From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #352 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 Monday, October 7 2002 Volume 02 : Number 352 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) [Michael Bo] Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) [Jeffrey wi] [loud-fans] Funniest Joke when I was 12 ["Kunkel, Mark" ] Re: [loud-fans] what's that sound? [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] what's that sound? ["Michael Zwirn" ] Re: [loud-fans] Explaining this link would just ruin it... [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) [Boyof100li] Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) [Boyof100li] Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) ["glenn mcd] [loud-fans] let's bash mark, chapter 583. [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) [JRT456@aol] Re: [loud-fans] let's bash mark, chapter 583. [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] let's bash mark, chapter 583. ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: [loud-fans] apology and taking own advice [Dave Walker ] [loud-fans] 80s drums ["Keegstra, Russell" ] Re: [loud-fans] 80s drums ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] pluck out his eyes! [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] pluck out his eyes! [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] 80s drums [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] Geeky, and Way Off Topic ["Pete O." ] Re: [loud-fans] Geeky, and Way Off Topic [Dan Sallitt ] Re: [loud-fans] 80s drums (fwd) [Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) At 01:06 AM 10/7/2002 -0400, Boyof100lists@aol.com wrote: God must really be proud to have created such an amazing tower of intellect like you. It's such an honor to read Deep Thoughts like yours first thing in the morning. MB ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:21:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 Boyof100lists@aol.com wrote: > The guys at work were actually laughing at me because I use a phone modem. Those bastards! They probably drive Volkswagons. - --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 ::Drive ten thousand miles across America and you will know more about ::the country than all the institutes of sociology and political science ::put together. __Jean Baudrillard__ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:27:39 -0500 From: "Kunkel, Mark" Subject: [loud-fans] Funniest Joke when I was 12 I heard a variation on this joke when I was in grade school. Way back then (Nixon was still president), "Spanish fly" was substituted for "Viagra".... Brett Milano shared the following: Guy goes into a doctor's office and asks for 500 mg of Viagra. Doctor says, "Why do you want that? At your age, that much can kill you." Guy says, "But I really need it. My wife, my ex-wife and my girlfriend are all coming to town this weekend." Doctor says, "Okay, but I need to see you first thing Monday morning." Guy says thanks and walks out. Monday morning, guy comes in with his arm in a sling. Doctor says, "What the hell happened to you?" Guy replies, "They didn't show up." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:29:32 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) So you're getting your AOL for free... >When my >free AOL service (got 2 months free, because I called and wanted to >disconnect) ends, I'm going back to free Juno. But you're paying for it? >I have adverts on my AOL >service and I PAY. Paying for it metaphorically? Maybe there really is a stigma. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:28:41 -0400 From: "Larry Tucker" Subject: [loud-fans] Sparklefest preview An article in the local free weekly of the upcoming Sparklefest shows. http://indyweek.com/durham/current/music2.html - -Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 10:41:46 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] TV stuff: catching up At 06:21 PM 10/4/2002 -0400, jsharple@brooklaw.edu wrote: >actually sit through one of those shows today? The writing was nowhere near >as >funny as it thought it was half the time. Back then, it was super fresh, so >we >remember it fondly, but a lot of stuff didn't age well. Some of the skits I didn't quite "get" as a pre-teen are the ones I like best now, like the long skits in the last half-hour of the show (the lodge ones come to mind). Besides my changing tastes, it could also be that I'm not forced to see those pieces as often as the ones everybody knows (Samurai whatever, Aykroyd's Ronco ads, Murray's lounge singer, anything with Gilda, etc.). I'm not complaining about the stuff I just parenthetically mentioned, as they all had their charms and deserved most of the attention they got -- just pointing out that I like some other less obvious things better now. >With every new era come the complaints that this is the worst edition ever, >it'll never be as good as before, starting with the notorious Jean Doumanian >season. But if you catch some reruns, every era had its moments. The notorious Jean Doumanian season had a terrible opening episode, but actually got pretty good as it went on. It also has one of my favorite SNL pieces, a long SCTV-like skit where the retiring Walter Cronkite travels the world to "discover himself." >For me, the most underrated cast was right around '85, with Billy Crystal, >Julia Louis-Dreyfuss, Rich Hall, Martin Short, DOn Novello, Joan Cusack, Randy >Quaid, Robert Downey, Jr. (!), Damon Wayans, and, believe it or not, Dennis >Miller. Too bad the writing sucked. Actually, you're running together two casts: the 1984-85 "Steinbrenner" cast, which was IMO one of the funniest with pretty much spot-on writing (pre-schmaltz Billy Crystal, Chris Guest, Martin Short, Harry Shearer, and a few holdovers from the Murphy-Piscopo days like Julia and Gary Kroeger); and the 1985-86 cast, which gets my vote for Worst Cast Ever Before The Really Really Horrible '90s, despite having talent that was either perceived as top of the line then (Randy Quaid, Anthony Michael Hall coming off the John Hughes movies) or now (the late and underutilized Danitra Vance, Damon Wayans, Robert Downey Jr., Joan Cusack). The funniest regular skit on the show was Terry Sweeney's Nancy Reagan impersonation, which ought to tell you just about everything you need to know about that awful season. But of course, it's also the beginning of the much better casts of the late '80s, since Jon Lovitz, Nora Dunn, and Dennis Miller made their SNL debuts that season. A. Whitney Brown's "The Big Picture" also became a Weekend Update feature that season, and though it never could buy a laugh, I always enjoyed 'em. My nominee for Worst Cast Member Ever, even with the multiple nominees provided by the late '90s cast, is still Mary Gross, who clearly neither knows nor cares what the word "overacting" means, and who can kill a skit dead in three lines or less. Yet still she gets work, and you still see her pop up on sitcoms in bit parts to this very day. >Great defense of RAYMOND, Miles. I'll have to start watching it (it's always >on at asharplesian viewing times). I hope no one would judge it by last week's episode, which was one of the most conventional they've ever done -- there were a few good continuing bits (Ray passing actual kid-involved work on to his mother), but Melissa and I both hated how in isolation it played out as a "mother knows best/kids come first" show any sitcom could do. Way more kids in this one than usual, too. Since the season debut was as black-hearted as ever, I'm not worried yet. >> As for Ray Romano's acting, I think he started out more or less playing >> himself, but he's actually developed as an actor during the course of the >> show, and he's quite good now, far better than Jerry Seinfeld > >Back when the show was on, we all took it for granted that Seinfeld couldn't >act (I think even the show itself winked at this), but I've started to watch >the reruns again after laying off it for about five years, and now I think he >was actually much better than he or anyone thought at the time. By which I >don't mean that he's any Olivier, just that his physical presence--mannerisms, >expressions, his overly stylized line deliveries--accounts for some >substantial comic mileage on that show. I'll agree with that, and I didn't mean for my extolling of Ray Romano's acting to come off as a putdown of Jerry -- Jerry never really developed acting chops per se, but I think that SEINFELD adroitly worked with Jerry's persona and tendencies, so Jerry was actually an acting asset within the context of the show. (Like you, I've been watching them again! First time since the show went off in '98, so a lot of it is "new" again, or I can't remember which subplots were strung together even if I remember them individually, so I get surprised on a regular basis.) >Moreover, I always thought Jason Alexander badly >overacted his part, I dunno -- you ever been part of a yelling family? Lived next to one? Given who George is and how he grew up, I think that Jason stayed within character very well. >and that Michael Richard's schtick got less funny and more >mildly annoying with each season. But I also think this was smartly mirrored in the writing, which seemed to acknowledge this. As time went on, the writers gave Kramer fewer "goofy neighbor, ha ha!" business and more directly annoying, even harmful things. Jerry and Elaine in particular seemed to get more disgusted with Kramer in the later seasons. >Julia Louis-Dreyfuss is a goddess, though, Amen. And to your Tina Fey addendum -- mmmm-hmmm (see her at the Emmys?), but to me, the only bright spot of most of the '90s episodes was at the end of the show: not only was the "cast waves from stage" finale the welcome signal that another Lorne Death March show was at an end, but it meant seeing Molly Shannon dressed in black and/or shiny dresses slit up to Hudson Bay, flashing that big smile and gyrating and waving like there was no tomorrow. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:51:08 -0700 From: "Michael Zwirn" Subject: [loud-fans] RIP Arts & Letters Daily http://aldaily.com/ - ------ Michael Zwirn, Policy Analyst The Wild Salmon Center mzwirn@wildsalmoncenter.org http://wildsalmoncenter.org (t) 503-222-1804 (f) 503-222-1805 (c) 503-887-9800 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 11:02:34 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] what's that sound? At 02:26 AM 10/5/2002 -0400, Boyof100lists@aol.com wrote: >p.s. Years of overhearing me mum's records made me catch a reference on a >Magnetic Fields record. The opening track on _The Charm of the Highway >Strip_ makes a reference to Nancy Sinatra and Lee Hazelwood's tune "Jackson." > The only other time I've noticed NS made reference to in my record >collection was when Slowdive covered "Some Velvet Morning." > >Now if Scott would only do "These Boots Are Made For Walking." Of course, this tells me that you (surprisingly) don't have the original, better Capitol version of Lisa Germano's HAPPINESS with its kick-ass "These Boots Are Made for Walking" cover, nor (unsurprisingly) the Bottle Rockets' BRAND NEW YEAR, which has a whole song about nothing but NS. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 10:57:49 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Tull At 06:54 PM 10/4/2002 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >--Jeff, off to watch _Firefly_, with a guest appearance this week by >Gentle Giant! not However, it did have a guest appearance by the delectable Christina Hendricks, late of the underrated BEGGARS AND CHOOSERS, as the "innocent" redhead. And they didn't even exploit her two giant talents as thoroughly as they could/should have. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:09:22 -0700 From: "Michael Zwirn" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] what's that sound? > Of course, this tells me that you (surprisingly) don't have the original, > better Capitol version of Lisa Germano's HAPPINESS with its kick-ass "These > Boots Are Made for Walking" cover, nor (unsurprisingly) the Bottle Rockets' > BRAND NEW YEAR, which has a whole song about nothing but NS. Nor the inferior (to Lisa's) version by Sam Phillips, on the soundtrack to Pret-a-Porter. n.p. Linda Thompson, Dreams Fly Away. Her concert, Saturday night, was just divine. - ------ Michael Zwirn, michael@zwirn.com http://zwirn.com (t) 503-232-8919 (c) 503-887-9800 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:09:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Explaining this link would just ruin it... On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Paul King wrote: > You mean someone is paying so much per month to have this > single page of ... (spit, sputter) ... whatever that is? It's like $12/year to register a name, and poking around it looks like this belongs to someone who already has a block of free IP addresses for some net-hosting business he runs. Or something. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:06:49 EDT From: Boyof100lists@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) In a message dated 10/7/02 9:21:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jenor@csd.uwm.edu writes: > They probably drive Volkswagons And I can insure my Volkswagon for a year (840 bucks) for the cost of cable internet and regular cable (with quite good coverage). That doesn't seem ridiculous? If you have to see adverts, they should cover the cost, or at least reduce significantly, the cost of your services. It's like paying a 1.59 for a bottle of Aquafina to me. Hell, give me a Bic lighter and some cash. If you have to wait a couple of minutes longer to download something with a phone modem to save all that money, then wait. I suppose if you had lots of money to burn, then none of this would matter. But, I come from a background where the money always goes, so make it last as best you can. And since I'm looking forward to making 25K or 26K a year as a public school teacher, I'm always in thrift mode as well. You would not believe what they give teachers here in yearly budgets for needed stuff like PAPER. It's really sad. You know what happens when you declare ketchup a vegetable? You get Alzheimer's. - -Mark S. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:11:08 EDT From: Boyof100lists@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) In a message dated 10/7/02 1:07:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, glenn@furia.com writes: > No shit. If, as your email address implies, you're actually on 99 other > mailing lists, isn't it time for one of the *other* ones to take a turn > receiving your running updates of what a loser you still are? > > > > It's a Go-Go's reference. So why don't you kill me? - -Mark S. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:07:31 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) > The guys at work were actually laughing at me... No shit. If, as your email address implies, you're actually on 99 other mailing lists, isn't it time for one of the *other* ones to take a turn receiving your running updates of what a loser you still are? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:21:04 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] let's bash mark, chapter 583. fer chrissakes, folks, this is a little low. *i* don't consider high-speed access a luxury item, because it directly impacts my consulting business, and also 'cause i like my smut to show up promptly. but really, for most of the world -- or even most of the US -- it's still a pretty serious luxury item. hell, computers in the home are still a luxury item. and anyone who is tired of a certain party's reputed self-absorption might ponder the myth of billy goat gruff for a moment or two. - -- d., apologist for no one ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:29:52 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) In a message dated 10/7/02 10:13:11 AM, glenn@furia.com writes of Mark: << No shit. If, as your email address implies, you're actually on 99 other mailing lists, isn't it time for one of the *other* ones to take a turn receiving your running updates of what a loser you still are? >> In Mark's defense, it's not like he's ever written a long record review where most of the time was spent whining about how a certain rock critic just can't seem to get a girlfriend, primarily because most of those shallow bitches won't EVEN CONSIDER dating a guy under 5'10", even when THE GIRLS THEMSELVES AREN'T THAT TALL. If Mark ever did, though, maybe his work would also be passed around on the Internet as a great example of a loser rock critic. (Adam Heimlich, of NY Press and the Newark Star-Ledger, particularly loved the piece. He's maybe 5'4" on a good day, and he never seems to have a problem being seen in public with beautiful brunettes who stand over 5'11. You know, sometimes height isn't really the problem.) Dana, incidentally, is in California. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:40:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] let's bash mark, chapter 583. > and anyone who is tired of a certain party's reputed self-absorption might > ponder the myth of billy goat gruff for a moment or two. Hmm, I didn't remember this tale, so I searched for it on Google. The two pages I read had two different morals: Moral 1: If you've got a good butt, you can go anywhere. Moral 2: No matter how small you are you can always send someone you know that is really big to go kick a mean persons ass for you. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:49:46 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) > In Mark's defense, it's not like he's ever written a long record review where... My point exactly. I don't post my column on this list. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:55:09 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] let's bash mark, chapter 583. On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Michael Mitton wrote: > Hmm, I didn't remember this tale, so I searched for it on Google. The two > pages I read had two different morals: > > Moral 1: If you've got a good butt, you can go anywhere. > Moral 2: No matter how small you are you can always send someone you know > that is really big to go kick a mean persons ass for you. I'd take a different message away myself... if you think you smell a troll... ...don't feed it. - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:05:02 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] let's bash mark, chapter 583. > if you think you smell a troll...don't feed it. I'm with the third goat: a troll-free countryside is even nicer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:07:49 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: [loud-fans] apology and taking own advice all i really want to do is reduce the amount of free-floating nastiness on the list. but sometimes i wind up contributing to it. so herewith: an apology to mark. an apology to glenn. an apology to everyone else for having this unnecessary snark inflicted on you. boojum, boojum, - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:27:48 -0400 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] apology and taking own advice On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 02:07 PM, dmw wrote: > all i really want to do is reduce the amount of free-floating > nastiness on > the list. but sometimes i wind up contributing to it. Web journals and weblogs are great things for relieving the pressure of speech when the urge wells up inside to 'cast things on-list that are better left off of it. I've been known to run my mouth too much in the past (hell, right now, too.) Until the last of the dotcom money dries up and blows away, there are a number of sites that are entirely content to host rants, snarky comebacks, techno-ascetic-Luddite positioning statements, what-I-ate-for-lunch-and-what-I-drove-to-get-there at no monetary cost at all to the poster. I have personally used http://www.blogger.com and http://www.livejournal.com, and if you happen to have a chunk of webspace or a server that lets you host applications then Movable Type and Blosxom are options too. unrelated topic: Great singles by unjustly maligned bands, part #44 -- "Souvenir" by O.M.D. - -- Dave Walker freeform radio and wikkedy wikkedy wack http://www.freeke.org/ffg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:33:19 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) In a message dated 10/7/02 10:50:10 AM, glenn@furia.com writes: << My point exactly. I don't post my column on this list. >> There you have it, Mark. The kid in the braces says that your headgear is just too dorky for this list. And could you please check with your AOL overlords about why it's so darn impossible for certain listers to delete your postings unread? Are you paying extra for that service? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:36:36 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Tull >It's interesting to hear those who way Tull peaked on "Songs From the Wood" >when old folgies like myself think they (he, Anderson) peaked on "Benefit". I used to think that--I think I even said so on-list--but listening to BENEFIT recently I found that the lyrics weren't as good as I remembered, and Anderson's singing is mannered even for him. I still like it, but now I'm inclined to tout the ones I mentioned in my previous e-mail instead. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:54:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] pluck out his eyes! On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Dave Walker wrote: > unrelated topic: > > Great singles by unjustly maligned bands, part #44 -- > "Souvenir" by O.M.D. Forchrissakes, what sort of idiot would malign early OMD? Their first four or five albums are pretty much genius, a perfect mix of electronic/organic sounds, songs/soundscapes, etc. etc. Okay, they went down into the dumper when they got victimized by eighties synths*, but that doesn't negate the greatness of their early albums. * My theory is that when synths started sounding "better" (i.e., more recognizably like acoustic instruments and/or with a broader tonal range) in the mid-eighties, and there were a zillion presets that everyone used, a lot of bands couldn't cope. This is related to another of my pet theories, which is that a lot of synths of this and the next era (into the early nineties) had way too much brightness on the high end, and that sort of tinny, shiny sound is one thing that really makes the eighties sound like the eighties. And of course the drum sounds: BOOM!silence BOOM!silence, etc. Connecting to another recent thread, one measure of the intrinsic awfulness of ELP is this: I'd borrowed the _Return of the Manticore_ box set from the library in order to rip one or two tracks. Out of curiosity, I listened to much of the rest of it. They did have a couple of good moments early on, but the absolute worst were the latterday tracks and remakes of earlier tracks, on which Emerson finds himself a complete slave to the most gawdawful, stereotypical synth sounds. Everything's shiny like a new-age crystal-polishing CD, and it made even the most urksome earlier ELP moments, with their technical crudity, sound pretty damned good. (Another irony: ELP's one of the best known acts in a genre known for its players' technical proficiency...but they were sloppy as hell, particularly live, where everything was played in a coke-fueled frenzy. Even on the studio recordings, Palmer was always speeding things up, and Emerson's sense of rhythm was, well, that of a piano player.) And the less said of Greg Lake's vocals...oh: and those later tracks? No voice left at all...but still the awful over-singer.) - --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 ::Solipsism is its own reward:: __Crow T. Robot__ np: The Mabels (I forget the title; I think Brian Block sent it to me in trade) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:08:48 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] pluck out his eyes! >Forchrissakes, what sort of idiot would malign early OMD? Does thinking their version of "Waiting for the Man" really sucks count? Unfortunately, that was the first thing of theirs I bought, and it put me completely off. I keep hearing about the greatness of DAZZLE SHIPS, though, and occasionally find myself humming "Enola Gay," so I'm on the verge of reconsidering. >* My theory is that when synths started sounding "better" (i.e., more >recognizably like acoustic instruments and/or with a broader tonal range) >in the mid-eighties, and there were a zillion presets that everyone used, >a lot of bands couldn't cope. I don't think sounding "better" was the problem--rather, it was the increased difficulty of programming, combined with the presets you mention. A DX-7 can sound as damaged as Allen Ravenstine, but it takes some knowledge of synthesis to make it happen, and lots of people were content just to use the sounds that came free with the machine. On early synths, it was a lot easier to get good stuff by happy accident, and you didn't really have any choice because they didn't come with presets. Also, eighties synths tended to have menus instead of lots of knobs, which greatly reduced players' capability to vary the sound in real time. Then again, Tangerine Dream lost it in the early eighties, and no one could accuse them of lacking knowledge of synthesis. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:11:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] PROG ADVISORY Now here's an excellent idea - esp. for *some* of us: - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:59:01 -0400 From: Stewart Russell To: fegmaniax Subject: Re: minor NDL gripes Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > So on a 40-minute album, you're > complaining about one or two minutes of it? yes, sorry. Unless an album has a Prog Advisory label on it (a bit like the Explicit lyrics one, but done in pastel colours by Roger Dean), I like it to be noodle-free. - ------------------------------------ WARNING: PROG-OUT IN PROGRESS! - --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 ::Californians invented the concept of the life-style. ::This alone warrants their doom. __Don DeLillo, WHITE NOISE__ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:16:54 -0500 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: [loud-fans] 80s drums >And of course the drum sounds: BOOM!silence >BOOM!silence, etc. Was it Peter Gabriel's third album that was responsible for this, or was there some earlier cause? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:16:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 80s drums On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Keegstra, Russell wrote: > >And of course the drum sounds: BOOM!silence > >BOOM!silence, etc. > > Was it Peter Gabriel's third album that was responsible for this, > or was there some earlier cause? Blame Hugh Padgham and, to some extent, Steve Lillywhite. The second Phil Collins solo album & ABACAB follow suit. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:17:14 -0400 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] pluck out his eyes! On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 02:54 PM, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Dave Walker wrote: > >> unrelated topic: >> >> Great singles by unjustly maligned bands, part #44 -- >> "Souvenir" by O.M.D. > > Forchrissakes, what sort of idiot would malign early OMD? Their first > four > or five albums are pretty much genius, a perfect mix of > electronic/organic > sounds, songs/soundscapes, etc. etc. I think Rolling Stone's two-star review of this particular album from the time it came out (_Architecture and Morality_) is on their site somewhere. > * My theory is that when synths started sounding "better" (i.e., more > recognizably like acoustic instruments and/or with a broader tonal > range) > in the mid-eighties, and there were a zillion presets that everyone > used, > a lot of bands couldn't cope. An acquaintance of mine, Jamie Hodge a/k/a Born Under a Rhyming Planet (a really great musician who released a handful of jawdropping electronic EPs in the early 90's that are criminally hard to find now) said something once that has always stuck with me: that sometimes, really thin, artificial sounds should be allowed to "be themselves" in a final mix, rather than being beefed up and processed to sound "better." His own records were always breathtaking dynamically because he followed his own advice. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:19:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] pluck out his eyes! On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > Does thinking their version of "Waiting for the Man" really sucks count? Sucks who then? But yeah - a poor decision, even if it was supposed to be ironic. 'Twas the b-side of a platter, sports-fan - doesn't fall under the "first four or five albums" thing. Out on a technicality! - --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 ::does "anal retentive" have a hyphen?:: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:24:10 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: [loud-fans] Geeky, and Way Off Topic I have a Toshiba DVD player about a year and half old. Recently I've been noticing DVD's where the brightness seems to fade in and out a little. It isn't really noticable unless the scene is fairly bright, in which case its rather distracting. A friend of mine claims that this is DVD copy protection, and it occurs because I line my DVD through my VCR on the way to the TV. Could this true? A bit of googling yields nothing, and Toshibas site has no support to speak of. I know there enough A/V geeks around here that someone may chime in. Apologies to those of you with absolutely no interest whatsoever in the ongoing struggle that is my personal life. Chris NP: old Bowie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:22:51 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 80s drums Phil Collins always seems to get the blame, in the musician's magazines at least. I think I remember reading a story about the invention of the gated-reverb sound at a Collins session. Human Sexual Response's "Public Alley 909" (1980) is probably the earliest example I know, but it's used very appropriately, and it's different enough from the later cliche that it still sounds great instead of dated. I imagine ex-Wire producer Mike Thorne had something to do with it. I rather doubt that Collins et al. nicked it from them, but you never know. Big hair, big snare, Big Country, Big Fun! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:28:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Geeky, and Way Off Topic Sounds like Macrovision at work. Although I would have though it would be more pronounced than "a little". - --- Chris Prew wrote: > I have a Toshiba DVD player about a year and half old. Recently I've > been noticing DVD's where the brightness seems to fade in and out a > little. It isn't really noticable unless the scene is fairly bright, in > which case its rather distracting. > > A friend of mine claims that this is DVD copy protection, and it occurs > because I line my DVD through my VCR on the way to the TV. > > Could this true? A bit of googling yields nothing, and Toshibas site > has no support to speak of. I know there enough A/V geeks around here > that someone may chime in. > > Apologies to those of you with absolutely no interest whatsoever in the > ongoing struggle that is my personal life. > > Chris > NP: old Bowie Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:29:07 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Geeky, and Way Off Topic > I have a Toshiba DVD player about a year and half old. Recently I've > been noticing DVD's where the brightness seems to fade in and out a > little. It isn't really noticable unless the scene is fairly bright, in > which case its rather distracting. > > A friend of mine claims that this is DVD copy protection, and it occurs > because I line my DVD through my VCR on the way to the TV. > > Could this true? A bit of googling yields nothing, and Toshibas site > has no support to speak of. It's true - it happened to me, and I've heard about it happening to others. The copy protection is called Macrovision, I think, and that's the effect it has. The solution is to spend $30 or $40 at Radio Shack on something called an RF modulator - you plug both VCR and DVD into the modulator, then plug that into the TV. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:32:24 -0400 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Geeky, and Way Off Topic On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 03:24 PM, Chris Prew wrote: > I have a Toshiba DVD player about a year and half old. Recently I've > been noticing DVD's where the brightness seems to fade in and out a > little. It isn't really noticable unless the scene is fairly bright, > in which case its rather distracting. > > A friend of mine claims that this is DVD copy protection, and it > occurs because I line my DVD through my VCR on the way to the TV. It's Macrovision copy-protection, designed to keep you from recording your DVDs onto VHS tapes. Lately, an increasing number of DVD's are being released without it, as studios are starting to think that the licensing fees for the technology aren't worth the supposed benefit. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:58:05 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Geeky, and Way Off Topic A-ha. I actually have an RF modulator (I needed it to connect my s-video DVD into my Cable-only TV). That's why the effect is only slightly noticeable, I guess. I guess, to combat this, I will simply not rent/buy as many big-budget DVD's. It seems most prevalent on the Hollywood blockbusters. There are lots of grade z horror/indie movies I haven't rented yet....time to catch up. Thanks for the info y'all Chris Who very much enjoyed Ghost World on what seemed to be a protection-free rental the other night. On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 02:29 PM, Dan Sallitt wrote: >> I have a Toshiba DVD player about a year and half old. Recently >> I've been noticing DVD's where the brightness seems to fade in and >> out a little. It isn't really noticable unless the scene is fairly >> bright, in which case its rather distracting. >> A friend of mine claims that this is DVD copy protection, and it >> occurs because I line my DVD through my VCR on the way to the TV. >> Could this true? A bit of googling yields nothing, and Toshibas site >> has no support to speak of. > > It's true - it happened to me, and I've heard about it happening to > others. The copy protection is called Macrovision, I think, and > that's the effect it has. The solution is to spend $30 or $40 at > Radio Shack on something called an RF modulator - you plug both VCR > and DVD into the modulator, then plug that into the TV. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:11:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 80s drums (fwd) From Aaron... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:52:52 -0400 From: Aaron Milenski To: jmmallon@joescafe.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 80s drums > > >And of course the drum sounds: BOOM!silence > > >BOOM!silence, etc. > > > > Was it Peter Gabriel's third album that was responsible for this, > > or was there some earlier cause? I don't know the exact chronology here but I blame David Bowie's LET'S DANCE album. And while I'm at it I blame the first Van Halen album for the only trend worse than those booming gated snare drums--pigsqueal guitar. Between the two trends, I still find almost everything from the 80s unlistenable no matter how good the songwriting or performances. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:22:34 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 80s drums (fwd) I don't think I've heard a production more badly dated than the first Asia album. At the time I remember thinking "Heat of the Moment" was, whatever its flaws, technically state-of-the-art. Now it sounds like it was recorded underwater. For a counterexample of a distinctly 80s album whose production still sounds terrific to me today, try Propaganda's _A Secret Wish_. Interestingly, the two records share at least one participant. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:24:45 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 80s drums (fwd) Aaron Milenski (by way of Joe): >I don't know the exact chronology here but I blame David Bowie's LET'S DANCE >album. And while I'm at it I blame the first Van Halen album for the only >trend worse than those booming gated snare drums--pigsqueal guitar. Between >the two trends, I still find almost everything from the 80s unlistenable no >matter how good the songwriting or performances. While I understand the complaints about '80s sounds more than I used to, mostly thanks to Loud-Fan explications of said complaints (particularly the "everyone uses same factory synth settings" thing), I still have trouble with the notion that '80s sounds are to be dismissed out of hand, while things that sound very much 1965 or 1973 aren't met with similar disdain. It's almost as though folks think the era shouldn't have sounded like itself, and I find this way of thinking troubling. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:29:22 -0400 From: jsharple@brooklaw.edu Subject: Re: [loud-fans] left behind at 56K (and strangely not caring) Quoting JRT456@aol.com: > There you have it, Mark. The kid in the braces says that your headgear is > just too dorky for this list. Here, here! It's almost as absurd as the one about the dorky moron that joined a self-described nerdy mailing list and did almost nothing but post about how nerdy the list was. No really, he did this for years and years, I shit you not. JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 16:31:21 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Geeky, and Way Off Topic > A-ha. I actually have an RF modulator (I needed it to connect my s-video > DVD into my Cable-only TV). That's why the effect is only slightly > noticeable, I guess. But didn't you say the VCR was between the DVD and the TV? If so, can't you use the modulator to get the VCR out of the middle? That's what causes the problem, in my (not too extensive) experience. - Dan ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #352 *******************************