From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #57 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, February 15 2002 Volume 11 : Number 057 Today's Subjects: ----------------- 1st rh show, cat stevens, and meeting Bayard ["mel" ] Re: Islam, music, jihad and Joyce ["matt sewell" ] Re: Meeting Bayard and such [Christopher Gross ] Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines ["matt sewell" ] Tales From The Underwater Announcement part II ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: rules of war [gSs ] Re: The Year of the Cat Stevens/the night they drove old 9:30 down [grutn] RE: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and yesterday's post [dmw ] reap [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: my first robyn show/shirt/fegs ["Roberta Cowan" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:44:11 -0000 From: "mel" Subject: 1st rh show, cat stevens, and meeting Bayard Christopher Gross said: > The old 9:30 closed at the end of 1995. (Sudden realization: I'm old!) Oh come on now you're not that old. Besides you're right around my age and if you're old what does that mean about me? ;) guess that means that the Georgetown show was probably my first one. > of course the famous smell. God, I'm seriously getting nostalgic for that > place. Help! (Never saw Robyn there, though.) hmmm. kinda like the way really sticky floors remind me of an old favorite bar in baltimore. jill what ages were you thinking of for cat stevens fans? a few of my friends have some of his stuff. they're probably around 31. i do like his stuff but don't remember where i first heard it although i do recall harold and maude making an impression. oh yeah what was bayard wearing? lots of eyeliner, corset and fishnets... oh wait that must be one of my other friends. i'd guess blue-green fleece, jeans and tennis shoes? no ideas about where he was sleeping though. mel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:51:35 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Islam, music, jihad and Joyce From: The Great Quail >I for one have been getting into a lot of music lately from Muslim regions -- especially >Egypt's diva Oum Khalthoum and Pakistan's Nusrat Ali Khan Absolutely - I've also been checking out a bit of music of Islamic origin... Nusrat Ali Khan rocks... er, well, you know what I mean... Also, I think that the way Islamic fundamentalists use the concept of Jihad is flawed... although I really don't believe there's an "axis of evil" (an emotive, meaningless term such as I've come to expect from Dumbya), I do believe that some states use criticism of the West and indeed, terrorism against it justified as a Jihad, to deflect criticism from their own corrupt, unelected governments (Saudi Arabia as a big frinstance...). On an unconnected note: I have just begun reading Ulyssess... now, apparently it's the 80th anniversary of it this year, so I've heard quite a bit about how it's the "best novel of the 20th century", totally multi-layered etc. The effect this has had, though, is to make me worried that I could read it and miss some of these layers, meanings etc... can anyone offer any advice as to how to go about reading it?! Cheers Matt >From: The Great Quail >Reply-To: The Great Quail >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Islam, music, jihad/crusade >Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:27:18 - -0800 > >Matt asks, > >>I don't think Islam forbids music - it's just the loony fringes... > >No, it most certainly does not forbid music, and has actually been >behind some very beautiful compositions. I for one have been getting >into a lot of music lately from Muslim regions -- especially Egypt's >diva Oum Khalthoum and Pakistan's Nusrat Ali Khan. > >James writes, > >>I seem to recall Bushbaby referring to what the US was doing as a >>crusade. >>Which is pretty much identical to referring to something as a jihad >>when >>you think about it. > >First of all, Bush (who I still think is an idiot) apologized for >the >use of "crusade," and it has not appeared the official US >policy-vocabulary since. I think that's an important point. > >But -- with all due respect, James -- you have to look deeper than >merely labelling each as "a holy war" in order to understand that >they are not at all identical. > >A look at the original meanings is enlightening. "Crusade" meant a >Christian military campaign to free the "Holy Land" from its >"occupation" by Mulslim elements. "Jihad" originally meant a holy >struggle, and also has personal connotation, implying one's constant >struggle to understand and exemplify Islam. > >However, Jihad eventually grew to mean a dutiful holy war, an armed >struggle against the infidels. This meaning was essentially >monopolized by numerous groups of militant-minded Islam. Even today, >many Islamic thinkers wish to recapture the original meaning of the >word -- a recent progressive Islamic columnist in a (I believe) >Egyptian paper wrote that "Jihad should not mean hijacking >airplanes, >it should mean building airplanes." > >Today, when a Westerner uses the word "crusade," it generally means >a >targeted struggle against something perceived as an evil. You hear >about a "crusade against drugs," or even -- as posted recently all >over NY subways -- a "Crusade against breast cancer." The religious >connotation is vestigial -- no one really expects a "crusade against >date rape" to be predicated upon fundamental Christian motivations. >The fact that Bush used it against terrorism was a big faux-pas, >because it immediately evoked the original meaning of the word, >where >Islam was seen as the evil. Very, very stupid -- but not at all >meaning that the US was about to launch an armed Christian struggle >against Islam. > >However, when bin Laden or the Islamic Jihad or the Hamas or the >Muslim Brotherhood use the word Jihad, they are using a very >specific >meaning of balls-out holy war in the name of Allah, with the United >States and Israel (and all their citizens) being the targets. There >is no vestigial religious meaning as in "crusade," there is a very >real and immediate religious ideology. Even though a case may be >made >that they have appropriated the word -- in a long tradition of such >violent appropriations -- they are quite specific in what jihad >means, and what it calls for, and it is *not* pleasant. > >So while on the surface "crusade" and "jihad" may be both glossed as >"holy war," in actual use, such as with Bush and bin Laden, or in >general, the West and the Islamicist militants, there is quite a >difference. Don't be deceived by easy comparisons that make the two >sides seem equal in their motivations and desires. > >--Quail - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:59:23 -0800 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: pining for the soul Ken writes, >i don't have any difficulty preserving the stance the the u.s. is >wrong about a >great many things. Neither do I. There's a list of things I think the US has done wrong, and is currently doing wrong. But I have the impression that you may be fairly totalitarian in your stance of America's wrong-ness. I am of the impression that you may view things through this filter, and consequently shape things accordingly to fit that viewpoint. >our actions in afghanistan definitely routed the taliban >and al-qaeda; but were not justified. So you think; and I respectfully decline to involve myself in that point, as we shall never agree. >the fact that we found a tape in the >mountains with osama talking about the attacks doesn't really cut it. i've >read differing accounts of the sound quality of the tape and i don't speak >arabic. I believe that you so want to preserve the idea of bin Laden's essential non-complicity, you would rather belive that the tape is false than accept the opposing viewpoint. Even though this belief is predicated upon the mendacity of numerous government agencies, so-called independent translators, and agencies from the Arab-speaking Islamic world itself that accept the tape as evidence. >if al-qaeda is a loose affiliation of independent cell groups then it >isn't inconceivable that information on plans gets around. i don't >want anyone >to think that i consider osama to be a holy warrior or that i think he wasn't >involved to some degree. my point is that, if this is the proof, what did we >have before? It sounds to me that you are contradicting yourself -- you call the tape questionable, you call into account translation issues, and you generally feel we should not have targets bin Laden and al-Queda. But then you suggest he might have been involved to some degree. >and how does it justify what we've done? that is, bomb the hell >out of one of the poorest, most desolate countries in the world. it >just looks >like revenge. Well, as you said, "our actions in afghanistan definitely routed the taliban and al-qaeda." While you may debate whether or not that provides sufficient justification, I would think that it certainly shows a reason that extends past "revenge." It breaks up a network -- financed by millions of dollars and sheltered by a rather nasty "government" -- dedicated to bringing more such 9-11's to our people. Whether or not that was worth the inevitable killing of Afghan innocents, and whether or not those same goals could have been reached another way, is certainly debatable. But to call it mere revenge seems to be only an emotional response. >call me ishmael. so much of our foreign policy is pushed by >business interests >that i have a lot of trouble getting beyond that. Of course it is. Most large states have aggressively self-interested foreign policy. Does that make it right? Of course not. I don't think we disagree in principle to some of these issues, but only to the extent that we allow them to affect our own political thought. >the only time that we hear >about human rights is when there's some underlying motivation, like say >preserving the supply of cheap oil. I agree that this far-too often happens, and it disgusts me as well. But it does not happen all the time. And it also touches upon deeper and more fundamental questions of foreign policy, such as -- when do we intervene? Are we global police force? When can we use force in a way our population will support? THose are questions which really trouble me as a US citizen. >well, i'm gonna take this to heart; but i can't help my initial impulse to >refute. i'm not all that concerned about sounding like a radical, especially >when the *real* radicals that i know take it that much further. Top what ends? I am sure they feel good about themselves, but do they really change anyone's mind through reasoned debate? > there are >people out there that think that the attacks "took the fight to the investment >bankers who would never end up on the front lines". Yes, I have heard these people too, and I find them contemptible for numerous reasons. The extreme Left has just as many assholes and hateful people as the extreme Right. >ok, but i've never claimed that osama wasn't a terrorist. what i'm saying is >that the label of terrorism is only applied where it suits our purposes. And I agree. After all, the United Staes can't fund terrorists, can we? (Yes, this is sarcastic.) >our >"war on terrorism" is the epitome of underinformed and overconfident >hypocracy. the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act would consider martin luther king to be a >terrorist. that's pretty telling. Yes it is. And it is just these domestic responses that must be defused, as the Right will look for any opportunity to drive a wedge into our personal liberty. >point taken. i've got to work on that; but i'm not going to go out of my way >to please you either. I am not asking you to! As long as you understand and accept that your tone may modify my own, and vice-verse. >i must confess that i've looked forward to your >political posts in the past. you do seem to be the consummate moderate, >weighing out all factors and manuevering with aplomb through the minefields >that dot fegmaniax. much respect. Wow, Ken, thank you! Seriously. That was one of the nicest things anyone's said to me politically, and I am proud to have those words applied to me. I, too, look forward to your posts -- you are provocative, and yet never personally insulting or close-minded. And for that, I have "much respect" as well. (Of course, only, what, four or five of us are reading this thread? ;) >i've heard lots worse; but not on this list. So have I. I am aware that on this List, I seem more right than in real life, where I seem more left. I consider myself a generally liberal moderate with libertarian leanings. >i have no problem with increased airport security; but i do have a >problem with >racial profiling. someone wrote on a bathroom stall that "all dotheads must >die". Well, that's not only asinine and horrible, it's also plain stupid, given that "dot-heads" are Indian Hindus!!!!! Ah well, who expects nuance or intelligence from such a person? It's like that skinhead punk from Allentown who had "Hi Hitler" tattooed on his forehead, because he thought that was the proper German salute ("Heil Hitler.") Thanks for discussing this with me, - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:00:51 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Meeting Bayard and such On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Eugene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > > I didn't meet Bayard IRL until 23 May 1998, the day of the infamous Feg > > Hootenanny. > > Hey, I was there too, and mets lots of Fegs. I'd sure like to see those > pictures again -- does anybody have them hosted somewhere? LJ perhaps? There's a section on Nick's Feg Fotoz page, . (Go to page 3.) And I've posted two more pics at . Enjoy! - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:09:08 -0800 From: "Walker, Charles" Subject: rules of war >When the army coming over the hill has outfited each of its soldiers with a destinct uniform and a big red star on their cap, the enemy is easy to spot. When the army coming over the hill is made of people that fit any number of profiles then it can be very difficult. chas in LA writes: i have been thinking for a while, wouldn't the american revolutionaries be classified as terrorist or users of terrorist tactics, ie not followong the conventions and rules of war of the day, that is to say lining up in bright suits and shooting at each other from 6 feet away... http://www.theweeklywalker.com issue #64 is up! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:17:27 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines Move along all ye sick of this thread... gSs: >A single person in a refugee camp means the camp is overflowing. What >do think a refugee camp should be, a permenent home for the weak and >weary? No, its only suppose to be like that in Isreal. Right?. So like I >said, those camps were overflowing and still are. A noble humanitarian sentiment I'm sure... a single person in a refugee camp does not mean it's overflowing... now, if you're saying that refugee camps are a bad thing and people shouldn't have to live in them, well, I agree with you. But, to say that all refugee camps are overflowing just because they exist is just bollocks, because overflowing means something specific, ie: they have more people they can provide for. Refugee camps are a necessary evil, I'm afraid - a result of the fact that most of the world is living in or near poverty. Now, perhaps if the richer countries did something about this fact (and I don't mean test out munitions on them and then sell them the weapons), perhaps refugee camps (overflowing or otherwise) wouldn't be necessary... >Yet relief agencies have better, broader and more secure access to these >remote areas now. As you missed in my previous email, food security in Afghanistan has diminshed in the last couple of months (despite being "liberated" by the generous humanitarian, anti-despotic er, bombing campaign). That's according to Oxfam. >Why don't you ask the Afghans? We "bombed the crap" out of what I believe >to be one of the most barbaric, backwards ass, homophobic, sexist, >rascist, dangerous, group of individuals ever gathered together. Men, all >gathered from the dark alleys, mental institutions, prisons and other >places of ill-repute, along with select fortunate sons and playboys from >the upper crust. So, are you saying that the campaign against the Taliban was a selfless gesture on the part of the United States in order to free the poor victims of oppression? Because if you are I think you are being rather naive... >Yer not very good with numbers, are you? The only part of your post with which I agree. >Are you comparing the Taliban to the US administration, past and or >present or just certain members of certain administrations, past >or present? Is that a "go on I dare ya"? Well, obviously there's not much by way of comparison, apart from the undemocratic nature of both the Taliban and the present US administration and both parties' enthusiasm for state-sanctioned murder... but that's a cheap shot from an obvious leftie, obviously. Cheers Matt 0>From: gSs >Reply-To: gSs >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines >Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:39:19 -0500 (CDT) > >On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, matt sewell wrote: > > Yes, *something* like that - - 7.5 million Afghans were in danger of > > starving. Just because they were starving doesn't mean they were in > > camps... thankfully, the early perception that the camps around - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:57:02 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: rules of war On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Walker, Charles wrote: > chas in LA writes: i have been thinking for a while, wouldn't the american > revolutionaries be classified as terrorist or users of terrorist tactics, ie > not followong the conventions and rules of war of the day, that is to say > lining up in bright suits and shooting at each other from 6 feet away... Nope. Hollywood history notwithstanding, the American revolutionaries almost always fought in organized military units (if only village militias), using conventional tactics. They even wore uniforms when they could afford them. What we would call guerrilla warfare was mostly limited to the frontier; and even there, the guerrillas did not usually masquerade as civilians or target enemy civilians. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:38:16 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Tales From The Underwater Announcement part II Hi, I you sent me an e-mail regarding this title, hold tight. I'm waiting for all the responses to roll in. I will keep it open for 1 week and then assign leaves to branches. If you are from a nation other than the U.S. of A. please state so in your reply. You will be hearing from me in a week or so. Thanks! Max _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:55:46 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, matt sewell wrote: > >So like I said, those camps were overflowing and still are. > > A noble humanitarian sentiment I'm sure... And I am sure that is exactly what you mean..... > now, if you're saying that refugee > camps are a bad thing and people shouldn't have to live in them, well, I > agree with you. Have I said something that would lead you to believe that I think refugee camps are a good thing? And of course what I say is based on my noble sentiment as we've been assured by you. > But, to say that all refugee camps are overflowing just > because they exist is just bollocks, because overflowing means something > specific, ie: they have more people they can provide for. What do think the birth/death ratio at "any ole' average" refugee camp is? But since we are talking about the ones in and around Afghanistan, keep the answer specific? When anyone anywhere dies because of lack of anything, the resources of what ever system they happen to exist in has been exceeded. They are therefore overflowing, beyond capacity, carrying any excessive load, over-amped, underrated, ill equiped, under staffed whatever you would like to call it. Are you arguing that the I have slightly or significantly overstated the number of "millions" of people that have been flowing in and out of these camps in and around Afghanistan for more than two decades from places as far away as Isreal and all points between and places as close as ex USSR states and Pakistan? Why didn't they stay? Most refugees will stop and live in the first good place they see. Many of these particular refugees are running from a great number of things like draught, famine, disease and the occasional mad father. Add the fucking fanatical invisible friend evengalists who are also lunatics and dangle a great big carrot in front of some of the most destitute and abused people in the world and cut their fucking nuts off if they don't bite it on top of that and look what we have. Refugee camps overflowing with millions and millions and millions and millions of people, long before September 11th. The chance of survival, the infant mortality rate, the overall human conditions for the majority are finally improving. Just ask the Afghans. Is the region stable? Is the improved stability along with everything else going to continue to improve? Chances are better now than they have been in 20 years. > >Yet relief agencies have better, broader and more secure access to these > >remote areas now. > As you missed in my previous email, food security in Afghanistan has > diminshed in the last couple of months (despite being "liberated" by the > generous humanitarian, anti-despotic er, bombing campaign). That's > according to Oxfam. I missed nothing, your statement is false. There are always going to be certain areas anywhere that might become more or less accessible at anytime but the overall relief effort within Afghanistan is flowing much more freely. And jeez louise it goes far beyond what agencies can bring in and pass around. It is the ability of the people to move around and exist and reorganize their society into a more humane much less restricted one without some invisable friend fringe lunatic or one of his sheep breathing down your neck being selectively intolerant, preaching the word of some god and righteousness and then raping your infant neice with the deformed face crushed at birth by her Taliban father because she was a girl and now she is the only thing left for them to have because the last time they came by they took your wife and daughter. Bad or worse? > So, are you saying that the campaign against the Taliban was a selfless > gesture on the part of the United States in order to free the poor > victims of oppression? Because if you are I think you are being rather > naive... Did I say it was a selfless gesture? Normally I express my beliefs fairly clearly. Do you think if I was running a good vs. evil campaign that I would leave this out? Evangalists, don't often leave out the god part, so why would campaigner supporters leave out the most important slogan at this "join us we are good and they are evil" rally? It has never been a question of good vs. evil no matter what anyone tells or no matter what you would like to believe. There is bad and then there is worse. > Is that a "go on I dare ya"? Well, obviously there's not much by way of > comparison, apart from the undemocratic nature of both the Taliban and > the present US administration and both parties' enthusiasm for > state-sanctioned murder... The enthusiasm, while it might exist on both sides to some degree, is at different levels. That point is not worth arguing. But public executions and beatings of women who don't keep themselves covered or have an escort when the leave home, not allowing women to work or go to school and forcing dark-age superstition down the throats of the citizens, eliminating nearly all forms of entertainment except for the selected elite etc... is worth arguing and does not make it a tough choice. Unless of course you think the Taliban are just bad and anything else is worse. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:43:19 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: my first robyn shirt on 2/14/02 6:34 PM, Carole Reichstein at carole@technical.powells.com wrote: > Who has the oldest Robyn shirt?? I have a grey shirt screened with the cover of BSDR that I bought at Newbury Comics in Burlington, MA sometime in 1986. I doesn't fit anymore, but I'll never get rid of it. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:43:57 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: rules of war On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Walker, Charles wrote: > chas in LA writes: i have been thinking for a while, wouldn't the american > revolutionaries be classified as terrorist or users of terrorist tactics, ie > not followong the conventions and rules of war of the day, that is to say > lining up in bright suits and shooting at each other from 6 feet away... > http://www.theweeklywalker.com issue #64 is up! Whether they had been or not would not have mattered much then or now considering the situation and all the support the Queen had from the rest of the world. And at that, no they would not have been classified as terrorists because they did not fit the definition. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:06:02 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: The Year of the Cat Stevens/the night they drove old 9:30 down >I don't think Islam forbids music - it's just the loony fringes... some branches ban singing with instruments, but allow singing, erm, a capella (somehow that doesn't sound like the right term). In fact, one of my favourite musicians was a devout Moslem - the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, whom the Great Quail also mentioned. Talking of whom (and I really don't want to get into an argument with one of my favourite fegs): >Today, when a Westerner uses the word "crusade," it generally means a >targeted struggle against something perceived as an evil. I know that, and you know that, but the word still seriously offends a lot of the people in the Middle East, and is still thought of by its original meaning there. I suspect that any Arabic newspaper carrying news of the comment would have translated it as jihad. Still, I should've guessed it was just the Bush putting his foot in it again. >Has anyone ever met James? At feg gatherings >do you pitch in & all call him long distance? Quailie's heard my voice on an answerphone, and I've phoned former fegmanic Cheri. Other than that I've been visited by a good friend of feg Melissa (Jennifer), and a lurker (Kevin). And from memory that's it. In fact I've only met about seven or eight people in total from all the lists I've been on over the years - most of them from the Church list (and being an Aussie band, there was a big Antipodean contingent on that list). 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, 15 Feb 2002 17:46:40 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: RE: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and yesterday's post On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Scott Hunter McCleary wrote: > My first Robyn show was 7/24/88 at the old 9:30 in DC. I'm assuming =b was > there (probably needed a fake ID in '88, though). Anyone else? i think i saw all the ol 9:30 club shows since teh '85/'86 one just before _invisible hitchcock_ was released, so, probably. i'm not one of you photographic recall folks, though. - -- d. np shriekback _aberrations 81-4_ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 13:46:34 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: reap Has anyone mentioned Dave van Ronk yet? 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, 15 Feb 2002 20:07:03 -0500 From: "Roberta Cowan" Subject: Re: my first robyn show/shirt/fegs First saw Robyn & the Egyptians 11/9/85 at the F Street 9:30 Club. Lar and I had tickets to see him earlier that year at the 9:30 but it was cancelled when Robyn got very ill so by the time this show happened we were PSYCHED! To this day I'm not really sure why we left after the first show that night--I know they would've let us stay for the late show but knowing the 9:30 in those days it probably wouldn't have started until 1 or 2 am so we wimped out. That's my only regret because it was a revelation--he was sooo tall, had a most colorful shirt and wouldn't stop blinking his eyes. Plus the band just rocked. That would have been Fegmania era. By the next time we saw them, again at the 9:30--3/28/86--a scant 2 days after my birthday even 8-)--we were obsessed to the max. It was the first time we'd heard any of the Element of Light songs--they did Lady Waters, Bass and Ted Woody & Junior and then for one of the encores switched off on their instruments and did Tell Me About Your Drugs. This was especially significant because even though that song seems now to fit in so nicely on the EOL album it wasn't on the original vinyl so the studio version didn't show up until the 12" of If You Were A Priest came out a bit later. My first shirt was the "He never made love to a loaf of bread.." one which I still have somewhere though it seems very small now. The first fegs I met would have been in 1988 at the Chestnut Cabaret in Philly. I was proudly wearing my Thoth button and heard a voice ask "Hey look--a feg! Who are you?" It was the famous Sandra and Trudi behind the merchandise table. I'll never forget that when I told them my name they smiled and recited my address in unison. I guess that's what happens when you hand address all that correspondence... The other thing I remember about that show was standing next to the stage (which wasn't very high) right in front of Andy Metcalfe and being mesmerized watching him play bass. Gotta put in a good word also for a bunch of great shows at Max's in Baltimore (RIP)--that would have been my home away from home for a few years. It was a lot closer than the 9:30, had a better beer selection, wasn't usually as crowded and smelled at least a little better. 8-) Cheers-- Roberta ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #57 *******************************