From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #287 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, July 26 1998 Volume 07 : Number 287 Today's Subjects: ----------------- two questions, numbered ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: two questions, numbered [MARKEEFE@aol.com] interactive artists? [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)] artists? [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)] It's not exciting, but it's better than writing about the , Kazakhstani economy [Terrence M Marks ] from randi - Oh Canada - my home and native land [Tim Fuller ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 12:07:25 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: two questions, numbered 1. has maxell discontinued making the xlii-100? i can't seem to find any anywhere. it looks like they may have replaced it with xlii-110, for the same price even. that'd be great, except that last time i asked about 110-minute tapes (about a year ago, i guess) the jury was pretty mixed: quite a few people said there were no problems with them, but there were also a lot of people that said you could expect to experience some breaking tapes. 2. does a song have to be the same exact same title as a record to be considered the "title track"? for example, is Airscape considered the title track to ELEMENT OF LIGHT; or is Rock of Ages considered the title track to PYROMANIA? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 15:33:24 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: two questions, numbered In a message dated 98-07-25 15:10:56 EDT, you write: << 1. has maxell discontinued making the xlii-100? i can't seem to find any anywhere. it looks like they may have replaced it with xlii-110, for the same price even. that'd be great, except that last time i asked about 110-minute tapes (about a year ago, i guess) the jury was pretty mixed: quite a few people said there were no problems with them, but there were also a lot of people that said you could expect to experience some breaking tapes. >> The last time I ordered blank tapes (early June, it would appear), they were still being made. I've never had a problem with TDK-MA110's, BTW -- not to say that I'd guarantee them, but I've used at least a couple of dozen of them without ever having a problem. << 2. does a song have to be the same exact same title as a record to be considered the "title track"? for example, is Airscape considered the title track to ELEMENT OF LIGHT; or is Rock of Ages considered the title track to PYROMANIA? >> Huh? Yeah, I would think it *would* have to be at least nearly exactly the same title in order to be considered the title track. I think your after a different concept here. I'm not sure how to name the concept, but it seems to have something to do with the song on album that you perceive to be the cornerstone of that album or to set the overall tone of the album . . . or does it have to do with lyrical content? The fact that the album title's lyrics are contained within a song, even though that song doesn't share the title of the album? In that case, it would be really hard to come up with a catch-phrase that describes "the song from which the name of the album was taken." Actually, I like it better when they take the album title from some random line in the lyrics, rather than doing something like: artist name = hit song title = album title. - -------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:58:47 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich) Subject: interactive artists? On Sat, 25 Jul 1998 15:04:54 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > Squeeze's management >keeps tabs on the official listserv/web page and they keep print-outs of >what people say when it's useful to the band. Chris Difford has an email >address that he gives out to fans and, although he has about 600 people >writing at the moment, he tries to respond to people when they email him. >It's fun to be interactive with an artist who interests you. Well, for those who are fans of actor Bruce Campbell (c'mon, "evil dead" and "hercules" fans :-), he has his own web page (www.bruce-campbell.com) and responds to fans emails personally. Would we want robyn to do something like this? I dunno... -luther ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 20:00:02 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich) Subject: artists? On Sat, 25 Jul 1998 15:04:54 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > Squeeze's management >keeps tabs on the official listserv/web page and they keep print-outs of >what people say when it's useful to the band. Chris Difford has an email >address that he gives out to fans and, although he has about 600 people >writing at the moment, he tries to respond to people when they email him. >It's fun to be interactive with an artist who interests you. Well, for those who are fans of actor Bruce Campbell (c'mon, "evil dead" and "hercules" fans :-), he has his own web page (www.bruce-campbell.com) and responds to fans emails personally. For all anybody knows, Robyn is on the list under a pseudonym. Hell, maybe he's Eb. Maybe he loves the dead! Or just maybe he has more productive ways to spend his time... ...like make a follow up to "Moss Exlixr"...or write "nietzsche's way"... How is the official feg tape tree coming? -luther ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 17:32:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: It's not exciting, but it's better than writing about the , Kazakhstani economy >>Care to post your def. of fascism, eddie? >ok. how about, to the extent that a society is less >democratic, it is more fascist. in other words, to the extent >that people have less input into basic decisions that effect >them (including, obviously, economic decisions,) it is more >fascist. I'm more inclined define it to include rampant militarism, national unity, lassaiz-faire economics, regard for national concerns over human rights, manipulation of the populace through violence, and dislike of postmodern art. Though not required, antisemitism and social conservatism seem to be extremely common among fascist states. >so long as you're rich, white, and male, you're pretty much >allowed to say whatever you want without getting your brains >bashed in As a decidedly non-rich white male, I've noticed that a) I can say whatever I want to say. b) most of the brain-bashing going on in this country seems to be non-institutional. c) A lot of other people seem to have no problem saying what they want to say. >>Afghanistan, Lithuania, Latvia, >>Estonia, Finland, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, >>Romania,Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Spain, Greece, Hungary, North >>Korea, and South Korea. >how were they spreading revolution in any of these places?? By supplanting or attempting to supplant non-Communist governments with Communist governments. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia: Invading. Overthrowing legitimate governments and annexing them into the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia: Stalinist opposition to and undermining of Tito. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany: After these states fell under the Soviet sphere of influence in 1946, they were cut off from the West. Democratic elections were held until the Soviet-backed (and funded) Communist parties won, then they stopped holding elections. You may say that this isn't a revolution. Remember how Republicans swept through Congress in 1992? Suppose that they decided they didn't want any more elections and that Congress would stay Republican forever. Way I see it, that'd qualify as a revolution. Greece: Didn't they back the revolutionary Communist side during the civil wars there? Cuba: Backing Castro's revolution. Finland: a) After giving Finland its independance, ordering the local Communist groups (whose names I forget) to disarm the local militias, starting a war between Finland and the Communists. (This war can be seen as a Finnish Civil War, a War for Finnish Independance or a Russo-Finnish War, depending on how you look at it. The Finnish Communists were essentially a division of the Red Army. The Finns won this one.) 1918-20. b) Annexing Finland in c.1940 along with the Baltic states. Spain: By aiding Communist forces. Afghanistan: My books don't mention it, but I recall some incidents in the early 80s between the Soviets and the Afghanistani. South Korea: By supporting Northern Korea during the Korean War. >>This is beyond my area of expertise, but I would suspect that >>the Sov aided the Communist Parties in Italy, China and North >>Korea. >you're right, terry. it *is* beyond your area of expertise. >i mean, would it *kill* you guys to get your facts straight? >fucking russia *openly* supported the kmt for christ's sake! Are you being sarcastic there? Who's the KMT? (Besides, I know from European History, not Asian History [and the Italian Communist Party wasn't all the grand scheme of European History]) >>To call French colonialists in Vietnam "fascists" >>would be as misleading as to call Stalin an "anarchist." >why? Because the rest of the world is using a different definition of fascism than you. >i think it might be more accurate to say that i presuppose >socialism and leftism to be good because i think we can all >pretty much tell right from wrong. Would you care to give us your definitions of socialialism and leftism so we don't argue this only to find that we aren't talking about the same socialism? As far as the right/wrong thing, it's comforting to think that we all know what's basically good and that we all do what's basically good, but for instance, compare Malthusian or Ricardian social theory to yours, Mr. Tews. I've a feeling that you'd consider them as people who worked towards evil. Now, if socialism and leftism are good, and these people (and the imperialists who put their work into practice) knew right from wrong, why did so many people work towards imperialism and against socialism? >which is, in my opinion, why all religions say basically >the same thing. There's many schools of thought on that. C.S. Lewis uses the general similarities between most moral codes to argue that there exists an absolute, natural moral code. If you're talking about the interchangeability of religion, apart from a few superficial similarities, they're quite different. Compare Scientology to the Universal Life Church if you doubt me. >socialism conforms quite closely with our own internal >code of ethics, while capitalism does quite the opposite. See above Malthus/Ricardo comment. >to suggest that the soviet union was *ever* anything even >remotely resembling socialist is...mind-boggingly ignorant. >sorry to be so blunt about it. Socialism within the Soviet Union included: Establishment of trade unions Breakup of large estates Universal education Socialized medicine State ownership of industry Distribution of small parcels of land (during NEP) Subsidization of food and consumer goods. State distribution of machinery, seed and clothing to farmers. >don't know much about david koresh. but i *would* suggest >that, even if he *professed* to be christian, if he didn't >really *act* like one, then it's kind of silly to say that he >was one. Have you a better definition of "Christian" then? The important part of Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ, not action. Did David Koresh act imperfectly? Yes. So did the apostles and so did/does every other Christian except one. Are you suggesting that there's a moral line, and if you act worse than that line, Christ cannot save you? The real question is "Did David Koresh truly believe in Christianity?". The problem is that we don't have the ability to answer that. The closest we can get to that is "Did David Koresh profess a belief in Christianity?". >but the united states *calls* itself democratic, and nobody >actually believes that. Odd. Last time I voted I had some effect on the way this country is run. If you're suggesting that most people have a negligible effect on the country, you're right. Divide any amount of power by 250 Million and it comes out pretty small. If you're suggesting that democracy in this country isn't working out, you may be right. If you're suggesting that this country isn't a democracy, you're wrong. >what i actually meant was an unwillingness to press forward >with the VERY real revolutionary tides of a majority of the >people of europe and asia. as i mentioned, the soviet union >played a significant role in snuffing these tides. To which direction were these tides? What, if anything, came of them? You seem to be using an odd circular logic involving different definitions of words. You state that the Soviet Union was most powerful in countries with timid Communist parties, then state that "timidity" involves an unwillingness to take steps in a direction which the Soviet Union opposed. In other words, the Soviet Union was most powerful in countries where the Communist parties obeyed it. This is nice and true, but of no practical import. And did the US fear a direct military threat from Vietnam? (And your characterization of the Vietnamese navy as rowboats is wrong and could be interpreted as racist.) No. Was it just about profits? No. My guess is that part of it was a combination of: a) Fear of a Communist attack on the USA (Just from Vietnam? No. Vietnam was just another country. But there are a lot of "just another countries" and when 90% of the world is Communist and they decide that they also want our 5%, it's too late to start opposing them.) b) Paranoia. It's easy to sit back now and talk about the strength of democracy, but look at how democracies crumbled repeatedly from 1917-1960 throughout the world. Its easy to draw parallels between Hitler's expansion into Eastern Europe and Stalin's expansion of Communism. We were quite sure that appeasement didn't work and wanted to try the opposite. c) Desire to show capitalist unity. The Communists were perceived as monolithic. If they all stuck together, they could easily pick off the individual capitalist states. d) economic self-interest. This is a natural part of most decisions. Why didn't the US pull out after Indonesia was lost? I'd credit that mainly to LBJ's desire to not be the first US president to lose a war. If it was just about profit, then why did the US continue the war? (And if the war was just another way to make money, why did it stop?) >first of all, i would date the cold war from the russian >revolution. that is to say, from the time that russia took it >upon itself to eschew the global economy. I'd say it started in 1946. Previously there was opposition to Communism (Germany, America, Japan, France, Sweden and Britain gave some support to Whitist forces during the Russian Civil War.) But the posture of capitalism v. communism as the division of world power didn't come about until after WWII, nor did strong Soviet-backed attempts to convert other countries to Communism. (exceptions: Soviet annexations during WWII.) From the Second Russian Revolution onwards, there was definitely a separate "us" and "them", but only after WWII did it become us vs. them. During the NEP, Lenin invited foreign investments in mining and other development projects. To what extend was their foreign investment in Russia during Tsarist or Provisional times? >and where were the communists in the spanish-american war? >where were the communists in the *civil* war? where were the >communists in the opium war? where were the communists when >the french seized danang in the 18th century? or during the >british raj? or the first time we invaded nicaragua? I don't imagine they were too relevant to any of these. Why is it important? I know that during the Civil War, Communism was about 15 years old and had not attracted many followers and even fewer revolutionaries. When the French seized Danang in the 18th century, Communism wasn't around. Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 16:55:08 -0500 (CDT) From: JH3 Subject: Re: It's not exciting Terry asked: >Who's the KMT? Presumably the KuoMinTang, a.k.a. the Nationalist Chinese (led by Chiang Kai-Shek) who ended up on Taiwan. And that's about as far as I want to go with this thread... JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 04:46:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Fuller Subject: from randi - Oh Canada - my home and native land Well Eb, I'm glad you agree "Our Lady Peace" are just plain bad - they drive me nuts... I guess I called them *precious* because of their attitude when working on a video with them...truthfully - the second I hear one of their songs on the radio I immediately switch stations. ...so "Kids IN The Hall" plays in the States - very cool - I never knew that. They used to "do" a gig every Monday night at a cool club here in T.O...before the series - and seeing them improve live was better than watching the tv show... What they did was take lots of skits we Monday regulars had seen - and changed them to fit television. Do "Kids In The Hall - KITH" play on the Comedy Network in the U.S.? In Canada, KITH were on CBC - now we have our own version of a comedy network that plays back to back episodes of KITH every day. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Okay - you really want to know why we blacklisted Sarah McLachlan? She has done all her videos (except "Aida") through the company I freelance for. Sarah was fairly cool - as long as you were doing nice things for her - up until "Surfacing." We did "Building A Mystery" and "Sweet Surrender." Both videos were directed by one of our more famous directors - she does videos for Marilyn Manson, Henry Rollins, and of course - Sarah. So - when *we* and the record company decide on the director and treatment - - it's usually a given that the video will be delivered as promised. Makes sense... Well, ever since Sarah started getting airplay in the States - she has stepped back and let her record company - {Nettwerk in Canada}} - Arista {EMI{?} in the States - make her decisions - as she is quite into the bank account thing. So - we did the videos - sent them to L.A. - where the record company *didn't like the way Sarah was portrayed* - and the record company re-edited both videos. Both "Building A Mystery" and "Sweet Surrender" HAD stories - stories that made a lot of sense - but - the U.S. wanted Sarah to just *look pretty* and edited out the story-lines and just had lots of Sarah... But when a director does a treatment - s/he works her/his butt off - before shooting is even close to beginning. Normally - the 'old Sarah' would have objected to the changes made by the record company - in the case of the above videos - she said nothing. So - we took our name off the videos - as well as the director's - who - in the video biz is a helluva a lot more well known than Sarah - and our Executive Producer basically said f*ck it...we don't need this kind of bullshit. One of the main reasons Sarah's videos got so much airplay in the first place was because everyone knew who directed it. So - Sarah went for the bucks - and we blacklisted her. I hope this makes sense - it is 4:15am here in T.O...I can't sleep 'cause of the pain and stuff - and my brain is not up to par 'cause of the fever. If any clarification of the above story is needed - let me know... and so I'll fade back into yesterday before tomorrow comes, Randi *what scares you most will set you free* - Robyn Hitchcock p.s. - anyone ever heard of *Sloan*...their new album is amazing...imho :} ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:11:35 -0400 From: "Marcy Tanter" Subject: Re: artists? How did you find out? Eb _is_ Robyn's pseudonym! Gotta come out of the closet now, Ebbie...!!! ;) ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #287 *******************************