From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #82 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, February 28 2002 Volume 02 : Number 082 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Thoughts?? ["O Geier" ] Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? [Jon Gabriel ] Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? [Aaron Mandel ] RE: [loud-fans] actual musical content (including--could it be?-- Sc*tt!) ["Keegstra, Russell" ] Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? [jenny grover ] [loud-fans] RIP Spike Milligna [Charity Stafford ] Re: [loud-fans] RIP Spike Milligna [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] RIP Spike Milligna [Charity Stafford ] Re: [loud-fans] RIP Spike Milligna [Michael Bowen ] Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] Are you one? ["Vallor" ] [loud-fans] Rory Ramone [Michael Mitton ] RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone [Stewart Mason ] RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] my very late (curtsey) 2001 best-of list - long [Jack Lippol] RE: [loud-fans] actual musical content (including--could it be?-- Sc*tt!) [Tim_Walters@digidesign.c] RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone [dmw ] [loud-fans] Loud Family releases OOP? [Jase ] RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone [John Cooper ] RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone ["glenn mcdonald" ] RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone [Bill Silvers ] RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? Any opinions on the new Julia Louis-Dreyfus show which premiered last night? I got it give it to her, she CAN sing. Support anti-Spam legislation. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:56:19 -0800 (PST) From: Jon Gabriel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? I made it all the way through "Watching Ellie", which is more than I can say for "The Michael Richards Show" or "Bob Patterson". Still, I don't think it's long for this world. 1. The "real-time" thing is very limiting. It would be fine for one special episode of a sit-com, but not an entire series. Since there is no room for essential human "down time," it seems like Ellie will have to be locked in a 22-minute crisis every week. Talk about exasperating. The "real-time" hook works for "24" since it is a life-or-death crisis situation seen from about four different vantage points. Also, "24" is an action/adventure show, not a sit-com. Last point on the real-time: Did the network brass really have to insert a clock in the corner? As if the time element wasn't gimmicky enough. 2. Julia Louise-Dreyfus' acting was baaaaad. She was fine on Seinfeld, but on her own she wasn't believable at all. She has to improve that forced laugh she constantly employs. Lastly, I really had no desire to see her flouncing around in a cheesy bra and robe for the first 15 minutes -- not a good look for her. And did I have to see that bald guy's butt at dinner time (7:30 pm)? Gack. 3. She can sing, but she's no Anson Williams. I always cringe when comedians/comedic actors sing. It's like they want to be taken seriously and be laughed at simultaneously. Rarely a winning combo (to wit: Potsie, Linda Lavin, Bonnie Franklin, Eddie Murphy, et al.) and usually nothing but a vanity piece. I could almost see the pride swelling in her husband/producer Brad Hall's mind -- "my wife's the best singer in the world!" 4. Does the world need another sit-com about a flawed single desparately looking for love? That's the basic plot (or at least, major subtext) of every single comedy on NBC right now. 5. The main reason I stuck with the show was to see Steve Carell. Funny, but again, the strained format limits him and the other actors greatly. 6. When your toilet overflows, do you or your neighbors lie in the water and roll around on the bathroom floor for 15 minutes? Neither do I. Back to "24": This is easily my favorite new show of the season, but can anyone figure out how they're going to do a second season? A third? I just don't know how they can sustain the tension without being totally unrealistic. Jon - --- O Geier wrote: > Any opinions on the new Julia Louis-Dreyfus show > which premiered last > night? I got it give it to her, she CAN sing. > > Support anti-Spam legislation. > Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here ===== 777777777777777777777777777777 JON GABRIEL mesa, arizona usa inkling communication + design 777777777777777777777777777777 Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:16:47 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Jon Gabriel wrote: > Back to "24": This is easily my favorite new show of the season, but > can anyone figure out how they're going to do a second season? A > third? I just don't know how they can sustain the tension without > being totally unrealistic. Though the creators have done a lot of things I think are dumb, they at least promised that the plotline would be completely resolved in the space of one day/season. Future seasons, if they happen, will still be 24 consecutive hours, but not set on the day immediately after this one. aaron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:23:20 -0600 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] actual musical content (including--could it be?-- Sc*tt!) Mr. Norman: >_Grand Opening and Closing_ by Sleepytime Gorilla Museum. >You like this. Oh, this is different. I like this. And they're coming to Tucson! That is different, too. On related notes, can anyone say anything about Deadweight or Tin Hat Trio? Deadweight seems much more normal, Tin Hat Trio sounds like acid jazz. When I grow up I'm never gonna sleep, Russ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:35:04 -0800 From: Kenny Kessel Subject: RE: [loud-fans] actual musical content (including--could it be?--Sc*tt!) >Steve Holtebeck wrote: >>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) I was definitely singing-- from the first note in fact, since I see from the set list that the opening song was "Not Expecting," which begins with Scott and I singing together. But Paul had a higher range, so he sang the high harmonies. Kenny K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:53:30 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Aaron Mandel wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Jon Gabriel wrote: > > > Back to "24": This is easily my favorite new show of the season, but > > can anyone figure out how they're going to do a second season? A > > third? I just don't know how they can sustain the tension without > > being totally unrealistic. > > Though the creators have done a lot of things I think are dumb, they at > least promised that the plotline would be completely resolved in the space > of one day/season. Future seasons, if they happen, will still be 24 > consecutive hours, but not set on the day immediately after this one. Because I am an idiot, I only started watching the show 'round about 6am - but I, too, am puzzled as to how they would continue this another season. I hadn't thought of it: I actually just assumed the whole point was one season and out. The best thing (and most unlikely) would be to repeat the premise, but with a completely different cast and situation. It seems kind of unlikely that the same cast of characters (or some of them) would just happen to keep being involved in life-or-death situations that just happen to resolve in 24 hours...but I guess TV's been a lot less realistic elsewhere, so... In other news: last night's Buffy reminded me just how little I've been missing Riley. Sadly, despite a few excellent episodes, this season has also floundered with several rather weak episodes that don't seem to advance the plot much. Except for two items - both involving Buffy's apparent resolution (or forced resolution) not to continue certain debilitating actions - nothing terribly interesting seemed to happen last night. I'll wait for Miles to respond... - --Jeff Jeffrey Norman, Posemodernist University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Dept. of Mumblish & Competitive Obliterature http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:41:12 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? Jon Gabriel wrote: > > Back to "24": This is easily my favorite new show of > the season, but can anyone figure out how they're > going to do a second season? A third? I just don't > know how they can sustain the tension without being > totally unrealistic. Are they going to do more seasons, or is this a one-shot deal? If they are going to continue it, they are going to have to work in a little down-time for Jack, or else not only will it cease to be realistic, it will wear us all out, to say nothing of Jack. If they do another season, I wonder if it will follow the same characters, like David Palmer and whatever becomes of his campaign, or if they will switch gears and have Jack working on a totally new case. I guess time will tell. I have my doubts that a follow-up will be as good, or as engaging, but I would likely watch it anyway. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:01:37 -0500 (EST) From: Charity Stafford Subject: [loud-fans] RIP Spike Milligna I just heard a nice obituary piece on All Things Considered - Spike Milligan, the last surviving member of the Goons, died today. I'll have to break out my old BBC disks... Charity ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:18:24 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RIP Spike Milligna On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Charity Stafford wrote: > I just heard a nice obituary piece on All Things Considered - > Spike Milligan, the last surviving member of the Goons, died > today. I'll have to break out my old BBC disks... For some reason, I thought he was already dead when I got into the Goons years ago -- wonder how I got that idea. This is terrific news! I have a full decade of thinking Spike Milligan is alive that I've been neglecting before I can be sad about him dying. But I'm very sorry about the loss the rest of you have just suffered. The man was a genius. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:29:04 -0500 (EST) From: Charity Stafford Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RIP Spike Milligna aaron mandel wrote: > For some reason, I thought he was already dead when I got into the > Goons years ago -- wonder how I got that idea. This is terrific news! > I have a full decade of thinking Spike Milligan is alive that I've > been neglecting before I can be sad about him dying. That was the way I felt when Harry Secombe died, just this past April - I could have SWORN that I'd heard he died some years before. It is sad to me that the whole lot of them are gone now. Their inspired sillliness was a cornerstone of my developing sense of humor, and influenced a lot of other folks I found funny, too - not least, the Beatles. Charity ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:32:41 -0500 From: Michael Bowen Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RIP Spike Milligna At 06:01 PM 2/27/2002 -0500, Charity Stafford wrote: >Spike Milligan, the last surviving member of the Goons, died >today. When Harry Secombe died last year, Milligan commented, "Oh dear, that means I'm next." RIP, Spike. MB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:37:41 -0400 From: John F Butland Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? At 07:56 AM 02-02-27 -0800, Jon Gabriel wrote: >Lastly, I really had no desire to >see her flouncing around in a cheesy bra and robe for >the first 15 minutes -- not a good look for her. I dunno, I think that was my favorite part. I also think it probably won't last, mostly because her husband is such an asshole and he has such a large role in the production. Only fellow SNL castmate Charles Rocket is a bigger waste of bones. I kinda hope it does last, though, because I've always liked JLD. Just wish the show was better. OK, who will you watch in anything regardless of how bad it is? Off the top of my head I can think of Dana Delany, Alicia Witt, and Steve Buscemi. For different reasons, obviously. best, jfb John F Butland O- butland@nbnet.nb.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:01:01 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Thoughts?? OK, who will you watch in anything regardless of how bad it is? Off the top of my head I can think of Dana Delany, Alicia Witt, and Steve Buscemi. For different reasons, obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My picks are Jennifer Jason Leigh and Letha Weapons. For different reasons, obviously. Well, ok, I don't think Letha's making movies anymore, but I still haven't seen all her old films, or her "Married With Children" appearance. - --dana np: The Mekons/"Millionaire" ________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:23:52 -0500 From: "Vallor" Subject: [loud-fans] Are you one? http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/Jan/08/il/il01a.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:25:57 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Mitton Subject: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone I just watched my tape of this week's "Gilmore Girls." At the end of the show, they did their "This episode featured music from Joey Ramone..." and I noticed below the album cover text that read "Promotional Consideration furnished by Sanctuary." Sanctuary, I guess, is the label that put out DON'T WORRY ABOUT ME. Does this mean that Sanctuary paid money to get GG to use the music? While I agree with Stewart that the music is well done and well chosen (and Ramone certainly fit the situation), this seems like a big blow to integrity if the music in this episode actually amounted to product placement. Have all the GG's featured music also had this "promotional consideration" clause? - --Michael http://www.filmatters.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:47:55 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone Not appropos to Joey, but this GG episode seemed like an excellent demonstration of why I keep watching the show, but why I don't quite feel justified in proselytizing for it. Jess's character remains surly and largely nuance-less, nobody believed for a second Luke was going to take that apartment, the plot twist with the bracelet had been hamfistedly foreshadowed, and Jess and Luke's relationship still seems to exist in that TV realm where nobody ever slows down and states the obvious (exactly the flaw the portrayal of Lorelai and Rory's relationship *doesn't* have, it seems to me). But then there was Luke's speechless reaction to Lorelai's married-couple play-acting, Dean mutely demonstrating that "two hours" was not hyperbole, Luke's first instinct to run to Lorelai after he impulsively buys a whole building (plus the intriguing detail that he had the money to), and at the end one of the very rare wholly-TV-style punch lines that I don't feel bad about laughing at. Plus a totally throwaway music moment that consisted, in its entirety, of Jess handing Rory a CD in passing, Rory saying "The Shaggs?" and Jess saying "Trust me". And Miss Patty directing an exercise group from a golf cart. It's not great art, but I'll be there again next week. glenn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:15:25 -0700 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone At 10:25 PM 2/27/02 -0500, Michael Mitton wrote: >I just watched my tape of this week's "Gilmore Girls." At the end of the >show, they did their "This episode featured music from Joey Ramone..." and >I noticed below the album cover text that read "Promotional Consideration >furnished by Sanctuary." Sanctuary, I guess, is the label that put out >DON'T WORRY ABOUT ME. Does this mean that Sanctuary paid money to get GG >to use the music? > >While I agree with Stewart that the music is well done and well chosen >(and Ramone certainly fit the situation), this seems like a big blow to >integrity if the music in this episode actually amounted to product >placement. Have all the GG's featured music also had this "promotional >consideration" clause? No, no, that's not what that means. The "promotional consideration" is nothing more than what you were looking at, the ten-second banner that says "This is the album that song is on." The record company pays for that banner if they want to, but the artist gets paid for the use of the music, *not* the other way around. (If anything, the artists are the ones in control, not the producers -- Yo La Tengo wouldn't let the producers use their version of "My Little Corner of the World" for the pilot, so Amy Sherman-Palladino had her friend Kit Pongetti, who used to be in a kinda cool Beck-alike band called Sumack, record a new version of the song herself.) I've seen that banner on maybe three episodes of Gilmore Girls -- the other two were for Sam Phillips and Grant Lee Phillips' most recent albums, which is interesting considering they're both connected with the show. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:36:07 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, glenn mcdonald wrote: > Not appropos to Joey, but this GG episode seemed like an excellent > demonstration of why I keep watching the show, but why I don't quite > feel justified in proselytizing for it. Jess's character remains surly > and largely nuance-less, nobody believed for a second Luke was going to > take that apartment, the plot twist with the bracelet had been > hamfistedly foreshadowed, and Jess and Luke's relationship still seems > to exist in that TV realm where nobody ever slows down and states the > obvious (exactly the flaw the portrayal of Lorelai and Rory's > relationship *doesn't* have, it seems to me). Hmmm...I see what you mean here, but I'm not sure I agree with it. If Jess's character is "surly and largely nuance-less," I think it's more a function of the character Jess has circumscribed himself in than it is a limitation of the writing. I'm an exception to existence, apparently - because I thought Luke *was* going to take that apartment. Of course, once he found out Taylor owned it, obviously he wasn't going to. But ask yourself: if someone had said last week that Luke was going to invest in property, would you have believed it? As to Jess and Luke's relationship: I'm not quite sure which obvious they should be slowing down to state - but since neither is exactly champs in the open expression of feeling competitions (and none too aware of those of others, either: Luke must be the only man on the planet who could possibly remain so oblivious to Lorelai), that their relationship consists largely of thrashing around, yelling, and avoiding one another makes a degree of sense. Agreed on the bracelet thing - to the extent that it was less a plot twist than a plot chute. (If Jess were smarter, he would have claimed to have found the bracelet on the roof just outside Rory's window - as if it had fallen out of the open window.) But I thought it interesting that he both denied having taken the bracelet (technically true) but admitted to Lorelai, indirectly, that he'd known of its whereabouts (which to her would only confirm that he had taken it). Luke's first instinct > to run to Lorelai after he impulsively buys a whole building (plus the > intriguing detail that he had the money to) Of course, he does live rather frugally...I don't suppose he bought the building outright, but took out a mortgage - and "just spent $100,000" was about the obligation, not the downpayment. The problem with this show, and with any show that features a non-couple whose suitability is in many ways screamingly obvious, is: if the tension of stretching out the non-relationship is in many ways the plot's main engine, how long do you keep that up until it becomes tedious ("get together already!") - vs. if they *do* get together, that tension's gone...and what then? (the _Moonlighting_ problem, to note the classic case) I missed the Shaggs thing - must have been laughing at something else. Oh yeah: what was the first track Jess was sleeping to? It sounded familiar, but I couldn't quite place it. The Causey Way? - --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 ::I play the guitar. Sometimes I play the fool:: __John Lennon__ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:00:40 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone > I'm an exception to existence, apparently - Hah, I have finally proven that Jeffrey doesn't exist. Who wants to be next? > I thought Luke *was* going to take that apartment. No outside establishing shots, and no internal camera movement; I thought it was obvious that the producers were not investing in the location, but you could certainly argue that I'm underestimating their ability to defy TV staging conventions. > Luke must be the only man on the planet who could possibly > remain so oblivious to Lorelai I must not be on the planet, because I-- No, dammit, I can't sustain the pretense of not having a hopeless crush on Lorelai for a whole sentence, even to make a return joke. > I don't suppose he bought the building outright, but took out a > mortgage - and "just spent $100,000" was about the obligation, > not the downpayment. We are now officially arguing about hopeless minutiae, but my reading of that exchange *was* that he actually got a bank check for $100,000 and bought the building outright. He seems like the kind of character that would have an enormous amount of money even though he acts like he doesn't (remember how casually he volunteered to float Lorelai's foundation work when they had termites?). And although maybe this was just things happening in bizarro TV-time, he could never have transacted a building-purchase involving a mortgage on the spur of the moment, but a cash purchase is at least remotely plausible. I'm with you on the tension problem, mostly, especially now that they're toying with parallel tensions in both Luke/Lorelai and Jess/Rory, but I guess I hold out a small hope that between Lorelai and Rory's relationship, and the suspended plot-line about Lorelai and Suki opening their own inn, GG might have enough other stuff going on that they could let Lorelai and Luke drop some part of their "there's nothing between us, yeesh" act without torpedoing the whole show. glenn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:44:52 -0600 From: Jack Lippold Subject: [loud-fans] my very late (curtsey) 2001 best-of list - long BEST OF 2001 14. GUIDED BY VOICES: "Isolation Drills" *** - Like a comfortable old sofa, you can count on Pollard & Co.'s annual entry to delight, yet challenge. And like the previous several GBV releases, they've moved beyond the decidedly crappy-fi approach. 13. STROKES: "Is This It" *** - If nothing else, I'm delighted by the commercial success of this record, proving there actually is a market for the 60's kitchen sink-Motown-beat-early Wire inspired pop that is The Strokes. 12. CAVIAR *** - Inventive and complex pop make these guys an act to watch. There's even an intriguing sample of The Left Banke integrated into the mix. 11. SLOAN: "Pretty Together" *** - Comfortable old sofa entry # 2. 70's based without the excesses with some interesting song structure tricks of their own. 10. OF MONTREAL: "Coquelicot Asleep in the Poppies: A Variety of Whimsical Verse" *** - Elephant 6's 2nd most eccentric outfit. Druggified rock-opera employing the sick, sadistic child fairy-tale motif. Great hooks and complex harmonies, yet not for the feint-of-heart. 9. THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS: "Mink Car" *** - I almost wrote these guys off after 1994's dreadful "John Henry". Back in form with a couple of interesting experimental items, "Mink Car" has the potent melodies, intriguing sonic textures and TWISTED lyrics that we've come to know and love about TMBG. (If perchance the 2 Johns that comprise this band are reading this, they'll be delighted to note I didn't use the 'q' word.) 8. BELLE DA GAMA: "Garden Abstract" *** - Inspired by Scott Miller, Julian Cope, Robyn Hitchcock amongst others who have a grasp of melody and the deconstructionist aesthetic, this is one intriguing record. 7. BEULAH: "The Coast is Never Clear" ***= - A "Revolver" for the new millennium. Glorious melodies and whimsically opulent arrangements make this another winner for this Elephant 6 band. 6. HARVEY DANGER: "King James Version" ***= - Being the cretin's advocate, this could be labeled as another "too-smart-for-their-own-good" band. But that's just my cup o' tea. The sort of record with unexpected twists and one-upmanship at every turn. 5. MINDERS: "Golden Street" ***= - The plainest looking pop band on the planet released another extraordinary record. 4. WONDERMINTS: "Bali" ***= - Are these the next Dukes of Stratosphear? Echoes of "Won't Get Fooled Again", "Caroline, No", some Cheap Trick and a dozen other references. Yet, the parodies are subdued enough to maintain some sense of identity. (Note: a gimmick of this record closes the album with tracks 15 - 99 which will freak out the random feature of your CD player. These are mostly tape loops of simulated ocean noises with a couple of surprises thrown in. Stay with these guys through this or at least use 'fast-scan' until you hear these surprises come in.) 3. KEN STRINGFELLOW: "Touched" **** - Ex-Posies frontman's 2nd solo record. Pensive tone and inventive arrangements abound, but the real allure is the intricate haunting melodies that reveal more and more with repeated playings. And that repeated playings rule is what makes a great record. 2. KRISTEN HERSH: "Sunny Border Blue" **** - How does Hersh keep this up? I just hope her incredible flair for solid and beautiful songs and cohesion through the mood swings doesn't fizzle out. 1. SOUNDTRACK OF OUR LIVES: "Behind the Music" **** -This Swedish outfit's 3rd album is a melodic tour-de-force that really grows on you. Subtle eclecticism and a 60s sensibility create a dense and interesting atmosphere. Despite a rather awkward grasp of the English language, there are some intriguing messages in the lyrics. WHAT'S MISSING: RADIOHEAD: "Amnesiac" - Okay...well, I could say that I'm just not getting it, but - in actuality - I find that there are some brilliant ideas on this record - just not enough to justify its 50 minute length. If pruned down to an EP, it would be an truly phenomenal record. Likewise for the precursor - "Kid-A". I can't help but think that a band that is capable of the brilliance of "O.K. Computer" or "The Bends" can't help but be embarrassed about the commercial and critical free-ride they're getting here. Blushing all the way to the bank, I'm guessing. What I'm hearing here is they find a truly wonderful hook or some intriguing sonic texture and run it into the dirt - extending a great 15 or 30 second idea into nearly 5 minutes. I may be pelted with rocks and garbage for saying this, but thanks for listening/reading. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:39:03 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: RE: [loud-fans] actual musical content (including--could it be?-- Sc*tt!) >On related notes, can anyone say anything about Deadweight or Tin Hat Trio? >Deadweight seems much more normal, Tin Hat Trio sounds like acid jazz. Tin Hat Trio are totally acoustic (guitar, violin and accordion if I remember correctly, which I probably don't) and don't sound at all like my somewhat unreliable mental definition of acid jazz (electric piano noodlings over drum loops, basically). The closest thing I could compare them to would be the Penguin Cafe Orchestra, or maybe a mellower Astor Piazzolla. They teeter on the edge of being NPR filler music, but good composition and expressive playing pull them back safely. I like their CD a lot but not as much as the one time I saw them live. I've been meaning to check out Sleepytime (who are local to me) literally for years now, but have never done so. Damn, I'm lame. Likewise Charming Hostess, although I think it's a bit too late for that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:10:04 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, glenn mcdonald wrote: > I must not be on the planet, because I-- No, dammit, I can't sustain > the pretense of not having a hopeless crush on Lorelai for a whole > sentence, even to make a return joke. my take on this is somewhat different: i think Luke is hopelessly in love with Lorelei, and knows it -- I don't think she knows that (which is a little hard to believe, but it's been established she's not "good" at relationships) -- and I don't think she's in love with him. Or is likely to be. I am irked by: the re-writing of Dean's character to after-the-fact make him appear to share fewer of Rory's interests. Didn't he used to read stuff? - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:19:04 -0500 From: Jase Subject: [loud-fans] Loud Family releases OOP? Just asking out of curiosity: have all of the Loud Family releases been deleted by Alias? I wanted to order a copy of _Days for Days_ for a friend of mine, but when I searched the usual online music retailers, there were either no results when I searched by the band name or, in the case of the Tower Records site, the only results were compilations the band had appeared on. I haven't had any luck either when searching by album title for any of their releases. When did this happen? Jase ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:14:05 -0800 From: John Cooper Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone I've never heard of "The Gilmore Girls." At first I thought you all were talking about the Golden Girls, and I couldn't figure out how Joey Ramone would possibly fit in. >On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, glenn mcdonald wrote: > >> Not appropos to Joey, but this GG episode seemed like an excellent >> demonstration of why I keep watching the show, but why I don't quite >> feel justified in proselytizing for it. Jess's character remains surly >> and largely nuance-less, nobody believed for a second Luke was going to >> take that apartment, the plot twist with the bracelet had been >> hamfistedly foreshadowed, and Jess and Luke's relationship still seems >> to exist in that TV realm where nobody ever slows down and states the >> obvious (exactly the flaw the portrayal of Lorelai and Rory's >> relationship *doesn't* have, it seems to me). > >Hmmm...I see what you mean here, but I'm not sure I agree with it. If >Jess's character is "surly and largely nuance-less," I think it's more a >function of the character Jess has circumscribed himself in than it is a >limitation of the writing. I'm an exception to existence, apparently - >because I thought Luke *was* going to take that apartment. Of course, once >he found out Taylor owned it, obviously he wasn't going to. But ask >yourself: if someone had said last week that Luke was going to invest in >property, would you have believed it? As to Jess and Luke's relationship: >I'm not quite sure which obvious they should be slowing down to state - >but since neither is exactly champs in the open expression of feeling >competitions (and none too aware of those of others, either: Luke must be >the only man on the planet who could possibly remain so oblivious to >Lorelai), that their relationship consists largely of thrashing around, >yelling, and avoiding one another makes a degree of sense. Agreed on the >bracelet thing - to the extent that it was less a plot twist than a plot >chute. (If Jess were smarter, he would have claimed to have found the >bracelet on the roof just outside Rory's window - as if it had fallen out >of the open window.) But I thought it interesting that he both denied >having taken the bracelet (technically true) but admitted to Lorelai, >indirectly, that he'd known of its whereabouts (which to her would only >confirm that he had taken it). > > Luke's first instinct >> to run to Lorelai after he impulsively buys a whole building (plus the >> intriguing detail that he had the money to) > >Of course, he does live rather frugally...I don't suppose he bought the >building outright, but took out a mortgage - and "just spent $100,000" was >about the obligation, not the downpayment. > >The problem with this show, and with any show that features a non-couple >whose suitability is in many ways screamingly obvious, is: if the tension >of stretching out the non-relationship is in many ways the plot's main >engine, how long do you keep that up until it becomes tedious ("get >together already!") - vs. if they *do* get together, that tension's >gone...and what then? (the _Moonlighting_ problem, to note the classic >case) > >I missed the Shaggs thing - must have been laughing at something else. > >Oh yeah: what was the first track Jess was sleeping to? It sounded >familiar, but I couldn't quite place it. The Causey Way? > >--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 >::I play the guitar. Sometimes I play the fool:: >__John Lennon__ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:30:21 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone > i think Luke is hopelessly in love with Lorelei, and knows it ... > and I don't think she's in love with him. Or is likely to be. Hmm. My read is that Luke knows he's in love with Lorelai, but will absolutely never make the first move, even if that means he has to watch her end up with someone else (or elses) while he stays single forever. I disagree with you in the other direction, though. I think the only thing standing between Lorelai and Luke, inside Lorelai's head, is that she hasn't quite grown up, and so still wants to be courted, and tends to mistake her superficial enjoyment of being courted for deeper feelings. Witness both whole Max affairs, in which Lorelai reveled in the attention but didn't give him even the slightest entry into her real life. Contrast, then, her showing up at her parents door to yell at her mother with Max almost forgotten in tow, and her and Luke's almost heartbreakingly tender trip to the hospital when her father had his heart-attack false-alarm. Lorelai is already deeply in love with Luke, and profoundly dependent on his presence in her life. All we're waiting for is the day when she wakes up and realizes that she's been applying the label "love" to exactly the wrong things. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:31:16 -0600 From: Bill Silvers Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone dmw wrote: >On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, glenn mcdonald wrote: > > > I must not be on the planet, because I-- No, dammit, I can't sustain > > the pretense of not having a hopeless crush on Lorelai for a whole > > sentence, even to make a return joke. > >my take on this is somewhat different: i think Luke is hopelessly in love >with Lorelei, and knows it -- I don't think she knows that (which is a >little hard to believe, but it's been established she's not "good" at >relationships) -- and I don't think she's in love with him. Or is likely >to be. *That* nails it. And further, Luke thinks this too, which explains his determination to *try* to be oblivious (even convincing a few of us of it, it seems.), while every so often giving signals that he cares more than he wants to. b.s. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:33:50 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Rory Ramone On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, dmw wrote: > my take on this is somewhat different: i think Luke is hopelessly in love > with Lorelei, and knows it -- I don't think she knows that (which is a > little hard to believe, but it's been established she's not "good" at > relationships) -- and I don't think she's in love with him. Or is likely > to be. This is true insofar as Lorelai doesn't quite seem to get the being-in-love thing. But I don't think she's unattracted to him. > I am irked by: the re-writing of Dean's character to after-the-fact make > him appear to share fewer of Rory's interests. Didn't he used to read > stuff? If my memory serves me correctly, he was introduced to us as either reading something or being curious about what Rory was reading: the implication was that he was indeed a reader - not as advanced as Rory (and how many 16-year-olds are?) but interested. I also don't really care for the show's making him into a nice but somewhat clueless and overreactive dope - although I'm also kinda bored with him. They seem to have trouble figuring out how to write him: I remember early on, there was a scene where Lorelai all but interrogated him as to his intentions. Not only did he somehow remain completely calm and cool in the face of this (and he's supposed to be 16 or 17? and he's afterwards flown off the handle several times - what's-his-snob that had a crush on Rory, Luke, Jess - even Rory, though not violently), he somehow, even though he's 16 or 17, failed to observe that Rory's mom is awfully damned hot... Hmm...there seems to be a theme in my GG posts...better shut up now. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::"am I being self-referential?":: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:38:12 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Loud Family releases OOP? On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Jase wrote: > Just asking out of curiosity: have all of the Loud Family releases been > deleted by Alias? Didn't Alias go belly-up? - --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__ ps: Hey Jase - did that CD arrive? Or are the Canadian postal workers still diggin it? ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #82 ******************************