Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Primate Studies > Discussion
Primate Studies
— Where BTF's Members Investigate the Grand Old Game

Friday, June 13, 2003

June 13, 2003

Schadenfreude, snake dancing, and whining snakes.

Schadenfreude:  I am not a fan of interleague play.  I don?t like the contrived, gimmicky feel of the games.  I don?t like the goofy contortions required with regard to scheduling.  I don?t like the mixing of leagues prior to the World Series.  All in all, I mostly dread the entire debacle, and no amount of "look how many more fans show up for these series" rationalization is going to change my mind about it.  As with wild cards, expanded playoffs, the DH and front-wheel drive, I savor of my own crotchetiness like an extra-bitter beer, huffing off new-fangled atrocities with the time-tested ease of a professional grouch.  None of this is really open for debate, which makes my recent brush with enjoyment of an interleague game particularly noticeable.

 

I speak, of course, of no mere run-of-the-mill interleague game, but of The Game, the convergence of all things right and holy by which a string of six otherwise unassuming men joined forces to beat back the minions of Evil for an entire night.  Not that I?m normally a rabid Yankee hater or anything.  As a Braves fan I can?t bring myself to hold sustained success against another team (though I do discard all of the success that came prior to free agency as tainted.)  My only truly bitter memory of the Yankees is from 1996 and a World Series banner that by all rational rights should be hanging next to the ?95 version in Turner Field.  But other than that, I feel no great disgust for pinstripes. 

 

Still, watching the Astros? pen snake dance through the Bombers? order again and again Wednesday night, there was something noticeably warm and glowing alight within.  Maybe it was Dial?s reaction when I messaged him to drop the Mets game and tune in with the rest of baseball-dom.  Maybe it was Szymborski?s gleeful play-by-play as Octavio Dotel mowed down any who would oppose him in the eighth.  Or maybe it was indigestion.  Regardless, there was, it seemed to me, something greater than the sum of parts going on, some proto-Jungian collective unconsciousness raised in joyful unison, cheering, cheering, as if the entirety of every baseball fan other than the Yankee faithful were joined together, a gigantic astral umbilical chord of schadenfreude rising up unto the heavens.

 

I?m just saying.

 

My only question is this:  in the eighth, Jason Giambi stands in with two out and a runner on.  His team hasn?t recorded a hit all night and the Astros, for reasons beyond my kin, shift on him.  3B plays short, SS is behind the bag at second and 2B is in short RF.  Down by six, in desperate need of base runners and trapped under the growing spell of the no-no, how do you not serve a fungo down the 3B line?  Fear of Bob Brenly calling you a chicken[ship]?  Give me a break.  Tino Martinez would have laid down the bunt double?

Mirror World:  Braves vs. A?s.  One team leads their league in offense, beating the ball around like a red headed stepchild.  The other cobbles together a below-average offense and depends on their three-headed ace-monster to pitch them through.  I am so very confused.  It has been argued many times that Atlanta?s "failures" in the postseason are due to the team?s basic architecture.  Great pitching with limited offense will carry you through 162 games with optimal success, but when you get to the playoffs, tougher competition wears down your great pitching earlier and shifts the burden of success onto the rest of your team, notably your offense and bullpen.  Having watched this theory turn more or less into a truism year after year in Atlanta, I am very interested in how a similar model might play out in Oakland over the next five years.  Yes, the A?s are famous for their sabrerifficolicious offense, but their real success since 2000 has come courtesy of their rotation.  Strangely enough, they?ve found themselves on the outside looking in during all of those playoffs, too?

Building a Better Mousetrap:  Now that Curt Schilling is on the DL, assumedly in a soundproofed trainer?s room where his whining can?t be heard, much of the brouhaha over Questec?s Umpire Information System (UIS) has died down.  The Braves? Ray King took up the good fight in Schilling?s absence, bemoaning the system at Shea Stadium after a particularly galling loss (as if any loss to the Mess isn?t galling), but for the most part the true wailing and gnashing of teeth has subsided.  In the lull, I decided to take a cursory look at what effect the UIS was actually having on games. 

 

Working on the assumption that, if UIS was really forcing umpires to squeeze the corners and call fewer "borderline strikes," there would be some noticeable change in the box scores of the teams that hosted the Questec technology.  With fewer strikes being called you?d expect to see more hits and more walks and less strikeouts.  Of course, sample sizes for individual pitchers would be obscenely small here, so what I did was take every pitcher from Questec "home teams," teams that play home games in stadiums with the UIS in place, and dump their combined stats into Excel.  I then added up all ten of the hosting teams to get home and away splits for UIS.  None of this is park adjusted, there is a little wiggle in the pitchers home vs. road workloads, and some of the "road" games probably took place in other Questec parks (NYY visiting Fenway, for example,) but in the big picture I think it all comes out in the wash.

        IP   H   BB   K   R   HR   H/IP   BB/IP   K/IP   R/IP   HR/IP
Home   2902 2981 1082 2137 1582 361 1.027   0.373 0.736 0.545   0.124
Away   3071 3274 1165 2158 1747 382 1.066   0.379 0.703 0.569   0.124

 

Now I?m not any kind of superfly stathead pimp or anything, but it doesn?t look to me like UIS is causing any real damage to pitchers (unless the UIS is working so well that umpires are calling "squeezed zones" while the Questec hosts are on the road.  In that case, then the system seems to be doing exactly what it says it will do?.) Teams that host the UIS in their home parks are giving up slightly fewer hits and walks and striking out slightly more batters (per inning) than they are doing on the road.  That seems like exactly the opposite of what you would expect if the UIS was squeezing plates as Schilling, King and company are claiming.

WPG Hipper Than Thou Music Throwaway Hour:  Now playing:  Nada Surf, Malcomb Middleton and The New Pornographers.  Avoiding like the plague: Hail to the Thief.

 

Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 13, 2003 at 06:00 AM | 30 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 13, 2003 at 02:16 AM (#611493)
June 13, 2003 - Grav:

"I assumed that Schilling's gripe had to do with his split-fingered fastball not being called a strike. I didn't see the game that preceded the man vs. machine battle though. Can anyone confirm this?"

I can not. Back when the story just broke I went to the MLB.TV site to see the game, but it (May 24, San Diego @ Arizona) is one of the "no TV" games.

If I were more conspiracy minded I would think MLB didn't want people to see that game.
   2. bob mong Posted: June 13, 2003 at 02:16 AM (#611497)
Yes, the A?s are famous for their sabrerifficolicious offense, but their real success since 2000 has come courtesy of their rotation.

That is not true.

Here are park-adjusted relative RS/G and RA/G (like OPS+, with 100 as average, and greater than 100 denoting above average for both offense and defense):
<font>Year   RS/G+  RA/G+
2000   117    101
2001   117    119
2002    99    127</font>
In 2000, the Athletics were a bashing team with league-average pitching.
In 2001, the Athletics' offense remained very good (17% better than league-average) and they improved their pitching tremendously, to 19% better than league average.
In 2002, the offense dropped all the way back to merely league-average, but the pitching went on to new heights - to 27% better than average.

In 2002 only is your statement true. Last year the As lived and died with their rotation.

I have run some rough calculations for this year, and the Athletics appear to be repeating last years' formula: league-average offense with superlative pitching/defense.

Now I?m not any kind of superfly stathead pimp or anything...

Absolutely beautiful! :)
   3. Dylan Wright Posted: June 13, 2003 at 02:16 AM (#611498)
Well hearing several interviews by Schilling over this subject, his "claim" is that the Questec system is calling umpires to overcorrect and call a smaller strike zone than what the rule book states. I don't know if his claim has any legs or not but he has attempted to try and make the distinction between whining over the calls and whining over the system set up. I, personally, don't see a difference. This is just one more thing to pile on along with the roof at BOB.
   4. Robert Dudek Posted: June 13, 2003 at 02:16 AM (#611507)
Sam,

Pitchers pitch better at home than on the road. You should do the same thing for non-UIS teams and see if there are any large differences between the two groups
   5. Shredder Posted: June 13, 2003 at 02:16 AM (#611545)
New Pornographer rule!

And you're missing out on Hail to the Thief. It's their best since OK Computer. Really top notch.
   6. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 13, 2003 at 02:17 AM (#611553)
The New Pornographers are just bloody well brilliant. And Neko Case is the hottest woman alive. As for Radiohead, I'm still smarting over Kid A and that damned Amnesiac debacle. I want to believe Hail... is worth giving them another chance, but it all feels so codependent...
   7. Shredder Posted: June 14, 2003 at 02:17 AM (#611557)
New Pornographers are touring soon. They'll be in Chicago on July 6. They'll probably start on the East Coast around the end of June, I would guess. I can't wait to see Neko up close.
   8. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 14, 2003 at 02:17 AM (#611566)
And you're missing out on Hail to the Thief. It's their best since OK Computer. Really top notch.

That's like saying this is Barry Bonds's best season since 2000.

I have trouble imagining someone who apparently loathed Kid A and Amnesiac liking HTTT at all.
   9. Shredder Posted: June 14, 2003 at 02:17 AM (#611575)
I think Hail... is much more "OK Computer" than either Amnesiac or Kid A. It's like the good parts of those two albums put together.
   10. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 14, 2003 at 02:17 AM (#611578)
Sure, if all you listen to is "2 + 2 = 5" and "Go To Sleep."

Seriously, I think Hail fits in much better with the Kid A/Amnesiac style than the OK Computer style, even if it is something of a return. I thought the same thing about "Knives Out"... everyone kept saying it sounded like it was from The Bends; I didn't hear it at all. I guess it just goes to show you have to decide for yourself.
   11. Dudefella Posted: June 15, 2003 at 02:17 AM (#611592)
"Rock is rock, music is music, and the differences are between artists, not labels."

So you're saying that someone who enjoys...um...Interpol is equally likely to enjoy...um...Mudvayne? Unless they're a very rare breed, they're probably much more likely to stick to their Low and their Small Factory, thanks.

It seems like you're denying the existence of genres altogether, which IMO is an absurdly reductionist argument. Pachabel's Canon is not equivalent to Stankonia which in turn is not equivalent to Nothing Feels Good.
   12. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 15, 2003 at 02:17 AM (#611594)
It seems like you're denying the existence of genres altogether, which IMO is an absurdly reductionist argument. Pachabel's Canon is not equivalent to Stankonia which in turn is not equivalent to Nothing Feels Good.

No, I think he's saying genres are fine, but Indie Rock isn't one because it doesn't refer to the style of music but rather the label status of the artist.
   13. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 15, 2003 at 02:17 AM (#611596)
Indie rock is a sort of genre (Death Cab for Cutie, Elliot Smith, The Lucksmiths, etc.) much like "hard rock" is a genre, but it is also something else entirely. That something else is not "degree of success," but moreso a matter of principal. Calling Superchunk "less successful" than any of a plethora of so-called "punk" radio bands is obscene. They simply made an ethical choice to produce art outside of the rubric of the major label cartel system.

I can understand the argument that "indie rock" isn't a genre, but saying it's "degree of success" seems very much like an insult to bands who prefer to do business outside of the major label system. And it's absurd to claim that a band like the Waco Brothers or Superchunk are less successful than a band with a major label contract tied around their necks like a studded choker chain for the good dog.

s/
   14. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 15, 2003 at 02:17 AM (#611597)
And it's absurd to claim that a band like the Waco Brothers or Superchunk are less successful than a band with a major label contract tied around their necks like a studded choker chain for the good dog.

True enough... but people have become justifiably wary of the equally absurd notion that bands on major labels are inherently less artistically meritorious. The point is that the label status is irrelevant to the quality of the music.

Indie rock could be a term that's applied to a genre now; that kind of thing happens, but if it is a genre, then of course a major label band could release an album of indie rock on their major label--that usage might seem contrary to some to the other definition of indie rock which refers to label status.
   15. Shredder Posted: June 16, 2003 at 02:18 AM (#611618)
The difference between Hail... and the last two is that all of the songs on Hail have some sense of a structure to them. We Suck Young Blood is a little slow, and Myxamatosis comes close to the "little structure" line, but there are no "Treefingers" or "Hunting Bears" or "Like Spinning Plates" or "Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors." It's much more accessible than either of the last two, when taken as a whole. There were times on the last two albums that I felt they were trying my patience. I don't feel that way this time.

Indie is essentially a genre that's been defined by it's artists, as opposed to the other way around. It means two different things, depending on who you're talking to. If someone came up to me and decscribed a band as "indie", I think I'd have a pretty broad idea of what to expect. Unless they sounded like Staind, or one of those bands that I can't differentiate between, I wouldn't be surprised by anything. Although it still refers as well to bands on independent labels. New Pornographers could sign to a major label tomorrow, release a new album that sounds similar to the last two, and I still wouldn't have a problem with them being described as "Indie".

but people have become justifiably wary of the equally absurd notion that bands on major labels are inherently less artistically meritorious.

I'll clarify my position on this point, since Dan and I have had this conversation before, and while this comment probably wasn't directed specifically at me, I'm probably the type of person he's referring to (or I'm just extremely self-centered). For a lot of people, the relationship with music is a very personal thing. I think that some part of me is defined by the music that I listen to. That said, when a band "sells out", or gets really popular, one of things about me that was unique is no longer unique. One of the things I like about a lot of the bands that I listen to is the fact that I'm one of the few people that listen to them. I like to be different. When listening to a band no longer makes me different, that personal connection is broken. It's not the bands' fault. And their music probably hasn't gotten any "worse", it's just that my desire to listen to them has decreased. I prefer early R.E.M. Everything up through Green, pretty much. I know a lot of people who are just the opposite. I just don't like their music as much anymore. That's not their fault, and I'm not making a judgement about it's merits. I just don't feel as personally connected to their music as I did before. So I would be careful about calling someone's distaste for major label releases "absurd". In the incredibly subjective realm of musical taste, label status is evey bit as valid a reason to avoid a band as anything else. Hey, I still listen to Beck and Radiohead, and the later Smiths stuff is every bit as good as their stuff on Rough Trade, if not better.

   16. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 16, 2003 at 02:18 AM (#611634)
I'll clarify my position on this point, since Dan and I have had this conversation before, and while this comment probably wasn't directed specifically at me, I'm probably the type of person he's referring to (or I'm just extremely self-centered).

Really, Shredder; there's no reason both can't be true.

Seriously, maybe I've never made it too clear, but I don't object to you liking bands or disliking bands based on label status or what-have-you. And I understand how I was ambiguous.

My objection is to people who think major-label bands are inherently worse or less meritorious, that condescend on people who like major-label music, or believe that major-label status or commercial success and integrity/artistic merit are mutually exclusive. In other words, not you--I object to you for different reasons entirely. (Insert emoticon here.)

Really, I don't even know the label status of some bands I really like (Connells? Guster?). But I don't object to people having personal preferences for non-musical aspects of the music they listen to (I try and fail to avoid such preferences myself)--I object to the notion that there's something wrong with major label bands. What I called "absurd" was the "notion that bands on major labels are inherently less artistically meritorious," not a personal distaste for major-label releases.

We Suck Young Blood is a little slow, and Myxamatosis comes close to the "little structure" line, but there are no "Treefingers" or "Hunting Bears" or "Like Spinning Plates" or "Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors."

We Suck Young Blood is a little slow??? Yes, and we spend a couple minutes each day posting on Baseball Primer. Listening to that song is like listening to Stevie from Malcolm In the Middle reading the Bible. But I digress...

I might be wrong (not intentional) about HTTT, but to me, it's Neo-Radiohead Vol. III... just goes to show you all the subjectiveness of it all. So give it a listen and decide for yourself is my advice to anyone who reads this.
   17. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 16, 2003 at 02:18 AM (#611635)
Dan: "My objection is to people who think major-label bands are inherently worse or less meritorious, that condescend on people who like major-label music, or believe that major-label status or commercial success and integrity/artistic merit are mutually exclusive."

Well, the basic idea is that people who put out their own material, who do not leverage their artistic discretions for major label marketing department support are doing something inherently more meritous, something with more integrity and artistic merit, than someone who gives up their control in order to cash in on the easier bookings.

You don't have to buy it, but I think it's true.
   18. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 16, 2003 at 02:18 AM (#611636)
Well, the basic idea is that people who put out their own material, who do not leverage their artistic discretions for major label marketing department support are doing something inherently more meritous, something with more integrity and artistic merit, than someone who gives up their control in order to cash in on the easier bookings.

Really? All major-label music inherently differs from the artist's ideals at the whims of marketeers? Do you have any evidence of that?

Shredder, FYI, Sam's comment is the kind of thing I'm talking about, not yours.
   19. Shredder Posted: June 16, 2003 at 02:18 AM (#611637)
I think there are very few bands that go to major labels that have complete creative control. At least at the beginning. The thing is, very few get past the beginning. Seriously, read this interview with Fountains of Wayne. They give a little insight into how labels operate. That's not to say that all major label stuff is without merit. But it's almost definitely the case that major label acts, as a whole, have less creative control.
   20. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 16, 2003 at 02:18 AM (#611639)
Shredder, all I really saw in there that was at all applicable is this:

"It prevents label people from being able to come down and try to join the band during sessions."

"Yeah, we got misled on that one. It was kind of like, 'Well, we can't go to radio with this ballad, because you guys are this modern-rock band. We'll put it out later in the year.' And then it just... They have a very short attention span at these companies."

And that really doesn't seem to address creative control. Also, you have to consider how much initiative the bands take in preserving their control. And the fact that bands may take label input but don't sacrifice final say. In any case, I don't see that the relationship between label status and integrity is all that good--certainly not good enough that you can even begin to use it as a proxy for artistic merit or integrity.
   21. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 16, 2003 at 02:18 AM (#611640)
And then, of course, is the matter of whether you want to dismiss music you like because you fear the label may have had a hand in it anyway...
   22. Shredder Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:18 AM (#611658)
I just think it's telling that they had one single that the label apparently cared about, and the label had them go to a big name producer to remix it. Then they never released it. The acts that tend to maintain creative control get no support from the label (unless they're the huge acts - I can't imagine a label fooling with Radiohead, for example), and subsequently never get to the marketplace unless they can find another outlet. Atlantic released the last album and did virtually no promotion, which is why they're on a small label this time around.

Another, better, look at the way major labels work from The Stranger:
In 2001, the band Wilco made an album called Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, and delivered it to Reprise Records, a subsidiary of Warner Brothers. Reprise asked the band to change the record to make it more commercial. When the band declined, the label rejected the record, and released the band from its contract. A few months and several thousand words of outraged music journalism later, Wilco signed to Nonesuch, another Warner imprint, which released Yankee Hotel Foxtrot last April to massive critical praise and the best sales and chart action of the band's seven-year career.

   23. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:19 AM (#611675)
Actually, he's just a big-name mixer, isn't he?

Anyway, I believe that happened to Wilco. They decided not to go through with it. There's a problem, however, in assuming therefore that anyone who does get major label support did go through with it. Unless you assume that everything the label gets, they have to change--that nothing is marketable as is. In other words, just because they didn't think the Wilco song was commerical enough doesn't mean they think nothing is commercial enough unless they change it.

And then there's this scenario:

Two guys write a pretty decent folk song. Let's call these guys "Paul" and "Art." Not much to the song--harmonized vocals, acoustic guitar, stand-up bass. We'll call it "The Sound of S." In fact, they record a whole album of this stuff and it flops.

Paul goes to England to pursue a solo career. Art stays home. Producer Tom Wilson, for Columbia Records, then made a tweak. He added a backing track of electric guitar, drums, electric piano.

The song became a smash hit. But it also did something else: it became a lot better. You can listen to the two versions and the electric one just kicks the crap out of the old one. And of course the two hooked back up and went on to release a whole bunch of great stuff in the new style.

That much is true. But now let's use our imagination. Say it's 1963 and Paul says to Art, "Hey, I've got this new song. See what you think." Art hears it and loves it. After getting a little more familiar, Art says, "Let's have this harmony part do this here, and I think the guitar should actually do this here."

In short, Art gets his grubby hands all over it. Later, so does Tom Wilson. They both change it. What's the difference? Well, maybe Art did it because he thought it would be better, and Tom did it because he thought it would be more commercial. But maybe Tom did it because he thought it would be better and therefore more commercial.

And so now there's this great song out there, a brilliant version of it, and I have the choice of either enjoying it, or forgetting about it because it doesn't correspond to Paul Simon's original conception of the song. I really don't see the point of the latter, though as I said before, it's personal preference, and my only objection is to those who make it into a judgment of merit for all.
   24. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:19 AM (#611680)
Long story short: I know labels like to release commercial music. I know that when they get something that isn't commercial, they might want the band to change it to make it commercial.

But the concept that major-label artists all therefore "leverage their artistic discretions for major label marketing department support" is based on the extremely flawed premise that the artist's discretions inherently cannot jive with the label's idea of what will be successful. Many, many musicians listen to successful, popular, major-label music, and love it, so the idea that what's commercial can't be the same as what the musician thinks is good seems just plain wrong to me.
   25. Shredder Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:19 AM (#611684)
I don't think anyone is saying that every artist compromises their artistic integrity when the sign with a major label. Of course, I'm of the belief that a lot of major label acts have no artistic integrity to begin with, but that's another story. But I do think it's more correct to say that very few, if any, independent acts compromise their artistic integrity when signing with an independent label.

I'm not sure I follow you with the S&G story. It sounds like they had already given up on the song, more or less. If they didn't care what the label did, fine. And the producer made a more commercially viable version. No one is accusing major labels of not producing commercially viable music. Remixes and covers are done all of the time without the artists' consent.
   26. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:19 AM (#611686)
I don't think anyone is saying that every artist compromises their artistic integrity when the sign with a major label. Of course, I'm of the belief that a lot of major label acts have no artistic integrity to begin with, but that's another story. But I do think it's more correct to say that very few, if any, independent acts compromise their artistic integrity when signing with an independent label.

So you're saying that you think many major-label bands start out just trying to make money, not writing the kind of music they like?

That's certainly plausible. No more plausible than indie bands doing the same thing, however; they may simply have failed at it. I don't see any evidence to assume it's that way for any given band regardless of label status. Unless, of course, they say so.

My complaint that Sam responded to was in people insisting that major-label status inherently meant less artistic integrity. If the response to this is that there are bands with less artistic integrity, that's fine. It really doesn't relate to my complaint. Certainly there are bands who sacrifice their integrity to make more popular music. I'm sure there are plenty of indie bands who would make songs that are more pop or commercial but intentionally don't because they have a pre-conceived negative value judgment of that music. Those bands also, of course, lack artistic integrity.

I may be listening to bands of the first type. You may be listening to bands of the second type. And vice versa. So frickin' what?

If I was actually worried that the music I listened to was based on more than simple artistic decisions, I'd probably stop listening to music altogether, because there's plenty of reason to believe all of it is. Instead, I just don't give a damn, and I certainly don't condescend on the people who listen to indie rock, even though I suspect some of those bands sacrifice their artistic discretion in favor of a non-commercial sound. As I said before, so frickin' what?
   27. Shredder Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:19 AM (#611689)
I'm sure there are plenty of indie bands who would make songs that are more pop or commercial but intentionally don't because they have a pre-conceived negative value judgment of that music. Those bands also, of course, lack artistic integrity.

This makes no sense to me. So if a band doesn't like a certain type of music because it's commercial, and therefore decides not to make commercial music, they have no artistic integrity?

The problem is defining what is or isn't commercial. There are plenty of indie bands that make commercial music that just don't sell for some reason, be it image, timing, what have you. Fountains of Wayne, for example, is just pure pop, almost bubble-gum at times, but what you hear on the radio is not based on what's good, or even what the public wants, but rather what the radio stations and record companies want the public to want. Take Guster and play their single every hour for a month at a time on a top 40 station, or an alternative station, or whatever Clearchannel is calling them nowawadays and people are going to buy it in droves.

Anyway, this argument is starting to get lame.
   28. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:19 AM (#611690)
This makes no sense to me. So if a band doesn't like a certain type of music because it's commercial, and therefore decides not to make commercial music, they have no artistic integrity?

No, in a vacuum, they wouldn't reject that sort of music. Their distaste for it is non-musical.

Look at Guster's comments on "Fa Fa," which turned out to be their biggest hit:

"Fa Fa hit the next level today, thanks to our new friend Karl Denson. I saw his band perform at the Fillmore last night (The Greyboy
Allstars) and he was laying saxophone tracks down on Fa Fa by noon today. After the last chorus we let the tape run, and with no
melodic orders from us, Karl decided to get jiggy with the outro -- he was like a bird finally liberated from the pop cage we'd
imprisoned him in... the solo was sweet and upon hearing it Karl refused to lay down another because the first take was so
inspired. We're just glad it's on OUR album." --from the studio journal at the time of recording

"It goes without saying that our label would like us to write some tunes of the 'hit song' variety. Mainly, we're just looking to write a couple up-tempo songs to complete the album. If we come up with a 'Rock the Casbah' or a 'Black Coffee in Bed' we will dance in the streets like giddy children. If we come up with a 'How You Remind Me' (I took a shot at Nickelback last time, and I'll do it again gladly!) or a 'Fa Fa' we'll sweep it back under the rug from which it came." --from the studio journal of the subsequent album

They liked Fa Fa before.

Anyway, this argument is starting to get lame.

No, this argument started lame, because it's based on arguing whether one set of opinions is superior to another.

"My objection is to people who think major-label bands are inherently worse or less meritorious, that condescend on people who like major-label music, or believe that major-label status or commercial success and integrity/artistic merit are mutually exclusive."

That's the statement I made that Sam took issue with. He apparently does one of these three things:

--thinks major-label bands are inherently worse or less meritorious

--condescends on people who like major-label music

--believes that major-label status or commercial success and integrity/artistic merit are mutually exclusive

If you think any of those things are worth arguing in favor of, then we'll probably have some issues. If you don't do any of those things, we're probably not very far apart, and have no reason to argue.
   29. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:19 AM (#611694)
"That's the statement I made that Sam took issue with. He apparently does one of these three things:

--thinks major-label bands are inherently worse or less meritorious

--condescends on people who like major-label music

--believes that major-label status or commercial success and integrity/artistic merit are mutually exclusive"


A, but with a small but significant caveat. IMHO, music is a deeply personal phenomena. Listening to music, making music, criticizing music, all of these things are incredibly internalized things, and as deeply personal, internalized things, they speak volumes about the person listening, criticizing or making the music. As such, I find that the people who toil to make their own music are more worthy of my monetary and moral support than those people who sign with corporate bohemoths.

It's the same reason I shop at local record shops and farmers markets whenever possible.

There is a lot of independent music that absolutely sucks. There is a lot of corporately sponsored music that is very good. But I prefer indie because of the ethics involved in the making of it.

YMMV, of course.
   30. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:19 AM (#611701)
That's reasonable, Sam; I have no objections to that.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Andere Richtingen
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3886 seconds
47 querie(s) executed