From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #87 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, March 3 1998 Volume 07 : Number 087 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: More politics. [MARKEEFE ] Re: More politics. (a sermon) [tanter ] ps [tanter ] Re Bragg,Smiths,Jeanne ["BENJAMIN.BRETTENNY" ] For Mr. Tews... ["Chris, the missing years." ] Dammit, another one of those big off-topic consolidation posts, with mostly ridiculous content [Danielle <] Fulla applesauce. [Ed.Doxtator@ssa.co.uk] more RT [dwdudic@erols.com (luther)] RT, health question [dwdudic@erols.com (luther)] expressiveness ["Maxey L. Mullins" ] Re: more RT [Bret ] Re: Expressiveness [Ross Overbury ] From Addicted to Music [firstcat@lsli.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:41:05 EST From: MARKEEFE Subject: Re: More politics. In a message dated 3/2/98 2:46:11 PM, you wrote: <> I don't know, J., I think you're wrong here. Maybe you should recheck your dictionary for a definition of the word "sexist", because what I glean from it is that sexism is an act, based on the sex of a person, that is discriminatory (which is defined as being "marked by prejudice", with 'prejudice' being further defined as "an *adverse* judgment. . . formed beforehand"). The asterisks were mine, of course, to underscore the notion that the sex-based distinction must have an adverse effect in order to sexist; otherwise, it's simply sex-based -- a dry fact, with no bad connotation. Okay, now, for n example, I might find attractive women's stomachs, in general (might? who are we kidding? I love 'em!), but not find attractive men's stomach's, in general, and, even though both sexes have stomachs, I don't think that I'm being sexist in saying what I've just said. Do my comments somehow demean or limit the potential of either gender because I prefer women's stomach's to men's? I doubt it. Besides, even according to J.'s definition, this would be a physical distinction and, therefore, not sexist. Now, I know, you're going to say that it's not necessarily a *distinction*, because both men and women have stomachs. Well, I don't buy that. Men have man-stomachs and women have woman-stomachs; they're completely different. Oh sure, you could probably find some cases where it's tough to tell the difference, but what's the point in doing that? You can always find a few oddball cases for just about any subject you're discussing. Okay, but that's stomachs, and it's easier to see how men's and women's stomachs are aesthetically dissimilar. Armpit hair, on the other hand. . . well, that's just armpit hair. Or is it? I believe that to say so would be to take the armpit hair out of context. Now, I don't like underarm hair on women (and, for the record, I could care less about it on men), but I do like women's shoulders and women's chests and women's arms, all of which provide the *context* for their armpits, shaved or unshaved. I would guess that someone who particularly likes the unshaven female underarm would probably be basing this preference not just on the underarm itself, but on the rest of the package -- on the rest of the contextual information. Now, I know you might be thinking that I just admitted to not liking underarm hair on women, which might be construed as sexist in that this could limit their potential (for what? going out with me? I'm not trying to flatter myself here, believe me. . . plus I'm already married, so what does it matter whether or not I arbitrarily exclude someone from my dating pool?). But it's not the fact that it's on women (per se) that bugs me about underarm hair on women; it's the fact that I happen to be attracted only to women, so it really only matters to me whether or not women have underarm hair (and this only matters becasue I'm always casually evaluating women based on looks in combination with a fairly instantaneous assessment of their personalities -- i.e., "checkin' 'em out"). I mean, armpit hair is not so repulsive to me in general that I shrink away from anyone who has it, but its presence *would* limit my ability to be attracted to someone, and this someone (to this point in my life) would always be a woman. So, it's not so much a case of sexism as it is personal preference for shaven underarms on those people who I would most likely find attractive. This could be seen as shallow, but not sexist. Hell, it IS shallow! All I'm talking about is a minor aspect of a person's physical appearance. As for sexual preference being sexist, this goes against current assumptions about the origins of sexual orientation (that it's there from the beginning) and, if anything, is subtly discriminatory against gay men and women in that it lends support to the conservative notion that homosexuality is some deviant choice that has been made and could, therefore, be "fixed" in some way by convincing the person that the wrong choice was made. Furthermore, wouldn't it be somewhat sexist to say that a woman can't be beautiful (or even yummy?) just for being a woman? There's something wonderful about women that has more to do with the essence of "womanness" than what a person has between his or her legs. And this wonderfulness is based in a kind of power that is uniquely feminine. So, do we strip women of this power just because we're fearful of being seen as sexist? And what about the power of the other sex? Now, I know it's trendy in the 90's (and, in some cases, even empowering) for straight women to knock straight men, but I know that we men also possess a certain incalculable something that keeps you women interested -- albeit reluctantly at times -- in us guys. I can't imagine what that is, but I see the evidence of it all around me. Why would we want to tear apart these often glorious distinctions? Furthermore, is it actually sexist to talk about non-physical differences between men and women? Are there *actually* non-phyical differences between men and women? There's plenty of evidence to suggest that men's and women's brains are wired differently, and then there are the obvious chemical differences. Now, we all like to believe that we can get beyond these things, but to what extent can we really? I mean, if these physiological (and, therefore, phyiscal) differences spurred our millions-of- years evolution, then how are we expected to completely escape these trends within the course of a century or two? Yes, now I'm playing devil's advoocate to a certain degree. But I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging and admiring the differences between the sexes, whether these differences be physical, cerebral or emotional. Hell, even pointing out some stereotypical foibles in one or the other sex isn't all that bad, really, as long as it's not devisive and might actually give us the necessary small kick in the butt to get us out of our all-too-comfy gender roles for half a minute and see through the eyes of someone else. "Viva la difference!" I say. Personally, I'm really tired of the whole PC thing. Isn't it possible we could just rely on each other as human beings to interact with each other in reasonable and caring ways? Well, probably not a lot of the time, no. But isn't it also possible that we could be sure enough of our own identities that we don't need these PC rules and labels to police each other through the day just so that we don't lose sight of who we are? Well, sometimes it's not. But I think it's better (more "empowering" -- a good term gone bad doe to pop psychology) to try to rely on the integrity of individual people and our own abilities to point out, from time to time, when we feel compromised by someone else, rather than simply citing some chapter and verse out of the PC Handbook. So, I hope I haven't offended anyone here with my rantings. I meant no offense, but I also felt it was important not to be overly careful or PC. If I have offended anyone, you can take it up with me personally and perhaps we can both learn a little something from the experience. - -----Michael K, who believes that, if we all just respected each other a little bit more, none of this extraneous "labeling" mularky would be necessary. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 07:56:04 -0500 From: tanter Subject: Re: More politics. (a sermon) At 10:47 PM 3/2/98 -0800, you wrote: > >On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Gregory Stuart Shell wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Capuchin wrote: >> > >> > If you express a sexual preference, that is sexism by definition. >> >> Does that mean lesbians are sexist pigs? > >Yep. > >Anyone who calls themself as an individual "homosexual" or "heterosexual" >is sexist, strictly speaking -- needlessly discriminatory and attributing >characteristics that do not exist. Sorry, this just isn't true. Sexual preference is not a choice, it's an inherent part of who a person is. Sexism happens when a person makes a choice (or a statement, performs an act, etc. etc.) based upon the gender of another person. A lesbian who prefers to have sex with women could be said to be making a choice, I suppose, but she is following her natural sexual instinct and therefore is not a sexist. A lesbian bartender who refuses to serve Greg a beer simply because he's a male is being sexist because she is making a purposeful choice based on Greg's gender. Labeling oneself "homosexual" or "heterosexual" is not discriminatory nor is it an attribution of nonexistent characteristics; they are group identifiers that many people have turned into positive labels and some have leapt upon to use as a means to humiliate. If I choose to say "I'm a heterosexual" (and I'm not a member of Monty Python..!!) I'm using it as a self-identification for some purpose, I'm not assuming you apply any characteristics to that other than my sexual preference is not for members of my own gender. Many gay people like to identify themselves as homosexual for social and political reasons and although there can be risks in that, there are still no particular characteristics that accompany that label. Certain people may have their own prejudicial ways of thinking about homosexuals, but that's their problem, it's not what's inherent in the term. On a literary listserv I belong to, someone once asked a question about queer theory, a simple, innocent little question, and she was so bombarded with nasty, irrelevant replies that she disappeared. The problem wasn't with her, it was with the ignorant idiots on the list. If a person wishes to apply a label to herself or himself, it can't be sexist (although I'm sure some linguist will come up with an argument for that!). If one chooses to treat others in a certain way because of the gender of those people, one is being sexist. "Choice" is a huge term. Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 08:16:34 -0500 From: tanter Subject: ps I forgot to say this in my last post about sexism.... I said the discussion of Paula Cole's armpit hair was sexist because folks were only talking about her and other women's shaving habits without comparable comments about men. Were the discussion simply about her without any other comparisons, it wouldn't have been sexist (unless there were untoward comments made, of course!). Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:40:20 +0000 (GMT) From: "BENJAMIN.BRETTENNY" Subject: Re Bragg,Smiths,Jeanne I picked up the Peel Sessions CD this weekend. There's a Morrissey/Marr penned tune called "Jeanne" on there...any Smiths fans know about this song? I'm not aware of it on any Smiths album and don't think I've ever heard it before. In answer to the "Jeanne" question, you are right it is not on any Smiths compilations or proper albums it was however on the B side to the 'This Charming Man' 12" and has since been available in the early 90's when Warners brought the back catalouge, as a cd single which also included 'accept yourself' and 'wonderfull woman' both of which i think, were on 'hatfull of hollow' or some smiths compilation. It seems strange that it was never on any of the b side rounding up compilations that Rough Trade seemed so happy to issue as in my opinion it is a superior track to both 'wonderfull woman' and 'accept yourself' ,the other 2 charming man b sides. I hope this is of use BEN By the way this is only relevant to UK releases. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 06:36:33 -0800 (PST) From: "Chris, the missing years." Subject: For Mr. Tews... I know Eddie asked about the Flaming Lips Boombox thingy (its gone under a couple of guises). Here is the url of an article on SonicNet that explains the goings on in San Francisco... http://features.yahoo.com/sonicnet/storyid/19980302103.html .chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 03:27:50 -0800 From: Danielle Subject: Dammit, another one of those big off-topic consolidation posts, with mostly ridiculous content >From Nick Winkworth, a day or two back: > Some might say Quail's post is itself one of the very "play nicely with > others" types which he seems to disparage, And Quail replies: > So you are entirely justified: I > deserve that well-couched and most diplomatic admonishment, even though I > do not regret my post. Now, let me see - because he asked for a little leniency on Eb, Quail thinks he deserves 'admonishment', and Nick has kindly volunteered himself to administer it. You guys are actually playing way *too* nice, I think. (Atonement for past indiscretions?) But far be it from me to disturb this extra polite sado-masochistic scenario you've both got going on... ;) Capuchin wrote: > Anyone who calls themself as an individual "homosexual" or "heterosexual" > is sexist, strictly speaking -- needlessly discriminatory and attributing > characteristics that do not exist. > So these individuals that say they are "heterosexual" or "homosexual" are > not only misusing the word, but outright stating their blatant, > unwarranted sexism. Certainly it's a sexism deeply ingrained in our > culture, but a harmful discrimination nonetheless. Sorry, I can't buy this. I don't have any answers for you, but I refuse to believe you can boil down our attractions and our differences to solely (discriminatory) nurture, and maintain that 'nature' (whatever that is, since biology isn't really a reliable science either) has nothing to do with them. Relationships between people aren't that simple, and they never will be. I hate to sound like some sort of biological determinist; I stress that I've run the gamut of arguments about why people are attracted to each other. But none of the extremist theories - like the one you espouse above - are very convincing. I am, as usual, on the fence. But if you give me some detailed footnotes, I might come around... ;) Karen, comfort food for this New Zealander involves a small can of Watties Concentrated Tomato Soup (diluted with milk, *always*), seasoned with pepper, and after it's served, a torn-up slice of white toast bread can be soaked in it... or, alternatively, a small can of Watties Baked Beans and Sausages with melted Colby cheese, on toast. If none of these things are available, there's always toast with lots of melted butter (*not* margarine, that stuff is *nasty*) and a subtly piquant scraping of Vegemite (never Marmite!) over the top... Hmmm. I think I've come to the conclusion that I like toast. Oh, and like any of you care, but that chap Dignan wrote: > Jenny Morris vs the Crocodiles; James, James, James. Are you trying to tell me (after you recently called most of Dave Dobbyn's work a 'pile of dung', no less!) that the MOR bollocks Jenny Morris has released since the demise of the Crocodiles is anywhere *near* the glorious boppy-singalong-pop calibre of 'New Girl on the Beat' or 'Tears'? More successful, yes, but better? Um, no. Just plain no. I'll give you 'You I Know', but Neil Finn wrote it, and c'mon, 'Break in the Weather'? Yeeesh. And also: > Elvis C's five best albums, IMHO, are This Year's Model, Armed Forces, > Imperial Bedroom, My Aim is True and Spike. If I were to expand that list > to ten, I would add This Year's Model, Armed Forces, Imperial Bedroom, My > Aim is True and possibly This Year's Model. Why are all the This Year's Model-lovers here and not on the Elvis list? There, I'm almost alone in my adoration of that record. (Someone told me once that they didn't like it because of its heavy reliance on the AAAA rhyme scheme. Unbelievable.) But your list is flawed. What about Get Happy!!, Blood and Chocolate, King of America and Brutal Youth? > ah, but at least you're not a 'nouveau-Westie' ;) Westie isn't a location, it's a state of mind. Break out the tie-dyed muslin and the Metallica t-shirts! ;) Danielle, playing Perspex Island (*there's* your Robyn content!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:48:20 +0000 From: Ed.Doxtator@ssa.co.uk Subject: Fulla applesauce. Ross Wrote: >I *like* the sound of acoustic a lot, but I couldn't think >of one good reason why acoustic guitar should be more >expressive than electric. Anyone care to help me with this? That's a tricky one. Whaddya mean by 'more expressive'? I've always dug the Beatles' (sorry, Terry!) "It's All Too Much" because of that enormous BANG on the electric and then that endless bend. Likewise, I've thought that listening to Alex Lifeson from Rush do that amazing precision work on "Limelight" ('specially the bit where he holds one note forever and plays the melody over the top). And the list goes on and on... But... then I hear The Church's Marty Wilson-Piper play his 12-string acoustic on the instrumental ditty at the end of "It's No Reason" (I think). It just carries me away. The Blue Aeroplanes have done some stunning acoustic versions (as b-sides) of some of their tunes ("Broken And Mended", "World View Blue", and "Love Come 'Round"). They all hit me with the same sorta punch. I've been playing the guitar for a little over three years now. It's a gas and I'd never give it up, no matter how many songs I mangle. While the majority of my time is on the acoustic, I do play a little bit of electric. Someone said earlier that the acoustic is more "human", which I do agree with. You hear every bad note, every shitty bend, every overshot fret on a slide, every string out of tune. But I can't get the BANG from "It's All Too Much" on the acoustic. Just can't do it. So, in my opinion, Ross... it's the right tool for the right job. One is not more expressive than the other. One may be more appropriate than the other. It may not make any difference at all. How's THAT for a wishy-washy answer? (As a sidelight, I'd LOVE to hear Robyn do a version of "Jewels For Sophia" him playing rythym on the electric, and Tim playing lead acoustic. Robyn could get goin' playing a rythym and the bridge that had this low rumble for the verse, with that sparkling lead jumping across the top... it'd be such a gas. The chorus could just be them singing acapella or they could just play acoustic. It'd give the smooth/chunky feeling I get from that song overall. It's not a wild variation in instrumentation, I realise, just this idea I had...) And Eb wrote: >You know, this "Let's see you do something better" argument is weak, weak, >weak and always has been. I see it in newsgroups all the time (and not just >in a musical context). Feeble. I used to think that critics were just frustrated . They didn't have the bone to get up and DO whatever it was they wanted, so they just sat back and heckled. There are so many armchair quarterbacks analysing Monday Night Football on Tuesday morning. But since I've been playing the guitar, I now realise how _HARD_ it is to play an instrument. Especially when you wanna do it _WELL_. The combination of co-ordinating your intellect, emotions, and motor neurons is really tricky. (Specially for me, cos I tend to trip over carpet lint and dust motes.) I find now when I do hear something that's well-played, something that really gets into me, I get passionate about it. I may never ever be able to play the thing I hear with my heart, but I can appreciate that someone got out there and did play it. Funny-- Eb is articulate, stands his ground, has rational argument, and makes no apologies for his views. Why is it that everyone thinks he _DOESN'T_ know music outside of criticisim? That's a fatuous assumption. There are more waiters than working performers, I'd wager. We all gotta make a living somehow, dig? Eb, I'd suggest you start looking for a new career diggin' ditches or pickin' cotton. That way, people might have more respect for your opinions. Just my opinion. Look after yerselves... - -Ed, Doc, just got back from Portugal... P.S. Anyone on this list done any lutherie work? Please e-mail me privately. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:24:45 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (luther) Subject: more RT On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:41:07 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > >As for Robyn's version of "Calvary Cross", I must admit I've never heard >any versions that come close to matching what RT does to this tune live. >Listen to the live "Calvary Cross" from "Watching the Dark"... when the >walls of your home begin to bleed and the portal to the netherworld begins >to open, you will know what I mean. I have to second this...amazing performance...may litterally drive you to tears. "I'll hurt you until you need me." -RT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:22:56 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (luther) Subject: RT, health question On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:41:07 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > >On Richard Thompson... > >Bought my first Thompson album this weekend, I Want To See The Bright >Lights Tonight, and so far really like it. Of course I selected this >one for "Calvery Cross" and "Withered & Died", a pair Robyn has covered. >I was also pleasantly surprised to hear the original "Has He Got A >Friend For Me", a great song Maria McKee has covered. So where do I go >from here? Well....(he says warming up...:-) ), after that, I would suggest: Shoot out the lights (the beautiful sweet sounds of a marriage falling apart ;-I ) Rumour & Sigh Watching the Dark (3 disk set, but worth it) You? Me? Us? Mirror Blue ...or better yet, contact me privately, and I can give you instructions for ordering a live CD, which has superior takes of songs from his whole career. On other news, a question for you fegs. In the past week or so, I feel like my hand are aching. It feels like I am getting a pain, like I am about to break out in a stigmata. Is this tendonitis? How does one deal with it? -luther ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:26:45 -0600 From: "Maxey L. Mullins" Subject: expressiveness i've got something to say about all this talk about instruments and their amount of expressiveness. i don't think i've ever seen an instrument express anything. that's because they don't. people are expressive. the instrument is just the tool. some people are more expressive than others. talking about an instrument's versatility is one thing but this expressiveness thing is just nonsense. the ability to express emotion begins inside of you. you can decide to express yourself through the guitar, the trumpet, voice, paper mache, play dough, cooking, rock criticism, home porno movies or whatever the hell you want. the vehicle is not important. it's the person that matters. =joel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:48:44 -0600 (CST) From: Bret Subject: Re: more RT At 03:24 PM 3/3/98 GMT, you wrote: >On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:41:07 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > >> >>As for Robyn's version of "Calvary Cross", I must admit I've never heard >>any versions that come close to matching what RT does to this tune live. >>Listen to the live "Calvary Cross" from "Watching the Dark"... when the >>walls of your home begin to bleed and the portal to the netherworld begins >>to open, you will know what I mean. > > I have to second this...amazing performance...may litterally >drive you to tears. And it has. RT (im my little mind) is one of the best live performers I have ever seen. He's witty (something we are all used to) but can still touch nerves we had forgotten we even had, can open up mental and spiritual wounds that we believed to be long since healed, can send you to the bar to buy "just give me something very very strong" in about the same amount of time it takes for that chill to make it all the way up your spine. - --Bret ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 98 10:55:16 EST From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: Expressiveness > > i've got something to say about all this talk about instruments and > their amount of expressiveness. i don't think i've ever seen an > instrument express anything. that's because they don't. people are > expressive. the instrument is just the tool. some people are more > expressive than others. talking about an instrument's versatility is > one thing but this expressiveness thing is just nonsense. the ability > to express emotion begins inside of you. you can decide to express > yourself through the guitar, the trumpet, voice, paper mache, play > dough, cooking, rock criticism, home porno movies or whatever the hell > you want. the vehicle is not important. it's the person that matters. > > =joel > The discussion's not about how expressive an instrument is, but about how well it lends itself to a diverse range of expression. Is it too outrageous to say that the more control the musician has over pitch and timbre, the more creative possibilities? I don't think it is. If we're talking about an instrument playing solo, you can add polyphony as a major consideration. If I give Yo You Ma a pushbutton that controls an electric buzzer, he'll be able to express himself with it, but do you think he'll be able to move me to tears? Discuss. - -- Ross Overbury Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 98 10:31:29 From: firstcat@lsli.com Subject: From Addicted to Music You Say It's Your Birthday: Robyn Hitchcock Hitchcock's psychedelic folk-rock sound has influenced such acts as R.E.M. and Blur. Today is the 45th birthday of Soft Boys frontman and solo artist Robyn Hitchcock. Always a favorite with hipsters and rock critics, Hitchcock's Syd-Barrett-meets-Bob-Dylan-while-listening-to-the-Byrds brand of psychedelic folk-rock has earned him a devoted audience over the years and has influenced such bands as R.E.M., Crowded House and Blur. Born in London, Hitchcock arrived in Cambridge in 1974 with an incomplete art-school education and a guitar. He began playing on the folk circuit and by 1976 had begun singing and playing guitar with the Soft Boys, a band that included Alan Davies on guitar, Morris Windsor on drums and Andy Metcalfe on bass. In 1977, the quartet released an EP entitled Give It to the Soft Boys, a collection of thrash-folk songs that was way out of step with the burgeoning punk and new-wave movements. When Kimberley Rew replaced Davies soon after the EP's release, the Soft Boys' sound became more melodic and even less in step with what was happening in the music scene. The group then began a busy schedule of touring and recording, earning a reputation as a great live act largely due to Hitchcock's consistently entertaining stream-of-consciousness monologues between songs. The group called it quits in 1981 after a U.S. tour failed to ignite anything beyond the usual buzz that surrounded them. Hitchcock spent the first part of the '80s working on solo material that was just as obtuse as his work with the Soft Boys. He soon took a break from music, preferring to paint and write songs for the Damned's Captain Sensible. In 1984, he released a critically acclaimed acoustic set entitled I Often Dream of Trains. Soon thereafter, he reunited with Metcalfe and Windsor and recruited keyboardist Roger Jackson to form Robyn Hitchcock and the Egyptians. Their first album, 1985's Fegmania!, spawned the college-rock classic "My Wife and My Dead Wife." Later that year, Gotta Let This Hen Out! focused on a harder rocking sound, but 1986's Element of Light was a return to form. Hitchcock finally achieved something beyond cult success with 1988's Globe of Frogs, scoring high on the college-radio charts with "Balloon Man." R.E.M. guitarist Peter Buck joined Hitchcock for 1989's Queen Elvis, an album that spawned the single "Madonna of the Wasps." Hitchcock's biggest hit to date came in the form of "So You Think You're In Love" from 1991's Perspex Island. By 1992, however, the harder sounds of grunge were in and Hitchcock's psychedelic folk was becoming passé. In 1993, Rhino began reissuing Hitchcock's catalog, including a few albums that featured rarities and outtakes. Other birthdays: Willie Chambers (Chambers Brothers), 60; Mike Pender (Searchers), 56; Jance Garfat [Dr. Hook (and the Medicine Show)], 54; Chris Hughes (Adam & the Ants), 44; and Tone-Loc, 32. -- Randy Reiss - ------------------------------------- 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: 3/3/98 - ------------------------------------- Two-Hour Luxury Goods Commercial Also A Spy Film ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #87 ******************************