From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #311 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, August 16 1999 Volume 08 : Number 311 Today's Subjects: ----------------- houston press review [four episode lesbian ] Re: arts and crafts redux. [Eb ] RE: Quail in a Cage ["Partridge, John" ] rolling stone review [four episode lesbian ] Re: arts and crafts redux. ["Capitalism Blows" ] goin' through some recent digests... [James Dignan ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:17:11 -0400 From: four episode lesbian Subject: houston press review The Old and the Restless Longtime thought-rocker Robyn Hitchcock cuts new record By David Simutis Robyn Hitchcock is one of those musicians who are (un)lucky enough to be frequently compared to Syd Barrett. For more than 20 years, Hitchcock has blended rock and folk with picturesque and psychedelic lyrics, much as the former Pink Floyd member and acid casualty did. Though bizarre characters and semi-autobiographical tales inhabit Hitchcock's songs, dry wit also peeks through, making Hitchcock's mind trips less off-putting. But like Barrett, he is an odd bird. On his 16th solo record, Jewels for Sophia, Hitchcock is joined by Peter Buck of R.E.M., a couple members of the Young Fresh Fellows, Grant Lee Phillips (Grant Lee Buffalo) and Jon Brion. A sense of calm pervades the record. Even on the vitriolic "Mexican God," Hitchcock stays reserved. The crack musicians that buoy the songs help maintain an even keel. That they are all competent songwriters in their own right probably helps, but the playing is understated and the production inhibited, which makes the record sound like it's a group in the living room playing for kicks. Jewels is not a party record. Instead, it is something loose and fun, and maybe even something stronger, since Hitchcock is such an off-kilter songwriter. The Englishman wanted to address the state of the world and other political topics but says that he was just not equipped to do that. There are subtle ruminations — such as "Half the world starving and half the world bloats" on "The Cheese Alarm" — but they are buried. In the case of "The Cheese Alarm," they are buried in a list of various cheeses. "I've got a lot of opinions, socially and politically, which surface at various times, but I can't seem to translate that into songs," says Hitchcock. "If I do, it just comes out didactic. It's not very inspiring. Songs really do seem to have a mind of their own or a will of their own. All I can do is decide whether to be receptive to the stuff that's coming through or not. The songs are all of me, but at times it seems as random to me as if I were a medium." That's as good an explanation for his songwriting process as can be expected. This is, after all, a man whose song titles conjure up self-contained, imaginary (or drug-induced) worlds: "My Wife and My Dead Wife," "Shapes Between Us Turn into Animals" and "Sometimes I Wish I Was a Pretty Girl." It's hard to read too much into the semiotic lyrics, but on Jewels there are erotic love songs ("Sweet Mouth"), aerospace fantasies ("NASA Clapping") and what seems to be a semi-sarcastic ode to the Seattle-Tacoma area ("Viva! Sea-Tac"). About that tune: Hitchcock praises the area as a place for "the best computers and coffee and smack." "I've been involved with coffee," says Hitchcock of the song. "I've never been involved with computers or heroin. Those are things that certainly put the place on the map. That line is about the stereotypical view of the city. I'm holding that up, like a fish, for people to smell. I'm certainly not putting the place down. I love it." In fact one-fourth of Jewel was recorded in the rainy city. Hitchcock also worked in Los Angeles and London, recording piecemeal rather than holing up in one studio for a couple of weeks, which is the way most records are made. Hitchcock says that he works best his way, when sessions are spaced out over time. "You don't get the tunnel vision that you get when you're locked into three weeks or three months or whatever in the studio," he says. "You go in for two or three days at a time, and it's always fresh and exciting. Otherwise you get blasé. You start turning up late, you start knocking off early. You don't savor the fact that you're in a recording studio and how exciting that can be. I always like to feel like I'm a tourist in the recording studio and it's a complete novelty for me: 'Ooh, what does that button do?' " Though he approaches the studio like a novice, Hitchcock has taken over the management aspect of his career because he's not new to the business. A self-admitted control freak, he's not interested in telling someone exactly how he wants things done when he can do them on his own, and he says he's not about to take direction from someone with less knowledge or experience. Hitchcock is a career musician who cut his teeth in the late 1970s as a member of the influential Soft Boys, debuted as a solo artist in 1981 and inspired such bands as R.E.M., the Replacements and the Flaming Lips. Clearly he knows what he's doing. At least artistically. His music has been available in America on a half-dozen labels, making a business manager seem like a necessity in chasing down royalty checks and the like. The idea that someone with such a whimsical imagination might also do accounting seems contradictory. But for the past 18 months Hitchcock has been overseeing the business of Robyn Hitchcock even as he has been taking care of being the artist. He compares using a manager to having someone cut his food, feed him and wipe his mouth. "There's this whole myth that the artist is something that has to be protected from everything and is supposed to sit around getting stoned or meditating and writing songs," he says. "The artist should not be troubled with the realities of business or practical life, and the artist is only approached through the manager, that the manager is some sort of buffer or a conduit." He laughs. As for business cutting into artistic time, Hitchcock thinks he's got the best of both worlds. He saves himself 20 percent of income, which a manager would take, and keeps himself occupied while he waits for songs to come calling. "I don't think you need that much time to write songs," says Hitchcock. "If you're just sitting there, all you've got to do is write songs. Then you can translate that as 'all you've got to do is have writer's block.' If there's nothing else you've got to do in the world except write a song, it's amazing how difficult it is to come up with one. But if you're writing songs incidental to just carrying on with living, then they [just happen]. Songs appear anyway. You just have to decide if you're going to be receptive to them when they come through or not." And Hitchcock admits these songs have gotten mellower with time, agreeing that he feels more comfortable singing. The songs, as a result, are less cluttered. For his part, Hitchcock recognizes the absurdity of trying to grow old gracefully as a rock-and-roller. "I think the days of being a young alien are gone," he says. "When you're younger, your material tends to reflect how alienated you can be from everybody. But given that we're living in a society where everybody is as alienated as possible from everybody and that is the norm, really what are you expressing by saying, 'I don't belong with any of you guys?' Nobody does. So what? I'm hoping that my stuff is a bit warmer in that respect. I think [with] the new record, my mental health seems good, listening to it. I listened to Fegmania [from 1985] a couple of weeks ago; I didn't sound healthy. "It's that thing that you can be an angry young man, but a petulant, middle-aged one doesn't look so good. So you have the choice of either you kind of mellow out and get boring or you remain miserable like Bob Dylan and sort of stick to your adolescent guns. I think there are certain poses and things that you can't maintain. When you're younger, you don't necessarily even realize that you're striking them. Especially in the rock culture. They're just poses that you tend to strike, and they're befitting to younger people. I don't think anyone over the age of 40 with an electric guitar can possibly take themselves seriously. They certainly shouldn't." Hitchcock, of course, has never taken himself seriously, which is precisely why he can get away with playing rock and roll at 46. Which beats the alternative: Barrett is a recluse. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 18:43:24 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. Capuchyon: >Art requires a craft perfected. >Art is the expressive work of a master craftsman. I couldn't disagree more. >The ONLY problem I have with Jewels For >Sophia is the clarity of the instrumentation. It doesn't have a cohesive >sound as much as it has lots of little instruments making their own >sounds. Um, that's what music *is*, when more than one musician is playing. But if you desire arrangements which sound like one seamless whooooosh, there's always top 40. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:20:08 -0700 From: "Partridge, John" Subject: RE: Quail in a Cage > No, John, come on. You can say you don't like it, but saying that > Rothko's not art, that's just untenable. And look -- I used to > dislike Rothko myself until I actually saw some in person, and really > began *looking,* and I was amazed. It was a revelation. So I am not > someone who comes to things easy just because I've heard it's cool, > if that makes sense. But to claim that these things are not "art" > only removes your statements from the realm of possible discourse, > and it makes it pretty easy for others to marginalize your opinions > without really engaging them. > Look, I don't want to beat up on Rothko. I've seen his paintings in person and they are indeed amazing. But I want the term "art" to mean something more than "wicked cool to look at" or "makes me feel warm inside". I want it to be an exalted term applied to a very select group of artistic effort. I want to reverse grade inflation I guess. And anyway, marginalization is what happens to all opinions that don't conform to the orthodoxy du jour. In any event, the main point I was trying to make was that all the arts have suffered horribly since WWII and to my surprise, no one seems to agree. Ah well, me being a reactionary doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. > >Which is why it's mostly butt-ugly or embarrassed (like the > soup can). > > I love Warhol's soup cans. Knowing Warhol as well as I do -- I've > read as much as I can! -- I can't imagine calling his work > "embarrassed." Like much of his work, it functions primarily on a > conceptual level, calling in to question our ideas about art itself, > rather than engaging our critical abilities on a technical or > "sublime" level. > Whenever I hear that a piece of art works mainly on a conceptual level it says to me that it has failed to work on any other: all that's left is to provoke some thought about the act of artistic creation, abortive or otherwise. I describe it as "embarassed" because the soup can says to me, "I can't top what's come before, but I can ridicule its conventions". Calling in to question our ideas about art itself is *not* art, it's art crit. And while I believe there's a place in the world for art crit (i.e., grad school), let's not confuse it with the real deal. > >John Cage's work was a mockery of music: > > Oh, my. > > Look, John Cage -- who, like Byron, Wilde, and Duchamp, may be more > important for who they were rather than their work itself I don't know what to think of a statement like this because my only unit of analysis is the work of art, not the artist, not the era, not the environment, not the weather that day. For me, an artist's importance is defined by his art. > -- hardly > was out to make a mockery of music. Rather, he wanted to show us that > music, sound, noise, and silence were all of the same essence. He > wanted to explore the relationships between music and noise, silence > and sound . . . he wanted to test the frontiers of our preconceptions. > Let him explore to his heart's content but don't get all pretentious-like and try to call it art. That's just so smugly self-congratulatory. > >listen to the audience members > >rustle, cough, and sneeze; > > His notorious piece 4'33, yes. The equivalent of Rauchenberg's white > canvas. A conceptual piece that asks us to focus on the difference > between organized sound and random noise. They might well have wanted me to think about that but I could give a shit. All I get is a white canvas or random noise and think "these guys have total contempt for me and they just mooned me, conceptually". > It was a very important > statement that needed to be made at that time. Important to whom?!? Is there some other value beyond the artistic merit of the piece at hand that I'm missing? Why was that statement important to me, the viewer, the ostensible audience for the created art? > It does not, however, > stack well against the Pathetique or the Ring Cycle. But that is not > it's point. > > >here's what a piano sounds like if you put > >a hammer and a coke bottle over the strings; > > I happen to like some of his prepared piano works. They are startling > and enjoyable. The idea is to test the limits of the device, to > explore new possibilities . . . he helped open that door for > composers, and some of our most interesting composers today are still > working out that legacy. Luciano Berio, George Crumb, Christopher > Rouse, Sophia Gubaidulina, John Zorn, Tan Dun . . . . > If they're enjoyable to you then that's the main thing. I can't say I find them enjoyable myself and as to testing limits and exploring new possibilities, well that's what we in the old days called "practicing". Let him practice but he shouldn't try to pass it off as art. > >here's how painful atonal > >music can be; etc. > > Now, first of all, I happen to find atonal music beautiful. I am a > huge fan of the Second Viennese School, and I find as much beauty in > Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and their descendents as I do in any other > music. Well in that event, I appreciate your indulgence in this discussion because if I were in your shoes I'd be thinking, "this mutant has no nose so no wonder the flowers bore him." > It just takes some adjustment, some mental re-arranging. But > the whole world of music after them became dominated by serialism, > and many composers sought some pure Holy Grail of total control, > increasingly alienating the public and writing only for themselves. > And Cage challenged that. By creating atonal works based on purely > random principles, he demonstrated that the human mind could find no > difference between those and works created on purely mathematically > controlled principles. You know, I could have saved those people a *lot* of time. > To the human mind, a Cage composition based on > the "I Ching" and a work by Milton Babbit based on *total* serialism > sounded exactly the same! Again, Cage served the music world as the > Trickster, as the Holy Fool and the Laughing Buddha all rolled into > one odd fellow. > > >I used him as an example of a post WWII trend in the > >music world that was ugly (you *really* enjoy listening to a prepared > >piano?) > > Yes. I don't like all his pieces, but in any cage work there is > something unique, something startling, and in that I can appreciate > them. Again, he was probably more important than his actual work. . . > . > > >and stagnant (John Adams (who?) is the *big* name in the music > >world). > > Whoah! First of all, while very popular in some circles, John Adams > is hardly *the* big name in the music world. The fact is, the world > of composition these days is so fragmented that there has yet to > emerge one catholic doctrine . . . no one composer leads the way. > There is also a lot of conflict between the Europeans, the Brits, and > the Americans. In Europe, Ligeti is considered one of the "biggest" > names, as he should be -- he may be pone of this century's greatest > composers, and he is woefully under-represented in America. In > Britain, they are still hung over from trying to find the "next > Britten," and some big names include Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Sir > Harrison Birtwhistle, James MacMillan, and Thomas Ades -- all very > polystylistic composers that are as far from stagnant as you can be. > (And all that sound a bit strange to American ears.) And here, we are > dealing with the effects of minimalism, the New York Serial school, > and simple American postmodernism . . . so while Adams may be big, we > are still looking for a new American Voice. (May I again suggest > Christopher Rouse?) I would even say that more people have heard of > Arvo Part and Gorecki than Adams, but people are fickle. I could list > thirty-some American composers who are neither stagnant or > consistently ugly. . . . > Thanks for correcting me. Perhaps I attribute too much weight to Adams because I read he teamed up with Peter Sellars (and you can guess how much I like *his* stuff). Are there specific pieces you would recommend to someone like me who has no affinity for atonal music? > And besides, Adams is a post-minimalist, which is as far from Cage as > you can possibly get. In fact, in the world of "minimalism," Philip > Glass and Steve Reich are still much "bigger" than Adams. (And much > more talented and interesting.) Adams is important because of his > ability to range out from his minimalist roots into uncharted hybrid > territory; because his music is fairly accessible -- much more so > than, say, Elliot Carter (GENIUS!!!) or Roger Sessions; and because > his music is more inherently interesting to most people than Glass > and Reich. (But I disagree with this. I think Glass and Reich are far > more interesting in the long run.) But to call him "stagnant?" What > have you heard by him? May I suggest his Violin Concerto? > You don't find Glass stagnant? I do. Good mood music though. I don't know Steve Reich at all or Elliott Carter for that matter or Roger Sessions. Any recommendations on specific compositions? > >Before: Shakespeare, Byron, Yeats. > >After: Ashberry, Plath, Heaney. > >Not dead, just convulsing. > > Like Aaron said . . . that's an unfair ranking. And besides, what > about Neruda? And the Beats? And Heaney, an Irish winner of the Nobel > prize, happens to be a great poet. It sounds more like you are > lamenting a change in styles than some mystical dearth of talent. . . > . which I think characterizes your whole discussion on the modern > arts. > I absolutely lament a change in styles but I believe the change runs deeper than just the stylistic level. For one thing, it is just about impossible to frame a discussion in terms of good art and bad art today. No one can think in those terms - it's all relative and immediately degenerates into personal likes and dislikes. If *you* woke up tomorrow thinking that modern architecture was a fraud and just ugly as sin, how would you make the case? Critical thinking about the arts has been suspended and the vocabulary for thoughtful discussion is missing. To your other point: no, I don't believe there is a sudden drop off in talent, just a sudden drop off in quality product. Interestingly, the only area where I don't see this trend is in pop culture. Pop music, street dancing, comic books, these all seem as vibrant and as strong as ever. Some are even art I'd say. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:40:49 -0400 From: four episode lesbian Subject: rolling stone review Robyn Hitchcock Jewels for Sophia Warner Bros., 1999 3.5 stars Robyn Hitchcock has made some of the best Brit pop of the last twenty years, but Oasis fans will never know, because his songs are filled with images of death, decay and the devil - not to mention light-bulb heads, mutant reptiles and oozing insects. Lately, this quintessential cult star has begun toning down some of his macabre imagery, but it turns out he's been singing about love all along - even if he sometimes still fantasizes about making it with "Antwoman" and "her Audrey Hepburn feelers." On Jewels for Sophia, he rocks more fervently than he has on any solo release since the early Eighties. Former Soft Boys sidekick Kimberly Rew contributes an appropriately rabid slide-guitar solo to "NASA Clapping." "Elizabeth Jade" and "Viva! Sea-Tac" corner a bunch of garage-rock cliches and knock them silly. As with the stellar Moss Elixir (1996), Hitchcock proves that he doesn't need audacious wordplay to write a memorable song. "Dark Princess" and "You've Got a Sweet Mouth on You, Baby" swoon without so much as a smirk. It's the sound of Hitchcock mastering a new emotional language: sincerity. (RS 820) GREG KOT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:02:38 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. i think this quote contradicts your argument, actually. terry wasn't referring to any sort of "exspressive" machine-gunning style when he called leo an artist. he was referring to his *mastery* of the *instrument* for *purely utilitarian purposes*, viz., killing off all the goons that had been sent to rub him out. (in other words, you have differing definitions of art.) i see nothing artistic (in the sense you use the term) in leo's gunning (though the coen's representation of same is of course *quite* artistic in your sense of the word). this MORE OAR record is pretty damned good! oh, the other night i dreamed robyn was playing in his 1,900th major league game, and alex rodriguez his 1,000th; and they both hit a home run in the game, and i was trying to let everyone know. KEN "Wag mo kalimutan i pahid ng puet mo, yung putang ina imo" THE KENSTER _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:14:38 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: goin' through some recent digests... >The homoerotic/homo-in-the-know imagery at A&F gets more and more blatant >every time I walk by. Now, obviously plenty of gayboyz shop there, but so >do all sorts of dull (clarification, not redundancy) breeder types, the >ones looking for alternatives to khaki. My question: yeah, I know they're >young and preppy, but is it that they don't know A&F is masterminded by >SCREAMING QUEENS or that they don't care? < Hmmm. Screaming Queens. Now *there's* a great band name! >< > i acknowledge that if so many people think so highly of >>it that it must be a >>great work of art. lotsa people think highly of Yanni. So I guess his music must be great. Excuse me while I puncture both my eardrums. >love? pink? bermuda? and *another* band name! Oh, and another protest songs thought - a lot of rap is protest. How come no-one has mentioned such classics as "The Message" and "Television, drug of a nation"? >PS Ropey performance in pub quiz league this week: they were asking stuff >about who played Lukewarm Skywalker(?) in some film or other. And they >refused 1st May for Labour Day, which it surely is in every country bar >one. Bar two - it's in October down 'ere. >Blur...[...] gay band. nbo more nor less so that their biggest influence, the Kinks. In other words, straight with the slight 'dangerous edge' at times. Gay? Straight? Irrelevant as far as the music's concerned for the most part. Personally, I prefer Pulp. >Love the archaic/British spelling on "foetal"! I use it myself when the >opportunity arises. it's the British spelling. The archaic, which I prefer, uses a dipthong. But you can't bloody well put dipthongs in email unless you want a series of unrecognisable characters at the other end! Let's try it... f¦tal... >Well, Utah Phillips it is, then! Utah Phillips??? First Tennessee Williams, then Indiana Jones... what next? Wisconsin McGuillicuddy? That really reeks! James (also a fan of Rothko, Johns, Kienholz and even Rauschenberg sometimes, not to mention Riley, Glass, Budd and occasionally Cage) James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:43:47 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: gary sedgwick please e-mail me (and cc bayard, if you would) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:55:01 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Fwd: [loud-fans] mabd review Another forward from Loud-Fans, this of the Atlanta MABD show... >From: GlenSarvad@aol.com >Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:32:12 EDT >To: loud-fans@loudfans.com >Subject: [loud-fans] mabd review > >Surprised this tour hasn't received more on-list attention. I'm also >surprised that I saw the stop In Atlanta just one night after the set Dennis >McGreevey reviewed (where did you see them, Dennis?) and had very different >impressions. I meant to post this right after the show, but it was a crazy >week and I left soon after for a long weekend in Asheville, one of the finest >towns I've yet to find in this country. > >Executive summary: An inspired, if not overwhelming, night of entertainment. >Would have been a downright bargain if I had gotten my act together to buy a >$12 advance ticket, but I don't begrudge a penny of the $18 night-of-show >price, either. > >Openers IQU were interesting enough, and their upright >bass/synthesizer/turntable format is certainly inventive. Call me an old >fart, but I still can't get past the fact that I'm basically watching someone >spin vinyl and just can't too worked up over that. I was more impressed by >the job frontman KO (I'm taking the phonetic approach- I think it's an Asian >name, not a DJ pseudonym) did spinning between the rest of the sets. His >selections were varied and impeccable and included at least some of the new >Stereolab, which sounded very good. > >Flaming Lips leader Wayne Coyne was visible throughout, making announcements >and playing the role of congenial host and cheerleader for his comrades. His >look and demeanor was similar to that of a more together Gary Young from the >early Pavement days. I sampled the headsets that promised an "enhanced audio >experience" via a closed carrier broadcast of the show and was impressed, but >frankly I didn't like the odds of reclaiming my drivers license (required as >a deposit) upon departure. > >The show was well attended and the crowd was very supportive of every band. >It was hard to tell whether each band had its own contingent that came to the >front for one set, or whether there was a core group of musically omnivorous >fanatics. > >Cornelius was next and for me they were the pleasant surprise of the night. >Perhaps explaining my difference of opinion with Dennis, it was noted that it >was only their second night on the tour and that the first was mired with >technical difficulties. The band arrived in matching Boy Scout-like uniforms >but didn't strike me as too camp-heavy. With the exception of the Sadistic >Mika Band in the deep recesses of my memory, I've been disappointed by every >hyped Japanese band I can recall but these guys clicked for me, at least over >a brief set. They relied more on the big rock crescendo than I expected (and >I saw not one but TWO double- necked guitars). > >Robyn Hitchcock was his usual charming self, running through a solo set of >oddly chosen nuggets spanning his career. I think he wore the same shirt he >passed through Atlanta in 3 years ago, and his set doesn't seem to vary by >night (down to the "Higsons" encore w/Sebadoh), which is too bad because he >and Sebadoh are the only ones not hamstrung by backing tracks. > >For the first half of their set, I decided that I had prematurely written off >Sebadoh two albums ago. Lou Barlow didn't hit an errant note. Then he and >Jason Lowenstein changed instruments, and the whole dynamic shifted. I'd >always enjoyed Lowenstein's frayed contributions, but getting several of them >in a row (an ego-balancing gesture, or a necessity to save Barlow's voice?) >was WAY too much. Even after they traded instruments back, Sebadoh was the >night's only band I wished had played a shorter set. > >Then came the Flaming Lips, who I'd never seen before. I wish I had, based on >my belated discovery of their LPs. But in this case the trio simply >augmented backing tapes (with frontman Coyne limited to singing and pounding >on a gong). It seemed to me that at least 60% of the music was coming from >the prerecorded tracks. "The Soft Bulletin" sounds like a strong contender >for year's best lists, and they did a decent job of creating excitement, but >I can listen to the record at home and with my alarm due to go off in just 5 >hours amid a busy workweek I wouldn't be listening to the album at that >moment, so I left. Their setup seemed to bother few in the audience, and I >have nothing against studio creations that are difficult to reproduce in a >live setting, but I began to understand why the Lips needed the cover of a >festival "event." > >Still, a worthwhile evening. > ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #311 *******************************