From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V6 #121 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 Monday, June 26 2006 Volume 06 : Number 121 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: [loud-fans] did we get "Don't Bother Me" yet? (The Walrus was George) ["rslloyd" ] [loud-fans] about that new tune....... [Gil Ray ] [loud-fans] New Lyric Machine ["Paul King" ] [loud-fans] Wonder Street [2fs ] Re: [loud-fans] New Lyric Machine [2fs ] Re: [loud-fans] New Lyric Machine [2fs ] Re: [loud-fans] Wonder Street [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] New Lyric Machine ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] "Mavis of Maybelline Towers" tentative final version [2fs] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 10:14:53 -0700 From: "rslloyd" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] did we get "Don't Bother Me" yet? (The Walrus was George) Jeff wrote: > Perhaps my take hadn't/didn't come through? Sorry about that. For no good reason I can see, that particular post got filtered as spam on my computer. By the way, for the verse after the first chorus and instrumental section, I think Anton sings more or less the same things he sang for the first verse, but it sounds like Scott adds a background line or two of his own. At that point, I just throw up my hands and enjoy the wash of sound. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 14:58:34 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] did we get "Don't Bother Me" yet? (The Walrus was George) On 6/25/06, rslloyd wrote: > > Jeff wrote: > > > Perhaps my take hadn't/didn't come through? > > Sorry about that. For no good reason I can see, that particular post got > filtered as spam on my computer. I wondered whether the line really was "I don't know who these people are selling me C1-a-l1s"... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:11:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Gil Ray Subject: [loud-fans] new tune! Howdy folks! Put up the last preview track from my forthcoming cd - - now I gotta get busy with artwork and mastering! Hope you like it! Gil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:20:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Gil Ray Subject: [loud-fans] about that new tune....... Doh! This might help... http://www.myspace.com/atomorama Howdy folks! Put up the last preview track from my forthcoming cd - - now I gotta get busy with artwork and mastering! Hope you like it! Gil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:36:51 -0400 From: "Paul King" Subject: [loud-fans] New Lyric Machine Hello I think I just made a lyric mangling machine out of my speech dictation application. Speech Dictation works well on normal speech, so long as your tone of voice is regular and your speech is slow. However, just think of the things you can do by varying your voice and even singing the lyrics songs into the voice dictation application. Here are the lyrics to The first verse and chorus of Inverness first spoken then sung. No attempt was made to edit the lyrics. Inverness (Miller) - Lyrics spoken (OK, but needs editing) - ---------------------------------------------------------- At night I know there is some place I can go where there4s no place in waking light I dream clichis that I4ve dreamed a thousand ways I4m not about clichis tonight the playground viewed from blasted height all Inverness I bet you never actually seen a person died of loneliness Olin furness all in good time - ------------------------------ When I sung Inverness into the dictation software, it appeared as though the lyrics I sung bore no resemblance to the lyrics the voice synthesis software actually dictated. Inverness - Lyrics sung into voice dictation software (probably makes sense when stoned) - --------------------------------------------------------- The man I known there is something you go well as knows it easy and we came through, the dream clichis that dream to that as an ole Gunnar the blow of clichis ten are and who the eight the plane to have viewed from nested who whole hello independents to union and the actually seen at this and I loan payments go the way and then it4s all been good to be - ------------------------ the moral of the story-is that to err is human, but to really screw things up requires a computer. On the other hand, though, I have mused over the creation of new lyrics by this method and to transform familiar songs into something completely unintentional. it is almost like you can create new poetry that you could not possibly have created any other way. There is a similar program on the Internet somewhere, "Dadadodo", who stated purpose, according to the documentation, is to "completely obliterate all rational thought". It attempts to achieve this goal by taking a text file and mangling the words in a way that produces meanings that are completely unintended, or produce no meaning at all. I believe I have taken this goal one step further by taking a perfectly good lyric, processing it through a software, and not only obliterating the original thought that also obliterating the original words. in addition, I have also obliterated all meaning. :-) Paul ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:01:22 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: [loud-fans] Wonder Street Forwarded from another list - a smoking performance of "Superstition" from Stevie Wonder - from, of all places, a '70s broadcast of Sesame Street: - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:25:12 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Lyric Machine On 6/25/06, Paul King wrote: > > Hello > > I think I just made a lyric mangling machine out of my speech dictation > application. Speech Dictation works well on normal speech, so long as your > tone > of voice is regular and your speech is slow. However, just think of the > things > you can do by varying your voice and even singing the lyrics songs into > the voice > dictation application. > > On the other hand, though, I have mused over the creation of new lyrics by > this > method and to transform familiar songs into something completely > unintentional. > it is almost like you can create new poetry that you could not possibly > have > created any other way. There is a similar program on the Internet > somewhere, > "Dadadodo", who stated purpose, according to the documentation, is to > "completely > obliterate all rational thought". It attempts to achieve this goal by > taking a > text file and mangling the words in a way that produces meanings that are > completely unintended, or produce no meaning at all. I believe I have > taken this > goal one step further by taking a perfectly good lyric, processing it > through a > software, and not only obliterating the original thought that also > obliterating > the original words. in addition, I have also obliterated all > meaning. :-) Fun! Some of us probably already know that Momus (whose mother refers to him as Nick Currie) has used various lyric-mangling strategies in his own work, particularly double-translating texts into a second language and back into the first. I'm not familiar with that Dadadodo site - I'll have to look it up! Anyway, thanks for the horse-polishing palisades - my window leaks annoyance under curled tablelight. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:58:29 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Lyric Machine > On 6/25/06, Paul King wrote: > > > > created any other way. There is a similar program on the Internet > somewhere, > "Dadadodo", who stated purpose, according to the documentation, is to > "completely > obliterate all rational thought". It attempts to achieve this goal by > taking a > text file and mangling the words in a way that produces meanings that are > completely unintended, or produce no meaning at all. > That reminds me: probably twenty years ago, I read an article in Scientific American about what made text characteristically a particular writer's. (I suppose you could say it was about what constituted authorial style.) Essentially, large chunks of a given writer's text were fed into a computer, then spit back. If the program was directed to output text one word at a time, it was (unsurprisingly) gibberish. If, however, the program was directed to group words (i.e., given one word, the next word would have to be a word that followed that word in the writer's works), it was surprising how soon the texts (while still rather nonsensical) began being recognizably their writers'. There were some parameters in there regarding sentence length and other variables, I believe. (Two writers I recall the article using were Hemingway and Henry James.) It's been too long, and I forget what point the article was making - but it strikes me that style emerges before sense, at least at some level...an interesting conclusion. Does anyone else remember this article - and better yet, have a citation for it? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:31:59 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Wonder Street 2fs wrote: >Forwarded from another list - a smoking performance of "Superstition" from >Stevie Wonder - from, of all places, a '70s broadcast of Sesame Street: > > > > > > That was fun! And that kid in the orange shirt was gettin' down! Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:14:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Lyric Machine On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, 2fs wrote: > On 6/25/06, Paul King wrote: > > On the other hand, though, I have mused over the creation of new > > lyrics by this method and to transform familiar songs into something > > completely unintentional. it is almost like you can create new poetry > > that you could not possibly have created any other way. There is a > > similar program on the Internet somewhere, "Dadadodo", who stated > > purpose, according to the documentation, is to "completely obliterate > > all rational thought". It attempts to achieve this goal by taking a > > text file and mangling the words in a way that produces meanings that > > are completely unintended, or produce no meaning at all. I believe I > > have taken this goal one step further by taking a perfectly good > > lyric, processing it through a software, and not only obliterating the > > original thought that also obliterating the original words. in > > addition, I have also obliterated all meaning. :-) Sounds sort of like the cut-up method of W.S. BUrroughs et al. Bowie wrote some of the songs on DIAMOND DOGS using that method. > Some of us probably already know that Momus (whose mother refers to him as > Nick Currie) has used various lyric-mangling strategies in his own work, > particularly double-translating texts into a second language and back into > the first. For which: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMZtdLra24E&search=super%20karate%20monkey Donkey, donkey, donkey, donkey, donkey. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:23:49 -0500 From: Jack Lippold Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Lyric Machine You oughta create a website out of it and call it: "The Mondegreen Generator" >Hello > >I think I just made a lyric mangling machine out of my speech dictation >application. Speech Dictation works well on normal speech, so long as your >tone >of voice is regular and your speech is slow. However, just think of the >things >you can do by varying your voice and even singing the lyrics songs into >the voice >dictation application. Here are the lyrics to The first verse and chorus of >Inverness first spoken then sung. No attempt was made to edit the lyrics. > >Inverness (Miller) - Lyrics spoken (OK, but needs editing) >---------------------------------------------------------- >At night I know >there is some place I can go >where there4s no place in waking light >I dream clichis >that I4ve dreamed a thousand ways >I4m not about clichis tonight >the playground viewed from blasted height > >all Inverness >I bet you never actually seen a person died of loneliness >Olin furness >all in good time >------------------------------ > >When I sung Inverness into the dictation software, it appeared as though the >lyrics I sung bore no resemblance to the lyrics the voice synthesis software >actually dictated. > >Inverness - Lyrics sung into voice dictation software >(probably makes sense when stoned) >--------------------------------------------------------- >The man I known >there is something you go >well as knows it easy and we came through, >the dream clichis >that dream to that as an ole >Gunnar the blow of clichis ten are and who the eight >the plane to have viewed from nested who > >whole hello independents >to union and the actually seen at this and I loan payments >go the way and then it4s all been good to be > >------------------------ >the moral of the story-is that to err is human, but to really screw things up >requires a computer. > >On the other hand, though, I have mused over the creation of new lyrics by >this >method and to transform familiar songs into something completely >unintentional. >it is almost like you can create new poetry that you could not possibly have >created any other way. There is a similar program on the Internet somewhere, >"Dadadodo", who stated purpose, according to the documentation, is to >"completely >obliterate all rational thought". It attempts to achieve this goal by >taking a >text file and mangling the words in a way that produces meanings that are >completely unintended, or produce no meaning at all. I believe I have >taken this >goal one step further by taking a perfectly good lyric, processing it >through a >software, and not only obliterating the original thought that also >obliterating >the original words. in addition, I have also obliterated all meaning. :-) > >Paul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:13:39 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "Mavis of Maybelline Towers" tentative final version On 6/23/06, 2fs wrote: > > On 6/23/06, rslloyd wrote: > > > > > > > The one thing I would add is that the song also seems ripe for a more > > generalized extrapolation to--hold on to your seat--the situation of the > > U.S. before and after 9/11. Some of that feeling comes from a lot of > > fairly > > loaded words, like "towers," "hard truth," "there's trouble," "roll" (as > > in > > "Let's roll"), "pulpit" (which inevitably makes me think of "cockpit"), > > "flying into," and all the flying-in-a-plane imagery. (Given enough > > rope, I > > could even hear "chuck it" as playing off "Chuck Yeager," especially > > given > > that Scott's used "Francis Gary Powers" in another song. Even worse, I > > can > > imagine many of the words coming from a more articulate, more > > self-reflective version of George "Holding Steady" W. Bush.) > > > > Hmm. Could be. Interesting to compare with a song by another Scott that's > more definitely about 9/11 (although in his oblique way that makes Scott M. > seem a paragon of directness): Scott Walker's "Jesse." > > > > > > > Agree also about "Honalei," though I see it more as an escape that > > doesn't > > work because we could be the carriers of what destroys native life, with > > the > > security measures cutting both ways. > > > > Actually, it was this paragraph that made me think of the Walker song. > Should probably actually write up some thoughts that have been percolating > in my head thereon... > This I have done: < http://spanghew.blogspot.com/2006/06/band-was-jumpin-and-joint-began-to.html > - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V6 #121 *******************************