From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #124 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, March 27 2007 Volume 16 : Number 124 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Apropos of Corn [Rex ] Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable [Rex ] Re: Apropos of Corn [Tom Clark ] Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable [Tom Clark ] Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable [David Witzany ] Re: Apropos of Corn [kevin ] Re: From the YepRoc newsletter... [Tom Clark ] Re: Apropos of Corn [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable [Carrie Galbraith ] re: Philly show setlist [djini@voicenet.com] matzo anyone? ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Robyn @ Joe's Pub ["m swedene" ] book talk [djini@voicenet.com] Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Philly show setlist ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: Name That Inappropriate Battlestar Galactica Tune [2fs ] Re: Name That Inappropriate Battlestar Galactica Tune [Rex ] Re: Name That Inappropriate Battlestar Galactica Tune [2fs ] Re: Philly show ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: Apropos of Corn [kevin ] Re: Apropos of Corn [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:09:47 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Apropos of Corn On 3/26/07, Capuchin wrote: > > I really have no idea where people get these crazy ideas that a) private > enterprise is efficient with resources, b) efficiency is a benefit in and > of itself, and c) public projects are less productive than their private > counterparts. A) People who make money through the private concerns benefit from making it look like they are more efficient, and they by definition have the money to prop up that illusion, so there's that. B) Really, you only ever hear about successful corporations. Even a big story about a corporate disaster has to have a root in a story about someone or somecorp which had previously been successful, probably very successful, or else there'd be no reason to report it. Nobody ever writes, talks or reads about the failure of a company or idea that never got off the ground to begin with or failed for its entire lifespan and was dreamt up by someone we've never heard of, because... why or how could they? So the efficient corporations held up as ideals are the ones that worked, at least for a while. By contrast, every public work simply "is what it is", the single organization that does what it does, so if it tanks, it is noticed, more so than the millions of corporations that fail, largely because its work is pretty high profile, being a public work and all. (So those who benefit from evil corporations have both an impetus and the means to make corporations look good in general, but it turns out to be a pretty easy illusion to create anyhow. None of which is good, but I think it goes a little way towads explaining how the myth of "corporate effficiency" survives even as most of us know better from experience. Or maybe everybody just assumes that the company that THEY work for sucks, but there must be good ones out there somewhere.) - -R ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:18:30 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable On 3/27/07, kevin wrote: > > > I'm waiting for somebody to deliver the really clever ringtones - > shattering glass, snarling Rottweiler, crying baby, small arms fire - fun > stuff like that. What could be more fun than hearing sqealing brakes and > saying, "Excuse me, I need to take this"? > > Fighting for the right to shout "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse / KS > > np The Orb's Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld I'm impressed by the chaos you're able to imagine while listening to something so very... chill. Nice. - -Rx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:06:21 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Apropos of Corn On Mar 26, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Capuchin wrote: > Sometimes when I look at really complicated systems and the level > of actual understanding in their day-to-day maintenance and > operations, I'm impressed that they run at all, however badly. I feel the same way whenever I look at our kernel code. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:08:33 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable On Mar 26, 2007, at 9:40 PM, David Witzany wrote: > As for "what can you do about it" expressions, it's hard to beat > Vonnegut--"And so it goes." If it was good enough for Linda > Ellerbee... ...and Nick Lowe. Anybody see the Stiff Records reissues? That Wreckless Eric 2-disc set looks like a keeper. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:03:10 -0500 (CDT) From: David Witzany Subject: Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable I have the sound of a bicycle bell chiming. It goes off when I have a call from a friend who's a big bike proponent in Portland. My normal ringtone is a sample of J. Cash singing Fulsom Prison Blues. It's a moot point, though, because I have pay-for-play service instead of a contract, and I let it lapse except for the months when I spend time traveling. - ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:26:49 -0700 (GMT-07:00) >From: kevin >Subject: Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable >To: David Witzany , fegmaniax@smoe.org > > an actual 22-second sample from the song, where Robyn sings something about "Cthulhu having sprung..." > >I'm waiting for somebody to deliver the really clever ringtones - shattering glass, snarling Rottweiler, crying baby, small arms fire - fun stuff like that. What could be more fun than hearing sqealing brakes and saying, "Excuse me, I need to take this"? > > >Fighting for the right to shout "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse / KS > > > > > > > > > > > >np The Orb's Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld Dave. David Witzany ...one of nature's witzany@uiuc.edu bounds checkers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:20:58 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Apropos of Corn >someone or somecorp Now there's a neologism I can get behind! Nobody ever writes, talks or >reads about the failure of a company or idea that never got off the ground >to begin with or failed for its entire lifespan and was dreamt up by someone >we've never heard of, because... why or how could they? Cf. Donald Westlake's novels relating the adventures of John Dortumnder, world's must unlucky thief. A relentless, hilarious chronicle of failure. Westlake is a national treasure. In some of those unenlightened European countries he'd have been made a marquis or something by now. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:21:24 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: From the YepRoc newsletter... On Mar 26, 2007, at 5:55 PM, FSThomas wrote: > I've got "Rock the Casbah" as a ringtone for a lone person calling me > because I know, as soon as that goes off, that I'm in trouble. > > So yes, Virginia, and older Feg does do the ringtone thing. I recently bought my wife one of those cool Moto PEBL phones and hacked up a nice instrumental clip from "Light Up Or Leave Me Alone" for the ringtone. If she let's it go to all the way to voicemail it ends right as Capaldi comes in with his "OOHH!!". I'm sure you know what Im talkin' about. - -tc np - Dean & Britta "Back Numbers" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:56:58 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Apropos of Corn I hold that ANY large organization--commercial, religious, governmental, whatever--is liable to be inefficient. Commercial organizations may not be better than governments (though I think in many cases they are), but I wouldn't say the reverse is always true, either. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:52:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable - -----Original Message----- >From: kevin >I'm waiting for somebody to deliver the really clever ringtones - shattering glass, snarling Rottweiler, crying baby, small arms fire - fun stuff like that. What could be more fun than hearing sqealing brakes and saying, "Excuse me, I need to take this"? A friend of mine in Italy has a ringtone of her (annoying) mimi-pinscher barking rather insanely. - - c. eating one of the last oranges off the tree in the backyard, sad to say. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:14:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Apropos of Corn On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > I hold that ANY large organization--commercial, religious, governmental, > whatever--is liable to be inefficient. Commercial organizations may not > be better than governments (though I think in many cases they are), but > I wouldn't say the reverse is always true, either. You can hold it all you want -- and better you than me, I don't want to have to try to get that shit off my hands later. For my own experience, a moneyed interest corporation doesn't have to get very big before the internals become self-serving and only minimally concerned with external productivity. I've certainly been in more focussed and productive community organizations with as many people as some of the less conscientious corporations that have employeed me. Regardless of which side one takes (if any), I still don't believe that efficiency is a particularly worthwhile property for a thing to possess, leastwise pursue. As the man says, nobody looks at a cherry tree in spring and says, "How many blossoms does it *TAKE*?!?" J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:59:56 -0400 (EDT) From: djini@voicenet.com Subject: re: Philly show setlist Michael Sweeney wrote: > A very nice show -- we enjoyed it immensely (but, although leaking my seat > location (I was right in front, just below the stomping and swaying Scott > McCaughey) and appearance in a previous post, I met no Philly area Fegs > (sorry Lauren, Jeanne, Max, et al; prob. my fault - I shoulda given out our > cell # or something) Oh no! You said you were in the mezzanine, and since you can't get up there without a ticket, we were sort of nonplussed! Actually, Max & co. were seated right at Robyn's feet, and Lauren and her friend and I were one table back, in front of Peter. Lauren made a "Michael Sweeney" sign and everything! Shoot. Well, it was a really fun trippy show - I am still buzzing. And I did get to meet the lovely Lauren and Max, and Max identified this one guy I always see at the Philly shows, so that was good. The posters are beautiful, they are out of t-shirts, and Robyn called the roadie who brought him tea "Cupcake." - - Jeanne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:50:46 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: matzo anyone? http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2007/03/26/ny_bus_converted_into_oven_for_matzos?mode=PF - -or- http://tinyurl.com/2fkckv "...the back door of the bus, formerly the emergency exit, was the oven door." brilliant! i wonder how large a serving one busload is. xo - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:15:10 -0400 From: "m swedene" Subject: Robyn @ Joe's Pub I called them and the girl said: "He isn't on the flyer, but that doesn't mean that he won't be here.... by the way there are 25 tickets left." Oh well. So much for certainty. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:17:00 -0400 (EDT) From: djini@voicenet.com Subject: book talk Hi all, Just read in one sitting Jonathan Lethem's You Don't Love Me Yet, the title of which is from a Roky Erickson song. It's the first Lethem I've read all the way through - sometimes, I irrationally feel like so many people are reading a particular author that I don't necessarily have to, like they won't be hurt because they're already getting enough attention. I'm kind of glad I waited, because now I can go back and read the previous stuff knowing that he deserved that early hype. Anyway, I thought fegs might like the book as it is about a band, and what music means, or can mean. Oh, and it references the Soft Boys (the band is arguing about whether they should name their band the title of their best song, and it devolves into an extremely familiar-feeling feggish list of bands whose names are also one of their song titles - p. 122, if you care). It's also very funny. Lethem has become such a virtuoso (maybe he always was, hi ho, I have a lot of backlist to get through) that the jokes sneak up on you - like this: "Have you looked in a mirror? Remember when they tried to put Frankenstein in a tuxedo? What was that movie?" "Last Tango in Paris?" "Exactly." How's *that* for tying threads together? Jeanne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:18:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Ringtones and the Inevitable kevin wrote: > an actual 22-second sample from the song, where Robyn sings > something about "Cthulhu having sprung..." > > I'm waiting for somebody to deliver the really clever ringtones - > shattering glass, snarling Rottweiler, crying baby, small arms fire > - fun stuff like that. What could be more fun than hearing > sqealing brakes and saying, "Excuse me, I need to take this"? John Cleese's voice barking "answer your phone, you silly bastard?" "Children have always enjoyed my movies. They are just not allowed to watch many of them." -- John Waters . ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:35:36 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Philly show setlist Jeanne says: > Shoot. Well, it was a really fun trippy show - I am still buzzing. And I did get to meet > the lovely Lauren and Max, and Max identified this one guy I always see at the Philly > shows, so that was good. The posters are beautiful, they are out of t-shirts, and Robyn > called the roadie who brought him tea "Cupcake." It was great fun at the show and I enjoyed meeting Jeanne and seeing Max Lang again. It sucks to have missed Sweeney and I hope he had a nice tour of the city to-day. BTW, I bought a t-shirt before the show when they still had them. It's a sort of too-green kelly green with the same image of a trolleybus as in on the CD. So it's kind of a dirty t-shirt IMO but pretty much no one outside of a Hitchcock show would know. I have to say someone has a very strange idea idea of what constitutes a "large" woman. I also tried to buy the new live EP and the merchandise guy said it comes free with "ole tarantula" that was $10 so I picked up another copy of that for my sister and kept the EP for myself. Also, it was very exciting, I went to give Robyn the CD sign and he said "I've seen *you* before" (it took me until "Spooked" to ever ask him to sign anything) so I figure it's only another 15 or 20 years and we'll be having a cup tea together. xo - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:53:30 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Name That Inappropriate Battlestar Galactica Tune On 3/27/07, Miles Goosens wrote: > > Is "All Along the Watchtower," despite years of overplay, still a kick-ass > song? > > Yes, it is. > > Did it belong in the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA season finale, where it was > used not just as montage backdrop but as an integral component of the > actual plot? > > No frackin' way. > > And the cover of "All Along the Watchtower" they used was blaringly > awful - granted, using Dylan or Hendrix might have been cost > prohibitive No comments on the use of the song in the show, which I haven't seen - but I don't understand why publishers are so reluctant to let shows use music in shows, movies, etc. (that is, why they charge enough that it is prohibitively expensive). Why would they turn down what is, essentially, advertising? To me, it's stupid: "You've gotta pay us $750,000 to use one minute of this song" - so, if the show happens to have just won Powerball sweepstakes, they *might* do it - vs. the far likelier scenario that they can't afford it, won't use it, and instead will use something else - publicity that will accrue to some more obscure (cheaper) band. True, neither Dylan nor Hendrix need the publicity - but it's not just mega-stars: can't remember who, but someone in a _Six Feet Under_ commentary track mentioned some indie band they wanted to use but asked too much. And please, I don't think the costs are set high due to artist notions of "integrity" (then it wouldn't be "prohibitively expensive" - it'd just be "impossible" or "unavailable"). What am I missing here...? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:57:50 +1200 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: Apropos of...um...? >New topic then. I love workplace, uh, parlance, so please share. > >My last workplace was home of the "Jesus Factor" which was the term we >used when we got some report or piece of code where someone used some >supposedly empirically derived term which came from God knows where. > >Sample usage: "Okay, they took the average and then multiplied it by >some Jesus Factor." IIRC, the "correct" term for these is Finagle Factor. >red-white-red-white-red... The WWI era flag of Siam (Thailand) ! What do I win? On second thoughts - I'm not sure I want to know... 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: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:10:13 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Apropos of Corn On 3/27/07, Capuchin wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > I hold that ANY large organization--commercial, religious, governmental, > > whatever--is liable to be inefficient. Commercial organizations may not > > be better than governments (though I think in many cases they are), but > > I wouldn't say the reverse is always true, either. Even if that's what you hold, what are you going to do about it? The argument, then, is what's to be done to diminish the scale of organizations. It's no longer about business vs. government etc. The other thing, of course (partially what Jeme gets to) is that these organizations are not trying to do the same sorts of things. I have no idea what "religious efficiency" might mean - is there a religion of efficiency? (Oh wait - I suppose some versions of Protestantism, in their secular forms expressed in sloganeering like "haste makes waste" etc., might come close.) I'm not sure, though, why some are so cynical about *any* useful functioning of government. Is it human nature? Why would that nature draw better people to business and worse people to government? Is it power-hungriness? As if powerful businesspeople don't have loads of power - and lower level govt. bureaucrats relatively little. What position for idealism is there in business, if idealism gets in the way of profit? Little. What position for idealism is there in government? Plenty - except insofar as corruption (read: money and power - read: trying to make govt. more like business) gets in the way. Another amusing thing is that these arguments tend to boil down to *where* one draws lines concerning motives other than profit. Almost no one will argue that if there's a viable market for it, you should whore out your daughters. Somehow, though, it's okay to sell loads of weapons - or willfully evade regulations on toxic waste & poison entire communities. > > For my own experience, a moneyed interest corporation doesn't have to get > very big before the internals become self-serving and only minimally > concerned with external productivity. I've certainly been in more > focussed and productive community organizations with as many people as > some of the less conscientious corporations that have employeed me. > > Regardless of which side one takes (if any), I still don't believe that > efficiency is a particularly worthwhile property for a thing to possess, > leastwise pursue. > > As the man says, nobody looks at a cherry tree in spring and says, "How > many blossoms does it *TAKE*?!?" That goes back to that _Guardian_ review I linked to a few e-mails back: one of the problems is that, historically, the architects of capitalism (the review names Adam Smith, if I recall) recognized and valued that there were other sectors of life than business, and that those sectors would (essentially) limit how far business practices would go. We don't seem to believe that (as a society) any more, and want business-like "efficiency" to pervade education, government, etc. That said, certainly there are some things in which efficiency is a virtue - - say, energy production - although I suppose some could argue that overemphasizing "efficiency" causes overall usage to increase: you drive 10,000 miles in your 50mpg car instead of 2,000 in your 20mpg car. Still, that's an issue of what we *make* of efficiency, not of efficiency itself. I don't think it's wise to manipulate the tail in order to try to control the dog. Better to try to train the dog. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:13:05 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Name That Inappropriate Battlestar Galactica Tune On 3/27/07, 2fs wrote: > > And please, I don't think the costs are set high due to artist notions of > "integrity" (then it wouldn't be "prohibitively expensive" - it'd just be > "impossible" or "unavailable"). > > What am I missing here...? Especially these days, the price is high because the producers of the show want to be able to buy the song for every subsequent use of the program... syndication, home video, etc. So the music publishers ask too much and the producers bail on it. It's because music clearnance on older shows is a known legal and production headache. In the prep of older shows for DVD, we run into music that's no longer cleared. It gets replaced. You'd be surprised how many shows go to DVD with big, unnoticed sound alterations for that reason (sometimes in the score, not the songs; there's a whole industry around approximating period music with sound-alike but not actionable pieces). But it's extra work and expense to redo the sound, and since the studios don't want to go through that again with shows currently in production, and publishers don't want to let the songs go cheap if there's such fertile ground for future royalties, that usually results in a stalemate which, as you say, benefits nobody and potentially takes you "out of the show"... in this case, per Miles, the bad cover version takes him out of the narrative device that was already taking him out of BSG, and if BSG wants to take him out that badly it should just marry him. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:13:08 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Philly show Somefeg should post pictures, no? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:23:46 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Name That Inappropriate Battlestar Galactica Tune On 3/27/07, Rex wrote: > > > > On 3/27/07, 2fs wrote: > > > > And please, I don't think the costs are set high due to artist notions > > of > > "integrity" (then it wouldn't be "prohibitively expensive" - it'd just > > be > > "impossible" or "unavailable"). > > > > What am I missing here...? > > > Especially these days, the price is high because the producers of the show > want to be able to buy the song for every subsequent use of the program... > syndication, home video, etc. So the music publishers ask too much and the > producers bail on it. It's because music clearnance on older shows is a > known legal and production headache. In the prep of older shows for DVD, we > run into music that's no longer cleared. It gets replaced. > > You'd be surprised how many shows go to DVD with big, unnoticed sound > alterations for that reason (sometimes in the score, not the songs; there's > a whole industry around approximating period music with sound-alike but not > actionable pieces). But it's extra work and expense to redo the sound, and > since the studios don't want to go through that again with shows currently > in production, and publishers don't want to let the songs go cheap if > there's such fertile ground for future royalties, that usually results in a > stalemate which, as you say, benefits nobody and potentially takes you "out > of the show"... in this case, per Miles, the bad cover version takes him out > of the narrative device that was already taking him out of BSG, and if BSG > wants to take him out that badly it should just marry him. > Ah! Another efficient business model! Everybody loses! Yea! So, uh, why not set the price low enough so musicians gain from publicity (or the show gain from perceived hipness - not to mention artistic integrity in terms of going with the writers'/directors' instinct as to what music best works in the scene) but on a per-usage basis? Like, X percent for initial broadcast, Y percent more if syndication with a factor for frequency and duration thereof, Z percent more per DVD sale/rental, etc.? That is, it costs the show more money the more money the show makes (which means at a fairly constant *percentage* basis, so that in essence it doesn't really cost the show more)? I mean, if a show gets picked up for syndication, it'll make more money than it would if it hadn't been picked up, no? Same with DVD sales: if it sells more, it'll make money than it would have with lower sales, no? (Assuming in both cases that it makes a profit at all, and there's not massive overproduction of DVDs or something.) It sounds like you're saying that instead, the copyright holders ask for an actual *sum* to sell *all* such hypothetical rights *upfront*. Or am I expecting some insanely impossible accurate accounting - you know, like the sort of thing that if common practice in the music industry would make it impossible for labels, publishers, etc. to rip off musicians blind? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:48 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Apropos of Corn On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Capuchin wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > I hold that ANY large organization--commercial, religious, governmental, > > whatever--is liable to be inefficient. Commercial organizations may not > > be better than governments (though I think in many cases they are), but > > I wouldn't say the reverse is always true, either. > > Regardless of which side one takes (if any), I still don't believe that > efficiency is a particularly worthwhile property for a thing to possess, > leastwise pursue. Even if the organization is operating with someone else's money? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:27:04 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: Philly show I am not sure if someone took some. Max >From: 2fs >Reply-To: 2fs >To: "Not Reg" >Subject: Re: Philly show >Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:13:08 -0500 > >Somefeg should post pictures, no? > >-- > >...Jeff Norman > >The Architectural Dance Society >http://spanghew.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:37:36 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Apropos of Corn I still don't believe that >> efficiency is a particularly worthwhile property for a thing to possess, >> leastwise pursue. Seems like a self-defeating notion. Inefficient organisms (of whatever stripe) ultimately don't survive. The sabre-toothed tiger comes to mind... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:55:16 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Apropos of Corn On 3/27/07, kevin wrote: > > I still don't believe that > >> efficiency is a particularly worthwhile property for a thing to > possess, > >> leastwise pursue. > > Seems like a self-defeating notion. Inefficient organisms (of whatever > stripe) ultimately don't survive. The sabre-toothed tiger comes to mind... I think the problem comes in considering "efficiency" as a one-size-fits-all notion. (When it's really an overnite-sensation notion.) I mean, a priest ministering to an alcoholic should not be asking how much money it's costing him (I assume sincerity on the part of both parties here). That's the kind of thing I was thinking of when I said I had no idea what "religious efficiency" might mean. The idea isn't to look at the situation in terms of cost/benefit analysis, certainly not in financial terms. (I chose a religious example just because it's clear that such work is part of priest's duties - but I could have chosen, say, friendship, or familial relationships: substitute as appropriate if you're more comfortable doing so.) Are the arts "efficient"? Are they "necessary"? (Someone once said - can't remember who - that art is not necessary - and that's why it's necessary.) What's an "efficient" song? Does it matter if it took the songwriter five minutes to write or five years? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #124 ********************************