From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #273 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, July 15 1998 Volume 07 : Number 273 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Revelling in evil [Terrence M Marks ] robyn and critical & popular support [Ken Sabatini ] Re: rationalization ["Daniel Barkhouse" ] repo [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)] Re: Eb sings the blues [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Re: bits [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan)] Flogging Ebtides... [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] Re: rationalization [David Librik ] Re: Eb blows the songs [Eb ] Re: rationalization [Zloduska ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #272 [Natalie Jacobs ] Me, of course. [Capuchin ] Re: the list gets loopy... [M R Godwin ] re: The Classics (Raising Arizona) [griffith ] Re: The Classics [Tom Clark ] Re: repo [Tom Clark ] fegmeet in chicago...? [Bayard ] scott baio's pecker ["Capitalism Blows" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 21:42:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: Revelling in evil > > > That's what we get when we violate > > > Mom and Dad's/the Church's sanctions against premarital sex and, for > > > the girls, devaluing their father-owned bride-price. > > > Or, mayhaps, it's a good way to put nudity into a slasher movie and > > justify it. > > well, exactly. nudity is justified if the nude people die. violence is > justified if the victims were sinful. I should've put more work into that post. That's not what I meant at all. When I spoke of "justification", I did not mean moral justification. I mean "justification" in terms of making the nudity fit into the rest of the movie, making the plot that much more linear. Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 21:53:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Ken Sabatini Subject: robyn and critical & popular support This is a few days old, but what the heck. So said Eb on on July 11: >The general fading of critical support for Robyn has little to do with >being dissonant vs. acoustic. It's more a question of him repeating himself >too much, and reverting to traditional folk-song structures which look >backward instead of forward. He's just not current anymore, and he used to >be. and later: >Ani DeFranco >(for instance) can make acoustic songs which are topical and cutting-edge. >Hitchcock just hasn't kept up. and then in response to woj: Being a self-conscious cult artist only gets you so far. DiFranco also >projects a very strong personality, which is generally appreciated, >whereas Robyn's music sort of hides and DARES you to get to know him. That >willful obfuscation can be a turnoff. I generally like it, but it does >put a bit of a "ceiling" upon how much I can enjoy his music. You see, this confuses me. Are you explaining why the critics like DiFranco more than Robyn or why you only like Robyn up to some limit or why Robyn isn't "better" than he is? Or all three? I think you can tie this back to Eb's "annoyance theory." Its easier to attach to and define music that has a prominent and unique characterisitc. If it is "annoying" then it has a distinctive quality that requires little effort to uncover. This makes classification and description that much easier. Sure it can create an EDGE, which I think is a better word than "annoyance," but for me, music which is built around a single unique feature also runs the risk of turning into a novelty act. I put it on when I want to hear _____ (insert whatever term you like--discordant guitar, throbbing bass, shrieking vocals, ?). This conversation also gets at a reason why many great artists get left behind (critically and otherwise): They don't have a defining hipness to them. They may produce beautiful work, but it doesn't GRAB you from your seat and MAKE you take notice of it . . . it doesn't build on (or move in the opposite direction of) a current fad. For me, the gauge I use for the music that I really like is whether it communicates to me on some emotional level. And I don't mean whether it makes me cry into my beer, but whether the singer and/or the music is actually expressing something that matters to him/her and is something that I can relate to in some way. There are some great musicians that fall between the cracks: Robyn H., Grant McLennan, Freedy Johnston, even Paul Westerberg. These folks can create an edge with their visual images, the expressive tone of their voice, their melodies, their storytelling, etc. (Along these lines, Richard Davies' recent disc is wonderful.) I mean, how many Beck's can you tolerate in the long run? ;) One last recap: woj: >>huh? writing songs should not be a case of keeping up with the neighbors. Eb: >No, but keeping up with the times would help Robyn a bunch. >And Woj, if you wanna "burst my bubble," then post about music other than >Robyn and Lilithfairism. ;) Wow. Let this be a lesson to anyone who questions Eb: he's got a bullet with your name on it--don't make him use it. Ebnoxious, indeed. Kendaddy. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:23:19 -0700 From: Eb Subject: another perennial Eb-basher returns... Kenned: >So by your logic, this means that you (Eb) consider the above records to >be cases where Robyn HAD "kept up" and WAS "topical" and "current." Not at ALL. I was merely quoting a critical consensus, which has no direct connection whatsoever to my personal views. Yes, I find it inexplicable that Perspex Island is one of the few RH albums which was ranked. But this isn't relevant -- I was talking about overall critical response to RH, not my own perspective. >>Being a self-conscious cult artist only gets you so far. DiFranco also >>projects a very strong personality, which is generally appreciated, >>whereas Robyn's music sort of hides and DARES you to get to know him. That >>willful obfuscation can be a turnoff. I generally like it, but it does >>put a bit of a "ceiling" upon how much I can enjoy his music. > >You see, this confuses me. Are you explaining why the critics like >DiFranco more than Robyn or why you only like Robyn up to some limit or >why Robyn isn't "better" than he is? Or all three? Sure, all three, albeit in sketchy terms. >This conversation also gets at a reason why many great artists get left >behind (critically and otherwise): They don't have a defining hipness to >them. They may produce beautiful work, but it doesn't GRAB you from >your seat and MAKE you take notice of it . . . it doesn't build on (or >move in the opposite direction of) a current fad. Aww, come on. We were talking about critical support here, not teenagers. There's plenty of critically acclaimed music which doesn't have an immediate hook. I mean, what was the best reviewed album of last year? Dylan's Time Out of Mind? Not much grab-you hipness there. Or take Steve Earle, who released another of last year's top-reviewed albums. Etc. That whole "sophisticated singer-songwriter" genre has very little immediate gimmickry, yet critics eat it up. Heck, Rufus Wainwright doesn't have any grab-you hipness either, for that matter. Yet his reviews are damn good.... >>And Woj, if you wanna "burst my bubble," then post about music other than >>Robyn and Lilithfairism. ;) > >Wow. Let this be a lesson to anyone who questions Eb: he's got a >bullet with your name on it--don't make him use it. Ebnoxious, indeed. I'm not sure how you came up with the above conclusion, but it clearly reflects *zero* understanding of the previous exchanges. "The Occurrances!" Bob, Tom, and Dave cried in unison. Eb PS I got that Add N to X album today, which someone here heartily recommended for inclusion in the "annoyance" thread...haven't played it yet, however. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:23:12 PDT From: "Daniel Barkhouse" Subject: Re: rationalization Greetings from a fellow feg. Now, in my humble opinion, it don't in any case much matter whether Robyn be "cutting-edge" a la Ani DiFranco or not. How would we benefit if it were so? How would Robyn? If anything, I think that Robyn's "failure" to sell gazillions of records has made his music more interesting, notwithstanding the fact that such speculations are pretty silly anyway... Robin is as Robin does--leave well enough alone... And just who is this Eb character, anyhow? Db. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 03:53:24 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich) Subject: repo On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 21:30:38 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > >>well, exactly. nudity is justified if the nude people die. violence is >>justified if the victims were sinful. > >who should be killed first, the makers of _showgirls_ or _striptease_? > well, they both sucked pretty bad...how about both? :-) A little poll: How many people on here have seen Repo Man more than five times? I have. Alex Cox, the director of repo man, has his own website (can't find it right now). He says HE changed the "f#cks" to "flip" for A&E. Didn't A&E used to show Repo Man all the time (along with ...In Search Of reruns?) "You'll find one of these in every car..." -luther ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:58:53 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: Eb sings the blues >Face it, there's simply a double standard that applies to my posts. If >that's how it's gotta be, fine, I can deal with it. Just don't pretend >otherwise, through these rationalizations. First, I get accused of being >self-indulgent. If that gets refuted, then I'm too off-topic. If that gets >refuted, then I'm too negative. Etc. It's always something. And all these >criteria are rarely applied to anyone else. It's just that certain folks on >this list are continually gunning for me. Well, you once said something along the lines that any critic who stirs up a lot of angry replies must be doing something right, correct? Now, what that says about critics... I'll let someone else (or nobody at all) tackle that one! But, you must be aware that your posts are highly opinionated, and this is bound sit poorly with some people (like me...). Not just anti-Dead comments, it seems you now have your hands busy defending your stance on the Main Man here, Robyn Hitchcock. >I probably submit personal data less than any other regular Feg poster. >Just remember that. If I had my way, I would still be completely anonymous. The reason you may feel that you're singled out is not because everyone *knows* you're a critic, it's because you act *soooo much* like one. If you're going to be highly opinionated about whatever musical topics come up here then you must expect backlash. You should get used to having people respond to your comments, maybe you have grown too accustomed to being able to say things about some musician without getting any response. How would you feel if you were at a gig, and out of nowhere comes RH, and he says "Eb, I heard what you said about my voice..."? Gulp. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:13:02 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Re: bits >> It was based on a document which turned out to have been forged. Which >> members even to this day insist was not forged, although it was actually a >> fairly clumsy forgery as they go. A pursuit of metaphysics based on made-up >> teachings? Huh? Why do that when there are real documents to read, and >> plenty of? > >What "real documents"? I'm no expert, but I have yet to encounter any >metaphysical tradition that was based on reliable documentary evidence. well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'reliable documentary evidence', but quite a bit of the Bible and Qu'ran may qualify... >ditto on _sixteen tambourines_ hell, for $13 - that's only 81 & a quarter cents each! What can you buy for that these days? count me in as another who likes what he's heard of the Geraldine Fibbers (though that's not enough yet to really consider myself a fan). >Was there ever a movie with so many good quotes?> > >how 'bout Raising Arizona? or "A Hard Day's Night", for that matter? On the subject of what do the Brits call pants... "Long pants" ae trousers. "Short pants" are shorts. "Undies" are undies or underpants. The word pants on its own will usually be understood as being spoken by an American who doesn't know the word trousers. As for us poor ex-Brits in shorts-wearing climes, and the colour of our skin., I only wear shorts to play soccer, where the glare from my poor Celtic limbs is assured of scaring the hell out of the opposing team's defenders. James ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:53:27 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Flogging Ebtides... I've been carrying on a rational discussion with Eb offlist today. I think I can make several reasonable observations about various interactions on the list. In some cases, I think we can replace his name with our own names on these lines. I'm sorry for singling anyone out, but I think some of the imagery is fresh or indelible. Eb has a persecution complex. I wonder why. There is nobody on the list on whom we've declared open season as much. As long as he's here, we won't be kicked while we're down because he's such a good target. Is he correct in saying that he will be treated differently for things like starfucking than the rest of us? I'm almost positive that he is. Do I lift a finger to help him? Hell no. He can defend himself better than I could attack. He's so good at feeding back force that most attacks make the attacker look like an idiot. Also, I can admit to having taken some sadistic pleasure in seeing Eb on the hot seat. Did he have any of this coming? Probably. As I explained to him that his voice changed forever the decorum of this list. With rare exception, this was an extremely polite list before his entrance. It is hard to imagine, and maybe it wouldn't be better, if we could go back to shiny happy fegdom again. I mean, the discussions _are_ lively, and quite tangential. We get a lot of exposure to a lot of different things here. Besides, we're obviously too nice a bunch to have been able to succeed in scaring him off. The things that haven't worked IMHO, are when we have taken things personally that others have said. Also, when we have said things in a manner that almost forced people to take them personally. This has created a lot of traction, and it has gotten ugly with great velocity a great many times. Along these lines are the painful effects of giving a famous critic, or a guitarist, or a chiropodist too much sway in our own self-esteem, or try to wield that kind of force on someone else. Here's the deal. I hope people stop taking it personal when someone says "I hate Mark Gloster and Big Rubber Shark." Believe me, I think that's a valid opinion. Also, I hope people stop saying things like, "Only the worst baby killers would listen to Mark Gloster and Big Rubber Shark, let alone be in that band." I also hope that we can all stand a little ribbing without losing our cool. You all have great senses of humor, and why muzzle them. The last item is that a discussion doesn't have to have a winner and a loser. Chances are that many of us are so entrenched in our opinions that we won't be budged by nuclear weapons, but we'd love to hear your views. I'm asking people to play nice. I understand that I probably push my own values at times, but we're all people and have feelings and respect is a really nice concept. If we're not sure if the other person is treating us that way, it's better to ask them off list than assume they are Aliester Crowley's evil dark forces of dark, dark, death. They might just be funny or trying to be funny. I don't want to be mr. policeman. Not my job. And I don't want the job of kissing Eb's ass (I think I'd rather be a policeman) despite the forty emails I'm going to get humorously, politely, smugly, or angrily suggesting that. Oh geez. Now I'll be in the Eb shower jokes. I can't stand it. - -Markg I've started working on a faq for the list. I plan on circulating it before it goes public. No, it won't be a primer on who's who on the list. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:59:43 -0500 From: David Librik Subject: Re: rationalization >Face it, there's simply a double standard that applies to my posts. Aw ... while it's true you get more bashes than most people (generally from people working out their dislike of rock critics on the nearest available target), that whole "starfucker" criticism came from an obvious Ebhater and I, at least, discounted it. Plenty of people here talk about meeting minor celebrities. >I probably submit personal data less than any other regular Feg poster. >Just remember that. If I had my way, I would still be completely anonymous. Which would suck. You can't understand a person's posts unless you know something about them personally. There's no such thing as absolute and objective music criticism, and without knowing who YOU are I can't know how I should weigh your opinions. Your description of your own musical history (starting with classical, only discovering rock & pop as a teenager, IIRC) has helped me make sense of some of your judgements and translate your recommendations and pans into my own language of taste and expectations. - - David Librik ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:28:01 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Eb blows the songs Ben: >The reason you may feel that you're singled out is not because everyone >*knows* you're a critic, it's because you act *soooo much* like one. If >you're going to be highly opinionated about whatever musical topics come up >here then you must expect backlash. Well, look at it this way: Why would a Feg choose NOT to express an opinion about some artist, when said artist's name comes up? Is it more likely because he/she is timid to offer an independent view, or because he/she simply isn't familiar enough with the artist to have a confident opinion? Here and elsewhere online, I'd say the latter is more likely. If everyone here were intimately familiar with a lot more artists, we'd be trading a lot more disagreements. Logical enough. Now in my case, I've heard thousands of albums, so I have thousands of opinions about them. Isn't that inevitable? I do expect backlash about my opinions. I don't necessarily expect personal attacks right and left, however. >You should get used to having people >respond to your comments, maybe you have grown too accustomed to being able >to say things about some musician without getting any response. Uh, no. I'm VERY accustomed to slugging out musical opinions. A few years in the elitist college-radio community prepares you for just about anything...not to mention all the time I spend on the phone, trading tips and views with folks who hear just as much music as I do. I'm quite used to defending myself. One of my best friends used to be a college-rock type, and now listens almost nothing but hip-hop. Boy, you should hear us dueling with each other. I can't even get him to LISTEN to Neutral Milk Hotel. Folks I know online are a cakewalk compared with him. ;) >How would >you feel if you were at a gig, and out of nowhere comes RH, and he says >"Eb, I heard what you said about my voice..."? Gulp. Oh, I could deal. I've had some situations like that -- post-criticism encounters. Dramarama, Natalie Merchant, a long-defunct local band called Satan's Cheerleaders, the Rentals/Weezer...and I'm sure glad the Muffs don't read their reviews closely.... Actually, the WORST dilemma is if a friend wants you to give an opinion on his music. Which brings us back to my avoidance of Glass Flesh. David: >Your description of your own musical >history (starting with classical, only discovering rock & pop as a >teenager, IIRC) has helped me make sense of some of your judgements and >translate your recommendations and pans into my own language of taste >and expectations. Well, I'll be dagburned -- someone actually read that post. I wasn't sure, judging from the silent response. That really felt like a wasted effort, considering it was probably the most time-consuming Fegpost I've ever written. "What's that?" Ebnoxiousindeed ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 03:55:42 -0500 From: Zloduska Subject: Re: rationalization At 08:23 PM 7/14/98 PDT, you wrote: >Greetings from a fellow feg. howdy. > >And just who is this Eb character, anyhow? > I don't exactly know, Dan, but I have never seen someone's name used so much in puns/witticisms/etc. before. I think all these folks post to him just for the fun of playing with his nick; I would. That's the fortune of fame. ~kjs And you thought I was an earthling... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:45:57 -0400 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #272 >Eb, also effective against most common household stains Vitriol usually is. (That was a JOKE, Eb.) >And when you said you think about him in the shower, do you mena you're in >the shower, or him? I meant me, but I wouldn't say no to him. >i hear crowley didn't shower much. he threw great parties though. Some friends of mine used to throw an Annual Aleister Crowley Dinner, based on one of the Great Beast's pranks. They would cook huge amounts of gut-wrenchingly spicy food and then leave random glasses of clear liquid around for guests to drink. Some of the glasses contained water, some contained vodka, thus ensuring an element of surprise. The first time I attended one of these dinners, I didn't know what it was, so I went over to my friends' house all hungry and prepared to pig out. I had SUCH a stomach-ache afterwards... n. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 06:06:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Me, of course. Sheesh, disappear without a trace or any kind of notice to anyone in the world for a week and the whole world breaks out in hellfire. I have 200 odd messages to read. It should take a day. I'll pick up everything as soon as I'm caught up. I need to contact Terrence DiSandro. Does someone have his email? If you read this, Ter, could you drop me a line (preferably containing your snail address)? robynsongs folk: Don't kill me. All of the soft boys stuff is done and waiting for confirmation. I'll start posting with A&M Greatest Hits today and as soon as that's done, we'll do the Soft Boys and be done. As of today, we're back on a daily kind of schedule. If anyone wants off or on the lyric list, let me know. Bayard: I panicked and had to bow out of life for a week. I think I'm altogether here and stuff. Unless one of these 200 messages tells me to do otherwise, I'll have your stuff tomorrow. My life like antiseptic stings. Jeme. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:04:41 +0100 (BST) From: M R Godwin Subject: Re: the list gets loopy... On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, Bayard wrote: > I only just learned that "pants" means undies in British. They use > "trousers" to mean what we call pants, no? Maybe that's why you've never > seen robyn in long pants... I confirm everything that has been said about the transition from short trousers (not "shorts") to long trousers at age 11 or thereabouts. (beanpoles in my class like Richard Buckley and Ian Whitburn would have been permitted long trousers at 10). However, I don't think that whiteness of knees has anything to do with it. Shorts certainly exist, but are largely confined to the football field. But there was a rash of very long, patterned slim shorts being worn as casual wear a couple of years ago, when there was an unusually hot summer. I therefore conclude that it is mainly lack of weather that causes paucity of shorts. I think that Brits on their summer holidays often wear shorts. Pants certainly means underpants to my generation, but I suspect that the terms 'shorts' or 'trunks' are now in more general use for underpants. I suspect that the term 'pants' is falling into desuetude. There is no such thing as 'long pants', as long underwear is of course called 'long johns'. - - Mike (Trembling Knees) Godwin "The Picts (now Scots) were then living in Ireland (in brackets)" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT) From: griffith Subject: re: The Classics (Raising Arizona) I love "Raising Arizona". About 8 years ago, I taped the entire movie on a 90-minute audio cassette. It fits perfectly. Side A ends when H.I. flies through the window of the truck and thanks the driver (during the "huggies" chase scene). griffith = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Griffith Davies hbrtv219@csun.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 10:39:52 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: The Classics On 7/14/98 5:05 PM, Capitalism Blows wrote: >how 'bout Raising Arizona? > >--"When there was no crawdad to be found, we ate sand." "Y' ate >*what*?" "We ate sand." >--"Well, Hi, you done served your twenty months. And seein' as how you >never used live ammo, we got no choice but to re-turnn you to so-ciety." >"I preminisced no return of the salad days." [apart from, "That's what >the Hebrews thought," this has just *got* to be the greatest movie quote >of all time.] >--"Here's the instructions." >--"Awful good cereal flakes Mrs. M'donough." >--"You mean 'J.R.,' just like the TV show?" >--"Keep yer god damn hands off m' wife!" >etc... - -- "I'm crappin' you negative!" - -- "I don't know, JAMMIES! They had little Yoda's on 'em and shit!" definitely a classic. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 10:47:30 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: repo On 7/14/98 8:53 PM, David W. Dudich wrote: > A little poll: How many people on here have seen Repo Man more >than five times? I have. I've got it on LaserDisc. Here's a real coup - about ten years ago I found a the screenplay in paperback form at a Newbury Comics in Boston. It's got all those scenes that were cut for the theatrical release, and then reinserted for various TV issues, e.g., Otto burning down his parent's house. > Alex Cox, the director of repo man, has his own website (can't >find it right now). Thanks for cluing me in on this! It's at http://www.pscweb.com/repo/ My life is now complete... - -t "fascinated by shiny objects" c ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:58:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: fegmeet in chicago...? Hi Fegs, I am going to be in Chicago for a week sometime in october, so i naturally thought.. hey, why not have a fest with the chicago fegs? I was told once to let y'all know when i'm in town, so, now you know! which is not to say that my being someplace is a reason to have a party (though I would definitely throw a party for many of you, in a second! or even longer!) So what do you think? I can bring some refreshments, and maybe even the feg party game! (though the quail still has the nicely cut out game cards!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:14:15 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: scott baio's pecker at ringler's the other week, capuchin asked which robyn song he thought would best lend itself to a ska cover (having already decided on Somewhere Apart, so i guess it was kind of a rhetorical question.) my immediate reaction was The Man Who Invented Himself, but the more i think about it, the more i'm convinced that the song i'd really love to hear skaified is Let Me Put It Next To You. i'd guess that i've seen it on the order of 15 times, but i've got to confess that i think Sid And Nancy is a better movie. that scene at the end, where the kids tell sid to stop being so stuck up, and he then stops to dance with them for a while just slays me. it's one of the most perfect moments you'll ever find on film. Highway Patrolman is very good, too. i saw it years ago at the seattle film fest. it never got a real theatrical release, but i'm pretty sure it's out on video. oh, has your part of the country been overrun by this "smoothie" craze? i'm not even sure exactly what they are. something like a milkshake, i'd guess. but they've actually got "smoothie" stores now. i saw one yesterday. anyhow, everytime i hear something about a "smoothie," i always think of the robyn (ok, soft boys) song of the same name, and usually begin to sing it aloud. yeah, i just wanted to say that the list is pretty much firing on all cylinders right now, and it's great. susan's back in the thick of things. eb is good and grouchy. mark is spreading happies. jeff vaska has returned (yes, jeff, you missed a gig. just a couple weeks ago, in fact. no, the viva sea-tac boys didn't join in, though jeme says he saw pete buck backstage. yes, many fegs gathered, and yes, jeme told some more gutbusting tales of high adventure.) the quail is chirping in from time to time. .chris seems to have at long last realized that he doesn't get charged a fee for every time he hits the "send" button...well, more less *everyone* has posted of late. that's the really great thing. there are a few mia's, though. jay hedblade, jon kanis, tracy copeland, aidan merrit would i guess be the most glaring. y'all, plus anyone else i'm missing, are instructed to post at the earliest possible moment. ironically, i never receive incoming spam. and i mean *never.* i don't know how they do it, if they're reading everyone's mail, or what. but that, plus it's got great features. if we could only do something about the ownership problem... "Rock music will never die. Don't try to shatter it." --Wesley Willis ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #273 *******************************