From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #80 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Thursday, March 18 2004 Volume 04 : Number 080 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Shields down, Captain ["Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Shields down, Captain Dave: >>The Guardian (U.K.) claims the first Kevin Shields interview in 12 >>years. Hmmm. He definitely did a radio interview last year when Lost in Translation came out. I though there were a few press interviews at the time, but maybe they were just quotes within pieces about the soundtrack, or interviews with whatsisface, the soundtrack producer. Can't remember for sure... Aaron Mandel: >>In the past few weeks, I've run into two reissued/remastered discs >>that give literally zero indication of when they were first released -- >>you could scrutinize every bit of the packaging and liner notes and still >>come away with the impression that Scary Monsters came out in 1999 and >>Double Fantasy came out in 2000. >>So what gives? I'm used to this on mom 'n' pop labels and half-ass reissues, but Bowie and Lennon, that's odd. I know the Virgin Bowie reissues, while nice, don't have the typical modern reissue buttload of essays, interviews, gig posters and such, which would provide context, so I guess that's part of it. ISTR them also being bereft of bonus tracks... didn't the Ryko ones have stuff like "Diamond Dogs Early Version Recorded 197*" and stuff? >>And I hated the packaging of the Pink Moon >>reissue a few years ago that dropped Drake's beautiful and wild color >>art in favor of an elegiac B&W photo of the artist himself Yeah, wussup with that? I think that tactic is sometimes to differentiate the old reissue from the new one, but it especially bugs because the implication is, "Here's a better sounding, more definitive version of this record, except now it looks completely wrong". The The The reissues (god that looks weird) all had big picture of Johnson's face on both the cover and the cardboard sleeve they come in, but the booklets actually had the original art inside, replete with instructions on how you could fold the booklet so that the original artwork presented. So that's even worse: "Here's a better sounding, more definitive version of this record, except now it looks completely wrong, but you can fix that by immediately bending, folding, spindling and mutilating this lovely but incorrect package." Stewart: >>I just checked my LPs. Icicle Works' version is still safely ensconced >>on their album, and I'll make a note not to have one of those Charlie >>Kaufman-style memory wipes that will replace my memories of their >>song with this new version. I think we're going to be okay. Uh oh... file not found. Instead I came up with something called "Bird's Fly", which... I mean, they coulda just fixed that apostrophe without renaming the whole thing... cf. "Paint It, Black"... sorta... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:01:55 -0800 From: "Bradley Skaught" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Shields down, Captain One of the oddest reissue details I can think of is that in the British reissue of The Teardrop Explodes' Wilder, the american cover is reprinted inside the booklet--with a $2.99 price tag clearly visible and the promo stamp on the bottom. Did no one actually save the original artwork? Does no one have an actual copy not bought at a used record store? The Drake reissues remind me that I do not understand the cardboard slipcover. Why does the latest Linda Thompson CD come in a cardboard case exactly the same as the CD art enclosed? At least the real Drake covers are inside... B - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 3/15/2004 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:09:06 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Shields down, Captain On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Rex.Broome wrote: > ISTR them also being bereft of bonus tracks... didn't the Ryko ones have > stuff like "Diamond Dogs Early Version Recorded 197*" and stuff? True. But they've got the "(copyright) 1999)" all over them, so it's not like they just forgot, and the lack of essays in the liner notes is unusual but okay with me. It seems like a conscious effort to avoid printing the original release date, hence my curiousity about a legal motivation. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:06:26 -0000 From: "Angela Bennett & Ian Runeckles" Subject: [loud-fans] UK ex-Loud Fan news! After a period of radio silence I've managed to catch up with MIA Loud Fan Phil Gerrard and the news is good - you may remember that Phil was doing a drama course which finished around a year or so ago. Since then he's had several acting roles, in fact only skipping one month without a part. He's also doing temporary jobs to make ends meet but is really pleased with the way things are going and has a three week run in a play in a theatre-pub in Islington, London, in May which I hope to see. Ian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:51:14 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] Bowie copyright dates On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Aaron Mandel wrote: > True. But they've got the "(copyright) 1999)" all over them, so it's not > like they just forgot, and the lack of essays in the liner notes is > unusual but okay with me. It seems like a conscious effort to avoid > printing the original release date, hence my curiousity about a legal > motivation. This might have something to do with the Bowie Bond. Bowie floated a $55M bond (against royalties) a few years ago and used the money to buy the rights to his entire catalog. He now licenses it to Virgin. This might be why there's no copyright date. Or not. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:33 -0800 (PST) From: zoom@muppetlabs.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Shields down, Captain >>>And I hated the packaging of the Pink Moon >>>reissue a few years ago that dropped Drake's beautiful and wild color art in favor of an elegiac B&W photo of the artist himself > > Yeah, wussup with that? I think that tactic is sometimes to differentiate > the old reissue from the new one, but it especially bugs because the implication is, "Here's a better sounding, more definitive version of this > record, except now it looks completely wrong". Just to clarify, Drake did not do the PINK MOON cover art--that was a fellow named Michael Trevithick. But I remember reading in Drake's biography that Drake was very fond of the artwork, and kept it in his bedroom until his death. The latest round of Drake reissues have photos of the artiste on the cardboard slipcover, original cover art on the front of the booklet, original back cover art on the back of the booklet, and another photo on the back of the jewel case. But what's really odd about the latest PINK MOON is how somebody thought the third song was called "Radio"... On other topics, if Aaron doesn't have any Captain Beefheart--who, pound for pound, I like more than his old friend/antagonist Zappa--I'd highly suggest getting some. Guessing Miles' four favorites by the mystery artist to be "*'** **** ********** *** ***," "***'* **** ** *********," "**** ** ******* ******," and "******'* ****"--but he'll have to tell me if I'm right, Andy "I can name about a hundred films that would provide a better way for kids to learn about Jebus, including The Omen and all its sequels. I would even go so far as to say that you could learn more positive lessons about Jebus from watching Casper the Friendly Ghost cartoons." - --Sam Franklin on THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:10:23 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Shields down, Captain On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:01:55 -0800, "Bradley Skaught" said: > The Drake reissues remind me that I do not understand the cardboard > slipcover. Why does the latest Linda Thompson CD come in a cardboard case > exactly the same as the CD art enclosed? Is it on Nonesuch? It seems that's their packaging deal... Rex: remember that sentence that used "the" three times in a row, just in case anyone ever tries to boggle you with a question like, hey, can you write a coherent, grammatical English sentence using the word "the" three times in a row? Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:17:38 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: [loud-fans] bring on the special guest http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news139.htm - search on "monkey"... - ------------------------------- ...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: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:33:08 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] bring on the special guest Jeff: >http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news139.htm - search on "monkey"... Jeff, this warms the cockles of my black little heart. Perhaps it was a 10th anniversary tribute. Speaking of Wire, would those who have asked me for guidance re: Newman/Lewis/Gilbert/Gotobed write me off-list? New files engaged, magnetic behavior to ensue. later, Lubert Das ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:44:15 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] bring on the special guest At Wednesday 3/17/2004 10:33 PM, Miles Goosens wrote: >Jeff: > >http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news139.htm - search on "monkey"... > >Jeff, this warms the cockles of my black little heart. Perhaps it was a >10th anniversary tribute. > >Speaking of Wire, Okay, I have absolutely no idea what any of this is about. A monkey stealing a TV antenna? Some sort of in-joke among die-hard Wire groupies or something? Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:30:08 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] bring on the special guest On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:44:15 -0700, "Roger Winston" said: > At Wednesday 3/17/2004 10:33 PM, Miles Goosens wrote: > > >Jeff: > > >http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news139.htm - search on "monkey"... > > > >Jeff, this warms the cockles of my black little heart. Perhaps it was a > >10th anniversary tribute. > > > >Speaking of Wire, > > Okay, I have absolutely no idea what any of this is about. A monkey > stealing a TV antenna? Some sort of in-joke among die-hard Wire groupies > or something? Perhaps a websearch on the exact three-word phrase beginning with "monkey" in the linked article will enlighten you. - ------------------------------- ...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 ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #80 ******************************