From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #289 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 Tuesday, August 20 2002 Volume 02 : Number 289 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] RE: lyres ["Brett Milano" ] Re: [loud-fans] Hank Dogs (ns) [Boyof100lists@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Egregiously NS Postmodern Transit and Location [Boyof100l] [loud-fans] Re: lyres [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] postmodern transit [Holly Kruse ] (Fwd) Re: [loud-fans] CD backlash ["Paul King" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:38:20 -0400 From: "Brett Milano" Subject: [loud-fans] RE: lyres '''Can anyone tell me on which album, ep, or single the live version, or a live version, of "Don't Give It Up Now" appears? The live "Don't Give It Up now" was only on the original CD version of "A Promise is a Promise," and was pretty infamous. It's part of a 1/2 hour's worth of live trax that find the band at its drunkest, messiest, and most offensive-- This song in particular has some changed lyrics that I'm way too polite to quote these days. (This era was probably the peak of my own Lyres fandom, though I love 'em to this day). When the Lyres albums were reissued by Matador three years ago, most of those live tracks were excluded, making the reissued APIAP shorter than the original. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:38:51 EDT From: Boyof100lists@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hank Dogs (ns) In a message dated 8/19/02 1:51:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dana-boy@juno.com writes: > . Mark's description of Belle & Sebastian meets the Cranberries isn't so > far off, though it's better than that might imply. > I also heard some Harvest Ministers in there, for Sarah Records-philes. I don't care for the cover either, but at least it isn't typical, I'll give it that. - -Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:02:10 EDT From: Boyof100lists@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Egregiously NS Postmodern Transit and Location In a message dated 8/19/02 10:22:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, durandal@sprintmail.com writes: > I had a discussion with Maura today about where we'd live when I finally cut > slingload on the Green Polyester Industry. After some discussion, a few > points emerge: > - not any further south than the Research Triangle of NC (although Atlanta > might have some redeeming features) > - not in Maryland (Maura's pretty adamant for some reason) > - I hated Maryland. Bad traffic, high rents, psychotic roommates, heavy taxation. Listen to Maura. When I came back from moving up there after changing my mind about teaching/living there last year, I left my psycho roomie and his scabie-filled house, packed my crap, drove all day, and stopped in High Point NC. I wanted to kiss the ground. The people were nice again, and things had normal prices on them. I'll never leave the South again. Rednecks are not an exclusively Southern phenomenon you know. My one paycheck from Prince Georges County Public Schools in MD had almost exactly the same amount for state taxes as federal. Also, being in such close proximity to DC is probably not a good idea at this stage of the game, what with dirty bombs to worry about and all, but I probably have more to fear from the Savannah River facility down state in reality. - -Mark np: John Wesley Harding "Why We Fight" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:23:45 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] Re: lyres Brett Milano wrote: > > The live "Don't Give It Up now" was only on the original CD version of "A > Promise is a Promise," and was pretty infamous. It's part of a 1/2 hour's > worth of live trax that find the band at its drunkest, messiest, and most > offensive-- This song in particular has some changed lyrics that I'm way too > polite to quote these days. (This era was probably the peak of my own Lyres > fandom, though I love 'em to this day). > When the Lyres albums were reissued by Matador three years ago, most of > those live tracks were excluded, making the reissued APIAP shorter than the > original. What year did the original come out? I'm thinking there may be more than one live version out there, since my tape of it from a radio station that didn't care about playing obscenities appears unedited, but contains no obscenities. It seems like a pretty straight version of the song, it just rocks harder and is a bit faster. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:29:46 -0500 From: Holly Kruse Subject: Re: [loud-fans] postmodern transit Out of deep lurkerdom... > As Lefty said, one simply does not "have" to get a minivan. The world ran > fine, including for those with multiple children, before God created the > minivan. I recall a childhood in which I was schlepped around in a 1968 Opel wagon. I understand that now Camry, Subaru, Volvo and other wagons come equipped with the miracle of air conditioning, something the vehicle of my early years lacked. Having written that, I should disclose that I own a minivan: a 1996 Dodge Caravan. And I think Janet is right about manual transmission not being an option. However, the whole family of mini-SUVs, if they're still making them (Toyota RAV4s, etc.) seems to come with manual transmission as an option. I do think there are some people who have to have minivans. I was in denial about my need to own one for a few years, but as the dog population in my house increased, and the need to transport them en masse to dog events up and down the East Coast safely secured in their large cages, it was clear that the Colt Vista wagon wasn't enough anymore. I resisted the advice that I buy a Grand Caravan, which is 18" longer, and I also bought the most stripped-down Caravan I could find... which means no power locks, and passengers are often confused when they can't find the button to lower or raise the window (I helpfully point to the window crank handle.) And speaking of passengers, I can only have one at a time, because as soon as the car arrived home the two bench seats came out, and they've occupied the garages or basements of my homes over the past six years. The absence-of- cool factor is pretty much outweighed by the fascinated stares a minivan filled with huge cages, not seats, generates. When I drove about sans dogs, toll-takers on the NJ and PA Turnpikes liked to ask what kind of critters I transported in those cages, and I always wanted to tell them it was something exotic like wildebeest(s?) or snow leopards or beavers or plague-carrying rats. I would therefore argue that driving a minivan doesn't have to be a blow to one's image if eccentricity is a goal, although I imagine that society frowns on driving one's children around in cages, so that could limit the fun. Having the bare bones, most functional vehicle I can for my purposes (only the Caravan allowed me to have three ample Irish setter-sized cages in the back without moving up to a longer wheelbase minvan: no such luck with the Toyota Siena or Honda Odyssey), I feel fairly secure in saying that the kind of vehicle that *no one* really needs to have is not the minivan, but the monster SUV. I'd be interested to hear the functional argument for owning a Navigator or an Expedition! My Caravan -- which was no longer than my now-ex's Corolla wagon -- seems plenty big, so it is quite impressive to me that when I get behind a Lincoln Navigator on the highway, it just blocks out the sun. Since I just lurk, I thought that I should make this on-topic by once again recounting my exciting, sinus- clearing ride a few years ago on Lincoln Drive in Philly in a Dodge Caravan piloted by the talented leader of a now-defunct SF Bay Area band, but I think I posted that story in the last loud-fans discussion of minivans. Holly hkruse@infi.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:51:57 -0400 From: "Paul King" Subject: (Fwd) Re: [loud-fans] CD backlash Oops! Didn't send this to the list properly. Hey, it's my first posting to the list. Howdy. Paul King - ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:26:23 -0600 To: Willful Obscurity From: Roger Winston Subject: [loud-fans] CD backlash > > > >I think the biggest thing that the record labels fear about music sharing on > >the internet is that for a long time they've been selling a pig in a poke. > >They've made a lot of money selling albums that have one hit song, and the > >rest is mediocre drivel. Or they promote the latest album by the XYZ band, > >which is a lemon, but the name is enough to sell it. Nowadays, before I buy > >any CD, I download the whole thing and listen to it a few times before I make > >a decision. My CD collection probably conforms to a typical bell curve; > >several are really awful, the majority of them are "ok", and the rest are > >really excellent. I'll bet my collection would be a lot smaller if I'd been > >able to listen to them extensively before I bought them. What people want is > >a try-before-you-buy system, like the software people use. When you download > >a song, you'd get to listen to it for 7 days or so for free and if you want > >to hear it after that, you have to pay for it. If the record companies had > >done that in the beginning, these sharing networks might never have come into > >being. But the labels got greedy, and now they're faced with wholesale > >piracy where lots of people never pay for any music. Even greedier considering that CDs cost record companies pennines to make in bulk, yet their prices are exorbitant. Piracy isn't really right either, but I can understand the act being really an act of protest. > > > >These days I buy only gems. If an album only has one or two good songs, I'll > >just pirate the songs and I won't buy the album. If I had a way to buy the > >individual songs at a reasonable price, I probably would. But I'm not going > >to 1) pay full price for lo-fi compressed music, 2) buy music that I can only > >listen to as long as I keep paying a monthly subscription fee, or 3) buy > >music that I can't burn to a CD. When I buy music, I expect that I'll get to > >listen to that music whenever and wherever I please for the rest of my life > >without paying any more money (remember the "lifetime of listening enjoyment" > >on CDs). To me that means the music has to be in "plaintext", because I > >expect somewhere down the line I'm going to transfer all these CDs to some > >other media. They're just too bulky right now. When I can get around 2 > >terabytes the size of a breadbox, I'll go for it, and I don't expect to pay > >the record companies for the privilege. > > You should be able to fit 500 DVD RWs into a breadbox (without the cases ... :-) That's about 4GB per CD. Can you afford a DVD recorder? I know it's out of my price range. > >Which makes me really wonder about these so-call "copy protected" CDs. When I hear "copy protected" I see an invitation or challenge for someone out there to break the protection codes. A manufacturer of such a "protection-proofed" CD player would make a mint. What do the manufacturers do afterward? Change the protection codes? Then they may have to change the technology that reads those codes. New codes invite new cracks. And so the cycle goes. They can't play cat-and-mouse like this forever. For sure they can't expect the consumer to keep up with every technological nuance that comes along, even if no alternative exists. > > Apparently there was enough of a stink about them not working in some > >devices that the record companies started labeling them as copy protected, > >with a little disclaimer on the cover that said that if it didn't work for > >you, you could "return it to the seller for a refund". Now, I'd heard that > >the record companies were trying to get some law passed so that they would > >get an additional royalty when someone sells a used CD because, the argument > >goes, a lot of people buy a CD, copy it, then sell the original as "used". > >Well, doesn't this disclaimer let you do just that, except you get a full > >refund instead of just the used price? > > > >I can't imagine that the copy protection scheme actually stops anyone from > >putting it up on the Internet. If I wanted to do it, I'd just go to Radio > >Shack and get a cable to connect my CD player's line output to my computer's > >line input, press "record" on my computer and "play" on my CD player. Then > >I'd have a plaintext version on my computer that I could do with as I > >pleased. Of course it would be transferred in "analog", but I'll bet anyone > >would be hard pressed to tell which was the original and which was the copy. > >Then I'd just bring the original back to the store for a full refund, > >claiming "it didn't work in my car stereo". If they start making copy > >protected CD's that I want to buy, that's exactly what I'm going to do (I > >won't bring the CD back for a refund though, all I really want is a plaintext > >copy of the music, but I probably will post it on the internet just out of > >spite). I am not an authority on copy protection, but on one of my computers, I run Linux. I haven't done this myself, but I wonder if I can stick that "uncopyable" CD in my CD drive, and simply do this: dd bs=10240 if=/dev/cdrom of=my_favourite_album several minutes later, I have an image of this "unreproducable" CD on my hard drive for CD creation later on. Theoretically, this command reads bytes from the CD and writes them into a file without ever questioning what the bytes mean. That should mean that the "copy protection" codes will end up on the hard disk image also. Again, I don't know if it works. It may create the image, but when the CD is made, it might still be un-playable for some other reason (something (encryption key?) encoded into the plastic of the original?), resulting in a wasted effort. > > > >Well, gotta go, > > > >--John - ------- End of forwarded message ------- =========================================== Paul King Oakville, ON ========================================================= Paul King http://www3.sympatico.ca/pking123/ (905) 842-7451 (416) 428-7451 (cell) ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #289 *******************************