From: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org (support-system-digest) To: support-system-digest@smoe.org Subject: support-system-digest V4 #15 Reply-To: support-system@smoe.org Sender: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk support-system-digest Tuesday, January 16 2001 Volume 04 : Number 015 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Bounced message [owner-support-system@smoe.org (by way of Jason Long ] more polly ["Nathan C." ] patti rothberg ["Melany Helinski" ] the first of things to come [Kenneth Lee ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:48:20 -0500 From: owner-support-system@smoe.org (by way of Jason Long ) Subject: Bounced message From: "overpavement" Subject: Re: support-system-digest V4 #12 this is long. i am incapable, apparently, of ever being brief. i apologize. wes wrote: >Why do our favorite performers fall into this pattern of say 2-4 > years between CD's..followed by a huge, tiring tour, that leaves said > performer tired and drained..so they need another 4 years to "get > creative" enough to go back into the studio? Why can't they just sort > of perform a little in between? today's NYTimes has an article about "70's Rock" that addresses this question pretty well. one of the writer's points is that today we accept the relatively slow output of, say, radiohead, when in the space of 4 years from 1972 through 1975, roxy music released 5 albums, each braver and more ahead of its time than either ok computer or kid-a. and in that same period, brian eno released 3 solo albums of insanely advanced, totally indescribable music ('here come the warm jets', 'taking tiger mountain (by strategy)', and 'another green world'), while bryan ferry released 3 of his own solo records ('these foolish things', 'another time, another place', and 'let's stick together'), AND phil manzanera turned out the remarkable 'diamondhead' album. so, a group of 6 turned out 12 albums in 4 years, and still found time to tour and produce other albums for other artists. these albums were all old by the time i got them, but at least i did get them on vinyl. and i remain as perplexed as wes about why performers today are incapable of coming up with 12 good songs in 12 or even 18 months. i mentioned this before in a post a few months back, and the reply i saw said that touring takes a lot out of a band, and that the beatles were a good example of a band that got better an more prolific after they stopped touring. i didn't re-reply, but that's just inaccurate. not only did the beatles produce *more* music in less time while they were touring, they also produced a more experimental discography. 'sgt. pepper' being the only 'step forward' they produced after the touring stopped. but while they were touring they went from 'help' to 'rubber soul' to 'revolver' within the space of 14 months, a much greater leap in sound and subject matter than the leap from 'revolver' to 'sgt. pepper'. and, after quitting the road, the beatles only released 5 albums (6, if you count the white album as 2, or even the original version of 'yellow sub' as 1 (even though it only included, i think, 4 new songs). so, the argument loses steam very quickly. in the case of the beatles, of course, their reduced output is understandable -- they were growing up and acquiring different interests. see http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/14/arts/14HAMP.html > We "fans" I sometimes feel are manipulated by this > pattern..surely not intentionally..but certainly the record companies like > to use the old "supply and demand" notion that scarcity drives up demand, and > therefore value (more money!)...but I wonder if it could be different i always think this is a dopey excuse -- blame the record companies. but, you may be on to something. i know, for example, that jewel had an album's worth of material within 9 months of 'pieces of you' being released, but geffen convinced her to let 'pieces' build on the charts and not compete with herself. so, several years later, we got 'spirit', which could've been produced by anybody because there was no evolution from one to the next. this, i think is one of the reasons people on this list are always qualifying their appreciation for WCSE. if liz had released a disc or two in the interim, then the evolution from WS to WCSE would've been less jarring for people who remain attached to EIG and want (despite their protests to the contrary) to re-feel the feelings that EIG originally engendered in them. of course, you can't go home again, and you'll never feel that way again, no matter *what* liz does. and that's your problem, not her's. BUT. the record companies do seem to have settled on a policy of a few big acts, with releases every several years rather than every 9 - 18 months, which used to be the norm. i hate it too, and wish that more performers would rebel and release interim collections of songs, so their buying public would be able to see where they're going. in their defense, i suppose a few bad reviews or a few un-dazzling sales figures, and they'd end up on 'where are they now' lists, so their best-effort releases would be ignored. > ..Even Beck and say, Neil Young, perform alot in spite of their > success..Any thoughts? this is another good point. pearl jam is another example. usually an album a year, and maybe two in a single calendar year. plus, side projects, soundtracks, singles, b-sides, and, now, tours. pearl jam deserve a *lot* more respect than they tend to get. i thought it was interesting in the new rolling stone that U2 were saying they wish pearl jam and radiohead and other bands would be more prolific and more public, so they could jointly fight the boy-bands and girl-bands and the more misogynistic rap performers by delivering vital, valuable rock music more regularly. beck has a good gig going, where his 'popular' records are on one label, and his 'personal' records are on another. neil puts out so much music i guess because he's what people used to call a 'musician'. > L and K's > Wes you lost me totally here. a couple of other points while i'm at it: becky wrote: >[to me] 'selling out', to me, means the bastardisation >of any art for capitalist gain. art also doesn't just >mean fine art or performing arts. it is anything >fuelled by creativity. if one is actually a sophomore, then 'sophomoric' is probably a compliment. otherwise, it's a patronizing term indicating a limited maturity in thought and judgement. this would fit the bill, so, becky, while i'm sure you're a great person, smart, nice to dogs and cats, good sense of humor (i hope), tasteful dresser, good driver and all that, i have to say this statement is the verbal equivalent of swiss cheese. so, an architect should design buildings strictly for his or her own personal statement? "aww, who cares if my 10-story building doesn't have stairs? i hate stairs!" this is silly. even if artists existed outside the framework of commerce -- they don't, and for the most part they don't want to after they're older than 19 -- they'd still have to find sponsors. modern-day medici's, who would impose their own rules on the art they would sponsor. i think we'd all be hard-pressed to find a lot of great, personal "ART" that's come out of the non-capitalist countries of the world. i mean, i like the 'workers of the world unite' posters as much as anybody. they served as the inspiration for the cover of 'whip-smart'. but they're not personal, and they're dubious examples of art. so, please, don't keep believing something so empirically wrong on its face. if you stick with your definition, then you'll need to cross r.e.m., lemonheads, moby, dandy warhols, blur, the smiths, liz phair, juliana hatfield, hole, foo fighters, sam phillips, and everyone else you could name off your shopping list because they've all been part of a commercial, a tv theme song, or a movie soundtrack. then you'd have to cut out everyone who ever had a hit single, since those are written deliberately, not by accident ('the one i love' was a specific attempt to write hit song, as was 'supernova'). and then you'd have to cut off anyone who ever signed a record contract, because those contracts require the 'artist' to recoup the costs of their recordings, meaning they have to try and make an album that will at least sell enough copies to do that. and so on. so at least think this philosophy through a little more. i mean, remember that old grade-school story about the squirrel who would collect nuts and berries in the fall, but who was accepted in the squirrel tribe because he could tell such good stories in the winter while the squirrels were all huddled in their squirrel house? well, the other squirrels would kick that squirrel's ass and let him starve and freeze if his stories sucked. if his entertainment value was negligible, then he'd *better* know how to collect food and other supplies, and contribute something to the greater good. squirrels can be mean bastards. and, yes, in their own way, animals are capitalists, too. ever see what a young lion does to the old lion when he wants to take over the pride? it's not nice, and it's not socialistic. it's brutal and it's natural. 'artists' are just people with a specific talent that may or may not be valued at any particular time (in the 30's, a guy could make a living playing...spoons. i'm serious). they need to eat and feed their families and have t.v.'s or cars or microwaves or cd's or books or paint or shoes. some are good, some are evil (if you were one of picasso's girlfriends, you'd be *amazed* that people hold him in any sort of high esteem). they're just people. jase wrote: >It shouldn't be surprising that Liz wants to play the game, so I don't >understand why it's coming as a shock to a lot of people. Even in the >_Whip-Smart_ era, Liz was proclaiming that she wanted to reach a lot more >people and in one interview that took place in 1996, she said that she >wanted to make the type of album that everyone would love. I just hope she >realizes that she can still be both a "professional" artist and an >important one. well said. except i thought in that interview that liz said she wanted to, and felt she could, make an album that was on par with the classics and would be universally recognized as such. i didn't know she wanted to make one that everyone would love. but either way, reading interviews with people talking *about* liz, you get two distinct impressions: 1) she knows what she wants and does what she wants, and 2) part of what she wants is success and financial reward. shitloads of money. i say there's nothing wrong with that, and i wish her well. and i love WCSE. o: ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:49:31 -0500 From: Dan Subject: PJ Harvey Emil wrote: >At least she's Polly-with-a-fucking-guitar, and not >making... whatever you call that stuff she did on >"ITD?" AMEN! "Is This Desire?" did grow on me - "angeline", "The Sky Lit Up" and "The Garden" were cool - but as a whole - it didn't feel like a PJ record to me at all. It was by far my "let down" for that year. Her new one - I like much much better and it does remind me a bit of "Dry" - however - I still don't think it can hold a candle to "dry" or "rid of me" - which is my favorite PJ Harvey album (and one of my favorite albums of all time). As for critics calling this album her "happy" album...I don't know..I don't get that either. With lyrics like "I can't believe life is so complex, when I just wanna sit here and watch you undress - this is love this is love that I'm feelin'," - I can't see how it is a completely happy album. It seems really sarcastic to me - like a really shallow view on love - and I think the sarcasm was completely intentional on PJ's part -which I love to death - it's the side of PJ that just didn't come through lyrically for me on "ITD?". But lots of the chords and stuff on the album really remind me of "Dry" - which is always a treat - I'd say it's a decent record, for sure - one of my favorites of last year - I played it quite a bit, still do. I also have a theory about lyrics being printed. I think one of the best ways to ruin a song is to print the lyrics - especially if you *can* understand what they are saying. I mean, think of it this way: Everyone here loves the song "Never Said" by liz. Now think about how stupid the song would look down in print. WE all know the lyrics -they are not hard to figure out - and the song is awesome. But seeing it printed - it would look sooooo fucking repetative and boring. But to the ear - it works. So I don't really think "Stories from the city...." is a slip up lyrically for PJ - when you listen to the songs - the lyrics are pretty fucking good - quite comparable to her old stuff - but when you read along with them - or read them - and see them down - you kinda get the impression of "That's it????!? - where's the juice in these songs???" but when you hear how they fit with music, and her vocal expression - it rocks. IE - "Kamikazee" - and yes, i know i spelled it wrong - i am just too lazy to get up and check the CD case. But the song is incredible! Still crossing my fingers for some cool albums by WEEZER, GO-GO's, Bangles ('m pissing myself with excitement over the Bangles' new album), Liz, and a nice surprise of new B52's material would be great. Also - anyone know what HOLE is doing? Any new shit in the works?? laters.. Dan. OH STEVE - it turns out (now this is fucking weird) I am going to be covering the fucking Tegan and Sara show!!! I got press passes - and I get to ask them 4 questions for The Saint (college newspaper) (i am sure it will be more once we sit down though) - and I am definetely going to ask them how they feel when people accuse them of sounding like Ani rip-offs - just to see the expression on their faces. So Steve - if you can swing by at all - let me know - and you can come interview them with me before the show in a wee lil coffee shop - could be fun...if not - it's a free show with the press pass thingie. see ya... Dan. %&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&% "And I can change, despite all you say, become something strange and beautiful, like joy. " -Liz Phair. ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:31:56 -0800 From: "Nathan C." Subject: more polly I am really happy that she has picked up the guitar again and reassembled the original band. It bothered me that she stopped that with TBYML and mostly live, I hear. It's the frist PJ Harvey (the band) album since 'Rid of Me'. I also really really love her electronic era and thought it was very complex. I find her other work to be more challenging. Well, ITD came to the west coast as opposed to Stories only hitting the east. I hope Bjork will tour the new album. nathan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:27:10 -0600 From: "Melany Helinski" Subject: patti rothberg has anyone heard the new album? i was wondering. for some reason my computer won't play the real audio files on her website. thanks, melany ************************************************* i think pretty is nice, but i'd rather see something new. ~~ani difranco~~ ************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:39:55 From: Kenneth Lee Subject: the first of things to come Hi everyone, If you saw VH1 tonight, you probably saw Liz at #96. You also saw some pics that you haven't seen before. One of these (Liz riding the mechanical pony) has just been added to my site, along with the accompanying article from "The Times" (a British newspaper) from sometime in 1999. As a teaser for the article, did you know that Liz spent part of her childhood in England? Expect more stuff like this in the days to come. - -Ken kenmlee@ix.netcom.com MeSmErIzInG - AnOtHeR LiZ PhAiR WeBsItE http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Club/2471/ ------------------------------ End of support-system-digest V4 #15 ***********************************