From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #340 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, November 22 2003 Volume 03 : Number 340 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Back to God [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] Questions for the Very Old Among Us [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Je] Re: [loud-fans] Questions for the Very Old Among Us [Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... I see that Outkast are in the top 5 with essentially 2 sides of a double-sided single, which is pretty cool (and fairly uncommon these days, I believe) -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:34:55 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Toren Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Back to God Ball of Fire Tommy James and the Shondells And now the towers are fallin Tumblin down, tumblin down Oh, cant you hear the angels callin Oh, yeah, listen Mmmshinin through eternity As it was, so it shall be, yeah And the ball of fire in the sky, yeah Keeps watching over you and I, way up high, yeah Doesn't actually use the G word Great song Not as great as Mirage Robert ===== http://www.angrylambie.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:07:02 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Back to God Quoting Robert Toren : > Not as great as Mirage [Tommy James & the Shondells] That song kind of freaks me out: next time you listen to it, pretend you put on the first Cars album instead. I don't know if Ric Ocasek knew this song, but it's all there: that muted chuk-chuk rhythm guitar, the semi-robotic keyboard arpeggio backdrop, the faux handclap percussion - and that part leading into the chorus ("I see you coming into view") sounds like a lost track from _Candy-O_. ..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, 21 Nov 2003 08:10:59 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... Quoting dc : > on 11/20/03 10:20 AM, Phil Fleming at spin_jen@yahoo.com wrote: > > > After 5 months, Liz Phair cracks the top 40! > > > > http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/hot100.jsp > > you read that list, you have to believe she'd be doing better if she > changed her name to "Featuring Liz Phair" Even better if it were "Featuring Liz Phair or Beyonce Knowles." And that's not even a lie, technically..."or" wouldn't have to include Knowles, only the possibility... ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: I suspect that the first dictator of this country :: will be called "Coach" :: --William Gass ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:59:01 -0500 From: "David Seldin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... ...and "Hey Ya" has got to be the best thing I've heard, that's actually been on the charts, in a long, long time. I love Outkast! David - ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Dave Walker Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:13:20 -0500 >I see that Outkast are in the top 5 with essentially 2 sides of a >double-sided >single, which is pretty cool (and fairly uncommon these days, I believe) > > -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:54:44 -0800 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... Dave Walker wrote: > I see that Outkast are in the top 5 with essentially 2 sides of a > double-sided single, which is pretty cool (and fairly uncommon these > days, I believe) Mostly because it's uncommon for bands to release any singles at all. Even though FoW and Liz Phair have songs on the Billboard charts, I don't think it's possible to go to any store (besides the iTunes virtual music store) and buy "Stacy's Mom" or "Why Can't I" as a US domestic single. It looks like "Hey Ya!" is at both #3 AND #4 in the iTunes Top 10.. http://www.apple.com/itunes/ b.s.: > who's planning on seeing fellow list-pariah Fountains of Wayne at what > promises to be a complete zoo of a free show tomorrow night Even though they do have their fair share of loud-fan detractors here, I don't think Fountains of Wayne qualify as a list-pariah. I still like them! Free would be the only way I'd ever see them live again though. - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:23:15 -0500 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... At 08:54 AM 11/21/2003 -0800, Steve Holtebeck wrote: >Dave Walker wrote: >> I see that Outkast are in the top 5 with essentially 2 sides of a >> double-sided single, which is pretty cool (and fairly uncommon these >> days, I believe) > >Mostly because it's uncommon for bands to release any singles at all. >Even though FoW and Liz Phair have songs on the Billboard charts, I >don't think it's possible to go to any store (besides the iTunes virtual >music store) and buy "Stacy's Mom" or "Why Can't I" as a US domestic >single. Interestingly, in a story in the current Boston Phoenix on the new DVD release of Sun Ra's SPACE IS THE PLACE, it's claimed that for one week last December, Yo La Tengo were at #10 in the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart with the NUCLEAR WAR EP: because it was an EP with four mixes of the same song, it was counted as a single instead of an album, and there are so few singles sales anymore that this EP's sales were strong enough to place it in the Top 10! I would have to see the actual chart before I believe this, but the idea of Sun Ra having a top 10 hit is wildly amusing to me. S ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:30:09 -0600 From: cj Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... The "clean" version is #3 and the "explicit" version is #4... On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 10:54 AM, Steve Holtebeck wrote: > It looks like "Hey Ya!" is at both #3 AND #4 in the iTunes Top 10.. > http://www.apple.com/itunes/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:48:01 -0700 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... cj on 11/21/2003 10:30:09 AM wrote: > The "clean" version is #3 and the "explicit" version is #4... > > On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 10:54 AM, Steve Holtebeck wrote: > > It looks like "Hey Ya!" is at both #3 AND #4 in the iTunes Top 10.. > > http://www.apple.com/itunes/ #@$%&! I downloaded the wrong one! Latre. --Rog (trying to find time to tell you all about my DVD-A/SACD experiences...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:08:59 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, David Seldin wrote: > ...and "Hey Ya" has got to be the best thing I've heard, that's > actually been on the charts, in a long, long time. I love Outkast! Amen to that! The keyboard hook in the chorus is great, and the SNL performance was exciting. (Even better was the next week, when the cast parodied it & the female cast members were all done up in riding outfits - purrrr!) What's the difference between the clean & "explicit" versions? One word? Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:16:57 -0500 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... At 10:08 AM 11/21/2003 -0800, Joseph M. Mallon wrote: >On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, David Seldin wrote: > >> ...and "Hey Ya" has got to be the best thing I've heard, that's >> actually been on the charts, in a long, long time. I love Outkast! > >What's the difference between the clean & "explicit" versions? One word? Assuming that the "clean" version is the one that they're playing on MTV Hits every 20 minutes, yeah. Or rather one word and a Mark E. Smith homage tacked on to make the line scan. Waiting for the "clean" versions of "Spread" and "Roses." S ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:22:51 -0800 From: Elizabeth Brion Subject: [loud-fans] Jack Johnson and Sun Ra: Together At Last In the giant chunk of week-old mail that hit my inbox this morning, Brianna asked re Jack Johnson: >> anyone know anything about this guy? He's huge where I live. One of my favorite musical conversations ever: Me, at work: We're really selling a lot of this guy's record; what does he sound like? Random JJ fan: He's ... like a poet, but with words. Ahem. Anyway, I have in fact since heard a bit of his stuff; Dave Matthews fans love the dude, and I can kind of see the musical connection, but he doesn't annoy me nearly as much as DM. Which isn't actually a ringing endorsement, is it? Stewart said: >> I would have to see the actual chart before I believe this, but the idea of Sun Ra having a top 10 hit is wildly amusing to me.<< Especially since when he wrote "Nuclear War," he was absolutely convinced he'd just written a top ten hit and presented it to pretty much every label in existence as such. Sadly, none of them seemed to share his enthusiasm. I thought I'd hate the Yo La Tengo EP because - well, I don't hold that many unshakable beliefs, but the belief that if you have managed to write a song whose narrative ends with the line, "What you gonna do without your ass?", you should always get to sing that song yourself, is one of them. But I finally got it from eMusic because - why not? and it turns out I really like it. Ra's original version is also available on eMusic, by the way, if you haven't heard it. Elizabeth, planning a family Thanksgiving in Palo Alto for a change and trying to recall and list every single thing I've ever wanted to do in that end of the state ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:31:39 -0800 From: "me" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Jack Johnson and Sun Ra: Together At Last reagrding Sun Ra: > Especially since when he wrote "Nuclear War," he was absolutely > convinced he'd just written a top ten hit and presented it to pretty > much every label in existence as such. Sun Ra was absolutely convinced of a number of things... like being from Saturn... but i love his music. i wonder if the high-ranking one was Pink Elephant Parade? that would almost make sense. of course, i missed the original e-mail, so i'm kinda talking out of my ass. so i guess that's your answer to "What you gonna do without your ass?" - "not talk about what i don't know". brianna - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Brion" To: Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:22 AM Subject: [loud-fans] Jack Johnson and Sun Ra: Together At Last > In the giant chunk of week-old mail that hit my inbox this morning, > Brianna asked re Jack Johnson: > > >> anyone know anything about this guy? > > He's huge where I live. One of my favorite musical conversations ever: > > Me, at work: We're really selling a lot of this guy's record; what does > he sound like? > Random JJ fan: He's ... like a poet, but with words. > > Ahem. Anyway, I have in fact since heard a bit of his stuff; Dave > Matthews fans love the dude, and I can kind of see the musical > connection, but he doesn't annoy me nearly as much as DM. Which isn't > actually a ringing endorsement, is it? > > Stewart said: > > >> I would have to see the actual chart before I believe this, > but the idea of Sun Ra having a top 10 hit is wildly amusing to me.<< > > Especially since when he wrote "Nuclear War," he was absolutely > convinced he'd just written a top ten hit and presented it to pretty > much every label in existence as such. Sadly, none of them seemed to > share his enthusiasm. > > I thought I'd hate the Yo La Tengo EP because - well, I don't hold that > many unshakable beliefs, but the belief that if you have managed to > write a song whose narrative ends with the line, "What you gonna do > without your ass?", you should always get to sing that song yourself, > is one of them. But I finally got it from eMusic because - why not? and > it turns out I really like it. Ra's original version is also available > on eMusic, by the way, if you haven't heard it. > > Elizabeth, planning a family Thanksgiving in Palo Alto for a change and > trying to recall and list every single thing I've ever wanted to do in > that end of the state ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:11 -0800 (PST) From: Loud Fan Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Questions for the Very Old Among Us This is rock & roll. If you want perfection, try opera. Isn't the point that anyone can play rock regardless of how talented they are! I mean, even Scott is not that great a singer, but we all still love his music, right? Henry Gil Ray wrote: Even though I love most of the San Francisco hippie music, I do think that vocal harmonies have never been that great for almost all of these bands. A case could also be made that a lot of the players weren't so hot either. Still love'em, though.. Groovy Kill the pigs God is Acid Gil oh yeah! my favorite god song would have to be The Pusher by Steppenwolf. - --- Aaron Milenski wrote: > > > Am I the only one here who find the Airplane's > harmonies so annoying > > > that their music, good as it is, becomes > unlistenable?? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:04:28 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Questions for the Very Old Among Us >This is rock & roll. If you want perfection, try opera. Isn't the point >that anyone can play rock regardless of how talented they are! I mean, >even Scott is not that great a singer, but we all still love his music, >right? > I dunno...I think we're all entitled to their own tastes. Whether Scott is or isnt' a "great" singer is debatable, I suppose (I think he is), but part of the reason I love his music is because I love his singing. for all I know the Airplane's harmonies are more "correct," but I still don't like them. _________________________________________________________________ Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:37:58 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Questions for the Very Old Among Us On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Loud Fan wrote: > This is rock & roll. If you want perfection, try opera. Isn't the > point that anyone can play rock regardless of how talented they are! I > mean, even Scott is not that great a singer, but we all still love his > music, right? it's not exactly an either/or proposition. and maybe anyone can play it, but if it doesn't have some point of interest, i'm not going to spend much time listening to it. whatever's good about something doesn't have to include virtuosity -- and there are plenty of virtuosos who say not much at all with grace -- but basic competence is kinda a big plus, if not necessarily a deal-breaker in its absence. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:08:12 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Questions for the Very Old Among Us Quoting Loud Fan : > This is rock & roll. If you want perfection, try opera. Isn't the point > that anyone can play rock regardless of how talented they are! I mean, even > Scott is not that great a singer, but we all still love his music, right? Opera singing is no more "perfection" than rock'n'roll singing is; it's just a different style. As to your first question, Doug answered it perfectly. Rock singing *is* more about style, intensity, phrasing, etc., than it is about vocal timbre - in other words, a singer might not have a great voice in any traditional sense but still might be a great singer. And of course, a *distinctive* vocal sound, however far from traditionally accepted notions of good vocal quality, goes a long way in rock. I kinda doubt the guy in Clinic can really sing in any conventional sense, for instance - but I love his *sound*, which to my ears perfectly complements the music. But Gil's point wasn't "they can't sing, so they should shut up," it was more a question of his tastes and preferences. Aaron Milenski accurately noted that a lot of SF bands from that era preferred a rather ragged approach to vocal harmony (many of the harmonies sound improvised, for instance - whether they actually were or not), and if you prefer the hyperreal, supertracked harmonies that Queen used to do, for instance, that's a very different sound. Generally, there was a looseness to the playing of those '60s acts in question that could easily rub some listeners the wrong way. It's not a question of "perfection" or "talent": for one thing, I think in most cases had the bands' aesthetics required it, those folks *could* have tracked their harmonies, played supertight, etc. But the whole improvisational ethos worked against that. This is a good a time as any to point out the huge differences between American and British psychedelia, by the way - one of which I describe above. The Brits were far less loose, and their improvisational journeys felt very different, whether in a more-or-less avant-garde way (early Pink Floyd) or, later, the jazz-influenced approach of the Canterbury school (paging Stewart for more on that stuff). These are generalizations; exceptions will surely be pointed out. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: I suspect that the first dictator of this country :: will be called "Coach" :: --William Gass ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:44:04 -0500 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Questions for the Very Old Among Us At 05:08 PM 11/21/2003 -0600, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >This is a good a time as any to point out the huge differences between American >and British psychedelia, by the way - one of which I describe above. The Brits >were far less loose, and their improvisational journeys felt very different, >whether in a more-or-less avant-garde way (early Pink Floyd) or, later, the >jazz-influenced approach of the Canterbury school (paging Stewart for more on >that stuff). These are generalizations; exceptions will surely be pointed out. No, I think you're right on the money. The key difference I see between British and American psychedelia, musically speaking, is more of a background in trad and modern jazz (UK) than folk and blues (US). Many, if not most, of the US psychedelic bands had strong roots in the collegiate folk and blues revival of the early '60s. As a general rule, the UK folk/blues heads tended to be much more purist than their American counterparts, so when they plugged in and rocked out, they tended to either start blues-rocking (John Mayall and his various disciples, Zep, early Pretty Things, Stones) OR folk-rocking (the Pentangle, the Fairport axis) rather than adopting the put-it-all-together-and-stir ethos of the west coast psych bands. (Of course, the Pretties and the Stones had their psych phases, and the first Fairport album was basically an attempt at a UK Jefferson Airplane, but as you said, exceptions will be pointed out.) This left the groups who let their art school backgrounds do the talking (Floyd, who were a basic blues-rock band in the very beginning -- hence the name, after two old country blues guys -- also had a strong interest in modern classical and experimental music, the Creation, the Move, etc.) and/or had backgrounds heavier in jazz than blues (the Bonzos, who were the most effortlessly psychedelic band of the era, and all the groups who were spawned out of Canterbury's Wilde Flowers, arguably the very first jazz-rock band ever) to create British psychedelia. These bands also tended to share a fondness for the likes of Lear, Carroll, Jerome K. Jerome, A.A. Milne, Kenneth Grahame and other humorists and children's authors, which led to the fascination with childhood and surrealism that's more of a hallmark of UK psych than US, and the production style tended to be much more ornate and elaborate. This could be at least partially due to the incestuousness of the UK psych scene, where most of the records were made at the same three or four studios by the same handful of engineers! S NP: LIFE IS SPLENDID -- Sun Ra (eMusic bargain -- one track, 38 minutes!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:09:11 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... On Nov 21, 2003, at 1:16 PM, Stewart Mason wrote: > Waiting for the "clean" versions of "Spread" and "Roses." I was at a Barnes & Noble's a few weeks ago where they were playing the bowdlerized "The Love Below", and sure enough I heard the "clean" version of "Spread". It was basically an instrumental. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:14:18 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Questions for the Very Old Among Us Nicely put. I would never say that perfection is what I'm looking for in a rock band be it vocal harmonies or playing. Jeez, one look inside of my LP/CD collection would tell you that. That being said, it is nice to be pleasantly surprised when a band can pull off perfection with vocal harmonies, especially in a live performance. One that immediately comes to mind was an in-store at Tower Records with Jellyfish. Damn those boys could sing. Smug as hell, but singin' fools. Gil - --- Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Quoting Loud Fan : > > > This is rock & roll. If you want perfection, try > opera. Isn't the point > > that anyone can play rock regardless of how > talented they are! I mean, even > > Scott is not that great a singer, but we all still > love his music, right? > > Opera singing is no more "perfection" than > rock'n'roll singing is; it's just a > different style. As to your first question, Doug > answered it perfectly. Rock > singing *is* more about style, intensity, phrasing, > etc., than it is about > vocal > timbre - in other words, a singer might not have a > great voice in any > traditional sense but still might be a great singer. > And of course, a > *distinctive* vocal sound, however far from > traditionally accepted notions of > good vocal quality, goes a long way in rock. I kinda > doubt the guy in Clinic > can > really sing in any conventional sense, for instance > - but I love his *sound*, > which to my ears perfectly complements the music. > > But Gil's point wasn't "they can't sing, so they > should shut up," it was more a > question of his tastes and preferences. Aaron > Milenski accurately noted that a > lot of SF bands from that era preferred a rather > ragged approach to vocal > harmony (many of the harmonies sound improvised, for > instance - whether they > actually were or not), and if you prefer the > hyperreal, supertracked harmonies > that Queen used to do, for instance, that's a very > different sound. Generally, > there was a looseness to the playing of those '60s > acts in question that could > easily rub some listeners the wrong way. It's not a > question of "perfection" or > "talent": for one thing, I think in most cases had > the bands' aesthetics > required it, those folks *could* have tracked their > harmonies, played > supertight, etc. But the whole improvisational ethos > worked against that. > > This is a good a time as any to point out the huge > differences between American > and British psychedelia, by the way - one of which I > describe above. The Brits > were far less loose, and their improvisational > journeys felt very different, > whether in a more-or-less avant-garde way (early > Pink Floyd) or, later, the > jazz-influenced approach of the Canterbury school > (paging Stewart for more on > that stuff). These are generalizations; exceptions > will surely be pointed out. > > ..Jeff > > J e f f r e y N o r m a n > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ > :: I suspect that the first dictator of this country > > :: will be called "Coach" > :: --William Gass __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:23:48 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Questions for the Very Old Among Us Quoting Stewart Mason : > folk and blues revival of the early '60s. As a general rule, the UK > folk/blues heads tended to be much more purist than their American > counterparts, so when they plugged in and rocked out, they tended to either > start blues-rocking (John Mayall and his various disciples, Zep, early > Pretty Things, Stones) OR folk-rocking (the Pentangle, the Fairport axis) > rather than adopting the put-it-all-together-and-stir ethos of the west > coast psych bands. (Of course, the Pretties and the Stones had their psych > phases, and the first Fairport album was basically an attempt at a UK > Jefferson Airplane, but as you said, exceptions will be pointed out.) Plus, the Pentangle got pretty jazzy *and* pretty psych... While we're on the subject (sorta), I'm pleased to note that Plasticland, a long-time fave of mine and a few other folks on this list, are playing out again semi-regularly, at least locally (three times in the last year, once a few weeks back and once two weeks from now). No new material...and typically, the first few numbers are a bit rusty...but once they get going, they really get going. I'll spare everyone a lengthy rant against those who imagine that styles of music should be confined to their original era, or that they somehow get exhausted in the same - but thing is, Plasticland always brought a slightly different mix to the table. Obviously, the Pretty Things in the _S.F. Sorrow_ and _Parachute_ phase were the primary influence, but there's a healthy helping of punk (either '60s or late '70s version) sneer in Glenn Rehse's vocals, and when you add in significant portions of garage and even the occasional Motown-inflected groove, well, even though we're still talking nearly nothing after 1969, it adds up a bit differently from bands actually *of* that era. (And see below for lyrical influences - although there, Rehse's subjects were more quotidian and American, even though he approached them in storybook fashion.) Besides which, they're great songs and the band still plays the hell out of 'em, particularly drummer Rob McCuen. Guitarist Dan Mullen looks unfortunately like a high-school quarterback twenty-five years of beer and potato chips on, but he can still play, so who gives a rat's ass? > tended to share a fondness for the likes of Lear, Carroll, Jerome K. > Jerome, A.A. Milne, Kenneth Grahame and other humorists and children's > authors, which led to the fascination with childhood and surrealism that's > more of a hallmark of UK psych than US, and the production style tended to > be much more ornate and elaborate. This could be at least partially due to > the incestuousness of the UK psych scene, where most of the records were > made at the same three or four studios by the same handful of engineers! ..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_ np: Mike Oldfield - live version of _Incantations_ from _Exposed_... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:36:45 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Something finally happened... At Friday 11/21/2003 10:08 AM -0800, Joseph M. Mallon wrote: >Amen to that! The keyboard hook in the chorus is great, and the SNL >performance was exciting. (Even better was the next week, when the cast >parodied it & the female cast members were all done up in riding outfits - >purrrr!) Tina Fey! Tina Fey! Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #340 *******************************