From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #205 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, May 18 2001 Volume 10 : Number 205 Today's Subjects: ----------------- **se**serious **fi**films [Michael Wolfe ] Re: Lord of the Amateurs [steve ] Re: more time-wasting [steve ] Re: Frodo-riffic [steve ] Re: **se**serious **fi**films [dmw ] Consolidation, you say? Take *this*, Kay! [Eb ] Re: 1986 [=b ] Re: more time-wasting ["JH3" ] Re: 1986 ["Jason R. Thornton" ] goo goo ga zzzzzz... [HAL ] Re: 1986 [=b ] Re: Lord of the amateurs [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: 1986 ["Jason R. Thornton" ] DC show Sat., May 19, to benefit AIDSRide [Christopher Gross ] Re: 1986 ["J. Brown" ] moodroomin' [Christopher Gross ] Re: goo goo ga zzzzzz... [Eb ] Re: goo goo ga zzzzzz... ["Maximilian Lang" ] belinda naked ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:30:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: **se**serious **fi**films On Thursday, May 17 2001, Andrew Simchik put the following ideas up for discussion: >>And I liked _Beetlejuice_ okay, for >>what it was, but I'm not buying some reviisonist attempt to >>make it a **se**serious **fi**film, y'know? > >**se**serious **fi**films are for **bo**boring **pe**people. Verily, then, rose I to the bait, thusly: Yes, Drew is right. Anyone who demands more than just visceral reactions from his visual entertainment might as well be packed in tweed. And heaven help that person if he should actually, like, look for (or, heaven forfend, *find*) any kind of literate sensibility in his films, or any kind of applicability to the human condition. Personally, I find myself required to be hung up next to the rugs this time of year, to have the musty powder of academia thrashed from my pores lest it overwhelm all in my presence by its accumulation. And if only I could find some way to avoid speaking in a flat monotone, not entirely unlike the voice of Ben Stein in that notedly un-serious film, FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF. Now, more pedantry: Tim Burton did not direct NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. It was Henry Selick, who also did JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH and most recently, the much-maligned MONKEYBONE. Burton merely produced it, wrote a treatment, and lent his name to the marquee. When discussing the estimable oeuvre of Mr. Burton, let us not forget PEE-WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE. Truly a heavenly conjunction of bicycle-mania and cinephilia. A list of his features, according to IMDB: Sleepy Hollow (1999) Mars Attacks! (1996) Ed Wood (1994) Batman Returns (1992) Edward Scissorhands (1990) Batman (1989) Beetlejuice (1988) Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985) By my reckoning at least, that's far more hits (Pee-wee, BJ, Edward, Ed Wood, Mars) than misses, and even the misses are largely interesting (except for that boring Batman sequel.) However, I'm not terribly excited about PLANET OF THE APES, as the original always struck me as a weird sort of unanchored allegory that fell flat on it's portentous, bloated ass in search of significance. But I'll go see the new one, because if there's one thing Burton does not do, it's take himself too seriously. Not that seriousness, in itself, is a bad thing. - -Michael ""It is not magic. It is what we call: optics!" Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:50:04 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Lord of the Amateurs On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 02:02 PM, Parsley,Sage Rosemary&Thyme wrote: > I want her to star in an alternative history movie where she plays Mary > Magdelene, who goes off into the desert after her husband's apparent > final leave-taking in despair over her inability to get the apostles > (except John) to understand JC's teachings. After a few aeons of > meditation she becomes a bodhavista (and has a lion who follows her > around, not sure why but thats what I see) and returns just in time to > fuck Paul's brains out, thereby making for a different sort of > Christianity than we are currently familiar with. Didn't Jodorowsky already do this one? Movie alert - Big Trouble In Little China, next Tuesday on DVD. - - Steve __________ No previous administration has tried to sell its economic plans on such false pretenses. And this from a man who ran for president on a promise to restore honor and integrity to our nation's public life. - Paul Krugman, on Bush, from his book Fuzzy Math. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:59:44 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: more time-wasting >> Would you feel okay about having a burned copy (of _Wasp Star_, not >> >_Quench_) to replace the one that got scratched up? On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 01:34 PM, Natalie Jacobs wrote: > Sure - oh, but wait, I *can't*, because XTC are *soooo poor*, and I *don' > t* want to deprive them of their *precious* 0.0002 cents (or however much > it is) in royalties! Heh, Idea Records has allowed Andy to trade in his Atari for a new G4 and his own copy of ProTools. (Whether Andy having his own copy of ProTools is a good thing or not is open to discussion, I guess). I think Colin just still goes fishing. - - Steve __________ "we must therefore reject the central animating idea of modern Establishment Clause analysis: that taxpayers have a constitutional right to insist that none of their taxes be used for religious purposes." - Michael McConnell, Bush Circuit Court nominee ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:09:43 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Frodo-riffic On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 01:28 PM, Tom Clark wrote: > -tc, hmmm, should I get the 540 or the 740? Z3 Coupe, but only if it's an M version. - - Steve __________ No previous administration has tried to sell its economic plans on such false pretenses. And this from a man who ran for president on a promise to restore honor and integrity to our nation's public life. - Paul Krugman, on Bush, from his book Fuzzy Math. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:31:48 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: **se**serious **fi**films On Fri, 18 May 2001, Michael Wolfe wrote: > On Thursday, May 17 2001, Andrew Simchik put the following ideas > up for discussion: > >>And I liked _Beetlejuice_ okay, for > >>what it was, but I'm not buying some reviisonist attempt to > >>make it a **se**serious **fi**film, y'know? > > > >**se**serious **fi**films are for **bo**boring **pe**people. otay. first, i'm a snythesist -- for better or worse, i take little bits from all over and assemble them into new shapes. (this is one of the important reasons i refuse to get a security clearance -- as long as none of the little bits of info rattling around in my head are state secrets i sould be able to avoid writing songs that constitute high treason. in theory.) so i can't quote source, but when i speak of revisionist attempts to treat _beetlejuice_ as a serious film, that's what ai mean, but i wasn't suggesting that you, Drew, had made such attempts. i read a bunch of film criticism that had a thrust of "now that we know burton is a serious auteur, you can see the level of allegorical meaning originally overlooked by _beetlejuice's_ theatrical audience blah blah blah." which, bluntly, is hogwash. it was a michael keaton popcorn movie, it was a fine popcorn movie. i can be even more succint about my problem with burton -- he can't write (his most successful film, _ed wood_ is one where he had the least script/story inovlvement) and he either can't cast, or bows to studio pressure (winona "mugging!" ryder) to cast "hot properties" to the detriment of his films. he's a great visual stylist, but i don't see why i can't have good acting and a well written film to go *with* the stunning visuals (like, say, _city of lost children_. or most of gilliam's stuff.) Drew making fun of my typo: > >**se**serious **fi**films are for **bo**boring **pe**people. for god's sake. do me a favor: go rent something by kieslowski. get some decalog, if you can find it; _a short film about love_ and _a short film about killing_ are both pretty easy to come by. a serious film (as in serious art) doesn't have to be boring, or un-funny, or pretentious. it can be human, moving, vital, hilarious, terrifying, shocking, etc. the best of them, arguably, combine a whole mess of those adjectives. if you're bound and determined to, you *can* sit around with pinky extended, sip weak tea and render them dryer than sherry, but you needn't. you can just enjoy them. and this is not to say anything against popcorn movies -- they have their place, and i can enjoy them a lot, especially when they don't insult my intelligence too badly (_the fuigitve_ for example) but burton is clearly striving a certain level of mythic resonance in the films he directs and/or lends his name to. i judge him by a slightly different standard. - -- d. = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:46:26 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Consolidation, you say? Take *this*, Kay! - ------------The pre-film trailers-------------- Jeme: >I appreciate both of the top nominees (1984 & 1987), but I'm going to have >to vote for 1986. >[various albums listed, including Seventh Dream of Teenage Heaven] Actually, that's from 1985, right? 1986 was the year of the not-quite-as-good Express. (You also could've mentioned other notable 1986 releases like Filigree & Shadow, Camper Van Beethoven II & III, The Good Earth, King of America, EVOL, Giant, The Big Gundown, Commercial Suicide, Monster Walks the Winter Lake, Victorialand, Rembrandt Pussyhorse, Album, Crowded House, Made to Be Broken, Candy Apple Grey, Liberty Belle & the Black Diamond Express, Your Funeral...My Trial, Kicking Against the Pricks, Lyle Lovett, Daring Adventures....) Michael B.: > Eb, Have you even checked out the 1971 Nicolas Roeg movie "Walkabout"? >The Criterion Collection has an excellant DVD version of it available. Sure, I've seen "Walkabout," though not the DVD version. And yes, Jenny is easy on the eyes. Also, she always physically reminds me of my longest-standing female friend Maggie, so she gets sentimental points for that. ;) close-to-the-vest Kay: >>I finally saw Nicolas Roeg's "Don't Look Now," >Incredible flick. Plus it stars the divine Ms Christie. God that woman for >me just utterly embodies female sexuality. Far From the Maddening Crowd, Dr >Z, McCabe n Mrs M, Shampoo, Heat n Dust. And don't forget her most babelicious film of all, "Darling." But "Shampoo"? Eek...the perm, the perm!! Michael W.: >the human condition Arrgh. Why do film buffs always defend cinema with this old chestnut? Help, I'm having Oscar-speech flashbacks. ;) HAL: >/hal, betting they butchered "I Am The Walrus" It's hard for me to take your anti-Oasis comments seriously, because they're always limited to the familiar perspective of a miffed Beatles disciple crying "Heresy!" I've observed this prejudice too many times (in both you and others) to worry about it anymore. Miles: >I think there came a time in the mid-90s when Holsapple said "If I'm gonna >keep being the fifth member of R.E.M., I'm gonna have to have official >status and songwriting contributions." And that's when they parted >ways. Yes...he felt he was substantially contributing to REM songs, and being gypped out of songwriting royalties. I used to talk with Holsapple's ex-wife online (and in person, a few times), and she told me about this. I probably won't have a copy of REM/Reveal for awhile, but I skimmed some of it yesterday at a Tower listening station. Wasn't too happy with what I heard. In the past, REM has gone "commercial" through writing simplistic songs ("Shiny Happy People," "Stand," etc.), but this time, it sounds like they've done it in terms of *production values*. I was really dismayed to hear that anonymous, top-40 sheen...ugh. Hopefully, I'll like it better when hearing it from beginning to end. Speaking of new releases I don't have yet, I've heard that the Weezer album is a whopping *28 minutes* long? After five years of silence? Good gawd almighty. Judging from an online forum I checked, it sounds like this one will bomb, just like Pinkerton. Even the hardcore fans are disappointed, for the most part. I'll still be interested to hear it, though. - ---------------The main feature-------------------- I took Rhino's yearly RMAT exam yesterday evening, on location at the Sunset Strip's Tower Records outlet. 305 questions in 60 minutes...that's under 12 seconds allotted per question. Whew. That test was a *bitch*. Definitely much harder than the previous two. I got all the way through it (barely), but I wasn't able to go back and reconsider a bunch of questions which I "temporarily" skipped. Crap crap crap. I'm sure I received a more than respectable score, but it was still a humbling experience. Did anyone else take it, online or otherwise? Dr. Demento was there, officiating....it was kind of a fun event. Free T-shirts, music-geek "pocket protectors," etc. I estimate 80-90 people took the test, including last year's L.A. winner (who had already turned in his test when I still had 50 questions to go...oooof). The questions/answers will be eventually posted at http://www.rhino.com/rmat/test.html -- save this URL for later use. My publicist friend at Rhino told me the Internet turnout was *enormous* this year, so it was a good tactical move (in terms of hoping for a prize) to take the test in person. Just down the street, the "Truth" folks had three or four bright orange buses parked in front of the Roxy, Key Club, etc. They were mounting a major information campaign. (You know, "The Truth" being that public-service organization who does the commercials with various guerrilla tactics aimed at tobacco companies?) It was an interesting scene. One abrasive, green-haired, nose-pierced moppet lectured me on the evils of the tobacco companies' teen-marketing -- if she was looking for a smoking advocate, she definitely chose the wrong person. ;) http://www.thetruth.com Incidentally, the adjacent Key Club was hosting a special Circle Jerks reunion show...eek. Glory spikes everywhere, though the crowd was surprisingly young. I believe my infamous chum Lawndart/Shuttlecock was there, somewhere. I'll have to get a report from him. Speaking of the old guard, I saw Lee Ving (ex-Fear) holding court, out front -- he looks more fit and healthy now, than then! Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT) From: =b Subject: Re: 1986 On Fri, 18 May 2001, Capuchin wrote: > I just wanted to put into that dead thread about best year of the eighties > for records. i am going to have to go even later and say 1990 (it's still part of the 80's, it's the tenth year.) Eye Flood The Stone Roses Twin Peaks Soundtrack Life Pigeonhole Same Place the Fly Got Smashed and a hole mess of others i had in mind but lost.... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:11:08 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: more time-wasting >>Sure - oh, but wait, I *can't*, because XTC are *soooo poor*, >>and I *don't* want to deprive them of their *precious* 0.0002 >>cents (or however much it is) in royalties! >Heh, Idea Records has allowed Andy to trade in his Atari for a new G4 and >his own copy of ProTools. And in a total reversal of his earlier stance (as suggested by the lyrics of songs lke "Human Alchemy"), Andy Partridge just recently bought Bill Gates outright! Apparently he was offered some sort of fancy licensing deal, but decided that wasn't enough! According to his PR spokesmodel, Andy plans to use the former Microsoft chairman to keep the shed painted and to water the plants in the front yard on a "more regular" basis. What's more, Andy doesn't even support *Napster*! FIE on the greedy capitalist corporate robber-baron scum! John "that's 0.0003 cents with inflation" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:26:53 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: 1986 At 02:28 PM 5/18/01 -0700, =b wrote: >i am going to have to go even later and say 1990 (it's still part of the >80's, it's the tenth year.) Eighty isn't in the eighties? Heck, if you can pick 1990, then I'm going with 1967. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:09:33 -0600 From: HAL Subject: goo goo ga zzzzzz... > >/hal, betting they butchered "I Am The Walrus" Eb: > It's hard for me to take your anti-Oasis comments seriously, because > they're always limited to the familiar perspective of a miffed Beatles > disciple crying "Heresy!" I've observed this prejudice too many times (in > both you and others) to worry about it anymore. I wouldn't expect you to worry! ;) Besides, the anti-Oasis comments I originally posted were from a newspaper 'critic', not me. The only reason my personal comments were "limited" to the afterthought quoted above is because anything else I have to say would be very derogatory. You are absolutely correct that the main reason Oasis are laughable today was/is the band's vow to outdo The Beatles when they started. Seeing them now, slogging around the US shed circuit, sandwiched between Spacehog and The Black Crowes (with *both* bands getting better reviews than Oasis!) doing "I Am The Walrus" is just too funny (and I'm sorry if that offends you or anyone else, especially the very cool lj). /hal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:37:37 -0700 (PDT) From: =b Subject: Re: 1986 > Eighty isn't in the eighties? Heck, if you can pick 1990, then I'm going > with 1967. I suppose you thought the millenium changed in 2000, too. ;) (let's not start that again... thank god we have almost 1000 years before we have to worry about that) it still feels like the previous decade in ___0, that's for sure. By the way.... I have a new email address, it is bayard at bitmine.net - if you link to me on a web page (eddie, tracy, woj, jh3, etc) please use proprietor at glasshotel.net. dmw, I like how you arrange your addy in your sig, can i steal that? (is it for counter-spam purposes or just aesthetics?) have a great weekend... that b=guy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:30:29 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: Lord of the amateurs >But I doubt the movie people are very interested in the philosphical >underpinnings of LOTR. Don't bank on it. Apparently many of the cast were impressed by Peter Jackson's ability to quote great swadges of the book off the top of his head. He apparently read it "probably over 50 times" during his adolescence. >By the way James, what do you teach? I don't. Up until last year I taught first year university Psychology students, and in the past I've tutored in maths and english. But right now I am, in the acting argot, 'resting'. That is, I go through the Sits. Vac. in the paper most days. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:41:27 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: 1986 At 03:37 PM 5/18/01 -0700, =b wrote: >I suppose you thought the millenium changed in 2000, too. ;) I barely realized... hell, I just got out of the habit of signing my checks 1999 last month. ;) These decade divisions may or may not coincide perfectly with certain people's arbitrary century and millennium divisions (I'm not really an advocate of either the 2000 or the 2001 camp) but a term like "eighties" is fairly specific and self-explanatory. By definition, the word "eighties" refers to "the numbers 80 to 89; specifically : the years 80 to 89 in a lifetime or century." - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:10:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: DC show Sat., May 19, to benefit AIDSRide Info below. Sorry for the short notice. I'm not familiar with any of the bands, but I know the cause is a good one. And Jeff, who sent this, is a big Robyn fan and was at the Soft Boys show, so he's almost like a Feg.... There's only about a 50% chance I'll be there, but I still encourage everyone else to go! If I don't make it, you can all donate extra to make up for me. - --Chris (who BTW lost his virginity sans soundtrack, has seen Heavenly Creatures, and hasn't heard Reveal yet) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:08:57 -0400 (EDT) From: [snip] To: Undisclosed recipients: ; Subject: Reminder: AIDSRide Party Saturday This is a reminder to everyone to join Team Love and other Washington, DC AIDSRiders this Saturday at the Velvet Lounge for our final fundraising event of the season. The evening will feature the snazzy sounds of three live bands: - -Land of Malls (alterna-rock--9 P.M.) - -Melomane (chamber-rock; think Cake, Love, Wings, Donovan and Belle & Sebastian--10 P.M.) - -Moodroom (alterna-rock; think Luscious Jackson, Sneaker Pimps, Garbage, No Doubt--11 P.M.). As if that weren't enough, we'll be raffling off a BRAND NEW MOUNTAIN BIKE, and more!! Here's the best part: All proceeds will benefit the Whitman Walker Clinic and Food & Friends, two DC-area HIV/AIDS service providers, because Team Love is a 27-member cycling team dedicated to participating in the Washington, DC AIDS Ride 6 this June. In other words, you'll be partying for a worthy cause--two birds, one stone. The Velvet Lounge is located on U Street between 9th and 10th Streets NW, is across the street from the Vermont Ave exit of the U Street/Cardozo Metro, on the Green Line. Hope to see you there! Jeff aka Muskrat Love Proud Member of Team Love ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:19:05 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: DC show Sat., May 19, to benefit AIDSRide On Fri, 18 May 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > Info below. Sorry for the short notice. I'm not familiar with any of the > bands, but I know the cause is a good one. And Jeff, who sent this, is a > big Robyn fan and was at the Soft Boys show, so he's almost like a Feg.... > There's only about a 50% chance I'll be there, but I still encourage > everyone else to go! If I don't make it, you can all donate extra to make > up for me. > -Moodroom (alterna-rock; think Luscious Jackson, Sneaker Pimps, Garbage, No > Doubt--11 P.M.). moodroom are not nearly as bland as that description might imply, although at this point i think their set would benefit greatly form one or two slow songs. one of the, um, four or five best bands i've shared a bill with. www.moodroom.net has a couple tracks you can download. = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:35:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "J. Brown" Subject: Re: 1986 On Fri, 18 May 2001, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > >I suppose you thought the millenium changed in 2000, too. ;) > > I barely realized... hell, I just got out of the habit of signing my > checks 1999 last month. ;) > > These decade divisions may or may not coincide perfectly with certain > people's arbitrary century and millennium divisions (I'm not really an > advocate of either the 2000 or the 2001 camp) but a term like "eighties" is > fairly specific and self-explanatory. By definition, the word "eighties" > refers to "the numbers 80 to 89; specifically : the years 80 to 89 in a > lifetime or century." Right just like the 20th Century and the 1900s arent the same thing (1901-2000 v. 1900-1999). Now if we are talking about the 9th decade of the 20th century then i can see what bayard is talking about. :-) Jason Wilson Brown - University of Washington - Seattle, WA "Put your faith in death because it's free" -Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:37:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: moodroomin' On Fri, 18 May 2001, dmw wrote: > > -Moodroom (alterna-rock; think Luscious Jackson, Sneaker Pimps, Garbage, No > > Doubt--11 P.M.). > > moodroom are not nearly as bland as that description might imply, although > at this point i think their set would benefit greatly form one or two slow > songs. one of the, um, four or five best bands i've shared > a bill with. www.moodroom.net has a couple tracks you can download. Harrumph! I can play the two samples all right, but none of the MP3 downloads work for me -- I keep getting "file not found" and other server errors. Maybe the RealAudio stuff works; I wouldn't know because I can't install RealAudio on this stupid NT machine without administrator status. Oh, well.... BTW, I notice that Moodroom is playing in New York tonight (at The Cutting Room), if any of you big city types are interested. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:27:38 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: goo goo ga zzzzzz... Hal: slogging around the US shed circuit sandwiched (with *both* bands getting better reviews than Oasis!) It's hard for me to take your anti-Oasis comments seriously, because they're always limited to the familiar perspective of a miffed Beatles disciple crying "Heresy!" I've observed this prejudice too many times (in both you and others) to worry about it anymore. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:18:31 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: goo goo ga zzzzzz... >they're always limited to the familiar perspective of a miffed Beatles >disciple crying "Heresy!" I've observed this prejudice too many times (in >both you and others) to worry about it anymore. I like the Beatles, despise Oasis and I don't think the two relate to each other. The first time I heard that song...what was the first hit? How Does Your Garden Grow, was that the name? I kinda thought, this is awful nobody will buy this. Goes to show what I know. I like LOTS of Beatlesque music(Robyn included). I do think those guys are a bit obsessed about the Fabs though, I mean seriously! I have also noticed that a lot of Oasis fans have a habit of apologizing for being one, that I don't understand. Like whatever the fuck you like and tell everyone else to bugger off!!! I said LUNCH not LAUNCH!!! Max ;o[ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:30:27 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: belinda naked >From: Capuchin > >I appreciate both of the top nominees (1984 & 1987), but I'm going to have >to vote for 1986. Inspired in part by the recent thread, I got out the only Culture Club CD I own (Margaret gave me Kissing To Be Clever on vinyl for my birthday) and listened to it in the car this morning. It's one of those cheap and shoddy greatest hits discs with 10 songs on it (as opposed to the official hits disc, which I might get one of these days). The fourth one is a glossy, overproduced, charmless piece of crap called "Move Away," the sole representative track from the group's fourth album From Luxury To Heartache. That sound typifies, to me, what was starting to go wrong with mainstream pop music in the latter half of the decade, and why all the good albums you listed will always seem like anomalies to me, and why these albums in particular: >True Stories >Tinderbox and even, I'd say, >So so dramatically failed to measure up to what had gone before. From Luxury To Heartache came out in 1986. If you hated Culture Club before, try listening to that album. Or don't. >From: Mark Gloster > >Can I just say that of all the Go-go's, Belinda Carlisle would be lucky >to make my third choice to see nekkid. Crass reference to hit song title >omitted.... Huh. Carlisle would easily, by a mile, be my first choice. If she had Jane Wiedlin's personality as well I would be madly in love. >From: "brian nupp" > >I wonder how this compares to Up? I was an REM completest from 1986 to 1992 >or 93. Monster killed it. Never got Up, yet. I love love love love love Monster now. Am I the only one? Unlike Up, I don't even love it in spite of itself. I think it's gorgeous, delicious, a throbbing little heatwave of an album. I should have realized when I hated it on first listen that I would eventually grow to adore it. Only its idiosyncrasy discourages me from picking it as my favorite REM album. >From: "Parsley,Sage Rosemary&Thyme" > >Drew, with words of wisdom: > >I've always felt that if we only admired and enjoyed "quality" music, > >art, film, books, etc. we would end up being a very boring culture. > >...Love isn't about perfection. >Drew, youre just in your twenties, right? How'd you figure this out already? >And that seriously important can mean utterly boring. Give this man a Thoth. We Culture Club and Duran Duran fans must learn these lessons more quickly than others. :) >-thou I will say, Its not OK with me. >OK? You got that? Its not -OK- with me?);-) Got it. Next time I'll do better. :) - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #205 ********************************