From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #176 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 Wednesday, June 18 2003 Volume 03 : Number 176 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] a list. [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Matthew Weber ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. ["Tim Walters" ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Matthew Weber ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. ["G. Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Phil Fleming ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. ["Michael Zwirn" ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Phil Fleming ] Re: [loud-fans] Black Lipstick? (ns) [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. ["Tim Walters" ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. [dana-boy@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] a list. ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] a list. ["Stefaan Hurts" ] [loud-fans] statistics, etc. (ns) [dana-boy@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] a list. ["G. Andrew Hamlin" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:40:22 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. warning: slight contentiousness herein. no unfriendliness tho. On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, *THAT* Matt Weber wrote: > I should probably have said "lacks the frame of reference" instead of > "lacks the ability". It would have been at least more charitable. > But most rock critics don't know from Bartok or Stravinsky, even the > ones that occasionally drop the names for cred; and BotM is all about > Bartokian/Stravinskyan harmonic and melodic fragments subjected to > minimalist processes, for the most part. They just happen to do it > with "rock" instruments. this i just can't buy. at some level the record has to, on its own, be "good," by which i mean it has to do whatever it sets out to do (entertain, instruct, engage, annoy...) ...and moreover, in order for it to succeed at what it sets out to do, it has to communicate its own goals to its audience. if a given piece of music is *really* so rarified that it's just not possible to appreciate it without serious study of some other piece of music or art, then it becomes a nearly academic exercise, and at that point i think the word "pretentious" (or at the very least "presumptuous") is warranted. also at that point mebbe the average rock critic has no business writing about it -- but then, the record company has no business serving the average rock press with the record, either. the bottom line for me, is that it's not *necessary* to understand the ways in which stravinksy deviated from classical melodic and harmonic structures to appreciate the music. i have to think that you could get something out of "rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead" w/o having read "hamlet." a deeper context may certainly enhance your appreciation of a work, but when it becomes a pre-requisite, i think the success of the work itself is intrinsically called into question. to take a slightly different tack, if i listen to a guitar solo that i (subjectively, mind you) evaluate as "bad" and then someone patiently explains to me that it's in lydian mode and that its harmonic movement is intricately constructed, it's still (subjectively, to me) a bad solo that happens to be in lydian mode. if the only thing about it that makes it good is a given technical construct or some musical in-joke referring to other work, then it may be clever and well-executed, but it's still not "good." none of this has anything to do with "birdsongs" as far as i'm concerned; based on my very limited exposure, i thought they sounded pretty interesting. i can't remember what was on the original list, but down: love and rockets/dali's car/peter murphey - bauhaus up: new order - joy division - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:16:57 -0700 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. At 12:40 PM 6/18/2003 -0400, dmw wrote: >warning: slight contentiousness herein. no unfriendliness tho. No problem! >On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, *THAT* Matt Weber wrote: > > > I should probably have said "lacks the frame of reference" instead of > > "lacks the ability". It would have been at least more charitable. > > But most rock critics don't know from Bartok or Stravinsky, even the > > ones that occasionally drop the names for cred; and BotM is all about > > Bartokian/Stravinskyan harmonic and melodic fragments subjected to > > minimalist processes, for the most part. They just happen to do it > > with "rock" instruments. > >this i just can't buy. [snip] >the bottom line for me, is that it's not *necessary* to understand the >ways in which stravinksy deviated from classical melodic and harmonic >structures to appreciate the music. i have to think that you could get >something out of "rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead" w/o having read >"hamlet." a deeper context may certainly enhance your appreciation of a >work, but when it becomes a pre-requisite, i think the success of the work >itself is intrinsically called into question. I see your point. But rock music, no less than contemporary concert music, requires a certain acceptance of stylistic tropes and context. Whether it's conscious or not, you're situating pop music into a context of things you've heard before and expectations you have of what it will be about, where it will go, etc. BotM frustrates many of those expectations (from a rock point of view), because it's operating under a different set of rules. You can't listen to the Clash and Mozart in the same way without feeling like you're not getting what you paid for from one or the other. A rabid Clash fan who doesn't have the right set of expectations in place will listen to a Mozart symphony and wait in vain for the guitar solo or the vocal hook; similarly, a Mozartean who doesn't listen to rock music will be unfulfilled by the Clash's usual lack of a graceful, memorable tune and the absence of modulations, motivic development, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that appreciating *any* work of art requires some context. We're all so steeped in rock music, though, that the extent of the context required to enjoy it is invisible to us. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue. The Holy Bible (The Old Testament): _The Book of Psalms_ 39:1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:31:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tim Walters" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. dmw wrote: > if a given piece of music is *really* so rarified that it's just not > possible to appreciate it without serious study of some other piece of > music or art, then it becomes a nearly academic exercise, and at that > point i think the word "pretentious" (or at the very least "presumptuous") > is warranted. I don't think either term is ideal--both refer to inferred intentions rather than results. "Abstruse" might be better. But if rock critics used it the way you describe, it would be a vast improvement over the current situation. As far as I can tell, most writers use "pretentious" as a reactionary formula, to imply that musicians should know their place. I think it's lazy as well--by convincing oneself that anyone doing unorthodox music is just putting on airs, one relieves onself of any obligation to learn anything about it. None of which is to say that there's anything wrong with meat-and-potatoes music, or that there aren't plenty of snobs in "progressive" circles who think pop music is for the unwashed. But two wrongs etc. etc. Going back to the original review: calling Birdsongs "ambient jazz" is flatly ignorant; they have no relation to either term as it is usually understood. So who's being pretentious, the band who plays ambitious music, or the critic who feels qualified to judge things he knows nothing about? I don't think one should have to pass an entrance exam to have a legitimate reaction to something, but I expect more from a writer than a reaction; I have my own damn reactions. What I want from a writer is insight. - -- SLAW * SNAKES & LADDERS Experimental popular children's music for adults http://www.doubtfulpalace.com/artists/Slaw ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:37:00 -0700 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. At 10:31 AM 6/18/2003 -0700, Tim Walters wrote: >Going back to the original review: calling Birdsongs "ambient jazz" is >flatly ignorant; they have no relation to either term as it is usually >understood. Their music is instrumental, therefore ambient; they employ a saxophone, therefore it is jazz. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue. The Holy Bible (The Old Testament): _The Book of Psalms_ 39:1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:48:10 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. Tim says: >Going back to the original review: calling Birdsongs "ambient jazz" is >flatly ignorant; they have no relation to either term as it is usually >understood. So who's being pretentious, the band who plays ambitious >music, or the critic who feels qualified to judge things he knows nothing >about? I don't think one should have to pass an entrance exam to have a >legitimate reaction to something, but I expect more from a writer than a >reaction; I have my own damn reactions. What I want from a writer is >insight. Good point here...and I should mention that the guy who wrote the article could be called pretentious for his oh-so-hip writing style, something annoying rock critics have been guilty of since the 60s. The projection implied here is probably something that flew right over the writer's head. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:22:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, dmw wrote: > warning: slight contentiousness herein. no unfriendliness tho. > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, *THAT* Matt Weber wrote: > > > I should probably have said "lacks the frame of reference" instead of > > "lacks the ability". It would have been at least more charitable. > > But most rock critics don't know from Bartok or Stravinsky, even the > > ones that occasionally drop the names for cred; and BotM is all about > > Bartokian/Stravinskyan harmonic and melodic fragments subjected to > > minimalist processes, for the most part. They just happen to do it > > with "rock" instruments. > > at some level the record has to, on its own, be "good," by which i mean it > has to do whatever it sets out to do (entertain, instruct, engage, > annoy...) ...and moreover, in order for it to succeed at what it sets out > to do, it has to communicate its own goals to its audience. But I took Matt's criticism to be directed toward the critic: that is, the critic lazily called BotM "pretentious" not because the music didn't communicate its goals, but because, the music not immediately falling into place for the critic, the critic reactively labeled it "pretentious" (i.e., I don't get it; anyone who says they do is putting on airs). A local film critic made a similar (and more overt) move recently in reviewing Steven Soderbergh's film...uh, the one last year with a large cast including David Duchovny in a minor role (screentime-wise: major role in terms of plot) that wasn't animated...anyway, the critic didn't get the movie, but instead of saying so, he wrote something like "unlike so many critics who fawn over Soderbergh even when his movies make no sense (insert this critic's typical irrelevant, anti-academic bash), I'm unafraid to say that this movie is an incoherent mess." In other words, if I don't understand it, it couldn't possibly make sense to anyone else: the end. > if a given piece of music is *really* so rarified that it's just not > possible to appreciate it without serious study of some other piece of > music or art, then it becomes a nearly academic exercise, and at that > point i think the word "pretentious" (or at the very least "presumptuous") > is warranted. also at that point mebbe the average rock critic has no > business writing about it -- but then, the record company has no business > serving the average rock press with the record, either. Do you think that, if time travel were invented, Beethoven would "get" "Louie, Louie"? I'd say, no - he lacks the cultural context in which it might be regarded as a great record. That context need not be "academic," "rarified," or "abstruse" - but it might as well be, given its difference from this hypothetical audience (Beethoven). I mean, I get what you're saying, sort of...and maybe you're right that it isn't really a "rock" record - but holding musicians responsible for the vagaries of marketing pigeonholes doesn't seem like a good idea to me. > the bottom line for me, is that it's not *necessary* to understand the > ways in which stravinksy deviated from classical melodic and harmonic > structures to appreciate the music. i have to think that you could get > something out of "rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead" w/o having read > "hamlet." a deeper context may certainly enhance your appreciation of a > work, but when it becomes a pre-requisite, i think the success of the work > itself is intrinsically called into question. Well, you or I might appreciate Stravinsky or R&GAD or Balinese gamelan music w/o cultural context - but someone else might not. The "prerequisite"ness of that cultural context isn't part of the music; it's part of any given listener's reaction. This probably gets into the whole question of whether art is best regarded as some sort of context-free, self-contained creation, or whether it's inextricably bound up with the world in which it was created. I mean, yeah, I wouldn't want to deny the existence of art-wank...but at the same time, context is inevitable. - --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 ::a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous...got me? __Captain Beefheart__ np: Stereolab _Emperor Tomato Ketchup_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:36:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. > A local film critic made a similar (and more overt) move recently in > reviewing Steven Soderbergh's film...uh, the one last year with a large > cast including David Duchovny in a minor role (screentime-wise: major > role in terms of plot) that wasn't animated... FULL-FRONTAL. That one made enough sense to me. But for the record I like Soderbergh the better the weirder. SEX LIES & VIDEOTAPE, FULL-FRONTAL, and, hmm...I should probably watch SCHIZOPOLIS, KAFKA, and KING OF THE HILL. And SOLARIS. Man oh man the lungs I wore out arguing that OUT OF SIGHT was a *very* predictable caper picture gussied up with bright lights and trick photography. Soderbergh makes animated films? For that matter, who knew that Michael Mitton reads with his feet? Poring over Spin's "50 Greatest Bands Of All Time," Andy "Context, will be created." - --Rob Keefe "Context was created/then it was debated..." - --me ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:05:30 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. At 12:40 PM 6/18/2003 -0400, dmw wrote: >at some level the record has to, on its own, be "good," by which i mean it >has to do whatever it sets out to do (entertain, instruct, engage, >annoy...) ...and moreover, in order for it to succeed at what it sets out >to do, it has to communicate its own goals to its audience. > >if a given piece of music is *really* so rarified that it's just not >possible to appreciate it without serious study of some other piece of >music or art, then it becomes a nearly academic exercise, and at that >point i think the word "pretentious" (or at the very least "presumptuous") >is warranted. also at that point mebbe the average rock critic has no >business writing about it -- but then, the record company has no business >serving the average rock press with the record, either. doug understands a lot more of the technicalities of music than I do, and we often disagree about comparisons, production, and terminology (I'm still trying to think how to begin to explain my idea that GbV pushes the same "urk!" button as Rush in my brain, even though I'm not suggesting that Pollard has remotely comparable chops to Lee/Peart/Lifeson). So it was surprising to me that I found myself agreeing with almost every line of this post. I like to think I'm good at recognizing when there's something interesting going on that I can't quite grasp, vs. something that lacks merit even more than I lack context. Could be hubris on my part, but that's how I feel, and often I've been intrigued enough by the sounds in column A to go out and get the context, then come back to the work in question and appreciate it more thoroughly. It seems to me that the Pitchfork critic *is* taking the cop-out route ("I don't understand this, so it sucks"), but that doesn't mean that everyone who dislikes BoM without being able to launch into a treatise on Bartok is doing the same thing. I'm also not so burnt on the use of the word "pretentious." Most of what folks like Jeffrey and Jen have said against it is meritorious, but what they're really complaining about (IMO) is that sort of CriticSpeak shorthand in general. If I'm faced with the choice of bending my phrases awkwardly to not get near the word "pretentious" or just saying "pretentious" (hopefully with abundant context to make it *not* be CriticSpeak), I'll say "pretentious" and be done with it. >down: >love and rockets/dali's car/peter murphey - bauhaus Heh. Knew that was coming. I'd actually rate it the other way -- Bauhaus has consistently failed to engage me, while the bulk of the L&R catalog, Tones on Tail, David J's solo work (particularly the stuff on Glass Records in the '80s), and Peter Murphy's earlier solo stuff (especially DEEP) all connect with me. >up: >new order - joy division I'll sorta concur, though death short-circuits the former and continuity makes this a special case. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:10:30 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. I said: >>up: >>new order - joy division > >I'll sorta concur, though death short-circuits the ***former*** Was thinking chronologically rather than in the order doug said them. So "latter," I guess. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:47:30 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. At 09:38 PM 6/17/2003 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Logic, Cracker (finally, someone else who thinks they're as shit as I do in >comparison w/both CvB and Monks of Doom) This is a minority or something? Maybe we just tend to remember the opinions with which we disagree more vividly than the nods of assent, but this here Cracker fan believes the "Cracker est merde" opinion is the majority one, at least in discussion groups and among critics. >> --- glenn mcdonald wrote: >> > A few more I'd have listed: >> > >> > The Style Council (The Jam) > >Definitely! While I like that Stewart took up the contrary gauntlet as far as a reasonable human can, well, be reasonable, I've gotta concur with glenn and Jeffrey. Part of it is my aversion to jazz-cocktail-soft pop sounds, but most of it is my aversion to didactic crap. Plus like Stewart, I'm a big fan of INTRODUCING THE STYLE COUNCIL, so I'm not completely averse to the change in sound as long as the songs were of a high quality. But Weller loses me beginning with the first full-length SC album. Exhibit #37 of Miles' Law of British Rock Stars: "Inside every British rock star lurks an inner jazzbo." I suspect this to be true of even Lemmy, who is probably even at this moment rehearsing his new skiffle band. >Also agreed. Someone just the other day, and I can't remember where, was >arguing that Bob Mould's post-Huskers work, both solo and w/Sugar, was >better than his Huskers stuff. I'm sure there will be arguments there... This won't surprise anyone, but had I been charged with writing that particular Pitchfork piece, Sugar <- Husker Du would have been a contender for #1. >Quoting dana-boy@juno.com: > >> I wouldn't go too crazy arguing that this is more than a personal >> preference, but I'd take Damon and Naomi's "More Sad Hits" and Luna's >> "Penthouse" over anything by Galaxie 500. > >Although I like Galaxie 500, I definitely like D&N better, and a lot of >Luna's stuff is at least as good. Flip the last part of Jeffrey's phrase ("I definitely like Luna better, and a lot of D&N's stuff is at least as good") and you've got my take. >I don't know if you're serious or trolling, but...whaddaya think? I'd argue >that overall LF was better than GT. They lack the relatively weak first >album, and personally I'd put IBC up against LN. Scott's singing was better >in LF than in GT, and by and large the rest of the band was better in LF >than in GT. This is a total draw to me. GT got to my cerebellum first, and I'd take LN in an ever-so-slight win over IBC. But I see far more continuity than change (truistic subtitle of 50% of academic histories: "Continuity and Change"), which is aided greatly by the sustained quality of the Scott Miller enterprise. I won't choose between two sons. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:47:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Fleming Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. DAMN... she got to that first!! Phil F. - --- Jenny Grover wrote: > I would have to say that I find Queens of the > Stone Age to be more fun > than Kyuss. > > Jen __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:50:44 -0700 From: "Michael Zwirn" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. > >Also agreed. Someone just the other day, and I can't remember where, was > >arguing that Bob Mould's post-Huskers work, both solo and w/Sugar, was > >better than his Huskers stuff. I'm sure there will be arguments there... Wouldn't that have been a certain S. Miller, cited on http://loudfamily.com/askscott.html from June 2, 2003? l.p. Sam Phillips, the Turning ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:57:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Fleming Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. - --- Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > And some I've listed: > > > > Talk Show (Stone Temple Pilots) > > Journey (Santana) > > Ah, but you're missing the "original band must be > worthy" criterion. Well... I thought Stone Temple Pilots were pretty damn good after the first record. And the Santana I was speaking of was the 1969-1972 version. I thought that version was pretty worthy. One man's opinion, Phil F. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:57:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Black Lipstick? (ns) On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, dmw wrote: > if i were making a best of 2003 list so far (oh wait, i just did...) > it'd be on there. Hm. I'm listening to it right now and I find it very much like the EP -- not quite as good as the Kiss-Offs, who always felt like a bit of a guilty pleasure anyway, but I guess I don't feel too stupid for buying the disc instead of waiting for it to show up on eMusic. My first-half top n is pretty easy: The Postal Service - Give Up The New Pornographers - Electric Version Ad Frank - In Girl Trouble Salteens - Let Go Of Your Bad Days Ted Leo - Hearts Of Oak Cat Power - You Are Free Cursive - The Ugly Organ Thermals - More Parts per Million SM + Jicks - Pig Lib Cobra Verde - Easy Listening Beans - Tomorrow Right Now unless I'm forgetting something, which I probably am. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:10:03 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. At 03:46 PM 6/17/2003 -0400, Aaron Milenski wrote: >Obviously this is just a personal taste thing, but if I >had to pick any one person who's responsible for >ruining the most music for me, it's Eddie Van Halen. >Before him, that particular guitar tone/sound was >unpopular, if not unknown. It's one thing I just >can't stand to listen to, and a lot of very good albums >(example: Bad Brains' I AGAINST I) have flown out >of my house after just one listen because I can't get >past it. I'm sure everyone here has similar pet peeves, >but this is the only one I can NEVER stand. There are >albums with drum machines and cheesy synths that >I enjoy in spite of those things, for example. One of the many things I like about Aaron is that he's totally upfront and fair about this aversion, and doesn't try to expand the peeve into a general indictment of the artist. I mean, he calls I AGAINST I a very good album instead of acting like Dr. Know is the author of all things evil in the modern world. >Anyone else have this, er, problem, with this or >any other type of sound?? I can't think of a musical sound common to albums I might otherwise like; there is that "dink-dink" tinkly synth-piano sound most commonly found on soft pop ballads of the '80s (Gloria Loring anyone? Thought not) but it's not a sound likely to be found on the next Wire album, y'know. To my ears, Bruce Hornsby's ubiquitous "dunh-dunh-dunh, dunh-dunh-dunh, dunnnnnh" keyboard style is the teeth-gnashing equivalent of Michael McDonald's previous ubiquitious "doot doot doot doot, doot doot doot doot doot doot" keyboard style. Hm, I would like Don Henley's "End of the Innocence" if it wasn't dominated by Hornsby, so maybe I *do* have one of these pet peeves! Usually it's a voice rather than an instrumental style that puts me off: Smashing Pumpkins could be a pretentious (heh) bore, or could be the greatest music of the '90s, but I'll never get past Billy Corgan's voice long enough to find out. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:51:30 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. Matthew Weber wrote: > The point I'm trying to make is that appreciating *any* work of art > requires some context. We're all so steeped in rock music, though, > that the extent of the context required to enjoy it is invisible to us. errmmm.... maybe. Does enjoying visual art require a context? For some people, certainly. But what about those of us who are excited and intrigued when confronted with a type of art of music that we don't have a handy experiential reference for, and we like it. And sometimes we like it largely FOR that. Or would you argue in that case that we require a context from which to appreciate the difference? Okay, enough philosophizing for now. I'm going to eat a bagel. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:55:05 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. Aaron Milenski wrote: > Good point here...and I should mention that the guy who wrote the > article could be called pretentious for his oh-so-hip writing style, > something > annoying rock critics have been guilty of since the 60s. That was, absolutely, the most annoying part of that article for me. It made me want to scream, "Stop trying to convince me you are so cool, and get down to the specific business at hand." Jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:06:39 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. Miles Goosens wrote: >Usually it's a voice rather than an instrumental style that puts me off: > That chick with the Cranberries. ARRGHH!!! One thing that really annoys me is whatever vocal treatment that is (a vocoder maybe? I don't know what they use.) that Cher uses on "Do You Believe", and Kid Rock uses on that ballad that was a hit, and it shows up a lot in toppy poppy stuff. What IS that thing, and is there a weapon we can develop to destroy it? Jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:05:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Jenny Grover wrote: > That was, absolutely, the most annoying part of that article for me. It > made me want to scream, "Stop trying to convince me you are so cool, and > get down to the specific business at hand." Ah, but Jen, that *was* the business at hand. Why else write such a snarky article? The message I got from the article was "Look how many band lineages I know and can shit on!" As for annoying sounds, who finds booming, gated drums (a la 80s alt-pop) difficult to listen to? Hands? Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:33:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tim Walters" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. Joseph M. Mallon wrote: > As for annoying sounds, who finds booming, gated drums (a la 80s alt-pop) > difficult to listen to? Hands? I'm one of the few people I know who doesn't mind these, as long as (1) they're not absurdly loud and (2) the general reverb level isn't so high that everything in the mix gets smeared out. "Counting Backwards" by Throwing Muses is an example of that sound used in a way I quite like. > One thing that really annoys me is whatever vocal treatment that is (a > vocoder maybe? I don't know what they use.) that Cher uses on "Do You > Believe", and Kid Rock uses on that ballad that was a hit, and it shows > up a lot in toppy poppy stuff. What IS that thing, and is there a > weapon we can develop to destroy it? It's called Auto-Tune, and as you can probably guess from the name, it's designed to correct intonation. When turned all the way up, you get that robotic pitch-quantized voice that the kids love so much. Plus the talent doesn't have to be able to sing. I should note that Cher's recording engineer claimed that he was using a vocoder rather than Auto-Tune, but I don't believe him. > Smashing Pumpkins could be a pretentious (heh) bore, or could be the > greatest music of the '90s, but I'll never get past Billy Corgan's voice > long enough to find out. I can't even get that far; the title MELLON COLLIE AND THE INFINITE SADNESS is already more than I can stand. And I must admit that if I had to pick one word to explain its repulsiveness, it would be "pretentious." - -- SLAW * SNAKES & LADDERS Experimental popular children's music for adults http://www.doubtfulpalace.com/artists/Slaw ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:40:37 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. Tim Walters wrote: >I can't even get that far; the title MELLON COLLIE AND THE INFINITE >SADNESS is already more than I can stand. And I must admit that if I had >to pick one word to explain its repulsiveness, it would be "pretentious." > > It would be more fun if it were Melon Collie, etc. and had a picture of a really fat dog on the front. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:08:56 -0400 From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. > One thing that really annoys me is whatever vocal treatment that is (a > vocoder maybe? I don't know what they use.) that Cher uses on "Do You > Believe", and Kid Rock uses on that ballad that was a hit, and it shows > up a lot in toppy poppy stuff. What IS that thing, and is there a > weapon we can develop to destroy it? It's called Auto-Tune, and as you can probably guess from the name, it's designed to correct intonation. When turned all the way up, you get that robotic pitch-quantized voice that the kids love so much. Plus the talent doesn't have to be able to sing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a Laptop song (I'm thinking it might be "I Can't Say Hi" but I'm not sure) where Jesse Hartman uses the effect on pretty much every note he sings, which I thought was pretty funny, but I've failed miserably to make the case for Laptop around these parts... - --dana np: Black Dice (Who wants to be in charge of explaining the distinction between Black Dice, Black Keys, Black Lipstick, etc. at the end of the year? I'm currently busy with my Unrest/Unwound/Unsane duties.) ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:27:17 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. >As for annoying sounds, who finds booming, gated drums (a la 80s alt-pop) >difficult to listen to? Hands? Ack! Me again...I blame David Bowie's LET'S DANCE album for this one... _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:42:54 -0400 From: "Stefaan Hurts" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:06:39 -0400, "Jenny Grover" said: > One thing that really annoys me is whatever vocal treatment that is > (a vocoder maybe? I don't know what they use.) that Cher uses on "Do > You Believe", and Kid Rock uses on that ballad that was a hit, and it > shows up a lot in toppy poppy stuff. What IS that thing, and is > there a weapon we can develop to destroy it? They have indeed developed such a weapon. It's called a weapon of ass destruction and they're still looking for it in the Iraqi desert. - -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:48:20 -0400 From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: [loud-fans] statistics, etc. (ns) I notice that these are supplied by the RIAA, and I don't know how they arrive at them. This was an article in New York's Daily News yesterday: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/story/92986p-84436c.html (statistics regarding music buyers) I've now seen several reviews of the new Fountains of Wayne album that compare it to Ween and They Might Be Giants. I'm wondering what the original source for this is, since it seems like an unlikely comparison unless they *do* sound like Ween and TMBG on the new one. Or maybe all funny bands sound alike. It's the Ween part that I'm having more trouble with, but I'm suspicious that this is coming from one place. And, have any eMusic people started working through this: http://www.emusic.com/artist/10561/10561435.html Any recommendations? Jewel is on Craig Kilborn tonight, in case anyone wants to see first hand what's happened to her. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:03:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. > at some level the record has to, on its own, be "good," by which i mean > it has to do whatever it sets out to do (entertain, instruct, engage, > annoy...) ...and moreover, in order for it to succeed at what it sets > out to do, it has to communicate its own goals to its audience. I'm not sure I get this. What to do with art that doesn't seem to communicate its own goals? What to do with art that sets out to do one thing, and ends up doing something else? I'm reminded of SHOPPING IN SPACE, Elizabeth Young and Graham Caveney's collection of essays on what they call American "Blank Generation" fiction, though here stateside I heard "Brat Pack" more often. Bret Easton Ellis defended AMERICAN PSYCHO by saying most of the book's critics hadn't read it. Some critics resounded that they had indeed read it. Fine, replied Ellis. Then you didn't understand it. Young and Caveney conclude that Ellis was right. You're welcome to your own opinions on Ellis and AMERICAN PSYCHO, but my larger point is, most works of art don't come with instruction manuals telling you how to ingest them. And that's an abbhorently restrictive approach even if works of art did come with such instructions. "Criticism," Greil Marcus wrote at a point where I hope most of us can agree he made sense, "is the bringing of x to bear on y." And for once in my life, algebraic logic makes sense to me. In the case of what I'll loosely call pop music, you've got another passway stone: the good old "commerical" vs. "artistic" dichotomy. A prog band would probably tell you that they make Music Meant To Be Taken Seriously, and they'd most likely be sincere, but that ignores the historical flip-flop prog's taken between thirty years ago (dominant paradigm or at least a prominent aspect of same) and today (a minority taste, viewed with as much skepticism, dismissal, and vilification as punk was circa 1979). What would Gina G. say about the ultimate goals of her work? Daniel Johnston? Alex Chilton circa 1967? Alex Chilton circa 1978? Reviewing Jewel's latest album at AllMusic, Stephen Thomas Erlewine opines that her transition to dance-pop must be seen as a serious move and not an opportunistic one, since dance-pop's latest turn as dominant paradigm has blown over. Again, you don't have to agree with any of that, but it's a point I certainly wouldn't have percolated. Nobody's talking about the new Joan Armatrading for some reason... Andy Q: How is New York City these days? A: The whole gentrification has been a trade-off. The parks are cleaner, and it's a nicer place to live in terms of niceness. But it's a worse place to live in terms of fun. They're polishing the rough edges, like with a lot of characteristics of the other America, when New York has always been its own country. Now it's national coffee chains and clothing stores. Mom 'n' pop places are around less and less. More noise complaints, no smoking. The noose is tightening as far as fun goes. Q: What do you think of the whole Brooklyn scene that's supposed to be so hot? A: Personally, I know Andy [Shernoff, Dictators guitarist] lives there and thinks the rock scene in New York is really happening there. Maybe it is, but y'know what? I don't give a shit. To me the rock scene will never be happening in Brooklyn. I don't care if it's happening and I'm turning my head making believe it's not. The point is, Manhattan is NYC. Everything else counts, but not as much. People from all over the world don't come to New York to go to a club in Brooklyn. You can move to Brooklyn and have as artsy-fartsy a pretentious neighborhood as you want, but I ain't leaving this island. Brooklyn now seems like an art college town. No matter how much of that shit you have in Manhattan--punks, artists, people with piercings, whatever--it gets lost because there're so many Polish people, Spanish people, Jews. So many cultures on top of each other, it just all blends in with each other. Q: The last Dictators record came out a year and a half ago. Any plans for a new one? A: Well Andy [the main songwriter] is, as they say, more profound than prolific. So I'm not holding my breath. We're trying to find a European label that will put out the last record and a live record we recently recorded as a double CD. Q: What do you feel about always being called "punk godfathers"? A: I don't think we are the quintessential punk rock band by a long shot. Maybe in our lyrics and attitude. Y'know, that New York swagger and wise-ass Jew guy thing--if that's punk rock, it's punk rock. But it's just who we are. We're a rock 'n' roll soup with a punk rock flavor. Q: How do you think the Dictators have changed over the years? A: Not very much, to be honest. Maybe the early drunken times have been changed for more attention to craft. The shows are still very hell-bent for leather, and the audience gets drunk and has a good time. We're still putting out the same energy and charisma, but I think it's a better-quality show. Q: Are you still the handsomest man in rock 'n' roll? A: Obviously. - --interview portion of an article on the Dictators' Handsome Dick Manitoba, by Eric Davidson, at http://www.thestranger.com/2003-06-12/music4.html ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #176 *******************************