From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #43 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 Friday, February 13 2004 Volume 04 : Number 043 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. ["Rex.Broome" ] RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. [Miles Goosens] RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. ["Aaron Milensk] [loud-fans] Addendum: ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: [loud-fans] Waiting for Emo [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. ["Joseph M. Ma] Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] Addendum: ["Michael Wells" ] [loud-fans] Neither wind nor rain nor any other reference (was Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times.) [] Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. [Jenny Grover ] RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. [Gil Ray ] RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. [Stewart Mason] Re: [loud-fans] Waiting for Emo ["Fortissimo" ] RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. ["Fortissimo" ] RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. ["Fortissimo" ] RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. ["Fortissimo" ] Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic [Miles Goosens ] RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. [Matt Weber Subject: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. dmw: >>i think the crux (for me) is that very few folks on the indie-rock side >>ofthings take the time/know how to make interesting programmed >>drums... even a not-very-good drummer can make a track feel much >>more alive. Hey, that's right on the money. Actually, a lot of these indie/electro acts (including the much-beloved Postal Service) kind of send me into a very distracting mental fugue-state. I start out with the assumption that the programmed stuff is sort of indie-guy slumming without really knowing how to do it "right" or "creatively"... then I second-guess myself and think, wait, no, maybe it's fantastic programming and I just don't recognize it as such because I'm used to hearing bad/lazy programming when it goes along with my indie-rock. And then I third-guess myself and think, maybe it's more literally lifted from the old New Wave stuff that's an obvious touchstone for this new-ish hybrid, and that old stuff had bad programming, so maybe this is well-executed simplistic badness. Needless to say, by that point, I've kinda lost track of the songs. Re: Connor Oberst, etc.: I think reading a few huge gushing articles on this guy was when I started to feel all fogeyish at some point last year. The articles were all something along the lines of, "To call Connor Oberst the New Dylan is to insult Connor Oberst, for lo, here is a talent of such emotional honesty and incomparable genius that none in the history of contemporary music could compare. Ye who collect not all records by Bright Eyes and his innumerable side projects, and listen not to them constantly, do so at your own peril, for you turn your back on the very future of rock and roll, nay, perhaps humanity." Yeesh. And yeah, the fact that you supposedly need all the side projects to fully appreciate the guy had the same whiff of Pokemon-rock (gotta catch 'em all) that I've famously complained about in the press about Elephant 6 before. But I'd kinda forgotten about Bright Eyes because I've never actually heard them, and they don't often come up in my musical circles (even the online ones until this thread). Miles: >>Can I now admint into evidence a sworn statement that I believe that FoW >>having a hit is a good thing? While I agree, isn't the success of the song largely a "hot chicks in the video" thing? I don't see many videos, so I forget that they actually impact record sales sometimes, but I have seen parts of the "Stacy's Mom" video, and that seems to be a big part of it. Plus it is very teen-oriented in its content, which, while not unusual for power pop, certainly makes it more accessible to the young 'uns. >>One of my most discombobulating moments of 2003 occurred during our >>Thanksgiving trip back to West Virginia, when my fifteen year-old cousin, >>whose identical-to-every-other-girl-her-age CD collection has always looked >>like it was selected by a marketing committee, asked me "Do you like >>Fountains of Wayne?" For the rest of the trip, I was felt like I had >>dimension-shifted into an alternate reality, where it seemed entirely possible >>that my mother-in-law would bust out with a testimonial for THE TEACHES >>OF PEACHES or something. Talkin' music with the young 'uns is fascinating. My 16-year old nephew (sorry, Miles, this is on the Maryland side) is a budding guitarist, so I help him shop for gear and "jam" with him and stuff when I visit. Interesting things come to light. He's kind of split between "classic rock" and "punk" (terms he seems right comfy with), but his sense of the history of both is tricky to navigate. He does know the Pistols and the Clash, but also thinks of the Offspring as an old-school seminal punk band, and yet he has the standard issue disdain for Blink-182 et al. He doesn't know the Buzzcocks or Wire or X or the Minutemen or Sonic Youth, but he does know Black Flag and Dead Kennedys. Which gives you some idea of how the orthodoxy has skewed over the years, i.e. towards loud-fast-confrontational as opposed to experimental. Sort of. It's weird. I did convince him to give the Pixies a spin as a result of a conversation about this stuff, and he now can do a pretty fair version of "Where Is My Mind" on the Strat I helped him pick out. He was, however, unable to help me understand "emo". He gave it his all, poor kid. Anyway... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:29:39 -0500 From: glenn mcdonald Subject: Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. > He doesn't know the Buzzcocks or Wire or X or the Minutemen or Sonic > Youth I had a mind-blowing moment recently when my fiancee and I were talking music with a couple in their late twenties, one of whom is in a loud emo band and talks "punk rock" constantly, and one of us brought up X and neither of them had ever heard of them. We had a computer handy, so we quickly summoned some sound-clips of important X songs to enlighten them with. And then the mind-blowing moment happened: as we played them some great X songs, I realized listening that they weren't going to work. Some of the old DKs songs still sound punk today, but most of the X songs don't. Punk has been simplified and exaggerated, and a lot of the things that were once groundbreaking have been long since buried. Gang of Four? Wire? "Guns of Brixton"? "Gary Gilmore's Eyes"? Might as well be talking _North by Northwest_ to _Torque_ fans. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:45:53 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. Glenn: >>And then the mind-blowing moment happened: as we played them >>some great X songs, I realized listening that they weren't going to >>work. Some of the old DKs songs still sound punk today, but most of the >>X songs don't. Having just seen X live last week... they still sound "punk" in context, big time. However... >>Punk has been simplified and exaggerated, and a lot of >>the things that were once groundbreaking have been long since >>buried. Gang of Four? Wire? "Guns of Brixton"? "Gary Gilmore's Eyes"? Might >>as well be talking _North by Northwest_ to _Torque_ fans. In the case of X in particular, I think the ascendancy of rootsy-yet-punk-influenced music probably makes their punky-yet-roots-influenced sound seem way more normal than it was. Things have gone sort of ass-backwards in that sense. If X debuted today, they might be thought of as "psychobilly", which is about as constricting genre as can be imagined. In the context of punk, they were one of an unimaginably broad spectrum of flavors (see your examples) which was, umm, the good thing about "punk", theoretically. Before the Dark Times . Before the Great Codification! (John Williams score swells... soft wipe to starfield... camera tilts up to half completed Punk Rock Death Star...) - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:29 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. > >>And then the mind-blowing moment happened: as we played them > >>some great X songs, I realized listening that they weren't going to > >>work. Some of the old DKs songs still sound punk today, but most of the > >>X songs don't. X sounds more like Jefferson Airplane than a punk band, if you ask me... _________________________________________________________________ Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:06:56 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] Waiting for Emo I know there are people here who can parse that subject line. Anyway... At 11:05 AM 2/12/2004 -0800, Rex.Broome wrote: >Miles: >>>Can I now admint into evidence a sworn statement that I believe that FoW >>>having a hit is a good thing? > >While I agree, isn't the success of the song largely a "hot chicks in the >video" thing? Dunno. Maybe. But everyone's got hot chicks in their videos, so something else had to click too. BTW, courtesy of MTV.com and broadband, saw Kylie's "Slow" video last night... man, that one goes out to her gay following, that's for sure. And what's with it being set poolside in broad daylight? If any song this side of "Subbacultacha" calls for a nightclub setting, this is it. >Talkin' music with the young 'uns is fascinating. My 16-year old nephew >(sorry, Miles, this is on the Maryland side) Melissa and I have officially decided to count you as a true West Virginian, despite your proximity to Yankeedom and outsiderish pronunciation of the word "Appalachian." You've got the true doomed hillfolk pathos goin' on, and yeah, it takes one to know one. So we don't have to keep this up, lessen you wanna. (And we've never actually said "lessen" for "unless." However, in reference to a much earlier exchange with the JDC, both Melissa and I have said aloud during the last few days constructions such as "I'd have," so I have anecdotal evidence that people do say it outside of written communication! Or maybe we were taught to speak by books or something, dunno.) >Which gives you some idea of how the >orthodoxy has skewed over the years, i.e. towards loud-fast-confrontational >as opposed to experimental. Sort of. It's weird. Huh. I wonder if this also relates to the triumph of Metallica on the metal side of the equation. fastfastfast taking over everywhere. >I did convince him to >give the Pixies a spin as a result of a conversation about this stuff, and >he now can do a pretty fair vers! > ion of "Where Is My Mind" on the Strat I helped him pick out. That rules. >He was, however, unable to help me understand "emo". He gave it his all, >poor kid. I'm becoming convinced that no one over 25 can possibly know what it is. Except for Jeme Brelin, of course. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:22:52 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. glenn, then Rex: >>>Punk has been simplified and exaggerated, and a lot of >>>the things that were once groundbreaking have been long since >>>buried. Gang of Four? Wire? "Guns of Brixton"? "Gary Gilmore's Eyes"? Might >>>as well be talking _North by Northwest_ to _Torque_ fans. > >In the case of X in particular, I think the ascendancy of >rootsy-yet-punk-influenced music probably makes their >punky-yet-roots-influenced sound seem way more normal than it was. Things >have gone sort of ass-backwards in that sense. Rex beat me to this point by a matter of seconds, 'cept my sentence may have had even more hyphens. Also, though I do have a dog in this fight, Wire didn't look very buried on their 2002 tour -- most of our observers on the idealcopy list reported that those gigs were evenly split between under-30s and geezers, much to us geezers' amazement. Scads of young'uns, and they knew the stuff inside out, be it the all-READ AND BURN regular set or the vintage wallop of "Pink Flag," "Lowdown," and "12XU" in the encores. Aaron Milenski: >X sounds more like Jefferson Airplane than a punk band, if you ask me... Context: http://www.escribe.com/music/loudfans/m37251.html In general, I'm not as thrilled by vocal harmony as a lot of folks, which I think contributes to my lack of appreciation for Beach Boys, Byrds, and perhaps other groups beginning with "B." But I've got no quarrel with X's vocals, nor, for that matter, the Airplane's, though I can appreciate that they could grate on other people's ears. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:33:27 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. > >X sounds more like Jefferson Airplane than a punk band, if you ask me... > >Context: > >http://www.escribe.com/music/loudfans/m37251.html wow, I'm amazed that you dragged that old chestnut out. Seriously, is there anything less punk than covering the Doors? (I know, I know, the Ramones did it too but by then they were washed up old farts.) I just realized how much in danger I am of starting one of those stupid alt.punk-like "what is and isn't punk" threads. Sorry. In all seriousness, I think the biggest problem with X is that they could never live up to that utterly absurd Rolling Stone review that called WILD GIFT "the greatest punk album of all time." If that had never happened, they would have probably found a more "natural" audience and their blend of music styles wouldn't have offended punk purists so much. This leads me to my next question: Who's more annoying? Punk purists or Rolling Stone critics? Aaron, who at the moment can't think of any California punk-era band I like. _________________________________________________________________ Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:47:17 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Addendum: >>I had a mind-blowing moment recently when my fiancee and I were >>talking music with a couple in their late twenties, one of whom is in a >>loud emo band and talks "punk rock" constantly, and one of us brought up >>X and neither of them had ever heard of them. In mild defense of youth, Howe Gelb claims that when he toured with PJ Harvey, *she* had never heard of X... cant've been more than five years ago. He set her up and there she is doing "Johnny Hit and Run Paulene" with him on Giant Sand's Cover Magazine... I later saw them do it live on a bill which also strangely included John Doe, but when he did his X tunes the part of Exene was played by Kristin Hersh. Rather nice overall. Peej was unbilled and unrecognized by the majority in attendance. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:22:06 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Waiting for Emo Miles Goosens wrote: > both Melissa and I have said aloud during the last few days constructions such as "I'd have," so I have anecdotal evidence that people do say it outside of written communication! > I say it, though it more often turns out "Ida." >He was, however, unable to help me understand "emo". He gave it his all, >>poor kid. > > > >I'm becoming convinced that no one over 25 can possibly know what it is. > Oh good. That means I can give up. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:40:20 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Rex.Broome wrote: > And then I third-guess myself and think, maybe it's more literally > lifted from the old New Wave stuff that's an obvious touchstone for this > new-ish hybrid, This is probably closest to being right, in the case of the Postal Service. Jimmy Tamborello has never been an "indie rocker" as far as I know; he has a band (Figurine) that do non-fashion-oriented 80s revival pop, and a personal solo project (Dntel) which is pretty standard laptop non-dance non-rock stuff. > The articles were all something along the lines of, "To call Connor > Oberst the New Dylan is to insult Connor Oberst, for lo, here is a > talent of such emotional honesty and incomparable genius that none in > the history of contemporary music could compare." Um, I don't know if your opinion makes you a fogey, but you seem to have been reading the fogey *press*. There's plenty to hold against Conor Oberst based on his actual music if one wants to; the fact that people who just discovered him two years ago had to write deranged puff pieces about him to justify their late-comerhood, however, is not the kid's fault. You seem to have pretty vivid opinions on Bright Eyes for someone who hasn't heard them, is all. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:01:10 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. >>Um, I don't know if your opinion makes you a fogey, but you seem to >>havebeen reading the fogey *press*. Conceded. Which, no, I shouldn't oughtta, it's true. >>You seem to have pretty vivid opinions on Bright Eyes for someone >>who hasn't heard them, is all. Urk... I've just re-read my comments, and I don't think I stated any opions about Bright Eyes at all... just about the press hoopla surrounding them and my reaction to it. I haven't heard them; I have no opinion about their music especially other than I haven't heard anything which has inspired me to to rectify that "not having heard them" thing. It was more an indichtment of "press-darling-fication" than those particular press darlings, or press darlings in general (god knows a few have snuck into my record racks). Just to be clear... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:08:56 -0800 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic Emusic just added a two-disc release of Steve Wynn's STATIC TRANSMISSION. Anyone know anything about that? The CD I bought only had one disc! - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:43:45 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Aaron Mandel wrote: > This is probably closest to being right, in the case of the Postal > Service. Jimmy Tamborello has never been an "indie rocker" as far as I > know; he has a band (Figurine) that do non-fashion-oriented 80s revival > pop, and a personal solo project (Dntel) which is pretty standard laptop > non-dance non-rock stuff. SOW, I'm totally digging the Postal Service album GIVE UP. (Thanks to Miles, for whom it did nothing.) I really liek the marriage of techno to singing & songwriting. I hear shades of Our Scott and Elliott Smith among others, and I have a soft spot for analog synths used well. I'm guessing I'm not the only one, since it placed high in the poll. Any other comments? Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:58:03 -0700 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic Steve Holtebeck on 2/12/2004 5:08:56 PM wrote: > Emusic just added a two-disc release of Steve Wynn's STATIC > TRANSMISSION. You can thank me for this. I got tired of waiting for eMusic to add it, so I finally bought the CD this week. I can also make it snow by washing my car. > Anyone know anything about that? The CD I bought only had one disc! Obviously they are adding insult to injury. If there are any other albums you people want added to eMusic, let me know and I'll go to the store and buy them. Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:12:35 -0600 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Addendum: Rex: > I later saw them do it live on a bill which also strangely included John Doe, but when he did his X tunes the part of Exene was played by Kristin Hersh. Rather nice overall. Well, you're entitled to your own insane opinion of course. Hows the Fifty Foot Head Shimmy project going? ;) Michael "I'll take the Knitters for 10, Alex" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:11:35 -0600 From: Bill Silvers Subject: [loud-fans] Neither wind nor rain nor any other reference (was Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times.) Joe Mallon wrote: >SOW, I'm totally digging the Postal Service album GIVE UP. (Thanks to >Miles, for whom it did nothing.) I really liek the marriage of techno to >singing & songwriting. I hear shades of Our Scott and Elliott Smith among >others, and I have a soft spot for analog synths used well. I'm guessing >I'm not the only one, since it placed high in the poll. Any other >comments? My wife, Amy, loves the record and in a year-ender elsewhere wrote: >7. Postal Service, "Give Up." I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by >how much I like this record, because I've always had a soft spot for Death >Cab for Cutie in spite of their having one of the worst band names ever >(Aside to whoever is about to mention that it's a Bonzo Dog Band >reference: Yes, I know. That doesn't mean it doesn't suck.). But the >concept of this band sounded like it just wouldn't work: the darkly >melodic heartbreak of Death Cab combined with synthesizers and samplers >and all sorts of electronica trickery. And damn if it doesn't work >*perfectly*. The reason it works is that there's an essential sweetness to >the songs, and an unexpected warmth to the little video-arcade sound >effects and electronic clicks and pops and farts, and it all combines to >make the songs completely irresistible. "The District Sleeps Alone >Tonight" is arguably my song of the year, and the most heart-rending. I've only heard it in bits and pieces, and while those were enough to allow me to determine that while it wasn't exactly "my thing," it was charming and deserving better than a side-project ghetto. What about my concerns? content: Um, well, since Miles mentioned you as a proponent of UTOPIA PARKWAY, I'll only add that I do think it's FoW's best record, consistency and smirk-factor be damned. And BTW, any and all opinions about The Coral are welcome. I was all over the EP and debut LP, and was mostly underwhelmed. Nonetheless the nice price drove me to the store for MAGIC AND MEDICINE. I'm halfway in and wondering if anybody else has any thoughts about these fellows. b.s. n.p. The Coral "Milkwood Blues" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:20:11 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. Joseph M. Mallon wrote: >SOW, I'm totally digging the Postal Service album GIVE UP. (Thanks to >Miles, for whom it did nothing.) I really liek the marriage of techno to >singing & songwriting. I hear shades of Our Scott and Elliott Smith among >others, and I have a soft spot for analog synths used well. I'm guessing >I'm not the only one, since it placed high in the poll. Any other >comments? > > The promo passed over my desk and went straight to Jer, who was interested. I didn't put up any resistance handing it over. It was too synthy-cutesy sounding for me. Maybe I missed something, but every listen I gave it elicited the "nah," reaction. I might could have tolerated the synths if the tunes had struck me as anything grabby, which they didn't. But then, you all saw where I ended up in the ranking of typical Loud-fan-ness. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:55:47 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Rex.Broome wrote: > Urk... I've just re-read my comments, and I don't think I stated any > opions about Bright Eyes at all... Okay, fair enough, I'll put away the knives. I think my reaction was partly prompted by your "Pokemon-rock" comment, which was something I'd never really noticed in BE's press reception -- I didn't even know about Commander Venus until they showed up on eMusic in 2003. By the way, there's a Bright Eyes track on the discs winging their way to you now, but for better or worse it's highly unrepresentative (a straight cover of "Blue Christmas"). If you (or anyone else) wanted to get the gist, I'd recommend - - "A Perfect Sonnet" for classic 'emo' Bright Eyes - - "Bowl Of Oranges" for new 'Dylan' Bright Eyes - - Park Ave's "All Boy Band" for justified self-referentiality Looks like the second of those has a video (with sound, presumably) at saddle-creek.com and the third is available in RealAudio at urinine.com. My grumpiness may be attributable to the fact that since last week the local press has had a non-stop stream of quotes from people spitting venom about how certain citizens they dislike don't deserve full civil rights (or, depending on who's speaking, the privilege of continuing to draw breath). It has left me jumpy. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:01:12 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. - --- Jenny Grover wrote: But then, you all saw where I > ended up in the > ranking of typical Loud-fan-ness. > > Jen Damn fine company, I must say. Gil __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:03:44 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic - --- Roger Winston wrote: > If there are any other albums you people want added > to eMusic, let me know and I'll go to the store and > buy them. > > Latre. --Rog How about...all albums. Gil __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:25:49 -0500 From: Stewart Mason Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. At 10:55 PM 2/12/04 -0500, Aaron Mandel wrote: >My grumpiness may be attributable to the fact that since last week the >local press has had a non-stop stream of quotes from people spitting venom >about how certain citizens they dislike don't deserve full civil rights >(or, depending on who's speaking, the privilege of continuing to draw >breath). It has left me jumpy. Preach it, brother. I'm particularly tickled by two particular subsets of this vilification, first the ones like the guy in today's Herald who only allowed himself to be identified as "Anti-Gay Man" and pulled a Santorum (dude, if your mind goes so immediately and automatically to thoughts of incest and bestiality...um, doesn't that just make you a big fucking pervert?) and...well, let's just say that apparently it's okay for a priest to rape an altar boy, he just can't marry one. The ones who piss me off, however, are the one who are spouting off this brand-new idea that "marriage is for procreation." Um. Well. Because of a medical issue, there will be no procreatin' in Casa del Flamingo. Are you now seriously saying that because of this, we shouldn't be married either? 'Cause I *will* stomp your ass. Pretty much entirely without an opinion on Bright Eyes, S ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:33:12 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Waiting for Emo On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:06:56 -0600, "Miles Goosens" said: > >He was, however, unable to help me understand "emo". He gave it his all, > >poor kid. > > I'm becoming convinced that no one over 25 can possibly know what it is. > Except for Jeme Brelin, of course. Okay, I know only a handful of us here understand this remark, but...trust me, it's pretty damned funny. What I think is *really* funny is the musical categorizations that pop up when I play CDs at work: the audio that came with the new 'puter a few months back is Real PLayer, and it automatically pulls out titles and such from CDDB or some other online database, info that includes someone's guess at musical style. Pretty damned funny - who knew that _Here Come the Warm Jets_ was "ambient new age"? doo-bop-she-bop, five guys named Emo... - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: crumple zones:: :: harmful or fatal if swallowed :: :: small-craft warning :: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:36:32 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. > Aaron Milenski: > >X sounds more like Jefferson Airplane than a punk band, if you ask me... It's the vocals: John Doe=Paul Kantner, Exene=Grace Slick. But the rest of the music is totally different: Jefferson Airplane never came close to the machine-tooled rockabilly Billy Zoom played. (They did lots of other things X never did - I like both bands - but I'm just sayin'...) - ------------------------------- ...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: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:11:03 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:25:49 -0500, "Stewart Mason" said: > At 10:55 PM 2/12/04 -0500, Aaron Mandel wrote: > >My grumpiness may be attributable to the fact that since last week the > >local press has had a non-stop stream of quotes from people spitting venom > >about how certain citizens they dislike don't deserve full civil rights > >(or, depending on who's speaking, the privilege of continuing to draw > >breath). It has left me jumpy. > > Preach it, brother. I'm particularly tickled by two particular subsets > of > this vilification, first the ones like the guy in today's Herald who only > allowed himself to be identified as "Anti-Gay Man" and pulled a Santorum > (dude, if your mind goes so immediately and automatically to thoughts of > incest and bestiality...um, doesn't that just make you a big fucking > pervert?) My favorites are the ones who cite the Bible, specifically Leviticus 18:22. Yeah, okay, it does say men lying with men is an "abomination" - but if that verse gets folks so worked up, where's the outcry to legislate against, say, those who "round the corners of [their] heads" or "mar the corners of [their] beard"? Or demanding that anyone who comes into contact with the bedding, clothing, or even furniture of a menstruating woman must wash themselves and their clothing and isolate themselves until evening? Or yelling on street corners about the sinful eating of shellfish, rabbits, eagles, ospreys, vultures, kites, ravens, etc. etc. etc.? Shall those people explain exactly why those verses don't count, and the anti-gay one does? My favorite Bible verse reads, in its entirety: "And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole" (Lev. 11:30). I think Robyn Hitchcock wrote that one. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: crumple zones:: :: harmful or fatal if swallowed :: :: small-craft warning :: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:24:42 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:55:47 -0500 (EST), "Aaron Mandel" said: > By the way, there's a Bright Eyes track on the discs winging their way to > you now, but for better or worse it's highly unrepresentative (a straight > cover of "Blue Christmas"). If you (or anyone else) wanted to get the > gist, I'd recommend > > - "A Perfect Sonnet" for classic 'emo' Bright Eyes > - "Bowl Of Oranges" for new 'Dylan' Bright Eyes > - Park Ave's "All Boy Band" for justified self-referentiality > > Looks like the second of those has a video (with sound, presumably) at > saddle-creek.com and the third is available in RealAudio at urinine.com. The first, for a while anyway, is available here: - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Miracles are like meatballs, because nobody can exactly agree :: what they are made of, where they come from, or how often :: they should appear. :: --Lemony Snicket ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:00:54 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: eMusic Rog: >Steve Holtebeck on 2/12/2004 5:08:56 PM wrote: >> Emusic just added a two-disc release of Steve Wynn's STATIC >> TRANSMISSION. > >You can thank me for this. I got tired of waiting for eMusic to add it, >so I finally bought the CD this week. I can also make it snow by washing my car. > >If there are any other albums you people want added to eMusic, let me know >and I'll go to the store and buy them. I have this effect with prompting CD reissues -- just when I say to myself "well, they're not gonna remaster those 1990 Cocteau Twins CDs anytime soon," and I go to the store and pick up GARLANDS and TREASURE to complete the collection, just like clockwork, not a week laterthere's an announcement about the remasters. Of course, since the Cure reissues got announced without me ever buying a CD of the two I lacked (JAPANESE WHISPERS and THE TOP), and the Eurythmics are getting the deluxe treatment without me getting IN THE GARDEN or TOUCH/TOUCH DANCE, maybe my luck got tranferred to Rog vs. his eMusic account. Sorry, Rog. later, Miles, who owns the two-disc STATIC TRANSMISSION, but can't remember if he got it at Tower or from Miles of Music np: Courtney Hole... um, Love, AMERICA'S SWEETHEART. First play. So far, it f'in rocks. Good luck reading the booklet, though -- tiny white print in a font that doesn't resolve so well at that point size on a pastel pink background. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:44:46 -0800 From: Matt Weber Subject: RE: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. At 11:25 PM -0500 2/12/04, Stewart Mason wrote: > >The ones who piss me off, however, are the one who are spouting off this >brand-new idea that "marriage is for procreation." Um. Well. Because of >a medical issue, there will be no procreatin' in Casa del Flamingo. Are >you now seriously saying that because of this, we shouldn't be married >either? 'Cause I *will* stomp your ass. Not exactly a new idea; that's a mainstay of catholic theology, that the reason for marriage is the creation & raising of a family. And while I'm perfectly willing to allow folks the right to believe that as a religious tenet if they wish (and the logic of the catholic position is indeed persuasive, if you accept its givens), it is WILDLY beyond the bounds of appropriateness to consider legislating this point of view. In other words : it's perfectly reasonable to not want to be part of a church that marries same-sex couples. It's perfectly unreasonable to demand that the civil authorities bow to your religiously-or-otherwise-founded prejudice. Matt Hunger allows no choice To the citizen or the police; We must love one another or die. --W.H. Auden (1907-1973), September 1, 1939 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:47:37 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] Postal Parkway etc. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Bill Silvers wrote: > >7. Postal Service, "Give Up." > >The reason it works is that there's an essential sweetness to > >the songs, and an unexpected warmth to the little video-arcade sound > >effects and electronic clicks and pops and farts, and it all combines to > >make the songs completely irresistible. This nails why I like it so much - it's genuinely sweet & catchy. The blips & bluurps are of exactly the type that I find catchy, and seem genuinely analog, not a Dre-like reproduction of those sounds. I can understand why it might seem like warm milk to some, though. > What about my concerns? content: Um, well, since Miles mentioned you as a > proponent of UTOPIA PARKWAY, I'll only add that I do think it's FoW's best > record, consistency and smirk-factor be damned. Indeed. WIMgrs. was (and is still a bit of) a disappointment to me after the sweep of UTOPIA. On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Miles Goosens wrote: > np: Courtney Hole... um, Love, AMERICA'S SWEETHEART. First play. > So far, it f'in rocks. Good luck reading the booklet, though -- tiny white > print in a font that doesn't resolve so well at that point size on a pastel > pink background. I'm really looking forward to this. I have a weak spot for her voice & the production help she seems to get from very talented people. CELEBRITY SKIN is a really strong (not to mention really hotly mastered) album, if you don't mind her sometimes-raggedy voice. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:01:22 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] History of ROCK redefined. Several times. Just checked out some Bright Eyes songs. The music is kinda interesting at times, but I just don't think I can get past that weirdly warbly voice, or the occasional histrionics. I wince repeatedly. I once had Ted Leo's "Hearts of Oak" from eMusic and deleted it because I just couldn't get past his voice. Then with all the hoopla about him on the list I got curious, but now only have one song on a mix disc. Still can't quite get past his voice. Has the fingernails-on-chalkboard effect on me. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:04:23 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Postal Parkway etc. Joe on the Postal Service: >This nails why I like it so much - it's genuinely sweet & catchy. The >blips & bluurps are of exactly the type that I find catchy, and seem >genuinely analog, not a Dre-like reproduction of those sounds. I can >understand why it might seem like warm milk to some, though. If I may present specific comments on the Postal Service: I like the blips and blurps, the sound qua sound of the album, if you will. I'm totally down with the funky analog synths. But the tunes resolutely refused to stick, the lyrics were far too prose-y and blocky, and I don't like Gibbard's voice. However, I'm very happy that my former copy has found a happy, loving home where it will be appreciated, valued, and taken on walks in the park and drives in the countryside. Maybe in 2004 I won't buy prophetically-titled albums from new-to-me artists. In 2003, I got GIVE UP and LET GO, and that's exactly what I did with them. On Courtney Love's latest: >I'm really looking forward to this. I have a weak spot for her voice & >the production help she seems to get from very talented people. >CELEBRITY SKIN is a really strong (not to mention really hotly mastered) >album, if you don't mind her sometimes-raggedy voice. Me, I don't mind it at all, and I think this will hit that same CELEBRITY SKIN sweet spot. I'm playing it a second time right now, and I play the same album two consecutive times just about... well, almost never. So that's how eager I was to get some more of it. Listening to AMERICA'S SWEETHEART and thinking about CELEBRITY SKIN transports me to the one time I saw Hole, at Nashville River Stages several Mays ago. Melissa Auf der Maur looked like something out of my fantasies: pale skin, dark hair, sexily cut maroon mini-dress, thigh-high boots. And the moment Courtney came on stage, I couldn't look at anything else but Courtney. Some people just have "it," and love her or hate her, man, she's got it. later, Miles, who's almost willing to go for a third spin with Ms. Love, but who probably needs to get to bed ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #43 ******************************