From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V6 #28 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, October 8 1997 Volume 06 : Number 028 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: I Heard Nick Drake? [Capuchin ] Re: Robyn mentioned in Bjork review??? [Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Prog] Re: I Heard Nick Drake? [seven@cs.utwente.nl (Susan Even)] Re: I Heard Nick Drake? [Capuchin ] Re: I Heard Nick Drake? [Peter Gordon ] Re: Private Feg Gig [dede_davis@juno.com (Diana L Davis)] sticky things ["Eddie Tews" ] quantitative aesthetics [firstcat@lsli.com] Re: quantitative aesthetics [Terrence M Marks ] re: The rolling stones [kenster@MIT.EDU (Ken Ostrander)] Re: quantitative aesthetics [Eb ] re: The rolling stones [Terrence M Marks ] re: The rolling stones [Eb ] Re: quantitative aesthetics ["Daniel Saunders" ] Re: Private Feg Gig [dee zed stroke zero one five ] re: The rolling stones [BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Maverick)] danger: acid [Bayard ] re: The rolling stones [Eb ] re: The rolling stones [BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Maverick)] Stones Vs. Beatles [Hedblade@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:56:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: I Heard Nick Drake? On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Karen Reichstein wrote: > Maybe Robyn just likes to sing about guys named Nick in his songs (i.e. > the "nick lowe cassette" mentioned in "Clean Steve." Or maybe it's just 70's recording artists named Nick. > Now that I think of > it, I think Robyn seems to like mens' names in songs, period: > > Probably Bruce > Nick Lowe > Nick Drake > Clean Steve > Moose Mark > Beatle Dennis > Mr. Watson Maybe I'm just tired, but who the hell is Mr. Watson? I suppose there had to be one in order for there to be a Mrs. Watson, but is he ever actually mentioned? > Kevin! Supper's Ready! Gene Hackman Robyn (or Frankie) who lives with his dead wife et al. Arthur Lee Jasper Happy The Golden Prince Clint Jacob Lurch, Mr. Moose and Dandy Leppo always struck me as a masculine name. Noddy Superman Steve (the dead man in your heart) Ray Sven Ted Woody Junior The list goes on. No, I'm not JUST being annoying... I'm having fun, too. Exercise is good for you. > Do the Higsons count? Um... as I recall, some of The Higsons were female... or at least they had some female backup vocalists. I mean, some of that could be falsetto, but golly. > >Does anyone know whether they met? I'm sure Robyn knows whether they met. I'll bet Nick would know, but he's dead. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:53:32 +0100 From: Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer Subject: Re: Robyn mentioned in Bjork review??? >>>>> "Ben" == Ben writes: Ben> By the way that new album "Homogenic" is pretty good. Ben> Has anyone else checked it out? It is truly excellent. Not over-produced, either. Neat. Odd cover, though. >> Kembrew McLeod has this to say about our man: >> professional acid casualties such as Robyn Hitchcock I'd never consider Robyn to be an acid casualty. They tend to record a couple of decreasingly rational albums, then vanish. RH has managed to keep recording, and also claims (?memory?) not to have used acid too often. - -- Stewart C. Russell Analyst Programmer stewart@ref.collins.co.uk HarperCollins Publishers use Disclaimer; my $opinion; Glasgow, Scotland ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:36:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: seven@cs.utwente.nl (Susan Even) Subject: Re: I Heard Nick Drake? Hey, J > Maybe I'm just tired, but who the hell is Mr. Watson? I suppose there had > to be one in order for there to be a Mrs. Watson, but is he ever actually > mentioned? Have we got any of those sticky things left. . .? > Um... as I recall, some of The Higsons were female... or at least they had > some female backup vocalists. I mean, some of that could be falsetto, but > golly. I think they were a family. (They are in the video on the Hen compilation, eating porridge.) Groetjes, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:43:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: I Heard Nick Drake? On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Susan Even wrote: > Hey, J Hey, Seven. > > Maybe I'm just tired, but who the hell is Mr. Watson? > Have we got any of those sticky things left. . .? Hmm... sticky things... I don't know. And I was just listening to that tonight. Damn, I am tired. > > Um... as I recall, some of The Higsons were female... or at least they had > > some female backup vocalists. I mean, some of that could be falsetto, but > > golly. > I think they were a family. (They are in the video on the Hen compilation, > eating porridge.) Right after I fired off that letter, I pulled a random Higsons album from my drawer here. It's The Curse of The Higsons which contains the track Heat with which we are all familiar and in a Robyn-built world would simply be called Hen. POP ARTISTS - The Higsons Simon Charterton - Drums, percussion, vocals Terry Edwards - Guitars, brass, vocals, occ. keyboards Switch - Lead Vocals Colin Williams - Bass, Vocals Stuart McGeachin - Guitar, Vocals GUEST MUSICIANS - Vocals - Tessa Niles, Wendy Billingsly, Ingrid Schroeder Keybards - Steve Borowski, Pete Saunders, Danny White, Frog Strings - Susie Honeyman That's that, according to the liner notes. Pardon more of my ignorance, but who among these once toured as an Egyptian? I read somewhere that a Higson or two joined Robyn on tour. I wish I could recall where. (A Rhino liner note, maybe?) J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:31:31 -0800 From: Peter Gordon Subject: Re: I Heard Nick Drake? Capuchin wrote: > > > Right after I fired off that letter, I pulled a random Higsons album > from > my drawer here. It's The Curse of The Higsons which contains the > track > Heat with which we are all familiar and in a Robyn-built world would > simply be called Hen. > > POP ARTISTS - The Higsons > Simon Charterton - Drums, percussion, vocals > Terry Edwards - Guitars, brass, vocals, occ. keyboards > Switch - Lead Vocals > Colin Williams - Bass, Vocals > Stuart McGeachin - Guitar, Vocals > > GUEST MUSICIANS - > Vocals - Tessa Niles, Wendy Billingsly, Ingrid Schroeder > Keybards - Steve Borowski, Pete Saunders, Danny White, Frog > Strings - Susie Honeyman > > That's that, according to the liner notes. Going a little further down this squiggly road, someone in a pub told me once that Charles Higson from BBC's The Fast Show used to be in the Higsons. Can anyone verify this or was he talking out of his arse? Peter ps sorry for getting on my high horse about Nick Drake. It was Monday and I was in a bad mood. - -- Instant Ubik has all the fresh flavour of just-brewed drip coffee. Your husband will say, Christ Sally, I used to think your coffee was only so-so. But now, WOW! Safe when used as directed. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 10:12:08 EDT From: dede_davis@juno.com (Diana L Davis) Subject: Re: Private Feg Gig On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:03:50 -0500 ) Nigel.Jarman writes: > As best I can estimate there were under 100 people there. >Probably about 80 paying punters. The tickets were 5 pounds each, all >sold on the door on the night. So we have a total take of about 400 >pounds. The 'Charlotte' would take a hefty percentage of this. I would >guess about 25%. Which leaves Robyn with 300 pounds. He had Homer with >him that Night. So I guess Jake and Tim (plus drummer who I can't >remember the name of just now) must get 40% to divvy up amongst them. >Leaving Robyn with 180 pounds less traveling expenses. Umm, Nigel, that's not *exactly* how it works. An artist of Robyn's calibre would not be working for the door. He gets a flat fee, regardless of the ticket price or number of tickets sold. But despair not! A couple of years ago, Patrick Moraz (of Yes and Moody Blues fame) did a private gig tour, so to speak. Anyone who could come up with $800 and meet some equipment requirements (I believe a piano was the main one) could get Patrick to play at their home, church, recreation hall, or backyard barbecue. So there *is* precedent. Anyone feel up to the task of contacting Robyn's management and running this idea by them? Dede "Out of boredom/I decided/I'd get with it....."-MCC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 10:38:30 PDT From: "Eddie Tews" Subject: sticky things prominent members of section portland were talking about guys' names in songs. i'd been meaning to ask about this anyway, so thanks for reminding me. wasn't there supposed to be somebody or bodys working on compiling all the names used in robyn's songs? what's the status of this project? if it hasn't got off the ground, i'd be willing to do some work on it. i can't remember who originally volunteered. it's also interesting how many names of real people he uses in songs and stories. that could be a sublist of the premium list. do you suppose it's possible that mr. watson of Nightride fame, and mrs. watson of Globe of Frogs fame are actually married? you know how robyn always has these elaborate backstories to his songs. granted that a lot of them are made up on the spot. but it could be like a george lucas or tolkien thing, that he's got this huge milieu written down somewheres. and when he dies (there's a horribly frightening thought) somebody will be going through his crap and find it, and it turns out all the characters in his songs are part of the same story. lou reed said something once to the effect that all his recordings comprise his American Novel, each rekkid being a different chapter. "I really believe that capitalism ultimately becomes responsible to nothing but itself and its own principles, and we're seeing that in a very accelerated way in this country and globally at this time. It's not that we're not also seeing pockets of resistance which, as you have documented, often don't even get reported. But I guess I would rather be there with those people than part of a celebration at the White House. I don't see that there's anything to celebrate at the White House." --poet Adrienne Rich, explaining why she'd turned down an invitation to receive the National Medal for the Arts from President Clinton. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 13:05:39 From: firstcat@lsli.com Subject: quantitative aesthetics So I guess under this formula Robyn sucks? - ------------------------------------------------------- Philosophy Professor Rules Stones Best Rock Band Ever HARRISBURG, Pa. (Reuter) - A philosophy professor known in academic circles as a pioneer in quantitative aesthetic theory has developed his own mathematical forumla for judging rock bands and their music. And according to the calculations of Crispin Sartwell of Penn State University, the Rolling Stones are a better rock band than the Beatles. The basic reason, says the 39-year-old professor, is that the Beatles departed from rock 'n' roll's African-American blues traditions in order to become avant-garde artists. The very symbol of their downfall, he says, is the seminal "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," an album Sartwell describes as "truly bad." "It has a very European tonality. It is Umpah-band stuff," the professor says. By contrast, the Rolling Stones rarely presented themselves as anything but a straight blues band, Sartwell explains. "Mick Jagger never mistook himself for Pavarotti or T.S. Eliot. Keith Richards never tried to do anything but make great little riffs." However irksome this may be to aging Beatle fans around the world, Sartwell says his conclusions are no simple matter of opinion. Rather they are distilled from an empirical analysis that turns on a pair of principles appropriately named, Sartwell's Laws. Sartwell's First Law dictates that the quality of a rock band is inversely proportional to its pretentiousness, with pretentiousness expressed as a ratio of artistic ambition to artistic accomplishment. The higher the rating, the professor says, the worse the band. In this manner, the Ramones, with a ratio of 1:8, come out better than The Talking Heads, with a 7:7 ratio. Nirvana, at 3:9, is exactly as good as Pearl Jam is bad, at 9:3. Sartwell also offers a specific warning about the quality of early U2 and early Bruce Springsteen, saying both were in the habit of taking simple ditties and mounting them with "an elaborateness usually reserved for Wagnerian opera". But where the Beatles fell short was under Sartwell's Second Law. To wit, the quality of a Rock song varies inversely as the square of its distance from the blues. White pop music performers from Benny Goodman and Elvis Presley to the Stones and the Beatles have succeeded by taking African-American music and repackaging it for mass audiences, Sartwell says. And the closer they have remained to the real thing, the better their music has been. "'Twist and Shout' and other early Beatles songs sound like they were recorded yesterday. But 'For the Benefit of Mr. Kite!' sounds like the relic of an extinct, incomprehensible culture," he says. The Rolling Stones do as well as the Ramones on the Sartwell system with a ratio of 1:8. "That's about as good as it gets," the professor says. On the other hand, the Beatles of the Sgt. Pepper era wind up with a rating of 8:2. "In '64 or '65, the Beatles were one of the best R&B bands ever to play. The stuff was wonderful and I'd put it in the same category as the Stones. It was with "Rubber Soul" that they really started to slip," he said. Reuters/Variety - ------------------------------------- Jay Lyall Channel Sales Director Livermore Software Laboratories, Intl. 2825 Wilcrest, Suite 160 Houston, Texas 77042-3358 1-713-974-3274 jay@lsli.com Date: 10/7/97 The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind. --Humphrey Bogart - ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:22:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: quantitative aesthetics Maybe it's because half of the bands I like qualify as musically pretentious, but... That has got to be the *STUPIDEST* musical theory I've ever heard. It's based on the assumptions that: a) The only good music is blues b) Any non-blues music is the product of a dead system and therefore bad. c) Nirvana (c.f. "All Apologies", "Lithium") is closer to the blues than tThe Beatles. d) By this formula, John Mellencamp is better than Pet Sounds. e) For that matter, by this formula, Wild Honey (Beach Boys) is a better album than Pet Sounds.... f) The main contribution of rock music is putting white faces on black music. Bah. I'll take "As We Go Along" or "Cherry-red daughter" over The Stones' cover of "Little Red Rooster" any day. Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:19:16 -0400 From: kenster@MIT.EDU (Ken Ostrander) Subject: re: The rolling stones >>Their Satanic Majesties Request is a great record. it is very >>conseptual, a quality thw stones lacked back in the 60's. >>i think it's a master piece. of course, under the theory of quantitative aesthetics, this part of the stones career would effectively clump the stones with the beatles as avant garde artists betraying rock and roll. yada yada yada. the professor that graded the stones didn't take into account some other similarly divergent points in their long career. >I like the adjacent Between The Buttons a LOT more. Not to mention almost >all the other pre-1973 Stones albums. just about everything that they did before _goats head soup_ was awesome. and there's plenty of juicy tidbits since then. i haven't got their new album yet; but i hear it's pretty good. KEN ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:17:24 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: quantitative aesthetics >Sartwell's First Law dictates that the quality of a rock band is inversely >proportional to its pretentiousness, >with pretentiousness expressed as a ratio of artistic ambition to artistic >accomplishment. The higher the >rating, the professor says, the worse the band. > >In this manner, the Ramones, with a ratio of 1:8, come out better than The >Talking Heads, with a 7:7 ratio. >Nirvana, at 3:9, is exactly as good as Pearl Jam is bad, at 9:3. > >But where the Beatles fell short was under Sartwell's Second Law. To wit, >the quality of a Rock song varies >inversely as the square of its distance from the blues. Jeez, what garbage. There's no "law" here -- just his own personal, highly debatable criterion expressed in a numerical way. How very, very silly. Let's see...I guess I'd give Hitchcock about a 7:8? Too bad Robyn tries so hard, otherwise he'd be more worthwhile on THIS dopey scale.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:13:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: re: The rolling stones > >>Their Satanic Majesties Request is a great record. it is very > >>conseptual, a quality thw stones lacked back in the 60's. > >>i think it's a master piece. > > of course, under the theory of quantitative aesthetics, this part > of the stones career would effectively clump the stones with the beatles as > avant garde artists betraying rock and roll. yada yada yada. the > professor that graded the stones didn't take into account some other > similarly divergent points in their long career. Of course, if you were to give Their Satanic Majesties the cover art and liner notes from Piper at the Gates of Dawn it would be a better album according to this scale.... Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:29:51 -0700 From: Eb Subject: re: The rolling stones >>>Their Satanic Majesties Request is a great record. > > of course, under the theory of quantitative aesthetics, this part >of the stones career would effectively clump the stones with the beatles as >avant garde artists betraying rock and roll. yada yada yada. the >professor that graded the stones didn't take into account some other >similarly divergent points in their long career. I don't know...actually, I think it's fairly credible to dismiss Satanic Majesties Request based on the professor's "ambition vs. actual achievement" criterion. In this particular case. His second law of "bluesiness" is taradiddle, however. And regarding your last comment, did the Stones really ever release another album as "divergent" as this one? I mean, the closest they came to being "divergent" after this was just a couple of isolated detours into disco during the Emotional Rescue/Undercover/Some Girls era. And that's just individual tracks, not full albums. >i haven't got their new album yet; but i hear it's pretty good. What aging, nostalgic hippie told you THAT? ;) I've seen very dismissive reviews myself (the LA Times gave it a paltry two stars out of five, for instance). Eb np: Tanya Donelly: Lovesongs for Underdogs ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel Saunders" Subject: Re: quantitative aesthetics ROTFL! That's really good! It reminds me of Stanislaw Lem's best satirical writing. Daniel Saunders :-| Have a day. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 18:54:48 -0400 From: dee zed stroke zero one five Subject: Re: Private Feg Gig also sprach Diana L Davis: >A couple of years ago, Patrick Moraz (of Yes and Moody Blues fame) >did a private gig tour, so to speak. Anyone who could come up with $800 >and meet some equipment requirements (I believe a piano was the main one) the money was the primary criterion. moraz had made arrangements with some piano company whose name i've forgotten to provide a piano to anyone who was offering to host a concert. >So there *is* precedent. cindy lee berryhill and elizabeth hummel just pulled off a similar "tour" of living rooms. boiled in lead play house concerts all the time. it's far from out of the question. woj ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:26:54 -0900 From: BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Maverick) Subject: re: The rolling stones Eb wrote: >What aging, nostalgic hippie told you THAT? ;) I've seen very dismissive >reviews myself (the LA Times gave it a paltry two stars out of five, for >instance). For the most part, the sales of album are irrelevant. The Bridges to Babylon tour is enjoying tremendous success to sold-out houses every venue that has been performed at thus far. Whether or not the new album is a success in relative terms will not determine the future of the Stones' careers. Brett ************************************************************** Cooper Collections P.O. Box 876462 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 (907) 376-4520 BC-Radio@corecom.net http://www.corecom.net/~no6pp/BC_Radio_Online.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:29:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: danger: acid > I'd never consider Robyn to be an acid casualty. They tend to record a > couple of decreasingly rational albums, then vanish. RH has managed to > keep recording, and also claims (?memory?) not to have used acid too > often. IIRC he said he's done it 7 times, but he may have been exaggerating in order to be legally considered insane. (That's the cutoff, i think.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:37:21 -0700 From: Eb Subject: re: The rolling stones >Eb wrote: >>What aging, nostalgic hippie told you THAT? ;) I've seen very dismissive >>reviews myself (the LA Times gave it a paltry two stars out of five, for >>instance). > >For the most part, the sales of album are irrelevant. Who said anything about sales? Not me.... >The Bridges to >Babylon tour is enjoying tremendous success to sold-out houses every venue >that has been performed at thus far. Uh, riiight...and all those fans are there to hear songs off Bridges to Babylon??? Please. Anyway, how many songs off the new album are the Stones even playing live? Two? Three? >Whether or not the new album is a >success in relative terms will not determine the future of the Stones' >careers. Of course not...as long as they can can still play through "Satisfaction" without stumbling, they'll do just fine. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:50:48 -0900 From: BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Maverick) Subject: re: The rolling stones Eb wrote: >Who said anything about sales? Not me.... Simply that such factors of sales and reviews are not going to be a relevant part of this album's history. >>The Bridges to >>Babylon tour is enjoying tremendous success to sold-out houses every venue >>that has been performed at thus far. > >Uh, riiight...and all those fans are there to hear songs off Bridges to >Babylon??? Please. Perhaps I should clarify what I meant: I was saying that any $$$ that may be lost due to possible, but too early to tell, low record sales, will be made up through the sales of tickets for the tour, not to mention all of the memrobilia that is sold at the concerts. >Anyway, how many songs off the new album are the Stones even playing live? >Two? Three? Irrelevant. The tour itself is doing well. The tour is to support "Bridges To Babylon." >>Whether or not the new album is a >>success in relative terms will not determine the future of the Stones' >>careers. > >Of course not...as long as they can can still play through "Satisfaction" >without stumbling, they'll do just fine. Age is merely a number, and I am not a number... Brett ************************************************************** Cooper Collections P.O. Box 876462 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 (907) 376-4520 BC-Radio@corecom.net http://www.corecom.net/~no6pp/BC_Radio_Online.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:41:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Hedblade@aol.com Subject: Stones Vs. Beatles Hi Fegs, Here's a line from a little rootsy blues ditty that I'd like to dedicate to the professor who said the Stones were a better rock ban than the Beatles. "You're just trash / And you're a loser." Thank you, and goodnight. Sincerely, Jay H. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V6 #28 ******************************