From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #79 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 079 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re:Moss Elixir [Capuchin ] Too Much Music. [Capuchin ] Re: Pit hair. [tanter ] Burn the Cheese! (various bits of trivial nothing, 0% Robyn) [Danielle ] happy guitars [dwdudic@erols.com (dead man william blake)] five finger flambe (acent ague) [dmw ] Re: Pink Floyd. . . now Beach Boys [MARKEEFE ] Re: Pit hair. [Capuchin ] Soy Bomb [Eb ] Mike Love's Hall of Fame rant [Chris ] Re: Mike Love's Hall of Fame rant [Eb ] the hairy issue ["J. Katherine Rossner" ] "You go to hell! You go to hell, and you BURN!" --Mr. Garrison ["Capit] Re: Scrambled Cole [Ner ] Re: Pit hair. [Ner ] Re: Mike Love's Hall of Fame rant [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Critics and Ebs Hitch remarks [dlang ] Re: Five Finger Bands (was re:In sorrow not in anger) [dlang ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 00:35:57 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re:Moss Elixir On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, BENJAMIN.BRETTENNY wrote: > On an entirely different note, as you all know many of Hitchcocks works use > his own paintings on the cover and inside or on the back (the picture on > the back of the 'Underwater Moonlight' cd being a prime example), is > anyone aware whether he has ever received any recognition in art circles > for his paintings and drawings. I don't know of anything in art circles, really, but there were some really good pictures and something of an article in Raygun a while back. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 00:52:10 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Too Much Music. On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Aaron Mandel wrote: > if everyone wrote music, there would be a glut so enormous that even an > army of critics working overtime (or rather, working during the breaks in > their rehearsal schedules) couldn't give much of anyone any idea of what > to look for, or even what's out there. if nobody who didn't write music > criticized it, we'd be a nation of sheep, periodically thinking that the > gruel didn't taste as good as usual but unable to find an alternative. Well, there IS something of an army of critics and I'm sure they'd all tell you they work overtime and I don't think they give much of anyone any idea of what to look for or even what's out there. Yet that's what we have. We have criticism in magazines and the sneaky sort of criticism and commercialism that gets things on the radio and the criticism of our friends and families and acquaintances... all of these critics to help raise our awareness of what's out there. A mountain of recorded material that nobody could possibly plow through properly. You can't hear everything and neither can anyone else. We selectively listen. And how we make those selections is totally arbitrary anyway. Just a few words from Robyn: "There are far too many records around anyway. Everyone's made too many. There's more than enough music to keep an archeologist from the future happy for the next million years." I tend to agree. It's a big world. I went to a bookstore today and looked only at the New Arrivals section. Huge. Nobody could read it all. I don't see how the market sustains that kind of massive publication. I mean, not even counting vanity publishing, there's got to be a huge loss on most of those books. Then I realized that the popular successes even it all out. There was a sudden moment of clarity. Spice Girls exist so that Robyn can exist. Titanic gets made so that The Hudsucker Proxy can be made. Who says there's no integrity in corporate America? OK, maybe I went a bit far. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:44:02 -0500 From: tanter Subject: Re: Pit hair. >Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:43:23 -0500 >To: Capuchin >From: tanter >Subject: Re: Pit hair. >In-Reply-To: >References: <3.0.1.32.19980228012934.006c790c@pop.mindspring.com> > >At 11:02 PM 2/27/98 -0800, you wrote: >> >>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. > >>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. > >What a sexist conversation this has become! You should all be ashamed and I'm really serious. Anyone here ever watch a basketball game or play in one? Any of the guys on this list go barechested in public and occasionally raise their arms high enough for _their_ arm pits to show?? It's unusual for men to shave in this country, unless they are swimmers. If Bruce kept his arms down, how do you know they are "big hairy armpits"?? During the warmer months of the year (generally starting in March when the temps get up to 50F!), men around here are naked from the waist up and thighs down and their armpits are constantly on show. I don't find that attractive, I don't find it attractive in women either, but I've never said "how disgusting!" Do you people have nothing better to talk about than this? On the Boston sports radio station they spent 45 mins talking about Paula Cole and not a man said anything about men's armpits. I feel really angry that a bunch who is usually quite even keeled can become so ridiculously childish about something that is really meaningless. I shave because I'm most comfortable that way but if Paula Cole doesn't want to, BIG SHIT! > >Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 03:12:16 -0800 From: Danielle Subject: Burn the Cheese! (various bits of trivial nothing, 0% Robyn) > >Danielle is now an honorary Bay Area Feg! Welcome! > But that Bay is West Coast, and Danielle lives much closer to the East > Coast Bays... Ah, James-my-fellow-'Nouveau Western'-appreciator, I've been sprung! Much as it shames me to admit it, I grew up in the East Coast Bays. As they say, you can take the girl out of the Shore, but... ;) > It was one of the pivotal early films of Britain's > social-realism movement in the '60s. GAWWWD, I love that stuff. All those > gritty B&W films with homely, heavily accented working-class Brits...mmmmm. > Albert Finney, Richard Harris, Rita Tushingham...yummy. Homely. Richard Harris. Homely. Richard Harris. Nope, I just don't see it. I'd *definitely* give him one. Love those Lindsay Anderson films, too. This Sporting Life... If... O Lucky Man!... > And (grrrrrr) who wants to talk to a bunch of > stodgy, anal-retentive Elvis Costello fans who can't appreciate any music > that stretches beyond an old-school lyrics 'n' sheet-music songwriting > aesthetic? Erm... not *everyone* on the Costello list is like that, Eb. Most of them, yes... ;) > >>wazzock. Yer wot? Frighteningly, everything I read during the 'bizarre British slang' thread was completely clear to me - except for this word! Please, tell me what it means. I must fling it casually into conversation. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? (Oh, and I'm disappointed. Where were the references to the 'trouble and strife', 'apples and pears', and heading north for a moment, 'goin' down to t'Rovers with Curly Watts'? ;)) > Mind > you don't take it personal like, I know you can't help it being at the > arse end of the world an all. Bloody colonials , don't know any better , > not like us folk, remember, we fought a war to help buggers like you > keep your bums clean and you reward us by shagging sheep ! Ungrateful > bastards ! Fair suck of the sav, mate... that hardcase Dignan may be intimately acquainted with the dag end of a hogget or two, being down in Otago and all, but by hokey... I won't have all the jokers in Godzone slagged off like that! Anyway, you whinging Pommie bastards couldn't get a shag down here if you tried. The sheilas - and the Romney ewes - are into *romance*. Something as innately Kiwi as 'd'ya fancy a root?', maybe... Quail, a man who not only stomachs, but actively encourages the concept of a Jethro Tull tribute album (I salute your foolhardy bravery, dear sir, but my devotion to that band begins with Stand Up and ends with Thick as a Brick, and certainly does not include the possibility of Corgan, Iha et al being even *more* pretentious than Ian Anderson - is that possible? - whilst attempting one of his songs), wrote: > But I would like to > remind people that Eb never once wished this to be known to the List. Eb > never uses the "I'm a critic" thing to add weight to his words.... > Let me put to rest this fallacy that Eb's opinion in meaningless because > he is not a musician, or this "why doesn't he form a band and show us how > to do it right" dreck. No offense to those who hold this idea, but it is > not a very well developed position. Like it or not, a critic *is* an > artist. Dammit, Quail, you not only took the words right out of my mouth, but you've made me start mentally singing a *dreadful* schlocky Meatloaf song! I'd add that it's totally ridiculous to expect everyone to be a skilled musician before they are allowed to hold strong opinions on their own CD collections. *Intelligent* listening and commentary are vastly underrated skills, which I try to cultivate in myself with very limited success. Quail also writes of Eb: > He also has bad taste in shirts, Testify, brother. > and he > won't give me that autographed copy of Geddy Lee's Rickenbacker 4001 bass > that he uses for a cricket bat. I've tried to explain the rules of cricket to Eb. When he discovered that the rules of the game allow for hour-long lunches - not to mention morning and afternoon teas - the laughing scorn he heaped upon the sport and its fans gave me some indication of the likelihood of his conversion. Not to bring up Ian Anderson again, but 'One White Duck Over Zero to the Power of Ten Equals Nothing at All'. ;) > And are Armed Forces and This Year's Model two of Costello's > better albums? My obsession with This Year's Model borders on the unhealthy. I *love* that record with the kind of intensity normally reserved for people, pets and Revolver. To answer your question, um, yes. Danielle, reading 'Pretty in Pink: The Golden Age of Teenage Movies', and coming to the conclusion that Molly Ringwald should have gone off with Duckie rather than Andrew McCarthy, aka alien-constipation-boy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 03:49:05 +0000 From: "Charles Gillett" Subject: Re: Blows and bows On Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:50:29 -0800 (PST), Capuchin wrote: > 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. And horn players chose their instrument because they felt that connection? Most horn players I've known started playing when they were preteens or slightly later. I suppose there are rare cases of precocious self-knowledge in a preteen which might lead to the child choosing a particular instrument, but most of what I've seen and heard indicates that a combination of parental pressure, peer pressure, and instrument availability is what makes the choice for the kid. I played the clarinet at that time in my life because my family had one. That didn't last long--I didn't really know why I wanted to be in the school band, the band director didn't seem to like me (ostensibly because I had bad teeth), and my parents didn't appear to think one way or another about it, so I quit. I started playing acoustic guitar when I was 16, again mostly because my family happened to have one, but also because the music I enjoyed was guitar-based. I've never worshipped any guitarist, though, and I don't like guitarists any more than I like other instrumentalists. The only guitarist I've really been enjoying lately is John Fahey (the 60s stuff, though I like his new work well enough). In the case of Fahey the guitar is the main voice, whereas with our man Robyn it's almost always the accompaniment. If you want to sing and accompany yourself, a trumpet is a poor choice. Among the instruments with which a person can accompany oneself whilst singing, I give the acoustic guitar a slight edge over the other obvious choices. When the guitar is the main voice, well, of course it depends on the musician, but there are an awful lot of awful guitarists out there, and I seem to run across them (Mostly in hideous "jam bands" *shudder*) more often than I run across similarly awful saxophonists. So what am I saying? If it's just going to be you accompanying yourself, then I'm perfectly satisfied with the acoustic guitar. However, no tears would be shed over here if the guitar became less ubiquitous in popular music, if only because after a while the critics would stop raving about how unique Morphine/Ben Folds Five/etc. are because they don't use guitars. Referring to another post of yours--if you want strings, there's a Minneapolis band called Own which is comprised of electric violin, electric cello, and drums. The critics here love them, I think they're okay. - -- Charles ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:37:08 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (dead man william blake) Subject: happy guitars On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 03:25:13 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >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. What, not even the guitar bits on the intro to "i wanna be an anglepoise lamp?" ` Have you ever heard soukous music? Les Tetes Brules? Loketo? a lot of African players play stuff that could make you feel "joy or giddiness". -luther - -luther :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:17:23 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: five finger flambe (acent ague) ooh, here's one i actually like. i'm amazed at people who can have like, a single favorite artist that's their favorite artist all the time...i have as many favorites artists as i have favorite colors or moods ... but the top 5 or so tend to be comparitively stable...these are also restricted to the "rock'n'roll" sorta idiom, else mozart, bach, prokofiev and thelonious monk tend to stomp over everybody else... these lists reflect more what i listen(ed) to most than any imagined objective ranking of an act's "value" or "merit," and therefore have a hefty bias to artists putting out strong new material at the time. circa 1980 triumph april wine acdc ufo/michael schenker group rainbow circa 1984 (the anti-metal revolution...) alarm r.e.m. u2 police xtc circa 1988 replacements r.e.m. game theory robyn hitchcock husker du circa 1993 the fall sarah mclachlan tori amos loud family liz phair circa now wilco loud family mark eitzel/amc giant sand mekons/langford/timms there are about a zillion that i feel hideous about omitting -- matthew sweet has been in the second rank for a while, for example. circa now was way hard to cull to five. also, i lie, because very very near the top >right now< is a band called naughty pine. none of you have ever heard of them; they don't even have any records, although i'm doing what i can to change that. if you're sufficiently curious, you can hear a small handful of main pine songwriter scott mcknight's (ex-neighbors for those of you with >long< power pop memories) compositions on albums by kevin johnson, last train home and the grandsons (of the pioneers). think of him as arlington, va's answer to jack logan, or dc's best-kept secret. think of me as seriously biased, too -- scott was our engineer/co-producer for the "left on noyes" sessions, and the guys in the band are all friends. but even if i'm biased, it's a bias a mess of other discriminating folks also happen to share. here's a radical contribution to an ongoing heated topic, something i usally have the sense to avoid, but: when judging an artist's relative merit, i think it's sorta bogus to force consideration of the entire catalog. i think the velvets are a prime example -- they broke up before they ever released a lame album; so did big star. on average, then, pound for pound, i think their catalogs are stronger than, say, the kinks. or the clash. or david bowie, by a long shot. i think it makes more sense to judge an artist/group by how many unassailably great records they produced. list favorites like the beatles and the kinks will still do okay (and my favorite kinks moment, the tragically underrated _give the people what they want_, could potentially contribute rather than being relegated to a written-off period) and we could avoid penalizing the clash for _cut the crap_. and then the likes of elvis presley and hank williams sr., especially if you allow best-of and posthumous compilations to count as "albums" can take a rightful place in the canon. and a wee bit more on cole, for the sheer helluvit: i think armpit hair can be kind of sexy. can also be hideous. certainly seems to me like it ought to be an individual decision. certainly seems irrelevant to questions of artistic worth. and further, for what little it's worth, when i saw paula cole open for sarah mclachlan back in 94 or so, her performance was stunning. my date was literally moved to tears by one of her songs and i think it's safe to say that she won over virtually the whole hall, almost none of whom had ever heard of her before. her second record barely hints at the intensity she's capable of; the first is more on the mark (less slick) but falls way short of that live experience. i don't think it's very fair to judge a live performance when you see it only as a bunch of jiggling little phosphor dots, and hear -- often through tiny tinny speakers -- a mix of questionable merit, w/o the warmth of the room tone. not the same as being there at all. - -- d. - - oh,no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmayowel@access.digex.net - - and dmw@mwmw.com ... get yr pathos at http://www.pathetic-caverns.com/ - - new reviews! tunes, books, flicks, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:11:38 EST From: MARKEEFE Subject: Re: Pink Floyd. . . now Beach Boys In a message dated 98-02-28 01:41:10 EST, you write: << Well I would put Pet Sounds, Smile, and Surf's Up in with the best band albums. I don't even think (heresy coming) the Beatles reached their level of harmonic perfection. Still, I find that I like a little more grit. Maybe they could put in more guitars... -Andy >> More guitars? Yikes! Maybe there should be a drum 'n' bass remix of Pet Sounds, too! ;-) I'd suggest that the Beach Boys aren't for gritty moods and that that's one of the best things about them. . . although the end of "Waiting for the Day" always inspires me to shout out, "Yeh-boy! You tell 'em, Bri! You da MAN!" - -----Michael K., who, with each passing day, prefers less and less grit in his music -- or maybe it's just the noisey pseudo-angst that's worn out its welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:16:40 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Pit hair. On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, tanter wrote: > What a sexist conversation this has become! You should all be ashamed and > I'm really serious. Whoa... you missed my point, I think. I wasn't saying anything about gender or even how I feel about shaving (Actually, that's not entirely true, I said I'm indifferent to shaving). I really just meant to say that she seems to love her arm pits and will go to all kinds of impolite lengths to show them off. It's just kind of ridiculous. You'd think she could come up with a more meaningful way to make a stand. I mean, go ahead and don't shave because that's a comfort thing in our sterilized western world, but it sure is a strange point of pride. [snipped talk of shirtless men and basketball boys in tanks] > I don't find that > attractive, I don't find it attractive in women either, but I've never said > "how disgusting!" Why not? I say "How disgusting!" all the time. I mean, damn, put a shirt on. It's better for your skin anyway. But I'm not about to force them to do such a thing. I'm all for freedom. And yeah, I think the laws are sexist here and should be either amended or repealed. > On the Boston sports radio station they spent 45 mins talking about > Paula Cole and not a man said anything about men's armpits. I'll buy that their conversation was sexist. I did mentione men's armpits. I said Bruce Springsteen didn't shave and did all kinds of things on stage, but he didn't show off his underarms all the time. Again, I have no trouble with Paula Cole's underarms or my own currently unshaven ones or anyone else's. I just think that she's a little obsessed and fixated. > I feel really > angry that a bunch who is usually quite even keeled can become so > ridiculously childish about something that is really meaningless. I shave > because I'm most comfortable that way but if Paula Cole doesn't want to, > BIG SHIT! I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I think folks who raise their sweaty arms just so others can see are pretty yucky. I didn't think anything of it until I read that she was upset that Entertainment Weekly airbrushed out the hair. That just made me realize that it's not a point of comfort for her and she doesn't always just raise her arms and wear sleeveless things out of gesture or necessity, but that she wants to show them off and I think that's just silly. Sorry to throw this around any more. I was sleepy last night. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:16:44 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Soy Bomb This article may be of interest, to those interested in the Dylan/Grammys disturbance. I like the quote about Celine Dion. ;) Eb This was in a Maryland newspaper. By Rob Hiaasen SUN STAFF Michael Portnoy's 15 minutes of fame lasted maybe 30 seconds. In a night marked by Girl Power, sore throats and Aretha's aria, the 40th annual Grammy Awards will also be remembered for Portnoy's unscheduled performance as the "Soy Bomb" Boy. Hired as a show extra, he crashed the stage in New York City as Grammy-winner Bob Dylan was singing "Love Sick." What the TV world saw was this string-bean of a guy dancing next to an unflappable Dylan. Monica Lewinsky could have dived onto the stage and the folk legend wouldn't have flinched. Dylan only glanced at his stage partner, and after about 30 seconds, viewers saw a grinning man in black (not Will Smith) rush the stage and whisk Portnoy away. Was the bare-chested dancer part of the act? Was he performing sign language? Where did he come from? And as one Dylan fan asked on the Internet, "What does Soy Bomb mean?" Turns out, Michael Henry Portnoy is much more than the camera-shy, conservative guy we saw on TV. He's from Bethesda. Yes, a native son. "I've always considered myself somewhere between a serious artist and a moron," said a sleepless Portnoy yesterday. "The Grammys is one of the biggest media events in our time. It was crying out to be messed up. How could I pass up such an opportunity?" The media had a field night with the Grammy intruder: Portnoy was described as "a shirtless man with `Soy Bomb' on his chest dancing wildly as a confused Dylan backed away" and "a seemingly possessed shirtless dancer" and "a bare- chested man [who] gyrated wildly during Dylan's performance." "I didn't mean him any harm," Portnoy said. "Actually, I'm indifferent to Dylan. I only know about three of his songs. I would have preferred to do it during Celine Dion's performance." After his improvised dance, Portnoy was "escorted" from Radio City Music Hall, where officials declined to press charges, said Officer Theresa Farello of the New York City Police Department. Farello was at the Grammys. "That song Dylan was singing was so depressing, I thought this could be part of the show," she said. "The whole thing was bizarre." Initially, evidence suggested that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) might have been involved. Portnoy was half-naked and he was advertising a popular vegetarian food (soy: rice, wheat or beans fermented and steeped in brine). And he did crash a highly public event. But although Portnoy is a soy-lover, he was not on a mission from PETA. "We're just jealous," said Ingrid Newkirk, president of the Norfolk, Va.-based PETA. "I think he's `Soy Bob' and can't spell very well." No, he meant Soy Bomb. Michael Portnoy, 26, actually meant much more by his Grammy performance. Reached by phone in his New York City apartment, Portnoy walked us through his thinking. After all, one doesn't just barge into a Grammys ceremony without a plan or high concept. Here's this guy originally from Bethesda, who comes from a musical and artistic family. He moves to New York City five years ago and scrapes out a living as a bit actor, dancer and performance artist. He sings and plays drums in a band called "The Liquid Tapedeck." He has no memorable memories of Baltimore and does not follow the Orioles. He follows folk singers, apparently. Through a friend, Portnoy is hired for $200 to be an extra at the Grammys. This could be a big break for the struggling artist, he's thinking. Portnoy's job will be to join 60 other extras to sit around the stage "to provide Dylan with a good vibe. It was very odd," Portnoy said. "We were just supposed to sit back there and groove." Now before the big show, Portnoy gets this fuzzy, funky idea. He huddles with his artist buddies to create "an expression that is passionate and subversive." He first plans to write "I'M FAMOUS" on his chest. Too simplistic. He starts playing with the word "soy." Portnoy loves soy. "Maybe I can now be a soy spokesman." l Soy is such a rich source of nutrition. And a bomb is destructive. "And art for me is a combination of this dense, nutritional life and this explosive destructive force." Around 8 p.m. Wednesday, a friend of Portnoy's -- "The Woman Vitros" -- writes "Soy Bomb" in marker on his chest. Portnoy covers up with a charcoal gray shirt. He makes Radio City Hall in time to provide a good vibe for Dylan. Moments after Dylan begins, Portnoy starts unbuttoning his shirt and makes his entrance. "I was very scared some sniper would pick me off." (Note: His other idea was to have an "expandable, metal, porcupine vest" that would ward off the inevitable security rush. But a vest was too complicated to build.) Portnoy left the Grammys without dramatic incident, police and Grammy officials said. He wasn't arrested -- but was heckled. The other extras, he said, berated him for "ruining their evening." But why the Grammy thing, Michael? Why bust in on another man's moment? Why you? "I wonder that myself," he said. "I guess it's this primal urge we have to disrupt things." Assuming late-night TV hosts David Letterman or Jay Leno don't call soon, it's back to work for Portnoy. He has a new idea for his 15-minute act on a performance-art stage in New York: Using a video of his Grammy performance, he will perform a duet with himself. He never, ever wants to forget those 30 seconds at Radio City Music Hall. "Maybe this will open some doors for me," Portnoy said. Originally Published on 2/27/98 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:45:07 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Subject: Mike Love's Hall of Fame rant > what did Mike Love say in that speech? I mean, I'm SURE it was >pathetic, but what exactly did that egotistical, parasitic moron say? Now, that had to be the most embarrassing acceptance speech ever. I can't remember much of it, but Mike was insulting other musicians, and acting like a complete idiot. The following is just my recollection, as I can't find the clipping for it. But I believe he said something along the lines of "Mick Jagger is too chickenshit to get up here and play with the Beach Boys. He didn't even dare show his face tonight". Jagger was sitting about 10 feet from Mike. Mike just went on and on, as the rest of the guys looked embarrassed. Carl walked off stage at the end of it, and asked "Is this the end of our career?" Later in the show, Elton John said "I just want to thank Mike Love for not mentioning me in his speech." The Beach Boys are one of my favorite bands, even though I feel they should have hung it up when Dennis died. Now, without any of the Wilson brothers, I don't see how you could even call it the Beach Boys. Anyone else think that Mike is going to keep floggin the dead horse, and keep the band going as the Mike-Love Lounge-Singer, Lots-of-Young-Girls-in-Bikinis, Thank-You....Thank-You-Very-Much, Traveling Musical Oldies Band? Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:54:56 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Mike Love's Hall of Fame rant >Anyone else think that >Mike is going to keep floggin the dead horse, and keep the band going as the >Mike-Love Lounge-Singer, Lots-of-Young-Girls-in-Bikinis, >Thank-You....Thank-You-Very-Much, Traveling Musical Oldies Band? Yes, I do. Unfortunately. Here's my prediction: "The Beach Boys 2000, featuring Mike Love," playing a fairground near you. If anyone has the exact text of Love's speech, I'd love to see it. Grrr, Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:55:31 -0500 From: "J. Katherine Rossner" Subject: the hairy issue >From: Capuchin >Subject: Pit 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. Cultural, absolutely. Traditional, sure. Hygienic? Oh, come on. Not if you wash. >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. As a rule, I'm very much in favor of manners--but sometimes politics overrule politesse. >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. What a pity. (oops, sorry. Pun unintended, though I decided to leave it in.) I find it absurd that anybody should feel it necessary to keep arms down to hide hair. But beyond that, the cultural/political connotations make this a very different act for men and women. >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. I won't call you cynical at all--I think you're probably correct; but you and I construe the situation very differently. For starters, why do you see these two things as in opposition? Part of Cole's physical appearance is armpit hair, and she likes to let people know that she defies cultural norms of obedient femininity in that way. And for EW to airbrush that expression is EVERY BIT AS MUCH a political statement as Cole's. Of *course* she's offended; she's aware of their trying to force her into a mold that she's deliberately breaking. >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. But apparently people do care, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. >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 don't know Paula Cole, knew nothing of her music until last week, and can't say whether, e.g., she is naturally warm (or gets very warm during concerts) and has always preferred sleeveless blouses. And keeping one's arms down all the time isn't natural, for that matter. But yes, she probably *is* exhibiting her choice. Just as people I know who have pierced navels (a style I personally find unappealing) tend to wear cropped tops, to show off their fashion/cultural/political statements. >I rarely shave and mostly it's because I need a job and want to prove I'm >clean. In case you cared. Glad to hear it--the first, not the second; I always approve of men who don't shave. :) (And deplore the cultural presupposition that a bald face looks cleaner than a beard...) Katherine (do I shave? Generally depends on the preferences of the guy I'm seeing at a given time. I'm not so liberated as Paula Cole; that's probably why I admire her style...) - -- 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: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:43:31 PST From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: "You go to hell! You go to hell, and you BURN!" --Mr. Garrison i know there have only been something like fourteen episodes. but, as long as we're busy ranking things...with the possible exceptions of potsie webber and bicycle repairman, i'm ready to rank mr. garrison as the greatest television character of all times. so the "flaming lips boombox experiment #6" is going to be in town next week. "all humans are urged to attend," it says in the ad. anbody seen this thing? for that matter, anybody got the record? i haven't picked it up yet. [from the lyrics list] really? i assume you meant to add, "if you've got the right hardware." i've been wondering that myself, lately. glen? sydney? .chris? you bay area fegs are probably already well aware of this. but, anderson valley brewing, in boonville, was named the best brewery in the world, for the second year running, at the recent world beer championships. i really don't hear much fish 'n' veggies on ELIXIR. and, while Devil's Radio isn't my favorite song, i'd hardly call it "stale." granted that hate radio is kind of an easy target. but, what about Filthy Bird? or You and Oblivion? or The Speed of Things? add in 1974, and his recent tour with billy bragg. i think you're wrong about this one, eb. but, i think eb would readily admit that robyn's is among his five fave mailing lists. rosso, if you were implying that sodomy is number 1, i'm afraid that's *not* legal everywhere (in the u.s.) he was *supposed* to have had an exhibition at the vox populi gallery here in seattle a few years back. i called (as, i'm sure, did cindy and debbie) that fucking place every week for a year, asking when the robyn hitchcock exhibition was going to open, and they kept saying, "pretty soon." then, the place just freaking closed down. co-owner (and rhino reissues liner-notes author) grant alden up and moved to l.a., to hang out with eb, presumably. and that was that. *not* spoken like a true weiner, nick! incidentally, i got that one free from mrs. wafflehead, for having to wait a long time for an order. she also sent me an autographed litho of the RESPECT cover. worth the wait! <#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?????> uh, don't look at me. i can't stand the prick. well, you could get a feel by looking at his website. it's linked from the quail's. whoops...it's not anymore. why so secretive, eb? i think your site is pretty cool. i mean, what's the point of having a website anyway, if you don't want anybody to know about it? i dunno about roger ebert. it's hard for me to take seriously any critic who doesn't take the python seriously. the only movie he's got reviewed in his Movie Home Companion is The Meaning of Life, and he writes it off as just trying to see how many people they can offend. and of course, both siskel and ebert dissed Brazil. (on the criterion laserdisc commentary, gilliam talks about this a bit, and concludes, "fuck 'em!") but i do remember seeing some quentin interview where he said that pauline kael's book taught him more about how to make movies than any film school could have. agreed. but i don't think we have to worry about that. eb loves us too much. why do you consider it "rehash"? those songs sound very fresh to my ears. WHERE ARE THE PRAWNS? is easily my favorite soft boys album. this is one of the funniest things i've read in a while! but, frankly, i think satan's instrument of choice would be alanis morissette's voice. hey, in the summer 1987, there was a book that came out, called The Top 100 Rock and Roll Albums of All Time. i don't remember the author, but it was a pretty neat book. went through and had a pic of each album cover, along with a track listing, and chart info., and a short essay. and he'd conducted the poll in 1977, and had an appendix comparing '77 and '87 results. also an appendix giving each voter's top ten. (it was a bunch of journalists, dj's, and all the original mtv vj's. there was some fat guy in there that looked a lot like the guy i used to take flute and sax lessons from, whose fave album was ABBEY ROAD. and my friend jim was looking through the book, and he said, "someone in here picked ABBEY ROAD as his favorite album." "the fat guy?" "yeah." "that guy rules.") so anyway, i'd been looking forward to checking out the '97 results, but every time i remembered, i wasn't near a bookstore. and every time i was near a bookstore, i didn't remember. did the '97 version ever come out? that's my question. now some really boring stuff that i'll put at the end. a week or so ago, a guy i work with said that i should get a clone of myself made, to go and do all my work, so i could just sit back and take it easy. i asked how i'd eat, and he said, the clone would give me all the money he made. i asked how the clone would eat, and he said, "he wouldn't have to eat *that much*." which i thought was hilarious. but then he came out a little later. "what you could do is, have *six* clones made, and each of them would give you 20% of all their earnings." "until they all got together and decided to beat the crap out of me instead." then a while after that, he said i could make voodoo dolls of all of them, so i wouldn't have to worry about getting the shit beat out of me. i thought that was a pretty sadistic concept --making voodoo dolls of your own clones-- but also pretty robynesque. i'd like to see robyn write a song about making voodoo dolls of one's own clones. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:09:31 -0500 From: Ner Subject: Re: Scrambled Cole Eb wrote: > Incidentally, I've been trying to remember something...I seem to have > Cole's career confused with someone else. Who was it who was on (I think?) > RCA a few years ago, who recorded an album of nothing but Tom Waits covers? > It was "The [woman's name] Trio," I'm pretty sure. I was thinking it was > Paula Cole for awhile, but lately I've realized that I'm wrong. The name's > gotta be similar...anyone know? I think you must be talking about the Holly Cole Trio. I saw them on Conan O'Brien a couple years back. I remember them as being a jazz band with an interesting sound. I thought about checking out their recorded material but, so far, haven't gotten around to it. And that's about all I know about that. Hey, has anyone else heard "Crystal Ball", the newest release by that symbol guy known, in some circles, as The Artist....? I find the 4th disc to be very interesting. I'd be curious to hear someone else's opinion. - -Ner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:36:51 -0500 From: Ner Subject: Re: Pit hair. Personally, I love everything about women - and that includes their armpit hair, if they have it! Yum Yum... - -Ner ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 20:16:04 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: Mike Love's Hall of Fame rant >>Anyone else think that >>Mike is going to keep floggin the dead horse, and keep the band going as the >>Mike-Love Lounge-Singer, Lots-of-Young-Girls-in-Bikinis, >>Thank-You....Thank-You-Very-Much, Traveling Musical Oldies Band? > >Yes, I do. Unfortunately. Here's my prediction: "The Beach Boys 2000, >featuring Mike Love," playing a fairground near you. > And don't forget everybody's favorite Beach Boys drummer, John Stamos! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 11:51:54 +2909 From: dlang Subject: Critics and Ebs Hitch remarks I really think many of us are just placing too much value on Eb's remarks, if we can't tolerate criticism of RH then we could be thought of as a bunch of bigots.Surely part of this lists purpose is to give all Rh fans a chance to have their say about the guy. If all we are allowed to do is say nice things about his music then we are simply being sycophantic. I disagree with much of what Eb has to say about Robyn , but I think its good that he has the guts to say it and he does provide a sounding board to bounce ideas off. The Quail has said a lot of interesting things about critics in hispost and there is little I can add to it,. However from personal experience of knowing a very well known critic in his early years ( I went to school with the bugger) one thing stood out. He always liked shit stirring. We used to call him "Poison Pen " Jones and from reading many of his articles over the years, I would say that that desire to stir things up persisted throughout his career.Perhaps Eb has a little of this in his makeup, the desire to burst balloons and deflate egos as well as stirring the pot a little every now and then and some of us fall right into the trap and take the bait. Theres also the fact that if Eb is a professional critic , then hes used to working in the media and having to follow their conventions to some extent. If you do this all the time it may be hard to get out of this mode . If Eb is being provocative in his reviews in his writing in the media, then he will probably find it hard , or perhaps impossible to switch off that style when he write to this list .We should remember that pro writers are often under presssure to come up with " sexy 'or sensationalist stories which will grab the viewers attention. One of the easiest ways of doing this is to specialise in being subjective ALL the time at the expense of the artist, if that person is not on some current fashion list. Most of the writers in NME did this for so long that i gave up on the paper in the late 80's in disgust. A good critic is both subjective and objective , in fact they have a duty to be so , if they have any pretentions at being a good journalist. Eb IS doing this over Rh, he is voicing his dissatisfaction with some aspects of his work and thats fair enough. He's also praised him as well, faintly at times , its true,but hes being both objective and subjective. In this case at least , Eb is a good critic. dave lang ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 11:53:32 +2910 From: dlang Subject: Re: Five Finger Bands (was re:In sorrow not in anger) Some folks were rabbiting on about their fave teen bands.Thought I'd throw my happeth of invalid perceptions into the cauldron and see if I can contribute soemething to the debate. Isn't it strange how ones tastes change as one gets older. I've had extreme fluctuations of what I've listened to over the years from my teens to late 40's. however , now I seem to have gone full circle and gone back to the music of my late teens ,a mix of acid rock, folk rock and the more esoteric jazz. I know some of you are going to puke at this, but sorry ,its what I like. early teens. Family, Pink Floyd, Fairport Convention,, Roland Kirk and Incredible string band. 20's-Grateful Dead. Little feat, Miles Davis, Beefheart,Steely Dan. 30's-James Brown, Talking heads, Elvis Costello, Bob Marley, Grateful Dead. 40's Grateful dead, Richard Thompson, Robyn Hitchcock, Miles , Incredible String band. I like hundreds of other artists as well, but these are my main obsessions at the moment. The other very obvious fact here is that I'm light years away in taste from many younger list members, but I suppose we are different generations and ones faves are going to often be what was around at the time, so those born in the 70's are being exposed to punk and post punk music rather than psychedelia and folk rock. I also know that theres quite a few Dead , RT lovers on this list as well and that a fair few of the people into these bands sound as if they are kids born in the 70's.I wonder did these folks grow into this music or does it come from their early teen years ? .Rh seems to attract a quite diverse bunch of tastes and ages. I think this is mainly because Rh has very skillfully woven together a music that has elements from acid rock, folk rock, pop and punk which somehow sufficiently attracts all these weirdos with such varied tastes .No mean achievement. Dave lang. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 17:36:38 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Critics and Ebs Hitch remarks Dlang wrote: >If Eb is being provocative in his reviews in his writing in >the media, then he will probably find it hard, or perhaps impossible >to switch off that style when he write to this list. Actually, my published writing is usually much *less* provocative, as my webpage visitors will testify. And anyway, my comments about RH wouldn't really be "provocative" in any other environment beyond this one. Can we talk about something else now? :( Eb ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #79 ******************************