From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #183 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, May 18 1999 Volume 08 : Number 183 Today's Subjects: ----------------- ePulse forward: for record geeks [steve ] wolf skull on my stick shift [Michael R Godwin ] Re: more movies [amadain ] Re: really sick of seeing H... H... M... as a subject line [Aaron Mandel ] Meeting People is Depressing [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Oz and Who ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Semi-desperate plea to those in the UK (0% RH) ["FS Thomas" ] Re: Oz and Who [Michael R Godwin ] some words from the Wise Man ["Capitalism Blows" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 08:46:56 -0500 From: steve Subject: ePulse forward: for record geeks 3. DETAIL OF THE WEEK: "Don't you have anything better to write about this week?" Yeah, but: Watching Seagram's Universal Music Group (Universal, MCA, Interscope, Geffen, GRP) digest PolyGram (A&M, Def Jam, Island, Mercury, Motown, Verve, Deutsche Grammophon/Philips/Decca Classics) has become somewhat of a spectator sport for those of us relatively unaffected by the "merger." The first visible signs are beginning to manifest. Recent Motown releases feature the line "A Universal Music company" under the label's logo on the CD package, and other releases from former PolyGram labels are now starting to display the line "Distributed by Universal Music and Video Distribution" in the back-cover fine print. Nothing too strange there. But here's one that is: the reissue of MECO MENARDO's 1977 disco exploitation hit 'STAR WARS AND OTHER GALACTIC FUNK.' The disc, a quickie reissue thrown together by Universal Music Special Markets to cash in on this year's Star Wars hoopla, appears on the Mercury/Hip-O label. What's so weird about that? For we old record-label aficionados, seeing the Mercury and Hip-O logos side by side with the line "A Universal Music company" underneath is somewhat jarring, a seven or eight on an index that might have as ten a Columbia and Microsoft logo displayed together. Of course, Mercury -- PolyGram's onetime flagship label -- now lies six feet under in the Universal lot's Music Cemetery of America theme-park ride; it was killed off, arguably, as a middle-finger salute to deposed Mercury chief Danny Goldberg, who was not exactly palsy-walsy with UMG topper Doug Morris. And Hip-O, of course, is UMG's riposte to Rhino; whoever named it (and whoever's kid designed the logo) must've been listening to too many Will Smith records. It's that original a concept. But the capper is that the Meco album never appeared on Mercury; it was originally released on Millennium (a label run by Columbia Records topper Don Ienner's brother Jimmy, a record producer), which was marketed by Casablanca, an independent label that PolyGram had just picked up for distribution. Not that any of this matters, except that some companies are better than others at paying attention to the small details (Rhino, Sony Legacy and PolyGram's former jazz division Verve, for instance). Do details matter? Well, only to us anal record kooks, perhaps. Grumble, grumble. (Griffith) We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:55:07 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: wolf skull on my stick shift The June issue of Mojo has a review of the 5-CD Beefheart set, plus some quotes from band members collected by Mike Barnes, who has a Beefheart biography coming out later this year. CD1 is 1965-7, CD2 is 1967-8, CD3 is Trout Mask sessions, CD4 has 12 minutes of band chat plus 'enhanced CD footage' (CD-ROM video material from 4 shows) and CD5 is 1969-82. I wonder what the price will be? - - Mike Godwin PS Mojo also has an 'exclusive jail interview with Arthur Lee' and articles on Viv Stanshall, Skip Spence and the Grateful Dead. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 12:51:14 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: more movies >so comedies that *do* demand more of the viewer, or god forbid might leave >the viewer depressed or disturbed ... _vampire's kiss_, say, or _the after >hours_ ... are effectively in some neverneverland in the blockbuster's >taxonomy. And often, I would argue, in the box office taxonomy. "How do we sell this thing?". I can't recall who said this, but I'm sure that someone here can- something to the effect that you can say things with comedy that would have some number of people hating your guts if you said them with drama. Was it Mel Brooks? I think a milder corollary applies also, that if people think they're going to get to laugh, they'll be a lot more willing to go. But most really satisfying comedies, the ones I laugh the most at, are usually pretty serious endeavors. Good case in point- "Hollywood Shuffle". I went to see that with my dad, and we both were in stitches throughout. I could not have dragged him in a million years to see a drama or documentary about racial stereotyping. Not that he'd object to seeing it on any kind of political grounds, just that he'd probably think it didn't sound like his idea of an entertaining Friday night. I'd argue that "Hollywood Shuffle" is pretty serious, in the sense that it has some very serious points to make- but the points are made in such a way that you roll on the floor laughing at the sheer truth of them. That whole "we're looking for an Eddie Murphy type" nightmare sequence is comic brilliance personified, and the sequence where the actor that played Mr. Bentley on "Jeffersons" teaches the black Royal Academy of Dramatic Art graduate how to "walk Black" and "talk Black" couldn't have been funnier or illustrated its point better. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:50:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: really sick of seeing H... H... M... as a subject line On Fri, 14 May 1999, Eb wrote: > I'll save Jeme the trouble. He's all indignant, because the > mathematical aspects of Pi aren't realistic enough for him. It's a > geek objection, like folks who went to see Jurassic Park and said it > was a bad film only because the cloning process didn't seem feasible. even Eb can't claim with a straight face that Jurassic Park was *trying* to capture the feel of genetic science, nor did its producers even make this claim. and the anti-intellectual conflation of math and magic is hardly a minor detail in the film, even if it doesn't bother you personally. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:44:10 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Meeting People is Depressing Last night, I watched the Radiohead documentary, "Meeting People is Easy." Those guys are not happy campers. Or, if they *do* have any fun on tour, filmmaker Grant Gee didn't have his camera rolling that day. I think the whole thing is overly artsy and didn't really give us much of a look inside the band. But that's probably what they wanted -- to try to make us think that they're revealing something of themselves, but then not really come though. I can't blame them for not wanting to be any closer to the public eye . . . but then why make the documentary at all? I guess they wanted to tell the press to leave 'em alone. Anyway, most of the footage is of sound checks, people on escalators in the various cities they toured, or interviews with one or more of the members of Radiohead slumped over some table and mumbling incoherently over the soundtrack and the 'fridge-like buzz that permeates the whole movie and, apparently, Thom Yorke's brain (or so he says). I think that the band were trying to illustrate how ridiculous the whole idea is of turning someone (or a group of someones) into a phenomenon. But it came off as a little whiny instead. There were a few interesting moments and some nice combinations of imagery and music (Gee should stick to 4 minute videos), but the whole of the experience didn't grab me too much. Too bad. I'd been really looking forward to it. I know, Eb, I know. What'd I expect, right? - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:02:54 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: Oz and Who Re: Baum getting Oz from O-Z on a filing cabinet. There are a few Dr Who fans here, I know, but I don't think anyone has mentioned the Dalek story (you can see what's coming can't you). Yes, Terry Nation, creator of those loveable giant pepperpots ran together a Dal and an Ek from a filing cabinet (or was it a dictionary?) to bring the Doc's scariest foe into being. A Patrick Troughton fan. jmbc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:14:41 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Semi-desperate plea to those in the UK (0% RH) Hello, all. (If you're no longer on the fegmaniax list and are wondering how I got this, I dug your email out of the Globe of Fegs. If you got this twice, it's because I sent it to the list as well.) Tuesday the 18th (tomorrow, or today depending on when y'all get this) there's a Peel Session show on Radio 1 featuring Marine Research that I would really (really) like a copy of. Should anyone able to pull in the station want to make a tape of the show for me I would gladly trade off a tape/minidisc/CDr of any shows and/or rarity stuff I've got (or equivalent blanks if there's nothing that appeals). The show is going to air from 10pm to 12am. Anyone not knowing who they (Marine Research) are, they're formerly the band know as Heavenly (plus a new drummer), and before that formerly the band know as Talullah Gosh. Four of the songs are premieres that won't be on their forthcoming album, and one of them is a duet with David "Cinerama" Gedge (formerly/currently of the Wedding Present). My site has an out-of-date list of the shows/rarities that I've got can be found at: http://pages.cthome.net/hellhollow/show.htm Sorry for the short notice, and thanks for having read this far. - -ferris. PS: my work email address (one that I respond a lot quicker to monday-friday) is: ferris_thomas@mcgraw-hill.com if you have any questions... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 00:45:02 -0800 From: Eb Subject: blah I'm trying to rise past another major computer catastrophe...spent much of yesterday and today getting the computer (semi-)operational again. Back at System *7.5.1* now. Yipe. Lost all my saved email too (luckily, that constituted only about 10 letters). Anyway, if I fail to respond to any flames, flirtations or flourishes in the near future, it's probably I've probably slipped into sub-operational again. Just thought I'd drop a line, while I'm able. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:40:02 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Oz and Who On Mon, 17 May 1999, jbranscombe@compuserve.com wrote: > Re: Baum getting Oz from O-Z on a filing cabinet. There are a few Dr Who > fans here, I know, but I don't think anyone has mentioned the Dalek story > (you can see what's coming can't you). Yes, Terry Nation, creator of those > loveable giant pepperpots ran together a Dal and an Ek from a filing > cabinet (or was it a dictionary?) to bring the Doc's scariest foe into > being. The story is that he got it from a London telephone directory which had a DAL to LEK volume. I checked out the London directory at the time and no such volume exists, _but_ the letters D A L E and K do all appear on 3 volumes (A-D, E-K and L to something else), and it is possible to pile them up in such a way that you can read 'Dalek'in a sort of U-shape: A L E D K > A Patrick Troughton fan. jmbc. Damn right, with Tom Baker at number 2. Watch out for PT in a bit part as a sailor next time the Robert Newton 'Treasure Island' is on TV... - - Mike "exterminate! exterminate!" Godwin PS Great news for pedants: the Grauniad errata today admitted that 'wrack and ruin' should have been 'rack and ruin' - it even added that 'wrack' was a kind of seaweed! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:37:25 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: some words from the Wise Man That the bombings are in gross violation of international law and the founding documents of NATO itself (which subordinate NATO to the UN Charter) is not seriously denied. About a legal challenge, one has brought to the World Court by Yugoslavia. Similarly, the Indian commission of jurists has brought to the World Court a legal challenge to US/UK bombing of Iraq, also in gross violation of international law. Sudan has demanded a Security Council inquiry on the US destruction of half of its pharmaceutical and fertilizer supplies by terrorist bombing (also transparently illegal), but US pressure has succeeded in keeping the matter off the agenda. As for reactions here, they are interesting. The U.S. has been radically opposed to international law since its modern foundations were established under U.S. initiative in 1945. In the early days, that was kept to internal (now declassified) documents, such as the first Memorandum of the newly-formed National Security Council (NSC 1/3), calling for military action in Italy if the left won the election (I've written about this in Z, reprinted and extended in "Deterring Democracy"). With the Kennedy Administration, disdain for international law became quite public, in particular, in speeches by senior Kennedy adviser Dean Acheson. The main innovation of the Clinton/Reagan years is that it has become entirely open. In fact, the US is the only country to have vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law -- mentioning no one, but everyone understood who was meant. --noam chomsky _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #183 *******************************