Chalkhills Digest Volume 8, Issue 35
Date: Friday, 14 June 2002
Chalkhills Digest, Volume 8, Number 35
Friday, 14 June 2002
Topics:
Re: video wanted: No, but I have Look Look on DVD
Re: Sgt. Rock
To turn a clever phrase
XTC cricket reference
Age, Aging, Agingest
weller, springfield, reissues & contracts...
Me gusta ehkees-tay-say!
Windmills, Moby et alia
Sieze the world and take a bite
Cinti Radio
Zittel's Flaming Andy Pictures
How Red Was My Herring
go john go!~!
Re: COMC, Paul Weller, etc
Administrivia:
I will be out of town all next week, so no Chalkhills until June 23
at the earliest. Enjoy!
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the Chalkhills mailing list, send a message to
<chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org> with the following command:
unsubscribe
For all other administrative issues, send a message to:
<chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org>
Please remember to send your Chalkhills postings to:
<chalkhills@chalkhills.org>
World Wide Web: <http://chalkhills.org/>
The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors.
Chalkhills is compiled with Digest 3.7d (John Relph <relph@tmbg.org>).
And all the media will fiddle while Rome burns acting like modern-time Neros.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:26:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "" <radiosinmotion@iwon.com> Subject: Re: video wanted: No, but I have Look Look on DVD Message-ID: <20020610232607.7F84327C42@email.iwon.com> I too am interested in that video. I have Look Look which is reprinted on DVD. It's a boot, but the quality is pretty good. I'd be willing to burn a copy of Look Look for the "Where Are They Now" Video. I would also be interested in all the videos which are not on Look Look (It only accounts for pre 1982 stuff). Any traders out there who are interested? Please email me.
------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:14:36 -0400 From: Sylvan <psiogen@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Sgt. Rock Message-ID: <B92AAB1C.6CBD%psiogen@mindspring.com> Huw wrote: > Another baffling thing is the inclusion of the Black Sea version of Sgt > Rock in the box set considering that Andy hates it and so do a lot of XTC > fans. It's doubtful that the casual buyer is going to be lured in merely by > the inclusion of this song. Perhaps Virgin insisted on its inclusion in order > to annoy Andy. Who knows? Maybe Andy actually wanted it in there just so he'd have a chance to bash it in the notes. ;) -- Sylvan http://www.godcomic.net "Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." --Terry Pratchet
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:55:08 EDT From: Jxnsmom@aol.com Subject: To turn a clever phrase Message-ID: <175.984cf5b.2a374d2c@aol.com> Hi all - I was just rediscovering some of my Roxy Music albums, and I was reminded that one of my favorite rock lyrics is from "Dance Away": "You're dressed to kill, and guess who's dying." For years now, I thought it would be fun to put together a collection of the most clever rock lyric lines. Of course, Andy and Colin are the masters. My personal favorite? "And I don't know how many pounds make up a ton of all the Nobel prizes that I've never won." I don't know that we want to clog up Chalkhills with this thread, but I'd love to hear your favorite word play from XTC and other artists (Kevin Gilbert's got a bunch, and I know he has lots of fans here) if you want to e-mail me directly. Thanks, Amy
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:01:09 -0500 From: "Scott Taylor" <staylor@sky.net> Subject: XTC cricket reference Message-ID: <002801c21150$7016e640$bb32210a@kc2pstaylor800> James McRae asks: "Anyone think of any other cricket references in the XTC oeuvre?" Well, there is that chirping at the beginning of "Summer's Cauldron". st
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:24:45 -0600 From: Kirk.Gill@equifax.com Subject: Age, Aging, Agingest Message-ID: <OF6E90FE48.A98D2AAA-ON87256BD5.0050B0F3@fin.equifax.com> Kevin Wollenweber talks about something in his last post that is starting to touch most of us as we get a little older: our musical heroes are either dead, dying, just getting old, or simply giving up the ghost, musically. On some level, I understand that the musicians I've loved may be tiring of the music biz, a cutthroat way of life if there ever was one, and in some cases may have made enough money during the course of their careers that they're disinclined to expose themselves to the scrutiny and b.s. associated with making and selling records. Our lads from XTC may not have the barrels of cash that, say, Kate Bush or Peter Gabriel have amassed, but they may in time become similarly indisposed to actually releasing any new product for the public. And that will be a sour and disheartening day. Back in the 70's I remember thinking how lame it was that there were a bunch of nostalgia tours out there, with loads of 50's acts playing together, and how lame it was for people to go pay their money to see them. But there I was last Sunday seeing Elvis Costello doing a show that was all new album and old hits. The difference there is, to me, that he HAS released a new album, and it's good, and he's focusing on it live, but other than the new material, everything else was of late 70's and early 80's vintage. And this weekend, at the same venue, Jethro Tull is playing. I know that there are many out there who revile that band, but even if you like them, how long has it been since they released a record that even caused a blip on the radar? They are, essentially, a nostalgia act, whipping out "Locomotive Breath" and "Aqualung" to their balding fan base. I have to face the fact that the biggest difference between those nostalgia tours of the 70's and the nostalgia tours now is that I'm attending them now, instead of laughing at them. And now that I'm balding myself, I find that it doesn't bother me that bands are still out there trying to make a dollar, and that they're pleasing fans by playing their favorite tunes. When Andy says that he thinks that the three-minute pop song will eventually be seen as a purely 20th century phenomenon, perhaps not only is that true, but maybe the idea that you have to be in your twenties to make good pop music is going to die away as well. Either that, or we'll continue to make our pop stars younger and younger, until microphones will be placed in the womb, and the resulting gurgles and coo's will be placed over a computerized beat................ k? "I'm Bugged"
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:00:34 -0700 From: "Thomas Vest" <tvtwo@hotmail.com> Subject: weller, springfield, reissues & contracts... Message-ID: <F224NjxEXOvj3CQSsIZ0001c042@hotmail.com> hello everyone! lots of good postings lately. did not want to miss out so here goes: on paul weller solo material, lots of agreement from me about best ones to try. i totally support the opinions of stellar ratings for Wild Wood and the self titled Paul Weller debut album. I have always thought that the song "you do something to me" is comparable in passion & beauty as George Harrison's "Something". just a brilliant song and you will find that cut on his third solo release Stanley Road-- which is pretty damn good as well! -- i am sort of a fan of reading best of lists when it comes to music. one of the albums that manages to always make the top 100 of most lists is Dusty in Memphis by Dusty Springfield. i have always wanted to hear it. the big hit is "Son of a Preacher Man" which has been featured a few movies (Pulp Fiction comes to mind). so i get a gift from a co-worker (not sure why journey's greatest hits was the choice, but it was not my idea of great music or a good selection-- i can hear the gears of individuals in chalkdom winding up to pounce on this one a la the phil collins debacle) which i promptly take back to the corporate chain store that it was purchased at for an exchange. i remembered i always wanted to try this and it is one of the best impulse buys i have ever made for music without hearing it first. you should all go out and buy this cd. Thank you Mr Vreeland for reminding me about this. all this talk about reissues reminds that it really pisses me off in lots of ways. record companies churn them out again. make more money off the artists- who, yeah i know, you know, they know that they signed the contract. have you ever tried to read a contract of any sorts? jesus! they really suck! if you would like a good read on the devious practices of the record industry, try picking up or checking out from your better public library Moses Avalon's "Confessions of a Record Producer". this is written under an alias and tells all the dirt you are not supposed to know about in the record industry. supposedly, the author is a top line producer that everyone would recognize... oh, i was talking about reissues. well, the stones catalog is coming out again. xtc's has been put out a few times. Hendrix has been reissued over more years than he was likely ever alive. why don't they do yet another reissue of Bowies catalog again now that he has resigned with another label (or was that just distribution-- who knows? or cares!). the point is how many times can we be reissued to death and take it? yeah, so they are better and have more songs and blah blah blah... well, i have ranted enough and said little. i'm off to buy the new peter gabriel reissues... best regards, thom ps> has anyone heard the new bowie yet? pps> current listens: ten miles high > nine inch nails alice and blood money > tom waits watermelon, chicken & gritz > nappy roots a strange day > the cure lakme > delibes
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:17:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Ryan Anthony <hamsterranch@yahoo.com> Subject: Me gusta ehkees-tay-say! Message-ID: <20020612051729.8332.qmail@web10102.mail.yahoo.com> And now ... the name-dropping post. Annamarie, a.k.a. "IMSUNBAKE," gets top billing, not because she's the only one in the group who looks good in a sundress, but because she was very nice to me, not calling me an idiot or stealing vast tracts of land out from under my nose. Actually, nobody called me an idiot, so I'm indebted to (in alphabetical order) James McRae, David Smith, Sughosh Varadarajan, and Jason Witcher, all of whom know more about cricket than I do, for their gentlemanliness. As for the land-grabbers: Two Digests ago, I staked a provisional claim to being the biggest, and possibly the only, XTC fan between California and the Mississippi River. This studiedly-provocative announcement was intended to flush other "flyover-country" Chalkhillians out from their barricaded Rocky Mountain compounds. And it worked! Last Digest, Kirk Gill claimed the state of Colorado. And in letters to me, Phil Corless staked out Idaho for himself, and Rob Coombs, a self-proclaimed eight-year lurker, agreed to share Arizona with me. He shall be lord north of the Gila; I, to the south, in the realm we secession-minded Tucsonans have long visualized as the state of Baja Arizona. My imperial ambitions have been thwarted by these courteous but resolute and heavily-armed mountain men. (Sorry, Andy, but we have not melted the guns.) All right, then, I shall gallop south ... para conquistar Mexico y America Central totalmente! Arriba los Swindonenses! Chinga las Virgenes! Todo el mundo toma forma de un futbol! Me gusta ehkees-tay-say! Ryan Anthony An independent Internet content provider P.S.: Which is worse: That I am obscene in Spanish, or that I am ungrammatical? P.P.S.: Which is better: Christopher Lee in a wizardly duel with Gandalf, or Christopher Lee in a wizardly duel with Yoda? P.P.P.S.: Today is June 11, 2002, nine months to the day after Nine-One-One, and the baby boomlet has arrived! All the boys will be named Rudy, and all the girls, Julie-Annie.
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:14:13 +0100 From: "Edward Collier" <edward.collier@techop.co.uk> Subject: Windmills, Moby et alia Message-ID: <97D4513F808CA4439B1154BD307857DFF5A7@noddy.techop.local> Chris Vreeland wrote at length about Dusty Springfield's version of "Windmills Of Your Mind". Some facts: 1. Written by Michel Legrand (music) and Alan and Marilyn Bergman (lyrics) 2. The version used in The Thomas Crown Affair was sung (intoned?) by Noel Harrison, son of Rex. 3. The film was not particularly mediocre. It starred Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway, and was notable for the use of split screens and a very sexy chess game. No, really. It was recently remade with, IIRC, Piers Brosnan in the title role. Duncan spat: And that keyboard (from Paul Weller's Style Council) player REALLY shitted me for some reason. I'm sure he was a good player, but he just looked like a total tool. Well you were quite right to loathe him. All keyboard players everywhere hated him. Not only did he look like a tool, he played like a tool (he was NOT a good player) and, from less than six degrees of separation, he was a tool. Bert Millichip wrote a counterblast to Harrison's blast agin Moby. Now, I like Moby. I bought Play and played it a lot. For some people of the completist persuasion, the record will have opened the portal onto the Alan Lomax Archive. Not me - it interests me not a jot. I like the music filtered through Moby's sensibility - it was packed and wrapped to my taste. I don't need to see the smoky, dingy office, nor the original letters and notes, wherefrom Martin Amis wrote the sublime "Experience" - the book suffices for me. I like lots of stuff that many of you would find distasteful. Fuck it, it's music, there is no good and bad, only what you like and what you don't. My piano teacher hates C P E Bach - I love it. Who's right? I was, I confess, rather uncomfortable with Moby after Harrison's assertions, but Bert has set the record straight and Play is back on the playlist. Not the latest one though. That IS a dog. Edward
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:59:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Smart <jimsmart1@yahoo.com> Subject: Sieze the world and take a bite Message-ID: <20020612095958.78698.qmail@web13503.mail.yahoo.com> Friends, Romans, Members of the Imperial Senate, Sex Changers, Wombats, Bishop Polishers, and Pink Things. Lend me your eyes. As long as we are dividing up the globe, it should be officially noted that XTC has made my flag unfurl here in Hawaii. I hereby officially and legally claim to be the biggest, baddest fan of XTC on Oahu. In fact, I'll take the whole state of Hawaii. Hell, as long as people are claiming time zones, I'll take this one, which includes Alaska and a pie slice of Antarctica, as well as a hell of a lot of water. Shite, I might as well go ahead and claim the entire Pacific, though I'll be careful not to intrude on the sovereignty of you Californians and Japanese, (and other Pacific Rim places), because you have clearly marked your territory. I pledge to respect your dominions through a policy of Mutually Assured Appreciation. Sure, the XTC fan in India has a billion people, but I have more square miles. King for a day, and my girdle is on the globe, er, flag pole. OK then, Jim
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:37:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Nicole Ross <drmomross@yahoo.com> Subject: Cinti Radio Message-ID: <20020612143707.59529.qmail@web14901.mail.yahoo.com> Oh... tired me, been watching soccer at 2:30 am too many times this year. Yeah England!... and I hope soon to be Yeah US! Anyways... Whilst driving home from work one day, through the car speakers I heard, "I feel like someone else, yes I do yes I do Yes I do...". I knew that I had heard that song before... I was fairly certain it was old XTC... This is not the first old XTC song I've heard on Dayton/ Cincinnati radio... Love on a Farmboys wages - oh and I did hear some stuff off of Wasp Star as well (though never my favorite song). I must say, though, I never expected to hear Extrovert. I had forgotten all about that song! Now I can't get it out of my head. Just sharing that with you all. Back to whatever it was I was doing. -Nicole
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:50:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Long <optimismsflames@yahoo.com> Subject: Zittel's Flaming Andy Pictures Message-ID: <20020612175048.84750.qmail@web14913.mail.yahoo.com> Kidz: Recently spoke with Andy, and though he is a bit bummed by the small-ish sales of Wasp Star in the US - (about 50,000 copies... according to him) - I assure you that the band plans to record again... despite what some uninformed so-called writer may think. Also... it's official, he's a big fan of my site. www.optimismflames.com now has 50+ new images (only a few hundred left to add... you think I'm kidding). Also - for you Dukes of Stratosphear fanz... There's a new 5+ minute interview with EIEI Owen on the site now... this one's a bit Duked up so take a few hits from the bong of choice (aqua pipe even, if you must)and down it for your own personal use. Did someone say FREE EXCLUSIVE MP3's? (yeah... I'm screamin' baby.. a bit excited I am) Coming very soon to the site - a lengthy exclusive chat with Andy Partridge which I'm half-assed preparing for at the moment. If there's a direction you'd care to see the chat go in... drop me a line and let me know. Fishin' for some ideas here folks. I'm not looking for one, two or three direct questions as much as a theme by which I can derive my own questions. We will definitely be taking an in depth look at cover art... both XTC's and Andy's faves. Also - in the next week(s) there will be a mailing list - drop by and sign up and I'll keep you up to date as to the latest XTC news and additions to the site. Oh... news? Did you know that Andy is pitching a children's TV show notion to English TV? Rang him up a few weeks back and he was doing a bit of art for a presentation. All I can say (because it's all I know) is that it is sci-fi related. So.. keep your toes crossed. Lastly... Big fat thank you to Jim Zittel, who recently contributed a HUGE box full of XTC images for the site... Thanks Jim. Set your screen res to 1024x768 and visit www.optimismsflames.com - you'll need a speedy connection to do so (NOT FOR THE FAINT OF BANDWIDTH). Well over 200,000 page views since Jan, 2002. wesLONG
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:11:59 EDT
From: Hbsherwood@aol.com
Subject: How Red Was My Herring
Message-ID: <3b.27d53238.2a39050f@aol.com>
Oh, Bert, your timing just couldn't have been better. You went and accused
me of plagiarism and scholarly malfeasance today of ALL days, when I've had
medical bad news, my morale-boosting company trip to the ballgame was
canceled, and it's 95 degrees outside. Right. Gloves OFF, asshole.
>From: Bert Millichip <juan_the_man2002@yahoo.co.uk>
>Subject: Moby and Lomax: the Facts
>Harrison wrote a long an[d] unpleasant diatribe
...To distinguish it from the self-aggrandizing and sanctimonious diatribe
to which it was a response...
"Unpleasant" is in the eye of the beholder, Bertie-o. In light of your
strange little obsession with disagreeing with pretty much anything that I
say, I'd soft-peddle that wounded moral-high-ground crap for a bit. Anyway,
you ain't *seen* "unpleasant" yet.
>in which
>he suggested that Moby had ripped off the Alan Lomax
>Archive
Might as well start off with a bang, eh, Bertram? Fact of the matter is, I
said absolutely no such thing. Your entire reply to my post is a series of
red herrings, designed to deflect attention from your unwillingness to
address my central point, namely:
>[Moby] exploited the singers who are sampled on
>"Play".
This I did say, and I proudly stand by it. Tellingly, absolutely nothing --
repeat, nothing -- in your response addresses this point in any way
whatever. Instead, you choose to flog this diversion:
>Lomax's daughter, Anna Chairetakis, who also happens
>to run the aforementioned Lomax Archive, takes a
>rather different view. She has said:
>
>"The way that they were done was very tasteful and
>really gave a chance for the true, the original music
>to come out... I was very, very happy that he had done
>that, and that they did so well. He set a very good
>example.
Red Herring Number One. I'm trying very hard -- and, I'm afraid, failing
completely -- to understand how you could possibly think that Alan Lomax's
daughter's opinion of the "tastefulness" of Moby's album has even the
tiniest bearing on the central assertion I made in my post -- that is, that
Moby had NO RIGHT WHATEVER -- moral, ethical, artistic, whatever you want to
call it -- to sell the voices of Vera Hall et al. -- repurposed, ripped out
of context, raped -- to shill for Nike and American Express.
I did read the interview you cite in preparing my post, by the way. But
before you accuse me of selective use of sources, maybe you'd like to review
some of the *negative* things Lomax-Chairetakis said in that same interview,
rather than choosing only the comments that support your assertions.
Oh, and by the way: to snarkily accuse me of plagiarism because I
insufficiently paraphrased the capsule history of the case at the TechTV
site is pretty fucking dirty pool. Furthermore, nothing in your reply even
attempted to refute that capsule history -- apparently, putting the word
_facts_ in "ironic" quote marks suffices in your book. In the absence of any
further evidence (and you have supplied none), I stand by the summary set
out in the TechTV article:
1) The Lomax Archive negotiated a flat fee for the use of the samples, which
it shared with the original artists.
2) Moby licensed his recordings to corporations for use in advertising.
3) The Lomax Archive was allowed no say in how their archival materials were
put to use. (The Lomax Archive site professes "mixed feelings" about
commercial use of sampled materials -- which certainly stops well short of
being a glowing endorsement.)
4) Poor, dead people ended up as indentured corporate shills without being
asked if they would like to be.
An article by Richard Leiby in the Washington Post of August 8, 2000, to
which I provided a link in the Chalkhills #6-232 (here it is again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59039-2000Aug8),
states the case as it stood at that time, while the question of compensation
was still under negotiation. The article draws a very unflattering portrait
of Moby's tactics. Below are some exerpts:
- "As is often typical, the case involves a tangle of lawyers and
copyright concerns, increased revenues for record companies and not a
dime--so far-- for the original performers."
- "Riveting vocals from two other 1959 Lomax recordings are also
showcased on 'Play,' Moby's Grammy-nominated CD. One spiritual,
'Trouble So Hard'--which Moby retitled 'Natural Blues'--is artfully
combined with synthesizer riffs and figured in a Calvin Klein jeans ad
campaign featuring the pale, bald pop star. But Lomax, who is now 85
years old and disabled from strokes, has received no proceeds, his
family said."
- "Lomax's representatives are growing impatient: 'I'm perplexed,' Anna
Chairetakis, Lomax's daughter and caretaker of his archives, said in
an interview this week. Referring to Moby, his record company and his
lawyers, she added: 'I'd be surprised if they didn't want to share in
their good fortune with Alan and with the performers.'"
- "For decades, Lomax regularly wrote royalty checks to the musicians
he'd recorded--even the singers on prison chain gangs. They were
typically small sums, sometimes just $5 or $15, because his folk music
albums rarely sold in large numbers. Chairetakis said she was hoping to
use the windfall from Moby's commercial success to undertake an
extensive search for all the original performers on her father's
recordings and their heirs--and thereby issue royalty payments."
Searches on the ProQuest Direct and EBSCO Publishing databases reveal no
followup articles under the keywords "Moby," "Lomax," "Play," or
"royalties." Anyone with access to more complete records is hereby invited
to elucidate the terms of the deal eventually negotiated between Moby and
the Lomax Archive. If possible, please try to find sources more objective
than web sites administered by the principals.
At any rate, absolutely nothing in the TechTV Chairetakis interview suggests
that the Lomax artists were paid anything other than the flat fee that was
originally negotiated by the Archive after the Post article was published --
nothing from commercials, nothing from movie rights, no cowriter credits, no
mechanical royalties. Exactly as I originally posted, and as TechTV
reported.
>Harrison's version of events is called further into
>question on the official Lomax web site:
>
>http://www.alan-lomax.com/association_programs_nyfs2001.html
Once again, there is absolutely nothing at that site that undermines
anything I've said at all on the matter. A flat-text search on the word
"Moby" on that page produces a single neutral paragraph baldly stating that
Moby used a recording of Vera Hall's "Trouble So Hard" for "his" (debatable
pronoun) "Natural Blues." How this calls "my version of events" into
question is quite beyond me. Perhaps you'd care to explain. Very carefully.
>After all that, any comment from me would be utterly
>superfluous, but I'll make a few anyway. There are
>some who argue - and I agree with them - that what
>Lomax did was far more exploitational and plagiaristic
>than anything Moby is guilty of. All Lomax did was
>switch on a tape recorder, and for this he is lauded
>as a "legendary musicologist".
Red Herring Number Two, slung with the assurance of a dab hand: Have you
been practicing? Absolutely none of this has any bearing on the argument at
hand, and is a blatant _ad hominem_ irrelevancy.
But, sucker that I am, I will bite at it:
This is such unbelievably specious bullshit I don't even know where to begin
with it. Are you *seriously* expecting us to buy the notion that "some would
argue -- and you agree with them" (Get the mush out of your mouth! Evidence,
please!) that the Lomaxes, father and son, logged nearly a hundred years'
worth of collected songs and field recordings -- songs and recordings that
are lovingly preserved in the Library of Congress, songs and recordings that
are considered priceless treasures not only among musical laymen but among
ethnomusicologists throughout the world -- as an act of PLAGIARISM? This
tactic is beneath contempt, Bert.
>What's more, whereas
>Lomax took a notoriously arbitrary line on contracts
>and royalties (he didn't even stop to take the names
>of some of the people who's [sic] recordings have
>subsequently netted substantial sums of money)
Well, since we're being punctilious about our sources here, I do hope you
can cite some authority for these assertions other than your own
colon. Until you do, I'll just have to regard it as the self-serving
libelous horseshit I strongly suspect it is.
Bear in mind as you do so that you contradict not only me but also Richard
Leiby of the Washington Post, a fact-checked periodical of some repute. You
will also be contradicting the Alan Lomax Archive web site that you brought
to our attention, which details quite lavishly the methods Lomax used to
keep track of the performers he recorded. Are you suggesting that the Lomax
site contains untruths? Then why did you cite it as an authority when
calling into question "my version of events"?
> Moby played the whole thing strictly by the book.
Again, no evidence is offered, in the face of quite a lot of evidence that
the exact opposite is true. But if by "by the book" you mean "finally agreed
to pay for the use of Lomax materials after being shamed into doing so by
critical articles in the Washington Post" then yes, he played it by the
book. I wouldn't call this a track record to point to with pride.
>Moby did something with
>those recordings that actually required a little
>talent and know-how (only a little, I admit) and he is
>lambasted mercilessly for it.
You exhibit a titanic, nearly bovine tendency to miss the point, Bert. I'm
flummoxed as to how I could have possibly made my criticism of Moby any
clearer.
One more time, as plainly as I can, then:
I did not denigrate Moby for "repurposing" Lomax field recordings. I have no
respect for the result of this involuntary collaboration (nor, apparently,
do you; your motivation for pursuing this argument seems to stem from other
-- fairly transparent -- causes), but I do not assert that it was immoral.
Bone-lazy, yes. Bad faith, oh, yes. Bad art, certainly. Immoral, no.
I do not assert that Moby somehow "ripped off" the Lomax Archive. He paid
for what he used according to the deal struck between him and the
Archive. If it had to be goaded out of him by unflattering stories in the
press, so be it. If it was a shitty deal, so be it. Let
Ms. Lomax-Chairetakis justify it in mealy-mouthed interviews two years after
the fact.
What I do assert is that to take recordings that were never intended as
commercial speech, recordings made by people who cannot object to their use,
and to put those recordings to a use that would be obnoxious and insulting
to the original artist -- that is, putting an endorsement of a commercial
product into the mouth of a person incapable of objecting to this use of his
or her art -- is reprehensible and cowardly, particularly when the author of
this act profits disproportionately from the endorsement.
This, once again, is the point that you have completely failed to address.
>On an artistic level, I can't say I agree with Lomax's
>daughter's glowing praise of Moby as I have only ever
>heard one or two of the singles and they weren't my
>cup of tea at all. I didn't "get" them, and there's no
>shame in that. However, from what I have read there
>seem to be a lot of parallels between what Moby did
>and a favourite CD of mine, Gavin Bryars' "Jesus'
>Blood Never Failed Me Yet".
Red Herring Number Three.
I'm sure Bryars' work *heard in its intended context* is a lovely thing,
moving and uplifting. But I'll tell you precisely the difference between
Bryars' piece and Moby's, so that someone of even your spectacular density
can understand: Bryars didn't turn around and sell the rights to the
recording to the Deutch ad agency to use in moody atmospheric TV spots for
American Express -- a company that would no more grant Bryars' vagrant
friend a credit card than they would flap their arms and fly to the
moon. And if he did, I would denounce him just as I denounce Moby.
(http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,1640,35037,FF.html)
>let's dig Mozart up and throw
>rotten tomatoes at his corpse for pilfering the odd
>theme from Hayden.
This is diametrically wrong again, Bert -- and brings the Red Herring Count
to a nice, round total of four. I care neither jot nor tittle whether Mozart
stole a theme from Haydn, and for you to assert otherwise another attempt to
divert the debate. I would care very much if Mozart sold a sample of Woody
Guthrie singing "Dough-Re-Mi" to Merrill Lynch to use in an ad campaign for
junk bonds. Can you bring yourself to see the difference, Bert? It's BAD
FAITH.
Harrison "Look, I edited out the part about 'supercilious little
fucknozzle,' OK?" Sherwood
PS: Quit fucking with me, Bert. It's pretty goddamned obvious to me and
everybody else what you're trying to do, so knock it off.
------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:22:17 -0700 From: becki digregorio <ziglain@earthlink.net> Subject: go john go!~! Message-ID: <B92E05C1.1A84%ziglain@earthlink.net> hi folks, first, a special thanks to tyler hewitt for posting that xtc article from the new york times. even with the mistakes, it was good to see that the band is getting some press, especially in such a widely-read publication. and david smith addressed us all thusly: >Hello again, my little pumpkins. *pumpkins*?! have i missed something?? lastly, let me say that i had the great pleasure of seeing our own illustrious john relph play with his band "west of kentucky" last night at a cool irish bar here in san francisco. the group is a 4-piece bluegrass band, and john *shreds* on mandolin. if memory serves, john has won several prestigious awards for his playing, and now i can see why. it was truly a fun evening! if any of you get a chance to see the band, do make it a point to go. "a splendid time is guaranteed for all..." --becki "My mind is a bad neighborhood that I try not to go into alone." --Anne Lamott
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:36:56 -0700 From: strwbrry <strwbrry@tidepool.com> Subject: Re: COMC, Paul Weller, etc Message-ID: <3D0A29B1.D23D02DA@tidepool.com> Huw Davies wrote: >>Another baffling thing is the inclusion of the Black Sea version of Sgt Rock in the box set considering that Andy hates it and so do a lot of XTC fans<< I haven't been reading XTC fan literature long. Can you explain this in more detail? Why so down on Sgt Rock? Stephen
------------------------------ End of Chalkhills Digest #8-35 ******************************
Go back to Volume 8.
14 June 2002 / Feedback