tommyjacobs

Can you email a screenshot to info@sooutoftune.org?

What browser/device are you using?

Hi, all.

I've got a new site up in beta called So Out Of Tune. It hosts streaming audio of audience-recorded live Wilco performances; in other words, you can listen to Wilco shows on-demand over the internet. It's all free and only hosts shows in accordance with the band's taping policy.

I thought the board would enjoy it, so check it out. It's in beta at this point, so any feedback - good or bad - is much appreciated. I'll be adding more shows, so although the selection is limited now, it will be much, much larger in the future.

Thanks, I'll check that out.

Hey, gang. I'm helping my dad sell a '57 Stratocaster from his collection and thought I'd turn to the wisdom of Via Chicago for advice.

What are the best forums for selling such a guitar? Web sites? eBay? Conventions?

He is willing to put some effort into it to get a better price; he doesn't need to unload it immediately. I'm sure he could sell it quickly to a dealer, but he wants a retail price, not a wholesale price, in return.

The guitar in question is an all-original 1957 Fender Stratocaster, so I'm guessing the market is going to be smaller than for a recent model. It's in excellent condition and plays great, so I don't foresee any issues around condition.

Any advice or recommendations are appreciated.

A lot of music "best of" lists included albums that are quite good, but they might be downers. Or that have artistic value, but are avant garde or abstract to the point that they aren't necessarily fun. And then there's a bunch of crap that someone labeled trendy.

There's a time and a place for all of that, but I'm curious as to what albums/tracks/artists people on this board find most enjoyable. What makes you tap your foot or get up and dance? What puts a big grin on your face? What makes you roll down the windows and sing along? In short, music that's both fun and good.

Some examples of stuff I'd lump in that category:

Wilco - "Monday," "I Must Be High," "Nothing'sever..."

Beatles - Probably half the stuff they wrote

Rolling Stones - Every single with a killer Richards riff

Ryan Adams - First half of "Gold"

The Apples in Stereo - "The Bird That You Can't See"

Ben Folds Five - "Song for the Dumped"

The Clash - "Train in Vain"

Anyone else feel like playing along?

Damn, it will probably become a walmart before I am able to visit the place.

Don't worry, Walmart uses the Asda brand in the UK. No Walmarts in London.

couldnt disagree more

its expected that you sit at a movie, nobody EVER stands at movies

concerts (and shows ) are made for dancing and standing. Its' the norm.

I don't think we disagree that much. My comments were in the context of a concert and venue where the expectation was that the audience would sit. You wouldn't stand and dance during an opera or Broadway musical, would you?

If this venue is one where standing is expected, go for it. If not, be respectful of others. Live music is a communal experience, after all.

Wow. I am going to the show in Clearwater next month, and it is a seated venue. I am now worried because I don't plan on sitting for a second! What is the proper etiquette for this? Bob

If it's a seated venue, sit. If that expectation is there, it's the polite thing to do.

Think about it this way...if you went to a movie theater and the guy in front of you stood the entire time, how would you feel?

Help me see the appeal. What do you like about it?

I first heard it as a Jeff solo acoustic song, and that version is quite beautiful. Great lyrics, the melody is more up front, nice little acoustic guitar riff. I fell in love with it then and felt a real connection to it.

Then the full band started playing an arena-rock version of it before AGIB (think "Not for the Season" from the YHF demos) that was pretty fun, though the vocals/lyrics are overshadowed a bit. The album version is my least favorite rendition, though I still enjoy it.

I don't know what your situation is, but I'm married with kids, which is partly why the song strikes a chord with me as well.

And someone in this thread went 0-for-1 searching for the terms "Sports Illustrated" on the board

 

http://forums.viachicago.org/topic/40958-wilco-in-072909-sports-illustrated/

That, or he realizes it's not a big deal if a topic gets posted twice. If you read it the first time, there's no need to be a dick about it.

 

http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/music/...wilco-the-album

Thanks for putting this in a new thread. Wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

(And hiss to the mods who moved it as I was reading it...)

I don't really hate country music; I hate Nashville corporate country music. The thought hit me the other day after I heard Faith Hill's cover of "Piece of my Heart." Afterward, I felt compelled to listen to Janis Joplin's version of the same song, and the difference is not only startling, but a perfect illustration of what ills Nashville.

Ever heard Janis Joplin sing "Piece of my Heart"? I'm sure you have. The band is loose, playing primal blues riffs behind her while she alternates between soft R&B-inflected verses and a howling chorus. When I listen to it, life is worth living just for those three minutes. It has soul, not just in a Motown way, but in the way that creates a deep emotional connection with the listener.

Faith Hill, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. She's got a backing band of All-Pro session players, all of whom are skilled in their own right, but they're a little too good, if you know what I mean. The playing is a bit too polished, a bit too orchestrated, strangling any chance spontaneity or inspiration has of entering the studio. It's pretty much what you'd expect from a bunch of well fed mercenaries with little vested interest in the music.

And Faith? This just isn't the song for her. Now, it's not her fault that she can't sing like Janis; not many can. But she should have known better than to cover a song already done so well. Her vocals are flat and dull, lacking that spark you hear in great music.

And that's what Nashville is missing, that spark. The corporate mindset suffocates it. How could you expect to find it in music produced by assembly line? Have you ever heard anything produced by Nashville that has half the emotion of Layla & Other Assorted Love Songs? That album drips with despair and longing, the vocals and guitars stretching and straining to convey Clapton's inner emotions.

The greatest musicians can produce music with that level of emotional content even when they don't feel it themselves at that moment. They're a bit like actors, in a way. I suppose that's what any artist does, just in different mediums, and is the major distinction between a musical artist and an entertainer, though many musicians are both.

I don't mean to sound elitist, so let me offer a final illustration from American Idol. You know that girl Alexis that just got voted off, the one whose name Randy couldn't remember? She sang a Dolly Parton song, "Jolene," and it was dull as shit. I don't expect that much from an Idol contestant, but it really put me to sleep.

Unsurprisingly, she got voted off, but they gave her a chance to sing it again to persuade the judges to save her. Did you hear the second time she sang it? She was fighting back tears and she was desperate to stay, and you could hear it in her voice. I was reading a book, barely paying attention, but the edge to her vocals grabbed me and made me listen. I can't remember that ever happening on Idol before, but I couldn't ignore the delivery.

Nashville produces a lot of the American Idol karaoke music, entertaining to some, but usually without much depth. It could use a little desperation now and again.

Some of the chord changes in Jesus, etc. definitely have Jay's fingerprints on them, though I can't picture him making a huge contribution to those lyrics. Jay could write some pretty melodies, but those words aren't his style.

good friend of mine is first cuz's with dave grohl. ha.

Thanks for digging up a year old thread to let us know.

That's not oversimplified, that's complete heifer dust. The housing crisis has to do with playing fast and loose with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and screwing around with ARM rates to people that couldn't afford them in order to pocket fees and move property. It was a shell game, a paramid scheme waiting on the right shills to get stuck.

 

All of that happened under the Bush administration's nose.

That was definitely part of it as well, but it never would have happened had interest rates been higher. But I can't say I feel too sorry for people that borrowed more money than they could afford or who signed up for an ARM knowing the rate would increase (they do tell you that, after all). I do feel sorry for people who got scammed with complicated mortgage-backed securities though, since there was a lot of deception involved in that case.

There's plenty of blame to around.

You'll have to explain that one ...

 

First you credit Congress and Greenspan for the success, but then you try to tie Clinton in when the economy went bust two years after he left office.

 

Who, then is responsible for this "rampant speculation"? Isn't it the same ones who made out well enough to live high and well the last eight years and help bankroll Bush II, Bush III (and Bush IV coming to a polling place near you ...)?

What I meant was that if you give Clinton credit for the boom, you should also give credit for the bust. However, I think that a lot of the turbulence of that cycle was due to the Fed not raising rates enough to curb economic growth.

And really, the housing crisis we see now is due in large part to the negative real interest rates we saw after the dot com bust, not because of anything Bush has done.

All of this is grossly oversimplified, of course, but we give far too much credit or blame to presidents for short term economic trends. No matter their level of competence, we will see short term moves in both directions, but good economic policy will lead to gains over the longer term.

didnt like the economy under President Clinton??

Clinton was closer to the center than Obama, and he had a conservative Congress. Greenspan had a larger effect on the economy than Clinton, though I think in retrospect a lot of the perceived growth was an illusion caused by rampant speculation.

If you give Clinton credit for the economic growth, you have to give him blame for when it went bust too.

Well if you don't like windfall taxes how can you vote for a ticket with Palin?

I think you misunderstood me. I was going to vote for McCain, but now I'm not sure I want to with Palin as VP. She is unqualified and I don't care for her politics as much as McCain's.

One of the primary reasons I consider myself an independent and not a Republican is because of the influence of the Religious Right in the party. I'm an atheist myself, and I support a secular government. However, I also have serious issues with the Democratic party, which leaves me without any party loyalty.

Is anyone still undecided after all these months? I am just amazed that people are not sure who to vote for.

LouieB

I am. I was planning on voting for McCain, but the Palin selection has me rethinking it. I don't think I can bring myself to vote for Obama because of his economic policies. I then thought about voting Libertarian, but they nominated Bob Barr this year. No way in hell I'm voting for him with his track record.

Which leaves me undecided. I may end up holding my nose and voting for McCain anyway, but I won't feel good about it.

Regarding the balance between socialism and capitalism, I think that there is important role to be played by the government by investing in infrastructure, education, and basic research that will drive future economic growth. Regulations to prevent collusion and such are important, as well as making sure that investors and consumers are able to trust the businesses with which they deal (e.g., contract law, securities regulation, etc.).

However, I do take issue with the sort of socialism that punishes those who are successful in the name of wealth redistribution, a recent example being the proposed windfall taxes on oil companies.

I also think we should do away with government handouts. I have no problem with the government ensuring that people do not starve, but anyone receiving welfare checks should have to work for it or be in a training program that will enable them to support themselves (with some modifications for those mentally or physically limited). It's not about whether we should or should not help, but how we should go about it.

Socialist policies should be used to enable, not as an end unto themselves. They should enable competition and creativity, not place a damper on it. Government should enable the personal growth of citizens, not create additional dependencies.

Has anyone found a way to legally acquire the song without buying the entire album? Will it eventually be available on iTunes a la carte, or will it always be an album-only track?

You know I haven't heard a note of their music. I am fimiliar with Ryan Adams music but not them. Where should I start!?

Strangers Almanac and Pneumonia are their two strongest albums. Almanac is the more alt-country-ish of the two, and Pneumonia is a little more on the pop side (closer to Gold). I'd pick up one of those two first, but the earlier albums are also good.

Actually a bit of feedback from the original poster on what he wants would be nice at this point. There is honestly no reason to go on and on about a million different little schools of music if we don't know what he would like. Are we talking jazz here or improv music or fusion or what?

Thanks for the insight, Louie. To be honest, I'm not sure I know enough about jazz to answer your question.

Recently, I dug up a copy of "Kind of Blue" that I've had for a while and put it on. I connected to it in a way I didn't when I first bought it (though I still liked it then), so I've decided to start learning more about the genre.

I bought "A Love Supreme" by Coltrane and loved it, and I picked up "Free Jazz" by Ornette Coleman because it reminded me of "Troutmaskreplica." Then I saw the big jazz thread on this board as it was dying, and I thought I'd pick the brain of those of you who knew more about it.

I like the cool jazz of the 1950's and 1960's and some of the free jazz I've listened to. I'm not familiar enough with the music to say much more than that, and I'm really just trying to find out what is out there to explore. I'm planning on trying to sample the artists mentioned on this board this weekend to see if anything resonates.

Thanks again for the information.

Thanks for the ideas, everyone.

Thanks to everyone who recommended artists on the recent jazz thread. I've just started listening to jazz, and it helped me discover some artists that were new to me.

One thing I noticed is that almost all of the albums on jazz "best of" lists are from the 1960s or earlier. Does anyone have any recommendations for jazz artists/albums that have recorded after that period? Who are the prominent jazz musicians recording/performing today?