From: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org (mad-mission-digest) To: mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Subject: mad-mission-digest V7 #61 Reply-To: mad-mission@smoe.org Sender: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk * If you ever wish to unsubscribe, send an email to * mad-mission-digest-request@smoe.org * with ONLY the word unsubscribe in the body of the email * . * For the latest information on Patty's tour dates, go to: * http://www.pattygriffin.net/PattyInConcert.html * OR * go to http://www.atorecords.com * . * PLEASE :) when you reply to this digest to send a post TO the list, * change the subject to reflect what your post is about. A subject * of Re: mad-mission-digest V7 #___ gives readers no clue * as to what your message is about. * Also, PLEASE do not quote an entire digest when you reply to the * list. Edit out anything you are not referring to. mad-mission-digest Wednesday, February 26 2003 Volume 07 : Number 061 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: MM: Re: New music /Sheryl Crow [Matt Fotter ] MM: Re: New music /Sheryl Crow ["Sean and Rebecca" ] RE: MM: New music [katnjeffnfam@attbi.com] MM: Jason Mraz ["Pernille Schmidt" ] RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow [Stephen Golato ] MM: Re: mad-mission-digest V7 #60 ["Ata Rivers" ] RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow ["Willms, Gregory J." ] MM: RE: Re: NPC: New and different ["Sandi Campbell" ] RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow ["Willms, Gregory J." Subject: Re: MM: Re: New music /Sheryl Crow Sean and Rebecca wrote: > Trust me. I've got thousands of CDs and it's not hard > to find a few that I don't like...plus my wife has > skeptical tastes. An interesting thread perhaps - "Was I high when I bought this?" I'll go first: Roger Waters - Radio KAOS, bad even by 'concept' album standards. Jethro Tull - Some record they released in the 90's that I can't even name. The Monkees - 4 CD box set, their first one. Yeah, they have two. Shocking isn't it? Paul McCartney - Liverpool Oratorio - I made it one minute into the first cut. An awful ego trip of a record. Harry Chapin - The three cds I own of his that aren't greatest hits compilations. Linda Ronstadt - That wretched record where she covers Chuck Berry. Is it just me, or does Linda seem like she walked into the studio like two minutes before she cut the song, briefly looked at the material and then did a single take? She's got one of the best voices ever, but she sounds like she could care less about what she is singing. Rod Stewart - Do Ya Think I'm Sexy. Suffers the same fate as Linda - killer pipes, crap material and a could care less attitude. I would put Every Picture Tells a Story in my top50 tho... m- - -- matt@fotter.com Imagine no possessions. Now imagine a Beowulf cluster of those. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:29:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Sean and Rebecca" Subject: MM: Re: New music /Sheryl Crow First of all, Every Picture Tells a Story is an excellent album, and I'd say so are the others of his first four. After that...shitsville. Continuing your thread... KISS - Music from the Elder (as if ordinary KISS is not bad enough) Surrender to the Air - pretentious, experimental *jazz* by Trey Anastacio and New Orleans legends who should be ashamed. Mike Patton - Adult Themes for Voice...I love Faith No More, Mr. Bungle, Tomohawk, Lovage, Dillinger Escape Plan, Fantomas, etc. but this thing sucks. Testament - New World Order...it sounded so much better when I was in Junior High something called Sunscream I'm sure there are a ton more, but most of them have found their way to the used bin by now. Sean On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Matt Fotter wrote: > An interesting thread perhaps - "Was I high when I > bought this?" > > I'll go first: ________________________________________________ PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart. http://www.peoplepc.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:38:23 -0500 From: Matt Fotter Subject: Re: MM: Re: New music /Sheryl Crow Sean and Rebecca wrote: > First of all, Every Picture Tells a Story is an > excellent album, and I'd say so are the others of his > first four. After that...shitsville. Amen to that. I think I misstyped or was misunderstood - placing EPTAS in my top100 is a huge accomplishment- i have thousands of cds and records and love a lot of artists who were freakishly prolific (hello frank zappa 63+ records of material not counting live/greatest hits comps). Funny you mention New Order. I just picked up some of the Joy Division cds and was stuck buying mostly new copies. New Order hoever, had a large amount of used copies of thier stuff... m- - -- matt@fotter.com If violent games make kids violent, then why doesn't the latest Tiger Woods golf game make kids into multi-million dollar golf professionals? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:42:07 +0000 From: katnjeffnfam@attbi.com Subject: RE: MM: New music Notes from a list-lurker. A couple of things in the last day or so that I can't help but comment on. #1) As a very "casual" lurker, I was shocked to read the digest and find Sigur Ros discussed here, and somewhat favorably at that. Though I am a big Patty fan, I have found that the most vocal of Patty's followers tend to be folkies or singer-songwriter aficionados who don't take too kindly to musicians who work in other genres. Perhaps I have been hasty to judge. #2) Or perhaps not. The word "pretentious" was offered up referencing Pink Floyd, Radiohead and Sigur Ros. I'll tell you what: I think it is pretentious to toss about this label "pretentious." You can't know what goes on in the hearts and heads of a musician during the creative process. There is a lot of music out there of various genres. Some of the good stuff is found in songs which are longer than the average folk song. Some of the good stuff has no lyrics. Some of it is electronic. Some of it is grand in scope. Some artists aspire to more than the medium (or the market) will bear. That doesn't make them or their music pretentious. That makes it ambitious. You may or may not like it, and that is your prerogitive. No one should dictate taste. But to label it "pretentious" because you don't find it to your liking is plain wrong, and quite probably, "pretentious." #3) The Dixie Chicks and the "Top of the World" tour! Wow! That's great. What a beautiful song, Yeah, it's a shame "Silver Bell" didn't get released. But Patty's probably raking in some bucks since the Chicks included two of her songs on their mega-platinum CD. I think it's great they like the song enough to name their tour for it. Go Patty! Go Chicks! Despite these small issues, I have to say it's great to see such activity and varity on this list recently. Jeff G jeff@open-ears.com www.open-ears.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:56:07 -0600 From: "Pernille Schmidt" Subject: MM: Jason Mraz I have been following the development of the list today and must say thank you to the people who recommended Jason Mraz. I downloaded some of his music and I am loving every song I hear. I would live to get some cds made of his live shows, if anyone is willing to help me out. Contact me outside of the list. Pernille ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:18:07 -0500 From: Stephen Golato Subject: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow YES YES YES! I have thought the same thing! Why does that happen? I think the awards and the media follow trends and bombard us with the "hot property" for that year. And meanwhile I think the record company is already looking to find the next "hot property" for the next year. And then that person who is chosen will be all over the media and win award after award. It's not always that suddenly this artist has no talent and therefore can't get airplay or recognition for another record. And it's not that the "hot artist" is always superior and more talented than other "unhot" artist. With the abandonment of stores even selling singles anymore, I don't get how they can even have a singles chart just based on what radio plays (not what people buy). And that's certainly not a valid way to determine it. The other thing I don't get is how usually I'll see a top ten song list for the week and not have heard half of the songs on there. It's like it's predetermined who will be on the list and the audience just follows and grows when they see these lists and keep hearing a certain artist's name mentioned. They then go to check out what all the buzz is about. To answer your question, I think voters and the rest of the sheep follow trends as to whose records they think are the cool records to buy and artist to vote for. By cool, I mean the ones the trends have told them they should like. You know, because they make it seem like everyone else likes that artist. So they feel if they don't like it too there might be something wrong with them. Especially teenagers, who don't want to stand out and be different. What do you think? Agree or disagree? Steve "Don't just exist. Live." - -----Original Message----- From: FlamingRed74@aol.com [mailto:FlamingRed74@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:22 AM To: Mad-Mission@smoe.org Subject: Re: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow .. but I DO find it slightly annoying that certain awards shows focus on a few artists, and seem to ignore the rest. It seems like every year some artists are nominated for a slew of awards, and some win almost all of them. Then only a few years later, you never hear from that artist/band again..?? How is it possible that one year EVERYTHING they do is vastly superior to everyone else, then suddenly they "suck" forever?? Are the voters simply following trends, or does this happen to nearly every artist who wins many awards?? *************************************************************************** This electronic mail transmission contains confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited. *************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:37:16 -0800 (PST) From: "Sean and Rebecca" Subject: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow The Grammies are about one thing...ratings...crap and ratings (two things) Save for a decent Joe Strummer tribute, the Grammies suck. Sean On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Stephen Golato wrote: What do you think? > Agree or disagree? ________________________________________________ PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart. http://www.peoplepc.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:56:47 EST From: FlamingRed74@aol.com Subject: Re: MM: New music /Miranda Lee Richards Ronni said: >I really love Miranda Lee Richards cd thehereeverafter or whatever the heck it's >called--i never get tired of it. > mmmm.. :-) Miranda Lee Richards! What a gorgeous woman.. with such a silky beautiful voice. Nothing at all like Patty's.. but still absolutely gorgeous. While her live show was not the absolute greatest, that albumn IS stunning. Such beautiful strings layered all through it, and ohh.. that voice. Anyone have any news on her? Dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:19:12 -0500 From: "Gary Jacques" Subject: MM: New music Well, not new but certainly my favorite this year...Stew and the Negro Problem. I think he described the music as baroque soul? LMAO An absolute must see if they come within 50 miles of ya. Trust me on this one. Saw them at the Tin Angel in Philly 2 years ago and never laughed so hard in all my life. Just too f-ing good. EG ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:21:30 +0000 From: "Ata Rivers" Subject: MM: Re: mad-mission-digest V7 #60 I am a big fan of Sheryl Crow. I was ambivalent about her at the beginning of her career but she has grown on me year after year. All the same, she reminds me of a watered down Lucinda Williams, who is the genuine article. "Hate your job/ Love your stuff/ If you think that's living you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!" - - Juliana Hatfield ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:06:06 -0500 From: "Willms, Gregory J." Subject: RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow It seems that in recent years, 99% of the Grammy performances have been sub-par. They tend to focus on glitz and glamour as opposed to music... which is why I practically fell in love with Elliott Smith when he showed up on stage several years ago accompanied solely by his acoustic guitar and an old wrinkled suit. He played Miss Misery and had the place mesmerized. - -----Original Message----- From: Brooke Saron [mailto:bsaron@smp.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:58 PM To: Vickie Chenevey; mad-mission@smoe.org Subject: RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow Hey, did anyone hear Faith Hill sing at the Grammy's? I'm not a Faith fan, but I was completely embarrassed for her. She sucked the big one. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:59:56 +0000 From: "Roy Larsen" Subject: RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow I think we all take for granted what goes into a performance because they make it look so easy and natural in concert. It's a lot of hard work and requires a lot of focus. Most performers require some prep/warm-up/psych time. And even then, it may take a couple of tunes to get into the grove. Most of those who perform at the grammy's were sitting in the audience or standing in the wings just moments before they went on. (In all their glitz and glamour.) Then they do one song and leave. Some artists may be able to give a great performance of one song on the spot, but I think it's as foolish to judge a performer at the grammy's as it would be to expect an olympic sprinter to run his/her best at the metal ceremony. Particular artists may not be our cup of tea, but I think they all deserve our respect for putting their art on display. Roy - ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Willms, Gregory J." To: mad-mission@smoe.org Subject: RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:06:06 -0500 It seems that in recent years, 99% of the Grammy performances have been sub-par. They tend to focus on glitz and glamour as opposed to music... which is why I practically fell in love with Elliott Smith when he showed up on stage several years ago accompanied solely by his acoustic guitar and an old wrinkled suit. He played Miss Misery and had the place mesmerized. - -----Original Message----- From: Brooke Saron [mailto:bsaron@smp.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:58 PM To: Vickie Chenevey; mad-mission@smoe.org Subject: RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow Hey, did anyone hear Faith Hill sing at the Grammy's? I'm not a Faith fan, but I was completely embarrassed for her. She sucked the big one. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:31:31 -0600 From: "Sandi Campbell" Subject: MM: RE: Re: NPC: New and different OK, I was going to keep quiet on this, but I feel compelled to add my 2 cents. It seems that everyone here is stuck on the indie/folk/unknown thing. While I am very much for the independent artist, and very much like following those lesser knowns that catch my attention (Patty being the prime example), I find that I don't like a lot of the artists that are mentioned on this site. I'm not a country fan, at all, so that probably matters. Twang bugs the crap out of me. Anyway, I have been quite taken recently with Luce. They're probably more rock/pop than anyone else mentioned on the list, but they have a different sound, using brass to fill out a lot of their stuff, and a really good groove. They're also incredible live, and a cool group of guys to boot. Maybe too mainstream sounding, but just because they may have somewhat potentially broader appeal doesn't make them any less good. If you don't like their song that seems to be the most popular, "Good Day", don't let that stop you. Their CD is a great mix of sounds. If you really want to be open to new stuff, at least give 'em a try! Besides, they're still a small, relatively unknown group, but I think they deserve way more! - -Sandi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:06:20 -0800 From: Dana Subject: MM: Cheryl, Dave's fiance now, y'all know that you are talking about Dave's own beloved fiance here, so be nice! :) Dana in Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:09:15 -0500 From: "Willms, Gregory J." Subject: RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow I didn't know olympic athletes participated in a metal ceremony. That's great. So what, they pay tribute to the founding fathers? Sabbath, Zeppelin? Oh, MEDAL ceremony, OK. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I could do a better job than any of them, I'm just saying that I've seen Faith Hill perform 50 times better (OK, 20) on the Tonight Show than on the Grammys. The same goes for countless others. Grammy performances are not about music, they're about showmanship. End of story. Hey, if Ricky Martin can pull it off, why can't everyone else? - -----Original Message----- From: Roy Larsen To: mad-mission@smoe.org Sent: 2/26/2003 8:59 PM Subject: RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow I think we all take for granted what goes into a performance because they make it look so easy and natural in concert. It's a lot of hard work and requires a lot of focus. Most performers require some prep/warm-up/psych time. And even then, it may take a couple of tunes to get into the grove. Most of those who perform at the grammy's were sitting in the audience or standing in the wings just moments before they went on. (In all their glitz and glamour.) Then they do one song and leave. Some artists may be able to give a great performance of one song on the spot, but I think it's as foolish to judge a performer at the grammy's as it would be to expect an olympic sprinter to run his/her best at the metal ceremony. Particular artists may not be our cup of tea, but I think they all deserve our respect for putting their art on display. Roy - ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Willms, Gregory J." To: mad-mission@smoe.org Subject: RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:06:06 -0500 It seems that in recent years, 99% of the Grammy performances have been sub-par. They tend to focus on glitz and glamour as opposed to music... which is why I practically fell in love with Elliott Smith when he showed up on stage several years ago accompanied solely by his acoustic guitar and an old wrinkled suit. He played Miss Misery and had the place mesmerized. - -----Original Message----- From: Brooke Saron [mailto:bsaron@smp.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:58 PM To: Vickie Chenevey; mad-mission@smoe.org Subject: RE: RE: MM: New music /Sheryl Crow Hey, did anyone hear Faith Hill sing at the Grammy's? I'm not a Faith fan, but I was completely embarrassed for her. She sucked the big one. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ End of mad-mission-digest V7 #61 ********************************