From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #287 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, October 2 2003 Volume 03 : Number 287 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Bad reception? [OptionsR@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] pimpin' the papers [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] pimpin' the papers [dmw ] RE: [loud-fans] Good, there are no Glenns in this post ["Larry Tucker" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] pimpin' the papers On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Aaron Milenski wrote: > just had to jump in here...Perota's entire existence is > based on the concept that once a guy marries all of > the fun is over. It's your typical frat-boy, high-school > hero concept and despite the fact that he has interesting > plots and good charaterizations my lasting reaction is that > he needs to grow up and start blaming himself for all of > his problems rather than the women in his life. well, you're not the only person on the list to have that reaction, so i'll withdraw the recommendation. it's the only perotta i've read, so i was unaware that the book's treatment of relationship issues was symptomatic. i still think it's the most accurate fictional portrayal i've seen of what it's like to actually be in a band. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:07:59 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] pimpin' the papers On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, G. Andrew Hamlin wrote: > > Leg's McNeil's _Please Kill > > Me_ might turn a few too many stomachs to count as essential, but the > > fact it ain't on Andy's list makes me wonder if somehow he missed it. > > Silly me, it was two feet from my left hand this whole time, sandwiched > between YOU ARE GOING TO PRISON and QUEEN OF THE BLACK BLACK. *pull* > *books falling* My major beef with this one: the authors snipped and > tucked from a wide variety of interviews conducted, in many cases, not by > them, without giving the original interviewers or publications any credit. > The copy I have is an uncorrected proof, though, so it's remotely > possible it doesn't contain the full credits. my copy has source notes, although i don't know that they're exhaustively complete. another very fair criticism: it's not so much about the music, more about the lifestyle. > Stomach-turning? I don't see it. The bit about Leee Black Childers, Bebe > Buell, and the CBGB's chili, maybe. But many find Bebe Buell more > repugnant that any chili. well, and lou and the plate. yuck! > Wonder if the DC scene has a similar mortality rate. i think the short answer is "no." lots of the players even from the pre-straightedge bands are still gigging regularly. > Wouldn't mind reading this one, but my favorite DC-area band from that era > is still Happy Flowers (distant second: Bad Brains). And I liked the > go-go music from that same time, same place, much better so far as a sound > goes. When will that stuff get its own book? the andersen/jenkins book is very specifically worshipful of dischord and gives even the other punk bands short shrift. seems to me i heard rumors of a go-go book in the works, but i can't recall details (or from where i heard the rumors). > > and "Punk Planets"' _We Owe You Nothing_. > > Don't know this one. Details? compendium of interviews from the magazine. with folks like noam chomsky, mackaye, negativland, albini, etc. much more substantive than the usual run of rock journalism, but narrowly focused and aggressively political. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:36:23 -0400 From: "Larry Tucker" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Good, there are no Glenns in this post > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-loud-fans@smoe.org > [mailto:owner-loud-fans@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Mason > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 5:43 PM > To: loud-fans@smoe.org > Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Good, there are no Glenns in this post > > > At 04:23 PM 9/30/2003 -0400, Larry Tucker wrote: > >Two others high on my list this summer are the new one from > Trolleyvox > >which may be rehashing that 80's jangle sound a bit, but they do it > >deliciously > > Speaking as someone who has been thoroughly sick of the whole > jangle-pop aesthetic for the last several years, I totally > wasn't expecting to like the new Trolleyvox album (LEAP OF > FOLLY, www.groovedisques.com) much at all, but it's just > stunning, one of my favorite albums of the year. Beth > Filla's got a tremendous voice, and Andrew Chalfen's songs > reach for something more than the "let's try to sound as much > like Badfinger as possible" attitude of the Audities/Not Lame > bands. "Les Fleurs de Lys" and "Oregon Lanes" are two of my > favorite songs in ages. Being from the South jangle just flows through my blood I suppose, but I agree with your point of the jangle overload of the past few years. There is so much generic stuff out there that it makes it all the more refreshing when you run across a band like this that does it so well and at the same time have their own sound. "Les Fleurs de Lys" is a personal fave here too. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:12:35 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Old Fogey's Home Miles, being articulate: >>Especially during the last couple of years, and especially when hearing the >>Strokes, Hives, Vines, BRMC, etc. (i.e., stuff I fully *expected* to like, the stuff >>I'd been hoping would happen during the Mope Rock Era of the late '90s), >>and thinking "why do I need this when I have Stooges albums already?" Me, less so: Um, yeah. That's it. And as someone who likes Pet Sounds (more than you, at least), some of my problems with the orch/soft explosion was less "it sucks" (which much of it sure does) than a similar kind of "I already have Pet Sounds" equation. You had your anti-epiphany right before the ascendance of Pavement, GBV etc., right? I made it through that with pleasure that the explosion of commercial alternative rock didn't turn *everything* into Alice in Chains, and that "underground" music survived and thrived. It was fucking "emo" (still mystified by what that is) and equally fucking Elephant 6 that killed it for me. E6 took off just as my niece and nephew became obsessed with Pokemon, and I kept thinking, "Yo, this is the same thing as is happening to the kind of music I used to like and all the people who used to like it along with me... suddenly it's all 'Gotta Catch 'Em All', right down to the brand name". Coincidence? >>Also, Rex, check back in with me in a few years on your "she's too young" >>reaction to the 18 to 22 set. When I was your age, like, way back in the late '90s, >>I used to think that too. ;-) Will do. But don't forget that I have two young daughters, though... can't really fathom an increasing interest in chicks not too far away from being potential guests at their sleepovers. - -Rex, playing the parent card in his bid for fogey supremacy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:04:19 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Krauty Ketchup Poofs and Other Delights Jeffrey: >>Ick - thankfully, I've never heard anyone call Stew "the black Bacharach" >>(anyway, he's more influenced by Jimmy Webb, I think). That's just...stoopid. Yes, it is. I've seen it many, many times, but that may be because I live in LA and the local press writes more about Stew and the Negro Problem than you'd see elsewhere. And, clearly, they do it poorly, and just crib from each other's pieces. They don't even say "influenced by Bacharach", they just make the direct comparison, ignoring the fact that the parallels between the two, even accepting some influence in compositional style, are next to nil. Viva rock journalism! Anyhoo, I have the same problem with metal that you do, so I can relate that back to Miles' anti-vibes'n'banjo* stance. There's a minor distinction, though, in that metal comes with a songwriting ethic that's pretty far from what Miles would like, while most of the twee-orch-chamber-soft stuff isn't by definition that different from the literate pop tradition that he usually does like. At least not compared to Sepultura or something. The crux of his complaint is probably this: >>most practitioners don't use it as a flavor -- rather, they want their own PET >>SOUNDS ...which does track, especially when it's a mid-career move (cf. Cap'n Stipey's Ketchup Puffs, the first box of which I enjoyed, but it had a krautrock flavored marshmallows and a spoonful of Eno to make the medicine go down... and yes, even extended metaphors can get over-, perhaps even hyper-extended, and yes, that is my job, and yes, I accept PayPal). - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:52:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tim Walters" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Krauty Ketchup Poofs and Other Delights Doesn't Stew himself use the term "Blackarach" in the notes to GUEST HOST? Or am I confused again? - -- SHALMANESER Artifically unintelligent twitching disco brain http://www.doubtfulpalace.com/artists/Shalmaneser ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:52:20 -0700 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Krauty Ketchup Poofs and Other Delights Tim Walters: > Doesn't Stew himself use the term "Blackarach" in the notes to GUEST HOST? Yes. "Sweet sweet Blackarach's badass songs". I've never heard Stew referred to as the black Bacharach, and thought that term had something to do with Isaac Hayes, the *first* "black Bacharach". - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:13:44 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Krauty Ketchup Poofs and Other Delights Quoting Steve Holtebeck : > Tim Walters: > > Doesn't Stew himself use the term "Blackarach" in the notes to GUEST > HOST? > > Yes. "Sweet sweet Blackarach's badass songs". I've never heard Stew > referred to as the black Bacharach, and thought that term had something > to do with Isaac Hayes, the *first* "black Bacharach". It's also possible that, having been referred to as the "Black Bacharach" several times, he was taking the idea back from those critics, or messing with it. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "am I being self-referential?" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:29:24 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Don't respond, glenn can tell Quoting "G. Andrew Hamlin" : > "The reason Garth Brooks and Shania Twain have sold roughly 120 million > more albums than Bob Dylan and Liz Phair is not because record buyers > are > all a bunch of blithering idiots. Garth and Shania are simply better at > expressing the human condition. They're less talented, but they > understand > more people." > > --Chuck Klosterman, from SEX, DRUGS, AND COCOA PUFFS What's the context for this quote? Because really: does Klosterman actdually believe most people buy records because the records "express the human condition"? Garth and Shania sell more records because the things the say and the sounds they make are what people want to hear (and okay, "what they want to hear" might be part "the human condition," but probably only the part that says "don't tell me anything that makes me think or question." Bob and Liz are pretty unwilling to let their listeners be unthoughtful.) But I suppose knowing that - or just unthoughtfully expressing that - *does* mean they "understand more people." But somehow, I don't think it much enters into Garth's or Shania's calculations. 'Course, there *is* that "Chris Gaines" thing to be dealt with...clearly, Garth was expressing his profound understanding of what people wanted with that album... Jeff Ceci n'est pas une .sig ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 19:59:33 -0400 From: "Paul King" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Quiet is the New Old / Drunk is the Old Loud / etc. Sorry, this was sent off-list to Miles personal email by mistake :-) And thanks for the response, Miles... To serve as an advance warning to you other loud fans, I am going to actually say nice things about Burt Bacharach and Hal David. If you find that you simply can't tolerate someone saying nice things about these guys without your feeling the heebeegeebees, ignore this post now. This is your last warning. :-) > > At 01:48 PM 9/30/2003 -0700, Rex.Broome wrote: > > >Miles: > > >>>But Andy, yes, I despise Burt's music, and have a very low tolerance for > > >>>whatever the hell you want to call it (soft pop, lounge, > > >quiet-is-the-new-loud, > > >>>orch pop, etc.). > > > > > >All understandable, but does the style always invalidate the songs? (It's > > >okay if it does, or if you just think the songs suck on their own). > > > > I dislike the style so intensely that it's difficult for me to make that kind > > of separation. For what it's worth, I hate many of Burt's individual songs > > too. I'd even forgotten that he wrote "Heartlight" until I was nosing around > > his discography today, so I hadn't even been holding that one against him! > > > In defense of Burt's music, well, yeah there's a lot of garbage in it (I agree about Heartlight), but having at one time owned a copy of a book of Burt Bacharach/Hal David sheet music (how I first learned guitar), I can vouch for looking at some interesting arrangements. For a specific example, the song "Promises, Promises" comes to mind. The vocal and musical timings change often (almost with every downbeat), giving the song a very "punchy" feel. I would still consider it pretty challenging for an experienced musician to render on piano or guitar, let alone sing (which Dionne Warwick did effortlessly). Looking at the sheet music, I find it hard to accuse Burt and Hal of being formulaic in this song. It shows that originality and musically challenging compositions can occur in any genre, even in melodramatic "lounge lizard" tunes like "Promises, Promises". ========================================================= Paul King http://www3.sympatico.ca/pking123/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:11:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Don't respond, glenn can tell > What's the context for this quote? Because really: does Klosterman > actually believe most people buy records because the records "express > the human condition"? Garth and Shania sell more records because the > things the say and the sounds they make are what people want to hear > (and okay, "what they want to hear" might be part "the human condition," > but probably only the part that says "don't tell me anything that makes > me think or question." Bob and Liz are pretty unwilling to let their > listeners be unthoughtful.) But I suppose knowing that - or just > unthoughtfully expressing that - *does* mean they "understand more > people." I don't have the book yet, so I can't tell you about context. Lacking the book, I don't have much too say except I *used* to think that there was probably no such thing as a populist, strict-causality rock critic. Gene Simmons is certainly such a person, and he'll hold forth for anyone with a tape recorder, but I don't consider him a rock critic. Obviously I was wrong, Andy Sept. 30, 2003 | Sometimes it's easy to forget that rock 'n' roll used to actually piss people off. Which is why it's nice to be reminded that in some remote corners of the world -- the Walter Reade Theater at New York's Lincoln Center, to be exact -- it still has the power to annoy them mightily. At first, the audience at Monday afternoon's New York Film Festival press screening of "The Kids Are Alright," Jeff Stein's 1979 scrapbook tribute to the Who (and one of the greatest rock 'n' roll documentaries ever made), seemed not only merely half-awake, but half-alive -- never mind that the soundtrack, which has been painstakingly buffed to new levels of majesty, was ringing out gloriously through the theater. It wasn't long before a surprisingly large handful of people, including two blue-haired patronesses of the arts in the row behind me, roused themselves from their cocoons of shock and dismay and left the theater altogether. Plenty of people stayed, which meant they were lucky enough to take the full measure of this beautifully restored version of the picture, which is being shown as part of the New York Film Festival later this week and which is also available on DVD as of today. But the ones who didn't stick around left me pondering a nagging question: Who walks out on the Who? Worse yet, as the credits rolled, a distinct Bronx cheer arose from the front of the theater. Who boos the Who? Particularly at a festival screening when the director is present in the theater, as Stein was? I'm admittedly biased: I sometimes forget that I live in a world in which not all breathing, sentient human beings adore the Who. But then, that's their problem, not mine. And it's certainly not Stein's. In the mid-1970s Stein, a young Who fan who had put out a book of photographs of the band's 1971 tour, began pestering the band, asking lead guitarist and chief songwriter Pete Townshend if he could make a documentary about them. In an apparent attempt to get the pesky kid off his back, Townshend told Stein that if he could raise the money, the band would allow him to make the film. Somehow, Stein pulled the financing together. And when he showed the band a 17-minute promo reel of some old Who footage he'd collected, they seemed to like it even more than he'd hoped. "There was a lot of screaming and carrying on and damaging the screening room," Stein said in the press conference following the screening. "I thought, 'This works.'" Stein's movie seems to frustrate some people, even quite a few Who fans. A collection of old television footage from the band's early days, clips from interviews with the band and live performance footage (including from one spectacular live performance shot by Stein), "The Kids Are Alright" sometimes feels unshaped and wild. It may be informal, but it's not formless. Rock documentaries tend to cut their subjects down to size; "The Kids Are Alright" asserts that its subject can't be contained. "Back then, I just didn't think there'd be another band like the Who," Stein said. He wanted to memorialize them, to piece together what he calls a "keepsake." "I definitely think you can feel their power to this day," he said. Rock 'n' roll belongs to everyone today. It's used to sell everything from cars to fast food to cheap, ugly clothing; there's nothing shocking or revolutionary about it. And yet, what does it mean when the sound of the Who, soaring through a theater at a decibel level that's (almost) as high as it was meant to and ought to be heard, still has the power to send the squares packing? The Who belong to everybody -- a smaller group than you might have imagined. - --Stephanie Zacharek, from http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2003/09/30/who/?ref=http://images.salon.com/src/ads/care2/care2_3.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:14:17 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Quiet is the New Old / Drunk is the Old Loud / etc. Since this thread seems to be something about Burt Bacharach, I'll note the recent release of the ludicrously comprehensive book "Burt Bacharach: Song By Song" (Schirmer Trade), a madly obsessive history of Bacharach that's written by Serene Dominic...who, incidentally, is both a fine songwriter and great rock critic. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #287 *******************************