From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #294 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, August 6 1999 Volume 08 : Number 294 Today's Subjects: ----------------- two quail rise [Natalie Jacobs ] August 23rd; the relevence of [Carole Reichstein ] Re: Mojo's muffin [Eb ] Re: Kate Bush kicks ass [Eb ] Robyn Hitchcock, hip with the kids [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Dave [Eb ] "The love you show . . . " [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: "The love you show . . . " [Capuchin ] Re: "The love you show . . . " [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Following [Michael Wolfe ] ADMIN: smoe.org downtime [four episode lesbian ] Conquistador Instant Leprosy [Michael Wolfe ] Re: "The love you show . . . " ["John B. Jones" ] second taste of SH [DDerosa5@aol.com] young'uns [hal brandt ] bark a lonely bark [DDerosa5@aol.com] The band in Heaven plays my favorite song... [Michael Wolfe ] Re: bark a lonely bark ["D B" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:31:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: two quail rise > Meanwhile, I'm still freaked that a *Thoth* led away the masked > prostitute at the Eyes Wide Shut orgy. You noticed that too?? So I wasn't hallucinating!! I was just glancing through one of my bird guides and noticed that there is only one species of hmuh'd quail - the California quail. Could one of these have travelled all the way to New Zealand...? Who can say? n. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Carole Reichstein Subject: August 23rd; the relevence of Russ wondered about the "August 23rd music" reference. Didn't Robyn mention that this is the date that he and Michele met? I swear someone posted this to the list a while back. And hey, I will proudly admit that I STILL listen to Kate Bush's "Hounds of Love" regularly and it never fails to make me sing happily along. Especially in the bathtub. Carole, who listened to "The Kick Inside" just last night ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:29:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Vyvyan, Mike, Prick, and Neil > From: Michael R Godwin > Rik Mayall, Ade Edmonson, Nigel Planer and Alexei Sayle > have all gone on > to successful careers in TV and live theatre. But I've > only ever caught > one glimpse of Mike the Cool Person - as an extra in an > episode of the > Comic Strip. Christopher "Mike" Ryan pops up from time to time. In Part 2 of the Doctor Who "miniseries" season, Trial of a Time Lord, he played a sort of human-sized, intelligent, merchant slug who needed a body transplant. I'm blanking on the name of the species, but they first appeared in "Vengeance on Varos," in the form of the villainous Sil (no relation to That Species Chick). He's Sil's boss in ToaTL. It's a relatively serious role and he plays it superbly. He also had a recurring role on Absolutely Fabulous, as Edina's alcoholic ex-husband Marshall. > PS Has anyone else ever played that 'Which one were you > when you lived in > a student house?' game? My mates were all quite definite > that I was Rik, > Mart was Vivian, Trev was the Cool Person and John "Why > shouldn't I keep a > pigeon in my room?" Bristowe was the Hippy. I was probably Helen Mucus, the Completely Mad Murderess. > From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com > Kate Bush: I still have some respect for her, just don't > listen to her. > There was all of those self-absorbed vids she did that > tended to drive > me away, too. She never really seemed to understand (or care) that you can't do film the way you do theater. She overplayed everything, both personally and conceptually. Drew === Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:03:19 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Mojo's muffin Eddie: >including, some black >and white Flintsones cigarette commercials. i shit you not. But does that necessarily mean the *series* was ever in B&W? There's gotta be a website with the answer.... >or, say, mojo nixon, whom eb inexplicably dismisses) Aww, come on. Inexplicable? Actually, I even have Mojo's first three albums on cassette. The first two are even kinda cool, in a way (not that I've listened to them in years). The third one (the "Elvis is Everywhere" one), I sorta blush about owning. And I got rid of a couple of other ones. But really, Eddie, you don't think Mojo's shtick is a tad...tired? Redundant? Played out? Contrived? One-dimensional? Does he even have a record contract anymore?? What do you find so unassailable about him? Just that he can hoot 'n' holler, and act like he's having a great time? Do you hear any depth in his songs? I mean, the only songwriter with less depth than Mojo is Wesley Willis, and he has an excuse. ;) Eb, who adores The Dreaming and Hounds of Love but agrees that Bush's videos are generally unbearable, and who also would rather slit his throat than ever preciously call her "KaTe" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:06:36 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Kate Bush kicks ass Drew: >That's correct. Grail-quoting is for losers, unless >it's absolutely positively perfect for the occasion. I remember when I was just a wee bairn, my best friend and I were so sick of others quoting jokes from Mork & Mindy and Steve Martin ("Wild & Crazy Guy" period) that we had an agreement that if we ever heard each other do it, we could punch the other as hard as we liked in the arm. Finally one day, he quoted something or other from Steve Martin and I punched him. Then of course, he got mad at me for punching him. Kids.... :) >Well, I think it does, too, but I expected the story >itself to grip me a lot more than it did. Now there's >an example of a type of greatness that *must* diminish >over time, come to think of it -- the greatness of >innovation. The tricks of Citizen Kane have been copied many times, yes. Even by Welles himself. But you know, the film's editing/direction STILL seems tremendously ballsy and daring, even when pitted against today's films. You can sit through Kane, and write down shot after shot (and narrative device after device) which is overtly ambitious and STILL would earn critical notice if it appeared in a new film. How many cinematic images have you seen this year as brilliant as that early deep-focus shot of Kane's parents arguing, while in the background through the window, the young Kane frolics outside in the snow with his (ahem) sled? A film within a film, and the position of Kane BETWEEN his parents perfectly illustrates the tension. Staggering. Puts a lump in my throat, just thinking about it. Or that neat transition when two scenes are fit together with a full-screen shot of a squawking, flapping parrot. And I still don't have a clue how the lengthy opening zoom shot actually moves THROUGH the emblem on the Kane estate's gate. Etc. Etc. I don't think the film has aged a bit, beyond that one dance number with all the showgirls congratulating "Mr. Kane." Some might point at the coming-attractions news trailer which opens the film, but ehhh, I'm fine with that. >Most film critics >would put Kane up there with any Kurosawa film. No, most film critics would put Kane ABOVE any Kurosawa film. Which is not to say that Kurosawa isn't godlike.... >> Trust yourself now, on this one. They suck. > >Oh, please. No fair...I have that line copyrighted. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:33:33 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Robyn Hitchcock, hip with the kids Just thought y'all'd like to know that, on the E6 list (which I skimthrough every 4-6 digests), people are really into "JfS" and have high praise for RH, in general. Go, Grampa Robyn! - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:47:32 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Dave FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DAVID BOWIE TO REVEAL 'hours...' BOWIENET MEMBERS EXCLUSIVELY INVITED TO A SNEAK PREVIEW OF ALBUM ARTWORK AND NEW SONGS Los Angeles, CA - August 6, 1999 - David Bowie has crafted yet another development in the way we access music by bringing an innovative concept to the marketplace. With a carefully planned sequenced musical "striptease," Bowie will slowly reveal the look and sound of his new studio album, hours..., due for release on Virgin Records October 5th. Through his award winning Internet Service Provider website, BowieNet (http://www.davidbowie.com), David Bowie gives members an exclusive chance to preview hours... Members who visit the "building hours..." page will be allowed to sneak preview each song on the new album. Beginning Friday, August 6th and each week thereafter, 45 seconds of a new song will be posted and available to listen to via RealAudio (users must have the RealPlayer G2 or RealPlayer Plus available at http://www.real.com). In an unprecedented move, BowieNet members will also have the ability to take an exclusive first look at the startling album cover artwork at the "building hours..." page on BowieNet. Starting today, sections of the album cover artwork will be revealed bit by bit on a weekly basis, with the final cover in its entirety unveiled the week of release. Designed by NettMedia (http://www.nettmedia.com) the album cover artwork is a must see for all Bowie fans. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 18:03:32 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: "The love you show . . . " I was wondering what you guys think about part of "Dark Princess." I don't have the lyrics in front of me, but there's something about "turn up the silence/turn up the snow" and then "turn up the love you show, the love you show." For some reason, I imagine TV snow when I hear that, and that the second time Robyn sings "the love you show," it's actually a TV show called "The Love You Show." I guess I'm just kind of throwing this out there. I don't know how it fits in with the rest of the song. Maybe it's just a scene. But it's a scene that I like -- a couple being too preoccupied with each other to care about the static on the TV (or anything else). Any contrary thoughts? - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:11:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: "The love you show . . . " On Fri, 6 Aug 1999 MARKEEFE@aol.com wrote: > I was wondering what you guys think about part of "Dark Princess." I > don't have the lyrics in front of me, but there's something about "turn up > the silence/turn up the snow" and then "turn up the love you show, the love > you show." For some reason, I imagine TV snow when I hear that, and that the > second time Robyn sings "the love you show," it's actually a TV show called > "The Love You Show." I think this is really cool. Robyn didn't capitalize it (or at least, the folks typing in those lyrics didn't), but that doesn't mean anything. I do really like it... but I can't figure out (within this schema or any other) what that "turn up the glove you wear" line is all about. J. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 18:34:40 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: "The love you show . . . " In a message dated 8/6/99 3:12:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, capuchin@teleport.com writes: << I do really like it... but I can't figure out (within this schema or any other) what that "turn up the glove you wear" line is all about. >> No, that's a weird one. Sort of sinister . . . or silly, I can't decide which. I try to kind of edit out that line when I'm listening to the song, actually -- mental humming. - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 20:47:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Following >Speaking of which, anyone seen a movie called "Following"? I saw >the preview for it at Facets when I went to see "Storefront", it >looked really intriguing. I haven't, but I'd like to. My favorite internet film critic (Mike D'Angelo had this to say about it: Instead, however, he opts to repeatedly jump back and forth in time, for no apparent reason other than an anti-conventional "chronology is for wimps" ethos that's becoming a pandemic w/r/t low-budget indie films. In fact, I so enjoyed the film's high-concept premise -- a failed writer (Jeremy Theobald, suitably rabbity and desperate) begins stalking random passersby, ostensibly in order to gather material for characters, and winds up aiding and abetting the crimes of a professional burglar-cum-philosopher (Alex Haw, who's far too broad) -- that I might have given it a mild recommendation had Nolan simply begun his tale at the beginning, proceeded in an orderly fashion to the middle, and wrapped it all up with a big red ribbon at the end. As a matter of fact, you are irritated, aren't you? It's easy to see why writers and directors tend to gravitate toward unorthodox structures: depicting your narrative out of order automatically creates a sort of surface-level tension, temporarily bewildering the viewer while simultaneously flattering him for his ability to successfully assemble the jigsaw puzzle in his head. Sometimes you like a movie in spite of its obvious flaws; I recognize that Christopher Nolan's gimmicky b&w psychological thriller is both derivative and opportunistic, but I had a pretty good time anyway. It's as if I were to write a review, then scramble the sentences -- you might be intrigued, initially, but I bet you'd get irritated fairly quickly. But for every Atom Egoyan or Quentin Tarantino who uses the technique to heartbreaking effect, there are several dozen imitators who employ it completely arbitrarily, inspiring massive hindsight-exasperation; Following often feels as if Nolan had written each scene on a separate 3x5 index card, tossed the cards in front of a high-speed electric fan, scooped them up from the floor at random, then assembled the footage as the new configuration of cards dictated. Told ya so. He gave it a B-. - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 18:24:17 -0400 From: four episode lesbian Subject: ADMIN: smoe.org downtime fegs, this weekend, smoe.org will be moving from boston to washington, dc. as a result, smoe.org will be off-line from saturday morning to sometime sunday. there will be no mail delivery during this time, so don't be alarmed if fegmaniax is suddenly silent for 24 hours or so. mail sent during the downtime will be held at an upstream host so it will not be list. the backlog will start to be delivered as soon as the site is back up and running. however, to minimize the load on sunday, please hold off on posting to the list until mail delivery starts again. i *think* the fegmania.org site will still be functional during the downtime, but it be running on a slower host and may not be as responsive as usual. problems? questions? mail me! woj ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 20:52:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Conquistador Instant Leprosy >> complete conversations in MP quotes. But we never, >> ever used quotations from the Holy Grail, as we >> considered that the heighth of nerdiness. Huh. Anyway, > >That's correct. Grail-quoting is for losers, unless >it's absolutely positively perfect for the occasion. And I'm afraid that even quoting the series can induce a cringe, somewhat. Witness the film, "Sliding Doors" (a film, incidentally, that has not worn well in this writer's memory): I wanted to smack the John Hannah character. Hard. Gwynneth Paltrow's character was supposed to think that the "Spanish Inquisition" sketch repeated ad infinitum was funny?? Charming? It's enough to make me consult a Gumby brain specialist. - -Michael Wolfe "My brain hurts." "Oh! It'll have to come out!" ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 1999 16:04:13 -0700 From: "John B. Jones" Subject: Re: "The love you show . . . " >In a message dated 8/6/99 3:12:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >capuchin@teleport.com writes: > ><< I do really like it... but I can't figure out (within this schema or any > other) what that "turn up the glove you wear" line is all about. >> > > No, that's a weird one. Sort of sinister . . . or silly, I can't decide >which. I try to kind of edit out that line when I'm listening to the song, >actually -- mental humming. I'm remembering the part in Breakfast Club when Bender produces the middle finger face down for his fellow detention mates and says, "what? you can't hear this? do you need me to TURN...IT....UP?" doin my part ;), john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 18:57:44 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: second taste of SH So Viv and I went to see Storefront again last night for its last night in Chicago, and were happy to see a good crowd. I noticed a few new things, such as the sunglasses balanced on the mike stand through the entire movie (was it Chekhov who said a gun on stage must be used by the third act? After all the casting of weird shadows onto robyn's guitar, I wanted to see him put those sunglasses on!) But the weirdest thing I noticed was that, in the beginning, it say in the credits "All Songs by Robyn Hitchcock", then the number 15 shows up in the space. Well, I wasn't intent enough to count through the movie, but that seemed high, considering some of the songs are long, and the spoken parts are not inconsequential, and the movie's only 81 minutes. So I watched the end credits, (well, duh, they're during Guildford), and it lists them, though not in order, but rather separated by publishing rights, so the new nine are together, then the old...six, it says, which would make 15, but one of the songs listed is "I Got A Message For You", which is clearly not in the film. What gives? Was there a song in the film that wasn't listed, or was it only 14, or what? Inquiring minds want to know! All in all, the film actually grew on me, though I noticed the weird choices even more, and I can't help conspiratorially thinking that one reason why ME was over-represented in the film was that Warner Brothers wanted "their product" prominent in the movie. Demme was right, it should've had more of RH's older songs--I think, in terms of full performance mode, converting the unconverted, the best songs in the movie are I'm Only You, Airscape, 1974, Glass Hotel, Freeze, Beautiful Queen, and Guildford. Many of the rest are good, of course, but just don't inhabit the screen well (actually, Devil's Radio does, though I still find it a strange choice to open the movie). And I just can't believe that the three of them are never on stage together...but most of all, I am incredulous that they would include the query "What was the kindly old lady made of?" without the answer. Bizarre. OK, so I'm a total geek. Sue me. dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 17:23:17 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: young'uns > Everyone said I was Neil. I always think of Neil when I hear RH's "Mellow Together." /hal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:51:59 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: bark a lonely bark > I never want to listen to my Kate Bush albums anymore, > >but that's more because I've played them into the ground > than because I > >think > >they're lame. If they don't have the same impact on me > that they used to > >have, > >does that mean they were *never* good? > > Trust yourself now, on this one. They suck. no you suck. OK, so that was juvenile. I was gonna go back and find a long DB message, quote liberally from it, then dismiss it with a word or two. But I couldn't, because all the messages ever seem to be is a one-line dismissal of someone else's viewpoint, without giving any context, any thing to argue back with. It just seems to be the automatic gainsaying of another person's opinion. the question becomes, why even bother sending such messages? * dave *this is not a rhetorical question. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 21:00:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: The band in Heaven plays my favorite song... >> maybe there should be >> two different continuua: one for how much we respect >> works of art, and >> another for how much we like them. > >This starts to get at the problem, yes. The criteria >by which we "respect" things -- not just art -- are very >different from those by which we "like" them, yet we >so frequently feel that we *must* like better that which >we respect more. I respect Citizen Kane highly, but I >like The Fisher King better. (Well, maybe that's unfair, >because I also respect The Fisher King highly.) Okay, I see a couple of issues here: what's pleasurable to the individual, and what's "great" art. This is an issue that critics have been trying to resolve for as long as there have been critics. What seems to be the subject of discussion in this case is the former. Certainly, I haven't seen anyone in this thread exercise the hubris it would take to lay down "objective" criteria for greatness in a work of art. At first blush, it would seem that the answer to what's pleasurable to a person is pretty straightforward: to quote Duke Ellington, if it sounds good, it is good. But even Eddie, who on the surface comes closest to espousing this most populist of maxims, can't bring himself to embrace it fully. There must be something deeper at work here. It looks to me like the linear, hierarchical comparison has once again failed us here. I think that rather than evaluating films on a linear scale, be it 1-10, 4 stars, A-F grades, or whatever, it's important to realize that what you take from one film or song may be completely incomparable to what you get from another. For example, I may have enjoyed sitting through Grosse Point Blank more than I did sitting through In the Company of Men, but that's only one way to compare them. I've only seen the latter film once, and the former film I've seen probably 2 dozen times, but the number of viewings is only another (and even cruder) basis for comparison. On the other hand, Neil Labute's debut literally changed the way my mind works, and I'm still sorting out its aftermath two years later. In that respect, Company blows GPB off the face of the Earth. But then, there's nothing that says that mind-fuck value must be the end-all comparison, either, any more than sheer enjoyment. So how can I say which movie is better, even just in my own mind? This is not AT ALL to say that since we can't find some universal basis for comparison, that comparative analysis is a waste of time. Not at all. My example provides hints to what I'm getting at. I think something like a dietary model serves us better. You've got twinkies (like, say There's Something About Mary), and you've got spinach (say, Wild Strawberries). Some people subsist on donuts and McDonald's and ramen (The Rock and Meg Ryan romantic comedies and Star Trek). Some people enjoy that stuff, but realize that they need to get their cauliflower (BBC-produced period dramas), too, to stay healthy. But then, there are folks who want it all -- who want the vitamins from from the veggies, but want their taste buds dazzled beyond the scope of what merely adding more fat and sugar (as per McDonalds) would do. They want food with spices and herbs and GARLIC and fresh veggies, put together with care and craft and restraint. They want cassoulet (Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control), they want briani (Do the Right Thing), they want brook trout beur blanc with hazelnuts (Rushmore). Not that you can eat like that every night; it's too rich, and too expensive (and movies like those don't come along every week). Please, note that my assignments of films to their culinary analogs are my own personal preference; you are certainly welcome to make your own substitutions as you see fit. But I think the model itself is sound. If you try to feed someone food that's too rich, and they've been eating exclusively at Taco Bell (Top Gun) exclusively, they'll probably hurl -- their digestive tract just isn't equipped to handle it. Also, please note that I am not disparaging movies like There's Something About Mary and The Rock. I actually enjoyed The Rock, but what I'm saying is that my enjoyment of it was on a level similar to my enjoyment of a donut. It was satisfying viscerally, but don't think that it did much to make me healthier in an artistic sense. Once in a while certainly doesn't hurt, though. You can take this analogy even further, too. You can talk about complementary movies, like, for instance, Citizen Kane, Rashomon and Pulp Fiction. I think it becomes much more interesting to look at that last film when one has a familiarity with the first two, keeping in mind their shifting perspectives and fractured chronologies, as well as the theme of point of view and self interest. In this way, you get something like beans and rice -- having both gives you way more from your experience than either one alone. The point is, I think Eddie and Drew have favorite sandwiches that they could probably eat for lunch 3 or 4 days a week, but they also know the importance of having a little variety, so as to get all of their vitamins. Just like the rest of us, more or less. >> i listen to DILATE more than any other ani album, by the >> way (unless you >> count THE PAST DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE). > >I'm still hooked on OUT OF RANGE, maybe because it was my first >Ani album. See, and this is a problem with reader response as a critical modus operandi. A girlfriend that I had told me one sentence that she had gone to see an Ani Difranco concert, and in the very next sentence dumped me. I couldn't listen Ani for a year after that. That's fine; it's a no less legitimate reason to hold an opinion than any other -- I mean, my reaction to hearing it was one of intense dislike, just like any other piece that I disliked - -- but it's utterly non-transferable to other people. As a critic, if I describe my response, it won't do anyone a lick of good, so what's the point. And it could be anything -- maybe the writer had some bad shellfish just before seeing a film. But neither do I believe in criticism based on deriving the author's original intention. I could really care less what he was trying to do, actually. When he wrote Don Quixote, Cervantes was trying to write a parody of Knight Errant fiction, a genre he loathed, and to make a lot of money. The Knight Errant genre is LONG dead, and do you think that we'd still read Don Quixote if it only meant something to people familiar with the subject of its satire? Anyway, those're my thoughts on the subject. Have a good weekend, everybody. - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:13:58 PDT From: "D B" Subject: Re: bark a lonely bark > > I never want to listen to my Kate Bush albums anymore, > > >but that's more because I've played them into the ground > > than because I > > >think > > >they're lame. If they don't have the same impact on me > > that they used to > > >have, > > >does that mean they were *never* good? > > > > Trust yourself now, on this one. They suck. > >no you suck. > >OK, so that was juvenile. I was gonna go back and find a long DB message, >quote liberally from it, then dismiss it with a word or two. But I >couldn't, >because all the messages ever seem to be is a one-line dismissal of someone >else's viewpoint, without giving any context, any thing to argue back with. >It just seems to be the automatic gainsaying of another person's opinion. Would that I could agree with you to assuage your tender ego, but I've never felt Kate Bush to be particularly listenable, not at least if I happened to be in the mood for music that wasn't overwrought, overindulgent, self-absorbed and outright wankerish. the >question becomes, why even bother sending such messages? * > >dave > >*this is not a rhetorical question. Why bother letting that be known? Not to insult you, to be sure, so don't take it too personally. It's strictly a matter of personal taste. You said yourself you that you never want to listen to her records anymore... My guess is that you grew out of them but won't to admit that you could ever have allowed yourself to wallow so heartily in such tripe. Bark a lonely bark, indeed... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:14:02 PDT From: "D B" Subject: Re: bark a lonely bark > > I never want to listen to my Kate Bush albums anymore, > > >but that's more because I've played them into the ground > > than because I > > >think > > >they're lame. If they don't have the same impact on me > > that they used to > > >have, > > >does that mean they were *never* good? > > > > Trust yourself now, on this one. They suck. > >no you suck. > >OK, so that was juvenile. I was gonna go back and find a long DB message, >quote liberally from it, then dismiss it with a word or two. But I >couldn't, >because all the messages ever seem to be is a one-line dismissal of someone >else's viewpoint, without giving any context, any thing to argue back with. >It just seems to be the automatic gainsaying of another person's opinion. Would that I could agree with you to assuage your tender ego, but I've never felt Kate Bush to be particularly listenable, not at least if I happened to be in the mood for music that wasn't overwrought, overindulgent, self-absorbed and outright wankerish. the >question becomes, why even bother sending such messages? * > >dave > >*this is not a rhetorical question. Why bother letting that be known? Not to insult you, to be sure, so don't take it too personally. It's strictly a matter of personal taste. You said yourself you that you never want to listen to her records anymore... My guess is that you grew out of them but won't to admit that you could ever have allowed yourself to wallow so heartily in such tripe. Bark a lonely bark, indeed... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #294 *******************************