From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #271 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, October 2 2004 Volume 04 : Number 271 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] stickers, music, phat fish [steve ] [loud-fans] My band could be your life, if your life started with "C" ["R] [loud-fans] Re: Let's all SMILE! + a CD burning request ["Vallor" ] RE: [loud-fans] Sim How We Are ["Heyman, Elo A" ] RE: [loud-fans] Sim How We Are [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] I guess it's a better label than [Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] stickers, music, phat fish On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:19 AM, LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com wrote: > --Mark S., who didn't know sharks were black (as in of African > descent). I'm > referring to the SHARK TALES characters...they're a tad on the "phat" > end of > the spectrum. Has Disney targeted a black audience this blatantly > before? Song of the South, I think. Although that might have been a different kind of targeting. Hard to tell if you mean that Shark Tales is Disney, but it's not. Wait for The Incredibles, which really isn't Disney either. - - Steve __________ Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today. - Mary Jo Foley, eWeek, 04/30/2004 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:20:19 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] My band could be your life, if your life started with "C" Jeffrey: >>Ehh. Too many "C" bands these days - esp. "The C-" bands. The C-Bands! Yessssssss! You know, for all the connotations I did think of for "The Couriers", the font was not one of them. Mostly I just thought, whoa, nobody's ever had a band of any note with this name? Unfortunately, looking at my short list of band name contenders, there's a pretty fair chance of it starting with "C". >>Mark S., who didn't know sharks were black (as in of African descent). I'm >>referring to the SHARK TALES characters...they're a tad on the "phat" end of >>the spectrum. Has Disney targeted a black audience this blatantly before? I thought they were Italian stereotypes, mob-style. Shark Tales is Dreamworks, not Disney/Pixar, though. You can tell because it is the second, less-good looking, and more smugly in-jokey iteration of a concept already done by Pixar (Finding Nemo, in this case). - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:49:14 -0700 From: "Vallor" Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Let's all SMILE! + a CD burning request Before I start rambling (because I know this Smile business must be boring to many of you on the list), I have a CD burning request. I found an LP a couple of weeks ago in a local store and I'm really falling in love with it. However, it's scratched up and skips a lot. I know a CD exists, but it's out of print and I can't find it. If anyone on the list has and would burn a copy of Bridget St. Johns' "Songs For A Gentle Man" for me, I would be grateful ! ================================================ From a couple of posts... > I have SMILEY SMILE. Does the new SMILE have anything in common? Smiley Smile was a sort of half-baked attempt to salvage some of the songs from Smile. The songs were re-recorded (mostly sans the deteriorating Brian Wilson) and are much less fully realized than what had been intended on Smile. I still like it, but as I began to further explore the Smile bootlegs (thanks to many Loudfans list members) and particularly the stunning few original finished tracks on the Beach Boys' Good Vibrations boxed set, I found that Smiley Smile paled greatly next to what was intended. > From: "Aaron Milenski" > > I've heard several bootleg recreations and I have to say > that Brian's structure and song order whips them all--this > album has a perfect feel of a musically (not necessarily lyrically) > connected song cycle, and a lot of the pieces I never > understood now make sense. It really turned out to be much more cohesive than expected. Now when Capitol releases the original tapes on their Smile Sessions boxed set (which I understand is in the works), that should throw the whole thing back into chaos. Fine with me, I'll still be appreciating both versions. > That having been said, there's a definitie lightweight feeling > to it. It's completely missing the lyrical depth and emotion > (and universal themes) of PET SOUNDS, and for that reason > I think it never could have matched it. Maybe others prefer > abstract and whimsical to personal and soul-baring, but I don't. > The whimsy is especially notable, because this goes farther > in that direction than the Beatles or Kinks ever did. I don't really see the psychedelic element either, except for the fact that Parks' lyrics are fairly out in the stratosphere. But Parks was always out there. There's an interesting Parks interview on the project here ( http://snipurl.com/vdpsmile ) where he says that when the acid started dropping, he left. He also makes mention of his incredulousness at being hired as the lyricist when he was known as an arranger and session musician. His lyrical background was limited to a couple of fairly weak solo singles. That said, for me Smile is more of a mood piece or a beautiful piece of abstract impressionism. It is strange and often transcendent, but not without form. I would say that Pet Sounds one of my favorite albums, but it's so different from Smile that I wouldn't be able to compare them. I would say, however, that Pet Sounds is certainly the most emotional piece of work of it's time. > Some songs that on the bootlegs appeared as instrumentals > or only with backing vocals have finally been "completed" and > are fascinating (i.e. those who have heard the boots will > be pleae to hear an actual lead vocal over that bit with > the "dub dub" backing vocals.) I have no idea if these > melodies were planned as far back as 1967, but I know that > some of the lyrics were not written at the time. This is > another neat way all the pieces have come together. The only major lyrical problem I have with the new version is the coda on Wonderful. One of the most beautiful songs from the sessions, this new part seems out of time with the rest of the album. The perfect Wonderful is in the Good Vibrations boxed set. Likewise, I'm not partial to the "I Wanna Be Around" segment to "I'm In Great Shape", it also seems too modern. I'll also concede that a few other songs are superior elsewhere as well, but those original versions lack the context of this Smile album. Cabinessence (the song that made Mike Love get all Mike Love-y about the project) is superior on the Good Vibrations boxed set, as is Windchimes. > Also, hearing it all in this context points out how of all > of the people in the classic rock canon, Wilson was by far > the least "rock." If it wasn't for "Good Vibrations" and > "Heroes And Villians" it's hardly fair to call this rock at all, > though again that's not at all a knock on it. I agree with this, neither this nor Pet Sounds really qualifies as Rock to my ears. Some revisionists are calling it Orchestral Pop these days and that seems to fit just fine. Sadly, I think there was a lot of drek that was inspired by Pet Sounds subsequently, and production-wise it had a vast influence on a really awful barrage of MOR music through the late '60's and early '70's. But the musical themes Wilson was working with on Pet Sounds and Smile are solid and pretty flawless in their execution and seem to transcend their misappropriation; much like Nirvana's Nevermind in the early '90's and the wall of grunge crap that followed. On a side note, I saw Brian Wilson and band do Heroes And Villains on Jay Leno the other night and it was absolutely bizarre. A pointless keyboard in front of BW along with his stiff performance augmented by strange hand movements...yikes. - - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:12:06 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] Sim How We Are The title and subheadings of Robert Coffey's review of THE SIMS 2 in the latest COMPUTER GAMING WORLD are all titles of X albums and songs. However, there appears to have been no attempt to create a Sim John Doe and Exene for the accompanying screenshots. this midnight I will turn into a beer I will, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:34:49 -0500 From: "Heyman, Elo A" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Sim How We Are Can you give your little sim people a career in music and make a sim rock band? I didn't quite make it to "big in Japan" in the real world, so "big in Simland" is the best I can hope for... Also, is there a good Zombies compliation? I tend more toward "Tell Her No", "Changes", "Come on Time"-type tunes than "Time of the Season" type songs. The one comp. I saw on Amazon (Greatest Hits I think) didn't even have "Changes" or "This Will Be Our Year" on it., which I actually know more as Zumpano songs rather than Zombies songs, but whatever. I've never ironed a towel, Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:31:18 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Sim How We Are At 06:34 PM 10/1/2004 -0500, Heyman, Elo A wrote: >Also, is there a good Zombies compliation? They released so little material that I see no reason not to drop the $40 or so on the three-disc ZOMBIE HEAVEN set from a few years ago, which is comprehensive. If you get a single-disc and you like it, you'll want to get more, and if you buy one more disc, well, you've already spent almost as much as you would have on the multi-disc! So if you like more than three Zombies songs, it's worth the money. S ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:43:08 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] I guess it's a better label than Roger Winston wrote: >How lame am I? I actually bought the DVD-A of REVEAL, thinking it couldn't be as dull as I remember it. Wrong wrong! Should've relistened to the CD first... > >I do like parts of UP. > > Geez, ya know, I really like Reveal a lot and haven't bothered listening to Up in quite a while. I guess I must be in a real minority here. Jen (Go Ichiro!!) ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #271 *******************************