From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #29 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, January 29 1999 Volume 08 : Number 029 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: I Met Robyn Hitchcock. [Bayard ] Re: did somebody say "dust-up"? [Capuchin ] Inklings [Jean Katherine Rossner ] Which Zappa song should Claudine Longet have covered? [Eb ] observations [griffith ] Re: observations [Eb ] Re: Ian Penman [Bayard ] Re: observations [Christopher Gross ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:36:34 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: Re: I Met Robyn Hitchcock. > Someone going to get me a full length MP3 of this thing? > J. You can actually buy it at the site Jay posted: http://www.gometricusa.com/images/index/sitops/indec4.html It's referred to as both an album as an ep, so I dunno how many songs you get for your 9 bucks. I like the three songs they give you clips of, though (including "I Met Robyn..."). =b ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:48:44 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: did somebody say "dust-up"? On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Capitalism Blows wrote: > (Saturday evening) > "...demonstrators smashed hundreds of windows, mainly banks and > corporate offices, until 5am, causing over a million dollars worth of > damage." > "...as darkness descended, so did the people. Police fired CS gas to > disperse the angry mass, who began to smash more shops, overturn cars > and run through the city in small groups causing chaos." > (Wednesday) > "...Hundreds assembled outside the UN for a final push -- an attempt to > enter the building and use non-violent tactics to stop the General > Assembly. As they walked headlong into the line of riot police, there > was a blur of truncheons. According to the staff at the hospital, over > 60 people a day had been treated." > here's hoping we can achieve similar results. suffice it to say, my > friends, the feg banner will be flying high! yes indeed, you've got a > friend in jesus, AND you've got a representative in seattle to take the > piss out of the wto. So you're going to trash your city to protest an organization based somewhere else that's just visiting? This makes no sense to me. Overturning cars? How many of the cars they overturned belonged to folks not involved with the WTO? Smashing shop windows and corporate offices? The majority of those folks are just trying to make due with the world around them... they don't need some angry kids smashing their shops to let them know about injustices elsewhere. How many of the folks admitted to the hospital were WTO officials or representatives? How many were protesters going out to "show their support for the cause"? And how many were just unruly kids that will do anything to participate in a riot? Mobs don't act rationally, eddie. I'm a firm believer in protest. I also believe that there are times when violent revolution is the only solution. But this is pretty pointless and poorly directed. Hey, let's trash Seattle because we hate the WTO! WTO is the sort of thing you get when you let democracy run rampant. Majority rules means minorities suffer. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:15:38 -0800 From: Jean Katherine Rossner Subject: Inklings >From: LORDK@library.phila.gov >My rec for a first read of Williams is "The Greater Trumps", followed by >"War in heaven"--since these two involve Tarot and The Grail, pretty accessable >topics these days. What I really reallylove is his Taliesin poetry and his, >critiscism aint the word, interpretations of English Poetry and Dante. >His views on True vr false Romantisism are pretty cool. And he lived them >as part and parcel of his take on Christianity, which is even cooler. I like the novels best. (And I'd recommend "War In Heaven" to start, then "Descent Into Hell". "Greater Trumps" has never seemed very accessible to me. >Yes, he was the 3rd Inkling, apoint I usually dont point out cause few people >are as cool as Godwin in realizing just how complex Lewis was. Came a bit late to be the third Inkling--I'd say Warnie Lewis was that. (And then George Sayer, and half a dozen others.) (Sorry. Nitpicking again.) As far as CSL's complexities... I discovered the Chronicles of Narnia when I was six, and they helped me survive childhood; unfortunately, I believed the person who said "oh, you wouldn't like his other stuff"! As a medievalist in college, I read "The Allegory of Love" around the same time the guy I was in love with said in amazement "you've never read 'Screwtape' or 'The Great Divorce'?!" and handed me those, and I went on to read everything else he'd written (and converted after reading "Mere Christianity", for that matter, and was baptized on the anniversary of CSL's death). And then I wrote my MA thesis on Lewis's theology... >And yes ,Lewis ws very much in the stream >of Renaissance Christian magic, or as he would put it--deep magic. >Having read almost every medieval and renaissance text published at the time, >he didnt see it as occult per say, but as a more satisfying ,holistic(thou he >didnt use that word)world-view. thats whats comes thu in Narnia, its realer >than our real world. Yes and no. Think about the discussion at the end of "That Hideous Strength"--I think he'd have been a little distressed to be described as "in the stream of Renaissance Christian magic", and I don't think that's what he meant by deep magic *at all*. But yes on the holistic world-view and the "reality" of Narnia. >I dont mean to be disingenous--but who is sheldon Vanauben? An obnoxious CSL wanna-be. More objectively: Vanauken was an American who corresponded with Lewis (and I think went to Oxford and studied with him for a time). After his (SV's) wife died, he wrote a book called "A Severe Mercy" about their all-consuming love and what a saint Davy (wife) was and how she had to die to save him and...well, I'm not a big fan of that particular sort of romantic love, and I found him irritating. There was a sequel, "Under the Mercy"--which in my experience is mostly where people pick up the phrase. He was a professor at some university in the South so must have written other books; I was mostly kept aware of his existence by a series of pieces published in the _New Oxford Review_, a magazine I proofread (but in which, please note, I have and had no editorial say whatsoever, despite having been listed as Assistant Editor until I grew too disgusted with trends in direction and content). It was clear that Vanauken thought himself an inheritor of the CSL tradition--well, perhaps in a limited sense he was, e.g. by writing essays against "priestesses in the Church", but only picking up on Lewis's few really bad traits. I didn't like the autobiographical stuff, but what made me despise him included some really stupid anti-feminist writings (including one that, in declaring that Women and Men Are Simply Different--i.e. have different roles in society by nature--stated that women should not be given any positions as radio or television announcers/broadcasters/commentators because their voices were of too high a pitch to be authoritative!) and a letter to the editor praising the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan as a defender of states' rights against that nasty old federalism... Probably more than you wanted to know. Sorry. Katherine - -- 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: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:07:39 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Which Zappa song should Claudine Longet have covered? I found this article posted on the Zappa newsgroup. Given passionate past debates about Zappa's merits here, I thought some might find it very interesting (and things are pretty damn turtle-like on the list lately, anyway). I think a lot of Zappa albums are truly wonderful (though others are truly annoying), so I'm kinda torn. I don't agree with some of the article's points at all, while other parts point out the things I DON'T like about Zappa fairly well. Thoughts? Predictably, this article has prompted a HUGE outbreak of panty-wringing hysteria on the newsgroup. Not real comforting, seeing all these painstakingly articulate academics deteriorate into sniveling tantrums. Ouch. (Me, I only "lurk" there.) Eb (24 FZ albums, and counting) "For some, was a musical iconoclast, capsizing the barriers between high and low culture. For others, he was a reactionary force, vilifying anything that didn't fit his cynical worldview." Ian Penman sits down with Zappa's newly reissued back catalogue and takes sides. Don't Do That On Stage Anymore - ---------------------- For the pop life of me, I cannot see why anyone past the age of 17 would want to listen to Frank Zappa again, never mind revere him as a deep and important artist, never mind worship at the tottering edifice of his recollected, remastered and repackaged works. Surely the only pertinent use for Zappa was as an interim stage for young lads - scared witless by what they suddenly perceive as the transience or hollowness of popular culture - for whom Zappa represents a gi-normous prefab sneer of self-importance behind which they can shelter for a while. (And, lest we forget: in the pre-Viz, pre-Mayall and Edmondson 1970s, he was the only legitimate supplier of fart and bum and willy jokes). When you're a Zappa fan, you're supplied with a number of get-out clauses from the idea of simple plain fun most of us plain simple folks get from popular culture. If you're still slightly nervous about the idea of worshipping some geeky, greasy-hair, guitar-stranglin' guy, there is Zappa's obeisance to notions of Western cultural fidelity (as witness his attempts at More Serious Works) to buoy up your sense of engagement with something bigger, something... Beyond. If you're just an average Bill 'n' Ted kinda guy, looking to gross out on guitars 'n' guffaws, then there is Zappa's blanket cynicism, misogyny, Catch 22 smutty humour (supposedly a parody of smutty attitudes - yeah, and Are You Being Served is Hegel in hiding). And finally - and perhaps most important of all for Frank's fan-boy club - is the fact that all this would-be cultural iconoclasm is served up with its outsize Guitar Worship intact. So Frank's boys can genuflect at the feet of a Real Musician; they can collate and c ollect and fanzine-date each and every guitar solo into hermetic, cultural, slo-death oblivion - while simultaneously pretending it's all being held suspended daintily between gilded quotation marks. Just like Frank did for most of his life. Instead of having to come out and face the difficult adult world of belief, lust, dirt, pain, you can instead strike ironic poses about belief, lust, dirt, pain; you can string ironic distancing effects like so many fairy lights, finally, around everything you do. Even unto your own aspirations. At the beginning of his career, Zappa may have perceived one or two truths, whose pure toxicity proved too much for him. Not being someone whose genius was innately, genetically wild and crazy (no Beefheart, Iggy or Reed/Cale he), but who still wanted to be somehow, someway centre stage all the same (and all the time), he cast around. Could he be a leading edge satirist like Lenny Bruce, say? (No, because he wasn't innately... etc.) Could he be another Dylan, an irritant, generational Voice? No, because the economic veracity of the Song never was (and never would be) his forte. Then, why not just jack in all this rock culture bullshit he had such obvious contempt for from the very off, and stick to the Berlioz/Varese beat, where he could carve out a respectable career as a 'modern composer'? Well, no, he wasn't quite good or brave enough for that, either. So, let's recap: can't sing, can't dance, not a pretty-boy or an intellectual, contemptuous of both the academy and the Street. ... Welcome to Zappaland! A strange world of negative values and funhouse mirrors where acolytes spread out across the world, a demented glare in their eye, determined to persuade us non-believers of things that are manifestly not so. Just like Scientologists, who will earnestly tell you what a rocket scientist type guy L Ron really was (or still is), so the Zappoids buttonhole you with what a political giant he was, what a musicological genie, what a wit and a wag. But just because a few poor East Europeans deprived of guitar solos and anti-consumerist humour for a few decades made him Trade Minister Without Portfolio or something, this does not a Noam Chomsky make of the man who inflicted 200 Motels on the world. Zappalytes say things like: "OK, by this point the humour was getting a little oafish, and the endless tales of groupies and on the road life is a little stale, and yes, perhaps we can even detect a mouse-peep of misogyny here and there, but - Wowee Zowee! - check out the modal declension in the five minute solo on "Limburger Corporation Wowser", it's about the third best version on record so far! Hot poop!" No, they really do say things like that. Even (or especially) the intelligent, grown-up ones. Even the ones who have an otherwise coherent grasp of the adult world and all its politics and evasions and lies claim him to be the author of some kind of on-going modern Leviathan - a splenetic contemporary satire, withering in its attack, all-encompassing in its range. Then you (and they) search for the actual targets of this piercing worldview, and what do they (and you) find? Satires on porn, wanking, dope, more porn, cocktail jazz, teenage girls, disco music, more porn, TV evangelist s (always a favourite stop-off for the more intellectual rock star), um... session musicians... um, hello? I've been saying some of this stuff about Zappa for years, so when the staff here at The Ire (sic) sat me down with the first batch of Frank releases from the first stage of Rykodisc's all-embracing reissue programme (there are, naturally, lots of double and triple CD treats herein), I thought what a great chance to fire poison darts at the Emperor's pimply bod. I really would like to present you with a monumental, work-by-work deconstruction of the Zappa canon (I even started to write one: honest), but all those 'pressing' questions about matrix numbers and matching edits and how they differ from semi-legal bootlegs and so on, crumble into dust when confronted with just a few seconds of the globe-encircling smugness of that Zappa-knows-best voice intoning "Stinkfoot" or "Dinah Moe Hum". I mean, this is the sort of stuff you play real quiet so the neighbours don't think you're the sort of person who listens to this sort of stuff. The classical pieces? About as desiccated as bourgeois formalism gets. (The only time I got a genuine laugh out of these reissues was reading an exasperated Zappa-penned sleeve note about how one of his 'ground-breaking' pop/classical crossover performances had to be curtailed when The LSO went off to the pub to get drunk halfway through and never returned: Y-e-s! Let's hear it for that Dunkirk spirit!) Doesn't even that supposed split between serious and workaday popular idioms tell us something about him? You can tell a lot by a person's language, and Zappa's - both musicological and critical - is split between two poles: smut and seriousness, both of which carry an overwhelming aura of anal retentiveness, of shoring yourself up against an unmanageable world. The 'serious' Zappa ultimately operates on the same double-bevel as the scabrous stuff. It's so laced with his flashily dissimulated self-doubt and Other-hatred that it points continually to itself as a parody of its form, so that if the world catches on to what a big con trick is being pulled, he can then turn around and say: "It's all just a parody." Or: "You either get it or you don't." Zappa albums valorise the idea of virtuoso instrumentalists and guitar heroes (or rather, Jean Luc Ponty, Terry Bozzio and Steve Vai) to a point which is beyond parody, however. We were always meant to worship these people, make no mistake about it. (You can never get through any piece on Zappa without certain giveaway buzz phrases cropping up: "chops", "seamless virtuosity", "modal run", "great studio sound", etc.) This is, in essence, as un-rock or un-subversive as music can get, in a way that Terry Riley or Morton Feldman or John Cage, say, never were: this is all about how fast your fingers can go. ... And how low your sarcasm can dredge. Zappa takes the piss out of some of the best things in the modern world (girls, drugs, discos, S&M) without offering anything better in their place. (Except colour-coded Boy's Own Record Collecting.) He took the piss out of - or hitched a ride on (as with doowop) - the transient world of Pop, but tell me this: if you were stuck on the proverbial desert island, which disc(s) would you rather have - - one solitary song by Brian Wilson or the entire Zappa back catalogue? He had long hair but sneered at longhairs; he made a long and lucrative career out of endless guitar solos but sneered at other rock musicians; he constantly bumped his little tugboatful of 'compositions' up against the prows of the classical establishment, but he lambasted that, too. In stuff like "The Torture Never Stops" and "Dancing Fool" he got some of his biggest audiences by exploiting the very idea of exploitation he was supposedly upbraiding. He sneered at people who took drugs; he sneered at their parents who didn't. Most of all, he sneered at women; girls trying to get by in a world of hateful, mastery-obsessed fools like himself. He sneered at anything which represented the mess and fun and confusion of life. He sneered, in short, at anything/everything that wasn't Frank Zappa. And all through this long, lonely night of merciless Reason, the only people who thought they weren't being sneered at were the fans. Well, how deluded can you get? Go ahead -you buy something called "Titties And Beer" and persuade yourself you're not the asshole and butt of the joke, and that not only are you not being sneered at but you're participating in a revolutionary act. That takes some kinda tortuous contortion of logic beyond most pop fans, so I guess maybe in the final analysis Zappa fans are smarter than the rest of us poor schlobs, at least as far as advanced sophistry goes. As for the looming, monolithic, Mad King Ludwig shadow of this reissue programme - think about it: there really isn't any equivalent of this sort of monomaniacal, anally-retentive, self-congratulatory madness in cinema or literature. (There is, of course, in music: Zappa is nothing if not a kind of weird 'n' whacky Wagner for junior Ring-spotters). This is not because Zappa's career in popular music represents some kind of brave singularity - it's because elsewhere is real culture and (t)his is ersatz. Compare him with anyone from George Clinton to Can to Sun Ra to Miles Davis (some of whom have their own reissue programmes underway) - genuine breakthrough artists who didn't just reshuffle the given forms - and realise that although Zappa built a career on purporting to despise the facades of Western consumer culture, he could never actually tear himself away from its value system (he just recycled it, reflected it back in myriad 'negative' forms); he could never step out of his circus -master role and plunge into the world of the Other. The strangest feeling I got from listening to all this back-to-back, hyper-clean, remastered stuff is that Zappa - supposedly the great arch-modernist, the man who lived inside a studio console - was actually on some level scared witless of technology; or that he could only approach it (like everything else) as something to be mastered, a kind of aural vacuum cleaner for his archives, and that any real mind-scrambling interface with music-as-techne or techne-as-music was quite beyond his scope; that any rending of the veil of the future and away from his beloved twin antiquarian unreconstructed poles of Guitar and Symphony would have sent him gibbering into a permanent yesteryear. Modern composer? Please. Like those poor fools who early on in their careers get stuck in one pose of drug-taking Wild Man or buffoon, Zappa early on got saddled with a job description of iconoclast, and there is nothing more wearing than nearly 30 years of neat, tidy, conscientious, sniping iconoclasm. The only way Zappa could ever wow anyone, finally, was through quantity not quality. He was a jack-off of all trades, and master of none. This article first appeared in issue 137 (July 95). #169 1997 The Wire. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:24:13 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: Ian Penman sits down with Zappa's newly reissued back catalogue and takes sides. I hear he's fronting a fourth-rate jazz band these days. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:30:09 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: Re: Ian Penman sits down with Zappa's newly reissued back catalogue and takes sides. On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Bayard wrote: > > I hear he's fronting a fourth-rate jazz band these days. Zappa, I mean. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:48:21 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: Ian Penman sits down with Zappa's newly reissued back catalogue and takes sides. Is that Penman's usual style? (I can recall a few "and I still hate Ian Penman for what he did to the Soft Boys" comments of RH's from the early 80s.) Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:13:37 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Which Zappa song should Claudine Longet have covered? OK, while actually I agree with much of what Mr. Penman (didn't he die a lonesome death? :)) has to say, and have been saying similar things about Zappa for years (sorry, no offense to Zappafans, but I really can't abide him), there is one point where I do have to quibble. >When you're a Zappa fan, you're supplied with a number of get-out clauses >from the idea of simple plain fun most of us plain simple folks get from >popular culture. Well, isn't this true for a LOT of artists? I mean, there are not a few artists who engage pop culture rather than just slotting themselves into it. And I'm not just thinking of post-post-recontextualization-whatever people like Momus or Beck. I do agree that there is a danger with this, and I think I know what he is talking about- people with a permawink or permasneer that NEVER put their ass on the line, emotionally speaking, and treat -everything- as if it were worthy of looking down on, are pretty slimy and juvenile and IMO not worth the time it takes to listen to them. Such music is, I agree, best suited for 15 year olds who know everything :). But I don't feel that this non-simple fun should be condemned outright. Although individual standards on what constitutes "sincerity" and "artistic integrity" and such are naturally going to vary widely, I think most people who are familiar with both would agree that there's a world of difference between say, The Divine Comedy and Combustible Edison. I can think of very few artists I enjoy that I have a non-complex response to, and I think that's more common than not. So what's wrong with the artist acknowledging that and playing with it? Love on ya, Susan I ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:55:52 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Ian Penman sits down with Claudine's newly reissued back catalogue and takes valium The TM Sang: >Is that Penman's usual style? >(I can recall a few "and I still hate Ian Penman for what he did to the >Soft Boys" comments of RH's from the early 80s.) I have no prior impression of Penman, myself. His name isn't even familiar to me. Does he have a rep for being a vicious bastid? And which artists does he rave about? (Besides Beefheart, Iggy and VU, I guess....) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:32:33 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Ian Penman >Is that Penman's usual style? >(I can recall a few "and I still hate Ian Penman for what he did to the >Soft Boys" comments of RH's from the early 80s.) What he said about or what he did to? I can understand being irked or angry with a vicious critic, or feeling that they were unfair or went out of their way to slag you and resenting that. That's a normal human reaction. But I'm sorry, critics don't destroy artists. This is silly romantic twaddle. I keep thinking of that poem of Byron's where he makes fun of people who insisted that negative criticism had killed Keats: "To think of such a fiery particle/Being snuffed out by an article". Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:05:47 -0800 (PST) From: griffith Subject: observations First the Stones sell out for Windows 95, now they do it for the IMac. I can only think of a handful of their songs that have been used in commercials. The list so far: She's A Rainbow - Apple IMac Start Me Up - Microsoft Windows 95 Brown Sugar - Kaluha Wild Horses - Budweiser (I think it was Budweiser - The Sundays version of it was used in the commercial) Perhaps on this upcoming tour, they could just do songs from various commercials to defray the high ticket prices ;) griffith np - nothing = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Griffith Davies hbrtv219@csun.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:02:52 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: observations Griffith: >First the Stones sell out for Windows 95, now they do it for the IMac. I >can only think of a handful of their songs that have been used in >commercials. > >The list so far: >She's A Rainbow - Apple IMac >Start Me Up - Microsoft Windows 95 You know, accuse me of having a Mac bias if you like, but I thought the "Start Me Up" usage was really crass, and yet that "She's a Rainbow" commercial is really charming and attractive to me. Wheeeeeeeee! Lookit at all the flying' Imacs! Eb np: Beth Orton/Central Reservation ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:12:56 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: Re: Ian Penman > >Is that Penman's usual style? > >(I can recall a few "and I still hate Ian Penman for what he did to the > >Soft Boys" comments of RH's from the early 80s.) > > What he said about or what he did to?[...] I'm sorry, critics don't destroy artists. They do influence the public though, right? I don't know how much "poison" Penman contributed to the Soft Boys' demise, but here's an excerpt from the "Forced Exposure" interview. The whole article is at travel.to/glasshotel - click on "The Library". FE: I swore that I wouldn't touch upon the Soft Boys but, very quickly, there was this song you used to do called 'The Lonesome Death Of Ian Penman' - whatever happened to that? Robyn: Well, it was recorded - there's probably a quarter-inch version of it knocking around. We never used it - I think, to avoid libel, we phased out the vocal. Ian Penman was one of the people who put the knife into the Soft Boys' back [see PVs 1 & 2]. And I've never forgiven any of those people. I don't forgive easily. If they're still alive and I've finally made it when I'm ninety-three, they've got it coming. When NME finally comes to my door on its knees for a front cover feature I shall say "Only if you get Ian Penman out of whatever institution he's in, have him cleaned out and sent round to apologise for his crimes publicly!" I can understand people not liking Can Of Bees but it was defenceless. The Soft Boys were an easy target. We didn't have any allies, any support, we didn't have a record deal. We financed the stuff ourselves. We had a small coterie of hardcore fans and the whole thing was demolished. I thought it was peculiarly cruel to pick on an act that was suffering from having been the flavour of the month. My bitterness knows no bounds My vocation in life is as a songwriter and my concern is to write better and better songs or at least maintain a standard. The Soft Boys' manifesto was one of taking bits and pieces, a bit like a collage, like if you gummed a tomato to a squirrel's head and then gaffer-taped a pigeon's wings to a cucumber. I would say that the Soft Boys were about arrangements rather than songs. [...] I was serious about the bad jazz band, btw. =b ps. sorry for the lack of claudine content! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:19:14 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: observations On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Eb wrote: > >First the Stones sell out for Windows 95, now they do it for the IMac. I > >can only think of a handful of their songs that have been used in > >commercials. > > > >The list so far: > >She's A Rainbow - Apple IMac > >Start Me Up - Microsoft Windows 95 > > You know, accuse me of having a Mac bias if you like, but I thought the > "Start Me Up" usage was really crass, and yet that "She's a Rainbow" > commercial is really charming and attractive to me. Not only was the "Start Me Up" usage crass, it was also cut off too soon. Truth-in-advertising laws should have forced Microsoft to include another line from the song: "You make a grown man cryyyyyy...." - --Chris President and founder, Mac-Loving Skinny-Puppy-Listening Czech-Speaking Fegs of North America (MLSPLCSFNA, pronounced "mulspulxfna") ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #29 ******************************