From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #268 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, July 9 2001 Volume 10 : Number 268 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Verlaines [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] George Harrison has another cancer relapse? [Jeff Dwarf ] R.E.M. Unplugged version 2.0 ["marcus slade" ] Robyn in Jane [melissa ] Tower ["Blackman, Tony 1" ] My dad reviews "A.I."... [Natalie Jane Jacobs ] real nighttime ["Walker, Charles" ] Re: My dad reviews "A.I."... [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Any Game Theory fans? [the other white meat ] Re: My dad reviews "A.I."... [Capuchin ] Re: Any Game Theory fans? [Jeffrey_Rose@eri.eisai.com] Feg Trading Cards ["scary mary" ] Re: My dad reviews "A.I."... ["Sweet & Tender Hooligan" ] Re: Feg Trading Cards [Capuchin ] Re: Feg Trading Cards [Christopher Gross ] Re: Feg Trading Cards ["JH3" ] Re: Feg Trading Cards [Capuchin ] Re: Feg Trading Cards [HAL ] Re: Gotta Let This DVD Out. [the other white meat ] Re: Gotta Let This DVD Out. ["JH3" ] Re: Lolita Nation [Eb ] reap [Eb ] Re: Lolita Nation [Aaron Mandel ] Re: Feg Trading Cards [Capuchin ] Re: Lolita Nation [Eb ] RE: Feg Trading Cards ["Brian Huddell" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:06:03 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Verlaines Re the comment about the verlaines the other day, there was an article in todays ODT about a "Punk retrospective" exhibition at the Otago Museum. Several top local musicians are giving talks on punk, including both Chris Knox and Graeme Downes. The last paragraph is: "Asked if a Verlaines reprise is likely, Dr Downes said 'Never say never - we all live close enough.'" So it would seem that currently the band is an ex-band, but given enough volts then maybe 'voom!' 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: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:21:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: George Harrison has another cancer relapse? http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010709/re/life_harrison_dc_2.html Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:42:19 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Reap whooossshhhh!, alba, etc. James: Thanks for the Delia Derbyshire info. I seem to remember that Stewart knows quite a bit about the Radiophonic Workshop. I was struck by how influential they were on the early Floyd when I recently listened to the original Dr Who theme back to back with Arnold Layne. Patriotic songs: I don't think anyone has mentioned all those football songs like '3 Lions' which are completely unironical, hurrah for our side and sod the foreigners anthems. Maybe only the English have them, but somehow I doubt it. If you want to hear an ironic rendition of a patriotic song, 'I'm so glad I'm living in the USA' by the MC5 takes some beating. But I reckon that when Jonathan Richman sings the same song, he really means it. After all, he's in love with the modern world... Capuchin writes: > When someone like Godwin says "I always liked that record", I > interpret him to mean he liked that particular track, not necessarily > the whole album whence it came. (After all, Godwin comes from the day > when unincorporated singles were quite common... sadly unlike today.) > So he's completely correct in saying "record" when he could very well > be listening to an MP3. Thanks for interpreting my position. I don't think I have ever called an MP3 a record, but I don't have a problem with the idea. Incidentally, I think it is significant that MP3s don't lend themselves to being collected on album, because there isn't a defined 'thing' - whether it be a CD, an LP, or a collection of 78s - on which the songs are brought together. This may be one of the reasons the record companies don't like www-available music, as the 'purchaser' can pick and choose between individual numbers, like in the good old days of single 45s (6/8d each). Jason writes: > the concept of an album existed before vinyl and exists today. It's an > artistically constructed collection of songs not a format. I think that that 'artistically constructed' is vital. It's one area in which the Beatles were untouchable. For a person with my limited attention span, most LPs are too long. I very seldom bother to turn an LP over to hear the second 20 minutes; you can imagine how bored I get with CDs which run to an hour plus and show no attempt at artistic programming. - - Mike Godwin n.p. Gil Blanco County - Stalk Forrest Group ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:55:29 From: "marcus slade" Subject: R.E.M. Unplugged version 2.0 Someone mentioned the new R.E.M. unplugged a couple of days ago, sorry I can't remember who. Here are the details. 21 May 2001 - MTV Unplugged, MTV Studios, New York, NY set: All The Way To Reno (You're Gonna Be A Star) / Electrolite / At My Most Beautiful / Sad Professor / Daysleeper / Beat A Drum / I'll Take The Rain / I've Been High / So. Central Rain / The One I Love / Losing My Religion / Country Feedback / Cuyahoga / Imitation Of Life / Disappear / Find The River The line-up was the standard (of the last couple of years) one, of Buck, Mills and Stipe alon with Scott McCaughey, Ken Stringfellow and Joey Waronker. The only repeat song from the 1991 unplugged recording was Losing My Religion. Marcus _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:00:09 -0000 From: melissa Subject: Robyn in Jane Just got the celeb issue of Jane and Mr. Hitchcock has contributed a review (on p 151) of the fabulous Under the Skin by Michael Faber. There is a photo of him from the cobblestone shoot. He rates it four stars and since it's still quiet this morning here is the full review. If for some reason you still eat meat why not check out Under the Skin? It's the story of a female named Isserley on a macabre mission to drive around Scotland in a little red car picking up male hitchhikers. Thankfully, she leaves the women alone. The beauty of Michael Faber's first full-length novel lies in the way that he gradually pans back the verbal camera to reveal the entire picture. This is masterful, deeply moral writing in the tradition of Jonathan Swift. It's unpredictable, with one hell of a message. Robyn Hitchcock, singer/songwriter ------------------------------ Date: 09 Jul 2001 15:25:04 Z From: "Blackman, Tony 1" Subject: Tower Eb sed Baby, Eb sed "After the show, I walked down to Tower Records to browse for a bit. Just to give the evening a bit more feeling of "value." I had another weird star sighting, in Tower: none other than tanmaster George Hamilton" That reminds me of the time I was in that Tower Records when Stevie Wonder was in there flicking through the vinyl with someone telling him what each one was when one of the younger members of staff came over with a notepad and pen and asked him for his autograph. An absolutely priceless moment that kept me laughing for the rest of the week. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21st century air travel http://www.britishairways.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Natalie Jane Jacobs Subject: My dad reviews "A.I."... Mein Vater hat gespracht: > The camera work is great, the ideas are interesting, the star is >appealing, and the movie is awful. It's mawkish and long, sort of like E. >T., and I think Kubrick must be turning over in his grave. Huh. Any comments? I haven't seen it yet. n., leery of Spielberg p.s. My grandfather once said of "Dances With Wolves" that it was "written, acted, and directed by junior high school students." Ah, the art of the pithy scathing review is strong in my family. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:39:05 -0700 From: "Walker, Charles" Subject: real nighttime I just picked up a copy of a Game Theory album called "Real Nighttime." Released 1985 by Rational Records, and licensed to Enigma Europe. Anybody know if it's worth anything? - --havent heard it in a while - lp's are in the east, i am in the west but i remember nearly wearing out the grooves on that one. worth?? you mean $$, dunno - i just remember that period - the let's active/mitch easter years with much fondness. i waited on mitch a couple o times in the restaurant i werked in some time ago - nice guy. chas in LA http://www.theweeklywalker.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:04:38 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: My dad reviews "A.I."... On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Natalie Jane Jacobs wrote: > p.s. My grandfather once said of "Dances With Wolves" that it was > "written, acted, and directed by junior high school students." Ah, the > art of the pithy scathing review is strong in my family. A friend of mine is a theatre reviewer - my favourite review went something like: "The set was admirable, well designed and pleasing to look at. Some people performed a play in front of it". (C) John Christopher Wood (author of "Elsie and Norm's Macbeth", "An evening with Sir Cliff Richard and John Selwyn Gummer", "The Third Rule", etc etc.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:17:54 -0400 From: the other white meat Subject: Re: Any Game Theory fans? when we last left our heroes, Eb exclaimed: >Eb, who still thinks The Big Shot Chronicles is the most essential Scott >Miller release, and isn't jumping on the "Lolita Nation is the longest and >most pretentious, so it must be the best" bandwagon personally, i'm partial to the first game theory i heard, _2 steps from the middle ages_. i never really latched on to _lolita nation_, but that may be simply because it's so large that i could never fully digest it and it's not an album that lends itself to partial listens. i'm not sure about calling it pretentious though. it deviates enough from "standard" songwriting to alienate some listeners, sure, but does that make it pretentious? what's the criteria? aiming higher than one is capable of? being eclectic for the hell of it? in my experience, calling an album pretentious tells me more about the critic than the album... ;) woj n.p. fred neil tribute on wfmu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:14:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: My dad reviews "A.I."... On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Natalie Jane Jacobs wrote: > Mein Vater hat gespracht: > > The camera work is great, the ideas are interesting, the star is > >appealing, and the movie is awful. It's mawkish and long, sort of like E. > >T., and I think Kubrick must be turning over in his grave. > > Huh. Any comments? I haven't seen it yet. Um, the ideas aren't all that interesting. It's mawkish and long, sort of like E.T. I think it would have been a rather pleasing and at least interesting film without the last twenty-five minutes. But who DOESN'T want a supertoy? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:01:02 -0400 From: Jeffrey_Rose@eri.eisai.com Subject: Re: Any Game Theory fans? Big Loud Family fan here. I've been hunting for a CD copy of Lolita Nation for some time hoping an unenlightened record store employee has it priced to move rather than at the $100+ price they go for on eBay. IMHO, LF's "Plants & Birds..." is the essential Miller release and is my favorite record of the 1990s. Jeffro, the other np "Wouldn't You Miss Me": Best of Syd ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:12:14 -0500 From: "scary mary" Subject: Feg Trading Cards Everyone think of their nickname and snazzy catch-phrase! http://www.peoplecards.net/ mary np - Orbital Snivilization ps - Jet Li kicks ass... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:14:41 -0500 From: "Sweet & Tender Hooligan" Subject: Re: My dad reviews "A.I."... SPOILERS ENSUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > I think it would have been a rather pleasing and at least interesting film > without the last twenty-five minutes. I agree. I thought the movie had some brilliant moments, and Haley Joel Osment is a marvelous actor, but as a whole, the film just didn't work. It didn't have the balls to explore the questions that it raised about humanity, God, love, responsibility, selfishness, etc., and settled for a boring retread of Pinocchio without any of the magic. Robin William's "Doctor Know" was excruciatingly distracting, Gigolo Joe (marvelously played by Jude Law) was a terrific character who was used as needed and then tossed out - an utter waste of both an interesting character and a smooth performance. The Flesh Fair was like something out of a bad 80's B-movie (guys in glowing neon suits with wolf-heads on their motorcycles - what is this, "The Karate Kid 2001"?). The final act was a mish-mash of self-contradictory techno-babble and heavy-handed exposition that played out as if the writer had painted himself into a corner and didn't know how to get out. The super-evolved robots/aliens (I thought they were advanced robots, but nobody seems certain) were a blatant deus ex machina "solution" to a problem that was never fully explored in the first place. This was all the more frustrating because the film really did touch on some neat ideas, and could have been very provocative. I thought the film was going to end when David threw himself into the ocean, and, as it turns out, it would've been a /much/ better film if it had (not least because it would have mirrored the pool scene from earlier, which was one of the best sequences in the film, IMO). This material deserved a better movie. On the up side, the movie was visually arresting. Spielberg still knows how to construct a sympathetic hero, and he gets the very best out of Osment and Law. There were several moments that had me choking up, which says a lot for Osment's ability, because I wasn't emotionally involved in the movie at all. I guess, overall, I thought it was an ambitious, beautiful, eloquent mess. :P paul christian glenn | pcg@runbox.com "I used to have a nightmare that I was being chased through bushes and fronds by the skipper from "Gilligan's Island." I don't know what was on his mind, but it wasn't good and I didn't want anything to do with it." - Johnny Depp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 13:42:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: pointless sharing I just got the biggest paper cut of my life. It's not deep, but it's over an inch long and wraps halfway around my right index finger, near the tip. Ah, well, I knew this was a dangerous business when I got into it. - --Chris np: The Tear Garden, Tired Eyes Slowly Burning ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:11:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Feg Trading Cards On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, scary mary wrote: > http://www.peoplecards.net/ I find this so incredibly offensive, I don't know what to say (but I'm sure I'll find something). First, I'm sickened by the idea of a person handing a corporation exclusive rights to their personal information in exchange for a T-shirt and a handful of trinkets. The corporation will continue to collect profits on your name and likeness and personality quirks in perpetuity. Second, these cards are dehumanizing in the extreme. While the website boasts that they "celebrate the [not-so]average person", it's clearly an ironic take on our cultural desire for personal celebrity combined with the sick tradition (absolutely necessary to the modern mass market economy) of marginalizing anyone who doesn't aspire to be in a fashion magazine. You don't buy these cards to exhault the splendor and diversity of humanity, you buy them to laugh at the fucked-up people who are trying to glorify their pathetic little lives (that's the attitude I am projecting on their true target market, not my attitude). This is just making fun of people for profit... and creating "intellectual property" out of individual human beings. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 14:21:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Feg Trading Cards On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Capuchin wrote: > First, I'm sickened by the idea of a person handing a corporation > exclusive rights to their personal information in exchange for a T-shirt > and a handful of trinkets. The corporation will continue to collect > profits on your name and likeness and personality quirks in perpetuity. Actually, on reading their terms of participation (at ), it doesn't sound so bad to me. "You further grant PeopleCards an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exlusive, worldwide, royalty-free right and license to use your name and personal content information to copy, publish and distribute on collectible PeopleCards." According to this, the rights you grant them to your info are NON-exclusive (or "exlusive," as they spell it), and are only for use on PeopleCards. In other words, if you send them your info for a card, they have the right to print and sell that card, period. No nasty surprises that I can see. Of course I'm not a legal expert. > You don't buy these cards to exhault the splendor and diversity of > humanity, you buy them to laugh at the fucked-up people who are trying to > glorify their pathetic little lives (that's the attitude I am projecting > on their true target market, not my attitude). Maybe, but I see it more as a mockery of the idea of celebrity-hood, which can certainly do with some mocking. - --Chris "Nine Fingers" the Christer ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:37:03 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: Feg Trading Cards From: "Capuchin" : > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, scary mary wrote: >> http://www.peoplecards.net/ > I find this so incredibly offensive, I don't know what to say (but I'm > sure I'll find something). DAMMIT, Jeme, this is like the *third time* I've spent 20 minutes writing up a fancy response to something like this, only to have you beat me to the punch with almost the exact same thing! OTOH, you didn't mention that they probably ask for several photos of the person they're doing a card of, and specifically choose the least flattering one of the bunch. In fact, they probably choose people based totally on how unattractive they are. So I, for example, might as well not bother... Oh well, at least it's gratifying to know that I'm reading same books as Robyn Hitchcock: >Just got the celeb issue of Jane and Mr. Hitchcock has >contributed a review (on p 151) of the fabulous Under >the Skin by Michael Faber. Aside from the fact that Faber's a fellow Wire-fan and therefore everyone should read this, I don't suppose there's any chance Robyn picked up this book 'cuz... maybe he's been reading this very list? Naah. John "there's no 'a'" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:56:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Feg Trading Cards On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Capuchin wrote: > Actually, on reading their terms of participation (at > ), it doesn't sound so bad to me. > > "You further grant PeopleCards an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exlusive, > worldwide, royalty-free right and license to use your name and > personal content information to copy, publish and distribute on > collectible PeopleCards." > > According to this, the rights you grant them to your info are > NON-exclusive (or "exlusive," as they spell it), and are only for use on > PeopleCards. In other words, if you send them your info for a card, they > have the right to print and sell that card, period. No nasty surprises > that I can see. Of course I'm not a legal expert. It's non-exclusive, but it's also perpetual and irrevocable. Roylaties aren't a big issue for me because I hold the modern ethic that "anything's ok if you pay me enough". But the fact that they ARE making profits on your likeness and personality and really feel no obligation to compensate you in any way, well, that's something else. Personally, I would find the whole thing a lot more palatable if it were revocable and if each person depicted on a card became a voting shareholder. > Maybe, but I see it more as a mockery of the idea of celebrity-hood, > which can certainly do with some mocking. Well, I see it as a perpetuation of celebrity-hood... The PeopleCards people (both publishing and depicted), I'm sure, would be absolutely tickled if certain cards became "hot" items for trade. They create their own celebrity. The celebrity itself is the problem, not the nature of the person celebrated. These cards perpetuate celebrity and simply expand the scope. While it IS absurd the degree to which we glorify film, television and sport figures, at least they have the veneer of extraordinary accomplishment. These cards are an attempt to create celebrity without such broadly effecting accomplishment (however shallow). You're not going to be famous and you don't have to be. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 13:03:48 -0600 From: HAL Subject: Re: Feg Trading Cards Capuchin wrote: > You're not going to be famous and you don't have to be. Bravo! It's about time someone updated that Warholian "15 minutes" bullshit. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:57:32 -0400 From: the other white meat Subject: Re: Gotta Let This DVD Out. when we last left our heroes, Maximilian Lang exclaimed: >Just got a copy of the DVD, problem. my copy arrived today. it's the same one that da9ve mentioned (visionary communications, catalog #visdvd004, region 0). works just fine in our panasonic dvd-a120 player, which is good since i don't have a dvd-rom player. >It plays on my computer but not in my >DVD player. Is this because I have an EVIL DVD/DIVX(which won't play VCDs >for that matter)player? Or did I wind up with a PAL formatted disc, if it's >PAL would it play on my computer? hopefully someone more conversant with region-encoding can address how they interact (if at all) with ntsc/pal (i know this has been discussed here before, but my mind is like a sieve; check the archives). same goes for the divx thing, but i wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the divx player can not play region 0 dvds. woj ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:08:50 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: Gotta Let This DVD Out. > hopefully someone more conversant with region-encoding > can address how they interact (if at all) with ntsc/pal (i know > this has been discussed here before, but my mind is like a > sieve; check the archives). By golly, you're right! There *is* material in the archives that unfavorably compares Woj's mind to a sieve! Cool! >>Just got a copy of the DVD, problem. It plays on my computer >>but not in my DVD player. Is this because I have an EVIL >>DVD/DIVX(which won't play VCDs for that matter)player? >>Or did I wind up with a PAL formatted disc, if it's PAL would >>it play on my computer? What's the make/model of this player? If it's a DIVX player, then it's probably at least 3 years old, which would make it more likely to *not* like PAL or Region 0. The Apex player (I believe Da9ve has one, as do I) is one of the few that will convert (some) PAL discs to NTSC on the fly; most players can't, apparently. Regardless, the region encoding and the resolution *should* be separate issues... But assuming it isn't a PAL disc (I don't think mine is, though I'll check tonight), the DIVX software *itself* shouldn't cause the disc to be unplayable; more likely the manufacturer specifically built the player to not play Region-free discs because they assumed that must mean the user was trying to circumvent the automated billing process somehow. But that's an unfounded hypothesis, of course. For more info about region-encoding: http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.10 There's also a section on PAL vs. NTSC in there. John "still mystified in spite of it all" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:59:49 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Lolita Nation Meat: >i'm not sure about calling it pretentious though. it deviates enough from >"standard" songwriting to alienate some listeners, sure, but does that make >it pretentious? what's the criteria? aiming higher than one is capable of? >being eclectic for the hell of it? Being an self-indulgent explosion of pointless name-dropping and allusions which do nothing to better the music, and only serve to aggressively show off the songwriter's "well-readness." Not to mention that despite what he thinks, Miller's "avant garde" snippets are musically trivial. You'd think after all these years, he'd figure out a way to integrate the montage weirdness *inside* the pop songs like, say, Pere Ubu or Zappa did. Or even the Olivia Tremor Control. I guess I'm seeing the Posies tonight, unless I have another stroke of bad luck. It's the first time I've seen the Judds of the indie-pop world since the Amazing Disgrace era. Eb, who will never understand how anyone can consider Scott Miller a major talent, and not just a nerdy curiosity ;) PS Yes, Two Steps From the Middle Ages is one of the better Miller releases, though it rarely seems to get any mention. (I have that one on vinyl unfortunately, since that was the period when I was still hedging away from CDs and thinking "Ehh, LPs are OK if the music is less than essential....") np: Sigur Ros ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:31:56 -0700 From: Eb Subject: reap Fred Neil, of "Everybody's Talkin'" fame. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 20:05:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Lolita Nation On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Eb wrote: > Being an self-indulgent explosion of pointless name-dropping and > allusions which do nothing to better the music, and only serve to > aggressively show off the songwriter's "well-readness." as opposed to just singing about cars and girls? i think it's interesting that allusiveness is the main thing that gets people accused of pretentiousness these days. the word smacks of social-climbing, which makes it really unsuited to saying "i don't like the subject he's talking about". bringing in the London Symphony Orchestra to back a sappy ballad, now that's pretension. but how is any lyrical *subject* pretentious? unless -- wait, are we talking about the really long song titles? come on. > Not to mention that despite what he > thinks, Miller's "avant garde" snippets are musically trivial. funny, i think i've heard him say that on several occasions. aaron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:44:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Feg Trading Cards On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Some Big Dummy wrote: > Roylaties aren't a big issue for me because I hold the modern ethic > that "anything's ok if you pay me enough". Surely that should have read "...I _DON'T_ hold the modern ethic...", etc. Thanks to all the people who read it correctly despite what I wrote... both of you. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:47:54 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Lolita Nation Aaron, who always CC's me his Fegposts so I receive two copies: >> Being an self-indulgent explosion of pointless name-dropping and >> allusions which do nothing to better the music, and only serve to >> aggressively show off the songwriter's "well-readness." > >as opposed to just singing about cars and girls? Too ridiculously reductive a comment to warrant a response. >i think it's interesting that allusiveness is the main thing that gets >people accused of pretentiousness these days. the word smacks of >social-climbing, which makes it really unsuited to saying "i don't like >the subject he's talking about". bringing in the London Symphony >Orchestra to back a sappy ballad, now that's pretension. but how is any >lyrical *subject* pretentious? unless -- wait, are we talking about the >really long song titles? come on. Zzzzz. >> Not to mention that despite what he >> thinks, Miller's "avant garde" snippets are musically trivial. > >funny, i think i've heard him say that on several occasions. Great...well, there's nothing so exciting as an artist who knowingly releases crap. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 19:51:08 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Feg Trading Cards Jeme: > Surely that should have read "...I _DON'T_ hold the modern > ethic...", etc. > > Thanks to all the people who read it correctly despite what I > wrote... both of you. J. It didn't *sound* right, but I've learned not to take anything for granted ;-) ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #268 ********************************