From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #178 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 Wednesday, June 30 2004 Volume 04 : Number 178 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 [dmw ] RE: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 ["Michael Zwirn" ] Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 2 [zoom@muppetlabs.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:39:51 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Stewart Mason wrote: > At 03:56 PM 6/28/2004 -0600, Roger Winston wrote: > >zoom@muppetlabs.com on 6/28/2004 3:31:49 PM wrote: > > > >> I've only known two people who really hated Soul Coughing, and I'm curious > >> as to why Bradley is the other one. > > > >Count me in as a third, unless I'm already counted. > > Fourth. Dude's voice drives me up the wall, and they've never struck me as > being nearly as adventurous and experimental as they think they are. y'know, "hate" is awfully strong, but, uh, 5th. the grating vocals are not a plus, but mostly they just seemed (from the limited samples i've heard; mostly the record my old roommates played with the "you are listening to los angeles" song) a little too in love with their own cleverness, while not actually being as clever as all that. on the other hand i haven't heard a lot of handsome family, but i like most of what i heard ok, and i *love* the song "moving furniture around," although i gather it's not typical. ...and Norman best be careful or i might start setting his emails to music too. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:54:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, dmw wrote: > y'know, "hate" is awfully strong, but, uh, 5th. the grating vocals are > not a plus, but mostly they just seemed (from the limited samples i've > heard; mostly the record my old roommates played with the "you are > listening to los angeles" song) a little too in love with their own > cleverness, while not actually being as clever as all that. I have to admit I don't know where you and Stewart are getting this cleverness thing from -- "Screenwriter's Blues" aside (which was written years before any of the other material they ever recorded, though since I like it anyway, I shouldn't apologize for it too much) I can't think of any Soul Coughing songs which strike me as jokey or otherwise structured around their own cleverness. Half the time Doughty's lyrics barely have a foot in the literal meaning of the words. a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:00:47 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 > I have to admit I don't know where you and Stewart are getting this > cleverness thing from -- "Screenwriter's Blues" aside (which was written > years before any of the other material they ever recorded, though since I > like it anyway, I shouldn't apologize for it too much) I can't think of > any Soul Coughing songs which strike me as jokey or otherwise structured > around their own cleverness. Half the time Doughty's lyrics barely have a > foot in the literal meaning of the words. is screenwriter's blues the "you're listening to los angeles" tune? honestly, that and the "unmarked helicopters" song from the x files disc are the only 2 i can recall offhand. i did try to acknowledge that my dislike isn't particularly well informed. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:18:09 -0700 From: "Michael Zwirn" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 is screenwriter's blues the "you're listening to los angeles" tune? honestly, that and the "unmarked helicopters" song from the x files disc are the only 2 i can recall offhand. i did try to acknowledge that my dislike isn't particularly well informed. Unfortunately, I had to listen to a lot of Soul Coughing when I was college, which was also the pinnacle of the G. Love and Special Sauce era. Of the Soul Coughing I heard, I thought whichever song has the lyric about driving a plane into the Chrysler Building was the only one with any real merit. "Unmarked Helicopters" does deserve props for playing in the stereo of the Lone Gunmen's trailer when Mulder walks in, which was cool. Played last night: Lanterna, s/t ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:19:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, dmw wrote: > is screenwriter's blues the "you're listening to los > angeles" tune? Yeah. > honestly, that and the "unmarked helicopters" song > from the x files disc are the only 2 i can recall offhand. "Unmarked Helicopters" is one of the few SC songs I've never found much redeeming quality in. And yet it made it to the best-of! Mysterious. > i did try to acknowledge that my dislike isn't particularly well > informed. Sure, no problem there. I'm just surprised your impression of the lyrics was "too clever" rather than "big deal, the singer used to take a lot of drugs". a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:23:33 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 1 At 12:54 PM 6/29/2004 -0400, Aaron Mandel wrote: >I have to admit I don't know where you and Stewart are getting this >cleverness thing from -- "Screenwriter's Blues" aside (which was written >years before any of the other material they ever recorded, though since I >like it anyway, I shouldn't apologize for it too much) I can't think of >any Soul Coughing songs which strike me as jokey or otherwise structured >around their own cleverness. Half the time Doughty's lyrics barely have a >foot in the literal meaning of the words. Not clever in a jokey sense, and I've always assumed that his lyrics were meant to be as utterly meaningless as they sounded to my ears. The cleverness was in the music, which they presented as "Look! We're all jazzy and experimental, and we use all these weird samples and oddball keyboard sounds!" But in comparison to artists from the same period who really were jazzy and experimental -- the Vandermark 5 is the first group that leaps to mind, and some of the Chicago post-rock groups -- they sounded kind of simplistic and poppy, and in comparison to the pop artists they were compared to (which it seemed was almost always Beck, although I always thought they had more in common with the Shimmy-Disc stable, like Bongwater and Dogbowl and King Missile), they didn't seem quite as interesting to me. They're not a band where I completely fail to see the appeal and I don't know why anybody would actually like them or anything, but I've never gotten into them. S ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:01:33 -0700 (PDT) From: zoom@muppetlabs.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review Part 2 >> 12.Doug Mayo Wells "I-III-Security" >> This has a great mid period Wire meets Chris Knox thing going on--really >> cool >> and paranoid sounding. > > I mentioned it in the notes I sent Bradley - but the lyric is written by > another Loudfan, our own Miles Goosens - more or less on a whim... So, anyway to hear this online? And might it set up a series--you type an email, Doug plugs in the music? Anybody else notice that escribe has gone blooey? Andy High Court Upholds Block of Web Porn Law 33 minutes ago By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech. The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton (news - web sites) and now backed by the Bush administration. The majority said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect because it likely violates the First Amendment. In considering the issue a third time, the court did not end a long fight, however. The majority voted to send the case back to a lower court for a trial that could give the government a chance to prove the law does not go too far. The ruling in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term that ended Tuesday with no announcements that any of the nine justices would retire. The year's marquee cases involving presidential power to deal with suspected terrorists were announced Monday, and for the most part represented a loss for the Bush administration. The majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law. Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for them while keeping that material out of the hands of children. Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) agreed with Kennedy. Tuesday's pornography ruling is more nuanced, but still a blow to the government. It marks the third time the high court has considered the case, and it may not be the last. The ACLU and other critics of the antipornography law said that it would restrict far too much material that adults may legally see and buy. "We're very pleased with the decision," ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said. "The status quo is still with us and the court made it safe for artists, sex educators and Web publishers to communicate with adults without risking jail time." Justice Department (news - web sites) spokesman Mark Corallo denounced the ruling. "Our society has reached a broad consensus that child obscenity is harmful to our youngest generation and must be stopped," Corallo said. "Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need and the court yet again opposed these common-sense measures to protect America's children." The law, which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is "harmful to minors" within the easy reach of children on the Internet (news - web sites). The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online. For now, the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, would sweep with too broad a brush, Kennedy wrote. "There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law took effect, he said. Kennedy said that filtering software "is not a perfect solution to the problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials." So far, he added, the government has failed to prove that other technologies would work better. In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) said the law is constitutional and should be upheld. Restrictions about who would be covered by the law and how it would be enforced "answer many of the concerns raised by those who attack its constitutionality," Breyer wrote. Congress had tried repeatedly to find a way to protect Web-surfing children from smut without running afoul of the First Amendment. The justices unanimously struck down the first version of a child-protection law passed in 1996, just as the Internet was becoming a commonplace means of communication, research and entertainment. Congress responded by passing COPA, saying the new law met the Supreme Court's free-speech standards. The ACLU challenged COPA immediately, arguing that the replacement law was every bit as unconstitutional as the original. The law has been tied up in the courts ever since. The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. The ACLU argued that its clients could face jail time or fines for distributing information that, while racy or graphic, is perfectly legal for adult eyes and ears. Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment. Adults may see or purchase it, but children may not. A Philadelphia-based federal appeals court has stuck down the law twice, on both broad and fairly narrow grounds. The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #178 *******************************