From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V3 #831 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Monday, September 20 1999 Volume 03 : Number 831 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) ["Mer Mer" ] Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) [sittin'onthecou] Re: MPG.com ["Kate Leahy" ] Re: Dave & Murray's Eyes? [michykith@aol.com (Michykith)] Re: Who Wrote What? [michykith@aol.com (Michykith)] Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) [Lawrence P Solo] alternative interpretations ["Leah W." ] Re: Food for thought on Tapers [Frances Meale ] Re: Question about banter (kind of long) [truztno1 ] Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) [vika@fruhead.co] Re: Food for thought on Tapers [vika@fruhead.com (Vika Zafrin)] Re: Rodney's home [seqiro@mail2.nai.net (Paul D. Beasi)] Re: "fruvous song" spotting ["Adam Hartfield" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:03:49 GMT From: "Mer Mer" Subject: Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) >From: truztno1 >Reply-To: tigger246@hotmail.com >To: ammf@fruvous.com >Subject: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) >Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:35:36 -0400 > > > >Mer Mer wrote: > > > > Concert Notes: > > One of the between songs chatter topics was about > > [paraphrased] "If you are new to Fruvous... If you are NUDE to Fruvous." > > Basically what was said from there by Jian was that you will get a >discount > > for coming to the venue nude by $2 but they have to see you get out of >your > > car, come in to the venue and leave the venue. Then Dave chimned in >with > > [paraphrased] "I know where you were going with that" and then something > > about they have to see you have an orgasm at the concert. > >Uh-oh... could a seasoned concert go-er please tell me that's not their >usual >type of banter (the orgasm one, I mean), and if it is, that it's not a >recurring >theme through the whole show? Yah, my parents are anal, and they're not >really >going to appreciate it. A fleeting mention, random and semi-occasional >cursing, >nude people, whatever, but if that's a topic that lasts for more than 5 >minutes, >I'm going to have a hard time convincing my parents to take me to another >slightly pricey (by MF standards) concert. Which is something I DON'T >want. >And it most certainly doesn't help me in convincing a friend to get her mom >to >take her, because her mom's jaw will drop and go 'THWACK' to the floor when >she >hears liberal uses of the word f***, never mind nude people having orgasms >at >the concert (*snicker* i can just see her expression). Not to make our >parents >sound like people on the far right, but they're just "concerned" (overly, >if you >ask me) about things like that. > >~truztno1 > No, this isn't there normal Banter, at least not that i have noticed. In fact this form of banter I think they were really edgy about using. At first Jian tried to skip over it but then Dave brought it up. Most of the banter usually has to do with more topics of general audience, and since this venue was 18+ and a bar, i don't think they would actually say that if there were youngsters there (no offense to those that are under 18). Mer ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:37:32 -0400 From: Josh Woodward Subject: Re: Food for thought on Tapers On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Mer Mer wrote: > This is a topic that I personally didn't think about until someone else (who > will remain anonymous unless they want to reveal themselves) brought it to > my attention. Now, I like having the tapers tape the concerts because then > I can get copies of the concerts I want. However at the Detroit show the > mic stands were obstructing the view of many people, several that were > fruvirigins. They didn't know that the mic stands would be there when they > sat down so as to no fault of their own they had a bad view which would have > been a great view if not for the tapers. As the one whose mic stand was the focus of said fruvirgins, I'll chime in. The mic stand was set up before they got there, so they knew where they were sitting. The mics themselves were well above their eyesight, which left nothing but a 1/2 inch pole in their way. They were roughly 15 feet behind the stand. Doing a little math shows that about 1/2,261th (.0004) of their field of vision was blocked. Assuming they had a problem with this, the logical thing would have been to approach us and request that we move. We would have worked something out. But instead, said fruvirgins decided to whine to a surfer-dude bouncer, who came over and proceeded to tell us to lower the stand. They whined that now the mics were in their way (odd, that's why it was elevated in the first place) said surfer-dude proceeded to tell us to raise them again. Said fruvirgins went on to whine and point for the hour or so before the show. I always try to make sure nobody is inconvenienced when I tape. When people have problems with where I set up, I offer them a copy, and if that doesn't "buy them off" *grins*, I move. The Magic Bag is set up such that there *are* no places to tape that won't obscure someone's view. To someone who doesn't tape, it's easy to say that tapers should move to the back corner of the venue so they don't get in anyone's way. What they don't understand is that position is *crucial* to the sound of a tape. You wouldn't want to listen to a tape that was recorder from the corner of a room. Us tapers aren't doing what we do for money, and many of us don't even have time to listen to most of the shows we tape. Most of us are doing it to preserve the music, and to bring enjoyment to the many people who end up with copies of the shows. Two whiny women who can't even talk to us directly mean absolutely nothing to me when I weigh it against the future benefit to the rest of the community that tapers provide. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Woodward, CheEsy Fru. joshw@fruhead.com Web Site and Tape List: http://www.fruhead.com/joshw/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:54:39 GMT From: sittin'onthecouch@home.com (The Toolman) Subject: Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:13:03 -0400, Lawrence P Solomon pondered for a while, and then wrote: >truztno1 wrote: > >> [a bunch of stuff about your parents attitudes snipped] > >don't tell your parents about it, and get someone else to take you. I mean no >offense to you or your family, but it sounds like your parents have serious >sticks up their asses. > Interesting notion of meaning 'no offense to you or your family'. >They're just words. They don't hurt anyone. Tell your parents that. Tell >everyone that. It's a valuable lesson. Well, to open up a whole can'o'worms here, language and content are indeed concerns of parents who take their kids to shows, or let them go with friends. If Truztno1's folks are going to be offended by (possible) language at shows, it might be best for her to tell her folks that, since the band is comprised of adults, and plays for a mostly-adult crowd, there might be some 'off-color' humor and phrases bandied about. They should be open-minded enough to realize that kids talk in their own language among their friends and at school, and that, unless they decide to get graphic (which I seriously doubt), there should be nothing that kids have not heard before. We took our 10-year old daughter Kelsey to 2 shows so far. The first was at Maxwell's in Hoboken NJ. She was right up front, and the first time the word 'f...' was said, Jian apologized to her for it, but the running joke was that it was nothing she hadn't heard in school. We agree, but also thank the band for their obvious concern in not offending anyone in the audience. She lived through it, and has not shot up a 7-11. Yet. As for words 'not hurting anyone', I strongly disagree. Words cut deeper than knives, are sharper than razors, and can, at times, hurt more deeply than anything else imaginable. There is also the aspect of how one wants their children to communicate to the rest of the world. My kids know all the words, but (to my knowledge) don't use them randomly sprinkled through their vocabulary. Until kids mature to the point of knowing when a certain word might be appropriate (hitting thumb with hammer, then saying 'Aww, raspberries!' seems a little extreme..) and when such language is inappropriate, a certain amount of decorum is in order. Truztno1, (if you're reading): If you'd like, you can ask your parents to email us if they're concerned about this. Both Robin and myself are old fossils, to be sure, but we should be able to set their minds at rest about this. If you'd like, look for us on IRC or leave a Frü-Message for either Robinkat or DeadHead (or ElfChild..that's Kelsey!). We'll get the message, and do what we can for you. If you're going to the Keswick show, we'll be there also. Let us know, and we'll try to find you. We can get together with you and your folks (by the way, Kelsey's going, too!), and we can do some serious hanging! Cheers! Tim, Robin and Kelsey aka DeadHead, Robinkat and ElfChild aka 'The Three Früüges' "20 is plenty" - Dave Matheson (referring to our 20th Wedding Anniversary, 2 days after the South Street Seaport show) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:22:20 -0400 From: "Kate Leahy" Subject: Re: MPG.com honestly, if that post isn't matheson craftsmanship, i don't know what is :). yay girls! ~~kate, reminded again that she owes those two her own dave stuff . . . it's coming :) - -- Kate Leahy kleahy@loyola.edu katiewow@fruhead.com *********************************** "It's a long long road It's a big big world We are wise wise women We are giggling girls . . . " - --Ani DiFranco *********************************** ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 1999 23:14:19 GMT From: michykith@aol.com (Michykith) Subject: Re: Dave & Murray's Eyes? >In a message dated 9/20/1999 5:34:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >spychicr@aol.com >writes: > ><< But, unfortunately, I have NO idea what > Murray's or Dave's eyecolours are. >> > >BLUE!! oh dear god BLUE. like, the bluest blue ive ever seen...it's just >kinda >striking when you're talking to them and their eyes are *that* blue. > >-debs Let me add to Deb's comment only this....Murray's eyes are a dark, deep blue. Dave's eyes are much lighter. Hmm, me, paying too much attention to detail? Never! Just strying to help :) ~Joni (fnjoni@fruhead.com) * * * * "I wouldn't make a good Blair Witch...because she had really good timing" dar williams 9/18/99 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 1999 23:03:39 GMT From: michykith@aol.com (Michykith) Subject: Re: Who Wrote What? >> Anyone know how many instances there are of the writer of a song not >> being the lead singer? This reminds me of a conversation my brother and I had with Tobey once. John asked Tobey who wrot Splatter Splatter. Tobey asked John who we thought wrote Splatter Splatter. John started hypothesizing. Tobey interrupted him, and said this long thing that certianly indicated he was about to tell John who wrote the song. But, he concluded that the guys have said a few times who wrote the song and maybe John should get some bootlegs and FIND OUT FOR HIMSELF! btw, John now thinks Tobey is one of the coolest guys ever. It was a real bonding experience. ~Joni (fnjoni@fruhead.com) * * * * "I wouldn't make a good Blair Witch...because she had really good timing" dar williams 9/18/99 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:14:13 -0400 From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) I'll put a disclaimer on this, since it appears that some people are fairly anal about language usage here. I don't put asterisks or other symbols in words I use. If I'm going to use a word, I'm going to write it the way it's spelled. The Toolman wrote: > Interesting notion of meaning 'no offense to you or your family'. in the sense of "they probably mean well, but they're highly misguided." I'm not trying to just dismiss these people as total losers, but I think they're entirely too anal about something like language. > As for words 'not hurting anyone', I strongly disagree. Words cut > deeper than knives, are sharper than razors, and can, at times, hurt > more deeply than anything else imaginable. depending on usage, yes. But in the context described, I still maintain that they are harmless. Is a kid going to go to a concert, hear the word "fuck" and go home crying because of it? Society teaches us that these are "bad" words, but they aren't. To tell someone to "fuck off" is bad, but it's just as bad to tell them to "screw off" or "bite me," neither of which contains any "bad" words. The words by themselves, unless specifically intended to hurt (like derogatory terms for specific groups of people) are totally harmless. > There is also the aspect of how one wants their children to > communicate to the rest of the world. My kids know all the words, but > (to my knowledge) don't use them randomly sprinkled through their > vocabulary. Until kids mature to the point of knowing when a certain > word might be appropriate (hitting thumb with hammer, then saying > 'Aww, raspberries!' seems a little extreme..) and when such language > is inappropriate, a certain amount of decorum is in order. But that means you're doing your job as a parent. The parents who try to prevent their children from hearing the words are creating an environment unlike one their children might be in when they are grown and out of the house. I think it's far worse for someone to first hear these words, say, in high school, and have no idea about "appropriate" or inappropriate usage. It goes the same for any issue, really - the children who have the most sheltered existence when they're young will be out of control when they leave home. The parents who just say "Don't do that!" to their kids all the time are going to see their kids grow up and do everything their parents told them not to do. But the ones who say "Well, I think that's a bad idea, and irresponsible, but...." are teaching their chilren responsibility. And that's really what it's about. - -- Lawrence Solomon * http://www.fruhead.com/users/zaph * zaph@fruhead.com "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left blank. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:48:26 GMT From: "Leah W." Subject: alternative interpretations So the first time I heard the song "I Will Hold On" I didn't like it at all, another silly love song & all that...Until I realized that it's not about love at all. It's not even about a PERSON. it's about rugby. because in rugby, when you have the ball you will most likely get tackled. When this happens you shouldn't just toss the ball, because then the other team will most likely get it, and that's not good. You need to HOLD ON to the ball until you hit the ground. I Will Hold On, you think, as you get the wind knocked out of you. I Will Hold On and the rest is just metaphorical for more rugby stuff. and suddenly I like the song so much better. leah * * * * * "You know why I love Laurie?" she asked, "because she walks through puddles." We watched Laurie walking away from us, right through the center of the biggest puddles. 'I walk through puddles, too,' I thought, 'the only difference is that I aim for them.' (July 1996) "Yeah," he said, "you're just a walking non-sequiteur." (December 1997) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:36:37 -0400 From: Frances Meale Subject: Re: Food for thought on Tapers Josh Woodward wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Mer Mer wrote: > > > > As the one whose mic stand was the focus of said fruvirgins, I'll chime > in. The mic stand was set up before they got there, so they knew where > they were sitting. a) As first-timers, how would they know what happens at a show vis-a-vis tapers/ing? > Most of us are doing it > to preserve the music, and to bring enjoyment to the many people who end > up with copies of the shows. b) And I'm sure your acts are appreciated by many, but maybe you should consider the purpose of a concert, and the reason Fruvous tours constantly (i.e., promoting new release, growing fan base) Maybe your activities that evening were to the detriment of the band's efforts to attract new fans/sell records. > Two whiny women who can't even talk to us > directly mean absolutely nothing to me when I weigh it against the future > benefit to the rest of the community that tapers provide. c) Hmmmm...I wonder how the band would feel about losing potential record sales due to your assessment-especially since many new fans are brought on by people having wonderful experiences at live shows. Just something you may want to consider. Frances, MA > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Josh Woodward, CheEsy Fru. joshw@fruhead.com > Web Site and Tape List: http://www.fruhead.com/joshw/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:30:29 -0400 From: truztno1 Subject: Re: Question about banter (kind of long) > >Mer Mer wrote: > > > > > > > Concert Notes: > > > One of the between songs chatter topics was about > > > [paraphrased] "If you are new to Fruvous... If you are NUDE to Fruvous." > > > Basically what was said from there by Jian was that you will get a > >discount > > > for coming to the venue nude by $2 but they have to see you get out of > >your > > > car, come in to the venue and leave the venue. Then Dave chimned in > >with > > > [paraphrased] "I know where you were going with that" and then something > > > about they have to see you have an orgasm at the concert. > > > >Uh-oh... could a seasoned concert go-er please tell me that's not their > >usual type of banter (the orgasm one, I mean) > No, this isn't there normal Banter, at least not that i have noticed. In > fact this form of banter I think they were really edgy about using. At > first Jian tried to skip over it but then Dave brought it up. Most of the > banter usually has to do with more topics of general audience, and since > this venue was 18+ and a bar, i don't think they would actually say that if > there were youngsters there (no offense to those that are under 18). > > Mer ok, thanks, that was what I was talking about. When I meant that my parents wouldn't like it, I meant something along the line of "we want to see nude people having orgasms at the show" rather than ordinary, everyday curses such as s***, f***, etc. That would freak any KID out that was a fru-virgin. I mean, they'd cringe at that (seriously, Lawrence, you may have different views, but A LOT of parents do cringe at banter like that, and it's not only parents who live in Right-Wing-Hick-Ville, USA, etc. I live in a pretty suburban area, and probably 75% of the parents of the kids in the public school that I attend would frown upon stuff like that. They wouldn't prohibit their kids from seeing/hearing it, but they're not going to actually LIKE it nonetheless. C'mon, they're parents... need I say more? : ) There are parents that are exceptions to this, like Robin and Tim, but, like I said, they're exceptions- some in a good way, some in a bad way). So while I know that they use, er, interesting language (a la live noise), which I wasn't concerned about, I was worried that particularly graphic stuff might upset my (our) parents. It seems that at the show, it was just mentioned really quickly, which isn't really a problem. I wouldn't even go to a show where the whole evening's banter consisted of nude people having organisms. Everybody has a different sense of humor, and I respect that, but I personally wouldn't see the point of paying $25 to hear that, even if the music was shockingly wonderful. So, basically, to sum up this unnecessarily long post, I was saying that they wouldn't like anything NC-17 (to put a rating on it). R is just fine. ~truztno1 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:44:12 GMT From: sittin'onthecouch@home.com (The Toolman) Subject: Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:14:13 -0400, Lawrence P Solomon pondered for a while, and then wrote: >I'll put a disclaimer on this, since it appears that some people are fairly >anal about language usage here. (I guess that would be me..) > I don't put asterisks or other symbols in >words I use. If I'm going to use a word, I'm going to write it the way it's >spelled. good. > >The Toolman wrote: > >> Interesting notion of meaning 'no offense to you or your family'. > >in the sense of "they probably mean well, but they're highly misguided." I'm >not trying to just dismiss these people as total losers, but I think they're >entirely too anal about something like language. In your opinion. Unless you have children, and have had to deal with this situation, you speak from little or no experience. > >> As for words 'not hurting anyone', I strongly disagree. Words cut >> deeper than knives, are sharper than razors, and can, at times, hurt >> more deeply than anything else imaginable. > >depending on usage, yes. But in the context described, I still maintain that >they are harmless. Is a kid going to go to a concert, hear the word "fuck" >and go home crying because of it? Society teaches us that these are "bad" >words, but they aren't. To tell someone to "fuck off" is bad, but it's just >as bad to tell them to "screw off" or "bite me," neither of which contains any >"bad" words. Face it. These kids will grow up and be PART of that 'society' > >The words by themselves, unless specifically intended to hurt (like derogatory >terms for specific groups of people) are totally harmless. Until a kindergardener says 'F***ing Nap Time Again??' > >> There is also the aspect of how one wants their children to >> communicate to the rest of the world. My kids know all the words, but >> (to my knowledge) don't use them randomly sprinkled through their >> vocabulary. Until kids mature to the point of knowing when a certain >> word might be appropriate (hitting thumb with hammer, then saying >> 'Aww, raspberries!' seems a little extreme..) and when such language >> is inappropriate, a certain amount of decorum is in order. > >But that means you're doing your job as a parent. The parents who try to >prevent their children from hearing the words are creating an environment >unlike one their children might be in when they are grown and out of the >house. I think it's far worse for someone to first hear these words, say, in >high school, and have no idea about "appropriate" or inappropriate usage. No, a parent who tries to prevent their children from hearing the words are trying to structure an environment that they feel is the proper one for their age group. Teaching a child to swim is always best done before throwing them into the shark tank. > >It goes the same for any issue, really - the children who have the most >sheltered existence when they're young will be out of control when they leave >home. The parents who just say "Don't do that!" to their kids all the time >are going to see their kids grow up and do everything their parents told them >not to do. But the ones who say "Well, I think that's a bad idea, and >irresponsible, but...." are teaching their chilren responsibility. And that's >really what it's about. I think you should probably give parents the benefit of the doubt here. After all, they have to do it 24/7. There aren't 'days off' from parenting. We're all doing the best we can. It's not like we had to pass a test to become parents. We just do it one day at a time. Cheers! Tim, Robin and Kelsey aka DeadHead, Robinkat and ElfChild aka 'The Three Früüges' "20 is plenty" - Dave Matheson ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1999 00:54:40 GMT From: Kerry Kent Subject: THE OFFICE GIRLS WANT FUN XXX THE GIRLS IN THE OFFICE WANT FUN COME TO OUR AMATEUR SITE XXX http://194.75.152.218/~monica_james/blink/officegirls.htm AND THE REST OF THE AMATEUR GIRLS http://194.75.152.218/~monica_james/blink ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:28:39 GMT From: vika@fruhead.com (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) Lawrence put a disclaimer on his, so I'll put one on mine: I think very highly of Lawrence and his opinions, generally, as expressed here on the newsgroup as well as on his web page. Spake Lawrence P Solomon : >I'll put a disclaimer on this, since it appears that some people are fairly >anal about language usage here. This first phrase of yours could be taken either as insulting or as an example of careless speech. Neither speaks in your favor, Lawrence. >> Interesting notion of meaning 'no offense to you or your family'. >in the sense of "they probably mean well, but they're highly misguided." I'm >not trying to just dismiss these people as total losers, but I think they're >entirely too anal about something like language. That's their prerogative. Trutzno's post wasn't inviting you to pass judgement on anyone's parents; the question pertained to live show banter. Whether or not you agree with the parents of any Fruhead, realise that there are different ways to express disagreement, and you were less than careful in your choice of words. As a result, you came across as rude. Not that I don't do that myself at times. Hello, kettle, I am pot. - -v - ----- Vika Zafrin ----- vika@fruhead.com ----- http://www.fruhead.com/users/vika/index.html "Please, rename the moons of Jupiter to John, Paul, George and Ringo. I've spent my brain and can't retain this interstellar lingo. Rename the moons of Jupiter, the Beatles sure won't mind. I'll do my best to ace this test and pass your course this time..." -Michael Clem / EFO ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:04:49 GMT From: vika@fruhead.com (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: Food for thought on Tapers Spake Frances Meale , quoting in part Josh Woodward: >> Most of us are doing it >> to preserve the music, and to bring enjoyment to the many people who end >> up with copies of the shows. > >b) And I'm sure your acts are appreciated by many, but maybe you should consider >the purpose of a concert, and the reason Fruvous tours constantly (i.e., promoting >new release, growing fan base) Maybe your activities that evening were to the >detriment of the band's efforts to attract new fans/sell records. Frances, as someone who has known Josh for quite a while and has closely observed his, and other [usual suspect] tapers' behaviour during Fruvous shows, I feel I must intercede on his behalf. What you say in the paragraph above makes no sense in the context of this community, which relies heavily on the kindness of people who tape live shows and archive/distribute them. I know for a fact that Moxy Fruvous appreciates the archiving work that these people do - otherwise the lads wouldn't have any record at all of their live shows, which are oftentimes quite amusing, spontaneous and unique. As for distribution of these recordings to fans, well, it's more likely to make new fans (what was that about people *having* to hear Fruvous live to really appreciate them?) than to be detrimental to record sales: these recordings are indeed in a different category from the band's albums. >> Two whiny women who can't even talk to us >> directly mean absolutely nothing to me when I weigh it against the future >> benefit to the rest of the community that tapers provide. > >c) Hmmmm...I wonder how the band would feel about losing potential record sales >due to your assessment-especially since many new fans are brought on by people >having wonderful experiences at live shows. New fan or not, Josh's expectation of simple courtesy is not unreasonable. If you have a problem with your friend's behaviour, do you go to his/her mother, or to a teacher/person in authority? Well, you could, but more likely the first person you'd speak to would be your friend, to see if things could be resolved. Non? Why should it be any different with a stranger? Automatically assuming a hostile attitude is liable to have consequences in how people perceive you. I realise that Josh's post was not his most placating writing. But I completely agree with him, and having seen how much *completely undeserved* crap tapers get from people, I feel he is justified in feeling the way he does. - -v - ----- Vika Zafrin ----- vika@fruhead.com ----- http://www.fruhead.com/users/vika/index.html "Please, rename the moons of Jupiter to John, Paul, George and Ringo. I've spent my brain and can't retain this interstellar lingo. Rename the moons of Jupiter, the Beatles sure won't mind. I'll do my best to ace this test and pass your course this time..." -Michael Clem / EFO ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:36:20 GMT From: seqiro@mail2.nai.net (Paul D. Beasi) Subject: Re: Rodney's home On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:42:06 -0700, eric elin wrote: >Hi everybody This is my first attempt at posting to ammf Welcome back, Rodney!! Paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:57:24 GMT From: "Adam Hartfield" Subject: Re: "fruvous song" spotting Skrev Josh Drury: > Frulads took the bulk of the melody for ILMB. However, did the song Brazil > exist before the movie? I think it did, hearing it in many contexts well > removed from Terry Gilliam movies. Yes, yes it did exist long before that movie. I have it on Frank Sinatra's "Come Fly With Me" from the mid-50's (his first stereo album) and I also have it on Enoch Light's "Persuasive Percussion" from the late 50's - early 60's. I think it's also on one of my Esquivel albums and of course I also have it on the Three Tenors album from 1990. Several different versions are also scattered across bossa nova compilations I have. - --Adam adamh@javanet.com ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V3 #831 ********************************************