large audience, and I don't blame them for that one bit. If you think your message is worthwhile, wouldn't you want it to get out to the masses? I love way more than my share of obscure music and despise the commerciality of tons of popular music, but nonetheless I think that artists who *willfully* shoot for cult popularity (as opposed to those who end up relegated to it) are missing the point. Wouldn't it be a better feat to open the mass public's mind up to quality than simply to have that quality affect only a disctinct few who were already inclined in that direction? I should point out that the concept of recording for a major label isn't the problem. I, personally, think that having a huge production and recording budget is a good thing and can make for better recrods. The problem is that the large recording budget usually comes with a label-imposed producer who invariably uses that budget to commercialize the sound of the recording, not to increase the qualty of it. So the very thing that can be an asset becomes the problem itself. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:56:00 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Movies from books: why bother? Knowing that I'm creeping towards Breen-dom here, I must mention >CHILLY SCENES OF WINTER After its initial release, this film was reworked and the ending changed to closer match that of the source novel, a brave and, I think, very successful move. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:17:15 -0600 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] REM, Potter JRT: > Reliable sources say that Warners is tired of financing REM as a losing > venture, and current negotiations suggest that the band will be returning a > large amount of money to the label. Which, of course, isn't to suggest that > any of them are in danger of losing their status as millionaires. > Although both Reveal and Up did pretty poorly in the US, Reveal did quite well internationally, and was the #1 album in worldwide sales for a couple weeks. Which probably still leaves Warners deep in the red... That is, if I've got my facts straight, and they usually aren't. Book to Film: Saw Harry Potter with my wife -- she's read all the books, I haven't. My review: It didn't suck. That9s about as positive as I can get. Odd thing is though, now I keep having these urges to cast spells on my friends and worship Satan. Oh wait, that's from watching Buffy. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:21:58 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Couldn't resist There's a recent interview with Peter Buck at murmurs.com (http://www.murmurs.com/news/feature/peter/), where he mentions that Aimee Mann sold nearly as many albums this year by herself as R.E.M. did with all the promotional might of Warner Bros. behind them. It's quite a revealing interview (sorry) demonstrating how completely worthless major labels are these days, even for big name bands like R.E.M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hate to point out the obvious, but what this interview revealed to me is that Peter Buck doesn't seem to understand how completely worthless the last R.E.M. album was. One thing that hasn't been mentioned regarding Aimee Mann (whose recent album is, I think, just fine, and I'm hardly a fan of her's) and Elliot Smith is that their respective careers took off after their songs were featured in movies. It seems pretty likely, at least to me, that without Magnolia and Good Will Hunting, Aimee would still be whining on a website somewhere and Elliot would be opening for Mecca Normal. This makes Scott's decision to single them out as artists who have succeeded where he's failed all the more puzzling. - --dana np: Regular Einstein "7 Deadly Songs" ________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:08:16 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... THis may be an annoying breach of nettiquette, but rather than make some horrific cut&paste nightmare, here are some thoughts provoked by Chris, Rog, JeFF, et al... * I thought Aimee Mann was the postergirl for having been screwed, long, hard and repeatedly by the record industry? (now there's an idea for a video! -- just kidding) * What HAS Costello done for me lately? Reissue repackage extra track with a photograph and a tacky badge? Last solidly good record, anyone? * I think Scott's level of obscurity/perceived lack of return really IS just poor luck of the draw at some level. I remember when the Eels' "Novocaine for the Soul" was getting airplay; it had weird and abrasive sonic/structural qualities that were (I thought) substantially LESS 'accessible' than a lot of Loud Family stuff. * Can't imagine Scott ever would have had R.E.M.-level name recognition; there is too much in his work that is deliberately exclusive of a real mass audience. But I could so easily see his indie-cult star being an order of magnitude higher, comparable to, say, Sonic Youth. * I think a lot of it is timing, and a lot of it is that LF didn't have the luxury to tour the way GT did, but while I understand why Scott doesn't want to badmouth people who did what they could to help his career, in Alias, he picked a bad horse to back him. Their promotional efforts over the last couple years were virtually non-existent, and killed a lot of records I thought deserved better, like fine releases from Paul K and knapsack, in addition to Scott. * I still think the last two LF records would have benefited - and been easier to promote - with the involvement of an outside producer. I'd love to hear Kevin Salem work with Scott, for example. * I really admire the nobility of Chris' 'if seven people like it that's enough,' but homey can't play that. I just spent over a year of my life and ten grand making a record, and I would have two big problems with seven people liking it: first, that would say to me that maybe it wasn't as valid, or as worth doing as I thought it was, if it could reach so few people -- it would call my artistic judgment (and that of our outside producer!) into question. Second, if I can just sell a few of the damned things, I'll be able to start making the next one, which is going to be *SO* much better, that much sooner. (Could I make the next record in my living room for pennies? No, I really couldn't. I don't think Scott could either; while most of the last couple records WERE done in his living room, he still did drum tracking in a studio. I can't afford Neve mic pres and API consoles; since I can hear the difference, I need to rent access to them.) * And Rog is *so* right. His Reign of Frogs record isn't perfect, but it's better in most important ways than a lot of goth/industrial records, even by bands that don't tour, that sell better and get played in clubs. That record HAS a market share -- it's not huge, but it's probably at least 10-20 times as many copies as are still sitting in Rog's house. Do Rog or his erstwhile bandmates have the resources to connect with that market share? Hardly. Could a label have reach that audience? I think the right label, IF IT CHOSE TO BACK THE RELEASE, which is the tricky part, certainly could have. There are other options -- I'm toying with the idea of hiring an independent promotions firm to help push our record (more money). However I know a few folks who've done that; it seems very hit or miss. Good money after bad? Dunno. * Whenver I start talking about this, money creeps in, and I have the feeling that I sound like a greedy bastard. I'm not in this to make money - -- that's a joke. But it took a year to make a record in part because I could only do it when I could afford to -- if we were on a small label, we might have finished that record in three or four months, and we'd be finishing the better one now. It's not about making money; it's about defraying the expenses of a spectacularly expensive hobby. * What is the break-even point in the emotional/spiritual, not the financial investment? For me I'd have to say it'd be a few hundred -- more than two, or the size of this mailing list, I'm afraid -- enough to really pack one of my favorite concert halls, if they were all gathered -- and a couple positive critical notices somewhere. Which is say, for me, at my age, with no mortgage and no kids, the level of success that doesn't work for Scott is still something I aspire to. Which is also to say in seven or eight years I may make the same decision, only with somewhat less hubbub. okay, g'night, - -- d. - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:23:12 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... doug sez: * And Rog is *so* right. His Reign of Frogs record isn't perfect, but it's better in most important ways than a lot of goth/industrial records, even by bands that don't tour, that sell better and get played in clubs. <><><><><><><><><><><><> Yes, but you're not accounting for the identity aspect here. "Goth" is a social construct used by many of its adherents (the majority, I'd argue) as a cornerstone of identity. Most folks into this type of thing (not just goth people, any adherent of a musically oriented subculture whose aspects include the adoption of specific identity crutches by fans who conceive of themselves as part of a scene or movement, not merely as fans, be this rockabilly/neoswing/vintage-clothing-oriented-retro-country, gangsta rap, or ill-fitting-cardigan-and-hornrims-indiepop) are at least as concerned with their musical selections' ability to bolster self perception as with clarity of recording, or subtleties of arrangement or songcraft. Which is not to belittle such works (not in itself an invalid activity, but another topic), rather, to suggest that the emotional impact received among members of their respective target audiences derives from factors other than the musical aspects for which this discussion has been reserving assessment of quality. hokey, as threatened, - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:47:05 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... >* I thought Aimee Mann was the postergirl for having been screwed, long, >hard and repeatedly by the record industry? (now there's an idea for a >video! -- just kidding) Since we seem determined to stay with this topic, I'll venture that said postergirl image spurts about so much veracity as Vanilla Ice's assertion of authorship for the "Ice Ice Baby" riff. Not that Ms. Mann hasn't suffered some, okay, but could we take a look at the tape, please, especially in comparison to our nominal list subject? Scott Miller was never signed to anything remotely resembling a major label. Scott Miller never had anything even remotely resembling a Top 40 hit. Scott Miller was probably never even played on commercial radio. If he was, it certainly wasn't on a regular basis. Scott Miller certainly doesn't have two, maybe three, songs still playing on commercial radio, and reeling in royalties, fifteen-odd years after their release. Hell, Scott Miller doesn't have anything still in print from fifteen-odd years ago. Scott Miller did not marry, either time, into a powerful, influential, and money-laden Hollywood family. And of course, Scott Miller has never been tapped by an up-and-coming Hollywood director to provide a soundtrack--nay, the backbone--for that director's hot new project. Should I feel like Vincent Bugliosi now or Vincent Bugliosi then? Andy "Sometimes I think nothing is simple but the feeling of pain." - --Lester Bangs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:59:11 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Andrew Hamlin wrote: > >* I thought Aimee Mann was the postergirl for having been screwed, long, > >hard and repeatedly by the record industry? (now there's an idea for a > >video! -- just kidding) > > Since we seem determined to stay with this topic, I'll venture that said > postergirl image spurts about so much veracity as Vanilla Ice's assertion of > authorship for the "Ice Ice Baby" riff. Not that Ms. Mann hasn't suffered > some, okay, but could we take a look at the tape, please, especially in > comparison to our nominal list subject? All true, all true...but are we saying that because Mann has also had quite a bit of luck in the industry, her screwing thereby becomes justified? One could reverse Andy's list...Scott Miller has never had a record held hostage; Scott Miller's labels, whatever their inadequacies, have treated him as well as any artist with more cachet than sales might expect, etc.etc. Okay - re the "accessible music that reaches people" or whatever: some of us have actually ventured into recording studios, or bought reasonably high-quality home recording gear, or wandered onto a stage in front of distracted drunks and made noise - me, I've done none of that. I have, however, once upon a very long ago time forced magnetic tape to do my will and reproduce noises I made with the throat, a set of strings attached to a box of wood, and once a, uh, pitchpipe in lieu of harmonica (don't ask). This was accomplished late at night in a dorm or apartment, with two low-end home tape decks bounced back and forth w/earlier tracks played through speakers while new stuff was simply played atop - i.e., the lowest-level amateur recording you could imagine. I did this solely for my own amusement - and it may surprise some of you that my egomania was not such that I continued this, or looked into using real equipment, once it became apparent that no one else was likely to hear this stuff and shower me with attention (positive, I hoped - but negative would do). That is, even at that level, the lack of feedback made me less likely to bother. Even though it was fun hearing how noises I heard in my head actually sounded in my ears, after a while I gave up. So I can surely relate to the frustration real musicians feel when they actually do make strong efforts to put their music out into the world - and the world acts as if someone in the next room sneezed, maybe. (Speaking of which: who dreamed up the idea for those cold medicine ads where the cold sufferer sneezes and appears to be enveloped in a crusty, gel-like shell of what I can only imagine to be snot? Nearly as bad as the Best Buy ad where the guy's about to crap in the display toilets...) Gotta go oversee students learning to write... - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, not currently spurting veracity 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: Chris Murtland's MP3s... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:27:42 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Andrew Hamlin wrote: > Since we seem determined to stay with this topic, I'll venture that > said postergirl image spurts about so much veracity as Vanilla Ice's > assertion of authorship for the "Ice Ice Baby" riff. But by your reasoning, I've been screwed even worse by the record industry. I've never even had a contract with an indie label, let alone a major! Has Scott had promises made and broken by industry people? Because it seems to me like that's what at issue in dismissing Aimee Mann as a poor little rich kid -- she's come out okay, but she still thinks people have wronged her. It might be healthy at that point to say "all's well that ends well"; I hope everyone would have done so if there wasn't the suspicion that Mann is only one of many getting screwed in the same ways, possibly the best-placed to talk about it. When I've read interviews with her she sounds sorry for herself, more so than I can feel sorry for her. But surely, the industry practices she's complaining about stem from the same place as the industry's neglect of people like Scott. If you think she shouldn't be annoyed at all about venal people fucking with her, it seems that for consistency's sake you'd also have to be annoyed with everybody who's ever signed a major-label contract without saying "hey, I don't deserve this; give it to someone better". a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:33:42 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... Okay - re the "accessible music that reaches people" or whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While not a correction per se, as Jeff's "whatever" buys him some slack, let's not lose sight of the fact that what Scott wants to do is to make accessible music that gets his feelings across. I say we figure out some way to stop him. - --dana np: a promo of the new Q-Tip album, or should I say Kamaal album "The Abstract" which is my pick for the major crossover smash of 2002, uniting black and white, pop and rap, young and old, in a great big hug of love and understanding (although I also thought that the Swirlies were headed for the big time at one point...) ________________________________________________________________ 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: 29 Nov 2001 15:43:38 -0500 From: Dan Schmidt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... dmw writes: | * I think Scott's level of obscurity/perceived lack of return really IS | just poor luck of the draw at some level. I remember when the Eels' | "Novocaine for the Soul" was getting airplay; it had weird and abrasive | sonic/structural qualities that were (I thought) substantially LESS | 'accessible' than a lot of Loud Family stuff. Mmm, okay, but it had catchy repetitive vocals and three chords, and hooked you on the first listen. Most of Scott's songs have enough left turns melodically and harmonically that they take a while to grow on one. | * I really admire the nobility of Chris' 'if seven people like it that's | enough,' but homey can't play that. I just spent over a year of my life | and ten grand making a record, and I would have two big problems with | seven people liking it: first, that would say to me that maybe it wasn't | as valid, or as worth doing as I thought it was, if it could reach so few | people -- it would call my artistic judgment (and that of our outside | producer!) into question. Second, if I can just sell a few of the damned | things, I'll be able to start making the next one, which is going to be | *SO* much better, that much sooner. (Could I make the next record in my | living room for pennies? No, I really couldn't. I don't think Scott | could either; while most of the last couple records WERE done in his | living room, he still did drum tracking in a studio. I can't afford Neve | mic pres and API consoles; since I can hear the difference, I need to | rent access to them.) My band spent well over a year in calendar time getting our record done, and we've sold like 400 copies so far. That amount of recognition is fine by me. Well, it would be nice to have more, but given that we've put essentially zero effort into publicizing the CD or ourselves, I can't really expect any more. I, like some other here, am a little surprised how much Scott values reaching a wide audience. Though I suspect that if I had that within my grasp, I'd be frustrated not to be able to get it either. We're probably about to start recording another, but it does feel a little weird to start a second album when there are so many boxes of the first still lying around... - -- http://www.dfan.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:56:00 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... >When I've read interviews with her she sounds sorry for herself, more so >than I can feel sorry for her. But surely, the industry practices she's >complaining about stem from the same place as the industry's neglect of >people like Scott. If you think she shouldn't be annoyed at all about >venal people fucking with her, it seems that for consistency's sake you'd >also have to be annoyed with everybody who's ever signed a major-label >contract without saying "hey, I don't deserve this; give it to someone >better". I don't quite get that last, but yes, I admit, my rant goes much more to Ms. Mann's incessant (even post-comeback?) whining than to the invalidity of her specific claims and complaints. In other words, I must confess it's far more emotional than logical. I do wonder, though, whether Ms. Mann's self-pity tends to occlude (for herself and more importantly for the rest of the world) that others find themselves stuck in that same leaky lifeboat. Patty Griffin anyone? Andy A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and the flower that we call coincidence has other names, the changeing [sic] of which does nothing to detract from its efficacy. - --from SPECTRE OF DARKNESS, by John E. Muller (aka R. Lionel Fanthorpe) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:57:19 -0700 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... At 03:27 PM 11/29/01 -0500, Aaron Mandel wrote: >Has Scott had promises made and broken by industry people? I don't know all the details, but there have been hints from various quarters that Scott Vanderbilt, who bought Rational Records from Scott around 1983 or 1984, signed Game Theory to Enigma (where he was fairly high in the corporate structure), and unless something has changed in the last couple of years still owns the Game Theory master tapes, did not always act with Game Theory's best interests at heart. Enigma in general did not have the best reputation during its existence; I've heard members of other bands signed to the label say some less-than-complimentary things about them as well. That's nothing compared to the horrors some artists have been subjected to over the years -- the things I've read about RCA's dealings with Elvis Presley throughout his career are just terrifying -- but it sounds like life at Enigma wasn't all beer and skittles. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:32:46 -0500 From: "Larry Tucker" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... |-----Original Message----- |From: Dan Schmidt [mailto:dfan@harmonixmusic.com] |Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 3:44 PM |To: loud-fans@smoe.org |Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... | | |dmw writes: | || * I think Scott's level of obscurity/perceived lack of |return really IS || just poor luck of the draw at some level. I remember when the Eels' || "Novocaine for the Soul" was getting airplay; it had weird |and abrasive || sonic/structural qualities that were (I thought) substantially LESS || 'accessible' than a lot of Loud Family stuff. | |Mmm, okay, but it had catchy repetitive vocals and three chords, and |hooked you on the first listen. Most of Scott's songs have enough |left turns melodically and harmonically that they take a while to grow |on one. This gets around to what I'm thinking. I'm sure Scott has the ability to make a commercial album, but then it wouldn't be "his" album. I'm not a musician so I likely don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems that Scott's dilemma is how much he has to sacrifice his craft for a larger audience and is it then really worth it. It's all these "left turns" and uniqueness that draws us to his music and makes us such rabid followers. Sure it's never going to be a viable career for him, but there are a lot of us out there that swoon at some of the things he can do musically AND lyrically and can't get enough. I just wish Scott was content with that situation, because I don't see ever it changing. I think Scott's only chance was in the 80's when there was a larger college audience that appreciated or even understood what he was doing. Maybe he just needs the good fortune of Ms. Mann to hook in to a major movie to boost his career. I don't think we see that happening. I would be very happy if he just kept at it, even if it were in a more limited smaller budget way. I'm here going on near a decade waiting for another Chris Stamey or Mitch Easter (well Shalini doesn't really count) album. - -Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:39:17 -0500 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... |* I really admire the nobility of Chris' 'if seven people like |it that's enough,' but homey can't play that. I just spent |over a year of my life and ten grand making a record, and I |would have two big problems with seven people liking it: |first, that would say to me that maybe it wasn't as valid, or |as worth doing as I thought it was, if it could reach so few |people -- it would call my artistic judgment (and that of our outside |producer!) into question. Second, if I can just sell a few of |the damned things, I'll be able to start making the next one, |which is going to be |*SO* much better, that much sooner. (Could I make the next |record in my living room for pennies? No, I really couldn't. |I don't think Scott could either; while most of the last |couple records WERE done in his living room, he still did drum |tracking in a studio. I can't afford Neve |mic pres and API consoles; since I can hear the difference, I |need to rent access to them.) Well, I realize now that the number seven correlates to the current amount of energy I put into making music (and I'm starting to understand Scott's point of view). That number, for me, would increase if I were pursuing it more actively (which I will be, if I ever find a drummer again). It might increase to 50, or 100. And that number is obviously related to my personality and how much internal benefit I get just from getting the stuff down and listening to it myself. For me, I get a great deal of benefit from just listening to my own stuff (on occasion; I can't take very much of it), because I'm amazed I could pull it off at all in the first place. I don't have any innate musical ability, so any minor accomplishment is pretty surprising. And if I spent a year and $10k on a record, I would absolutely be pushing the thing to as many people I could. (Where can I get it, by the way?) I understand the costs of making a record that sounds good and I think producers and engineers (and publicists and designers and printers, etc.) should also be compensated. I have never been completely satisfied with recording I've done in the bedroom (the music, anyway!), despite the fact that I keep buying new toys to get to that point. Going to a decent studio makes things sound better and also costs a lot of money. I guess I keep hoping for the day when I can spend an entire week on the one guitar accent that happens once at the end of the song that you can only hear if you have the headphones on and the right channel muted. In other words, if I could have the tools to do what well-funded artists do in the studio, I would be happy; but it's mainly just to satisfy my need for tinkering. I won't go knocking doors to find out how many tickets to me I can sell; I already have to do enough of that running a small company. Finally, it relates to the expectations of the individual. I realized pretty early in my musical attempts that I was not destined to be a great rock artist, and that the best I could hope for was localized indie success. Later, I realized I didn't even want to pursue that type of success. But I keep at it because it's fun to make stuff. Since I am not trying to communicate to anyone, I have low expectations about people getting anything out of listening to it. I'd call myself an artist if I could make these feelings clear, but there's a million things to think about when you're cutting off your ear. For me, it's like an emotion dump - there, I expressed something to the air, or the tape (or hard drive, these days). I like writing words (typing, these days) for expressing myself (I make no claims about the success of those efforts, either); but I know there are plenty of people who can express themselves through music (that's why I listen to Scott in the first place). I am only "noble" because I have no optimism about anyone caring about my musical output or even that the few who do hear it are going to receive anything very valuable - and I don't feel this in a bitter way, but just as a result of understanding of my own strengths and weaknesses and knowing that it's not my strength. I can also see how critical acclaim (which I believe Scott received a lot of, especially in the Game Theory days) could modify my own expectations (not saying his were modified because I have no idea, just that expectations can be modified by circumstances). So, basically I am just trying to say that I don't discount the efforts of those who are trying to make good-sounding records or reach larger audiences. There is also just a mostly private side to music where it's fun to write songs and play with other musicians, and for many people, that's still its own reward (and the only reward offered). I'm also not suggesting that anyone who attempts to make good-sounding records or reach larger audiences doesn't also reap the private rewards or in some way cheapens those rewards - only that for some those rewards are as far as it goes. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:38:17 -0700 (MST) From: Dennis Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Maerz eats oats (ns) On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, jenny grover wrote: > Dana L Paoli wrote: > > > > She's currently being > > paid $250 for three days of marijuana-induced video game playing > > Okay, where do I sign up? There is also the medical study in Tucson where people with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder are taking magic mushrooms to see if that helps their OCD. I think it took about ten years to get this study approved by the DEA. - -- - --- Dennis Sacks dennis@illusions.com "Things are falling down on me, heavy things I could not see" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:46:56 -0600 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... > Maybe he just needs the good fortune of Ms. Mann to hook in to a major > movie to boost his career. Well, what are we waiting for? C'mon, I know there are some closet (and not so-closet) film maker types out there. Oh....a _major_ film. Chris I'd make a movie, if I could just get a grip ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:59:19 +0000 From: "O Geier" Subject: [loud-fans] William Barnes, what is your address!!! I can't find it in my old messages!!!! Help!!!! Support anti-Spam legislation. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:05:11 -0500 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... Oh yeah, and my post illustrates that what I think is completely irrelevant to the original Scott post and I shouldn't have said anything at all! Scott has talent and can communicate through music. Selfishly, I only wish that he would lower expectations so that I could hear more of it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:54:49 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Andrew Hamlin wrote: > >* I thought Aimee Mann was the postergirl for having been screwed, long, > >hard and repeatedly by the record industry? (now there's an idea for a > >video! -- just kidding) > > > Since we seem determined to stay with this topic, I'll venture that said > postergirl image spurts about so much veracity as Vanilla Ice's assertion of > authorship for the "Ice Ice Baby" riff. Not that Ms. Mann hasn't suffered > some, okay, but could we take a look at the tape, please, especially in > comparison to our nominal list subject? Scott Miller was never signed to > anything remotely resembling a major label. Scott Miller never had anything Well. Probably most people, if not all, who have major label contracts get screwed by them. Even for the manufactured mega platinum pop divas, I bet there's an awful lot of opportunity to siphon off money before it gets to the comparitively small team of people that actually made the music. However, right now, I think that the postergirl status is a very. very canny marketing postion for Ms. Mann. I'm glad Dan Schmidt is going to make another record. Thanks very much to the folks who expressed an interest in helping defray my whiney expenses (and even more so to the folks whose advance orders helped make it possible) -- it's going to be pressed *real soon* and I'll make everyone tiresomely aware when it's actually available. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:37:13 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] tune-seeking missiles Does anyone here have Cobra Verde's "Night Life" and, if so, would you be willing to send me a copy in some form? I can't find it anywhere. I've had it on order with Barnes and Noble (the only place I've seen it listed) since something like last February. I somehow think they aren't going to get it back in stock. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:56:16 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hokay, as threatened... Chris Murtland wrote: > > I have never been completely satisfied > with recording I've done in the bedroom (the music, anyway!), despite > the fact that I keep buying new toys to get to that point. Just what kind of toys are you talking about here, Chris? Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:53:59 -0500 From: Overall_Julianne@isus.emc.com Subject: [loud-fans] pity this! > When I've read interviews with her she sounds sorry for > herself, more so > than I can feel sorry for her. I'm reminded of the old adage, "If you want a job done right [pity, in this case] you had better do it yourself." I don't so much feel sorry for her as I acknowledge her status as underdog (aside, who else here remembers the cartoon Underdog?). I'm inclined to wish her continued success in spite of a "system" that didn't do her any favors. I don't read many of her interviews so perhaps I've missed out on all of the self-pitying references. I'm not too fond of the trait. -julianne, ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #324 *******************************