Re: Japanese hipsterism....
At 2:40 PM -0400 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Got me thinking, anyone know who the most popular Japanese artist in US history might be? I can't think of anyone beyond Cibo Matto, who, by virtue of being on a major label, might win this pony race. What about Yoko Ono? Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
Re: Good covers (was: Kelly Willis calling the shots)
At 4:39 PM -0400 4/4/99, Amy Haugesag wrote: Well, referencing Peggy Lee's "Fever" isn't going to win any points with me, as I don't love either the song or her toneless version of it. If this loses me major kitsch-cred points, that's fine with me. Well thanks, I guess, for pointing out to me that I'm just respondingly ironically to the faked sensations of artistic rubbish. How ever could I have thought I sincerely liked the song on its own merits? g But I used the word "rehash" advisedly. I think it's possible and even fairly common to do a note-for-note rendition of someone else's song and *still* bring something of oneself--usually having to do with the distinctive voice that Ross mentions--to it. A rehash, on the other hand, is nothing more than a carbon copy of a song, one that doesn't add any distinctiveness of voice or anything else. A talented artist can sing a note-for-note rendition of a song they didn't write and still make it their own, by virtue of having a) a distinctive voice and b) emotional honesty, and specifically the ability to give the listener a sense that the song resonates emotionally for the singer as it did for the writer or original performer. I certainly agree with all of that, but I don't think that's the same thing as saying "all good covers" should be "reinterpretations rather than rehashes". Unless you are saying that a note-for-note remake is a reinterpretation when you like it and a rehash when you don't like it. A note-for-note remake, I'd say, is almost always giving the song the same interpretation as the original, whether it works or not. Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
Good covers (was: Kelly Willis calling the shots)
At 12:27 AM -0500 4/3/99, Amy Haugesag wrote: I love the whole record, even the not-as-good-as-the-first-version "Fading Fast," and I'm especially impressed with the Nick Drake and Replacements covers, which are reinterpretations rather than rehashes, just like all good covers should be. Tsk tsk. So Peggy Lee's "Fever", Bob Dylan's "Broke Down Engine", and Merle's "San Antonio Rose" (to name just three rehashes that immediately came to mind) are not good covers? I'd say there are lots of way to make good covers. An artist with a strong, distinctive voice -- and I'd put all of the above in that category -- can make a note-for-note remake of a song and still make a recording I find valuable on the strength of the subtle variations that that distinctive voice brings to the song. Stepping up for Jon W. who is probably tired of making this point (except he probably would not require even subtle variations if the cover was performed with good grace and skill), Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
artistic control vs. bootlegging
At 12:17 PM -0500 24/3/99, Jon Weisberger wrote: From the clipped bit, it reads like he's looking for non-released material, and wants to trade. As an artist, what's your take on that? If a record label released material without the consent of the artist, wouldn't it be obvious that something rotten was going on? If so, what's the difference here? The financial principle is an important one, but it's not the only one; the principle of an artist's control over what material gets into the marketplace is another one, and there's a pretty obvious violation of it here. But even that principle of artistic control isn't cut and dried, I think. I guess the much used counter-example (so much so that it's become something of a cliche) is the case of Kafka. Is it unethical to read "The Trial" because Kafka's death-bed wish to his publisher Max Brod was to destroy the manuscript? And then there's the question of what is meant by "the marketplace". If someone is simply trading tapes/CDs of Todd Snider performances, with no cash changing hands, are those tapes/CDs in a marketplace at all? I think it is important to reiterate here that the bulk (perhaps even the entirety) of the pro-tape trading crowd on this list do *not* make a single dime on any of their transactions. The notion of sleazy bootleggers getting rich on the intellectual property of uncompensated artists is a bit of a straw dog as it pertains to the discussion here. Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
Re: Tweedy quote/alt.country (LONG and IRRITATED)
At 10:14 AM -0500 05/3/99, Dave Purcell wrote: In my best Beavis voice, I'd respond, "Uh...so what?" Uncle Tupelo wasn't at the helm of *anything*. The media made them, in retrospect, the leader of this so-called movement. Terry's point is well stated: country rock/roots rock has been around for a long damn time (as you well know) and it doesn't mean a hill of beans that a bunch of journalists who wouldn't know Commander Cody or the Scorchers from their own arses have declared UT as grand champeen of this last round of country rockers. I like UT a lot, but they weren't originators, they were simply a band the media folk latched onto. People can say it all they want, but it doesn't make it so. Well the genesis of this thread had to do with the way Tweedy is being perceived as distancing himself from the alt-country tag at seemingly every opportunity in interviews. The tag itself orginally gained wide currency to describe UT and similar bands, didn't it? Earlier bands in similar styles had other tags applied to them, such as roots rock, country rock, etc. Personally, I don't argue that these tags couldn't also be applied to UT, but Tweedy isn't bringing up these tags in his interviews. As I remember the articles, Tweedy specically addresses whether he would define his band as being part of the "alt-country" or "No Depression" movements. I don't think the point (originally) was whether UT originated or pioneered this style of music, but simply that they found themselves described with a label that didn't exist until after they had already started playing in that style. If Tweedy didn't set out to define himself with this tag -- as perfomers in well-established, long-defined genres such as blues or country do --, but rather found others defining his music for him, perhaps it's not surprising that he doesn't feel much loyalty or committment to keep using that tag. Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
Re: Tweedy quote
At 9:10 AM -0600 04/3/99, Chris Orlet wrote: Dare someone try to explain why so many artists/bands (Wilco, Son Volt, Fulks, apparently Old 97s etc) are so intent on distancing themselves from alt-country, even to the point of making 70s/Beach Boy-esque pop albums? I dont recall punk groups, or grunge acts going around denying they were punk or suddenly abandoning grunge and taking up jazz. What success, what base these artists have they have because of their early alt-country work. And now its seems they cant jump off the alt-country wagon full of alt-country hayseeds quick enough. Well, maybe you should go to the next Wilco show and clap very slowly between songs. Then, before the final song, you could yell out "Judas!" g. But seriously, it seems to me that artists often fall into two different camps -- one that takes pride in the genre in which they feel they are working, and one that chafes under the label by which they have been designated. And in the latter, it isn't just alt-country performers. By 1966, Dylan would bristle to be labelled "folk". He was a rocker, and he would insist that he had *always* been a rocker, right from the first acoustic albums. At that stage, he didn't want to be called a folk singer and would openly challenge and harass any interviewer who tried to pin him as a one. I believe Ricky Nelson as he grew older came to resent being labelled a pop singer, or, worse, a teeny bopper. Of course, who wouldn't dislike that label. But it was his teen idol status that was instrumental in marketing his early hits, and undeniably they were songs about teens, for teens, dealing with teen concerns. (Not that I'm putting them down -- I love "It's Late", "Stood Up", and all those other early Nelson gems.) Among perhaps less respectable names, I've seen MTV interviews with Van Halen in which the band try to brush off their heavy metal designation. They too wanted to be known simply as rockers, not limited (as they saw it) to a particular niche. And of course there's always list bugaboo Shania T., who is currently going around saying that she's about more than just country, that mainstream pop informs her muse as much as country and her music has and will more and more reflect that. I'm sure others can come up with better examples, but the question remains, why do some artists go out of their way to tell interviewers what they are not, which categories they should not be lumped into? I would guess that it usually isn't a case of disdaining their previous audience or wanting to put a distance between themselves and that early audience. Maybe it arises from reading their own reviews a bit too often. If you feel you are incorporating new styles and new approaches in your work, yet you perceive reviews to be dwelling on the styles and influences that used to be the dominant feature of your work, then you might get a bit irritated and start insisting on pointing out your new influences to the exclusion of acknowledging the old ones. In quite a few cases, it would seem to me, the reviewers aren't doing this, yet the artists seem to think they are. Jeff Tweedy I think is an example of this -- he often seems to pre-emptively bring up his belief that he definitely isn't in the alt-country camp on the assumption that interviewers are just biding their time before confining him there. As to why Tweedy doesn't have pride in his alt-country roots, I think it is significant that such a designation wasn't used until people started trying to categorise Uncle Tupelo and bands of their ilk. When UT started making music, they weren't conciously trying to fit into a specific musical genre. I guess I can see why he has no special attachment to a movement that developed around him. He didn't grow up immersed in that genre, he didn't discover it come to love it and set out to become part of it as if he had grown up immersed in it, he got put in it and, for whatever reason, he seems to feel it doesn't describe what he does now. Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
Re: sxsw criticisms (my take)
If this is the case, and I have no reason to dispute it, why should poor old Garth get such a ragging around here for all *his* efforts at self-marketing? It's just a difference of scale, isn't it? Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC At 10:27 PM -0600 16/2/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Despite what y'all say about SXSW or any event like it, I think that when playing a showcase, or any CSRF like it, it is up to the artist to make the most of what's available. You *do* have the opportunity to get important people out to see your band/act if you take the initiative to let people know you're out there. You can't expect to just show up and draw a crowd. These things are really about networking, getting the word out about what makes you different or better than what else is out there. If you go into it thinking that you've got no shot and no one cares, your probably right. If you work at it and actually have something interesting to say or maybe think of different way to grab some attention, the right folks will find you. These events are good opportunities, if you look at them as a start or continuation of whatever plan you have and if you don't have a plan, then maybe you better reconsider what you're doing in the first place. Jim, off my soapbox
Re: Dylan
At 10:19 AM + 12/2/99, Girvan Burnside wrote: Ross Whitwam said: I want to vote for the "Live At Budokan" album as Dylan's worst live album. No I didn't. I too like the _At Budokan_ album. Someone else said that. Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
Re: Dylan
At 11:54 AM -0800 10/2/99, Don Yates wrote: One thing worth mentioning -- Dylan's been radically reinterpreting his songs in concert for years. Check out the '74 live album Before The Flood for some *very* different versions of some familiar Dylan "warhorses." Indeed, or *any* of Dylan's live albums. He's been reinterpreting and rearranging his material pretty consistently since about 1965. (Prior to that, in his all-acoustic all-the-time phase, he pretty much sung his songs live as he had recorded them in the studio, and vice versa.) For what it's worth, in my estimation Dylan's best live album is _Live 1966_ and _Before The Flood_ is his worst, but that's not say I think any of Dylan's albums is worthless. Hell, I even enjoy Columbia's 1973 "revenge" album. What I have noticed is that many people, even devout Dylan fans, are disappointed when they hear Dylan live for the first time. (Lance appears to be an exception to this; back in the day, I wasn't.) Dylan does not perform his songs as he records them: the arrangements are different, the moods are different, and Dylan's vocals are quite different. To me, the very quality of his voice, the timbre, the pitch, what have you, sound differnt live vs. in the studio. If you get too attached to the recorded performances of his songs (quite easy to do), it can be quite jarring at first. I personally think that, once you get used to the new approaches, however, his best recent live performances prove to be stunning in their emotionality and vocal dexerity. If anyone were wondering if the current live Dylan is going to be their cup of tea, I would recommend listening to his _Unplugged_ album (his second best live album, in my personal rankings), which does give a good impression of his current live vocal stylings. It is also the only album he has ever released which features his current touring band (well, the 1994 version anyway -- there's been changes since, but the overall band sound has been pretty consistent.) Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
Re: Dylan
At 9:13 PM + 10/2/99, Stevie Simkin wrote: lance davis wrote: The same goes for that listless, unforgivable Letterman appearance, and the list goes on and on. Disappointments have abounded. Hey, just hang on a doggone minute there. Are we talking Dylan on Letterman in 1984? Dont Start Me Talkin, Jokerman and License to Kill? One of THE great Dylan performances ever (... and I have the live tape collection to prove it) ? Surely not. I'm with Stevie on this one. Great great effort from BD that night. I suspect Lance might have been referring to a later Letterman appearance -- I think it was a prime time special celebrating Letterman's 15th anniversary on the air, or something like that -- when BD performed a somewhat lackluster "Like A Rolling Stone" with Rosanne Cash + two others on (superfluous, it seemed to me) backing vocals. Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
CDNow coupon
Could someone privately e-mail me the URL for the $10-off coupon from CDNow that was posted here earlier today? I accidently discarded the original message. Thanks, Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
Re: Old 97s in NYC
Barry wrote: I know a number of New York P2ers are planning to see the Old 97s show at the Mercury Lounge next Saturday night The other act that night--probably AFTER the 97s, by the way it's advertised, is "Sea of Cortez," about thich I know nothing... I'll attempt to make sure I have a ticket beforehand. And the opening act is The Hangdogs, making a rare appearance in the city. Well... o.k., actually they play around here a lot, but they are always a good time and well worth catching. They are scheduled to play at 9 pm (though at the Mercury you can usually add a half-hour to scheduled start times for true performance times.) Definitely worth arriving early for, imo. Ross Whitwam[EMAIL PROTECTED] Molecular Pharmacology Therapeutics Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
