Alexander

I always like to porno-fy movie titles: Bright Lights, Big Titties

I'm a huge Coen Brothers fan and am very much looking forward to this film.

yes don't put them in those caselogic notebooks. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would potentially ruin their collections by using this form of "storage". Just my two cents. I agree completely. I know a few people who do this, and I still don't understand the impulse. I much prefer the headache of having thousands of CDs on different size racks and shelves (and some on tabletops, etc) than to have them all shut up in those binders. I like being able to see them all lined up when I go down into the basement (where my collection lives, partly for space reasons and partly because my wife doesn't want to look them filling up every room in the house).

Being born in 1970 (and being primarily interested in 19th and early 20th century writers), I've always shied away from Mailer, but after reading some of the comments on this board, I'd be interested in checking one of his books out. Any suggestions on the best place to start? Two mid-to-late 20th century authors I'm into are Philip Roth and Truman Capote. How would you say Mailer fits in with them, stylistically speaking. I have also read some Hemingway and a LOT of Faulkner (I definitely see Capote as a Faulkner disciple).

Bland is one of the all-time great voices of blues/R&B. His "Reconsider" is an AMAZING recording. When I first heard him, I was heavily into Delta/Country Blues recordings and found Bland a little too "slick," but I've long since come to see the error of my ways...

Branford Marsalis redoes "A Love Supreme," "Freedom Suite" and other tunes on "Footsteps of our Fathers."

You avatar isn't bad either. you a fan? That's a young Trotsky, right? hahaha, hes not that far left. but commie or no, hes a musical genius. along with his homeboy jonny. No question. "Ok Computer" is one of my all time favorite albums. The new album is pretty freakin' amazing, too!

The problem is that we're no longer a world full of shop-keepers, but rather one of employees. Yes, a bigger boat (for a fisherman) leads to increased production, which leads to increased profits, which leads to a better standard of living (a bigger house, a better car...all without recourse to consumer credit). But most of us work for somebody else, and as such we have no way of increasing our profits and making more money (apart from looking for a better paying job). The system of consumer credit is one that keeps people on a treadmill, making money in order to pay the bills which are never really paid off because we keep buying on credit. Part of it is a matter of personal character: If we all developed the ability to be happy with what we have and control our need for immediate gratification, we'd be a lot better off. But the consumer credit crisis isn't about shopaholics who are spending the rent money on the Home Shopping Network or eBay. It's about ordinary people whose cost of living has outstripped their earning power. People are maxing out their credit cards paying the rent and buying groceries. In addition, energy costs, health care costs, and education costs are so high that most of us are finding ourselves priced out of the so-called "American Dream." It's a sick system when people are graduating from college deeply in debt. Add to this a new set of bankruptsy laws designed to protect lenders instead of consumers...it's a house of cards, and it's about to tumble to the ground. It's been a long time since I last read "The Wealth of Nations." What, if anything, does Adam Smith have to say about credit?

I think some places do have the ability to block cell reception. I've been in schools where you can't get a signal at all until you're off school grounds. I just assumed they were using some kind of jammer.

Credit is a form of volunteer slavery. I'm favor of shitcanning the whole thing and starting over at zero.

I've been hearing a lot of criticism of Sox fans (of which I am one) for not being MORE excited by the WS win. I will admit that it was not the thrill that it was in '04, still I'm pretty damn pleased. I've heard it said that Sox fans are turning into Yankees fans, taking winning for granted. I personally don't see this happening. We've remained loyal through too many diappointments to suddenly start EXPECTING to win. Anything can happen in a good ball game.

In case #2 you have two people that can satisfy their hunger for the music contained on those discs. One of them paid. But as the owner of the CD in question, I should have the right to "gift" that music to my friends. Again, I'm not talking about illegal downloading. I'm not making the music available to the whole world. I'm GIVING music that I personally paid for to ONE person. You (and others) focus on the fact that "two different people can listen to the same music in two different locations," while ignoring the fact that physical location/proximity to the music being played is becoming increasingly irrelevant. When I listen to music on the radio, SOMEONE paid money for that music (and for the broadcasting rights), but I sure didn't. Yet I am listening to it anyway. When I buy music on iTunes, I am allowed to make a limited number of copies (I know that these are SUPPOSED to be for "personal use only." Bongs are SUPPOSED to be for "tobacco use only"). When I buy a CD, I could bring it over to my friend's house every single day and listen to it with him. Two people are going to listen to that CD, but only one paid for it. It seems silly to quibble about such things. Distributing something to the whole world for free that you do not own is certainly wrong. Sharing with your pals seems to be a positive virtue. Or didn't you learn about that in Kindergarten?

The same number of legit copies have been sold in the case of buying used vs burning (I'm opposed to illegal downloads, which I consider to be a different issue). Think about it: Case #1: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. This consumer grows weary of the CD and sells it to a used record store. A second consumer buys the used copy. One legitimate copy has been sold. Case #2: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. The legit consumer burns a copy for his friend. One legitimate copy has been sold. In both cases, the record company and the artist have made money on the first sale only.

Same here.

rethas 'yeah' is a studio 'live' album. wonder if the original tapes are messed up, too? "Yeah" is a good album. Kenny Burrell is on it and it swings pretty nicely. Generally I think the Columbia stuff is underrated. I find myself liking the Columbia's more and more. I have the Ike and Tina "Live" lp Allen mentions. It's a killer. She kicks it off with Please Please Please and goes on from there. There were three early "live" Ike and Tina lps that I really dug. This one, one on Warner Bros and another on Loma (which I think is a Warner's subsidiary). All three of them kick butt. I've been looking for an entry point for Ike and Tina. Are any of their albums on CD? What should one pick up first?

Just listening to "Back to Black" earlier this evening. Great album. Certainly one of the best of 2007. I like it better and better with each listen. "Tears" is one of my favorite tracks as well. I really enjoy the conceit of singing a different melody line against the instrumental backing from "Ain't No Mountain High Enough." Creates some great tension in the song. Other favorites on that album include: "Wake Up Alone," "He Can Hold Her" (great horns on that track), and "Just Friends."

KEEP TRY!!!

Been beating my head against this wall for sometime now...

Singers are often only as good as the songs they sing and the producers they work with. You can have a magnificent voice (as Aretha clearly does) and you can have technique up the ying-yang, but if you sing lousy material, you're not going to sound all that good. Aretha had a history of being dominated by the men in her life, both personally and professionally. Before being signed to Atlantic, she made a go of being a jazz (influenced) vocalist on Columbia. I know that phase of her career has its partisans (and I think those recordings are quite good at times), but I don't think anyone would disagree that Aretha didn't really hit her stride until she came under the influence of Jerry Wexler. Certainly, her best performances were produced by Wexler and performed with the Muscle Shoals musicans. Did she have peaks after leaving Atlantic? Sure. But they were few and far between (for the record Clem, I said that I didn't think I OWNED any of her albums after 1974 (and I was wrong, btw. "Sparkle" is from '76, so forgive me for being off by two years), but that doesn't mean that I haven't heard/owned such material in the past). It would not be unfair to say that her later career was marred by poor song choices and poor production (her '80s albums, in particular, suffer from trendy (for the time) production that didn't suit Aretha's voice/style). The same thing happend to both Elvis and Sinatra, btw (unless you think that Sinatra's collaboration with Rod McKuen was an example of good judgement on Frank's part). Btw, Clem, I really don't care if you think that I'm a "fanboy douchebag." Once upon a time, I was of the opinion (as you clearly are) that you have to be completely familiar with an artist's particular oeuvre before you were allowed to hold an opinon on that artist. I considered people who listened broadly to be dilettantes. I was more interested in depth. I found, however, that I got burned out on an artist after spending months, sometimes, collecting his or her recordings. I began to cast a wider net, so to speak, and started listening to a little bit of a lot of different artists, delving deeper when I was particularly interested in someone. The reason you piss me off so much is because I used to be a lot like you, and held very similar opinions to the ones you express. In that sense, mine is the zealotry of the convert. I'm the ex-smoker trying to convince everyone else that they need to quit, while you're the poor schmuck still puffing away. The funny thing is that you seem to think that I chafe at your insults, but the fact is that I think I'm a much better person since I loosened up and stopped judging everybody. Maybe you'll come around to that opinion someday, too. What it comes down to is this: I'm interested in POP music (popular in the sense of "from the people" rather than "well-liked," although obviously the two become hard to separate at times). I'm interested in jazz as pop, soul as pop, blues as pop, country as pop, etc, etc. So yes, sometimes that drives me to check things out that more "serious" listeners avoid like the plague. I don't really care. I likes what I likes when I likes it, as I've said before.

I'm curious as to why you care what the phoney-baloney asshole thinks about anything.

Exactly! I don't think I have a single Aretha recording past...what? 1974? But so what? What she did while she was on her game is fantastic. So she fell off. Stevie Wonder fell off too, y'know. "I Just Called To Say I Love You" does not negate "Talking Book" or "Innvervisions," who why complain about it?

I'm gonna stand up and say it: They may not be the best things she recorded, but they do NOT suck. I'm not backing down from this. I am so fucking tired of your patrician manner. You do not know what's best, you fraud.

so's Barbara Streisand, & Lulu. nice to see the fake apostate getting on board with all the other sheep. not to say john l-- a soulful poster to be sure-- can't have different aesthetic values but hint, hint: some of us listen to music history as it existed, in all its sprawling, sometimes fugituve genius & beauty, not just what fucking Atlantic (who surely did have lotsa quality records in one way or another (leasing)) or goddamn Motown (yawn, mostly) got to the top. as many here know, i've often declared Michael Nesmith > Gram Parsons: now tell me who sold more records? yr arms too short to box w/a Titan, Alfie, so save us all the apoplexy next time, or at least do some basic crate digging first. or, better yet: tell us who's greater, Anita Carter or Emmylou Harris? (Anita... who?) l@@k it up, chump. Don't need to, fuckhead. Anita is quite well represented in my collection. "Anita...who?" Yeah, quite likely that a musical moron like myself wouldn't know a member of the FUCKING CARTER FAMILY. Certainly not as famous as sister June, but to my ears by far the best singer in the family. While "Folksongs Old and New" is probably her all around best album, I've always been partial to "So Much Love." As to who's greater, Anita or Emmylou...I think both women had (have, in Emmylou's case) absolutely heavenly voices. Why choose between them? Ah, but of course...Emmylou is famous and beloved by all, so we know she CAN'T possibly be as good as Anita. It might surprise you to know that I actually make my choices based on my ears and not on some critic's opinon (I rarely, if ever, read reviews). You say that Michael Nesmith is greater than Gram Parsons...and you may actually be right. But who cares? I love Gram's (very few) albums, just as I love Nesmith's "Magnetic South," "Witchita Train Whistle Sings," "And the Hits Keep on Comin'," "Loose Salute," etc. You seem to make your choices as a kneejerk reaction to consensus: If other people think it's great, it must suck. If no one's ever heard of it, it must be great. To me, it's obvious that your preference for Nesmith (who most people would decry on the basis that he was a Monkee) over Parsons is simply because Parsons was postumously lionized by the rock press. Sure soul music has tons of obscure figures who made great records. James Carr is one of my all time favorite male vocalists and he recorded on tiny, virtually unknown Goldwax. Strange as I'm sure it sounds, I was once as snobby obscurist myself. I disdained Aretha on the basis that she was popular and well-known. "Natural Woman"? It's a song about depending on a man for happiness. "Respect"? It was a great song...the first ten thousand times I heard it. But then I woke up, Clem. I came to understand that greatness exists in the obvious places, as well as the unlit corners of the music world. I came to love Elvis just as much as I loved Charlie Feathers. I never got into Babs or Lulu, but you know what? I wouldn't rule them out. I wouldn't rule anything out. I'll leave that to you.

Oh, Jesus H. Fuck. Of course Areatha's not in your top 20 soul singers. Why should she be? She's considered to be one of the greatest female voices of the 60s and 70s, what other reason do you need to diminish her work? So you know her work, huh? Well, that's mighty fuckin' white of you. I'm sure she rests easier knowing that you have graced her with your attention, however brief. Oh no, she covered the Beatles? The Band? Simon and Garfunkle?! She must be a HORRIBLE musician! Didn't you know that those artists were popular and are beloved by all? Clem, I found an album in the record store the other day that you would absolutely love: No one bought it, no one heard it, and the artist died poor and unknown. It must be great, huh? Remember: If you want to gain Clem's favor do not sell any records.

Basically it was a genius who thought that, after 50 years from his age, some rich audiophile nuts wouldn't like the idea of their 10K $ cartdriges droping off from the outer side of the record breaking the cantilever handmaded by Hattori Hanzo. "Handmaded'?