From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #207 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, May 21 2001 Volume 10 : Number 207 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: goo goo ga zzzzzz... [Bayard ] Re: Goo [Eb ] I'd like to stay here and be normal...but then it's just so overrated [Ji] sorry, no ["Russ Reynolds" ] city of molested children ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] We Are America [steve ] Re: sorry, no [Bayard ] Re: sorry, no [Dolph Chaney ] Re: sorry, no [Miles Goosens ] Re: our father, who art in heaven, frodo be thy name ["Stewart C. Russell] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 21:20:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: goo goo ga zzzzzz... On Sat, 19 May 2001, JH3 wrote: > >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. > > It's hard for me to take your anti-anti-Oasis comments seriously, > because they're usually limited to the vaguely indifferent perspective > of a scolding pop-culture maven crying "Purist!" I've observed this > prejudice too many times (in you only) to avoid posting about it > unnecessarily, as I'm doing right now. and let us not forget our eb was recently dissing Robyn's cover of "i am the walrus", never having even heard it, i hasten to add... and yes i'm still worried about you eb.... =b, who once saw foetus cover this song, and had friends who had been "front row" for a "nine inch nails" "mosh pit", had to take a break =i'm a pedantic mega-wang-dang-hog ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:22:10 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Goo Bayard: >and let us not forget our eb was recently dissing Robyn's cover of "i am >the walrus", never having even heard it, i hasten to add... And let us not forget our Eb also dissed Oasis' version of the song. Sometimes, folks quarrel with me, even when they don't quite disagree. And yes, Liam Gallagher's Bored, Nasal Drone(tm) undermines his range as an interpretative singer, just as in Hitchcock's own case. Though at least Liam sounds like he's taking this song seriously, instead of smirking through it Largo-style. ;) >=b, who once saw foetus cover this song Huh...I believe I did too, come to think of it. Foetus plays here on the 12th, in a smaller venue -- I eagerly anticipate that night. Did you buy Flow yet, Gene? Speaking of concerts, I'm finally seeing Badly Drawn Boy on Monday. I'm especially excited about this show, too. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 07:22:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: I'd like to stay here and be normal...but then it's just so overrated John wrote: "Also, BLUR, who are JUST SOOOO MUCH BETTER than Oasis..." I was waiting for someone to say this. I never got what it was about Oasis that anyone liked. Blur, on the other hand (well, not so much recently), can keep me singing in the shower for ours. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 07:35:35 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: sorry, no >> 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.) Sorry, but nobody is ever going to covince me that 1990 is part of the 1980s. I understand the whole point about the "first decade" being the years 1-10, not 0-9, blah blah blah...but "The 1980s" cannot rationally be defined in any way other than "the years 1980-1989". Similarly, the year 1930 was not part of "the roaring '20s" and the year 2000 was not part of the 1900's What you need to understand is that a decade is merely a period of ten years, whether it's 1981-1990 or 1945-1954. So unless you are talking specifically about the 199th decade (and who has ever referred to the '80s as the 199th decade??) to say that 1990 is the 10th year of the 1980's is as ridiculous as saying that the word "cat" actually starts with a 'b'. Silly bunt. - -rUss np: Supernatural Fairy Tales - The Progressive Rock Era (box set) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:22:43 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: city of molested children > From: dmw [I said of critical responses to lightweight culture:] >> This sort of thing can be entertainment in its own right. Have you read >> Constance Penley's critical takes on "Pee-Wee's Playhouse"? Delicious. > > oh sure, as long as one doesn't take it seriously Well, how seriously is one allowed to take it? Actually I thought she made some pretty decent points about the "deviant" sexual personae running around on that show, and I don't mean just the naughty original version. She's not arguing that the show is to television what _Ulysses_ is to literature -- just that there are interesting things to say about it. I agree with that statement. >> I fucking HATED HATED HATED _City of Lost Children_. I don't even know >> where to begin. > > wow. vehement. care to share why? i've certainly run into people who > didn't like it as much as i did, but yours is the strongest negative > reaction i've heard. Well, mine is probably hyperbole again. But one of the reasons I don't know where to begin is it's been a long time since I've seen it and I flushed a lot of those memories. I just recall being irritated and turned off by pretty much all of the characters, bored by the story, and vaguely creeped out by the _Professional_-esque pedophile vibe. I'm sure if I watched it again I'd find that the film is terribly literate and very sophisticated et cetera, but obviously this would only allow me to appreciate it, not to like it. I was thinking yesterday about what it is I find appealing about some of these ostensibly lower-quality works of music and film. This is hard to explain, but...a more complete, artistically whole work by a creator clearly fully in control and grounded in realism can _sometimes_ (certainly not always) seem a little too self-contained and sealed to allow imaginative participation on the part of the audience. The focus of such works is rarely on such participation-encouraging goals like building an exciting fictional universe, introducing a compelling myth, or suggesting vast unexplored mystery. It's usually on telling a complete, profound, intricate story that, one senses, is completely determined by its author. The effect is that the work seems admirable but removed, detached, unavailable. Nothing is out of place, which means there is no way to get in. But there's something about the very sloppiness of a 7 out of 10, one with imagination and heart but maybe not as much intelligence and craft, that makes it feel accessible to us imaginatively, like we have as much right and room to play around in its bath full of toys as the person who ran the water in the first place. (That metaphor is deliberately sloppy...yeah, that's the ticket.) To put it succinctly: you'll never see a Saturday morning cartoon based on _The Seventh Seal_, though you may see allusions to it all over (in Animaniacs, for instance). _Beetlejuice_, on the other hand, allows for such things because of its tone, characters, content, and most of all, its loose ends. Cartoon spinoffs are most definitely not what I mean by audience imaginative participation, but they help illustrate the contrast. >> surely do so again. I don't need a host of flippancy-impaired fegs > > my word. i don't think i've ever been called flippancy-impaired before, I must be referring to the host that will come after you, then! :) > From: "3 Rose Cottage" > Are we weird(well, of course, but I mean in this particular way:-)? Is there > a reason why it appears to be so difficult to put together 90 minutes of a > believable, self-consistant secondary reality? Or are we just picky, picky? Holes imply porosity. See above. :) > From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." > Hairwise, I did the Goth Thing in the 80s: very long bangs, > blue-black dye, short in the sides, long in the back and front. Nik > Fiend was my fashion hero. Wonderful. Why couldn't I have been old enough for this? Granted, it's still going on now, but... - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:22:35 -0500 From: steve Subject: We Are America http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/opinion/20DOWD.html Maureen Dowd, free registration required - - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:58:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: sorry, no > 1980s. I understand the whole point about the "first decade" being the > years 1-10, not 0-9, blah blah blah...but "The 1980s" cannot rationally be > defined in any way other than "the years 1980-1989". Similarly, the year > 1930 was not part of "the roaring '20s" and the year 2000 was not part of > the 1900's > > What you need to understand is that a decade is merely a period of ten > years, whether it's 1981-1990 or 1945-1954. So unless you are talking > specifically about the 199th decade (and who has ever referred to the '80s > as the 199th decade??) to say that 1990 is the 10th year of the 1980's is as > ridiculous as saying that the word "cat" actually starts with a 'b'. OK, what if we never agree on a "nickname" for the decade we're in now, nor the one after? what then? and i wonder how long this has gone on... in the first few centuries AD, did people cut up time according to the second number in the year, as we do with the third? i think i mentioned that 1990 still had the "feel" and cultural atmosphere of the 80's (at least for most of the year) - it always takes a while for that feeling to get replaced with something new. but it always does. i just didn't want to get left out. you know i don't much like the 80's! anyway, =b ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:46:13 -0500 From: Dolph Chaney Subject: Re: sorry, no Our discussion reminds me of Rolling Stone's list of the best albums of the 1980s. #1 was The Clash's _London Calling_, released in November 1979. Grrrrrrr. I think that was the moment that my then 17-year-old brain finally severed all ties with that magazine, after a torrid two-year relationship. dolph np: neil finn, try whistling this ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 21:47:09 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: sorry, no At 04:46 PM 05/20/2001 -0500, Dolph Chaney wrote: >Our discussion reminds me of Rolling Stone's list of the best albums of the >1980s. #1 was The Clash's _London Calling_, released in November >1979. Grrrrrrr. I think that was the moment that my then 17-year-old >brain finally severed all ties with that magazine, after a torrid two-year >relationship. Every Clash discography I've seen jibes with my memory -- LONDON CALLING had its release in the U.S. in January 1980 (the UK release date was, I think, 12/14/79). I live in the U.S. It's my #1 album of 1980. And I wouldn't yell at anyone in the rest of the world for including it in 1980 either. later, Miles p.s.: Similarly with SANDINISTA! - U.K. 12/12/80, U.S. 1/81. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:03:17 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: our father, who art in heaven, frodo be thy name Viv Lyon wrote: > > > Think thin paper and small print. > > Like the Bible. curiously enough, we do an edition based on the "Collins Clear-Type Press" style of bibles, thin paper, leather bound, in a slip case, gilt edged. It's not much bigger than a normal pbk. It was #50 last I looked. Stewart ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #207 ********************************