From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #358 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, September 25 2003 Volume 12 : Number 358 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. ["FS Thomas" ] re: sitar and banjo [Nur Gale ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V12 #357 [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: cutouts [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: another reap, anyone? [Carrie Galbraith ] RE: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. ["FS Thomas" ] Re: fuckable or not? ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: fuckable or not? [Elizabeth Brion ] Enan/Deloupolos (0% Robyn) [Sweet & Tender Hooligan ] RE: fegmaniax-digest V12 #357 (was: RE: fegmaniax-digest V12 #356 ) ["Rex] Re: where the &*@! are the prawns? (100% RH content) [Devin Lee Ens Subject: Re: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Okay, guess which crazed LAWBBer wrote this before W. > invaded Iraq? > > "Trying to eliminate Saddam...will incur incalculable > human and political costs. Apprehending him is probably > impossible.... We would be forced to occupy Baghdad and, > in effect, rule Iraq...[but] there is no viable 'exit > strategy' we can see.... Going in and occupying Iraq, > thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, > will destroy the precedent of international response to > aggression.... If we go the invasion route, the > United States will conceivably be an occupying power in a > bitterly hostile land." Why, that'd be ole Pa Bush. ===== "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!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:09:21 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: fuckable or not? >> Sometimes, TV commercials are really messages from God to >>let people know >>more about the celestial relationship between Our Lady Heidi Klum >>and me, Nick >>Kaffes, aka Kansan1225. > >Bring back Denise Sharpe! I give you points for remembering her name. ;) However, as far as I know, she has vanished from the Internet. And actually, the most recent times I came across her contributions, she seemed a lot closer to "normal." Maybe she found some good psychiatric drugs, or maybe she just decided that it was better to keep her ideas to herself. Tonight, I realized that last night was the Gilmore Girls premiere, and I casually skipped it because I figured it was just another rerun. Argh. Thank heavens for Television Without Pity, I guess.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:13:01 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. Not to be the piss on the fire, but: cited source is? > -----Original Message----- > Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > Okay, guess which crazed LAWBBer wrote this before W. > > invaded Iraq? > > > > "Trying to eliminate Saddam...will incur incalculable > > human and political costs. Apprehending him is probably > > impossible.... We would be forced to occupy Baghdad and, > > in effect, rule Iraq...[but] there is no viable 'exit > > strategy' we can see.... Going in and occupying Iraq, > > thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, > > will destroy the precedent of international response to > > aggression.... If we go the invasion route, the > > United States will conceivably be an occupying power in a > > bitterly hostile land." > > > Why, that'd be ole Pa Bush. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:24:08 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. The actual quote (without Leftist elipses) is: Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, **would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep,"** and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. **We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately.** We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. Read the omissions. The originally posted line was blatantly taken out of context, at the benefit of the quote-taker. - -f. (works cited: http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm) > -----Original Message----- > From: FS Thomas [mailto:ferris@ochremedia.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:13 AM > To: 'arboreal autograph collectors' > Subject: RE: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. > > Not to be the piss on the fire, but: cited source is? > > > -----Original Message----- > > Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > > Okay, guess which crazed LAWBBer wrote this before W. > > > invaded Iraq? > > > > > > "Trying to eliminate Saddam...will incur incalculable > > > human and political costs. Apprehending him is probably > > > impossible.... We would be forced to occupy Baghdad and, > > > in effect, rule Iraq...[but] there is no viable 'exit > > > strategy' we can see.... Going in and occupying Iraq, > > > thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, > > > will destroy the precedent of international response to > > > aggression.... If we go the invasion route, the > > > United States will conceivably be an occupying power in a > > > bitterly hostile land." > > > > > > Why, that'd be ole Pa Bush. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:45:47 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. Quoting FS Thomas : > The actual quote (without Leftist elipses) is: > > Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation > of Iraq, **would have violated our guideline about not changing > objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep,"** and would have > incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was > probably impossible. **We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, > which we knew intimately.** We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad > and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, > the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. > Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously > trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war > world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the > U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international > response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion > route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a > bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and > perhaps barren--outcome. > > Read the omissions. The originally posted line was blatantly taken out > of context, at the benefit of the quote-taker. At one level, well duh: my next post was going to note that I'd changed the verb tenses and that it was Dad talking about Iraq in 1991 (from his memoirs published in '98 or so) - but the point is, everything still holds true regarding the current war (w/the possible exception of some of the policy issues). It's a little thing called "irony" (special added note for the irony-impaired: I don't really think Dad is or was a "lefty" of any type). But I fail to see how the omitted material (most of which I omitted to save space, not to spin anything) changes the fact that Bush meant what my quote implied it did. He gives other reasons for not going after Saddam, yes - but he still acknowledges the costs. He gives reasons for the unlikelihood of finding Saddam, yes - but he still says doing so would be unlikely. He adds policy rationale against the occupation - but still argues that such an occupation would have been a bad idea. And hey - at least I *marked* the ellipses. Hold on - do you mean anyone's still arguing at this point that Bush's policy has been a good one? Kee-rist on a crutch...makes Kansan look possessed of a full set of marbles... ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:50:44 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: fuckable or not? Quoting Natalie Jacobs : > Anyone who likes XTC should immediately > >buy all four Fuzzy Warbles titles, right now. Yes, you. Stop reading > your > >e-mail, order the damned things. > > Aren't they heavily-loaded with aural doodling and demos of > already-released > material, though? That was my understanding... I wouldn't say "heavily loaded": there's very little aural doodling (depending upon your definition), some demos...but mostly stuff that never got 'round to being released on the real records. And a lot of the demos are pretty different from the final versions. But here - take a look at the track listings (follow the links): ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: it's not your meat :: --Mr. Toad np: Sun Kil Moon _Ghosts of the Great Highway_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:57:33 -0700 From: Nur Gale Subject: re: sitar and banjo I suspect what you heard was Bela Fleck on banjo... not certain who the sitarist might be although Fleck has performed duet shows with different tabla players in the past (Trilok Gurtu, Sandip Burham). I'm thinking that the sitarist may be Krishna Bhatt who also lives in the Bay Area with Fleck. I'm sure they both know each other well given other pockets of musicians they both play with occasionally. nur ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:14:55 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V12 #357 >Subject: Re: seems like we go on for days and days about the same topic no >matter what the subject line says, and not everyone sorts by subject, and >it's fun > >On Wed, Sep 24, 2003, Miles Goosens wrote: >> At 03:41 PM 9/24/2003 -0400, Stewart C. Russell wrote: >> >whyd'ja do it? It bugs the living piss out of me. It kills >> >threads. Just stop it, it's so easy. >> >> See subject line above. >> >> Plus I sorta hate it when we get 18 days out on a thread that's been >> about vaginas for the last 12 days, but the subject line still says >> it's about Pufinstuff vs. Thunderbirds. > >I agree that subject lines should change with subject, but it would be >very nice if people would at least use the customary "(was: old >subject)". people on the digest form (like me) tend to copy and paste bits for replying to - and (in my case at least) frequently miss what the original subject line was. So we either stick with the generic one (as shown above) or try to create one that is relevant to the subject. It's surely far easier to see whether a post is of interest to you if the subject line is relevant than if it's an old subject line that now bears no relation to the subject. 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, 25 Sep 2003 18:14:52 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: cutouts a lot of these cut-outs may be world wide, even though the exact make-up has regional differences. I nodded at recognition of quite a few repeated cut-out sightings. (ahtough there were one or two albums I'd never even heard of). But I do query one line: >22: Buffalo Tom: Sleepy Eyed >I can't even tell you why this is everywhere, since "Sodajerk" (from Big Red >Letter Day) is the closest thing to a hit the band ever had. ??? "Treehouse" was a staple of student radio of an eternity here. Oh, and have 18 1/2 of the albums*, would be tempted to eventually get rid of about half if I wasn't a hoarder. jbj says: >I love The Church's "Priest = Aura", and no one can convince me otherwise. I'd rate it their second or third best album. Certainly miles ahead of the album the reviewer lauded (Gold Afternoon Fix) James * I have several of the songs from "Born to choose" on a mix tape 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, 25 Sep 2003 10:36:15 +0200 From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: another reap, anyone? > Eb wrote: >> Gordon "Mr. Carlson" Jump. >> >> When I was a busboy at Knott's Berry Farm many moons ago, >> I saw him and his clan eating in the restaurant one >> night.... Wait, I've been offline for a few days so I'm jumping in to this thread but Eb - you were a busboy at Knotts Berry Farm??? Wow. This place was my childhood fantasy come true! A stagecoach with real horses that got held up by bandits? I mean, what kid wouldn't love it? My high school endlish teacher, Miss Silver, turned country western singer, Donna Fargo, performed there often and my fellow students went over the hills to Knotts on many a Friday night to hear Miss Fargo sing. - - c ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:06:33 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf > Of Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey > > ..I fail to see how the omitted material...changes the fact that Bush meant what my quote implied it did. Just yesterday I think it was I heard a quote from (I *think*) CNN of the Great Lie. Here the reporter quoted everything Bush said regarding the Iraqi attempts to get enriched uranium except one thing: the portion of the sentence regarding British Intelligence. Omission for the sake of steering a quote--while admittedly not as major an issue with your ellipses--annoys the living piss out of me. (And the original quote was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." No impetus that the US intelligence forces were claiming that.) > He gives other reasons for not going after Saddam, yes - but > he still acknowledges the costs. Of course there are going to be costs associated with the operation. While I do have reservations that we are quickly becoming an Occupational force as opposed to a Liberating force, I cannot for a minute think that the people and nation of Iraq are not better off today than they were the day prior to the start of the war. Is there a guerilla war going on there? To some extent, yes. Is there violence there? Yes; the bombing of the hotel housing NBC reporters this morning is a strong example of what's becoming all-too common. Is it to be suspected? I would think so. Most press that I've read on the political situation in the Middle East is pointed that, while the ME nations would love to see us fail militarily, they know that, at the end of the day, they will lose in an all-out, front-to-front war. They are left with the Palestinian Option. Either suicide terrorists, or small squads assaulting "soft" targets. It is common sense. There is a real fear in the Middle East, however, of the thought of a free, democratically ruled nation popping up right in their midst. The stability of the political reigns of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, and Syria would come into question--something the Mullahs don't want. Therefore they preach to the faithful, gather the most impoverished, least educated among them, and tell them that for the low, one-time cost of strapping C4 to your chest, you not only get honey wine and a truck load of virgins, but your family can get a helping hand for the rest of eternity. Where do I sign up. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:03:22 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: crazed lefty anti-war Bush-bashing, ctd. (DELETE NOW!) On Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 07:06 AM, FS Thomas wrote: > (And the original quote was "The British government has learned that > Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from > Africa." No impetus that the US intelligence forces were claiming > that.) Bush didn't care if the above statement was true or not, all he wanted was something to sell the US public on the invasion of Iraq. It's reasonable to think that the appropriate people in his administration knew that the above statement was, at best, misleading. But they knew that their real reason for the invasion wouldn't fly, so they "overstated" the case. This is an administration that wants what it wants, and its members will say whatever they think is needed to justify its actions. In fact, lying seems to be their first choice. It's all about power. - - Steve __________ We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually. - Weekly Standard writer Matt Labash, on right wing media ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:12:51 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: Soft Boys bootleg http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2560168863&category=1573 Has anyone seen this one before? It's new to me. I'll pass on it at the price it has hit, but I'm curious about whether it was an actual bootleg (silver CD with a significant number of copies made) or someone's homemade compilation passed off as a real item. Later, Marc I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't pretend to even know what the questions are. Hey, where am I? Jack Handey ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:25:44 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: fuckable or not? > From: "Natalie Jacobs" > Subject: fuckable or not? > > I personally thought Rhett Miller was far more fuckable, but that's just > me... Well, word is Rhett is growing his hair out; maybe that affects his fuckability with the ladies. Oh, and his wife is about to have their baby -- maybe they're looking for a midwife? He still has the gold tooth, too. Ahem. > Incidentally, I haven't heard his solo record that Robyn's on, but I > certainly can't hear a trace of Robyn influence in the Old 97's. But I > guess you can like someone without being influenced by them... Go ahead and buy Rhett's solo album; chances are you can find it in cut-out bins on the cheap. I quite enjoy the album; my wife, an ardent Rhett Miller SuperFan, isn't quite too fond of it -- she thinks Jon Brion gets in the way too much; whereas that's the reason I like it. Robyn sings backup on one of the album's better cuts. As for a Robyn influence on the Old 97's, I don't hear that either (and, believe me, I hear the Old 97's about 5 hours per week). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:37:41 -0700 From: Elizabeth Brion Subject: Re: fuckable or not? On Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 07:25 AM, Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > > As for a Robyn influence on the Old 97's, I don't hear that either > (and, > believe me, I hear the Old 97's about 5 hours per week). > > I never did, either, until one night while on a long solo drive that included a lot of mind-wandering, I had "Singular Girl" playing and started imagining it with Robyn's voice instead of Rhett's. It was surprisingly easy. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:41:43 -0700 From: Sweet & Tender Hooligan Subject: Enan/Deloupolos (0% Robyn) Tomorrow night I'm hitting the road to catch Over the Rhine in Dubuque, Iowa (and for anyone who hasn't heard their new double-album, "Ohio," drop what you're doing and run, don't walk...). Opening for the band are two acts I've never heard of: one Susan Enan and one Stephen Delopoulos (evidently late of Burlap to Cashmere, whoever that might be). Just wondering if anyone is familiar with either of these two artists, and whether it's worth leaving town early in order to catch their performances. = s&th hooligan@apostate.com "I love myself, I want you to love me When I'm feeling down, I want you above me I search myself, I want you to find me I forget myself, I want you to remind me I don't want anybody else..." (Oh, come one, you know you're singing along...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:33:28 -0800 From: "Brian" Subject: Re: Soft Boys bootleg I dunno. I wondered the same thing. It could burned from the mp3 that were on the UM.com site or could be audience recordings that were going around. I wouldn't get this. Both shows are available for trade. Nuppy On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:12:51 -0700, "Marc Holden" said: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2560168863&category=1573 > > Has anyone seen this one before? It's new to me. I'll pass on it at the > price it has hit, but I'm curious about whether it was an actual bootleg > (silver CD with a significant number of copies made) or someone's > homemade > compilation passed off as a real item. > Later, Marc - -- Brian nightshadecat@mailbolt.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:16:51 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V12 #357 (was: RE: fegmaniax-digest V12 #356 ) Nuppy: >>I'm still debating if I should pick up the Television live since I have >>that entire show on bootleg. Of course I've already ordered it, so I'll advise as to the sound & packaging quality, etc. Stand by. Also got the reissues of the proper Television albums on the way. In fact, I have a lot of records on the way... a combo of this year's records I'm supposed to be listening to and this year's records that nobody but me is likely to. ______ Eb: >>"Quavery, melodramatic" might apply to Wainwright. "Miserable whine" >>simply does NOT. Not in the Sc*tt M*ller sense, perhaps. But the guy sounds miserable and he's certainly whining about something. QED. _______ Jeff D: >>I would also add that Dusk is a pretty damn terrific record. And while >>it's certainly significantly inferior to Smile, Nowhere, and >>Going Blank Again, Carnival of Light is nowhere near as bad >>as he makes it out to be. I'd agree on both points-- forgot Dusk among the discs I'd recommend, good record (is that the only record on the list that's unpopular enough to have been, erm, recently *reissued*?)... and as a Ride fan, I rate Carnival about equal to Going Blank Again, which I like *less* than many do. See the Grasshopper EP for a taste of what it could have been. Tarantula, however, full on sucks the big one. The perennial resale bin fixture I missed out on here was Tripping Daisy. But I think that's because I really really hate the cover to that one album with the guy with the schmutz smeared all over him, to the point where every time I see the spine of that record (which is often) I get kind of squicked. ______ Miles: >>Plus I sorta hate it when we get 18 days out on a thread that's been about >>vaginas for the last 12 days, but the subject line still says it's about >>Pufinstuff vs. Thunderbirds. Personally, I'd be hard pressed to think of a better title for such a thread. _______ Nat: >>Incidentally, I haven't heard his solo record that Robyn's on, but I >>certainly can't hear a trace of Robyn influence in the Old 97's. I picked that up when they were selling it for like $7. 'Sokay, but I agree, little detectable Robyn influence, and if you blink you'll miss his cameo. The cover art certainly seems to be devoted to establishing his fuckability. On the upside, it prolly *is* alt-country. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:28:46 -0600 From: Devin Lee Ens Subject: Re: where the &*@! are the prawns? (100% RH content) Stewart C. Russel wrote that Jonathan Fetter wrote: >> >> ... I've only listened to JFSophia five times >> max, never bothered with Bram, and have >> avoided Luxor so far. >As far as I'm concerned regarding Luxor, the loss is purely yours. Some lovely >songs there, and many mostly about things. >> Let there be more obscurity >Oh, there's plenty of obscurity. Mainly due to overfishing [I've just >read "The Empty Ocean", and now my least favourite word is "bycatch"], Robyn's >aquatic idiom seems to have shifted. I think he's writing from an English >suburban garden point of view these days: ants, samosas, yams, sheds, tomatoes. I'm glad this is being pointed out. There's so much more to say, and I have so little time before work. Moss Elixir: Robyn's best album. Each song is not only among his best, but he actually gives each one it's own unique production-arrangement, instead of doing the whole thing the same way with the same musicians. I've always considered the Egyptians a hindrance to RH. They're just too limited in what they can do, always sounding the same. While each song has it's own thing, the album still has a united aesthetic, and it's still got the minimalism that I love about Robyn's best work. Most of the album could be done on four tracks. I consider ME one of the "Green Albums" along with Trains and Eye, and all three the finest the man has ever put out. I also love Hitchcock's take on transgendered issues and ME has more lesbian-in-a-man's-body songs that any other of his albums. I consider ME Robyn's Rubber Soul. Jewels for Sophia: initially mixed reaction but once I stopped trying to fit it into a continuum with the Green Albums, I realised Jewels is a gem in its own right. Robyn's Revolver. Again, each song has its own unique sound, but this time there is no overall feel, just a dozen different worlds. It's nice to hear him rock out, too. This is his most political album since Element of Light, and I like the way he gets political. Starting his rant against the American empire with Dirty Bird on ME, this one's got Mexican God, Viva SeaTac, NASA Clapping, and maybe the Cheese Alarm. Not sure about that last one--I think it's about opulent overconsumption. At any rate, it's not JUST a list of cheeses. And of course there's one of the loveliest love songs ever recorded by anyone, I Feel Beautiful. These albums are refreshing in their variety. A&M Robyn often sounds to me like a parody of himself. And (as a bassist myself) I can only take so much Andy Metcalfe bouncing down the sidewalk. Cute has its limit. For a while there, Robyn's metaphors were getting tired and reused and most of his songs were just about sex, which is a fine topic, but there's so much more to explore. Luxor comes off like a set of demos. Like You & Oblivion. It's main appeal is in the spontaneity, and I suspect several of the songs are improvisations. But after the careful production of ME and JfS, I can see why he'd want to put out something like this. (and because he fell in love and wants to sing about it before it goes sour) The guitar playing's groovy. The sentiment is great. (and anybody who can sing unabashed love songs in this cynical age deserves credit, just like anyone who would form a psychadelic band in the punk era...) The transgendered thing is still there. Things are overall less cryptic, but still not literal. Some lyrics probably could have been tinkered with a little rather than left as first drafts, but raw is the aesthetic. No complaints from me, it's still a better album than any of the A&M stuff, excepting Respect (Queen Elvis I don't have, but I have my doubts). I see it as kind of a counterpart to Eye, a raw album about the discovery of love rather than about its loss. Eye- Luxor, Elixir, coincidence? or is our hero jamming on a riff? And "One L" has the most genuine love-at-first-sight feel I've heard since McCartney's "I've Just Seen a Face" (or maybe Robyn's "Beautiful Girl", but that one's too ironic to count). Zut, I gotta run. - --clean devo ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #358 ********************************