From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #81 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 Wednesday, February 27 2002 Volume 02 : Number 081 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Re: Bleeker Bob's Second Hand Rose [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] songwriting book [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Bleeker Bob's Second Hand Rose >Wondering why no one's mentioned Bleecker Bob's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Cause it sucks, and the owner is a jerk. ...or Second Hand >Rose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Cause it sucks, and it's so full of mold that I start sneezing five minutes after I walk in. - --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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:35:11 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Bleeker Bob's Second Hand Rose > >Wondering why no one's mentioned Bleecker Bob's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >'Cause it sucks, and the owner is a jerk. Yes--I purposely avoid Bleecker Bob's. Here's a typical experience: 18-year-old Aaron, brandishing his huge want list: Do you have anything from this list? Asshole employee, barely glancing at it: Yeah, we've got most of it. Aaron, getting excited: Where is it? Employee, waving his hand towards a shelf of records behind him: It's back here. I don't have time to look for it. Just mail us the list. I find it odd that a store in probably the highest rent district in the entire country goes so far out of their way NOT to make sales, but there you are. And even though I recommended Midnight, they're jerks too, especially on the phone. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:58:44 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Rock Camp for Girls On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Andrew Hamlin wrote: > >Which > >reminds me: can someone repost the name of that recently published book > >that interviews a whole busload of songwriters on how they write, arrange, I was wondering if you meant _Inside Tracks : A First-Hand History of Popular Music from the World's Greatest Record Producers and Engineers_, Richard Buskin, which has contributions from some folks also known for songwriting: brian wilson, lieber & stoller, van dyke parks, lamont dozier, quincy jones, etc. But now I think you probably meant _Inside Classic Rock Tracks: Songwriting and Recording Secrets of 100+ Great Songs_, Rikky Rooksby ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:58:53 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] songwriting book On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, dmw wrote: > I was wondering if you meant _Inside Tracks : A First-Hand History of > Popular Music from the World's Greatest Record Producers and > Engineers_, Richard Buskin, which has contributions from some folks also > known for songwriting: brian wilson, lieber & stoller, van dyke parks, > lamont dozier, quincy jones, etc. But now I think you probably meant > _Inside Classic Rock Tracks: Songwriting and Recording Secrets of 100+ > Great Songs_, Rikky Rooksby Actually, I meant _Behind the Muse: Pop and Rock's Greatest Songwriters Talk About Their Work and Inspiration_, by Bill DeMain. There's a review of it in the Onion's AV Club: http://www.theonionavclub.com/reviews/words/words_b/behindthemusepopandrocks01.html Thanks for the other suggestions, though! - --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 ::can you write underwater on liquid paper?:: __Zippy__ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:35:39 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] making campaign finance reform sexy (warning: potentially politically argumentagenic) A few weeks back, _The Nation_ had a wonderful cover with a rather simian-looking photo-collage of Our Appointed Leader, saying, "I did NOT have financial relations with THAT corporation!" The obvious paraphrase, of the words of our last elected president, got me thinking...one defense offered against regulations that would limit financial contributions to campaigns argues that money is, essentially, speech - and that by limiting the abilities of individuals and other entities (such as corporations) to candidates, such regulations stifled those entities' freedom of speech. (I think this was essentially the position taken by _Buckley v. Valeo_ - paging our legal contingent...) Well, it struck me that laws against prostitution are in a similarly murky place, constitutionally. What, after all, is the difference between two consenting adults engaging in sexual acts in the privacy of someone's home and an act of prostitution involving the same? The offering or soliciting of money - presumed to be in exchange for sexual services. However: if politicians can claim, straight-faced, that there's no quid pro quo when the Enrons of the world donate millions to their campaign funds, and if such cash exchanges are simply "speech," then surely, your average john busted in a car with a hooker in flagrante delicto can simply state: "But your honor - there was no quid pro quo. I offered her fifty bucks - it was merely a gift, to keep her in walking-around-and-beckoning- to-passing-cars money. She just happened to give me a blow job. And anyway, my right to give such gifts is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America!" (For the best effect, a large flag with a wind-blowing attachment at its base should be spotlit from below, and patriotic music should play in the background.) - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::I suspect that the first dictator of this country will be called "Coach":: __William Gass__ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:41:00 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] the poll results are in Someone said they'd read that Carrot Top is "big" among college women. Well, I surveyed the college women in my classes via e-mail about that, and it was unanimous: "Carrot Top is icky." Of course, there was only the one correspondent. Apparently, rabid neutrality is the order of the day. "Icky." Quite apt. - --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 ::American people like their politics like Pez - small, sweet, and ::coming out of a funny plastic head. __Dennis Miller__ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:01:25 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] making campaign finance reform sexy (warning: potentiallypolitically argumentagenic) Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > The obvious paraphrase, of the words of our last elected president, got me > thinking...one defense offered against regulations that would limit > financial contributions to campaigns argues that money is, essentially, > speech - If that's true, then I don't see why we have to pay taxes on the speeches our employers give us! Jen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:34:00 -0600 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] making campaign finance reform sexy (warning: potentially politically argumentagenic) > A few weeks back, _The Nation_ had a wonderful cover with a rather > simian-looking photo-collage of Our Appointed Leader, saying, "I did NOT > have financial relations with THAT corporation!" > A recent issue of the Nation (maybe not the same one - they've been hitting the Enron thing REALLY hard of late) makes the following point (paraphrased, of course): Let's be honest. If corporate soft money donations truly aren't intended to influence policy decisions to the benefit of the company, stockholders should sue the corporations for mismanagement. Corporations don't pay hundreds of thousands dollars for nothing. If they do, they aren't running their company very well. (And before you can utter the word "charity", don't forget the tax breaks and PR boosts that philanthropy brings.) Chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:44:09 -0500 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Favorite NYC Record (Music?) Stores > As an NYC newbie, I was hoping some listers could tell me about their > favorite stores for music acquisition. I'm guessing this has been covered > before, but my searches on Escribe did not yield much. Off-list is fine with > me. Sorry to be getting in on this late. Here are a few no one has mentioned, as far as I remember. For bootlegs: Generation Records (on Thompson between Bleecker and 3rd), Second Coming (on Sullivan between Bleecker and 3rd); Subterranean Records (on Cornelia between W. 4th and Bleecker). Used: Norman's (on 3rd Ave just south of St. Mark's) is a weird place, and they sometimes shrink-wrap used stuff and sell it as new. But they often have sales on used CDs, and I occasionally find interesting cheap stuff there. I think there's now a second Norman's on the same block as Sounds, where Smash CD used to be; and this one has baskets of $5 CD out in front of the store. Once in a while you turn up good stuff there, though sometimes the baskets are thoroughly picked over. Used: Rockit Scientist (on Carmine between Bedford and Bleecker) - no one has mentioned the worthwhile $5.00 bin). Hip: Etherea (Ave A between 4th and 5th St.) is small and trendy, worth a look. Cheap vinyl: the aforementioned Subterranean Records had a good $3 bin last time I looked. Downtown Music (on 5th St. between 2nd and Bowery) used to have some used vinyl; this is a good store for Knitting Factory-type music. The owner is a music buff and pretty helpful; I like to throw him some business when I can. Don't know what Gimme Gimme Records (5th St. between 1st and 2nd) is like these days, but they used to have a lot of vinyl. Rockit Scientist often has a few decent boxes of cheap vinyl, and some more expensive stuff). Rocks in Your Head (on Prince between Thompson and W. Broadway) has an okay used vinyl section. Vinyl collectors might want to check the more expensive Finyl Vinyl (on 6th St. between Bowery and 2nd Ave.) - - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:49:59 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] actual musical content (including--could it be?--Sc*tt!) First: this one's got Brian Block's name written all over it. _Grand Opening and Closing_ by Sleepytime Gorilla Museum. You like slightly weird music? You wanna get rid of "slightly"? You like energy, aggression - maybe even metal-like at times? You like a pop sense, but strongly warped? You like strange, avant-garde, arty and political content? You like this. Moments sound like Slayer covering the Residents, while others sound like Fred Frith and the Art Bears lullabying an alien infant to sleep. Features ex-members of Charming Hostess, Idiot Flesh, etc. Nice website at www.sleepytimemuseum.com - MP3s at .../grandopening.html Also: I was listening to a 1995 live tape of that Loud Family band (11/10/95, opening for the Posies at some venue Steve Holtebeck was at that night), and I'm wondering: who was doing the high harmony vocals in the band at that time? It doesn't sound like Kenny...Paul? - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::part of your circuit of incompetence:: DISAPPOINTED BY RESULTS OF ICE-PLANTING SCHEME, DEADHEAD WIND FARMER LOSES FAITH IN THE WORD OF JERRY ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:02:04 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] actual musical content (including--could it be?--Sc*tt!) Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > Features ex-members of Charming Hostess, Idiot Flesh, etc. Nice website at > www.sleepytimemuseum.com - MP3s at .../grandopening.html Damn, this sounds really interesting, but that URL just won't work. Are you sure it's right? Jen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:16:51 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] actual musical content (including--could it be?--Sc*tt!) On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, jenny grover wrote: > Damn, this sounds really interesting, but that URL just won't work. Are > you sure it's right? Should be www.sleepytimegorillamuseum.com (Jeff left out the gorilla, as he is wont to do). That's some good stuff. I liked Charming Hostess a lot, and have been meaning to check out Idiot Flesh. (CH person Jewlia Eisenberg has a "solo" album out that also involves former bandmates, but it's mostly a capella and somehwat snooty.) aaron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:14:55 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Favorite NYC Record (Music?) Stores I'm still keeping my favorite places to myself, but as for the publicly-addressed: <> Very irritating habit of putting price stickers directly on CD covers, but the neglected used area downstairs almost always has at least a few bizarre surprises. <> Good place for imports, but really overpriced (and the owner tries to move his best stuff on eBay first). However, their second store on St. Marks (that being the former Smash CD's) has a general used area by the door that often has some fun stuff in the $7.99 range. I just picked up an Italian import Serpent Power twofer that I never knew was available. The cheap buckets up front are now $2 a CD, but they're kind of a drag to go through. And, because I like to promote Jersey, I'll add that the best place to get surprisingly good deals is Tunes on Washington Street in Hoboken. Their bargain tables are also worth the visit. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:52:12 -0500 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] making campaign finance reform sexy (warning: potentially politically argumentagenic) >The obvious paraphrase, of the words of our last elected president, got me >thinking...one defense offered against regulations that would limit >financial contributions to campaigns argues that money is, essentially, >speech - and that by limiting the abilities of individuals and other >entities (such as corporations) to candidates, such regulations stifled >those entities' freedom of speech. (I think this was essentially the >position taken by _Buckley v. Valeo_ - paging our legal contingent...) Westlaw's summary of the Buckley holding: "The Supreme Court held that [Congressional] provisions limiting individual contributions to campaigns were constitutional despite First Amendment objections; that provisions limiting expenditures by candidates on their own behalf violated the candidates' rights to freedom of speech; that provisions limiting total expenditures in various campaigns were invalid; that provisions limiting the amount which any individual could spend, independently of a candidate but relative to the candidate impermissibly abridged freedom of speech; that the reporting requirements under the Act were valid; and that the Federal Elections Commission created by the Act, insofar as it had primary responsibility for conducting civil litigation and had rule- making authority and the power to determine eligibility for funds and federal elective office, was invalidly constituted in violation of the appointments clause." So, um, yeah. Whatever. What the case basically stands for is: Congress can govern federal elections, cuz the Constitution says it can, but it can't place spending limits, because the 1st Amend says it can't, and whether Congress can appoint federal officers is up to the Supremes to interpret, since the Constitution is a little fuzzy on that one, but since it says the Executive appoints fed officers and Congress can only remove them via impeachment, the Court said, no, Congress can't do that, either. I *think* that's it but I invite a real lawyer to straighten me out. JS ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:13:08 -0800 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] actual musical content (including--could it be?--Sc*tt!) Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Also: I was listening to a 1995 live tape of that Loud Family band > (11/10/95, opening for the Posies at some venue Steve Holtebeck was at > that night), and I'm wondering: who was doing the high harmony vocals in > the band at that time? It doesn't sound like Kenny...Paul? I don't think Kenny was doing vocals back then (that was only his second show with the band), so it had to be Paul. Definitely Paul. Aaron Milenski wrote: > > >Wondering why no one's mentioned Bleecker Bob's > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >'Cause it sucks, and the owner is a jerk. > Yes--I purposely avoid Bleecker Bob's. Rick Gagnon and I had a bizarre experience at Bleecker Bob's last May, where this one employee (probably the jerk owner) stood in front of the exit and wouldn't let us leave until after we told him what records we were looking for, and even our replies of "just looking" was met with an indignant, "No! What are you looking FOR!" He reminded me of De Niro's Travis Bickle character in Taxi Driver "you talking to ME?", so I couldn't get out of Bleecker Bob's fast enough. I've found a few cool things in the 88-cent bins at Sounds though. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:23:16 -0500 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] making campaign finance reform sexy (warning: potentially politically argumentagenic) J2F: >Well, it struck me that laws against prostitution are in a similarly murky >place, constitutionally. What, after all, is the difference between two >consenting adults engaging in sexual acts in the privacy of someone's home >and an act of prostitution involving the same? The offering or soliciting >of money - presumed to be in exchange for sexual services. Nice idea, but I don't think it holds up. Guess hiring a hooker isn't considered to have enough "speech" content, or the NRA would argue that buying guns is protected speech. Which isn't to say they haven't tried, I dunno, but they have that whole 2nd Amendment thing. It's well-established that the states have police power over stuff like prostitution. I'd also imagine that if the entire prostitution transanction was conducted in a private home you could never get prosecuted (ever offer Rose fifty bucks to dress up as Princess Leia, and...oh, forget it). Lay ya! Har, I said it. A state can make it illegal, and they can also make it legal, of course, as Nevada has (God bless!). Remember, a state can provide *more* civil liberties to its citizens than the minimum imposed by the Constitution (as long as by doing that they don't thereby infringe on some other Constitutional guarantee, and that seems to happen a lot). I have no idea what I'm talking about, of course. But you knew that. JS ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #81 ******************************