From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@ecto.org To: fegmaniax-digest@ecto.org Reply-To: fegmaniax@ecto.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@ecto.org Subject: Feg Digest V5 #102 Fegmaniax Digest Volume 5 Number 102 Monday May 19 1997 To post, send mail to fegmaniax@ecto.org To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@ecto.org with the words "unsubscribe fegmaniax-digest" in the message body. Send comments, etc. to the listowner at owner-fegmaniax@ecto.org FegMANIAX! Web Page: http://remus.rutgers.edu/~woj/fegmaniax/index.html Archives are available at ftp://www.ecto.org/pub/lists/fegmaniax/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today's Topics: ------- ------- Hey Kids... It's Me... Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees Re: Beatles, drummers Glass... Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees Re: Beatles, drummers the latest mailshot from antwoman Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees Re: Beatles, drummers Re: Beatles, drummers Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees Re: Beatles, drummers Re: Theological musings (was Re: Spinbaughlicious) Re: Beatles, drummers Re: Beatles, drummers Re: Beatles, Phil ------------------------------ From: RxBroome@aol.com Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 15:52:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Hey Kids... It's Me... Good lord, it's been a while. I think I've finally resurrected my computer from the dead... so I'm more or less back. Couple of things: 1) Sears jingle. Not too long ago I dragged out an old nylon-string guitar for a recording session. It's a Harmony-- that being code for "guitar manufactured by Sears"... as I was explaining this to an uninformed friend, I decided to punctuate the explanation with a delicate, finger-picked rendition of the jingle "Come see the softer side of Sears"... which immediately suggested to me an alternate version, for the Harmony electric guitar, celebrating the "harder side" of Sears. The guitar would be called a Craftsman and the backing track would ironically sound like Tool... 2) "Give the Beatles credit" argument. Kids... whatever. It's a matter of taste. Most of us, I think, love the Beatles and see their influence everywhere (not least in Robyn's music). But if somebody doesn't dig 'em, so what? It ain't Heresy. I can see very easily how the omnipresence of Beatles and Beatle- esque music could create apathy and even disdain in even the most discerning music afficianado. It's just taste. I've said it before: I sure do hate Led Zepplin, and there are a lotta people out there who consider Zep to be the ultimate distillation of All Things Rawk and would just as soon strip me of all Fanboy Credibility as many of you would probably like to crucify Michael Stipe for dismissing the Beatles. Let it go. There simply is no "absolute" of greatness. Just opinion. The preponderance of people who hold the opinion that the Beatle are / were great DOES count for something. But in sheer numbers, a LOT of those people probably think they're great because of repeated exposure on the radio, which is the main thing that seems to set musical taste... how else do you explain the Spice Girls, or The Eagles for that matter? That's not why most Robyn fans are also Beatle fans... that actually DOES have something to do with consideration of the music at hand. But I do know this: growing up, the only rock music I heard, really, was a set of about six 45's and a handful of LP's my dad owned. The 45's were by the Band, CCR, and, yep, "Nowhere man" and "Come Together"-- the LP's were a '50's comp and "The Monkees". Which I think prepped me to like Robyn and other Beatles- influenced music more than other styles. Years later, the first time I bought and listened to a Robyn record was in the middle of exploring the Beatles LP catalogue for the first time-- I also bought and listened to "Rubber Soul" for the first time that same day. So color me guilty. See ya soon... Rex ------------------------------ Subject: Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees Date: Sun, 18 May 97 17:45:22 -0000 From: The Great Quail OK, I dmit that I very rarely rise to these sort of things, but as all my best friends are drummers, I feel the need to defend the faith. Terry wrote: > (I don't care much for Ringo. In most >every band except The Monkees, the drummer has been expendable) Oh, Terry! Shame on you to so throw this bit of bait into the water and not expect a few sharks. . . .Expendable drummers? What about: Rush (Neil Peart) King Crimson (Bill Bruford) Yes (Bill Bruford, Alan White) The Grateful Dead (Mickey Hart & Bill Kreutzman) Phish (Jon Fishman) All thse groups would be terribly different were their drummers to clock out in a Spinal Tappish fashion. Although I do agree with you one this . .. none were half as good as the Monkeys ;) The Quail ---------------------------------+-------------------------------- The Great Quail, K.S.C. | TheQuail@cthulhu.microserve.com | "Keeper of the Libyrinth" | Sarnath - The Quailspace Web Page: riverrun Discordian Society | http://www.microserve.net/~thequail 73 De Chirico Street | Arkham, Orbis Tertius 2112-42 | ** What is FEGMANIA? ** "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P. Lovecraft ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 15:04:34 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees >Rush (Neil Peart) >King Crimson (Bill Bruford) >Yes (Bill Bruford, Alan White) >The Grateful Dead (Mickey Hart & Bill Kreutzman) >Phish (Jon Fishman) Uh oh, I smell a hippie.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 15:36:50 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers >> Terrence M Marks wrote: >> >And perfect? I'll just assume that that's the hype talking. The first few >albums were disposable teenybopper rock. Abbey Road strikes me as mostly >Chuck Berry retreads. Either you're saying "no bum songs" which is wrong, >or "mostly good", which would fit either The Kinks or The Beach Boys from >1964-1970 also. You could just as easily say that Rain Parade or The Soft >Boys had 100% perfection.... Boy, I disagree with this in a million ways. First off, I would never say that the Soft Boys or the Rain Parade had 100% perfection. Particularly the Rain Parade. Their music has aged terribly, if you ask me. Most people nowadays don't even remember that the band ever existed. FAR from an unassailable group. And I sure could never call A Can of Bees a "perfect" album. Or "Invisible Hits," for that matter. Also, the Beatles' early songs are miles and miles beyond Chuck Berry, in terms of melodic/harmonic complexity (not to mention singing ability). I mean, how many songs did Berry EVER do with more than three chords? Even in the Beatles' earliest days, you can find relatively sophisticated melodies like "Please Please Me," "Not A Second Time," "All My Loving," "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You." Chuck Berry never could've written any of those songs. As for saying Abbey Road sounds like Chuck Berry retreads, I can only say "HUH?" Like someone else said, that argument holds no water at all beyond "Come Together." >Well...I bet if Paul was dead, people would say he's the leader >also... I don't believe that at all. Even while the Beatles were still together, John was perceived as the band's leader. >John and Paul were both necessary for the Beatles sounds...I'm just >tired of people going around saying "Yeah, John wrote all the cool songs" >then slagging George and Paul. Well, that's true and a bit sad, but understandable. John gets more respect because most Paul songs don't have a lot of emotional depth (with notable exceptions like "Hey Jude," "Michelle," "Here There & Everywhere," "For No One," "Blackbird," "She's Leaving Home," "Eleanor Rigby"...). Also, I think Paul's sappy solo career has tarnished his image significantly. If Lennon had lived to put out more mediocre, indifferent solo albums like Mind Games and Rock & Roll, perhaps his reputation would've suffered also. >I don't care much for Ringo. In most >every band except The Monkees, the drummer has been expendable. The Monkees? Jeez, Dolenz didn't even drum on many of the tracks! I'm not going to say that Ringo is especially essential to the Beatles, but there are certainly lots of other bands with unexpendable drummers. Even going beyond all the obvious cases where the drummers sing lead or write songs, how about Mo Tucker (VU), John Bonham (Zep), Keith Moon (Who), Mitch Mitchell (Hendrix), Ginger Baker (Cream), George Hurley (Minutemen, fIREHOSE), Johnny Hott (House of Freaks), John Densmore & Dave Grohl (already mentioned), FM Einheit (Einsturzende Neubauten), Michael Giles (King Crimson -- not just Bruford ), Drumbo/John Thompson (Captain Beefheart), anything with Chris Cutler (Henry Cow, Art Bears, Pere Ubu...), and Stewart Copeland (Police)? And a particularly superb example, regarding a recently discussed band: David Narcizo of Throwing Muses. Any of those drummers added significant stylistic input to their groups, if you ask me. And then if we got into JAZZ, well, forget about it.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 16:20:15 -0700 From: Mark Gloster Subject: Glass... A couple of my favorite fegs put a nail into a stick and whacked one of my favorite RH songs. Yes, "Glass" may contain three chords (I would probably add a passing chord or two), but it has a gorgeous melody and managed to sneak 7/4 time in a couple of times, which means many bands could never play it. (How many bands have you heard play "All You Need Is Love" correctly?) This song is closer in observation to an almost heavy pop song without getting so gooey. I think the zen of sneaking more complex structure and meaning into a fundamentally unoriginal idea gives this song charm and _lasting quality_. It is the song I listen to the most off of _Fegmania!_, and with no apologies. A great many songs are crappy because they don't complete a thought lyrically or musically, they just wander around with too many images, thoughts, and chords. Not opinion- fact. ;-) Some of my favorite songs have three chords. Most of them have good melodies and compelling lyrics. I think I'll put "Glass" right among them. The big winner of the last song-off was "Airscape," if I remember correctly. That's only got one more chord, though it's really well placed. I also don't think it implies as broad chordal texture as "Glass," but your mileage may vary, since I am blissfully untouched by the ravages of intellegence and aural goodness. Nick (at nite) and Terry (somewhere in Fla.), your assignment is to each write a great song that stands near or above "Glass." I promise I'll be a big fan. I can't wait. BTW, I'm trying to do this myself. -Mark Gloster Comparative Quotations: "Jesus is just alright." - Doobies "Frank Zappa is the best!" - Dale Bozzio ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:21:54 -0500 (CDT) From: John Tyson Littlejohn Subject: Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees On Sun, 18 May 1997, The Great Quail wrote: > > (I don't care much for Ringo. In most > >every band except The Monkees, the drummer has been expendable) > > Oh, Terry! Shame on you to so throw this bit of bait into the water and > not expect a few sharks. . . .Expendable drummers? What about: > > > Rush (Neil Peart) > King Crimson (Bill Bruford) > Yes (Bill Bruford, Alan White) > The Grateful Dead (Mickey Hart & Bill Kreutzman) > Phish (Jon Fishman) Gee! Could you possibly have picked worse examples? Why not these, too: The Nazi party (Heinrich Himmler) Fundamentalist religion (Charles Darwin) English literature (Thomas Shadwell) The Republican party (G. Gordon Liddy) Genesis (Phil Collins) [in humble deference to your obvious love of Art-Rock] JL ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 18:23:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Wet Toast Tweezers Subject: Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees On Sun, 18 May 1997, Eb wrote: > >Rush (Neil Peart) > >King Crimson (Bill Bruford) > >Yes (Bill Bruford, Alan White) > >The Grateful Dead (Mickey Hart & Bill Kreutzman) > >Phish (Jon Fishman) > > Uh oh, I smell a hippie.... indeed. and as we all know, hippies are expendable. );). .chris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:35:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Mississippi Malcolm McDowell Subject: Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees On Sun, 18 May 1997, John Tyson Littlejohn wrote: > Gee! Could you possibly have picked worse examples? Why not these, too: > > The Nazi party (Heinrich Himmler) > Fundamentalist religion (Charles Darwin) > English literature (Thomas Shadwell) > The Republican party (G. Gordon Liddy) > Genesis (Phil Collins) [in humble deference to your obvious love of > Art-Rock] HEY! You know, whatever you might say about Phil Collins otherwise, he is -not- a bad drummer. Yes, he did "Sussudio" and a host of other gag-worthy efforts, but he also played drums on John Cale's "Helen of Troy", which is one of my all-time favorites. Love on ya, Susan ******************************************************************************* "The worship of the beautiful always ends in an orgy"- Benjamin Disraeli, "Lothair", lxxvii ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:37:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Mississippi Malcolm McDowell Subject: Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees > indeed. and as we all know, hippies are expendable. );). I keep thinking of Rik Mayall screaming "oh no, I've killed a hippie and now I'll have to pay!" in that "Young Ones" episode where they parody "The Good Life" :). Love on ya, Susan ******************************************************************************* "The worship of the beautiful always ends in an orgy"- Benjamin Disraeli, "Lothair", lxxvii ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:38:48 -0500 (CDT) From: John Tyson Littlejohn Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers On Sun, 18 May 1997, Eb wrote: > >> Terrence M Marks wrote: > >> > >And perfect. . . > >You could just as easily say that Rain Parade or The Soft > >Boys had 100% perfection.... > > unassailable group. And I sure could never call A Can of Bees a "perfect" > album. Or "Invisible Hits," for that matter. I assume by your omission that you think Underwater Moonlight IS perfect? Oh my! > >Well...I bet if Paul was dead, people would say he's the leader > >also... > > I don't believe that at all. Even while the Beatles were still together, > John was perceived as the band's leader. Only because he hadn't released a bad album in the five years before his death. > >John and Paul were both necessary for the Beatles sounds...I'm just > > Well, that's true and a bit sad, but understandable. John gets more respect > because most Paul songs don't have a lot of emotional depth While not even mentioning the pre-1965 pap they released, how much emotional depth do "Lucy in the Sky", "The Ballad of John and Yoko" "Sexy Sadie" or "Mr Kite" have. Paul and John both had their good and bad moments. JL ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:18:06 -0400 From: mr bean jeans Subject: the latest mailshot from antwoman hey gang, i imagine that some of you received this as well, but for those who still haven't dropped antwoman a line at antwoman@lloyd.ftech.co.uk, here 'tis: >Antwoman ~2 via e-mail > >Hello everyone, >This is in general and is a quick update since the last update last week. > >(If you are new on the list and would like to receive the Antwoman ~1 >e-mail, let me know by putting 'need Antwoman ~1' in the subject. Thanks.) > >I have been and will keep feeding through info to the Fegmania site, which I >must say is fab, so please keep your eye on that site for fine tuned >details. (Those of you who have come from elsewhere go to >http://remus.rutgers.edu/~woj/fegmaniax > >Hopefully below I have 'encompassed' (is this school?) all of the FAQ's you >all have, some things in the last update and whatever comes out the ends of >my fingers: > >* The "Beautiful Queen" single 'Royal Queen Albert & Beautiful Homer' >(backed with the entire set Robyn and Homer did at the Borderline a year ago >of Dylan 'gone electric') IS RADIO PROMO ONLY. Permission from Bob (and some >cash) would be needed to sell this via mail order or in the shops. This has >to do with songwriting ownership and can't be helped at the moment. However, >manufacturing more for sale in shops/mail order may be done later in the >year if permission is granted and affordable. In the meantime, you'll have >to scour your record shops for the odd copy or bribe a local DJ. Granted >there seem to be a few bootlegs of the gig that exist, so some of you might >already have it is some form or another. > >* A new merchandise/mail order list will be done when Robyn is back from the >states according to what is in stock. It is very, very doubtful that the >cones will be for sale through the post. Also an official newsletter will be >sent out via the unmodern world then, so send a self-addressed stamped >envelope or an IRC (outside UK) to receive your very own copy to Antwoman, >PO Box 14864, London, W4 2D ENGLAND. > >* The email address is temporary because Antwoman will be moving abode at >the end of August and may not be able to keep it. Hopefully another >address/or the same one will exist after that time. We will keep you >informed if anything changes. > >* Antwoman email list: If you haven't filled in a form, please do. It makes >my life much easier. If you do not have a form to fill out, please email me >with the subject as email form request. Thanks. > >* The 'secret' LA gig on the 30th has been confirmed, but 1) is not secret >and 2) Robyn will only be guesting. Here's the LA deal: > 28th live on KCRW, 10pm, Brave New World > 30th guesting with Jon Brion and Moris Tepper after 10pm > *** 31st The Roxy (the 'proper' gig) > post-Roxy, Robyn may guest with Grant (aka lee Buffalo) at >Cafe Largo after midnight > >* I await the rest of the radio promo for the tour from Warner's and his new >management, keep your eye on Femania (details above) > >* Merch orders: As soon as the contract is finished being sorted out with >Robyn's old management company, I will have all of Mrs. Wafflehead's >records/files and the remaining stock. Right now, I only have gig mailing >lists and non-merch mail. Until the contract is finished, I do not know >anything about orders that have been placed, but will look into it as soon >as I receive the files. We apologise profusely for any delay. Please be >patient. Lawyers play a lot of golf these days. > >* No, at the moment, Robyn is not planning on doing anymore UK dates in >July, but you never know. Nor is he doing any other US dates than the one's >on the itinerary on this leg. > >* Yes, Tim who is supporting and playing with Robyn on the US tour, is the >singer/songwriter in the band Homer that backed Robyn on parts of Moss >Elixir/Mossy Liquor. It's all so incestuous, he also will be in Storefront >Hitchcock, backed Robyn at the Dylan gig and Robyn sings on the 3rd track on >the new Homer single, which, yes, will be for sale at the US gigs. > >That's it for now. I'm off to LA for the gigs, so you won't hear from me >unless there is anything urgent in the meantime. May the cones be with you. >A ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 21:13:25 -0500 From: LSDiamond Subject: Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees >Genesis (Phil Collins) [in humble deference to your obvious love of > Art-Rock] oh come on... *sob* please don't drag poor Phil into this!! LSDiamond, paperclip holder of the Aegean. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Last updated 17 May 1997 http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1542 Please sign my guestbook again! I only have 5 visitors.. :( ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 21:16:55 -0500 From: LSDiamond Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers >While not even mentioning the pre-1965 pap they released, how much >emotional depth do "Lucy in the Sky", "The Ballad of John and Yoko" "Sexy >Sadie" or "Mr Kite" have. Paul and John both had their good and bad >moments. Why does every song have to have 'emotional depth' anyway? Why can't it just be good music or interesting lyrics.. this IS a Robyn Hitchcock list, after all... LSDiamond ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Last updated 17 May 1997 http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1542 Please sign my guestbook again! I only have 5 visitors.. :( ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 21:25:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Mississippi Malcolm McDowell Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers On Sun, 18 May 1997, Eb wrote: > unassailable group. And I sure could never call A Can of Bees a "perfect" > album. Or "Invisible Hits," for that matter. Well, I personally don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect album at all. But as far as my own personal tastes and aesthetics are concerned, "Invisible Hits" is quite close to what -I- might consider near-perfect. It definitely shows off everyone involved at the top of their form, and songwriting and playing-wise it is a much more mature and interesting piece of work than Can of Bees. > Also, the Beatles' early songs are miles and miles beyond Chuck Berry, in > terms of melodic/harmonic complexity (not to mention singing ability). Well, yes and no. I happen to be a huge fan of Chuck Berry. Listen to the lyrics he came up with. People credit Dylan or the Beatles usually with bringing rock and roll lyric-writing out of the "love love love moonlight roses flowers candy let's get married" doldrums, but it was Chuck Berry who first had the idea that this was more than just "kids' music" and wrote accordingly. Those who are inclined to scoff at me for writing this should take a good listen to "The Great 28". If all you know of Chuck Berry is songs like "Rock and Roll Music" and "Sweet Little Sixteen" you haven't got a good idea of his genius. > I > mean, how many songs did Berry EVER do with more than three chords? Again I refer you to "The Great 28". > Even in > the Beatles' earliest days, you can find relatively sophisticated melodies > like "Please Please Me," "Not A Second Time," "All My Loving," "I Want To > Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You." I won't disagree. I don't hold with early Beatles dissing myself. I think a lot of the early Beatles tunes are gorgeous. Several tunes from "A Hard Day's Night" in particular. I would rank that up with my favorite albums of all time. You know, they really -didn't- sound like everyone else. And furthermore, if they hadn't existed, no one else Terry mentioned would have come into existence in the particular form that they did. > Chuck Berry never could've written any > of those songs. I'll bet he could have written some of the Stones' tunes though. His artistic aims were -completely- different from the Beatles' and he was coming primarily from a blues background, which shouldn't be forgotten. I mean really, it's almost apples and oranges. > I don't believe that at all. Even while the Beatles were still together, > John was perceived as the band's leader. Yes indeed. This is pretty obvious from any interviews from back in the day and from watching the way the Beatles' behaved towards each other in "Help" and "A Hard Day's Night". It wasn't just outsiders' perception, it was the Beatles' own perception as well. > >John and Paul were both necessary for the Beatles sounds...I'm just > >tired of people going around saying "Yeah, John wrote all the cool songs" > >then slagging George and Paul. > > Well, that's true and a bit sad, but understandable. John gets more respect > because most Paul songs don't have a lot of emotional depth (with notable The auteur theory rears its ugly head again! John and Paul had a -partnership-. Generally the one who sang a particular tune was the one who was -mostly- responsible for writing it, but they fed off of each other and gave each other ideas. It's not as simple as saying Paul wrote this or John wrote that. It was Paul, for example, who came up with that nifty drum figure in "Ticket to Ride", which is usually considered a John song, and "Drive My Car", usually considered a Paul song, had a serious lyrical boost from John. There are many more examples where these came from. Also, I think it's worth mentioning in this context that The Beatles were a -group- and John and Paul were a -partnership- within said group. Remember we're dealing with human beings here, not robots. Do you really think all George and Ringo did was sit around in the studio and learn parts as they were handed to them? Of course they had their own ideas about how to play their parts, which in a sense makes them co-composers even if the primary songwriting credit didn't go to them. They had a role in the sound of the music as well, even if John and Paul were the primary writers. > >I don't care much for Ringo. In most > >every band except The Monkees, the drummer has been expendable. > The Monkees? Jeez, Dolenz didn't even drum on many of the tracks! Dolenz was never a very skilled drummer. In fact I'm inclined to think that for the most part the Monkees were -lousy- musicians. Nesmith and Tork were decent players, but Dolenz and Davy Jones....embarassing. Mostly studio musicians on those early Monkees records, Eric is right, but then the Sex Pistols did this too (yes, that was Glen Matlock on "Never Mind The Bollocks"- poor Sid couldn't play the parts yet and had met Nancy by that time). > are certainly lots of other bands with unexpendable drummers. Even going > beyond all the obvious cases where the drummers sing lead or write songs, > how about Mo Tucker (VU), John Bonham (Zep), Keith Moon (Who), Recently I've been on a big Who kick, and I think a lot of it has to do with Keith Moon. His playing is just so gorgeous that there are times when it's all I hear (and there's a lot of competition from the lovely harmonies, Entwhistle's bass playing, the excellent lyrics, etc.- did I mention the Who are one of my favorite bands? :)). I can't imagine the band without him. (list of interesting/essential drummers snipped for space considerations :)) > And then if we got into JAZZ, well, forget about it.... Hoo boy! Let's not even open -that- can of bees! :) Love on ya, Susan ******************************************************************************* "The worship of the beautiful always ends in an orgy"- Benjamin Disraeli, "Lothair", lxxvii ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 19:46:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Wet Toast Tweezers Subject: Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees On Sun, 18 May 1997, Mississippi Malcolm McDowell wrote: > HEY! You know, whatever you might say about Phil Collins otherwise, he is > -not- a bad drummer. Yes, he did "Sussudio" and a host of other gag-worthy > efforts oh pah-leeeezzz! when did this ever play/hit/stike a drum head? this is the problem with him, everyone calls him a drummer, but when the facts are put to the test he rearly does so. and when he does, the drumming efforts do not even come close to eclipsing the other paultry efforts we are so familiar with. this man is truely expendable--and i mean do it now expendable. off my soap-box :), .chris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 19:58:48 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers >Little John wrote: >I assume by your omission that you think Underwater Moonlight IS perfect? >Oh my! Um...yeah, pretty close. Is that really so controversial a view? Especially on THIS list? "Oh my?" Sheesh, such lofty indignance. >> I don't believe that at all. Even while the Beatles were still together, >> John was perceived as the band's leader. > >Only because he hadn't released a bad album in the five years before his >death. Are you listening?? John was ALWAYS considered the leader, from the very beginning -- death or no death, solo career or no solo career. >While not even mentioning the pre-1965 pap they released, how much >emotional depth do "Lucy in the Sky", "The Ballad of John and Yoko" "Sexy >Sadie" or "Mr Kite" have. Paul and John both had their good and bad >moments. That's really weak. Pulling out four supposedly silly Lennon songs as some sort of overall argument against his songwriting ability doesn't wash. And even out of your examples, "Ballad of John & Yoko" has a heavy personal character (something very few McCartney songs have) and I don't know at all why you chose to dump on "Sexy Sadie," which is a perfectly good lyric in my book -- especially once you know it's about the Maharishi. The bottom line is, Paul's good moments are much more often based in fine melodies and hooks, while John's good moments are more likely to concern lyrical virtues (though he certainly wrote some gorgeous melodies). And perhaps you can call the pre-1965 "pap" lyrically, but I certainly wouldn't attack those albums on musical grounds. Already on those albums, you can hear Beatle trademarks which are spottable to this day (for instance, resolving a sequence using augmented chords, i.e. C D Daug-->G). Jeez, this sounds like an argument that would come up on a prog-rock list or something. I mean, there's little innovative about Robyn Hitchcock's MUSIC, really. Why try to attack the Beatles on these grounds, when the Beatles' musical gifts arguably so exceed Robyn's? So shoot me, I don't find jangly arpeggio guitar-picking particularly groundbreaking. And that's fine -- I'm not looking for musical innovation from Robyn Hitchcock. I just don't see how you can be a big fan of RH's music while trying to deride the Beatles' work in the same area. Strictly in the "We Love U Beatles" camp, Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:10:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Mississippi Malcolm McDowell Subject: Re: Theological musings (was Re: Spinbaughlicious) On Sat, 17 May 1997, donald andrew snyder wrote: > This is probably the least of our worries. If someone is acting based > upon fear of the Lord, then that's fine and dandy with me, but > interpreting a divine command to spread the Word through imperialism and a > closed mind is a bit far from the Christian message. Yes, indeed. I remember awhile back that the Southern Baptist Coalition (or whatever their official group is called, I'm not sure of the name) officially declared that they were going to go and "save" all those misguided Jewish folks. Naturally, these same "infidels" were pretty effin' annoyed by this, as well they should be- I heard one of these preachers talking to a representative from B'Nai Brith on the radio, and his voice was just -dripping- with condescension. Is this really something Christ would have held with? I don't think so. Love thy neighbor is in there, but "be intolerant to thy neighbor and act like a jerk just because he doesn't share your beliefs" is not anywhere in -my- New Testament! > Unfortunately, in > our society it is the Christian Right and televangelists who get all the > attention--not the saints. What's exciting about a saint anyway? True, indeed. The meek may inherit the earth eventually, but they don't make good press :). > Thus, > attacks on these prominent displays of religious interpretation become > full fledged attacks on the doctrines from which they arose. Agreed again. I would never wholesale attack Christianity, because I have no objection to it whatsoever (even if it's not my religion) in principle- I object to what some call Christianity. That's why I was trying so hard to distinguish between doctrine and practice in previous postings. > A Christian > is to love thy neighbor as thyself, which first means being open and > accepting to them. In my opinion, much of what is classified as Christian > is not very Christian. This in not a new idea: See Kierkegaard's Attack > Upon Christendom. See also William Blake. Old Soren wasn't the first to pick up on this idea. > > > Augustine's main point is that the law only lets you know what you should > > > do, but without God's grace a person is never able to uphold the law. > > > > Sounds almost like Calvinism (key word- almost :)). > Probably because Calvin got it from Augustine. Yup. > > You ought to see "Highway 61". I especially like the part where the Devil > Perhaps I should know this, but is this related to what's his name? Only marginally, in the sense that one of the characters in the movie insists on stopping in Hibbing during the road trip down.....Highway 61 :). > Too bad Robyn is not playing with a band anymore:( I wish I had had the chance to see him with a band. It doesn't appear likely that I will anytime soon. But I like the solo performances much too. This reminds me- Chicagonista Fegs, we must make a plan. I think it would be easiest just to meet up at the House of Blues itself at a given time and place. What say you? I remember most people from the last Chicago show and can probably recognize you, but for the people who weren't there, it could be a bit more difficult. Shall we just agree to be in a given area of the club or something like that? Wear cones on our heads? Anyway, it's coming up quite soon, so time is of the essence. Anyone who would like to meet up, write to me, and we'll try to get something coherent organized. Love on ya, Susan ******************************************************************************* "The worship of the beautiful always ends in an orgy"- Benjamin Disraeli, "Lothair", lxxvii ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 23:26:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers i just returned from a weekend away and have this to say IM oh-so HO... 1. the number of chords a song has is not grounds for attack. 2. the drummer is the third most important member of a band after the keyboardist and the tubist. Just kidding. Actually, no instrument is necessary to make a song great, but the right combination of instrumnets makes it a lot better! And since I've become a Robyn fan I've decided that keyboards are pretty much disposable and I most like to listen to songs with very spare arrangements, esp. just guitar/piano and voice. 3. i am perfectly happy with my opinions of things and have no interest in debating them, or anyone else's, though i'm happy to learn more about things from the more knowledgeable. 4. the post-peter gabriel, pre-invisible touch genesis i've heard sounds like a more annoying ELP to me. Comments welcome via email, no slight intended (loved the "do it now" dig, though) 5. what's innovative about RH's music is his blending of the old styles and his own unique additions-- no less noble than creating a new genre, just less groundbreaking. look at squirrel nut zippers. 6. RH has plenty of songs with emotional depth, and i think he'd put that on a par with the importance of the music being good, though he wouldn't always have. i think he's said he things the lyrics are the least important part. (btw, what is up with saying paul usually doesn't write emotional songs, then naming seven tremendous emotional classics and no non-emotional ones? is this the way to win an argument? :) 7. John and Paul and everyone have good and bad days and nobody's perfect, not even Underwater Moonlight. the equation is passion + ability over the necessary imperfection constant of the universe. 8. RH is my all-time favorite songwriter ever, but Terry's sending me a tape to convince me Syd could whup him in a songwriting contest. I'll let you know the outcome when the additional data comes in. glad to be back. =b ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:40:41 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers Wokeuplittlesusie wrote: >I happen to be a huge fan of Chuck Berry. Listen to the >lyrics he came up with. People credit Dylan or the Beatles usually with >bringing rock and roll lyric-writing out of the "love love love moonlight >roses flowers candy let's get married" doldrums Much more often Dylan.... >, but it was Chuck Berry >who first had the idea that this was more than just "kids' music" and >wrote accordingly. Those who are inclined to scoff at me for writing this >should take a good listen to "The Great 28". So post the lyrics (or the chords!), and prove it. ;P And wouldn't some people argue that Phil Spector was the first to try to take rock 'n' roll to a higher artistic plain, in any case? >> Chuck Berry never could've written any >> of those songs. > >I'll bet he could have written some of the Stones' tunes though. Well, sure...no argument there. >His artistic aims were -completely- different from the Beatles' and he was >coming primarily from a blues background, which shouldn't be forgotten. I >mean really, it's almost apples and oranges. I dunno...I'm not willing to give him that much of an alibi. Someone like Jimi Hendrix started off a pure blues artist, but was able to expand his art. Berry never did -- perhaps he was too busy gulping down feces. ;P >John and Paul were a -partnership- within said group [etc, etc] Well, jeez, Susan. While there was certainly feedback/give&take between JPGR, there are very few Beatle songs that are true, equal collaborations. And even those cases are usually a question of splicing together individually written parts ("A Day in the Life," "We Can Work It Out"). You really aren't willing to accept the idea that most Beatles songs had a dominant lead writer? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:47:27 -0500 (CDT) From: John Tyson Littlejohn Subject: Re: Beatles, Phil Re: Phil Collins One of the best drummers of all time - listen to the early Genesis stuff where he was just a drummer and Peter Gabriel was vocalist. Also... On Sun, 18 May 1997, Eb wrote: > >Little John wrote: > > >While not even mentioning the pre-1965 pap they released, how much > >emotional depth do "Lucy in the Sky", "The Ballad of John and Yoko" "Sexy > >Sadie" or "Mr Kite" have. Paul and John both had their good and bad > >moments. > > That's really weak. Pulling out four supposedly silly Lennon songs as some > sort of overall argument against his songwriting ability doesn't wash. And It was not, as you misconstrued, an attack on Lennon's songwriting ability. I was just denying your claim that Lennon's songs had more "emotional depth" than McCartney's. I just used four songs that came off the top of my head - four of my favorites in fact - to illustrate the point. > even out of your examples, "Ballad of John & Yoko" has a heavy personal > character (something very few McCartney songs have) and I don't know at all > why you chose to dump on "Sexy Sadie," which is a perfectly good lyric in > my book -- especially once you know it's about the Maharishi. I know it's about the Maharishi. And just because a song is based on personal experience doesn't make it good. > The bottom > line is, Paul's good moments are much more often based in fine melodies and > hooks, while John's good moments are more likely to concern lyrical virtues > (though he certainly wrote some gorgeous melodies). > I just don't see how > you can be a big fan of RH's music while trying to deride the Beatles' work > in the same area. I am not and have not been trying to deride the Beatles (though if I wanted to I'm sure I could). What I am trying to do is to make you think about blind statements such as "John was words and Paul was music" or "John was Rock 'n' Roll and Paul was Pop" that you probably read somewhere. JL, who generally likes George's pseudo-Indian music best ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The End of this Fegmaniax Digest. *sob* .