From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #249 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 Saturday, September 11 2004 Volume 04 : Number 249 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] 1985 redux [Michael Bowen ] [loud-fans] my friend in SF sent me this [LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] my friend in SF sent me this [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] my friend in SF sent me this [LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com] [loud-fans] throwing the election [LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] throwing the election [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] throwing the election ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] throwing the election [steve ] [loud-fans] Picture Book [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] Picture Book [Wes_Vokes@eFunds.Com] Re: [loud-fans] Picture Book [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] throwing the election ["Fortissimo" ] Re: [loud-fans] 1985... why did it have to be 1985? [Robert Toren ] Re: [loud-fans] Picture Book ["Michael Wells" ] Re: [loud-fans] throwing my hands in the air [LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:05:11 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 1985 redux On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:59:45 EDT, aweiss4338@aol.com wrote: > Now a question: When are The New Pornographers going to acknowledge their > debt to Scott? > To hell with the NPs - when are The Shins gonna 'fess up? I had Chute's Too Narrow in the car last night on a long drive home, and I was amazed how much they sounded like The Loud Family. Except The Shins have a crappy drummer. And too many wimpy acoustic guitars. And two mediocre lead singers, one of whom brings back unpleasant Roger Hodgson flashbacks. And unlike the Louds, they're kinda ugly, too. MB ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:25:32 EDT From: LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] my friend in SF sent me this Why I Will Not Seek a Best Documentary Oscar (I'm giving it up in the hopes more voters can see "Fahrenheit 9/11") 9/6/04 Dear Friends, I had dinner recently with a well-known pollster who had often worked for Republicans. He told me that when he went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" he got sodistraught he twice had to go out in the lobby and pace during the movie. "The Bush White House left open a huge void when it came to explaining the war to the American people," he told me. "And your film has filled that void -- and now there is no way to defeat it. It is the atomic bomb of this campaign." He told me how he had conducted an informal poll with "Fahrenheit 9/11" audiences in three different cities and the results were all the same. "Essentially, 80% of the people going IN to see your movie are already likely Kerry voters and the movie has galvanized them in a way you rarely see Democrats galvanized. "But, here's the bad news for Bush: Though 80% going IN to your movie are Kerry voters, 100% of those COMING OUT of your movie are Kerry voters. You can't come out of this movie and say, 'I am absolutely and enthusiastically voting for George W. Bush.'" His findings are similar to those in other polls conducted around the country. In Pennsylvania, a Keystone poll showed that 4% of Kerry's support has come from people who decided to vote for him AFTER seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- and in an election that will be very close, 4% is a landslide. A Harris poll found that 44% of Republicans who see the film give it a "positive" rating. Another poll, to be released this week, shows a 21-point shift in Bush's approval rating, after just one viewing of the movie, among audiences of undecideds who were shown "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Ohio. My pollster friend told me that he believes if Kerry wins, "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be one of the top three reasons for his election. Kerry's only problem, he said, is how many people will actually be able to see it before election day. The less that see it, the better for Bush. But 20 million people have already seen it -- and the Gallup poll said that 56% of the American public has seen or plans to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" either in the theater or on home video. The DVD and home video of our film, thanks to our distributors listening to our pleas to release it before November, will be in the stores on October 5. This is very good news. But can it also be shown on TV? I brought this possibility up in this week's Rolling Stone interview. Our contract with our DVD distributor says no, it cannot. I have asked them to show it just once, perhaps the night before the election. So far, no deal. But I haven't given up trying. The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction). Although I have no assurance from our home video distributor that they would allow a one-time television broadcast -- and the chances are they probably won't -- I have decided it is more important to take that risk and hope against hope that I can persuade someone to put it on TV, even if it's the night before the election. Therefore, I have decided not to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration for the Best Documentary Oscar. If there is even the remotest of chances that I can get this film seen by a few million more Americans before election day, then that is more important to me than winning another documentary Oscar. I have already won a Best Documentary statue. Having a second one would be nice, but not as nice as getting this country back in the hands of the majority. The deadline to submit the film for the documentary Oscar was last Wednesday. I told my crew who worked on the film, let's let someone else have that Oscar. We have already helped to ignite the biggest year ever for nonfiction films. Last week, 1 out of every 5 films playing in movie theaters across America was a documentary! That is simply unheard of. There have been so many great nonfiction films this year, why not step aside and share what we have with someone else? Remove the 800-pound gorilla from that Oscar category and let the five films who get nominated have all the attention they deserve (instead of the focus being on a film that has already had more than its share of attention). I've read a lot about "Fahrenheit" being a "sure bet" for the documentary Oscar this year. I don't believe anything is truly a "sure bet." And, in the end, I think sometimes it's good for your soul to give up something everyone says is so easily yours (ask Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps why he gave up his spot in the last race to someone else equally deserving, and you'll know what I am talking about). I have informed our distributors of my decision. They support me (in fact, they then offered to submit our film for all the other categories it is eligible for, including Best Picture -- so, hey, who knows, maybe I'll get to complete that Oscar speech from 2003! Sorry, just kidding). Don't get your hopes up for seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" on TV before the election. In fact, I would count on NOT seeing it there (you know me, I'm always g oing after something I probably shouldn't). Get to the theaters soon, if you haven't already, or get it from the video store in October and hold house parties. Share it with everyone you know, especially your nonvoting friends. I have included 100 minutes of extras on the DVD -- powerful footage obtained after we made the movie, and some things that are going to drive Karl Rove into a permanent tailspin -- more on this later! Thanks for all of your support. And go see "Super Size Me," "Control Room," "The Corporation," "Orwell Rolls Over in His Grave," "Bush's Brain," Robert Greenwald's films and the upcoming "Yes Men." You won't be sorry! Yours, Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com P.S. If you want to read my dispatches for USA Today from inside the Republican Convention, go to www.michaelmoore.com. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:01:44 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] my friend in SF sent me this Thanks, Mark. Michael Moore doesn't really do enough to promote himself, and we might have all missed that. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:22:11 EDT From: LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] my friend in SF sent me this In a message dated 9/10/04 12:08:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JRT456@aol.com writes: > Thanks, Mark. Michael Moore doesn't really do enough to promote himself, > and > we might have all missed that. > I sent that as fodder for discussion. Sounds to me like you've made a good point already. - --Mark S. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:57:37 EDT From: LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] throwing the election Oh, JRT, I just remembered...don't criticize Moore too harshly for the self-promotion. That e-mail was sent to the mailing list at michaelmoore.com, that my friend belongs to, so these people WANTED this e-mail. And, I don't think you should speak for all list members to be hip to Michael Moore's doings. That's a bit presumptuous. I myself wouldn't have known all this unless I happened to catch it on public radio between deliveries when a CD isn't playing, or if I saw it on my welcome screen on AOL. I don't have time right now to read the paper with a big teacher portfolio project I'm working on. Maybe some or all Loudfans don't think this e-mail from Moore was list appropriate, but it sure looked like it had list commentary written all over it to me. - --Mark S. p.s. anybody get the new Matt Pond PA CD? Bueno? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:33:09 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] throwing the election In a message dated 9/10/04 2:24:47 PM, LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com writes: > Maybe some or all Loudfans don't think this e-mail from Moore was list > appropriate, but it sure looked like it had list commentary written all over > it to > me. > Mark, I'm as touched by your enthusiasm for conversation as I am creeped out by your insistence on referencing me by (semi)name in your postings. However, as an example of something with true list commentary written all over it, I have enclosed the following tour schedule for Marillion. (I'll try to refrain from posting a concert review of tomorrow's Nektar/Caravan show.) MARILLION DATES Friday 24 September Mexico City Metropolitan Saturday 25 September Mexico City Metropolitan Monday 27 September Los Angeles House of Blues Tuesday 28 September San Francisco The Fillmore Thursday 30 September Denver/Boulder TBC Saturday 2 October Chicago House of Blues Sunday 3 October Cincinnati Bogart's Monday 4 October Cleveland Odeon Wednesday 6 October New York Irving Plaza Thursday 7 October Washington 930 Club Friday 8 October Philadelphia Theatre of Living Arts Sunday 10 October New Haven Toad's Place Monday 11 October Boston Paradise Rock Club Tuesday 12 October Montreal Spectrum Wednesday 13 October Quebec City Olympia Theatre ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:14:51 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] throwing the election Bwah ha ha! Mark, you continue to crack me up. Yeah, we don't want JRT criticizing Michael Moore too harshly, do we? WTTFME* C'mon JRT, let's discuss Moore! And then let's go out for Sprite and crumpets afterwards! Latre. --Rog * - Wiping The Tears From My Eyes - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe - ----- Original Message ----- From: LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com Sent: 9/10/2004 11:57:37 AM To: loud-fans@smoe.org Subject: [loud-fans] throwing the election > Oh, JRT, I just remembered...don't criticize Moore too harshly for the > self-promotion. That e-mail was sent to the mailing list at michaelmoore.com, that > my friend belongs to, so these people WANTED this e-mail. And, I don't think > you should speak for all list members to be hip to Michael Moore's doings. > That's a bit presumptuous. I myself wouldn't have known all this unless I > happened to catch it on public radio between deliveries when a CD isn't playing, or > if I saw it on my welcome screen on AOL. I don't have time right now to read > the paper with a big teacher portfolio project I'm working on. > > Maybe some or all Loudfans don't think this e-mail from Moore was list > appropriate, but it sure looked like it had list commentary written all over it to > me. > > --Mark S. > > p.s. anybody get the new Matt Pond PA CD? Bueno? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:06:36 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] throwing the election On Sep 10, 2004, at 1:33 PM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > (I'll try to refrain from posting a concert > review of tomorrow's Nektar/Caravan show.) Wow, I hope Nektar has their light show. A shipping problem caused it to be absent when I saw them, uh, something like 30 years ago. I'd like to see Caravan, but only if Pye could get Dave Sinclair back on keyboards. - - Steve __________ Among other things, it demonstrates that the current administration's officials are dogged, if inept, disciples of the patriotic bromide, military pageant, "big lie" combo pioneered by Nazi propaganda theorist Joseph Goebbels. - J. Hoberman, on Fahrenheit 9/11 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:28:45 -0700 From: Michael Mitton Subject: [loud-fans] Picture Book The most pleasant surprise from commercial music ever: Though I didn't actually see it, the music in an HP commercial was the Young Fresh Fellows' "Picture Book". Well, a remade version, but the Fellows all the same. I hate commercials at the movies, but for one brief moment, I thought I could live with them afterall. Sidenote: I have a few extra Gmail invitations if any one wants to give it a spin. I love it. Requests offlist, of course. mm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:33:04 -0500 From: Wes_Vokes@eFunds.Com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Picture Book Are you sure? I could have sworn it was the original Kinks version...... Michael Mitton cc: (bcc: Wes Vokes/MKE/eFunds) Sent by: Subject: [loud-fans] Picture Book owner-loud-fans@s moe.org 09/10/04 04:28 PM Please respond to Michael Mitton The most pleasant surprise from commercial music ever: Though I didn't actually see it, the music in an HP commercial was the Young Fresh Fellows' "Picture Book". Well, a remade version, but the Fellows all the same. I hate commercials at the movies, but for one brief moment, I thought I could live with them afterall. Sidenote: I have a few extra Gmail invitations if any one wants to give it a spin. I love it. Requests offlist, of course. mm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:59:48 -0700 From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Picture Book > Are you sure? I could have sworn it was the original Kinks version...... Yes, I am sure. The unfotunate thing is that I'm also wrong! I'm so embarrased--I had no idea the Fellows version was a remake. Well, at least this mistake wasn't as bad as a band I saw once, many years ago. We were just walking in to the venue and we heard the singer say, "We're gonna play one from U2. It's called 'All along the Watchtower'". We figured that was enough information that we could safely turn around and walk out. I'll shut up now, mm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:39:39 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] throwing the election On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:33:09 EDT, JRT456@aol.com said: > Mark, I'm as touched by your enthusiasm for conversation as I am creeped > out > by your insistence on referencing me by (semi)name in your postings. Uh...? So how does the writer of the post I've quoted prefer to be referred to, other than by the name he provides in his posts to the list? Uh-and if it bugs TWOTPIQ (which isn't really a flattering acronym, but hey, that's the way the language works) to be referred to by name, why does he then refer to Mark by name? I'm just a confused person. Surprise. > However, > as an example of something with true list commentary written all over it, > I > have enclosed the following tour schedule for Marillion. Oh, now TWOTPIQ's just trying to draw glenn out of retirement! - ------------------------------- ...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: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:05:58 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] English Beat on Bands Reunited spoiler space * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Well, after going ahead with the ABC reunion with only Martin Fry and the drummer from the first album, we were all confused about the show's rules. Last night before the show came on, Melissa and I were mentally working through the shows from the previous batch, and in the ones where there was no performance, they were missing one of the lead presences (Glen Tilbrook, Holly Johnson, etc.). So we concluded that maybe going ahead with the ABC show *didn't* violate the show's self-made rules, since Fry was on board (even if that does a disservice to Mark White's contributions to the band). Then last night, they *didn't* go ahead with the English Beat performance, even though they had four of six members, including both Wakeling and Ranking Roger. Sooo... wtf? I guess there are no rules. (I know that the show ended with the footage Dave getting onstage with Ranking Roger's Beat at the latter's regularly-scheduled gig, thus putting all four of the guys who had signed up for the reunion onstage at one time, but that wasn't under the aegis of the show.) Other observations from last night: * Saxa is super cool. * Dave Wakeling is a superficial jerk, though his frankness about his motivations and central role in breaking up the Beat earns him some bonus points. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:09:13 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Picture Book At 02:59 PM 9/10/2004 -0700, Michael Mitton wrote: >> Are you sure? I could have sworn it was the original Kinks version...... > >Yes, I am sure. The unfotunate thing is that I'm also wrong! I'm so >embarrased--I had no idea the Fellows version was a remake. I'm weeping openly here. Anyone got a spare copy of VILLAGE GREEN PRESERVATION SOCIETY for Michael? later, Miles, who thinks the greatest run of albums ever was the Kinks' 1966-71 streak (FACE TO FACE through MUSWELL HILLBILLIES) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:17:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Toren Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 1985... why did it have to be 1985? From: Charity Stafford > I did buy Lolita Nation, and saw the band at the > Rat, but was underwhelmed at the time > with .both .experiences - I didn't fall totally in love until probably about 1991-92. I remember a Lolita (?) gig at the Rat - we were headlining a lot of the clubs, but in Boston the *?*?* Dogs headlined - the way I remember it, GT went on ready to tear it up and steal the show, but had plenty o' technical problems and the set never gained momentum - not bad, but not one of GT's best_ anyway - that's my memory - Robert ===== http://www.angrylambie.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:49:01 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] throwing the Reunion In a message dated 9/10/04 7:15:03 PM, tonerbomb@warpmail.net writes: > Uh...? So how does the writer of the post I've quoted prefer to be > referred to, other than by the name he provides in his posts to the > list? Uh-and if it bugs TWOTPIQ (which isn't really a flattering > acronym, but hey, that's the way the language works) to be referred to > by name, why does he then refer to Mark by name? > Not really sure where you were going with this high concept, but I was baffled at how Mark (as I call him) kept including personal asides to me on a matter which many here had posted about, as if we had some kind of off-list conversation going. Not that I mind off-list conversations, of course. It was just kind of weird. I've never made it through an entire "Bands Reunited," but I've never seen anyone bring up financial issues. I thought it was pretty obvious that the Beat wouldn't get together, since reuniting all the key players would've been a major attraction in the UK market. I wouldn't advise those guys to blow that payday on a dopey reality show. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:39:36 -0700 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Picture Book Michael Mitton wrote: > Yes, I am sure. The unfotunate thing is that I'm also wrong! I'm so > embarrased--I had no idea the Fellows version was a remake. When the Young Fresh Fellows opened for the Soft Boys at the Fillmore a few years ago, Scott McCaughey introduced "Picture Book" by saying that lots of people had told him it was one of the best songs he'd ever written, "but unfortunately, I didn't write it, it's by Ray Davies" I thought he was joking, but have run into lots of people since then who didn't realize that that song was a cover. Speaking of which, the latest Minus Five album, IN ROCK, is really good. People who complained that last year's DOWN WITH WILCO was too midtempo need to check this album out! Very UP-tempo, and ROCK-sounding! - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:23:45 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Picture Book Steve: > When the Young Fresh Fellows opened for the Soft Boys at the Fillmore a > few years ago, Scott McCaughey introduced "Picture Book" by saying that > lots of people had told him it was one of the best songs he'd ever > written, "but unfortunately, I didn't write it, it's by Ray Davies" Speaking of covers, on Scott's summer tour with John Wesley Harding and ex-Poi Dog regular Dag Juhlin (billed as the "All Male Threesome" - trust me, don't google that), "Picture Book" and "Young and Innocent Days" were setlist regulars. At the show I caught the latter was played, Wes and Dag's harmony vocals making it shine. I understand that "A Well Respected Man" also cropped up once or twice... Miles: > who thinks the greatest run of albums ever was the Kinks' 1966-71streak (FACE TO FACE through MUSWELL HILLBILLIES) That's not a bad choice, but covering roughly the same period my vote would instead go for the Stones 1965-72 (OUT OF OUR HEADS through EXILE ON MAIN STREET). As always, YTFDDGPMV.* The lesson here, as usual, is that older music is better. (ducks) Michael "*your tolerance for Dave Davies' guitar playing may vary" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:48:04 EDT From: LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] throwing my hands in the air In a message dated 9/10/04 9:19:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JRT456@aol.com writes: > Not really sure where you were going with this high concept, but I was > baffled at how Mark (as I call him) kept including personal asides to me on > a matter > which many here had posted about, as if we had some kind of off-list > conversation going. Not that I mind off-list conversations, of course. It > was just > kind of weird. > > Good God, just forget it! I'm sorry I posted the Moore thing, and I'm sorry to weird you out, JRT. I just threw those asides in there to you like that in a couple of e-mails because you had asked what people thought of the Cale record, and I gave my reaction, but my reaction was really too short to deem a separate e-mail. People used to complain that I posted too much, so I was trying to save on excessive posting! That's the reason. Oy. - --Mark S. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #249 *******************************