From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V6 #18 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, January 19 2006 Volume 06 : Number 018 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: [paisley-pop] NC Music History - The Happy Eggs [Lar] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises [glenn mcdonald ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:27:20 -0500 From: Larry Tucker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: [paisley-pop] NC Music History - The Happy Eggs Hey Gil. I lived in Charlotte from '74 to '79. Between '77 and '78 I lived a block behind Reflection Studios. It sure wasn't the best of neighborhoods. It's probably all gentrified now and "the place" the live and all that. In the opposite direction a block over was the Krispy Kreme that baked their donuts every night. We'd have the smell of donuts wafting through the window as we slept, or tried to sleep. I recall many a night getting up and walking over to get donuts. On one such night I witnessed a real food fight. It was around 3:00 in the morning involving the employess and some of their visiting friends. It was a pretty bizarre site and man what a mess. - --Larry On 1/17/06, Gil Ray wrote: > > Cool Larry! Thanks for sending this! > > THis could be my favorite record I have ever played > on! We were a bunch of band chums, dating back to high > school (1972ish). We were in a band then called Rock > Bottom. > > When the new wave/punk thing hit Charlotte (1979 or > so), we decided to get back together and jump on that > bandwagon. We were a bunch of smart-asses, and not > very sincere, but we were really good and had a pretty > big following. > > We played lots of covers, and many originals. 4 of > those were on the ep. REM's first single came out > around the same time. I was working at a record store > then, and was very jealous that on their cover, they > could afford a little patch of color (purple) on the > sleeve! (I did the cover for the Eggs ep) > > It was recorded at Reflections Sound studios, with > Jamey producing. Those aren't my drums on there, for > some reason Jamey wanted me to use the studio's big > flappy ones. Grrr! > > Wow. Thanks Larry! > > Gil > > --- Larry Tucker wrote: > > > Hey Gil! Dig this. Check the link below. Pretty wild > > stuff. > > > > How many shows did y'all play Gill and what's the > > story of how you landed in > > San Francisco and hooked up with Game Theory? > > > > And give us an update on your solo project! > > > > --Larry > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: michael slawter > > Date: Jan 16, 2006 10:06 AM > > Subject: [paisley-pop] NC Music History > > To: paisley-pop@yahoogroups.com > > > > Hello All, > > > > I posted a Happy Eggs song today on > > http://www.ncmusichistory.com/ > > > > This is the band that Gil Ray (Game Theory) was in > > before GT. It also > > features Jamie Hoover (Spongetones). I thought some > > folks here might > > enjoy this. > > > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: > > paisley-pop@eGroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > paisley-pop-unsubscribe@eGroups.com > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paisley-pop/ > > > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email > > to: > > paisley-pop-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:00:02 -0500 From: glenn mcdonald Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises I've just read Douglas Rushkoff's excellent new book, _Get Back in the Box_, and it applies just as abundantly to the music industry as anything. His point is that "innovation" at a tangent to your actual product (i.e., innovations in copy-protection when what you're actually selling is music) distracts you from, and is never as effective as, innovation in what you actually do. The music industry would be far better off, in its own terms, if it concentrated on finding/promoting/distributing/cultivating better music and better musicians. The major labels are effectively going out of their way to undermine the advantage of their own majorness, to the point where most of the time they're effectively gambling on being able to purchase and resell somebody else's emerging hits. The rewarding work of investing in artist development falls to resource-fortunate indies, and the idea of music as something that plays a bigger and deeper role in your life than chewing gum and hair clips, which ought to be the most basic grounding of music as a business, is left to individual music fans to pursue in the face of explicit antagonism from the companies who stand to benefit from it the most. Thus, after incredibly protracted reluctance, my willingness to throw up my hands and declare personal anarchy. Then again, of the 12 examples of theft I used in the piece that sparked this delayed discussion, I've since deleted seven of them and purchased one. Three of the remaining four are not available for sale, and although I haven't paid for the fourth, I *have* since purchased both a DVD and another CD by that same artist. If I recall correctly, I have subsequently stolen a grand total of two individual songs, both foreign bonus tracks. So it's a kinda staid anarchy here. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:51:08 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/18/06, glenn mcdonald wrote: > musicians. The major labels are effectively going out of their way to > undermine the advantage of their own majorness, to the point where > most of the time they're effectively gambling on being able to > purchase and resell somebody else's emerging hits. The rewarding work > of investing in artist development falls to resource-fortunate > indies... My brain has mulched which conversation occurred where - but I think it was over on the Robyn Hitchcock list where this very point came up. With some exceptions of the "British neo-'80s" school, it seems like nearly every newish major-label act whose records are even remotely likely to be listened to twenty years from now developed initially on indie labels. Majors are, in other words, essentially parasitic on indies - and (exacerbating a trend internet transmissibility already made prominent) are increasingly valuable exclusively in the position of publicity agents. I suppose I can understand their wanting to increase control over "their" product...since, of course, advertisers and public-relations firms don't usually dictate content either to producers or to consumers (they influence it, to be sure - but whoever has Toyota's advertising account doesn't tell Toyota how to build cars). In a way, that's always been true - but the fact that in the past recorded music was only available in a physical medium, a medium that (like any other physical medium) had to manufactured, distributed, and sold, hid the fact that, for both performers and fans, music could exist without them. That bands like the Grateful Dead could be enormously successful for year after year without releasing the merest scrap of recorded plastic ought to have been a warning of sorts, that music wasn't dependent upon those little discs the industry made. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V6 #18 ******************************