From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #88 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 088 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: expressiveness [Gregory Stuart Shell ] Re: expressiveness [Jason Thornton ] RE: ridiculous content? hardly. [lj lindhurst ] So you think it's your birthday [TROYD1@Westat.com (TROYD1)] Re: Expressiveness ["Maxey L. Mullins" ] Re: Blur ["BENJAMIN.BRETTENNY" ] Re: more RT [Carl Abraham Zimring ] Re: More politics. (my last words, promise) [Capuchin ] Zzzzzzzzzzz [Ross Overbury ] Re: Expressiveness [Capuchin ] links ["Maxey L. Mullins" ] High Fidelity [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:39:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Gregory Stuart Shell Subject: Re: expressiveness On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Maxey L. Mullins wrote: > 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 I have to agree with you there. There are so many stage musicians whom I have met who can sight read any damn thing you put in front of them, often for more than one instrument, but ask them to play something original and they are stupified. In the right hands, any instrument, be it acoustic or electric, sampled, synthisized or whatever can be as expressive as any other. If I had to pick any single instrument as the most expressive, it would have to be a weighted, touch sensative keyboard with after touch. Hook one of these to a good sound module(or two) and a sampler and you literally have the world of instrumentation at you finger tips. If your modules have a high polyphony and you add a sequencer, you have an orchestra. What it really comes down to is the musician. Heck, a person singing with no instrumentation can be as expressive as any band. Along the same line, a tap dancer can produce a melody an be very expressive. Get one to sing and you have expression with a capitol. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 08:53:49 -0800 From: Jason Thornton Subject: Re: expressiveness When using the term "expressiveness" when referring to an instrument, one is not discussing an instrument's ability to "express emotion." One is talking about the versatility of sound which that particular tool allows. Some instruments are simply more versatile, more expressive in terms of the variance allowed in elements like timbre, tone, even volume, than others. String instruments like the guitar, the violin, the sitar, or the Chapman Stick, allow for a much greater variety of "sounds" than say a piano, if simply because the fingers are in direct contact with the strings, and each touch can have its own uniqueness. This is not to say the piano is unexpressive - it's not black or white; well, the keys on the piano are, but I'm talking 'bout expressiveness. The greater the number of factors that come into play, the greater the expressiveness - also, though, the greater the chance of "fucking up" or getting unwanted, or inconsistent, sounds. Now, whether or not most musicians take advantage of the expressiveness of their instrument(s) is another story. Heck, a number of players work at reducing the expressiveness of their tool(s) in the quest for a "perfect" or consistent tone. - --Jason (hoping that the semantic debates over words like "express" and "sexist" end soon) At 09:26 AM 3/3/98 -0600, "Maxey L. Mullins" wrote: >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 12:00:00 -0500 (EST) From: lj lindhurst Subject: RE: ridiculous content? hardly. Danielle asks: >Why are all the This Year's Model-lovers here and not on the Elvis list? Because they're all a bunch of gay homosexuals. and we are not. >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? > I'll happily play this game. The best albums Mr. Costello ever made are: 1. Imperial Bedroom (the "Guernica" of rock&roll) 2. King of America 3. What's the Story Morning Glory? 4. Blood and Chocolate 5. Trust But really, it is wrong to rank them because they are all divine. I love them all, even the ones that everyone else hates, like _Goodbye Cruel World_ and even _Kojak Variety_. Funny I am participating in the senseless ranking/re-ranking of music because I just accused Eb of "incessant numbering", and now here I am doing it myself. I suppose you could get philosophical and say how do you rate and rank art, blah blah blah pick-axe blah blah blah, but really it is one nice way of evaluating your response to music. which leads me to... Have any of yous guys ever read a book called _High Fidelity_ by a writer named Nick Hornby? The main character owns a record store, and he and his two employees spend endless hours playing the ranking game (they do movies and tv too). The main character also has an Elvis Costello fixation, a record collection that is so huge it's getting to be a physical problem, and a miserable love life. (no his name is not Eb) It's a GREAT book, a quick-n-easy read (I read it in an afternoon, and English is obviously my second language). Look at it this way: It's a MUST-READ for anyone who ever spent the afternoon alphabetizing their records. Myself, I'm reading "The Life of a Bee" by Maurice Maeterlinck. I'm hoping it will cause me to have dreams about bees. I have to go! "News for the Elderly" is on! lj ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:17:05 -0500 From: TROYD1@Westat.com (TROYD1) Subject: So you think it's your birthday *You Say It's Your Birthday: Robyn Hitchcock *Hitchcock's psychedelic folk-rock sound has *influenced such acts as R.E.M. and Blur. Hmmmm. I'm a big fan of Blur (one of my current five-finger bands, you could say), I'm not sure I hear any RH influence in them, though. They're not especially jangly nor are their lyrics filled with fish and stuff. I certainly hear a good amount of Ray Davies in them, though. I suppose Robyn could do a nice cover of This ia a Low. By the way (that's BTW for all you netlingoists), Happy Birthday, Hitch! Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 11:39:51 -0600 From: "Maxey L. Mullins" Subject: Re: Expressiveness Ross Overbury wrote: > > > > > 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 well, i think anything is possible. though i do doubt that the electric buzzer thing would bring me to tears either. i just don't think that any one instrument in itself is more expressive than another. you can create feeling with any instrument. obviously, some instruments are more versatile, they may have more notes or more sounds. but imho the expression lies within the player. you can't have this discussion without including the player in it. because the instrument will not play without him. it's hard to ask, "is the trumpet more expressive than the clarinet?" well, who's playing them? =joel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:55:21 +0000 (GMT) From: "BENJAMIN.BRETTENNY" Subject: Re: Blur On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, TROYD1 wrote: > > > > > Hmmmm. I'm a big fan of Blur (one of my current five-finger bands, > you could say), I'm not sure I hear any RH influence in them, though. > They're not especially jangly nor are their lyrics filled with fish > and stuff. I certainly hear a good amount of Ray Davies in them, > though. I suppose Robyn could do a nice cover of This ia a Low. > > > > > Although Robyn is indeed 'jangly' and does on occasion sing about fish i think its a tad unfair to suggest that the only way he could possibly influence another group or artist is in these two areas. I think it was fair to say that blur are influenced by hitchcock to a degree, they both have a very 'english' sound and use elements of phychedelia in there music, blur do especially on there earlier records. BEN > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:54:53 -0500 (EST) From: Carl Abraham Zimring Subject: Re: more RT Excerpts from internet.music.fegmaniax: 3-Mar-98 more RT by luther@erols.com > > > >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 > I agree that the Watching the Dark performance is definitive. There is one cover of Calvary Cross that's quite good and that's Peter Laughner's. Laughner, who founded Pere Ubu, does a nice electric violin and guitar arrangement similar to the one on Thompson's Guitar, Vocal version. It's on Laughner's posthumous Take the Guitar Player for a Ride album if you're curious. Carl Fear & Whiskey countrypunkROKnewwavenoisejazzpyschedelicpopbluesfolkcelticsoulandmore Mondays 9-11pm ET In Pittsburgh: WRCT 88.3fm In the rest of the known universe: http://www.wrct.org Playlists: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~cz28/fear.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:50:13 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: More politics. (my last words, promise) No, of course I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind. That's not how people work. Yes, I know my view is somewhat outside popular thinking. No, I don't think it's PC. I just have maybe three things to say. On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, MARKEEFE wrote: > 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. My parrot response is to say that any sex-based distinction that you concoct that cannot be chalked up to a strict definition of one of the sexes is sexist and wrong. Does it have to have an adverse effect? Yep. Do all such judgments have adverse effect? Yep. Claiming there are nonphysical (or physiological, if you want to make a dinstinction [?]) differences between men and women opens up the possibility that any trait might be shared among all women and not necessarily all men. That could mean loving the color pink, knowing nothing about science, or wanting a bubble bath every day. When someone says something like "girls like that sort of thing", I get a horrible chill. > 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. That's exactly my point, though. You never know until you look. Any trait you want to find attractive in women in general is probably posessed also by some man. So your discriminatory "checking out" is not only inhibiting your pleasure somewhat (and yeah, you're welcome to inhibit yourself all you like), but it keeps that artificial barrier in your mind that says "men and women are different kinds of creatures" and these false distinctions remain. > . plus I'm already married, so what does it matter whether or not I > arbitrarily exclude someone from my dating pool?). Again, I'm just using this as a reminder. It means you still make the distinctions that don't really exist. It means that you still have lines drawn in your head. > 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. See, thisis a sensible thing to say. First, you find a particular trait or choice unattractive and that's not wrong. No, of course it isn't. Second, you can balance that trait against others to make the "whole package" appealing regardless of the one trait. And lastly, that you admit that your attraction has only been to women up to this point and you imply that your option is open and you won't necessarily always make a sexist dismissal. I hope you never find out. That is to say, I hope this one coincidentally heterosexual relationship you have lasts so long that you never have to seek another of any kind. > As for sexual preference being sexist, this goes against current > assumptions about the origins of sexual orientation (that it's there from the > beginning) That's not everyone's assumption. I personally think that this idea was instituted by folks that couldn't justify the behavior. People say "They're born like that" so there can be no "blame" placed. I say there is no blame to be placed because there's nothing wrong with homosexual relationships. It's just who a person happened to find and made a good match. Great. Wonderful. I'm very happy about it. > 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. Now now... Discrimination is just drawing lines and my ideas are about eliminating those lines. And don't go pinning any kind of gay-bashing on me because, as I've said a hundred times, homosexual relationships are totallyc ool in my book. Open, happy, in the street, at restaurants, everywhere anyone wants to hold hands and show polite affection. It's all wonderful to me. I am NOT lending support to the conservative notion that homosexuality is a deviant choice. But I see where you're coming from. But see, I think heterosexuality is also a deviant choice (with a very peculiar choice of standards from which to deviate). I DO think that there is choice involved. I also think that the only reason we say there isn't is so that the bigots of the world can't argue. Me, I'm not a bigot. There is a whole nature/nurture argument. Danielle touched on it and said some very intelligent things. Me, I have all of my own reasons for considering nature/nurture in my own particular way (I was adopted by a family of idiots). And yeah, biology is a kind of wonky science in many places, especially neurophysiology and psychology is wonkier still. I can't say there's really any evidence to push you either way. You've got some anecdotal things pushing on either side, but it all evens up in my head. > 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? No, we strip it off because it's not necessarily true. See, I'm a mathematician. I have this mental block. Exceptions disprove rules. Name a nonphysical quality that you say all women share and I will find a woman that doesn't have it. For me, that's where the argument ends. You say all women share it. I say "no, here's a counterexample" and the rule is thrown out. QED. Now, if you can define "womanness" in nonphysical terms and nobody can find a female human without that quality, it's valid and good. It's possible that this quality is a direct result of some pathological difference (neurological, chemical, whatever). If that's the case, we're back where we started. > And what about the > power of the other sex? Same argument. There's no difference. > Now, I know it's trendy in the 90's (and, in some > cases, even empowering) for straight women to knock straight men See, it's because they're "straight" women (a horrible term for a thousand reasons). They already think there's some difference between men and themselves outside of the ludicrously shallow body parts. They can bash in safety because they are not bashing themselves. See, this "born that way" argument really makes things tough on everyone. > Why would we want to > tear apart these often glorious distinctions? Because they're not necessarily valid... arily valid... arily valid... arily valid... arily val Sorry... Broken record. > 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? Look how many billions of people there are. No two people think alike. No two people have the same personality. You're just as likely to find two very very (nonphysically) similar people of the same sex as you are differing sexes. That's the deal right there. Any quality you look for in one can be found elsewhere in the other. So why make the shallow distinction? > 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? I don't want to sound like I'm calling you something worse than you are, Michael. I like you heaps and you should know that. But this sounds so much like the arguments against racial integration... against the idea that the color of one's skin doesn't really matter and that people are just people. > Yes, now I'm playing devil's advoocate > to a certain degree. Yeah, I know you don't wholly believe the above. > 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? I am, too. I have no problems with offending people politically. I'm the furthest thing from PC. I think that if you dont like me, don't listen. Be reasonable. Understand that most of my beliefs are just that and really don't even make a big difference in the person I am. I assume that goes for everyone else (until they prove otherwise) and it works out pretty well. I'm all for picking people out as individuals and letting them make all their own choices and judging their whole package as a person. Cool and good. PC was a big goof by a bunch of people that thought who thought that changing all the words would make people pay less attention to the differences. Well, that's silliness as we know. I mean, at one time "retarded" was the PC term because 'hey, it only means slowed down a little'... then it was "mentally handicapped" and then "mentally challenged". I heard a kid the other day look at his silly-acting friend and say "Come on, don't be mentally challenged!" Yeah, right where I would have said "a retard!" when I was six. (Right before my Aunt Sandy moved in with us and I could never use the word "retard" or the phrase "knock it off" again... but that's a whole different story.) The point is that the attitudes have nothing to do with the words and the words only label things and draw attention to distinctions that don't necessarily exist. > 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. I hope the irony here was intentional. I thought it was pretty funny. Jeme. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:57:56 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: More politics. (a sermon) On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, tanter wrote: > Sorry, this just isn't true. Sexual preference is not a choice, it's an > inherent part of who a person is. So's the fact that I don't like chocolate. I think it's an inherent part of ME and something I would never change and goes a great distance to define my character. That doesn't mean it isn't a choice. > 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. I don't think instincts have a whole lot to do with who we choose to have sex with. The idea that homosexuality is genetic is ludicrous because genetics are all about survival of the species and spreading of the individual's genetic material and homosexuality is, rather obviously, not about procreation. Does that make it wrong? Aboslutely not! We're beyond that point in human history. We don't have to worry about human survival on genetic terms. We're past it. The human race is stuck and here. We might destroy ourselves, but we're not just going to die out. Sex isn't a survival decision anymore. > 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. I don't think I said you were saying anything other than exactly that. But what you're saying to me is "I've already decided that half of you aren't worthy of my attention romantically/sexually based entirely on your physical qualities" and that's just plain shallow. If you meant something else like "I've already decided that half of you aren't worthy of my attention romantically/sexually based on some predeterminted belief I have about the nature of you and your sex", then you're being sexist and just plain wrong. > 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. Yeah, I'd argue with that... and do. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 98 13:06:19 EST From: Ross Overbury Subject: Zzzzzzzzzzz Alright, that's it! I'm rosining up my armpit hair. You're all going to eat your words, one way or another. PS: It's pronounced "zed"! - -- Ross Overbury Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:14:53 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Expressiveness On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Maxey L. Mullins wrote: > i just don't think that > any one instrument in itself is more expressive than another. you can > create feeling with any instrument. obviously, some instruments are > more versatile, they may have more notes or more sounds. See, I'm going to disagree here again. To some extent, you're dead right. More control means more PRECISE expressiveness because you can tweak it a little one way or another for just the right sound. I also think that more or less every instrument gives the player a huge range of subtle gesturing that can alter the sound minutely and give exactly the desired sound. However, I think there is an undeniable fact that an instrument has a sound that no amount of tweaking and control is going to change (with the exception of a really good synthesizer and sequencer). That's what I was trying to express in my first really long post. I meant to say that the guitar and piano have certain tonal qualities that do not lend themselves to the more aggressively positive emotions... at least not for me. I think about the best a guitar can do is light-hearted happiness and the piano (without a good length of chain on the strings) can step that up just a touch to care-free whimsy. But downright rapturous joy and standing up on your feet dancability doesn't really come from either, in my book. The sound's all wrong. It's too warm and sappy. not enough wake-me-up in it. > but imho the > expression lies within the player. you can't have this discussion > without including the player in it. because the instrument will not > play without him. it's hard to ask, "is the trumpet more expressive > than the clarinet?" well, who's playing them? This is true, of course. I tried to say that (however poorly) when I rebutted and said I was choosing the best known case for any given emotion. It's all really vague. I guess there's a big difference between how precisely expressive an instrument can be and the range of emotion the instrument can be used to inspire. One comes from the artist and the other goes into the listener, but the world is better place when the two are the same. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:16:36 -0600 From: "Maxey L. Mullins" Subject: links hey does anyone know how to put links into e-mail? i'd really appreciate some help. =joel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:22:09 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: High Fidelity On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, lj lindhurst wrote: > which leads me to... > Have any of yous guys ever read a book called _High Fidelity_ by a writer > named Nick Hornby? Easily the best book I read last year... but I was working at the agency last year and admittedly didn't have time to read too much. Really very good book. > The main character owns a record store, and he and his > two employees spend endless hours playing the ranking game (they do movies > and tv too). In fact, they rank everything endlessly. Every other thought out of the man's head is something like "alright, all-time top ten _____" from soul records to girls he wishes he had dated when he had the chance. > The main character also has an Elvis Costello fixation, a > record collection that is so huge it's getting to be a physical problem, > and a miserable love life. (no his name is not Eb) Man, I must be pretty sick because I thought his love life was pretty OK. Just that one big problem with that one girlfriend... and an overall problem with adulthood. I mean, I could chalk all of his love-life problems up to a certain immaturity, but I'm sure an outsider could chalk up all of mine to one thing like that as easily. > It's a GREAT book, a > quick-n-easy read (I read it in an afternoon, and English is obviously my > second language). Look at it this way: It's a MUST-READ for anyone who > ever spent the afternoon alphabetizing their records. That's a big second from me. If you've made a mix tape for a friend in order to change their mind, you have to read this book. Now reading: _Towing Jehovah_ by James Morrow in a rabid frenzy to read everything the man's written after I picked up City of Truth and a short story called The Assemblage of Kristin. He's wonderful. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #88 ******************************