From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #81 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, March 19 2004 Volume 04 : Number 081 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Postal Service at KCRW [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] fogeyism [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] bring on the special guest [Roger Winston ] [loud-fans] Cover art cont'd'd ["Rex.Broome" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:29:03 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: [loud-fans] Postal Service at KCRW RealVideo here, about 40 minutes. http://www.kcrw.org/smil/mb030506The_Postal_Service.ram -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:59:54 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fogeyism On Mar 16, 2004, at 4:44 PM, glenn mcdonald wrote: > Aagh. Something called "Social Code" has remade Icicle Works' "Whisper > to a Scream". My poor aching past. It's on the iTMS, so there's a 30-second snippet here: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum? playlistId=5680000 I wasn't intrigued enough to pay the 99 cents (or cash in the Pepsi cap): seems played too fast, ultracompressed (so bye-bye to all the space in the original and the neat percussion accents), don't like the vocal... -d.w. [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:03:33 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] bring on the special guest At Wednesday 3/17/2004 11:30 PM, Fortissimo wrote: >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. And here's the same story without the coincidental three words from the Wire song: http://weeklywire.com/ww/10-27-97/alibi_facts.html And hey! Here's a Michael Jackson interview where he name-checks a Loud Family song! http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/26/jackson.interv.ap/ I guess I'm still not getting the point... Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:45:13 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Cover art cont'd Bradley: >>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? Well, it wasn't a reissue... at least on CD... but I swear that the initital RCA issue of Jefferson Airplanes's Crown of Creation actually has *camera tape* visible on the cover art... incredibly shoddy-looking. Like, with obviously torn edges and stuff. It seems to me that at least some of the Ryko Soft Boys reissues looked very much photographed off of finished LP covers. I'd guess that as design has gone more or less completely digital a lot of this kind of thing has become easier to camouflage, but... Dunno what they used for the actual cover art of the American CD for "Wilder", but it certainly looks crap. Ah, the fun that could be had with the earliest CD's of previously released albums. Looked like they kicked over the design teams that had been doing cassette sleeves, where "hey, a tiny picture of the cover with a big black block beneath it oughtta do" was the prevailing aesthetic. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:30:32 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Cover art cont'd In a message dated 3/18/04 11:49:20 AM, Rex.Broome@preferredmedia.com writes: > Well, it wasn't a reissue... at least on CD... but I swear that the > initital RCA issue of Jefferson Airplanes's Crown of Creation actually has *camera > tape* visible on the cover art... incredibly shoddy-looking. > The many lousy CD reissues of "Crown of Creation" were a company in-joke for a while, although they finally feel like they did it right last year. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:59:38 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Cover art cont'd On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Rex.Broome wrote: > I'd guess that as design has gone more or less completely digital a lot > of this kind of thing has become easier to camouflage, but... Though whatever benefits digital production has had, it's also meant some really ugly-looking artifacts in album art from smaller artists -- the back of Stew's latest had visible pixellation around the edges of the human figures (iirc) and Emm Gryner's Asianblue was almost blocky enough that it could have been intentional. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:45:36 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Cover art cont'd'd Aaron Mandel: >>Though whatever benefits digital production has had, it's also meant some >>really ugly-looking artifacts in album art from smaller artists -- the >>back of Stew's latest had visible pixellation around the edges of the >>human figures (iirc) and Emm Gryner's Asianblue was almost blocky enough >>that it could have been intentional. It can be really hard to tell what's intentional and what's just crap when it comes to that kind of artifacting, huh? I mean, has Neil Young's design team just not figured it out, or has digital technology just given him the ultimate tool to intentionally create *even uglier* record jackets? We may never know. The other thing that can happen seems to be that images just go missing, and somehow nobody notices... there are a few tiny little x's in the booklet art to Kristin Hersh's Sunny Border Blue that clearly indicate the centers of photos that just aren't there. I know I'v seen other such "file missing" artwork, but I'm blanking on where. So bottom line: newer albums have gotten shittier-looking and old ones look better than ever. Except they often have the wrong covers. - -Rex, nonetheless posessing great love for the much-loathed "Tonight's the Night" jacket photo... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:21:13 -0500 From: Betsy Lescosky Way Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Cover art cont'd On Mar 18, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Aaron Mandel wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Rex.Broome wrote: > >> I'd guess that as design has gone more or less completely digital a >> lot >> of this kind of thing has become easier to camouflage, but... > > Though whatever benefits digital production has had, it's also meant > some > really ugly-looking artifacts in album art from smaller artists -- the > back of Stew's latest had visible pixellation around the edges of the > human figures (iirc) and Emm Gryner's Asianblue was almost blocky > enough > that it could have been intentional. > > a > > In defense of underpaid graphic artists everywhere, I'd just like to say that sometimes we the artists get digital files to work with that just don't have enough pixels in them. Sometimes you just have no choice in what you can use. I hate it too. - --b betsy lescosky way pantone_367@mac.com http://homepage.mac.com/pantone_367 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:55:04 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Cover art cont'd On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:21:13 -0500, "Betsy Lescosky Way" said: > On Mar 18, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Aaron Mandel wrote: > > Though whatever benefits digital production has had, it's also meant > > some > > really ugly-looking artifacts in album art from smaller artists -- the > > back of Stew's latest had visible pixellation around the edges > > > In defense of underpaid graphic artists everywhere, I'd just like to > say that sometimes we the artists get digital files to work with that > just don't have enough pixels in them. Sometimes you just have no > choice in what you can use. I hate it too. And it's time we did something about it! Say you've got some digital art that you're working with, and you decide, hey, I need to crop this a bit. In the past, you've probably just thrown those pixels away. But wouldn't it be great if you could donate those pixels (and get a tax deduction!) to starving artists who might be able to use the recycled pixels? That's right: just separate your different colors of pixels and donate them to the appropriate Pixel Bin, and help out starving graphic artists who just aren't given adequate pixels to do their work. (Testimonial: from an actual artist) Betsy, Graphic Designer: One day I had a project due, but the artwork sent to me was some lame scanjob at 72 dpi, only about 6 inches across - and the project was supposed to be printed on an 18 x 36 piece of posterboard! But then I remembered the pixel donation program - and sure enough, they had several pixels in the appropriate colors, and I was able to dramatically reduce ugly pixellation overnight! I was happy, my client was happy - and no orphaned pixels sadly tossed in the recycle bin, or shipped off to evil spam sweatshops. Thank you, Pixel Bin! - ------------------------------- ...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 :: ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #81 ******************************