From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #350 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, September 18 2003 Volume 12 : Number 350 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: bottom line [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: Sarahs and chattels [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: bottom line [Christopher Gross ] Re: Street life ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: bottom line [Jeff Dwarf ] 2003: The Year That Ate It Big Time ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Fabnooz ["Brian" ] I See Dead Bands ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Dead Bands [Eb ] Re: I See Dead Bands [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Dead Bands [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Dead Bands [Eric Loehr ] Re: Dead Bands [Eb ] Re: Dead Bands [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: Dead Bands ["Iosso, Ken" ] Re: Dead Bands [Eb ] RE: Dead Bands [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Robyn cover ["Laura Simmons" ] Re: Dead Bands [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Dead Bands [Eb ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:50:39 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: bottom line >Just don't misspell the name of the Oakland baseball team and you'll be >fine. ;) But Auckland doesn't have a baseball team... 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, 19 Sep 2003 01:57:57 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: Sarahs and chattels >In GWTW it was pronounced "Terra", or at least Stevie Nicks was able to >rhyme it with "Sarah" in her goofy song about it. To my ears the >traditional pronunciation of "Sarah" rhymes with "Terra" anyhow, but I've >learned that people hear a wider range of differentiations in vowel sounds >than I do, so YMMV. well, it would if you pronounced it tearer, I suppose. >Possibly related to the "Terra" pronunciation is the fact that (at least in >the US) so many people use the spelling "Sara" these days, and I never read >that as "Sah-ruh". Must be largely an accent thing. It wasn't just the >wife and I; we spent a few months checking with our other friends (Yanks >all) to see if anyone had definitively solved the Tara/Terra riddle. I had three friends at high school, One Sarah (pron. to rhyme with fairer, i.e., the usual way), another Sara pronounced the same way (referred to in a recent post question about 'who do you wish you had...?'), and another Sara, pronounced "Saa-ruh". FWIW. Oh, and re: Chattel, you often hear the legal term "all goods and chattels". 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: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:17:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: bottom line On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > ps: I just received a junk email advertising "The World's Most Popular > > Male Enhancement Program." Surely beer holds that title? > > It probably works that way too - I find it enhances females in my eyes. Oh, sure, but it's also popular for *self* enhancement. Self-expansion, too, especially around the middle. - --Chris, awaiting the hurricane ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:25:09 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: Street life > From: Eb > Subject: Street Life > > The 57-year-old singer screamed in agony after the accident, and - fearing > he'd slipped a disc - he was flown back to Britain for emergency X-rays at a > private clinic with his girlfriend KATIE TURNER, 21. Hell, if I were 57 and had a 21-year-old girlfriend, I bet I'd end up in the hospital with a back injury or two, lickety split. "Yeah, yeah, I fell off of a mountain bike. Honest! Oh, and how did I get a brush burn *there*? Mind your own business, doc." Just back from migrating my servers to a commercial host. Three days without SMTP or HTTP was awful. Honest. Quit laughing. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: bottom line James Dignan wrote: > >Just don't misspell the name of the Oakland baseball > >team and you'll be fine. ;) > > But Auckland doesn't have a baseball team... Do they have the story of the moron who -- thinking he was flying to Auckland -- ends up on the plane to Oakland down there every once in a while too (except here, they think they are going to Oakland and end up on the plane to Auckland)? Athletics really isn't that hard to spell, of course. Harder than Mets though. ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:08:30 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: 2003: The Year That Ate It Big Time Eb: >>In other news, a close family friend (one of only two "outsiders" who >>attended my father's burial) has been diagnosed with terminal cancer >>himself. 2003...I tell ya. It's a wonder any of us will make it >>through this year alive. Word. My folks are on the road... just made it south of the storm zone last night... but meanwhile they've gotten word that my grandmother back home has taken a really bad turn healthwise. Hard to feel positive the way things are going. Hang in there, y'all. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:33:33 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Zero ( = the score it would get in Creative Writing 101) Ending with Eb: >>>Zwan. We'll understand if you're too distraught to post for >>>a few days, Rex. > >>http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=18678 >>A book of POETRY? 2003 just keeps getting crueler. Dude, it cannot POSSIBLY be any worse than this wankstravanza: http://www.blamo.org/sp/news/archives/fable.shtml There's art for it somewhere, but I carnt be arsed. Follow up at your own peril. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:48:07 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Fabnooz [Terrible title...should have stuck with "Get Back"] LONDON - A new version of The Beatles' album "Let It Be" will be released in November, the group's company Apple Corps announced Thursday. "Let It Be...Naked" strips the 1969 album of Phil Spector's lavish production effects, returning to Sir Paul McCartney's original idea for the recording. "This is the noise we made in the studio," McCartney said of the new version. "It's exactly as it was in the room. You're right there now." "Let It Be...Naked" mostly keeps the same track listing as the original album, which featured songs Let It Be, The Long and Winding Road, Get Back and Across the Universe. Background dialogue, Dig It and Maggie Mae have been taken off the album, and Don't Let Me Down has been added, Apple Corps said. Most of "Let It Be" was recorded in 1969 for an album which was to have been called "Get Back," showing The Beatles returning to their roots as a four-piece rock-and-roll band. But the group was splitting up and the album was abandoned. Spector was later brought in to convert hundreds of hours of tape into an album, renamed "Let It Be." Ringo Starr (news) told Rolling Stone magazine earlier this year: "Paul was always totally opposed to Phil. I told him on the phone (recently), `You're bloody right again. It sounds great without Phil.' Which it does." "Let It Be...Naked" is to be released by EMI Records on November 17. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:26:41 -0800 From: "Brian" Subject: Re: Fabnooz Very cool! Thanks Eb. Also: Let It BeNaked will be issued together with a bonus fly-on-the-wall disc that features extracts from tapes of The Beatles at the time of first making the Let It Be album and movie in the Sixties. The 20-minute bonus disc is a unique insight into of The Beatles at work in rehearsal and in the studios in January 1969. Let It BeNaked will also come with a booklet that features historic photography of the recording sessions and extracts of band dialogue from the original booklet that first accompanied early copies of the 1970 album. On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:48:07 -0700, "Eb" said: > [Terrible title...should have stuck with "Get Back"] > > LONDON - A new version of The Beatles' album "Let It Be" will be > released in November, the group's company Apple Corps announced Thursday. > > "Let It Be...Naked" strips the 1969 album of Phil Spector's lavish > production effects, returning to Sir Paul McCartney's original > idea for the recording. > > "This is the noise we made in the studio," McCartney said of the new > version. "It's exactly as it was in the room. You're right there now." > > "Let It Be...Naked" mostly keeps the same track listing as the original > album, which featured songs Let It Be, The Long and Winding Road, Get > Back and Across the Universe. > > Background dialogue, Dig It and Maggie Mae have been taken off the > album, and Don't Let Me Down has been added, Apple Corps said. > > Most of "Let It Be" was recorded in 1969 for an album which was to have > been called "Get Back," showing The Beatles returning to their roots as > a four-piece rock-and-roll band. But the group was splitting up and the > album was abandoned. > > Spector was later brought in to convert hundreds of hours of tape into > an album, renamed "Let It Be." > > Ringo Starr (news) told Rolling Stone magazine earlier this year: "Paul > was always totally opposed to Phil. I told him on the phone (recently), > `You're bloody right again. It sounds great without Phil.' Which it > does." > > "Let It Be...Naked" is to be released by EMI Records on November 17. - -- Brian nightshadecat@mailbolt.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:46:57 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: I See Dead Bands Nuppy: >>The Only Ones >>It seems as if none of their original albums are available on cd. Except >>maybe Special View. Amazon still has the self-titled one in print as an import. I'm surprised, actually; I picked up all three original LP's as budget CD's, looking and sounding recently reissued and remastered, in London in 2000. Special View is actually a comp of the first two albums, about half of each, released as their "debut" in the states. I don't think it has any unique material, but it was the only way that stuff was ever released stateside so it kinda counts as an "album". The CD sounds pretty poor, actually. The competition for "resident feg etymolygy nut" would be fierce indeed. In the real world I'm considered an armchair expert by my friends and co-workers, but on this list I'd be lucky to crack the top five. I'd like to think I'd land in the top 10, at least in terms of off-the-top-of-your-head citations, but I can't think of a good way to set up the competition. I'd bet the IQ's are pretty well off the charts 'round here as well, if you put any stock in that kind of thing. Since Eb's having a shitty day, I'll refrain from stating that "in the form of a question", though. _______ >>Pumpkins reunion pool will open within the week. We really should do an "Undead Pool" for band reunions. Maybe it'd be like, put the following bands in the order in which they will (nominally) reform: Buffalo Springfield* Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band Galaxie 500 Guns 'n' Roses** Hole Husker Du The Jam Led Zepplin My Bloody Valentine** Neutral Milk Hotel Pavement The Replacements Sex Pistols*** Smashing Pumpkins The Smiths The Soft Boys The Stone Roses Talking Heads Tin Machine (just kidding) Uncle Tupelo The Velvet Underground**** It's shockingly hard to think of bands that haven't done this already. I mean, there's a damned record out by "the" "Yardbirds" right now, and "Black" "Flag" just played in LA last week. Yeesh. - -Rex "Has Seen 'Big Star', Television, the Soft Boys, Wire, X, Bauhaus and Throwing Muses over the last few years, but missed the Stooges, Mission of Burma, Camper Van Beethoven, the Bunnymen, the Buzzcocks, Jane's Addiction, Roxy Music, oh lord make it stop, not to mention every mellow '70's nightmare I ever had stalks the earth once more" Broome * have jammed in private ** as evidenced by an album actually coming out *** in the running again according to our own Marc Holden **** again, deader than before ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:56:30 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Dead Bands >We really should do an "Undead Pool" for band reunions. Maybe it'd be like, >put the following bands in the order in which they will (nominally) reform: > >Buffalo Springfield* >Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band >Galaxie 500 >Guns 'n' Roses** >Hole >Husker Du >The Jam >Led Zepplin >My Bloody Valentine** >Neutral Milk Hotel >Pavement >The Replacements >Sex Pistols*** >Smashing Pumpkins >The Smiths >The Soft Boys >The Stone Roses >Talking Heads >Uncle Tupelo >The Velvet Underground**** A year-ish ago, Lawndart and I were casually debating what the most lucrative reunion tours might be, which weren't already underway. We decided that the three possible reunions which ruled above all others would be the original Guns N Roses, Diamond Dave's Van Halen and Simon & Garfunkel. Slightly beneath those three was the Clash. Well, the Clash reunion isn't possible anymore, but S&G have signed up..... The Pixies and Talking Heads probably would be at the top of my reunion wishlist. I used to rate the Replacements, but I think the time for a fruitful Replacements reunion has passed now. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:32:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: I See Dead Bands "Rex.Broome" wrote: > We really should do an "Undead Pool" for band reunions. > Maybe it'd be like, put the following bands in the order > in which they will (nominally) reform: given that Marr's solo album seems to have been a failure (if you were friends with Billy Bragg, Neil Finn, Matt Johnson, and Chrissie Hynde wouldn't you have one of them at least help you out as editors/sounding boards for the damn words if you'd never really written lyrics before?) and Morrissey's career has been stuck in neutral since around _Vauxhall & I_, I really think The Smiths are a pretty good bet pretty damn quick, though I doubt Joyce (or maybe even Rourke) would be invited to participate given the lawsuits etc. > Guns 'n' Roses** > My Bloody Valentine** > ** as evidenced by an album actually coming out The GNR album is only Axl and a bunch of other guys, so I don't think they count as really being a reunion; at this point with the 5,000,000,000,000,000 delays, I don't even know that it counts as having an album coming out. At the very least, a GNR reunion would need Slash and Duff with Axl. Velvet Revolver is probably closer to being GNR than GNR. and the MBV album is actually old stuff recorded between Isn't Anything and Loveless apparently (the full version of what was eventually the Glider EP). > Sex Pistols*** > The Soft Boys > Talking Heads > The Velvet Underground**** They've already all done it though, to some extent (Heads only at the Hall of Fame though). ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:59:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Dead Bands Eb wrote: > A year-ish ago, Lawndart and I were casually debating > what the most lucrative reunion tours might be, which > weren't already underway. We decided that the three > possible reunions which ruled above all others would be > the original Guns N Roses, Diamond Dave's Van Halen and > Simon & Garfunkel. Slightly beneath those three was the > Clash. Well, the Clash reunion isn't possible anymore, > but S&G have signed up..... Even without John, I would have thought a Paul-George-Ringo-with-Julian-and/or-Sean (or someone else) "Beatles" reunion would still be above those other three. Just Paul and Ringo wouldn't I don't think, otherwise I think those three are pretty dead on though I'm not sure The Clash ever would have been that lucrative, at least in the US. Maybe (an obviously Bonham-less) Zeppelin. Or Cream. > The Pixies and Talking Heads probably would be at the top > of my reunion wishlist. Talking Heads first for me -- hopefully with a significant part the set as just the four-piece -- though that's impacted since I saw Pixies on their last tour (the only show where they weren't opening for U2). I still want to catch Camper but haven't yet due to lack of money. The Sugarcubes would also be high up, though I don't think it's terribly probably at this point. An American Split Enz tour might be nice as well. But I'd rather they all waited for me to have the friggin' money to go. ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:11:14 -0400 From: Eric Loehr Subject: Re: Dead Bands At 12:59 PM 9/18/2003 -0700, Jeff Dwarf wrote: >Even without John, I would have thought a >Paul-George-Ringo-with-Julian-and/or-Sean (or someone else) >"Beatles" reunion would still be above those other three. >Just Paul and Ringo wouldn't I don't think, otherwise I >think those three are pretty dead on though I'm not sure >The Clash ever would have been that lucrative, at least in >the US. Maybe (an obviously Bonham-less) Zeppelin. Or >Cream. Jeff, you did hear that George died almost 2 years ago, right? It was in a couple of papers.... ;-} Eric "Hey! What about a Kinks reunion?" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:14:57 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Dead Bands >Even without John, I would have thought a >Paul-George-Ringo-with-Julian-and/or-Sean (or someone else) >"Beatles" reunion would still be above those other three. >Just Paul and Ringo wouldn't I don't think, otherwise I >think those three are pretty dead on though I'm not sure >The Clash ever would have been that lucrative, at least in >the US. Maybe (an obviously Bonham-less) Zeppelin. Or >Cream. You're talking about some reunions which aren't really reunions. And Cream? No way. I suspect Cream would draw less fans than plain ol' Clapton, at this point. News for Rufus fans: RUFUS: RUFUS WAINWRIGHT will perform songs from his new album, WANT ONE, at two special in-store performances, one in New York and one in L.A.: Sept. 23, Barnes & Noble @ Chelsea, 675 6th Ave. at 22nd St., 7:00 p.m. Sept. 28, Borders @ Westwood, 1360 Westwood Blvd., 5:00 p.m. Mark your calendars for Rufus performing WANT ONE's "I Don't Know What It Is" on Late Night With David Letterman on Oct. 6. Eb (didn't the album used to be called simply "Want"?) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:19:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Dead Bands - --- Eric Loehr wrote: > At 12:59 PM 9/18/2003 -0700, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > >Even without John, I would have thought a > >Paul-George-Ringo-with-Julian-and/or-Sean (or someone > else) > >"Beatles" reunion would still be above those other > three. > >Just Paul and Ringo wouldn't I don't think, otherwise I > >think those three are pretty dead on though I'm not sure > >The Clash ever would have been that lucrative, at least > in > >the US. Maybe (an obviously Bonham-less) Zeppelin. Or > >Cream. > > Jeff, you did hear that George died almost 2 years ago, > right? It was in a couple of papers.... ;-} You do know how to recognize PAST TENSES, don't you? Thus my using such phrases as "would have" and later saying that "just Paul and Ringo" wouldn't have the same effect. :) > Eric "Hey! What about a Kinks reunion?" Same as The Clash in that it wouldn't attract as much in the US as elsewhere within the English language world. ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:20:45 -0500 From: "Iosso, Ken" Subject: RE: Dead Bands What about the original Modern Lovers? Or Blind Faith? The original Pink Floyd? Or even the original Genesis? I'd definitely pay to see the first two. A Beatles reunion without John or George seems pretty uninteresting. Ken Iosso - -----Original Message----- From: Eb [mailto:ElBroome@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 3:15 PM To: fgz Subject: Re: Dead Bands >Even without John, I would have thought a >Paul-George-Ringo-with-Julian-and/or-Sean (or someone else) >"Beatles" reunion would still be above those other three. >Just Paul and Ringo wouldn't I don't think, otherwise I >think those three are pretty dead on though I'm not sure >The Clash ever would have been that lucrative, at least in >the US. Maybe (an obviously Bonham-less) Zeppelin. Or >Cream. You're talking about some reunions which aren't really reunions. And Cream? No way. I suspect Cream would draw less fans than plain ol' Clapton, at this point. News for Rufus fans: RUFUS: RUFUS WAINWRIGHT will perform songs from his new album, WANT ONE, at two special in-store performances, one in New York and one in L.A.: Sept. 23, Barnes & Noble @ Chelsea, 675 6th Ave. at 22nd St., 7:00 p.m. Sept. 28, Borders @ Westwood, 1360 Westwood Blvd., 5:00 p.m. Mark your calendars for Rufus performing WANT ONE's "I Don't Know What It Is" on Late Night With David Letterman on Oct. 6. Eb (didn't the album used to be called simply "Want"?) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:28:57 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Dead Bands > > "Hey! What about a Kinks reunion?" > >Same as The Clash in that it wouldn't attract as much in >the US as elsewhere within the English language world. A Clash reunion (if Strummer was alive) would be *far far* bigger than a Kinks reunion. >What about the original Modern Lovers? Or Blind Faith? The original Pink >Floyd? Or even the original Genesis? > >I'd definitely pay to see the first two. I think you're blurring the separate issues of "What reunions I'd like to see" and "What reunions would make $$$." I don't even like the Blind Faith album beyond two tracks, so no interest from me there. And those guys have turned into stodgy old poops anyway. :) I have no interest in seeing Eric Clapton, in any guise. Meanwhile, I can't imagine anything which would be more depressing than seeing the contemporary Syd Barrett perform. I may have to go turn on a Julie Andrews movie or something now, to cheer myself up. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:34:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: RE: Dead Bands "Iosso, Ken" wrote: > What about the original Modern Lovers? Or Blind Faith? > The original Pink Floyd? Or even the original Genesis? > > I'd definitely pay to see the first two. A Beatles > reunion without John or George seems pretty uninteresting. Probably not -- in fact, it would almost assuredly be pretty awful -- but with only John missing it would have been incredibly lucrative. Modern Lovers might be fun, but I really think Roger Barrett should be left alone at this point. ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:40:18 -0700 From: "Laura Simmons" Subject: Re: Robyn cover - ----Original Message Follows---- " np: my keyboard, puzzling over the similarity of this Yes bit to the "Rockford Files" theme..." ExSqueeze me? which Yes bit is that? I forget how that theme goes, plus I'm actually listening to Yes~relayer at the moment, so... Cheers from SF thanks alot _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive larger attachments with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:48:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Dead Bands Eb wrote: > > > "Hey! What about a Kinks reunion?" > >Same as The Clash in that it wouldn't attract as much in > >the US as elsewhere within the English language world. > > A Clash reunion (if Strummer was alive) would be *far > far* bigger than a Kinks reunion. But it still wouldn't be that huge, at least in the US. Probably bounce between arenas and auditoriums, with maybe a few amphitheatres in a few select markets (LA, SF, NY, Boston). They would also have to charge significantly lower ticket prices -- probably a $85 max -- than S&G or Roth-Van Halen, or the real Guns and Roses, all of whom could probably have a $125 dollar ticket floor. The Police would probably be a pretty damn lucrative reunion tour. ===== "Pentagon officials says Americanizing Iraq is difficult because Iraqis have had little to no reliable information for the past 35 years, and have lived on a diet of innuendo, rumor, conspiracy theories, fear, and propaganda. Sounds like the problem is they're too Americanized." -- Bill Maher "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:57:25 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Dead Bands > > A Clash reunion (if Strummer was alive) would be *far >> far* bigger than a Kinks reunion. > >But it still wouldn't be that huge, at least in the US. >Probably bounce between arenas and auditoriums, with maybe >a few amphitheatres in a few select markets (LA, SF, NY, >Boston). They would also have to charge significantly lower >ticket prices -- probably a $85 max My heart bleeds for them. ;) > -- than S&G or Roth-Van >Halen, or the real Guns and Roses, all of whom could >probably have a $125 dollar ticket floor. I *said* those three acts would draw more than the Clash, so there's no argument here. >The Police would probably be a pretty damn lucrative >reunion tour. Oh yeah! Temporarily forgot about them. That was another name which was top priority in the Lawndart talks. Yeah, the Police's reunion certainly would be bigger than the Clash's. Though I'm not really sure where the Police would fall, within S&G, GNR and R-VH. Eb ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #350 ********************************