From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #411 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 Thursday, November 28 2002 Volume 02 : Number 411 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] I am trying to see the Wilco movie ["Micah Bedwell" ] RE: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac [Dave Walker ] [loud-fans] Richard Buckner ["jer fairall" ] Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac [Dana Paoli ] [loud-fans] You say tinnAYto and I say tinnAHto ["Tim Walters" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 02:40:27 -0800 From: "Micah Bedwell" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] I am trying to see the Wilco movie I went and saw the Gerhard Richter show at SFMOMA. Wonderful. Bears many return visits... Regards, Micah Bedwell "I have arrived, I am home." - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:20 PM Subject: [loud-fans] I am trying to see the Wilco movie > For the benefit of any Loudfans unfortunate enough to live in the > metropolitan Phoenix area, "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart" finally starts > Friday at the Madstone Theatre in Chandler (at Ray and around Kyrene or May > or thereabouts). > The new UK remastered version of Love's "Four Sail" is pretty nifty. > It may not be of a piece with their other Elektra albums, but it's got some > worthwhile moments (like "Singing Cowboy" and "Always See Your Face"). It > certainly beats the original CD issue on Thunderbolt, that's for sure. > I thought the jaguaro.org list Andrea mentioned was hit-or-miss, as > "debunk the classics" rants usually are. Some of it was dead on, some of it > was just plain stupid. Still, finding that there's at least one other person > out there who despises Jane's Addiction's "Nothing's Shocking" at least a > quarter as much as I do makes my day just a teensy bit better. > Mark Staples split again? Oh, my. Sorry if I accidentally fueled the > fire by asking about his whereabouts a week ago. For what it's worth, I > thought Miles was being courteous. Then again, I think "Daydream Nation" is > great from start to finish (and that Gerhard Richter is a great painter, > too), so what do I know? > Obviously I'm in the minority on this list, but I snort derisively at > Fleetwood Mac's post-Jeremy Spencer output. Then again, from what I've heard, > the Buckingham/Nicks line-up did a fair share of snorting themselves. > > Then there was Pete, didn't want no fame, gave all his money away... > Mike Bollman ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:39 +0000 From: Subject: Re: [loud-fans] One Hundred Albums (well make that 60).... Umm - is it just me, or just my browser, or does this list really stop at number 66? Confused phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:54:12 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Quoting Matthew Weber : > >can't go with "what a fool believes" either. mush mouthed diction, ugh. > > The diction doesn't bother me so much. It's the "look ma, no > testicles" vocal sound that gives me the creeps. "Diction" refers to the choice of words for the expression of ideas (you can look it up in the--ahem--dictionary!). The word you need here is 'enunciation.' You may, of course, object to Mr. McDonald's lyric style as well but I guess that's not what's at issue here. This has become such a common misnomer some dictionaries are now listing the meaning of 'enunciation' as a secondary meaning for 'diction', but can you do? If they won't defend their own root word, all hope is truly lost. My relationship with "What A Fool Believes" is all about Willie Weeks' transcendent bass line. JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:15:57 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Sharples: >My relationship with "What A Fool Believes" is all about Willie Weeks' >transcendent bass line. I didn't do more than drop the name of the track, but what John says, plus the lyrics, which are really terrific (though you probably need to see them printed out to understand all of them). I mean, if Stephin Merritt had written those lyrics, folks would be all over them like pigs in slop. I hate Michael McDonald's voice, which is unfortunate since it wasn't just all over radio in 1979-81 but very prominent on later Steely Dan albums, I hate his "doot-doot-doot-doot, doo-doot-doo-doo-doot-doo" keyboard style, and I'm not a fan of his writing in general. But even a blind pig, etc. McDonald lives here now. Again, Nashville is the elephant's graveyard of rock. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:18:15 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac At 12:54 PM 11/27/02 -0500, John Sharples wrote: >Quoting Matthew Weber : > > > >can't go with "what a fool believes" either. mush mouthed diction, ugh. > > > > The diction doesn't bother me so much. It's the "look ma, no > > testicles" vocal sound that gives me the creeps. > >"Diction" refers to the choice of words for the expression of ideas (you can >look it up in the--ahem--dictionary!). The word you need here >is 'enunciation.' You may, of course, object to Mr. McDonald's lyric >style as >well but I guess that's not what's at issue here. No, I was referring to the tertiary (in my dictionary) meaning of "diction". >This has become such a common misnomer some dictionaries are now listing the >meaning of 'enunciation' as a secondary meaning for 'diction', but can you >do? >If they won't defend their own root word, all hope is truly lost. Well, what's the function of a dictionary? Should it prescribe usage, or describe it? Language is made by the people who use it, not by the Academie Anglaise! I see your point, though; "enunciation" is probably a more appropriate word. >My relationship with "What A Fool Believes" is all about Willie Weeks' >transcendent bass line. That Willie Weeks, he's such a Kant. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived. The Holy Bible (The Old Testament): _The Book of Job_, chapter 3, verse 3 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:21:01 -0800 From: John Cooper Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac > From: John Sharples > > This has become such a common misnomer some dictionaries are now listing the > meaning of 'enunciation' as a secondary meaning for 'diction', but can you do? I cannot do. I'm afraid you'll have to give this one up for lost, as I have given up the verb "to chastise." It means to physically punish with a lash or rod, but it's universally used to mean "to scold." I'm sure the dictionaries will change their definitions some day in my lifetime. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:29:41 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Quoting Matthew Weber : > Well, what's the function of a dictionary? And while we're at it, what's the diction of a functionary?! Should it prescribe usage, or > describe it? Language is made by the people who use it, not by the > Academie Anglaise! Yeah, but that's a little like saying that the highway speed limit should be determined by the average speed of drivers on that highway. > That Willie Weeks, he's such a Kant. I thought he was Pentacostal! Anyway, I stand corrected: Tiran Porter was the bassist on MINUTE BY MINUTE. Willie was only on the live version. JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:33:44 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Quoting John Cooper : > I cannot do. I'm afraid you'll have to give this one up for lost, as I have > given up the verb "to chastise." It means to physically punish with a lash > or rod, but it's universally used to mean "to scold." 'Chastise' has been confused with 'chasten,' prolly cuz they sound alike, as with 'comprise' and 'compose'. 'Comprise' means 'include' but nobody gets it right. JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:42:27 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mic Mac ... and 'compose' and compost, of course. - --- John Sharples wrote: > Quoting John Cooper : > > > I cannot do. I'm afraid you'll have to give this one up for lost, as I have > > given up the verb "to chastise." It means to physically punish with a lash > > or rod, but it's universally used to mean "to scold." > > 'Chastise' has been confused with 'chasten,' prolly cuz they sound alike, as > with 'comprise' and 'compose'. 'Comprise' means 'include' but nobody gets it > right. > > JS > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > This mail sent through > Brooklyn Law School WebMail > http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail > ------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:46:43 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] I am trying to see the Wilco movie At 01:20 AM 11/27/2002 -0500, OptionsR@aol.com wrote: > For the benefit of any Loudfans unfortunate enough to live in the >metropolitan Phoenix area, "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart" finally starts >Friday at the Madstone Theatre in Chandler (at Ray and around Kyrene or May >or thereabouts). I saw it a couple of weeks ago -- as a big Wilco fan, I enjoyed seeing and hearing the band for two hours, but anyone expecting DON'T LOOK BACK is going to be disappointed, and I also wouldn't recommend taking a non-fan who's expecting to see Bennett-Tweedy fireworks. The talking heads employed to explain Wilco's importance and the label split don't have anything useful or inightful to say, and the Jay Bennett conflict (I don't say Bennett-Tweedy because it becomes apparent that the rest of the band was tired of him too -- it's really revealing when Jay says in his post-exit interview something about how "I was talking to Leroy about how my days in Wilco were numbered," and in Leroy's post-Jay interview, he says something like "I've been friends with Jay for sixteen years, and the friendship had run its course"), while present and dominant in a few scenes, isn't really followed through on a consistent basis in the film. Heck, the purge of Ken Coomer didn't even make the final cut. I will say that Jay is cursed with an annoying, boring speaking voice (think the exaggeratedly boring version of his own voice that Ben Stein does in THE WONDER YEARS and FERRIS BUELLER), which not only makes him more unsympathetic on film than he probably is, but left me thinking "I couldn't stand five minutes of this guy talking, let alone six years in the back of a van with him." So what you get is a lot of live concert footage of Tweedy solo or the whole band, some interesting-for-fans scenes of how the band works backstage, and a lot of third-party contextualization without revelation (if that makes any sense). I'm glad I saw it, and I'll probably even buy a DVD of it someday, but hell, I just saw Wilco in person last month and I'm ready to see them again. I think if you're not a fan, you're better off spending your money on another movie. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:58:16 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac >Miles, if i i have those accursed synth toms in my head all night, >there'll be heck to pay. i almost want to record a version of the tune >just to get rid of them. dave could do a really bad paul rodgers, i bet. Not really necessary. Brother glenn does it all for you: http://www.furia.com/songs/RockAndRollFantasy.html Watch closely as I don't go off on everyone misusing "decimate," Andy "Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers." - --Tennyson, from "Locksley Hall" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:58:22 -0500 From: "jer fairall" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] One Hundred Albums (well make that 60).... > Umm - is it just me, or just my browser, or > does this list really stop at number 66? Same here, and it's too bad since I was enjoying the list even when it was making me angry. Jer (who put MELLON COLLIE & THE INFINITE SADNESS in his recent all-time Top Ten and has no plans of ever getting rid of his copy of COMBAT ROCK) Care2 make the world greener! Race to Save the Primates - every click provides food! http://www.care2.com/go/z/primates ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:58:45 -0800 (PST) From: "Tim Walters" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac John Cooper wrote: > "to chastise." It means to physically punish with > a lash or rod, but it's universally used to mean "to scold." Some people use "chastise" to mean "write poetry?" Who knew? Eagerly awaiting my tongue-lashing and chewing-out, Tim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:09:51 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac At 10:58 AM 11/27/02 -0800, Tim Walters wrote: >John Cooper wrote: > > "to chastise." It means to physically punish with > > a lash or rod, but it's universally used to mean "to scold." > >Some people use "chastise" to mean "write poetry?" Who knew? Only when it's scurrilous. ;) >Eagerly awaiting my tongue-lashing and chewing-out, You're not the only one, dearie. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived. The Holy Bible (The Old Testament): _The Book of Job_, chapter 3, verse 3 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:54:01 EST From: OptionsR@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] I am trying to see the Wilco movie In a message dated 11/27/2002 3:41:27 AM US Mountain Standard Time, noahbrtn@earthlink.net writes: > I went and saw the Gerhard Richter show at SFMOMA. Wonderful. Bears many > return visits... > I recently visited Chicago...missed his exhibition at the Art Institute by three days. GRRRRRR...however, the piece from which the cover of "Daydream Nation" is a detail from (I keep forgetting if it's actually called "Candle", but that would fit in with "DN"'s track listing if it was) was on display. It would take a teenage riot to get me out of bed right now, Mike Bollman ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:03:49 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Andrew Hamlin wrote: > >Miles, if i i have those accursed synth toms in my head all night, > >there'll be heck to pay. i almost want to record a version of the tune > >just to get rid of them. dave could do a really bad paul rodgers, i bet. > > Not really necessary. Brother glenn does it all for you: > > http://www.furia.com/songs/RockAndRollFantasy.html that's really interesting, but not quite what i had in mind. my reading would have more guitars. it's a case in which i'd like to get as close to the original as we could, except no damn synth drums. heck, i could even hear arranging the synth tom parts for cello or something. but that "boop, boop, boop-ba-boop" has got to go. damnit. now it's lodged in there again. > Watch closely as I don't go off on everyone misusing "decimate," i hate that one too. and sharples, i'm duly chastened, abashed etc. mush-mouthed enunciation. ok, if the words are so gosh-blamed great, what are they? - -- d. np slaw _snakes and ladders_ ah. that's better. what i want to know is, who's going to type its 99 tracks into freedb? a pity the work can't be easily split up. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:12:17 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac > except no damn synth drums. You may take my version as an assertion that if you take out the synth drums, you might as well take out *all* the instruments. I mean, what's next? "Baker Street" with the sax solo on dulcimer? "Da da da" on gamelan? June Tabor singing "She Bop"? As the man so cogently observed, it's *all* part of the fantasy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:20:05 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac At 03:03 PM 11/27/2002 -0500, dmw wrote: >that's really interesting, but not quite what i had in mind. my reading >would have more guitars. it's a case in which i'd like to get as close to >the original as we could, except no damn synth drums. heck, i could even >hear arranging the synth tom parts for cello or something. but that >"boop, boop, boop-ba-boop" has got to go. I am completely non-agitated by them. doug and Sharples always seem to be more attuned to these sorts of production/instrumentation choices than I am. Not a criticism, just an observation. And if I heard a version done up per doug's preference, who knows, I might like it even better. >> Watch closely as I don't go off on everyone misusing "decimate," > >i hate that one too. I wasn't really worked up about that one until a couple of years ago, when I gave some thought to its origins -- and read a book about the WWI Isonzo battles, when Italian general Luigi Cardona (probably the most wrongheadedly unimaginative general of a war with lots of nominees for this distinction) reinstituted the practice. Now it bugs me. >ok, if the words are so gosh-blamed great, what are they? http://users.cis.net/sammy/doobie.htm >np slaw _snakes and ladders_ ah. that's better. what i want to know is, >who's going to type its 99 tracks into freedb? a pity the work can't be >easily split up. Tim needs a graduate assistant, or serf, or helper monkey... later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:27:18 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, glenn mcdonald wrote: > > except no damn synth drums. > > You may take my version as an assertion that if you take out the synth > drums, you might as well take out *all* the instruments. I mean, what's > next? "Baker Street" with the sax solo on dulcimer? "Da da da" on exactly. dave grohl already took care of that one. well, getting rid of the sax solo, anyway. maybe Tim W could help with the dulcimer part? > gamelan? June Tabor singing "She Bop"? As the man so cogently observed, > it's *all* part of the fantasy. ah, but it's all part of *his* rock'n'roll fantasy. not of mine. you can blame mitch e. if it helps. the first time i talked to him he was doing a radio spot at my old college station; i was playing new order's "temptation" when the band came by, and mitch said he liked the tune, but couldn't stand the drum sound. might've been there and then that i got infected with the meme that sent me down this long dark road. - -- d. np slaw, _snakes and ladders_ kicking major sonic ass. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:23:45 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 03:27 PM, dmw wrote: > you can blame mitch e. if it helps. the first time i talked to him he > was > doing a radio spot at my old college station; i was playing new order's > "temptation" when the band came by, and mitch said he liked the tune, > but > couldn't stand the drum sound. might've been there and then that i got > infected with the meme that sent me down this long dark road. Wow... I count the original version of "Temptation", with the wildly out of tune singing, skritchy-ritchy 1-chord guitar, prehistoric synth-drums, and stream-of-consciousness lyrics, as one of the ballsiest recordings I've ever heard. Rarely have I heard anything "synthetic" sound so raw and halfassed for all the right reasons. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:25:10 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Dave Walker wrote: > Wow... I count the original version of "Temptation", with the > wildly out of tune singing, skritchy-ritchy 1-chord guitar, > prehistoric synth-drums, and stream-of-consciousness > lyrics, as one of the ballsiest recordings I've ever heard. Rarely > have I heard anything "synthetic" sound so raw and halfassed > for all the right reasons. i tend to agree with you. i mean, i love early shriekback, too. temptation maybe not "one of the ballsiest ever" but i thought it were keen. i do have it right, don't i? i mean the "oh you've got grey eyes, oh you've got green eyes," one. i wasn't meaning to namedrop so much as to drag in tangential on topicness, btw. - -- d. np daydream nation okay, i think it is good, tho i can see where dana's coming from on the drums. of coure, hearing someone keep a simple tempo is a rare treat for me, so.... hey this reminds me: a buncha youse should see the band "measles mumps rubella" live if you ever get a chance. not sure how well it will translate to record, but they are a guitbassdrms + vox line up doing uncanny scritchy-scratchy herky jerky abrasive new-wave circa 81-82, which means that the drummer is doing his best (which is pretty good) to sound more like a machine than a real drummer, and the guitar player makes rude keyboard noises as much as he plays, y'know, notes. for a set's worth, they slayed me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:30:14 -0500 From: "jer fairall" Subject: [loud-fans] Richard Buckner Ok, this has nothing to do with anything we're currently discussing but I just had to tell everyone that IMPASSE, the new Richard Buckner album, is absolutely amazing and that unless you're already convinced that you're not a fan or have a strong enough reason to think that you wouldn't be, you should buy it. That's all. Jer Race to Save the Primates - every click provides food! http://www.care2.com/go/z/primates ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:59:01 -0500 From: Dana Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac I cannot do. I'm afraid you'll have to give this one up for lost, as I have given up the verb "to chastise." It means to physically punish with a lash or rod, but it's universally used to mean "to scold." I'm sure the dictionaries will change their definitions some day in my lifetime. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Along the same lines, I've come to the realization that if I try to pronounce "forte" correctly, I'm just asking for trouble. The dictionaries should change the prescribed pronunciation and put an end to that lost battle. It's "for-tay" like "par-tay." Par-tay on!! (btw, it's really annoying running a spellcheck on messages with this subject line) - --dana, now in posession of my Word Police diploma: www.theatlantic.com/unbound/wordpolice/nine/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:07:18 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Richard Buckner I enthusiastically second Jer's endorsement of _Impasse_. For a much less succinct statement of a case for it, see http://www.furia.com/twas/twas0405.html... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:34:03 -0800 (PST) From: "Tim Walters" Subject: [loud-fans] You say tinnAYto and I say tinnAHto Dana Paoli wrote: > Along the same lines, I've come to the realization that if I try to > pronounce "forte" correctly, I'm just asking for trouble. For me, it's "tinnitus"--pronounce it the "right" way, and most people don't know what you're talking about; pronounce it the "wrong" way, and you get smug corrections. cf. "short-lived" - -- SLAW * SNAKES & LADDERS Experimental popular children's music for adults http://www.doubtfulpalace.com/artists/Slaw ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:22:46 -0800 From: Elizabeth Brion Subject: Re: [loud-fans] You say tinnAYto and I say tinnAHto Tim Walters wrote: > Dana Paoli wrote: > >>Along the same lines, I've come to the realization that if I try to >>pronounce "forte" correctly, I'm just asking for trouble. > > > For me, it's "tinnitus"--pronounce it the "right" way, and most people > don't know what you're talking about; pronounce it the "wrong" way, and > you get smug corrections. Mine is "karaoke," and I'm not even sure that I'm right. Back in the day, my best friend's full-time gig was providing the vocals on the channel you can turn off. He worked for a couple guys straight from Japan, and they pronounced the word "kar-oak-ee." Since it's caught on, I've never heard anyone else say it that way - it's more like "carry-oak-ee." Even though I know if I tried to fit in better, maybe the other kids would stop stealing my gym clothes, I simply can't bring myself to switch to the accepted pronunciation. There's every possibility that these were the three stupidest men in Japan and that everyone else is correct, certainly. But based on my very limited knowledge of the language (menus, mostly) it doesn't seem like extraneous syllables are too common. Any opinions? A recent pronunciation incident: After the Nields show at McCabe's on Friday, I slipped into a booth at Largo (well, actually, dove) to see what was left of my bro-in-law's hootenanny. He was just introducing his pal Evan "Dahndo." Now, me, I always thought that it was pronounced to rhyme loosely with "banjo," but Jon's always said it that way, and he hangs out with the guy all the time, so he should know. Right? They played four songs, Jon said, "Evan Dahndo, ladies and gentlemen," and Evan said, "Um, Jon? It's Dando." Mystery solved. I guess he could only stand it the first 275 times. (You would think someone named Brion would know better than to take liberties with other people's vowel sounds, wouldn't you?) And with that, I'm off to the family Thanksgiving impromptu bonding thing. I hope everyone here has a good one and only overeats as much as he or she feels comfortable with. :-) E ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:21:31 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Dave Walker wrote: > Wow... I count the original version of "Temptation", with the wildly out > of tune singing, skritchy-ritchy 1-chord guitar, prehistoric > synth-drums, and stream-of-consciousness lyrics, as one of the ballsiest > recordings I've ever heard. Is this a version substantially different from the one on Substance? If so, is it in print somewhere? I see there's a box set coming out soon, but it looks light on studio rarities (maybe there aren't many?) and big on remixes + live tracks. Not that I imagine that will keep me from buying it. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:25:13 -0800 From: "Micah Bedwell" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac There is two chords in that song. One chord shape, though. On Substance, the vocal phrasing is different when he starts sing "Oh, you've got grey eyes." That song is amazing. Regards, Micah Bedwell "I have arrived, I am home." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Mandel" To: "Dave Walker" Cc: "digipak haters unanonymized" Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Dave Walker wrote: > > > Wow... I count the original version of "Temptation", with the wildly out > > of tune singing, skritchy-ritchy 1-chord guitar, prehistoric > > synth-drums, and stream-of-consciousness lyrics, as one of the ballsiest > > recordings I've ever heard. > > Is this a version substantially different from the one on Substance? If > so, is it in print somewhere? > > I see there's a box set coming out soon, but it looks light on studio > rarities (maybe there aren't many?) and big on remixes + live tracks. Not > that I imagine that will keep me from buying it. > > a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:29:28 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 08:21 PM, Aaron Mandel wrote: > Is this a version substantially different from the one on Substance? If > so, is it in print somewhere? It's _very_ different from the version on Substance. It's longer, much looser, and (IMO) much more charming. It's been out of print for quite a while. I had it on _1981 Factus 8 1982_, which was a vinyl EP put out on Factory USA that combined two UK singles. It's very out of print. I don't know if that version has ever shown up on CD. It would be nice to see it in the box set. > I see there's a box set coming out soon, but it looks light on studio > rarities (maybe there aren't many?) and big on remixes + live tracks. > Not > that I imagine that will keep me from buying it. Speaking of studio rarities, I presume you've heard "Video 586"? -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:51:42 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Dave Walker wrote: > On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 08:21 PM, Aaron Mandel wrote: > > > Is this a version substantially different from the one on Substance? If > > so, is it in print somewhere? > > It's _very_ different from the version on Substance. It's longer, > much looser, and (IMO) much more charming. It's been out > of print for quite a while. I had it on _1981 Factus 8 1982_, which > was a vinyl EP put out on Factory USA that combined > two UK singles. It's very out of print. I don't know if that is this the same as the 12" single mix? cos that's what i had/was playing. not that i still have it (cue the same sad old story) uhm, just about time to go roll the dough out. happy thanksgiving to all, and to all a good night ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #411 *******************************