From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #281 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, July 20 1998 Volume 07 : Number 281 Today's Subjects: ----------------- artist? [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)] yet more boring anti-capitalist raving ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: toilets [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan)] Re: rock lineages [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan)] from Tim not Randi - a question... [Tim Fuller ] Pass me my hair shirt , its repentance time bretheren. [dlang ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 18:11:39 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich) Subject: artist? On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 21:37:36 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: >Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 06:41:38 EDT >From: KarmaFuzzz@aol.com >Subject: Re: Artist of the Decade > >In a message dated 98-07-17 18:24:38 EDT, MARKEEFE@aol.com writes: >> Currently, the profiles for a lot of the 80's bands/artists >> we're discussing might be suffering from dips into mediocrity during this >> decade (I have a hrd time with U2 in that respect). > >funny, i've always thought U2 only got good after Eno showed up. and, as Pop >proved, returned to relentless mediocrity after Eno left as well.... Well, if you think about it, wouldn't the artist of the decade be...ENO? He stampted SO many albums...t heads, u2, etc... (Behind that, I would have to go with TAFKAP (prince), myself...) -luther ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 13:49:42 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: yet more boring anti-capitalist raving well, we could have renounced imperialism altogether. *theoretically* we could have done that. but to renounce imperialism is really to renounce capitalism itself. and why would the bosses do something crazy like that? i think racism/jingoism generally plays a large part in selling a war to the domestic population. after all, it's us proles that get to go out and get killed (by the way, i always thought Us And Them was just about the best anti-war song ever. "The general sat, and the lines on the map, moved from side to side.") and you're right that it wasn't *american* umbrage at *japanese* trade policy. it was just the opposite. we were quite happy with the status quo, thank you very much. a status quo achieved, of course, through force. but as the allies controlled roughly 70% of the world's resources, and the axis roughly 15%, *they* weren't all too happy with the status quo, and set about to try to change it. incidentally, the japanese military leaders saw no way in hell for them to defeat the united states. but they didn't see any other option. <> not blaming the u.s. for the war in the pacific. it's the system. but > let's call a spade a spade, shall we? we (and the british and the > french too, of course) never wanted to play by our own rules. and when > the germans and japanese *did* want to do so, it led to, um, > disagreements. Support this statement, would you?> ok, let me restate it. *we* established the principle that the world should be ruled by force. *we* established the principle that colonialism/imperialism were (and, of course, still are) a-ok. *we* established the principle that we need to, "reserve the right to bomb niggers." germany, japan, and italy were playing by our own rules in the '30's. and, of course, that was fine, as long as they accepted that they were to do what they were told. i.e., you can take manchuria so long as we get equal access. we'll even supply the oil without which you couldn't even dream of it. you can take czechoslovakia, (sp?) but you've got to stop there. in a word: do whatever the fuck you want, but DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT HARMING OUR PROFITS, or you're gonna have trouble. 50 million dead bodies later, we'd proved that we were still the biggest bullies on the block. and just to show that there weren't really any hard feelings, we put the fascists right back in power in italy, germany and japan (and korea, and vietnam, and france more or less. killed 100,000 people in greece to put the fascists in the saddle there. and of course have been openly friendly with *any* dictatorship since, SO LONG AS THEY'VE BEEN FRIENDLY TO U.S. BUSINESS INTERESTS.) fine and good. but spare me this crap about saving democracy. spare the war crimes self-righteousness. see what i'm saying? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 18:43:05 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Off-Topic: Mac/Audio Experts? Help! I recently got a CD burner and am now trying to figure out the best way to record some vinyl onto CD. I've got Toast, but that only seems to be set up for reading off of a CD or for compiling existing AIFF files (right?). So, I guess my question is this: What do I need to do in order to get the audio that's coming through the 1/8" jack on the back of my G3 into an AIFF file? Can Toast do that? Do I need additional software? Is there something I can download? Any input anyone has would be awesome. Hope you all had a Fegtastic (or, at the very least, enjoyable) weekend. Thanks! - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 17:54:54 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Habla?? If anyone here can speak Spanish, please email me. For some reason, I received some email in Spanish, and I'd like it translated. Umm...I think someone wants to know if I live in Panama? Or if I'm a relative?? It actually came from "M. Gondola." Yikes! When they jetted to Europe to lay it on one of the entries at the San Remo Song Festival, and encored with an Italian version of "See You in September," they sent postcards home before dating the denizens of swooning starlets hanging around their window Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:21:10 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Re: toilets >And I refuse to accept weather-related needling >from you, James, in a town where outside toilets are still the norm. ;) hmmm. the only outside toilets I've seen in Dunedin are at Carisbrook. You sure you're thinking of the right Dunedin? :) James ("and now, we're talking about...") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:20:23 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Re: rock lineages >Subject: Rock Stars Children > >With the addition of the soon to be forgotten Rufus Wainwright I'm >wondering if you could help me list all the people who've pursued >a career in rock/pop/folk who were children of a rock/pop star. I don't >want country or jazz or film parentage, only rock/pop/folk. don't think anyone has mentioned Bob & Ziggy Marley, Frank & Dweezil Zappa, or... uh... a member of Jethro Tull and his son (dammit, my memory need snew batteries again). Oh, and Lieutenant Pigeon contained two generations of the same family. Ah, now there was a band! >Talking of Beck... I seem to be unique in this respect, but I really think >that Odelay was a big step back from "Mellow Gold" - does anyone else think >this? personally, I thought that Odelay was excellent, but that Mellow Gold was very poor. I taped the two songs I liked from Mellow Gold (even though one of them was a blatant Rolling Stones ripoff) and then sold the CD on. Only goes to show. James ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 02:37:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Fuller Subject: from Tim not Randi - a question... Hi, Randi's not really up to writing - so she asked me to inquire as to what Uncarved Pumpkins is - (hope I got that right)... is it a bootleg, a fegmaniax list compilation, Robyn demos? Randi's wondering of course 'cause she doesn't have it and wonders if it is new and is being treed (sp?) Could you let me (us) know - by private email is cool... Thanks from randi and me... Tim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 03:13:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: History of the World, pt 3 >>The bombing of Pearl Harbor caused >>direct American involvement in WWII. There was no other >>realistic choice that the US gov't could have taken.> >well, we could have renounced imperialism altogether. >*theoretically* we could have done that. but to renounce >imperialism is really to renounce capitalism itself. and why >would the bosses do something crazy like that? Huh? Japan sinks several American battleships. America renounces imperialism. Seems about as non-sequitorish as you can get. Near as I can tell, capitalism and imperialism can function independantly. The Soviets had imperialism without capitalism. Europe has retained a capitalist economy while relinquishing control over its colonies. >we were quite happy with the status quo, thank you very much. a >status quo achieved, of course, through force. but as the >allies controlled roughly 70% of the world's resources, and the >axis roughly 15%, *they* weren't all too happy with the status >quo, and set about to try to change it. They sure put up a good fight for 15%. At which point did they control 15%? When Hitler rose to power? When Germany annexed Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia? When Germany controlled eastern Europe, half of France, Norway and northern Africa? And when you speak of resources, do you speak of raw natural resources? Usable natural resources? Disposable natural resources? Processed resources? Capital? Usable military supplies? Land area? And for dudes with 15% of the world's resources, they managed to whup France pretty soundly. As near as I can tell, the main Nazi motivation had nothing to do with resource inequality. It had to do with the fact that they believed in a new world order, with them at the top and everyone else either below them or dead. Nazi ideology didn't look at the world and notice that Britain controlled 90% of the world tea market. It looked at the world and noticed that the Nazi hierarchy wasn't universally recognized and set out to change that. >incidentally, the japanese military leaders saw no way in hell >for them to defeat the united states. but they didn't see any >other option. At which point? When Pearl Harbor was bombed, the Japanese thought the US would surrender quickly. (Why? Japanese racism towards Americans.) According to John Merriman's "History of Modern Europe", "The emperor believed that a rapid Japanese victory would force the Americans to a negotiated settlement". >>Support this statement, would you? >ok, let me restate it. *we* established the principle that the >world should be ruled by force. Look at appeasement. It's a principle that the world can be ruled by treaties and agreements between countries. The problem is that sometimes force is needed to back up those treaties. If you've got a better system, I'd like to hear about it. If you think that there was some method other than military force that could have stopped Nazism, I'd like to hear about it. >germany, japan, and italy were playing by our own rules in >the '30's. No. They were flagrantly breaking treaties. They were playing by their own set of rules. >and, of course, that was fine, as long as they accepted that >they were to do what they were told. i.e., you can take >manchuria so long as we get equal access. we'll even supply the >oil without which you couldn't even dream of it. you can take >czechoslovakia, (sp?) but you've got to stop there. in a word: >do whatever the fuck you want, but DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT >HARMING OUR PROFITS, or you're gonna have trouble. Look, the Marxist system of viewing history in purely economic terms doesn't always work. If you're trying to characterise the weaker nationalist states as subordinate to the stronger democratic/capitalist states, then you are wrong. Democracy was on the wane in the 1920-1930s. Democratic governments had collapsed in Russia[1], Spain, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Italy and, I believe, Austria. Russia (who did most of the fighting) didn't fight Germany because Germany was harming their profits. Russia fought Germany because Germany was INVADING. When "we" asked Germany and Italy to not intervene in the Spanish Civil War, they signed a non-intervention treaty, then went ahead and intervened. When "we" asked Germany not to remilitarize the Rhineland, not to annex Austria, not to expand any further, they went ahead and did what they wanted to do. Was this because we were concerned only with profits to be made? No. It was because we weren't sure we could win a war with the Axis Powers and because we didn't want a repeat of WWI, as well as other factors. In France, for instance, the leftist Popular Front government was reluctant to intervene in Spain or stop Axis intervention because of a very large rightist nationalist minority. It was because "we" believed that the Axis was led by reasonable folks like us who understood the concept of balance of power and would rather not have a war. The Allied public was also unwilling to fight for issues that did not directly involve them. No Allied power was prepared for war when it broke out. Britain and France had been woefully underpowered. Stalin had purged nearly all of his officers, leaving the Soviet Army in a disorganized, poorly-led shambles[2]. Now, if you say this is purely a matter of profit and loss, didn't the US lose money by only selling arms to the Allies? Why didn't the US do something when her trading partner France fell? 1: Yeah, 1917 isn't part of the 1920s, I know. But for all intents, the collapse of the Provisional Government was a precursor for things to come. In a way, the next 20 years of European History was mirrored in Russia. 2: Even more of a disorganized, poorly-led shambles than the Russian/Soviet Army usually was, which is saying a lot. >and just to show that there weren't really any >hard feelings, we put the fascists right back in power in italy, >germany and japan (and korea, and vietnam, and france more or >less. If you're implying that the result of WWII was status quo ante bellum, you are wrong. Let's see: German Federal Republic: Allies kept small parties, especially the extreme right out of power. Limited power of president. Federalized and decentralized power. Chancellor of the GFR was Konrad Adenauer, opposed to Nazis[3] and Soviets. The majority parties were the Christian Democratic Union Party and the Bavarian Social Union, both centrist. German Democratic Republic: Led by Walter Ulbricht, Communist. Italy: Made a democracy by popular vote[4]. Most Italians opposed any sort of strongly centralized state, forming a weak center-right republic. Led mainly by the centrist Christian Democrat Party, the Communist Party and the Socialists. France: Led by Charles de Gaulle (Aug 1944-Jan 1946). Socialists, Communists and Popular Republicans[5] voted into power (Oct 1945-Oct 1946). Fourth Republic established, mostly led by center-left coalitions of the Popular Republicans, Socialists and others. 3: During the war, when being opposed to Nazis in Germany was a lot more meaningful. 4: There's a technical word for it, but I forget it. 5: The M.R.P, a center-right Catholic democrat party. Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:56:54 -1851 From: dlang Subject: Pass me my hair shirt , its repentance time bretheren. 'I've been reflecting and produced another 6 k post, for which I apologise in advance, but I thought I'd throw in my thoughts on this thorny question of arguments about musical or artistic worth whilst not in the middle of a heated discussion. I believe the crux of the matter is , ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE. As soon as we start to evaluate anything artistic, we immediately come across this problem. Of course, as far as I'm concerned , the issue is bound to be subjective as we are all entitled to our opinions and there is no absolute right or wrong in any sort of discussion of music or anything artistic. One of the worst things about teaching any form of art is that one has assess the worth of an end product. As most of us art/media teachers find, this is a pain in the butt. Assessing and comparing artistic products is difficult, the only way to do so is to look at the initial concept, the way the product is constructed and whether it addresses the needs of the target audience or not. Of course we have already set our clients some criteria we want satisfied, so we can use that as a guideline . Its not ideal, but it works fairly well in an educational setting, even then though we end up disagreeing , sometimes quite wildly . Anyway, you really can't transpose this sort of evaluation into a discussion list setting, because we are not setting questions for the musicians to answer . We also don't know what their own criteria necessarily are and of course, personal taste is the overwhelming criteria from our own viewpoint, so we may loath something even if many other people love it to the point of obsession and the musicians themselves are perfectly satisfied with the end product. We could try to apply musical skill as a criteria , but yet again , some of the most interesting performers may fail this test as one cannot apply conventional mores to their art ,as quirkiness is part of their essential appeal. The fact that the music moves you in some way over rides the fact that it may not meet some musical benchmark .About the only criteria that we could apply universally would be being in tune , but even then there might be circumstances where it was acceptable , I'm no musician, so I can't get into technicalities here and I'm sure musicians on the list would disagree on what would be the degree of skill needed to meet a criteria anyway. So that doesn't help much. As long as we are all reasonably well informed when we criticise music and also consider the personal feelings of those who like a particular style of music when we make comments about it then we don't really have too much of a problem on the list. Its when people start making constant off the cuff put downs of a particular band or music, or making assumptions about the lifestyles of the followers of that band when they know it may raise the hackles of another group of list members that there's the potential for things to get heated. It also doesn't help when one of , or both of the people discussing the issue refuse to make any concessions to the other or resort to name calling, or making assumptions about the other persons background. Usually this is done when the other person has been asked a pertinent question which they know they cannot answer, so they retaliate with vitriol or smart ass one liners. Another good move is to introduce a red herring, in the form of another put down of the band or music in the hope that the other person will grab the bait instead of persisting in wanting a decent answer to the original question. Politicians have this down to a fine art and of course it usually works . If you practice this regularly then one becomes a master of the put down and one liner, so it becomes second nature . Like a Piranha, there's no thought process involved, its instinctive. Bite and bite again , because attack is the best form of defence as well as being easier than conceding a point to the opposition. However, if one practices this form of discussion, one should not complain bitterly when not everyone appreciates the end product, because eventually, some people will begin to bite back . Of course, the entire population of some lists automatically treat each other like this, because they are all used to acting that way.However, I doubt if this will ever happen here , because of the sort of folks on the list, but it does cause some ill feeling and in my book that is not a good thing (even though flame wars are sometimes fun in a perverse sort of way), because relationships can get soured. Now I think I've been guilty of this myself recently. I was looking over the posts that I generated over the last dead discussion with Eb, now I reflect back I think I laid into him far too harshly on a personal level and I regret that I did so. I was being too subjective towards him .In fact I committed some of the offences that I was accusing him of ,which makes me something of a hypocrite. They say suffering is good for the soul so I guess I'll have to undergo some sort of self inflicted penance for this, I could go and watch my wife's copy of Lord of the Dance , but that's going too far. I'll watch the "Lumpy Gravy Movie "sometime instead, that always makes me feel like I've been put through the blender. Dave ( just call me Mr Penetent) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:11:39 -1850 From: dlang Subject: Pass me ny hair shirt bretheren , its repentance time I've been reflecting and produced another 6 k post, for which I apologise in advance, but I thought I'd throw in my thoughts on this thorny question of arguments about musical or artistic worth whilst not in the middle of a heated discussion. I believe the crux of the matter is , ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE. As soon as we start to evaluate anything artistic, we immediately come across this problem. Of course, as far as I'm concerned , the issue is bound to be subjective as we are all entitled to our opinions and there is no absolute right or wrong in any sort of discussion of music or anything artistic. One of the worst things about teaching any form of art is that one has assess the worth of an end product. As most of us art/media teachers find, this is a pain in the butt. Assessing and comparing artistic products is difficult, the only way to do so is to look at the initial concept, the way the product is constructed and whether it addresses the needs of the target audience or not. Of course we have already set our clients some criteria we want satisfied, so we can use that as a guideline . Its not ideal, but it works fairly well in an educational setting, even then though we end up disagreeing , sometimes quite wildly . Anyway, you really can't transpose this sort of evaluation into a discussion list setting, because we are not setting questions for the musicians to answer . We also don't know what their own criteria necessarily are and of course, personal taste is the overwhelming criteria from our own viewpoint, so we may loath something even if many other people love it to the point of obsession and the musicians themselves are perfectly satisfied with the end product. We could try to apply musical skill as a criteria , but yet again , some of the most interesting performers may fail this test as one cannot apply conventional mores to their art ,as quirkiness is part of their essential appeal. The fact that the music moves you in some way over rides the fact that it may not meet some musical benchmark .About the only criteria that we could apply universally would be being in tune , but even then there might be circumstances where it was acceptable , I'm no musician, so I can't get into technicalities here and I'm sure musicians on the list would disagree on what would be the degree of skill needed to meet a criteria anyway. So that doesn't help much. As long as we are all reasonably well informed when we criticise music and also consider the personal feelings of those who like a particular style of music when we make comments about it then we don't really have too much of a problem on the list. Its when people start making constant off the cuff put downs of a particular band or music, or making assumptions about the lifestyles of the followers of that band when they know it may raise the hackles of another group of list members that there's the potential for things to get heated. It also doesn't help when one of , or both of the people discussing the issue refuse to make any concessions to the other or resort to name calling, or making assumptions about the other persons background. Usually this is done when the other person has been asked a pertinent question which they know they cannot answer, so they retaliate with vitriol or smart ass one liners. Another good move is to introduce a red herring, in the form of another put down of the band or music in the hope that the other person will grab the bait instead of persisting in wanting a decent answer to the original question. Politicians have this down to a fine art and of course it usually works . If you practice this regularly then one becomes a master of the put down and one liner, so it becomes second nature . Like a Piranha, there's no thought process involved, its instinctive. Bite and bite again , because attack is the best form of defence as well as being easier than conceding a point to the opposition. However, if one practices this form of discussion, one should not complain bitterly when not everyone appreciates the end product, because eventually, some people will begin to bite back . Of course, the entire population of some lists automatically treat each other like this, because they are all used to acting that way.However, I doubt if this will ever happen here , because of the sort of folks on the list, but it does cause some ill feeling and in my book that is not a good thing (even though flame wars are sometimes fun in a perverse sort of way), because relationships can get soured. Now I think I've been guilty of this myself recently. I was looking over the posts that I generated over the last dead discussion with Eb, now I reflect back I think I laid into him far too harshly on a personal level and I regret that I did so. I was being too subjective towards him .In fact I committed some of the offences that I was accusing him of ,which makes me something of a hypocrite. They say suffering is good for the soul so I guess I'll have to undergo some sort of self inflicted penance for this, I could go and watch my wife's copy of Lord of the Dance , but that's going too far. I'll watch the "Lumpy Gravy Movie "sometime instead, that always makes me feel like I've been put through the blender. Dave ( just call me Mr Penetent) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 05:41:49 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Pass me my hair shirt Like a dyed-in-the-wool COSTELLO-L veteran, DLang wrote a bunch of filibusting placatory nonsense as a decoy, and then got to the REAL purpose of his post, which was to blast me at length in really pretty, "mature" language: >> As long as we are all reasonably well informed when we >> criticise music and also consider the personal feelings of those who >> like a particular style of music when we make comments about it then we >> don't really have too much of a problem on the list. Its when people >> start making constant off the cuff put downs of a particular band or >> music, or making assumptions about the lifestyles of the followers of >> that band when they know it may raise the hackles of another group of >> list members that there's the potential for things to get heated. >> It also doesn't help when one of, or both of the people discussing >> the issue refuse to make any concessions to the other or resort to name >> calling, or making assumptions about the other persons background. >> Usually this is done when the other person has been asked a pertinent >> question which they know they cannot answer, so they retaliate with >> vitriol or smart ass one liners. Another good move is to introduce a >> red herring, in the form of another put down of the band or music in the >>hope >> that the other person will grab the bait instead of persisting in wanting a >> decent answer to the original question. >> Politicians have this down to a fine art and of course it usually >> works . If you practice this regularly then one becomes a master of the >> put down and one liner, so it becomes second nature . Like a Piranha, >> there's no thought process involved, its instinctive. Bite and bite >> again, because attack is the best form of defence as well as being >> easier than conceding a point to the opposition. >> However, if one practices this form of discussion, one should >> not complain bitterly when not everyone appreciates the end product, >> because eventually, some people will begin to bite back. What a flaming bag of HORSESHIT, this post is. Firstly, it's from DLang, Mr. I'm-Going-To-Be-Big-And-Resist-Posting-About-This-Issue-From-Now-On. And yet here he is back, still in suuuch an upset hissy fit over someone hating the Grateful Dead that he can't resist posting again. Even after the thread is, er, Dead. One can only imagine how this trauma has been silently gnawing at him, lo these many days. OK, Dave -- WHAT IS YOUR DAMN QUESTION THAT YOU'RE SO INSISTENT UPON HAVING ANSWERED? If it's whether I've heard this or that Dead tape from March '69 or October '71 or August '68 that reveals God and the universe in all their glory and disproves all my complaints about the band, pleeeeese don't bother. The boys have not changed their legal names, and only Dave Libert has strayed from Patterson, to a dirty pad in New York where he hangs his hand-soiled clothes, works at conquering the violin, trumpet, and drums, reads voraciously, and composes songs for posterity. Thoroughly disgusted at such a transparently two-faced post, Eb ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #281 *******************************