From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #152 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, April 20 1998 Volume 07 : Number 152 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #151 [fitter happier ] Re: Gump and Gumper [JH3 ] Re: watch your intelligence [Ross Overbury ] Re: watch your intelligence ["jbastin@stfx.ca" ] More Wenders q's [spine@iastate.edu (spine)] Until the End of the World (0% RH) [HSatterfld ] Re: watch your intelligence [MARKEEFE ] Re: . [Eb ] One of those *impassioned* posts [The Great Quail ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #147 [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Di] Re: lurvly [Eb ] Musicians and Music (appr. 2% RH content) [West Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #151 Sorry to be such a bore, but I've been off the list for a while, so... has Robyn announced any UK dates??? _______________________________________________________________________________ My therapist said not to see you no more She said "you're like a disease without any cure" - - James _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 14:03:57 -0500 (CDT) From: JH3 Subject: Re: Gump and Gumper Susan wrote about wrote about... >These people are not only "less successful" than Forrest, >they are VERY MUCH less successful than he, and many of them are >painted as "bad" as opposed to flawless Forrest... What struck me (and my wife even more so) about this movie was that it's the two *women* in particular who are painted as bad - or more accurately, morally bankrupt and dissolute, and much more so than any of the men. The mother is an unctious social climber who's willing to sleep with the principal to keep her kid out of the remedial-ed class. And the "heroine" is portrayed as someone who can't rise above her abusive childhood and throws her life away with drugs and cheap sex in a misguided effort to try and do something worthwhile with her life on her own terms. Her only salvation in the end is becoming the quiet, loving wife and mom, and the implication is that if she'd just been willing to do that in the first place everything would have turned out fine in the end, instead of tragically. Of course nearly all Hollywood movies have some sort of sexist element to them, but usually it's just your basic "hey, Bunny, kick that gun over here while I whale on this ninja" type of damsel-in-distress helplessness that's been around for centuries. Forrest Gump was more *insidiously* sexist, and was made worse for being hyped as "the feel-good movie of the year," and for luring suckers like me into the theaters with the promise of lots of whiz-bang computerized imposition effects. >The other point is really the thing that's touchy... It has >to do with the fact that American culture does not like smart people... Probably not, but isn't it mostly just Hollywood (and television in general) that's behind this? I still don't get this impression from the majority of books that are being published these days (except for the ones about Leonardo DiCaprio, of course) but practically 90% of the big-budget movie thriller crapola that comes out of Hollywood now has some sort of evil industrialist villian or high-tech fiend stereotype who gets outwitted by some Arnold Schwarzenegger type in the end (as if Arnold could outwit a potato). At least Forrest Gump didn't have any obviously intellectual villians. (I don't remember it having any villians, in fact.) I'm not defending it on those grounds, but if the ostensible message was simply that "intellectually challenged" people can still do great things, it doesn't necessarily imply that not-so-intellectually challenged people can't - - so I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyway, I have to go pee. BTW: I haven't seen "Good Will Hunting," so maybe it's unfair for me to commment on it, but when I heard what it was about, I immediately thought of Dilbert's garbage man. (And I know I'm not the only one...) - -Hedges PS. The Headboys... I always liked them... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 98 15:14:36 EDT From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: watch your intelligence > > I tend to agree with Susan and David here, but I would add that this is > not just an American trait. (It might be stronger in America than in some > other countries, though.) James Burke might have gotten his own TV show > in the UK, but I'll bet Baywatch got higher ratings that Connections ever > did. (But then, I'm a cynic.) Besides, the Learning Channel did revive > Connections in the US for a while, though in an unsatisfying half-hour > format. > > The Learning Channel was recently introduced to the cable lineup here in Montreal. I was hopeful until I started to see the uncritical treatment they give ghost stories, UFO conspiracy theories, parastuff, etc. Or is this a different TLC? > np: Adrian Belew, Inner Revolution (used, $2.99) Mine was bought new for $2.99. Beat you! Poor Adrian. Anybody ever see Twang Bar King on CD? - -- Ross Overbury Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 16:13:59 -0300 From: "jbastin@stfx.ca" Subject: Re: watch your intelligence Christopher Gross wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, David W. Dudich wrote: > > > >It has to do with the fact that American culture does > not like > > >smart people. This is so old a bias that it even long > ago trickled down to > > >language- "smart-ass" "smart aleck" "smart mouth" &c., > which are insults. > [snip!] > > As an unabbashed, unrepentant smart person, I > agree > > completely. America DOES NOT respect intelligence! I > was just > > talking to some friends about this last night. The > people that got > > everything in college were the "cookie cutters" (ya'll > know who I'm > > talking about...the jocks that made fun of Robyn). > These were the > > assholes that were cool, got all the women, fu#ked over > our female > > friends, etc. ad nauseum. > > I tend to agree with Susan and David here, but I would add > that this is > not just an American trait. (It might be stronger in > America than in some > other countries, though.) James Burke might have gotten > his own TV show > in the UK, but I'll bet Baywatch got higher ratings that > Connections ever > did. (But then, I'm a cynic.) Besides, the Learning > Channel did revive > Connections in the US for a while, though in an > unsatisfying half-hour > format. > > If, as I think, this contempt for intelligence is a > general human trait, > why should that be? I think it's because above-average > intelligence is > seen as a threat to the social hierarchy. By social > hierarchy I mean the > pecking order of popularity that seems to develop in most > human groups, > NOT the hierarchy of social classes. Think cliques, > alpha-males, and > schoolyard gossip, not castes, proletarians and Marx. > Intelligence is more > of a threat than good looks or athletic prowess because > smart people might > be right when the popular people are wrong, or might even > laugh at the > whole pecking order. What's worse, intelligence isn't as > dependent on > popular acknowledgement as other advantages, like good > looks, are. > Finally, smart people are more likely to have weird > interests that no one > else shares, so it's hard to place them in the pecking > order by their > activities and conversation. On the whole, if you want a > nice comfy > hierarchy it's safest to keep pushing smart folks down to > the bottom of > the heap, where their opinions can be automatically > ignored. > > Of course smart people aren't always hated. Sometimes > they're good to > have around the (white-collar) workplace, where they can > help make up for > the lazy and incompetent. And, in America at least, > anyone who's smart > enough to come up with a good scheme for making lots of > many will be > accorded a certain grudging respect. > > --Chris > > np: Adrian Belew, Inner Revolution (used, $2.99) > > ________________________________________________ > _____________________ > Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody > knows I'm a dog. > chrisg@gwu.edu You just think you're so smart, don't you? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 98 15:05:37 From: spine@iastate.edu (spine) Subject: More Wenders q's Speaking of Wenders, has anyone seen his film of a few years ago with (something about) "Clouds" in the title? It was a collaboration with some other director and as far as I know never appeared in America. It featured Irene Jacob (of Kieslowski films _Red_ and _Double Life of Veronique_) who is my favorite actor on the planet. Anyone know anything about it? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 17:35:32 EDT From: HSatterfld Subject: Until the End of the World (0% RH) If anybody knows where I can find the unedited version of this film, let me know, I was under the impression that it had not been released uncut in the US. (I have a laser disc player, and Amazon Books says that the laser disc version is 127m. That can't be right, but I think they have the disc at the local rental and it ain't no different from what was broadcast on HBO, IIRC.) (Are you sure this isn't the Hal Hartley mailing list?) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 18:20:09 EDT From: MARKEEFE Subject: Re: watch your intelligence In a message dated 4/19/98 6:53:37 AM, Luther got up a good head of steam and replied to someone else who wrote: <being celebrated it makes me feel a little resentful, and I suspect that >this is how others on this list who objected to the film feel as well. It >feels like another slam on our intelligence, only with a feel-good veneer. > AMEN! So, does it take a really smart person or a really simple person to realize that kindness is a much more important virtue than intelligence and that, if kindness is all you've got in this world, then you're probably doing just fine. > As an unabbashed, unrepentant smart person, I agree completely. America DOES NOT respect intelligence!>> Okay, this much is certainly true. It's far better, in America, to be a "team player" than it is to be able to reason on one's own (maybe this is true everywhere?). Then again, I don't know that it's any better to get all uptight about possible affronts to the "smart folks team" than it is for less- complex thinkers to latch onto a neatly packaged set of idealogies like "conservativism". I mean, with these folks, maybe it's the best they can do? What I'm saying is this: Intelligence is merely an attribute, not a measure of the worth of an individual. That's what I got out of "Gump". - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 15:31:23 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: . >LONDON (April 19) - Linda McCartney, the American photographer wife of >former >Beatle Sir Paul McCartney has died from cancer, the star's publicist >said >Sunday. She was 56. >Geoff Baker said McCartney died on Friday at Santa Barbara, Calif. Her >husband >and children were with her. > >''The blessing was that the end came quickly and she didn't suffer,'' a >statement from Paul McCartney's office said. ''Two days previous to her >death, Linda and Paul had been horse-riding, which was one of her main >passions.'' > >The couple announced in December 1995 that McCartney, a keen vegetarian >who >marketed her own range of meat-free dishes, was being treated for breast >cancer. > >Sunday's statement said that the treatment appeared to be working well, >but >in >March, the cancer was found to have spread to her liver. > >It said the star will issue a statement later in the week and asked that >people wanting to send flowers should give a donation to charities >involved >in cancer research, animal welfare, ''or - best of all - the tribute >that >Linda herself would like best: Go veggie.'' > >Linda Eastman was already acclaimed as the author of moody, gritty >photographs >when she met Paul McCartney in 1969. > >Their marriage was one of the longest in show business and produced >three children, Mary, Stella and James. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 98 20:01:44 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: One of those *impassioned* posts Hmmmmm. . . . . I've been watching some of these threads pass by, and my fingers have been itching to hit the old Keyboard -- Wenders is one of my favorite directors, and it's hard not to rave about Jeff some more. But there has been something else nagging at the corners of my mind for quite a while, and luther's post made me finally desire to put it into words. David Luther King, Jr writes: > To a certain extent, this country was BUILT on ignorance and >brute strength, Manifest Destiny and all that stuff. (You couldn't >tell it, but I am part Cherokee, so I tend to disagree). All countries -- indeed, all civilizations -- are built on a mix of brute strength checked by conveniently malleable systems of morality. That would also include the dominant Native American populations before the White Man arrived. This is deplorable, and I am not making any excuses -- but it is sort of a fact, and very likely even necessary. So I really don't think America is any worse than any other country (Sorry, Eddie, I think we are actually better)(except maybe for the Czechs, they seem pretty cool about things) And to respond to this thread about dumb Americans, most communities have not treated their intellectuals too well. Of course, a look at what the intellectuals tend to *do* when they get power may point to some reasons for that, heh heh. > (I personally tend to think the solution is to strike the >Patti Smith- "I'm smart, I'm an american artist, white-nigger, fuck >you" stance.) Hmmm . . . You know, there's been a lot of talk on this list lately in the vein of "Most people are only drones and worker ants, but I confess they at least have cute antennae," and "There may be only 100 cool people in the world and they all seem to hang out at my dorm and watch the Simpsons," and "Gosh! Why am I surrounded by idiots all day long?" and that sort of thing. Well, let me go out on a limb here: I actually *like* people. Now, what I am about to write may sound like a lecture or something, but really, that is not my intention at all. Bear with me -- all I want to do is get this off my chest. Mike, pass me a soapbox. Eb, sit down. Capuchin (Bert to my Ernie?) -- get ready to laugh your ass off, you are gonna *love* this. Ahem: I *like* people. Yup. I mean, sure there are some idiots, and of course a lot of them beat me up in Junior High School, and I confess that really didn't like those people in particular very much. (Oh, yeah -- "Junior High School" -- that's what we old folks had before Middle School, Terry.) But, hey -- if there is something I discovered during my stay on the planet, it is that most people are actually kind of delightfully *weird* when you really get to know them. And I mean some of the surprising ones, too, like the lunch lady or the guy who works at the Uni Mart. And sometimes really smart and cool people turn out to be total assholes -- I think we can all agree to that! Hell, there may even be a few asshole Robyn fans, who knows? I mean, sometimes I get in a bad mood, and there are certainly days that I think human beings (As Douglas Adams would say) should have stayed up in the trees. But most of the time I find that I am *surprised* at the depth found in most people, me included. We all seem to feel love and fear, we all like some things and dislike others -- I cry at a Robyn Hitchcock song, my co-worker weeps at a Garth Brooks tune. So what? I say, let's trade tapes! I suppose I get irked at the "smart people" vs the mob mentality, even though I tend to gravitate towards it more than I care to admit. But look at two of the greatest geniuses and artists of our century -- James Joyce and Albert Einstein, two blokes who amaze me at their brilliance, two minds that *hated* the mediocre and the base, and yet never despaired of humanity in general, two men who were often laughed at, scorned, and ridiculed -- and yet they looked under the hood of the universe, and nevertheless saw that the engine that drove us all was love. Simple love. How much easier it is to be cynical, to be aloof, to be dismissive -- and how much harder it is to forgive. To accept -- and better, to constantly try to *change* the things, the people around you -- and yet be open to change in your own heart. Too much division in the world, if you ask me. I would like to take the "fuck you" stance -- oh, and sometimes I do, it makes one feel pretty smug and good and safe -- but that's just another wall, another mechanism to keep us all in seperate and carefully labelled boxes. Forming communities is a gift we seem to have as human beings (Well, look at *us!* You guys is my *friends!*) but there are some evil fuckers out there who want to keep us apart, and I think that sometimes -- and I am only speaking for myself -- I find that the evil fucker is living inside of me, too. Out, out, evil fucker! So I say -- break down the walls between us! Keep throwing yourself at life, keep trying to forge new connections, keep trying to reach out of that box no matter how many times you are beaten up, laughed at, betrayed, and wounded -- I mean, what else is there? Bitterness and detatchment? Numbness or overbearing arrogance? In the words of a guy we all sort of know, "love is the distance between reality and pain." I'm all for widening that distance as far as possible by closing the distance with others. And that includes the drones, and even the ones who hate the Simpsons. Well, there you have it -- the Quail Manifesto. Flame away, droogies -- I have my rubber duckie to protect me, and a library of Neruda's complete words to give me strength! - --The Great "Here endeth the sermon" Quail - ---------------------------------+-------------------------------- The Great Quail, K.S.C. | Literature Site - The Libyrinth: TheQuail@cthulhu.microserve.com | www.rpg.net/quail/libyrinth www.rpg.net/quail | Vampire Site - New York by Night: riverrun Discordian Society | www.rpg.net/quail/NYBN 73 De Chirico Street | Arkham, Orbis Tertius 2112-42 | ** What is FEGMANIA? ** "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P. Lovecraft ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 21:10:50 -0500 From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain) Subject: Re: unedited? >On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:54:24 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > >>>unedited version of "Until The End of the World"...> >>i can't believe you didn't mention The Man Who Fell To Earth, susan, >>that being one of your ten fave movies and all. I never saw the post quoted in here or I would have responded to it before this. It -is- one of my ten faves, and though the list changes with my mood or the weather or whatever :) that one always makes it. But I did -not- know that there was a longer version available, which is why I didn't mention it. Thanks for telling me. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 21:10:51 -0500 From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain) Subject: Re: Until the End of the World (0% RH) >If anybody knows where I can find the unedited version of this film, let >me know, I was under the impression that it had not been released >uncut in the US. You know, I'm not sure, but I think the people who do have it have an import, now that you mention it, because I've only known college film societies or theaters to have it and show it, not us laymen. It could also be that I am completely and totally confused (it's been known to happen), and what they had actually were rented or purchased copies of the long *film*, which I guess you could only get through the distributor, or maybe even only as an import from a European distributor. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 21:10:53 -0500 From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain) Subject: Re: watch your intelligence >> talking to some friends about this last night. The people that got >> everything in college were the "cookie cutters" (ya'll know who I'm >> talking about...the jocks that made fun of Robyn). And the student council presidents, and such like lower life forms :). Actually this was a lot more true in high school than in college for me, though the University of Chicago is probably unusual in that respect. So-called "frat rats" are still roundly considered a form of life not far removed from algae around there, and in recent years they've sometimes had to cancel such activities as cheerleading because of total lack of student interest. It's for sure the only school -I- know of where there is rampant and emotional student protest every time someone proposes lessening degree requirements and where for a long time people camped out all night (a campus wide party known as "sleepout", now banned by the ruling powers because of bogus "safety" concerns- no one was ever injured at a sleepout, to my knowledge- yes, I AM unhappy about it) to get good registration spots. >I tend to agree with Susan and David here, but I would add that this is >not just an American trait. (It might be stronger in America than in some >other countries, though.) Yeah, I'd say that's definitely on both counts. >If, as I think, this contempt for intelligence is a general human trait, >why should that be? I think it's because above-average intelligence is >seen as a threat to the social hierarchy. I think it's also because generally people don't much like "different". Hence, abominations like McDonald's- a lot of people would rather have "consistent" even if consistent is bad, than new experience. >schoolyard gossip, not castes, proletarians and Marx. Intelligence is more >of a threat than good looks or athletic prowess because smart people might >be right when the popular people are wrong, or might even laugh at the >whole pecking order. Well, I think actually you're onto something pretty crucial here. With intelligence comes curiosity and with curiosity comes questions, and questions can be threatening. But curiosity is double-edged- it can help you or get you killed. So maybe the evolutionary trend is towards having the majority be un-questioners, because too many people wanting to look inside alligator's mouths to study their teeth or experimenting with new explosives and the race won't last long :). >Finally, smart people are more likely to have weird interests that no one >else shares, so it's hard to place them in the pecking order by their >activities and conversation. True too, because they tend to be people who actively seek to satisfy a roving curiosity, and so naturally their interests will often end up a bit far from the norm. >On the whole, if you want a nice comfy >hierarchy it's safest to keep pushing smart folks down to the bottom of >the heap, where their opinions can be automatically ignored. I've noticed this about sexuality too (Frood, what big ears you have :)), and I think it's disruptive in a similar way, in the sense that both intelligence and sexuality/sensuality are things that will out no matter what, eventually, and they're damn hard to keep a lid on. This is obviously a threat to tidiness and order :). Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 23:14:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: watch your intelligence (fwd) On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, jbastin@stfx.ca wrote: > You just think you're so smart, don't you? Why, yes. Yes, I do. I am very smart. Why I'm still working at McDonald's is a mystery. - --Chris np: Switchblade Symphony, _Serpentine Gallery_ ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 23:28:08 -0400 From: woj spice Subject: adrian belew/blood oranges also sprach Ross Overbury: >Poor Adrian. Anybody ever see Twang Bar King on CD? nope, and you probably won't either. arms had to be significantly twisted just to get a disc compiling tracks from adrian belew's first three records out. the comp is called _desire of the rhino king_ and is on island records. also sprach chris franz: >Opening for Robyn at the GAMH will be somebody named Cheri Knight, >formerly of a band called the Blood Oranges. she could be a good opener to catch -- the blood oranges released a couple albums and one ep (at least) of rocked-up rooty americana. their _lone green valley_ ep is quite nice. woj ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:03:53 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #147 >Aw spoilsport, we were going to post that next week,it s ready to go, >all 500 pages of it. Now you've gone and warned everyone about it, the >element of surprise is stuffed. phew! ;) >My oath ,you would would you ,you bloody bludger? Well Mr sticky beak >,don't just think that us true blue fair dinkum Aussie battlers and >Anzacs will just churn out the vernacular for your benefit at your say AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! (strewth!) >Until the End of the World is probably my favorite pop-song soundtrack >ever ditto. Great stuff. All together now: IO am the ad...versareeee.... wonderful movie, too, although I feel it was really two movies one after the other. The prediction of what the world would be like in 1999 wasn't bad, eithger... more reasonable that most near future movies, even if it was a little too 'upper middle class' at times and another one's gone. Farewell the lovely Linda. Life's good but not fair at all. >Yeah, that sounds rockin'. But I've got a better idea. How about you and >James get together, and send us a joint recommendation post on cool new >*flags* while pompously insulting us? ;) but of course any moron would already know how wonderful it is that the Congo Democratic Republic has gone back to it's first, pre-Zaire flag. Don't tell me you didn't know.... ;) James James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:29:54 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: lurvly James wrote: >and another one's gone. Farewell the lovely Linda. Life's good but not fair >at all. Oddly enough, I bought a used copy of the second Tater Totz album on Friday (the day she died) -- which contains a version of "Lovely Linda." Oooooooh, creepy. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:10:43 -0700 From: West Subject: Musicians and Music (appr. 2% RH content) Greetings programs! This is an issue that has been vexing me for some time now, and although this may not be the most appropriate place to bring it up, I believe you are all intelligent (and opinionated) enough to have a valid response. I know a couple of guys, who shall remain nameless. They are musicians, although they have not released anything to the public and, indeed, do not even play live. Rather, they create songs--mostly techno and 80's synth rock-type stuff--in their living room/home studio, working at day jobs to pay the rent. If you were to look at their music collection, you would not find anything dating earlier than 1982. They tend toward bands such as The Cure, Ned's Atomic Dustbin, Inspiral Carpets, Jesus Jones, etc. Here's the thing: I once asked them, "Hey, why don't you have anything by, say, The Beatles? Don'tcha like 'em?" Well, they DON'T. And the reason they don't like The Beatles is not because of their songs or the way they are played. It's because of THE WAY THEY WERE RECORDED. According to these guys, the recording technology utilized by The Beatles (and, presumably, everyone else around that time) was vastly inferior to that which exists today; therefore, all those old Beatle records are simply unlistenable. It just sounds bad to these guys. Therefore, they absolutely REFUSE to listen to The Beach Boys, The Who, early Pink Floyd, Elvis Costello, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, Motown, surf music, hell, ANYTHING recorded in the 50's or 60's, almost anything recorded in the 70's, and anything recorded in mono. (Screw YOU, Phil Spector!) However, they do like some Robyn Hitchcock, and they just love Tom Jones and Tina Turner. Why? SHOWMANSHIP, of course! (I don't disagree--how could I?--but you gotta admit it just makes their viewpoint that much more inexplicable.) I asked them if they didn't feel in any way limited by the rather narrow scope of their musical tastes, and they replied in the negative. Not one little bit. I have to say, I feel extremely ambivalent toward a musician who doesn't seem to like most music, and for purely technical reasons at that. Am I wrong? Am I overreacting to what I perceive as style over substance taken to its most frightening extreme? I am no musician (although I sing like hell in the car--and so do you!! Confess!!), but I dearly love music; I cannot imagine life without it. And I eagerly embrace all kinds of music, including everything I mentioned above, AND jazz, AND country, AND classical, AND minimalism, and pretty much anything you care to name. No matter how supposedly crummy the recording quality, I love the SONGS. I love the spirit and the emotion and the craft that goes into them. THAT'S what makes them great. What say you? If you agree with me, please let met know; I'd like to feel less alone on this matter. If there is anyone out there who agrees with my musician friends, I'd like to hear your reasons. Thank you for listening. Somethingly, West. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #152 *******************************