From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V5 #324 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Tuesday, September 28 1999 Volume 05 : Number 324 Today's Subjects: ----------------- new Everything But The Girl [Jeff Wasilko ] malecktolypse [less air more light ] Ectofest rantings ["Valerie Nozick" ] RE: Ectofest ["Power, Marc (ETS - Equity Development Support)" ] Re: Ectofest rantings [MockRafe@aol.com] Re: Ectofest rantings [Chris Sampson ] Could someone identify this song? [Yngve Hauge ] Re: Could someone identify this song? [Joseph Zitt ] DO NOT READ THIS ["One Two Three" ] RE: Ectofest (and unsubscribe) [Rubber DeNiro ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:15:30 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: new Everything But The Girl EBTG has a new CD out this week. You can hear the whole thing in real audio at http://www.temperamental.co.uk/ - -jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 04:27:37 -0400 From: less air more light Subject: malecktolypse At 03:41 PM 9/27/99 -0700, Rubber DeNiro wrote: >group her desire to use the group's imprimatur for the >festival. This seemed, to me, a betrayal of Ecto's >community spirit and nearly organic existence as an >entity in its own right. I'm not even suggesting that >anyone would have objected to anything in her plans >for the event, but we all, every member of the Ecto >community, had at least the right to be conscious of >actions--public, even publicized actions, at >that--that were carried out on its seeming behalf and >with its implied support. outside the jester-courts of the privi-Law, names are owned by whosoever takes them, words are made by whosoever uses them. each becomes in time what it is thought to be, what it seems to be, and only in disuse, the death-of-words, can the sane peace of purity be found. words may not be bound, with words, no more than fire might be bound with fire. ask dear old Crowley, or any old skool hippie, punk or raver, who has ever cried at what the scene had come to, what dregs the Name had stretched to encompass, who Judasciously denied their own, for fear of the Label that the Name had become. ectophiles, it seems to me, are yet proud, while we may yet be, that our Name speaks of a Label gladly worn, and ectofest, it seems to me, was a use-of-a-name, an event-in-the-scene, i at least need not deny. -veronica ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:52:49 -0400 From: "Valerie Nozick" Subject: Ectofest rantings I've tried not to respond to the ectofest thread, because I consider myself more of an ecto lurker than active contributor these days, but I cannot let this thread pass by without adding my two cents. Meredith and Chuck should be applauded for their efforts in organizing ectofest, not criticized. Before their initiative, I never saw anyone seize the opportunity to create anything close to the level of this concert festival. Their hearts were in the right place in doing this for charity, and they sought to provide a fundraising opportunity for local charities as well as an opportunity for some artists who don't get much airplay to play to a new audience. I would ask the folks who are criticizing Meredith and Chuck, when is the last time you did something like this? As for the fest carrying the ecto name, let's face it folks, we don't own this name, nor do we own this type of music. Ecto is first and foremost the name of Happy's album. It is increasingly being used to refer to a type of music, much of which we happen to discuss on this list. Last I checked, none of us had trademarked the name. Charley, I know you have been vocal about not being included in this. And you have every right to express that opinion on this list. HOWEVER, I have not heard many voices joining you. By and large, people have been happy with the name Ectofest. Please recognize that and learn to live with that, so this list can go back to being the non-flame-war, productive and informative list it used to be. You do not own ecto; Meredith and Chuck do not own ecto; no one here owns ecto. If someone wants to create a festival named ectofest, they have every right in the world to do that. If people don't understand that ectofest refers to a type of music (and especially that it rightfully refers to a festival featuring Happy Rhodes), then perhaps the festival would have been better named ambiant-folk-celtic-rock-pop-too-small-for-Lilith-Fair-fest. But I hope you see the problem in that. :) ==> Valerie When I first came to ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:57:46 -0400 From: "Power, Marc (ETS - Equity Development Support)" Subject: RE: Ectofest Those that can, do. Well done Meth and Chuck! Cheers! Marc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:58:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Yngve Hauge Subject: Re: lamb in boston On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, meredith wrote: > All in all, an amazing experience, not to be missed. That's an order. :) I did see them this Summer, and I have to agree on everything Meth wrote in her post. And the bass-player? He is one of the most funny guys I've seen onstage :) *hugs* - -- Yngve n.p. Pondus - Mp3's from mp3.com (you should check them out - they are really good though their newer songs are better) n.r. CJ Cherryh - Chanur's Venture ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:12:55 EDT From: MockRafe@aol.com Subject: Re: Ectofest rantings In a message dated 9/28/99 8:59:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, valerie@smoe.org writes: << By and large, people have been happy with the name Ectofest >> And it sounds a lot better than Rearmamentfest (or Rearmamentival) or Warpaintfest. - --Mark Ralph (Mock Rafe) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:56:50 -0400 From: Chris Sampson Subject: Re: Ectofest rantings MockRafe@aol.com wrote: > And it sounds a lot better than Rearmamentfest (or Rearmamentival) or > Warpaintfest. Buildingthecollossusfest? VolIfest? VolIIfest? Manyworldsareborntonightfest? Chris Sampson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:38:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Yngve Hauge Subject: Could someone identify this song? Hi you all, Someone I know asked me if I could identify a folk song. The lyrics are included in the play "Dark of the Moon" by Howard Richardson and William Berney : Oh, it's hard and it's hard, ain't it hard, To love one who never did love you, And it's hard, and it's hard, ain't it hard, great Gawd, To love one who never could be true. Now who will kiss her ruby lips? And who will hold her to his breast? And who will be her own true lover? I want some one to love me best. But it's hard and it's hard, ain't it hard, To love one who never did love you, And it's hard and it's hard, ain't it hard, great Gawd. To love one who never could be true. The play consists of several folksongs though all the others have been identified already. thanks, - -- Yngve n.p. Still listening to Pondus n.r. Chanur's Venture still :) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:52:03 -0500 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Could someone identify this song? Woo, I haven't heard that in about 30 years. The version I know was done by the Limeliters, possibly from the album "The Slightly Fanulous Limeliters". They goofed around with it a lot. I remember that the shouted answer to "Now who will kiss her ruby lips?" was "Abercrombie and Fitch", and an added stanza in a Russian accent contained the lines "The last time I saw her hard-hearted smile/ she lay dead on the Kremlin floor." None of which, however, points to where it might originally have come from... On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:38:49PM +0200, Yngve Hauge wrote: > Hi you all, > > Someone I know asked me if I could identify a folk song. The lyrics > are included in the play "Dark of the Moon" by Howard Richardson and > William Berney : > > Oh, it's hard and it's hard, ain't it hard, > To love one who never did love you, > And it's hard, and it's hard, ain't it hard, great Gawd, > To love one who never could be true. n.p.: zitt/matis: Even the Widest Aardvark Outdreams the Gnu n.r.: Ian Carr: Miles Davis: The Definitive Biography - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Shekhinah: The Presence http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:31:41 -0700 From: "C Goldberg" Subject: Re: ecto-digest V5 #321 (San Francisco) San Francisco bands worth checking out (not necessarily Ecto): Super Argo Chris Von Sneidern See Jane Run Beth Waters Laughing Stock Grassy Knoll The Donnas Mr T Experience The Champs Kronos Quartet Penelope Houston The Dwarves Heather Alexander The Sweet Things Judybloom Pamela Martin Janine Rae DJ Shadow Ann Beretta New Morty Show Dance Hall Crashers Pansy Division The Wynonna Riders Beth Lisick Ordeal Virginia Dare Invisbl Skratch Piklz If you're into punk, most of the bands on Lookout! Records are good to catch. Head to Berkeley for all your indie necessities. Gilman is the only reason I would travel up to Northern California. And of course Neil Young and Bonnie Raitt have shows occasionally in town. HotBot - Search smarter. http://www.hotbot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:48:59 -0700 From: Neile Graham Subject: Re: Could someone identify this song? We had that album when I was growing up--that's the only place I've ever heard that song. Which means, yes, Joe, you were right about what album it was from because we only had the one Limelighters album. I blame that album and my parents' two Nina and Frederick albums for my love of ballads/folk music. - --Neile At 1:52 PM -0500 9/28/99, Joseph Zitt wrote: >Woo, I haven't heard that in about 30 years. The version I know was >done by the Limeliters, possibly from the album "The Slightly >Fanulous Limeliters". They goofed around with it a lot. I remember >that the shouted answer to "Now who will kiss her ruby lips?" was >"Abercrombie and Fitch", and an added stanza in a Russian accent >contained the lines "The last time I saw her hard-hearted smile/ >she lay dead on the Kremlin floor." > >None of which, however, points to where it might originally have come >from... > >On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:38:49PM +0200, Yngve Hauge wrote: >> Hi you all, >> >> Someone I know asked me if I could identify a folk song. The lyrics >> are included in the play "Dark of the Moon" by Howard Richardson and >> William Berney : >> >> Oh, it's hard and it's hard, ain't it hard, >> To love one who never did love you, >> And it's hard, and it's hard, ain't it hard, great Gawd, >> To love one who never could be true. > > >n.p.: zitt/matis: Even the Widest Aardvark Outdreams the Gnu >n.r.: Ian Carr: Miles Davis: The Definitive Biography > >-- >|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| >| jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | >| Latest CD: Shekhinah: The Presence http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | >| Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Neile Graham ...... http://www.sff.net/people/neile ....... neile@sff.net Les Semaines: A Weekly Journal . http://www.sff.net/people/neile/semaines The Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music ....... http://www.smoe.org/ectoguide ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 04:15:17 CDT From: "One Two Three" Subject: DO NOT READ THIS Irvin (blah blah blah iflin@sirius.com ) obviously put considerable thought into his treatise on my recent postings, so I will not dishonor his efforts by not responding, even though I consider much of what he said over-reactive. However, I will be try to be blessedly brief and not touch on every point he made. He wrote, "the first thing >you and every one else should learn when they do email is that TONE is >nearly impossible to achieve. whether you make an offhand comment or an >incredibly serious comment, they are both going to be read at the same >level, >unless something indicates otherwise (a smiley face, a "*shrug*" or some >indications of mood). take note, and understand this." I acknowledge what you are saying and do not disagree. However, I feel like a mook when I use those smiley faces. "i would not call you a gay basher from your comments, but i would have presumed >to call you homophobic" Homophobia, literally, means fear of homos. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was once in a notorious bar in a dark and isolated corner of a Mexican border town where all of the 40 or so "women" who worked there were transsexual prostitutes. I can honestly say that I did not feel threatened at all, and found them to be very interesting company, full of wit and joie de vivre. And if they hadn't liked me, I feel sure that they would have turned me into something that looked like a bag of leftovers from a VFW picnic, and dumped me in the Rio Grande. "would you have told a survivor of >AUSCHWITZ. "gee i'm not jewish, but let me rent SCHINDLER's LIST?" >probably not. though who am i to presume what you would do. perhaps you >would be equally as flippant in said situation." I am not going to say that I have Jewish friends, although I do, because judging by some of your comments that I don't include here, that would only set you frothing. However, I will say that I have never met a single Jew who seemed the least bit concerned, (and why should they be), about the centuries of horribly oppressive serfdom that my Scottish ancestors tolerated under the English, which included much sexual abuse of their women (including the Lord's right to consummate the marriage of his "subjects") and countless other unspeakable atrocities of the sword and the torch. Never met one who was even aware of the painfully slow starvation of considerably more than six million of my Irish ancestors during the Potato Famine, while the elite feasted. No one is in your face constantly about the Cambodian holocaust of recent times, and many, many others since the dawn of man, which only goes to prove that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Flippant enough for you? > >"you have no clue as to what it is like to be gay, just as i have no clue >as to >what it is like to be an african american female...(portion deleted for >brevity)...but it isn't going magically transform me into >an african american women." If you wish upon a star...but it seems to me that course of action would lead to a new set of problems. "not to QUIBBLE, but the COCO CLUB is a lesbian club." You can imagine how bad I feel for having called it a gay bar. Next time I go over to "Sue Ellen's", I am going to give those lesbos hell, since I have heard a number of them call their hangout a gay bar. ">whether or not you think gay is a stupid sounding word, it is the word that is >being currently used by the community. i find AFRICAN AMERICAN >a mouthful but that doesn't necessarily mean i don't use it because it is >cumbersome. the AFRICAN AMERICAN community has chosen it as the >appropriate phrase for their identity. or are you suggesting i should use >BLACK, COLORED, or NEGRO because i find them shorter and thus more >convenient to >use? My black friends (there I go again) tell me that "BLACK" is their term of choice, that they don't need the press or some Oreo in a suit to decide for them what they want to be called...their words. And they see the humor in the fact that "Afro-American" was the term of choice in the sixties and seventies and was coined by blacks, but is an insulting term now...some of them, BTW, call me "nigger". "Colored" is a supreme insult, but apparently not enough so to change the name of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of COLORED People). The United NEGRO College Fund changed their name to The College Fund, then changed it back...go figure. The "Afro" (big hair) was a source of extreme pride back in the day, but is looked upon now as ridiculous, and depiction thereof is considered racist by most. White boys had big dumb-ass greasy pompadours, but you can make fun of them if you want, because they're white, and therefore free game. I'll stop the redundancy, but consider the words of my hero, Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890) in a verse from the Kasidah; There is no Good, there is no Bad; These be the whims of mortal will: What works me well, that calI I "good," What harms and hurts I hold as "ill". They change with place, they shift with race; And, in the veriest span of Time, Each Vice has won a Virtue's crown; All good was banned as Sin or Crime. Anyone interested, drop me a line...I will send the poem in it's entirety, along with some notes and a short biography of Burton. I may send it to Irvin, Drew, and Foghorn unsolicited. At least one of them is sure to be insulted by Burton's views. " i >personal use the word GAY or QUEER to identify myself, but then i >rarely feel a need to self identify myself nowadays. most people who meet >me are more interested in who i am, then in who i sleep with" I concur, unless you've slept with someone famous. ">nice to know you have a clear idea of what your sexual preference is. most >of us who are gay had to go through hell to figure it out. most of us at >one >time or another wished that we COULD have switched. after all it certainly >would have been easier on us if we had. HOPEFULLY most of us now >no longer wish that. the reality is it takes MORE than just a notion to >switch." I had a notion that was true. But I may do it some day just for fun, and to better understand your pain. ">perhaps you should sit down and have a talk with your two gay friends about >this. they could probably explain it in more detail if you would like." I have more than two gay friends, I have many lesbian and gay friends...my comment was that two of my CLOSEST friends were gay. Read more carefully. I do have some idea of what you went through, since I have been at the side of my aforementioned cousin from his birth, and have supported him all through his "coming out", as well as alcoholism, drug addiction, hepatitis, and several jail terms for driving while under the influence of...everything. Not to mention being being "disowned" by most of his family. Since he has a history of making poor choices, I expect I will someday be at his side during AIDS, and early death. But at your suggestion, I will see if he will condescend to 'splain it to me. ">and how come your sexual preference is for ASIAN women and not ORIENTAL >women? just wondering. :) " Wonder no more. As you no doubt are aware, mr. smiley face, Asians get ticked off when you call them Orientals, telling you that "Oriental is a rug". Again, Oriental used to be perfectly acceptable... See, I am a sensitive guy after all. After careful consideration, I have decided that I must go out tonight and fellate someone, in order to become a better person. :) 1 2 3 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:52:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Rubber DeNiro Subject: RE: Ectofest (and unsubscribe) After I posted last night, I unsubbed from Ecto, as the histrionically obtuse "Goodbye" at the end of my post failed, apparently, to make clear. (The trial separation of my recent year or so of semi-lurkerhood having been unsuccessful in restoring any of the love we once knew, I came finally to the painful but unavoidable conclusion that a divorce was inevitable.) Luckily for us all (didja miss me?), I flubbed it and so was greeted this morning by your responses. Having realized this, I re-unsubbed, and this time was successful. Witness: - --- Majordomo@smoe.org wrote: > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:09:32 -0400 (EDT) > To: lissener@yahoo.com > From: Majordomo@smoe.org > Subject: Majordomo results: unsubscribe ecto > Reply-to: Majordomo@smoe.org > > -- > > >>>> unsubscribe ecto > Succeeded. > >>>> > >>>> So I will make one last attempt to address the points I've tried twice so far to address, but anyone who wishes further intercourse with me on this or other matters will be obliged to write to me directly. While writing yesterday's epistle, more than once I resisted the urge to anticipate responses and misconceptions and deal with them preemptively, but we all know how quickly that kind of tangled tangent tree can become unreadable. Turns out I should've followed my instinct: most of the responses have busied themselves with the holes in the fabric rather than the fabric itself. So listening at the moment, appropriately enough, to the Shaggs-- You can never please Any bah-hah-dee In! This! World! - --I'll make one final attempt to communicate exactly what I mean, though here's warning you that I'll be sacrificing some clarity and coherence for expedience: I've already invested way to much time in a thing that, it's become clear enough, is unworthy of my further attention. - --- neal copperman wrote: > At 3:41 PM -0700 9/27/99, Rubber DeNiro wrote: > > >I attempted--somewhat more obliquely--to make this > >point when Meredith first announced the dates of > >Ectofest to the group, but was disappointed to > learn > >that the consensus on Ecto was that none of that > >mattered, because it was for a good cause, and > >besides, "Ecto" is just a word. This wholesale > missing > >of the point--though no doubt my fault--was so > >discouraging to me that I simply bowed out of the > >discussion and made no further attempt to engage > the > >debate. > > I think a lot of people understand the point > Charley, they just don't agree > with you. I never said that every individual Ectophile missed the point, only that the loose consensus, as expressed by the majority of the responses, missed the point. I have no doubt that Neal, and others, understood but chose to disagree. That is not the point I was addressing in the passage quoted by Neal above. The point, once again, was simply that I was discouraged by the apparent consensus voice of Ecto; not by every single individual Ectophile. In fact, Neal continues-- > (I'm sure some agree too.) As indeed a few did, but most of these wrote me privately rather than respond in the public forum, reinforcing the impression that I was a lone madman crying out in the wilderness. > In fact, I think the original usage of the word > Ectofest was traced back to > parties in Europe Again, not my point at all. I've never expressed any disapproval of the term itself. > Those parties were actually > anounced the same way as > Meth's concert. hey, I'm throwing an ectofest party > on this date, all of > you are invited. No debate, no discussion. Also entirely beside the point. These were private parties (and please feel free to spin this discussion off into a pointless debate about the meaning of the word "private," since I'll be blissfully ignorant of it), sometimes also known as Ectogatherings, not a public and publicized official event with financial responsibilities and official relationships with and obligations to professional artists. There simply is no comparison between to two types of events. > Also, I think it's fair to say that the word Ecto > does mean more than just > the list. Ecto has become an adjective to describe > a certain (vaguely > defined) type of music, and it has even shown up in > some publications and > web sites not directly associated with ecto in just > that way. I don't > think it would be reaching to say that Ectofest was > a festival of Ecto > music, as well as a gathering of ectophiles. Again, all reasons that it was, in fact, a great name--even the obvious name--for the event. I have no objection to naming such an event Ectofest. If Meredith had written to Ecto something along the lines of "I'm thinking of planning a benefit concert for some great local charities and inviting some of my favorite Ectopian performers and calling it Ectofest 99. We could even make it an annual event! Any objections?" I'd never even have thought to have objected. I would have been just as enthusiastic as the next Ectophile. The only question I'd've asked is "What are the charities?" since I'd want to know if a charity event associated with a group of which I'm a member had plans to fund any, say, political or church-related institutions. And even at that, I would not have demanded veto power over the charities selected, only my right as an Ectophile to be heard on the subject. What I've been objecting to all along is Meredith's arrogance in assuming that any such choices she made would be perfectly acceptable to each individual Ectophile, and that therefore it was not necessary to hear their views on it. Now, don't get me wrong (ha! how likely is that?). It's true enough that Meth and I have disagreed in the past on our musical tastes, but by and large I'd have assumed she would have chosen well both in regards to the performers and the charities (as far as I know, that was, in fact, the case). If she'd said, "Any objection to my choosing the performers and the charities?" I'd've raised no objections. Obviously, Meredith's judgment can be entirely trusted in such a circumstance. But in putting on an event that was implied to have the blessing of Ecto, she had no right to confer that task on herself. I have no doubt that Ecto would gladly and instantly given her the go ahead, but Meth, as a member of this community, was obliged to acknowledge this community and it's responsibility to an event that bore its imprimatur. If she'd called it Methfest, I wouldn't have cared less if she invited the Nields and John Tesh to raise money for the fur industry, because it wouldn't have had anything to do with me. But she didn't. She named it Ectofest, which does. > I > wouldn't go so far as to > say that it wasn't also related to the list, but it > also clearly (I'd take serious issue with your use of this word, which approaches the heart of the matter: What association and responsibility was implicitly handed to Ecto, the list and its members, without their knowledge or consent [taxation--as it turns out, to the tune of $1500--without representation] by publicly labeling as Ectofest an event with serious financial and artistic obligations?) > wasn't > exclusively the list. While there were a lot of > ectophiles in attendance, > there were also a lot of (insert local hip radio > station call letters here) > listeners and various friends and family of > associated people. - --none of whom had their name on the T-shirts, and none of whom, I'll bet the farm, are staying awake nights trying to figure out how to bail it out. > > >But now with the subsequent revelation that the > event > >was not a financial success (one participant in the > >discussion estimated the loss at $1500 and was not, > to > >my knowledge, disputed), Ecto--once again, as a > >community--has rallied to the rescue and is racking > >its collective brains to discover a plan to bail > out > >its namesake festival. Needless to say, this would > not > >be the case if the event had not been labeled as an > >Ecto event. > > Once again, I disagree with this. No one has > suggested that everyone on > ecto should contribute money to bail out the debts > (or whatever) of the > festival. And I never suggested anyone has. Only that those who are putting forth an effort are doing so (besides their obvious generosity) out of a sense of responsibility to an event stamped with the Ecto label. And before anyone protests this assertion, will someone please point out any other instance where Ectophiles have attempted to unsink any other unsuccessful benefit? Or is this the first benefit in the history of charity ever to have failed to meet its goals, and that's why it's the first one that member of Ecto have stepped in to rescue? And no--anticipating here--I'm not saying that their doing so is in any way a bad thing. It's clearly a noble thing to do, and I'm glad that people are making this effort. I'm only saying, once again, that these people are clearly worthy of the respect Meredith should have shown them by acknowledging their responsibility up front. It's like Chicken Little in reverse: having failed to make the bread rise, Chicken Little is now dependent upon the Ecto Bakery (watch me grind this analogy deep into the ground) to step in and ensure the successful baking of the bread, which has the Ecto label on the bag (grind, grind). Further anticipating: I need hardly point out that my stand on this issue has nothing at all to do with the outcome of the event. I'd've raised exactly the same issues if it had been a rousing success. Obviously, since I raised these issues at the first announcement, when we all (me included) assumed that it _would_ be a success. The issue here is that Meth never considered the possibility that it would not be a success, and then what would Ecto's responsibility be? The responsibility, once again, since it has implicitly devolved to Ecto as a whole, should have been offered to Ecto in the first place. > All people have suggested is that > festival related items may be > purchased by anyone interested, and that's what the > money would go to. Again, a noble thing to do: this is the real charity (_caritas_) of this event. > >… > >This is all very heartwarming, of course, > >and I'm tremendously impressed by Ecto's strength > as a > >community in taking up this challenge. But I feel > that > >the point should be made that this is a burden > (noble > >though it may be) that was handed to Ecto by the > mere > >fact that Meredith named her event Ectofest, a > point > >which further emphasizes the point that I was > >attempting to make in the first place: that "Ecto" > is > >obviously _not_ "just a word"; it is, in this case, > an > >acknowledgment of responsibility for the event so > >labeled, which responsibility should have been > >acknowledged and reciprocated by Meredith before > the > >fact; her lack of respect for Ecto did not earn her > >this act of charity on the list's part. Especially > >since the assistance has been offered without the > kind > >of questions that I would certainly have asked: > > I find it rather confusing why when individuals > suggest ways to attempt to > raise money to offset the debts of Ectofest, that is > accepted as being an > offering from the whole list. I didn't mean to imply that it was. I merely meant that it was the Ectopian thing to do: that those individuals who are doing so are displaying a true Ectopian spirit; they are acting as true Ectophiles, not, as I inadvertently implied, as Ecto. > And yet, when > individuals put together a > concert, that is viewed as the act of individuals > and not the whole list. > How is it that Meth and Chuck (and the many other > ectophiles who worked > behind the scenes) do not represent ecto as a whole, > but Fog and me and the > few others who have suggested means of assisting > somehow do represent the > list? I don't see this. The organizers of Ectofest acted as if they were doing so on Ecto's behalf, when in fact they were not: they declared themselves Ecto's representatives, without the knowledge or prior approval of Ecto. On the other hand, the Ectophiles working to bail out the fest are acting as individuals and are not putting themselves forward as representatives of Ecto, though they _are_ including the rest of Ecto in their dialogue. These Ectophiles represent--no, they epitomize--the spirit of the list; by stepping in, as individuals, and accepting responsibility for their membership--as individuals--of the community that is Ecto: they are making these suggestions to the list as a whole. In addition to which, the act being contemplated and discussed is the act of giving one's own money, for which one is obviously individually responsible, to a cause one has individually chosen to give to; as opposed to accepting money from someone else and, ender the aegis of Ecto, determining to which third party that money should be given. (Though I'd argue that the intended recipient of these moneys is not, at the heart of it, the stated beneficiaries of Ectofest, but Ecto itself, as a concept. I doubt that most of the people who are contemplating sending off a check meant for the Interfaith AIDS Ministry would have done so unbidden, and that in a very real sense, they're really donating to Ectofest itself.) > > >(And I apologize to Ecto for being so out of step > with > >the way so many of the rest of you think. There is > a > >greater and greater discrepancy between the way I > view > >the world and the way Greater Ecto views the world; > >nowadays I delete probably 85% of the posts > unread.) > > Well, there has always been that discrepancy > Charley. Certainly more so now than ever. When I first joined, however many years ago, there was a greater area of overlap. > (Seriously, that is > not a slam or an insult.) Ecto is a less > interesting place for you > witholding your musical views and discoveries. I'll agree there. > Sometimes I agreed, often I > didn't, but I always found your posts interesting. > And we definitely need > the experimental/edgy/harder/hip hoppin' side of > things to balance out the > steady stream of softer, quieter, and sometimes (for > my taste) too poppy > side of ecto. I, for one, have missed your > contributions over the last > half year or so. Thank you, sincerely. I've missed contributing. I realized I had been silent for far too long when John named himself Ecto Asshole; I'd come to believe that was my title in perpetuity. > (and you still haven't sent me > your address so i can send > you that pile of tapes I've made for you!) (under separate cover) > > neal - --- Andrew Fries wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Rubber DeNiro > wrote: > > >Meredith never discussed Ectofest, in any way, with > >Ecto, until it was a done deal. She never even > >mentioned its existence, let alone bounced off the > >group her desire to use the group's imprimatur for > the > >festival. > > Well, speaking only for myself: I didn't feel > betrayed or left out in any > way. That's fine. Nice to have an opportunity to speak for yourself, eh? > True, Meredith took the initiative to organise > this thing, but I > don't believe anyone was excluded from having their > input once the ball > was rolling. She informed us in enough time for > anyone to voice their > objections to the use of name "Ectofest"... …I don't think that's the case: her announcement of the finalized dates was the first any of us heard of it. > but we > didn't, as a whole. I > for one had no problem with it then, so I'm not > about to complain now. > And again (and again and again and again) I'm sure no one would have objected to the name. I certainly wouldn't have. I simply object…oh, read what I wrote above (and yesterday, and in July). > > Personally, I'd go so far to > >say that, in naming it as an Ecto event, Meredith > >should have opened it up to input and active > >participation from the individual members of Ecto. > I'd agree with that statement. But I'm not aware of > anyone being > excluded. Did you, or anyone else volunteer their > assistance and were > turned down? Again, not so much assistance as the right, as an Ectophile, to be heard. BEFORE (anticipating) the decision-making process was completed. And no, I didn't volunteer to participate in Ectofest as a done deal, though I might have if the event was presented to Ecto the way I feel it should've been. And I certainly don't remember any call for volunteers. NOT (anticipating) that I'm saying there should have been such a call; I'm only saying that the event was not presented as such an open, Ecto-friendly event as you seem to be implying it was. > > >Meredith showed, in my opinion, a very un-Ectopian > >arrogance and hubris in taking it upon herself to > >speak for Ecto as a whole when Ecto, as a whole, > had > >not asked her to. > Well, true - we didn't ask, that's where the > intitiative comes into it. I'm not faulting her initiative in conceiving and planning the event. But it would have taken just as much initiative to've acknowledged the responsibility to Ecto taken on along with the name. How is it showing more initiative to have done everything in secret? > But I do believe (and I might be wrong) that we > could've stopped it, Again, no one would have stopped it. It was a great idea. NONE OF MY CRITICISM IS DIRECTED AT THE EVENT ITSELF, NOR EVEN THE EVENT'S NAME. Simply at the failure to allow individual Ectophiles the opportunity to be heard--BEFORE THE FACT--in regard to a public event presented under its imprimatur. > or > at least disassociate from it if we wanted. We > didn't, it seems. > > >I attempted--somewhat more obliquely--to make this > >point when Meredith first announced the dates of > >Ectofest to the group, but was disappointed to > learn > >that the consensus on Ecto was that none of that > >mattered, because it was for a good cause, and > >besides, "Ecto" is just a word. This wholesale > missing > >of the point--though no doubt my fault--was so > >discouraging to me that I simply bowed out of the > >discussion and made no further attempt to engage > the > >debate. > I believe I got your point, but I simply didn't > agree with it. See above (way above, at this point). > Or more > precisely, I agreed in principle Thank you. That's the only kind of agreement I'm interested in. > but didn't see it > as an obstacle in this > particulr case. Perhaps others felt that way too, > hence the consensus? Apparently. > > >though it may be) that was handed to Ecto by the > mere > >fact that Meredith named her event Ectofest > AND the fact we gave her our blessing... perhaps > slightly late, By necessity slightly late: we were given no prior opportunity. AGAIN, I have no doubt that we would have roundly blessed the event in either case; I know I would have done so, given the opportunity. Which I wasn't. > but after > all we did. > > >the assistance has been offered without the kind > >of questions that I would certainly have asked: Why > >did the event end up in the hole? How much money > was > >taken in? How much was spent on the way, and how > was > >it spent? Exactly _who_ is out $1500? Does this > mean > >the charities named as beneficiaries actually > received > >nothing at all? Is that a good thing? With this in > >mind, will the artists want to participate in > future > >Ecto-identified events? > These are good questions that could be asked at some > point, but not in > the spirit of placing blame and confrontation. I'm quite often guilty of inadvertently communicating more (or less) than I mean with tone than with words, but reading the above over and over again I cannot see your point. I raised the questions; in what possible way is that "in a spirit of placing blame and confrontation"? And at _what _ point should those questions be raised? No one else has raised them. Sorry, but I can't accept that raising these questions at _this_ point rather than at some _other_ point is somehow accusatory and confrontational. > Our > attempts to help out > don't have to be dependant on them, Of course they don't have to; I don't think they will be. It is, however, my opinion, that they should be; I'd consider those questions in any other instance, and so I think would the rest of the rescuers, if it weren't for the Ecto associations. > especially since > I don't recall the > organisers asking anyone to bail them out. Of course not. Why should they? Ecto will rise to the occasion. > But I > agree that I would > welcome some disclosure on that subject. Any seconds to this motion? My voice no longer counts, as an ex-Ectophile. - --- Joseph Zitt wrote: > I'd just like to reiterate that your sense of > betrayal is not shared by, > well, anyone else with whom I've been in contact, as > far as I know. > Having staged such events, and seen the level of > sniping that can take > place, I strongly suspect that an event organized > from the gitgo by a > group as large, distributed, and amorphous as Ecto > would never actually > take place. I applaud Meth for her energy and > leadership. And so do I, as I said above. Where, oh where oh where oh where, did I ever suggest that the organization of the entire event should've been wrested away from Meredith and placed in the hands of a faceless committee? I really don't think I did. Of course not; even if this whole thing had been someone else's idea, Meth would have been a good choice to head the effort. I feel silly defending myself on this point, because this is not a point I ever suggested. - --- Foghorn J Fornorn wrote: > I'm with you Joe. Some things (many things, if I > really think about it) are > NOT best done by committee. Foghorn is, of course, responding to Joe, not to me, and I agree with them both. > Meth and Chuck had the > contacts and initiative > to think of it *and* make it happen. Committees are > good at the thinking but > not so great at the doing. 100% agreement with every single point you make. > > And with that line-up, whatever in the world would > you call it other than > ectofest? If THEY hadn't called it ectofest, *WE* > would have, right!?! Absolutely, as I think I suggested somewhere above. Not, once again, the point I was making. - --- Michael Curry wrote: > At 09:47 PM 9/27/99 -0500, Joseph Zitt wrote: > >I'd just like to reiterate that your sense of > betrayal is not shared by, > >well, anyone else with whom I've been in contact, > as far as I know. > >Having staged such events, and seen the level of > sniping that can take > >place, I strongly suspect that an event organized > from the gitgo by a > >group as large, distributed, and amorphous as Ecto > would never actually > >take place. I applaud Meth for her energy and > leadership. > > I agree completely, though of course in the eyes > of some my opinion > doesn't count since I'm Meredith's friend and > therefore obviously must > think that she can do no wrong. > > I'm not going to waste anyone's time with a point > by point defense > of ectofest and the hard work that Meredith and > Chuck (who is probably > grateful that he isn't the one having crap thrown at > him) (Plenty of crap to go around, of course, but I'm just responding to what's been put out there. Sorry to've singled Meth out, but I've yet to see Chuck show up outside the third person since this whole thing began. This has all stemmed from my original response to an announcement that Meredith made herself. Sorry, Chuck, if I'm making you feel left out.) > put into it, Not a thing I'd disagree with there, regarding the hard work that went into the event's organization. > though I will say that I wish the ectofest has > managed to be as much of > a success financially as it was in every other way > so that people who > need to snipe because they feel left out would have > had one less thing > to bitch about. > > Mike I can understand, Mike, what with you being Meredith's friend and all, that you would feel the need to get a little snarly in coming to her defense. But I think I made it abundantly clear that my objections have nothing whatsoever to do with the event's level of financial success. How the whole thing came out in the wash merely serves to emphasize that, solicited or not, _acknowledged_ or not, Ecto's responsibility for this event was, and continues to be, a very real thing. (And don’t be silly; I'll never have one less thing to bitch about.) - --- Valerie Nozick wrote: > I've tried not to respond to the ectofest thread, > because I consider myself more of an ecto lurker > than active contributor these days, but I cannot let > this thread pass by without adding my two cents. > > Meredith and Chuck should be applauded for their > efforts in organizing ectofest, not criticized. > Before their initiative, I never saw anyone seize > the opportunity to create anything close to the > level of this concert festival. Their hearts were in > the right place in doing this for charity, and they > sought to provide a fundraising opportunity for > local charities as well as an opportunity for some > artists who don't get much airplay to play to a new > audience. I would ask the folks who are criticizing > Meredith and Chuck, when is the last time you did > something like this? So what you're saying then, Valerie, if I read you right, is that the ends justify the means: that just because they had a good idea, and put a lot of time into it, that anyone who has anything to say about the process itself better just keep it to himself; and further, that only people who have actually and literally put on a live concert for charity have any right to comment on any aspect of this event. Now I'm not one to bandy about loaded words like "fascist," Valerie, but if I _were_ that type of person, I'd be all aquiver with joy at the opportunity you've just provided me. How dare you place such stringent conditions on my right to be heard as an Ectophile? On my right to voice my opinions on a heavily Ecto-related situation? You may keep your opinions to yourself if you wish, Valerie, but you may not dictate the conditions under which I will voice mine. (Change all that to past tense, of course, as I am _so_ outta here.) And besides, if the ends justify the means, well then this is hardly a textbook case, eh? Not very impressive ends at all, as it turns out; certainly not the kind of ends that would justify the means employed here. > > As for the fest carrying the ecto name, let's face > it folks, we don't own this name, nor do we own this > type of music. Ecto is first and foremost the name > of Happy's album. It is increasingly being used to > refer to a type of music, much of which we happen to > discuss on this list. Last I checked, none of us had > trademarked the name. I'm not in any way talking about trademarks or legal rights--that doesn't come into this discussion at all. I'm talking about the event's organizers' moral obligation, as members of a community, not simply to _pretend_ to be acting as representatives of that community, without fulfilling the obligations implied in taking up that position as representative. > Charley, I know you have been vocal about not being > included in this. And you have every right to > express that opinion on this list. HOWEVER, I have > not heard many voices joining you. By and large, > people have been happy with the name Ectofest. Again, include me in on that. > Please recognize that and learn to live with that, > so this list can go back to being the non-flame-war, > productive and informative list it used to be. You > do not own ecto; Meredith and Chuck do not own ecto; > no one here owns ecto. If someone wants to create a > festival named ectofest, they have every right in > the world to do that. Certainly every legal right. But if the organizers of that theoretical even are members of a community so named, … [cut and paste from above] > If people don't understand > that ectofest refers to a type of music (and > especially that it rightfully refers to a festival > featuring Happy Rhodes), then perhaps the festival > would have been better named > ambiant-folk-celtic-rock-pop-too-small-for-Lilith-Fair-fest. > But I hope you see the problem in that. :) > > ==> Valerie Again^99, my objection is not to the name; only to the shirking of the responsibility to the list that came with the use of the name. So finally, Ecto, thanks for the ride. - --Charley It's been swell, but the swelling's gone down. --Tank Girl __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V5 #324 **************************