From: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org (navy-soup-digest) To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Subject: navy-soup-digest V4 #76 Reply-To: navy-soup@smoe.org Sender: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk navy-soup-digest Monday, July 23 2001 Volume 04 : Number 076 In This Digest: ----------------- Re: Website uplift [Leon van Stuivenberg ] the voice [Indigo ] Re: the voice [Songbird22@aol.com] Re: Website uplift ["Kyall Glennie" ] RE: Website uplift ["Amy" ] Re: Website uplift [Michael Curry ] RE: Website uplift ["Julian C. Dunn" ] RE: Website uplift [meredith ] Re: the voice [meredith ] Sweet Ones [Kristilyn Robertson ] RE: Website uplift ["Amy" ] New Voice ["Lindi Ortega" ] Re: New Voice ["Eric Winchell" ] Re: New Voice ["Lindi Ortega" ] Re: New Voice ["Daniel Leza" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 08:11:30 +0200 From: Leon van Stuivenberg Subject: Re: Website uplift Steve I wrote: > Text is not the only way to communicate ideas. Pictures communicate ideas > too. So does sound, and music, and animation. And yes, so does > design. So why can't pictures, sound, music, animation, and design count > as content? Whether content should be provided in text, graphics, flash, whatever, is beside the point imo. It's about usability. There's tons of information about this at e.g. http://usableweb.com/ http://www.useit.com/ Guess what the first two are from "The Top Ten New Mistakes of Web Design" (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html): 1. Breaking or Slowing Down the Back Button 2. Opening New Browser Windows ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 02:15:52 -0400 From: Indigo Subject: the voice I've been lurking for some time and have never posted, but this topic moved me to say something. It's difficult to criticize someone when you do the same thing that they do and you support their endeavours. I'm a singer and songwriter who is also a fan of Sarah's. As a vocalist, I completely understand Sarah's desire to perhaps stake out new territory with her voice and see what happens. From a creative standpoint, I applaud her trying to stretch and inject a new realm of emotionality into her music. On the other hand, I now speak as a fan when I say that personally, I strongly dislike her current sound. Her voice has always been pristine, and I was really thrown when I heard the new clips. She sounded to me like a drunken cabaret singer. Her voice was slurred and not very neat and I couldn't believe it. It was not the sound of maturation. Sarah's voice matured considerably between Universe and Blue Parade without losing its purity. It sounded like a deliberate change in tonality, and not for the better. The first thing I thought when I heard it, however, was that this seemed the work of the Workman. I remember reading an interview with Sarah in which she said that Hawksley would tell her to liken her voice to that of a "", using all sorts of interesting analogies. I really wish he'd just let her sing the way she naturally does, instead of trying to force this washed-out worldly sound on us. That said, I'm glad that many of you seem to like it, because I honestly would like to see Sarah do well. She deserves it and she's too good not to. I'm just uncomfortable that this recording is going to be the first thing most people hear, because based on what I've heard so far, it doesn't represent what she's capable of as a singer. Still, each artist goes through many stages and phases of development, and every vocalist must explore his or her instrument fully in order to find the true voice. I trust that this is what Sarah is doing, and I also trust that the gorgeous vocals of John XIII and Universe will make their way to the surface again, maybe even on a track on two on this album. I can't help but wonder, though, what we'd be getting if Sarah and Mark Mariash had been given a stab at producing this. I have a feeling we'd be a unanimously happy bunch. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 10:05:06 EDT From: Songbird22@aol.com Subject: Re: the voice bluegirl@go.com writes: I concur with several ideas in your post. As a singer-songwriter as well, I find it hard to critique fellow musicians when I know what they are going through and how hard it is to put your songs out there for others... That being said, I tend to listen to things very critically and objectively. I don't love every song or even every album that my favorite artists have ever done, and I think that's okay... > also trust that the gorgeous vocals of John XIII and Universe will make > their way to the surface again, maybe even on a track on two on this > album. I can't help but wonder, though, what we'd be getting if Sarah > and Mark Mariash had been given a stab at producing this. I have a > feeling we'd be a unanimously happy bunch. Honestly... I think that had Mark (who is excellent, I think, I love Blue Parade and I think he's a great drummer as well as a producer) or someone like Daniel Lanois or Pierre Marchand produced it, we probably would've heard Blue Parade part 2. That's kind of why I lost interest in artists like Sarah McLachlan and Heather Nova, for example... after awhile all of their albums begin to sound the same (although I have renewed interest in HN and am looking forward to her new album). Maybe Sarah wanted to go for a bit harder sound, produce songs that rock a little more, and try to do something different than the things she's done in the past... experiment a bit. That's a big chance that she took... to work with someone like Hawksley :) I would have to hear more of the songs to make any sort of judgement, because I don't have the EP yet and I've only heard the clips of the new songs... I would also love to hear her thoughts on making the record, why she chose to produce the songs the way they did, etc... I'm always interested in hearing "behind the music" type stories ;) After listening to the clips a few more times, I don't know that it's her voice that I disliked about the songs, I think it was more the production and mix, but I'm still not sure. I keep forgetting that BP came out in 99, and she has gone through a lot of changes and growth since the release of that album, I'm sure. It's funny, actually, I sent some new demos home to my mom last week who hasn't heard anything I've done since a release I put out around the same time Blue Parade came out... She called me Friday night and was like "your voice! it's so strong!" and then commented on the growth and maturity of the instumentation and my voice. And I thought about this thread and I thought about my initial reaction to the songs and changed my opinion... So I think it's cool that Sarah is experimenting with new sounds and new ways of producing things and taking more of a risk... I continue to admire her as an artist and hope this release is successful for her. And I'm interested to hear the LP and see what she has tried and how the other songs turned out. Jessica www.jessicaweiser.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 15:16:19 From: "Kyall Glennie" Subject: Re: Website uplift Steve I said: >So far we've heard mostly negative reactions. Still interested in those, >but you couldn't *all* hate it, could you? I like the new design, although I also liked the old one. I used to be big into designing web pages, and the key word there is DESIGNING. I know a lot of people have this misguided thought that the web is supposed to be about information. It is in some senses, but it isn't in so many others. I understand a want or desire for a text-only design, or even one that doesn't use pop-ups, but then I also think that these users should take into consideration they are NOT the majority of web users and in order to reach the majority of the people out there, especially when trying to sell something (even if it's simply the idea that Sarah's music is great) you have to make something that is visually stimulating, pleasing to the eye and provides information all that the same time. I'm not a huge fan of pop-up windows, but I can use them if that's what's presented to me. As much as everyone wants the commericalism and advertising on the internet to go away (re: popup windows with ads, esp. X-10 ads) it's not going to happen as long as the sole reason for publishing content is to make money. kyall (my little 2 cents.) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 10:34:49 -0500 From: "Amy" Subject: RE: Website uplift Hi Steve and everyone else! I for one, think it's gorgeous. I am of the school that believes that the site should reflect the artist. If I've never heard an artist but they have a cool ass web site, I'm much more likely to take a listen. I did like the other site too though. I think the content should be easily accessible, but it should also be pretty. Music is art, why can't the web site be as well? I don't like the pop up thingy only because it's so small and it maybe shouldn't be a "pop-up" for the sake of those who have pop-up killers (I had one too but it took up too much ram and didn't work well anyway). As for the other browser issue, I, personally, can't stand Netscape. I hate using it and I resent that I have to redesign all my sites so that folks using it can see it correctly (or at least semi-correctly). Most other browsers I'm aware of don't have the same problems that Netscape has. It's a thorn in my side! I don't know what my point is except that I wish people wouldn't use it just because they hate Bill Gates. I sure hope I don't start a "browser debate" it's just how I feel. Nothing is going to make me like Netscape, I've tried it many times and it just can't do what I want. So my two cents is to design it the way you want to. Make it pretty. Sarah's beautiful, her music is beautiful and I believe the site should reflect that. But of course, it's just my opinion and I'm sure others strongly disagree. ~Amy www.collectedsounds.com A Guide to Women in Music > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org [mailto:owner-navy-soup@smoe.org]On > Behalf Of Steve I > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 4:54 PM > To: navy-soup@smoe.org > Subject: Re: Website uplift > > > Hey folks, > I've been following this "website uplift" thread with great > interest. Jess > is right in that I didn't design the microsite, but I am still involved > with the site so I'm very interested in all opinions of the new > microsite. So far we've heard mostly negative reactions. Still > interested > in those, but you couldn't *all* hate it, could you? I'd like to > hear from > those who like it as well (personally, I think it's great and it really > evokes the spirit of Sarah's music, at least for those who can see it!) > > This whole content vs. design/pictures thing is intriguing to me. My > personal view is that a website's purpose is to communicate. To > that end, > who's to say that text is the be all and end all in reaching that > goal? Take a website for an environmental issues group. Sure, a load of > text about how we're destroying the environment can help communicate the > message, but couldn't the same be said for a picture of a beach covered > with oil and dead fish and birds? Or a photo of a skyline dominated by > smokestacks belching heavy black clouds into the air? > > In the case of Sarah's site, it's not just about giving details about an > album or listing tour dates, or tracing the path of her career, although > those things are undeniably important. It's not even strictly about > Sarah's music, although that's obviously hugely important too. > It's about > communicating what Sarah is all about as an artist (musical and > visual). As many of you know, Sarah is also a very talented > visual artist, > and her art is a big part of the new microsite. Sarah had a lot of input > on this microsite from the beginning, and consequently it's more > about her > and her vision than the old site, which is more reflective of how *I* saw > Sarah a few years ago. > > At 02:22 PM 01-07-21 -0400, someone wrote: > > > there is no reason for anything else. E.g., the local newspaper in my > > > town a few years ago decided that it needed to have more pictures and > > > fewer words and this move caused some bit of disgust around here. Yes, > > > it looked better, but the newspaper had diminished its reason > for being. > > I respectfully disagree... again, I think that pictures can > communicate an > idea just as well or better than words. I've already given an ecology > example, but how about another - a newspaper could describe the > pattern of > events in a war all it wants, but I wouldn't get a better idea of > what was > going on than if I had a simple graphic with a map and symbols of troop > movements and so on. Similarly, I could look at a table full of numbers > for hours and not understand it, but I could glance at a bar > graph or line > graph of those same numbers and understand it right away. Like many > people, I am a visual person. > > Text is not the only way to communicate ideas. Pictures > communicate ideas > too. So does sound, and music, and animation. And yes, so does > design. So why can't pictures, sound, music, animation, and design count > as content? > > To me, saying that content=text on the web is like saying > content=lyrics in > music. It's not telling the whole story. > > > > Anyway, all that aside, nothing is communicated on sarahslean.com if you > can't get past the splash page. I didn't even know about AdSubtract's > pop-up killing thing, so many thanks to Meth for bringing that problem to > my attention. > > Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:48:04 -0400 From: Michael Curry Subject: Re: Website uplift At 03:16 PM 7/22/01 +0000, Kyall Glennie wrote: >Steve I said: >>So far we've heard mostly negative reactions. Still interested in those, >>but you couldn't *all* hate it, could you? > >I like the new design, although I also liked the old one. > >I used to be big into designing web pages, and the key word there is >DESIGNING. I know a lot of people have this misguided thought that >the web is supposed to be about information. It is in some senses, >but it isn't in so many others. I understand a want or desire for a >text-only design, or even one that doesn't use pop-ups, but then I >also think that these users should take into consideration they are >NOT the majority of web users and in order to reach the majority of >the people out there, especially when trying to sell something (even >if it's simply the idea that Sarah's music is great) you have to make >something that is visually stimulating, pleasing to the eye and >provides information all that the same time. I never really get the point where web designers jump from saying that it's good to have "something that is visually stimulating, pleasing to the eye" (which I agree with) to insisting that this has to mean pop-up windows, Flash intros without those nice little skip intro links, or worse yet, all Flash sites. To me it seems the height of hubris for them to assume that the majority of people have the same tastes as web designers, and implying that those of us who prefer simplicity are somehow heathens does nothing but help alienate a segment of the population for no good reason. And on the subject of people who don't like pop-ups not representing the majority, I think that's simply wrong. Most of the pop-ups I see on the web are ads (like the dreaded X-10s), and I'd bet that the vast teeming hordes of AOL users and others in the faceless majority have noticed the same thing. Pop-ups have a negative, not a positive, association for most people, the same way commercials on network television do. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:05:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Julian C. Dunn" Subject: RE: Website uplift On 22-Jul-2001 Amy wrote: > As for the other browser issue, I, personally, can't stand Netscape. I hate > using it and I resent that I have to redesign all my sites so that folks > using it can see it correctly (or at least semi-correctly). Most other > browsers I'm aware of don't have the same problems that Netscape has. It's a > thorn in my side! I don't know what my point is except that I wish people > wouldn't use it just because they hate Bill Gates. I sure hope I don't start > a "browser debate" it's just how I feel. Nothing is going to make me like > Netscape, I've tried it many times and it just can't do what I want. I'm guessing that your "most other browsers" comment means Internet Explorer, since you are using Windows. I daresay that IE and Netscape both play fast and loose with the W3C standards for HTML, and that's what makes cross-browser compatability so difficult. You also have to realize that there are, believe it or not, lots of people out there who don't use Windows, and because Microsoft's business plan is to push Windows as much as possible, there simply aren't versions of IE available for those platforms. It's not a matter of people consciously trying not to use IE for political reasons -- I suspect that group of people is the minority. There are lots of other reasons why people don't use IE other than political zealotry. - - Julian [ Julian C. Dunn - jdunn@aquezada.com * WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/ ] [ FuE exfe94 a+++ Ifte/slc lonca r- ps++ bs+ t++/*t C+++$/C! w+++ p7 LF+++ ] [N++/N! cd350 pr++ g+++ S-/S *x++ Fa+++/Fa$/Fa! m1 b+ fc+++/ E>+ rl-- *d s!] [ "90% of a solution to a problem is a scapegoat" ] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:59:13 -0400 From: meredith Subject: RE: Website uplift Hi, Wow. So much interesting stuff on this list all of a sudden!! There's absolutely no Sarah content in this, so those of you who are bored with the whole web design thing can just skip it. :) I'm somewhat of a Web designer, though I'm probably considered pretty pedestrian because I have no graphic design talent or ability whatsoever and I'm primarily concerned with universal accessibility of my sites, starting with Lynx and going up from there. That puts me in with about .0000001% of web designers nowadays, but I'm proud of that so I'm not planning to change anytime soon. I'm sure Sarah's microsite is very pretty and accurately reflects her art, both visual and musical. But as Steve himself pointed out, all that is worthless if you can't even get to see it. Accessibility is the key. Amy commented: >As for the other browser issue, I, personally, can't stand Netscape. I hate >using it and I resent that I have to redesign all my sites so that folks >using it can see it correctly (or at least semi-correctly). Most other >browsers I'm aware of don't have the same problems that Netscape has. It's a >thorn in my side! I don't know what my point is except that I wish people >wouldn't use it just because they hate Bill Gates. I sure hope I don't start >a "browser debate" it's just how I feel. Nothing is going to make me like >Netscape, I've tried it many times and it just can't do what I want. I admit, I use Netscape mainly because it's not Internet Explorer. It's the first graphical browser I ever used, and I always like to support the underdog. But it has been very good to me and I have very few problems with it. I actually have had many more problems with IE than Netscape. As a web designer, I have found that Netscape, while it doesn't adhere to every piece of the W3C convention (but hey, that's what Notepad is for :), is still light-years closer to the convention than IE. It seems as though Micro$oft is out to replace HTML with a markup language of its own making, and I can't support that at all. As Julian pointed out, despite what Micro$oft wants you to believe not everyone uses Windows, particularly as you get outside of the United States. American web designers tend to forget that their pages aren't going to be viewed exclusively by Americans. (The only exception to this is Intranet design, which I also do at work -- in that case I know for a fact that every single one of my viewers is going to be using the exact same version of IE, so I swallow my bile and use FrontPage for that because I know accessibility isn't going to be an issue.) >So my two cents is to design it the way you want to. Make it pretty. Sarah's >beautiful, her music is beautiful and I believe the site should reflect >that. But of course, it's just my opinion and I'm sure others strongly >disagree. Design it the way you want to, sure, but keep in mind that all of the work you put into the design is going to be for naught if you exclude a significant percentage of Web users from seeing your creation. As Mike said, it's hubris to think that people are going to run out and change their browser just to view your site. When I see a site that says "you must have xxx installed to enter this site" or "you must have the latest version of IE to view this site", I immediately make a note never to visit that site again. That's certainly not the point of having a web page. ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 13:07:21 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: the voice Hi, I got to hear the EP for the first time yesterday, and I was dismayed to find that now I know exactly what all of you who have reacted negatively to Sarah's new singing style were talking about. :/ >On the other hand, I now speak as a fan when I say that personally, I >strongly dislike her current sound. Her voice has always been pristine, >and I was really thrown when I heard the new clips. She sounded to me >like a drunken cabaret singer. Her voice was slurred and not very neat >and I couldn't believe it. It was not the sound of maturation. I agree with this 100%, particularly the drunken cabaret singer comparison. I was picturing a dank Berlin bar from the 1920's, and that's just not what I want to associate with Sarah or her music. I didn't mind the production or the mix, but it's the way she was singing that was so distracting, I couldn't pay attention to the lyrics. I found myself trying to concentrate on the bass line, the piano line, anything, so I wouldn't be so jarred by her voice. Unfortunately, I couldn't do it. Then when the older songs started later in the EP, the ones that sound like the Sarah I came to know and love, I was finally able to relax and enjoy the music. I'm still going to buy the album because I really like Sarah as a person and I want to support her, but I'm afraid that if the new singing style is the dominant one on the album, I'm not going to be able to listen to it much, if at all. ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:06:31 From: Kristilyn Robertson Subject: Sweet Ones Hey there! Could someone please send me the lyrics to Sweet Ones? Thank you so much!! Kristilyn *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Heathcliff It's me, Cathy I've come home I'm so cold Let me in your window (Kate Bush) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ICQ: 58758419 E-mail: kroberts@connect.ab.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 17:22:56 -0500 From: "Amy" Subject: RE: Website uplift Hi all, Julian wrote: > I'm guessing that your "most other browsers" comment means > Internet Explorer, > since you are using Windows. Not necessarily, though I do use IE. I was thinking of Opera & AOL (which I'm no fan of, don't get me wrong) :) Which seem to be the ones that most people use who don't want to use straight IE (I know that AOL is really IE disguised). I guess though, that I don't know of 20 other browsers (as someone mentioned here before). Can someone who knows of these let me know. If they're free to download I'd be more than happy to try them to see how sites look there. > You also have to realize that there are, believe it or not, lots > of people out > there who don't use Windows I'm sure there are, Macs for instance. But my sites look fine on them, when using IE for Macs (I use a Mac at work...my site looks like crap on Netscape). I don't know anything about Linux or browsers that it uses, I admit. But when I look through my site's stats of the top 15 "agents" that my visitors use I see 1-13 are all Windows or compatible. > There are lots of other reasons why people don't use IE other > than political > zealotry. Oh, I know. It's just the folks I've talked to who use Netscape all say, "I won't use IE cuz I hate Bill Gates." So that's how I figure lots of people feel. Not all. But certainly some. I just wish they all worked the same. That's all. ~Amy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:11:13 From: "Lindi Ortega" Subject: New Voice Am I the only one here who actually likes drunken cabaret singers? cheers Lindi _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 19:51:18 -0400 From: "Eric Winchell" Subject: Re: New Voice > Am I the only one here who actually likes drunken cabaret singers? No! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 03:19:02 From: "Lindi Ortega" Subject: Re: New Voice No Jess, it wasn't me it was my friend back in high school.. but people are silly in high school. Some incident with a HOLE t-shirt. But back to this new drunken cabaret singer thing.. I havent heard the new E.P... but I love cabaret music and early 40's Jazz...so I'll prolly dig it! cheers; Lindi >From: Songbird22@aol.com >To: littlefluff@hotmail.com >Subject: Re: New Voice >Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:23:26 EDT > >grrrl > > > Am I the only one here who actually likes drunken cabaret singers? > >apparently :) >lol. > >i thought i heard a story that SS dissed you once? or maybe that was >someone >else.. hehe. > >xo >jess > >www.jessicaweiser.com _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 06:49:59 +0300 From: "Daniel Leza" Subject: Re: New Voice > > > Am I the only one here who actually likes drunken cabaret singers? > >No! Right on Eric! :) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ End of navy-soup-digest V4 #76 ******************************