From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #186 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Saturday, May 25 2002 Volume 02 : Number 186 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Introductions [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to masturbate." [JRT456@aol.co] Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." ["John Sharple] Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." [Tim_Walters@d] Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to grab your ankles." [Tim_Wal] Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." [jenny grover ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 03:04:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Introductions On Thu, 23 May 2002, GrantB wrote: > I'm back on Loud Fans after a lengthy absence. Some of you may remember me > from several years ago. My name is Grant and I now live in La Grande, a small > town in NE Oregon. I've seen G.T. and the Louds live many times and had the Welcome (back) to the list, Grant, Oregonians on the list are always appreciated! And I must add, I regularly fantasize about moving to La Grande--I love it out there. Gonna start tomorrow, Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:46:27 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] CD Baby On Thu, 23 May 2002 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > I use CD Baby to sell my CDs and their sister organization Hostbaby to host my > web site. > > They fucking rock. Derek, their founder, is a hellanice guy. I think it's about 33% odds that he packs any particular order... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:57:07 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to masturbate." In a message dated 5/23/02 7:36:27 PM, jenor@csd.uwm.edu writes of porn and the web: << Or another question: someone correct me if I'm wrong, but...uh, hasn't the porn industry managed to make money on the web? ...Why can't the music industry use this as a model? It pains me to ask, but...JR? What's the scoop? >> I'm still trying to figure out why anyone thinks those nifty free boards for the homeless are advertising any product besides their needs (unless that enterprising ad agency put their name on the board in a far too imposing way). I'm also baffled at the notion that no mode of public transportation makes a profit, since independent van lines in New York City do well (that is, when the entrepreneurs can negotiate their way past the government monopoly). But porn I know... ....although the answer isn't too thrilling. If I'm addressing the issue at hand, the only real money to be made in Internet porn is possible through a glut of product. Nobody in their right mind would start a porn site that they' d fill with their own content. Too many guys are churning out porn and making their money by licensing their footage to hundreds of sites at a minimal fee. Music's a tough comparison for the industry. You'd have to offer me (and several other sites) your complete catalogue of songs, and there bettter be enough tunes where I'm willing to pay you a massive $100 a month for the right to sell them over and over again while keeping all proceeds. Also, you can't care if the costumers can download the songs and play them at any time, and I want to pay only $50 a month to put this catalogue and any of your new songs on the next three sites I start. The trick in porn is to be an honest businessman using the same product that's used by all the crooks who are scamming their customers with overcharges. (For the record, most internet sex sites praised as new-media successes quietly dissolve in scandal a year later.) A reasonable monthly fee covers bandwidth cost with a profit, and you can tell the neighbors that you're in the dry-cleaning business. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:34:49 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." On Thu, 23 May 2002, John Sharples wrote: > I mean, weren't we all happy with *singles*? I'm ready to cough up a buck > or two to test drive a couple tracks from an album I think I might be > interested in. yeah, but i'm not going to pony up a dollar or two for an MP3 download. ...well, based on available evidence, not unless it goes directly to the artist. i did pay Kristin Hersh $12. one of the things that irks me is that few are questioning the proposition that an electronic delivery of a lossily compressed file should be *equal* in value to an uncompresed 44Khz Redbook file, or vinyl, or whatever. > I think it's because there was a huge one-time spike in CD sales throughout > the early 90's as everybody re-purchased all their favorite > canonical albums on CD. As someone cogently noted earlier about government > spending, it seems as though the record companies didn't realize this was a > unique, one-time windfall as everyone re-oriented their collections to > compact disc. They got used to the artificially inflated profit margins, > and now separating from the golden teat is painful. and now CDs (and cassettes and vinyl) are competing with DVDs for the entertainment dollar. my anecdotal evidence suggests that a *lot* of people are spending more $$$ on DVD than they ever did on VHS. i'm inclined to think that the general economical slump and the introduction of DVDs are *much* more likely to account for the much ballyhooed drops in music sales over the last 18mos than digital downloads. Copyright law: problem i have with it is mainly the term extensions (the quest to ensure that Mickey Mouse never enters the public domain) Most of the other problems i see as contractual more than legal: lack of reversion clauses under which artists get back the right to exploit their own work; industry standard contracts that assign a disproportionate percentage of the copyright ownership to corporate entities, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:57:30 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus >There's actually another option that I would love to see gain further >acceptance: the Zipcar (see www.zipcar.com for details). Zipcars are >basically built on the same principle as the white bicycles of Amsterdam Yes, the Flexcar program does the same thing: www.flexcar.com Wondering why Jeffrey's got a major music magazine's entire office on his lap, Andy "Britney Spears is reportedly set to spook fellow blonde babe Sarah Michelle Gellar in hit TV show Buffy The Vampire Slayer. The singer is reported to be appearing in six episodes of the teen series' next season as a nightmarish demon pitted against Gellar's do-gooding, undead- battling Buffy. An insider is quoted in British newspaper the Daily Star as saying, 'This will be an amazing sight. Britney and Sarah Michelle Gellar are two of the world's most gorgeous girls. Millions will tune in to see the two of them fighting in their trademark figure- hugging outfits.' Britney is hoping to consolidate her acting career following her debut feature Crossroads earlier this year." - --from "Celebrity News" for May 23, 2002 at the Internet Movie Database ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:36:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." John Sharples said: > Great subject header, btw, Dave... It's Jamie Zawinski's -- I just borrowed it. > I mean, weren't we all happy with *singles*? I'm ready to cough > up a buck or two to test drive a couple tracks from an album > I think I might be interested in. My favorite online service is Emusic.com. For $10 a month, they provide 128Kbps MP3's (i.e. good enough for evaluating albums, good enough for portables) from a decent selection of indie labels, including some really good ones like Matador, Fax, Parasol, Merck, Fantasy (enormous amounts of classic jazz catalog material like Thelonius Monk, Jackie McLean, Ornette Coleman, etc.) All the licenses are in order, musicians get paid, flying lawyer monkeys stay away. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:56:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to masturbate." On Fri, 24 May 2002 JRT456@aol.com wrote: > ....although the answer isn't too thrilling. If I'm addressing the issue at > hand, the only real money to be made in Internet porn is possible through a > glut of product. Nobody in their right mind would start a porn site that they' > d fill with their own content. Too many guys are churning out porn and making > their money by licensing their footage to hundreds of sites at a minimal fee. > Music's a tough comparison for the industry. You'd have to offer me (and > several other sites) your complete catalogue of songs, and there bettter be > enough tunes where I'm willing to pay you a massive $100 a month for the > right to sell them over and over again while keeping all proceeds. Also, you > can't care if the costumers can download the songs and play them at any time, > and I want to pay only $50 a month to put this catalogue and any of your new > songs on the next three sites I start. Good points: I don't suppose having actual new, distinguishable content is the first most important priority for someone running a porn site... I still think some of the mechanisms - in terms of paid access, teasers - might be useful for music, however. The problem is whether people are willing to pay for what they can get for free, of course - and that genie's out of the bottle. - --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 ::As long as I don't sleep, he decided, I won't shave. ::That must mean...as soon as I fall asleep, I'll start shaving! __Thomas Pynchon, VINELAND__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:17:30 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." doug: >Copyright law: problem i have with it is mainly the term extensions (the >quest to ensure that Mickey Mouse never enters the public domain) Right it's not good, because, as I keep ranting about, it disturbs the ideal balance between rights and fair use. Europe has very strong "artists' rights" that the US and it's often observed that that is the reason its intellectual property output is not as vigorous as the US. >Most of the other problems i see as contractual more than legal: lack of >reversion clauses under which artists get back the right to exploit their >own work; industry standard contracts that assign a disproportionate >percentage of the copyright ownership to corporate entities, etc. Yeah, but of course when you're talking contract inequities that's mainly due to unequal bargaining power - and who has less leverage than a starving artist negotiating his/her first contract. The company says 'if you don't like the terms, fine, we'll have no problem finding someone perfectly willing to grab their ankles.' The reversion clause cuts both ways. When we were negotiating a contract with BMG one bandmember was insisting on a reversion clause, and our lawyer strongly advised us not to hold out for it. His feeling was that percentage-wise, we were unlikely to ever benefit from it, and record companies hate to give them away because it strikes at the heart of their economic model. They know they're going to lose money on 19 out of 20 of their signings, so just in case you're the next Elvis they need the right to exploit your work from now to eternity in order for the whole scheme to work. So he was saying reversion wasn't worth what we'd have to give up to get it. This is why I think Courtney Love is a scum. It's like she needed a dollar to buy a lottery ticket, and she signed a contract with the person who lent her the dollar to split any winnings between them, and now that she hit the lottery she's trying to get out of the contract - and hiding behind a smokescreen of 'artists rights.' You know, if she'd just made a damn record every year (O the torture of it!) she'd be out of the contract by now. Maybe she thinks she's striking a blow for artists' rights...I dunno... Sure, the contracts are harsh, because of unequal bargaining power. But, they only last X amount of albums or years. Do what the ballplayers do: bide your time, do your job, and cash in big when you become a free agent. Prince is another one: remember when he was making the rounds, saying Mariah Carey was a fool for signing that contract? What happened - she walked away with $50 million for making one lousy soundtrack album? Who got chumped in that deal? Sure, the huge entertainment conglomerates are big, stupid, and greedy. But they're not evil incarnate. JS ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:25:53 -0700 From: Elizabeth Brion Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to masturbate." At 7:57 AM -0400 5/24/02, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Also, you >can't care if the costumers can download the songs and play them at any time, >and I want to pay only $50 a month to put this catalogue and any of your new >songs on the next three sites I start. Frankly, I think artists should have more sympathy for costumers. Measuring inseams all day has gotta be tough work, and if the songs bring them some small measure of comfort, wouldn't it be cruel to take that away? Grasping at any weak joke to avoid working, - -- Elizabeth ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:47:01 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." Rog: >I don't think comparing music on the web to pron on the web is a valid >comparison. You don't really need to compare music and porn on the web to see the record companies' failure to adapt to the internet. Napster showed us the potential. Of course, Napster was massively popular because it was...well, it was looting, wasn't it? But even as a fee service I think it has a lot to offer. I suspect record companies don't want to sell album tracks a la carte on the internet because they fear they won't make as much if they're not forcing people to fork over $18 for a CD with one or two singles they want bundled with a dozen lame album tracks. I'm guessing that's what most of the blockbuster pop albums amount to. JS ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:45:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." On Fri, 24 May 2002, John Sharples wrote: > Sure, the huge entertainment conglomerates are big, stupid, and greedy. But > they're not evil incarnate. Right. They're more like evil sort of vaguely inhabiting a milky, plasmic emanation, the sort of substance you'd mistake for elderly cobwebs if you found it in your attic, although its tensile strength is considerably stronger, and it's uncannily attractive to certain species of trout. Sympathy for the costumers! (although big + stupid + greedy = evil is a reasonably accurate equation, I've gotta say...) Sharples is right about one thing: record companies *do* undertake considerable risk in signing young, unexposed acts - and there seems no other way to recoup that risk than to balance it out on the successful acts. All the more reason, then, for a young band *not* to go for the mega-huge advance if they're offered it: it primarily ensures that the band won't actually make money until later than otherwise. Then, there's no reason record companies *have* to sign 20 bands hoping one of them sticks to the wall (even without any promotion): they should probably sign only the number of bands they can adequately promote. But promotion is more money spent - but at least in that case it would seem spent more wisely, than on a recording advance for a record the company then doesn't bother promoting. Part of the problem is record companies' singular failure to communicate the risks of their business, to counteract the general public's impression that they're all rolling in dough. (Of course, the majors *are* - that's why they're majors.) It's sorta like: every movie that's set amongst movie people makes them out to be complete idiots, ego-wallowing basketcases, etc. - and too often their public behavior just confirms that impression. Okay, I'm rambling loosely and probably setting myself up for a whole mess of tedious explanatory post-posts, so I'll shut up now. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb:: __Batman__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:43:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus On Fri, 24 May 2002, Aaron Mandel wrote: > You seem to have taken an economics class at some point. Did they mention > "the tragedy of the commons"? Disparaging tone aside, I'm not sure how you intend to apply that to the question of bus ridership, since the ownership of busses is clearly defined. If you mean that the road system overall is "the commons", and that since individual drivers do not take into account their costs on other drivers, bus service should be subsidized--well, I already made that point in my original post. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:49:00 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: [loud-fans] Shawn Phillips Anyone here familiar with this singer/songwriter? He dates back to the 60s (and in fact claims he wrote "Season of The Witch"), but it appears that his actual solo career started in earnest around 1970 or so and continued for a very long time beyond. The amount of his output is rather daunting, so I thought I'd ask for some help before deciding where to start. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:10:20 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." Jeff: >Sharples is right about one thing Funny, I just got my Antitrust paper back and the professor said the exact same thing! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:16:20 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." >All the more reason, then, for a young band *not* to go for the >mega-huge advance if they're offered it: it primarily ensures that the >band won't actually make money until later than otherwise. There are two reasons to go for a big advance. One is to give the record company a bigger stake in the success of the band. The other is that it's the only money the band is ever likely to see, unless they get very lucky--and that's as true for a small advance as for a large one. Of course, the latter reason is only valid if the band can find some way to keep from spending the advance on recording, promotion, etc. >(Of course, the majors *are* [rolling in dough] - that's >why they're majors.) The majors are all owned by larger conglomerates, and it turns out not to be at all clear that the record companies are actually making money in and of themselves, rather than serving as loss leaders. See the last chapter of CONFESSIONS OF A RECORD PRODUCER by Moses Avalon for further elaboration of this hypothesis. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:23:45 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." On Fri, 24 May 2002 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > The majors are all owned by larger conglomerates, and it turns out not to be at > all clear that the record companies are actually making money in and of > themselves, rather than serving as loss leaders. See the last chapter of > CONFESSIONS OF A RECORD PRODUCER by Moses Avalon for further elaboration of this > hypothesis. one great vertically-integrated film/tv/music/video game/toy/breakfast cereal content pipe to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 16:52:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to grab your ankles." On Fri, 24 May 2002 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > >All the more reason, then, for a young band *not* to go for the > >mega-huge advance if they're offered it: it primarily ensures that the > >band won't actually make money until later than otherwise. > > There are two reasons to go for a big advance. One is to give the record company > a bigger stake in the success of the band. This *should* be true...is it? That is, are there not numerous examples of bands signed with lots of initial ballyhoo and a significant advance, whose actual recording is then buried? The other is that it's the only money > the band is ever likely to see, unless they get very lucky--and that's as true > for a small advance as for a large one. Of course, the latter reason is only > valid if the band can find some way to keep from spending the advance on > recording, promotion, etc. Record companies are banks (I forget which musician I just read an interview with who made exactly that point - someone who was once on a major and now isn't, I believe), and they want to see their money back. An advance is (as the name suggests) essentially a loan, no? That is, unless the record sells enough copies to recoup the advance, the band (and the record company) doesn't make money, right? So the larger the advance, the more copies the band has to sell to break even. But the more copies that need to be sold, the more promotion there needs to be...which costs more money. I'm not at all sure that it wouldn't be better to go with a smaller advance from an independent company run by people who know and love music, and who are therefore more likely to promote your product. > The majors are all owned by larger conglomerates, and it turns out not > to be at all clear that the record companies are actually making money > in and of themselves, rather than serving as loss leaders. See the last > chapter of CONFESSIONS OF A RECORD PRODUCER by Moses Avalon for further > elaboration of this hypothesis. And yet, the top execs at record companies hardly live like people who aren't making a good living, do they. This risks turning into a nasty little discussion about economics and the notion of entitlement amongst the executive classes (things generally run exactly backwards: if a company's not doing well, whose fault is it? Unless it's because of sloppy, preventable manufacturing problems - rarely the case - either it's nobody's fault - economic unpredictability - or it's poor marketing, poor design, etc. Are the first people who get laid off responsible for any of that? Nope. Who is responsible for those aspects of a corporation? Management. And who's better compensated, to a degree that makes them better able to surf over rough economic patches? Management. So logically, *management* ought to be laid off first, ought to have reduced pay first - the last is, of course, true at upper levels, since compensation is most in the form of dividends, etc.), but so long as you ignore my lengthy parenthesis, it won't. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::part of your circuit of incompetence:: np: Jill Olson _My Best Yesterday_ (advance - on some Bay Area label named after a number) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 18:13:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Dave Walker Subject: [loud-fans] Hey, Electrelane! How come no one ever mentioned how fun a record Electrelane's "Rock It To The Moon" is? (it came out in mid-2001 as near as I can tell) It's a record cool enough to quote "I Wanna Be Your Dog", Question Mark & The Mysterians, and "Popcorn." If you're a fan of Stereolab, Broadcast, Mogwai or any of a thousand 60's organ-based psychedelic garage bands you should be all over it. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:23:47 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to grab your ankles." >This *should* be true...is it? That is, are there not numerous examples of >bands signed with lots of initial ballyhoo and a significant advance, >whose actual recording is then buried? Undoubtedly, but I think it's less likely than if you have a piddly advance. >Record companies are banks (I forget which musician I just read an >interview with who made exactly that point - someone who was once on a >major and now isn't, I believe), and they want to see their money back. An >advance is (as the name suggests) essentially a loan, no? Yes and no. The difference between an advance and a loan is that if your record doesn't sell, they can't get the advance money back from you. I'm not advocating large advances, just pointing out that there are both pros and cons to consider. >I'm not at all sure that it wouldn't be better to go with a smaller >advance from an independent company run by people who know and love music, >and who are therefore more likely to promote your product. I think for many bands, perhaps most, that's a much better idea. But it's worth remembering that corruption and ineptitude are common in indieland as well (and most of the prominent indies are in bed with the majors anyway). The best way for most bands to succeed is to build up an audience on their own, and then negotiate from a position of relative strength with a label that's appropriate for their style and popularity in order to step it up a level. It's hard to avoid getting screwed by the other side if you don't bring something to the table besides, you know, "potential." But there are traps for the unwary at every stage. Most musicians just want to rock out and let the record company take care of everything else, but there's usually a price for that. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 18:55:03 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." dmw wrote: > > and now CDs (and cassettes and vinyl) are competing with DVDs for the > entertainment dollar. my anecdotal evidence suggests that a *lot* of > people are spending more $$$ on DVD than they ever did on VHS. i'm > inclined to think that the general economical slump and the introduction > of DVDs are *much* more likely to account for the much ballyhooed drops in > music sales over the last 18mos than digital downloads. I have also read (it's been a while, so I can't point you to the article) that the teen demographic spend a lot of their entertainment bucks on electronic games now, and that that is competition for music sales to that age group. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:16:18 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." Jeff: >(although big + stupid + greedy = evil is a reasonably accurate equation, >I've gotta say...) No, I think they're big, stupid, and greedy, but their main purpose is to make money, which I don't think is per se evil. By "evil incarnate" I mean an organization that exists for no purpose other than to do Satan's work on earth, like SPECTRE, SMERSH, or THE NEW YORK POST. >Then, there's no reason record companies *have* to sign 20 bands hoping >one of them sticks to the wall (even without any promotion): they should >probably sign only the number of bands they can adequately promote. What, are you calling for more restricted access? No, I don't think they can sign fewer acts than they do, because a lot of the ones they would likely cut are the sleepers that come out of nowhere and shift massive units (David Gray is a recent example that comes to mind, although I gather that it was Dave Matthews who gets most of the credit for that one). It's like Mike Piazza - I think he was drafted something like 600th in his draft (and only then as a favor to his dad) and now he's the greatest hitting catcher in history. I think the sports analogy is apt--it's hard to know how talent will develop. And I don't think promotion is actually all that, despite what people who don't get it and whose records fail say. Speaking of the NY POST, I just need to rant a bit here about their shameful--is obscene too strong a word?--recent coverage of the Chandra Levy news. I mean, it's not like I expect Pulitzer journalism from them. And I don't even begrudge them using those cum-hither glamour shots of her, because I guess those are the most technically accurate available (although yesterday's page one pic is an unnecessarily massive 5"x7" (suitable for framing!). No, my gripe is that these articles obssess over the most prurient details - "police found her sports bra" is trumpeted both in a sub-headline and at the top of the piece; "women's underwear," "the raven-haired 24-year old," "had an affair with"....blecch. It's like, put it back in your pants, guys! You have to wade through this crap, and read all the way to the *second to last line* to get to the only thing that's important now: how the hell did she die?? Is there any evidence that this was even a murder? The police aren't ready to say. This is beyond prurient reporting, this borders on necrophilia. JS ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:34:22 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." At 07:16 PM 5/24/2002 -0400, John Sharples wrote: >It's like >Mike Piazza - I think he was drafted something like 600th in his draft (and >only then as a favor to his dad) and now he's the greatest hitting catcher >in history. Oh, I'd been wondering if he was a pitcher or a catcher... Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:58:13 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do windows." >>It's like >>Mike Piazza - I think he was drafted something like 600th in his draft (and >>only then as a favor to his dad) and now he's the greatest hitting catcher >>in history. > >Oh, I'd been wondering if he was a pitcher or a catcher... > >Stewart Bwah! Good one. Don't get too carried away with those Red Sox, now, son... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:04:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do-si-do." On Fri, 24 May 2002, John Sharples wrote: > No, I think they're big, stupid, and greedy, but their main purpose is to > make money, which I don't think is per se evil. By "evil incarnate" I mean > an organization that exists for no purpose other than to do Satan's work on > earth, like SPECTRE, SMERSH, or THE NEW YORK POST. Lazy Satan, getting all those others to do his work for him. Hmmmph. > >Then, there's no reason record companies *have* to sign 20 bands hoping > >one of them sticks to the wall (even without any promotion): they should > >probably sign only the number of bands they can adequately promote. > > What, are you calling for more restricted access? No, I don't think they > can sign fewer acts than they do, because a lot of the ones they would > likely cut are the sleepers that come out of nowhere and shift massive units > (David Gray is a recent example that comes to mind, although I gather that > it was Dave Matthews who gets most of the credit for that one). It's like > Mike Piazza - I think he was drafted something like 600th in his draft (and > only then as a favor to his dad) and now he's the greatest hitting catcher > in history. I think the sports analogy is apt--it's hard to know how talent > will develop. And I don't think promotion is actually all that, despite > what people who don't get it and whose records fail say. All of that seems reasonable - and I agree that in many ways the sports analogy is a good one - but all I'm really saying is it sucks when a record company (and indies can be guilty of this too) signs and artist and doesn't promote them. And while promotion certainly doesn't guarantee success (Sigue Sigue Sputnik, anyone? Other than glenn: I have this funny feeling he likes it...), it's fair to say that no one will buy a record if they don't know it exists. (We may now return on-topic, with a discussion of _Attractive Nuisance_ and the persistent, yet false, belief among many consumers that no such recording was ever released.) > You have to wade through this crap, and read all the way to the *second to > last line* to get to the only thing that's important now: how the hell did > she die?? Is there any evidence that this was even a murder? The police > aren't ready to say. This is beyond prurient reporting, this borders on > necrophilia. But John - you *don't* have to wade through all that crap: you could just not read it. Granted, that's nowhere near as fun - but I'm just sayin'. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Let's quit talking about it and start watching it on TV:: __Susan Lowry__ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:02:57 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to do-si-do." My correspondent, Jeff: but all I'm really saying is it sucks when a >record company (and indies can be guilty of this too) signs and artist and >doesn't promote them. Yeah, and I've heard the accusation that majors will sign a band just to bury them - and thereby keep the indie that would have otherwise signed them and done a good job from encroaching on the major's sales. I don't doubt that sometimes happens but I don't see how it's necessarily a profitable move for a major label. So I doubt it's a pervasive problem owing to abuse of market power. But I don't think promotion is a guarantee of sales, neither do I think a lack of it absolutely means failure. We hear all the time of breakouts, against all odds. I think popular music is like movies in this way - a breakout happens in large part because of word-of-mouth. Promotion helps, but it's not dispositive, one way or the other. >But John - you *don't* have to wade through all that crap: you could just >not read it. Dude, I'm sure you know this, but I'll say it anyway: I don't read NY POST to find out what's happening. I read it to see what the POST is up to. JS ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 02:15:06 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] scott WHO? The latest issue of Magnet (No.54) mentions some obscure pop singer (Scott somebody or other) in the Imperial Teen review on p. 94. I'm not typing the whole thing, but here's the relevant sentence. "This foursome- led by ex-Faith No More keyboardist Roddy Bottum- is just canny enough to combine an almost bubblegum musical sensibility with more eccentric traits, not unlike what Scott Miller once did in the Loud Family but by way of Bob Pollard (as epitomized by "Million Dollar Man"). Jen ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #186 *******************************