From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #262 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, July 10 1998 Volume 07 : Number 262 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: zombies, anyone?/darkside thought/no particular rh content [Terrence] calling names ["J. Katherine Rossner" ] Good nasal/bad nasal ["Martin Weinstein" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #260 [David Librik ] The Happenings [David Librik ] Re: Those Annoying Crop Circles [Aaron Mandel ] fwd: Good nasal/bad nasal [Russ Reynolds ] Re: annoying music [amadain ] Re: annoying music [Aaron Mandel ] Quote for Susan! [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] MST3K, Annoying bands, and the dreaded conumdrum [Chris Subject: Re: zombies, anyone?/darkside thought/no particular rh content yOn Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Bayard wrote: > wasn't "Odyssey" misspelled on the album? > Yeah. Sorry if I accidentally spelled it correctly in my post :) (The Zombies were breaking up and either a) they didn't care that it was misspelled or b) it was deliberate) Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 15:07:31 -0700 From: "J. Katherine Rossner" Subject: calling names >Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 06:16:01 -0500 >From: David Librik >Although not annoying, "Sleeping With Your Devil Mask" and the track that >follows it, "Unsettled", have always been two of my favorite examples of >why Robyn Hitchcock, at his best, taps into my "aggressive" side, gets my >adrenaline flowing, and provides physical catharsis. My goodness, David...do you have an aggressive side? (Passive-aggressive doesn't count. Well, maybe it does.) **** >Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:18:26 -0700 >From: Eb >>But you did leave off one great example of annoying music. See, I have >>a friend who is very into the sort of stuff you describe. We drove out >>to Seattle together last year (for Bumbershoot), and in the car she played >>me probably 1/4 of Eb's Annoying Band List. > >Heh heh heh. Is she dating anyone? ;) I think she's engaged. Or have they already gotten married, David? *** >From: Natalie Jacobs >Is it just my imagination, or are Brits generally not into wearing shorts? >I lived in England for a year and only saw one person wearing shorts, and >that was because he was going to play tennis. Maybe it's the weather...? More likely it has to do with what's considered age-appropriate, I suspect. Still seems to be the case, at least in some upper-class circles, that British boys wear "short pants", and graduating into wearing regular trousers is the rite of passage into adulthood, or at least adolescence. (Now, can anybody tell me whence this peculiar tradition?) *** >From: Bayard >Speaking of songs anout Danielle and the such, what is the name that is >used mOST in songs? a year or two back I was compiling "Caroline" songs >and found well nigh a hundred. (I cheated though, and allowed >"carolina".) Who is the all time champion? (probably not eb or bayard or >woj!) "Rose" would be my guess. Or "Nancy", considering the count in English trad folk songs. :) I don't think that "John/Johnny" wins--though there are quite a few of those, aren't there? Too many love songs, and it seems to me that those are more often from a male perspective and giving a female name. (sorry, I've misplaced the name of the person who suggested that.) >is it truly possible to appreciate something without liking it? Sure. Ellis Paul (yeah, I'm going to keep mentioning him) has two or three songs I really don't much like hearing. One of them may not be a very good song; I'm not sure. The other two--one I think is good, but its sound is very annoying (and no, I *don't* like irritating music--yes, fine, maybe that's why I'm a folkie); the other I recognize as probably one of Ellis's best songs (that's appreciating it), but I don't like it much and generally skip it when playing the disc. What's so hard about that? Or, a broader example: if I sit down and listen to some classical music, there's a good deal of it I can appreciate. I can hear that it's good, understand to some degree why this is considered superior to pop, etc. But by and large, it's not what I'd choose to listen to; it's not what I "like", in the sense that the latter is what pleases my senses and emotions. Katherine n.p. John Wesley Harding, GOD MADE ME DO IT--The Christmas E.P. (it showed up in Amoeba again!) - -- Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche is chaunge Withinne a thousand yere, and wordes tho That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge Us thinketh hem, and yit they spake hem so. - Chaucer, "Troilus and Criseyde" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:16:27 -0700 From: "Martin Weinstein" Subject: Good nasal/bad nasal >Umm...well, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but is ANY >singer more nasal than Robyn Hitchcock? Personally, I think Jello and Perry Farrell both are... Maybe there's "good-nasal" and "bad-nasal"? Check out Peter Perrett of the Only Ones. British counterpart of Television in the late 70's. His voice really grows on you. definitely good nasal. Has a distinctive "too much cocaine and smack have burned a hole in my septum" sound. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:16:35 -0500 From: David Librik Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #260 Natalie wrote: >>Or Syd Barrett's guitar. >>(Strum that chord. Over. And over. And over. Wait ... change chords!) > >Heh! I listened to "The Madcap Laughs" for the first time last night. >Some very charming tunes combined with some stuff that's just kind of >rambling. I'm pretty sure I like it, though I'll have to get used to it, I >think. Yay! Syd! I think your last line sums up the way I interact with Barrett's music. Now, I'm a huge Syd fan. But I can't explain why I like him, in any rational way. I recognize that, objectively, he's not very good -- but for some reason I have this bizarre attraction to his monotonous irrational droney songs. This didn't happen the first time I heard _TML_ -- I just went "what?!" Then I went over to the house of a friend (who also liked Pink Floyd) and said "You've got to hear this screwed-up mess!" but by the time I got to the end of side one, I was really getting into it all! My friend never got it (nor should he have been expected to, really...) I guess this answers Bayard's question, "is it possible to separate the measure of how good music is, from how much you like it?" Yes. Syd isn't good, he's just idiosyncratic and his idiosyncrasy clicks with me. _Fegmania!_ is GOOD, objectively -- it should have been a huge hit. King Crimson are good (so I'm told) but I can't get into what they do. I think the strum-strum-strum blah-blah-blah part of Syd's music gets even more pronounced on _Barrett_. It's certainly what makes his stuff stand out, and when a Barrett fan hears a previously unreleased Sydsong, it's just that element that brings a smile to the face and an expression like "ah! good old Syd doing his thing again!" Yet nobody actually gets into Syd Barrett because he sounds like an acid casualty on autopilot. The appeal to his stuff, as you rightly spotted, is the "very charming tunes," even when it sometimes seems like (as Jerry Shirley put it) "it's all still going on in his head, but only little bits of it manage to get out of his mouth." I guess it's comparable to The Fish -- nobody first gets into Robyn Hitchcock because of the regular appearance of The Fish in his lyrics, but when a real Robyn Fan hears a new song, he or she can't help but smile when the good old Fish (Squids, etc.) make another appearance, and this may give the impression to an outsider that the distinctive marine-life lyrics are the *reason* we like Robyn's songs. Anyway, welcome to Syd-dom, and don't put off buying _Barrett_ for too long. (You can skip _Opel_ for now -- it's only for fans. But you may become one...) - - David Librik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:25:17 -0500 From: David Librik Subject: The Happenings Eb puts at the end of each of his messages something like this ... >If not, how could they so accurately recreate the live excitement of: Porky >Pig, Ed Sullivan, Edward G. Robinson, Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong, George >Jessel, Johnny Mathis, Anthony Newley, The Beach Boys, The Four Seasons, >The Rolling Stones, and...The Tokens! OK, you've got my curiosity piqued ... what is all this about? Obviously you're excerpting these things from a review somewhere ... - - David Librik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:25:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Those Annoying Crop Circles On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, JH3 wrote: > PS. Last week I was flipping channels, and came across this show on The > Discovery Channel called "What Sex Am I?"... at almost that exact moment the > announcer says, "This is the domain of the 'she-male' - women from the waist > up, man from the waist down"... and there they all were, reconciling their > parents to them by becoming both at once. i watched most of this program and... wow. most of the transgender people i've met have had complicated lives, but the folks they found to interview for that documentary would say things like (no irony visible) "yeah, my whole childhood my mother would say 'you're bad at being a boy, you should be a girl' and 'you aren't tough enough so don't even try' and things like that. i also wanted several times to grab them and say "it's totally possible for a 6-foot, 200-pound M-to-F to pass, but cackling a lot and wearing enough makeup to smother a rat just draws attention to you". these weren't, for the most part, Transsexual Menace types; they said they wanted very badly to fit in but it felt to me like they only had stereotypes of their new gender to work with. or so they were portrayed. interesting documentary, though. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 98 15:43:00 -0800 From: Russ Reynolds Subject: fwd: Good nasal/bad nasal ======== Original Message ======== >Umm...well, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but is ANY >singer more nasal than Robyn Hitchcock? Personally, I think Jello and Perry Farrell both are... Maybe there's "good-nasal" and "bad-nasal"? Check out Peter Perrett of the Only Ones. British counterpart of Television in the late 70's. His voice really grows on you. definitely good nasal. Has a distinctive "too much cocaine and smack have burned a hole in my septum" sound. ======== Fwd by: Russ Reynolds ======== very good call. I've always thought of his voice as being just like Hitchcock's only more nasal. Plus he always plays to win. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 19:44:05 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: annoying music >success is NOT due to being "annoying," but in spite of it. I mean, the >song that really put Sebadoh on the map, "Soul and Fire," couldn't >*possibly* be more beautiful. Sheer perfection! See, I would agree. A lot of Sebadoh is actually pretty catchy, and some of it lovely. As has been noted already, you had some pretty different writing voices mingling in there. I prefer Folk Implosion but that's a matter of taste. "Natural One" just kills me. That jangly riff is sheer brilliance. >If not, how could they so accurately recreate the live excitement of: Porky >Pig, Ed Sullivan, Edward G. Robinson, Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong, George >Jessel, Johnny Mathis, Anthony Newley, The Beach Boys, The Four Seasons, >The Rolling Stones, and...The Tokens! What is up with these little things? Have you been listening to the Lettermen 24/7 and got brain-infection or something? :) Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:49:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: annoying music On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, amadain wrote: > I prefer Folk Implosion but that's a matter of taste. "Natural One" just > kills me. That jangly riff is sheer brilliance. totally. (though from comments they made live, they seem to feel that "Insinuation" is a revision of "Natural One", and looking at it that way i think it's an improvement.) i was happy to see Folk Implosion survive their brush with fame unscathed but better-selling. the music they make when separated sounds more similar than either of them sounds to the Folk Implosion, so it must be one of those synergistic collaborations. [hedge: i haven't heard much Sebadoh lately. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 20:25:34 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Quote for Susan! The incredible Tigermonkey Research team which mostly consists of underpaid cats and their respective humanoid companions who are quite charming, but not really management material, all rummaging about in kitchens and music rooms and cars, were surprisingly able to locate the actual quote. Please don't expect this amount of lightning to strike again, but if it does, we'll blame El Nin~o like everybody else does. Oh yea, the rest of you can read this too. I was able to break the special encription codes which my cats used by realizing that they were quite hungry when they created the password, so I knew it was a kind of fish. This is why they lost their jobs with the state department, their codes were always being broken by norse fishermen and other felines working at reduced pay for governments everywhere. Oh. sorry. I seem to have wandered hopelessly off the topic. Here's the Robyn quote. Really: "I'm not a moderate person, I believe in either overdoing something until it kills you or ignoring it altogether and dying for lack of it." he also said shortly thereafter: "I've got nothing against corporations, I just like, I prefer hand towels. I mean, what use is CBS to you if you come out of a bath or a shower? It's a great big building and it's full of offices, but it ain't going to dry you off." Robyn Hitchcock, May 30, 1990 (thanks Eddy!) There are two recordings of this gig. I'd really like to get a copy of the one that somebody tried to stop during the show, but Robyn said he didn't mind if they taped it. The tape I have is from further away from the stage, and there are some talkers around it.... Happies, - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:29:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Subject: MST3K, Annoying bands, and the dreaded conumdrum >Natalie nicely summed up my thoughts about what happened to MST3K when >Mike stepped in--weak japing, lame bits written for sixth graders. >Going on what Chris W. said, though, I'll take a look at a new >episode. How very gracious and open-minded of me! :) Oh boy, and then you'll see some lame sixth grade jokes, and I'll be the one roasting, not poor Gene. I do think Mike takes a bit getting used to, but also the shows are real hit and miss. Sometimes I'm practically rolling on the floor (well, I do mean from laughter, not just rolling aimlessly on the floor), while other shows barely make me crack a smile. So it really depends on which shows you catch. I do try to catch it every week though. Speaking of annoying, I opened our local weekly indie paper this week to find that they'd made a list of annoying local band names which they they thought were "particularly obnoxious", and to my surprise found the name of my band listed. Yow! First I laughed, then I was kind of mad, then I took it personally, and finally I laughed again and thought it was great propaganda to put in the press kit. :) The other two people in the band laughed hysterically when I told them we were mentioned. They thought it was quite a compliment. I think what really bothered me was that the other names of the band on the list are names that I've always thought were really terrible, such as Shark Sandwich, Swift Ice Cubes, Snot, Sacred Onion, Hump Mussel, Desprit Avokadoz, and Stygified are the worst (hope no one in these bands is on the list.) But geez, I'm in a garage punk band - Dead Airbourne Goats seems like a good name to me. Oh, and if you care to cleverly insult the band, I just might use it in our propaganda. >here's a philosopical question for ya. is it possible to separate the >measure of how good music is, from how much you like it? if so, is this >even necessary and how do you go about it? Would the Beatles have been as >great if no one had ever heard them? would Elvis have been as great >without his millions of fans? What makes music good, its intrinsic value >or how people respond to it? >is it truly possible to appreciate something without liking it? Okay, here goes.... there are certain bands that you may not like, you may even hate, but you do need to have some knowledge of rock music and it's history, and realize how important they are. As an example of someone important who I don't like - Frank Zappa. I do not enjoy his music at all. Yet I can appreciate how important he was. But please don't make me listen to him. As for seperating how good music is from how much you like it, you need to be able to turn off your feelings for the band and try to look at it from an unbiased viewpoint. You don't have to like the important people, but you do need to realize that they were important. It's just a matter of trying to be unbiased when you talk about who was or was not important. If someone changed the face of rock and roll, then they are probably important. I did see an amusing arguement in the letters section of Goldmine a few years ago where someone was insisting that Kiss were more important than the Beatles, and thought the Beatles had no real influence on music. Is a band still great if no one ever hears of them? Yes. There are tons of great bands who will never be heard because they don't have the right connections, or aren't in the right place at the right time. One the same note, there are tons of bands who you'll never hear of, who only have one or two great songs. I love the Pebbles and Back to the Grave series of lps and cds that have excellent 60's garage and punk music from bands that most people have never heard of, unless you're into that sort of thing. There are some great bands that I can't stand - Zappa, and some horrible bands that I like - Bay City Rollers. Would I argue about the artistic merit or how great BCR are? No way, they play disposable pop songs. But everyone needs disposable pop, or some such fluff every once in awhile. I guess in the end, there are bands that are important, bands that are good, and bands that are our favorites, which may or may not be good. And none of us will ever truly agree on who any of them are. I'm kind of tired, so hopefully what I've written makes sense. If not, you're just biased against me! You don't realize how important my opinions are.;) >Y'know, I wonder if Ed Wood would've gone that far if the option had been >available back then? I guess in the 50's all you could do was put on a skirt >and some eyeshadow. These were all men who'd had themselves surgically >altered to look female - breast implants, hip implants, nose jobs, the whole >thing - but they hadn't had their genitals removed and didn't necessarily >take hormones. I don't remember Ed ever actually wanting to be a female. He had the angora fetish, and liked to dress in womens clothes. But I dont' recall anyone saying he desired to change his sex. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 15:50:26 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Re: philosophical question >here's a philosopical question for ya. is it possible to separate the >measure of how good music is, from how much you like it? if so, is this >even necessary and how do you go about it? Would the Beatles have been as >great if no one had ever heard them? would Elvis have been as great >without his millions of fans? What makes music good, its intrinsic value >or how people respond to it? > >is it truly possible to appreciate something without liking it? definitely. For example, I often refer to my favourite music and the best music I know. These two categories overlap, but are not the same. I appreciate Elvis Presley as one of the greatest Rock & roll performers ever, but I generally don't like his music. I'm a fan of Rain Parade, but realise they don't rate it objectively. Just like I can say that Citizen Kane is a better movie than Wings of Desire, but I far preferred Wings of Desire. It's a case of trying to be subjective and then trying to be objective by keeping your own gut feelings out of it. Then again, this is not the same question as your later questions "would Elvis have been as great..." - there is a subtle difference between 'do you like...' and 'do the majority like...'. Are the Spice Girls producing good music? Or Celine Dion? They have mass appeal, yet are they as good as, say, Husker Du, who had much less fame, but who undoubtedly were very influential and produced very fine, innovative music. There are at least four levels of 'goodness', if you like: A-Personal subjective good - your favourite musicians (eg, Robyn Hitchcock, NMH) B-Populational subjective good - 'mass appeal' musicians (eg, the Spice Girls) C-Objectively good - thornier to define, but those musicians producing music of intrinsic worth D-Innovators - those musicians whose work forms a foundation upon which others can build, or who push their music into previously untapped areas. Only on those rare occasions where B, C, and D overlap, such as with the Beatles, can you truly claim 'this is good' with any degree of certainly, but only where none of B, C and D are true can you claim that the music is definitely NOT good. And even then, an artist may still be a personal favourite. The area inbetween these two, where a band fulfils one or two but not all three of B, C, and D is a big grey patch. And then it is up to whatever criterion you wish to use to decide "Zappa (C&D) is better than the Spice Girls (B)" or vice versa. And that's without even trying to decide how you should go about judging intrinsic worth for C. 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: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 15:49:32 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Nasal sexual ambiguity, names, legs, and alien plants > "The Day of the Triffids" is a good sci-fi book which suprisingly >had little to do with the Triffids. And The Triffids is (well, was) a great band from Perth, Western Australia,, wirth checking out for their "Born Sandy Devotional" and "Calenture" albums >Any follow up on Robyn's legs? his hips in one direction, his feet in the other. >"THE ROWANS >[albums rated from one to five stars] >*The Rowans >*Sibling Rivalry >*Jubilation other Rowans (not) worth mentioning include, of course, Rowan Atkinson. The leading character in one of Britain's top soap/drama series is a policeman called Nick Rowan, IINM. >>It's easy to think of other groups whose vocalists lend the sound >>an "annoying" quality which provides the hook. Think Perry Farrell. Think >>Axl Rose. Think Frank Black. Think Ozzy Osborne. Jello Biafra. Mark E. >>Smith. John Lydon. Or maybe the all-time best example, Robert Plant. > >"Distinctive", "unusual" perhaps, maybe even "unique" in some cases, but not >"annoying", at least not to their fans. Only to their detractors. hm. Bob Dylan's voice annoys the hell out of me at times, but with the cexception of the Byrds I can't think of anyone I'd prefer to hear perform it. The same goes for Neil Young - I can't stand his voice. The point is to find a balance between the points that annoy and the points which please. I go for whichever outweighs the other, which is why I listen to Neil Young, but not Roger Miller. >Umm...well, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but is ANY singer more >nasal than Robyn Hitchcock? I mean, even Ringo Starr can't measure up to >Robyn's nasalities. ;) back to Buffalo man Young yet again! Also, George Harrison would be a contender. Good to see so many people de-lurking at the moment! Welcome one and all! >>>announcer says, "This is the domain of the 'she-male' - women from the >waist >>>up, man from the waist down"... > >Luther wrote: > > >> Wasn't this also an Ed Wood movie? >> "PULLLLLL THE STRINGS! PULLLL THE STRINGS!!!" > > >Y'know, I wonder if Ed Wood would've gone that far if the option had been >available back then? I guess in the 50's all you could do was put on a skirt >and some eyeshadow. These were all men who'd had themselves surgically >altered to look female - breast implants, hip implants, nose jobs, the whole >thing - but they hadn't had their genitals removed and didn't necessarily >take hormones. then again, there are the Pacific Island people (IIRC in Tongan society) who are born male but brought up as girls, leading to a sexual ambiguity that accompanies them throughout their lives. ISTR they are called the 'fafafine' >Speaking of songs anout Danielle and the such, what is the name that is >used mOST in songs? a year or two back I was compiling "Caroline" songs >and found well nigh a hundred. (I cheated though, and allowed >"carolina".) Who is the all time champion? (probably not eb or bayard or >woj!) if you include Sue, Susie, Suzanne, Susannah and all the other varieties then Susan in all her forms wins out on this, I'd guess. As for the blokes, Billy could probably rack up 20 or 30 titles, as could Johnny. But very few personal names have been used as the names of bands :) James (keeping his fingers crossed that he can get to the Bob Dylan/Patti Smith gig in Christchurch in September) 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: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:28:59 -0700 From: Eb Subject: at last, i've cracked -- I'm arguing with myself Eb jibed: >>Umm...well, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but is ANY singer more >>nasal than Robyn Hitchcock? I mean, even Ringo Starr can't measure up to >>Robyn's nasalities. ;) Oh COME ON, you forgetful shithead -- what about Mike Love???? The Happenings were all in the Army, stationed as far from their home town of Patterson, New Jersey, as Fort Dix. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 02:32:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Fuller Subject: from randi - a few quick t-shirt ideas Okay okay, you guys are right - we should be so lucky as to have profits from the t-shirts... Is there a minimum number one *has* to make - or could we all email one person who then could go to a printer and say - make me 60 t-shirts please. So those that don't send their money in on time - well - then they lose out on this batch. I'm not trying to sound mean - but why make 100 t-shirts if only 60 will sell? But if one has to make a certain number than that's a different story. But I'll sign up right now and send a cheque in American dollars to whomever to guarantee myself a shirt - shouldn't we *all* do this __before they are printed__? No one should lose money on this - I think that would be horrible. So - anyone like my suggestion? T-shirt makers - now is your time to speak up! Gotta go - those nurses again...more later. fading back into yesterday before tomorrow comes, Randi *what scares you most will set you free* - Robyn Hitchcock n.p. Sloan - Navy Blues ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 10:04:28 +0100 (BST) From: Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer Subject: Re: a conundrum. >>>>> "Bayard" == Bayard writes: Bayard> Would the Beatles have been as great if no one had ever Bayard> heard them? If John Lennon fell in the woods and there was no-one to hear, would he make a sound? Bayard> is it truly possible to appreciate something without Bayard> liking it? I would say so. There are bands (such as Queen, Deep Purple, & The Mothers) whose technical competence and/or ability to bring joy to other people I can appreciate -- just don't play them within my earshot. Stewart Thought for the day: Don't sneeze while eating Grape Nuts. - -- Stewart C. Russell Analyst Programmer, Dictionary Division stewart@ref.collins.co.uk HarperCollins Publishers use Disclaimer; my $opinion; Glasgow, Scotland ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 20:07:12 -1850 From: dlang Subject: Re: Revelling in evil (also long and also probably boring :)) Sue wrote in response to my very long post about what causes people to do evil things, etc, "IMO in all cases this has to do with deep-rooted emotional dysfunction which is for sure being fed and nurtured at that particular trough, but didn't come from there. Honestly where I'd lay the blame is squarely on the parenting or lack thereof. Lots of improperly socialized people running around these days. Nobody ever set limits for them and they can't do it for themselves. Maybe they grew up in a house with a parent who couldn't do it for -themselves- either, doubly reinforcing this, who knows?" Absolutely, most of you time you meet the parents of a dysfunctional kid and you wonder how the kid has managed to reach any sort of sense of responsibility at all with parents like that. Sometimes these kids transcend their background and become far more socially responsible people than their parents, sometimes not. However I also know kids who have had parents who care for them and who have provided a stable environment and they gravitate towards peers who are self destructive. There's not really any sort of guaranteed recipe for parenting , all inputs affect us , it just depends what importance we put on those inputs. I then played devils advocate and put the question >how much responsibility should an artist bear when he /she >creates a product as powerful as a film? What if someone copies the film when >committing a bank robbery , or a murder , should the artist feel responsible ? Susan definitely didn't think so, for lots of reasons, most of which i agree with BUT . I mentioned in relation to Romper stomper and other films with a message > that one needed a certain level of intelligence to perceive the message or already held strong anti racist or anti violent beliefs, because there was no clear narrative that condemned the skins as the wrongdoers and Susan replied "Again, is that necessary? Most people with the intelligence of a gnat could verily see it. Does the creator owe it to us the audience to spell it out in neon? Personally I really hate that. I'll make up my own mind, thanks." I also dislike an overt message ,and I do NOT want to see a return to moralising or excessive censorship but my point was that in a powerful media like film, , there is a portion of the audience who are just not capable of reading *any*sort of message or meaning that needs to be interpreted. Just because you saw the message as obvious Sue , does not mean that everyone will be able to do so. My point is that we should consider how works will influence others when we create them, especially since it is so easy for young kids to access R or X rated media. Now forty years or more ago it was pretty obvious who was in the right or wrong , say in a James Cagney gangster movie. The bad guy nearly always got his comeuppance at the end of the film and furthermore, he was generally portrayed as a nasty piece of work , so the sympathies of the audience were manipulated by the filmmaker to probably side with the "good guys" However, with more realistic and less moralistic films around nowadays , one really needs a degree of thought when considering messages and character. Many people, especially very young people, who do not understand the meaning of symbolism or are not yet able to interpret complex messages, will just take films at face value or read the meanings they want the film to have. I know this is true to a great extent because when we analyse films with pretty obvious messages about morality or character at school a worryingly large proportion just do not see the messages unless it is explained to them .Even if the director states that the film has this or that meaning there are still some kids who reject the evidence. Now they have a perfect right to do so , everyone has the right to their own opinion and most films are open to interpretation.But at home, does anyone adult ever discuss the meaning,morality,style of the film with kids ?, a tiny minority I would guess.Given this, I really do think that artists should acknowledge* some* responsibility about the affects of their work on their audience,because its too easy to say 'Its my work of art, I've created it, now you guys have to police it, its all up to you and I have no responsibility about any of its affects on anyone". Its a cop out. Kubrik realised this ( one of the few directors who ever have done so) when he made" A Clockwork Orange". You still cannot obtain this film on video in Australia or Britain ,you can only view it by going to a cinema, because he wanted to have some control over the age of those who saw the product. Although most people would see Alex and his droogs as repugnant, Kubrik realised that there would be a moron minority who would see them as wonderful and possibly use them as a role model.he also recognised that this minority would more likely be young. He relinquished some profit in return for some social responsibility and I admire him for it. Its interesting that the guy who created Total Recall ( and I'm probably spelling this wrong ) Verhoven, does acknowledge that violent movies can have an affect on young kids. He actually spends time explaining his movies to his own kids, but this recipe does not necessarily happen to those kids who view his films.he gives the example that when his young daughter found a book on movie monsters she had nightmares for six months so he is aware of the affect this stuff can have on kids. However, that doesn't prevent him from fighting tooth and nail to prevent anything violent from being cut from his movies. He has admitted that he is living out his violent experiences from the second world war in his movies so to some extent he's inflicting his traumas on us.Does he have the right to say that he has no responsibility at all for his end product?. Lets take another example. Romper stomper was an anti racist movie, but what if I produced a pro racist movie, modelled on the Romper Stomper style ?.It would not be overtly racist , the lines would be blurred like R Stomper, leaving the audience to make up their mind.Is it then ok for me to say I have no responsibility for any racism that occurs as a result of the film ?.Does the fact that it is "art " cover my ass?. What about the "revenge because The Justice System has failed me " Charles Bronson type movies ?, or the " Guns are a way of life and lets use them to the max " type movie , where the body count is in the hundreds and violence is seen as a solution to problems ? .Do the directors. actors have no social responsibility for possibly shaping peoples attitudes? hell, we have all sorts of lobbies complaining about stereotyping of racial and sexual groups in ads, demonisation is common in the press and Tv .Why when the stereotyping or demonisation occurs in a film does all responsibility supposedly evaporate? Its funny to see right wing law and order/ gun lobby jerks like Heston, Mel Gibson, and Schwartznegger preaching about how society is falling apart because of perverts and subversives when most of the films they star in are probably subverting society far more in real terms than all the "art " films in the world ever could. These guys make millions from movies like Lethal Weapon or Total Recall which glamorise violence, vengeance and gun culture and then they have the nerve to pontificate about others moral codes . I think that Movie makers and the media in general have to share *some *of the responsibility that their products do to some extent change our attitudes or behaviour .Sure there are many inputs that make people antisocial or violent, but the media is a major part of our society and they must have some affect , both positive and negative. Susan is right that parents do have a major role to play in making wise choices as to when and what their children are exposed to ,in an ideal world we could leave it to their wisdom to make the right choices, but since many adults just don't make wise choices ( some of my students surveyed local video stores recently about r rated films getting in the hands of preteens and the owners said that even though they won't rent the films to anyone under 18 , many parents get these films for their kids to watch, and I had a class of year 8 kids once who all had seen the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which I don't relly feel is mandatory viewing for all 13 year olds ) it may be that the Kubrick approach is the only way to try to limit access of kids to unsuitable material- but given the fact that profit is the main motive in almost everything in our society, I can't see thishappening , can you? There are no easy answers here at all and I certainly have no solutions , but unless the industry make attempts to police themselves to some extent and admit that their products may have some influence on us all I can see there being a backlash by the " moral majority " and draconion censorship being re - -imposed to such an extent that artistic expression is seriously jeopardized .I'm sure none of us want to see that happen. dave Ps . Eddie, I was going to state your view that capitalism and ultimately all of us who live within its system are contributors to mass evil in my earlier post, but I thought it might muddy the waters evenmore in what is probably the muddiest issue of all time. lets face it , we could argue this one out for the next six months and still find something new to say, its a biggie. np :-the clash-rock the casbah ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #262 *******************************