From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V6 #169 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Wednesday, June 14 2000 Volume 06 : Number 169 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Today's your birthday, friends... [Mike Matthews ] Sinead [anna maria "stjärnell" ] Surfacing ["Marcel Rijs" ] RE: Surfacing ["Amy" ] Re: Surfacing [jburka@min.net] SINEAD O'CONNOR SAYS SHE'S BI [atholbrose ] Re: Surfacing ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: Surfacing [jburka@min.net] Re: Sinead [Joseph Zitt ] Re: Surfacing [Joseph Zitt ] Re: Sinead [Bill ] Re: This and that ["phclark" ] Re: This and that [Bill ] Sezen Aksu [jjhanson@att.net] Recommendation: Laura Shawen Band [RocketsTail@aol.com] surfacing under the lionheart [dmw ] Re: Surfacing [damon foam ] All About Eve ["Marcel Rijs" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:00:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Matthews Subject: Today's your birthday, friends... i*i*i*i*i*i i*i*i*i*i*i *************** *****HAPPY********* **************BIRTHDAY********* *************************************************** *************************************************************************** *************** Chris Montville (chris@foodsci.rutgers.edu) *************** ******** Ectoplasm (original name) Mailing List (no Email address) ******** *************************************************************************** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Chris Montville Tue June 13 1978 Gemini Ectoplasm (original name) Mailing List Thu June 13 1991 Fuzzier blue Paul Huesman Wed June 14 1967 coffee drinker Mark R. Susskind Wed June 15 1966 Gemini Mike Matthews Mon June 16 1969 Dr. Firewall Albert Philipsen Mon June 17 1968 Gemini Neal R. Copperman Thu June 17 1965 Gemini Susan Kay Anderson Tue June 17 1969 Gemini Ecto-The Mailing List Tue June 18 1991 Fuzzy blue Tracy Barber Mon June 18 1956 Gemini Greg Dunn Thu June 18 1953 + Paul Blair Thu June 18 1964 Objectivist David Lubkin Fri June 20 1958 OurLady Marisa Wood Fri June 20 1969 Gemini Cheri Villines Sun June 20 1965 Gemini-Leo rising Ray Misra Sat June 20 1970 Gemini Nik Popa Sun June 22 1969 Cancer Teresa VanDyne Thu June 23 1960 Cancer Dave Torok Mon June 24 1968 Cancer Ethan Straffin Thu June 24 1971 Cancer Kevin Dekan Mon June 27 1960 Cancer Samantha Tanner Tue June 30 1970 Wild Goose BunkyTom Tue July 02 1968 Cancer Anders Hallberg Tue July 03 1962 Cancer Kevin Harkins Thu July 05 1973 Cancer Laurel Krahn Mon July 05 1971 Cancer John J Henshon Mon July 05 1954 The Year Of The Horse / Ruled By The Moon Jim Gurley Mon July 06 1959 Cancer Lisa Wilson Fri July 08 1960 Moonchild with Java Rising Courtney Dallas Fri July 09 1971 Catte Michael Peskura Sat July 09 1949 HallOfFamer Finney T. Tsai Sat July 09 1966 Cancer Larry Greenfield Tue July 11 1950 Virgo Rising; Gemini Moon Marion Kippers Tue July 13 1965 Kreeft Ellen Rawson Thu July 13 1961 Double Cancer - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:16:56 -0700 (PDT) From: anna maria "stjärnell" Subject: Sinead Hi.. My worst songs of all time are.. Africa by Toto Hotel California by Eagles anything by Bryan Adams anything by Celine Dion Achy, breaky Heart by Billy Ray Cyrus(eek!) and I should be so Lucky by Kylie. Am off to the shop in a minute to buy Sinead. cant wait. Anna Maria np-Jorane-Vent fou __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:34:21 +0200 From: "Marcel Rijs" Subject: Surfacing Hi, meredith wrote: > glenn commented: > >Letting popularity distort your tastes in either > >direction is, I suspect, more often than not a form of snobbery. Ecto seems > >particularly vulnerable to it, and it's nothing to be proud of. > > I bought _Surfacing_ before it was officially released, therefore well > before it became a huge seller and rocketed Sarah McLachlan to > superstardom. I don't listen to it for one simple reason: it's a bad > album. The number of units sold has absolutely nothing to do with it. Do > I feel that Sarah was *trying* to get more popular, and that affected the > quality of the album? Yes. (Her strategy obviously worked, so more power > to her.) Will I buy Sarah's next album? Probably, though I bet I'll check > it out at a listening station first. I beg to differ. From what I've read, Sarah was more or less pushed to release a new album while she only had a few songs ready to record. The eight new tracks on Surfacing were all she had to offer at the time, hence the inclusion of the older song "Full of grace". Most of the songs are ballads, reflecting, I guess, what she wanted to "say" at the time. Claiming that she was consciously trying to get more popular is IMHO untrue. Her popularity must stem from the Lilith Fairs in the US, which also explains why she is still virtually unkown here in Europe. As for the album itself: I've heard there are a lot of people here on ecto complaing that it isn't as diverse as Fumbling Towards Ecstacy, and it doesn't have the silent magic Touch and Solace had. Still it was in my top 10 of that year's best albums and I can't imagine I was alone in that. I can see the flaws in Surfacing (40 minutes is a bit short, the songs don't stand out at first listen, it's notably different from her previous efforts) but pronouncing "it's a bad album" is just the kind of snobbery glenn is referring to. I do hope I don't offend you meth, but this is what I was thinking when I read your post.... Kind regards, Marcel Rijs afd. Communicatie marcel.rijs@kb.nl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:12:59 -0500 From: "Amy" Subject: RE: Surfacing Hi All, Marcel wrote: > As for the album itself: I've heard there are a lot of people > here on ecto complaing that it > isn't as diverse as Fumbling Towards Ecstacy, and it doesn't have > the silent magic Touch and > Solace had. Still it was in my top 10 of that year's best albums > and I can't imagine I was > alone in that. No you are not! I would offer that it is because Sarah (even at her, um "not best") is better than a lot of the stuff out there! I didn't like "Surfacing" much either. There are a few songs I like quite a bit, but some I can't stand. But it was also in my top 10 because there wasn't ten or more that I liked better. *shrug*. I don't know if I've ever heard an album more perfect than "Fumbling..." though. Well, "Little Earthquakes" comes to mind, but it's a close second for me. Just my .02... ~Amy Women In Music http://www.ecalos.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:22:50 -0400 (EDT) From: jburka@min.net Subject: Re: Surfacing On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Marcel Rijs wrote: > I beg to differ. From what I've read, Sarah was more or less pushed to > release a new album while she only had a few songs ready to record. Sure. Just like _Lionheart_, right? But while that's probably my least favorite Kate Bush album, I still like it and listen to it with some regularity. > The eight new tracks on Surfacing were all she had to offer at the > time, hence the inclusion of the older song "Full of grace". older, perhaps, but unreleased (in either the "Fall From" or "Full of" variety). > I can see the flaws in Surfacing (40 minutes is a bit > short This is entirely too similar to the "you need to have 10 or more songs on an album" argument and is silly beyond words. There was a time not long ago when a 40 minute album was average, not short. I can't imagine complaining that the eponymous Suzanne Vega album is too short -- it's too incredibly brilliant for silly claims like that -- yet it clocks in right around 36 minutes! > different from her previous efforts) but pronouncing "it's a bad > album" is just the kind of snobbery glenn is referring to. _Surfacing_ is bad. I would guess I've listened to it less than 10 times straight through since I bought it. I've probably listened to all three of her other albums within the last month. They're worth hearing. _Surfacing_ has moments, but they're few and far between. Am I happy that Sarah is doing well? Absolutely, though I miss being able to see her in smaller venues. But since I'm satisified with her albums, that's not even a big deal. I completely feel to see why my sense that _Surfacing_ was dull and pointless from the very first time I heard it (the day it was released in the US, when I bought two copies after driving around looking for the Borders limited edition version with the extra CD) makes me a snob. A critic with strong opinions about the music to which I listen? Sure. But how does this make me a snob? jeff n.p. _Vent Fou_, Jorane (could this album be any more brilliant? doubtful) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:57:59 -0400 From: atholbrose Subject: SINEAD O'CONNOR SAYS SHE'S BI Sorry, just correcting the message header. - -- r. n. dominick -- cinnamon@one.net this blinding kiss breathes helium into my heart (np: Tin Hat Trio -- "Helium") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:02:28 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: Surfacing > _Surfacing_ is bad. I would guess I've listened to it less than 10 times > straight through since I bought it. At the risk of harping on what should be the patently obvious, the fact that you haven't listened to it very much doesn't make it "bad", it just means *you* don't like it. I think _Surfacing_ is mainly less surprising and less intense than _Fumbling..._. I like _Fumbling..._ better, personally, too, but it seems to me that you have to have remarkably narrow tastes to think that one is great and the other is awful. Then again, I've always believed that there's nothing wrong with _Lionheart_, either, and that if you introduced new fans to Kate without imposing the received "wisdom" about the second album having been done hastily, it would probably not occur to them of its own accord. glenn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:37:06 -0400 (EDT) From: jburka@min.net Subject: Re: Surfacing On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, glenn mcdonald wrote: > At the risk of harping on what should be the patently obvious, the fact > that you haven't listened to it very much doesn't make it "bad", it just > means *you* don't like it. Well of *course*. That's the whole point of expressing these opinions. That's why Neile tries to get viewpoints, both positive and negative, from multiple folks for the Guide. Music (and other art) appreciation is inherently subjective and to suggest that it isn't *is* snobbery. > I think _Surfacing_ is mainly less surprising > and less intense than _Fumbling..._. I like _Fumbling..._ better, > personally, too, but it seems to me that you have to have remarkably > narrow tastes to think that one is great and the other is awful. The adjective I must often use to describe _Surfacing_, and which I have used on ecto countless times since the week of its release, is "boring." I've never called it awful -- it's got too many good songs for that. It's just *boring*. I'm quite literally never inspired to listen to it. I don't see this as having "remarkably narrow tastes" -- I see it as having a sense of what moves me, and the common sense to listen to the music that enhances my life and my sense of the world, rather than feeling obligated to listen to something I find boring simply because my appreciation of Sarah McLachlan's previous work suggests that I'm a bad fan if I don't. I have better things to do with my time. (I do have to admit that I find the song "I Love You" to be utterly appalling and unlistenable, but that's just one song...I feel the same way about "Dreams" from the first Cranberries album, but that's why there's a skip button on the cd player...) > Then again, I've always believed that there's nothing wrong with > _Lionheart_, either, and that if you introduced new fans to Kate without > imposing the received "wisdom" about the second album having been done > hastily, it would probably not occur to them of its own accord. I never suggested that _Lionheart_ had something wrong with it, and in fact, I dredged that up to contradict Marcel's contention that anything that was wrong with _Surfacing_ could be blamed on its hasty production -- my point was that _Lionheart_ is purported to have been done in much the same way, but it's worth listening to. jeff n.p. still on Jorane's _Vent Fou_ but I'm about to head over to Olssons to pick up the new Sinead! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:51:57 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Sinead On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 04:16:56AM -0700, anna maria stjärnell wrote: > Hi.. > My worst songs of all time are.. > Africa by Toto > Hotel California by Eagles Hmm. Those are two of my favorites. Hard to pick a worst song, but yes, Achy Breaky Heart would be in the running. n.p. Peeter Vahi: Supreme Silence (A glorious work for English Handbell Choir, Estonian Male Choir, Tibetan chanters, and soloists) n.r. John Wickes: Innovations in British Jazz 1960-1980 - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:06:59 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Surfacing On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 11:37:06AM -0400, jburka@min.net wrote: > The adjective I must often use to describe _Surfacing_, and which I have > used on ecto countless times since the week of its release, is > "boring." I've never called it awful -- it's got too many good songs for > that. It's just *boring*. I'm quite literally never inspired to listen > to it. Same here. OTOH, I do listen to "Mirrorball", on which some of the songs come to life. > n.p. still on Jorane's _Vent Fou_ but I'm about to head over to Olssons > to pick up the new Sinead! Grr, I gotta wait till the evening to pick up the new Sinead (and the new Peter Gabriel and the new La Monte Young, and...) - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:46:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Subject: Re: Sinead On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Joseph Zitt wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 04:16:56AM -0700, anna maria stjärnell wrote: > > My worst songs of all time are.. > > Africa by Toto > > Hotel California by Eagles > > Hmm. Those are two of my favorites. Hard to pick a worst song, but > yes, Achy Breaky Heart would be in the running. Yeah, I too really like Hotel California. Maybe it's because it is one of those "highschool" songs for me. The latest live version is particularly nice. - - Bill G. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:23:27 -0700 From: "phclark" Subject: Re: This and that - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mitchell A. Pravatiner" To: Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 6:35 PM Subject: This and that > WRT the scenario of MP3 killing the recording industry as we know it: no > computer I know of is capable of the same sound quality as the best CD > decks. So it would be a shame to kill off CDs. Besides, what if the > industry managed to force the availability of online files of records to > be on a pay-per-listen basis? So much for the first-sale doctrine in > copyright law. > > Mitch > > After reading only some of the tedious Napster commentary, plus the above, I am at last constrained to comment. Coupla things first, though. This list is made up of a tiny minority of the "music consuming public." I'm a member of a tinier minority on the list, I suspect, in that not only do I live and die (figuratively) for the Ecto artists' work, but also have some pretty good equipment to play it on. I made the apparent error of believing "Perfect Sound Forever" ten years ago and sold all my vinyl and started building a CD collection in lieu. I regretted this almost immediately and have spent years trying just reacquire the stuff I foolishly got rid of. No question about Mitch's first comment. Computers don't read music CDs the same way a CD player does. I make no representation as to whether this is good or bad, just different. It is, however, worth pointing out that the music CD is *recorded or real time, no buffering, etc., etc. They will never sound the same, similar ain't the same. MP3s samo, samo. My guess is that this would not be the intent of either the concrete-eared engineer who mixed it or the poor artist who has to put up with this. For someone who can find music in general deeply affecting, and the Ecto "genre" in particular, this is distressing. I have spent much time and treasure in the attempt to get my gear to a point where the *music* is recoverable from whatever medium is used. To miss any of it because of some bonehead is annoying, at minimum. Alas, I have no answer to the MP3 "problem." Compression strategies for MP3, et al., were developed for bandwidth hungry music reproduction at a time when bandwidth was, by comparison, expensive. It is less so now and will get even cheaper. Unfortunately, we're going to be stuck with the MP3 and DVD compression algorithms for a long time because it's apparently not in the "producers" economic interests to leave the "excess information" or "dead air" (!!!!) in the recording. Personally, this relates to the whole Napster thing in that I would never tolerate the sound that comes out of my computer in my living room. Copyright difficulties notwithstanding. I have a reasonably fast computer (333MHz) with DSL (not enuff RAM, though); streaming audio is an offense to the ear, downloaded is only marginally better. Call me a stick in the mud, I can only use music off the net to audition with. If it sounds promising (Basque!!!!!), I'll buy the record or CD, taking my chances. Since I can resell it, it will at worst cost me a coupla bucks to get a "real" audition. So, at the risk of being labeled some sort of elitist, I'll redouble my efforts to buy the new releases on vinyl (I'm hoping for Sinead O'Connor's new one on vinyl, the labels never say how many they press) and CD when I can't. Thrill of the hunt, sort of thing. (I couldn't believe my good fortune at finding Lisa Dalbello's first on vinyl a month or so ago.) I thank my lucky stars that there's 30 - 40 years of vinyl out there I haven't heard, and it's cheap. The future of music reproduction is not in our hands, no matter how much handwringing, and notwithstanding what Metallica thinks about their copyrights. Where there are economic interests concerned, someone will always find a way to circumvent the laws, however temporarily. I'm more concerned about the quality of what we actually wind up getting. My $0.02. Peter C ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Subject: Re: This and that On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, phclark wrote: [mega snip] > I have spent much time and treasure in the attempt to get my gear to a > point where the *music* is recoverable from whatever medium is used. [more snipping] > I'm more concerned about the quality of what we actually wind up > getting. Same here. I skipped the whole MiniDisc craze just because of the personal believe that taking information out of the recording just to make it fit in a smaller-size medium is a no-no. I want every bit, every pulse, and every sigh in my recording, even if the folks at Sony think I won't be able to hear it anyway. For the same reason, I am not going to rush to the store and by an MP3 player. To me, MP3s are computer files that my ecto pals send me only to bait me to go buy a CD. Technology is a wonderful thing, and I am all for finding better and quicker ways of storing and distributing music. But in the end, I want to have in my living room playback equipment and storage media that can handle the highest resolution possible, so I can hear all the music there was in that recording room. My two pennies. - - Bill G. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:22:32 +0000 From: jjhanson@att.net Subject: Sezen Aksu Hello folks, Is anyone here on ecto familiar with Turkish singer Sezen Aksu? A friend of mine sent me an article that called her the Turkish Haris Alexiou, so I was immediately intrigued. I was able to finally track down her album "The Wedding and the Funeral" and really enjoy it--definitely has an ethnic feel-- but her voice is pretty incredible. The songs on the album are all written by Goran Bergovic, and the lryics of one song, Allahm Varsa (If You Believe in God), were written by Ofra Haza (and this song is very familiar--I think Eleftheria Arvanataki might have covered it as well--someone I have does). Anyway, I've searched for info about Sezen Aksu on the net but most of the sites about her are all in Turkish. Anyone have a complete discography or have any of her other albums? Jeff Hanson n.p. Sezen Aksu - The Wedding and the Funeral n.r. Yo! - Julia Alvarez ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:41:09 EDT From: RocketsTail@aol.com Subject: Recommendation: Laura Shawen Band I just got a CD today from the Laura Shawen Band...and she is pretty incredible, her voice will knock you out! If you get time check out the songs "Burn", "Ugly Girl", and "Shakespeare's Lover" at http://www.mp3.com/laurashawen Okay I'm done :) -eRic http://www.laurashawen.com "So don't try to tell me there's no Reason for any moment in time Every memory of mine Those years are lines of Color on my face My past is warpaint" ~Happy Rhodes ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:31:36 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: surfacing under the lionheart On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, glenn mcdonald wrote: > Then again, I've always believed that there's nothing wrong with > _Lionheart_, either, and that if you introduced new fans to Kate without > imposing the received "wisdom" about the second album having been done > hastily, it would probably not occur to them of its own accord. just for the record, i had no idea until about 5 minutes ago that _lionheart_ had been done hastily, and i love a couple of the songs on it. i've always considered the first three albums very much of a piece; they each have their moments, they show a lot of promise, but the promise isn't really fulfilled until _the dreaming_ comes along. i think _surfacing_ is pretty dreadful. it didn't bug me as much when it was released...i see i gave it a very generous 'B'...but it's hard for me now to listen to songs like "angel" or "i love you" without hearing them as either very calculated, if pretty, attempts to sell a lot of records, or vapid regurgitation of other people's calculated, if pretty, attempts to sell a lot of records, neither of which are very interesting to me. i'm with neal on the snobbery thing: it doesn't matter how many people listen to the record, but i do enjoy live performances, and club shows are about a million times more satisfying than stadium shows. i'd like to add a brief note of thanks to everyone who contributed thoughtful, politely worded opposing views re: napster, copyright, etc., both on- and off-list. i've said all i have to say on the topic (for now at least), i think we'll just have to agree to disagree. - -- d. np captain beefheart & his magic band _grow fins_ (3) - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:44:06 -0400 From: damon foam Subject: Re: Surfacing Amy wrote: > > Hi All, > > Marcel wrote: > > > As for the album itself: I've heard there are a lot of people > > here on ecto complaing that it > > isn't as diverse as Fumbling Towards Ecstacy, and it doesn't have > > the silent magic Touch and > > Solace had. Still it was in my top 10 of that year's best albums > > and I can't imagine I was > > alone in that. > > No you are not! I would offer that it is because Sarah (even at her, um > "not best") is better than a lot of the stuff out there! I didn't like > "Surfacing" much either. There are a few songs I like quite a bit, but some > I can't stand. But it was also in my top 10 because there wasn't ten or > more that I liked better. *shrug*. I don't know if I've ever heard an album > more perfect than "Fumbling..." though. Well, "Little Earthquakes" comes to > mind, but it's a close second for me. > Just my .02... > bah on you. but then i've always been an ambiguous sarah fan. in ecto terms, and i'm still new here so i'm guessing, i'd put fumblin at the level of mazzy star's first disc. i'd sey bel canto's shimmering... is more perfect. hmm, what else.... actually, i'd put as perfect mbv's loveless and slowdive's just for a day. - -- The universe has a different ending. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:19:23 +0200 From: "Marcel Rijs" Subject: All About Eve Hi all, Today is the release date of "Fairy Light Night", a new CD by All About Eve. I guess a lot of you don't know this English band very well, which is why it's fortunate they're in the Ectophiles Guide to Good Music. AAE broke up after the album "Ultraviolet" in 1992, but reformed last year when they were supporting The Mission for three gigs in England. "Fairy Light Night" is a recording of a series of acoustic gigs the band did in January and February this year. They are currently touring England again. I hear the album is already out in the US and Europe on the Almafame label, and today is the official UK release date. For more information you can visit www.julianneregan.net or subscribe to the allabouteve mailing list on www.onelist.com . (Please note that the mailing list address in the Guide is now long defunct). I will send you a review of the album once I can manage to find a copy for myself....... Kind regards, Marcel Rijs afd. Communicatie marcel.rijs@konbib.nl ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V6 #169 **************************