From: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org (jewel-digest) To: jewel-digest@smoe.org Subject: jewel-digest V3 #725 Reply-To: jewel@smoe.org Sender: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk jewel-digest Wednesday, December 30 1998 Volume 03 : Number 725 * If you ever wish to unsubscribe, send an email to * jewel-digest-request@smoe.org with ONLY the word * unsubscribe in the body of the email * . * For the latest information on Jewel tour dates, go to: * http://jewel.zoonation.com and click on "TOUR" * OR * go to the OFFICIAL Jewel home page at http://www.jeweljk.com * and go to the "What, When, Where" section * . * PLEASE :) when you reply to this digest to send a post TO the list, * change the subject to reflect what your post is about. A subject * of Re: jewel-digest V3 #xxx or the like gives readers no clue * as to what your message is about. Today's Subjects: ----------------- Don't Underestimate The "Power" of Jewel! ["Larry S. Greenfield (ICQ #23] From the Jewel list owner: todays' emails about Marilyn Manson [Mike Con] Re: Jewel Photo in Sweater magazine, Jewel & Marilyn Manson [GeminyaD@ao] Re: Jewel Photo in Sweater magazine, Jewel & Marilyn Manson [KNicky3116@] Re: Jewel in SFChronicle [Mordindae@aol.com] "Ride With The Devil" WWW site... [Allan ] Clearing up the Jewel/Manson issue ["Karacostas, Derrick W." ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 21:34:32 -0800 From: "Larry S. Greenfield (ICQ #23716126)" Subject: Don't Underestimate The "Power" of Jewel! Howdy hi, boys and girls! The following article appears in this week's issue of New Times Los Angeles: http://www.newtimesla.com/1998/122498/badteeth1.html "Bad Teeth" By Keven McAlester It scarcely requires a philosopher's insight to note that Rolling Stone magazine no longer distinguishes itself with forceful criticism or provocative music writing. So it was something of a shock to open the current year-end issue of RS and find one of the oddest pieces of journalism in recent memory. It's the cover story. The one about tortured optimist Jewel. The one written by Neil Strauss, New York Times pop music critic and erstwhile man on the L.A. scene. At first, the story seems like a joke, a standard profile taken to superlatively hackneyed extremes -- smart writer meets hopelessly earnest subject on her own level. About midway through, however, Strauss notes that "all interviews are a seduction process, on both sides, and this one is really working"; he then launches himself and his article into the ionosphere of absurdity. He spends the next couple thousand words relating, in excruciating detail, that he's developed a crush on Jewel. He gets nervous meeting her mother. He falls asleep at her side. He starts to believe that her lyrics mean something. In short, one of the most respected music critics in the world has written a goddamned Judy Blume novella. All of which could be considered merely cute were this a work of fiction. As it is an assigned piece of reportage, Strauss' weak-kneed paean becomes less winsome and more simply bizarre. On one hand, the article rather brazenly points out the effect the cult of celebrity has on normally intelligent writers; it blinds them to thought and invites them to suck. On the other, Strauss so readily assents to his subject's manipulation that the story's candor seems accidental. The result is both brutally honest and completely pathetic. The piece bills itself as a "search for the truth about Jewel"; ultimately, it ends up being truthful in a way that was almost certainly unintentional. At the beginning, it reads like satire. Right-thinking critics and readers have lately pointed to the celebrity profile as indisputable evidence of journalism's decline; these observers have justifiably found therein a suspicious resemblance to fawning publicity. Most such profiles adhere to a basic formula, especially in their opening paragraphs. To use the following recipe is to assure oneself of a lucrative magazine-writing career: journalist meets celebrity at some public place; journalist relates certain situational details about the celebrity that will later tie into some larger point about why said celebrity is -- no, seriously -- different than the rest; journalist and celebrity spend hours talking about, like, life and stuff. In this case, Strauss adheres to the formula so rigidly that it becomes self-parody. The place: the Four Seasons hotel in Manhattan. The relevant detail: Jewel orders sweetbreads (which leads to the clearly inevitable conclusion that "she is more adventurous and experimental than her music and poetry would lead one to believe"). The conversation: involves relativity, superficiality, and Jelly Bellys -- the last, of course, providing firm evidence that our world-weary star is still in touch with her inner child. Whatever his shortcomings, Strauss was once a guy whose intelligence and ambition were evident in most everything he wrote. So the irony argument begins to carry more weight as the story progresses and the presumably self-aware writer becomes increasingly trite. (Start with his observation that Jewel's physical imperfections "just make her more perfect"; end with his declaration that her family history "should not be summarized. It should be a college seminar.") Then he meets Jewel's mother. That would be the point where the story lapses from an arguably self-conscious badness to a type of badness that is far stranger, far more revealing, and just kind of creepy. The limited space herein simply cannot do justice to the minutiae of this second badness, but consider the following excerpt indicative of its quality: "She giggles at every other word, tells me how good I look and loops her arm around mine when we walk together. Something has changed since we last saw each other. She seems to trust me now. Were the European writers that bad? 'I was really nervous having dinner with your mom,' I tell her, explaining how it felt like meeting a girlfriend's parents. 'That is so cute, Neil,' she giggles. 'I didn't know you cared.' " Pretty soon, you've got Strauss laughing and crying during Jewel's songs. You've got the two laying platonically next to each other in bed, discussing Mormonism, negativity, and Jewel's angry side. You've got Jewel getting tickled by her mother. You've got celebrity encouraging journalist to write songs. And you've got Strauss concluding with the admission that he's "not laughing" at Jewel's lyrics any more. In sum, you've got a very, very good reason to puke. Here's an argument for why such honesty is not just passively lame but actively bad: The primary obligation of any writer -- journalist, novelist, whatever -- is to the reader. He (that's the royal "he") must entertain, inform, provoke thought, or some combination thereof. Whatever personal information he imparts must be relevant to some grander scheme that benefits not his own ego but the reader's mind (or at least both). And Strauss never bothers to engage the reader; the reason that he changed his mind about Jewel -- basically, because he got to flirt with her -- is so ridiculous that no reader could possibly sympathize with it. There's no convincing argument for her worth as a musician or poet, only a weak one for her worth as a conversationalist. And since few readers will ever speak word one to Jewel, what's left is overblown self-indulgence, a supposed point revealed as little more than thoughtless mime. So while the story does provide firm evidence of the depraved relationship between celebrity and journalist, it does so accidentally, strangely, and, in the end, rather pitifully. Oh, and about her music. In the story, Jewel herself admits that her debut Pieces of You "is not a good record." Strauss never quite gets around to mentioning what he thinks. *********************************************************************** Happy New Year! - -=-Kookybaka-=- (my hooves are small, I know....) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:52:47 -0500 From: Mike Connell Subject: From the Jewel list owner: todays' emails about Marilyn Manson Hi folks :-) OK...I oopsed. I was running late this morning and in a major hurry when I went through the submitted list email, and sent on a post I really shouldn't have, since it contained something that was, of course unproven and not at all known if it were a fact (I myself doubt very much it was a fact). The email contained this: >At Manson's last concert, he threw a golden retriever into the crowd and >said he wouldn't start the concert until it was dead. They killed it. I missed that part of the email somehow. (even though I was rushed, I don't know how I missed it, the whole email was just 4 sentences) Anyway, considering that as I said above, that part about the killing the dog is unproven (it's the FIRST I heard that "rumor" and I check a major "music news" web site daily) and I should not have sent the post on as-is. When I got home from work about an hour ago, I found 87 emails sent to Jewel@smoe.org to review, and 72 of them contain replies about at least one of the two "Jewel/Manson" posts that hit the list this morning. (The list-serve software's filters found "manson" in 72 of them) I think a vast majority of you must realize that sending on all 72 posts about Manson or Manson/Jewel isn't a great idea....I'd likely get cyber-hung in effigy. Many will likely say the same thing/stress the same or similar points.....some will likely be unique and make a unique point. None-the-less, the only posts of the 72 that will go through will have to at least contain something unique about Jewel and/or her recent statements about Marilyn Manson. Posts solely condemning or defending Manson will not go through simply because this is a Jewel list and posts of that nature are certainly too NJC. Also, FYI/keep-in-mind that in the nearly 3 years I've been involved with this list, and before the list became fully moderated, I'd seen more than a few onlist arguments solely about Manson (no Jewel content at all) and it caused a lot of unnecessary turmoil. I would be remiss in my duties as list owner to allow that to happen again. I know many of you will agree with this, however I am also certain some will disagree, but "a list-owner has got to do what a list-owner has got to do". Please respect that, and the likelyhood that 1,800 or so list subscribers don't want to read all 72 "Manson" posts. Mike (who's got a long night in front of him to review these 72 posts, and whatever else comes in afterward) * If you are new to the Jewel list and need a helping hand, * or have a burning question about Jewel and/or the list, * The Jewel/EveryDay Angels List Homepage & Guide is at: * http://www.spectra.net/~ducksoup * Many basic/common Jewel and list questions can be answered there :-) * * If you can't find the answer on the page have any list related * questions, please feel free to email me at ducksoup@spectra.net * or you can IM me on either of the AOL names below: * DuckOfPrey or WhyADuck55 on AOL or AOL Instant Messenger ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:30:07 EST From: GeminyaD@aol.com Subject: Re: Jewel Photo in Sweater magazine, Jewel & Marilyn Manson Me being a fan of all music especially Jewel, hardcore and gothic industrial, I could totally see Jewel doing some glam hardcore w/ Manson. Granted he's not someone you want your kids to listen to or see in concert but he is pretty talented. I mean look at the following he has. It's almost as big as Jewel. I think it would be cool to see them do just one song. Either one of his, one of her's, or a cover that is neither of their's. Oh well...that's my opinion. Beth "Functionless art is simply tolerated vandalism. We are the vandals." Type O Negative "I want to watch it all go down. I want to see the ground give way." TOOL "An' it harm none do what thou wilt." Wiccan Rede "Show me one man who knows his own heart and to him I shall belong." Jewel "Of course I'm anti-social. Why should I be social with people I don't like?" ME ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:24:34 EST From: KNicky3116@aol.com Subject: Re: Jewel Photo in Sweater magazine, Jewel & Marilyn Manson Hey angels! I can't think of what interviews I've heard Jewel say it (I think in the Rolling Stone article maybe, and on Jewel TV), but she did say that she likes Marilyn Manson because he has a message to get across and he is different. It's something to that effect. I don't like Marilyn Manson at all, but I can see where Jewel is coming from. I admire (not sure if admire is the right word though) Manson for being different...even if I don't agree with things he does or whatever. It's just that it takes a lot of "guts" to expose yourself like that. Although I don't know why Jewel would want to do a duet with him! EEEK! :) On another note, I was at Sam Goody the other day and I got an extra promo poster of Jewel. It's just like the album cover and it says "Jewel-Spirit" on the other side. If anybody has anything Jewel-ish or Sarah McLachlan-ish they'd like to trade for this, then let me know. Thanks:) Have a great New Year, Nicole the angel on horseback ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:10:26 EST From: Mordindae@aol.com Subject: Re: Jewel in SFChronicle > CHERuBUG2@aol.com,Internet writes: > >Jewel makes her much-anticipated movie debut in April with Ang Lee's Civil > War > >drama "Ride With the Devil." > > That would be September, actually, as Alan pointed out recently. The author > needs to brush up on > their facts. > > Paul Well, there are other reasons that this author seemed to be suffering from cranial-rectum inversion (an affliction more commonly known as "having your head firmly jammed up your ass"). First of all, how pathetic is a critic who has to criticize another critic? This simply implies that his view of his own profession (and therefore of himself) is that it performs as much of a role in society as as those they critique, and it's just not so. Aren't the journalists that do the worst jobs the ones who try to make themselves part of the story? I know that Strauss does this to an extent in the RS article, but it's the interaction that IS the story. McAlester, in complaining about it, becomes the beast he tries to slay. And to quote him, "The primary obligation of any writer ... is to the reader" -- oh, please! What is McAlester's article but self-indulgent whining about Strauss not having written the scathing article about Jewel that McAlester thought he should have? And complaining about Jewel's family history requiring a college seminar? Come ON! Her grandfather help found the state of Alaska! How many people actually knew members of their family that helped to found a state? Finally, his closing comment, "Oh, and about her music. In the story, Jewel herself admits that her debut Pieces of You 'is not a good record.' Strauss never quite gets around to mentioning what he thinks," betrays McAlester's real thinking, which is that he probably expected an album review. Well, if he reads Rolling Stone much at all, he should realize that those are in the BACK of the magazine. Obviously, every half-assed critic (and everyone else, for that matter) has opinions about albums, and can articulate them to varying levels of ignorance or eloquence (I'm not sure which I'm doing here ;-) but this story was about Jewel, not just her music. If he wants to read negative articles and "gutsy, raw" interviews, he should dump his subscription to Rolling Stone and subscribe to Spin. As Spock once said, "As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create." Joe (warped angel) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:37:35 -0500 From: Allan Subject: "Ride With The Devil" WWW site... http://www.universalpictures.com/ridewiththedevil/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:41:15 -0600 From: "Karacostas, Derrick W." Subject: Clearing up the Jewel/Manson issue About a month ago or so, on the MTV special dubbed "JewelTV", which followed that days episode of Total Request Live, Carson Daily asked Jewel who she liked as a performer, and one of her responses was indeed Marilyn Manson. This is as a performer! An individual, someone doing their own thing, and attracting fans by doing that. He didn't ask Jewel is she'd "date" Manson, or if she has his whole CD collection. So don't be mislead by her comments. The media and talk show hosts are making it sound like more than what it was. She simply said she likes him as a performer. I doubt she worships the guy or anything...hardly. So, don't look forward to any duets with him, this was discussed months ago on the list, and I thought was put to rest then too. Let's keep it that way. Derrick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:04:47 -0500 From: "Dominique :-)" Subject: Jewel Store hi hi! For christmas, my parents got me a Jewel mug and t-shirt from the store. They were a little late ordering so i just got them today. I have to say, it was really well wrapped up, they did a great job of that! The mug is really nice quality, it's a big mug (I got the green one with the saying by Jewel) and it looks almost like pottery.. The color on it is matte which makes it look even nicer.. I was just curious about one thing.. I got the tryptich (excuse the spelling) tshirt, and I thought it was supposed to be "natural" colored.. mine is a white fruit of the loom t-shirt, is this normal? Its very nice.. the print is great.. they the tshirts kinda big though (or maybe i'm just too small =3DP) Anyway.. the postage into Canada was massively expensive because we had to pay taxes at the douanes... and then you have to pay for the postal workers to open them to check whats in there in order to know how many paxes you have to pay.. But it was soooooooooo worth it! I love my stuff! =3D) Anyway, just thought I'd share... =3D) ------------------------------ End of jewel-digest V3 #725 ***************************