From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V3 #61 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Sunday, February 25 2001 Volume 03 : Number 061 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [RS] It's E-Neff [Rongrittz@aol.com] [RS] Why Grammy, what little teeth you have ["Gene Frey" > But I think a proper award program for the acoustic community would go a long way toward winning new listeners and fans for the Richards, Cheryls, Lucys and Dars of the world. Isn't that what the Grammys ultimately do for all those Hip Hop, Rap, Whatever hucksters? << Not in my opinion. I would argue that the Grammys are probably not taken seriously by the what-I'll-unfortunately-call "true fans" of ANY genre. Faith Hill winning a country Grammy, for example, probably does nothing to win new listeners and fans for, oh, Kelly Willis. And can we ever forget the ridicule that accompanied Jethro Tull winning "Best Heavy Metal Album?" The Grammys are a lowest-common-denominator popularity show, nothing more, nothing less. >> If the "Neffy" Acoustic Awards (catchy title, by the by) were presented in an intelligent, graceful fashion (and it's possible on television I'm convinced), in a way that showcases these artists properly, not in any hyped up, shove-em-down-our-throats manner, I think it could be a great evening of entertainment that would open alot of peoples' eyes to the new modern troubadors, many of whom a good portion of the acoustic listening community may not even know about. << I'll agree that this music should be showcased, but developing an award show for it -- which would really just be the "acoustic community" congratulating itself -- ain't the way to do it. Showcasing the artists is best done not in an "award" environment, but one in which the artists get to do what they do best. Sing. Play. Shows like "Sessions at W. 57th" and "Austin City Limits." Where singer/songwriters are already presented in an intelligent, graceful fashion, in a way that showcases these artists properly, not in any hyped up, shove-em-down-our-throats manner. And which have turned ME onto more great new artists than any award show has ever done. And besides, do we really want there to be an arena where Richard and Dar and Lucy are forced to "compete" for some nebulous concept called "Best Folk Album?" RG ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:47:30 -0500 From: "Gene Frey" Subject: [RS] Why Grammy, what little teeth you have Hey you guys, As for me, I refuse to let myself get all worked up about anything as arbitrary and industry-internalized as the Grammy Awards. They rarely get anything right, catching the tail end of every lame trend that hits the radio. The one category I might give a damn about, Contemporary Folk, has been co-opted into a lifetime achievement award for people whose latest release sold so poorly they can't get nominated elsewhere. This fact was, in a perverse way, celebrated by the New York press last weekend, completely ignoring the fact that there might be people who deserve to be nominated, such as the subject of this list, and are squeezed out. Oh well. As far as the Shelby Lynne issue, it's easy for us to say she should be happy to be nominated, etc., but it must really suck to think that your last five CDs were so anonymous that you would be nominated as 'Best New Artist' for your sixth. I know they've changed the rules, but the award is still called 'Best New Artist,' and will be percieved as such until it gets renamed 'Breakout Artist' or something. Don't the CMA's have an award like that? In the end, 'Somewhere Near Paterson' sounds as good as ever, even if the good folks at Signature Sounds don't have to scramble around putting 'Grammy Award Winner!!!' on all the discs. Gene F. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:23:20 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: Re: [RS] Why Grammy, what little teeth you have Great subject line, Gene. OK. About the Grammys . . . Music award shows like the Grammys provide some of the strongest proof to support my thesis that when you get right down to it, the American public-at-large is extraordinarily small-minded and essentially, stupid. Maybe they don't start out that way, but a few decades of listening to top-40 radio, getting your news from USA Today, and watching bad Leonardo DiCaprio films will do it to you every time. For the most part, I do not believe that there is any such thing as personal taste anymore. People wear the clothes that TNBC and the Gap tell them to wear, and listen to the music that mainstream radio tells them to listen to. There is no concept of "what I like," at least not so long as "individuality" is the stuff bottled and sold inside a Pepsi can. On the other hand, for those few who still possess the faculties of critical thinking that God gave them, there are few opportunities to practice these skills. For example, my TA for a film class I'm taking recently launched into a tirade about how large corporations control what films we get to see. They buy the rights for hundreds of films, but only a few get distributed. They are looking for the next "Life is Beautiful," and everything else never sees the light of day. So when people say that Americans don't like to watch foreign films, they speak as if the American public had a choice--and for the most part, they don't. So with music, methinks. There are no big dollars invested in making sure the public hears Richard Shindell. On the other hand, the public is stifled by its own apathy, and is content to buy whatever MTV has to sell, and leave things at that. Anyways, I guess my point is that we shouldn't be surprised that the Grammys are as wretched and useless as they are. On the other hand, maybe it's best that the music we love is, for the most part, accessible primarily to those who are willing to look for it, and not stuffed down everyone's throats. I think there'd be something vaguely profane about teeny-boppers running around singing "The Ballad of Mary Magdalen(e)" without understanding the lyrics and their meaning, just because it's the last video they saw on VH1. JMO. Peace, Vanessa - -- "Some recall experience/ So others can run the same road But you just write down possibilities/ So you can spend more time at home." --30 Odd Foot of Grunts, "You Treat Me Like Chocolate" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:04:21 EST From: Rongrittz@aol.com Subject: [RS] Re: Why Grammy, what little teeth you have << So when people say that Americans don't like to watch foreign films, they speak as if the American public had a choice--and for the most part, they don't. So with music, methinks. There are no big dollars invested in making sure the public hears Richard Shindell. On the other hand, the public is stifled by its own apathy, and is content to buy whatever MTV has to sell, and leave things at that. >> Ah, the Vicious Catch-22-and-Egg situation. Do more people not like folk music because it's not generally accessible, or is folk music not generally accessible because more people don't like it? Interesting . . . RG ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:08:59 -0500 From: "Norman A. Johnson" Subject: [RS] Laura Siersema & the Neffys Today I was listening to the "Acoustic Cafe" on WRSI and caught part of an interview with Laura Siersema, an artist I had not heard of before. One of her influences is Shawn Colvin and she sounds a bit like Shawn. In addition to songs, she also writes short pieces of poetry and these are included on her album WHEN I LEFT LOSS. She has a website: laurasiersema.com. It would be nice to have an award like the "Neffy" for the artists we like but more important, we need more radio stations that play indie artists and have programs like "Acoustic Cafe", "World Cafe", etc. "Austin City Limits" and "Sessions" generally play only rather estalished artists. As I've said before, during the 70s and 80s, singer-songwriters like Paul Simon, Jackson Browne, Dan Fogelberg, etc., etc. sold millions of records. The industry has since changed. Norman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:53:10 +0100 From: Katrin.Uhl@t-online.de (Katrin Uhl) Subject: RE: [RS] It's E-Neff hi guys, catching up with zillions of mails and this interesting thread. A few things that come to my mind: there are awards for "our music". What about the Boston-I-forgot-the-proper-name-right-now-awards? But true, there is no US-wide award. > That tribute to Joni Mitchell that was > on TV a few > months ago was terrific--Richard Thompson doing a Joni cover was > tremendous > and made for great TV entertainment. So soulful. Ditto for > Cyndi Lauper's > cover. A tv-tribute along those lines is what I'd much rather like to see, not another awards show. The same cast, but a different format, not just a "get your award, thank what ever divine being you believe in and leave the stage-thing" but something that really looks at the music. A few weeks ago they aired a tribute to Woody Guthrie here. It was probably a US-made feature, not sure though, and it had all kinds of artists cover his songs (Tom Waits, Eliza Carthy's mother who's name I don't remember, Ani ...) and talk about what Woody and his music meant to them. Something along those lines I think would be a wonderful way to recognize all those artists we love and the music we enjoy. Of course it would be a tough choice who to feature and who not, but lucky enough I don't have to make that choice :) cheers, Katrin - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- i do it for the joy it brings because i'm a joyful girl because the world owes me nothing and we owe each other the world ani difranco ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V3 #61 **********************************