From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #245 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, September 1 2000 Volume 09 : Number 245 Today's Subjects: ----------------- same deep water as you? ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] attn: Joy Electric fans [Eb ] Re: moribundity and Robyn live ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: moribund scene & list [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: Since the list is moribund... [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: Language question... [Jonatan "Morén" ] Re: Since the list is moribund and it's a slow day... (100% weenieism) [d] Re: Since the list is moribund and it's a slow day... (100% weenieism) [E] Re: Since the list is moribund and it's a slow day... (100% weenieism) [d] the lingo [digja611@student.otago.ac.nz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:05:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: same deep water as you? > From: Christopher Gross > On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, matt sewell wrote: > > > I've recently been hassled by a geezer over a review I wrote which > contained > > the sentence "does everything this man touches turn to gold?" > > Now, I can't see anything wrong with that, but this man claims it > should be > > "does everything this man touch turn to gold?" > > Who's right? > > You're right. He's so wrong, it's not even funny. In your sentence the > subject of the verb "touches" is "man," which is singular, and "touches" > is the correct third-person singular form of the verb. The geezer was > probably thrown off by the word "does" at the beginning of the sentence, > but the subject of "does" here is "everything," not "man," so it has no > effect on the "touch." (Sorry if that explanation is unclear; if I was > more awake I'd rewrite it, but I'm not, so I won't.) I'd add that one might reply by saying "everything this man touches does turn to gold," which if inverted yields the question. It sounds weird, but then so does "a vase holding carnations and dahlias breaks easily." I've thought about the potential "death of alternative" and I'm not sure how to feel about it. On the one hand, the 90s and late 80s were strewn with guitar-oriented indie and alternative bands that failed to move me at all. I hated dry college-rock in the late 80s and early 90s, I hated grunge, I hate anonymous indie and emo-rock. Most of the music I like is grand, dark, glittery, watery stuff that you have to swim around in or bodysurf on or lurk beneath the surface of, and most people (and most critics) don't really see much value in that, or they see the therapeutic elements of it as immature. I can see potential for more of my kind of music in the electronica & trip-hop realms...some of the older Moby tracks had it, the first Portishead album had it, Massive Attack is awash with it...and while most of the Radiohead copycat bands suck, they've got the right idea. But since Robyn Hitchcock is rarely grand, glittery, or watery, we are left with a middling darkness...I doubt my perspective on it is similar to most fegs'. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:08:13 -0700 From: Eb Subject: attn: Joy Electric fans Paul Christian Glenn, email me. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 08:56:38 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: moribundity and Robyn live "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" wrote: > > The gig was made for me by the Elvis '69 version of Guilford which he and > Tim embarked on. It worked! I was wearing an Elvis T-shirt an' all... yes, v. silly. As was the whole idea of co-operative pedal control; everyone controls someone else's pedals... > jmbc. tell me, is that a name, or a corporate sponsorship deal? > Stewart or Tony might be able to correct anything I've got wrong. It was > good to meet you. Nah, it's spot on. Good to meet you too. Shame we don't know of anyonewho taped the first gig. That Element of Light he finished off with was spine-tingling. > Though Stewart, as the son of an Edinburgher I won't even > begin to say what I think of Glasgow...:-) as a weegie, how much of a feg do you think I give for your opinion...? Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:19:12 EDT From: HSatterfld@aol.com Subject: Re: Since the list is moribund... MARKEEFE@aol.com said: > Whatever comes around goes around. The music scene now is exactly as it > was 10 years ago. Everyone will soon tire of N'Sync and Brittney, just as > they did New Kids and Debbie Gibson back then. What a rude thing to say about Ms. Gibson on her thirtieth birthday. Especially since, unlike the other artists mentioned, she knows how to play instruments. You go to www.deborah-gibson.com right now and apologize for implying that she is no longer recording. :) P.S. Billy Corgan claims that the Pumpkins are breaking up because "it is too hard to compete with the Britneys of the world", among other things. When I heard this I immediately ran out and bought "Oops...I Did It Again!" in gratitude. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:21:07 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: MTV2 Nice to see that the clowns I cc:ed on that email know the power of the 'reply-to-all' button. Ugh. Sorry for chumming up your bandwidth. ______________________________________ Ferris Scott Thomas programmer McGraw-Hill Education 860.409.2612 ferris_thomas@mcgraw-hill.com (email) "Now the freaks are on television, the freaks are in the movies. And it's no longer the sideshow, it's the whole show. The colorful circus and the clowns and the elephants, for all intents and purposes, are gone, and we're dealing only with the freaks." Johnathon Winters ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:37:42 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: moribund scene & list In a message dated 8/31/00 2:14:57 PM, gondola@deltanet.com writes: << A successful indie band like, say, Superchunk has absolutely no reason to sign with a major label. But I think they're an exception.... >> I wonder. This is a subject I haven't studied really thoroughly, but most of the allegory I've heard around it leads me to believe that only a precious few bands on major labels really get a lot out of it and that most end up doing just barely okay or even owing money to their labels. On the other hand, since Eb wondered about whether or not Sleater-Kinney would be on an indie label in the early 90's, I would have to say that they probably would be, since they've got a damn good thing going (apparently; I read in an interview that they're extremely happy with Kill Rock Stars). I guess the chances for big money success are probably greater with a major label, but I think the chances for bankruptcy are also greater. There are probably tons of acts in either camp who are only able to scratch out a li ving and/or need to get retail jobs while not touring. Basically, what I'm saying is that the big budgets for recording, promotion and touring that can come with a major label contract is a very risky investment. Could pay off big-time, could be really bad. - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:52:27 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: Since the list is moribund... In a message dated 9/1/00 6:24:37 AM, HSatterfld@aol.com writes: << What a rude thing to say about Ms. Gibson on her thirtieth birthday. Especially since, unlike the other artists mentioned, she knows how to play instruments. You go to www.deborah-gibson.com right now and apologize for implying that she is no longer recording. :) >> I won't apologize!! :-) I never meant to imply that she's not recording; just that the masses stopped caring after a pretty quick period of time. And, yes, I know she writes and plays. So does Hanson! I'll give credit where credit is due, but that doesn't extract these artsits from the "teen pop" category or the trends associated therewith. [therewith? that's made up, isn't it? could be, but I'm standing by it all the same] Sorry, Debbie. You're all grown up now, but hardly anybody cares. But, hey, that's true for most bands and artists. A felluh named Robyn Hitchcock also once had his day in the sun in the last 80's and early 90's. Now that he's no longer on the radio, who cares about the guy?! - -----Michael K. (blah-blah-blahing this morning; I should leave you folks alone and go work out, that's what I should do!) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 2000 16:28:01 -0000 From: Jonatan "Morén" Subject: Re: Language question... Quoting Christopher Gross : > Well, that might be what the geezer was > getting at, but if so he's still wrong. "Does everything he touches turn > to gold?" is not in, and does not require, the subjunctive mood. It's > just a yes-or-no factual question about something that either happens or > doesn't. The subjunctive mood is for conditional or hypothetical > sentences (e.g., "If he were Ralph Nader, everything he touched would turn > to gold"). Of course the turning to gold part is a metaphor, but that > isn't enough to automatically kick any question involving the metaphor > into the subjunctive mood. In deed. But I think you can read it in two ways, either as "Does everything he (actually, thus indicative mood) touches etc..." or as "Does everything he (ever, under any circumstances, hypothetically, thus subjunctive mood) touch...". (The latter would be pretty much analogous to "He asked that everything he touch be turned to gold". It's not just the turning to gold, but also the touching which is hypothetical.) J.M. ................................................................ 75.000 svenskar har nu gratis e-post pĺ Sverige.nu! http://www.sverige.nu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:13:53 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: Since the list is moribund and it's a slow day... (100% weenieism) On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Eb wrote: > ...I'll go out on a limb, and indulge myself. I suppose this is fueled by > my recent discovery about Richard Thompson and Capitol, even though > Thompson is more of an old-school name. > > In recent months, I've been on a peripheral quest to wearily chart the fall > of "Alternative" music from the mainstream marketplace. Much to my dismay, > what remains is mostly lunkheaded moshpit fodder and that shallow "grease > pop" about which I've previously griped at ridiculous length. d'you think being on an "indie" label carries the same sort of minor-league stigma that it did ten years ago (versus, say, moving 250,000 units on a major and being dropped as a poor return on investment)? here's what i think: critical & commercial success only overlap incidentally. what's good is never necessarily what sells big. the major labels have completed their transformation from independent entities to arms of megacorporations. they're less interested than ever in 'artist development;' they want immediate return on investment. the indie labels take the place of what used to be major label a&r. the majors can skim the cream off the top at any time (either through the increasinly labyrinthine distro deals, or by signing an act). as soon as the bottom-line benefits are inadequate -- or the flavor of the month changes -- the artist can be released back into the indie-feeding pool, to swim or sink, as they do. the result, from the major's perspective, is that they're leaner, and able to respond faster to changing market conditions, than if they've got a roster cluttered with acts that they intend to honor committments too. what i don't get is why a band selling 100-300,000 units would at this point want to sign with a major. in that range you'd have the muscle with most of the indies to negotiate a pretty favorable publishing arrangement. on a major you'd be a slow starter, a long shot. and it's not like most of the indies can't put you in ever mall in america at this point. i've heard another five stories in the last few months about bands getting badly burned by majors. in the worst one, not only can the band not afford to buy the record back so they can release it themselves, but the deal apparently forbids them recording the same songs as an indie act. sheesh. > np: the 222th crummy new release I've heard this year we'd like a nice round number if ppossible. can you let us know when you're getting close to three hundred, three fifty, four hundred, etc. - -- d. np saint low (have you heard this one, Eb? on thirsty ear. a madder rose side project, of sorts, and just wa-ay the hell better than it has any business being.) - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:12:47 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Since the list is moribund and it's a slow day... (100% weenieism) DMW: >the result, from the major's perspective, is that they're leaner, and >able to respond faster to changing market conditions, than if they've got >a roster cluttered with acts that they intend to honor committments too. Well, OK. But actually, the opposite seems to be happening in certain arenas. For instance, there's endless talk about how the UniGram merger has drained the promotional wallop behind the Geffen/Interscope/A&M acts, who are now all worked in tandem by *one department*. You wonder why the Chris Cornell album didn't do nearly as well as Soundgarden, or why the new No Doubt isn't the juggernaut the last album was...? >i've heard another five stories in the last few months about bands getting >badly burned by majors. Well, don't be coy...spill. >> np: the 222th crummy new release I've heard this year > >we'd like a nice round number if ppossible. can you let us know when >you're getting close to three hundred, three fifty, four hundred, etc. Four hundred?? Nooooooooo...let's hope not, for my sanity's sake. The tally did get up to 350-360 last year, though. >np saint low (have you heard this one, Eb? on thirsty ear. a madder rose >side project, of sorts, and just wa-ay the hell better than it has any >business being.) Haven't heard it. I used to marginally like Madder Rose (even interviewed Mary Lorson once), but I ended up pruning their discs from my permanent collection after awhile. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 18:10:32 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: Since the list is moribund and it's a slow day... (100% weenieism) On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Eb wrote: > Well, OK. But actually, the opposite seems to be happening in certain > arenas. For instance, there's endless talk about how the UniGram merger has > drained the promotional wallop behind the Geffen/Interscope/A&M acts, who > are now all worked in tandem by *one department*. You wonder why the Chris > Cornell album didn't do nearly as well as Soundgarden, or why the new No > Doubt isn't the juggernaut the last album was...? mmm. i haven't been keeping track of which labels have the greasy dirtbag bands that you were kvetching about not so long ago...wheatus, et al. could it be that the no doubt gang, chris cornell etc. want more money than the kids who've just been signed? or is that getting *too* cynical? > >i've heard another five stories in the last few months about bands getting > >badly burned by majors. > > Well, don't be coy...spill. wasn't trying to be coy, but the names haven't stuck in my head. there was one deadly dull lilith fair lite thing which i had the misfortune to see and somehow got mailing listed by. when they were crowing about the deal six months or so i remember thinking, good god, they're utterly insane. can't remember their damn name right now to save my life. something blue? blue something? > Four hundred?? Nooooooooo...let's hope not, for my sanity's sake. The tally > did get up to 350-360 last year, though. well, ours is at least two months away from completion. maybe we can be 300 if we're lucky. > >np saint low (have you heard this one, Eb? on thirsty ear. a madder rose > > Haven't heard it. I used to marginally like Madder Rose (even interviewed > Mary Lorson once), but I ended up pruning their discs from my permanent > collection after awhile. i still have the first couple, but i know that velocity girl-ish pop with a sweet chanteuse atop buzzy riffage is a critical blind spot of mine. what struck me about saint low was that the melodies were much more memorable than those on the last couple madder rose records. then i noticed how consistently tasteful the playing was throughout. - -- d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:27:58 +1200 From: digja611@student.otago.ac.nz Subject: the lingo >I've recently been hassled by a geezer over a review I wrote which contained >the sentence "does everything this man touches turn to gold?" >Now, I can't see anything wrong with that, but this man claims it should be >"does everything this man touch turn to gold?" you are, Matt. replace "that man" with the equivalent pronoun, "he", and see how the sentence looks. "touch" would only be correct if there was a plural there: "does everything these men touch...". As for the subjuncrive, it's a possibility, but the only cases in English where it is still commonly used are "If I were to..." (Midge Ure and wishing about pretty girls notwithstanding). It's usually applied in a conditional sense though: given hypothetical circumstances, then..., which is why the Biblical example works ( "he asked that everything he touch (hypothetical case) be turned to gold" - thanks JM). Given hypothetical circumstances, everything he touches would be turned to gold. Your sentence is slightly different. You're not offering an if, but asking a direct question: "is this the situation?" I'm not convinced that the subjunctive comes into play there. Then again, I'm not a linguistics scholar, and I could be simply pressing random keys. James 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") ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #245 *******************************