From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #134 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, July 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 134 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Boston gig [ceelove@ibm.net (Colleen Campbell)] Walmart Policies (related to Warning Sticker thread) [seqiro@mail2.nai.ne] Re: greetings from Alberta! [Richard Butterworth wrote: >I checked FDC for information on the Fanueil Hall date, but found nothing. >Could someone fill me in? I'm close enough to go; I'd hate to miss it due to >lack of info. It's July 31st, 5:30, downstairs from Sam Goody's, and it's free--that's the last info I've had, anyway. I asked Tobey about Frumiles stamps and he says he thinks we might get them but can't promise. It's part of an afternoon of music, sponsored by the River (92.5?) and I believe Fruvous is doing it as a favor to them. ceecee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:38:24 GMT From: seqiro@mail2.nai.net (Paul D. Beasi) Subject: Walmart Policies (related to Warning Sticker thread) Hey there, On a slightly related topic, I've been led to understand that Walmart is one store that definitely is not in favor of our First Amendment. Apparently (and if I'm wrong then please correct me) they will pick and choose which albums they won't sell based on content. Sometimes there will be special Walmart editions which are edited down, noted in extremely fine print on the album. Otherwise, they just won't stock the album. What's my problem with this? Well, first I think that the bands are going to end up losing some of their market. I live in Connecticut, so there are a million stores near me and I won't even going into a Walmart looking for music. However in some areas, Walmart is the only place around for many miles. Thus, they have the band in the palm of their hand. If they don't release an edited version, an entire group of people may not be able to get the album unless they can order it over the internet. But not everyone who wants the music has internet or a credit card! The consumer can be cheated because he or she could unknowingly buy a censored album and not be getting the whole thing. All of this is entirely at Walmart's discretion. Sheryl Crow definitely knows this end of the story, as one of her albums was banned from Walmart for mentioning the store in a song in a way they didn't like. I think that warning labels probably do more good than harm as long as it is left to the discretion of the band and record labels. The only problem is a lack of a description of the content. As an example, Moxy's use of the F-word on Live Noise is, for the most part, harmless in my opinion. A parent might listen to the album and decide it's OK for his or her child to listen to the music and maybe just caution im/her about repeating the words. The problem is that the same label goes on albums with content including rape, murder, and other acts of violence and hatred. These albums get more of the publicity and I think that maybe the labels are associated with that type of content. Is there an easy solution? Probably not other than maybe being open minded and screening the music ahead of time. Several stores in my area will open a CD for you and re-shrink wrap it if you don't want it. I would definitely be opposed to a law requiring the labels. Similarly, what Walmart does seems extremely unfair to the artists who may be forced to comply with their rules in order to reach a wider market. I suppose every store has the right to determine what merchandise it will carry, but it ends up being a weapon for Walmart. Anyway, I shall step off my soap box and put on my fire-resistant suit in preparation :) Paul - ----------------------------------------- Paul Beasi seqiro@ct2.nai.net http://w3.nai.net/~seqiro The spotlight guys got Iggy! -TMBG, Lupos Heartbreak Hotel 10/25/97 - ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:50:40 +0100 From: Richard Butterworth Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! Dot0926 wrote: > >Also, in some sense we _need_ to legislate morality. We can't simply say > >"morals change constantly, so we should never put them into law". In a > >democracy, laws are supposed to express the public's beliefs; they are the > >public's morals, in other words. If you don't believe that we should > >legislate morality, then you essentially undermine the basis of Western > >law. > > > perhaps the basis of western law needs a bit of undermining, if it is comprised > of a small unrepresentative representative (how's that for an oxymoron??) body > that wishes to preach personal morality, while providing little to no example > of this morality. There are two points in here and I'm not sure which you are arguing for. 1. Government is unrepresentitive. 2. Government has no right to legislate morality. Are you arguing that if a government was (somehow) representitive then it would have the right to legislate morality? Or are you arguing that no government, no matter how representitive, should legislate morality? Now, a government cannot precisely represent everyone, unless everyone is part of the government (which I think is a definition of anarchy). Any government can only represent an *approximation* of its people's views and wishes, so no government can be perfect. Some are more perfect than others, of course. Unless you're arguing for an anarchist state, and that's a whole different thread... My government is *approximately* representitive, as is, I believe, yours, especially compared to most other governments on this planet. I would argue that a government that is wholly unrepresentitive has no right to legislate morality, or indeed do anything else. Approximately representitive govenments have a right to legislate a partial morality. Saying `Oooh, you might find that this record corrupts your kids, but nobody's going to stop you buying it if you want.' is a rather good example of partial morality. Hey, and seeing as we're both vegetarians, where do animal `rights' fit into a system of government? Votes for all living things? :) Physical harm is not objective, by the way. How about disabling someone trying to rob your house? I don't know about laws in America, but here you're `allowed' to use `reasonable force' to disable an agressor. That's a moral judgement someone has made about using physical force in unpleasant situations and has legislated based on that morality. Every now and again there's talk in this thread about `conservative, unthinking masses' and how we as `free thinkers' should be protecting them against the Powers of Evil in the form of right wing moralisers. I think this argument is as bad as trying to set yourself up as a Guardian of Public Morals and trying to protect the `impressionable masses' from the Evils of liberal free thinkers and their sinful rock and roll music, strange sexual practices and unusual haircuts. I think this world would be a bit nicer if we all credited the masses with a little intelligence and freedom of thought of their own. Pip pip Richard - ------------------------------------------------ Who knows what mystic thoughts may be whispering among the mossy groves of his crutty shins? (Spike Milligna -- the well known typing error.) - ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:45:53 GMT From: dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: Review of 7/17 Burlington, VT show On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:53:33 -0400, Nate DeRose wrote: >> After the show ended, I managed to go introduce myself to Nate De >> Rose, and that was cool. He's a member of the roB! Johnson/Dave Tobey >> lookalike club. Heh. > >Am I? >I hadn't noticed.... :) >Who are they, anyways? Rob Johnson is our favorite ng lurker who posts occasionally and is somewhat more talkative on IRC (plugplug). He is, as you may have discerned, a Dave Tobey look-alike, and Tobey (as he is usually called, in order to not confuse him with Dave-o the Matheson) is the all-around-cool merch guy. Go say hello to him at your next show! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vika [VEE-kah] Zafrin Patron Saint of Caffeine dacilen at bu dot edu aka Coffee Fru "You and your hula dance of culinary delight..." -ceecee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:29:46 GMT From: "Hartfield Adam (Lud)" Subject: RE: greetings from Alberta! > Could we say that a legislative body represents its people if > it does what the people as a majority want? Then we certainly have a . . . . > I would suggest that what we need is a legislative body which is only > representative to a point. When we elect representatives, rather than And here is the crux of the problem: The vast majority of people who can vote choose not to. Have any of you checked out voter-return statistics lately? Around here (western Massachusetts) we're lucky to see 20% of voters turn out for an election. This leads me to say that until we get close to 100% voter turn-out, we live in a hypothetical democracy. - --Adam adam.hartfield@dev.artioslink.com ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #134 ********************************************