From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V7 #557 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, December 4 2008 Volume 07 : Number 557 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] 69 LS [glensarvad@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS ["Tom Marcinko" ] [loud-fans] Mashed in Plastic (David Lynch inspired mash-up album) ["Dave] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS ["outbound-only email address" ] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS ["Miles Goosens" ] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS [Gil Ray ] Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS [Gil Ray ] Re: [loud-fans] Throw out the 70's and it of course becomes a *very* different game... [Gil Ray ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:36:13 -0500 From: glensarvad@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] 69 LS Yes and no.... Pretty much by definition, a 69 song collection is going to carry some fat. Can anyone think of a triple album that hasn't? On the other hand, I think the set's wheat/chaff ratio is far better than I feared when I first learned of the concept. In Merritt's own words he was aiming for something "grandiose," which included the heft of the deliverable. Considering his interest in style, it's hard to imagine 69LS having taken on such notoriety and cultural import without its attention-grabbing format... which IMHO more than justifies any soft patches. Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:12:44 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Throw out the 70's and it of course becomes a *very* different game... Andrew Hamlin wrote: > ...am I the only one who thinks Mr. Merritt sacrificed quality for > quantity on 69 LOVE SONGS...? > No. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:15:36 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS For me 69LS is a *whole*, and taking any individual moment out of context misses the point in the same way as critiquing your friends on the leanness of their elbows. It's an interwoven simultaneous personal history of human civilization and romantic longing! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:36:29 -0700 From: "Tom Marcinko" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS > Yes and no.... Pretty much by definition, a 69 song collection is going to carry some fat. Can anyone think of a triple album that hasn't? > SANDINISTA!(!) ... no, *that's* wrong... On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:36 AM, wrote: ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:37:00 -0500 From: "Dave Walker" Subject: [loud-fans] Mashed in Plastic (David Lynch inspired mash-up album) I realize that interest in mashups around these parts probably peaked about 3 Christmases past, but this one is so well done (including the quality of the accompanying website, artwork, liner notes, and the like) that I couldn't let it pass without forwarding along, especially considering it could be lawyered into nonexistence at any point: http://www.mashedinplastic.co.uk/index.html -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:14:04 -0500 From: "outbound-only email address" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS > Yes and no.... Pretty much by definition, a 69 song collection is going to carry some fat. Can anyone think of a triple album that hasn't? > SANDINISTA!(!) ... no, *that's* wrong... < Funny, these days I think of Sandinista! in similar terms to glenn's statement about 69LS. I wouldn't rearrange one hair on its warty little head -- not even "Silicone on Sapphire." All day long I've been fighting the temptation to insinuate that 69LS's failure to enchant Andy might be explained by water supply contamination. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:26:13 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS The thing about an album like SANDINISTA is that if it was cut, probably the most interesting stuff would go. I like side 6 way more than I like anything on COMBAT ROCK... SANDINISTA, though, is an album that, to me, is chock full of good stuff without any great stuff. I have good memories of it, but I listened again for the first time in several years and was surprised by how underwhelmed I was. I'm not sure if I can say I'll ever listen again. By the way, how many of you knew that the three albums of SANDINISTA are more than twice as long as the two albums of LONDON CALLING? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:37:03 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS > All day long I've been fighting the temptation to insinuate that > 69LS's failure to enchant Andy might be explained by water supply > contamination. Ah, but that doesn't explain Jen's water supply. I'll try it again--heck, I'll even get the 33 1/3 guide/hagiography to help me out--but for now I still say he made disc one a solid winner, then spun out more miss than hit on the next two. Strange how Miles hasn't chimed in with his slice-and-dice proposal for either record mentioned in this thread, Andy Sandinista! [Epic, 1981] At $9.99 discounted, figure sides five and six as a near-freebie sweetened by great cuts from Timon Dogg and a grade-school duo. Compare "Apple Jam" (you know, on George Harrison's All Things Must Pass triple, now there was a prophetic title) invidiously to the run of their dub ramble. Listen to Sandinista Now!, the promo-only one-disc digest Epic has thoughtfully provided busy radio personnel, and note that you miss (in my case) "Rebel Waltz" and "Let's Go Crazy" and "Something About England" (and who knows what in yours). Note that you also miss the filler and assorted weirdnesses which provide that heady pace and/or texture. Then note as well that the many good songs aren't as consistently compelling as on previous Clash albums, though God knows "The Sound of Sinners" is a long-overdue Christer spoof and words about reading are always apt and the romanticization of revolution is an inevitable theme. And conclude that if this is their worst--which it is, I think--they must be, er, the world's greatest rock and roll band. A- - --Robert Christgau, from www.robertchristgau.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:36:48 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS Aaron Milenski wrote: > The thing about an album like SANDINISTA is that if it was cut, > probably the most interesting stuff would go. I've read some bloggers' ideas of what tracks they think should go, and I was saying, "No way!" every time. One even went on about how awful "Lose This Skin" is, and I can't imagine not having that one. > SANDINISTA, though, is an album that, to me, is chock full of good > stuff without any great stuff. I have good memories of it, but I > listened again for the first time in several years and was surprised > by how underwhelmed I was. I'm not sure if I can say I'll ever listen > again. > Wow. When I got the CD reissue, I hadn't played the vinyl in several years, and when I heard it fresh after all that time, I was thrilled that it was every bit as good and inspiring and fun and interesting as I remembered it (even without added chemicals). Jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:41:16 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS Andrew Hamlin wrote: > Ah, but that doesn't explain Jen's water supply. > Oh, hell, I know ours is contaminated. We seem to have a boil advisory every few weeks. > I'll try it again--heck, I'll even get the 33 1/3 guide/hagiography to > help me out--but for now I still say he made disc one a solid winner, > then spun out more miss than hit on the next two. > I seem to recall liking something like 4 songs off it. In truth, I'm just not much of a Merritt fan, though. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:47:43 -0600 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Andrew Hamlin wrote: > Strange how Miles hasn't chimed in with his slice-and-dice proposal > for either record mentioned in this thread If your powers of recollection were a shade more vast, you'd already know that I think SANDINISTA! is the greatest Clash album, and is absolutely, wonderfully perfect as is. I wouldn't trim anything. Perhaps people who want to like that sort of Clash sound, but would like less of it in a single sitting, sans dub versions and kids singing and sheep baaing during the missile launch, would be well-served by THE MEKONS ROCK 'N' ROLL and CURSE OF THE MEKONS (as I think any human being would and should be). I don't think I've said much about 69 LOVE SONGS over the years, mostly because Mr. Merritt is only occasionally appealing to me at any given album length. I've found myself on the verge of selling 69 LOVE SONGs during every purge of the collection, yet it always weasels its way back into the Can-Am cabinets, I think mostly on the strength of the live show I saw Magnetic Fields do in Atlanta (with the Loud Family opening on their apparently-final tour), which made the songs more memorable and engaging than they come off in the studio, particularly the ones Claudia sang. I don't think there's any quality control issues with the material, and even though I think I like the album a lot less than the people who were saying that the songs are meant to be heard in context with each other, those people are right about the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. I also suspect I've said disapproving things about "Papa Was a Rodeo," which, live at that particular Atlanta show, became a condescending country music hate-in for hipsters, with the band completely egging it on. Yes, yes, I know Merritt plays with all kinds of tropes and genres in arch, meta ways, and I even know that there's more than one possible interpretation of "Papa Was a Rodeo," but there really wasn't any mistaking what it meant on that night. later, Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:05:08 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS Not to drag politics into this, but it's pretty weird to see people thinking that everything's still great about SANDINISTA! History hasn't really served that proud album title well...unless you're a really big fan of thieving genocidal dictatorships. To be fair, the staff at NATIONAL REVIEW were forgiving enough to keep the album playing in their offices through the '90s. Of course, it sounded even more like a comedy album by then. ************** Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:21:38 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS > If your powers of recollection were a shade more vast, you'd already > know that I think SANDINISTA! is the greatest Clash album, and is > absolutely, wonderfully perfect as is. I wouldn't trim anything. Just grateful I get credit for reasonably vast recollection! > I also suspect I've said disapproving things about "Papa Was a Rodeo," > which, live at that particular Atlanta show, became a condescending > country music hate-in for hipsters, with the band completely egging it > on. Yes, yes, I know Merritt plays with all kinds of tropes and > genres in arch, meta ways, and I even know that there's more than one > possible interpretation of "Papa Was a Rodeo," but there really wasn't > any mistaking what it meant on that night. Not arguing with you, though I'm still not sure how you hold a country music hate-in, short of hanging Charlie Daniels in effigy. Something I sometimes feel like doing myself... Not to be confused with a *new* country music hate-in--hell, Hank III must have (at least) one of those for each album, Andy "In the end, your legacy is, did you know what the hell you were doing?" - --Lee Iacocca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:43:03 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS Jenny Grover wrote: > We seem to have a > boil advisory > every few weeks. I'd have a doctor check that out... :-) Gil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:43:03 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS Jenny Grover wrote: > We seem to have a > boil advisory > every few weeks. I'd have a doctor check that out... :-) Gil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:18:23 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Throw out the 70's and it of course becomes a *very* different game... > ...am I the only one who thinks Mr. Merritt sacrificed > quality for > quantity on 69 LOVE SONGS...? Probably not, but I'm a huge fan of that set. I do indeed skip over tracks at times, but it was his vision, and I think it should be preserved in that form. For me, just the song "Yeah! Oh Yeah!" is worth having the other 68 songs. He can get maddeningly precious, but that's something I love about him. I lobbied Scott to make Lolita Nation a single LP, to no avail, and I'm glad it came out as it did. I'll even be so bold as to call much of side 3 as filler (as did many critics and fans), but in the context of Scott's vision, it just had to be a double LP and his guidance on the other folk's tunes holds it together. I think. Gil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:29:56 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 69 LS Gil Ray wrote: > I'd have a doctor check that out... > :-) > Okay, Gil, that reply was just too scary. I won't even ask... I suppose I should have said a "boil water advisory." Jen ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V7 #557 *******************************