From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #38 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Saturday, January 26 2002 Volume 02 : Number 038 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Halstead and Merritt, or, Notes toward a syntactical deconstruction of inflated authorial ego ["Dennis M] [loud-fans] Don't buy Kevin Tihista's CD.. (ns) [Dana L Paoli ] RE: [loud-fans] Music snobbery ["ana luisa morales" ] RE: [loud-fans] Music snobbery ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] Can't see my pinkie [Carolyn Dorsey ] Re: [loud-fans] Halstead and Merritt, or, Notes toward a syntactical deconstruction of inflated authorial ego [Jeffre] [loud-fans] Re: Halstead and Merritt, or, Notes toward a syntactical deconstruction of inflated authorial ego [Jeffrey] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Halstead and Merritt, or, Notes toward a syntactical deconstruction of inflated authorial ego (fwd) [] [loud-fans] Block Block Block (review) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Halstead and Merritt, or, Notes toward a syntactical deconstruction of inflated authorial ego Jeff, then JDC: >"investigations within the limited template of the pop song": Okay, here >it gets a bit iffy. "Investigations" is a bit much - it implies something >like dilettantism, or maybe an odd note of sniffing around expecting to >find something unsavory. "Template" is too specific - I don't think "pop >songs" are *that* limited; Another double whammy of pretentiousness. Referring to some Platonic pop-song "template" should be reserved for the kind of social sciences journal that refers to books as "texts." <><><><><><><><><> "verse / chorus / verse / chorus / bridge / verse / chorus" That's a template. Please note: I ain't defending this writer here (and the use of the term "investigations" in that context suggests to me the image of Merritt, in a lab coat, sealing pop songs like crickets in the transparent nose cones of his cardboard and balsa Estes rockets, then launching them skyward "to see what will happen"), but most pop songs do have cookie cutter skeleta. Even the really good ones. Pop songs are highly formalized entities. Or, to rephrase in terms of the ideal, without going logorrheaic: "The Pop Song is a highly formalized entity." Most of the ones that aren't end up being "MacArthur Park". one, two THREE, four, - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:33:47 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] Don't buy Kevin Tihista's CD.. (ns) ...Parasol just announced that they'll be reissuing it along w/a second batch of songs. This time he promises that he won't leave them for a major label (they always come crawling back in the end). Supposedly it comes out in mid-February. - --dana np: Francoise Hardey/"Loving" which is really, really good *and* in English. Whooo!! ________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:44:22 EST From: LeftyZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Halstead and Merritt, or, Notes toward a syntactical deconstruction of inflated authorial ego In a message dated 1/25/02 1:51:23 PM, Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com writes: << Or, to rephrase in terms of the ideal, without going logorrheaic: "The Pop Song is a highly formalized entity." Most of the ones that aren't end up being "MacArthur Park". >> I KNOW you ain'd dissin' "MacArthur Park"!!!!! Left ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:55:03 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Halstead and Merritt A lot of folks have said a lot of things about: << << Eban & Charley" serves as further proof that Merritt's prolific investigations within the limited template of the pop song continues to produce unforeseen and compelling results. [MC] >> >> Continue to debate whether the writer is pretentious, but let's all agree that he's a hopeless hackety-hack once he writes the following: "...which sounds like the singing nun on Quaaludes, listening to Cole Porter..." Is there anything more lame than a rock critic referencing anybody on anything while listening to something else? Unless, of course, it's anybody on anything while listening to something else in somebody else's rumpus room. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:30:20 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: [loud-fans] Merritt I just listened to HOLIDAY again, and found that I had inadvertently stolen an idea from it for my latest song. So I must have liked it more than I realized. When it comes to handedness, I'm always right. At least, that's how I like to think of it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:50:42 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] Music snobbery Here's a glossary: http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/cover/ The really interesting part is that the band on the illustration's T-shirt is not in the glossary. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:01:30 -0800 From: "ana luisa morales" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Music snobbery *"no symmetry"**albany california u.s.a.* >--- Original Message --- >From: "Joseph M. Mallon" >Here's a glossary: > >http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/cover/ > >The really interesting part is that the band on the >illustration's T-shirt is not in the glossary. yeah, but the article sez it's abridged, so perhaps....? (fwiw, the author's band opened for the "tshirt's band" at the troc last month.) - --ana ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:05:35 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Music snobbery On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, ana luisa morales wrote: > >The really interesting part is that the band on the >illustration's > T-shirt is not in the glossary. > > yeah, but the article sez > it's abridged, so perhaps....? I e-mailed the author requesting the unabridged version, and if there's interest, I'll post it when I get it (with the author's permission). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:11:10 -0600 From: steve Subject: [loud-fans] Re: What's a Mersey > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Jon Gabriel wrote: > >> What's a Mersey? OK, this is for real, yes? I didn't see an answer, so... it's the Mersey River (or River Mersey), near Liverpool. There are a few bands from that area. http://thebeatles.future.easyspace.com/mersey/mers.htm - - Steve __________ The United States is exploring the development of a 'space-bomber' which could destroy targets on the other side of the world within 30 minutes. - Ed Vulliamy, The Observer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:13:08 -0800 From: Carolyn Dorsey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Can't see my pinkie on 1/25/02 9:42 AM, John Swartzentruber at johnslists@mcswartz.org wrote: > >> several people have sneered that *everyone* has a >> blind spot, but they can't find theirs! >> so, what's the scoop? If you keep your eyes looking straight ahead and extend your arm holding a finger to the periphery of your vision and move your finger around you will find your blind spot because you can't see your finger in a certain area. Your eye just sort of "fills in" the area it doesn't see. Carolyn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:41:00 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: [loud-fans] Donnie Darko Wow. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:54:06 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Halstead and Merritt, or, Notes toward a syntactical deconstruction of inflated authorial ego On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Dennis McGreevy wrote: > "verse / chorus / verse / chorus / bridge / verse / chorus" > > That's a template. Yes - but not all pop songs, not even all popular pop songs, not even all extremely popular pop songs, fit into this template. Some might run two verses before the chorus, some mix put the bridge elsewhere, etc. That is, the organization isn't quite so rigid as "template" implies. My example will be, say, the songs on _Beatles 1_ - hard to argue that these aren't quintessential pop-rock songs. And Dennis, I also am very, very certain that you were not so foolish as to be putting down "MacArthur Park." A word to the wise, they say. - --Jeff Jeffrey Norman, Posemodernist University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Dept. of Mumblish & Competitive Obliterature http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:12:22 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Halstead and Merritt, or, Notes toward a syntactical deconstruction of inflated authorial ego On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, John Cooper wrote: > >> << Eban & Charley" serves as further proof > >> that Merritt's prolific investigations within the limited template > >> of the pop song continues to produce unforeseen and compelling > >> results. [MC] >> > I think what sets Michael and I off is that this needlessly > complicated wordiness serves mainly to advertise the writer as an > intellectual and an authority. It's hard to read, doesn't represent > the way anyone actually talks, and doesn't make any important points. See, I think now you're going too far. First, I'm with Aaron on the "how exactly is this needlessly complicated?" - as in: both sentences you write above, which are perfectly clear, are more complicated than the quoted sentences. Second, while I certainly would trim a few words and phrases and change others (see my earlier post, if you would like to be bored further), I'm not sure how the choices of words and phrases are meant to makr the writer as either particularly brilliant (or pretending to be) or authoritative (optb). And of course writing doesn't represent the way anyone actually talks - if it did, it would be constantly interrupting itself, full of "uh" and "errrr," and syntactically incomprehensible. Writing isn't talking. (It's dancing about architecture, as Elvis Costello - - and yes, it was Elvis Costello - said.) I guess what I'm really saying is that if music criticism is to be interesting and readable, it has to do more than just literally describe the music in the most plain-spoken way possible. This writer doesn't exactly succceed in that...but the criticism John offers above seems to imply that *any* writing that has interest in its own right (i.e., draws attention to itself, thereby highlighting the writer's intellect and possibly "authority": and btw, by "authority" do you mean "knowledge," or what? since I'm not sure what "authority" is supposed to be in rock criticism) is poor or blameworthy. > >"serves as further proof": not quite the same as simply "proves," in that > >he wants to suggest that Merritt's been consistent at what he does; > > Presumably, this point was already made earlier in the review during > a brief recap of Merritt's career; but if it wasn't, it should have > been made in another sentence, not via indirection. Could be...I no longer have the whole review at hand, but I could easily imagine the quoted sentence beginning "Stephen Merritt's _Eban & Charley_ proves..." and *being* the recap you're asking for - while simultaneously introducing the subject of the review. > Another double whammy of pretentiousness. Referring to some Platonic > pop-song "template" should be reserved for the kind of social > sciences journal that refers to books as "texts." And who > investigates "within" a subject? Well, actually he would be investigating *within* the pop song; i.e., within the possibilities offered by the formal bounds of that genre. "[Investigating] the pop song" would imply some sort of historical overview, of what's already been done with the form; "[investigating] within" implies work with the form, not the examples thereof. But I've already conceded part of the point: the verb is awkward, and "within the pop song," while literally okay, isn't specific enough and certain infelicitous. > >expect, or that one might expect from one performer. "Compelling" is > >self-explanatory. > > ...if cliched and overwritten. In what sense was the writer > compelled? What does the reader learn from the word "compelling" that > the word "enjoyable" or even "very good" wouldn't have told him? "Compelling" has an emotional quality that "enjoyable" doesn't. Without specificying a particular sense of being "compelled," it simply implies a sort of strong emotional attraction - more powerful than "enjoyable," less intense than, say, "riveting" (another cliche, but I'm just tryna make a point here, okay?). My guess is, though, that once something about the phrase set you off ("you" being anyone who hated it: Matrick, John, etc.), you began picking at everything else in the sentence that, if it hadn't set you off, you'd probably have simply overlooked. That's not unusual - I'm guilty of the same tactic in any number of ways - but I think the "compelling" thing is a good example of that sort of will-to-be-critical. Sort of like Don Rickles meets Theodor Adorno on an antacid bender... - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::This album is dedicated to anyone who started out as an animal and ::winds up as a processing unit. __Soft Boys, note, CAN OF BEES__ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:24:36 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Halstead and Merritt, or, Notes toward a syntactical deconstruction of inflated authorial ego (fwd) Okay, a couple of folks have asked, so...: - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:23:36 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey > > (It's dancing about architecture, as Elvis Costello - and yes, it was > > Elvis Costello - said.) > > Got a citation for that, pal? Yep: an interview in _Musician_ magazine, October 1983; cited here: http://home.pacifier.com/~ascott/they/tamildaa.htm I remember this article, actually - hell, it may still be in my attic. None of the other frequently cited sources for this quote have ever had as specific an attribution. To me, it just *sounds* like EC - way more than it sounds like any of the other folks to whom it's often attributed. - -j ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:45:03 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Block Block Block (review) Here's my review of the first side of Brian Block's tape, which may or may not have been sent to me as part of our swapping (I forget). The tape's called _The Following Program Contains Some Material_, and it does; to wit: Duf Davies and the Book Club "Rage": Somehow the minor chord acoustic guitar rhythm and grunting bass are the perfect backdrop for the absurd lyrics..."spinach makes me strong, but spinach does nto taste good" or "I set my VCR, but it did not record" - all followed by a muttered/grumbled "ra-aa-age...anger!" This one made Rose in the next room burst out laughing. Belly "Slow Dog": Partly on the strength of hearing this track, I put another Belly track on a recent comp. - and lo and behold, a local DJ played yet a third track. This from a band that had fallen into the curious limbo of non-metal and non-jam "alternative" bands of the early '90s. Too bad - as they produced some real gems, like this one, albeit placed amidst some rather indifferent ore elsewhere. Heartthrobs "Bright Green Day": Kind of a gothy chord sequence, but peppier...with clubbing four-on-the-floor beat, distorted bass and guitar - - okay, but not quite my thing. Thin Lizard Dawn "Happy Loonies": Begins with sort of a rubberband-sounding guitar over a samba rhythm, and then into a louder, more rock section, another section that sounds like a verse, very melodic...okay, I give up on the structure - but it's pretty cool in an almost Sparks-y way. Tell me more... Gruppo Sportivo "I Said No": Piano-based off-beat chord suspensions into a hammering group attack, accompanied by a grunting choir of bass saxophones...apparently a tale of musical seduction gone awry. I like it well enough! Fidget "Rock'n' Roll Is Back Again": But where had it gone? This is one of my favorite tracks here, with its wobbly organ line, hop skip and a jump drumming, and guitar parts as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle w/o getting all avant-garde about it. Beta Band "'Round the Bend": Toyshop percussion, shambling rhythm, vocals delivered from a woozy, narcotic haze...kind fun, but it doesn't make me want to run out and buy the CD. Miranda Sex Garden "Are You the One?": The singer's got a great voice - melodic but powerful, good for the gothiness of the track - that, though, I'm less persuaded by. The music alternates between a delicate guitar arpeggio and a pounding, yowling chorus, but I'm not sure why. I like the string-like parts: I think the band has (or had) a violinist and cellist on board, but if so, their instruments are so treated that I'm not sure it's not just a bag full of circuitry. Veal "Spiderman": Not the TV show theme song, alas; instead, generic alterna-rock circa 1995, drug-oriented tale division. Ben Folds Five "Your Redneck Past": Ben Folds is the Todd Rundgren of the '90s. (Or maybe he *was* the Todd Rundgren of the early '70s of the late '90s, and how he's sort of the Todd Rundgren of th early '70s but whereas Todd did several albums by himself before forming Utopia, Ben Folds reversed that course (breaking up Utopia before forming Todd Rundgren). So he's sort of the anti-Todd of the early '70s of the...what the hell are we calling this decade anyway?) Anyway, his strengths are his senses of melody and harmony, singing, and cleverness; his weaknesses are his cleverness and love of cheesy "comedy" sound effects. Okay - you gotta love the way the Styx-like synth arpeggios get doubled with wicky-wicky hip-hop scratching... Hey, I like Todd. Gruppo Sportivo "I Shot My Manager": Not as catchy as the first GS track here - although the Bob Marley quote in the middle is pretty funny. So's the chorus, on how to be a successful blues-rock musician ("don't be white" among other things). Side B to follow, for those of you covered in sequins. - --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]__ ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #38 ******************************