From: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org (navy-soup-digest) To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Subject: navy-soup-digest V6 #36 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, March 3 2003 Volume 06 : Number 036 In This Digest: ----------------- Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! [Paul Schreiber ] RE: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! ["herb ladrillo" ] Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! [Paul Schreiber ] RE: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison ["Coz Baldwin" ] Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! ["Kelly Goodlad" Subject: Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! First, the message board is still up: http://forum.sarahslean.com/ Second, while the new site looks (and sounds) very pretty, its severely lacking in content and functionality, especially compared to the old site: * First and foremost: there's no way to access the site if you don't have flash. * where are the music samples (mp3s)? (oh, there are three songs, hidden in the stupid music player widget, but they aren't downloadable) * where are the lyrics? (oh, they're there too, but only for the same three songs) * the tour date archives are gone * the tour dates page is an ugly mess * the articles page is an ugly mess (where does one end and the next one begin?) * some of the compilation albums disappeared form the discography * most of the photos are gone from the gallery sigh. someone needs a copy of Jakob's book: http://www.useit.com/jakob/webusability/ Paul shad 96c / uw cs 2001 / mac activist / fumbler / eda / headliner / navy-souper fan of / sophie b. / steve poltz / habs / bills / 49ers / "I've heard about your witness protection program -- it's called woodlawn cemetery." -- _Law & Order_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 00:52:39 -0500 From: "herb ladrillo" Subject: RE: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! They did call it a new site for a reason y'know. Umm I believe that would mean, it would be different from the old one. And it takes 30 seconds to download a flash-plug-in. You don't have to drive 3 hours in the snow-covered highway to pick up the plug-in, drive 3 hours again coming back to install the plug-in in your computer. If that was the case, I'd understand your frustration. But that is not the case. They call it "new" for a reason. I don't believe the site will remain that way forever either. My suggestion is just to enjoy the variety. It's the sugar of life sweetheart! Dreeam sweet! herb - -----Original Message----- From: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org [mailto:owner-navy-soup@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Paul Schreiber Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:37 AM To: navy-soup@smoe.org Subject: Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! First, the message board is still up: http://forum.sarahslean.com/ Second, while the new site looks (and sounds) very pretty, its severely lacking in content and functionality, especially compared to the old site: * First and foremost: there's no way to access the site if you don't have flash. * where are the music samples (mp3s)? (oh, there are three songs, hidden in the stupid music player widget, but they aren't downloadable) * where are the lyrics? (oh, they're there too, but only for the same three songs) * the tour date archives are gone * the tour dates page is an ugly mess * the articles page is an ugly mess (where does one end and the next one begin?) * some of the compilation albums disappeared form the discography * most of the photos are gone from the gallery sigh. someone needs a copy of Jakob's book: http://www.useit.com/jakob/webusability/ Paul shad 96c / uw cs 2001 / mac activist / fumbler / eda / headliner / navy-souper fan of / sophie b. / steve poltz / habs / bills / 49ers / "I've heard about your witness protection program -- it's called woodlawn cemetery." -- _Law & Order_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 00:54:23 -0500 From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:37:09PM -0800, Paul Schreiber wrote: > Second, while the new site looks (and sounds) very pretty, its severely > lacking in content and functionality, especially compared to the old > site: > > * First and foremost: there's no way to access the site if you don't > have flash. Agreed. I don't know why 'web designers' insist on doing flash-only sites... - -j ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 22:10:35 -0800 From: Paul Schreiber Subject: Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 09:52 PM, herb ladrillo wrote: > They did call it a new site for a reason y'know. Umm I believe that > would mean, it would be different from the old one. you're right, they didn't call it "new and improved." :-) why change for change's sake? > And it takes 30 seconds to download a flash-plug-in. You don't have to > drive 3 hours in the snow-covered highway to pick up the plug-in, drive > 3 hours again coming back to install the plug-in in your computer. If > that was the case, I'd understand your frustration. But that is not > the > case. I have Flash installed. Flash is good for some things, like animations or games. It's not good for entire web sites. Why? Well, it excludes a lot of people: * disabled users using a screen reader * people with text-only browsers * people with handheld devices * people with slow connections (not everyone has broadband, ya know) Further examples of reduced functionality: you can no longer search the site using your browser's find command; it can no longer be indexed by Google; you can't (easily) copy and paste text and images; you can't bookmark pages; et cetera See my point? > They call it "new" for a reason. I don't believe the site will remain > that way forever either. I hope not. :) Paul shad 96c / uw cs 2001 / mac activist / fumbler / eda / headliner / navy-souper fan of / sophie b. / steve poltz / habs / bills / 49ers / "Starting with a killing, ending with an execution. You got what you wanted. Take the rest of the week off." --Adam Schiff "It's Friday, Adam." --Jack McCoy, _Law & Order_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 01:07:24 -0500 From: "Coz Baldwin" Subject: RE: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison Ok, I wanted to add my thoughts here. This was the first time I have heard her "new" version of California, which is a song destined to place itself in the Sarah Slean Top 5.... somewhere... I haven't decided yet. I would like to say that as songs are played over and over through it's infancy, it will evolve. (I'm betting most of you know this.) Sometimes for the sake of keeping it new and sometimes a little happy accident occurs and it ends up biting your ear in a way which better suits the way you always heard it inside. I would most likely be more attached to whatever version I heard first, and in this case it is the earlier version. But are those little trills of the voice not beautiful in their own right, especially if you had been introduced to the song with them? Something to consider. I do like the earlier versions. I like it a bit faster -- It's more in tune with the heart. I like the simplicity of the vocal line. It suits the song perfectly. And those are my thoughts for the evening. Virtually yours, Coz http://www.cozbaldwin.com - my site http://www.thecarpetedwall.com - my portfolio - -----Original Message----- From: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org [mailto:owner-navy-soup@smoe.org]On Behalf Of Somno Rific Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 5:25 AM To: navy-soup@smoe.org Subject: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison This will be my first ever criticism of the wonderful Sarah Slean. :-) Here's an mp3.. http://www.sweetsaliva.net/california-comparison.mp3 Two clips of the song California, just a verse and chorus.. two different recordings.. the first one from LATE 2002 and the second one from EARLY 2002. I sooooo soooo much prefer the way she sang California in EARLY 2002.. In later versions, she only sings one note for ..all in his *EYES*.. and she changes the note for "HE" and "I", all in the chorus... Might one convince her to go back to the old version? What do you guys think? ;-) _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 03:07:39 -0500 From: "Kelly Goodlad" Subject: Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! Yeah...all true. Even though I really like the look of the site, I'd still be hungry for more information. >From: Paul Schreiber >To: navy-soup@smoe.org >Subject: Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 >21:37:09 -0800 >MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) >Received: from mc7-f17.law1.hotmail.com ([65.54.253.24]) by >mc7-s3.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, 1 Mar >2003 21:38:47 -0800 >Received: from smoe.org ([199.201.145.78]) by mc7-f17.law1.hotmail.com with >Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:38:14 -0800 >Received: from smoe.org (ident-user@localhost [127.0.0.1])by smoe.org >(8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h225bGMr020349for >; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 00:37:16 -0500 (EST) >Received: (from majordom@localhost)by smoe.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id >h225bGa3020348for navy-soup-outgoing; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 00:37:16 -0500 (EST) >Received: from smtpout.mac.com (A17-250-248-88.apple.com [17.250.248.88]) >by smoe.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h225bDMr020343 for >; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 00:37:14 -0500 (EST) >Received: from asmtp01.mac.com (asmtp01-qfe3 [10.13.10.65]) by >smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h225bAmT002440 for >; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:37:10 -0800 (PST) >Received: from mac.com ([12.234.195.20]) by asmtp01.mac.com (Netscape >Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id HB3WXY00.N1F for >; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:37:10 -0800 X-Message-Info: >dHZMQeBBv44lPE7o4B5bAg== >Message-Id: <02BCFD7F-4C71-11D7-A0B7-00039301A02E@mac.com> >X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) >Sender: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org >Precedence: bulk >Return-Path: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2003 05:38:14.0551 (UTC) >FILETIME=[EB72FA70:01C2E07D] > >First, the message board is still up: > http://forum.sarahslean.com/ > >Second, while the new site looks (and sounds) very pretty, its severely >lacking in content and functionality, especially compared to the old site: > >* First and foremost: there's no way to access the site if you don't have >flash. >* where are the music samples (mp3s)? (oh, there are three songs, hidden in >the stupid music player widget, but they aren't downloadable) >* where are the lyrics? (oh, they're there too, but only for the same three >songs) >* the tour date archives are gone >* the tour dates page is an ugly mess >* the articles page is an ugly mess (where does one end and the next one >begin?) >* some of the compilation albums disappeared form the discography >* most of the photos are gone from the gallery > >sigh. someone needs a copy of Jakob's book: >http://www.useit.com/jakob/webusability/ > > >Paul > > > shad 96c / uw cs 2001 > / mac activist / fumbler / eda / headliner / navy-souper >fan of / sophie b. / steve poltz / habs / bills / 49ers / > >"I've heard about your witness protection program -- it's called > woodlawn cemetery." -- _Law & Order_ _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:06:25 -0500 From: "Kelly Goodlad" Subject: RE: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison Hi there, To whoever provided the "California" comparison, I totally agree...the early 2002 version is way better. It's the version I remember hearing her play live. Do you have a copy of that mp3 in its entirety, to tide me over until she releases it? :) Kelly >From: "Coz Baldwin" >To: >Subject: RE: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison >Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 01:07:24 -0500 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from mc9-f26.bay6.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.33]) by >mc9-s9.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, 1 Mar >2003 22:13:15 -0800 >Received: from smoe.org ([199.201.145.78]) by mc9-f26.bay6.hotmail.com with >Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, 1 Mar 2003 22:13:14 -0800 >Received: from smoe.org (ident-user@localhost [127.0.0.1])by smoe.org >(8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h226CDMr024916for >; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 01:12:13 -0500 (EST) >Received: (from majordom@localhost)by smoe.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id >h226CCY7024915for navy-soup-outgoing; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 01:12:12 -0500 (EST) >Received: from mx.4ph.com (thickman@mail.4ph.com [64.186.139.20]) by >smoe.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h226CBMr024900 for >; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 01:12:11 -0500 (EST) >Received: (qmail 46490 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2003 06:07:32 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO cn15978a) (68.80.167.83) by mail.4ph.com with >SMTP; 2 Mar 2003 06:07:32 -0000 >X-Message-Info: dHZMQeBBv44lPE7o4B5bAg== >Message-ID: >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) >In-Reply-To: >Sender: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org >Precedence: bulk >Return-Path: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2003 06:13:14.0648 (UTC) >FILETIME=[CF345980:01C2E082] > >Ok, I wanted to add my thoughts here. >This was the first time I have heard her "new" version of California, which >is a song destined to place itself in the Sarah Slean Top 5.... >somewhere... >I haven't decided yet. > >I would like to say that as songs are played over and over through it's >infancy, it will evolve. (I'm betting most of you know this.) Sometimes >for >the sake of keeping it new and sometimes a little happy accident occurs and >it ends up biting your ear in a way which better suits the way you always >heard it inside. > >I would most likely be more attached to whatever version I heard first, and >in this case it is the earlier version. But are those little trills of the >voice not beautiful in their own right, especially if you had been >introduced to the song with them? >Something to consider. > > >I do like the earlier versions. I like it a bit faster -- It's more in >tune >with the heart. >I like the simplicity of the vocal line. It suits the song perfectly. > >And those are my thoughts for the evening. > > > >Virtually yours, > >Coz >http://www.cozbaldwin.com - my site >http://www.thecarpetedwall.com - my portfolio > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org [mailto:owner-navy-soup@smoe.org]On >Behalf Of Somno Rific >Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 5:25 AM >To: navy-soup@smoe.org >Subject: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison > > >This will be my first ever criticism of the wonderful Sarah Slean. :-) > >Here's an mp3.. > >http://www.sweetsaliva.net/california-comparison.mp3 > >Two clips of the song California, just a verse and chorus.. two different >recordings.. the first one from LATE 2002 and the second one from EARLY >2002. > >I sooooo soooo much prefer the way she sang California in EARLY 2002.. In >later versions, she only sings one note for ..all in his *EYES*.. and she >changes the note for "HE" and "I", all in the chorus... Might one convince >her to go back to the old version? What do you guys think? ;-) > >_________________________________________________________________ >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ End of navy-soup-digest V6 #36 ******************************