From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #230 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, August 7 2003 Volume 03 : Number 230 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Neew Ween (ns) [dana-boy@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Neew Ween (ns) ["Amy B. Lewis" ] Re: Re: [loud-fans] this week's TWAS... [Miles Goosens ] [loud-fans] Beatles trivia for the day (ns) [Dana Paoli ] [loud-fans] signal, noise, etc. (ns) [Dana Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Neew Ween (ns) [John Cooper ] Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names ["John Swartzentruber" ] Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names ["me" ] Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names ["John Swartzentruber" ] Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names [Aaron Mandel ] [loud-fans] Flaming Lips / Burning Lips ["Rex.Broome" ] [loud-fans] fall (ns) [Dana Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names-ah ["Pete O." ] [loud-fans] all i can say is 'wow' [me@justanotherfuckin.com] [loud-fans] (ns) [Dana Paoli ] [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover ["Micah Bedwell" ] Re: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover ["Aaron Milenski" ] RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover [Betsy Way ] RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover ["Micah Bedwell" ] RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover ["Aaron Milenski" ] RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover ["G. Andrew Hamlin" Still, they're walking a kind of fine line, as their "parodies" (in >quotes because they were never exactly parodies) are a boognish's breath >from the real thing, > A what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right: there is only one boognish. I meant "The Boognish." - --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: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 07:49:18 -0400 From: "Amy B. Lewis" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Neew Ween (ns) and if you haven't heard their rejected pizza hut jingle, hie thee here: http://www.chocodog.com/chocodog/ween/ween_new/audio.html - - amy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:25:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: Re: [loud-fans] this week's TWAS... glenn mcdonald >And anyway, if I've had time to finish the >book by now, I figure everybody else should have... Ummm, no. Jeff, thanks for the heads-up. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:00:17 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: Re: [loud-fans] this week's TWAS... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Miles Goosens wrote: > glenn mcdonald > >And anyway, if I've had time to finish the > >book by now, I figure everybody else should have... > > Ummm, no. > > Jeff, thanks for the heads-up. yeah, some of us haven't had time to _start_ it yet. although i was aware of the big genera-spoiler over a year ago. but i'm behind on twas too, so i guess it all works out. nr westlake _bad news_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:16:50 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] Beatles trivia for the day (ns) It's pretty trivial, but I noticed this on the eMusic message boards (which have a very high signal to noise ration, but I'm still wading through them): "Did you know that Stockhausen appears on the Beatles Sgt. Pepper cover? He's in the last row, 5th from the left. A photo of the cover and Stockhausen's original picture that was used can be seen here Stockhausen was very busy at the time the Beatles requests permission to use his picture, so he didn't get back to them right away. This led Brian Epstein to send him a frantic telegram on May 8th, 1967, asking him what his answer was, since the album was due to go on sale on June 1. A picture of that telegram can be seen here ." - --dana np: ________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:30:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: [loud-fans] Domain Names Until today, I couldn't have cared less about Internet p0rn, but now, I'm pissed. I ran my own movie website for a while, but I stopped updating it about a year ago as I moved my writing time on to another project. When it came time to renew my domamin name and hosting service, money was tight, I wasn't updating it anyway, and I didn't think anyone else would take it anyway. So I checked today just to see that my hosting service had indeed taken it down, and I was greeted with the headline "amateur free girl nude teen." I don't know when I've been this sad. So, does anyone know how to go about getting back a domain name? The whois lookup only lists a domain registering service, onlinenic.com, so I'm not sure who to contact to get the rights to the domain name. There is no email link on the actual web site (or hidden in the source). a new p0rnographer, - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:33:50 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] signal, noise, etc. (ns) I usually avoid correcting typos/grammar problems after I've posted, but since this one doesn't remotely say what I meant: "which have a very high signal to noise ration" ...please mentally change it to "there's a lot of garbage on the eMusic message boards." - --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: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:44:29 -0700 From: John Cooper Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Neew Ween (ns) Thanks...listening to those two jingles in sequence made me laugh until the tears washed the sleep out of my eyes. > From: "Amy B. Lewis" > Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 07:49:18 -0400 > To: loud-fans@smoe.org > Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Neew Ween (ns) > > and if you haven't heard their rejected pizza hut jingle, hie thee here: > > http://www.chocodog.com/chocodog/ween/ween_new/audio.html > > - amy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:03:01 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Michael Mitton wrote: > So, does anyone know how to go about getting back a domain name? The > whois lookup only lists a domain registering service, onlinenic.com, so > I'm not sure who to contact to get the rights to the domain name. There > is no email link on the actual web site (or hidden in the source). > > a new p0rnographer, > --Michael > The less scrupulous porn sites do this a lot, so that people will accidently stumble into a porn site (typically with a host of proliferating pop-up windows) when they're looking for something completely different. This might seem like a very poor business model, but I think some of the cookie tracking services that specialize in smut (like hitbox and sextracker) still pay by page loads and not just by click-throughs -- so the site can still make revenue from people who access the site very unwillingly, the more the better. That means you're almost certainly dealing with really scuzzy folks who are unlikely to give you your domain name back if you ask nicely, or even if you offer to pay substantially above the going rate. If your pockets are feeling deeper these days and you think you have a legitimate business claim to the name (it would really help if you had incorporated/ registered as a small business / sold things in more than one state under the name) you could take them to court. could easily cost you thousands, and you could easily lose. Honestly, the lowest impact option would be to get another domain name. Sorry man. - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:54:40 -0400 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:03:01 -0400 (EDT), dmw wrote: >Honestly, the lowest impact option would be to get another domain name. I think the porn sites usually dump these domains after a year or so. How long do they have it registered for? Do you think it is because they liked the name or they liked the traffic? If the latter, you probably just need to wait them out. In the meantime, do what Doug said. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:07:54 -0700 From: "me" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names he's right. but you're not out of options. for now: many registrars have clauses in their agreements that require accurate contact information (as is required by ICANN), and most of these squatters don't provide that. (onlinenic.com does - see http://onlinenic.com/english/agreements/serviceterms.html , about 1/3 of the way down.) ICANN regulations allow a registrar to delete a domain name if accurate info is not provided (same page: If member deliberately provides inaccurate or unreliable information, or fails to promptly update necessary information, or fails to respond to our email inquiries within five calendar days, such actions shall constitute a breach of this Agreement.). my company has just started following this process - it's very time consuming and difficult, and many reigstrar will simply put their own info down and hold the name rather than delete it, but you might get lucky. be as nice as humanly possible to whomever you get in touch with at the registrar - and remind them that if the contact info is wrong, the name may well have been registered with a stolen credit card. that should get them moving. now, if the WHOIS online lists onlinenic.com, the domain registrant (aka squatter) may be using a proxy service - but i don't see that listed at their site. it's possible that they've already had a chargeback for it and inserted their own info, in which case you should easily be able to convince them to at least delete the zone file, or forward it to their own site. they don't want to be associated with p0rn any more than you do. if the domain is your name, or if you've incorporated, or can prove consistant use to the level of a service mark or whatever, you may have a chance, but honestly, it's not likely unless it's trademarked. ICANN UDRP stuff is here: http://www.icann.org/ if you're looking to reclaim it way down the road, you have some options. there are services that will basically backorder the name for you - snapnames.com is one - but they work on a round-robin basis, polling their partner registrars for new registrations. you chances are therefore determined by everyone else's taste in domain names. if you can wait about, oh, 2 weeks, there will be a much better service similar to a secondary registry, giving the name to you if it ever drops. no round-robin. that's all i can say on that for now, lest i lose my job. eep! i have to get ready for work (so i can go do exactly this in jeans instead of sweats, and at my office instead of at my house) - i'll try to remember to let you know whaen above product is released, but unless you're dead set on that particular domain name, i'm with dmw - find another one you like. it's your best bet, unless you're really really attached to the old one. and i would definately try to get onlinenic.com to delete the zone file or change the forwarding away from the p0rn site - they should be willing to do that if their contact info is in the WHOIS. good luck... brianna - ----- Original Message ----- From: "dmw" To: "ideology ... exclusively at hecht's!" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Michael Mitton wrote: > > > So, does anyone know how to go about getting back a domain name? The > > whois lookup only lists a domain registering service, onlinenic.com, so > > I'm not sure who to contact to get the rights to the domain name. There > > is no email link on the actual web site (or hidden in the source). > > > > a new p0rnographer, > > --Michael > > > > The less scrupulous porn sites do this a lot, so that people will > accidently stumble into a porn site (typically with a host of > proliferating pop-up windows) when they're looking for something > completely different. This might seem like a very poor business model, but > I think some of the cookie tracking services that specialize in smut (like > hitbox and sextracker) still pay by page loads and not just by > click-throughs -- so the site can still make revenue from people who > access the site very unwillingly, the more the better. > > That means you're almost certainly dealing with really scuzzy folks who > are unlikely to give you your domain name back if you ask nicely, or even > if you offer to pay substantially above the going rate. > > If your pockets are feeling deeper these days and you think you have a > legitimate business claim to the name (it would really help if you had > incorporated/ registered as a small business / sold things in more than > one state under the name) you could take them to court. could easily cost > you thousands, and you could easily lose. > > Honestly, the lowest impact option would be to get another domain name. > > Sorry man. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ > http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com > Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:09:07 -0700 From: "me" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names not always - many auto-renew. netster has kept my old name for years now. they're not porn, they're an ad portal, but they keep renewing startrekonice.com. brianna - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Swartzentruber" To: "ideology ... exclusively at hecht's!" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:03:01 -0400 (EDT), dmw wrote: > > >Honestly, the lowest impact option would be to get another domain name. > > I think the porn sites usually dump these domains after a year or so. > How long do they have it registered for? Do you think it is because > they liked the name or they liked the traffic? If the latter, you > probably just need to wait them out. In the meantime, do what Doug > said. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:08:53 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names John Swartzentruber on 8/7/2003 9:54:40 AM wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:03:01 -0400 (EDT), dmw wrote: > > >Honestly, the lowest impact option would be to get another domain name. > > I think the porn sites usually dump these domains after a year or so. > How long do they have it registered for? Do you think it is because > they liked the name or they liked the traffic? If the latter, you > probably just need to wait them out. In the meantime, do what Doug > said. Interestingly (and tangential to the discussion), I did not receive either Michael's original message in this thread or doug's reply (both of which I saw on eScribe). Obviously, my ISP didn't want me to see them because of objectionable spam-like content in the messages. One quoted phrase in the original message undoubtedly set the filter off, though that phrase wasn't in the reply. By the time we got to John's reply here, all objectionable material was gone, and I got to see that there was a thread I missed. Handy. On another matter, which of the millions of Fall albums on eMusic would be best to download as an introduction for someone who has never gotten into the Fall (or the B-52s) and thinks that MES sounds too much like Fred Schneider? Remember, my tastes tend a little bit more toward the mainstream than many here. I know this has come up before, but I promise to pay attention this time. Thanks. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:11:14 -0400 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:08:53 -0600, Roger Winston wrote: >By the time we got to John's reply here, all objectionable material was gone, and I got to see that there was a thread I missed. Handy. Interesting. Maybe it is because I referred directly to "porn" whereas Michael's original referred to "p0rn". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:16:52 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Roger Winston wrote: > On another matter, which of the millions of Fall albums on eMusic would be best to download as an introduction for someone who has never gotten into the Fall (or the B-52s) and thinks that MES sounds too much like Fred Schneider? Remember, my tastes tend a little bit more toward the mainstream than many here. I know this has come up before, but I promise to pay attention this time. Thanks. try the brix smith years (v1) wondeful and frightening world of this nation's saving grace/bend sinister 458489 a sides i am kurious orange my all time favorite is palace of swords reversed and i wonder why light user syndrome isn't there? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:41:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Roger Winston wrote: > On another matter, which of the millions of Fall albums on eMusic would > be best to download as an introduction for someone who has never gotten > into the Fall (or the B-52s) and thinks that MES sounds too much like > Fred Schneider? Remember, my tastes tend a little bit more toward the > mainstream than many here. I know this has come up before, but I > promise to pay attention this time. Thanks. Wonderful And Frightening World is a good entry point for someone who's okay with artsy stuff but doesn't get the Fall. (Possibly Frenz Experiment or 458489A too.) Palace Of Swords Reversed is the best summary of the Fall's best period for people who are destined to love the Fall but just don't know where to start. I don't know what Fall album is best for someone who fundamentally *doesn't* like them but wants to know what all the fuss is about. This Nation's Saving Grace is probably the slickest of the good bizarre albums (the PABARAT, if you will). a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:21:23 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Flaming Lips / Burning Lips By the way, the new Lips/Chemical Brothers collaboration "The Golden Path" sounds so much like Echo and the Bunnymen that it's flat-out eerie. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:26:26 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Er, I thought I sent this one before the other one, but not so mu ch Miles: >>On the other hand, I'm still shocked that most folks between here >>and Fegmaniax didn't know the Cars had two lead vocalists, but the >>solid majority was on the "I thought Ric Ocasek sang 'em all" side. I wasn't one of said fegmaniax, but again I plead "that was when I had MTV". That video for "Drive" with Ben Orr moping around in an empty bar was ubiquitous. I like the Lips quite a bit. Wouldn't call them a super-favorite, but they'rere kind of my token "popular yet critically unassailable band" that I actually like to listen to, thus freeing me to continue to be Radiohead-meh. (Although Wilco fills that slot for me as well... does that free me up to be "meh" on someone else?) >>Anyway, without a lyric to hang our search on, we couldn't rightly Google >>the artist. My initial thought was "one of those Radiohead-alike bands," >>like Starsailor or late-model Travis. [...turns out to be Coldplay] What I never understood were the once-frequent comparisons of Coldplay and the Dave Matthews Band. Someone help me out with that one. I still have no idea who John Mayer is or what he sounds like. And I should clarify my own statement: >>I sometimes have trouble making the distinction between the Posies >>and Teenage Fannies, but I think that's fairly common. ...because although there are myriad similarities betweent the Posies and the Fannies, I can tell the two *bands* apart; I'm just not always sure who's singing lead *within* each band. - -Rex "hell, I know people who can't tell which Beatle is singing" Broome ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:23:01 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names Aaron Mandel on 8/7/2003 6:41:27 AM wrote: > I don't know what Fall album is best for someone who fundamentally > *doesn't* like them but wants to know what all the fuss is about. That's pretty much the case with me, though Miles put some older Fall tracks on a recent mix CD-R which made me think I could maybe like the music if I could just get past my distaste for MES's vocal stylings. And I noticed that there's a large percentage of their catalog on eMusic, so what the hey, I may as well give one a try. I just didn't know which one. Thanks for the suggestions. I bet we're driving dana (mr. subject-line-changer) crazy by talking about the Fall under an unrelated thread. And with no "(ns)" to boot! So I better stop. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:29:07 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] fall (ns) On another matter, which of the millions of Fall albums on eMusic would be best to download as an introduction for someone who has never gotten into the Fall (or the B-52s) and thinks that MES sounds too much like Fred Schneider? Remember, my tastes tend a little bit more toward the mainstream than many here. I know this has come up before, but I promise to pay attention this time. Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you're willing to indulge me for one song, can I suggest that even though you may not like it, you still might want to download the track "Hip Priest" from "Hex Enduction Hour" (assuming it's still available). If nothing else, knowing it will put you on surer footing when impressing your friends while watching "Silence of the Lambs." And it really is a pretty incredible and sui generis track. On the more accesible side, I hope that everyone who doesn't know Ultra Vivid Scene (probably not many on this list) has downloaded their two albums from eMusic. I prefer Rev over Joy, but many go the other way. - --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: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:37:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Domain Names-ah - --- Roger Winston wrote: > Aaron Mandel on 8/7/2003 6:41:27 AM wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestions. I bet we're driving dana (mr. subject-line-changer) crazy > by talking about the Fall under an unrelated thread. And with no "(ns)" to boot! So I > better stop. > No need to change it. Just MES-it! ===== ====== This space intentionally non-blank. ====== ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:39:57 -0700 (PDT) From: me@justanotherfuckin.com Subject: [loud-fans] all i can say is 'wow' the picture is here: http://sfgate.com/news/pictures/2003/08/06/liberia9.jpg the caption is: Didn't I shoot at you last week? Rebel Gen. Acapulco (right) shakes hands with the government's Col. George P. Rollins in the middle of a bridge in the Liberian capital of Monrovia. Fighters from both sides of the conflict cautiously greeted each other and discussed the situation in the war-torn nation. notice the t-shirt on Gen. Acapulco... joe... (and Col. Rollins looks like he might be leading the Castro parade - must be the bandana and bared midriff) brianna treading on the toes of political correctness - -- What's the point of wearing your favorite rocketship underpants if nobody ever asks to see 'em? - Calvin - -- recent adventures in tech support at http://www.pirate.org/people/hello/cat_techterror.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:43:23 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] (ns) I bet we're driving dana (mr. subject-line-changer) crazy > by talking about the Fall under an unrelated thread. And with no "(ns)" to boot! So I > better stop. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's funny is that I do it so automatically, I don't even notice. Which means it won't drive me crazy, so carry on. But I laughed when I saw the above two seconds after I had changed the subject line and added a (ns). Guilty as charged. - --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: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:50:42 -0700 From: "Micah Bedwell" Subject: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover Over on the Miles Davis list a thread titled "The Worst Album Cover" is in full roar. This has to be funniest one so far: http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/M/dean_martin.html As ever, Micah ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:52:09 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover > Over on the Miles Davis list a thread titled "The Worst Album Cover" is in >full roar. This has to be funniest one so far: >http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/M/dean_martin.html Thank goodness I don't have access to a scan of the horrifying Smell & Quim JESUS CHRIST cover, but how about this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2549161600&category=1055 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:52:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Micah Bedwell wrote: > Over on the Miles Davis list a thread titled "The Worst Album Cover" is in > full roar. This has to be funniest one so far: > http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/M/dean_martin.html i know the drinking thing was a gag, but seeing this, one has to wonder... Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:53:01 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover > Over on the Miles Davis list a thread titled "The Worst Album Cover" is in >full roar. This has to be funniest one so far: >http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/M/dean_martin.html Thank goodness I don't have access to a scan of the horrifying Smell & Quim JESUS CHRIST cover, but how about this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2549161600&category=1055 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:12:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: [loud-fans] Butterfly Child (eMusic) There's this compilation on eMusic called Urbs In Horto with a great track by Butterfly Child. It sounds the way The Divine Comedy were always represented to me as sounding (before I heard them and thought that on the contrary, they/he were spineless, fey, half-clever generic mush). eMusic has three more albums by them, all very long but (imho) better than average for this style of Britpop, while still not as good as the one song that made me track them down. Worth checking out, though, as there's a definite kinship with that Flaming Lips/recent Delgados sound that I enjoy less than many people here. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:14:14 -0700 From: "Micah Bedwell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover Good Lord. As...Ever! Micah - -----Original Message----- From: owner-loud-fans@smoe.org [mailto:owner-loud-fans@smoe.org]On Behalf Of Aaron Milenski Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:53 AM To: loud-fans@smoe.org Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover > Over on the Miles Davis list a thread titled "The Worst Album Cover" is in >full roar. This has to be funniest one so far: >http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/M/dean_martin.html Thank goodness I don't have access to a scan of the horrifying Smell & Quim JESUS CHRIST cover, but how about this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2549161600&category=1055 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:21:24 -0700 From: Betsy Way Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover Well now. That brought me right out of lurkerdom. I just had to learn more about Cain. Google gave me this: http://www.jiggslee.com/bio.html Those crazy 1970s, - --betsy >Thank goodness I don't have access to a scan of the horrifying Smell & Quim >JESUS CHRIST cover, but how about this one: > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2549161600&category=1055 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:36:04 -0700 From: "Micah Bedwell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover How about that Blind Faith cover with the young girl and the silver airplane? Yeech. Micah - -----Original Message----- From: owner-loud-fans@smoe.org [mailto:owner-loud-fans@smoe.org]On Behalf Of Betsy Way Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 11:21 AM To: loud-fans@smoe.org Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover Well now. That brought me right out of lurkerdom. I just had to learn more about Cain. Google gave me this: http://www.jiggslee.com/bio.html Those crazy 1970s, - --betsy >Thank goodness I don't have access to a scan of the horrifying Smell & Quim >JESUS CHRIST cover, but how about this one: > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2549161600&category=1055 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:45:15 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover > How about that Blind Faith cover with the young girl and the silver >airplane? I'm with you on that one. I always got a laugh out of Iggy Pop's LUST FOR LIFE. Was he trying to make people think he was a nice guy or something???? Here's the ugliest album cover of the psychedelic era: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2548473740&category=3366 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:59:40 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] honky eels lips You could tell that last night's Uptown Mix was going to be crowded -- when I drove past the grounds at 5:30 PM looking for a parking place so I could meet Melissa for dinner, there was already a line around the block of SeventiesKids (y'know, teens and early twenties folks who dress like it's 1975) waiting to be let in at 6. At the last Uptown Mix show we attended, the X / Jason & the Scorchers / Fags show a few weeks ago, we strolled in at 6:30 and got a table down front, even though the place eventually filled up. After meeting Melissa and grabbing dinner at a nearby restaurant, we walked in at 6:30. All the prime real estate was already taken. We walked to just about where we were a few weeks ago, down front and to the left of the stage. I eventually retrieved a couple of chairs from the food and drink area in back so Melissa could rest her knees between performances. MC Honky was the first act -- a third contender (Bun E. Carlos and a guy from Christmas/Combustible Edison are the others) in the R. Stevie Moore lookalike sweepstakes, wearing your grandfather's hat and puffing on a pipe. He stayed on the wings of the stage and mixed records for about a half hour. A lot of his voice samples appear to come from self-help / hypnosis-type recordings, mixed in with drumbeats and samples. Fun enough listening which maybe convinced me to take a flyer on the CD, though *watching* a DJ has pretty slender entertainment value. I'm also willing to bet that he's E in disguise, especially given the space on the eels' website dedicated to E-MC Honky feuds. Hey, E=MC... square? :-) While the eels set up, the crew worked on getting the projection screen and projectors synched up for the Flaming Lips. Wayne Coyne was fiddling with something on our side of the stage (some kind of remote control for the whole contraption?), and was the target of frequent cheers, which he acknowledged with waves. He was wearing a cream-colored summer suit, and looked like he could have stepped straight out of a MIAMI VICE episode, but I mean that as a compliment -- it was the sharpest possible ensemble connoted by the reference, plus bonus points for not having the collar up or the sleeves pushed up. Rather dapper, actually. The eels got a generous 70 minutes, including encores. Though the four-piece band (E, guitarist, bass, drums) essayed a few slower numbers, it was primarily a Loud Rock Act, which suited me fine since my favorite eels albums are definitely the last two. Even "Novocaine for the Soul" got a keyboardless electric workout, fueled by an E rhythm guitar riff straight outta 1969 LIVE. And how could I not love a set that included a cover of Tennessee Ernie Ford's "Sixteen Tons"? I've now heard it covered live by two rock acts, the other being Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers at a show here the day after Ernie's death. I didn't keep a set list, but most of the material was from the last two albums, with representation from each of the first three as well. The sound mix was atrocious -- they're apparently just channeling whatever instrument is on a side of a stage to the stack of speakers on that side, so since the bass player was on the left, we got huge bass and very little guitar. Despite that drawback, we enjoyed the show quite a bit, and wish that the eels would come back to Nashville as headliners. Indoors. Despite not being Flaming Lips fans, Melissa and I decided to stick around for the headliner just to see in person what we've read about and seen clips from on TV. Except... the "headliner crush" set in, as the packed crowd compressed itself even further, turning what had been a crowded-but-comfortable show into being crushed against a teeming mass of goat-smelling SeventiesKids. Even after the initial rush, we were still going to stick around until two Lumbering Behemoth guys not only stepped past the two (admittedly impromptu) rows of chairs and directly into my personal space, but instead of pushing forward like we expected them to when they charged up to us, they parked right there with no intent to move. No apologies, either. With the stage blotted out and the stench overwhelming us, we couldn't take it any more, so we got up and made our way further back, shoving backwards through the sea of humanity. Want an idea of what it looks like when full up? Check out the crowd photo at the top of the event's home page: In previous years, moving further back would have meant either finding a place along one of the fences within the grounds (Jeff Downing will remember where we stood during the Big Star show in 2001) or leaning against the light pole on "Geriatric Knoll," as our friend Lannae dubbed the small rise with a view. But this year, the festival's organizers have placed the mixing board and its accompanying tent top in such a manner that the view from both vantage points is completely ruined. So there was no place to both breathe *and* see the show. So we went on into the freedom of street and walked back to our cars, missing the Flaming Lips entirely. Sorry to disappoint those of you who recommended that we take in the multimedia extravaganza, but as Melissa said, "if I'm going to endure something like that, it's got to be for something I love. I don't love the Flaming Lips." later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:19:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Worst Album Cover > I always got a laugh out of Iggy Pop's LUST FOR LIFE. Was > he trying to make people think he was a nice guy or something???? Oh, I like that head shot. Sometimes I think he's looking better than me, these days. I know we've done this before, but my votes for worst-ever covers: Royal Trux's SWEET SIXTEEN (I don't know what's in the toilet and I don't wanna know), and the original, thankfully-slipcovered head shot (muhahahaha) for Big Black's HEADACHE ep. I pulled off the slipcover. I'll regret that the rest of my life. 'Course for THE BEST OF BOBBY BLAND VOLUME 2, they hired someone who couldn't draw... Andy Everyone from Led Zeppelin to Jandek has one, so why not the Shaggs? Why not? I imagine that must have been the response from most of the involved parties when asked to contribute to Better Than the Beatles: A Tribute to the Shaggs. Why not? I've never been a fan of tribute albums. They just seem gratuitous, and a way for bands (and labels) to gain notoriety through association-- a shortcut bypassing actual work. They're the equivalent of album filler in any CD collection, ranking just above soundtrack compilations in my book (hello, Batman Forever). But having heard of the Shaggs years ago, and actually hearing their music years later, I asked myself the same question: why not? After all, it's got an interesting line-up of off-kilter artists (Thinking Fellers, Danielson Famile, Optiganally Yours, etc.), and it's not like any of them are going to commit a sacrilegious travesty by ruining an original, or bore you to death with simple mimicry. Both would be nearly impossible.. But what kind of world do we live in where a trio of musically disinclined sisters from rural New Hampshire-- driven to practice and perform by a superstitious, and perhaps tyrannical, father who believed his mother foretold the group-- can cut an album full of what can only be called "attempted" pop songs, and thirty years later be subject of an honorary tribute? The answer: a strange and beautiful one, friends. And if that sounds naovely optimistic, so be it. It comes from listening to the Shaggs' naove stabs at musicianship. All the same, it's not an uncommon reaction to think a joke is being played on you when you listen to the Shaggs-- that's part of the appeal. "Who do these people think they are? What was going through their heads when they recorded this?" Trying to answer these questions is half the fun. Then there's the fact that the Shaggs seem to have single-handedly (though unwittingly) laid the groundwork for the faux-naivete of twee-pop and possibly K Records itself. And then there's the proclamation by legendary wise-ass Frank Zappa that the Shaggs were better than the Beatles, a statement so confounding of popular logic that it just adds more confusion and mystery to the mix. Although hated by many (and ignored by many more), few people argue that the Shaggs possessed no personality or spirit. The question is, did they have something else? Is there any merit to their songwriting? If so, it should shine through in the hands of able musicians, right? Well, right, but very unexpectedly, the problem here isn't with the material, it's with the "able musicians." Most of the participants choose to tip-toe around the songs, rarely cutting loose or experimenting, possibly for fear of accusations of trying to out-Shagg the Shaggs. True to tribute album custom, the Big Guns are put up front, as Ida starts the album off with "Philosophy of the World," the title track of the lone proper Shaggs album. The upbeat, ska-like rhythm of the original is traded in for what sounds like a Scottish dirge, proving Ida can sap the energy out of almost anything. Optiganally Yours is next with a slightly more interesting, but similarly drab "You're Something Special to Me." Of all the bands on this record, I had the biggest hopes for Thinking Fellers Union Local 282 and their version of "Who are Parents," but they too take the catatonic route, risking little and turning in another disappointment. Mongrel breaks up the monotony with a somber but spirited rendition of "My Cutie," finally busting out an acoustic guitar in favor of organ. Bauer's "We have a Savior" returns to the keyboard (it's as though there's a timidity toward approaching the guitarwork of front-Shagg Dot Wiggin), but the inner creepiness comes through here, as well as on Joost Visser's Will Oldham-like treatment of "It's Halloween." Deerhoof takes on the quintessential Shaggs' song, "My Pal Foot Foot." Building on bouncy sound effects, they come away with the best song on the album. R. Stevie Moore & the Olsiewics-Chusid Ensemble, followed by Plastic Mastery, cling close to the originals of "My Companion" and "Shaggs' Own Thing" respectfully, while the Slot Racers do a folky medley of "Painful Memories" and "Wheels." Next up, the Danielson Famile take their shot at "Who are Parents," and come away with hilarious results, complete with lisping baby-talk vocals which erase the album's early disappointments. Later, the Furtips' "You're Something Special to Me" recalls the Modern Lovers, and the Double U finish things off with a more playful version of the opening song. Like most tribute albums, Better than the Beatles succeeds less as a cohesive statement than as way of piquing interest in lesser known artists. But wait a minute, didn't I come out against that kind of thing near the beginning of this review? - --Jason Nickey, from http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/shaggs/better-than-the-beatles.shtml ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #230 *******************************