From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #78 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, February 28 1998 Volume 07 : Number 078 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: several digests, again ["J. Katherine Rossner" ] Re: Perspective! [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Re: Five Finger Bands (was re:In sorrow not in anger) [Capuchin ] Re: Blows and bows [Capuchin ] Re: Blows and bows [Eb ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 01:29:34 -0500 From: "J. Katherine Rossner" Subject: Re: several digests, again >From: "Maxey L. Mullins" >Subject: moss elixir > >I was just wondering if there was any one else out there besides myself >who think that "Moss Elixir" is a terrific album. Sure, it's "jangly, >folky stuff." It's also very creative and just a joy to listen to. You say that as though the two things contradicted each other. :) I like Moss Elixir--not that I have many others at this point, but last week I was listening to it a lot. (so what next, Dave?) Of course, the folky stuff is what I like best, as you've all probably gathered by now. *** I feel obliged to mention for the sake of those who are planning to attend SXSW that John Wesley Harding will be performing there. Cactus Cafe, March 19 (and he's the first act of that bunch, so it shouldn't interfere with RH's midnight set--or is the latter going to be 20-whatever hours earlier?). And his new album, of which good things are already being heard, is due March 10. *** >From: Ross Overbury >Subject: Re: Catchin' up on some threads + > >>>)...and, after three days of frenzi= >>>dancing and lucid dreaming, we could torch the 300 foot tall Thoth! > >Is there a Hitchcock/lucid dreaming coorelation? I'm a lucid dreamer >too, and the Goddess of Toast has led me to believe she also has a >talent for lucid dreaming. I coached one feg in lucid dreaming techniques >last year. Discuss lucid dreaming with your average human and you get some >very strange looks indeed. I've always (at least since I was seven or eight, don't remember before that) had some dreams wherein I could say: wait, this is a dream...stop, I don't like that...[and maybe] can we try that sequence over again, *this* way? So does that count? Actually, I think I can remember doing that at least once with a dream when I was four. Mostly I remember that dream for being the only black-and-white one I've had; it was [ObBeatles] the day my mother took me to see "A Hard Day's Night", and my dream was a continuation of the movie (with me in it, of course). *** >From: Eb >Subject: Re: Soy Bomb > >12. I don't mind Paula Cole's music, but she is utterly unwatchable as a >performer. Take it down a peg, sweetie. And if you're not gonna shave, you >could at least stop wearing sleeveless tops and lifting your arms up all >the time. My impression is that she doesn't shave at least partly out of independence: if she doesn't care enough about opinions like that to shave, she certainly doesn't need to hide her non-conformity for your approval! Katherine, who started to like Paula Cole when the latter came onstage for a concert and announced that she was totally "pissed off at Entertainment Weekly because they airbrushed out my armpit hair..." - -- Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche is chaunge Withinne a thousand yere, and wordes tho That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge Us thinketh hem, and yet they spake hem so. - Chaucer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 22:57:38 -0800 From: John Barrington Jones Subject: Five Finger Bands (was re:In sorrow not in anger) Bayard wrote: >#30, #5, #3... am I the only one on this crazy list who puts RH in the >middle podium, gold medal winner, #1 post modern artist, king of all >media except radio and mtv, top fav? come on-- who's with me????? Aye, Bayard, I side with thee!!! Robyn is King! When I was in high school, me and my friends had something called our "five-finger bands". These were our favorite bands, one for each finger even! Of course they changed all the time, but here were mine when we first coined that phrase (Capuchin, are you there?) \/ 1984: The Cure, Depeche Mode, Wall of Voodoo, Squeeze, and I can't remember the other one. (probably Elvis Costello) I know that the Smiths weren't on there yet, as I didn't buy their debut LP until the summer after school was out. Right now, they would probably be: 1998: Robyn Hitchcock, Soul Coughing, Prince, Throwing Muses/KH, & Bill Nelson. - -jbj - -*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-# John B. Jones Email: lobstie@e-z.net ICQ: 8301543 AOL IM: Lobstie House of Figgy-- http://web.syr.edu/~jojones/hitchcock.html "Well, we went to the punk bar, then we went to the heroin bar, we had pasta at Fellini, and then we went to the pretty bar." -overheard at work - -*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-#-*-# ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:02:40 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Pit hair. On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, J. Katherine Rossner wrote: > >12. I don't mind Paula Cole's music, but she is utterly unwatchable as a > >performer. Take it down a peg, sweetie. And if you're not gonna shave, you > >could at least stop wearing sleeveless tops and lifting your arms up all > >the time. > My impression is that she doesn't shave at least partly out of > independence: if she doesn't care enough about opinions like that to > shave, she certainly doesn't need to hide her non-conformity for your > approval! > Katherine, who started to like Paula Cole when the latter came onstage for > a concert and announced that she was totally "pissed off at Entertainment > Weekly because they airbrushed out my armpit hair..." A few things. First, armpits are mostly kind of icky. They're these body parts that we tend to hide. It's a cultural thing for sure and it's maybe not as cool and earthy and honest as letting it all hang out, but there are reasons traditional and hygeinic. I have no problems with folks who shave or don't any old part they choose. I've dated folks with hair in the STRANGEST places and no hair at all in the expected ones. (Um, I'm only mentioning people I've dated because I don't want to admit to knowing that much about the body hair of people with whom I haven't had romantic relations. A girl's gotta have her secrets.) It's not a big personal issue. Shaving's a pain and not always useful. I do, however, agree somewhat with the above statement about Paula Cole keeping her arms down. Other folks with pit hair keep their arms down. It's the polite thing to do. I'm not saying she doesn't have every right to grow and show hair. Good for her. Good for Bruce Springsteen and his big hairy armpits and sleeveless shirts in 1984. But Bruce kept his arms down. Call me cynical and all that, but I can't help but think Paula wasn't upset so much that Entertainment Weekly blotted out her pit hair because the image was an inaccurate representation of her true physical visage. I tend to think she just likes to let people know that she doesn't shave. She's externalizing the whole deal. I'm all for personal choices. I don't see why she thinks any of us care either way about her armpits. I'd also like to say that I don't believe I've ever seen this person in sleeves at all and in any motion pictures, she's never been able to keep her arms down throughout the whole shot. Whatever she's trying to say is lost on me. "Look at me! I find razorburn unappealing!"??? "Hair is natural!"??? Whatever. I rarely shave and mostly it's because I need a job and want to prove I'm clean. In case you cared. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:16:04 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: Perspective! >> I >> believe most people would agree that besides "Groovy Decoy/Decay", Robyn >> hasn't released any major embarassments or disappointments. > >And I would say that most people would have no idea who you're talking >about. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, breaking it down even >further, most people in the english speaking world that regularly listen >to song-based popular music would say "Robyn Hitchcock? Never heard of >her." or something very similar. > Of course, I was referring to people who have heard most or all of Robyn's releases, same goes for the Floyd. I would assume someone who's never heard Robyn's music would have a difficult time deciding how consistent his releases have been. - - Ben (...who has no idea who this "Hitchcock" fellow is. I just joined this list to serve in the "flame wars") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:14:14 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Five Finger Bands (was re:In sorrow not in anger) On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, John Barrington Jones wrote: > When I was in high school, me and my friends had something called our > "five-finger bands". These were our favorite bands, one for each finger > even! > Of course they changed all the time, but here were mine when we first > coined that phrase (Capuchin, are you there?) > \/ > 1984: The Cure, Depeche Mode, Wall of Voodoo, Squeeze, and I can't remember > the other one. (probably Elvis Costello) I know that the Smiths weren't on > there yet, as I didn't buy their debut LP until the summer after school was > out. I'm here. Woah. Oh, and John... give me a call or personal mail. > Right now, they would probably be: > 1998: Robyn Hitchcock, Soul Coughing, Prince, Throwing Muses/KH, & Bill > Nelson. OK, fun. Here goes. One moment in high school that I recall vividly: Depeche Mode, Robyn Hitchcock, They Might Be Giants, Dead Kennedys, and Violent Femmes. Today: Robyn Hitchcock, TMBG, Dance Hall Crashers, Too Much Joy, and The Smiths. It's all really kind of made up because Punch The Clown, Syd Barrett, and Oingo Boingo aren't on any of those lists. But it's all for fun anyway. It's not like someone's going to take away all the records I have that aren't by my finger bands. J. -- who wishes he still had that cool cub-scout-kneeling-before-a-grave Dead Kennedys T-shirt. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:15:54 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: Blows and bows > >I've said it before and I'll say it again, guitars do next to nothing for >me. I'm going to get beat on the head for this, but I'm going to give it >a shot. > Would you prefer for your head to be collapsed by a nice, solid Les Paul, or just wear a Martin D-50 around your neck as a sort of punishment? >I find guitars are overused and overvalued. Look what Morphine does >without one? Exactly. :) > >Guitars just seem like petty accompaniment that nearly anyone that sings >can pick up and pick at. It's something you can play while singing. It's >something that's easy to carry around. People use pianos or guitars to >write songs because of the obvious tonal range of the instruments and >because plucking out individual notes is effortless. Maybe you find one >to be extra-expressive, but to me, that's just because more people use >them so you can find a wider range of pieces. > Ok, that paragraph sounded like an advertisement FOR guitars. >Yeah, there are great players. Robyn plays guitar extraordinarily well >sometimes and all kinds of people do nifty things with them, but that's >not my point at all. My point is that the instrument itself doesn't lend >itself to any kind of better expression to my ears. In fact, due to its >overuse, I'd say I'm mostly dulled to them and find them bland and >dulling. > I suppose then you must also be bored of hearing drums, bass, or the human voice, all used as often (if not more) in rock music. >Guitar solos, for example, are just showoffy wanking for the most part. >Nope, got no real love for Hendrix. Got no real love for B.B. King. I >don't get anything from it. I'd rather hear Devo's cover of "Are You >Experienced?" than the original. > > >When does a guitar part make me get up and feel something? Rarely. >There are, of course, exceptions. The guitar part in "I Am Not Me" brings >up all kinds of feelings I won't even describe to you people, but only >when juxtaposed with the vocals. "Chinese Water Python" has a neat little >Mozarty feel that's pleasant and stimulating. (I'm picking Robyn examples >because we all know them and because he's one of the few guitar based >people I can handle.) > >Most of you guitar supporters are guitar players. I've noticed that. Why >is that? Well, because you love guitars, for one, and because everyone >and their brother plays guitar. Me, I play horns (and until someone >actually hears me try, I'm going to keep claiming I do). I'd say I'll get >a much wider range of emotion lit in me by a trumpet or trombone than any >guitar. A fast flying trumpet will get me up on my feet and flying >faster than anything. A low, slow, brooding trumpet can wipe a smile off >my face and bring me to tears on the happiest day of my life. Yeah, >"Veins Of The Queen" is way up on my favorites list. But the tones are >sharp and with too many vocal qualities. They're loud and you play them >with your mouth. You can't sing while playing it and if someone behind >you is playing, they'd better be playing low or be muted to hell. > So, regardless of the player, horns are more expressive of an instrument. That's an intelligent statement. Surely, you must be high as a kite. Instruments are incapable of producing emotional respose in anyone, it's the PLAYER who does that. Weather they are playing trumpet, guitar, synthesizer, or the spoons makes no difference whatsoever. >Pianos and guitars are super wimpy in my book. Ever listen to The Who's "Live at Leeds"? I guess not, or else you never would have made such a foolish statement. I have yet to hear of a horn player being sued for damaging somebody's hearing. Guitar (when properly amplified) can do more then effect someone emotionally, it can HURT them. That's not too wimpy. The guitar is Satan's choice of instrument for the 20th century and beyond. - - Ben (who plays saxophone quite poorly, actually) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:18:05 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: In sorrow not in anger On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Bayard wrote: > #30, #5, #3... am I the only one on this crazy list who puts RH in the > middle podium, gold medal winner, #1 post modern artist, king of all > media except radio and mtv, top fav? come on-- who's with me????? You know I'm with ya. I just try to hide it when I can. It's bad enough talking about him all the time to my friends and mentioning things on this list as if they happened at a bar I frequent. I shy away from my obsessions. I fear them. Fuck. I love Robyn and would rather listen to him than anything I have and do listen to him more than anything else period. OK? Happy? Now I have to put on AC/DC and pretend I'm someone else. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:50:29 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Blows and bows On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Ben wrote: > >I find guitars are overused and overvalued. Look what Morphine does > >without one? > Exactly. :) That was totally warranted. Touche. [snipped a long bit about why people play guitars, in my book] > Ok, that paragraph sounded like an advertisement FOR guitars. Note that it said nothing about expressiveness or versatility of sound. It just said you can carry it and it can be plucked while singing. Same goes for a rubber band (and as for the range of notes: a large number of rubber bands). > I suppose then you must also be bored of hearing drums, bass, or the human > voice, all used as often (if not more) in rock music. Yep. And certainly none of those are used more than guitars in rock music? The vocals have all kinds of breaks, but the guitars play on. As for the human voice, I really can't stand most folks' idea of "expressive" singing. Give me Robyn, Morrissey, or David Byrne style vocals any day. I prefer someone who's going to sing because their voice is a tuned instrument of music (or untuned as one chooses) and let their words and music carry the emotional content instead of something as vulgar and unimaginative as screaming, sobbing, crying, or laughing. > So, regardless of the player, horns are more expressive of an instrument. > That's an intelligent statement. Surely, you must be high as a kite. > Instruments are incapable of producing emotional respose in anyone, it's > the PLAYER who does that. Weather they are playing trumpet, guitar, > synthesizer, or the spoons makes no difference whatsoever. No. I find horns more expressive because I can identify with them better. My argument was that guitarists favor guitars more than other people and that more people are guitarists for reasons other than expressiveness. Of course the player makes a huge difference. I still can't come up with a single guitar player whose guitar(playing) can make me feel anything like joy or giddiness. I could have prefaced everything with "from what I've heard" and "in my estimation of the best instance of the following emotive intention...", but I didn't think anyone would assume I meant only when listening to the fellow who plays guitar outside Meier & Frank on 5th and Yamhill. > Ever listen to The Who's "Live at Leeds"? I guess not, or else you never > would have made such a foolish statement. I have yet to hear of a horn > player being sued for damaging somebody's hearing. Guitar (when properly > amplified) can do more then effect someone emotionally, it can HURT them. > That's not too wimpy. The guitar is Satan's choice of instrument for the > 20th century and beyond. I also think school bullies are wimpy. I don't think hurting people makes you any less a wimp. It's a lack of courage. Picking up a guitar isn't a bold choice. I mentioned Billy Joel and James Taylor not because they're passive people but because their music is that kind of easy listening stuff that they play in offices because no one will find it offensive. Surely some folks who play guitars are offensive, that's not what I meant. I meant that guitars and pianos are chosen by folks who just don't want to choose, chosen more because it's there than because of any real connection with the instrument. Certainly there are exceptions and if you'd like, you can think you are one. Not done with this argument, I'm sure... J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 00:13:07 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Blows and bows Capuchin wrote, among other things: >Of course the player makes a huge difference. I still can't come up with >a single guitar player whose guitar(playing) can make me feel anything >like joy or giddiness. > >Picking up a guitar isn't a bold choice. > >I meant that >guitars and pianos are chosen by folks who just don't want to choose, >chosen more because it's there than because of any real connection with >the instrument. I hereby pass the title of "Feglist scourge" to Capuchin. ;) Speaking of honorary titles, if I'm Gomez, then who is Principal Buchanan, Hayward, Thorpe, Jackson, Reese, Salami, Goldstein, Coolidge and Coach Reeves? Eb ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #78 ******************************