sTuff

[your tragic beauty <REWOICC%ERENJ@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>]

Larry DeLuca sez:
>8.  New Music: Kirsty MacColl's new album - _Electric Landlady_.
>Produced by Steve Lillywhite, the album is a curious mixture of
>a rather contemporary groove between techno and hip-hop, and
>a rather splashy sort of latin-jazz/"old-standard" type sound.

*very* curious. i've listened to it about five times and i still
have not been able to acclimate to the variety of sounds on this
record. somehow, she manages to pull it off without suffering from
the trying-too-much-at-once syndrome. only other band that i can
think of off-hand that succeeds at that is hilt.

>It's good, but it's different, and takes some listening to get into.

yup.

jon drukman sez:
>Has anyone noticed that the unfocused imagery in Love And Anger reflects the
>pointlessness of that song's lyric?

disagree - i think that the unfocused imagery reflects the uncertainty
of the song's meaning.

meredith tarr sez:
>"Wuthering Heights": considering when it was made, it's a pretty neat video.

hmmm. i still think that it is a pretty neat video. there are very few
videos that i actually enjoy, but this one takes the cake for simplicity
and beauty. and i choke on my heart every time she hits that "cathy" and
tosses her head back like that (tried to digitize it in fact, but the cut
is such that you can't get a good frame of it...).

>"The Sensual World": please, how much pagan imagery can we cram into four
>minutes??? It's great.

pagan imagery? moon, stars, forests and snow? the song is a celebration
of the senses, not a ritual. the video is nice, but it seems flat against
the song itself. myself - i prefer headphones and an active imagination.

jeffery burka sez:
>Laurie Anderson comes up every now and then, but there isn't an awful lot
>of discussion about her.  Maybe she's just too weird--people just kind of
>stare at their keyboard and wonder what they can say that will sound
>vaguely intelligent.

oh c'mon...laurie's not weird. she just thinks at right angles to the
way that everyone does.

> I also know a fair number of people who were disappointed with _Strange
> Angels_, thinking she'd "changed."  Damn!  Laurie got too melodic!

well, she did change. just like every other artist should - you get
caught in a rut and then you have to do something about it. i'm glad
that laurie did do something her rut cos i agree with you: _strange
angels_ is quite a work. melody is nothing bad - hell, even skinny
puppy has melody.

richard caley adds:
>It's also incredably _angry_. Don't be fooled by the nice melodies and
>smooth voice. Just read that letter about Helms before listening and
>don't leave any sharp objects around :-).

the whole album is angry, really. from the mucking-with-nature theme
of "monkey's paw" to the feminist themes of "red dress", she's moved
from simple observations on culture to outright criticism. which, con-
sidering the times we are in, is not too surprising.

boris chen chimes in:
>See the beauty of her music is there isn't a type of meaning in the
>explicit sense. What she is doing is communicating snipets of
>life, not necessarily brand new paradigms or ideas.

i have a recording of an interview with laurie anderson conducted by
brant bambury and your observation is extremely evident after listening
to what she has to say about her work.

woj@remus.rutgers.edu - rewoicc@erenj.bitnet - born to be fast-forwarded