From: Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
To: Recipients of SOMMS digests <SOMMS@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  SOMMS Digest - 27 May 1999 to 28 May 1999
Date: Friday, May 28, 1999 2:01 AM

There are 18 messages totalling 680 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. THEY ARE NOT OLD!!! (3)
  2. kerrang interview
  3. From the June edition of Alternative Press
  4. Reading fest
  5. christiiiiii (2)
  6. Question (7)
  7. Question [longish response]
  8. Christi's story
  9. <No subject given>

To UNSUBSCRIBE from SOMMS, send email to LISTSERV@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
with the following in the body of your message:

			    SIGNOFF SOMMS

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 03:51:21 EDT
From:    Mike Liacone <LimoWreck5@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: THEY ARE NOT OLD!!!

lets think about it, before you lecture me and question the integrity of my
love for the band.  kim is 39 years old.  matt is 37 i think, chris is 35??
and ben is 301?  it doesnt seem old now, but how long will it take, after
deciding to reunite, to put out an album?  id have to sayin about 4 years,
they could release an album.  then kim would be 44, matt 41, who knows what
chris's voice is gonna be like at age 39.  so youre right, theyre not old,
and i never said they were.  but THEY ARE getting there.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 02:12:06 -0700
From:    alexandre nanoglou <alexkickstand@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: kerrang interview

Cornell: "We might reform!"

Chris Cornell, the former Soundgarden frontman, has sensationally
suggested that the band may one day reunite. In 1997 the Seattle grunge
gods chose to disband after 13 years, while their fifth album, Down On
The Upside, was still riding high in charts around the world. Speaking
exclusively to Kerrang!, Cornell pondered the possibility of the band
reforming: " Everybody still likes everybody," he said, "so it's
totally plausible that we'll make another record whenever we want. It's
not like one guy punched another guy and you haven't talked to them in
eight years. I think as soon as everybody feels equally enthusiastic
about it, we'll probably do something." Cornell's debut solo album,
which features ex-Soundgarden drummer Matt Cameron on one track, is
currently untitled and will hit the shops in September, UK dates are
presently scheduled for October.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 02:14:56 -0700
From:    alexandre nanoglou <alexkickstand@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: From the June edition of Alternative Press

Music is so wide open," said Chris Cornell last fall. "It blows me away
how bands meander around the same territory for years." Soundgarden
fans familiar with the band's more melodic moments shouldn't be
surprised by Cornell's solo album, but they will be regardless. His
former band's "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds"-styled hit "Black Hole
Sun" is the Rosetta Stone here, but that key only gets you so far.
Songs such as "Can't Change Me," "Preaching The End Of The World" and
"Wave Goodbye" mix subtle studio experimentation with classic pop song
writing in the vein of Cornell's late friend Jeff Buckley,
Aftermath-era Rolling Stones and Physical Graffiti-era Led Zeppelin.
Yep, he still can't escape the latter comparison, but who'd want to? "

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 11:14:30 +0200
From:    Pablo Campoy <pablo@333GRUP3.ES>
Subject: Re: THEY ARE NOT OLD!!!

At 03:51 27/05/99 EDT, you wrote:
Mike Liacone wrote:

>kim is 39 years old.  matt is 37 i think, chris is 35??
>and ben is 301?

woww !!! And you think Ben is not old enough????? :)

Pablo

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 05:00:26 PDT
From:    Ryan Gilbert <fopp10@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Reading fest

where can I get this reading fest bootleg that Christi is on?


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 08:35:22 -0500
From:    Kendrick Kay <kay@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: christiiiiii

hmmmm..  seems like a few people are desperate to hear christi (or is it
christy?).  anyway, so i dug this up from a while back when i encoded it
for my server.  it's pretty decent quality, but i'm not sure what sort of
generation cassette I had.

go to:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~kay/christi.mp3

and again, if you want boots or something like that, check out
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~kay/sg.txt

later.  and enjoy.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 12:44:18 -0400
From:    Kim <ekim@BU.EDU>
Subject: Re: THEY ARE NOT OLD!!!

It isn't really about how old they are, but how they carry themselves in
their later years. As a rock musician, you have to reinvent yourself as
you get older, otherwise you look like an old man trying to chug out the
'same-ole, same-ole' music.  Take Aerosmith for instance.  They should
have retired twenty years ago, but instead continue to churn out the same
crap, albeit heavily watered down.  Metallica understood that they
couldn't keep playing thrash all their lives.  Now they're kind of a
bluesy hard rock band with a metal edge.  Pearl Jam doesn't really write
angst-ridden, raucous arena anthems, but lean towards softer, more
atmospheric music.  Eric Clapton is another prime example.  He went from
playing the blistering 'Crossroads' with Cream back in his youth, to a few
years ago with his soft-spoken, heartfelt Unplugged set.  If Soundgarden
did reform for a new album, it's not about how old they are, but what they
write.  'Down on the Upside' was a pretty good example of how they were in
a transition phase.  Granted, there were some balls-to-the-wall songs,
like 'Ty Cobb' and 'Never the Machine Forever,' but they also gave us
softer, introspective songs like 'Zero Chance' and 'Switch Opens.'  If
managed to put out a new album that was softer, yet retained the emotion
and maturity of 'Boot Camp,' I'd be completely satisfied.

-Elliott

"I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class.  Especially
since I rule." -Randal Graves, 'Clerks'

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 14:03:04 -0300
From:    Psycho <psycho@ALPHANET.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: christiiiiii

thank you very much for the mp3...

christi is like mailman, but its slower... kick ass

-psycho


>hmmmm..  seems like a few people are desperate to hear christi (or is it
>christy?).  anyway, so i dug this up from a while back when i encoded it
>for my server.  it's pretty decent quality, but i'm not sure what sort of
>generation cassette I had.
>go to:
>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~kay/christi.mp3
>and again, if you want boots or something like that, check out
>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~kay/sg.txt
>later.  and enjoy.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 15:22:46 -0700
From:    Dave Brener <davebrener@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Question

Does anyone know of any Metallica mailing lists like
SOMMS?  Also, I disagree with the earlier e-mail
stating that Metallica knew they couldn't play speed
metal all their lives, so instead changed their style.
 While Load and Reload certainly showcase a more poppy
Metallica, their musical compositions lack the sort of
energy that was heard on seminal albums like Ride the
Lightening and Master of Puppets.  I tend to believe
that Metallica changed their style to appeal to a
younger generation, and they are now tending to lean
toward their hard, metal edge again with the release
of their latest album, Garage Inc.  Soundgarden, if
they ever record together again, would most likely try
to appeal to the young record buying public, so of
course they would change their sound.  Will they sound
like the crappy bands out there today like Blink 182
and Semisonic?  I doubt it.  There is always something
to be said for a band that changes their sound, but it
is not always successful.  In closing, I highly doubt
that a band changes it's sound due to anything other
than what they think will make them more money.  This
does not mean that they sold out, but it does signal a
trend toward placating the consumer.  Let me know what
you think about this interesting topic.
                                   DB
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 19:15:27 EDT
From:    Matt Hammons <Nothng2Say@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Question

In a message dated 5/27/1999 3:24:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
davebrener@YAHOO.COM writes:

<< In closing, I highly doubt
 that a band changes it's sound due to anything other
 than what they think will make them more money.  This
 does not mean that they sold out, but it does signal a
 trend toward placating the consumer.  Let me know what
 you think about this interesting topic. >>

Spoken like a true non-musician!

I disagree wholeheartedly in too many ways to go into.  Let me give examples.
 The Beatles:  Could have gone on writing albums that just rehashed "She
Loves You," and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" but this became monotonous for them.
 They explored and expanded because they wanted to.  They could have just as
easily pandered to the whims of the millions of screaming girls but they
didn't.
Then Look at the Backdoor Boys, they haven't changed their sound at all
between albums, because they know the same inbred mouth-breathers will buy
their new album because it sounds like the old one.  So I say the opposite of
what you say is true.
Consider Pearl Jam and Radiohead
We could have had 5 albums worth of "Jeremy"s and "Creep"s but we didn't.
Changed sound? Definitely.  For Money? Definitely not.

My two cents
(Disclaimer: Those two cents are actually the same type of rare pennies that
the mean Channel 6 guy gave to the bum in UHF, so in fact they are worth
thousands of dollars.)

Matt Hammons
Had to work the Weird Al reference in somehow

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 20:18:35 EDT
From:    Niki Freer <GrrlGoal30@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Question [longish response]

the instigator Dave brenner wrote:

<< In closing, I highly doubt
 that a band changes it's sound due to anything other
 than what they think will make them more money.  This
 does not mean that they sold out, but it does signal a
 trend toward placating the consumer.  Let me know what
 you think about this interesting topic. >>


 Ok, here is what i think then. Respectable bands do not change their sound
to sell albums. Mudhoney, for example, sounds a load different now than they
did back in 1988 when they had just formed. They're not ripping out fast
paced energetic songs like the popular "Touch Me, I'm sick" and "You Got it."
They're doing these slow moving, dredging songs like "beneath the valley of
the underdogs" that just drones and drones and to most people, sucks.
"Tomorrow Hit Today" has sold not too well, from what i've heard.

Same with Pearl jam [though i know some of you hate these guys]. If they
wanted to sell a bunch of albums, they'd have written "Jeremy" and "even
flow" about 60 more times. they didn't. "No Code" was a flop.

Soundgarden sold records as a band like "Gun" and "Nothing to Say" and
"Beyond the Wheel." They were nominated for a Grammy. These guys didn't
change to sell records, because they didn't have to. They were selling. It's
called progression.

JUST BECAUSE the trends change with the weather, doesn't mean Soundgarden or
any reputable band [aka- NOT the offspring] have changed to suit the trend.
They were selling records as Badmotorfinger and as Superunknown. They made
very good albums without really changing all that much at the same time as
the world went "hey! nirvana!"

You'd think, if they wanted to sell another 10 million albums, they'd have
re-created SU. Nope, they branched into DOTU. And it was a vertiable
disappointment by todays standards [which i don't agree with- 2 million+
albums is still great in my eyes]. They'd have done an album worth of SKA
music had they wanted to bend towards the radio / public's trend in 1996.

Even Led Zeppelin changed their sound over the years. So did the Beatles. I
mean, they went from "I Want to Hold Your Hand" to Sgt. Peppers. That was not
a money making ploy. They were musicians testing the limits of their
creativity.

You're not an angry youth forever, really. Maturity comes, and you understand
certian things better. Screaming isn't always the best voice for songs.
Soundgarden was never that one-dimensional, that all their songs were
screamers or all their songs were crooners. Even Nirvana was changing when
Kurt died. They were headed towards a softer sound. Change is not always for
album sales, Change is not always for "selling out," and Change does not
always suit the radio listener.

Unless, of course, you're talking about Vanilla Ice.

  mindriot

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 17:28:29 -0700
From:    "J.C." <solipsist79@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Question

Not to start a flame war or anything, but I think
you're full of crap!  And fancy, you call yourself a
Soundgarden fan.  You obviously have no clue as to
what they are about.  One of the main reason's the
band broke up in the first place was because of a lack
of the creative spark.  The only reason to keep
Soundgarden going would have been to make money, that
is not what they are about.  If all they wanted was to
make money, then Down on the Upside would have been
full of 'Black Hole Sun' rehash's.

Jay.

--- Dave Brener <davebrener@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> Does anyone know of any Metallica mailing lists like
> SOMMS?  Also, I disagree with the earlier e-mail
> stating that Metallica knew they couldn't play speed
> metal all their lives, so instead changed their
> style.
>  While Load and Reload certainly showcase a more
> poppy
> Metallica, their musical compositions lack the sort
> of
> energy that was heard on seminal albums like Ride
> the
> Lightening and Master of Puppets.  I tend to believe
> that Metallica changed their style to appeal to a
> younger generation, and they are now tending to lean
> toward their hard, metal edge again with the release
> of their latest album, Garage Inc.  Soundgarden, if
> they ever record together again, would most likely
> try
> to appeal to the young record buying public, so of
> course they would change their sound.  Will they
> sound
> like the crappy bands out there today like Blink 182
> and Semisonic?  I doubt it.  There is always
> something
> to be said for a band that changes their sound, but
> it
> is not always successful.  In closing, I highly
> doubt
> that a band changes it's sound due to anything other
> than what they think will make them more money.
> This
> does not mean that they sold out, but it does signal
> a
> trend toward placating the consumer.  Let me know
> what
> you think about this interesting topic.
>                                    DB
>
_________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

===
If this doesn't make you smile,
 you don't have to cry
If this isn't making sense,
 it doesn't make it lies.

Superunknown, Soundgarden.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 17:56:56 PDT
From:    Ryan Gilbert <fopp10@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Question

I think the reason most hard rock and metal bands get softer is because of
their change in lifestyle, not their age or their attempts to appeal to a
new audience.  When SG started as a band, they were all poor and struggling
to get by; and their songs were probably inspired by the anger and
frustration they felt as a result of their hard lifestyle.  After a few
albums, they became more popular and got lots of money.  The songs gradually
got less bleak and angry.  You have no real reason to hate the world anymore
if you're a rich, famous rock star with millions of fans and platinum
records (unless you're Curt Cobain).  The style of music changed but the
quality got better over the years.  So if Soundgarden did decide to put out
another album, people wouldn't listen to it and say "Man, these guys are too
old to keep rocking." They would think of how much progression the band has
made over the years.  I know I would.  Peace everyone!
-RPG-


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 28 May 1999 01:07:37 GMT
From:    -The Cat- <the_cat17@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Christi's story

Somebody said that the studio version of Christi needed vocals. What
happened? If it was recorded during the DotU sessions, then how come the
song never recieved any vocals?



/\ /\
'o'   -The Cat-

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  The Ask The Cat page:
http://come.to/askthecat
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=







_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 28 May 1999 12:41:17 +1000
From:    Greg Essex <g.essex@ADFA.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Question

<< In closing, I highly doubt
that a band changes it's sound due to anything other
than what they think will make them more money.  This
does not mean that they sold out, but it does signal a
trend toward placating the consumer.  Let me know what
you think about this interesting topic. >>
<<Consider Pearl Jam and Radiohead>>

Also smashing pumpkins, and they're fairly sold out compaired to pearl jam
and soundgarden.  I think Billy Corgan put it well when he said it's counter
productive to change your sound, everyone likes the music you played, you
sound heaps of records doing that, then why change???

THanks
Greg essex


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Hammons <Nothng2Say@AOL.COM>
To: SOMMS@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <SOMMS@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Friday, 28 May 1999 9:19
Subject: Re: Question


>In a message dated 5/27/1999 3:24:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>davebrener@YAHOO.COM writes:
>
><< In closing, I highly doubt
> that a band changes it's sound due to anything other
> than what they think will make them more money.  This
> does not mean that they sold out, but it does signal a
> trend toward placating the consumer.  Let me know what
> you think about this interesting topic. >>
>
>Spoken like a true non-musician!
>
>I disagree wholeheartedly in too many ways to go into.  Let me give
examples.
> The Beatles:  Could have gone on writing albums that just rehashed "She
>Loves You," and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" but this became monotonous for
them.
> They explored and expanded because they wanted to.  They could have just
as
>easily pandered to the whims of the millions of screaming girls but they
>didn't.
>Then Look at the Backdoor Boys, they haven't changed their sound at all
>between albums, because they know the same inbred mouth-breathers will buy
>their new album because it sounds like the old one.  So I say the opposite
of
>what you say is true.
>Consider Pearl Jam and Radiohead
>We could have had 5 albums worth of "Jeremy"s and "Creep"s but we didn't.
>Changed sound? Definitely.  For Money? Definitely not.
>
>My two cents
>(Disclaimer: Those two cents are actually the same type of rare pennies
that
>the mean Channel 6 guy gave to the bum in UHF, so in fact they are worth
>thousands of dollars.)
>
>Matt Hammons
>Had to work the Weird Al reference in somehow
>

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 28 May 1999 12:48:42 +1000
From:    Greg Essex <g.essex@ADFA.EDU.AU>
Subject: <No subject given>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BEA908.6A482CA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<<.  After a few albums, they became more popular and got lots of money. =
 The songs gradually got less bleak and angry.  You have no real reason =
to hate the world anymore
if you're a rich, famous rock star with millions of fans and platinum =
records (unless you're Curt Cobain).>>

I disagree with this to an extent.  Money can't buy you happiness, and I =
don't think being a famous "rock star" would be all that great either... =
 It would be nice to know so may people like your music but, you would =
also loose a lot, like privacy.  You couldn't just walk around without =
people staring at you...  Anyway, there's songs of Down on the Upside =
that are depressive, Zero Chance, Boot Camp...

Thanks for listening...

Greg Essex

E-Mail: g.essex@adfa.edu.au
            yield2pj@sydney.crosswinds.net
            yield2pj@hotmail.com
Home Page: http://members.xoom.com/Yield2/index.html
ICQ no: 10416357


------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BEA908.6A482CA0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3401" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#c0e0c0>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>&lt;&lt;.&nbsp; After a few albums, =
they became=20
more popular and got lots of money.&nbsp; The songs gradually got less =
bleak and=20
angry.&nbsp; You have no real reason to hate the world anymore<BR>if =
you're a=20
rich, famous rock star with millions of fans and platinum records =
(unless you're=20
Curt Cobain).&gt;&gt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I disagree with this to an =
extent.&nbsp; Money=20
can't buy you happiness, and I don't think being a famous "rock star" =
would be=20
all that great either...&nbsp; It would be nice to know so may people =
like your=20
music but, you would also loose a lot, like privacy.&nbsp; You couldn't =
just=20
walk around without&nbsp;people staring at you...&nbsp; Anyway, there's =
songs of=20
Down on the Upside that are depressive, Zero Chance, Boot =
Camp...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Thanks for listening...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Greg Essex</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>E-Mail: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:g.essex@adfa.edu.au">g.essex@adfa.edu.au</A><BR>&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
<A=20
href=3D"mailto:yield2pj@sydney.crosswinds.net">yield2pj@sydney.crosswinds=
.net</A><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;=20
<A href=3D"mailto:yield2pj@hotmail.com">yield2pj@hotmail.com</A><BR>Home =
Page: <A=20
href=3D"http://members.xoom.com/Yield2/index.html">http://members.xoom.co=
m/Yield2/index.html</A><BR>ICQ=20
no: 10416357<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BEA908.6A482CA0--

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 28 May 1999 01:18:21 EDT
From:    Kathleen Burrows <SokJunky55@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Question

<< Also smashing pumpkins, and they're fairly sold out compaired to pearl jam
 and soundgarden. >>

i think almost everyone knows that on this list.  shit, i've talked to many
an SP fan, and they themselves have said the same thing.  all i really have
to say is that when a band "changes their sound" you can tell if it's for
their disire or for the money.   well, i guess it depends on the band really.
 hmms.  oh well.

peace, love, hope, faith, soup
and
s o u n d g a r d e n
always groovy,
kathleen : ))
************************************
http://welcome.to/thecletuszine

ps:  much thanks to all the people who helped me out on info with the Christi
stuff and the Kerrang! article!!   you all rok my soks!!  : )

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 28 May 1999 01:23:03 EDT
From:    Nick Boos <SubPop77@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Question

In a message dated 5/27/99 7:45:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
g.essex@ADFA.EDU.AU writes:

> I think Billy Corgan put it well when he said it's counter
>  productive to change your sound, everyone likes the music you played, you
>  sound heaps of records doing that, then why change???

This coming from Billy Corgan who practically reinvented the SP on their new
album, cause the didn't want to be lumped together with the "grunge" bands
that got them where they are in the first place. Take your own advice and
play what people like Billy, but it will still suck, even it you have gods
drummer recording stuff with you. Billy can shove it up has his. But we've
had this discussion before I think, so ill stop.

-Nick aka Spackle

------------------------------

End of SOMMS Digest - 27 May 1999 to 28 May 1999
************************************************