From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #289 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 Saturday, October 4 2003 Volume 03 : Number 289 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Conjugatin' in the Rain ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: [loud-fans] Conjugatin' in the Rain [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Conjugatin' in the Rain Joe: >>As slight as it seemed on release, WELCOME BLACK has been growing on >>me of late. It's not as good as PMS or GUEST HOST, but it's actually pretty >>good. I see it as a good old fashioned 2-side LP, with a very strong Side 1 and mostly misfires on Side 2 (although it finishes well). Miles: >>And is Stew *plurally* known as something different than "Stew"? I've never >>pondered a plural form of "Stew" before, but it could be exactly the same as >>the singular, like "moose" or "sheep." Collectively a whole lot of homogeneous stew would be "stew", but the International House of Stew's menu might feature a wide array of "stews" from which to choose. The antecedent-challenged review guy was actually quoting a couplet from the record, but it's one of those things that tracks in a pop song, and serves less well as the introduction to a piece of journalism. Andy: >>And since nobody's lamented the passings of Stanley Fafara or Donald >>O'Connor onlist yet, I will now here do so. The wife and I fired up our DVD of "Singin' in the Rain" on Sunday. (There's already a more deluxe edition in existence already, but ours has a damned fine Technicolor transfer anyhow. Our 2 1/2 year old got some giggles out of O'Connor's "Make 'Em Laugh" routine. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:59:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Conjugatin' in the Rain > The wife and I fired up our DVD of "Singin' in the Rain" on Sunday. > (There's already a more deluxe edition in existence already, but ours > has a damned fine Technicolor transfer anyhow. Our 2 1/2 year old got > some giggles out of O'Connor's "Make 'Em Laugh" routine. One of the the finest sequences in what many consider the finest film musical ever (though I've still got my soft spot for THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, and never did see PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE). Hard to believe the studio wanted Oscar Levant for the part. So Miles busts right out with the "New Zoo Revue" theme, but didn't know who Dan Savage was until I told him? This old world just *keeps* getting stranger, Andy On page 193 of your book you write that from around 1963 "Music increased in popularity - just as, in the nineties, it grew less so, giving way to other leisure activities." I have a couple of questions about this. First, it seems to me that the current trend in music magazines is to dramatically increase the number of record reviews per issue (with its logical consequence of the "star rating" system becoming even more widespread than before). In my opinion, this supposed remedy only makes matters worse. What's your opinion about this? It's the standard wisdom of the publishing industry that more reviews means better coverage. One of the magazines I work for recently decreased the average word-length of reviews in order to get more in. Obviously this means that the quality of comment suffers. So, yes, I agree that this makes matters worse. Second. You write of "Music papers which, in the nineties, found themselves desperately chasing readers..." (p.193). I have this quote by Jim DeRogatis (writing about the brand-new collection of writings by Lester Bangs): "If much of rock 'n' roll is ephemeral - it's here today and gone tomorrow - what does that say about rock writing?" What's your take on this when it comes to the press - and to the increasingly common "consumer guides" (however disguised) that appear on the Internet? I've not seen any Internet consumer guides, so I can't comment on that. As for whether the majority of rock'n'roll is ephemeral, and therefore much of the writing about it is the same, I'd say that was self-evident. Very little in the industry lasts long, especially these days. Whether the writing about it survives will depend on the quality of the writers - although it obviously helps if the music is worth writing about in the first place. I have to say that, in an age of post-modernism and ever-increasing relativism, reading what you write (on p.196): "(...) and something which is still taboo to recognize: a decline in the quality of popular music per se." (...) "The latter fact (...) has also been rejected by many young pundits in what remains of the pop music press for a less cynical version of the same motive: a wish to avoid conceding that the pop music of their time is inferior of that of earlier periods." is quite shocking. What's your opinion of those who vehemently deny this and who, though being in their sixties - say, Robert Christgau - praise to the skies people like Eminem and Pink? I've read very little of Christgau and didn't find that I agreed with much of it, although that's mainly a question of varying tastes. Those who vehemently deny that pop music has declined ignore, in my view, the various objective measures by which music may be judged which I discuss in the "Note to Chronology" in Revolution In The Head. This is their prerogative but it doesn't give me much confidence in their ability to distinguish between good and bad music. Jazz and classical music have both declined drastically over the last thirty years and there would be few commentators in those fields who would not agree with this. Why, then, not in the pop/rock field? You write: "Ears today are less sensitive than they used to be. This is partly a consequence of the social transition (...) from a listening culture to a visual one." (p.207). "Standards have declined (...)" (p.209). This reminded me of some things that Chris Cutler said in an essay he wrote for the ReR Quarterly, when he compared this to the fact that people were once able to evaluate craft - to tell a well-crafted chair from a shoddily-built one (I'm quoting from memory). But this is a line of reasoning that quite often is defined as being "elitist" - just as your attitude about sequencing. Would you mind elaborating on this? Well, sequencing is a technical process with obvious downsides, which I outline in my book. As for distinguishing between what's well-crafted and shoddily built, I'd agree with Chris Cutler. I'm very struck by how many of the new groups one sees hailed these days cannot construct a coherent piece of music, let alone write a decent song. This is, I take it, largely because people copy what's immediately to hand in order to learn their craft and over generations the standards of musicality have degenerated year by year. Many modern groups obviously THINK they're working in the same ways as their forebears from decades earlier, but they're sadly mistaken. Recently, writing a propos of the prevailing attitude towards the new Liz Phair CD, Gina Arnold has said: "It highlights the failure of rock criticism to move beyond the whole lo-fi/highbrow paradigm, whereby good music sounds bad, and vice versa." Do you think this phenomenon really exists? I've heard plenty of lo-fi products which have, in my view, undeservedly received high praise merely because their relative simplicity and roughness makes them sound in some way "authentic". If this, as Gina Arnold suggests, has led to a paradigm of the sort she outlines, I can well believe it. Some of your analysis on modern society (on p.208 you use the expression "the individualization of society") reminded me of sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. Are you familiar with his work? And: are there any sociologists whose work you regard as having been inspirational for you? No, I've read no sociology. My ideas along those lines are strictly my own. At some point (on p.207) you use the expression "So bad that they are good". This immediately reminded of a scene in the movie Ghost World. Talking about the whole "irony/nostalgia" phenom: Have you seen this movie? What did you think of it? Sorry, I've not seen this movie. Is there anything you'd like to add? Merely that one should not be surprised that a phenomenon, such as pop music, has declined over time. It's by and large a very simple musical genre and its possibilities are necessarily limited. It's more surprising that there continue to be, in isolated instances, pieces of pop/rock music which stand up to the standards of scrutiny of earlier eras, even if they don't rank very highly in the wider scheme of things. It's inevitable that people will go on enjoying music for the foreseeable future, despite its objective decline. If one has nothing excellent by which to compare something of lower value, one won't notice that one is being short-changed. This being so, pop/rock music will continue to thrive after a fashion and new generations of listeners will continue to enjoy it. It's just a shame that what's listened to now is of such a low standard compared to that of the Sixties and Seventies. - --Ian MacDonald, from an interview by Beppe Colli at http://www.cloudsandclocks.net/interviews/IMacDonald_interview.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:19:06 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Conjugatin' in the Rain At 09:59 AM 10/3/2003 -0700, G. Andrew Hamlin wrote: >> The wife and I fired up our DVD of "Singin' in the Rain" on Sunday. >> (There's already a more deluxe edition in existence already, but ours >> has a damned fine Technicolor transfer anyhow. Our 2 1/2 year old got >> some giggles out of O'Connor's "Make 'Em Laugh" routine. > >One of the the finest sequences in what many consider the finest film >musical ever (though I've still got my soft spot for THE ROCKY HORROR >PICTURE SHOW, and never did see PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE). Hard to believe >the studio wanted Oscar Levant for the part. But while we're talking Gene Kelly musicals, Mr. Levant shines in *my* pick for best musical ever (admittedly I like very, very few of them), AN AMERICAN IN PARIS. >So Miles busts right out with the "New Zoo Revue" theme, but didn't know >who Dan Savage was until I told him? While I remember you telling me who Dan Savage is (and still have no idea why I should have known him beforehand), what on earth are you talking about now? It was Rex who came up with the subject line to which I think you're referring. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:38:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Conjugatin' in the Rain > But while we're talking Gene Kelly musicals, Mr. Levant shines in *my* > pick for best musical ever (admittedly I like very, very few of them), > AN AMERICAN IN PARIS. Have to check that one out. I loved Oscar in THE COBWEB. > While I remember you telling me who Dan Savage is (and still have no > idea why I should have known him beforehand), what on earth are you > talking about now? It was Rex who came up with the subject line to > which I think you're referring. Whoops, right you are! Hey Rex, were you a Freddie, Charlie, or Henrietta man? Long as I'm here Miles, one more record to add to your list: BOY by Boy. Could he have picked a more generic monicker or album title? I still can't pull it out of most search engines, and had to have Jer help me get the thing. Boy's real name is Stephen Noel Kozmeniuk. He grew up in Whitehorse, the largest city (relatively) in Canada's Yukon Territories. He told one interviewer he listened to his father's large record collection exhaustively--Rod Stewart, Eric Clapton, Beatles, Stones, and lots of blues. His self-titled, mostly self-played-and-wroten record sounds not particularly like any of these, though. My friend Henry compared it favorably to Scott McCaughey. Details here: www.speedboatracer.net Agent Red is a Vietnam vet, Andy Course Description A staple of nerd subculture for almost three decades, fantasy role-playing games have taken on new life in the era of networked computing. High-speed connections, sophisticated graphics and powerful microprocessors have paved the way for massively multiplayer on-line role-playing games (MMORPGs) such as Everquest, Anarchy Online, and Asherons Call. The popularity of these on-line environments is staggering. At this very moment, more than 90,000 players are interacting with one another in Norrath -- the fictional world of Everquest. According to one recent study, this virtual world is the 77th richest nation on the planet with a per-capita GNP that outstrips China and India (Castranova, 2002). It may seem far-fetched to apply economic indicators to an abstract game-world. However, a growing number of theorists are using social science research methods to investigate MMORPGs (Turkle, 1995; Yee, 2002; Schaap, 2002; Griffiths, 2003). Such theorists believe that these cultural objects raise important questions about identity, community, and the influence of technology in our daily lives. In this course, we will conduct an ethnographic study of the behaviors, cultural practices, and motivations of MMORPG players. The course packet will include readings that explore role-playing games, virtual community, and the construction of identity on-line. Extensive attention will also be given to methods for conducting research on-line. Course Requirements In lieu of a textbook, you are expected to purchase a copy of the Everquest Trilogy software (approximately $20 retail). You must also commit to a three-month subscription at the rate of $12.95 per month. Since the first month is free, the total expenditure for computer supplies is approximately $46. A significant amount of class time will be spent in the virtual world, but you are also expected to conduct on-line research outside of class. In order to install the software on your home system, it must meet the basic requirements listed below. Feel free to contact the instructor (redwood@u.washington.edu) if you have questions about how to diagnose your home computers capabilities.  Windows. 98/2000/ME/XP  Pentium. II 400Mhz or greater  256 MB RAM  16 MB Direct3D compliant video card  DirectX 8.0 compatible sound card  28.8k (or faster) Internet connection  4X speed CD-ROM  450 MB+ hard drive space There will also be a reader:  Communication 480: Ethnography of role-playing games The course reader is available at Rams Copy Center, which is located at 4144 University Avenue. - --http://faculty.washington.edu/redwood/com480/ > > later, > > Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:46:23 -0700 From: "Michael Zwirn" Subject: [loud-fans] signing off for a bit I am heading to Russia for two weeks, so I'll be back for chats and discussions around the 18th or so. Talk to you all then! Michael - ------ Michael Zwirn, michael@zwirn.com http://zwirn.com (t) 503-232-8919 (c) 503-887-9800 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:08:55 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Conjugatin' in the Rain Quoting Miles Goosens : > While I remember you telling me who Dan Savage is (and still have > no idea why I should have known him beforehand) a. Dan Savage's column appears in The Onion b. Everyone on the entire planet reads The Onion ::Miles should have heard of Dan Savage. ..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: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:40:17 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Peculiar moments in popular culture history; or: Huh? On another list, the current week's top 20 singles was posted. Among other things, this peculiar phrasing was noted: - ----- Forwarded message > 8 Into You, Fabolous Featuring Tamia Or Ashanti > 12 Why Don't You & I, Santana Featuring Alex Band Or Chad Kroeger - ----- End forwarded message ----- "Or"?!? What, is it like that Led Zeppelin album that came in five different covers, and you never know which "featured" artist you're going to get? (And why are singles like movies these days, with "casts" of stars roped in like guests on Conan?) Does anyone know what this "or" actually means? Dizzily Uncertain Milwaukee Boy, ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: As long as I don't sleep, he decided, I won't shave. :: That must mean...as soon as I fall asleep, I'll start shaving! :: --Thomas Pynchon, _Vineland_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:44:26 -0700 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Peculiar moments in popular culture history; or: Huh? Jeff: > On another list, the current week's top 20 singles was posted. > Among other things, this peculiar phrasing was noted: > > 8 Into You, Fabolous Featuring Tamia Or Ashanti > > 12 Why Don't You & I, Santana Featuring Alex Band Or Chad Kroeger I think these are both two different versions of the same song, but if this is the list of top singles: either version A or version B should be considered "the single". In the Santana song, one guy (the guy from Nickelback -- Chad Kroeger) sings on the album, and someone else (Alex Band) sings on the single. Something to do with silly record company politics (we don't want OUR people publicizing YOUR album!) I don't know the story with the Fabolous track, but I did find a link to this pitchfork review by former(?) loud-lister Dave Raposa. http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/wearetheworld/singles/f/fabolous-sointoyou.shtml Anyway if Tamia and Alex Band sing on the singles, then the singles feature them, but "Santana Featuring Alex Band" sounds funny. Who the hell is Alex Band anyway? (rhetorical question -- he's the lead singer from the Calling -- but who are they?). And how many people have sung on "Santana" songs over the years? It must be over 100 singers by now! Sounds of the guitar, played by Carlos Santana, FEATURING - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:55:59 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Conjugatin' in the Rain At 04:08 PM 10/3/2003 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Quoting Miles Goosens : > >> While I remember you telling me who Dan Savage is (and still have >> no idea why I should have known him beforehand) > >a. Dan Savage's column appears in The Onion >b. Everyone on the entire planet reads The Onion >::Miles should have heard of Dan Savage. Ah. I read THE ONION semi-regularly, but really and truly had never noticed his column, and in fact never read the columns unless someone directs me specifically to them. In fact, I think Andy's explanation to me of "who is Dan Savage?" was a link to a column of his in THE STRANGER (the Seattle weekly, not the Camus novel), so up until now I was wondering why I should have been expected to know someone who wrote for a local weekly three-quarters of a continent away. I do know who Dan-Jumbo is, though. Surprisingly, the answer is neither "porn star" or "Kipling character." later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:26:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Conjugatin' in the Rain > Ah. I read THE ONION semi-regularly, but really and truly had never > noticed his column, and in fact never read the columns unless someone > directs me specifically to them. In fact, I think Andy's explanation to > me of "who is Dan Savage?" was a link to a column of his in THE STRANGER > (the Seattle weekly, not the Camus novel), so up until now I was > wondering why I should have been expected to know someone who wrote for > a local weekly three-quarters of a continent away. Welllllll...so long as we're on the subject, the national best-sellers might have given you a clue: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525946756/qid=1065236940/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-8200768-8332632 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0452281768/qid=1065236940/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-8200768-8332632 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0452278155/qid=1065236940/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/103-8200768-8332632 In all honesty though, I'm in no shape to lord it. I *just* found out Ben Stein is a Rush Limbaugh booster. And I thought the pretty girls manning the LaRouche table on the Ave were depressing. But I never read the Onion ("like my brother did and my mother did and my sister did, and my daddy died young/poring over Max-im...") Andy Where Were You in '52? Hope I'm not jinxing anything by calling this to your attention so early on, but Tom Ewing (UK) and Michael Daddino (U.S.) have taken on the Herculean task of reviewing and rating every #1 single on their respective country's pop charts, from November 1952 (Tom) and January 1950 (Michael) until...well, conceivably forever (I'm not sure why they chose those starting dates). This is a project I intend to follow, especially as they assess the various eras, phases, and one-shots that have meant something to me over the years (on the American side, for instance, I have a peculiar fondness for 1961, which is maybe my favourite pre-Beatles--and pre-birth--pop year, though it's not like I've done a very close study in the #1s of the period). Anyway, this is a terrific idea, and it's off to a great start. Good luck to both of them. Tom Ewing's Popular: http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/popular.html Michael Daddino's American Hot Wax: http://www.epicharmus.com/loatd.htm 2:20 PM - --from http://www.rockcriticsdaily.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:06:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: [loud-fans] I'm a movie star! (sort of) THE DREAM-QUEST OF UNKNOWN KADATH, an animated feature for which I provided six character voices, totalling perhaps three minutes of "screen time," premieres weekend after this one, at the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival in Portland, Oregon. It's the feature directorial debut of Edward Martin III, a dear friend. I'll be down for the festivities on the evening of Saturday, October 11th, and am hoping to see the one Portland-area Loudfan I know of, and maybe even some I don't. The film's website is here: http://petting-zoo.org/Movies_Dreamquest.html and the festival's website is here: http://www.hplfilmfestival.com/homeflash.htm Order your copy today! Andy "The problem of space is the problem of time." - --Ira Einhorn ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #289 *******************************