From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #90 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, March 6 2002 Volume 02 : Number 090 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Re: [loud-fans] hurtfeelingathon ["John Swartzentruber" ] [loud-fans] two alarming URLs [Aaron Mandel ] [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis [dana-boy@juno.com] [loud-fans] RE: hurtfeelingathon ["Brett Milano" ] Re: [loud-fans] take the lombardi trophy to the stop-n-shop [Miles Goosen] Re: [loud-fans] another swap review [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com] RE: [loud-fans] The Continuing Story of Bungalow Scott [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? [Bill Silvers ] Re: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? [Bill Silvers ] Re: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re:Re:Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis [dana-boy@juno.com] Re:Re:Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis [Tim_Walters@digidesign.c] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:55:17 -0500 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: Re: [loud-fans] hurtfeelingathon On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:28:08 -0500, amy b. lewis wrote: >but if you read about >the loud family in tower pulse or stereo review, odds are brett was the >wordsmith. I think I've thanked him on this forum before, but I'll thank him again (Thanks Brett). I had never heard of Game Theory or the Loud Family, but Brett's review of TToOL in Stereo Review was good enough to get me to buy it. And then I listened to PaBaRaT from the Worthington Library (thanks Janet?) before I bought it. And I went on from there. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:00:54 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] hurtfeelingathon At 11:11 PM 3/5/2002 -0700, Rog wrote: >At Tuesday 3/5/2002 10:31 PM -0600, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > >>I'm trying to recall...I think I bought PBRT and TTOOL in record stores, >>IBC, DFD, and AN online (I also received promo copies of the last two). > >For a walk down the "Trying to locate a copy of IBC during release week" >memory lane, turn to: > >http://www.reignoffrogs.com/loudml26.txt >http://www.reignoffrogs.com/loudml27.txt Having just read through all of this, I want to update two viewpoints I expressed then: * I now think "Answering Machine" is a classic, but I stick by the rest of my Replacements comments. * I now worship the Fall. Otherwise -- I'm still the same, whether it's a good thing or not. Many thanks to Rog for preserving this material. Though figuring out that most of the headers appear *after* a given message took me a few minutes to work out. I was thinking "Hey, that sounds like *me,* not Andrew Otwell!" (OK, I'd forgotten Andrew Otwell before today. But you know what I mean. I think.) later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:58:59 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re:[loud-fans] hurtfeelingathon >to buy it. And then I listened to PaBaRaT from the Worthington Library >(thanks Janet?) before I bought it. And I went on from there. I should mention that the Lakewood (OH) library has two copies of PaBaRaT. I have no idea who ordered them, though they have lots of very cool stuff here, so someone obviously knows what they're doing. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:19:50 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: [loud-fans] two alarming URLs One, a story of major-label incompetence; Carly Hennessy's record cost $2 million to make and promote, but it's sold under 400 copies: http://blog.mattgoyer.com/stories/2002/02/21/ popSingerFallsToStrikeAChordDespiteTheMillionsSpentByMCA.html Two, a Harper's article by a slightly too-precious writer who nevertheless has intriguing ideas about Dan Rather's famous 1986 "Kenneth" beating: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1819_303/80680397/print.jhtml a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:04:35 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis (If the formatting on this is odd, I apologize. I'm not sure how Juno web handles text files.) Just a few points regarding Mr. Miller that haven't popped up in the recent conversation. One of the more frustrating aspects of Scott's self-appraisals in "Ask Scott" is that he seems to be entirely focusing on the problem of his *current* lack of popularity. One consideration that he never seems to take into account is the fact that musical tastes change, and that no one can predict what will be popular in five, ten, or twenty years. While it may be of dubious comfort to release albums in 2002 in the hope that they might find an audience five, ten, or more years down the road, the fact is that there's no way to know what will be popular in the future. I'm sure that Scott is aware that there's a limited age window for performing the type of music he makes -- I'd say, in a very unscientific generalization, that the cut of point is somewhere in the 50's (and kindly ask that we not start a thread of all the fascinating exceptions). If his muse has run dry, then that's one thing. Assuming, though, that he's actually still writing songs, and choosing not to record them, he ought to be aware that the clock is ticking... Right now, he has contact with musicians, a loyal (if small) fan base, and could no doubt get *somebody* to release his CDs. In the future, that might not be the case. For all we know, he could get hit by a car next week. It would be a shame if he wasted his present opportunity to get his work a reasonably sizable audience (and the possibilty, however remote, of a larger audience someday) just because he doesn't feel that his present level of exposure justifies the egotism of cramming himself down people's throats. I say that if you have something to say, get it out there as best you can, and let history decide if it was worthwhile. Second point. Everyone (including Scott) seems to be concentrating on CD sales and radio/MTV exposure as the roads to success. I think that it's safe to say that today those avenues are essentially closed to someone doing Scott's kind of music. But, it's entirely possible that one of his songs could wind up in 1. a commercial or 2. a movie, and a small thing like that can easily pull in an audience of 100,000 plus. This has happened so often that I can't believe he would overlook it. He's got a huge fan in Aimee Mann, and there's every chance that she could be asked to do songs for another movie. Is it impossible that one of those could be a cover of a GT/LF song? Does it seem beyond the realm of the likely that that Rushmore/Royal Tannenbaums guy might put a GT/LF song in a film? Popularity can come from the strangest sources, and it's just impossible to predict where lightning might strike. Finally, I'm still a little surprised that no one has mentioned the "Ask Scott" wherein he reveals to the world: "Here's one strange thing about my mind though -- I've made the odd discovery that there's a melody playing in some corner of my consciousness virtually 24 hours a day..." I wasn't surprised to learn that Scott suffers from anxiety (of which this is a classic symptom) but I was surprised by his apparent belief that 1. this very common experience is "strange" and 2. his apparent failure to realize that the tune is blocking something else out. If any of his loved ones are reading this, I apologize for the presumption, but what I really think would do him a world of good is if someone would slip him a Xanax. I'm not one to get really interested in probing the inner lives of my favorite musicians, but the entire "Why I'm not making music" thread in "Ask Scott" has been so odd. If it's filling the purpose of therapy for the guy, then I'm all for it, but I can't help wondering if he should be addressing all this stuff to a therapist (maybe he is). I'm just a little surprised by the things that he *hasn't* addressed in this recent bout of soul-searching. - --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: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:30:37 -0500 From: "Brett Milano" Subject: [loud-fans] RE: hurtfeelingathon Amy sez: > i have to put a good word in for Our Brett, who, while an employee at alias, > lobbied his ass off to get the loud family signed. and in his music writing > career, he snagged as many column inches on a page as he could possibly > manage Thanks much Amy, but the wordsmithing generally wasn't me....A someone who was indirectly associated with the LF, I generally held off in writing about them until the later albums. They had a couple major supporters at Stereo Review (Steve Simels, the music editor who I hadn't yet met, named the first two albums "Best of the Month") and Scott SChinder at Tower Pulse. Lots of other national writers loved 'em as well. To set the Alias record slightly straight: It's shameful but true, that at the time they signed to Alias, nobody else seemed to be biting. Geffen had dangled them on a string for a long while, and I saw a LF show in San Francisco that was badly attended. At the time Alias was a real contender, there'd been success with American Music Club and Yo La Tengo; even some of the obscure bands were making waves; we nearly got Scrawl too. I wasn't there when the label declined, but I know that some weird factors had to do with it: A new label manager came in who was wildly antisocial; then Delight got divorced and distracted. AT the time of their signing, there was also a general feeling that the LF would be a major departure from Game Theory, so the name change seemed more appropriate-- I remember that those of us at Alias who were longtime fans were pretty surprised when Scott inserted the GF references onto PBRT. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:07:52 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] take the lombardi trophy to the stop-n-shop At 07:36 PM 2/5/2002 +0000, richblath wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >> * The light bank on the cover of NO SLEEP... always looks to me like a >Lite >> Brite fighter plane about to strafe the helpless audience. I like this. > >It was built around the single 'Bomber' and album of the same name that they >were touring in support of when NO SLEEP... was recorded. > >There's another potential skeleton leaving the closet! Wow, thanks for enlightening me! I'm not steeped in Motorhead lore -- I was always more of an appreciator than a devout follower, so my knowledge of Lemmy, Fast Eddie, & co. is always more reminiscent of the band's personal hygiene (i.e., patchy at best) than I'd like. I should have guessed a connection to BOMBER, though. D'oh. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:26:02 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] another swap review 3- Alice Cooper- 18 It amuses me how tame Alice Cooper sounds now. This song was always one a favorite. One thing I admire about Alice's work was their ability to create a full, heavy sound with what's really pretty spare production. <><><><><><><><><><> Bob Ezrin produced this right? The sound space on Kiss's _Destroyer_ has similar qualities: guitar tones which, by contemporary standards, aren't particularly "heavy", working as a component of a whole that rocks hard, and which makes next to no sense at low volume. - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:44:16 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: RE: [loud-fans] The Continuing Story of Bungalow Scott Aaron Mandel explains it all (and explains it very well): >On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Miles Goosens wrote: > >> then turn around and act like the greater record buying public that's >> sucking down the Limp Bizkit and Staind has somehow developed taste >> when it comes to not buying R.E.M. records. > >Ah, well, right. There was a time when people with no taste at all -- the >people who buy one record a year -- bought R.E.M. albums. It was very fun to see the OOT/AFTP-only folks (a demographic that, anecdotally, had a *very* high percentage of yuppies) at the MONSTER tour shows. The look of fear and dread in their faces when the big noisy guitars fuzzed out the speakers, them scrambling for the exits after they realized that a lot of the night would be devoted to big noisy guitars... ah, priceless. >That doesn't >happen anymore; I don't think it's because of the breakdown of >college-rock consensus OR because of the quality of R.E.M.'s records. It's >just really hard to maintain that level of stardom for a long time. Even >Madonna had a few slow years. OK, a sort of entropy of stardom. I can buy that. >> If you want to make an argument about quality, make it. > >Okay, here goes: I think R.E.M. got a whole lot worse on Up, and tried to >reconcile their new direction with their past on Reveal, which could have >been great if the songwriting were there, but, I think, wasn't. I largely concur. (Y'all did remember that I haven't cared too much for the last two albums, right?) Or maybe not, since REVEAL just seems to me to be a more polished version of UP. In both cases, it's not that the songs are so intrinsically bad, it's that they're so damnably monochromatic. The songs have sounded much better live, stripped of studio gloss and surrounded by more varied material from the band's catalog. Plus the direction the music's gone, into that unfortunate Bacharach/PET SOUNDS fetishistic overarranging revival, isn't one that pleases my ears. And I enjoyed the "Okay, here goes" response! Heh! :-))) >I feel >like the music is trying to go in a mellower but also more nuanced >direction, and Stipe, though I love what his voice *can* do, doesn't have >the expressive chops to complement it, so the last two records have come >out underdone. I can't agree with this at all -- I think Stipe sings the hell out of both UP and REVEAL. At the time it came out, I thought UP seemed underdone from the standpoint of feeling less like a finished product and more like a bunch of songs the band was working through. I still think it was a case of Warners saying "we paid you all this money, so give us some product *NOW*," so the band handed in their fourteen or so best songs at the time, never mind that they hadn't written a varied set of material or quite learned how they were going to function going forward as a threesome. But then they had plenty of time to craft REVEAL, and it's UP 2.0. So I guess EZ listening is what they want to be right now. Sigh. >However: > >> But using poor sales to validate your argument about an artist's >> decline (which, on second reading, I still *think* you're doing, but >> I'm not entirely sure of it) strikes me like an exercise in very >> dubious logic. > >That's not what I meant to do. Good. Sorry to have assumed this (and glad I qualified it before I said it!). But your earlier post left a lot to interpretation! :-) I remember SPIN running this chart in 1987 or so that showed how Jam/Lewis productions were outselling Prince's post-PURPLE RAIN releases, and it was done in a "Prince, you suck!" vindictive spirit, and I thought "What the?!? So Jam/Lewis are *better* because their albums sell more? So I should be buying Janet Jackson instead of that Red Lorry/Yellow Lorry album you're hyping in the review section, huh?" >I just don't think R.E.M. are a good >example for talking about the shrinking of that alt-rock stage they once >stood on and which the Loud Family never reached. I'm not sure there's any >band whose ten-year career trajectory works as an example there -- it >might be better to look at recent bands whom one can compellingly parallel >with the underground winners of the late 80s and say "see, NONE of them >are getting breaks now" -- but R.E.M., with the risks they've taken, are a >particularly bad case study if one's just trying to suss out a larger >trend. Very well put, and I have nothing to add to that paragraph. You did an excellent job of more fully expressing your thoughts, and I appreciate it! (Geez, I sound positively schoolmarmish. But I'm impressed, so the gold star is in the mail.) later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:19:45 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] lazy line listener Miles A few days ago, I was driving around town on my lunch break and had the radio on instead of playing a CD. A song came on WRVU, Vandy's station, with a mannered vocal and a sort of late '60s art-folk strum backing. I thought it was Nico. I was about two and a half minutes into the song before I realized that it was Belle and Sebastian. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:42:24 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] two alarming URLs On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Aaron Mandel wrote: > Two, a Harper's article by a slightly too-precious writer who nevertheless > has intriguing ideas about Dan Rather's famous 1986 "Kenneth" beating: > > http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1819_303/80680397/print.jhtml Just make sure you see the letter to the editor in the following issue (the issue with the disproving the Bible cover story, whatever month that was) which defends Scott Miller as the first person to put this Kenneth beating to cultural use. (Or, check the archives--I think it was Jeff who posted the text of the letter.) - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:07:01 -0800 From: "Douglas Stanley" Subject: [loud-fans] Where was the Loud Family? For the record, I bought PABARAT in a Wherehouse Music in Poway, CA. I was a big GT fan and had never heard of LF. Alias was kind enough to affix a small sticker to the CD case that said LF was the "new band from Scott Miller of Game Theory". Who knows where I'd be right now if they had decided against that sticker. Alias did something right. TTOOL was found a Tower in San Diego; IBC somewhere in Portland, OR (Music Millennium?); DFD at Zia Records, Tempe, AZ; AN was from a friend. On related note: I seem to recall, years ago, someone (Sue?) saying the Rolling Stone reviews of PABARAT and TTOOL were the result of someone inside RS being a fan - not due to any zealous promotion from Alias. Doug S. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:41:42 -0800 From: John Cooper Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Where was the Loud Family? On 3/6/02, Douglas Stanley wrote: >I bought PABARAT in a Wherehouse Music in Poway, CA. I was a big GT fan and >had never heard of LF. Alias was kind enough to affix a small sticker to the >CD case that said LF was the "new band from Scott Miller of Game Theory". >Who knows where I'd be right now if they had decided against that sticker. >Alias did something right. I'll second that. I hadn't heard any Game Theory except for what was on Enigma Variations, but I knew they had a great reputation among people whose taste I respected, so when I saw PABARAT (with that sticker) in a used CD store picking it up was a no-brainer. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:59:20 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] two alarming URLs On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Michael Mitton wrote: > On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Aaron Mandel wrote: > > > Two, a Harper's article by a slightly too-precious writer who nevertheless > > has intriguing ideas about Dan Rather's famous 1986 "Kenneth" beating: > > > > http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1819_303/80680397/print.jhtml > > Just make sure you see the letter to the editor in the following issue > (the issue with the disproving the Bible cover story, whatever month that > was) which defends Scott Miller as the first person to put this Kenneth > beating to cultural use. (Or, check the archives--I think it was Jeff who > posted the text of the letter.) I did - but it's probably easier to find at Sue's Loud Family website - www.loudfamily.com. I think it's under NEWS. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::SCENE 2: ::Aunt Fritzi applies lipstick in the mirror. In the next room, Sluggo ::removes his ever-present cap and blows his nose in a red handkerchief. ::Nancy enters the room and accuses Sluggo of stealing the donuts that ::Aunt Fritzi made for her. Sluggo looks at the clock, which reads 8:54, ::and says he'd better hurry or he'll be late for his trombone lesson. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:52:43 EST From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis In a message dated 3/6/02 11:06:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, dana-boy@juno.com writes: > He's got a > And that's why I wish Scott would consider United Musicians, the co-op lable her and Michael Penn and her manager Michael Hausman. They would promote it right, and he'd have good distrubtion. He could do anything he wanted with the album, and would own the copywright. Hey it was good enough for Bob Mould, who has three albums coming out on UM/his own lable Grainery, one acoustic, one electronic, and one a cominbation of the two. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:41:48 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis A few items for consideration: 1. Alias may or may not have performed their record company duties (it sounds as if they did at the beginning, but not at the end), but I don't think it made much difference at all. It's a truism in the business that the only way for a rock band to reach the level of success that Scott is stipulating is by touring their ass off, meaning a lot more than once every two years. This is true even for major label acts. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's what they are, exceptions (and I would venture to guess that they're mostly acts with some kind of novelty value, or who have had a lot of airplay bought for them, or who became successful by touring their ass off and then retained some of that success when they stopped). 2. If I made a decision based on complicated and hard-to-articulate emotional reasons, and people asked me to explain it every week, and I felt that I owed them an explanation, they'd probably get rationalizations that made some sense to me but not to them. 3. If hearing songs in your head all day is a sign of anxiety, then I've been anxious all my life, and so has everyone else I've ever known. 4. The idea that Scott's recent Ask Scott responses are some kind of indication of his mental health is weirder than anything Scott has said. Which is saying something. 5. Remember: there are lots of ways to be happy in life besides making records, and he doesn't owe anybody a damn thing. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:49:20 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] for any daniel ash fans Daniel Ash Auto Accident Update Last Friday afternoon, March 1, musician Daniel Ash was involved in a horrific automobile accident on the 405 freeway just outside of El Segundo, CA. Ash was starting off on tour with bandmates when his SUV was struck by another vehicle in a chain-reaction accident, causing Ash's SUV to flip and roll several times before coming to a stop on its side in the incoming traffic lane. Suffering the most serious injuries in the crash was bassist Patina, who ended up getting pinned underneath the vehicle. Thanks to Ash, Christopher The Minister, Josh the tour manager and a good-samaritan passerby, they were able to lift the vehicle and remove Patina from underneath it. She was immediately taken to the hospital, where she was diagnosed with a broken arm, broken ribs, collapsed lung, internal bleeding, a broken jaw and numerous facial cuts. She spent the weekend in the hospital in serious condition...but we're happy to report that she's been upgraded today and seems to be in better spirits. Daniel, meanwhile, suffered numerous cuts from broken glass, for which he's been treated. Christopher The Minister, Daniel's manager, came through the ordeal with a lot less skin on his right arm due to a severe case of road rash incurred. We're VERY happy to report that all involved should enjoy full recoveries...in fact, Ash is already tentatively planning to resume the tour (with a different bass player) in Salt Lake City next Tuesday, March 12. (3.4.02) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:17:09 -0800 From: Elizabeth Brion Subject: Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis At 2:52 PM -0500 3/6/02, AWeiss4338@aol.com wrote: > >And that's why I wish Scott would consider United Musicians, the co-op lable >her and Michael Penn and her manager Michael Hausman. They would promote it >right, and he'd have good distrubtion. He could do anything he wanted with >the album, and would own the copywright. >Hey it was good enough for Bob Mould, who has three albums coming out on >UM/his own lable Grainery, one acoustic, one electronic, and one a >cominbation of the two. Doesn't UM have some sort of sales requirement - i.e., they have to reasonably be able to expect each artist to sell, say, 40,000 copies of an album? (The actual number is completely fictional.) I could have them confused with some other artist coalition, but I'd swear I heard that somewhere. That could be part of the problem, assuming there is a problem and it's just not a matter of Scott not wanting to make records. I'm with Jenny on the "untapped fan potential" issue. My story is a little different - I never heard of Game Theory until well after I'd heard of the Loud Family - but still, as a person who buys a lot of music, reads a lot about music, etc., and who has lived in major metropoli for the past 18 years, I managed to never hear a note of Scott Miller's music until sometime between Days for Days and Attractive Nuisance. And I'm fairly certain I'd never heard *of* the Loud Family until the year before that. Now they're one of my absolute favorite bands. So I'd say it's a fair bet that they have not, in fact, reached everyone they're ever going to reach. - -- Elizabeth ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:19:13 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re:Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis 3. If hearing songs in your head all day is a sign of anxiety, then I've been anxious all my life, and so has everyone else I've ever known. 4. The idea that Scott's recent Ask Scott responses are some kind of indication of his mental health is weirder than anything Scott has said. Which is saying something. >>>>>>>>>> I knew when I said that that it would evoke a defensive response, though to be honest I thought it would come from someone else (I had a particular person in mind, to whom I owe a theoretical apology). I doubt that it's worth getting into an argument over a Psych issue on list, but suffice it to say that there's clinical support for my viewpoint re: the ever present melody (not sure why Tim changed it to "song"). Also, while it sounds dramatic to call it "mental health" there's nothing particularly odd about noting that someone is acting anxious, and I'm not sure why anyone would find that weird. Most people get anxious, especially when they're unhappy about something, and it usually shows. - --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: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:42:39 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis dana sez: Finally, I'm still a little surprised that no one has mentioned the "Ask Scott" wherein he reveals to the world: "Here's one strange thing about my mind though -- I've made the odd discovery that there's a melody playing in some corner of my consciousness virtually 24 hours a day..." I wasn't surprised to learn that Scott suffers from anxiety (of which this is a classic symptom) but I was surprised by his apparent belief that 1. this very common experience is "strange" and 2. his apparent failure to realize that the tune is blocking something else out. <><><><><><><> Huh? Did I miss something here? Are you diagnosing him with anxiety based solely on his self-observation, doc? That sounds just a little bit like the pop psychology thing where anyone who won't "admit" something is automatically in "denial". Maybe the guy's imagination is disproportionally fixated on music. Seems as likely as some sort of pathological explanation. might as well face it you're addicted to oxygen, - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:46:34 -0500 (EST) From: jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu Subject: Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis Scott has had tons more success in the music business than thousands of musicians who are equally deserving. I have no idea what he's complaining about. JS - ------------------------------------------------- BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL WEBMAIL: info.brooklaw.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:50:23 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re:Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis Huh? Did I miss something here? Are you diagnosing him with anxiety based solely on his self-observation, doc? >>>>>>>>> No diagnosis, but if it looks like a duck, call it a duck. Scott's unhappy with his musical career, he's talking about it endlessly, his responses are a little weird and disjointed, and then he casually mentions a pretty typical symptom of anxiety...I see no reason not to draw a conclusion and I don't see any good reason not to consider the possibility. If I were a doctor, and there was a potential for ramifications based on what I said, then no, obviously I wouldn't diagnose him as having an anxiety problem based on that statement, but I think that's pretty obvious. I don't know that it's worth making a huge deal out of it, but it's certainly worth mentioning. Does anyone here really think that depression/anxiety are uncommon amongst musicians? - --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: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:05:12 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re:Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis >I doubt that it's worth getting into an argument over a Psych issue on list, but suffice it to say that >there's clinical support for my viewpoint re: the ever present melody (not sure why Tim changed it to >"song"). Maybe I'm just confused. What I get, and what most people I've talked to about it get, is WTIM broadcasting golden oldies--i.e., songs I've heard a lot--pretty much all the time, often but not always based on textual correlation with whatever's going on. Somebody on this list, I think, once mentioned hearing "Down By The River" in their head when they were down by the river, and that's happened to me as well. Usually the correlation is more subtle, but not all that hard to tease out. I'd be interested (seriously, not rhetorically) to know if this is the behavior you're talking about, or if not, what that behavior is, and either way more details on what it means. >Also, while it sounds dramatic to call it "mental health" I don't think this is fair; you brought up the Xanax! >he's talking about it endlessly... People are asking him about it endlessly. Surely that has something to do with it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:10:12 -0800 From: "me" Subject: Re: Re:Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis > I don't know that it's worth making a huge deal out of it, but it's certainly worth mentioning. Does anyone here really think that depression/anxiety are uncommon amongst musicians? > > --dana given the endless barrage of crap they receive, i wouldn't be surprised if they're some of the most stressed out, unhappy people around. but... there's depression/anxiety and CLINICAL depression/anxiety and they're certainly not the same thing. then there's the fact that there's probably something of a bell curve to the stress level of musicians as a function of their success level. (i.e. folks who play for fun around campfires and folks who make tons of money off royalties and don't have to tour/promote are probably not too stressed about it.) i'd say if scott's stressed/anxious/depressed, it's more likely it's over whether or not he's making the right decisions concerning recording/performing/etc., and MOST likely about something entirely unrelated to music. i'm guessing the guy DOES have other things to be concerned about - income, family, what's going on in the world around him, etc. if you listen to the lyrics, or just the music, or have ever met scott, you can tell he's a pretty intelligent guy (BIG understatement) that probably has a whole lot of things to think/worry about. and just possibly his small-but-loyal fan base picking apart his psychological well-being as if he's an intersting music-producing chimpanzee is not helping. just my coupla cents worth. brianna heh. i'm bAAAaaaack..... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:12:56 -0800 From: lorrie smith Subject: Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > >he's talking about it endlessly... > > People are asking him about it endlessly. Surely that has something to do with > it. which is why i think he keeps offering more and more philosophical analyses. if people aren't satisfied with "i just don't feel like making another record right now," perhaps he feels he has to reach deeper and deeper for justification. okay, back to lurking. lorrie ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:20:27 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? This talk of internal radio reminds me that the song in heavy rotation on WTIM at the moment is the one that goes How much does it cost? I'll buy it Blah blah blah blah blah? I'll try it You can't even run your own life, be damned if you'll run mine It's making me anxious, and not having any idea what song this is or who it's by makes it harder to kill. If someone could contribute to my mental health by identifying it, I'd surely appreciate it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:25:16 -0700 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? Jonathan Edwards, "Sunshine." S At 02:20 PM 3/6/02 -0800, Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: >This talk of internal radio reminds me that the song in heavy rotation on WTIM >at the moment is the one that goes > >How much does it cost? I'll buy it >Blah blah blah blah blah? I'll try it >You can't even run your own life, be damned if you'll run mine > >It's making me anxious, and not having any idea what song this is or who it's by >makes it harder to kill. If someone could contribute to my mental health by >identifying it, I'd surely appreciate it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 16:23:46 -0600 From: Bill Silvers Subject: Re: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? Tim Walters: >This talk of internal radio reminds me that the song in heavy rotation on WTIM >at the moment is the one that goes > >How much does it cost? I'll buy it >Blah blah blah blah blah? I'll try it >You can't even run your own life, be damned if you'll run mine > >It's making me anxious, and not having any idea what song this is or who >it's by >makes it harder to kill. If someone could contribute to my mental health by >identifying it, I'd surely appreciate it. Jonathan Edwards, "Sunshine." b.s. who'd prefer "Sunshine" to the Pinmonkey tune that's been stuck there for a day or so ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:27:57 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? >Jonathan Edwards, "Sunshine." Never heard of him or it. That's some insidious Seventies damage! Thanks for the ID. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 16:31:15 -0600 From: Bill Silvers Subject: Re: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? Tim Walters: > >Jonathan Edwards, "Sunshine." > >Never heard of him or it. That's some insidious Seventies damage! Thanks >for the >ID. Check the AMG blurbage: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Bdm2zefbkhgf5 or perhaps a more informative one from Stewart Mason? b.s. who'd, um, forgotten about "Shanty," another 70's staple, for some reason ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:37:21 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] How much does it cost? He was in the Seldom Scene? Well, that makes him a lot cooler than I thought from hearing that chorus on endless loop. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:43:26 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re:Re:Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis >Also, while it sounds dramatic to call it "mental health" I don't think this is fair; you brought up the Xanax! >>>>>>>>>>> It's an anti-anxiety drug. I take it, as do about a gazzillion other people. It's great for stopping the constant melodies in your head. >he's talking about it endlessly... People are asking him about it endlessly. Surely that has something to do with it. >>>>>>>>>>>> No one's holding a gun to his head, forcing him to do the "Ask Scott" column. I have no doubt, given the amount of respect his fans have for him, that if he simply responded, "I have personal reasons for not doing music. Please ask me about something else. No offense intended" that the vast majority of letter writers would go along and resume asking him about obscure Joyce references. I mean, how many "Ask Scott" questions (or responses) have there been about his divorce? I'd be interested (seriously, not rhetorically) to know if this is the behavior you're talking about, or if not, what that behavior is, and either way more details on what it means. >>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know if I can help you. I took the easy way out and asked my wife, who works in the Psych dept. of a Brooklyn hospital, to check. Basically, though, having any constant thought in your head (be it melodies or what have you) is usually considered obsessive thinking. Some part of Scott's brain feels compelled to churn out melodies 24-7, and you have to wonder why. - --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: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:05:50 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re:Re:Re: [loud-fans] still more Scott analysis >I have no doubt, given the amount of respect his fans have for him, that if he simply responded, "I have >personal reasons for not doing music. Please ask me about something else. No offense intended" that the >vast majority of letter writers would go along and resume asking him about obscure Joyce references. I'm sure you're right. But maybe he's trying to figure out what he really thinks by writing it down and putting it out there. As you've probably noticed, I do this a lot. >Basically, though, having any constant thought in your head (be it melodies or what have you) is usually >considered obsessive thinking. Some part of Scott's brain feels compelled to churn out melodies 24-7, and >you have to wonder why. To be obsessive in the psychological sense, wouldn't it have be the same melody over and over? If it's different melodies, I would say that that's just normal artist's obsessiveness, without which art would barely be possible. Mozart describes the phenomenon eloquently in some quote I've read. If anything, hearing melodies and not feeling like converting them into songs is a decline in obsession rather than the reverse. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #90 ******************************