Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:59:58 EST
From:         "Michael H. Bloom" <MHB@MITVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      The rain, the park, and other things

From:         Leonard Watkins <ISTS024@UABDPO.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: MTV

> I'm not sure it's always (key word here is always) the artist interpre..etc
> sometimes i think the director/producer has more say so what goes in a video
> than the artist....L.W.

Leonard is if anything too equivocal here-- a lot of videos get made because
the record company demands it, and made to the company's specifications:
cheaply, and oriented toward the lowest common denominator. It was common
knowledge five years ago at least that most of the directors of MTV's fare
were "artists" whose main line of work was TV commercials. (The Americans,
that is. British videos were more likely to be made by art school types,
e.g. Godley and Creme.)

From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: MTV

>   Well, the lenster, all cluelessness awards notwithstanding,
> is right on the money here.  The Cars were getting recognition
> for their videos at one point, but in interview, ric ocasek
> revealed that they had almost nothing to do with the videos
> that were made for them (except, of course, for the soundtrack).
> Cars videos were solely the creative babies of their directors,
> not the band.

Now this is a surprise to me; I woulda thought they were the exception. David
Robinson (?), the drummer, is also a graphic artist (he did all their album
cover artwork). And ya gotta admit the idea of an Ocasek-fly buzzing around
rates pretty high on the wacky scale-- maybe it was the creative team that
came up with the Raid commercials? :-)

From:         spideroni <REWOICC@ERENJ.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: MTV

> i disagree. i find live footage stuff to be usually quite boring. in
> my opinion, a video should be a piece of film that tells reflects the
> lyrics and meaning of the song in a visual manner. as such, not all
> songs really deserve to have videos since some songs really don't have
> a story to tell.

You did retract this later, at least to not insist on narrative, but mood.
I was gonna point out something like "Sweet Dreams" by the Eurythmics, a
bit of heavy-handed by damn fine surrealism. Works for me, anyway.

> the only songs that deserve live footage are actual live recordings.

Well, the reason I want performance footage is because otherwise, too many
people are going to grow up believing that music is not a viable avocation
for them, because they can't immediately pick up the guitar and sound like
God. I think it's important that fans observe their heroes at their craft,
and that they're not necessarily higher life forms who never make mistakes!
Also it was to try and defend against this phenomenon:

From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: MTV

> And the worst videos are the ones which have tattered sheet
> plastic hanging from the ceiling, smoke, a bunch of babes
> and band members with poofed hair pretending to lip-synch
> and air guitar to the music.

Complete and total agreement. Need I say more?

From:         spideroni <REWOICC@ERENJ.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: MTV

> i don't think any of us *hate* emptv. we just think *hate* what they are
> doing with it. video is a great medium, but it's being wasted on much of
> what gets played on that station. not to mention emptv's idea of moving
> towards a show-oriented format. blech.

What's so appalling about television is its complete impenetrability to new
ideas! MTV came up with a radically new format, and they're spending their
second decade backpedalling, trying to retrofit themselves into a network,
by adopting all the shit networks do that's already obsolete...

I read an account (okay, a screed) by Barry Crimmins, a very funny political
humorist who got to leave Boston for a while and write for the Dennis Miller
show-- until it got cancelled. He talks about some of the behind-the-scenes
bullshit that got Miller scrubbed-- how various people who were considered
as guests got told by the management of Letterman and/or Leno that if they
appeared on the Miller show, the big guys were never, ever going to invite
them. The idea was batted around of, well, let's just blow off the whole
tired talk show format and do what we do best, which was weird interactive
political stand-up comedy-- but the producers lacked the guts. Too bad.

From:         Dave <USTS060@RUST1.DPO.UAB.EDU>
Subject:      Re: MTV

>     The best case scenario would be an interpretive video that was of
> a level that required interpretation of itself (i.e. the video).  One
> such video is Peter Gabriel's "Digging in the Dirt" stylisticly,
> thematically and technically its an excellent video and one that is
> open to debate and discussion.  Much more so than say Micheal
> Bolton's latest video or the schmaltz that Kenny G. puts out.
> Another idea might be to publish more than one video, each providing
> a different angle on the same song.

Well, I know Gabriel made two different videos of "Don't Give Up." But one of
them was just an excuse to stand and embrace KaTe Bush (on camera) for five
minutes. Ah, the sacrifices one makes for Art :-)

Actually, was this when Jill left him?

One of the very few commercially available videotapes I own is his collection
_CV_ or whatever it's called. (Why does he go for these two-character titles?
Is he an old Microsoft Basic programmer?) There are eight clips on it, only
three of which are really that interesting to me-- "Sledgehammer" (I'm a big
fan of Claymation), "Shock the Monkey" (the contrast between civilized and
savage, and the general air of surrealism), and a video of "I Don't Remember"
which does illustrate the song, but is perversely set to a live performance!
The rest of the stuff is IMHO pretty lame-- either too literal (the other
"Don't Give Up") or just kinda cheaply pictorial ("Mercy Street").

>     One of the saddest things about the mass audience today is thatt
> there does not seem to be any thought put into the music listened to.
>  It's just taken and digested.  No one wants to chew up a piece,
> breaking it down and going over each bit piece by piece (sorry, its
> getting near lunch).  My fear of the video is that it makes it even
> easier not to think while listening.  Thereby further relegating the
> analytical part of the brain to becoming analogous with the appendix.

The problem as I see it is not "People are stupider now" but "People who have
no real interest in music are getting into it anyway, because of marketing,
video, peer pressure, and the generally information-intensive character of
contemporary society." It's like how there's always gonna be more Big Macs
consumed by Americans than orders of beef Wellington-- the latter's not only
more expensive, but an acquired taste.

From:         Mike <MASUDA@SJSUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Stubb (a dub)

> All this talk about drugs, here's a scenario:
>
> If we legalise pot in the US,
> how will it affect "coffee breaks"?
>
> Yes, there are people stupid enough to smoke pot anytime they can.
> I know about 10 people in my circle who may do just that.

I worked with a guy like that-- hadn't really been sober in years. He was a
veteran, and one would be justified in saying that the service damaged him.
Anyway, he got high whenever he had a break from the shop floor. It did not
affect his work. (It affected mine when I toked up with him, because I wasn't
as accustomed to it!) The job was machine shop work of a particularly tedious
variety, and I don't think his drug "abuse" harmed anyone. (There was another
guy who was a cokehead, but the differential between the price of coke and
our wages was such that he could only indulge his habit on weekends.)

> I don't do the stuff, cuz I get high off of more natural things,
> like SEX!   Yes, what a buzz.

The cases are not parallel. I find them mutually enhancing.

I dunno, something about being drug-free and obstreperously proud of it
strikes me as comparable to defending your maidenhead against temptation
forever. You never know what you're missing, and it makes you boring...
and I'd rather be in accord with Leonard, or even SNYPLAVA, than Nancy
Reagan!

From:         mjferzig@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
Subject:      One-Hit Wonders

> How many "one-hit wonders" do you remember. Now, I know you guys don't
>
> Toni Basil "Mickey"

She was the Paula Abdul of her day-- did a lot of choreography for official
pop stars, so as a reward, they let her make her own record (and dance it).
It woulda been okay except that the "cheerleader" motif is so cheesy, not to
mention heavily associated with sexism.

> etc. I'm curions what y'all wuld come up with...

Out of deference to Gary I'm not gonna continue this thread, sorry.

> Oh, Lenny, this morning I awoke to "Money Baroney" on the oldies station

That's "Bonie Moronie," innit? Or was this an intentional spoonerism? Also,
was it the original '50s version, or the Billy Idol remake?

From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      what i'm listening to these days/mtv

> anyway, we ran into marshall and he said, you know you
> are getting old when today bands are putting out a compilation
> of covers from your youth.  someone is actually covering
> "the human league"! don't ask me why, i really don't have

Why they did it is a charity thing, "Rock for Choice" or something. A whole
bunch of alternative types doing early new wave hits and other early '80s
stuff (a KaTe Bush song done by some shoegazer group, or something...)

But yeah, my wife started to feel old when she realized it had been twelve
years since _Talking Heads 77_. We saw King Missile cover "What do I Get"
by the Buzzcocks and "Betrayal Takes Two" by Richard Hell and the Voidoids,
"classic hits" of her generation. And remember when Ramones songs were fast?

> Needless to say, i didn't grow up on television. maybe
> that's why mtv (and the whole spectrum of cable wonderfullness)
> is such a treat for me. I am hypmotized most of the time
> when tv is on.  i don't miss it when it isn't on, mind you,
> i'm not a crazy tube maniac, but when it is on i am at peace.

I suffer from the same syndrome-- I get sucked in by the tube. I don't lose
judgment, I know exactly how stoopid the stuff I'm watching is, but somehow
I believe the next thing will be better.

From:         mjferzig@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
Subject:      Re: Cadence and cascade

> Bloomie sez...
> >
> >Of course, if you have good academic credentials, you yourself probably
> >can't swing to save your life.
> >
> Bloomie, darlin', I'll admit that I can't dance, but I can swing....and I
> have pretty decent credentials.....for sleazy lawyer.

Well, I was referring to composers. See _The Real Frank Zappa Book_ for FZ's
speech to the American Society of University Composers. He's overly harsh,
but he's right. Regarding you and other list members, I don't give a shit
about credentialism. You swing pretty good, for a lawyer (eliminating a
needless redundancy :-)

From:         "Gary M. Gettier" <gmgettie@THAMA1.APGEA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:      Songs of Freedom

> I thought the CD limit was around 74 minutes.

Steven Feigenbaum of Cuneiform Records says the mastering lab he uses can go
up to 76 minutes. He says they can actually go further, but what they have to
do is eliminate some of the error correction codes, increasing the likelihood
that the CD won't track properly in a sub-optimal player.

From:         Leonard Watkins <ISTS024@UABDPO.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gales mystery

> So i almost got P.G.'s SO cd would this one be a recommended one..?...
> If so i'm gonna get it....

I'm not so crazy about _So_. Of course, you and I don't agree real often :-)
The greatest hits collection might be a good idea. I figure, however, that
if you didn't like _US_ you weren't gonna like him at all: despite the use
of drum machines, most of the lavish instrumentation is played by real people,
so the sound is really pretty organic, and kinda rootsy to boot. And the songs
are as close to typical human concerns as he ever wrote.

From:         Tom Frenkel <frenkel@CUCIS.CIS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Songs of Freedom

> I would have loved to boycott this set, but couldn't because I'm a Marley
> "completist".  But I get really pissed that I have to buy a whole lot of
> songs that I already have on the original albums.  What is more, a boxed
> set such as this takes everything out of the original context.  I mean, I
> think there is usually a *reason* why an album is put together the way it
> is.  All this cutting & pasting is really a poor way to do things.  And

Assuming the artist (1) has a vision, and (2) has real creative control, and
(3) cares. On the old LP of Todd Rundgren's _The Hermit of Mink Hollow_, half
the songs are on "The Easy Side" and half on "The Difficult Side." When he
delivered the record to Warner/Bearsville, he had a different order for the
songs-- but the label, in their infinite wisdom, subjected the record to some
pseudo-scientific listener tests, hooking listeners up to skin galvanometers
and seeing how they reacted to the music. So Warners told Todd which songs
were the good ones and which were too weird, so he re-grouped them that way.
I defy you to tell them apart.

> the CD companies are making a mint selling the same songs all over again!

Oh, you poor sheep! Why the fuck do you think CDs exist in the first place?
I'll give you a hint: Digital Compact Cassettes.

From:         E Pluribus Unix <gmgettie@THAMA1.APGEA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:      Barry Publications, again

> $10 SURPRISE PACKAGE
>
> Get a minumum of 4 L.P. albums of the exact type of music you want...all
> factory fresh...for only $10...we pay all shipping costs

Wow, the *exact* type I want? Canterbury groups? Rock In Opposition bands?
Non-idiomatic free improvisers on guitar? Tuvan throat singers? I gotta
check these guys out!

> They have a little survey where I fill in my favorite music types and
> performers.

I once called up a CD phone shopping service to get their free catalog. The
operator wanted to know what kind of music I liked. I said I liked all kinds,
and named some examples to prove I wasn't being clueless. The operator said
I had to pick one, so I asked what the choices were. The usual suspects: rock,
jazz, classical, country, "easy listening." I said they all had their merit
and they all had their problems, except that easy listening was clearly not
what I was into, and could I sign up for difficult listening? They never
even sent me the free catalog. Phooey.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU