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 #103 Fegmaniax Digest Volume 5 Number 103 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: ------- ------- Re: Beatles title crossovers, religion and flamewars Re: Beatles (still no Hitchcon) Re: Beatles (still no Hitchcon) Re: Beatles (tiny Hitchcon) Re: Beatles (tiny Hitchcon) Re: Beatles (tiny Hitchcon) Re: Glass... Re: Beatles, drummers Re: Beatles, drummers re: robyn on radio Re: Beatles, drummers Re: drummers Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees - the Quail cheeps out! Being the first time I really heard the Beatles Re: drummers Re: Beatles, drummers Floyd Soundtrack to Wizard Of Oz (fwd) Re: Religion, etc... Re: drummers BEATLES/DRUMMERS/FLAME SHAME ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 22:20:05 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Beatles >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. Exactly. Weak, weak, weak. Fallacious, even. Let's see, Robyn Hitchcock's "Balloon Man" isn't very deep. McCartney's "Hey Jude" is. Thus, McCartney's songs have more emotional depth than Hitchcock's. But wait...something's wrong here.... >I know it's about the Maharishi. And just because a song is based on >personal experience doesn't make it good. No, but I DO think it's a very good song. What a seductive, slinky melody...perfectly supports the sly seduction of the subject matter. One of John's best piano-based Beatles tracks, if you ask me. Certainly one of my favorite White Album tracks (#1 is John's "Dear Prudence," however). >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. Oh, f*ck off. I never said that. I even listed some Paul songs with good lyrics. I even said John had written some great melodies. You're just being an asshole now. I know Beatles records inside and out. I have no need to brainlessly ape someone else's opinions when it comes to Beatles. It's not exactly difficult to decide that Lennon's songs have more emotional depth -- why else would it be such a prevalent viewpoint, both in everyday fans and scholarly rock critics? What are you, McCartney's press agent? Since the established view is that Lennon's lyrics have more depth than McCartney's, go on, convince us otherwise. The burden of proof is on you. And you'll have to do better than just say, "Here's four Lennon songs which I don't think are deep, thus McCartney is better." Eb, who's actually a big fan of '70s Genesis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:35:30 +1300 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: title crossovers, religion and flamewars >>>3)Robyn Titles Crossover list Rain - The Chills (sorry, couldn't resist!) The Fly - U2 Tonight - Iggy Pop/David Bowie Tonight - from the musical "West Side Story" America - Shona Laing Nothing (Vol.1) - David Kilgour Dreams - Fleetwood Mac (oh, the shame!) Winchester Cathedral - New Vaudeville band? (okay, okay...) >>the three biggest flamewars are politics, religion, and Brian Wilson: >>Genius or Schmuck.... >Not to mention the virtues/non-virtues of Queen Elvis. ;) >Eb, not even DARING to utter the words "Groovy Decoy" erm...It's BUCKY dammit ;) Hey folks. This mailing list goes worldwide. That means people of all sorts of races and creeds. I have no objection to the faith or lack of faith of any of you out there, as long as you do not take the attitude that it is the only correct one and therefore everyone should believe in it. Pride in your religion is all very well, but pride goes before destruction, as Solomon once said. And I seem to recall that some bloke a couple of thousand years ago said not to judge others and to treat all people as brothers and sisters. And that means not judging their beliefs. A vast number of you live in a country that was founded on the idea of freedom of thought (admittedly that was before Joe McCarthy's time). We have a multitude of people here with a multitude of views. I relish our differences - and lists like this thrive on them. The Prophet's garden needs contain every kind of plant. Please don't try to straitjacket us into what you regard as the only true way of thinking! James James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 01:00:08 -0500 (CDT) From: John Tyson Littlejohn Subject: Re: Beatles (still no Hitchcon) On Sun, 18 May 1997, Eb wrote: [LJ] > >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. > > Exactly. Weak, weak, weak. Fallacious, even. Let's see, Robyn Hitchcock's > "Balloon Man" isn't very deep. McCartney's "Hey Jude" is. Thus, McCartney's > songs have more emotional depth than Hitchcock's. But wait...something's > wrong here.... Of course it was a syllogism; it was meant to be. But one must admit that's better than saying "It is, so it is" as you started out saying. > >I know it's about the Maharishi. And just because a song is based on > >personal experience doesn't make it good. > > No, but I DO think it's a very good song. If you had read the above, you would have seen that I like it, too - ya know, the "my favorites" bit about ten lines up! > >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. > > Oh, f*ck off. I never said that. I even listed some Paul songs with good > lyrics. I even said John had written some great melodies. You're just being > an asshole now. I know Beatles records inside and out. Who doesn't? BTW, don't be hostile, we're all having fun here. You're taking yourself much too seriously. I have no need to > brainlessly ape someone else's opinions when it comes to Beatles. Then why do you? It's not > exactly difficult to decide that Lennon's songs have more emotional depth As you seem to think that any song connected to real life has emotional depth, I'm not so sure > -- why else would it be such a prevalent viewpoint, both in everyday fans > and scholarly rock critics? What are you, McCartney's press agent? Since > the established view is that Lennon's lyrics have more depth than > McCartney's, go on, convince us otherwise. I honestly admit that I can't. Of course I couldn't convince someone that Lennon had more depth than McCartney's; I couldn't convince my professor that Mann was trite on my midterm; and I couldn't convince you that the earth is round and that there is no Santa Claus. > Eb, who's actually a big fan of '70s Genesis Good man John, who's enjoying himself immensely ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 23:20:03 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Beatles (still no Hitchcon) > I have no need to > brainlessly ape someone else's opinions when it comes to Beatles. > >Then why do you? Who says I do? On what grounds? I've given more concrete reasons for my opinions than you have. You're the one just sitting back, getting your "immensely-enjoyed" jollies playing insincere Devil's Advocate. I guess that as long as I favor Lennon, I'm automatically shallow. If that's your reasoning, well, I can live with that. >As you seem to think that any song connected to real life has emotional >depth, I'm not so sure. Oh, I see...because I think "Ballad of John & Yoko" has resonance, therefore I think all songs with real-life content have depth. Interesting logical leap. >I honestly admit that I can't. Of course I couldn't convince someone that >Lennon had more depth than McCartney's; I couldn't convince my professor >that Mann was trite on my midterm; and I couldn't convince you that the >earth is round and that there is no Santa Claus. Yak, yak, yak. More empty Feglist verbal games. I was able to list some McCartney songs with depth in my initial post...that's apparently something you're either unwilling to do or too lazy to do. So who's firing blanks here, you or me? Offer some legitimate ammunition or quit wasting our time. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 02:17:03 -0500 (CDT) From: John Tyson Littlejohn Subject: Re: Beatles (tiny Hitchcon) On Sun, 18 May 1997, Eb wrote: > You're the one just sitting back, getting your > "immensely-enjoyed" jollies playing insincere Devil's Advocate. Well, duh! I guess that makes me kind of like the guy to whom this list is dedicated. > I guess that as long as I favor Lennon, I'm automatically shallow. If > that's your reasoning, well, I can live with that. That wasn't my reasoning. I honestly don't know where you got that. Tell me about your drugs. > Oh, I see...because I think "Ballad of John & Yoko" has resonance, > therefore I think all songs with real-life content have depth. Interesting > logical leap. Again, one that *you've* made. I was just arguing that BJY doesn't have resonance. Please don't interpret that last statement as "BJY doesn't have resonance, so Rock 'n' Roll is the devil's music." > Yak, yak, yak. More empty Feglist verbal games. I was able to list some > McCartney songs with depth in my initial post...that's apparently something > you're either unwilling to do or too lazy to do. So who's firing blanks > here, you or me? Offer some legitimate ammunition or quit wasting our time. You're being agressively stupid, again. If you're proving my point it merely saves me the troubling of doing it myself - or to lengthen your melodramatic metaphor: why waste my ammunition when the enemy is shooting itself? Speaking of empty verbal games: wasn't that what John was playing at around the time of "I am the Walrus?" Just wondering. JL, jolly enjoyer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 00:47:13 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Beatles (tiny Hitchcon) >You're being agressively stupid, again. If you're proving my >point it merely saves me the troubling of doing it myself - or to lengthen >your melodramatic metaphor: why waste my ammunition when the enemy is >shooting itself? I'm through with this discussion. YOUR comments have no "emotional depth," because you don't even believe what you're saying. Pointless to continue. Over and out, Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 03:44:47 -0500 (CDT) From: John Tyson Littlejohn Subject: Re: Beatles (tiny Hitchcon) On Mon, 19 May 1997, Eb - taking his ball and going home - wrote: > I'm through with this discussion. YOUR comments have no "emotional depth," > because you don't even believe what you're saying. Pointless to continue. It actually is pointless to continue, because you actually do believe what you're saying. Or you would if you KNEW what you were saying. JL, suddenly remembering that this is a Robyn Hitchcock list ------------------------------ From: Terrence M Marks Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 06:50:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Glass... > 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. ;-) Agreed...also, a fair number of songs just collapse under themselves..(Opel, Surf's Up) They're supposed to sound a lot better than they do, but just don't... > 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. I dunno...the melody is too passive. The lyrical delivery is too choppy. I don't see the lyrics as that great....I mean, he's just singing about glass....if anyone feels like explaining this to me, let me know.. > 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. Airscape has a better arrangement and lyrics....though I think it's overrated.. > 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. Hmm...if I write a song that's as good as Glass, you gotta write a song as musically complex (and good...don't just pull soem gratuitious complexity) as "Wonderful", by The Beach Boys. [I guess something as good as "In My Room" would do also..] > Comparative Quotations: > "Jesus is just alright." - Doobies > "Frank Zappa is the best!" - Dale Bozzio I got this sneaking feeling that sigs like this are a reaction to my sig...nah...must be a coincidence Terrence Marks Remember-Jesus is your friend. normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ From: Terrence M Marks Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 07:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers > 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. There's a tendency to say that *everything* in the early 60's revolutionized rock'n'roll. Everyone is credited with inventing everything...this goes double for the Beatles. The light bulb was invented by one talented and persistant man. This does not apply to rock, blues or distortion...You can't say "if not for the Beatles, no one else would've recorded rock". Nor did The Beatles invent musical or lyrical complexity. I believe that both "In My Room" and "Surfer Girl" were released pre-Beatles... > > I don't believe that at all. Even while the Beatles were still together, > > John was perceived as the band's leader. Well...leader in what sense? Frontman/spokesperson? Driving creative influence? guy who calls theother guys up when it's time to rehearse? > > > The Monkees? Jeez, Dolenz didn't even drum on many of the tracks! TMK, Dolenz drummed on Headquarters, Head, "Cuddly Toy" and most of the post-TV stuff. > 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). Well, way I see it, Mike Nesmith was a good musician and writer (see Daily Nightly or Circle Sky). Dolenz might not've been the best drummer, but he was an indespensible part of The Monkees. Btw...someone mentioned the Beatles having "perfect" albums...what is meant by that? Terrence Marks Remember-Jesus is your friend. normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ From: Terrence M Marks Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 07:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers > 1. the number of chords a song has is not grounds for attack. It can be...it it's a matter of "this song needs more chords, but our guitartist only know 2 chords, so it's a 2-chord song" or "Let's put in a whole bunch of augmented 6ths to show that we can" > 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. Bah! What about Roger? What about Element of Light or Fegmania? Can you imagine The Leopard or Airscape without keys? (and most of the GD stuff soudned better with Roger) > 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? :) Q: What is an "emotional" song? > 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. I'm working on it...I thought it was a tape to convince you that Brian could whup him in a songwriting contest...but I'll work on it. Terrence Marks Remember-Jesus is your friend. normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Griffith Davies Subject: re: robyn on radio Hi All, I must apologize for the WRONG date I posted. I'll try to get my *stuff* together. Sorry for any inconveniences.... griffith ______________________________________________________________ Griffith Davies hbrtv219@email.csun.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:09:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers > > 1. the number of chords a song has is not grounds for attack. > > It can be...it it's a matter of "this song needs more chords, but our > guitartist only know 2 chords, so it's a 2-chord song" or "Let's put in a > whole bunch of augmented 6ths to show that we can" song structure and such are grounds for you not liking a song, but not for attack. you're really into complexity and musicianship, but minimalism, simplicity and elegance have their place. I once heard neil young play a solo using only one note, and though i didn't particularly like it, it was pretty impressive and original. i saw max roach play a 5 minute drum solo on a drum kit that was just a hi hat. > > 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. > > Bah! What about Roger? I guess he'll have to be Roger now. :) I did think you were referring to syd for a minute. What about Element of Light or Fegmania? Can you > imagine The Leopard or Airscape without keys? Airscape has keys? I thought it just had glass harmonica and backwards space guitar. I'd like to hear the Leopard done as a laid back jazz piece with female backing vocals. (and most of the GD stuff > soudned better with Roger) did it? hmm. maybe. > Q: What is an "emotional" song? a song that evokes emotion? > I'm working on it...I thought it was a tape to convince you that Brian > could whup him in a songwriting contest...but I'll work on it. if brian's songs can help convince me that syd is better than robyn, sure, put 'em on! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:32:19 -0700 (PDT) From: misplaced joan of arc Subject: Re: drummers I have to toss a couple bands, which haven't been mentioned, but I think are pertainent to this drummer/emotional content discussion. First is Yo La Tengo. Their drummer is Georgia Hubley and she is wonderfully expressive. She and the guitarist are married and they have this beautiful emotional interaction within their songs that could never be matched by a mere replacement. Their lyrics are quite lacking, however, but they create such rich textures and moods, musically, that I pay little attention to the words. Check out the album "Painful" - it is pure sounds and textures from start to finish, which are, technically, very minimalist, but emotionally, deeper than any record I have heard in quite a while. The last song of the album, "I Heard You Looking," is an instrumental, very simply constructed, but is the most emotional and beautiful love song. They are touring right now and I strongly recommend their live show. Great to watch her drum, as she is absolutely tiny, but has no trouble making her drums sound huge. The other band is Husker Du, with Grant Hart as the drummer and co-singer/songwriter with Bob Mould. Grant's drumming is highly emotional and gives another very strong argument that drummers are definately NOT expendable. He could go a little easier on the symbols for me and my ear drum's likings (I blame their live shows for any hearing damage I suffered in my youth), but his drum pummeling had a very distinct style that was every bit as important to the band's sounds as Bob's guitar work. However, he now plays lead guitar in his new band, Nova Mob. He also does solo acoustic shows every once in a while. Both these bands are three-pieces. hmmmm. I think the thing I like most about these bands is the fact that they, like Hitchcock, have created a strong individual sound for themselves, which is rare these days. They definately have their influences, but they have gone through the most important development, which is, IMHO, unlearning. They've learned from their core group of influences and then unlearned what they have learned just enough to find the freedom to move it along another direction. Kind of like Picasso sketching from life, before distorting the image into his own interpretation. Thanks for letting me indulge (as if you had a choice). ------------------------------ Subject: Re: (no RH) BG's/Monkees - the Quail cheeps out! Date: Mon, 19 May 97 15:38:15 -0000 From: The Great Quail "Fegmaniax!" I wrote: >> 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) To which John replied: >Gee! Could you possibly have picked worse examples? Why not these, too: > >The Nazi party (Heinrich Himmler) Actually, I think Himmler was a great drummer. Not a lot is known about this wild haired group of seminal Kraut-rockers (Thanks for the translation, though, John - Der Nazi Partie is, of course, how they are known in most industrial circles) But I mean any band that has had the distinct honor of opening for the Can in both the Sudentland, Poland, *and* Czechoslavakia, well . . . . my only gripe about Himmler's style is that over-use of the heavy sticks, a trick I think he picked up from fellow drummer Albert Speer. In any case, Himmler was a much better drummer than their first (When they were just a Berlin electronic outfit called "SA" - who could forgot those merry and inspired Cabaret-style ditties?) guy - what was his name, Roehm? something or other? >Fundamentalist religion (Charles Darwin) Darwin was a terrible drummer! Lamarck had all the better moves! Shame on you! The only thing Darwin ever did original in FR (another unfairly overlooked band) was to come up with that turtle shell trap set. Too bad Mickey Hart got all the credit. >English literature (Thomas Shadwell) Shows how much you know! Tom "Shad" Shadwell was Eng Lit's *bassist,* John. He was Modern English's drummer, after Eng Lit broke up in 1979. But either way, he was neither really a good bassist nor a good drummer, so the point is mute. >The Republican party (G. Gordon Liddy) Oh, come on! G. Gordon "Four Sticks" Liddy learned everything he knew from Himmler! Come to think of it, TRP learned most of their moves from that former band - hell, I think half of the bloody time I can't tell if a song is by Der Nazi Partei or those American wannabes! >Genesis (Phil Collins) [in humble deference to your obvious love of > Art-Rock] A good drummer, but a lousy songwriter. IMO, Genesis stopped being Genesis soon after Peter left. After that, they should have changed their name to Exodus. . . . The Great 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Being the first time I really heard the Beatles Date: Mon, 19 May 97 15:40:04 -0000 From: The Great Quail Eb says: >Also, the Beatles' early songs are miles and miles beyond Chuck Berry, in >terms of melodic/harmonic complexity (not to mention singing ability). And Susan sez: >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. This reminds me: I thought of a little story that some of you may find interesting. I have always been a Beatles fan - learned it at the feet of my Mother, I did - and I have always loved the Beatles, since I was about 8 years old. But in the school where I teach, the one guidance counselor - who is an old hippie type and still sings in a rock band - used to tell me stories of seeing the Beatles live. I mean, this guy is a Beatles FREAK. And I suppose I never really "got it." I mean, I loved the Beatles, but it's hard to really appreciate their influence since I was only a tot when they broke up. My world was Beatles PLUS all the music that came after. . . I listened to the Bealtles along *with* Robyn, King Crimson, Yes, the Who, Julian Cope, the VU, etc. . . So I suppose I had a bit of the young vs. the old attitude, like, "Wow, Rich, the Beatles, yeah." Stupid me. . . Then one day, maybe five years ago, I am shopping in this "Antique Barn." Well, more to the point, my wife was shopping and I was drifting along in a daze. You know what I mean. But they were playing all these fifties tunes, over and over again, fifties and early sixties. And my mind sort of adjusted to it. Chuck Berry, Bill Haily, early Elvis, whatever. When after an hour or so of this, suddenly I hear - my God! This horrifying squeal, this wail of feedback, the coming of the Four Horsemen - and my mind goes, "wha?" That feedback suddenly coalesced into a Beatles song - I mean one ofthe real early ones, that starts with a small bit of feedback. And I was riveted! I mean, I've heard the song a dozen times before, but not like this! Not in a more "contemporary" setting! I had alsways dismissed it as "an old song, before the Beatles were really *good,* you know." And I just simply stood and listened in awe. The harmonies, the melodies, the few simple effects. . . And I finally understood - I understood what it must have been like, way back in the early sixties. It was an epiphany, pure and simple. That was the first time I really finally heard the Beatles. The Quail, . . . who has been just called a hippy for one of the first times in his adult life by Eb, whom is welcome to come to my house and check the ratio of Einsturzende Neubauten and NIN albums to CSN and Donovan albums, and if he still doesn't believe me, he can see my "I am NOT a hippy" certificate, which is right next to my Grateful Dead calendar and my day-glow bong. Oh. I see. Sorry, Eb. . . . ---------------------------------+-------------------------------- 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: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:47:21 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: drummers Joan of Arc wrote: >I have to toss a couple bands, which haven't been mentioned, but I think >are pertainent to this drummer/emotional content discussion. >First is Yo La Tengo. Yes, Yo La Tengo are very cool. I just got their new album, I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One. Excellent stuff. A bit more vaporous sound than Electr-O-Pura, with some weird detours like a bossa nova pop song, a tribute to my pet band Lambchop, a Beach Boys cover ("Little Honda") which sounds more like the Jesus & Mary Chain, a 10-minute Can drone, etc. Always a varied batch of treats on Yo La albums. >The other band is Husker Du, with Grant Hart as the drummer and >co-singer/songwriter with Bob Mould. Grant's drumming is highly >emotional and gives another very strong argument that drummers are >definately NOT expendable. He could go a little easier on the symbols for >me This is definitely my favorite spelling error I've read lately. :) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:53:19 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Beatles, drummers >Nor did The Beatles invent musical or lyrical complexity. I believe that >both "In My Room" and "Surfer Girl" were released pre-Beatles... I know what you mean about those songs being complex, but they're still basically '50s doo-wop songs with extra chords, you know? I mean, "Surfer Girl" isn't that far from the standard I-VIm-IV-V progression, just with a neat twist of modulation.... >> > I don't believe that at all. Even while the Beatles were still together, >> > John was perceived as the band's leader. > >Well...leader in what sense? Frontman/spokesperson? Driving creative >influence? guy who calls theother guys up when it's time to rehearse? Yeah, that. :) >TMK, Dolenz drummed on Headquarters, Head, "Cuddly Toy" and most of the >post-TV stuff. Yes, but that most of that stuff didn't sell all that well. And most of the post-TV recordings are fairly lame. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:10:41 -0700 (PDT) From: misplaced joan of arc Subject: Floyd Soundtrack to Wizard Of Oz (fwd) groan. When will someone finally let this album rest?! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ATTENTION ALL PINK FLOYD WIZARD OF OZ FANS America is buzzing with claims that PINK FLOYD's classic album DARK SIDE OF THE MOON was recorded as an alternative soundtrack to THE WIZARD OF OZ. Deejay GEORGE TAYLOR MORRIS of WZLX-FM first suggested the album was designed to synch with the movie on air six weeks ago - and since then listeners have flooded the station with phone calls agreeing. And Morris is convinced that ex-frontman ROGER WATERS planned the whole thing without letting his fellow bandmates know about it, after keyboard player RICHARD WRIGHT denied any knowledge of the connection to him. If fans start the album at the exact moment the MGM lion finishes its third roar as the film starts, then uncanny parallels can apparently be seen between lyrics, music, and the 1939 film. Here they are: 1. During TIME, DOROTHY breaks into a trot to the line, "No one told you when to run." 2. When Dorothy leaves the fortune-teller to return to her farm, the album is playing, "Home, home again." 3. GLINDA, the ultra-nice GOOD WITCH OF THE NORTH, appears in her bubble just as DAVE GILMOUR sings, "Don't give me that goody goody bullshit" on the song MONEY. 4. The song BRAIN DAMAGE stars as THE SCARECROW launches into IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN. 5. The black and white section of the film last precisely as long as the first side of the vinyl album. 6. The album ends with the sound of a heartbeat - while Dorothy has her ear to the TIN MAN's chest listening for a heartbeat. New York radio station WNEW has also had a frenzied response to the suggested link. The station plans to show the movie using the 1973 album as a soundtrack at a private screening tonight, reports the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:13:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Fegmaniax Subject: Re: Religion, etc... On Sun, 18 May 1997, M R Godwin wrote: > On Sun, 18 May 1997, John Tyson Littlejohn wrote: > > > Nah. I wonder about Robyn beliefs. One could almost gather from his > > songs that he's a pantheist. > > That's right. And a Jungian archetypes pantheist to boot, I shouldn't > wonder. > > Only the stones remain. I'd be interested in learning more about this, and it's even on-topic, so feel free to elaborate... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:41:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Mississippi Malcolm McDowell Subject: Re: drummers On Mon, 19 May 1997, misplaced joan of arc wrote: > emotional and gives another very strong argument that drummers are > definately NOT expendable. He could go a little easier on the symbols So could Robyn, for that matter- but then he wouldn't be nearly as cool :). Love on ya, Susan ******************************************************************************* "The worship of the beautiful always ends in an orgy"- Benjamin Disraeli, "Lothair", lxxvii ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 97 18:54:53 EDT From: kenster@MIT.EDU (Ken Ostrander) Subject: BEATLES/DRUMMERS/FLAME SHAME >> I bet if Paul was dead, people would say he's the leader > >"John Lennon is the leader of the group." >-Paul McCartney (27 October 1962; > first-ever radio interview) of course, somewhere around the time of SGT. PEPPER (the same time folk's started speculating that he was dead) paul's production ideas began to take over in the studio. the white album was done piecemeal with whoever wrote a particular song administering its production, ie. paul playing drums for ringo on "back in the u.s.s.r." and george bringing in clapton for "while my guitar gently weeps". by the time LET IT BE was being recorded he was, in essence, the 'leader' of the band. > -- why else would it be such a prevalent viewpoint, both in everyday fans > and scholarly rock critics? What are you, McCartney's press agent? Since > the established view is that Lennon's lyrics have more depth than > McCartney's, go on, convince us otherwise. in my experience, it's very hard to convince a beatles fan of anything unless you catch them early. paul doesn't really need a press agent. i heard on VH1 this weekend that he is the most interviewed man in history. his many awards and broken records speak for him. as far a depth goes... well, he's not completely vapid. personally, john's always (though he's written just as many "pop" songs as pauly) had a more intellectual bent; but paul's "slices of life" can be just as meaningful. >> Abbey Road strikes me as mostly Chuck Berry retreads. gross exaggeration. maybe you are thinking of the beach boys? i think there was some legal complications with "come together", but that was lyrical as i recall. ABBEY ROAD is, in my opinion, their finest achievment. nothing mr. berry ever did was this complex or engaging or beautiful. the biggest culprit for taking chuck berry riffs and recycling them was chuck himself! > I don't care much for Ringo. In most every band except The Monkees, the >>drummer has been expendable that sounds like your bunghole talking. or else your tongue is in your cheek. either way, cheek-i mean CHECK these guys out: stewart copeland, neil peart, keith moon, john bonham, terry bozzio, maureen tucker, bill bruford, bill berry, buddy rich, larry mullen, dave grohl, dave hurley, grant hart, morris windsor... to diss ringo is silly too. he wasn't given much to flamboyant playing or solos. the band had to beg him to do the one (his only) on ABBEY ROAD. the man provided a steadyness that defined and influenced a generation. ever wonder why the beatles is spelled with a B E A T? >Oh, f*ck off. see what a beatles thread does to the most amicable list i've ever been on? how about the "agressively stupid" taking it outside? ************************************* Ken Ostrander Educational Services Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology 50 Memorial Drive, E52-101 Cambridge, MA 02142-1347 Phone: (617)258-8016 Fax: (617)258-9181 E-mail: kenster@mit.edu ************************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The End of this Fegmaniax Digest. *sob* .