From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #342 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Monday, December 17 2001 Volume 01 : Number 342 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] freaky links [Dan McCarthy ] [loud-fans] Brian vs. Lou [Vivebonpop@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] freaky links [Vivebonpop@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] freaky links [Vivebonpop@aol.com] [loud-fans] uh... [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] freaky links [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] freaky links [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] freaky links [Dan McCarthy ] RE: [loud-fans] freaky links ["Chris Murtland" ] RE: [loud-fans] freaky links ["Chris Murtland" ] RE: [loud-fans] freaky links ["Chris Murtland" ] [loud-fans] Chat? ["Andrew Hamlin" ] [loud-fans] stupid question, again [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] RE: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM [Roger Winston ] [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone [AWeiss4338@aol.com] [loud-fans] this explains much... [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM [Stewart Mason ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:19:35 -0500 From: Dan McCarthy Subject: Re: [loud-fans] freaky links > > but who is Ludacris? Does he hang out with Eminem? > >Ludacris is a rapper in the 'Dirty South' mode, sort of like Outkast. >i learned this in about sixty seconds by searching the web. why didn't >you? Far be it from me to defend Mark (he's his 'whole own thing', dont'cha know), but this post did seem a bit needlessly vitriolic. I would hate to think that we're not allowed to post to this list until we've "looked elsewhere", like some sort of Linux bug-report message-board or something. It's not as if Our Scott is particularly active nowadays, so we've got to talk about SOMETHING 'round these parts. So please! folks, keep askin' them stupid questions. We'll... keep answ'rin' them. One post... at a time. (the other) Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:28:27 EST From: Vivebonpop@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Brian vs. Lou There probably isn't any disagreement that "Pet Sounds" and "The Velvet Underground and Nico" are two pivotal classic albums that helped define the rock genre. I was thinking that, excluding the Beatles of course, '72 glam and '77 punk, these records are arguably the most important releases of rock's first couple of decades. Which album do you think is more important, and why, (or do you find them equally important?) and if you had to choose between the two, only allowed to keep one, which would it be? Sure, this is like choosing between a convertible '55 Bel Air and a convertible '64&1/2 Mustang...both are quite tasty...so it would be a hard decision. However, there isn't any wrong answer, so it's not like an Indiana Jones movie, where if choose the wrong one you become toast ("He chose...poorly."). But the two are so different as far as one being sunshiny and mellow and the other being rather dark and sinister, (I doubt Lou prayed to God during the sessions for a love vibe like Brian) that I'm interested in which album different listers would choose. In other words, are you a winter or a summer? Black leather boots or sandals? Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:30:08 EST From: Vivebonpop@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] freaky links In a message dated 12/16/01 1:17:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, endxmit@yahoo.com writes: > but this post did seem a bit needlessly vitriolic. Yes, it was. I'm sorry. I was in a bad mood, and sorry to take it out on you and everyone. M ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:12:19 EST From: Vivebonpop@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] freaky links In a message dated 12/14/01 3:25:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, aaron@eecs.harvard.edu writes: > and yet i only really see that attitude in aging folks who're > more interested in dissing the kids than understanding them. > > but i'm not talking about you here, Mark. you're your whole own thing. > > a > As for me, let me restate, ME ('cause if you didn't know, our solar system revolves around ME, a big ball of hot gas), I think at 34 I'm at that time in life where you get tired of "keeping up," and you just sort of slowly become, well, "out of the loop." Part of me wants to still keep up and part of me wants to just forget about it and just concentrate on stuff from my era (I mean MY era.). I think this is fairly common. I remember reading once that Rolling Stone magazine's editors had to make a decision at one point sometime around 20 years ago whether they would still focus on the musicians they covered in the magazine's beginnings, or move on to the next generation, and they chose to focus on the latter, alienating their small core of loyal readers that were there from the magazine's inception. They had to to stay afloat I suppose. Loudfans are a rare exception to the rule. Many of us are still enthusiastic about new music in our thirties and forties as we were in our teens and twenties. Most people aren't this way. It's sad, but I've seen it in my older brother and sister. Once they got older, new music wasn't important anymore, and music just sort of became a toy from their youth that they put away in favor of buying antiques or restoring old sportscars. Now they listen to '70s or '80s stations and "Delilah" (Is she national? I think she's based here.) I think part of me (ME) is lashing out because, at my night job, the staff is divided up between teenagers and the rest of us, who are all in our thirties, and the teenagers have made fun of the CDs I've brought in to listen to (including Scott...immature peasants). Never mind that I (ME) is the one who provided the portable stereo for all to enjoy in the back of the store! And as for me (ME) being "my own thing," I must say I owe it all to being a left-handed, right brain dominant male with a need for seratonin (and a life, perhaps?) and being the last born. And let's not forget being from the South. That's a whole 'nother thing in itself. M ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:22:42 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] uh... Anyone interested in what a Flash collaboration between Terry Gilliam and David Lynch might look like might check out http://thewoodcutter.com/ It's not my fault. - --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 ::To be the center of the universe, don't orbit things:: __Scott Miller__ np: Elvis C. _My Aim Is True_ (Rhino disc 2) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:38:41 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] freaky links On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 Vivebonpop@aol.com wrote: > > but this post did seem a bit needlessly vitriolic. > > Yes, it was. I'm sorry. I was in a bad mood, and sorry to take it > out on you and everyone. i think Dan was talking to me. it's true it was sort of rude, and i probably shouldn't have bothered, but i do think there's a difference between saying "hey, list, what do you all think of Ludacris?" and asking in way that seems to be bragging about not knowing. if you feel like it's a sign of maturity not to know who Ludacris is, it's a little cold to turn around and ask us. i'm sorry to hear you have pinhead teenagers where you work. a ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:27:12 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] freaky links Vivebonpop@aol.com wrote: > > I remember reading once that > Rolling Stone magazine's editors had to make a decision at one point sometime > around 20 years ago whether they would still focus on the musicians they > covered in the magazine's beginnings, or move on to the next generation, and > they chose to focus on the latter, alienating their small core of loyal > readers that were there from the magazine's inception. I wasn't quite there from their inception, but they alienated me when they started devoting more and more print to movies and politics and less to music. > Many of us are > still enthusiastic about new music in our thirties and forties as we were in > our teens and twenties. I think people who have a true passion for music (rather than it being a fashion accessory of youth or just a soundtrack to growing up) tend to keep current. We're the tune junkies for whom too much is never enough. We have to keep a fresh supply coming in, and also I think it requires some sort of curiosity as to where music is going in an historical context, how and why it evolves into what it is and does. It means you have to wait out those times when you aren't finding much new that you like and having faith that inevitably something will evolve that you do like. Sometimes it means having to search and research in ways that many people aren't willing to invest the time and energy. > And as for me (ME) being "my own thing," I must say I owe it all to being a > left-handed, right brain dominant male with a need for seratonin (and a life, > perhaps?) and being the last born. And let's not forget being from the > South. That's a whole 'nother thing in itself. And you forgot that you're a "stupid Christian"! Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:12:49 -0500 From: Dan McCarthy Subject: Re: [loud-fans] freaky links but this post did seem a bit needlessly vitriolic. Yes, it was. I'm sorry. I was in a bad mood, and sorry to take it out on you and everyone. M Apologies for adding to the noise again, as opposed to the signal... but I was actually referring to Aaron's post, not yours, Mark. Maybe you're just not used to people speaking in your defense- heh. T'other Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:25:31 -0500 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] freaky links There is no reason music can't continue to serve as a fashion accessory or soundtrack to growing old well into middle age. As far as taking the time to search hard for worthwhile new music, what if you have already tried that approach only to discover that your searches are futile 97% of the time? Is trying still its own reward? I also agree that something will happen eventually, but perhaps not in my lifetime. And I mean something that would blow me away - most new stuff I hear these days, even if it's good, is only a subtle variation (if not an outright copy) of something I already like, so the cost of finding it is just too high in relation to the benefit. In the meantime, I'll be content to mine the nuances of what I already own and like. And I do uncover new things here and there, without much effort, by serendipity. It just doesn't seem to be worth it right now (for me) to remain "plugged in" in an active way. I can't see any benefit to searching for "Ludacris" on the web, even if it's just to be able to hold a pop culture conversation. I am doing just fine without Ludacris occupying any synapses, and I'll keep on truckin' just so. I just woke up and am only on my first cup of coffee, so I'm still a little grumpy. By the end of the day I'll probably be telling everyone that it's their responsibility to keep abreast of all the exciting developments in the wonderful world of pop music. >I think people who have a true passion for music (rather than it being a fashion accessory of youth or just a soundtrack to growing up) tend to keep current. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:26:05 -0500 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] freaky links Maybe the signal is the noise - -----Original Message----- Apologies for adding to the noise again, as opposed to the signal... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:45:31 -0500 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] freaky links Okay, I'm a hypocrite, or at least a petty liar. I searched for "Ludacris" on the web. [Second cup of coffee] I got far enough to go to www.ludacris.net, where I am met with the phrase "word of mouf." I'm not sure what that is. Then I find out I can "get down on some Fish-N-Grits, Monkey Music and more." I like grits but I've never had them with fish. Do I have enough information now to carry on an intelligent conversation about the illuming brilliance of this new prophet-minstrel? About all I can offer is that his moniker is very well chosen. - -----Original Message----- I can't see any benefit to searching for "Ludacris" on the web, even if it's just to be able to hold a pop culture conversation. I am doing just fine without Ludacris occupying any synapses, and I'll keep on truckin' just so. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:16:53 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: [loud-fans] Chat? Assuming The Woodcutter doesn't drive me sane, I'll be hanging out at irc.DAL.net #loudfans for the next hour, or two, maybe three. Hope to see some folk. Still can't find the talking pie, Andy "The 'cross training' one is clever, but the rest are pretty stupid." - --Ely Zero III on http://www.i-witness.com/view.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 16:59:32 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] stupid question, again On my computer, I'm using Windows Media Player to play CDs. Is there any way to futz with the settings so that it does *not* introduce an instant of silence between tracks? This "feature" is particularly annoying when tracks segue, of course... (I do have other options to play CDs on th computer, so if it's impossible, then it's impossible.) Offlist if you think no one else gives a damn... - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::[clever or pithy quote]:: __[source of quote]__ np: Seaworthy _The Ride_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:18:13 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Mitton Subject: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM REM has two songs in "Vanilla Sky." (Mediocre movie, disappointing for Crowe, who I generally quite like) One is just "Sweetness Follows" but the other track I don't know. It's called "All the Right Friends" and I couldn't find it listed on any of their albums on AMG. Does anyone know the story of this song? I quite liked as much of it as I heard in the movie. And an on-list reply to Jeff's stupid, stupid question would be appreciated. 27 consecutive days of rain...and counting! - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:36:41 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM > "Vanilla Sky." (Mediocre movie, disappointing for Crowe My one-word review would be "Pointless". I, too, was pretty disappointed in this, especially after liking _Almost Famous_ so much. And for a movie by a director with an apparent sensitivity for music, I thought this one had an alarming number of bad Hollywood-style obtrusive music overlays. I particularly disliked the one at the very beginning of the movie, when we're hearing an intriguing mixture of Radiohead and a woman's voice whispering, and then the character wakes up, hits the alarm-off button, and only the whispering part stops. glenn PS: Is anybody keeping track of all the movies with shots of the WTC towers that came out after their destruction? I think _Zoolander_ and _Serendipity_ both removed them, but _Sidewalks of New York_ and _Vanilla Sky_ both have NYC rooftop scenes with the towers in the background... , who I generally quite like) One is just "Sweetness Follows" but the other track I don't know. It's called "All the Right Friends" and I couldn't find it listed on any of their albums on AMG. Does anyone know the story of this song? I quite liked as much of it as I heard in the movie. And an on-list reply to Jeff's stupid, stupid question would be appreciated. 27 consecutive days of rain...and counting! - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:36:54 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM Michael Mitton wrote: > > REM has two songs in "Vanilla Sky." (Mediocre movie, disappointing for > Crowe, who I generally quite like) One is just "Sweetness Follows" but > the other track I don't know. It's called "All the Right Friends" and I > couldn't find it listed on any of their albums on AMG. Does anyone know > the story of this song? I quite liked as much of it as I heard in the > movie. It's an old song that's been kicking around for years but was never properly recorded. There is a demo version of it that apparently came out on a re-release of Dead Letter Office as a bonus track. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 16:00:05 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM >My one-word review would be "Pointless". I, too, was pretty disappointed >in this, especially after liking _Almost Famous_ so much. I didn't think ALMOST FAMOUS was all that, and VANILLA SKY isn't on my hot list, but I do strongly recommend the original VANILLA SKY: Alejandro Amenabar's OPEN YOUR EYES (ABRE LOS OJOS), from 1997. I'm looking forward to seeing Amenabar's first English-language picture, THE OTHERS, starring, oddly enough, Tom Cruise's ex. Speaking of film, I finally got to see GEORGE WASHINGTON on tape last night. Liked it a lot; some resemblance to Terrence Malick's work, though certainly no imitation. Anyone else see that one? Opinions? The WTC was designed by a University of Washington grad--who knew? Andy "I don't know, that's pretty fuckin wack." - --Ely Zero III on http://thewoodcutter.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 16:42:02 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM Darn! glenn said everything I wanted to say... didn't hit the send button fast enough. Oh well, here's my (repetitive, unedited) comments anyway: At Sunday 12/16/2001 06:18 PM -0500, Michael Mitton wrote: >REM has two songs in "Vanilla Sky." (Mediocre movie, disappointing for >Crowe, who I generally quite like) I just saw VANILLA SKY also and wasn't that impressed either, though I like the soundtrack. It starts off with Radiohead's "Everything In Its Right Place". The movie was one of those Shaggy Dog type movies where by the time they get to the answer of what's really going on, you no longer care. (BTW, I finally saw MULHOLLAND DR a couple of weeks ago and liked it. Better than this movie, at least, which shares a similar sensibility.) You do kinda have to admire a filmmaker who does what Crowe does to Tom Cruise tho... It ain't no ALMOST FAMOUS, that's fer sure... Later. --Rog (who would be happy to lend out his "Reading Internet Posts For Dummies" book to anyone who needs it) - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 23:04:11 EST From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone Don't know what label this will be on, Sire would be my guess, or when it's coming out next year, but I heard a couple of new songs that Joey had recorded in Febuary of this year tonight on a radio program named Qzine, a gay/lesbian music and entertainment magazine for Philly. Pretty wild to hear it here, Joey wasn't gay. The songs were a cover of What A Wonderful World, and a new version of Merry Christmas (I Don't Want To Fight), and both sound great. He had it up until the end, and that's wonderful. I'm not trying to brag, but I thought people might find it of interest. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:47:20 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] this explains much... http://www.buffysdomain.com/us/Win2000HiddenSettings.gif (not actually Buffy-related) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:20:20 -0800 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM "All The Right Friends" is a really old R.E.M. song -- it's on a couple of 1981/82 era bootlegs. I think the version on "Vanilla Sky" is a recent re-recording. I saw the soundtrack in the store the other day, and would've picked it up except I was scared off by Tom Cruise's ugly mug on the cover. It took me a long time to pick up the "Jerry Maguire" soundtrack for the same reason. I said before that Cameron Crowe is the king of movie soundtracks, so even when his movies aren't that worthwhile (like "Singles" or "Jerry Maguire" or "Vanilla Sky", evidently), the soundtracks nearly always are. The VS soundtrack reads like something I'd be thrilled to receive in a loud-fans swap. It must be better than the movie, in any case.. 1. All The Right Friends (R.E.M.) 2. Everything In Its Right Place (Radiohead) 3. Vanilla Sky (Paul McCartney) 4. Solsbury Hill (Peter Gabriel) 5. I Fall Apart (Julianna Gianni) 6. Porpoise Song (The Monkees) 7. Mondo '77 (Looper) 8. Have You Forgotten (Red House Painters) 9. Directions (Josh Rouse) 10. Afrika Shox (Leftfield) 11. Svefn-g-englar (Sigur Ros) 12. Last Goodbye (Jeff Buckley) 13. Can We Still Be Friends (Todd Rundgren) 14. Fourth Time Around (Bob Dylan) 15. Elevator Beat (Nancy Wilson) 16. Sweetness Follows (R.E.M). 17. Where Do I Begin (The Chemical Brothers) Another recent soundtrack that looks interesting, is "The Royal Tenenbaums", by the same guys who did "Rushmore". I don't know a thing about the film, but with a soundtrack like this, it can't be too bad! 1. These Days (Nico) 2. Fairest Of The Seasons (Nico) 3. Needle In The Hay (Elliott Smith) 4. Hey Jude (Elliott Smith) 5. Wig Wam (Bob Dylan) 6. Me & Julio Down By The Schoolyard (Paul Simon) 7. Judy Is A Punk (The Ramones) 8. Lullaby (Emmitt Rhodes) 9. Stephanie Says (Velvet Underground) 10. Fly (Nick Drake) 11. Police & Thieves (The Clash) keeping up my quota of movie-related posts, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 02:39:01 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone In a message dated 12/16/01 8:05:29 PM, AWeiss4338@aol.com writes of the upcoming Joey Ramone solo album: << Don't know what label this will be on, Sire would be my guess, or when it's coming out next year, but I heard a couple of new songs that Joey had recorded in Febuary of this year tonight...>> Not Sire, or even Rhino. It's on the Sanctuary label, which is kind of interesting. Anyway, I just picked up an extra copy of The Killjoys "Gimme Five" album ('96 Warner Canada), which is barely passable power-pop except for a fine Game Theory cover. First person to contact me off-list is welcome to it, but have some interesting CD to trade. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:47:33 -0700 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Vanilla REM At 10:20 PM 12/16/01 -0800, Steve Holtebeck wrote: >I said before that Cameron Crowe is the king of movie soundtracks, so >even when his movies aren't that worthwhile (like "Singles" or "Jerry >Maguire" or "Vanilla Sky", evidently), the soundtracks nearly always >are. Other than one of the few worthwhile Paul Westerberg songs written in the '90s and a decent Mudhoney track, the SINGLES soundtrack didn't do much for me -- however, it's one of my favorites of Crowe's movies. I think the collage structure (which ALMOST FAMOUS shares to some extent, especially in the new director's cut) suits Crowe's particular storytelling style much more than a straightforward narrative does, and it's gotta be his funniest movie overall, plus it's got a lot of good performances from actors I otherwise have little use for, like Matt Dillon, Bridget Fonda and Kyra Sedgwick. Plus there's one scene, with Crowe himself as a fanzine writer interviewing Dillon's character, the lead singer of third-string grungsters Citizen Dick, that's every bit as truthful about the art of rock interviewing as anything in ALMOST FAMOUS, if not more so. Not only is Dillon's rap about the meaning of his song "Touch Me, I'm Dick" utterly priceless, but the moment when Crowe pulls the Dictaphone he's holding away from Dillon's mouth to his own so that the tape will be sure to pick up his response (which is, in toto: "uh-huh") is my favorite tiny moment not only in any of Crowe's films, but possibly in any film I've seen in the last decade. S ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #342 *******************************