From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #150 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, April 24 2002 Volume 02 : Number 150 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic ["Keegstra, Russell" <] RE: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic ["Aaron Milenski" ] [loud-fans] United States of America (the band, for once) [Richard Gagnon] Re: [loud-fans] contrary is as contrary does [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] contrary is as contrary does ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] Futurama [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] RE: [loud-fans] NS: wedding garb and kids ["Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennet] Re: [loud-fans] 3 Steps From the Complete Catalog... ["me" ] Re: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] einsturzende neubaten ["me" ] RE: [loud-fans] This is no longer close to the topic ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:29:36 -0500 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic Roger: >Asleep and Awake, Dripping With Looks: Rawk songs?!? None of >the people I know who are into "rock" would consider them such. >Maybe if they had more drums and were played twice as fast... Dude, didn't Black Sabbath prove you don't have to play fast to rock? I guess it's all in the ear of the, um, behearer. Russ, wishing Bill Shakespeare a happy 438th, yesterday. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:43:13 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic >Dude, didn't Black Sabbath prove you don't have to play fast to >rock? I guess it's all in the ear of the, um, behearer. I would argue that Black Sabbath proves that you DO have to play fast to rock. This original question is pretty tricky, because in my mind Scott's best work grows on the listener. Whatever song I would expect someone to like on first listen is probably not something I'd consider among his best. However, "24" is definitely a song a lot of radio people I know just loved, even though I think even that's not a "love at first listen song." "Deee-Pression" is a good choice--very catchy, as would be "Jimmy Still Comes Around" or "Take Me Down." Also, the guitar hooks to "Nothing New" and "Last Day That We're Young" drew ME in at first listen, but I'm probably never a good example. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:57:16 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] contrary is as contrary does On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Roger Winston wrote: > I don't understand why everyone thinks Don't Respond is so accessible and ... > other Scott songs. I think it's the odd timing in the chorus that gets one large "me too" with a side of "what he said," please. i love "respond," actually, but i'd only try it as an entree for someone who was likely to find much of Scott's catalog too straight and normal. Rog continued, still on Tue 23 Apr 2002, one presumes: > Asleep and Awake, Dripping With Looks: Rawk songs?!? None of the people I > know who are into "rock" would consider them such. Maybe if they had more > drums and were played twice as fast... "dripping's" super-saturated guitar sound is purest rawk, but again, i'm standing with Rog: that little pshh, pshh, what is that, a processed drum machine hat/cymbal? is just *so* *not.* i confess a neanderthal desire to hear that song performed with big rock drums and a throbbing bass line. i might even arrange to hear it that way sometime. kinda generally weirded out though, me, by this concept of *tricking* unwary people into liking Scott's music. 'cause in the main i can't see mr. miller getting much long-haul play with people who are not musically inquisitive, adventurous, willing to take a chance on something. i've always assumed that that's why so many of the records start with concrete collages or noise blasts: still here? ok, good, you are in the right room -- this is post-chilton, weird-leaning power pop 501. i know we have some undergraduates here today, and those of you who aren't grad students might need to do a little extra reading to keep up. just give 'em an album, say i. hey, aaron (or someone in the know): is that loudfan wantlist page still up? where is it, if so? > Sorry for being on-topic... I'm not used to it. I *am* used to be contrary > tho. But Rog -- if you agree that you disagree with everything I say, and I agree that I disagree with everything you say, then aren't we really in complete agreement?? cappaciao, - -- lymph terror p.s. no, you didn't "used to be contrary" -- in fact you may be on some geometric scale of increasing contrariness... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:05:56 -0400 From: Richard Gagnon Subject: [loud-fans] United States of America (the band, for once) Andrew wrote: Linkwise, here's an interesting article especially for you United States Of American fans out there: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/23/copyright/index.html Thanks, Andy! Great article. It nicely answers some of the questions left in the liner notes about what Joseph Byrd's been up to. And the link to Amazon leads you to find out what happened to Dorothy too! Stereolab fans always talk about Can and Neu! as their progenitors, but there's their sound, fully-formed, on the USA's "Coming down". Kinda like when I recognized the whole blueprint of Roxette in ELO's "Calling America". Maybe it's just me. ;) Rick - -- "He had built a card-house as high as it would go, and he still had cards in his hand" ******John Le Carri, "Call for the Dead"****** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:05:35 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] contrary is as contrary does At Wednesday 4/24/2002 09:57 AM -0400, dmw wrote: >one large "me too" with a side of "what he said," please. i love >"respond," actually, but i'd only try it as an entree for someone who was >likely to find much of Scott's catalog too straight and normal. Thank you doug, that's what I was trying to get at. >kinda generally weirded out though, me, by this concept of *tricking* >unwary people into liking Scott's music. Good point, but I think a lot of us here initially got hooked by the more accessible stuff and then learned to appreciate the rest of it. We're hoping we can do the same for others. (Actually, I should say "They are hoping", since I've given up trying to get people to appreciate my musical tastes.) >if you agree that you disagree with everything I say, and I agree that I >disagree with everything you say, then aren't we really in complete >agreement?? Only if Jeff says we are. >p.s. no, you didn't "used to be contrary" -- in fact you may be on some >geometric scale of increasing contrariness... I knew someone would point out that typo. The phrase, of course, should've been "I'm used to *being* contrary." I would never give up that state of being. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:11:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Aaron Milenski wrote: > >Dude, didn't Black Sabbath prove you don't have to play fast to > >rock? I guess it's all in the ear of the, um, behearer. > > I would argue that Black Sabbath proves that you DO have to play > fast to rock. I'm not sure what you mean. I suggest trying "War Pigs" or "Lord Of This World". There are solos, but Jimmy Page had been doing that for a couple years. The tempo is sludgy, sludgy, sludgy, and DWL fits right in. J. Mallon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:20:08 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic > > >Dude, didn't Black Sabbath prove you don't have to play fast to > > >rock? I guess it's all in the ear of the, um, behearer. > > > > I would argue that Black Sabbath proves that you DO have to play > > fast to rock. > >I'm not sure what you mean. I suggest trying "War Pigs" or "Lord Of This >World". There are solos, but Jimmy Page had been doing that for a couple >years. The tempo is sludgy, sludgy, sludgy, and DWL fits right in. "War Pigs" is great, I admit, as is the even slower "Sweet Leaf," but I think the reason that critics have always hated heavy metal, and Sabbath in particular, is that not only are the songs way too long, they just don't sound like "rock and roll." No actual "beat." Songwriters hate Sabbath for another reason: The melodies and the hooks/chord progressions are the same, on song after song! Examples: "Iron Man," "Electric Funeral." Talk about something that doesn't reward multiple listens. When I was very young, I read an article that claimed that "You Really Got" me is the superior song to "All Day and All of The Night" because YRGM's words go around the hook while ADAAOTN's words go with the hook. It made a great point, and sure enough, any song where the words follow the pattern of the hook or the melody follows the exact same changes as the chords is something I find annoying and almost unlistenable. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:35:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] contrary is as contrary does On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, dmw wrote: > Rog continued, still on Tue 23 Apr 2002, one presumes: > > > Asleep and Awake, Dripping With Looks: Rawk songs?!? None of the people I > > know who are into "rock" would consider them such. Maybe if they had more > > drums and were played twice as fast... > > "dripping's" super-saturated guitar sound is purest rawk, but again, i'm > standing with Rog: that little pshh, pshh, what is that, a processed drum > machine hat/cymbal? is just *so* *not.* i confess a neanderthal desire to > hear that song performed with big rock drums and a throbbing bass line. > i might even arrange to hear it that way sometime. This, and Aaron's puzzled query re Black Sabbath, of course raise the philosophical question, what is it to "rock"? Are we talking sheer volume and distortion? Do we feel the need to increase our pulse and bang our heads or other bangable portions of our anatomy? Does the music compel a necessity to hit things loudly? Or do we agree with doug that rock needs to be big and throbbing? (Hey, he said it, not me.) Frinstance, whatever it is, I love the opening of "Dripping with Looks," and I think the combo of distorted guitar *without* drums gives it more power, not less (see also that one song on the first Sinead O'Connor album). But whether or not that rocks depends on yr def. (And after that intro, yeah, I think the bass and drums could stand to be louder. That's a general problem w/the GT catalog, if youse ashkin' me.) And of course, there are those (probably including Joe) for whom Sabbath is the sine qua non of rockingness...while others, obviously, think that their primordial sludge is a huge weight on their aptitude for rockescence. > kinda generally weirded out though, me, by this concept of *tricking* > unwary people into liking Scott's music. 'cause in the main i can't see > mr. miller getting much long-haul play with people who are not musically > inquisitive, adventurous, willing to take a chance on something. i've > always assumed that that's why so many of the records start with concrete > collages or noise blasts: still here? ok, good, you are in the right > room -- this is post-chilton, weird-leaning power pop 501. Exactly. Not just anybody will appreciate Scott's music. But I do think there are lots of folks who are musically inquisitive enough to enjoy it but who haven't been exposed to it. I think it's interesting that some quite Scott-concordant acts (judging by the number of times their music is mentioned here) have been way more successful - to me, this suggests (again) that exposure is the main issue, more than quality or weirdness, that's prevented Scott from achieving a higher level of cult-artist status. (I'm thinking of, say, XTC and Robyn Hitchcock - maybe even Wire: all three acts clearly have a pop, rock, or punk aspect that's accessible, but mix that with varying and often intimidating levels of oddness.) > just give 'em an album, say i. Which of course punts the issue: so which album? > hey, aaron (or someone in the know): is that loudfan wantlist page still > up? where is it, if so? Once upon a long and gray time ago, I had such a page...but if it's even still up (& probably is), it's hopelessly outdated. But (and this is especially directed toward The New Guy who asked about his missing titles the other day) Scott albums occasionally show up in used bins, and most of us here (if we have the album already) are pretty good about snatching them up and offering them onlist. > But Rog -- > > if you agree that you disagree with everything I say, and I agree that I > disagree with everything you say, then aren't we really in complete > agreement?? wasn't there an episode of _Star Trek_ about this? SOW, Rog: Rose wondered aloud, as we viewed our tape of what may well be the last episode of _Futurama_ (at least a couple of jokes alluded to that possibility - and I don't think Fox has picked it up yet), whether all its Trek references were accurate. We figured you, as the nearest thing to an intelligent cloud of gas that we know, would probably be the one to ask. - --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 ::the sea is the night asleep in the daytime:: __Robert Desnos__ np: Crescent _Collected Songs_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:39:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Aaron Milenski wrote: > Songwriters hate Sabbath for another reason: The melodies and the > hooks/chord progressions are the same, on song after song! Examples: "Iron > Man," "Electric Funeral." Talk about something that doesn't reward multiple > listens. When I was very young, I read an article that claimed that "You > Really Got" me is the superior song to "All Day and All of The Night" > because YRGM's words go around the hook while ADAAOTN's words go with the > hook. It made a great point, and sure enough, any song where the words > follow the pattern of the hook or the melody follows the exact same changes > as the chords is something I find annoying and almost unlistenable. And, in an interview with John Wetton (of all people) regarding Asia's hits, he pointed out that what often works is to contrast the melodic line and rhythmic accompaniment in the verses, but have them lock in during the choruses. And sure enough, in "You Really Got Me," the title phrase is hammered out in unison with the riff - although, as Aaron points out, the rest is set independent of the riff. - --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: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:42:15 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic Aaron Milenski on 4/24/2002 9:20:08 AM wrote: > "War Pigs" is great, I admit, as is the even slower "Sweet Leaf," but I > think the reason that critics have always hated heavy metal, and Sabbath in > particular, is that not only are the songs way too long, they just don't > sound like "rock and roll." No actual "beat." I'm glad Aaron chimed in before I said what I was going to say, since this sums up the Sabbath Problem for me. Not to rag on the Sabs, but I always considered them more heavy metal, while BOC (for example) to me was more pop/rock. To relate this back to the Scott discussion, Asleep & Awake and DWL fall more into the Sabs camp than the BOC camp for me. I just don't find that sort of thing very accessible, and I hear the same from others whom I have tried to sway musically. Hey, wasn't that a gas watching Ozzy trying to play a DVD last night? What was that DVD anyway? It looked like "The Best of Chris Farley". There IS such a product? Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:49:12 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic > "Iron Man," "Electric Funeral." Talk about something that doesn't reward > multiple listens. Cripes, how foolish I now feel for having listened to Sabbath records repeatedly over the couse of the last twenty years! Why did I never notice how unrewarding it was?! Anyway, if you absolutely require beats and speed, there is still plenty of Sabbath to work with, especially later. I defy anybody to seriously contend that the Dio- and Gillan-era records don't rock. But even early, there's definitely "Paranoid". glenn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:30:41 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] contrary is as contrary does On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > This, and Aaron's puzzled query re Black Sabbath, of course raise the > philosophical question, what is it to "rock"? > > Are we talking sheer volume and distortion? Do we feel the need to > increase our pulse and bang our heads or other bangable portions of our > anatomy? Does the music compel a necessity to hit things loudly? Or do we > agree with doug that rock needs to be big and throbbing? (Hey, he said it, > not me.) uhm. i think it usually needs a critical mass of the core attributes to be "rock" (although some dedicated person out there could surely dredge up an example that is unquestionably "rock" that has none of them) but driving beat, sonically aggressive textures (not necessarily distortion, always, but it sure can qualify, and relatively fast tempos are things i'd assert are characteristics of most "rock") > Frinstance, whatever it is, I love the opening of "Dripping with Looks," > and I think the combo of distorted guitar *without* drums gives it more > power, not less (see also that one song on the first Sinead O'Connor i don't think "rock" vs. "not rock" and "more power" vs. "less power" are on the same scale. "dude, mozart's 41st symphony totally fuckin' ROCKS!" - -- true, maybe, but not necessarily in a useful way? but what's the difference between "rock" and "rawk" -- i know it when i hear it, but it's harder to qualify. > I think it's interesting that some quite Scott-concordant acts (judging by > the number of times their music is mentioned here) have been way more > successful - to me, this suggests (again) that exposure is the main issue, > more than quality or weirdness, that's prevented Scott from achieving a > higher level of cult-artist status. (I'm thinking of, say, XTC and Robyn > Hitchcock - maybe even Wire: all three acts clearly have a pop, rock, or > punk aspect that's accessible, but mix that with varying and often > intimidating levels of oddness.) & more recently i've asserted that radio hits by the likes of primitive radio gods and the eels are as fundamentally weird as any "emphasis track" from one of Scott's record. > Which of course punts the issue: so which album? i'd probably go with "lolita," if it were in print, or "plants" or "babe." (and our new guy should thank his lucky stars that his want list is made of the stuff re-released in recent history that should be comparatively easy to find.) hey -- does that descending riff at the end of "look away" remind anyone else as powerfully and specifically of another song as it does me? and if so, what? i'm worried it might be new england, or something equally embarrassing to know of. > Once upon a long and gray time ago, I had such a page...but if it's even > still up (& probably is), it's hopelessly outdated. sorry -- i was remembering a perl-based thing and thinking it was prolly our resident perl-slinger extraordinaire who'd come up with it. no offense intended. > > if you agree that you disagree with everything I say, and I agree that I > > disagree with everything you say, then aren't we really in complete > > agreement?? > > wasn't there an episode of _Star Trek_ about this? oh, i hope not. i was swiping from juster's _the phantom tollbooth_, one of the very best kids' books ever. - -- d. np songs from lolita nation ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:31:31 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] contrary is as contrary does Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey on 4/24/2002 4:35:56 AM wrote: > SOW, Rog: Rose wondered aloud, as we viewed our tape of what may well be > the last episode of _Futurama_ (at least a couple of jokes alluded to that > possibility - and I don't think Fox has picked it up yet), whether all its > Trek references were accurate. > > We figured you, as the nearest thing to an intelligent cloud of gas that > we know, would probably be the one to ask. Sorry, believe it or not, there are some episodes of the original ST I've only seen *once*. Though I enjoy them (especially for their camp value these days), I have nowhere near the amount of trivia knowledge about them that the Futurama writers obviously do. And yes, I suspect everything in there was entirely factual. My favorite bit: Germany becoming "Nazi-Planet Episode Land". As for the future of Futurama - yes, production has been shut down. But they have enough episodes in the can for one more Fox season, since Fox short-seasons them on it anyways. I read an interview with David Cohen who said they have actually created a Series Finale episode which supposedly Explains Everything. But who knows if they'll ever get a chance to show it. Live Long and Fester, Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:40:54 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] contrary is as contrary does In a message dated 4/24/02 9:32:47 AM, dmw@radix.net writes: << but what's the difference between "rock" and "rawk" -- i know it when i hear it, but it's harder to qualify. >> "Rawk" is what certain people at concerts are listening to when they start banging their heads in a funny parodic style, checking to make sure that their friends appreciate a brilliant sense of irony that borders on the genius of a copy of "The Onion." In obvious examples, a lot of rawk seems to be played at shows by White Stripes, The Strokes, and Tenacious D. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:58:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: [loud-fans] Futurama On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Roger Winston wrote: > As for the future of Futurama - yes, production has been shut down. What?!! Say it ain't so. Futurama has been my favorite comedy for a year or two now. "Oh wait, I was thinking of Eugene, Oregon." - --Michael NP Wilco YANKEE HOTEL FOXTROT -absolutely fantastic (even if I don't consider it rock and roll) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:12:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Futurama On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Michael Mitton wrote: > On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Roger Winston wrote: > > > As for the future of Futurama - yes, production has been shut down. > > What?!! Say it ain't so. Futurama has been my favorite comedy for a year > or two now. There was an interview with Matt Groening, and a sidebar on Futurama including interviews w/some other folk, in a recent (last month?) issue of some SF-oriented mag or other that I ran into on the racks at a bookstore. Cna't recall its title - it's tv/movie-focused, cuz there was also stuff on Buffy in there. At any rate, _Futurama_ was conceived as a successor to _the Simpsons_ - but since that show refuses to die (and I still think it's got even odds to be as funny as anything else on TV on any given week, even though overall I'd agree it's not at its peak), they pretty much didn't know what to do with it. Putting it at the absurdly early (and eminently pre-emptable) time of 6pm didn't help it... Personally, I really wish they'd moved _King of the Hill_ elsewhere (where, I don't care) and run _Futurama_ and _Simpsons_ back to back . Or hell: sequence Simpsons/Malcolm/Futurama/X-Files... With luck, the un-aired eps will surface on FX (like I'm hoping for unaired _Lone Gunmen_ eps too - but now I'm *really* off the charts. Just to reassure y'all, I did think _Harsh Realm_ pretty much blew large, ill-conceived, Gibson-ripping-off-poorly chunks.) - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::To be the center of the universe, don't orbit things:: __Scott Miller__ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:23:22 +0100 From: "Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] NS: wedding garb and kids I wrote: > > Ang and I have never bothered to do the wedding thing (expensive!) Jen says: > Weddings don't have to be expensive. Mine wasn't. Oh. There goes excuse no. 1 then :-) Ian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:01:04 -0700 From: "me" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 3 Steps From the Complete Catalog... well, we've all forgotten our manners, so it's up to me to say welcome. no, you didn't blow it with your first post - my copies of those are at a different house (in a different state), but you can usually find them on ebay, if no one antes up. brianna - -- "Drag me, drop me, treat me like an object." - -- - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:29 PM Subject: [loud-fans] 3 Steps From the Complete Catalog... > Hello all-- > > Been lurking for about a month, shortly after I purchased (and flipped-out > over) Plants and Birds.... Y'all seem like a good group of kids, like the > Postal Blowfish (from GbV's list), but maybe a little less beer-sodden. > > So I'm confident enough to make a rather crass request. Would anyone be kind > enough to make me copies of my Missing Three -- Distortion of Glory, Real > Nighttime, and The Big Shot Chronicles? I'll certainly cover blanks and > postage, and anything else. > > Any benefactors out there, contact me off-list. > > Thanks! > > --Andy Stark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:58:36 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] contrary is as contrary does Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > Does the music compel a necessity to hit things loudly? There's a lot of music that isn't rock that compels me to hit things loudly, or throw things, or run screaming from the room... Jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:17:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Aaron Milenski wrote: > "War Pigs" is great, I admit, as is the even slower "Sweet Leaf," but I > think the reason that critics have always hated heavy metal, and Sabbath in > particular, is that not only are the songs way too long, they just don't > sound like "rock and roll." No actual "beat." When was the last time you listened to "War Pigs"? The outro is full of drums. If you mean 4/4 time, regular backbeat, guilty as charged. Bill Ward has gone on record as saying he couldn't pay a regular backbeat, and wasn't interested in doing so. If you want hard-charging, try "Paranoid", "Into The Void", "Back Street Kids", or "Neon Knights". > Songwriters hate Sabbath for another reason: The melodies and the > hooks/chord progressions are the same, on song after song! Examples: "Iron > Man," "Electric Funeral." Talk about something that doesn't reward multiple > listens. Which songwriters hate Black Sabbath? Kurt Cobain? Chris Cornell? The guys in Metallica? Scott (who saw them in 1975)? I agree with Roger that the Sabs are more heavy metal than "rock", although I hadn't thought to separate the two. J. Mallon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:48:15 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] about YHF Aaron Mandel and others were commenting on Wilco's YANKEE HOTEL FOXTROT (got my "real" copy today at lunch -- the sky blue version, of course), and its "weirdness" or lack thereof... Ever since YHF got nixed by Reprise, I've been worried that when the general public finally heard the album, they'd be expecting something far more "out there." As Chris H. ("triggercut") said, most Loud-Fans' musical frames of reference are sufficiently broad to allow for much more extreme forms of noise and distortion. YHF simply continues the expansion of Wilco's sonic palette begun on BEING THERE's more adventurous songs and consolidated on SUMMERTEETH. I can still hear Tweedy saying "Hope everything works" before the band launched into their (successful) River Stages show in May 1999... Melissa has talked to me about the "controlled cacophony" of Wilco even before we heard YHF, and I think her phrase is apt. Wilco uses feedback, distortion, somewhat atonal chordings, dynamic crescendos with everything including the kitchen sink thrown in (anyone who's seen them play "Misunderstood" live knows what I'm talking about here), and even a few found sounds as part of the overall sound of the band. The sounds are always serving the songs first, sometimes as atmosphere (often adding an unsettling feeling to the overall proceedings), less often as the central focus. And there's always something musical about their choices, even when the sounds aren't inherently musical themselves. I want to make this *very* clear: Wilco's collection of sounds aren't the focus of YHF, the songs are. If people are expecting "Tweedy sings Einsturzende Neubauten," I'm afraid they're going to be very disappointed. Despite Chris being left cold by SUMMERTEETH but loving YHF, I'll still venture that your attitude toward SUMMERTEETH is the most likely determinant of whether you'll like YHF -- if "She's a Jar," "Via Chicago," and "Pieholden Suite" grabbed your fancy, I think you'll be pleased with this one too. If you're like our Dan Sallitt and have "never been excited by any musical idea of Wilco's" (Dan, I paraphrased that, so my apologies if I distorted your meaning in any way), I don't think "Radio Cure," "Jesus Etc.," and "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart" will change your mind. There's also the automatic cache of the "rejected/suppressed" record and the attendant buzz over that sort of thing coming into play here. Even though it was Prince himself who pulled the plug on THE BLACK ALBUM, think about how it became this sort of "legendary" album, an unfathomably good object of desire, even though it turned out to be only a slightly more interesting version of the mediocre LOVESEXY. This happened despite THE BLACK ALBUM being widely bootlegged from the summer of 1988 on. It's even more inexplicable that it should have happened to YHF, since the aural proof of what the album was like hasn't been limited to bootlegs or pricey test pressings on eBay, but has been freely available almost since Wilco's split with the label -- heck, the entire album was often streamed from the band's own website! Sure, critics kept putting it high on their Best-of-2001 polls even though it wasn't really out, generating even more "that must be one kick-ass weirdo mofo album!" buzz, plus there's Chicago noise-pop guru Jim O'Rourke's participation to add more credence to that whole "They Must Be Atonal" vibe, but since practically any curious person with an Internet connection could hear YHF for themselves even if they couldn't get a copy at Best Buy, the current level of misleading buzz leaves me very baffled. I hate to tell people to keep their expectations in check over an album I'd rather wax enthusiastic over (as I said in an earlier post, it goes straight to my #1 slot for 2002), but sometimes things don't work out how you'd like, and I'd rather have my fellow Loud-Fans know what they're getting into rather than see the list mail greet me every day for the next few weeks with a chorus of "what's so weird about this stuff?" your songs are too weird, Miles np in my head: a medley of Wilco's "Radio Cure" and Wire's unstoppable "Comet" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:43:45 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic Joseph M. Mallon on 4/24/2002 6:17:14 AM wrote: > If you want hard-charging, try "Paranoid", "Into The Void", "Back Street > Kids", or "Neon Knights". I should make it perfectly clear that even though I'm not much for the Sabs catalog in general, I do think that Paranoid is one of the best Rock songs ever. > I agree with Roger that the Sabs are more heavy metal than "rock", > although I hadn't thought to separate the two. I actually hadn't thought to separate the two either, until people starting describing DWL as Rock, and then as HM, because it had big fuzzy guitars. Technically, HM is most likely a sub-genre of Rock, but admitting to that kind of kills my original point, I guess. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:40:14 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] This is no longer close to the topic > > Songwriters hate Sabbath for another reason: The melodies and the > > hooks/chord progressions are the same, on song after song! Examples: >"Iron > > Man," "Electric Funeral." Talk about something that doesn't reward >multiple > > listens. > >Which songwriters hate Black Sabbath? Kurt Cobain? Chris Cornell? The >guys in Metallica? Scott (who saw them in 1975)? I'm not sure what to say about the first three, since all of them are basically heavy metal too. Scott does admit to liking them (though I got the feeling there's a certain kind of nostalgic kitsch feeling for him), and I'm sure the songwriters for the Cardigans do too! But, for the most part, people whose music is in genres other than metal tend to use Sabbath as a joke: the example of why they don't like metal, and Sabbath is also the band most often used to explain why metal is bad and punk is good. I'm not saying I entirely agree, and I think a lot of the anti-Sabbath critics are snobs, but I do find their music rather dull, especially over the course of a whole album. >I agree with Roger that the Sabs are more heavy metal than "rock", >although I hadn't thought to separate the two. Now that I think about it, I guess I'm distinguishing between "rock" and "rock and roll," with the "roll" having to do with a backbeat. I certainly don't claim to be *right* about heavy metal. My favorite metal album is Sir Lord Baltimore's KINGDOM COME, which I recommended to one loud fan who found it laughable and awful. I have listened to enough metal, though, for me to think that Sabbath has a lot of power to their sound, but they aren't great songwriters. Great hooks should make great songs, but often don't. Whether anyone will agree with me on this point can probably be determined by your feelings for Bowie's "Rebel Rebel," which I think is just about the biggest waste of a great hook ever. A recommendation to anyone here who truly does like heavy metal: Truth and Janey's NO REST FOR THE WICKED, a legendary 70s obscurity that has recently been reissued. Here's an album that piles hook upon hook, and never sounds plodding or lumbering. I'd be very curious to see what Black Sabbath fans think about this one. Oh, and Sir Lord Baltimore were booed off the stage in 1971 when they opened for Black Sabbath, whatever that means. _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:45:21 -0700 From: "me" Subject: [loud-fans] einsturzende neubaten i am the megaphone - heh - fitting. http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=endeneu What Neubauten instrument describes you? - -- "Drag me, drop me, treat me like an object." - -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:02:23 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Just for kicks, something on-topic At 01:43 PM 4/24/2002 -0600, Roger Winston wrote: >I actually hadn't thought to separate the two either, until people starting >describing DWL as Rock, and then as HM, because it had big fuzzy guitars. >Technically, HM is most likely a sub-genre of Rock, but admitting to that >kind of kills my original point, I guess. Yeah, let's not get too Audities-tistic here with the definitions. later, Miles, wondering if Wire's READ AND BURN 01 fits into any genre -- unless there's a genre that's simply "Loud and Kick-Ass" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:00:26 -0500 From: Bill Silvers Subject: Re: [loud-fans] einsturzende neubaten >i am the megaphone - heh - fitting. > >http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=endeneu > >What Neubauten instrument describes you? Um, was it just me, or was there no answer at the end of the quiz? I mean, that's a decent joke, considering, but just wonderin'. b.s. who is pretty sure that there's no word "psychophantic" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:04:35 -0700 From: "me" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] einsturzende neubaten huh. well, i got an answer.... you have to click on your #1 instrument. and the word is mispelled - drop the 'p'. random selections just got me the Turbine... people may be put off by my tendency to whine. - -- "Drag me, drop me, treat me like an object." - -- - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Silvers" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [loud-fans] einsturzende neubaten > >i am the megaphone - heh - fitting. > > > >http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=endeneu > > > >What Neubauten instrument describes you? > > Um, was it just me, or was there no answer at the end of the quiz? I mean, > that's a decent joke, considering, but just wonderin'. > > b.s. who is pretty sure that there's no word "psychophantic" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:24:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] This is no longer close to the topic On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Aaron Milenski wrote: > But, for the most part, people whose music is in genres other than > metal tend to use Sabbath as a joke: the example of why they don't > like metal, and Sabbath is also the band most often used to explain > why metal is bad and punk is good. I'm not saying I entirely agree, > and I think a lot of the anti-Sabbath critics are snobs, but I do find > their music rather dull, especially over the course of a whole album. Could you provide an example or two of this dislike among songwriters? > I have listened to enough metal, though, for me to think that Sabbath > has a lot of power to their sound, but they aren't great songwriters. > Great hooks should make great songs, but often don't. Whether anyone > will agree with me on this point can probably be determined by your > feelings for Bowie's "Rebel Rebel," which I think is just about the > biggest waste of a great hook ever. I agree that Sabbath doesn't really develop hooks into songs, but I would argue that the purpose of a heavy metal song *is* the riff, and Sabbath have great riffs. Here we get into a muso-semantic discussion, though. J. Mallon ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #150 *******************************