From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #262 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, September 21 2000 Volume 09 : Number 262 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: not these two again [Stephen Buckalew ] Re: not these two again [lj lindhurst ] Re: not these two again [Eb ] Re: not these two again [Ken Ostrander ] Re: not these two again [Stephen Buckalew ] RE: not these two again ["Brian Huddell" ] More games! [The Great Quail ] Re: east coast dates [Ben ] courtney taylor-taylor-taylor ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: not these two again [hbrandt ] in case anyone should care ["Souped Up For Ja" ] Courtney's *still* chasing Amy! [Eb ] Re: not these two again [Eb ] Napstering [Terrence Marks ] Advice for the Technologically Challenged ["linnig" ] Re: Couldn't give a toss if it's off topic... [GSS ] Re: shirts [GSS ] Re: I could give a toss ["matt sewell" ] nme review of yo la tengo w/robyn [the real dick cheney ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:56:16 -0400 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: not these two again I don't see any difference between these two forms of "weenie-isms"...they seem two sides of a very same coin to me....only separated by subjective musical taste. But then...I'm one of the dimmer mental bulbs on the list, so I'm probably just confused... Steve At 12:22 PM 9/20/00 -0700, you wrote: >H-- again milked the only issue which makes people notice him: >>For the record, I purposely did not quote or mention your name >>in my original post. I simply responded to something you said publicly, >>trying to leave your name out of it, anticipating (and attempting to >>circumvent) one of your infamous tirades toward me; obviously resulting >>in an utter failure on my part to do so. > > You are *nuts*. You directly respond to something I've written, >call me (yet again...get some new material) a "pop culture weenie," and you >don't think that's confrontative/argumentative only because you didn't >explicitly use my *name*? And then you act surprised that I perceived your >insult in a negative light? Who are you kidding? However, in deference to >you, I'm leaving your name out of this post. Maybe I'll "circumvent one of >your infamous tirades," this way. > >Meanwhile, I write *one sentence* in direct reply to you, and you label >that a "tirade"? > >>> H--, you're an "obsessive-compulsive weenie" about the Dead, by any >>> definition. >> >>To borrow your own phrase...How so? Funny, I've never even met you. Why >>do you feel qualified to make this assumption? > >Well, for starters, take your solemn, ritual observance of the anniversary >of Garcia's death a few weeks ago. Add to that your heavenknowshowbig >concert-tape collection (which requires far more effort to amass than just >a quick trip to the local record store), your ability to easily toss out >specific Dead show dates and compare/contrast them, the unceasing >years-long grudge you bear against me for daring to forcefully point out >why I can't stand the group's music, the general soul-of-an-accountant >nature of your trainspotting Fegposts.... > >And you've never met me, either. So wherefore all your own assumptions >about me? > >>> And needless to say, the Grateful Dead is an absolutely >>> *stellar* example of a "pop culture" phenomenon. >> >>Sounds like you're the one obsessed with that aspect of the Dead. I just >>like some of the music and think they were good live (and sometimes >>great and sometimes lousy). > >You're soft-pedalling, big time. And whether you choose to acknowledge it >or not, the Grateful Dead is absolutely a part of your much-abhorred "pop >culture." And so is David Lynch. And so is.... > >>As for me, as long as you can >>accept that the ego-driven intimidation techniques you call "writing" (I >>call it "typing") can't silence me > >Your ongoing dismissals of my writing don't bother me a bit, as you might >imagine. Since I get loads of positive feedback from others (both >personally and professionally), and since you've never offered any of your >own "typing" which is remotely entertaining or thought-provoking, I'm >pretty blasé about your (again recurrent...get some new material) sneers >about my abilities. > >>Whaddya say? In the meantime, learn to laugh at yourself a little. > >I laugh at myself *plenty*. There's no doubt that I take more ribbing than >anyone else on this list (maybe more than the rest of the list *combined*), >and I take most of it with grace. For instance, I didn't even respond to >Natalie's recent satire of my "concert reviews," and the tone of that post >wasn't even particularly friendly. > >Eb > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:11:01 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: not these two again Let me say what everyone else is surely thinking here: NO ONE CARES!!!! Why don't you take this dumb-assed quibbling off-list? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:19:01 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: not these two again >I don't see any difference between these two forms of "weenie-isms"... The biggest difference is that I'm self-deprecating about it. I've frequently labeled my own posts things like "100% weenieism." I present my rambling anecdotes with a satirical "[ebmaniax-l]" prefix, acknowledging their indulgent nature. I post about some used vinyl I bought, and label it "silly shopping news." You can find plenty of examples of this, in my comments. In contrast, Hal always presents himself as one who has grandly matured past such childish pursuits toward a higher, enlightened plane of spiritual consciousness. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:43:06 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: not these two again >Let me say what everyone else is surely thinking here: NO ONE >CARES!!!! Why don't you take this dumb-assed quibbling off-list? since i find myself still reading these posts, i guess i could care less... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:51:54 -0400 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: not these two again that's true, I seem to remember you doing so, but however self-depreciating you are about it, you obviously still consider collecting, categorizing, and cataloguing pop music, to be a valuable (or enjoyable) pastime. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem that different from Hal following his own collecting muse, even if it's for a band you don't like. Both are enjoyable to the individuals in question. Neither harms anyone. Why put each other down for it... Steve (not sure why I'm getting involved...I just like goodwill between folks I guess) At 01:19 PM 9/20/00 -0700, you wrote: >>I don't see any difference between these two forms of "weenie-isms"... > >The biggest difference is that I'm self-deprecating about it. I've >frequently labeled my own posts things like "100% weenieism." I present my >rambling anecdotes with a satirical "[ebmaniax-l]" prefix, acknowledging >their indulgent nature. I post about some used vinyl I bought, and label it >"silly shopping news." You can find plenty of examples of this, in my >comments. > >In contrast, Hal always presents himself as one who has grandly matured >past such childish pursuits toward a higher, enlightened plane of spiritual >consciousness. > >Eb > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:12:55 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: not these two again > >Let me say what everyone else is surely thinking here: NO ONE > >CARES!!!! Why don't you take this dumb-assed quibbling off-list? > > since i find myself still reading these posts, i guess i could > care less... Right. I, however, care so little that, while it is mathematically possible for me to care less, I would probably injure myself trying. So I'll have to be satisfied with knowing that I *could* care less, even though I probably won't. Care less. Than I do now. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:21:55 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: More games! During my recent hols around the Slightly Sooty Sea and the Aegean Ageannie, I thought I would take some appropriate reading matter, so I stole David Jameson's "Hookers and Fishwives," which is the best book on carnivorous constipation in Engine Grease that I have ever read (indeed, the only ...). Anyhow, apart form the fish and sex, the other thing that the E.G.s liked to spend money on was gambling, and their favorite betting game (I'm serious, it's in the book) was called: HAL TAPPING You gather a crowd of like minded Fgz together You obtain a Hal You draw a circle You put the Hal in the circle And everybody bets for or against the Hal. THEN Eb taps the Hal sharply on the head with a post (DOYNG!) If it stays inside the circle, the pro-Hal gamblers win; if it backs off and runs away, the anti-Hal bets are paid out! There is also, oddly enough, a very similar game called: EB TAPPING You gather a crowd of like minded Fgz together You obtain an Eb You draw a circle You put the Eb in the circle And everybody bets for or against the Eb. THEN Hal taps the Eb sharply on the head with a post (DOYNG!) If it stays inside the circle, the pro-Eb gamblers win; if it backs off and runs away, the anti-Eb bets are paid out! Occasionally, these two games are combined for fun and profit, and during those times -- usually styled "The Ohlimpdick Flames" -- it is said that fortunes rise and fall in the merriment that ensues! Of course, they didn't have Susan Dodge and TGQ in Engine Grease ... - -- God Mikewin PS I know you don't believe it but, it's true! here's the ISBN: Paperback - 300 pages (1 June, 1998); Gooey Fondue Press; ISBN: 901202112 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:46:28 -0400 From: Ben Subject: Re: east coast dates > >October 15 & 16: The Iota Club, Alexandria, VA > > > >as eddie pointed out, this is in arlington...but y'all knew that. they > >don't seem to have a website, but there are listings and information at: > > > >. > > actually they do have a fairly primitive under construction website > > > > anyways very exciting news. I will actually be able to see one > of these DC area shows. ...and on October 17 Richard Thompson and Roger McGuinn are playing at Kraushaar Auditorium in Towson, MD!!! A trio of concert nights for me!!! Nice to see they are acknowledging the DC area is the center of all good things Robyn-esque and he is playing two nights insted of one for us! :) This is better than a crispy board of 9-27-72 or a near-mint Uncanny X-Men #107!!! (No I couldn't ignore it... :) ) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:56:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: courtney taylor-taylor-taylor > From: Eb > 5. A Capitol friend of mine informed me that Courtney of the Dandy > Warhols > absolutely *loves* the Amy Correia album, and was drooling all over her > when they met. Ha. This illustrates once again that not only can good > artists have crummy tastes, but crummy artists can have *good* tastes. > ;) :p At the San Francisco show I went to recently, various Dandy Warhols left the stage at various points to pee. During one of these absences, Courtney was left alone onstage, and he kept us entertained with an excellent, soft and sweet cover of a song he claimed to consider one of the most beautiful he'd ever heard. It was "Your Ghost" by Kristin Hersh. > I may love Amy's current album, but I'm not yet confident > about her prospects for longevity as a songwriter. SAP #1: We love you, Amy! SAP #2: THANK you for CHANGing my LIFE!* Eb #1: I may love your current album, but I'm not yet confident about your prospects for longevity as a songwriter! AMY C.: What? > In the UK, we say "I couldn't care less" when we're not interested - the > > statement shows that one is already at the point of caring so little, he > > couldn't care any less about it. Makes sense to me. > However, it seems that in the US, the phrase is "I could care less", > implying to me, that there is some care towards the subject... if one > could > care less, then they care more than not caring at all. > > Am I making sense? Can anyone explain why this difference exists? Americans are stupid. Though I have always thought "I couldn't care less" is, if you stare at it from a distance of three millimeters, slightly ambiguous. Maybe you couldn't care less because it's so important that your current level of care is the minimum for any reasonable person. (I'm an American. I'm stupid.) Drew * A girl once stood up behind me at a Tori concert and yelled this. Just minutes before, she'd told me that I was wearing a scent that reminded her of her ex-boyfriend. The only scent she could have meant was my strawberry shampoo, which really made me wonder. ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:23:28 -0600 From: hbrandt Subject: Re: not these two again Eb typed: > You are *nuts*. Eloquent as usual. > > You directly respond to something I've written, > call me...a "pop culture weenie," and you > don't think that's confrontative/argumentative only because you didn't > explicitly use my *name*? Right. By leaving your name off the post, extracting a phrase from your original OUT OF CONTEXT and then making my statement, I was attempting to generalize my comments and not target you specifically. In other words, I didn't call YOU anything. Your ego, as usual, won't allow for that. Your knees jerk and you shoot from the hip. Your posturing and self-aggrandizing (in the guise of self-deprecation) posts are becoming increasingly delusional with respect to me. My responses to you are becoming bogged down in superficiality. Everyone on the list is indifferent at best. In the future, if you can subdue your ego long enough, please respond to me offlist. Or, better yet, don't bother (if the "dialogue" is going to continue in this vein.) > Hal always presents himself as one who has grandly matured > past such childish pursuits toward a higher, enlightened plane of spiritual > consciousness. I'm far from enlightened, but it is encouraging that you refer to the "pursuits" being discussed as "childish". There's hope for you yet? /hal PS- I'm really done now. Apologies to those who object to this stuff. Over to you, Eb! What did you do today? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:10:31 PDT From: "Souped Up For Ja" Subject: in case anyone should care i've FINALLY got around to uploading my pix from last year's wto festivities (as well as some shots of kristin hersh and casey neill trio from this month's bumbershoot festivities). . _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:19:38 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Courtney's *still* chasing Amy! The Amazon site's top-10 chart, for album sales in the Los Angeles metropolitan area: 10. Emmylou Harris/Red Dirt Girl 9. The Dandy Warhols/Thirteen Tales From Urban Bohemia 8. Craig Chaquico/The Best of Craig Chaquico: Panorama 7. Live/Everything, Everything 6. Colin Hay/Going Somewhere [WHAT???] 5. Andrea Bocelli/Verdi 4. Rickie Lee Jones/It's Like This 3. Soundtrack/Almost Famous 2. Various/Great Moments of the 20th Century 1. Amy Correia/Carnival Love I've noticed that Amazon's sales frequently seem skewed toward older-demographic, folksy-bluesy stuff (like Rickie Lee, Emmylou, Colin and Amy). I wouldn't know why. The recent Band reissues sold like crazy, too.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:47:36 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: not these two again >> You directly respond to something I've written, >> call me...a "pop culture weenie," and you >> don't think that's confrontative/argumentative only because you didn't >> explicitly use my *name*? > >Right. By leaving your name off the post, extracting a phrase from your >original OUT OF CONTEXT and then making my statement, I was attempting >to generalize my comments and not target you specifically. In other >words, I didn't call YOU anything. I'm going to offer some general comments here, which aren't directed at anyone in particular. It's sad when sulking mailing-list subscribers pick petty fights with other subscribers, and try to wash their hands of the responsibility with a feeble, hypocritical defense of "Who, me? All I did was open with an insult - -- he *responded*! It's all his fault! He's *angry*!" It's even sadder when Mailing-List Subscriber A claims a derisive post directly quoting Subscriber B's comments wasn't aimed at Subscriber B. Especially when Subscriber A has tossed a similarly pompous "pop culture" smear at Subscriber B, countless times before. I can only hope such a claim would be calculated disinformation on Subscriber A's part, and not something Subscriber A is deluded enough to sincerely believe. However, I'm just musing out loud, you understand. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:58:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Napstering Boy, I love my new DSL line. I seem to be one of the best sources for ELP, Firehouse Five + Two, Laurel & Hardy, and Dr. Octogon. (and don't say that it hurts artists. After I picked up some ELP songs, I went out and bought four of their albums. Used. For $7. I hope Mr. Emerson appreciates this ^_^) I found: "Play that Funky Music (White Boy)" credited to George Clinton, James Brown, KC & the Sunshine Band, Average White Band, and (rarely) Wild Cherry. Surprisingly little Paisley Underground. No Rain Parade. Very little Cope, only a few albums of Hitchcock. Almost no Soft Boys. A lot of prog. I was able to find the first seven or eight Gentle Giant albums, most of ELP, and, probably, the entire Yes catalog (every used record store has half of the Yes catalog somewhere in the back. It's the law now). King Crimson and The Soft Machine were a lot less ubiquitous, for some reason. Relatedly, it's _strange_ hearing "Indoor Games" at normal speed for the first time. My record player goes at about 37 RPM. It's like a different song. Surprise finds: Tyrannosaurus Rex' first three albums (Glad I didn't waste money on that....), Faine Jade's Introspection, Lothar & the Hand People's Space Hymn, and Secret Square's album. Nobody's even tried downloading my Victorian music box mp3s. At least five people got my "Stuka taking off" vintage WWII sound effect. I don't know why either. Very little moog music, outside of Perrey-Kingsley and Moog Cookbook (which I'm also glad I didn't pay money for. While putting "Turkey in the Straw" in the middle of "Cat Scratch Fever" is plenty amusing in concept, I don't think it holds up in practice.) A search for Argent usualy reveals 80-90 files of "Hold Your Head Up". There _is_ a West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band album in print. Unfortunately, it's Part 1, which is significantly weaker than Volume 1 or Part 2. Takoko Minekawa and Cornelius. Presently evaluating the both of them. No Shleep. No Manny Albam. No Turtles outside the hits. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:56:59 -0700 From: "linnig" Subject: Advice for the Technologically Challenged I am seeking the advice from this well versed group to explain how to transfer tapes and albums to CD. What kind of stuff do I need? Sincerely The Other Terry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:46:03 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: In defense of Eb (Didn't I use this subject once before?) Or maybe twice or even three times? I for one have to say this publicly..... I, like dmw, very much enjoy Eb's concert updates. I think Eb is a good writer with a lot of personality, and I enjoy reading about his exploits in the world of West Coast rock criticism. I don't always agree with his opinions, especially about My Personal God Jon Anderson and his One True Prophet Olias, and I don't always agree with his snipes at people, whether or not they are deserving of it; but I always find his tales amusing, informative, and often witty. It's like having that High Fidelity guy as your pen pal. Anyway, I also like /hal, and gNatalie, and Vince Dances-with-Rush, and any other of the Fgz who occasionally butts heads with Eb, too. (Except that Bayard. He's just a fucking bastard, and I am sick of his mean-spirited posts. Have you listened to any of those MP3's backwards? Words in there would make Eddie blush; and all that chanting: "Kill Eb Kill Eb Kill Eb Killy-kill Killy-kill Eb Eb Eb...!") So Ebbie, you post on, brother; fly on, like RANYART and COCK-WHACK and OOBLECK and the Wombat-ships of Sunhillow Prime, sailing on into the gloaming, all moody blues and deep purples and burnt blood oranges.... I, Deadhead and Yesfreak, Rushfan and Spinal Tap gr=F6upie, will continue to read your accounts as you play in the fields of rock and roll with Lawndart and Amy Corriander and the Bee King.... And if you can get Jamie Lee Curtis's phone number, I will gladly trade for a celeb phone number of my own, like... um... well, I know a guy who judges the Philip K. Dick awards.... um.... he might be available.... - --Quail PS: Speaking of pretentiousness and criticism and all, I have updated the "Raves" section of my homepage, http://www.rpg.net/quail/raves.html, which answers the NUMBER ONE question on all Feg minds -- what are the best classical albums so far of 2000, according to the Quail? Go, go children, tap away at those keyboards, go, go Michael Wolfe, and... and.... - -- +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) =46or fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P. Lovecraft ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:48:05 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: new email address a message to all my friends and fans on Fegmaniax! (well, y'z all my friends...) James Dignan is now contactable by the friendly pixels of surf4nix on O holy woj, will you please to the honours and send the digest there? Ta! james ***PLEASE NOTE THE GNU ADDRESS - yes, I can finally email from home! Yay!!!*** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:35:41 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Couldn't give a toss if it's off topic... Michael R Godwin wrote: > > Paperback - 300 pages ( 1 June, 1998); Fontana Press; ISBN: 0006863434 those three leading zeros tell the world it's a quality HarperCollins Publication... remember, Quail Tapping was brought to you by Big Rupert. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:09:10 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: I could give a toss > "Could care less", "couldn't care less" -- same difference! I was just thinking about this recently. I contend that "I coudn't care less" (a statement implying no interest whatsoever) evolved into "I could care less" (a statement implying some interest) through frequent misuse by those who didn't understand what the original phrase was supposed to mean. Much the same way "short lived" with a long I (meaning it had a short life) has somehow evolved into "short lived" with a short I (meaning I guess that it lived shortly), which is grammatically awkward. I'd like to point out, however, that "I could care less" has in turn evolved into "I could give a shit" which could be construed as a statement implying that the act of shitting would be of greater interest than the subject at hand, thereby returning the phrase to its original sarcastic feel. What REALLY puzzles me, though, is the matter of giving a rat's ass. I hear "I could give a rat's ass" all the time, yet no one has ever given me one. I don't believe anyone has ever told me thet they "couldn't give a rat's ass", so what seems to be the problem? - -rUss (don't get me started on flying fucks) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:45:56 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: Couldn't give a toss if it's off topic... On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 overbury@cn.ca wrote: > > "Could care less", "couldn't care less" -- same difference! same indifference. ;-{] but it does literally fuck-up the meaning. gss 'What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly. That is the first law of nature.' - Voltaire ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:58:56 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: shirts > (Yeah. Working on Unlike Minerva shirts and trying to determine a good > price point. So far, I'm thinking of $16, on the justification that > someone who'll pay $12 will probably shell out another $4) ooh look, a capitalist. tread lightly brother, there are opposing forces among us. use the robyn markup formula and just add about 150 to 200 percent to initial cost. gss "Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:21:25 BST From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: I could give a toss Russ writes: >What REALLY puzzles me, though, is the matter of giving a rat's ass. I >hear >"I could give a rat's ass" all the time, yet no one has ever given me one. >I don't believe anyone has ever told me thet they "couldn't give a rat's >ass", so what seems to be the problem? I haven't ever been given a rat's ass (or arse for that matter) either, but that could have something to do with being in the UK... I have, though, I'm sure, been given several tinker's cusses, despite being told by many people that they couldn't give me one... Also in the UK, people sometimes say "I couldn't give two shits"... So, does this mean that they *could* give just the one, or what? Still, who gives a fuck, eh? Cheers! Matt _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:00:35 -0400 From: the real dick cheney Subject: nme review of yo la tengo w/robyn this show occured on 8 may 2000 -- someone noticed the review and sent me the link... woj Yo La Tengo (and guests) London SE1 Royal Festival Hall Live collaborations - brrrr. Nominally the preserve of old geezers who ask other old geezers along to play rhythm ukelele at the Albert Hall, the practice nowadays summons up visions of Chris de Burgh and Elton John doing some ghastly 'Candle Lady In The Red Wind' medley for a credit card-sponsored stadium gig, but it can work if the vibes are right. Take Kevin Shields playing guitar on Primal Scream's tour, for instance. But former Spaceman Sonic Boom playing black boxes and tambourine in Yo La Tengo? With old cult dude Robyn Hitchcock (now solo, once a Soft Boy) on guitar and even older dude Neil Innes (former Rutle and Bonzo Dog Doo Dah man) tinkling the ivories? Against the staggering odds of age, disparate musical heritage and performers' natural egomania, it's actually OK. More than that, Innes + Boom + Hitchcock = a Yo La Tengo performance to cherish, to paraphrase a YLT album. Songs like 'The Crying Of Lot G' and 'Tears Are In Your Eyes' are graceful examples of what some Sonic Boom wind noises and an understated Innes piano can add to already lovely tunes. Mostly, this is a hushed affair, given that six people are trading instruments around, that favours the gentle brushstroke moods of 'And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside-Out'. But all the extra guitar power make older songs like 'Stockholm Syndrome' a heady janglefest, allowing nominal frontman Ira Kaplan to assault his own with impunity. The visitors get their own spotlights too. The Rutles' 'Cheese And Onions' and 'Mr Apollo' by the Bonzo Dog Doo Dahs gets Innes' back catalogue a cheerful airing, with Hitchcock on Viv Stanshall impressions. Hitchcock, meanwhile, revives the Soft Boys' 'I Wanna Destroy You' for a new generation of ears. But the most unexpected thrill comes from Sonic, who sings a mesmeric 'Transparent Radiation', once covered by Spacemen 3. Naturally, though, it's the home side that steal the show. For all the glory in their generous numbers tonight, Yo La are rarely more appealing than when the three Tengos, Georgia Hubley, James McNew and Ira, are alone - - armed with nothing save downy-soft vocals and a backing tape - perform a dance routine along to 'You Can Have It All'. Less remains more, then - even when more is rather excellent. - -- Kitty Empire ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #262 *******************************