From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #39 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 Tuesday, February 10 2004 Volume 04 : Number 039 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Boobah II ["Fortissimo" ] [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic [Stewart Mason ] Re: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic ["jer fairall" ] Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! ["Chris Murt] Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! [John Swartz] Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! ["Chris Murt] Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! [Wes_Vokes@e] Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic (fwd) [dmw ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:52:59 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Boobah II On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 10:21:13 -0800, "Bradley Skaught" said: > This pretty much sums it up: > > http://www.boohbah.com/zone.html Gwe-hah-wa-huh?!? Did they hire Syd Barrett as a consultant? - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:21:15 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! Chris "Normal" Murtland: >>"Steve Malkmus is the Jimmy Buffet of indie rock," But isn't Jimmy Buffet actually the Jimmy Buffet of indie rock? Okay, you can debate the "rock" thing (although as odd as it is, I think my broad definition of the term *would* encompass his style), but it seems that I've read innumerable articles pointing out that Buffett is the biggest-selling artist not distributed by a major label... hence, the King of Indie... Something, at least. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:57:50 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! (Accidentally sent this elsewhere - single >s is me) On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:21:15 -0800, "Rex.Broome" > said: > > Chris "Normal" Murtland: > > >>"Steve Malkmus is the Jimmy Buffet of indie rock," > > > > But isn't Jimmy Buffet actually the Jimmy Buffet of indie rock? Okay, > > you can debate the "rock" thing (although as odd as it is, I think my > > broad definition of the term *would* encompass his style), but it seems > > that I've read innumerable articles pointing out that Buffett is the > > biggest-selling artist not distributed by a major label... hence, the > > King of Indie... Something, at least. > > Uh...First, if Buffett is the "biggest-selling artist" of anything, that > only proves there is no God. But according to AMG, Buffett released a > passel of albums on MCA - a major label - up to 1999, and since then has > released a series of "live in..." cash-ins to his rabid posse of inane > faux-tropical present and former fratboys and -girls. Doesn't sound very > "indie" to me: he made his career on a major label, and now is milking > it. > > But of course, really, "indie rock" has become a style, not a mere > description - rather like "power pop" is so called even if it's the last > thing but popular (which, of course, it usually is). - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb :: --Batman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:47:13 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Downing Subject: [loud-fans] re: eMusic Aaron wrote: >Lately I've been finding less and less on eMusic that I really feel was >worth the download, though I don't regret my choice to stay and see how >things were after the switchover. While I haven't been surprised by eMusic's recent rash of uninspired acquisitions, I also haven't been having much trouble maxing out my 40-song limit each month. Today, for instance, I noticed that Action Musik is now on board, which adds to the number of Velvet Crush records available for download (along with the expanded reissue of The Ballad of Ric Menck). In terms of budgeting, it would be nice if they could institute a Coming Soon section to let us know what's on the horizon. Is anyone else bewildered by the terrible sound quality on most of the Subway label's recordings they've put up? Is this how they sound on CD? Jeff __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:26:50 -0500 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic At 12:47 PM 2/9/2004 -0800, Jeff Downing wrote: >While I haven't been surprised by eMusic's recent rash of uninspired >acquisitions, I also haven't been having much trouble maxing out my >40-song limit each month. Today, for instance, I noticed that Action >Musik is now on board, which adds to the number of Velvet Crush records >available for download (along with the expanded reissue of The Ballad >of Ric Menck). In terms of budgeting, it would be nice if they could >institute a Coming Soon section to let us know what's on the horizon. Personally, I'm still on the 300 tracks a month deal, and I have no trouble at all using 'em up. (For me, the difference is that even if there were NO new releases I was interested in, there's still the entirety of the Fantasy/Riverside/Prestige and Atavistic catalogues, not to mention Shanachie, Matador, Lookout, Sympathy, Ba Da Bing! and dozens of other labels to catch up on.) Plus it's given me the chance to look into a lot of groups I've always assumed i would like but had never investigated before, like the Autumns, Slumber Party and the Decemberists. As a matter of fact, I've spent this afternoon catching up on some recent downloads, and there's plenty to enjoy there: Zounds -- THE CURSE OF ZOUNDS / Zounds were affiliated with Crass and Poison Girls and the rest of that axis, but while they were as political as the rest of them, they were a lot more musically "normal," more along the lines of like the Ruts or even the Television Personalities. Highly recommended for the post-punkers among us. Wonderlick -- WONDERLICK / A side project from Tim Quirk and Jay Blmenfeld of Too Much Joy that on one listen, I'm pretty sure I like more than any TMJ album. It's a lot more musically varied and *much* less jokey, for one thing. Greg Weeks -- AWAKE LIKE SLEEP / This doesn't sound at all like his set at Terrastock V -- it's more like Michael Penn would sound if Patrick Warren (and his love for Mellotron and vintage synths) was entirely in charge of the music. Tipsy -- UH-OH! / I have no idea where they're from, but I'm strongly reminded of Cornelius and Pizzicato 5: fizzy sample-based instrumental dance-pop. Robyn Hitchcock and the Egyptians -- LIVE AT THE CAMBRIDGE FOLK FESTIVAL / This must have been recorded around 1992 or '93 based on the set list. It removes several layers of production polish from a bunch of late '80s/early '90s songs, making them sound a ton better in the process. Micromars -- INTERNATIONAL POP MODULATIONS / Norwegian group delivering the best rip-off of mid-period Stereolab since the first few Flowchart records. DJ Spooky -- SYNTHETIC FURY / An EP's worth of the most aggressive and noisy stuff I've heard from him. >Is anyone else bewildered by the terrible sound quality on most of the >Subway label's recordings they've put up? Is this how they sound on >CD? It's what they sound like on vinyl too -- as much as I love the songs, the production and mixing always sounded like shit. I think it was supposed to be part of the charm. S ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:39:15 -0500 From: "jer fairall" Subject: Re: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic Sorry to do this onlist, but Stewart: are you getting the emails that I've been trying to send you for the past week and a half or so? Some bounced back, so I'm assuming that none of them are making it there. Jer Protect your right to breathe clean, smoke-free air: http://www.care2.com/go/z/11238/1043 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:15:25 -0700 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe Stewart Mason on 2/9/2004 2:26:50 PM wrote: > Wonderlick -- WONDERLICK / A side project from Tim Quirk and Jay Blmenfeld > of Too Much Joy that on one listen, I'm pretty sure I like more than any > TMJ album. It's a lot more musically varied and *much* less jokey, for one > thing. Okay, that explains it... TMJ. Wonderlick does the theme to the Showtime series Family Business (aka Who Wants To Marry Seymour Butts). The song is called "A Different Kind of Love" or something like that. I thought the style and vocals sounded familiar but couldn't quite place them. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:17:33 -0500 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! > On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:21:15 -0800, "Rex.Broome" > > said: > > > But isn't Jimmy Buffet actually the Jimmy Buffet of indie rock? Okay, > > > you can debate the "rock" thing (although as odd as it is, I think my > > > broad definition of the term *would* encompass his style), but it seems > > > that I've read innumerable articles pointing out that Buffett is the > > > biggest-selling artist not distributed by a major label... hence, the > > > King of Indie... Something, at least. > > > > Uh...First, if Buffett is the "biggest-selling artist" of anything, that > > only proves there is no God. But according to AMG, Buffett released a > > passel of albums on MCA - a major label - up to 1999, and since then has > > released a series of "live in..." cash-ins to his rabid posse of inane > > faux-tropical present and former fratboys and -girls. Doesn't sound very > > "indie" to me: he made his career on a major label, and now is milking > > it. Okay, I feel better, because I couldn't have imagined Buffet's insidious presence without the aid of some megaconglomeracorporation. Although, there would be some perverse beauty if Buffet truly were 100% DIY (all sacred cows should be made into cheeseburgers). Does every Buffet album only contain three songs? I swear I think I've only ever heard three of his "songs." > > But of course, really, "indie rock" has become a style, not a mere > > description - rather like "power pop" is so called even if it's the last > > thing but popular (which, of course, it usually is). True enough. In any case, when I hear "Vanessa In Queens," I can't help but imagine Malkmus in a Hawaiin print shirt, sipping tequila on a sun-bleached pier... Of course, on a lot of the album I can also visualize Stevie hanging out with Ian Anderson, both admiring their jerkins. the right honorable murt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:31:17 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Stewart Mason wrote: > It's what they sound like on vinyl too -- as much as I love the songs, > the production and mixing always sounded like shit. I think it was > supposed to be part of the charm. Oh! Did they ever re-encode them? For a long time the Subway stuff was in the section of the collection that was still at 128kbps (and poorly encoded at that) so it sounded bad in an eMusic way, not a spunky-80s-DIY way. I might have to re-download some of them. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:36:43 -0500 From: John Swartzentruber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! On 2/9/2004 5:17 PM Chris Murtland wrote: >>On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:21:15 -0800, "Rex.Broome" >> >> >>> said: >>> >>> >>>>But isn't Jimmy Buffet actually the Jimmy Buffet of indie rock? Okay, >>>>you can debate the "rock" thing (although as odd as it is, I think my >>>>broad definition of the term *would* encompass his style), but it seems >>>>that I've read innumerable articles pointing out that Buffett is the >>>>biggest-selling artist not distributed by a major label... hence, the >>>>King of Indie... Something, at least. >>>> >>>> >>>Uh...First, if Buffett is the "biggest-selling artist" of anything, that >>>only proves there is no God. But according to AMG, Buffett released a >>>passel of albums on MCA - a major label - up to 1999, and since then has >>>released a series of "live in..." cash-ins to his rabid posse of inane >>>faux-tropical present and former fratboys and -girls. Doesn't sound very >>>"indie" to me: he made his career on a major label, and now is milking >>>it. >>> >>> > >Okay, I feel better, because I couldn't have imagined Buffet's insidious presence without the aid of some megaconglomeracorporation. Although, there would be some perverse beauty if Buffet truly were 100% DIY (all sacred cows should be made into cheeseburgers). Does every Buffet album only contain three songs? I swear I think I've only ever heard three of his "songs." > > He has two more? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:48:11 -0500 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! > >Does every Buffet album only contain three songs? I swear I think I've only ever heard three of his "songs." > He has two more? Courtesy of my devil-possessed college roommate in freshman year, the three I've heard are 'margaritaville','cheeseburger in paradise', and something about attitudes and latitudes. I think I will start doing drugs. I can't believe I'm sucked out of lurkerdom to talk about Jimmy Buffet. I now know that I must have some damaged synaptic connections. Someone tell me there's going to be a no wave revival or something. glum murt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:03:14 -0600 From: Wes_Vokes@eFunds.Com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! Well, this won't help my standing here, but I actually find Jimmy's early stuff to be more-than-acceptable singer-songwriter fare. At least until he stopped taking drugs around 1981.... Can't abide the Parrot-head crowd though.... "Chris Murtland" e.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Malkmus to guest on new Alan Jackson single! owner-loud-fans@s moe.org 02/09/04 04:48 PM > >Does every Buffet album only contain three songs? I swear I think I've only ever heard three of his "songs." > He has two more? Courtesy of my devil-possessed college roommate in freshman year, the three I've heard are 'margaritaville','cheeseburger in paradise', and something about attitudes and latitudes. I think I will start doing drugs. I can't believe I'm sucked out of lurkerdom to talk about Jimmy Buffet. I now know that I must have some damaged synaptic connections. Someone tell me there's going to be a no wave revival or something. glum murt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:08:33 -0500 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic At 05:31 PM 2/9/2004 -0500, Aaron Mandel wrote: >On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Stewart Mason wrote: > >> It's what they sound like on vinyl too -- as much as I love the songs, >> the production and mixing always sounded like shit. I think it was >> supposed to be part of the charm. > >Oh! Did they ever re-encode them? For a long time the Subway stuff was in >the section of the collection that was still at 128kbps (and poorly >encoded at that) so it sounded bad in an eMusic way, not a spunky-80s-DIY >way. I might have to re-download some of them. I only just very recently got around to downloading that Rosehips comp that was on either yours or Steve's list from back in October (my Stash page invariably has even more on it than my Netflix queue) and the bonus tracks from the CD version of the Chesterfields' KETTLE, and they're both in VBR. I don't even remember the last time I saw something that was only in 128! S NP: SOME TRUTH AND A LITTLE MONEY -- The Bloody Lovelies ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:08:48 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Stewart Mason wrote: > I don't even remember the last time I saw something that was only in 128! The Bomp stuff is all still 128K. Seems like I saw something else recently, too. oh yeah.. Rancid (2000) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:43:50 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic On Feb 9, 2004, at 4:26 PM, Stewart Mason wrote: > Tipsy -- UH-OH! / I have no idea where they're from, but I'm strongly > reminded of Cornelius and Pizzicato 5: fizzy sample-based instrumental > dance-pop. IIRC, San Francisco. Their first album, _Trip Tease_, is quite explicitly loungy (and a lot of fun.) -d.w. [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:53:51 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic (fwd) On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Stewart Mason wrote: > > Wonderlick -- WONDERLICK / A side project from Tim Quirk and Jay Blmenfeld > of Too Much Joy that on one listen, I'm pretty sure I like more than any > TMJ album. It's a lot more musically varied and *much* less jokey, for one > thing. anybody who shares my biases though will be disappointed by *not enough real drums *too much use of extreme pitchshifting as a deliberate effect What i really wanted to hep folks to, though, was the John Oswald/Plunderphonics material recently added. Some of the most monstrously headfucking music this side of Christian Marclay, and pretty much the ur-source for mash ups. He's less interested in making something you can dance to than most of the current followers, and the oldest pieces aren't the most exciting ... but cripes, he did 'em by splicing tape. And the best of it .. i like the flirting-with-accessibility queen/metallica one an orful lot fer eggzample... is almost transcendant. yeah! y-y-y-yuh-yuh-huy//huy// yeah! ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #39 ******************************