The Future Of Our CultureS [that's *plural*, Timothy]
Gregory Taylor
hallucination he refers to as the "thought police", has opted to present
his ah....controversial (I'm being polite. I could have said "ill conceived
and poorly articulated and argued") views as having a concern for
"the future of our culture" as its wellspring.
Here's a point where we probably are in some agreement. I'd say that my
own interest in the refinement of my subjective judgements as a listener
also has as a goal a concern for the social surrounding in which I find
myself (I always like the formulation "my own time" here). And while
I'm suspicious of anyone who seems as comfortable as Timothy is with
extrapolating an entire world full of persons making music from floor
2 of his dorm and a stack of Rush and REM records making pronouncements
about the "future" of culture [His idea of cultural progress would, I
suspect, be something that I'd have an equal amount of problem with],
His comments are, I think, worthy of some scrutiny.
>The only reason I have wasted considerable time on this thread is that
>I strongly feel that there is a serious problem in our culture when we
>are taught that art done by a machine = art done by a human being.
I suppose that you must, indeed, view discourse as "wasted" if you
don't win or dominate a discussion? It would seem that the only real
amount of clarification that I've really seen from you wasn't too
promising; you were, at some point, willing to begrudge us all a little
subjective content in music, but then quickly reverted to form by
heading off into the thickets with this "sub-music" canard. But I can
understand your reluctance to acknowledge that anyone could construct
a satisfying system other than your own, since you seem to honestly
believe that the only alternative to giving up your own 2nd floor
ethnocentrism would be to have "no values" and "no standards" at all.
As for art being done by a machine versus a human source, I'd simply
say that you're doing two things at once:
Your view of what constitutes "technology" is, at best, extremely
naive. All your REM records were the product of large amounts of
technology, which in many cases stitched together disparate performances
from disparate times and removed errors in the process. NO self-respecting
Indian musician or even a Jazz player would view that as a demonstration
of integrity. Further, the notion of what constitutes "technology" in
terms of a way of doing things (and that's what we mean when we use the
word) and the way that that interacts with the practice of doing things
whose results we call "music" is a vastly wider field. Some of the
previous interactions you seem to take entirely for granted (fortepianos,
the idea of the orchestra, solfege notation, the technology of recording
itself), despite the fact that they, too, heralded a "crisis in culture"
in their time.
I'd also suggest that your notion of "agency" might be drifting into
shark-infested waters here, too. Are you sure it might not be able to
claim that Peart's bass drum technique isn't just a case of his cheating
by using the technology of those spiffy new bass pedals? Finally, the
machine plays nothing - at least until the folks in Artificial Intelligence
get a *lot* better. There is still always a person on the other side of
the machine. And while the boundary at which intention is tranducted into
sound may not be as physical as you'd like, there's also the sense in
which that change also allows for things that might be interesting or
desireable *because* of the forms they use. You're just pissed because
they don't appeal to *you*.
>>The computer age has brought us a genuine cultural
>>crisis!
I'll say: it's gone a long way toward democratizing the enterprise
of making music, and that sounds like it's bad news on your floor.
As a channel of communication, there are now more people on the old
global party line - people you don't seem to like very much. I don't
think they're likely to go away. The cultural crisis is that you're
saddled with a genuinely inflexible view of how people make music and
how that music makes its way through an increasingly interconnected
world full of folks who don't all live on your floor or bow to you
in reverence just because you're in school in the northeast. Hey, I'm
sorry - but the crisis is here because you're unable to *deal* with
it. Some of the rest of us surf along just fine, and are having a ball
watching "non musicians" turn into "real musicians" and listening to
all that racket over the borders and gazing into the dim past, seeing
persons waving to us here in the future. I feel for you, guy. Comfort
yourself with the thought that the world has always been full of
folks predicting cultural "crises". A fair amount of them actually
centered around the "quality" music you seem so at ease with taking
for granted. They're either dead or off moping somewhere, and you still
got to grow up and take the historical stuff that made your fave bands
possible completely and unreflectively for granted *despite* their
dour pronouncements. Why not allow someone in your present or your
future the ability someday to claim that rap music is going down the
tubes because no one in the second decade of the 21st century cares
about the objectively provable virtues of "quality" and "music?"
>I only wish more people thought that the goal was making *good* music,
>not "How can we cut more corners?" or "How can we music in the easiest
>way possible?". The further we go in those directions, the more
>depersonalized our culture becomes...
Since you've defined the goals so narrowly and assumed that your goals
are universal, I'm not at all surprised that you "only wish." Would it
help you a bit to discover that there are, say, "talentless rap artists"
who spend quite a bit of their time making precisely that kind of comment
about fellow rap persons who only sample hooks from the most obvious
places instead of trying to create a music which takes into itself the
sampled "history" of the great American black music which preceded it?
Given your views, you're even likely to completely miss folks who
might have a little common ground with you.
And I'd be careful about slinging around the complaints about cultural
depersonalization a post or two after you divide the world into
"music" and "sub-music." I'd say that doing that is engaging rather
seriously in a bit of depersonalization yourself. The blade has two
edges, friend.
Finally, aren't the tastes of yours I've seen advertised, well....just
a little *easy*? You don't even need to leave the 2nd floor to hear
any of the stuff. If only listening to the music that the system (and
I mean either the system that feeds you REM and convinces you that you
and your 4 million other friends have "unique" tastes OR the more local
system that creates a cult of "quality" out of disgruntled Rush listeners
who claim that our stadium-rocking boys *haven't* sold out) feed you is
the best you can do, one might do well to label "ease" as being
necessarily evil.
You know, you're right. This thread is getting a bit wearying. Seems like
I'm patiently saying the same stuff over and over, and all I've really
managed is to wind up demonized as the "thought police." Is this stuff
*really* so difficult or hard to understand? Is the only way you can
understand something with which you disagree involves having it be
*wrong?*
--
As one who sees within a dream, and, later,/the passion that had been im-
printed stays,/but nothing of the rest returns to mind,/such am I, for my
vision almost fades/completely, yet it still distills within/my heart the
sweetness that was born of it. [Paradiso XXXIII:58] gtaylor/Madison, WI
Ralph Brandi
>>>The computer age has brought us a genuine cultural
>>>crisis!
>I'll say: it's gone a long way toward democratizing the enterprise
>of making music, and that sounds like it's bad news on your floor.
If anything, sound recording heralded a genuine cultural crisis. In
the days before Edison, music was something to be performed, not
consumed. Without CDs, television, radio, or gramophones, the only
way people could enjoy music was to *make* it themselves. And they
did, as they had for thousands of years. And they enjoyed it. It
didn't matter how many other people heard it, or how many years that
particular performance was remembered, or any of this bullshit.
The paradigm shift that occurred with the introduction of sound
recording largely made music making the province of professionals
(oh, sure, amateurs could sing in their local choirs or somesuch,
but that's not comparable to being in *U2*!), reducing the rest of
us to the status of mindless consumers of the product of
professionals. Today, we have our Best and Brightest arguing that
the people have no right to make music, that The One True Way is to
consume the product of "the proficient". I submit that if the
introduction of such unreal instruments returns the act of making
music to the non-professionals, this is all for the good, and simply
a return to the way things were before the cultural crisis brought
upon us by Edison. The past century of mere consumption of music
can go down in history as an aberration in the development of Man
and Culture.
--
Ralph Brandi ra...@mtunp.att.com att!mtunp!ralph "You're bound to be
stuck in no time at all in the midst of the Great Bazaar, surrounded by rich
and exotic foods in reckless abundance, screaming 'Where the hell are the Cheez
Doodles? I'll starve if I cannot find any Cheez Doodles!'" -gtaylor
Timothy J. Young
> >>>The computer age has brought us a genuine cultural
> >>>crisis!
>
> >I'll say: it's gone a long way toward democratizing the enterprise
> >of making music, and that sounds like it's bad news on your floor.
Sorry to be elitist here, but what is the value of art if *anyone* can
do it? I suspect it's zero. If everyone could play baseball as well as
Ryne Sandberg, would there be Major League Baseball? No. The issue is
not democracy, and quite frankly this "democratization" is bad news on
every floor of every building there is.
-Tim Young, Dartmouth College, Class of '96
If Dartmouth had these opinions, things would change fast...
"All of us get lost in the darkness ; dreamers learn to steer by the
stars..." - Rush (NOT Limbaugh!)
Andrew Farmer
> Sorry to be elitist here, but what is the value of art if *anyone* can
> do it? I suspect it's zero. If everyone could play baseball as well as
> Ryne Sandberg, would there be Major League Baseball? No. The issue is
> not democracy, and quite frankly this "democratization" is bad news on
> every floor of every building there is.
This attitude to "art" and "culture" is an elitist product of
Western European cultural thought. It is not an absolute, it is simply
one view of what art should be. It may well be a valid view but you
shouldn't fool yourself that it is the only view.
arf
Jeff Dauber
|> > In article <21...@heurikon.heurikon.com> gta...@vme.heurikon.com (Gregory Taylor) writes:
|> >
|> I observed :
|> > >>>The computer age has brought us a genuine cultural
|> > >>>crisis!
|> >
|> > >I'll say: it's gone a long way toward democratizing the enterprise
|> > >of making music, and that sounds like it's bad news on your floor.
|>
|> Sorry to be elitist here,
You need a brain to be elitist. People like you make me more of an elitist.
|> but what is the value of art if *anyone* can
|> do it?
Anyone can do art. That is the point.
|> I suspect it's zero. If everyone could play baseball as well as
|> Ryne Sandberg, would there be Major League Baseball?
Anyone can play baseball.... Anyone can create art.
FWA
Clayton Glad
>Sorry to be elitist here [...]
Now, master Young, disingenuousness does not become a musical
conservative and deuxi`eme e'tage dorm denizen of that most
sheltered of Ivies. You sell yourself short. Your elitism is
perhaps the only fully-formed aspect of your virtual personality.
Never apologize for this.
There's still some question, though, about which elite's mountaintop
you speak from. We're all SAT and GRE 99th percentilers here, so
that one doesn't seem so important anymore. Is it as Pearl Jam and
REM admirer that you are set apart from the rabble? In terms of
sheer numbers this club is "elite" in the same way that Michael
Bolton (to name a favorite of my own) and Kriss Kross (to revist
your favored nemesis) admirers are.
But you're aware of this. And we realize that it's not your taste
that marks you as a special individual, but the thought, emotion,
skill and sensitivity all of which come together in that grand
confluence of Timothy Young's Taste in Music.
It's just that you've really said very little about the nature of
these things and nothing at all about why they make you part of
an elite.
>[...] but what is the value of art if *anyone* can do it?
>I suspect it's zero.
Please allow some latitude for my own elitism and let me say
here what I've written in all too many margins: I'd really prefer
you to argue rather than merely to suspect.
But wait! Before you begin the rewrite you might want to look at
the question as you've begged it. You see, *anyone* CAN do it.
I was doing it on an admittedly tiny scale by singing "Lullaby of
Birdland" until the latest outburst of your internal censor spoiled
the mood. Kids do it, Pygmies do it, people who have never heard
of Czerny or even seen an episode of "Rockschool" do it.
I'm sure by now you've seen that your strategy ought to be to argue
that only *special*, *trained* - if you like, *elite* - individuals
can make GOOD art. You might consider broadening your paper to
include some discussion of philosophies of art which lay emphasis
on art-as-expression vis-a-vis those which are primarily concerned
with art-as-object. Extra credit for following up on the latter
philosophy, its bifurcation of artists and art consumers, and the
political economy which fostered it.
Open book. You're free to take that as a description of the exam
or simply as an imperative.
-- Clay
"People have limited viewpoints of what's rap, a
sonata, jazz, yougurt, paper bags."
-- Henry Threadgill
Mason Jones
>> In article <21...@heurikon.heurikon.com> gta...@vme.heurikon.com (Gregory Taylor) writes:
>>
>I observed :
>> >>>The computer age has brought us a genuine cultural
>> >>>crisis!
>>
>> >I'll say: it's gone a long way toward democratizing the enterprise
>> >of making music, and that sounds like it's bad news on your floor.
>
>Sorry to be elitist here, but what is the value of art if *anyone* can
>do it? I suspect it's zero. If everyone could play baseball as well as
>Ryne Sandberg, would there be Major League Baseball? No. The issue is
>not democracy, and quite frankly this "democratization" is bad news on
>every floor of every building there is.
Now wait a second. You continue to astonish. So let's postulate
that everybody on this newsgroup could record brilliant, beautiful
music. According to you, that would be horrible and would render
the value of this brilliant music nil. Well, frankly, you'd be
perfectly willing to wallow in your self-pitying angst while the
rest of us enjoy the good music.
This democratizing "bad news" will only affect the narrow-minded,
such as yourself, who deserve it.
Have a Dartmouth Day.
<===============================================================>
Mason Jones, Charnel House Productions, P.O. Box 170277,
San Francisco, CA 94117-0277 Phone/fax (415) 255-8554
ma...@netcom.com
<===============================================================>
C.J. Silverio
In article <C2zGD...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Timothy...@dartmouth.edu writes:
|Sorry to be elitist here, but what is the value of art if *anyone* can
|do it? I suspect it's zero.
That's it! Stop giving kindergarteners finger paints! Young
Timothy Young tells us that they're devaluing art by attempting
to make it themselves!
Really, we ought to license artists, and ticket people who make
art without a license. Raw materials should be available to
licensed artists only. I mean, we can't have just ANYONE trying
to write fiction, paint, or play music willy-nilly. They might
DEVALUE the works currently in young Timothy Young's
collection.
---
C J Silverio c...@sgi.com ce...@well.sf.ca.us
"One may be continually abusive without saying anything just; but one
cannot be always laughing at a man without now and then stumbling on
something witty." --Jane Austen
Ray Shea
>do it?
Exactly.
That is the value of art.
That anyone can do it.
>I suspect it's zero. If everyone could play baseball as well as
>Ryne Sandberg, would there be Major League Baseball?
Oh, I see. You want *stats*. Try rec.music.gdead.
--
Ray Shea "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm a cook!"
UniSQL, Inc. --Stubbs
unisql!r...@cs.utexas.edu
DoD #0372 -- Team Twinkie -- '88 Hawk NT650
dx
> I mean, we can't have just ANYONE trying
> to ... play music willy-nilly.
Look, CJ, Willy Nilly might not be the best guitarist to strum the
strings, but his records weren't without a certain primitive charm. I'm
not going to open up the entire Toejam Jawalaby thread again - though
just invoking his name is sure to prompt someone - but keep in mind
that Jawalaby was a great admirer (albeit from a big distance) of
Nilly's.
-dx
--
--
"There are some liberals that [sic] fail to respect diversity of opinion..."
--Timothy J. Young, talk.politics.misc, February 20, 1993
Gregory Taylor
>I'm sure by now you've seen that your strategy ought to be to argue
>that only *special*, *trained* - if you like, *elite* - individuals
>can make GOOD art. You might consider broadening your paper to
>include some discussion of philosophies of art which lay emphasis
>on art-as-expression vis-a-vis those which are primarily concerned
>with art-as-object. Extra credit for following up on the latter
>philosophy, its bifurcation of artists and art consumers, and the
>political economy which fostered it.
Activity at the netgod refreshment center has enjoyed a brief surge
now that - for whatever reason - the free improvisational philosopher
netgod has been lured from his hyperwing of the condo [which, incidentally
is a near precise duplicate of the Amsterdam hotel "de Filosoof", right
down to the black bikes chained to the stair railing]. I've even
taken the liberty of drawing myself a pint of Blackthorn's and settling
back to observe the opening volleys. I've noted this particular bit of
attentive silence recently only during episodes of "Prime Suspect."
We have the reissue of Fred Frith's "Guitar Solos, Vol. 1 and 2" on ESD
and Air at Montreaux and that Hat ART 4-disc Braxton playing quietly
in the background.
I Kant wait to see what happens next.
--
I could be happy now. From my seat in the airplane/I could imagine the full
enclosures of people/contented and with no needs beyond/private moments
walking the fenceline/before joining the others in the night enclosure
/that is the final shape of countries/G. A. Taylor/Heurikon/608-828-3385
in the process of being revised
Like a bolt from the blue, Timothy...@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young) wrote:
>Sorry to be elitist here, but what is the value of art if *anyone* can
>do it? I suspect it's zero. If everyone could play baseball as well as
>Ryne Sandberg, would there be Major League Baseball? No. The issue is
>not democracy, and quite frankly this "democratization" is bad news on
>every floor of every building there is.
Major League Baseball is a business built on the premise that very few
people can play baseball as well as Mr. Sandberg. If everyone could,
perhaps they would spend their time playing baseball themselves rather
than paying to watch others do so.
Would that represent the collapse of baseball? I hardly think so.
The baseball industry is not the same as baseball.
To drag this back to out of the swamps of analogy: I contend
that the value of art has little to do with the effort or difficulty
involved in creating it, but rather with the experience of the
listener/viewer/perceiver. So, if *anyone* can do it, that just means
there's more of it -- more "good", more "bad", and more "mediocre".
-- Stewart
--
"Well, then, you that is well now then."
-- Timothy Bowden (tcbo...@clovis.felton.ca.us)
/* uunet!sco!stewarte -or- stew...@sco.COM -or- Stewart Evans */
dx
> Activity at the netgod refreshment center has enjoyed a brief surge
> now that - for whatever reason - the free improvisational philosopher
> netgod has been lured from his hyperwing of the condo
Greg, you are SO easily impressed. Do I have to spell it out for you, or
will this clue suffice: notice that Clay reappeared just after the USA
Network's 4-day "Too Close For Comfort" marathon ended? Coincidence?
Malcolm Humes
>do it? I suspect it's zero.
Have you studied art at all? Ever heard of Warhol's Campbell's Soup
Cans? Oh, waitaminute, are we talking value (sale and resale $$$?) or
*value* as in some sort of social or historical impact? Either way,
you might want to read up on Warhol a bit for starters...
I'm glad you're finally starting to apologize though, and I'm very happy
to have crossposted my follow-up to the BEE GEE'S RULE post on
alt.rock'n'roll here sparking this wonderful thread... I confess, it
was an experiment that seems to have gone awry.
Anyway, som e food for pondering on the sampling issue - one piece
I've been working on for the last week lifts segments od recordings
up to minutes in length - recordings that I had no act in the creation of
despite my poiting a microphone and choosing how to edit the material and
develop it. It's an epic based on a recording of my shower dripping,
to which I've also added some recordings of slowed down wind chimes,
and, the best part to me yet, recordings of my landlord's dog howling
along to fire sirens. He has this thing where he mimics the firetrucks
as the go by. So I'm juxtaposing these elements. Is it music? It is
to me - the material is very interesting in an odd way. I've "composed"
it to the extent of arranging and choosing instruments in space and
time. I've taken it a step further and improvised some piano and some
detuned sorta-dubby bass to some parts. And I got a drummer/percussionist
to listen to and play along with 22.5 minutes of dripping faucet,
improvising more material for me to refine as I select a few minutes of
finished, refined improvisational compostions to be cleaned up then
and mixed into some finished "music" for me to submit for some compilation
tape or to enjoy myself and share with muy friends.
So, am I stealing by using the dripping shower or the landlord's dog?
To me it's an interesting choice of non-drum machine based metronome-
like rhythms and the "samples" of the dog are uniquely organic elements
of the piece. You probably wouldn't like it, but some folks probably
will. My next step may be to add some guitar, and maybe synthesizer...
- Malcolm
Clayton Glad
> Activity at the netgod refreshment center has enjoyed a brief surge
> now that - for whatever reason - the free improvisational philosopher
> netgod has been lured from his hyperwing of the condo [which, incidentally
> is a near precise duplicate of the Amsterdam hotel "de Filosoof", right
> down to the black bikes chained to the stair railing].
Brother dx writes:
>Greg, you are SO easily impressed. Do I have to spell it out for you, or
>will this clue suffice: notice that Clay reappeared just after the USA
>Network's 4-day "Too Close For Comfort" marathon ended? Coincidence?
Very funny, guys. As Brother Ray will attest that last Pernod
fintoozler he blended for me induced greater neurological deficit
than even he intended. As a result I've been lying on that comfy
leather sofa of life Erland had shipped in from Sweden last month.
And to whichever of you (Greg?) thought it might be funny to open
Ted Adorno's _Eintleitung in die Musiksoziologie_ to the comments
on jazz and place it under my sleeping hand: ha ha.
Of course it's always nice to wake up to Willisau, but who has
the Nancarrow cued up? With all the discussion about emotional
expession I thought that someone would have traded these in for
some Roger Waters albums by now.
I also think it's time we reviewed Ray's status as refreshment
czar. I'm doing well but Bros. R o d and Andrew haven't uttered
a word in weeks. And that Fred kid who used to come 'round to
collect empties has been missing since Ray mixed him his 90's
version of the Shirley Temple, something Ray likes to call his
Drew Barrymore.
Richard Caley
tjy> Sorry to be elitist here, but what is the value of art if *anyone* can
tjy> do it? I suspect it's zero.
That isn't elitist, simply a little out of date. Starving artists in
garrets are a little pass'e.
tjy> If everyone could play baseball as well as Ryne Sandberg, would
tjy> there be Major League Baseball?
Would this be a loss? :-|
Hell, anyone _can_ play cricket as well as the current England team,
that doesn't seem to stop them going on tour. :-)
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Ray Shea
>
>Very funny, guys. As Brother Ray will attest that last Pernod
>fintoozler he blended for me induced greater neurological deficit
>than even he intended.
Look, Clay, I warned you that if you wanted me to mix you one of my
"specials" after you'd spent all afternoon under the sunlamp sucking
down grappa & Chunky Monkey frappes that you get what you deserve.
And no, I will *not* turn down the Frank Marino until you get your
dirty socks off the coffee table.
--
Ray Shea "People like you make me more of an elitist."
UniSQL, Inc. --Jeff Dauber
Gregory Taylor
>c...@sgi.com...
>I'm
>not going to open up the entire Toejam Jawalaby thread again - though
>just invoking his name is sure to prompt someone - but keep in mind
>that Jawalaby was a great admirer (albeit from a big distance) of
>Nilly's.
And let's take just a moment for the *really* longtime net readers to
raise our glasses to the net's foremost authority on Jawalaby [didn't
he change his name when he converted to the Nation of Islam? I know
that Gil-Scott Heron samples him *all* the time], Rich Rosen. And
while thinking back on Mr. Rosen's celebrated style and form, I'm now
thinking that this must, indeed, be a kinder, gentler net: Had Timothy
ventured forth with the self-assured stuff that at least some of us
are now replying so patiently to in the days before Rich detached his
wing of the netgod condo and extruded it into other 3spaces, most of
Dartmouth itself would be a smoldering crater with a couple of fused
T1 lines hanging over the edge.
A toast to Mr. Rosen, and the other *.music.* netgods who have preceded
us. L'chaim.
James Jones
>Sorry to be elitist here, but what is the value of art if *anyone* can
>do it? I suspect it's zero. If everyone could play baseball as well as
>Ryne Sandberg, would there be Major League Baseball? No. The issue is
>not democracy, and quite frankly this "democratization" is bad news on
>every floor of every building there is.
Elitist, or not all that familiar with music history? Read the intro to
Thomas Morley's *A Plain and Easy Introduction to Practical Music*. It's
only relatively recently that music became mostly for specialists. A lot
of music in Morley's era was written with performance by amateurs in mind.
Do you consider the English madrigalists' work of zero value? I don't.
(Admittedly, since the '92 election, it's harder to make any rhetorical
points by asking current world leaders are as musically talented as,
say, Henry VIII or Elizabeth I... :-)
James Jones
Andrew Rogers
>
>And let's take just a moment for the *really* longtime net readers to
Ah, yes, Rich Rosen... known as "the James Brown of net.music" because of all
his famous flames! Yes, I remember the "Toejam Jawallaby vs. Fantastic
Goodvibe Rhythm Boys" flamefest quite well, although for someone who claims
to be an authority RR was hesitant to acknowledge one of Toejam Jawallaby's
primary influences: Myron Sodfinger of the Barons IV (the third- or fourth-
best garage band in Butte, Montana [at least during the last half of 1965]).
AWR
insulting net.audiences with self-indulgent rantings for 10 years next week
dx
> ... although for someone who claims
> to be an authority RR was hesitant to acknowledge one of Toejam Jawallaby's
> primary influences: Myron Sodfinger of the Barons IV (the third- or fourth-
> best garage band in Butte, Montana [at least during the last half of 1965]).
Maybe Rich Rosen (and really, aren't we all Rich Rosen?) wouldn't admit to
Sodfinger's influence, but Jawalaby (and I'm *still* disputing the spelling
of his last name) sure did. In one of his last interviews for radio (cf:
"Rodney on the ROQ on the ROQs"), he not only spoke of Sodfinger, but played
some rare, unreleased demo takes of the Barons IV's "Barbie Does It." These
are *not* the rehersal tapes that AIP released on their "Tiny Stones" series
("Tiny Stones, Vol. 5: Rehersal Tapes of the Mid-West"), but complete demo
versions, apparently recorded before the Barons recorded their master take.
What's always struck me as odd, is that the lore was that "Barbie Does It"
was the classic one-take wonder.
-dx
--
--
"You're a total sociopath in your own right!" --David Baggett