From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #154 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 154 Today's Subjects: ----------------- I'm posting this for Marcy... [Eb ] Re: I hate when people call him "Macca" [Eb ] Re: i wish i was mr. horton [sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain)] Re: Tang [Eb ] Re: One of those *impassioned* posts [Capuchin ] Re: Tang (100 percent Pulp content alert!) [sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (a] Re: I hate when people call him "Macca" [Eb ] Re: Musicians and Music (appr. 2% RH content) [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:52:13 -0700 From: Eb Subject: I'm posting this for Marcy... ...because I don't have her email address saved. This is a post from the Beatles newsgroup. Eb - ----------------- Hi, all-- I just spoke with MPL in London, and they asked that anyone wishing to send a card or good wishes to Paul and the family should please send them to the Fun Club address, not to MPL's offices or to Paul's home. That address is: The Paul McCartney Fun Club P.O. Box 110 Westcliff, Essex SS0 8NW UNITED KINGDOM Thanks. Matt Hurwitz Publisher Good Day Sunshine Magazine ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:47:35 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: I hate when people call him "Macca" Marcy wrote: > >I wouldn't be surprised if there is never a "next album." Oh, I sure would. Though the gap between albums might be longer than usual. Like Luther, I'm hoping that Linda's death might inspire something "deeper" from Paul. Then again, I was hoping that Bob Stinson's death might similarly inspire ANOTHER Paul, and instead we got (groan) Eventually. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:00:24 -0500 From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain) Subject: Re: i wish i was mr. horton >I didn't say that. > >Eb, ever burdened with unfounded accusations of eloquence Face it Ebby, it is your fate :). >np: something Susan made me get ;) Laugh! :) Seriously, is that to imply you're not liking it much? Anyway, you should be somewhat happy, because lots of people on the list went out and got NMH or at least were intrigued enough by your enthusiasm to try and find out about them ("Ebby won't like it, he hates everything. Wait, Ebby's -raving- about something? Good God, it must be fabulous!" :)). AFAIK, only one person reports having been intrigued enough to check out and eventually purchase "This is Hardcore" based mostly on a list mention :). Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:01:02 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Tang >>np: something Susan made me get ;) > >Laugh! :) > >Seriously, is that to imply you're not liking it much? Anyway, you should be >somewhat happy, because lots of people on the list went out and got NMH or >at least were intrigued enough by your enthusiasm to try and find out about >them ("Ebby won't like it, he hates everything. Wait, Ebby's -raving- about >something? Good God, it must be fabulous!" :)). Heh heh. Actually, I liked This Is Hardcore more than I thought I would. I don't know yet whether I'll keep the disc around in the long run, but that's a compliment to its nuances because I rarely require more than one listen to make that decision. Also, I don't often start pursuing a current band after they've had a few albums out already, so this would be an exception to the rule too. This album is good enough that I'd like to hear Different Class and His N Hers now, and see if I unfairly ignored Pulp in the past. I still don't regret getting rid of the early reissues on Velvel, however, and I'm still cringing about the (rerun) Pulp performance I saw on Letterman a few days ago, in which Cocker gave Mariah Carey and Desiree a run for their money when it came to affected hand gestures and practiced posturing. Anyway, about the album: It feels more "real" to me than releases by prominent similar bands (Radiohead, the London Suede, the Verve...all those messianic, gloriously miserable UK bombastics). I liked...um..."The Fear," "Dishes," "I'm A Man," "A Little Soul" and "Sylvia" most, I suppose. Some other songs didn't engage me at all (especially "Seductive Barry"). I wish the album was a little stronger melodically (it could use more choruses as catchy as that of "I'm A Man"), but then again, it's still stronger melodically than the above MGMUKB's. The musical texture had a surprisingly dark edge (good), and it wasn't as nakedly whiny-Bowie-derivative as I expected (a la London Suede) -- really more like a Ferry/Cave combination (check that Roxy-esque artwork, for one thing). I'd like to make comparisons with Different Class, but can't for obvious reasons (haven't heard it). On my own idiosyncratic 20-point scale, I'd rate it a 13 or 14. Which is pretty good. Though I suppose that's more a case of objective rock-crit "respect" than personal empathy. Incidentally, my criterion for trashing/keeping a disc basically boils down to three questions: 1) Could I bear to sit through it again? 2) Is it interesting enough that I'd want to hear the artist's next album? 3) Is it interesting enough that I'd want to see the artist live? In Pulp's case, it's basically yes on the first two and no on the third -- though I suppose that the latter is moot, because I *did* see Pulp live in 1994, opening for Blur. Didn't make much impression on me, at the time. Love on Mangum, signal-to-Ebby np (ie, the latest to fail the above criterion): Buddy Guy, VPN, Action Figures, Andrew, Bent Backed Tulips, Bon Voyage, Charley, Dolly Varden, Drunk, John Easdale, Dana & Karen Kletter, Jill Olson, Mya, Clutch, Cords, Fuel, Getaway People, Witchdoctor, "Niagara Niagara" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:54:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: One of those *impassioned* posts Before I begin at all, I'd just like to say that I thought Quail was cogent, well-spoken and had some really good points in this whole mess. I'll say that I went back and forth between agreeing and disagreeing (and the full spectrum between) with the things stated here, but I also think Quail himself sometimes disagrees with the statements he's made here. On with the countdown: On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, The Great Quail wrote: > > 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. I'm going to disagree with this. I'll say that all civilizations are built on some kind of repression simply because there's no way to get any reasonable number of people to agree on one thing. But to say that they're all built on brute strength and flexible morality (I know what you mean and didn't say it as well... changing things at convenient times to spark furvor) is a bit narrow and short-sighted. Sometimes a civilization's repression can be so inherent in the existing, stringent moral structure that rebellion is unthinkable. Think of ancient China where almost all of the fighting was with other civilizations and very few internal conflicts arose. Remember in James Burke's Connections when he was talking about why the Chinese had gunpowder and fireworks but no guns or bombs for hundreds of years? It's because their moral structure didn't allow for innovation. The structure of their civilization was so tight that a person wasn't really motivated to move ahead. Intelligent folks, no matter where they sat in society, were stuck there and therefore KNEW (in the context of their society) that they couldn't ever be anything other than a carpenter's daughter or whatever. Civilization is built on repression, but it's not always brute strength. My friend Eric and I had an interesting conversation the other day revolving around the idea of the English language (and, inevitably, the language itself). A little background: I read somewhere recently that the French (or someone equally indignant) were angry that "modernization" is synonymous with "Americanization". The author of whatever article that mentioned this went on to editorialize in a way that made much sense to me. He said that it isn't so much that the world is becoming more American as it is that the world is all becoming kind of the same... and of course that means like America because America is changing the same way, too. Think about sushi bars (Mmmm... sushi...). Remember when sushi bars were a kind of joke? In about the mid-eighties when people considered it something of a novelty and a Very Japanese thing to do. Now there's dozens of sushi bars and going out for japanese is just about as common as having italian food in the fifties or mexican in the seventies. It's a globilization thing. OK... so that's the background. Our conversation was about english becoming a global language. Eric said "English is the language of war and commerce." meaning that our language evolved to talk about mostly those two things... he went on to remind me how easy it is to describe business and conflict in english, but how hard it is to talk about how you're feeling in english. He said he'd like to learn japanese just for the benefit of being able to think in japanese. He didn't mean to say that japanese was BETTER than english at anything, but just that it's different and being able to think in different terms makes you more flexible. I agree with that fundamentally. Language is a limited and limiting thing. They're not all equal and they're better at describing different things. It's very hard to talk about personal acheivement in Chinese (see above) and it's very easy in english. You know, bedouin words for sand and all that. War and commerce. It became kind of a mantra for the evening. Later we were playing Scrabble and we got into a conversation about how "he" is the generic personal pronoun and "she" is a specifically female personal pronoun... there are very few exclusively masculine words in english, most pull double duty speaking for men and Men. Eric said "Makes sense... war and commerce." and that was that. Back to the japanese example. Our earlier conversation went on to explain that the japanese could never have invented computers. It took a westerner. Text processing is very complicated in japanese or chinese characters. It took computers a while to become sophisticated enough to handle the japanese language. But once computers reached a certain point of complexity and power, they could be adapted to anyone's language and anyone could then further complicate and adapt the computers. Programming languages are adapted english in structure. English is becoming a world language because we're building a commercial world. So the American way of repression is becoming more global as well. But intelligence was frowned upon in the ancient and industrial worlds and had a brief eplosion of acceptance in the Age of Reason, but all that's over now. It made sense then to promote following along with tradition and blind obedience. It's like the military. You may see a better way to do something, but you can't do it because things must be ordered and go off like clockwork. If someone takes action based on their personal decisions, other people could die. Same goes for working in a steel mill, farming (experimentation on a farm could mean famine next season), or carpentry. Whenever there is ritual, there is precision. That's a good thing when resources are scarce or someone's safety is a concern. Ritual grates against the curious and the individualistic (and really I think people are confusing these traits with intelligence throughout this thread). These folks want to explore and go against the grain and learn some new things. Well, somebody's already done it another way... and it wasn't quite as successful at the time, so they went with the way it's done now. Quail likes to talk about weird literature with less structure and all that. That's called modern literature for a reason. Because it was invented in modern times? Probably not. It's just arrangement of words, I'm sure someone had done it before modern times. It's modern because it couldn't make sense to anyone other than the author before modern times. We now have the whole Structured Language thing imbedded in our heads and can come to terms with more abstracted language without losing our grasp of stuctures. That was the danger in the past... if you let people do things free-form, you'll never get any kind of consensus and that's dangerous not just to the powers that be, but to progress as a whole. I'm rambling. I guess it's all thread-fodder. Luther wrote: > > (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.) That doesn't do anyone any good at all. Successful rebellion is subtle and is usually called "evolution" by history. Being angry just makes you and everyone else frustrated and pries a greater rift between you and the rest of the world. Then you're a hermit and can't get all kinds of cool benefits from society like wool blends and South Park. Quail continued to spew: > 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. I didn't mean anything negative by the drone thingie. I don't mean to say that being conscious is really much Better than not. It's just another way of being... like having blue eyes or toe hair. Give anyone a distinguishing trait and they'll try to build an elite group around that trait. What was that horrid experiment with the kindergarten kids and the black arm bands? > 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: (Now why did I consider myself Ernie first? Probably because you're taller and like birds more... quails are related to pigeons, no? But I think it's really because my brother and I had Ernie and Bert plush toys and Ernie was mine and Bert was his... mostly because he was older, taller, thinner and yellow. However, it is also important to note that probably my most commonly spoken phrase is "Well, what do you know about that, Bert? My mouth's bleedin'!" I say it when something surprises me. It is, as you may or may not know, from the last few minutes of It's A Wonderful Life when George comes back to his life and finds that he's still bleeding from being hit by the teacher's husband at Martini's. It's his first clue that he's really himself again and not the ghostly stranger that was never born. Anyway, the cop's name is Bert and the cab driver's name is Ernie and that's the source from which the muppet names were culled.) > I *like* people. Oh, I do, too. I just can't stand them. > 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.) I'm not THAT much older than Terry (Am I?) and I went to Junior High. Hrrm. What's that all about? Did the system change when I wasn't looking? > 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? My friend Karen is the kindest person in the whole world. She lives in this scary building filled with crazy people. I think there are maybe only four people in the whole building who are not either on some kind of anti-psychotic medicine or very, very old. She loves talking to them. She'll sit and hang out with weird old people and relates to them on their terms. I can't do that. I'm a Good person, but I don't think I'm kind. I can't put up with people in that deep, fundamental way. I can't seem to sympathize with Radically different viewpoints than my own without being somewhat patronizing. That's not to say I'm intolerant, because I don't think other people should STOP doing or thinking what they do and think, I just tend to think I'm right and they're wrong and I'm humoring them with my sympathy. I know I'm arrogant and really ought to work on it and all that, but I also don't understand how a person exists without being arrogant. How can you LIVE with the knowledge that you're wrong? Isn't that inspiration enough to CHANGE? Of course I accept that the universe is bigger than me and the Big Questions are all answered with guesses, but that's another belief, really, and I think I'm RIGHT about it. It's hard for me to explain. I listen. I don't automatically dismiss new or opposing things. If someone presents a new and compelling argument for something, I just might even change my mind and admit that I was wrong... but I was wrong for lack of knowledge. If someone else comes to me with a viewpoint that I've already dismissed for something new and more sensible, I'll think they're wrong for believing what they do believe. I've stopped trying to change the minds of those people. I've started just sort of letting it lie and accepting them despite it all... but it's a kind of patronizing and not true acceptance. Yeah, I hate personal confession and commentary as much as you do. Back to the abstract! Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. > 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. This was interesting until you hit that "Simple love." thing. I don't buy that love argument. I see it alot. I don't think I really believe in love. I mean, I'm a somewhat romantic person and I believe in people and happiness and fun and excitement and The Hudsucker Proxy, but I don't believe in The Power Of Love. It's just a 20th century way to say God. I think it's ok to not believe in anything "underneath" or even above, inside, or around the universe. I think it's ok to say that the universe is disjointed, mechanical, sometimes incoherent and sometimes cruel. The engine that drives us all? There isn't one. But there's an engine that drives me and an engine that drives you. And we love that engine because it's impossible not to love something that drives you so much. (Remember the Auschwitz prisoners that dressed in uniforms and goose stepped to the showers? We want to identify with our driving forces.) Love is amorphous and ambiguous and we've been told it's more powerful than anything... but that's just another kind of faith and really, in the end, just a security blanket. > Too much division in the world, if you ask me. I'm totally with you here. > 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? OK... so maybe I don't have "overbearing arrogance" and that's how I survive and stay happy. I completely believe in what youv'e stated above. Keep plugging away and do the best you can. You can't be happy by being angry. They're mutually exclusive. When anger is your engine, you grow to love anger and eventually become the thing you hate and then hate yourself. Self-reference is self-destruction. That's why you can't hate people, by the way. No matter how much you change or detatch yourself from the world, you're still a person and hating people is ultimately hating yourself. > 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. I feel kind of stupid, but I never really understood that line until you put it in this context and explained it as you did. I've always appreciated it, but never as much as I do now. Thanks, Quail. And yeah, let's put reality as far from pain as we can. I wouldn't call this "love" per se, but it's a really good start. > 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! Ok... I don't have a rubber duckie so that gives you extra an extra ErniePoint. I hope I've made my view clear and I hope someone else has had a good read and maybe thought about something differently. Yeah, I think I'm right, but that doesn't mean I'll defend my words to the death, only until I wouldn't call them my words anymore. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:03:50 -0500 From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain) Subject: Re: Tang (100 percent Pulp content alert!) >exception to the rule too. This album is good enough that I'd like to hear >Different Class and His N Hers now, and see if I unfairly ignored Pulp in >the past. Well, I can see how you might have sort of missed those, because I know it isn't really a style you much care for. I like them a lot because I eat this kind of stuff up with a spoon *grin* but I know that is far from being the case for everyone. The thing about having such a frontman as the Fabulous Jarvissimo is that people tend to love or hate -them- and that colors how they view the record. I'm guessing you might like some songs on "Different Class", but probably not the album as a whole. "Sorted Out For E's and Whizz" is classic IMHO, just to mention one that doesn't get mentioned too much- I love the one line about raves: (this is from memory, but the jist is clear) "is this really how the future's s'posed to feel?/Or just fifty thousand people standing in a field?" *grin*. "I Spy" is really good in the funny/creepy vein, and the spoken part of the song where he talks about "composing my own critical notices in my head" is brilliant and shows a streak of self-deprecating humor that I rather like. Also as a confirmed urbanite and loather of yuppies, the verse that culminates in "Take 'A Year in Provence' and shove it up your assss!" fills me with unparalled glee and makes me want to yell "Go JARvis, go JARvis!" :) In fact in general, what separates Pulp from the other, similar bands you mention, is their caustic and often very self-aware (as opposed to self-conscious) sense of humor. This is true musically as well as lyrically- their over-the-top ness is often very knowing, and this creates (to me anyway) a sort of interesting off-balance effect (especially on this new album, where the vocals are very emotionally committed and surprisingly soulful. Yes, soulful, Jarvis. Really :)) that I as a listener really like. I also think that the focus on storytelling rather than "big concepts" is maybe what makes it feel more "real" than something like "OK Computer", because the dimensions are generally closer to human scale :). > I liked...um..."The Fear," "Dishes," "I'm A Man," "A Little Soul" and "Sylvia" most, I >suppose. "The Fear" reminds me a lot of Cale's "Heartbreak Hotel", as I have said before- it has that same "ooh scary"/"ooh, how over the top gothic, they can't be serious" quality that that has, and I think that's why it works so well. "A Little Soul" is to me arguably the most serious song on the record- "The Tracks of My Tears" echoes are not even a -trace- ironic, as the "Gloria" ones were on "Disco 2000" from Different Class, and it's sweetly sad and tragic, touching even, and that's why it stood out to me at least. "I'm A Man" and "Sylvia" both have that quality as well, "Sylvia" especially is of a pace with "A Little Soul" as far as being a very real and feeling portrait of guilt and regret. > Someother songs didn't engage me at all (especially "Seductive Barry"). That one didn't grab me at all on first listen, but on subsequent listens I've been really kind of struck and fascinated with the utter, I dunno, bleakness of it. YMMV. >expected (a la London Suede) -- really more like a Ferry/Cave combination >(check that Roxy-esque artwork, for one thing). Well, that's always been somewhat the case. Notice that Peter Saville's mentioned in the end credits, also that Chris Thomas was the producer for this one and DC (I don't remember if he was on "His n Hers" but I suspect he was there too). And "The Party's Over" aside, the swooping grandeur and dramatics of the vocals really recall Ferry more than Bowie. Also notice that the Jarvis collaborated with Barry Admason awhile back on a laugh out loud wickedly funny track called "Set Your Controls for The Heart of The Pelvis" :). Can't remember the name of the album, but someone here probably can, I'm sure. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:29:01 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: I hate when people call him "Macca" I think Debora/Vincent meant to post this, but sent it as private email instead. Eb From zolarox@juno.com (Debora K): >>Like Luther, I'm hoping that Linda's death might inspire something >>"deeper" >>from Paul. Then again, I was hoping that Bob Stinson's death might >>similarly inspire ANOTHER Paul, and instead we got (groan) Eventually. >> >How did the Replacements get popular? I was there. By completely >flamboyant (Bobby usually wore a dress) and drunken shows. Sure, Paul >Westerburg wrote some good songs but they never would've got signed if >not for their following and always a new thing at each show. It was a >real shame to see Bobby deteriorate year after year, after finally having >his body give out. Psychotropic meds, alcohol, and a variety of mental >problems did it. I remember a cold winter afternoon, when Bobby stopped >by to give me a tape of his newest work. Man, what a mess he was, but >still optimistic. Nearly everyone dropped out of his life at that point >('cept me, I was a 22 year old rock 'n roll drummer) and had a band >called '3 car garage'. > >I would see him often hanging out at the record store across from the >'Twin Tone' offices, waiting for his royalty check. It was terrible to >see, as a lot of his problems were not his own fault, just a goddamn >chemical imbalance. I saw him 2 days before he died. He almost got beat >up in the CC Club hitting on some guys girlfriend. I made a sick joke to >a friend of mine that "watching Bobby is like watching a car wreck. It's >sick, but impossible to turn away". I'll miss him. > >Vincent. > >PS Maybe I should intoduce myself. I'm a Big Robyn, Nick Cave, and Rush >fan. I also once did coke with Dave Pirner. HAHAHAHa Yep, to be young >and dumb again... > >Now, I'll tell you another little story. It's very disturbing. Bob >(I'll refrain from calling him Bobby, like i used to) quit drinking, >under Dr.'s orders. His meds don't mix with alcohol. They did yet >another show at First Ave., with Bob showing up sober, sans the dress. >They played a couple of songs, and Westerburg opened a bottle of wine, >gave it to Bob, and said "drink this, or get the fuck off of my stage". >From what I heard, he finished the show without drinking, and spent the >next couple of hours bawling in the back room. That was one of Bobby's >last shows. > >Just a lurker, and thought I'd jump in for the hell of it. > >Peace, I'm just a drummer ya know..... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:45:50 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Re: 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. ... >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. I think that your pals are (and I mean this in the most Quailish, nicest, every man is my brother kinda way, but I repeat myself, possible): 1. a little overburdened with their own senses of self-importance 2. probably have some difficulty in finding more than two tones in a gray scale print. 3. in posession of strong attachment to being "arteeeeests." If they cut off their ears and hang them on their mailboxes, they may reach their artistic nirvana. My guess is that they don't have a stomach for actually doing that. Eeeugh! Neither do I. 4. as Susan suggests, are more in love with the technology than the creation. 5. are perfectionists that will never find a voice, or make a lasting snapshot of a moment while they chase their moving image of perfection. Thank idunno what (I'm agnostic- it shows) that Robyn, Neil Young, Ray Davies, Dan Bern, Stan Ridgway, etc. have the abilitiy to give us an honest, unabashed look at their imperfections which sit so close to the things that they do brilliantly that they cannot be removed without stealing the character of the artists. Does that make sense? It is seriously believable that my language skils that permit, no, require the use of run-on sentences may actually be the encoded ramblings that nobody else gets. But maybe I am a little overburdened with my own sense of self-importance, or have a strong attachment to being an arteeeeest, or some wacko perfectionist who can't finish a damn email. more on gump in my next note, - -Markg ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #154 *******************************