From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #140 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 Friday, May 16 2003 Volume 03 : Number 140 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] upcoming lanegan [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] OK, since we promised to shave ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] Honey in the Chemicals, Low, Kim Richey [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] Liza Weil/ Whatever [JRT456@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 03:20:49 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: [loud-fans] upcoming lanegan From mtvnews.com: Former Screaming Trees singer Mark Lanegan will release a new solo album called Bubblegum this summer. The disc will feature guest appearances by Guns N' Roses alumni Izzy Stradlin and Duff McKagan, fellow Queens of the Stone Age members Josh Homme and Nick Oliveri, PJ Harvey, Dean Ween, former Afghan Whigs frontman Greg Dulli and others. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:54:40 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] OK, since we promised to shave >I agree completely. I find myself wishing to see Liza "Paris" Weil get even >more scenes than she usually does, and that's with her character getting >more screen time this year than ever (or am I just imagining that?). So, >has anybody ever seen "Whatever," the 1998 film that featured her? I >remember being interested in it but it missed it at the theater. Worth a >rental? Jill and I went to WHATEVER, and much to Jill's surprise, a college housemate of hers had a major role in it. I saw WHATEVER when it was first released, and it didn't dawn on me until Stewart mentioned it to me that Paris was the same Liza Weil as in that movie...the character couldn't be more different. Interesting, mildly disturbing, movie that does a pretty good job of recreating the youth of those of us who grew up in the 80s. Doesn't make it look pretty. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:28:19 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] [Fwd: Which Early 70's British Rock Band Are You?] On Wed, 14 May 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > On Wed, 14 May 2003 dana-boy@juno.com wrote: > > > Cool, I'm Roxy Music. I like this quiz : ) > > Okay, as fun as these "quizzes" are, does anyone really answer them > accurately? Or just to see which band the questions are leading you > towards (when it's not glaringly obvious, as in most of these questions)? > > Because, realistically, "none of the above" is my answer for most of > them...#2 in particular... apropos of this, my band was: Sorry, there was a problem: did you answer everything? (i answered as many as i could) - - d. np wire _send_ - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:11:38 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] [Fwd: Which Early 70's British Rock Band Are You?] dmw wrote: >On Wed, 14 May 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 14 May 2003 dana-boy@juno.com wrote: >> >> >> >>>Cool, I'm Roxy Music. I like this quiz : ) >>> >>> >>Okay, as fun as these "quizzes" are, does anyone really answer them >>accurately? Or just to see which band the questions are leading you >>towards (when it's not glaringly obvious, as in most of these questions)? >> >>Because, realistically, "none of the above" is my answer for most of >>them...#2 in particular... >> >> > >apropos of this, my band was: >Sorry, there was a problem: > >did you answer everything? > >(i answered as many as i could) > The big problem for us hetero ladies was, of course, that the answers were mostly geared toward a male quizee, so we had to be creative there. And I also found no appropriate answer to many questions, so I just got creative there, too. Literal truth doesn't matter in these situations. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:09:45 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: [loud-fans] Honey in the Chemicals, Low, Kim Richey If any of you are interested in Philip Price, the songwriter and lead singer in the Maggies, but haven't been keeping up with his recent work, now would be a good time to jump in: his new solo album HONEY IN THE CHEMICALS is terrific, with possibly his best songwriting since the Maggies' HOMESICK. It's my favorite album of the year so far, even with the new Richard Thompson to be reckoned with. You can sample it at http://www.philipprice.com. I'm discovering late in life that I like the band Low. My initiation was with THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE - where should I go from here? For you country-rock fans: last year's Kim Richey album RISE really surprised me with its consistenly good songwriting. I liked her before, but not this much. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 17:41:36 +0000 From: "Brian Block" Subject: [loud-fans] Liza Weil/ Whatever Since no one else is answering, i just wanted to say that i thought the movie WHATEVER was excellent, and that Liza Weil's perfomance (which fundamentally carried the film) was extraordinary -- i was already sold on her before "Gilmore Girls" came into existence. The movie reminds me of what GHOST WORLD might've been had Thora Birch's character been pretty and popular, and therefore had a harder time realizing exactly how little use or interest she found in the teen culture around her. Also, for those who care, Liza has a nude scene, though of the artful sort where you can't quite see the R-rateable parts of her anatomy. (The movie is safely rated R for other reasons) best, - -Brian _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:43:04 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Honey in the Chemicals, Low, Kim Richey At 01:09 PM 5/15/2003 -0400, Dan Sallitt wrote: >I'm discovering late in life that I like the band Low. My initiation >was with THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE - where should I go from here? Um...well, anywhere, really. Their earliest records have an even more minimal sound than THINGS, but musically and thematically, they're all of a piece. One slightly obscure record that I would suggest picking up quickly if you can find it is the live album ONE MORE REASON TO FORGET: it was recorded in the same manner as Cowboy Junkies' THE TRINITY SESSION: direct to tape in a church with minimal miking (unlike the Junkies, I think low used more than one mike), but unlike the Cowboy Junkies, the emphasis is at least as much on the acoustics of the room as it is on the instruments themselves. (Beaver and Krause recorded an album in the early '70s that has a track featuring a Gerry Mulligan sax solo that's based on a similar principle, but I'm blanking on the title and feeling too lazy to go out to The Hallway Of Vinyl and dig it out.) There's an absolutely stunning 18-minute version of "Do You Know How To Waltz?" (a song from another really good point of exploration, THE CURTAIN HITS THE CAST) that's among my favorites of theirs. S ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:54:28 -0700 From: "Michael Zwirn" Subject: Fw: [loud-fans] Honey in the Chemicals, Low, Kim Richey > > I'm discovering late in life that I like the band Low. My initiation > > was with THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE - where should I go from here? You should buy them all, now. SECRET NAME, TRUST and LONG DIVISION would be my recommended order for future purchasing. After that there's a lot of other stuff: full-lengths, EPs, some live records, their Christmas album, split singles, etc. Much of it is very nice but the albums I listed are those I would rank highest. Michael ------ Michael Zwirn, michael@zwirn.com http://zwirn.com (t) 503-232-8919 (c) 503-887-9800 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:56:56 -0700 From: "Michael Zwirn" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Liza Weil/ Whatever > Since no one else is answering, i just wanted to say that i thought the > movie WHATEVER was excellent, and that Liza Weil's perfomance (which > fundamentally carried the film) was extraordinary -- i was already sold on > her before "Gilmore Girls" came into existence. And I thought the movie was basically unpleasant and trite, even if it did feature an Aimee Mann song and album title... n.p. Sam Phillips, Cruel Inventions ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:20:09 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Liza Weil/ Whatever In a message dated 5/15/03 9:55:44 AM, michael@zwirn.com writes, of WHATEVER: << And I thought the movie was basically unpleasant and trite, even if it did feature an Aimee Mann song and album title... >> I liked the scene where the girls (who are supposedly living in 1981) take a ride on a bus/time machine to suddenly find themselves in 1998 Manhattan. This might explain why they act so strangely giddy when they discover vinyl records outside of Bleeker Bob's. All those compact discs must have had them really confused. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #140 *******************************