From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V6 #226 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 Tuesday, November 14 2006 Volume 06 : Number 226 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Martins' Beatles remix [dc ] Re: [loud-fans] comp reviews, anyone? [Aaron Mandel ] [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel [2fs ] Re: [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel [Gil Ray ] Re: [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel ["Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Martins' Beatles remix > Has anyone here had a chance to hear this yet, has George himself heard it? i was of the understanding that he'd gone deaf - dc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:35:54 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] comp reviews, anyone? On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Jenny Grover wrote: > Would anyone who has received their GT/LF comp DVD's from me care to > comment on them for the benefit of those who might be trying to decide > if they want them? I've been so busy, I barely managed to watch ten minutes of the live footage, but it was pretty great. I'm going to have to get out my headphones-- some of the songs seem to be performed with substantially different (earlier) lyrics. If there are people who, as Jen says, are wavering on whether they want the DVDs, I will be posting a Torrent of both discs at some point. (It won't be full quality; I'll see how they look when compressed before I decide how small to make the files.) > Also, given that we have/are such music geeks on this list, I was > wondering if anyone here has ever planned/tried/succeeded in listening > to their entire CD collection in alphabetical order. No, but I've thought about it. When I was a DJ, I went through the station's rock collection (about 20,000 pieces, I think) in alphabetical order over the course of 4+ years-- not listening to everything all the way through, obviously, but pulling everything off the shelf and if it looked at all interesting, throwing it on the turntable briefly. Very educational. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:30:01 -0500 From: "Larry Kooper" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ellen Willis r.i.p. My goodness, what a shock. I enjoyed her music writing a lot. She was one of the first American rock critics to take notice of punk, at that time in the New Yorker. On 11/12/06, zoom@muppetlabs.com wrote: > > Forward from a friend: > > I just read that Ellen Willis died last week. > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/arts/10willis.html?_r=1 > > &oref=slogin > > I still re-read No More Nice Girls and Beginning to See the Light every > six > months or so. Thank you for introducing me. > > Other links worth noting: > > www.rockcritics.com > > http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/willis.html > > This makes, if I count correctly, the third STRANDED contributor to die, > and the second this year, roughly four months after Paul Nelson. > > On a possibly brighter-note, the oft-bandied "let the younger critics have > their say" version of STRANDED, looks ready to go: > > http://maroonedbook.blogspot.com/ > > Willis' old boyfriend just got shafted from the Voice (and I spent all day > Saturday in bed myself), > > Andy > > > In My Lonely Room > By Ellen Willis > > The following thought experiment was inspired, or provoked, by this years > art scandale, the Mirroring Evil exhibit that opened at the Jewish > Museum in March; and in particular by Roee Rosens installation, which > invites us to imagine that we are Eva Braun having a last night of sex > with Adolf Hitler: > > Imagine that the exhibit contains no actual art works, a fact that is > carefully concealed from the public and the press. The catalogue, issued > in advance, describes the supposed works and includes supposed photographs > of some items. It announces the intentions of the showto demystify and > appropriate rather than memorialize the Holocaust, to probe the appeal of > the oppressors rather than the suffering of the victims. It discusses at > length, in a series of essays by curators and academics, the questions and > reflections the exhibit means to prompt. (From the Foreword: As offensive > as such work may seem on the surface... is it the Nazi imagery itself that > offends, or the artists aesthetic manipulation of such imagery? Does such > art become the victim of the imagery it depicts? Or does it actually tap > into and thereby exploit the repugnant power of Nazi imagery as a way > merely to shock and move its viewers? Or is it both...?) > > Predictably, the catalogue attracts a double whammy of outrage, from the > culture warriors who never miss a chance to heap contempt on what has come > to be called (in various inflections ranging from total earnestness to > dripping sarcasm) transgressive art, and from the keepers of the flame > who see all representations of the Holocaust as guilty until proven > innocent. It also inspires, or provokes, a New York Observer article by > Ron (Explaining Hitler) Rosenbaum lamenting that the work, which he has > not yet had a chance to see, has already been contextualized to death by > the essayists. They have, he argues, done the art and the artists a > serious disservice, imposing on the work a naove, one-dimensional, > postmodern point of view... that frames it in a single rigid lens that > substitutes a simplistic moral relativism for real engagement with the > issues. > > Arriving at the museum on the exhibits opening day, visitors encounter a > further barrage of verbiage explaining what we are about to see and how we > ought to look at it (This art is cautionary... It warns us not to take > for granted the symbols of oppression that pervade our outlets of news and > entertainment. It conveys wariness about techniques of persuasion, > including those we encounter in the marketplace etc., etc.). Having run > this gauntlet, we approach the first gallery. It consists of a large empty > space with white walls. Disoriented, we at first think were in the wrong > place, but another large explanatory placard reassures us: the catalogue, > and the debate generated by it, are the real point. Any actual images > would simply narrow the range of thoughts and feelings the debate has > elicited. Nazism is above all a state of mind that cannot be attached to > any object. We move on to a second room, whose entrance has a warning > sign: The contents of this room may be offensive to Holocaust survivors. > This room is also empty, but is surrounded on three sides with > wall-to-ceiling mirrors. The fourth wall contains an elaborate explanation > of what the mirrors are supposed to signify. > > To save time and avoid insulting the readers intelligence I will pass > over this explanation and move on to the third and final room, in which we > can watch a video of the artists who supplied the descriptions and > photographs of their work for the catalogue, along with curators, art > critics, and Holocaust survivors, discussing the show and its import. > Finally, in the museum gift shop visitors can buy miniature bottles of > Chanel perfume in the shape of zyklon canisters (inspired by one of Tom > Sachss works). LEGO blocks for building replicas of Auschwitz were > considered (after Zbigniew Liberas imagined LEGO concentration camp set > boxes) but were deemed too expensive to produce. The idea is not, as an > extensive wall placard explains, to make money by selling these disturbing > objects (all profits are to go to a fund benefiting survivors and their > families) but to force people to contemplate the dark attractions of a > commodified society through the actual act of buying or resisting the > temptation to buy. > > My point, as Im sure youve guessed, is that the work displayed in > Mirroring Evil is almost incidental to the issues raised by the show. > (For the record, the catalogue and entrance-wall copy quoted, as well as > the debriefing video, actually exist. The wall-to-ceiling mirrors and > souvenir canisters ought to exist.) Ron Rosenbaums generous hopes > notwithstanding, the exhibit does not, by and large, transcend the > limitations of its relentless preemptive commentary. What we have here is > not critics and theorists projecting their half-baked ideas onto hapless > artists but something more akin to a group of people who have organized a > party and are determined to have a great time even though the guest of > honor has failed to show up. The sheer volume of commentarywhich extends > to posted explanations for every piece; nothing is allowed to speak for > itselfis no doubt defensive, prompted by anticipation of the inevitable > outcry; but it would also seem to reflect intuitive abhorrence of a > vacuum. > > The conceit of conceptual art is that it makes aesthetic (or > anti-aesthetic) experience of ideas. This means, on the one hand, that it > eschews the aura of the transcendent, autonomous art object; and on the > other thatsince its art, not argumentit need not supply evidence for > its ideas, or come to any particular conclusions. Rather, its effect > depends on the force and resonance and multidimensionality of its > conceptions; it must be productive of thought, yet ultimately mysterious, > more than the sum of its statements. When a piece of conceptual art is > banal or reductive it is not only bad art, like an image that purports to > be beautiful but is merely pretty; it also becomes dishonest, hiding > behind its aesthetic pretensions (who me? Im an artist; Im supposed to > raise questions, not answer them) to avoid responsibility for its > (inflammatory? impoverished?) intellectual claims. > > What are the ideas that govern Mirroring Evil? A number of pieces let us > in on one or another version of the big news that fascism has aesthetic, > even erotic appeal; that it has been glamorized in movies and pornographic > images. Piotr Uklanski offers a Warhol-like lineup of 166 photographs of > actors playing Nazi roles (your favoriteMarlon Brando? Yul Brynner?is > almost certainly included). Christine Borland, inspired by her discovery > that some of Mengeles victims found him attractive, displays the work of > sculptors she commissioned to make busts of the evil doctor based on her > description (without telling them who it was). A video by Maciej > Toporowicz intersperses images from Leni Riefenstahl films with clips of > Luchino Viscontis The Damned, Pier Pasolinis Salo, and Calvin Klein > adsthereby embracing another prominent theme of the exhibition, a > Frankfurt-School-redux equation of fascism with consumerism. In this vein, > Tom Sachss canisters wrapped in Chanel, Hermes, and Tiffany packaging and > his model death camp mounted on a Prada box have deservedly gotten the > most notoriety. (Placard: Do we desire designer labels so much that we > would accept anything at all that comes with them?) Is this what all the > trumpeting about new perspectives on the Holocaust amounts to? The > repetition of half a centurys clichis about the sinister seductiveness of > mass media and mass culture? > > I suspect that the problem with Mirroring Evil is not simply a matter of > some disappointing work by individual artists (perhaps to be expected, > given the difficulties of a subject that is at once over-represented, > inadequately grasped, and emotionally punishing). Rather, I believe it has > to do with the stagnant political and cultural climate in which art is > currently produced. When the pop artists invented the deadpan sensibility > now hegemonic in the contemporary art world, they were reacting to a > romantic utopianism that rejected a world of mass produced, mass > communicated consumer goods and images. Mass culture, they aimed to show, > had its own distinctive forms of beauty, pleasure and excitement, forms > that were worth celebrating. They did not deny that our society had its > problems, but they were, for the most part, political fatalists. They saw > no choice but to separate the aesthetic from the moral: Andy Warhols > gorgeous silk screens of electric chairs said it all. > > Like or dislike the pop stance, it was, at the time (the mid-`60s), a > genuinely no-quotation-marks transgressive critique of the assumption, > ubiquitous among intellectuals, that mass media and consumer culture were > nothing but a means of seducing a sheeplike population into confusing > compulsive shopping with happiness. For those of us who embraced the > critique while rejecting the political fatalism, pop pointed the way > toward a different kind of utopianism, one that allowed us to be both > radicals and rock and roll fans. That was what post-modernism meant in > those days. Now, paradoxically, the inheritors of pop use its language to > resurrect the old anti-consumerist, anti-media ideology, with all its > moralism but without the leavening of any sort of utopianism, romantic or > otherwise, at a time when political fatalism is the cultures common > sense. No wonder they look at Nazism and see themselves: the culprit is > not simplistic moral relativism so much as the academicizing and, ah, > decontextualizing of pop irony. > > One piece in the show confounds these remarks: Alan Schechners > much-reviled Its the Real ThingSelf-Portrait at Buchenwald, in which > the artist inserts himself, brandishing a Diet Coke can, into a digital > image of Margaret Bourke Whites 1945 photograph of inmates at the camp. > The catalogue does its best (in this case Rosenbaum has it right) to coopt > Schechners work for its anti-consumerist brief: The irony of a robust > Schechner among gaunt, malnourished survivors becomes embarrassing in the > presence of a symbol of our cultures self-indulgent body consciousness. > We are faced with the fact that we can extravagantly afford to produce > purposely nutritionless products for widespread consumption.... The Coke > can draws parallels between brainwashing tactics of the Nazis and > commodification. Just as much of Europe succumbed to Nazi culture because > it was the dominant paradigm, so does our contemporary culture succumb to > consumerism. > > Of course its starvation, not robustness, that ought to embarrass us, and > the parallel between Coke-drinking and genocide is not exactly > self-evident, but never mind. Schechners image manages to elude this > ideological meatgrinder and transcend its own rather glib juxtapositions > of hunger and diet drink, Holocaust victim and privileged American Jew, to > achieve something richer and more unsettling. The Coke can is alight with > what looks like a halo: a radiant, holy object. The inmates appear to be > staring at it. The artist frowns. Unnervingly, he seems to become a > stand-in for the Allied liberators, offering up to the survivors an icon > of freedom. And then, as I continue to look, the scene breaks away from > its moorings: it becomes the devastated people of Europe facing toward the > beacon of post-war prosperity; the Third World gazing at the symbol of the > American dream and of corporate globalization; the perplexed American > Jewish artist, representing this dual legacy, willy-nilly in the middle of > it all. > > In contrast, the idea that Nazism is mirrored in American consumerism > comes across as a form of grandiosity, the desire of middle-class artists > and critics to see themselves as the fulcrum of history. For in truth, the > mirror images of the Nazis, in our time, are not Calvin Klein and Prada > but Bosnian Serbs and Islamic fundamentalists and, closer to home, white > supremacist militias and assassins of abortion doctors. These, at any > rate, are the images with which I would fill my imagined empty room. > > --Ellen Willis, from > http://www.firstofthemonth.org/culture/culture_willis_mirroring.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:49:40 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] comp reviews, anyone? On 11/13/06, Aaron Mandel wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Jenny Grover wrote: > > > Would anyone who has received their GT/LF comp DVD's from me care to > > comment on them for the benefit of those who might be trying to decide > > if they want them? > > I've been so busy, I barely managed to watch ten minutes of the live > footage, but it was pretty great. I must admit I too have been too busy to watch it! But I know I'll enjoy it when I do, and I'm grateful that someone went to the trouble to assemble these. > > > Also, given that we have/are such music geeks on this list, I was > > wondering if anyone here has ever planned/tried/succeeded in listening > > to their entire CD collection in alphabetical order. > > No, but I've thought about it. When I was a DJ, I went through the > station's rock collection (about 20,000 pieces, I think) in alphabetical > order over the course of 4+ years-- not listening to everything all the > way through, obviously, but pulling everything off the shelf and if it > looked at all interesting, throwing it on the turntable briefly. Very > educational. One thing I do is semi-randomize some of my listening: the CDs I bring to work to rip onto the iTunes there are chosen by picking the next CD 15 spots further on alphabetically. I have about ten CDs at once here, distributed across the alphabet; when one batch is done, I'll bring it home and create a new batch by the method I describe above. I admit sometimes I'll cheat: _Metal Machine Music_ isn't really going to make suitable background noise, so I'd grab the next CD at that point - but this method has gotten me listening to things that I wouldn't necessarily have chosen based on mood or current interests, and sometimes I'll remember a good CD I'd forgotten was as good as it proves to be. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:30:03 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel As many of you probably know (because you're sub'd to the 125 mailing list), Gil Ray's _I Am Atomic Man_ is available for pre-order, ready to be shipped in time for your turkey/tofurkey-devouring festivities. What could be more apt - an album about "atomic man" accompanying your irradiated bird flesh/non-irradiated non-bird non-flesh! Sue and Joe mentioned some special dealy about this CD in the e-mail - but I think it's repeated at the 125 site anyway. ( Or maybe it is a Black Sabbath sequel.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:35:39 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel Jeff....bless you. And while we're in the Thanksgivin' mood...I want to thank Joe and Sue for making this dream come true. I mean really, getting this CD put out is amazing for me. Not in a million years did I think I would ever have this happen to me! My original plan was to knock out an albums worth of songs, hoping for some kind of immediate, maybe sloppy, but spirited tunes, make a cover (believe me, I tried to do that only using the Paint Program - I am sooooo fortunate that I got to use a real artist - Rachel) and burn a copy on demand. Well, 125 Records jumped in there and my um...work habits made this thing take 6 years. (So much for the "immediate" feel I was hoping for!) But now it's on the way, so PLEASE - support REAL CD's and REAL RECORD COMPANIES that actually care about artists that may not get a chance to do something like this! This really is a dream come true. Joe and Sue - THANK YOU!!!!! Gil Oh and this is kinda neat - go to the 125 Records site and click on "artists". You will see me and my bald head. Now, hit the back button, and Don Dixon's bald head will come up right to where my bald head was! Strange, weird, uncanny.....2 bald headed N.C. rock guys! - --- 2fs wrote: > As many of you probably know (because you're sub'd > to the 125 mailing list), > Gil Ray's _I Am Atomic Man_ is available for > pre-order, ready to be shipped > in time for your turkey/tofurkey-devouring > festivities. What could be more > apt - an album about "atomic man" accompanying your > irradiated bird > flesh/non-irradiated non-bird non-flesh! > > Sue and Joe mentioned some special dealy about this > CD in the e-mail - but I > think it's repeated at the 125 site > anyway. > > ( Or maybe it is a Black Sabbath sequel.) > > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:57:37 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel At Monday 11/13/2006 10:35 PM, Gil Ray wrote: >Oh and this is kinda neat - go to the 125 Records site >and click on "artists". You will see me and my bald >head. Now, hit the back button, and Don Dixon's bald >head will come up right to where my bald head was! >Strange, weird, uncanny.....2 bald headed N.C. rock >guys! Gil... you're... you're... BALD?!? Just ordered my copy of IaAM. Can't wait to hear it. Latre. --Rog - -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:11:17 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel - --- Roger Winston wrote: > > Just ordered my copy of IaAM. Can't wait to hear > it. Roger, you're my new best friend! Thanks!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:29:24 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Gil Ray wrote: > Jeff....bless you. > And while we're in the Thanksgivin' mood...I want to > thank Joe and Sue for making this dream come true. I > mean really, getting this CD put out is amazing for > me. Not in a million years did I think I would ever > have this happen to me! What Gil forgets to mention in his very sweet note is that every copy of I AM ATOMIC MAN willbe hand-sgined & numbered. Get your collector's item now: http://www.125recrods.com As for a Black Sabbath sequel, aside from Heaven & Hell, a reunion & tour by the version of the Sabs that made that record, they're due for new album & tour in '07. So says Ozzy's Mrs. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:13:41 EST From: CertronC90@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] not a Black Sabbath sequel In a message dated 11/14/2006 12:50:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ggilray@yahoo.com writes: You will see me and my bald head. Now, hit the back button, and Don Dixon's bald head You should be proud of that dome. it means you have an abundance of testosterone, Mr. Man! It's chic to be bald. How many guys have hair and go bald now, anyway? It can have several different connotations, depending on what your going for. Post-postmodern, uber tough sex machine, what have you. It all depends on you, and how you "accessorize." Speaking of Don Dixon, his health is in the pink nowadays, I hope? - --Mark, who was told the other day that I looked like I was about 31, not 39. It must be the Chuck Taylors and the Peanuts tee shirt I favor--never mind I have a beard--without it I'd look like a fetus p.s. I'm looking forward to getting that copy of your album! ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V6 #226 *******************************