From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #286 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 Sunday, August 18 2002 Volume 02 : Number 286 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic [Janet Ingraham Dwyer ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic [Dan Sallitt ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic ["John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic At 01:23 AM 08/17/2002 -0400, jenny grover wrote: >Is instantly hummable with sing-alongs a common priority for Loud-fans? >No, I'm not being at all perverse or snide, just very curious. Understood. But the question you're asking now sounds like (and I apologize if I misread it) "do you LIKE instantly hummable etc. music better?". which is pretty well removed from the original question, which went more like "why/how does your response to an album change over time?", or specifically, regarding IBC, quoting you: "What's to consider at such length?" Yeah, for some people, IBC *was* difficult - I think for me it still is. A different album, composed of instantly hummable sing-alongs, wouldn't be similarly difficult because it wouldn't demand as much attention and because it would reveal iself (more or less, anyway) up-front, on one or two listenings. One listener might prefer one of these two, love them both, or hate them equally. But one is definitely more challenging than the other, and encourages more nuanced, complex listener responses which may change over time. I *think* that's what Jeff was talking about when he introduced the sing-along concept. At least, I'm fairly certain he doesn't prioritize the "instantly hummable" over the "difficult" himself. janet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:24:46 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic At Saturday 8/17/2002 01:23 AM -0400, jenny grover wrote: >Is instantly hummable with sing-alongs a common priority for Loud-fans? No, but I'm Special. I've always preferred the poppy side of Scott to the noisy side. I do like the noisy side, it just takes longer for it to embed itself into my brain. >No, I'm not being at all perverse or snide, just very curious. I often >feel like I'm coming at Scott's music from a different flight approach, >even if I'm landing on the same runway. That's what great about Scott's music. There's so many different ways to come at it and react to it. I had more to say, but Janet already said it better. Janet, are you available for technical writing? Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:28:01 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic > IBC has always been the most difficult of LF albums for me. For me too - at least until ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE came along, which I found even more difficult. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:56:36 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Janet Ingraham Dwyer wrote: > Yeah, for some people, IBC *was* difficult - I think for me it still is. A > different album, composed of instantly hummable sing-alongs, wouldn't be > similarly difficult because it wouldn't demand as much attention and > because it would reveal iself (more or less, anyway) up-front, on one or > two listenings. One listener might prefer one of these two, love them > both, or hate them equally. But one is definitely more challenging than > the other, and encourages more nuanced, complex listener responses which > may change over time. > > I *think* that's what Jeff was talking about when he introduced the > sing-along concept. At least, I'm fairly certain he doesn't prioritize the > "instantly hummable" over the "difficult" himself. Pretty much, yeah. I'm having this vision of Scott Miller International Airport, and here's Jen flying in on some weird runway at some strange angle to everything else... - --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 ::You think your country needs you, but you know it never will:: __Elvis Costello__ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:37:06 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic Janet Ingraham Dwyer wrote: > > Understood. But the question you're asking now sounds like (and I > apologize if I misread it) "do you LIKE instantly hummable etc. music > better?". which is pretty well removed from the original question, which > went more like "why/how does your response to an album change over time?", > or specifically, regarding IBC, quoting you: "What's to consider at such > length?" Yeah, I got a little off track, but it relates, I think, to why IBC might be difficult and cause so much consideration and change of opinion. I don't know. I guess I just didn't find it particularly difficult. It did continue to reveal nice things for a while, but not in ways that really changed my opinion or understanding of it. On the other hand, it was the first Loud Family album I heard, so maybe I didn't have any preconceived expectations coming into it. I had no other LF album to compare it to. In many ways IBC sounds more like an extension of Game Theory than early LF stuff, so it wasn't a hard transition for me to make. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:53:51 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > I'm having this vision of Scott Miller International Airport, and here's > Jen flying in on some weird runway at some strange angle to everything > else... Apparently there is now a John Lennon airport, so it could happen... Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:20:56 -0700 (PDT) From: me@justanotherfuckin.com Subject: [loud-fans] Not horribly off topic anymore i love this list. the most serious discussion of scott's music comes when i create the heading 'horribly off topic'. heh. i have to second roger. i prefer the poppy side of scott, too. and i also love the noisy side, but it takes longer. for me, at least, this is because i listen to music with something of a subconcious intent to remember it, so, noisy, more chaotic stuff gets processed differently. (wow - that was a weird sentence.) the guy is so damn talented that he does the whole range from noise to pop beautifully, but the ones i instantly name as my favorites are definately on the pop end of the spectrum. by the way, i wrote a question for the interview that filled my needs, and i'm damn proud of it. the goal was to find out how the person learns, what methods, how quickly, under pressure, etc. i said, "Tell me about a time when you had to solve a very complex technical problem you'd never encountered before. How did you do it?" the guy froze. i instantly felt terrible. he'd been on such a roll, and he just locked up. 'um, well, uh, hm. well...' for about 45 seconds! i gave him a few examples - told him 'technical' could apply to a car problem, computer issue, whatever. then he came up with an answer that knocked my socks off, and included a great story about fixing connectivity for a major basketball star. i think we'll hire him. AND i got big kudos from my supervisor, who was in on the interview. apparently i really blew him away. thanks for the suggestions - you guys got me thinking in the right vein. b ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:44:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, jenny grover wrote: > other hand, it was the first Loud Family album I heard, so maybe I > didn't have any preconceived expectations coming into it. I had no > other LF album to compare it to. In many ways IBC sounds more like an > extension of Game Theory than early LF stuff, so it wasn't a hard > transition for me to make. Wow. That's interesting: to me, IBC is the *least* GT-like of the LF's stuff. But then, as you say, you heard it first. Most of us, I'm guessing, heard GT first ("Erica's Word" and "24" on those two Enigma comps were my intros, if I recall). So you worked backwards to GT from IBC, so you heard GT in light of IBC rather than the other way around. And for me, I was hearing LF's catalog in order, more or less as the CDs came out. That meant I heard IBC as a consolidation of the better ideas on TTOOL, w/o some of the less-distinguished songwriting that marred some of the later tracks (and no, I don't *only* mean "For Beginners Only," which long-time listers know is my least favorite song - other than, of course, "Time after Time" ;) Scott has a few duff tracks on that record too.) One of the main differences between the two bands for me is probably due simply to advances in keyboard technology: I just don't like some of GT's keyboard sounds, whereas one reason IBC's probably my favorite LF album is that I just love the noises Paul Wieneke made on that album. Oh - and I'd have to go back and listen, but I get the impression that bass was always undermixed on GT albums, whereas it was a little more prominent on the records Rob Poor played on, and by the time Kenny Kessel was on board, you could actually hear the damned thing! (Although, I somehow guess, not enough to satisfy Mr. K...) Damn, we really are off-topic here... - --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 ::Being young, carefree, having your whole life ahead of you, ::dancing the night away to celebrate... ::oh, and the untimely death of Jackson Pollock. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:45:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Not horribly off topic anymore On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 me@justanotherfuckin.com wrote: > and included a great story about fixing connectivity > for a major basketball star. i think we'll hire him. It wasn't Wilt Chamberlain, was it? Nah - I guess he never had connectivity problems. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Sting, where is thy death?:: __Alan Gray_ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:52:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Pimpin'...on a summer afternoon... http://www.125records.com/shop.html (See top item: Anton Barbeau content...but not for long! Shop now! Only a limited number of copies available! Signed by the artiste! Comes with free toad! In event of emergency, use non-label side to signal passersby in Morse code! Some lies included in this message! Stop! Now!) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:07:15 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic At 01:28 PM 8/17/2002 -0400, Dan Sallitt wrote: >> IBC has always been the most difficult of LF albums for me. > >For me too - at least until ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE came along, which I >found even more difficult. For me, IBC is difficult, while AN is simply, erm, not exactly good. I don't think it's that any of us *need* the scrappy little pop songs in place of the wild experimental bits, it's just that a huge part of Scott's charm is that he does both so well. Remember, some people don't rate TWO STEPS very high because it's comparatively straightforward in comparison to what came before and after. S ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:57:08 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] horribly off topic On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, John Swartzentruber wrote: > As you know, there is none. We had pretty good success (small software > company with fewer than 5 programmers) with creating a small > programming test that the applicant designed a solution and wrote code > for. The end results weren't as important as the questions asked and > the process they went through in reaching a solution. Generally the two > lead software engineers (me and another guy) gave this test, and it > also helped us see how well we would be able to work with this person. i used togive people a (slightly) broken piece of code with objective of seeing if they spotted the problem(s) with it when it ran, if they could understand how it was written, w/a major bonus for fixing it. (no one ever fixed it. but the people who could talk articulately about the processing of analyzing it for faults were almost uniformly keepers.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:49:07 -0400 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:07:15 -0400, Stewart Mason wrote: >For me, IBC is difficult, while AN is simply, erm, not exactly good. I wouldn't go quite so far in either case, but basically agree. To me, IBC seems raw and very direct. AN seems to want your head, but IBC just grabs your gut or your heart. "so vulnerable. so vulnerable..." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 21:04:40 EDT From: Boyof100lists@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Not horribly off topic anymore In a message dated 8/17/02 4:21:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, me@justanotherfuckin.com writes: > i have to second roger. i prefer the poppy side of > scott, too. I third Roger. Give me poppy Scott any day over noisy. If I'm listening to his music, there are times I will skip the noise and just listen to the pop tracks. I do that with "The Tape of Only Linda" often times I notice. The pop side of Scott is so good, it has given me chills (seriously) in the past...i.e. "Hyde Street Virgins" and "Room for One More, Honey." The harmony in RFOMH is sublime. - -Mark Staples, remembering the Game Theory "Two Steps" promo poster and flats on the wall of my local record haunt in 1989. They were giving away the flats. WHY OH WHY did I not grab a few for posterity??? np: Plastics (self-titled) "I Hooters" (a button I saw pinned to a cowboy hat on the dashboard of a pickup this afternoon at the Beacon Drive-In in Spartanburg, SC. What a subcultural blast to visit the Beacon, and my chocolate peanut butter shake was good too, but watching the middle aged cop pinch the teenage girl under the breast who was making it for me was a tad disturbing Sorry sports fans, I couldn't find the flower stall) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:32:56 -0400 From: David A Seldin Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Some things that I don't get The thing that's so amazing about Pere Ubu is how they are simultaneously so very, very strange, and so completely normal. After I first saw them, I was so tickled to be able to go up to a table in the back of the club and talk to them, standing around a table where they were selling their CDs. But what best sums it up for me is that their Theremin player is also the director of the foundation that maintains Thomas Edison's birthsite. What do you think his birthday parties are like, for cripes sake? By all means, Mark, go see them. And if you don't own "The Modern Dance" and "Terminal Tower", get them now. David p.s. Spent the day with Reuben, Bridget, and Henry. Hoo Boy! On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:07:49 -0500 "Kunkel, Mark" writes: > > P.S. Pere Ubu is playing in Chicago when I go there for a visit in > Septemeber. I don't know a damn thing about Pere Ubu (despite the fact that > a certain fellow list member probably played their records in his basement > room in the same house we once lived in). Would I be an idiot if I didn't > go see them? Are they great live, or what? > > _____________________________________________________ > Mark D. Kunkel > Legislative Attorney > Legislative Reference Bureau > (608) 266-0131 > ________________________________________________________________ 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: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 23:33:02 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: horribly off topic Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > But then, as you say, you heard it first. Most of us, I'm guessing, heard > GT first ("Erica's Word" and "24" on those two Enigma comps were my > intros, if I recall). So you worked backwards to GT from IBC, so you heard > GT in light of IBC rather than the other way around. No, no. You misunderstood. I was saying the IBC was the first Loud Family album I heard. The first Scott songs I heard were "Curse of the Frontier Land," "24," and "The Young Drug." I heard and acquired GT's albums mostly in order, but LF's albums all out of order. But I didn't see IBC as being that big a jump from Lolita Nation. That may be for less tangible reasons that the things Jeff mentioned (keyboards, bass sounds, etc.) and more for emotional or artistically intellectual reasons (if that makes any sense). Maybe part of that is just that IBC rocks more than a lot of the LF stuff, and LN rocks a lot. Jen ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #286 *******************************