Chalkhills Digest Volume 8, Issue 63
Date: Monday, 2 December 2002
Chalkhills Digest, Volume 8, Number 63
Monday, 2 December 2002
Topics:
putting different bits together to make a great song
Re: EMI Wonderland
Let's Make a Band... What Name Shall We Use?
The Chair vs XTC
converting the heretic sister/Kareoke
Beatles, XTC conversions
Re: all the good names are taken
Actual XTC Content!!!
Beatles Sgt. Pepper
a quick boot to the gonads
Being for the Benefit of Mr. Coolidge
Barry Andrews News
Humbug!
Administrivia:
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>).
When you've got Crosswires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:22:08 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Smart <jimsmart1@yahoo.com> Subject: putting different bits together to make a great song Message-ID: <20021119212208.1383.qmail@web13506.mail.yahoo.com> "A Day In The Life" is the primary reason to own Sgt Pepper, it ranks with Andy's "The Wheel And The Maypole" as one of the few examples of putting two independently written songs together in one song and having it actually work. (The other I can think of offhand is Badfinger's "Without You.") --Chris Coolidge Well, I dunno, but I think Senses Working Overtime works pretty darn well, and it's stitched from bits. And what about that Adrian Belew song on the Mr. music Head album....1967, was it? And speaking of bits (the bits I left uptown), "Happiness is a Warm Gun" is a wonderful connection of different songs that works really well, especially in the new movie "Bowling for Columbine". To hear Lennon's raw voice giving it his all (and to realize how he later died from gun violence) over that particular footage is one of the great moments in film. Jim
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:28:54 -0600 From: "Rodney E Griffith" <rodneye@inspiracy.com> Subject: Re: EMI Wonderland Message-ID: <200211192128.PAA01812@crows.siteprotect.com> The Magical Mystery Tour EP has been on CD for some time as part of the EP Collection boxed set. A nice package; the MMT set includes both the mono and stereo versions (a consideration that has yet to be provided for any of the Beatles LPs). It isn't sold separately but copies occasionally turn up on eBay. r.
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:15:49 -0600 From: "eriC draveS" <zoom98@mindspring.com> Subject: Let's Make a Band... What Name Shall We Use? Message-ID: <003401c29021$9a605440$2b42f843@XLZOOM> Chris Vreeland asked: Tell me, faithful, what should an XTC tribute band call itself? eriC draveS replies: "Pink Floyd" has a nice ring to it. :) Seriously, though, any devotee of A., C. and sometimes D. or B. and T., should be as witty as A. is and as fast as T. was, to be able to come up with a title worthy of C. Better yet, why not use a non-XTC-related name and only tell people where the content comes from if they ask? If you know the songs backwards, "CTX" sounds about right; or, if you are totally awful at playing them, then perhaps the "Pukes of Stratosphear" would work. Other untried names: The Loving, The Orange Lemons, Newtown Animals, Motionless Radios, The Lost Chords (Jimmy Durante connection to XTC), The Shaving Brushes (only if you can do their Boogie), Somesuch, Runaways, Specs'N'Hair, The Towery Boys (i.e. Towers of London), Go3, Guitar Park, The Helium Lads (or Ladz), and The Scarecrow People. One final name is suggested by the title Drums and Wires and is my personal favorite: STRUM UND TWANG Well, I can see you've got a long list to attend to, so bye-bye now. eriC "I'm the man who murdered (Courtney?) Love..."
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:30:03 +1100 From: "Peter" <peter@outputdsj.com.au> Subject: The Chair vs XTC Message-ID: <002301c29045$1d3e23b0$850ca8c0@peter> Simon I loved your email re your gradual conversion of your sister to XTC. When I have kids I will remember that email. Anyhow, you mention surprise at her appreciation of Silverchair's Luv Your Life. Silverchair are increasingly growing out of the Nirvana In Pyjamas whinge rock vein that they started in. Daniel Johns is becoming an interesting songwriter. Remember he is only in his early to mid 20s. But Diorama represents a significant jump from earlier work. Maybe Luv Your Life is a bit obvious and "overinflated" when compared to the pop subtleties of Andy and Colin. But he sure is making great strides as a songwriter. The comparisons of Luv Your Life to XTC though aren't that obvious to me. And Van Dyke Parks has a lot of good things to say about Johns and the Chair. Sure he got paid to do the strings but his words appear genuine. And he is Van Dyke Parks, and he did write Surf's Up with Brian Wilson - that alone makes me tremble in his wake.
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:56:56 -0600 From: Chris Vreeland <CVREELAND@austin.rr.com> Subject: converting the heretic sister/Kareoke Message-ID: <a05200f01ba00b6ef769e@[66.25.161.220]> 1. From: "*Hobbes *" >So i wait on eggshells... then she calls me. "I listened to that album you >gave me." "And?" I asked. "Oh it's SO good, that Easter Theatre song gives >me the shivers!" >It may have taken me 13 years to convert her but I'm proud to say I >succeeded! Can anyone else on the list top that? Good show. 13 years in the wilderness, and you never gave up. I feel like my first words to you should be "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?" Your stamina will become legend. Now, make her subscribe to Chalkhills and your life's work will be complete. 2. Does anybody know where I can actually GET the Instruvenus and Waspstrumental albums? Al lthe retailers listed on Chalkhills are "out of stock" and these seem like they'd be really handy for learning guitar parts/ practicing vocals if one were rehearsing an XtC tribute band. Chris
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:36:38 +0530
From: "Sughosh Varadarajan" <aqualung@hotpop.com>
Subject: Beatles, XTC conversions
Message-ID: <001601c29042$92ead520$872ac5cb@SughoshVaradarajan>
> Sgt Pepper, on the other hand, I find overrated. A little too LSD addled,
> too much Paul and not enough John. John's creative contribution to the
> album, besides playing rhythm guitar, piano and singing backup vocals, was
> limited to a 50/50 cowrite with Paul("With A Little Help From My Friends,"
> one of the few times they ACTUALLY cowrote- usually if Paul sings it's
> Paul's song, if John sings it's John's, if Ringo sings it's probably a
> cowrite), half of "A Day In The Life"(the only truly great, rather than
> good, song on the album) and two by himself, one "Lucy In The Sky With
> Diamonds," while a good song, got way too much press for its supposed drug
> references, where all it was was a stream of consciousness based on a
> drawing of Julian's; the other, "Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite," was
> basically a throwaway and one of the Beatles most negligible full-length
> songs.
You forgot "Good morning good morning"...perhaps not one of John's greatest,
but I kinda like the imagery in the lyrics.
XTC content: Wonderland? Good, yes, great, no, shite, no.
Incidentally, since some people have been talking about converting the
non-believers (hehe) to XTC, I have to say that no matter how hard I've
tried to push Skylarking and AV1 (which I personally think are the finest
albums) I've always had better success with Oranges and lemons..practically
everyone who I've played this album for has absolutely loved it!
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:13:00 -0500 From: "aron kirby" <kirbyx29@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: all the good names are taken Message-ID: <F170T0Rs5tYO7qXWbWI00019ba1@hotmail.com> How about "The Smartest Monkeys"? Good luck with your band. Kirby
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:09:54 -0800 From: Kyla <kyla17@earthlink.net> Subject: Actual XTC Content!!! Message-ID: <3DDB2732.DD385037@earthlink.net> Like all the darling Brits reporting on 'Top 100 British Singles of All Time', I will undoubtedly be one of many reporting that: They played an XTC song during 'Gilmore Girls' tonight! It was - um, is it 'Then She Appears'? or 'When She Appears'? I don't know the song (it's true, I don't have *every* XTC album, but I keep trying) - but I could tell it was our lads! Wondrous song, appearing during a pivotal moment, Rory and Jess were having their first proper kiss! It was lovely...*sigh*...kissing...I remember kissing...*sigh* 8^} Molly, your Mom *IS* cool. I don't yet have an opinion on 'Wonderland', but I'm looking forward to forming one. Very funny paean to meat. Actually, that LP cover for 'Speaking in Tongues' was supposed to be super-collectable based on the fact that each translucent plastic pinwheel was fastened in its own unique position, thus making each cover a one-of-a-kind. I think this occurred to me at the exact same time as I was watching my long-ex-boyfriend spinning it around like a toy. Funny how that happens. Can I bring myself to mention - oh, why the hell not - that I was once a big Three Dog Night fan, and most of their LPs had elaborate covers with gatefolds/books/enclosures - one had a large pseudo Tarot card set as I recall, with each member of the band a separate card, which almost made up an entire major Tarot set, as the band had 17 members or so at that time, or was it 71? I forget. A name for an XTC cover band? Hmmm, I know most folks here are much better informed and will come up with triff suggestions. My own humble offering: Chalkhorse. Or, I guess, Chalk Horse. No, I think I like Chalkhorse better. Ah Steve, alas indeed. It's been a month, and though I'm not still howling like a bairn, I still choke up a bit every day. Gee, I miss that little bird. I wrote two haiku, the first descriptive, the second composed of things he'd say: Feisty nipper, Oatmeal flinger, Little green boyfriend, Cordwainer Bird. Hello, Give us a kiss, mister, Hi Kyla, Kiss me, My baby bird. Yes, I taught him to say 'Give us a kiss, mister,' complete with Liverpudlian accent. Okay, done with sadness. Hollydaze coming, *Must* *Cheer* UP*. Kyla in Valley Village, CA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:42:59 +0100
From: jeffrey.thomas@bayercropscience.com
Subject: Beatles Sgt. Pepper
Message-ID: <OF65E7D1AA.E4E82A0C-ONC1256C77.003D69AF@bayer-ag.com>
Howdy, "Kreideberger",
It's that time of the season again, time for me to come out of my shell and
contribute a little to this forum I love so much. Thrilling to see so much
"activity" on the hills, especially when a digest has so much good stuff to
read as #62. Dom is back, Mummer is being thrashed, everything is almost
back to normal after the Bert wars. But it figures that it took the Beatles
to get me writing on this XTC list. Here goes...
I've been communicating with Ben a bit about the Beatles (and told him I
would attempt to avoid influencing his further Beatles path), so I read
Chris' CH#62 post with particular interest. He wrote:
>>>
For your next Beatles album, Ben, grab a copy of Revolver, IMO the best
album they ever did and an example of The Beatles at their creative peak.
Every song on it makes Andy look like Wayne Campbell by comparison,(We're
not worthy! We're not worthy!...) with the possible exception of "Yellow
Submarine," which is a bit too twee for my taste, but great to play for
kids. I guarantee it'll rip your skull off. The musical diversity of it is
stunning, yet it all sounds like the same band.
Sgt Pepper, on the other hand, I find overrated. A little too LSD addled,
too much Paul and not enough John. John's creative contribution to the
album, besides playing rhythm guitar, piano and singing backup vocals, was
limited to a 50/50 cowrite with Paul("With A Little Help From My Friends,"
one of the few times they ACTUALLY cowrote- usually if Paul sings it's
Paul's song, if John sings it's John's, if Ringo sings it's probably a
cowrite), half of "A Day In The Life"(the only truly great, rather than
good, song on the album) and two by himself, one "Lucy In The Sky With
Diamonds," while a good song, got way too much press for its supposed drug
references, where all it was was a stream of consciousness based on a
drawing of Julian's; the other, "Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite," was
basically a throwaway and one of the Beatles most negligible full-length
songs. Sgt Pepper was Paul's concept and baby, he wrote the majority of the
album by himself. Mind you, it's good Paul, good solid pop/rock that Paul
does when he's really trying, and the quieter stuff like "She's Leaving
Home" and "When I'm 64"(written when he was a teenager, too) is downright
heartwarming, unlike later solo piffle in a similar musical style like "My
Love" or "Let 'Em In." Nonetheless, "A Day In The Life" is the primary
reason to own Sgt Pepper, it ranks with Andy's "The Wheel And The Maypole"
as one of the few examples of putting two independently written songs
together in one song and having it actually work. (The other I can think of
offhand is Badfinger's "Without You.")
>>>
Chris, I think you make a couple of mistakes here w/ regard to Sgt. Pep.
John was cruising, yes, but he had more compositions (you forgot "Good
Morning, Good Morning") and more co-writes ("Getting Better" and "She's
Leaving Home") than you credited him with. Supposedly, he even helped
finish that old Paul tune "When I'm 64", and he was certainly into it in his
own way (despite later comments), or how else do you explain that fabulous
guitar part in the third verse?
That John wasn't the driving force is correct (he wasn't on any post-Rubber
Soul records), but they were all "tuned in" at the same time, i.e.
regardless of the music, Sgt.P was their pinnacle in terms of group effort
and, above all, impact and relevance. No album in the years before or after
had so much group activity between the two, and indeed between the four.
Okay, a lot of the co-writes were heavily skewed towards one writer, but it
is common that bits & pieces attributed to one were actually delivered by
the other ("I'd love to turn you on" was Paul; "I used to be cruel to my
woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved" was
John, as was "We gave her everything money could buy" etc.). The good part
of their cooperation at that time is that John was *perfectly content* for
Paul to take the lead, it let him trip more and explore himself. It led to
very peaceful and fruitful cooperation between the two; once he snapped out
of that phase (White Album), everything became a bit more tense, strained,
vitriolic ... and eventually fatal for the group.
Revolver is also a lot of Paul -- in my opinion his best album -- but they
still tried to keep a 50/50 balance (in terms of individually written [!]
songs) at that point. Admittedly, more of the songs on Sgt.P were Paul's
concepts, but the album works well as a true group project, and wouldn't
have been the same had it not been a group project.
I do agree that from a pure musical standpoint, Revolver was a massive
album, and better in that strict sense than was Sgt.P. But again, putting
the reasons to own Sgt.P down to just "A Day in the Life" is doing it a
disservice -- its historical significance, its significance for the group
"the Beatles", and indeed the quality of the songs deserve more
appreciation.
And speaking of XTC as I should be, Huw wrote (in response to Dom's general
drawing of the proverbial line to cross):
>Wonderland? No, I don't like it either. In fact I don't particularly
>like any of Colin's songs on Mummer and consider it to be one of his
>creative low points.
I guess I never liked "Wonderland" too much either. Don't hate it like a
lot of you, but I could go with the "creative low points" bit. However,
seen in the context of Mummer, which was definitely a transitional album
(and one I personally love - hi Debs!), I think they were just trying out a
lot of new stuff. But I think "Loving Memory" is pretty good, and sorry,
Huw, I just *adore* that fabulously psychedelic piece of pomp, "Deliver Us
From the Elements". One of my fave 3 on the whole album, monstrous in its
musical arrangement and performance. A glimpse of things to come, and way
way way different from everything Colin did up until then.
In addition, thanks to Wes Long for his informative post about the Beatles,
particularly the part about Dhani continuing George's
remastering/remixing/reissue project. I've been worried about that for
about a year now. And, by the way, people who do not take the album "Ringo"
seriously do so at their own risk. Paul should make such an enjoyable
album...
A very special *thanks for sharing* to Hobbes for that fantastic post, "My
sister vs. XTC". Great in all its facets, a declaration of love for XTC,
pop music, being a kid, and for your sister. Wonderful, I read it 5 times.
The very best aspect of stories like that one -- and most of us have them --
is looking back later with older eyes and re-assessing the situation. When
I was that old (15-20), I loved some albums to bits. Some examples? Well,
"Abbey Road", "Dire Straits", "Black Sea", "A Trick of the Tail",
"Netherlands" by Dan Fogelberg, "Boston"... Each album interesting in its
own way, but some have stood the test of time, and it makes listening to
them now all the more enjoyable. Others... well, they haven't stood the
test of time. And that just makes me a) wonder, and b) realize that I'm old
and I can't get *that much* into a record any more. That youthful
enthusiasm is 75% gone, and strangely enough, thinking of Dan Fogelberg
demonstrates that fact to me even clearer than thinking of XTC does. You
might say I just got smarter... but I miss the person who had the ability to
get soooo psyched about an album.
And finally, Ben asks:
>Does this mean that I'm an XTC "freak"?
No, Ben: *You are Gott!*
Cheers from sunny Tscherminny!
- Jeff
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:13:32 +0000 From: myrone <myrone@tesco.net> Subject: a quick boot to the gonads Message-ID: <3DDBA69A.70A6566D@tesco.net> Dom returnth and thus spake: >>> Wonderland is a load of poncey shite > > Amen, brother! He speak da plain truth. Still trying > to work out if there's an XTC song more deserving of a > quick boot to the gonads...this could take a while. > There aren't many to choose from, let's face it... Dear God Nough said Queenie, UPG and Honorary Llama, powered by the Beating of Hearts ps Jon Holden-Dyer have you got your new e-mail address yet?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:30:10 -0800
From: "Harry Strole"<hjstrole@earthlink.net>
Subject: Being for the Benefit of Mr. Coolidge
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1037806210.0.46277300@webmail.pas.earthlink.net>
I guess you can say Sgt. Pepper is overated but...
<"Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite," was
basically a throwaway and one of the Beatles most negligible full-length
songs.>
There are plenty of amazing little tid-bits in "...Mr. Kite" that one can
recognize as being, say, non-negligible. The swirling bits of organ music
that was arrived at by cutting up various tapes and pasting them back together
produce quite an interesting sound. I wouldn't be surprised if this sound
didn't inspire XTC to put those really fast overdubbed guitars at the end of
"Jason & the Argronauts."
The lyrics, written about an advert John bought from a thrift shop, actually
fit into Paul's "concept" idea, though John often dispelled any notion that
his songs did fit into any concept. It was not the only song he wrote on that
record about an ad; "Good Morning, Good Morning" was inspired by a Corn Flakes
commercial, well at least the chorus was.
<"With A Little Help From My Friends,"
one of the few times they ACTUALLY cowrote>
"A Day In A Life" is also a great example of a Lennon/McCartney song and
somewhere there is a neat version on solo piano by Robyn Hitchcock. The first
time I heard it I thought it was John's demo until he got to the Paul part
("Woke up, got out of bed...")where it turned into unmistakably Robyn
Hitchcock.
Oh and just a thought. Who on this list wouldn't give their right arm for a
Soft Boys/XTC concert. C'mon one off, some dank Swindon Pub, on a Tuesday
night. Andy could walk to the place in his pajamas. 1979 was not like this,
or was it?
------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:51:25 -0800 (PST) From: Tracy Angelina <susperia5@yahoo.com> Subject: Barry Andrews News Message-ID: <20021121225125.89875.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Chalkies As you may, or may not, already know, Barry Andrews has returned to making music both in the studio and in the live arena. He'll be playing The 12-Bar in London on Denmark Street on 15 December. He's also coming to the US after the first of the year and, so far, will be playing the following venues: 16th Jan at the TinAngel in Philadelphia and 17th at the Knitting Factory in NYC It's Barry, his piano, and a whole lotta atmosphere. If you can, you really ought to go! Peace, Angelina http://www.shriekback.com/hauntedbox.htm "Get a taste of religion, lick a witch" "The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." - David Friedman
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:56:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Bert Millichip <juan_the_man2002@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Humbug! Message-ID: <20021122145645.11666.qmail@web14801.mail.yahoo.com> Todd, in my opinion the moral distinction you seek to make between the selling and trading of bootlegs is completely bogus. There is bugger all ethical difference between trading something which doesn't belong to you for money or trading it for other goods or services. It's cowardly for you to pretend otherwise and claim some sort of moral superiority. I went to yourdictionary.com (appropriately enough) and found the following definition of "sell". The emphasis is mine: "To exchange or deliver for money ***or its equivalent***... To give up or surrender in exchange for a price ****or reward***." A "trade" is simply a "sale" but using pirated CDs as a substitute for legal tender. You are still profiting from somebody else's art, and the artist is not getting any share of that profit. Money is as money does; if you exchange a CD for another commodity, said CD is fulfilling the function of money every bit as much as a piece of paper with our dear Queen's portrait on it. If Chuck exchanged his CDs for gold bullion, would that make it OK? Afterall, he wouldn't be "selling" his bootlegs any more, going by your narrow definition. He'd be doing a "trade"!!! In one respect, trading is actually WORSE than selling. Each of your transactions results in TWO illegal copies being produced, with no benefit to either of the artists. In Chuck's distribution model, at least only one illegal copy per transaction is made, and only one artist gets stolen from. Your attempt to justify your theft in terms of altruism (so you do it because you want to give the artist a free advert - of course!!!) is laughable and morally bankrupt. That's like me saying it'd be OK for me to burgle some guy's house because he'd end up better off due to his "new for old" insurance policy. I agree with Chuck's point. Let he who has never borrowed a mate's CD and burned a CD-R off of it cast the first stone. And that even goes for Andy. An even greater piece of humbuggery was perpetrated by our "new" friend Dr Pilpy. A person who, I know for a fact, happens to work for one of the largest (not to mention dodgiest, if recent reports are to be believed) music/media mega-conglomerates on the planet. Just fancy that! If Trevor Huddleston had taken a job for the South African government, I doubt whether many people would have taken his anti-apartheid campaigning seriously. For the same reason, Dr, I find it difficult to take your two-faced moralising remotely seriously either. The phrase "lousy fraud" comes to mind. If commercial practices offend your sensibilities so, why don't you do as I do and get a job in the public sector? It's great - I get to go to bed with a clear conscience every night, and I don't have to stick a clothes peg on my nose when I cash my monthly pay cheque. Reluctant though I am to debate business ethics with a hypocrite who is a willing whore for corporate pimps, I'll quickly demolish your main points: 1) Yes, today's commercial music is dross. Yes, today's commercial music is mass produced and cloned. No, the two facts are not necesarily connected. You seem not to have noticed that commercial music has always been produced in this way. Ever heard of Tin Pan Alley? Motown? Bands like The Monkees? And yet, much of the commercial music of the '60s, though churned out on a conveyor belt just like today's, with artists working in much tougher conditions than today's pampered pop stars, was bloody brilliant. We have to look deeper to find the reason why today's popular music is not as good as it used to be. It's ridiculous to just "blame it on the suits". 2) Of course the producers of music are responsible for its quality. However, by "producers" I tend to mean musicians and songwriters rather than suits in boardrooms. The suits can nurture good music, they can also bury it if they want to, but they sure as hell can't create it. 3) Please name some of those "multi-platinum" selling artists you refer to who are living on the breadline. Fact: Any multi-platinum selling artist who is not stinking rich has nobody to blame but themselves. Even if they make no money from records (please cite examples) an artist with those sales could make millions in a few months on tour, any time he chose. Everyone knows the *real* money is in concerts. Many artists take a realistic attitude to this, seeing their records as "adverts" for their tours, just as the record companies view singles (which inevitably lose money) as adverts for albums. Look at the wider picture! Even Andy and Colin, with the cruddiest record deal in Christendom, would be rolling in it now if they hadn't stopped touring. 4) The vast majority of artists who sell a decent number of records (and I'm talking WAY less than the "two million" you laughably suggest) make a very nice living out of it, thank you very much. Those who are not popular should be in another job and do the music as a hobby, like many of us here do. That's the way the mop flops, and there's nothing intrinsically unjust about it. Nobody owes failed musicians a living. 5) Your whole argument is underpinned by a deeply patronising belief that record buyers and artists are all moronic imbeciles who need you to tell them when they're being ripped off. What arrogant twaddle! Chalkhills legend Harrison Sherwood once said that artists are 100% repsonsible for the contracts that they sign, and I totally agree with him. There's nothing wrong with the system as such - truly successful artists are VERY well rewarded. Any artist who has to sell two million before they see a penny in royalties only has himself to blame. I was reading a story in a 'paper recently about an obscure English guitar player who wrote a cheesy instrumental piece back in the '70s for a company which distributes muzak tapes to restaurants and suchlike. The piece was never released commercially until this year, when it popped up on the "Signs" soundtrack CD (which was hardly a mega-million seller). And how much money has the composer made from his piece? A "six-figure sum" - at LEAST a hundred thousand pounds sterling. Unlike you, Dr Pilpy, I have worked in the industry at the front end (I have actually been the recipient of some of those infamous royalty cheques, though admittedly quite a long time ago), and I know that cases like this are the norm, not the exception. Sure, like any system there are abuses, but that doesn't mean the whole system is corrupt, any more than the existence of child porn rings means the entire Internet is an instrument of Satan. 6) So on what grounds do I defend (in a very limited way) the industry? What evidence do I offer that the industry has, on the whole, done more good than harm? Only this: the thousands and thousands of records it has released, records which none of us would ever have heard were we not lucky to have been blessed with a prosperous recording industry operating in a free commercial environment. And the fact that 99.9% of popular artists are very well off. If anybody can tell me of a superior distribution model which has been shown to work (no crackpot Utopian schemes, please), do so. Otherwise, you'll just have to accept that I am right. The Internet as yet is a non starter, for reasons I won't go into as I've waffled on plenty long enough. Moving on, (XTC CONTENT ALERT) Wes Long reports a chat he had with Andy in which he counters accusations that the new instrumental CDs are just a way of fleecing the fans. As Wes puts it: "This is far from milking us fans... he will most likely *not* make money on these discs." I couldn't agree more with all your sentiments, Wes. Andy has no reason to be apologetic, and even if he *did* make money from the discs, so what? This isn't like Westlife releasing umpteen versions of their singles so as to extort money from the sad teenage girls who they know will want every one. The people who buy the new CDs will be adults (mostly) and perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether to enter into the transaction. Andy can start selling his turds for all I care: if people are stupid enough to buy them, then good luck to him! It worked for Jeff Koons. Personally, I won't be buying them, but I'll definitely be ordering those Fuzzy Warbles to put in Mrs Bert's Christmas stocking. Finally, Wonderland: a pleasant tune, and I'm a sucker for cheesey synth sounds, so I like it. Any song containing the line "flirting with the lower gentry" can't be all bad. I must declare myself among the Mummer apologists - it's always mystified me that most Chalkhillers don't rate this album. I love it. Bert.
------------------------------ End of Chalkhills Digest #8-63 ******************************
Go back to Volume 8.
2 December 2002 / Feedback