From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V17 #32 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, February 5 2009 Volume 17 : Number 032 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Cardiff [Jim Davies ] Re: R.I.P. Lux [Rex ] A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail [Great Quail ] T-Shirt Of The Moment ["Nectar At Any Cost!" ] mac novice queries [2fs ] Re: off topic: instrument strings [2fs ] Re: T-Shirt Of The Moment [2fs ] funny tee shirts [Eleanore Adams ] Re: off topic: instrument strings [Stewart Russell ] Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail [Miles Goosens ] Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail [Miles Goosens ] Re: funny tee shirts [Tom Clark ] Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail [Rex ] Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail [2fs ] Re: funny tee shirts [lep ] Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail [Tom Clark ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:37:25 +0000 From: Jim Davies Subject: Cardiff The Auditorium page says 19th of February. Seetickets and TicketlineUK say 13th of March. The venue website has a club night on the 19th, but nothing listed for the 13th. I'm assuming that this all adds up to Robyn playing there in March. I'm going to buy a pair of tickets on that assumption. Does anyone know anything more? x ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:34:31 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: R.I.P. Lux On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Marc Holden wrote: > This one really sucks. Yeah. The Cramps headlined the Sunset Junction street fair two years back, I think... wish I'd gone, but at the time I sorta thought there would always be another chance to see The Cramps. Damn. I did see them twice, though. And everyone I know who's ever met them confirms Marc's experience of them as good good people. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:14:40 -0500 From: Great Quail Subject: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail Rex refers to Rush thusly: > That's a terrific example! > > Or... not so much. Laugh if you will at their awesome lyrics and fearless use of naked men on album covers, but consider ye this: Rush have been together for over 40 years, and in that time, still tour constantly and *sell out* stadiums all over the world. Who else can make that claim? The Stones? EVERY album goes gold. Even the bad ones. (And there are a few, such as "Hold Your Fire" and "Test for Echo.") FOURTEEN Rush albums have gone platinum. From Wikipedia: "According to the RIAA, Rush's sales statistics place them fourth behind The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Aerosmith for the most consecutive gold or platinum albums by a rock band." Now, granted, sales are not necessarily indicative of talent. But FOURTH behind the Beatles and the Stones? And let's face it -- the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not necessarily about talent, it certainly takes into account factors such as longevity and popularity, and what's the best measurement of that? 24 gold albums, maybe...? OK, so then -- what about talent? I mean, I appreciate that some people were born with the inability to fully appreciate Rush, so they may need a little bit of prompting toward the natural, Platonic state of Rush-worship. The members of Rush are constantly at the top of musician polls -- best bassist, best drummer, best guitarist. Though they were never allowed to grace the cover of Rolling Stone, they have been on the cover of musician-oriented magazines countless times. That seems a fair standard of musicianship to me... I, for one, have never illuminated the cover of a bass magazine, or had the transcriptions of "Adolescent Poetry Hour" purchased by young guitarists eager to learn new chops. Let's look at popular culture, where Rush has played a large role, whether being (correctly) celebrated or serving as a (misguided) punchline. Rush has had an *entire* episode of the "Colbert Report" dedicated to them, the South Park guys animated a song intro, Bob and Doug McKenzie are Rush fans and have had Geddy on their show, Rush has been proudly referenced on "Futurama" by no less a personage than Bender himself, Rush served as an essential component of "Freaks and Geeks," and so on... Why, in the great nation of Brazil, "Tom Sawyer" is used as the theme to MacGyver! Not just any show -- MacGyver! Rush songs appear in numerous video games, and one of the first full-length downloadable albums for Rockband was Rush's "Moving Pictures." Finally -- influence. A host of bands consider Rush to be influential, from Metallica to Primus to Lamb of God. Others include Smashing Pumpkins, Mastodon, Dream Theater (ugh), and Tool. And it's getting to the point where a lot of third-generation prog bands are actually considered "respectable" these days, such as Mars Volta and Battles -- bands which are clearly influenced by Rush. Heck, even Stephen Malkmus name-drops Geddy Lee in a Pavement song, and Lord knows, Stephen's solo albums have not escaped occasional application of the happily omnivorous "prog" label. So, to conclude... You may say that Geddy's falsetto is grating, that Neil can't leave a moment of silence unfilled by octopoid drumming, that Alex is goofy-looking and maybe slightly homicidal when drunk; you may find in Rush lyrics the fodder of an (awesome) Dungeons and Dragons game; you may proclaim their sartorial sense "deeply wanting"; you may even recoil in terror at the sight of a naked man's ass hovering above the pink landscape of a giant squishy brain; -- but you cannot disrespect Rush's musicianship, longevity, and influence. The fact they have not been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not merely an oversight, it's a policy decision, a cardinal sin of tastemaking and gatekeeping arrogance. It is a glaring a deliberate insult. Ask Hank Williams, man, he knows what I mean. - --Quail PS: The really weird thing is -- as Ruch becomes older and more "uncool," they have actually completed some strange ironic circuit and are now being considered "cool" again by indie rockers. I have noticed in the last few years more and more respect being given to Rush by younger musicians in various interviews and such. A DJ friend of mine remarked recently that it was almost "hip" to like Rush again because they have never tried to actually *be* hip, and the "establishment" clearly has it out for them. PPS: Interestingly, my spellchecker knows "MacGyver." But not "Futurama." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:34:49 -0500 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail > Now, granted, sales are not necessarily indicative of talent. But FOURTH > behind the Beatles and the Stones? No comment on Rush, on which subject I really have no opinion; but I'm finding your exclusion of "and Aerosmith" from that rhetorical question interesting. Is it because you are expecting the reader to automatically acknowledge the Beatles and the Stones as great, but Aerosmith not so much? and if so, what difference does it make for Rush to be on the list? J If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Josi Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:43:41 -0500 From: Great Quail Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail > No comment on Rush, on which subject I really have no opinion; but I'm > finding your exclusion of "and Aerosmith" from that rhetorical > question interesting. Is it because you are expecting the reader to > automatically acknowledge the Beatles and the Stones as great, but > Aerosmith not so much? and if so, what difference does it make for > Rush to be on the list? Because I cannot stand Aerosmith! I am so afraid that Steve Tyler will open that...mouth of his and...devour all the children... - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:58:30 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Fwd: Presale: Robyn Hitchcock at Irving Plaza FYI! - -Steve, pouring molds and getting psyched for NYCC tomorrow! Begin forwarded message: > From: Live Nation > Date: February 5, 2009 12:47:01 PM EST > To: stevetalkowski@mac.com > Subject: Presale: Robyn Hitchcock at Irving Plaza > Reply-To: Live Nation > > Having trouble viewing this email? Click Here Search Concerts > > Robyn Hitchcock > > Robyn Hitchcock > with The Venus 3 > > > Saturday, April 11 > The Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza > > Presale starts: Now > Presale ends: Thu, Feb 5 at 10pm > Use Password: venue > > Public Onsale: Fri, Feb 6 at 10am > > More Info Buy Tickets > > > > > > > > > > To make sure you continue to receive our e-mails in your inbox (not > in your bulk or junk folders), please add concertupdate@email.livenationent.com > to your address book or safe sender list. > > You have received this email because you are a member of the Live > Nation mailing list, which you joined free of charge and without any > obligation when you previously provided your email address to us (i) > in connection with the purchase of tickets to a Live Nation event or > (ii) when you registered on LiveNation.com (or one of the Live > Nation websites) to receive these Concert Update emails. > > To unsubscribe click here or, you may write to us at Live Nation, > 9348 Civic Center Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Attention: Email > Unsubscribe, or contact us online. > > ) Copyright 2008 Live Nation. All rights reserved. > > Live Nation | About Us | Update Email Preferences | Terms of Use | > Privacy Policy | International > - -- Steve Talkowski Character Design & Animation http://sketchbot.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:24:01 -0500 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail > Because I cannot stand Aerosmith! But see, that's what I'm talkin bout. If you put up a list that includes Arrowsmith and Rush and say it's a reason to take Rush seriously because of the other artists on the list, (which seems like it's what you were saying?) and then turn around and say Airosmith sux, which no argument from me on that count, (though come to think of it I liked RunDMC's cover of "Walk This Way" a lot, back in the day) well... J If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Josx Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:11:12 -0500 From: "michael hooker" Subject: off topic: instrument strings i'm trying to find an instrument string. .040 wound, but it needs to be quite long, over 60 inches. .036-.042 will probably be ok, but i cant find anything with the length i need. anyone know of such an animal? ps- its for a surbahar, which is basically a bass sitar. thanks have fun, mike hooker ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:41:08 -0800 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: T-Shirt Of The Moment . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:10:22 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: mac novice queries In preparation for the impending arrival of my new MacBook (yea!), I do have a few questions... 1) currently, my WinXP laptop connects to the internet via a wireless router connected to a cable modem. I also stream music wirelessly via AirPort to my home stereo. My guess is that when I set up the Mac, it will detect the wireless network and prompt me for the password I've set up for the network...but I want to make sure it connects to the internet via the wireless router while leaving AirPort as a "secondary" system connected to the stereo. Do I need to do anything brainy to have it do that? 2) My music library lives on an external hard drive. I also have a second external drive that I'll be using to back up that library (and, probably, everything else - it looks like taht Time Capsule thing will work well for that). Do I need to do anything other than connect the music drive, fire up iTunes, and tell it to build its library from the contents of that drive (aside from optional things, like whether I want it to copy files automatically to the drive or rename files automatically)? Specifically, of course, I don't want it erasing the months of work I've put into getting those music files onto the drive! The drive does have some (PC-based) crap on it - the standard stuff that comes with a Maxtor drive to manage files, back them up, etc....which I don't really use (I'm content that the drive just be a repository for music files). Do I need to get rid of that junk by uninstalling that stuff via my existing Windows laptop *before* connecting the drive to the new Mac? Preliminary digging online brings murky results to these questions, which is why I'm asking... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:15:07 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: off topic: instrument strings On 2/5/09, michael hooker wrote: > i'm trying to find an instrument string. .040 wound, but it needs to be > quite long, over 60 inches. .036-.042 will probably be ok, but i cant find > anything with the length i need. anyone know of such an animal? ps- its for > a surbahar, which is basically a bass sitar. I'm pretty sure I left one in The Zen Room. Ah, more seriously: there must be a site dedicated to Indian instruments, and part of that site would seem likely to dedicate itself to where one might find supplies for such things. Other than, that is, locating the monastery whose monks spend their entire lives constructing such strings, from scratch. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:16:17 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: T-Shirt Of The Moment On 2/5/09, Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > . Bonus: the shirt expresses truth so long as the wearer's hands are both visible! Barring tricky widgets manipulable by moving hips, legs, etc., of course. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:16:00 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: funny tee shirts http://www.p4cm.com/p4cm/store/launch to make you laugh today eleanore ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:27:53 -0500 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: off topic: instrument strings 2009/2/5 michael hooker : > i'm trying to find an instrument string. .040 wound, but it needs to be > quite long, over 60 inches. .036-.042 will probably be ok, but i cant find > anything with the length i need. anyone know of such an animal? ps- its for > a surbahar, which is basically a bass sitar. There are a couple of Indian music stores in Toronto which probably carry them - but it's not exactly my end of town. Musideum - http://www.musideum.com/ - almost definitely can get them; they have everything from a crwth to a tenorion. Pyramid in Germany make a set, but it's likely pricy. Stewart (and I thought my long-neck banjo took long strings...) - -- http://scruss.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:01:59 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > > Because I cannot stand Aerosmith! > > then turn around and say Airosmith > sux, which no argument from me on that count, You know, out in the "real world," I feel like an ivory-tower snob when it comes to music. I can't turn it off. Last week, a coworker burst out with how Poison was her favorite band of all time, and exclaimed "and do you know do you know do you know what my favorite song is?" Me, deadpan and world-weary: "Every Rose Has Its Thorn." Her, oblivious: "Oh my god, how'd you know?" C'mon, how could I *not* know? But when these kind of arguments get going on my mailing lists, I feel far more like the proverbial Joe Sixpack. Aerosmith was never on the elite Beatles/Stones level IMO, and classic rawk radio has overexposed "Dream On" to the Point of Know Return, but 1970s Aerosmith most decidedly did not suck. C'mon, TOYS IN THE ATTIC alone has a fistful of totally first-rate non-sucky rock songs. As that Pete Buck guy you might have heard of says in the DEAD LETTER OFFICE liner notes, "if you grew up in the seventies, you liked Aerosmith." And while Quail's point about popularity, musicianship, longevity, and influence re: Rush and the Rock 'n' Roll Hall o' Fame is well-taken, and I totally agree that they belong there, it's also possible to understand everything Quail says about Rush's virtues, especially their musicianship, and still think their music blows. Because that's where I'm at. in chemistry class I sang it "sweet emulsion," Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:14:27 -0500 From: Great Quail Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail > But see, that's what I'm talkin bout. If you put up a list that > includes Arrowsmith and Rush and say it's a reason to take Rush > seriously because of the other artists on the list, (which seems like > it's what you were saying?) and then turn around and say Airosmith > sux, which no argument from me on that count, (though come to think of > it I liked RunDMC's cover of "Walk This Way" a lot, back in the day) > well... I believe my argument involved Steve Tyler's mouth, more than any suckiness on part of their musicianship. - --Q. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:42:49 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail On 2/5/09, Miles Goosens wrote: > Aerosmith was never on the elite Beatles/Stones level IMO, and classic rawk > radio has overexposed "Dream On" to the Point of Know Return, but 1970s > Aerosmith most decidedly did not suck. C'mon, TOYS IN THE ATTIC alone has a > fistful of totally first-rate non-sucky rock songs. As that Pete Buck guy > you might have heard of says in the DEAD LETTER OFFICE liner notes, "if you > grew up in the seventies, you liked Aerosmith." Actually, I grew up in the '70s, and I didn't like Aerosmith...but that's because I was a snob. In fact, Miles is correct: TitA (gee...ya think they were aware of that abbrev.?) is full of good songs. They're still not exactly my cup of meat...but at their peak, it's hard to deny they were very good at what they were doing. > > And while Quail's point about popularity, musicianship, longevity, and > influence re: Rush and the Rock 'n' Roll Hall o' Fame is well-taken, and I > totally agree that they belong there, it's also possible to understand > everything Quail says about Rush's virtues, especially their musicianship, > and still think their music blows. Soitenly. But I think Quail's arg. re Rush and the HOF is a good one, because I don't think the HOF should be about taste or preferences (even though, inevitably, it will be partly about that). Given Rush's achievements, it's very hard to mount a cogent argument against their inclusion that *doesn't* just boil down to "well, I don't like their music, and therefore they don't belong." That's hardly good criteria. It's not like baseball, where there's quasi-objective criteria to be measured against and rank players accordingly. Me, I like a couple-few Rush songs...but something about their music makes me feel like I've just grown a mullet, parked my Camaro, and am sneaking cigarettes behind my high school. Which is weird, because I never actually did those things. (Shamefully, some '80s-vintage pix of me suggest that I was about *this* close to wearing a mullet at one point...but at least that was the right era for it.) Or maybe they're just too lofty... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:25:06 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:42 PM, 2fs wrote: > On 2/5/09, Miles Goosens wrote: > > > Aerosmith was never on the elite Beatles/Stones level IMO, and classic > rawk > > radio has overexposed "Dream On" to the Point of Know Return, but 1970s > > Aerosmith most decidedly did not suck. C'mon, TOYS IN THE ATTIC alone > has a > > fistful of totally first-rate non-sucky rock songs. As that Pete Buck > guy > > you might have heard of says in the DEAD LETTER OFFICE liner notes, "if > you > > grew up in the seventies, you liked Aerosmith." > > Actually, I grew up in the '70s, and I didn't like Aerosmith...but > that's because I was a snob. Heh. In fact, Miles is correct: TitA (gee...ya think they were aware of > that abbrev.?) is full of good songs. They're still not exactly my cup > of meat...but at their peak, it's hard to deny they were very good at > what they were doing. I'll take that. ROCKS, the next one, is also very good. But I think Quail's arg. re Rush and the HOF is a good one, because I > don't think the HOF should be about taste or preferences (even though, > inevitably, it will be partly about that). Given Rush's achievements, > it's very hard to mount a cogent argument against their inclusion that > *doesn't* just boil down to "well, I don't like their music, and > therefore they don't belong." That's hardly good criteria. It's not > like baseball, where there's quasi-objective criteria to be measured > against and rank players accordingly. Yeah, I totally agree with everything Quail said about them meeting any/all criteria for the HoF, as well as what you just said. If I had a vote, I'd vote for Rush for sure, because those arguments are completely persuasive. Well, there's those arguments, and the fact that there'd be hell to pay from the wife if I didn't vote for Rush. later, Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:28:09 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:42 PM, 2fs wrote: > I > don't think the HOF should be about taste or preferences (even though, > inevitably, it will be partly about that). Given Rush's achievements, > it's very hard to mount a cogent argument against their inclusion that > *doesn't* just boil down to "well, I don't like their music, and > therefore they don't belong." That's hardly good criteria. It's not > like baseball, where there's quasi-objective criteria to be measured > against and rank players accordingly. > Which puts you one of the two steps back that it takes to say, huh, even if were done "right", the R&RHOF would be kind of silly. It must surely be very rare that anyone has the following thoughts in earnest: - -"I was on the fence about whether or not I should listen to (Artist A), until I found out they were in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame... that tore it, I had to check that shit out". - -"I was thinking about listening to this record by (Artist B)... I had read a few things about them that made them sound kind of interesting. But I checked, and it turns out they're not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, so why bother, really?" - -"It seems like a lot of bands these days are trying to sound like (Artist C), but that can't be the case. (Artist C) is not even influential enough to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame." - -or- "After being passed over for lo these many years, my favorite band (Artist D) has finally been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In my heart of hearts, I have always known that my steadfast personal support of (Artist D), even during the lean years, would one day help them to achieve this great honor, but I could never have anticipated until this very moment the true and gloriously life-affirming joy that I would experience as they-- as *we*-- accepted the award. I can now die a happy man. Beer bong." - -Rex PS: My wife and I were just talking about this key difference between sports geeks and music geeks: the latter never speak of themselves as if they are a part the organization they patronize. So that you might hear a sports fan say "We're not looking too good on defense" or "We gotta run the clock down", but you'll never hear a band's fan say "It was a pretty good show. We screwed up the bass part on the third song, but our drummer steered us right back into the pocket and our solo was killer" or "Dude, our harmonies are sounding pretty rough-- we gotta get back in tune!" We were trying to think of funnier things than that, but we were pretty tired, so that's all I got. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:45:21 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: funny tee shirts On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Eleanore Adams wrote: > http://www.p4cm.com/p4cm/store/launch > > to make you laugh today Where's the "EX-Christian" one? I want a shirt with this on it: - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:25:46 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Miles Goosens > Well, there's those arguments, and the fact that there'd be hell to pay > from > the wife if I didn't vote for Rush. Hee. I don't think my wife would get past the notion of Iggy's non-induction if she were on this thread. If your choices were The Stooges, Rush, and Seger... well, I think you could make a pretty solid argument for all three, although they would stand in for three very, very divergent ideas of what "rock and roll" is. Those threads are gonna be harder and harder to reconcile as the years go on. I'm sure there are people who are still enraged about Run-DMC and/or Madonna getting in. In my mind, Aerosmith and AC/DC are practically the same band: the hard rock band that's nowhere near as lame as the other hard rock bands, but isn't especially interesting either, and/or the music that comes on the jukebox in a normal bar that neither makes you think "God not this again" nor "This seems way too cool for this bar". - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:06:07 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail On 2/5/09, Rex wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Miles Goosens > > If your choices were The Stooges, Rush, and Seger... well, I think you could > make a pretty solid argument for all three Really? I think Iggy, if not the Stooges, should be a lock...and I've already argued that, like 'em or not, Rush should be in there, too...but Seger? He started off as a sort of low-budget garage guy with the occasional hints of psych (that "2+2" song), disappeared for a few years as far as yr average record buyer is concerned, then popped up in the late '70s with third-rate Springsteen impersonations, followed by years shilling for trucks...followed by...nothing much. Seger's a non-entity. I mean, people might like his music - and some of it's appealing in a sort of boneheaded way - but compared to Iggy, he's nowhere near as electric, influential, or just plain rock'n'roll. Compared to Rush, he doesn't have the consistency or longevity (despite having been around longer, that's about all he's done most of that time: be around). He's got a handful of hits and a couple of big albums. Just like literally hundreds of other musicians. I mean, if Seger, why not, I dunno, Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show? Tommy Tutone? Lobo? All these folks produced a couple of hits, most of which are moderately enjoyable...but if the HOF means anything (which, as Rex pointed out, is highly doubtful), then they don't belong there. Again trotting out my baseball analogy, Seger's a guy who played second base six years in the majors, didn't make too many errors but never won any Golden Gloves or placed anything higher than fifth or sixth in the league, with a lifetime .258 batting average, although one season he placed second in RBIs and batted .305. Hundreds of guys like that. They don't belong in the HOF in baseball, and Seger doesn't belong there. (Rush, by the way, would be Bert Blyleven.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 23:23:45 -0500 From: lep Subject: Re: funny tee shirts tc says: > On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Eleanore Adams wrote: > >> http://www.p4cm.com/p4cm/store/launch >> >> to make you laugh today > > Where's the "EX-Christian" one? > > I want a shirt with this on it: > i don't care what peter buck says about you, tc, you're alright in my book. xo p.s. order one for me. - -- "people with opinions just go around bothering one another." -- the buddha ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:48:25 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: A Few Words on Rush by Brother Quail Growing up in the northeast U.S. I was aware of Aerosmith from an early age, but I wonder if they were a regional thing before going national. And isn't Seger like the patron saint of the upper midwest? Either way, I think most people love Rush because they are from Canada, and everybody loves Canadians. - -tc ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V17 #32 *******************************