From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #186 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 25 2003 Volume 03 : Number 186 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] fall paranoia man (ns) [dana-boy@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Defending Phair's clothing ["Pete O." ] Re:[loud-fans]LizPhairredux [Dana Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffre] [loud-fans] Ulrich Schnauss again [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] Liz Phair redux [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville [Dan Sallitt ] [loud-fans] Re: Greg Dwinnel of Eggbert Records ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville [Stewart Mason ] [loud-fans] Reason to buy Liz Phair? (ns) [Dana Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] PIL [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Reason to buy Liz Phair? (ns) [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville [Chris Prew Okay, no one has bitten all day, so I will. What's "Drive In > Saturday" > about? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm tempted to say, like a good fourth grader, "If you want to find out what happens next, you'll have to buy the book," (after a few days, I'm still really impressed by this reissue), but... "The latter had been written on a long train journey from Seattle to Phoenix, and was inspired in part by some futuristic domes lit by moonlight Bowie saw on the way, hence the couplet 'Perhaps the strange ones in the dome/Can lend us a book we can read up alone.' In the song, Bowie describes the curious scenario of a future, post-nuclear holocaust age in which sex has to be re-learnt through watching old films." I'm very bad at figuring out what Bowie songs are about, so I hope this wasn't painfully obvious. - --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, 25 Jun 2003 06:23:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Defending Phair's clothing - --- JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Let's all remember that Liz Phair didn't personally make the decision to > dress like an idiot. She simply allowed record company executives to dress her > like an idiot. After checking out the cover and accompanying booklet, it occurs to me that, Damn!, she looks hot! Not unlike the recent transformation that Jewel made for her latest release. > Of course, it's really all about the music, which sucks. > Not really a consideration for the marketing types, is it? ===== ====== This space intentionally non-blank. ====== ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:42:06 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: [loud-fans] Liz Phair redux I haven't heard the new album (and after reading the lyrics, I honestly have no interest in doing so), so take what I say in that light. I'm just wondering what the other list members who have heard GIRLYSOUND think of it. Frankly, I find it pretty juvenile. There are definitely some moments of brilliance on it, but I have to think that all of those people who claimed it was "better than GUYVILLE" were just acting cool because they'd heard something no one else had, or because they were there at the beginning. I'm not GUYVILLE's biggest fan by a long shot, but I have to say that it strikes me as a really lucky accident, in which a talented, intelligent but unfocused songwriter put the pieces together in just such a way that they could strike a lot of people (esp. rock critics) in the right way. The sparse arrangements and loose feel of it worked in its favor in the sense that they gave the songs a certain kind of energy that would be lacking from the next two albums, even those two albums "sound better." From what I can tell, this new album is her way of just chucking it and going with some of the base instincts she's shown all along, but rather than using those instincts to write songs about hick-town guys having sex with sheep, she's using them to make a mainstream pop album. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who want to defend her as a great talent. I don't think she is...just a smart person who had something new to say when people really wanted to hear it, but even if she is I think her natural tendencies toward screwing around will keep her from ever proving it. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:26:28 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: Re:[loud-fans]LizPhairredux I haven't heard the new album (and after reading the lyrics, I honestly have no interest in doing so), so take what I say in that light. I'm just wondering what the other list members who have heard GIRLYSOUND think of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only have "Secretly Timid" so I haven't heard everything. I liked "Exile" a whole lot back when it came out, but haven't listened in a while. Thought "Whip Smart" and WCSE were competent, but uninspiring. Oh, and I was one of those cool people who read about Girly Sound in Chemical Imbalance and wrote for a tape (which I never got, along with thousands of other hopeful young boys in the early '90's). So that's my Phair profile in a nutshell. Anyway, yeah, I have no idea why anyone would make a big deal out of Girlysound. It's interesting to hear the roots of "Exile" etc. but the 4-tracks sound like they're waiting to be turned into real songs (unlike, say, Devendra Banhart or Linda Smith) and there are some cringe-worthy lyrics. Valuable as a curiosity, but not as a stand-alone album. I was *very* disappointed after plunking down my $20 way back when. It's interesting that she used to say that she was going to go back to 8-track at some point, since she seems to moving as far as possible in the opposite direction. Maybe if this new album bombs, she'll actually take her old advice and finally make another decent record. I think that Dan nailed her main problem (narcissism) and it seems possible that a major disaster might kick her in the ass, in a good way. Anyone know how the new CD is faring with people who've never heard of her until now? I'd posted before that it got a great review in one of the local NY papers that doesn't write for a NY Times audience. - --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, 25 Jun 2003 09:58:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Dan Sallitt wrote: > > all the review that's fit to print: > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/arts/music/22OROU.html?pagewanted=1 > > Blah. The review makes me want to like the album just to spite the > reviewer. Hmm... Having read the whole review, what is it about it that makes you dislike it? I thought her take on Phair's earlier stuff (the last two paragrgaphs on the first page) was rather accurate, although the part about "anxiety about AIDS and date rape" (the juxtaposition is bizarre) and "Antioch College's prescriptive sexual code" is reaching for significance, particularly the last, which was of concern only to journalists and ideologues (betcha she's never actually read the document in question - which, if I recall, was a bit legalistic but boiled down, simply, to "get consent" - hardly a terrifyingly arguable notion, although admittedly one hard to pen into the confines of lawyerspeak, esp. given drunken, horny college students). Oh - and I'm with Aaron Milenski on _Girlysound_: interesting in the way that home demoes and outtakes are interesting - for the way they enlighten the "real" material - but in itself not all that great. - --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 ::No man is an island. ::But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, ::they make a pretty good raft. __Max Cannon__ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:13:36 -0400 From: Dave Walker Subject: [loud-fans] Ulrich Schnauss again A few weeks ago, I raved about Ulrich Schnauss' new album, _A Strangely Isolated Place_. Over the weekend, a good friend, Aran Parillo, devoted a full hour and change to Mr. Schnauss on WZBC in Boston. The show even featured some unreleased material, sent by Schnauss & his label, as well as songs from his earlier releases. You can download the radio show (posted w/ permission, DJ & label) (~50 MB) here: http://www.freeke.org/chewns/us-tp.mp3 It's not on a terribly fast connection, so try during off-hours if you need to. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:48:20 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Liz Phair redux On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Aaron Milenski wrote: > I haven't heard the new album (and after reading the lyrics, I honestly have > no interest in doing so), so take what I say in that light. I'm just > wondering what the other list members who have heard GIRLYSOUND think of it. > Frankly, I find it pretty juvenile. There are definitely some moments of > brilliance on it, but I have to think that all of those people who claimed > it was "better than GUYVILLE" were just acting cool because they'd heard > something no one else had, or because they were there at the beginning. absolutely. but here were still a couple of good songs on it she never rerecorded. (possibly because record co. folks foresaw copyright/lawsuit problems). um, seems like there was something else i meant to respond to. dang it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:39:56 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville In a message dated 6/25/03 7:59:46 AM, jenor@uwm.edu writes of the Antioch College Sexual Conduct Code: << (betcha she's never actually read the document in question - which, if I recall, was a bit legalistic but boiled down, simply, to "get consent" - hardly a terrifyingly arguable notion, although admittedly one hard to pen into the confines of lawyerspeak, esp. given drunken, horny college students). >> The Antioch College Sexual Conduct Code became a joke because it required explicit permission being granted at every stage of the sexual act...which, if the sex act is done right, would have required an absurd number of requests during your average romp. Although, to be fair, the romp can also be kind of fun at a mere two steps. Has anyone seen a picture of Liz yet in her CBGB's t-shirt that the label men picked out for her? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:46:02 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/arts/music/22OROU.html?pagewanted=1 >> >>Blah. The review makes me want to like the album just to spite the >>reviewer. > > Hmm... Having read the whole review, what is it about it that makes you > dislike it? I thought her take on Phair's earlier stuff (the last two > paragrgaphs on the first page) was rather accurate I dunno. O'Rourke starts out: "In 1993, the year Liz Phair's "Exile in Guyville" came out, legions of young, middle-class, well-educated women found in her lo-fi debut a kind of all-purpose autobiography, and a template  smart, deadpan, but also earnest  for making sense of their own experience." And I'm thinking, Geez, it's music, you know, it's not intended as a milepost in other people's lives, good luck trying to live up to that. And maybe I'm wrong about this, but it was my very definite impression that GUYVILLE was hugely popular with male music buffs, that her original audience wasn't sex-skewed. With WHIP-SMART came a young female fan base, really young, too young to be well-educated yet. This is my take from going to concerts and checking Liz newsgroups at the time. So already I feel as if I'm in the writer's fantasy world, and a world that's not going to go well for Liz. The theme is set when O'Rourke starts discussing the album: "The album introduces a new Phair: a divorced, 36-year-old single mom who nonetheless gushes like a teenager through relentlessly upbeat songs with bland choruses like "Rock me all night!" and "I am extraordinary/ If you'd ever get to know me"  ironic, yes, but somewhat limply and shallowly so." Predictably, O'Rourke gets around to the "mid-life crisis" tag by the end of the paragraph. I just don't relate to this. The writer requires a lot of the artist: that her age and her music sync up according to the writer's cultural expectations, that her lyrics live up to the standards of "young, middle-class, well-educated women." If Liz really made a teeny-bopper record, I'm no longer trusting O'Rourke to tell me whether it's a good teeny-bopper record or not. O'Rourke quotes endless lyric snippets. When she comes close to discussing the music, she manages to give me the impression that the music is mainly important to her as a backdrop for Liz's sociological importance. "The songs were spindly and moved in an odd, lopsided manner  parts were always coming loose, and who knew if Ms. Phair was going to hit the next note as she crashed her way through the chord progressions. Her signature style of drawing a word out across several notes in a kind of dull trill made a mockery of all that was feminine about singing. It seemed aptly to capture a generation's uncertainty about what might come next in the sexual game during a permissive era shadowed by anxieties about AIDS and date rape, culminating in Antioch College's prescriptive sexual code." And so on. I'm just not in tune with this writer. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:32:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] Greg Dwinnel of Eggbert Records (fwd) From the Negro Problem list. Sad news. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:29:37 -0700 To: negroproblem@yahoogroups.com Subject: [negroproblem] Greg Dwinnel of Eggbert Records Folks, Greg Dwinnel was the head of Eggbert Records, a small LA label with impeccable taste. He passed away last weekend. I only knew him very casually but he was one of those cats who, with great ears and a few bucks, managed to make beautiful things happen. Check out his site - i just did and it blew me away as i was reminded of the quality of the stuff he got behind. People I revere like Kristian Hoffman, Mumps, Michael Quercio, Randle & Squeezbox from Love/Baby Lemonade, Easedale, Jigsaw Seen, and more. The term legacy is over-used but Greg left one bigtime in the form of beautiful music everlasting. The Eggbert catalogue is as close as any one label ever got to presenting a panorama of the LA Pop Scene. Thanks Greg, love, /stew & heidi http://www.eggbert.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:40:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] Liz redux On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Aaron Milenski wrote: > I haven't heard the new album (and after reading the lyrics, I honestly have > no interest in doing so), so take what I say in that light. I'm just > wondering what the other list members who have heard GIRLYSOUND think of it. I think, for a young woman making songs on a four-track, it's great. Not all the songs are good, and some are transgressive for transgression's sake ("Hello Sailor"), but all in all, surprisingly listenable songwise, if not qualitywise. Liz did concede Aaron's point by calling her EP w/ a few GIRLYSOUNDS songs on it JUVENALIA. She'd make a great subject for a box set, since she's tossed away about 2 albums worth of recorded material form the WCSE & LIZ PHAIR sessions. Those + the GIRLYSOUND tapes - there's 3 CDs already. On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Has anyone seen a picture of Liz yet in her CBGB's t-shirt that the label men > picked out for her? Probably bought it at the same store that sold the Ramones T-shirt to Shania's image handlers. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:42:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Greg Dwinnel of Eggbert Records More details... Cancer claims O.C. label founder Greg Dwinnell The Orange County Register Greg Dwinnell, founder and president of Fullerton-based eggBERT Records, died Saturday from complications of esophageal cancer, according to a statement issued by his publicist Tuesday. He was 42. In 1992, Dwinnell, of Brea, launched his label as a spotlight for local and national power-pop purveyors, issuing albums from the likes of the Posies, the Wondermints (Brian Wilson's current backing band) and the Jigsaw Seen (whose "Zenith" earned a Grammy nomination). His roster also gave space to several acclaimed Los Angeles singer-songwriters, including producer Jon Brion, Mumps main man Kristian Hoffman, Dramarama's John Easdale and Baby Lemonade's Mike Randle and Rusty Squeezebox. Two of his most notable projects were well-regarded covers collections based on the music of the Bee Gees ("Melody Fair") and the Hollies ("Sing Hollies in Reverse"). Most recently, he helped produce a live tribute to Elvis Costello benefiting the USC Norris Cancer Center, featuring performances by several of the above as well as Aimee Mann and Michael Penn. Dwinnell is survived by his mother, Sharon, and his brother, Brian. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:36:47 -0700 From: dc Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville on 6/24/03 9:13 PM, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey at jenor@uwm.edu wrote: > Didn't read the NYT review yet - but in the latest _Magnet_, Phair claims > that yes, indeed, EIG was written as a song-by-song response to EOMS. > Supposedly, she had reams of index cards, shorthand codes for the type of > song (musically, lyrically)... She basically went about it (in her words) > like it was a grad student research project. hm. i recall an interview in Rolling Stone or somewhere back in the day, where she said just the opposite -- that the "response" thing may have been true for a couple of songs, but it really was more of a faux-conceit she cooked up for publicity. so who knows. several friends of mine who are EOMS fans couldn't discern any correlation between the albums, which doesn't really mean anything; her "responses" may have been particularly personal or abstruse. but it makes me wonder, in light of her recent comments, whether anyone has successfully opined on or attempted to explicate the supposed connections, besides repeating the notion that they exist. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:16:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Dan Sallitt wrote: > The writer requires a lot of the artist: that her age and her music sync > up according to the writer's cultural expectations, that her lyrics live > up to the standards of "young, middle-class, well-educated women." If > Liz really made a teeny-bopper record, I'm no longer trusting O'Rourke > to tell me whether it's a good teeny-bopper record or not. I think you're being unfair here; no matter how much the accusation is thrown around, I think it's *very* rare that a critic is actually deciding what they think about an album based on abstractions rather than on their own aesthetic experience. Preconceptions can make you enjoy an album less while you listen to it, certainly, but you raise the spectre that O'Rourke might actually be enjoying the music on Liz Phair's CD but (consciously or not) denying it because she doesn't think Liz is acting in a becoming fashion. What strikes me as more likely, in general, is that a critic in a situation like this is expressing what they think could have *most easily* made the record better. I mean, suppose O'Rourke really likes Pavement (if this isn't true, substitute in some other band; doesn't matter). I bet she would have liked the new Liz Phair better if it had sounded just like Pavement, but it's pointless to talk about *all* the good things that a record tried to be. You have to guess what went wrong. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:24:49 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, dc wrote: > several friends of mine who are EOMS fans couldn't discern any correlation > between the albums, which doesn't really mean anything; her "responses" may > have been particularly personal or abstruse. but it makes me wonder, in > light of her recent comments, whether anyone has successfully opined on or > attempted to explicate the supposed connections, besides repeating the > notion that they exist. the dc local free weekly ran a little thing some years (ten? ye gods) back that was a song-by-song comparison of "guyville" to, uh, i think it was ozzy osbourne's "bark at the moon." i think it's the dark side of zardoz effect, y'know? which is to say, it's never going to be completely implausible. Why assume a songwriter is telling the truth in interviews? there's a long tradition to the contrary. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:34:22 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville I've read interveiws where Liz said there's no connection to EXILE ON MAIN ST. other than that both albums have 18 songs and she really loves EOMS, and later interviews where she claims (but doesn't explain) a song-by-song connection. DC is right that if there is one it's so abstruse or personal that none of us are likely to see it, but if anyone here wants to write an essay about the connection between "Turd On The Run" and "Girls Girls Girls" or between "Divorce Song" and "Ventilator Blues" or "Fuck and run" and "Happy," I'd be glad to read it... _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:37:54 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Greg Dwinnel of Eggbert Records I don't have really have anything to add, except to note that Dwinnel was just about the one personality that a miserable power-pop scene couldn't afford to lose. I haven't held on to a copy of every Eggbert CD released over the years, but everything he ever put out was, at the very least, enjoyable. A lot of what he released was great. And while I can't really say that he was my friend, Greg took time to be supportive of me during some absurd moments. His label was uniquely personal, and I'm glad he left behind a catalogue of songs I'll be listening to for the rest of my life. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:45:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a list. Doug sent this to me and Dan only, but gave us permission to share it with everyone else, so that's what I'm doing. Incidentally, the record he refers to below is THE APPOINTED HOUR, a collaboration between Roger Eno and Peter Hammill. Andy > >and to Andy: yes, i really do think that a successful piece of work > > needs to communicte the parameters under which it is operating in some fashion. but that doesn't rule out the case in which one of the goals of a piece is to obfuscate its own goals -- i think that's pretty common across a broad spectrum of postmodern art. > > > > i'm all fulla cold medicine, so if this makes no sense, sorry in advance. > > Didn't Lester do much of his best work full of cold medicine? > > More seriously though, I'd like to further discuss how a piece > communicates its parameters, and what happens if it doesn't, among other things. If people read AMERICAN PSYCHO and say, "It's crap," and Bret Easton Ellis responds, "If you read it and think it's crap, then you didn't understand it," who's right? If Greil Marcus opines "It seems plain that, finally, George W. Bush is making himself felt in culture..." in reaction to a Subway commercial plugging the chain's Dijon Horseradish Melt, and one reader calls the results "an incredible > connect-the-invisible-dots exercise," who's right? Well, I think Dan's gamelan example actually illustrates what I'm trying to get at: it ought to be obvious to anyone (whether or not you've ever hard a gamelan, or more than one three minute pop song, before) that a gamelan composition is not trying to to accomplish the same thing as a three minute pop song (let's leave macha out of it for the moment). therefore it shouldn't be evaluated according to the same criteria. when you hear your first gamelan piece you may not have the criteria to evaluate a GOOD gamelan piece/performance compared to a poor one -- but even if you can't describe it using musical terminology, it should be obvious (shouldn't it?) that it's an artform that explores subtle polyrhythm and textural shifts (as opposed to the "hooky" melody and dynamic shifts that characterize most successfully 3 minute pop songs). i admit that there are some severely conceptual pieces in which an awareness of context really IS critical to an appreciation of the work -- the piece Stewart mentioned with Roger Eno and someone else simultaneously remotely improvising is a prime example. but as a rock critic who sometimes writes about conceptual art, i say that most rock critics have no business writing about conceptual art. i think a piece (regardless of medium) that doesn't give its audience some clues (even if they are wilfully obscure) in how to interpret it is a failure. (if a libretto is really required, then mebbe it should be considered part of the work itself -- like the title of an abstract painting, say, which may provide a clue to the "subject" of the painting or which may serve as deliberate misdirection. also not discounting that a piece of art my have multiple sets of applicable/appropriate criteria. i haven't read ellis at all [new liz phair syndrome -- i'm as sure as i can be that i'd hate it], so i can't comment. but i can pass on what the teach in my first video production class said after screening my third effort: he suspected that i'd intended to make a piece that in some fashion indicted the blatant sexism, implicit homophobia and macho posturing of heavy metal videos -- but from a viewers perspective, i was just perpetuating and exemplifying the tropes i was attempting to challenge/decry. that video was unquestionably a failure, any attempt on my part to say that a viewer "didn't get it" notwishstanding. does that help? - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:53:09 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville At 03:24 PM 6/25/2003 -0400, dmw wrote: >Why assume a songwriter is telling the truth in interviews? there's a long >tradition to the contrary. Specifically in the case of Liz Phair, who cheerfully admits that at least half of what she tells the press is a total lie, and constantly contradicts herself on which parts are true. (She has said that GUYVILLE *isn't* a song-by-song response to EXILE at least as many times as she's said it is.) I can't see that it matters much to me whether or not Liz Phair is telling the truth -- it's not like she led troops into war on the base of information that she knew was fraudulent. S NP: HOLD ON TIGHT -- The Rumblers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:15:34 -0700 From: "me" Subject: [loud-fans] Guster netscape has Guster's 'Keep it Together' posted in entirety - and i'm happily listening away. i'm on track 4, which is the first one i've been sort of more on the 'eh' side of things about. 1-3 were pretty good. 5 is so-so; reminds me of erasure (there's a keyboard line that i think is supposed to be one of the songs from wonderland - blanking on which), vocals are squeeze-ish on occasion. 6 - ramona - jangly - can you tell me how to get to sesame street? hm... it's looking like the strongest stuff is first. it's pretty good so far - anyone else hear this album yet? comments? there is a track called 'red oyster cult' - haven't gotten there yet, though. i like the orchestration, and the resolves are nice. haven't bought a new album in a while... i may just have to pick this up. the album can be found at this ridiculous link: http://channels.netscape.com/ns/music/ch/songs_spotlight.jsp?cts=1&src=http: //demand1.stream.aol.com/ramgen/aol/us/aolmusic/artists/wmg/guster/guster_ke epittogether.rm besides, can you argue with a band that enters this in their journal: Someone emailed me to warn me that the Marshmallow Peeps Fun Bus was going to be in Rochester the same day we were. Peeps are those little stale Easter marshmallow birds with lopsided dots for eyes that blow up when you put them in your microwave. They don't taste very good, but they're cute. Somehow Peeps Inc. turned out to be Guster fans and were happy to send 42 cases of Peeps to our show last night. 42 cases, 24 boxes per case, 12 Peeps per box. Let me do a little math. Search hard drive. "Calculator." There we go. 12,096 Peeps at the show. We held a Peep-eating contest on stage while modulating the guitar lick from Happy Frappy a half step each go-around. Someone won a t-shirt. We debuted "Come Downstairs & Say Hello," and then the show was over. brianna - -- Albert Einstein, when asked to describe radio, replied: "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:19:25 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] Reason to buy Liz Phair? (ns) I'll bet you're expecting sarcasm, but actually... I saw this on the matador site, and don't recall it coming up here. Anyone able to comment: Regardless of what a lot of people think of the new cd, it's worth checking out the 5 song bonus ep that is available via a weblink provided with the disc. The songs are pretty much the exact opposite of what is on the cd- stripped down, underproduced, and lyrically complex. The first track, "Jeremy Engle" has some of the strangest lyrics of any Liz Phair song and concludes with the line: "sometimes all you need is a napkin". Here are the lyrics to the second track, "Bouncer's Conversation": See that girl alone Dressed all in her evening clothes She's dying 'Cause her boyfriend didn't show up Pull her out of line Stick her in a waiting room And ignore her 'Til her face gets really bloated And I wonder what it's like To be second all the time And you never get it right And you're never gonna win And your ass is on your face And your life is such a waste And there's Sugar Leanin' in the window See that amazon? Her head looks like it's connected to her shoulders They look like little boulders Turn her round and round Take a mental picture of her naked, inebriated, face down on the linoleum And I wonder what it's like To be second all the time And you never get it right And you're never gonna win And your ass is on your face And your life is such a waste And there's sugar Walking to the dressing room Oh, What would I give to be her joyride daddy-o tonight And I wonder what it's like To be second all the time And you never get it right And you're never gonna win And your ass is on your face And your life is such a waste And there's Sugar Heading to the barrio With a faggot on her left And a faggot on her right And my dick is getting limp 'Cause the chicks all suck tonight And the band is such a bore And I've seen it all before And there's Sugar Making me a video ________________________________________________________________ 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, 25 Jun 2003 16:23:55 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] PIL Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >And that's one problem w/Phair: a running strand in her interviews >throughout the years has been a weird blend of an almost egotistical >confidence in some respects, coupled with a strange insecurity that >expresses itself in a sort of desperation to be accepted. And it's that, >perhaps, that makes me think her "new look" seems somehow false, put-on, and >not in a good way. > Maybe that's it in a nutshell. While I've enjoyed some of Liz's music here and there (I don't even actually own Guyville), without knowing her press history, intentions, aspirations, real age, or any of that, I really wouldn't have noticed anything about her "new" look, other than that I think she's pretty. Still, I'm not sure it's any more fair (avoiding the pun here) to get down and dirty about picking on a celebrity's chosen career move than anyone else's. If she does lack confidence and does things in a desperate bid for acceptance, that's kinda sad, but pretty typical of a huge chunk of the population. Celebs are people, too, and at the same time, putting on a show and/or image is part of their job. But when I read blanket statements on here like that pretty much any woman who tries to look younger than her age generally ends up looking worse, that intelligent women over a certain age don't try to, judging what a woman should wear by her age, her hip shape, etc., well it just starts sounding arbitrary, shallow, sexist, and even a bit misogynist to me. >But I do hope you don't look like >Cher ;) > > I'm not that tall. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:37:44 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville In a message dated 6/25/03 12:54:18 PM, flamingo@theworld.com writes: << I can't see that it matters much to me whether or not Liz Phair is telling the truth -- it's not like she led troops into war on the base of information that she knew was fraudulent. >> You think that's bad? The leaders of Russia, France, Germany, and even a bunch of average Americans all wanted to keep some people enslaved based on being scared of weapons that now nobody can even find. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:40:03 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Reason to buy Liz Phair? (ns) In a message dated 6/25/03 1:24:05 PM, dana-boy@juno.com writes (or maybe quotes Matador): << Regardless of what a lot of people think of the new cd, it's worth checking out the 5 song bonus ep that is available via a weblink provided with the disc. >> It's worth buying for the chance to download some songs that try to undo the damage of the actual album? That must be one low list price. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:41:34 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville >You think that's bad? The leaders of Russia, France, Germany, and even a >bunch of average Americans all wanted to keep some people enslaved based on >being >scared of weapons that now nobody can even find. I'm impressed. You actually were able to come up with a rationalization for why not finding the weapons justifies the war! Ari Fleischer needs a replacement...send in your resume. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:43:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] PIL On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Jenny Grover wrote: > But when I read blanket statements on here like that pretty much any > woman who tries to look younger than her age generally ends up looking > worse, that intelligent women over a certain age don't try to, judging > what a woman should wear by her age, her hip shape, etc., well it just > starts sounding arbitrary, shallow, sexist, and even a bit misogynist to > me. If the look change seemed genuine - if Liz decided she looked better and felt better in her current incarnation - there'd probably be less static, but she's gone on record in several interviews as wanting to sell a lot of records and will do whatever she has to do to make that happen. Coupling that with her current look - that of an early-20s girl - evokes to me desperate pandering to the lowest denominator - selling sex rather than smarts, which used to be at least part of her selling point. It seems like a step down and a betrayal of those who supported her before she decided she wanted to be famous. Somewhat like the nice guy thrown over for the himbo... "Why wasn't our love enough for her?" Her change also betrays the unspoken indie code of avoiding the use of conventional sexuality as a selling point. There are many attractive women who play indie music, but none of them have the hyper-stylized look Liz is now sporting. There's nothing wrong with a woman wanting to look any age she chooses, but doing it to impress someone who is "unworthy" of her depresses those who liked her the way she was ("unworthy" as defined by said people). np: "South Dakota", GIRLYSOUND TAPES ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:48:55 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Hi again/ Ten years of Guyville On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 03:37 PM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/25/03 12:54:18 PM, flamingo@theworld.com writes: > > << I can't see that it matters much to me whether or not Liz Phair is > telling > the truth -- it's not like she led troops into war on the base of > information that she knew was fraudulent. >> > > You think that's bad? The leaders of Russia, France, Germany, and even > a > bunch of average Americans all wanted to keep some people enslaved > based on being > scared of weapons that now nobody can even find. > > > "Enslaved"....that's a colorful choice of a word. Way to spin. Chris ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #186 *******************************