From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V4 #351 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Sunday, November 18 2001 Volume 04 : Number 351 Today's Subjects: ----------------- FW: [idealcopy] art & money [bartvanDamme ] Re: [idealcopy] OT: KLF [bartvanDamme ] RE: [idealcopy] the idealcopy is what you want? ["Eric Klaver" ] [idealcopy] [ot] old and in the way [MrSodium@aol.com] Re: [idealcopy] [ot] old and in the way ["dan bailey" ] Re: [idealcopy] Modern English ["stephen graziano" ] Re: RE: [idealcopy] the idealcopy is what you want? [Eardrumbuz@aol.com] Re: [idealcopy] art & money [Eardrumbuz@aol.com] [idealcopy] Woz not woz ["Eric Klaver" ] Re: [idealcopy] Modern English ["stephen graziano" ] Fw: [idealcopy] Woz not woz ["Jan J Noorda" ] Re: [idealcopy] art & money [giluz ] [idealcopy] Eno's Neverwhere [giluz ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:38:52 +0100 From: bartvanDamme Subject: FW: [idealcopy] art & money Giluz wrote: > It's not the money that's the problem here - it's the system. It's the > corporate companies which control the music industry that's the problem. It > is customary to think that a musician that makes it big has the money and > the position to have complete independence over his work. However, he is not > the only one that gained profit from his position, and if he wants to > maintain it he has to play by the rules of the system. Welcome to the real world, I would say. It's not just the music industry that's being run by corporate companies. We're living in an industrialized world. Too many people on this globe just makes it hard to find an alternative. Artists get deals with big record companies, but they're not forced to. Go indie if you want complete independence, but if you deal with the majors face possible consequences. > All of the other factors that you mentioned certainly can (and do) > contribute to an artist's decline, but I think it's not one-dimensional to > place commercial success as a prime factor, especially if you look at the > state of the music industry today, as opposed to, let's say, the 60's for > example. 60's? Just take a look at Motown. A multimillion $ hitfactory that is easily compared with the Britney's of today [better tunes though]. Even the early Beatles were [when they changed from leather to suits] a marketed boyband avant-la-letre. > I do believe that most innovations in art start in the margins and never in > the mainstream, especially if you're talking about popular art, sold as > commodity products. I agree with your first point here, but for me personally, the obscurity of a work of art is less and less a necessity. Nowadays I'm quite interested in the so called mainstream, or better, what you can do with it. It's POP! It's funny Giluz, this discussion reminds me of the one I'm having with my father for years. It all seems to come down to what one thinks is the main driving force behind this world. With him [dad!] it's economics and with me it's philosophy/psychology. I guess with every word we contribute here, we're just painting little selfportaits... Bart bartvandamme@home.nl www.bartvandamme.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 11:01:13 +0100 From: bartvanDamme Subject: Re: [idealcopy] OT: KLF Paul wrote: > well he's been heading downwards for about 20 years but it could well be that > a duet with (ahem) p-diddy might actually be the low spot of bowies pathetic > recent career. > > don't start me off......p I'm afraid I already did... Bart bartvandamme@home.nl www.bartvandamme.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:03:45 -0500 From: "Eric Klaver" Subject: RE: [idealcopy] the idealcopy is what you want? Miles Goosens: * Both Graeme and Mileta have left the list. //////////////////////////////////// I am sorry that both have left the list. Perhaps they will return. For the very same reason Miles sighted I enjoyed Graeme's participation. As well, when I had the time, I did enjoy Mileta's input. The list will be the lesser for the loss of both. what a well made world. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 16:46:16 +0300 From: giluz Subject: Re: [idealcopy] art & money on 11/17/01 12:38 PM, bartvanDamme at bartvandamme@home.nl wrote: > Giluz wrote: > >> It's not the money that's the problem here - it's the system. It's the >> corporate companies which control the music industry that's the problem. It >> is customary to think that a musician that makes it big has the money and >> the position to have complete independence over his work. However, he is not >> the only one that gained profit from his position, and if he wants to >> maintain it he has to play by the rules of the system. > > Welcome to the real world, I would say. It's not just the music industry > that's being run by corporate companies. We're living in an industrialized > world. Too many people on this globe just makes it hard to find an > alternative. > Artists get deals with big record companies, but they're not forced to. Go > indie if you want complete independence, but if you deal with the majors > face possible consequences. OK - now we're getting somewhere: You admit the big companies represent the mutinationals and that anyone who chooses to sign up with them has to pay the price. Ususally the price is: no big surprises, play it safe - no innovation. How many artists that made it big chose to go over to an independent company then? This just proves my point: They all chose to play the game by the rules of the big corporations. > 60's? Just take a look at Motown. A multimillion $ hitfactory that is easily > compared with the Britney's of today [better tunes though]. Even the early > Beatles were [when they changed from leather to suits] a marketed boyband > avant-la-letre. > >> I do believe that most innovations in art start in the margins and never in >> the mainstream, especially if you're talking about popular art, sold as >> commodity products. > > I agree with your first point here, but for me personally, the obscurity of > a work of art is less and less a necessity. Nowadays I'm quite interested in > the so called mainstream, or better, what you can do with it. It's POP! I'm not talking about obscurity, I'm talking about innovation. Pop is just a definition that describes works of art sold and advertised as commodity products in a duplicated form. This definition takes into account everything, from Julian Cope's self-promoted and self-distributed products to Britney Spears' mega-corporate mechanism. As to mainstream, a more adequate definition, it did have some things to offer in the past. Even prog-rockers were more innovative than what's going on in the mainstream today. There are less chances and opportunities for art statements to become significant and have any kind of influence - one has to have the backup of big money for this, but one has to pay the price which cancels out any meaningful purpose you once had. And things have been different in the 60's: The Beatles changed into suits when they were still struggling and didn't even have a record deal. After they made it big they were allowed to do almost everything they wanted (musically), if only because there were no record executives that understood what was going on in the pop music field. Of course it would have been different if they didn't sell that much, but today the system would not even let this kind of freedom happen. The executives control and create the market. They would never admit to not understanding it. And corporations grew significantly bigger in the last 10 years, with all these mergers, that you can't say it's the same situation as we always had in the past. Even indies have to pay the price. Do you think Wire couldn't sign a deal with Mute or any other "respectable" indie? Why did they go into the bother of forming their own label if the indies would have given them the same level of artistic freedom? > > It's funny Giluz, this discussion reminds me of the one I'm having with my > father for years. It all seems to come down to what one thinks is the main > driving force behind this world. With him [dad!] it's economics and with me > it's philosophy/psychology. I guess with every word we contribute here, > we're just painting little selfportaits... > Basically, I'm not a materialist. It's just that the current situation is very materialistic. We're at a point in time where capitalism returned to where it's been a hundred years ago, with corporations monopolising the marketplace. Psychology is just good for accounting for the individual and would never give a sound explanation of the way society works. When Graeme dissed Freud a few days ago he meant that psychoanalysis was too dominant in the popular discourse. We psychoanalyse everything, but you can't psychoanalyse a society. You'd have to use a more suitable theory for that. As for philosophy - this is too big a word. What kind of philosophy do you mean? My philosophy, described above, is neo-marxist. What did you have in mind when you were referring to philosophy? cheers, giluz ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:16:16 EST From: MrSodium@aol.com Subject: [idealcopy] [ot] old and in the way Most rock peformers descend into self parody after they turn 27- Jagger, Bowie, and Dylan (uh oh) in the forefront. Aging gracefully and "rock music" are incompatible. Those that avoid parody either become MOR (Clapton, Ferry, etc) or follow their own "post rock" path: Zappa, Fripp. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:58:28 -0600 From: "dan bailey" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] [ot] old and in the way hmmm ... so mark e smith is surely at least in his early 40s by now? i'll wait till i hear the new album (allegedly en route to my mailbox even as i type) before seeing how he fits into the below-described scenario. dan, who thinks those wire guys he saw in chicago some 1 1/2 years ago were rocking pretty decently despite their years >Most rock peformers descend into self parody after they turn 27- Jagger, >Bowie, and Dylan (uh oh) in the forefront. Aging gracefully and "rock music" >are incompatible. > >Those that avoid parody either become MOR (Clapton, Ferry, etc) or follow >their own "post rock" path: Zappa, Fripp. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:34:06 EST From: PaulRabjohn@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] [OT, long] Momus > Paul's comment started me thinking, "where did Paul give up on him," so I > started counting the albums out and this was the result. So I'll foist > this upon the list for further study and edification... > /////go on then ., i'll add my thoughts ; > 1 - CIRCUS MAXIMUS - excellent, acoustic-based, tales Biblical and > classical Momusized to perfection. > ///// this starts brilliantly with "lucky like st sebastian" but i always found it a bit heavy going in full , when i make up momus compilations i tend to skip the rest of it > 1 1/2 - NICKY EP - excellent collection of original Brel translations. > ////// "nicky" is an all-time momus classic , brilliant stuff. its tacked on the end of the circus maximus cd btw, > 2 - THE POISON BOYFRIEND - still superb, led by "Three Wars" and "Closer To > You." > /////i'd say he peaked with this , my faves would be CTY and "situation comedy blues". but its a brilliant album with a lot of musical variation and i'd tell a momus virgin to buy this first. > 3 - TENDER PERVERT - transitioning into dancier sounds, and "Ice King" just > doesn't work for me, but chock full of essentials otherwise ("A Complete > History of Sexual Jealousy Pts. 17-24," "The Charm of Innocence," > "Bishonen," "The Homosexual," "I Was a Maoist Intellectual"). ///// another classic , CHOSJ is the stand out track which even got some airplay. but it all works really well. > 4 - DON'T STOP THE NIGHT - has his only UK hit, "Hairstyle of the Devil," > but even when the lyrics are interesting, it's undercut by samey glossy > dancey music & production. ///// i love "shaftesbury avenue" , the big closer , but agreed its a bit flat & samey. > > 5 - HIPPOPOTAMOMUS - synthesizes its two predecessors into a satisfying > blend. A friend calls this the most "Momusy" Momus album. Sexsexsexsex. ///// "bluestocking" and "pornography" are my 2 faves. i saw him live promoting this , excellent gig. still a great album but a few weak tracks to be honest. > 6 - THE ULTRACONFORMIST - Brecht-like piano-y live album of new > material. I think I'd rate DON'T STOP THE NIGHT weaker, but I've probably > listened to this one the least. ////// studio album with added applause methinks. sounds to me like a load of outtakes and i also havn't played it so much. this was on el , who've also done some dodgy monochrome set "rarities" cd's that sound a bit suspicious. > > 7 - VOYAGER - Momus falls in love and makes a blissed-out laid-back dance > album. Nice ("Conquistador" and "Spacewalk" in particular), but not much > more than that. > ////i thought this was a return to form , sort of acid/trance backing that makes a good late night listen. > 8 - TIMELORD - similar to VOYAGER, but less blissed-out, more darkness > seeping in ("You've Changed" being the exemplar and standout). Treading > water creatively, but his mind is understandably preoccupied; see > . ///// i could never get into this. it's really short and mainly AIDS-fixated so understandably not a barrel of laughs. but musically i thought it was dull stuff and just treading water. > > Paul, you gave up here -- perhaps understandably! -- but you missed the > best one: /////no i didn't :-) i was making a guess as i sent in the previous mail from work. i did hang in a little longer. you missed out the singles compilation which is pretty good too. > > 9 - THE PHILOSOPHY OF MOMUS - Momus recovers his genius in Paris and turns > out the most richly varied and creatively rewarding album of his > career. The sounds bounce between acoustic, techno, reggae, even blues > (!); themes abound, but the central one is the nature of art and music. I > can't imagine more trenchant musical treatises on these themes than "The > Cabinet of Kuniyoshi Kaneko," "The Madness of Lee Scratch Perry," and the > title track. A tour de force. //////well i agree with you on the others but i'm really surprised you rate this so highly. to me this was flitting around between styles and didn't gel at all , that lee perry track i thought was terrible. did quite like "girlish boy" though. i will play this in the next couple of days to see if i'll reconsider > > 10 - SLENDER SHERBERT - Momus remakes select tracks from his earlier > catalog, mostly in a dancier way. It's beginning to and back again? Like > my Wire referent, some are improved, some not. ////// i never bought this , i figure it would end up in a bargain bin pretty quick but i've never picked one up. seemed like it might be a bit futile...... > 11 - 20 VODKA JELLIES - Leftoverture? Momus cleans out the closet with > recent demos and rarities, some of which he'd given to Kahimi Karie. Worth > having for the Momus fan, but probably not of general interest. 20/20 > vodka hindsight shows Momus' Analogue Baroque jaded aesthete emerging, for > better or worse. > //////i thought it sounded a bit tired and uninspired to be honest , the grunge tracks were worth a laugh though. but all pretty inessential. > 12 - PING PONG - Another stylistic hodgepodge like PHILOSOPHY. There's a > clutch of sterling tracks ("2 PM," "How To Get - And Stay - Famous," "My > Pervert Doppelganger") and another bunch that are clever just to be clever > or didactic in a depressingly predictable way ("My Kindly Friend the > Censor"). More compelling than not, but something of a letdown after > PHILOSOPHY's heights. > //////missed this one completely > 13 - THE LITTLE RED SONGBOOK - Things get even more precious here, and > while it's all quite entertaining, it's still too lightweight by > half. "What Are You Wearing?" is great fun, "MC Escher" steals one of my > oldest jokes, and "A White Oriental Flower" almost redeems the whole thing, > but there's not a lot of "there" there. > //////this was the last one i bought. awful , far too twee , far too samey , just sounded like he'd rushed it out in a hurry. i've not heard the remaining cd's so i won't comment. i saw him live twice and he was really great , but that was maybe 91/92 time. gigging is not exactly his lifeblood.... still really rate those old albums though and i do have a soft spot for him. one thing i must get to hear is his pre-momus band , whose name i forget , i know somebody who has that and i must scrounge it. i don't think he really plays outside london so i've probably just not heard of recent gigs. p ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:46:51 -0500 From: "stephen graziano" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] art & money I agree with those sentiments. Sometimes, oft-times, commercial success, anything more than cult popularity can be a huge artistic albatros. In part I blame the "system", by which I mean the mainstream corporate record industry that so assiduously tries to round off any rough or challenging edges so that the product appeals to not-to-be-challenged masses. But the artist him/herself is as often the perpertrator as well as the victim. If an artist gets a taste of success then it is only natural for them to want to maintain it, and the surest way to do that is to repeat the formula that got the original success. If the artist's fans have gravitated to that artist because of some percieved unique quality, that quality is going to rapidly become passe as it becomes rote and repetitous. There are exceptions - Jandek, or Daniel Johnston come to mind, where essentially they churn out album after album of the same thing, yet manage to keep the interest level up. Of course, they have never had any degree of popular success. In the case of band's that "come up from the underground" and one can use REM in that regard. I think that the band, while dissatissfied with the state of the corporate rock world, don't necessarily see themselves as revolutionaries with a mission to fufill, but rather "just playing good tunes that we like". The initial fans of such bands tend to put more importance on the divergence from the norm than the band's do themselves, who will tend to see vindication in any commercial success, since it's following up on a natural bent in their artistic direction. Often these bands continue to evolve, through a small number of albums before they have essentially used up all the new ideas and start to release what are basically either finesses of the original idea, or more baroque versions of it. Often the breakout track is the straw that breaks the camel's back - ie. the original fans sense the "sellout", as often a sense of losing membership in a status club and having to share their special ones with the lumpen prolatariat - who weren't around when it all started and really "know where the band is coming from" - there are so many examples of this - esp. in the UK music scene over the past 20+ years - since the UK charts since 76/77 have welcomed the up from indie acts much more than the US charts have. I think it is the very specially tempremented (though not essentially talented) artist that can continue to create innovative, challenging works, not be influenced by the appeals of marketplace success, not give up the art in fustration of not being able to make a good living off of it, and continue to maintain the loyalty of a small, but stable, coterie of fans who'll appreciate the genius that the masses do not, but would abandon that genius in a heartbeat if the masses did indeed. - Steve. G _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:53:15 -0500 From: "stephen graziano" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Modern English Didn't they do "Life in the Gladhouse"? - that was a cool track. btw. from around the same time - what song has the lyric "you broke my heart. into tiny little peices."? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:01:58 -0600 From: "dan bailey" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Modern English >Didn't they do "Life in the Gladhouse"? - that was a cool track. yep. believe that's from the same lp (their 2nd) as i melt with you. > >btw. from around the same time - what song has the lyric >"you broke my heart. into tiny little peices."? dunno if it's the same song, but that's a line (or very close to it) from the vibrators' you broke my heart, on their debut lp, pure mania. that's from '77, though. dan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:05:59 EST From: Eardrumbuz@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: [idealcopy] the idealcopy is what you want? In a message dated 11/17/01 8:09:09 AM, e.klaver@sympatico.ca writes: >I am sorry that both have left the list. Perhaps they will return. > > >For the very same reason Miles sighted I enjoyed Graeme's participation. >As >well, when I had the time, I did enjoy Mileta's input. The list will be >the >lesser for the loss of both. > > >what a well made world. providing, deciding they were soon there i'll second the sentiment (has anyone on this list not yet expressed these same feelings?). - -paul c.d. (thinking we should all email both guys to let them know we'd like them to decide 'on returning') d&e pick: currently enjoying piano tuner the most ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:21:01 EST From: Eardrumbuz@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] art & money feeling graeme's presence, another the paul writes: giluz spoke of things beatlesque >After >they made it big they were allowed to do almost everything they wanted >(musically), if only because there were no record executives that understood >what was going on in the pop music field. Of course it would have been >different if they didn't sell that much, but today the system would not >even >let this kind of freedom happen. The executives control and create the >market. >>>>what about radiohead? i don't know who their record company is, but assuming some exec listened to kid a prior to it's release, i can't imagine that "mr. suit" would've approved of that album following their poppier (more easily accessible) stuff on ok computer. but i understand and agree with your point for the most part. the vast moajority of major label acts stay within more traditional and conservative boundaries. - -paul c.d. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:21:53 -0500 From: "Eric Klaver" Subject: [idealcopy] Woz not woz Can anyone give a bit of background on Jon Wozencraft and why he keeps cropping up in some esoteric situations, i.e., liner notes and art direction contributor for wire, contributor to the Joy Division bio, friend of Neville Brody? There must be a story there, or does he just kinda hang around? Eric in Toronto ps sorry to reply re: the recent departures but I did so before I read Miles plea to quell the discussion. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:45:37 -0500 From: "stephen graziano" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Modern English yes, the Vibrators, that's what I was thinking of, what was I thinking? >From: "dan bailey" >To: , "idealcopy" >Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Modern English >Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:01:58 -0600 > > >Didn't they do "Life in the Gladhouse"? - that was a cool track. > >yep. believe that's from the same lp (their 2nd) as i melt with you. > > > > >btw. from around the same time - what song has the lyric > >"you broke my heart. into tiny little peices."? > >dunno if it's the same song, but that's a line (or very close to it) from >the vibrators' you broke my heart, on their debut lp, pure mania. that's >from '77, though. > >dan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:01:24 +0100 From: "Jan J Noorda" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Modern English > Didn't they do "Life in the Gladhouse"? - that was a cool track. > > btw. from around the same time - what song has the lyric > "you broke my heart. into tiny little peices."? > What to say of the track on the first This Mortal Coil lp/cd called Not Me written by Colin Newman By coincidence the name of the singer of Modern English is the same of the drummer of .... Robert Grey > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:13:49 +0100 From: "Jan J Noorda" Subject: Fw: [idealcopy] Woz not woz > Read www.touch.demon.co.uk/history.html > > p.s What do you mean esoteric situations? > Maybe it changes your mind after reading this. > > > Can anyone give a bit of background on Jon Wozencraft and why he keeps > > cropping up in some esoteric situations, i.e., liner notes and art > direction > > contributor for wire, contributor to the Joy Division bio, friend of > Neville > > Brody? > > > > There must be a story there, or does he just kinda hang around? > > > > Eric in Toronto > > > > ps sorry to reply re: the recent departures but I did so before I read > Miles > > plea to quell the discussion. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 00:14:08 +0300 From: giluz Subject: Re: [idealcopy] art & money on 11/17/01 8:46 PM, stephen graziano at sjgraziano@hotmail.com wrote: > I think it is the very specially tempremented (though not essentially > talented) artist that can continue to create innovative, challenging works, > not be influenced by the appeals of marketplace success, not give up the art > in fustration of not being able to make a good living off of it, and > continue to maintain the loyalty of a small, but stable, coterie of fans > who'll appreciate the genius that the masses do not, but would abandon that > genius in a heartbeat if the masses did indeed. - Steve. G The thing is, there is also a third way. An artist could also have some moderate success and live quite comfortably from making uncompromising music. You don't have to sell millions of copies to live off music. True, it's not easy to get there, but it's much easier than trying to aim for the mega thing, and the music would certainly be better. on 11/17/01 9:21 PM, Eardrumbuz@aol.com at Eardrumbuz@aol.com wrote: >>>>> what about radiohead? i don't know who their record company is, but > assuming some exec listened to kid a prior to it's release, i can't imagine > that "mr. suit" would've approved of that album following their poppier (more > easily accessible) stuff on ok computer. > Again, I quote from the same TotallyRadio interview with Colin: "The music industry allow one radiohead per year" (or something to that effect), especially if this allowance sells so well and also makes the music industry look as if it does give stage to innovative non-commercial bands. giluz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 00:30:11 +0300 From: giluz Subject: [idealcopy] Eno's Neverwhere In response to a question I sent here myself, here's what I found in eboweb: Q: What is Neverwhere? Once in a while a television series comes along that stretches the imagination and pushes fiction in exciting new directions. One such is Twin Peaks. Another is Babylon 5. To this list we can add Neverwhere, a six-part television series first broadcast in 1996. Written by Neil Gaiman, probably best known for the dreamy and nightmarish Sandman graphic novels, Neverwhere tells the story of Richard Mayhew, who discovers a strange alternative London peopled by weird and wonderful characters and places - many of them interpretations of places on the London Tube map. Gaiman's Neverwhere is a place where an Earl holds Court, where there is a real live Angel, and dangerous people. Lots of them. Richard joins a girl called Door to help her discover who slaughtered her family... but no brief description can really do it justice. The series was a production of Lenny Henry's Crucial Films company, and Eno wrote the music. How did Eno get involved? Neil Gaiman explained: "Eno did the music for Neverwhere because Lenny and I are both fans, and we thought we'd ask him, and he'd say no, and then we'd go with a BBC person, but at least we'd get lunch with Eno out of it. And we asked him. And he said yes." Eno's music for Neverwhere was not released on an album in its entirety, which is a pity. The music for the opening of an important door was particularly evocative. Three pieces from the soundtrack surfaced on Brian's 1997 release The Drop: "Back Clack" (aka "That bit near the start of part 1 where Door is running away from Croup and Vandemar"), "Rayonism" (aka "That bit near the end of the ordeal where it all gets a bit panicky") and "Hazard" (various places, with various overlays; "Hazard" also appears on the soundtrack of the excellent filmHeat under the title "Late Night In Jersey", although it did not make it onto the Heat soundtrack album). The only way you'll get to hear it is if the series is broadcast in your area or you purchase the double video (catalogue number BBCV 5948). There is also an audio book which contains very short snatches of a little of the music - that's a triple CD (CD1944, ISBN: 0 563 38170 1) or double cassette (ZBBC 1944, ISBN 0 563 38101 9). Inevitably, the story is abridged on the audio book and it loses something. Even if you don't get to hear Eno's music, the Neverwhere book (available in paperback) comes highly recommended. A film of the story is currently in production but is unlikely to include Eno music. ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V4 #351 *******************************