<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=921392519-09032007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> joe-frank-list-bounces@armory.com
[mailto:joe-frank-list-bounces@armory.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Harold
Johnson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 09, 2007 12:08 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Joe Frank
Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [joe-frank-list] Re: RE: Ira Glass etc
(Steve Schneider)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>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.) </DIV>
<DIV><BR>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.)
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Harold</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://somethingthathappened.com">http://somethingthathappened.com</A><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 2/20/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>Sam
Holland</B> <<A
href="mailto:sam.holland@gmail.com">sam.holland@gmail.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I
don't think Ira Glass could fairly be called derivative except in<BR>the
broadest possible sense, but his show is much less interesting <BR>than Joe
Frank's. I often have conversations with people who are fans<BR>of This
American Life--I don't know anyone who listens to NPR who<BR>doesn't at least
claim to be a listener--and they're always very <BR>enthusiastic, and they
want to talk about the show, and talk about<BR>what a visionary radio producer
Ira Glass is. And I always tell them<BR>that I think This American Life is
boring by comparison.<BR><BR>TAL is "safe" in the way that NPR is "safe." At
least--and I might be <BR>completely wrong on this--the way I perceive it:
that even when<BR>addressing dark or unsettling subject matter, I never lose
the sense<BR>that I'm listening to the voice of reason, the authoritative
tone. Am<BR>I talking out of my ass? And on Joe Frank's show, anything could
<BR>happen. Reason is abandoned. I might be listening to an
entire<BR>episode's worth of lunatic ranting. The only thing I'm really sure
of<BR>is that it's going to be either sixty or thirty minutes long. I don't
<BR>get that from Ira Glass. And I don't really feel that Glass is
an<BR>artist so much as an editor or curator, presiding over
the<BR>storytelling equivalent of Sound and Spirit.<BR><BR><BR>>
------------------------------ <BR>><BR>> Message: 4<BR>> Date: Sun,
18 Feb 2007 15:49:47 -0500<BR>> From: "Steve Schneider" <<A
href="mailto:scs1@theavocadopapers.com">scs1@theavocadopapers.com</A>><BR>>
Subject: RE: [joe-frank-list] Ira Glass etc <BR>> To: "'Joe Frank Mailing
List'" <<A
href="mailto:joe-frank-list@armory.com">joe-frank-list@armory.com</A>><BR>>
Message-ID:<BR>> <<A
href="mailto:200702182049.l1IKnuCo018370@svcstatl08.hotspot.t-mobile.com">
200702182049.l1IKnuCo018370@svcstatl08.hotspot.t-mobile.com</A>><BR>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<BR>><BR>> Re the last few
posts about TAL and Ira Glass: This American Life is a<BR>> fantastic
show. I don't know what "edgy" even means (or "abstract,"
for<BR>> that matter); what I do know is that, like Joe Frank's work, TAL
is<BR>> ground-breaking radio. But they're utterly
different! I have never, once, <BR>> sensed that Glass was
trying to emulate or rip off JF. TAL seems to me to<BR>> be
essentially a magazine: two, three, or rour features reported on by<BR>>
various producers, with the occasional fiction thrown in ( e.g. D.
Sedaris<BR>> reading a short story). JF's shows are simply
nothing like that, and I'm<BR>> referring to any of his formats: the
"reality" shows such as the Karma<BR>> series; the improvised, highly
edited radio dramas; the fictional <BR>> monologues; the non-fictional
monologues such as "No Show"; and so on.<BR>><BR>> I have seen Glass
credit JF at least twice (which is nice, although I'm not<BR>> entirely
sure that he owes much artistically to JF). When JF has mentioned
<BR>> Glass, there has been a tinge of annoyance or jealousy, and frankly
I'm not<BR>> sure why. As far as the "God, I really hate David
Sedaris and Ira Glass,<BR>> those two miserable geeks, those wretched
freaks. They should move in <BR>> together, adopt children,
leave the country, maybe go to mars. What do you<BR>> think?" quote, which
I believe starts off the women-police-officer show: are<BR>> we really
supposed to take that 100% seriously? Especially in a show <BR>>
devoted to getting a rise out of people and especially women (by
suggesting<BR>> that women are not fit to be police
officers)? In another, he complains<BR>> about the phenomenal
(by public-radio standards) success of TAL, but in that <BR>> piece, he
seems to me to be complaining mostly about the lack of support<BR>> that
his show gets (from KCRW, I guess). I've never sensed any
real<BR>> animosity towards Glass from JF. With most of JF, a
lot is open to <BR>> interpretation, of course...<BR>><BR>> Look, I
basically spent half of 2004 and most of 2005 working through the JF<BR>>
shows -- to the extent that I didn't even read many books during that
time.<BR>> I must have listened to some of the shows 30
times. I'm a huge admirer.<BR>> But only on a JF mailing list
could Ira Glass be seen as a sell-out, or as<BR>> being too
mainstream. (Not that this post is, necessarily, saying that, but
<BR>> I've seen a lot of bitterness directed towards Glass -- which is
funny: I<BR>> doubt there would be any of that were it not for the
coincidence that IG was<BR>> an intern for JF long, long ago).<BR>>
<BR>> I guess what I'd like to know is, what do people think that Glass
"stole"<BR>> from JF? What
things? Specifically?<BR>><BR>> --
Steve.<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Joe Frank Mailing
List<BR><A
href="mailto:joe-frank-list@armory.com">joe-frank-list@armory.com</A><BR><A
href="http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list">http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list
</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>