From harold.johnson at gmail.com Fri Mar 9 09:08:09 2007 From: harold.johnson at gmail.com (Harold Johnson) Date: Fri Mar 9 09:10:17 2007 Subject: [joe-frank-list] Re: RE: Ira Glass etc (Steve Schneider) In-Reply-To: <a6b511520702201030r354cadfesb9de585d7535a991@mail.gmail.com> References: <a6b511520702201030r354cadfesb9de585d7535a991@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2dbaf4d80703090908o4d191df7se2c3292d21b4dcce@mail.gmail.com> I wanted to add to this conversation before it's brought up again in a future post and in another context, as it most surely will. I understand what you're saying and I agree with most of it -- This American Life is certainly "safe" and boring by comparison with Joe Frank's work. Yet I disagree that reason is abandoned in Joe's shows. This may be a small point for me to contest, but I sense that Joe's shows are highly-edited and controlled environments, and I still feel "safe" within his boundaries. (That is, within his shows' boundaries; I'm not certain I could actually tolerate being within Joe's boundaries. That's a joke, folks.) I'm not trying to miss the point here; I understand you're simply differentiating between Glass' and Frank's styles. I just think this is an intersting aspect of Joe's work, the sense that "anything can happen". There certainly is that sense, the sense that you could next be listening (or *not* listening) to an interview with a mime -- in other words, a minute or two of dead air -- as Joe once presented us with, decades ago. Or the sense that we'll find a preacher arguing violently with Joe about religion, "casting dispersions", LOL...Or that we'll find ourselves wondering if Joe is saying goodbye to his work in a show titled "Goodbye". Yet all this is still contained within a "safe" environment, thankfully -- a higly-polished and produced work of art that never completely lapses into an anarchistic shit-on-your-face "performance art". (Though I do dig performance art, and consider Joe somewhat of a performance artist, I prefer his more reasonable approach to the form, if I can say that without sounding like an asshole.) Harold http://somethingthathappened.com On 2/20/07, Sam Holland <sam.holland@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think Ira Glass could fairly be called derivative except in > the broadest possible sense, but his show is much less interesting > than Joe Frank's. I often have conversations with people who are fans > of This American Life--I don't know anyone who listens to NPR who > doesn't at least claim to be a listener--and they're always very > enthusiastic, and they want to talk about the show, and talk about > what a visionary radio producer Ira Glass is. And I always tell them > that I think This American Life is boring by comparison. > > TAL is "safe" in the way that NPR is "safe." At least--and I might be > completely wrong on this--the way I perceive it: that even when > addressing dark or unsettling subject matter, I never lose the sense > that I'm listening to the voice of reason, the authoritative tone. Am > I talking out of my ass? And on Joe Frank's show, anything could > happen. Reason is abandoned. I might be listening to an entire > episode's worth of lunatic ranting. The only thing I'm really sure of > is that it's going to be either sixty or thirty minutes long. I don't > get that from Ira Glass. And I don't really feel that Glass is an > artist so much as an editor or curator, presiding over the > storytelling equivalent of Sound and Spirit. > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:49:47 -0500 > > From: "Steve Schneider" <scs1@theavocadopapers.com> > > Subject: RE: [joe-frank-list] Ira Glass etc > > To: "'Joe Frank Mailing List'" <joe-frank-list@armory.com> > > Message-ID: > > <200702182049.l1IKnuCo018370@svcstatl08.hotspot.t-mobile.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Re the last few posts about TAL and Ira Glass: This American Life is a > > fantastic show. I don't know what "edgy" even means (or "abstract," for > > that matter); what I do know is that, like Joe Frank's work, TAL is > > ground-breaking radio. But they're utterly different! I have never, > once, > > sensed that Glass was trying to emulate or rip off JF. TAL seems to me > to > > be essentially a magazine: two, three, or rour features reported on by > > various producers, with the occasional fiction thrown in (e.g. D. > Sedaris > > reading a short story). JF's shows are simply nothing like that, and > I'm > > referring to any of his formats: the "reality" shows such as the Karma > > series; the improvised, highly edited radio dramas; the fictional > > monologues; the non-fictional monologues such as "No Show"; and so on. > > > > I have seen Glass credit JF at least twice (which is nice, although I'm > not > > entirely sure that he owes much artistically to JF). When JF has > mentioned > > Glass, there has been a tinge of annoyance or jealousy, and frankly I'm > not > > sure why. As far as the "God, I really hate David Sedaris and Ira > Glass, > > those two miserable geeks, those wretched freaks. They should move in > > together, adopt children, leave the country, maybe go to mars. What do > you > > think?" quote, which I believe starts off the women-police-officer show: > are > > we really supposed to take that 100% seriously? Especially in a show > > devoted to getting a rise out of people and especially women (by > suggesting > > that women are not fit to be police officers)? In another, he complains > > about the phenomenal (by public-radio standards) success of TAL, but in > that > > piece, he seems to me to be complaining mostly about the lack of support > > that his show gets (from KCRW, I guess). I've never sensed any real > > animosity towards Glass from JF. With most of JF, a lot is open to > > interpretation, of course... > > > > Look, I basically spent half of 2004 and most of 2005 working through > the JF > > shows -- to the extent that I didn't even read many books during that > time. > > I must have listened to some of the shows 30 times. I'm a huge admirer. > > But only on a JF mailing list could Ira Glass be seen as a sell-out, or > as > > being too mainstream. (Not that this post is, necessarily, saying that, > but > > I've seen a lot of bitterness directed towards Glass -- which is funny: > I > > doubt there would be any of that were it not for the coincidence that IG > was > > an intern for JF long, long ago). > > > > I guess what I'd like to know is, what do people think that Glass > "stole" > > from JF? What things? Specifically? > > > > -- Steve. > _______________________________________________ > Joe Frank Mailing List > joe-frank-list@armory.com > http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.armory.com/pipermail/joe-frank-list/attachments/20070309/5f1b88c7/attachment.htm From scs1 at theavocadopapers.com Fri Mar 9 11:28:13 2007 From: scs1 at theavocadopapers.com (Steve Schneider) Date: Fri Mar 9 11:29:17 2007 Subject: [joe-frank-list] Re: RE: Ira Glass etc (Steve Schneider) In-Reply-To: <2dbaf4d80703090908o4d191df7se2c3292d21b4dcce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200703091129.aa22250@deepthought.armory.com> I agree -- Reality is altered (as it is in Star Trek, Hamlet, etc.), but there's an internal logic that allows us to suspend disbelief "safely" (maybe another way of saying what you're saying is that you "trust" JF to work within the "rules" he sets for himself -- on a per-show basis, because certainly the "rules" change from show to show). -- S. _____ From: joe-frank-list-bounces@armory.com [mailto:joe-frank-list-bounces@armory.com] On Behalf Of Harold Johnson Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:08 PM To: Joe Frank Mailing List Subject: Re: [joe-frank-list] Re: RE: Ira Glass etc (Steve Schneider) I wanted to add to this conversation before it's brought up again in a future post and in another context, as it most surely will. I understand what you're saying and I agree with most of it -- This American Life is certainly "safe" and boring by comparison with Joe Frank's work. Yet I disagree that reason is abandoned in Joe's shows. This may be a small point for me to contest, but I sense that Joe's shows are highly-edited and controlled environments, and I still feel "safe" within his boundaries. (That is, within his shows' boundaries; I'm not certain I could actually tolerate being within Joe's boundaries. That's a joke, folks.) I'm not trying to miss the point here; I understand you're simply differentiating between Glass' and Frank's styles. I just think this is an intersting aspect of Joe's work, the sense that "anything can happen". There certainly is that sense, the sense that you could next be listening (or *not* listening) to an interview with a mime -- in other words, a minute or two of dead air -- as Joe once presented us with, decades ago. Or the sense that we'll find a preacher arguing violently with Joe about religion, "casting dispersions", LOL...Or that we'll find ourselves wondering if Joe is saying goodbye to his work in a show titled "Goodbye". Yet all this is still contained within a "safe" environment, thankfully -- a higly-polished and produced work of art that never completely lapses into an anarchistic shit-on-your-face "performance art". (Though I do dig performance art, and consider Joe somewhat of a performance artist, I prefer his more reasonable approach to the form, if I can say that without sounding like an asshole.) Harold http://somethingthathappened.com On 2/20/07, Sam Holland <sam.holland@gmail.com> wrote: I don't think Ira Glass could fairly be called derivative except in the broadest possible sense, but his show is much less interesting than Joe Frank's. I often have conversations with people who are fans of This American Life--I don't know anyone who listens to NPR who doesn't at least claim to be a listener--and they're always very enthusiastic, and they want to talk about the show, and talk about what a visionary radio producer Ira Glass is. And I always tell them that I think This American Life is boring by comparison. TAL is "safe" in the way that NPR is "safe." At least--and I might be completely wrong on this--the way I perceive it: that even when addressing dark or unsettling subject matter, I never lose the sense that I'm listening to the voice of reason, the authoritative tone. Am I talking out of my ass? And on Joe Frank's show, anything could happen. Reason is abandoned. I might be listening to an entire episode's worth of lunatic ranting. The only thing I'm really sure of is that it's going to be either sixty or thirty minutes long. I don't get that from Ira Glass. And I don't really feel that Glass is an artist so much as an editor or curator, presiding over the storytelling equivalent of Sound and Spirit. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:49:47 -0500 > From: "Steve Schneider" <scs1@theavocadopapers.com> > Subject: RE: [joe-frank-list] Ira Glass etc > To: "'Joe Frank Mailing List'" <joe-frank-list@armory.com> > Message-ID: > < <mailto:200702182049.l1IKnuCo018370@svcstatl08.hotspot.t-mobile.com> 200702182049.l1IKnuCo018370@svcstatl08.hotspot.t-mobile.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Re the last few posts about TAL and Ira Glass: This American Life is a > fantastic show. I don't know what "edgy" even means (or "abstract," for > that matter); what I do know is that, like Joe Frank's work, TAL is > ground-breaking radio. But they're utterly different! I have never, once, > sensed that Glass was trying to emulate or rip off JF. TAL seems to me to > be essentially a magazine: two, three, or rour features reported on by > various producers, with the occasional fiction thrown in ( e.g. D. Sedaris > reading a short story). JF's shows are simply nothing like that, and I'm > referring to any of his formats: the "reality" shows such as the Karma > series; the improvised, highly edited radio dramas; the fictional > monologues; the non-fictional monologues such as "No Show"; and so on. > > I have seen Glass credit JF at least twice (which is nice, although I'm not > entirely sure that he owes much artistically to JF). When JF has mentioned > Glass, there has been a tinge of annoyance or jealousy, and frankly I'm not > sure why. As far as the "God, I really hate David Sedaris and Ira Glass, > those two miserable geeks, those wretched freaks. They should move in > together, adopt children, leave the country, maybe go to mars. What do you > think?" quote, which I believe starts off the women-police-officer show: are > we really supposed to take that 100% seriously? Especially in a show > devoted to getting a rise out of people and especially women (by suggesting > that women are not fit to be police officers)? In another, he complains > about the phenomenal (by public-radio standards) success of TAL, but in that > piece, he seems to me to be complaining mostly about the lack of support > that his show gets (from KCRW, I guess). I've never sensed any real > animosity towards Glass from JF. With most of JF, a lot is open to > interpretation, of course... > > Look, I basically spent half of 2004 and most of 2005 working through the JF > shows -- to the extent that I didn't even read many books during that time. > I must have listened to some of the shows 30 times. I'm a huge admirer. > But only on a JF mailing list could Ira Glass be seen as a sell-out, or as > being too mainstream. (Not that this post is, necessarily, saying that, but > I've seen a lot of bitterness directed towards Glass -- which is funny: I > doubt there would be any of that were it not for the coincidence that IG was > an intern for JF long, long ago). > > I guess what I'd like to know is, what do people think that Glass "stole" > from JF? What things? Specifically? > > -- Steve. _______________________________________________ Joe Frank Mailing List joe-frank-list@armory.com http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list <http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.armory.com/pipermail/joe-frank-list/attachments/20070309/aff27387/attachment-0001.htm