From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #114 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, May 5 2005 Volume 14 : Number 114 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Bachman, Michael" ] Who here uses emusic.com? [bayard ] me again... [bayard ] Re: TOOL tool alert [Jeff ] them's fightin' words [Jill Brand ] RE: them's fightin' words ["Matt Sewell" ] RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Jason R. Thornton" ] RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: TOOL tool alert ["Randalljr" ] RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Jason R. Thornton" ] RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Matt Sewell" ] Klark Kent [Mike Swedene ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Jeff ] RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Jason R. Thornton" ] RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Jason Brown ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: them's fightin' words [Sumiko Keay ] RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Jason R. Thornton" ] RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Bachman, Michael" ] RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V14 #113 [Eclipse ] reap [Eb ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: KEXP Alert [Tom Clark ] Re: KEXP Alert [The Great Quail ] Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... [Jeff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:25:23 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On 5/4/05, Bachman, Michael wrote: > > Michael says: > > >> "Twin Peaks" was halted half way into the second season, then > >> brought back after several months of no new shows. > > >> The show was cancelled in early 1991, then brought back in May >> after several months of no episodes. ABC aired the shows that were >> already in the can, but never shown, in May. The last few episodes were >>then >> written and produced durring the airing of the can episodes. > Jeff: >Almost. >I remembered it a little differently...and so I checked _Full of Secrets: >Critical Approaches to Twin Peaks_ (a collection of academic essays), which >also includes a broadcast chronology. >Season 2's premiere was broadcast Sunday, 9/30/90, and then ran weekly on >Saturdays from 10/6/90 through 11/17/90, took two weeks off over >Thanksgiving, ran for three weeks from 12/1 through 12/15, took three weeks >off over Christmas and New Years, then ran three more weeks from 1/12/91 >through 1/26, took a week off, returned on 2/9 and 2/16, went missing for >more than a month and came back on Thursday 3/28 and ran for four >consecutive weeks through 4/18. Here's what happened next, according to >David Lavery: >"[The move to Thursday night] did not [bring back the show's ratings]. Even >in its new (old) time spot, the audience continued to decline...After four >weeks, _Peaks_ was again placed on hiatus, and the two remaining episodes >were reluctantly scheduled for a joint airing as an _ABC Monday Night at the >Movies_ on June 10. With no opportunity to film a final episode, the show >was quietly cancelled by ABC during its nearly two month disappearance" (3). >One of the coolest things about this book is that it contains a TP calendar >mapping out the dates of all the events. For instance: Feb. 5, 1989: Laura >Palmer gives JH half of her necklace (earliest event of the series proper); >Feb. 9, first anniversary of Theresa Banks' murder...etc. - up through March >27 (the day after Easter), the events of the final episode with Dale in the >Black Lodge (and brushing his teeth, here) and the explosion at the S&L that >killed (?) Audrey Horne. >Yes, I'm a geek - why do you ask? Thanks for clearing it up Jeff! I stand corrected, as my memory fades... Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:43:07 -0500 From: "Eugene Hopstetter Jr." Subject: Re: TOOL tool alert On May 5, 2005, at 8:19 AM, some thing wrote: > HOWEVER: if a given human person were to (for example) greatly admire > (ahem) rush, but not also greatly admire TOOL, i would find this > difficult > to accept. I greatly admire Rush, and I do not admire TOOL. That's because TOOL, are Posers and Pussies. A heavy metalfied NIN, if you will. They wouldn't know a clever chord progression or tempo shfit if it whomped them on the back of their head with a BC Rich Warlock. Real fans of Technical Metal, Math Rock (http://www.epitonic.com/ genres/mathrock.html), and Speed Prog prefer honest, hard-working bands such Happy Family (the Japanese band on Cuneiform, who crank out more ideas in the first bar of a song than TOOL has in their entire career), Ruins, Neutrino, Loincloth, and, of course, the True Gods of Technical Metal: Confessor. But then again, most TOOL fans don't know how to buy records outside of a shopping mall. They probably don't know about the great advances in Sludge Core, Doom Core, and Stoner Rock, brought by such bands as Yob, Khanate, Warhorse, Buried at Sea, and SUNN0)))). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:17:24 -0700 (PDT) From: bayard Subject: Who here uses emusic.com? At dmw's recommendation (http://pathetic-caverns.com/opinions.php) I have signed up with emusic. It's great! But I need a way of finding out which artists to listen to. If you're a member, write to me and let me know your user name so I can add you as a friend. Some feg-approved bands you can get on emusic: Of Montreal, Yo la Tengo, The Decemberists, Elf Power, The Olivia Tremor Control, Mission of Burma, The Kinks, TMBG, Pixies, Big Star, Grant Lee Phillips, The Soft Boys, Robyn Hitchcock and basically anyone else outside the major-label machine... If you try it out for 2 weeks you can get 50 songs free! After which time you can sign up for as little as $5.99/month. No affiliation, just a satisfied customer. =b ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:33:46 -0700 (PDT) From: bayard Subject: me again... OK, now I feel dumb. I just went and browsed emusic.com and noticed that one CAN get a benefit for recommending the service to others - I get 10 free downloads if you sign up. So if you intend to do that, I guess let me know so I can "invite" you. Or not, either way check it out. BTW, I also have 50 gmail invites if anyone wants to try gmail. I for one love it, and I'm not the only one. (Stewart is the other.) =b ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:17:16 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: TOOL tool alert On 5/5/05, Eugene Hopstetter Jr. wrote: > > > But then again, most TOOL fans don't know how to buy records outside > of a shopping mall. They probably don't know about the great > advances in Sludge Core, Doom Core, and Stoner Rock, brought by such > bands as Yob, Khanate, Warhorse, Buried at Sea, and SUNN0)))). > Dude! You're forgetting the heroes of Starch Prog: Twenty Mules, Colorfast, and of course, the Stiffened Capes. And Toy Core: My Little Evil Pony, Snakes Ladders and Rotating Knives, and Exploding Yo-Yo. And Nonsense Metal: Blumph, Splrrrt, Grtzwdrtpr, and the Immortal Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!(3). - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:46:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: them's fightin' words Sumi wrote: "I've been lucky enough to have seen the first three episodes (thanks to a friend who lives close enough to Canada to get CBC) -- and I LOVED it. I cannot wait to see the rest." Sumi, isn't there another list (of which you are a member) on which these sentiments would be taken rather poorly? ;-) Jill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 15:59:29 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: them's fightin' words Er... daleksreunited.com? Cheers Matt >From: Jill Brand >Sumi wrote: >"I've been lucky enough to have seen the first three episodes [of Dr Who] (thanks >to a friend who lives close enough to Canada to get CBC) -- and I >LOVED it. > >I cannot wait to see the rest." > >Sumi, isn't there another list (of which you are a member) on which these >sentiments would be taken rather poorly? ;-) > >Jill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 08:26:45 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 04:37 PM 5/4/2005 -0700, Capuchin wrote: >Do you need any more evidence that opportunity and fame come almost >entirely from privilege in youth? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 16:30:44 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... Hmm... Cappy bashing, eh? I think Jeme's point was way more interesting than yours I'm afraid, Jason. Cheers Matt >From: "Jason R. Thornton" >At 04:37 PM 5/4/2005 - -0700, Capuchin wrote: > >>Do you need any more evidence that opportunity and fame come almost >>entirely from privilege in youth? > >Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. > > > > > >--Jason > > "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." > - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:30:31 -0700 From: "Randalljr" Subject: Re: TOOL tool alert From: "Eugene Hopstetter Jr." > I greatly admire Rush, and I do not admire TOOL. That's because TOOL, > are Posers and Pussies. A heavy metalfied NIN, if you will. They > wouldn't know a clever chord progression or tempo shfit if it whomped > them on the back of their head with a BC Rich Warlock. > > Real fans of Technical Metal, Math Rock (http://www.epitonic.com/ > genres/mathrock.html), and Speed Prog prefer honest, hard-working > bands such Happy Family (the Japanese band on Cuneiform, who crank > out more ideas in the first bar of a song than TOOL has in their > entire career), Ruins, Neutrino, Loincloth, and, of course, the True > Gods of Technical Metal: Confessor. > > But then again, most TOOL fans don't know how to buy records outside > of a shopping mall. They probably don't know about the great > advances in Sludge Core, Doom Core, and Stoner Rock, brought by such > bands as Yob, Khanate, Warhorse, Buried at Sea, and SUNN0)))). In agreement. And then Jeme says-- PS. It's nobody you know. - -- Dammit! Vince ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 08:41:33 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 04:30 PM 5/5/2005 +0100, Matt Sewell wrote: >Hmm... Cappy bashing, eh? > >I think Jeme's point was way more interesting than yours I'm afraid, >Jason. What point? Just some inane, baseless babbling about "privilege," I'm afraid. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 16:48:21 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... Take a look around the world and I think you'll see Cappy's point is far from baseless. Frinstance, of the 53 Prime Ministers of the UK, 40 studied at either Oxford or Cambridge with only 11 who did not attend university. Now you might say that it's not just the privileged who attend the top universities, but I don't think this is the case. Cheers Matt >From: "Jason R. Thornton" >At 04:30 PM 5/5/2005 +0100, Matt Sewell wrote: >>Hmm... Cappy bashing, eh? >> >>I think Jeme's point was way more interesting than yours I'm >>afraid, >>Jason. > >What point? Just some inane, baseless babbling about "privilege," >I'm afraid. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:47:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Swedene Subject: Klark Kent Hey. Does anyone have nay klark kent? I had my cd stolen and I am looking for some stuff on the net and it is out of print. thanks! mike np -> Styx - Big Bang Theory - ------------------------------------------------- "there is water at the bottom of the ocean" - talking heads _________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:11:35 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On 5/5/05, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > At 04:30 PM 5/5/2005 +0100, Matt Sewell wrote: > >Hmm... Cappy bashing, eh? > > > >I think Jeme's point was way more interesting than yours I'm afraid, > >Jason. > > What point? Just some inane, baseless babbling about "privilege," I'm > afraid. Not so baseless: between 30 to 40 percent of the Fortune 400 ( the wealthiest individuals) inherited much of their wealth (sources vary - probably because (a) different 400 lists and (b) difficulty in determining exactly how much wealth people have or where it comes from. Still, that's a significant percentage). I've always found it curious that those who generally defend the notion of individual effort and reward - and who oppose programs that seem to reward people w/o their effort, such as welfare - suddenly clam up when it comes to inherited wealth...which clearly is *not* the result of that individual's effort. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:14:02 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 04:48 PM 5/5/2005 +0100, Matt Sewell wrote: >Take a look around the world... ....I don't think this is the case. Bookmarking your assertions with statements like that, nor mentioning where some Prime Ministers were educated, really doesn't do much to convince me "that opportunity and fame come almost entirely from privilege in youth." Can "privilege," an ill-defined, nebulous concept at best, play some minor role in some cases? Oh sure, depending on what you mean by privilege. But does opportunity and fame always come only from class distinctions derived from birth? Hell no. There are so many other factors and counter-examples, the idea is just silly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 17:23:21 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... Once again I disagree - of course, there are exceptions to the generalisation, as with any generalisation, but I think if one begins in a privileged position (and I define this quite simply as coming from a background with a lot of money), one is more likely to prosper, or at least, the road to prosperity is easier. As for where Prime Ministers were educated, in my example, I was taking the position of PM as symbolising prosperity and education as symbolising privilege as, as far as I can see, education, sadly, is still a privilege. Cheers Matt >From: "Jason R. Thornton" >Reply-To: "Jason R. Thornton" >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... >Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:14:02 -0700 > >At 04:48 PM 5/5/2005 +0100, Matt Sewell wrote: > >>Take a look around the world... ....I don't think this is the case. > >Bookmarking your assertions with statements like that, nor >mentioning where some Prime Ministers were educated, really doesn't >do much to convince me "that opportunity and fame come almost >entirely from privilege in youth." Can "privilege," an ill-defined, >nebulous concept at best, play some minor role in some cases? Oh >sure, depending on what you mean by privilege. But does opportunity >and fame always come only from class distinctions derived from >birth? Hell no. There are so many other factors and >counter-examples, the idea is just silly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:39:09 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On 5/5/05, Matt Sewell wrote: > Take a look around the world and I think you'll see Cappy's point is far > from baseless. Frinstance, of the 53 Prime Ministers of the UK, 40 > studied at either Oxford or Cambridge with only 11 who did not attend > university. Now you might say that it's not just the privileged who > attend the top universities, but I don't think this is the case. We'll if you look at American Presidents since FDR only JFK and the Bushes came from privileged backgrounds. And Clinton is the only other president with Yale or Harvard connections. I'm sure the percentages are higher for Senators and Congressmen though. As far as Tommy Lee Jones becoming famous because of his privileged back ground, I think talent had more to do with that than connections. People like him and Paul Giamatti are more in the minority. Most of your American movie stars like Tom Cruise, Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford, and so on come from fairly humble middle class backgrounds. Same goes for big pop stars as well. See Britney, Bruce, Bono, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:36:12 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 11:11 AM 5/5/2005 -0500, Jeff wrote: >30 to 40 percent 30-40% is "almost entirely"? >I've always found it curious that those who generally defend the notion of >individual effort and reward - and who oppose programs that seem to reward >people w/o their effort, such as welfare - suddenly clam up when it comes to >inherited wealth...which clearly is *not* the result of that individual's >effort. What I've always found curious is how many people out there seem to think it's always one or the other. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:40:33 -0500 From: Sumiko Keay Subject: Re: them's fightin' words Umm, I haven't actually noticed alot of negativity about Christopher Ecclestone -- from people who have seen the episodesbut, I admittedly have been "skipping and skimming" Dr. Who posts - because up until this weekend, I hadn't seen any of the new Doctor. sumi On 5/5/05, Jill Brand wrote: > Sumi wrote: > "I've been lucky enough to have seen the first three episodes (thanks > to a friend who lives close enough to Canada to get CBC) -- and I > LOVED it. > > I cannot wait to see the rest." > > Sumi, isn't there another list (of which you are a member) on which these > sentiments would be taken rather poorly? ;-) > > Jill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:49:22 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 05:23 PM 5/5/2005 +0100, you wrote: >Once again I disagree - of course, there are exceptions to the >generalisation, as with any generalisation, but I think if one begins in >a privileged position (and I define this quite simply as coming from a >background with a lot of money), one is more likely to prosper, or at >least, the road to prosperity is easier. I never disagreed with the concept that wealth can, at times, provide an advantage. What I disagree with is the idea that it is the only factor, or even an essential one. And, I disagree that this is a generalization with just a few exceptions. Instead, it is a generalization based not on the norm, but on the few. > As for where Prime Ministers >were educated, in my example, I was taking the position of PM as >symbolising prosperity and education as symbolising privilege as, as far >as I can see, education, sadly, is still a privilege. This is hardly very true at all, anymore, at least not in terms of "wealth." - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:58:01 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... >As far as Tommy Lee Jones becoming famous because of his privileged >back ground, I think talent had more to do with that than connections. >People like him and Paul Giamatti are more in the minority. Most of >your American movie stars like Tom Cruise, Bruce Willis, Harrison >Ford, and so on come from fairly humble middle class backgrounds. >Same goes for big pop stars as well. See Britney, Bruce, Bono, etc. Isn't it pretty hard to find pop stars from privileged backgrounds? Especially if you eliminate second gerenration ones. I can think of a couple. Let's see, Nick Mason from Pink Floyd, Gram Parsons, any more? Grace Slick might have come from one. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 13:09:23 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... Jason R. Thornton wrote: > >> as far as I can see, education, sadly, is still a privilege. > > This is hardly very true at all, anymore, at least not in terms of > "wealth." Tertiary education is rarer than you might think in the UK. When I went to university (1987), it was something like 10% of people leaving secondary school went on to university. It's higher now, but only 'cos they've made the courses less difficult. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:14:24 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... >> Once again I disagree - of course, there are exceptions to the >> generalisation, as with any generalisation, but I think if one begins >> in >> a privileged position (and I define this quite simply as coming from a >> background with a lot of money), one is more likely to prosper, or at >> least, the road to prosperity is easier. > > I never disagreed with the concept that wealth can, at times, provide > an advantage. What I disagree with is the idea that it is the only > factor, or even an essential one. And, I disagree that this is a > generalization with just a few exceptions. Instead, it is a > generalization based not on the norm, but on the few. Etc. Etc. Regardless of any greater issues, Jeme's claim that Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones' common dorm experience is the ultimate proof that success comes from "privilege in youth" was complete bullshit. He was just trying to be obnoxious, as usual. I mean, unless you track down everyone *else* in that dorm and demonstrate that all of them became famous and filthy rich too.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 18:22:35 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: Lucky I'm a family guy.... A good example is a fairly obscure UK cult hero - Robyn something or other... Radiohead, Coldplay, Genesis, Nick Drake, everyone from Pink Floyd, D. Bowie... the list goes on but it's finally hometime and it's actually sunny out... Cheers Matt >From: "Bachman, Michael" > Isn't it pretty hard to find pop stars from privileged backgrounds? >Especially if you eliminate second gerenration ones. I can think >of a couple. Let's see, Nick Mason from Pink Floyd, Gram Parsons, any more? >Grace Slick might have come from one. > >Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 10:28:36 -0700 From: Eclipse Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V14 #113 i know i haven't said anything for ages, but i just had to respond to this: >"laugh and cry" at one point, but it's back now as it was originally. You >can see it in the closed captions. Just thought you'd like to know. > > i'm nearly deaf and have been using closed-captioning for years. the variance in caption quality from one show to another is amazing - for instance, the Daily Show has the worst frigging closed-captioning ever. it's a crime. what's even more amazing, though, is that closed-captioning often takes liberties with music in tv shows. sometimes it prints lyrics when the music is instrumental. other times it prints entirely different lyrics than the ones actually being sung! case in point: The Simpsons "Lisa the Treehugger" episode which ends with the song "This Log is Your Log" - the CC has almost entirely different lyrics than the ones actually being sung; they're quite funny and well done, but definitely liberties were being taken here. (i watch TV with a hearing person, which is how i know what's being sung. :)) so, you can't always rely on the CC for a direct and accurate transcription of what's being said. just sayin'. of course, if the DVD commentary says so, well, then it's probably true. :) /Eclipse - -- :: eclipse at tuliphead dot com :: nihil declaro. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:41:15 -0700 From: Eb Subject: reap http://www.planetgong.co.uk/octave/info/news.shtml Pierre Moerlen of Gong ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 10:46:21 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... At 01:09 PM 5/5/2005 -0400, Stewart C. Russell wrote: >Tertiary education is rarer than you might think in the UK. When I went >to university (1987), it was something like 10% of people leaving >secondary school went on to university. Actually, what I'd be more interested in knowing the percentages of different income levels attending universities compared to the national breakdowns more so than the overall percentage of people going on to higher education. Matt and I, I believe, were defining "privilege" as "coming from a wealthy background." If only the wealthy receive an education, then it would be a privilege of the rich. If not, then, well, it's not. And my experience is more with the American system, where the privileges of wealth certainly played much, much more of a role historically than they have in recent times. I'll admit to being more than a little ignorant of the situation overall in the UK. But even if you define "privilege" as those that receive a Bachelor's degree or higher, regardless of financial background, the idea that success in term of opportunity and fame derive solely from privilege still rings incredibly false. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:46:49 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: KEXP Alert On May 4, 2005, at 10:21 PM, Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus wrote: > speaking of TOOL, has anybody ever made a mix tape composed wholly of > selections with answering machine messages that have either been > incorporated into songs, or otherwise included on albums? let's see, > we've > got "Message To Harry Manback", by TOOL. we've got "Providence", by > sonic > youth. we've got "Heartbeat", by mike watt. we've got the bonus track > from the squirrels' *What Gives?*. we've got robyn's answering machine > *greeting* from *Jewels For Sophia*. we've got "Empire", by > queensryche. > we've got the *Better Read Than Dead* version of "The Only Good > Fascist Is > A Very Dead Fascist", by propagandhi. what else we got? > "Three MC's and One DJ" by The Beastie Boys. Goddamn that DJ made my day! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 13:58:20 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: KEXP Alert Eddie writes, > HOWEVER: if a given human person were to (for example) greatly admire > (ahem) rush, but not also greatly admire TOOL, i would find this difficult > to accept. And rightly so. Brother Maynard and Brother Geddy rule together over the dominions of the earth. > speaking of TOOL, has anybody ever made a mix tape composed wholly of > selections with answering machine messages that have either been > incorporated into songs, or otherwise included on albums? Public Enemy does this with their Harry Allen Media Assassin bits; but I am not sure if those are legitimate recordings or staged. > i'll just take this moment to trot out my pet > you-can't-hardly-ever-go-wrong-when-you-love-the-singer's-voice theory. I think this is pretty much a dead-on theory. > i thought there were one or two good laughs (which is about seven or eight > good laughs more than the funniest-ever *Futurama* episode). You really suck, Eddie Tews, you know that? - --Quail, whose IM icon is *still* Fry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:08:49 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... On 5/5/05, Matt Sewell wrote: > > A good example is a fairly obscure UK cult hero - Robyn something or > other... > > Radiohead, Coldplay, Genesis, Nick Drake, everyone from Pink Floyd, D. > Bowie... the list goes on but it's finally hometime and it's actually > sunny out... One difficulty here is that social class is - at least among US rock musicians - a huge enormous taboo that, if spoken about openly, burns one's indie cred to a charred little crisp. Even if the results aren't that extreme, snide whispers abound...go back and read remarks about Stephen Malkmus's having attended UVa (and what that's read as implying). A lot of musicians may well come from relatively privileged backgrounds...but it's anathema to talk about it. Stephin Merritt's one of the few who does talk about it, btw. I recall reading an interview with a low-middle level US indie rocker - oh okay it was Kurt Heasley of Lilys - who was talking about how he'd had some "time off" and traveled and bought a whole mess of equipment...and I'm thinking, how the hell can he afford that? It's not as if his band topped the charts... I don't know for a fact, but it seems likely that he has a little bit of money in his background. Some other comments: Jason T. changed Jeme's "almost entirely" to "always...only" - rather a shift! Second, the "30 to 40%" refers only to those whose inherited wealth, by itself, placed them on the Fortune 400. Given that we're talking about the tippest top, it seems likely that higher percentage of people in the (hypothetical) Fortune 4,000 would be there solely via inheritance - and that a significant percentage of the 400, while not starting off on third base like the Bushes, at least reached first base on a walk. And it's a lot easier to score once you're on base than from the bench. Jason also asked why "many people out there seem to think it's always one or the other." Well, I certainly didn't say that...but in fact it's hard to separate. Inarguably, it's true that it's easier to make money if you have money, for instance. And for me, at least, the issue isn't "those people who inherit lots of money are evil" (and making art is one of the better uses of wealth if you ask me); it's simply the inconsistency in arguing that our economy primarily reflects and rewards effort, and should do so; and then ignoring the glaring fact that both extreme poverty and extreme wealth more often persist among those who inherit those conditions. And there's certainly no such thing as a "level playing field' of opportunity: visit, say, New Trier High School outside Chicago, and then a public school on the South Side, and the lack of equal opportunity is glaringly apparent. It's important to remember that privilege and advantage (and their opposites) concatenate, making easier (or far more difficult) further privilege, advantage, and wealth. Housing, education, health care, cultural capital, contacts, etc.... - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #114 ********************************