JSngry

I like how Costello uses words. He's often an impressionist instead of a literalist, much like prime Dylan. Not eveybody's cup of tea, especially if the GAS is lots to your liking, but...different strokes and all that. To me, it's a lot like jazz in terms of improvising new, more abstract meanings out of standardized, literal materials. Sometimes teh meaning is just in the sound, the rhythm, the cadence, etc. Although, the lyric you cite sounds like a description of group sex taking place on a secretary's desk..but maybe not!

AFAIC, Elvis Costello is in another, dare I say "higher", league altogether than the others mentioned in this thread. Elvis Costello is to these other guys what Frank Sinatra is to Steve Lawrence. No disrespect to anybody involved, it's all good, but at some point the meat separates from the shaft.

I think Mellancamp usually stays within himself, always a good thing when you have a "message". Having said that, neither Springsteen nor Mellancamp are individuals about whose work I really "care" about, if you know what I mean. But I do loathe Elton John. For real.

Oh LORD no! That nonsense just moves and moves and never really ends up anywhere. Musically and lyrically. Every time I have to sit through one of those songs, they actually make me mad, not becasue thewy're "bad", but jsut because they're...unnecessarily "clever" without ever justifying the cleverness. It's some kind of combination of a self-indulgent lack of discipline and a vainglorious "LOOK AT ME" vanity thing, to write all those songs that just meander all over the place with lyrics that are just...silly. Between Elton John & Grand Funk, turning off the Top 40 radio between 1970 & 1973 still remains the easiest, most obvious no-brainer of a decision I've ever had to make. Still! Just my opinion, of course, but between Elvis & Elton John, I've got two massive reasons why rock-era popular music should have been killed - killed -before it was born. Thank god there's any number, finite but large, of reasons to feel otherwise! What will be cool when the technology arrives is to take all those Billy Joel/Phil Ramone albums & replace Joel's voice with McCartney's. When that happens, it'll be all good. Until then... It is kind of hard for me to respond to that because, as I said, I am not even close to being an Elton John fan. His music does not move me. On the other hand, his constructs strike me as individual and distinctive, and his artistic goals serious. So I have always chalked him up as one of many talented artists who I just don't connect with. But maybe you are right. Well, maybe you are, for that matter. I jsut know that he was a serious turnoff for me in the 70s & has remained one ever since. It's gotten even worse since playing in bands that cover the stuff. That's when the real pointlessness of his structures really began to stand out for me. Usually a good but not necessarily "easy" song will reveal its strengths as you here it performed live. Either the good parts stand out more as the production element is removed or you hear something not happen that you feel should and that's when it hits you "oh, THAT'S what's going on" or something like that. But these EJ songs, good GOD, they just meander all over the place, and when a hook finally arrives its like that feeling that you get when your blind date is just garden variety ugly instead of hideously malformed, you know, you're thankful enough, but you'd really rather that the whole thing had never happened in the first place. But again, that's just me.

It makes the quieter passages louder relative to the louder passages, i.e. the dynamic range of the music is reduced. Excessive compression quashes the dynamic range. Exactly - which is why compression doesn't make the music actually "louder". Loudness = volume = decibels. What we're talking about with compression is not increased loudness, but decreased dynamic range, a flattening/condensing of the dynamic range, the relative volume, not the actual volume. It only seems louder because you're raising the floor, not lifting the ceiling. Now, what usually results is a more prolonged/sustained period of higher-than-ordinary lower volumes. But the most loud portions of the sound stay right where they are. You can say that a loudening of softer passages makes the music "louder", and maybe, but unless the peak volumes are bumped higher than they originally were, I think the distinction has to be made between compression and loudness, volume. Otherwise it's like saying that getting fatter makes you taller.

Individual songs are ok with me, but on the whole, I've always thought that he marked one of the turning points in American history (musical and otherwise) when we decided to look back & celebrate instead of move forward and build. I know that's not at all what he's about (at least not lyrically, not usually), and I give him a little credit for backing out rather than trying to stay in, but still... "Born To Run" (the song and the album, but especially the song) is about as perfect example as I can think of of how loving something but not understanding it can kill it even worse than hating it. Besides, John Cougar/Cougar Melancamp/Melancamp has rocked harder and written better songs that share the same basic concepts as Springsteen. And he dances better.

Does compression increase the actual decibel level of a sound or just its density?

They mention the Neil Diamond remake but not the Danny Thomas one?

I was a Stereo Review reader at the time and remember reading that review!

Oh LORD no! That nonsense just moves and moves and never really ends up anywhere. Musically and lyrically. Every time I have to sit through one of those songs, they actually make me mad, not becasue thewy're "bad", but jsut because they're...unnecessarily "clever" without ever justifying the cleverness. It's some kind of combination of a self-indulgent lack of discipline and a vainglorious "LOOK AT ME" vanity thing, to write all those songs that just meander all over the place with lyrics that are just...silly. Between Elton John & Grand Funk, turning off the Top 40 radio between 1970 & 1973 still remains the easiest, most obvious no-brainer of a decision I've ever had to make. Still! Just my opinion, of course, but between Elvis & Elton John, I've got two massive reasons why rock-era popular music should have been killed - killed -before it was born. Thank god there's any number, finite but large, of reasons to feel otherwise! What will be cool when the technology arrives is to take all those Billy Joel/Phil Ramone albums & replace Joel's voice with McCartney's. When that happens, it'll be all good. Until then...

Hated "Piano Man", still do, even worse now than then, hate Harry Chapin too...Yuck City, all that mess, but...the run of albums from Turnstiles through Glass Houses was some of the finest crafted pop music of the 70s, the kind of songs and albums that everybody was hoping that Paul McCartney would make but very seldom did. Not that Joel got that respect then, he usually didn't, but if you wanted McCartney to make albums worth of immaculately produced distinctive melodies with catchy lyrics and varied musical backing, hey, Billy Joel was doing exactly that. The "problem", such as it is, is that the songs & albums satisfy first and foremost from the craftsmanship/skills angle far more than they do in making any kind of an "emotional connection". Even McCartney at his worse still had the backstory to make you dislike it out of disappointment, not anger. Joel never really seemed to deliver any backstory, or what he did was not particularly appealing, but was rather sort of smug and angry for no distinctively or discernible reason other than just because. Not good enough, sorry.That presented a huge problem for many back in the day, but now that the songs are "pop history" instead of current news, that is less of a consideration when listening to the music. But a consideration it remains. I have no problem in admitting to appreciating and even enjoying any number of Billy Joel songs/records, but I still can't muster it to say that I like Billy Joel. Not particularly. But there's no denying that the man has skills, and in Phil Ramone, he found his George Martin.

Did not know that homeboy Hardee recorded for that label. Is the material readily available?

If records could have sex with record players (and they do, don't they), this is what group sex would look like: I'd be tempted to climb into that myself!

The audio cuts off right when the tenor solo starts, but I could go Illinois Jacquet on this one, actually.

Is that some kind of Don Martin illustration?

I've never really liked Bennett, but have never really disliked him either. Obviously does what he does very well, I've just never felt the need to care about it one way or the other. Glad to hear he's a nice guy, though. That and tree-fitty will get me a cup of coffee.

T-Mobile T. Rex TLC

Yeah, hunger can do that to you. I still remember the taste of a ham sandwich my mom fixed me at 8 PM one evening in 1963, after we had gotten in from a six hour road trip, not having eaten since noon. MAN did that sandwich taste good, nice crisp lettuce, juicy tomatoes, and nice thick slices of ham that was neither too cold nor too warm. MMMMMMMM GOOD! Maybe music is not a ham sandwich, but they both can feed you, and they both taste really good when you're hungry for tehm.

Scnitter played in the Watson/Pomerov/Etc-era Messengers. For Caliman, all you need to know is: 'nuff said!

What else I liked about that Carr book was that it had pics of lots of LP covers at a time when such things were not always easily found. I have no problem with critical opinion - or lively discussion thereof - so long as all involved realize that ultimately it is opinion. For every yin there's a yang. No exceptions. Those who won't/don't/can't accept that are not ones I want to deal with.

WTBS WGN WKRP

That was a fun book! I had it after I pretty much knew all the names/etc. so it was good for finding about albums (notably the Warne Marsh Wave sides) that I didn't know existed. Very early on, and especially now, I don't really care what "crtical opinion" is about a record. I just want to know that it exists. If for whatever reason I'm on the fence, I'll ask around to people I trust, and even then might get it anyway, if the curiosity is piqued enough (not as often these days, but still more than is convenient and/or practical). It's good (well, "good") to know the conventional wisdom when deciding what to buy, but it's even better to ignore it - just dive in and find out for yourself. Very few recordings cost all that much more than a decent restaurant meal, and hell, I got stuff in the fridge almost always, so oif it comes to that... There's not all that many things in life that you can really do by yourself. Discovering music is one of them, or close enough to it, if you want/let it.

I was looking forward to hearing some nice Dave Grusin (the guy does have skills, for real), not the Dead (who I've never really got, nor been motivated to get). Is there some Dave Grusin jamming with the Dead at this link, that's what I want to know, and if so, how can I hear it w/o going through all that other unpleasant stuff?

Mister Sandman Tooth Fairy Spooky Tooth

GODDAMMIT ARIC, YOUR LINK GOES TO A GREATFULLY dEAD SHOW AND THE FIRST FUCKING THING I HEAR IS A RAGGEDY ASS VERSION OF FUCKING WANG DANG MOTHERFUCKING DOODLE. NOT WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR, DIG?