From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #227 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, August 11 2000 Volume 09 : Number 227 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: She Said She Said [leahyc@tsainc.com] More about Rush! With lots of big words! [The Great Quail ] RE: More about Rush! With lots of big words! ["Brian Huddell" ] RE: The pseudo-intellectual poseurness of Rush ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: The pseudo-intellectual poseurness of Rush ["Randy R." ] The solution for all political arguments [steve ] Re: More about Rush! With lots of big words! [steve ] Re:Full Dimensional ["Ken Kenster" ] eb all over the world ["Ken Kenster" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:12:45 -0500 From: leahyc@tsainc.com Subject: Re: She Said She Said i've never heard of amy correia but after reading your review of her show i placed an order for her "transportation songs." out of curiosity, is that all she has available at this time? btw, after seeing the cover of her cd i'd have to chalk her up as a definite cutie. :) chad eb wrote: Anyway, next on the bill was my reason for being there, Amy Correia. I had already met her earlier in the upstairs bar On the Rox. That was fun, because it was my first time ever in this private section of the club, though I've been in the upstairs band area a couple of times (a much different animal). Correia didn't play nearly long enough to suit me (25-30 minutes?), but I was *hooked*. She played one or two songs with backing players from the other artists, but the central dynamic was just her (playing guitar or a large-size ukulele) backed by a bleached-blond female cellist. She didn't even play her upcoming single ("Angels Collide"), but included two non-LP songs in her set: a new tune called "The Prison Song" and a concluding cover of "La Vie en Rose," which she sang minus guitar with only sparse, punctuating notes from the cellist to support her. That's a pretty gutsy move -- singing a song that florid in a non-native language, with no instrumental safety net at all. And she nailed it. Actually, I was surprised how much stronger her voice was onstage than on the record. She really boomed, and there's only a couple of moments on the album which have a similar sense of projection. Later in the night, she privately agreed with me, sounding somewhat frustrated, and sighed that she's "not good at recording yet." Anyway, I was in a puddle throughout her set, and am in danger of developing a crush of LJ/Liam-like proportions (the difference being that Liam has never pressed LJ to give him her email address...heh). Correia was genuinely flustered by the full house (her largest audience ever, she said) and their thunderous response. She was just adorable -- I smell s-t-a-r-d-o-m. She told me she's playing some gigs at Lunapark and (yes) Largo in upcoming weeks, and I plan to see at *least* one of them. I'm aching to see a full-length set. She urged me to come to Largo on the 16th (she said she's opening for Julia Fordham), and I was really charmed when she told me her eyes kept landing on me in the audience during her performance. Awww. Chalk one up for being tall. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:47:56 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: More about Rush! With lots of big words! Aw, you *know* I can't let a Rush troll go by! Brian, this is like shooting fish in a barrel, or depressing teenagers at a Smashing Pumpkins concert! Why are you so cruel to me? Brian writes, >It's always struck me as emblematic (and hilarious) that Jefferson Airplane >signaled the end of the 60's with "tear down the walls motherfuckers" whilst >Rush ushered in the 80's with "one likes to believe in the freedom of >music." Bleeccchh. Pity my generation; we got protest songs that sounded >like they were written by William F. Buckley. Rush's lyrics from this period might have been a tad pretentious and definitely fell on the overly-intellectual side for many rock fans, but comparing them to Jefferson Airplane is unfair. That is a totally arbitrary comparison based on your idea that both groups wrote "protest songs," which does not hold true for Rush in the sense of what we consider a protest song. (It is also, may I suggest, motivated by your personal taste in what you like to get out of a rock band.) Rush are more complicated than that, and certainly more complicated than the Airplane in terms of ideology. You just can't see them as competing incarnations of two different generations of protest rockers. Their origins, their purposes, their development, their projects -- all are very different. Rush are a very (here comes that word again, sorry!) postmodern band. Although they grew from a weird blend of classical Romanticism, pick-and-choose objectivism, and science-fiction egalitarianism, by the eighties they had pretty much transformed into a band that was very aware of their position as musical commentators on society, and a band that was aware their Utopian origins were flawed. They grasped their limitations, and furthermore, they grasped the limitations and contradictions in modern culture -- not a position to really speak for a generation in terms of protest songs.... Traditional protest songs are generally socially-based and idealistic, whereas Rush usually speaks to individuals -- again, that classical Romanticism that is lacking in a group like Jefferson Airplane. Even the song "Spirit of Radio," which *is* a fairly social song, already has its own "deconstruction" built into it. To Brian this makes it uncertain, perhaps, or lukewarm; but to me, it shows an awareness and complexity that many songs from the sixties lacked. "One would like to believe in the freedom of music; but glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity." (Oh, then: "Ye-ah." Sorry.) The song is both a celebration of technology, and a statement of awareness that this technology is subject to commercialism. And yet -- because Rush are, at heart, Romantics, or at least humanists -- the song rejects the position of despair, and urges one to knowingly celebrate the core of the matter at hand, the "spirit" of music. What does Jefferson Airplane ask of us, besides to do lots of drugs and sleep with lots of people? To "tear down the walls motherfuckers." They are coming from a totally different ethos, aesthetics, and political project. One that, may I add, failed -- not just socially, but also within the lives of the artists themselves. Anyway, you'll never see Rush singing "We Built this City," or writing a book about their life as counter-culture rebels. "Shattering the illusion of integrity," indeed.... - --Professor Quail - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) http://www.w-rabbit.com/gerbils.html "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." --Vice President Dan Quayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:25:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: RE: The Coolness of Rush After reading Vince's post yesterday evening, I went home and played Rush's _2112_ for the first time in years. Who else did likewise? - --Chris, now wishing he had brought it with him to work today ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:40:16 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: More about Rush! With lots of big words! Quail: > Aw, you *know* I can't let a Rush troll go by! Brian, this is like > shooting fish in a barrel, or depressing teenagers at a Smashing > Pumpkins concert! Why are you so cruel to me? All in good fun. Coupla things: I'm comparing songs, not bands. Jefferson Airplane have more than their share of lyrics that make me wince. And yes, the grounds for comparison are tenuous at best: mainly the fact that both are turn-of-the-decade anthems. I can only imagine how high school kids in 1969 felt about Volunteers (I really don't know). But I have first-hand insight (I won't say *how* first hand) into the mind of a teenager who heard "Spirit" as a similar kind of battle cry. That's my reason for comparing the two, and I'll admit it's unfair. That said, imagine a coliseum filled to bursting with acne and testosterone, fists pumping in the air, as tens of thousands of voices shout in unison "One likes to believe in the freedom of music." I'm sorry, I think that's funny. One suggests that the walls be removed post haste, gentlemen! cheers, brian (whose mom *knew* what Passage To Bangkok was about and let him listen to it anyway) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:41:07 -0400 From: nyquilathotep Subject: RE: The Coolness of Rush when we last left our heroes, Christopher Gross exclaimed: >After reading Vince's post yesterday evening, I went home and played >Rush's _2112_ for the first time in years. Who else did likewise? i resisted the temptation until quail's post made me dredge out _permanent waves_... +w ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:31:09 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: RE: The pseudo-intellectual poseurness of Rush >After reading Vince's post yesterday evening, I went home and played >Rush's _2112_ for the first time in years. Who else did likewise? The only Rush album I currently own is the compilation "Chronicles." But, admittedly, I did pull it out last night - also for the first time in years - - and listened to "A Passage to Bangkok." I've always found Peart's lyrics corny at best, pretentious (more than just a "tad") at worst. Really, the band's strength isn't their weak "conceptual" lyrics. It's their musical complexity and their technical musicianship. I also find Peart's unexpressive, dead-on-the-beat drumming gives the group's music an overly choppy feel - personally, I think they would have been a better band if they had just ditched Peart altogether. Which, in Rush circles, or in Rush pentagrams I should say, is a major sin to even contemplate. Plus, I think Ayn Rand was a twit. ;) >"One would like to believe in the freedom of music; but glittering prizes >and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity." Yeeeeeeeeeeeee-uck. What a mess. - --Jason "ruling under Satan's house" Thornton "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:31:16 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Hmuhs in the ring! I know I said I deleted this, but Cappy asked me to resurrect it, and I decided that the Feg List hasn't had enough of my Big Mouth yet..... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I agree with Cappy on a surprising amount of things, one of those being that it is nearly pointless to try to change political minds. I've said my piece, and that's good enough for me -- but the following is something outside the election that I would like to comment upon.... (PS: I rather liked McCain, too. I don't hate Republicans, I am just pro-choice and anti-religious.) >How about having your website shut down because AT&T's service >agreement doesn't allow cable modem subscribers to run services Then get a different provider. >Yeah, you can run your printing press and you can have people over to your >house to discuss any sort of subversive thing that you like... but get >more than about fifty people in a public space and the police show >up. Yes, and I will be the first to stand in line and DEMAND that we have a society where the police show up at any public gathering of over fifty people. This does not imply that we live in a police state; but there are issues of public safety that only anarchists will ignore. And, please, of course, the police can be corrupt, racist, or under the control of Mayor Daley. This is granted; but the important issue is to strive for a more enlightened police force, not to disband or disparage them altogether. >Demonstrate without a PERMIT and you'll go to jail (remember, this is >a PERMITTED demonstration... we don't PERMIT just any ol' >demonstration)... Permits are a problem; less now than in the sixties, when They believed that many demonstrators were a threat to our national interests. This is terrible; but permits are still a good idea, and as above, we must strive for better implementation. But we still have the RIGHT to gather, and that is fucking bloody very very important. Also, the time and place of a gathering can be very critical, which also leads into the permit "game." A march on the Pentagon is different than a gathering in Billy-Bob's cornfield; and dare I say, both sides play this game, with the protesters also factoring in the idea of civil disobedience, and often getting their heads cracked for it. But that can be a powerful statement, too...... Rights are a legal fiction, and we must remain constantly vigilant. But that does not mean we don't really have rights in the US, as some Fegs seem to alarmingly suggest -- we have a lot more of these legal fictions than citizens of many, many countries. I began this whole point by contesting Viv's comparison with rights to consumer selection. Speaking of which, Eddie writes in reply to my earlier letter: >being foisted on you> > >come on. that's the worst symptom of "late capitalism" you can >possibly think of? No, I was responding to Vivien's statement. The worst example of late capitalism that I can think of, let's see.... the careers of Baudrillard and Dan Rather? (Again with the fatuous comments!) Back to Cappy: >but try and communicate with a large number of people >and you will be shut down. We are free to speak... as long as not very >many people can hear. Untenable. Of course it takes money to get a message across to a large group of people, and of course you have to be selective in your media outlets -- Playboy magazine will not run an anti-porn ad. But your phrasing is alarmist and has the whiff of conspiracy theories about it. >No thing should be illegal, only its use in a >particular manner. I am not arguing about your computer/corporate statements; but I have got to disagree with the above statement. let me go on the record that I think the government has the right to make things themselves illegal and/or subject to restriction, such as plutonium, tanks, biochemical materials, and other fun things. To say that a group of cultists out in Utah can own a few bombs, but they just can't use them, is a dangerously loopy argument. >Any computer program that communicates can be used to >attack just as any heavy object can be used to bludgeon. Outlawing >certain strings of words words is a very, very bad step for civil rights. I do agree with this. >I've stated my views on a single controlling body (be that the government >or the company that ends up with the most money). But are you saying that >there is no BETTER way? That we must choose between this and a >totalitarian society and that's that? I think there are infinite >options. I do not believe this is the best of all possible worlds. I did not say there was no better way. But it must be realistic, or it will never be implemented. (Short of a second "revolution.") >There's no guessing what would happen if they could know. They might >still enjoy their prosperity or they might take to the streets in anger or >they might just start voting more properly and supporting new >ideas. There's no way to tell and what you THINK might happen shows your >optimism or pessimism. In this hypothetical case, the realist has no >answer and must take sides. Yes, but why don't they know? Sheer fucking laziness, mixed with apathy. It's not like the information is not out there. And to me, this is more evidence that they will NOT take to the streets. The average American has no problem with Disney. I don't think they are quite as passive and spoon-fed as you do; but I do think they are more content than you do -- why? Because they don't care. Do you really think every time an average American fills his gas tank -- me included -- he doesn't, at least at a root level, *know* he's contributing to the degradation of the environment, the support of the oil companies, and the condoning of policies that lead to the Gulf War? And yet, here I am, filling my gas tank, la la la. >> Do you think Clinton's Big Blowjob would be so important if we were in >> World War III? > >Do you think the broadcast spectrum giveaway would have been in the >Telecommunicaions Act of 1996 if there had been more than three major >broadcasters? Do you think the Digital Millenium Copyright Act would >contain section 1201(a) or (b) at all if the motion picture and recording >industries weren't owned by the hardware manufacturers Sony and >Phillips? Do you think Clinton would be sanctioning Iraq so heavily if >there were a single news international news outlet that didn't also own >trucking and other oil-consumptive distribution companies? What does this have anything to do with my statement? >You won't be wrong in November. One of the major party candidates will >win, surely. If it's Bush, you can say you're right and the Nader >supporters fucked you over and split the party and gave a big >no-confidence to Gore. Not really -- if Bush wins, I doubt it's entirely because of a split vote. I think if Bush wins, it's because Americans are more fat and complacent -- and deep down, afraid that will change! -- than I'd like to believe. >I believe Gore will be the next President of the United States of American >and I hate it. I know he will win. It's very clear. You live in a very liberal area. Try spending the weekend in central PA, where I was told that "Gore is an asshole," and "Bush will obviously win." I think the race is going to be very close. >I don't think people really look at policies, only talk. Bush's only talk >is directed at traditionalists; old people and the religious. I hate to say it, but there is a young element in this country that dislikes Gore and the Democarts, and associates with the Republicans. They don't even need to be that religious. >I don't see what you're talking about here. Nader would sink the boat >how? By drawing votes away from Gore, as you insist he's doing? No, total implementation of the Green platform would be tantamount to a second revolution. That's why it will not happen. >I'd say the veto power would be Nader's best tool (along with the option >of appointing a judge or two... maybe). Agreed. >I would also LOVE to see a President that spoke candidly about what was >going on in the government. I love it when a congressperson says >something exposing the underbelly of the system and it's a rare thing. I >don't think I remember a President every doing so. Eisenhower, perhaps? (Insert recent comment: I know this has already been said) But he had less to lose, and was an idealist at heart. And to a MUCH lesser extent, I thought McCain had some things to say that were fascinating. I was also proud of Powell -- though he remains a cypher -- for chiding the GOP somewhat. I still love you all, even the Vegans, - --Quail - -- +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "The people asked, and he brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven." --Psalms 105:40 (Also see Exodus 16:13 and Numbers 11:31-34 for more starry wisdom) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:06:21 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: Re: The pseudo-intellectual poseurness of Rush From: Jason R. Thornton > I've always found Peart's lyrics corny at best, pretentious (more than just > a "tad") at worst. Really, the band's strength isn't their weak > "conceptual" lyrics. It's their musical complexity and their technical > musicianship. I agree with you here. Lyrics have never been the thing I listen to as close as I should. I'm a drummer, ya know, we're like, drunk all the time and sleep on floors ; ) I also find Peart's unexpressive, dead-on-the-beat drumming > gives the group's music an overly choppy feel - personally, I think they > would have been a better band if they had just ditched Peart altogether. Vince "Peart is GOD doooodz" The Vincester ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:53:17 -0600 From: hbrandt Subject: my spidey sense is tingling... http://www.no-organic-webshooters.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:20:21 -0500 From: steve Subject: The solution for all political arguments http://www.redlightrunner.com/stevjobforpr.html - - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:20:18 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: More about Rush! With lots of big words! The Great Quail: >Rush's lyrics from this period might have been a tad pretentious and >definitely fell on the overly-intellectual side for many rock fans, >but comparing them to Jefferson Airplane is unfair. That is a totally >arbitrary comparison based on your idea that both groups wrote >"protest songs," which does not hold true for Rush in the sense of >what we consider a protest song. The Airplane didn't really write "protest" songs either. Theirs were more in the "fuck the establishment" vein. I guess you could say they lived their protest. Obviously, it took a toll on them, because (as I've said before) nobody in their right minds would have asked Pappa John Creach to join their band. Never has a band fallen farther in such a short time. I like Rush, I think I've got most of their albums. Lots of Mr. Peart's lyrics are inelegant truisms, but that doesn't really get in the way of enjoying what they do. Of course, they'll never make an album as good as "After Bathing At Baxters," but neither will most other bands (in my universe, anyway). - - Steve __________ "He's probably the least qualified person ever to be nominated by a major party ... What is his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk? - Ron Reagan on George W. Bush ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:13:36 PDT From: "Ken Kenster" Subject: Re:Full Dimensional this is really starting to get out of hand. could somebody compile a listing of all the recorded covers of robyn's songs? they never played it anywhere else. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:58:08 PDT From: "Ken Kenster" Subject: eb all over the world did she spcify which organ they were landing upon? i'm betting it was your beautiful, beautiful ass. nimby-ism, in not addressing the structural causes of ecological degradation, is not going to do anything to lessen it. it rings especially hollow coming from the 20% of the population which consumes 80% of the world's resources. blaming a few ethiopian or mexican immigrants for wrecking our environment after we've done so much to wreck theirs (and much else besides) is just breathtakingly hypocritical. a nader presidency will do a FUCK OF A LOT more in addressing these concerns than would a buchanan presidency. (though i suppose that buchanan would be preferable to gore on this issue.) i try. did somebody mention stupidity? look, i'm not generally in the habit of getting too down on 20-year-old kids for doing what they think is the right thing. and, yeah, we treat our veterans (who were drawn from the poorest sectors of society in the first place) like shit. but HE'S NOT 20 YEARS OLD ANYMORE. for him to have lived 30 more years of his life, and to still be carrying on about how terribly the "gooks" treated him is inexcusable. brown people have never mattered at any point. but that's not the issue. john mccain, john wayne, colin powell, douglas macarthur, et al. (and most especially the "best and the brightest" planners) are not heroes; they're fucking chumps. you looking for heroes? how about the nlf? i personally can think of nothing more heroic IN HISTORY than the vietnamese people having stood up first to the (u.s.-subsidised) french, and second to the greatest onslaught by the most powerful military force of all times. (which makes the communist party's subsequent sellout to global capital all the more tragic.) my god, is that true? i don't even know what to say. i find it diffcult to believe that jews would be celebrating the german analog of memorial day. christ, we're *still* waging war on the indians to this day. slade gorton'll tell you. please don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds a lot more like naivete than courage. how was it helping the next generation? <>How about having your website shut down because AT&T's service >agreement doesn't allow cable modem subscribers to run services Then get a different provider.> i really don't know much about this. but, first of all, it shouldn't even be a matter of having to pay "providers". why is the technology in the private sector at all? because it was (after having been developed 100% by the taxpayers) just *given* to business, without even so much as a warning - -- let alone a debate. rather than shopping around for providers we can pay, we should be thinking about taking it *back*. further, assuming it is in the private sector, if one or two companies have a monopoly on the actual *infrastructure*, then they've pretty much got you by the short hairs. it's as if one company had a monopoly on photocopiers, and would only allow you to photocopy pre-approved content. except it's worse. you can at least imagine somebody building their own photocopier. much more difficult to imagine a small group of people stringing the country up with "alternate" cables. again, i'm out of my element here, so maybe i'm just talking out my ass. don't think anybody suggested we don't have any rights -- just that they're being eroded at an alarming rate. moreover (i'm sure i've said this before), the fact that we have rights is no reason to gloat. it simply means that we've a much greater responsibility to expose lies and right wrongs. <>come on. that's the worst symptom of "late capitalism" you can >possibly think of? No, I was responding to Vivien's statement.> yeah, but you compared it with the worst symptoms of a totalitarian system. <>but try and communicate with a large number of people and you will be >shut down. We are free to speak... as long as not >very many people can hear. Untenable. Of course it takes money to get a message across to a large group of people, and of course you have to be selective in your media outlets -- Playboy magazine will not run an anti-porn ad. But your phrasing is alarmist and has the whiff of conspiracy theories about it.> capuchin should probably not have said that you'd be shut down. he should've said that you'd fail. although if you *do* succeed, *then* you'll be shut down. ask gary webb or mike gallagher. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #227 *******************************