From: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org (jewel-digest) To: jewel-digest@smoe.org Subject: jewel-digest V6 #659 Reply-To: jewel@smoe.org Sender: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk jewel-digest Thursday, December 6 2001 Volume 06 : Number 659 * If you ever wish to unsubscribe from this digest, send an email to * jewel-digest-request@smoe.org with ONLY the word * unsubscribe in the BODY of the email * . * For the latest news on what Jewel is up to, go to * the OFFICIAL Jewel web site at http://www.jeweljk.com * and click on "calendar" * . * 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 V6 #xxx or the like gives fellow list readers * no clue as to what your message is about. Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [EDA] Break Me, Serve the Ego, sexism, and lyrical analysis [Maggsley] [EDA] Billboard Charts [Fredsteve@aol.com] [EDA] Question about Standing Still ["Kovacs, Mirinda" ] [EDA] NJC: Adrian/Tsunami/humorous ["Karacostas, Derrick W." ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:50:38 EST From: Maggsleys@aol.com Subject: Re: [EDA] Break Me, Serve the Ego, sexism, and lyrical analysis Well, my first instinct with a song is never to over analyze the lyrics, which i think is what is being done here, but since this look at Break Me is so one-sided, thought i'd take a look at some parts of the song that didn't help to prove Sean's point. I will meet you in some place Meet you -- implies effort being made by both parties without unwilling force. It's not "I will be dragged by you to some place" I will let you undress me Let you -- suggests that he (Ty, going by Jewel's note) needs her permission to undress her, no subjugation there! But I warn you, I have thorns like any rose Doesn't really relate to dominance at all (except maybe to say she won't hide her "thorns" from him just to please him) but this is such a lovely line and i thought it didn't go with Sean's theory that the first stanza is just your typical love cliches. (For that, "This Way" would be a great place to look) I'll let you make me This could be taken in the way Sean did, but i saw a playful sexuality here, especially because of the way Jewel's voice sounds singing it. Does this remind any other Rent fans of Mimi telling Roger, "I'll let you make me!" It most definitely wasn't Mimi letting Roger control her there! I've let go and lost control Note that it does not say "I've let you have control." This points to what i think the point of the song is, something another person has also agreed with on the list. She's letting herself be vulnerable to a man, a new experience, instead of having to keep control in the relationship. I think that for relationships to work, both partners must allow themselves to be vulnerable and accept the fact that they may get hurt. Otherwise they will always be controlling their emotions, trying to keep the upper hand, and cannot fully give themselves the person. And as far as Serve the Ego, i don't know where anyone is getting the woman's subjugation to a man. The song title is not Serve the Man or even, Serve the Man's Ego. My automatic response to this was that the woman in the song is serving her own ego (hence it starting with her looking in the mirror). That's what made the lyrics so interesting to me -- the idea that woman were still serving, but not to men, to their own egos! That's what i think is the obvious point of the song (not to imply that other people's views aren't valid!) but an opinion perhaps more unique to me was that i kind of got the idea that serving the ego wasn't necessarily bad. Looking in the mirror and admiring yourself, taking only what you want of people ("eat the flesh, spit out the seeds") and having many lovers.... well i guess that's not all exactly positive, but i think this song kind of captures the fun of a woman being completely selfish and wild, doing only what pleases her (sort of the opposite of Sean's response, interesting), something that i think many dream of doing, or do to a lesser extent. Some ego is good. Obviously, ego to the point of being a deity is bad ... but the song still seems undeniably fun to me. I'd love to hear if anyone else got that out of the song. So, just thought i'd demonstrate why such a believer in gender equality as myself would enjoy these two songs a lot ... although i do find Break Me pretty boring musically, there i agree with you Sean. - --Maggie The original post: > OK, so, in some of my posts as well as my original review post concerning >the This Way album, I mentioned that I find the songs "Break Me" and "Serve >the Ego" unpalatable due partly to the fact that I don't see the connection >between a love song and women willingly subjugating themselves. Some have >agreed, most have said I need to lighten up and not take things so literally. >Others still cling to the notion that these are good songs. Here's a quick >analysis of the lyrics of both. Much like a witness at a criminal trial, I'd >like to state my credentials. I have a BA from Drew University, with a major >in English and a double minor in Writing and Sociology. So, I think when it >comes to analyzing song lyrics I am pretty well-versed, educated, what have >you. > Break me. Most of the song isn't inherently self-degrading, it's merely >mediocre writing and typical "love" cliches. This typifies the first stanza. >Then comes the chorus: "So break me, take me, just let me fill your arms >again" >To be broken and taken. Does this sound pleasurable to any sound-minded human >being? No. This sounds like a masochist. Someone who enjoys being hurt, >invaded, damaged. The key word is right there in the title. Break. Is a >broken leg a good thing, a broken heart, a broken spirit? No. So why the hell >would any sane person want to be broken? Take me is similar. To be taken >implies that you are being moved against your will. You are taken to prison, >taken into custody, taken in for questioning. A kidnapped child is taken. And >then the fill his arms again part is again, mostly just cheesy writing, but >to fill someone else's arms implies that the woman is not an individual, but >a thing, a treasured object whose use is to fill the man's arms. Then comes: >"I'll let you make me Just let me feel your love again." >I'll let you make me? This is a blatant oxymoron. If he's making you, you're >not letting him. If you are made to do something it again implies being >forced, against one's consent or choice. When you're a kid your parents make >you go to church. Your boss makes you get him or her coffee. Being made to do >something is not pleasurable, it has a negative implication to any logical, >sane, not-masochistic human being. > Serve the Ego. Note the "About The Songs" section of the liner notes: >"I like saying, 'Who says a woman cannot serve?'" >Hmm Jewel. Aren't you the same person who used to talk about how draining and >disgusting and horribly unrewarding your life was when you were a waitress? >So bad that it wasn't worth it to serve even if it paid your rent and you >instead moved into your van. First stanza is pretty basic. Second though: > "Who says a woman cannot serve? It would be my pleasure Who says it is not >my destiny to let you control me" > It would be your pleasure to be controlled? Who the hell wants to be >controlled? Who gets pleasure out of serving? Ask a butler or a maid if their >jobs are pleasurable. Then the whole thing about a woman saying it is her >destiny to be controlled by a man, that's pretty scary. Destiny. That's a >pretty sick destiny. > What makes these songs so unpleasant to me is that part of the reason I >got into Jewel's music was because she seemed like such a strong and >independent woman who didn't fall into sexist cliches. Her writing was fiery, >she wore little or no make up, denim jackets, folky clothes and cowboy hats. >Some of my favorite Jewel songs are things like RaceCar Driver and God's Gift >to Women. A strong, young woman who doesn't take any shit. These songs >however are unreleased and these cheesy, submissive love ballads are heard by >millions. I just find it irksome. She has good love ballads. I'll put Jessica >or Emily up there with anybody's best. But again, these songs don't find >their way onto Jewel's LPs. So, if you like songs like "Break Me" and "Serve >the Ego," so be it. But to deny that they are about submissiveness and >subjugation is to be blind to the on-the-page lyrical content of the songs. >And, contrary to what some have said, they are not satires. Rocker Girl is a >satire. Kiss Your Ass is a satire(Both, AGAIN, unreleased). Break Me is >clearly not. And Serve the Ego does have a hint of sarcasm to it, but not in >the lines I quoted above, and especially not in Jewel's "About The Songs" >section of the liner notes. > So, that's my statement concerning the two songs. Thanks for listening >all. > >Later, >Sean Hooks ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:15:32 EST From: Fredsteve@aol.com Subject: [EDA] Billboard Charts Here are the latest Billboard Charts: Album Charts: Billboard 200 This Way is at #21 (last week: #20) Pop Catalog Joy: A Holiday Collection is at #19 (Last Week: #25) Singles Charts: Billboard Hot 100 Standing Still is at #45 (Last Week: #52) Adult Top 40 Standing Still is at #6 (Last Week: #7) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:38:27 -0600 From: "Kovacs, Mirinda" Subject: [EDA] Question about Standing Still Okay, I have a question for y'all. If Standing Still is supposed to be about the music industry and it affects on people. And how she wanted to make sure she wasn't standing still so to speak. Why do you suppose the video makes it seem like nothing more than another unrequited love song? The video doesn't really display her ideals of the industry at all. It seems to focus solely on this love interest that she can't seem to find. Anyway, I just wanted to hear other people's opinions about this and see if I was the only one who thinks that. Mi Rinda "Women are not in the wrong when they decline to accept the rules laid down for them, since men make these rules without consulting them. No wonder intrigue and strife abound." - -Michel de Montaigne ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 09:59:54 EST From: Minnie822@aol.com Subject: [EDA] Jewel pics on jeweljk.com and rosie hey angels I just wanted to say that I absolutely LOVE the pics of jewel on the website! and everyone has to cheak them out! also, Jewel's interview with rosie yesterday, must have been the best interview I've seem by far. It really showed her humor and her performance of standing still was excellent! have a good day everyone diana the lonely writing angel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:07:22 -0500 From: "cymbaline" Subject: Re: [EDA] Question about Standing Still Not only the video, but the lyrics as well. "do you love me?" "do you want me?" "do you need me?" to me its just another poppy love song. not bubblegum pop but just standard "pop" >np: Gary Hoey: "Animal Instinct" cymbie tree hugger - -- when night falls it's dawn one must reach for. - -a. camus ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:03:37 -0500 From: "Jenni Hayter" Subject: [EDA] Headphones I'm going to try and start a new thread now. :) It's probably lame, but work with me, haha. Anyway, I'm sure all of you have noticed that when you listen to some CDs on headphones, you hear things you wouldn't usually hear when listening to it on a regular CD player or your computer. For example, on Patty Griffin's "Living With Ghosts" you can hear an ambulance go by in the background. I was wondering if anyone had found anything like this on "This Way"? Just curious... JenniGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 10:45:18 -0600 From: "Karacostas, Derrick W." Subject: [EDA] NJC: Adrian/Tsunami/humorous Dude you need to think of better subjects for your posts...I almost overlooked this one and if it hadn't been for the help of others it may have gone unnoticed...haha. But SINCE I found it now...sit back and hold on.... > well, since you asked... > I asked if the list gets boring....it was sort of a rhetorical question though since we all should already know that it's true. :-) But since you took the time to reply, I shall too. > Recently, Mike, our list manager took the extraordinary step of banning > you > as a consequence of your abusive postings. > No that wasn't the reason. > I noticed that during the month that you were off the list, conversations > on this list became more positive, and more varied. > No they didn't. Maybe you were looking at another list? Also, I was only gone 11 days, but really I wasn't gone at all as I was seeing every single post that came into the list during those 11 days...so you're wrong...again. All *I* saw was the list STILL bickering about someone who wasn't even on it anymore. It was really pathetic actually. > Go back and check the historical digests for empirical proof of this. > I've already proved you wrong. LOL > Sure it took a few days for the rancor and controversy you'd > stirred up to float away, but it did! > A few? LOL I'd say it was a "bit" more than a few. Write about the time it died down some, I was back again. And even after that stopped, there were people fussing about other things, as they always do...I mean, as YOU are with this e-mail you wrote for no reason whatsoever! Do you like to start trouble or something??? :-) > And then more people started talking about music, and a wider range of > things that actually have to do with Jewel, art, life. > Wrong again....all they talked about was trying to get SS on the radio...it got really old, really fast, and was REALLY boring! If you call that a wide range of things, then I feel sorry for you. I talk about a wider range of things than most everyone on here does. Why do you think so many people talk about ME? Think about that. So many people "claim" all these false things about me, yet they are the very ones like YOU who take their time to write about ME? You know what that's doing? That's making me feel special! HAHAHAHAHAHA Not that I really care...since I wasn't ever expecting that to occur, but I think it's a very humorous result. You guys talk about me more than anyone else it seems. Also, what does that say about YOUR lives? B-O-R-I-N-G So this may be a really worn out saying...but I'll say it anyway..Get over it!!! > Since your return, we've seen the prolongation of asinine threads, such as > the one about "Jewel's wage"and similarly negative, and pointless, > keyboard noodling. > Well if they're asinine then you are saying anyone who participated in those threads are asses. Nice work. I feel the love already...does anyone else? Let's all have a party at this dude's house and all give him a group hug...I think he's in dire need of one. heheheh And to call her wage negative is just plain ridiculous. > It is true that at times your posts tend to dominate this list - whether > that means you're 20 percent or 10 percent of a digest, you're taking up > space that used to be filled by dozens of more open-minded and positive > EDAs. That's the truth. > Again, I can't control how many times anyone posts. If you want to send in 50 a day...go right ahead. But you won't see ME bitching about the number of posts you send...that's how we differ you see. I have better things to do with my time. And speaking of people being open-minded...you won't find one moreso than myself. On the otherhand, I think the lists true problems are with people like yourself and a few others, and I stress FEW who are very closeminded so they'll send in posts like the one you just did. > I don't know why you feel so compelled to dominate discussion on this list > ~ > at times a reader would think it's the Derrick news and discussion board > (with a subdirectory for Michelle Branch); this list used to be more about > Jewel and EDAs; and, hopefully, one day it will return to a broader based > discussion forum, for folks who don't want, or need to be, the centre of > attention. > Do you want to be the center of attention? Sure seems like it to me! LOL And once AGAIN, I don't control the number of posts to the list. I'm not the reason there aren't 300 posts a day. But even if there were...you wouldn't see any more or less from me. I don't base the number I send on the total number. I base it on if I have something to say. So if there were 300 a day, and maybe 20 were mine, I'm sure they wouldn't be quite as noticed. But when there may only be 40 a day, and if I post 5 or 10, then sure they're going to stand out more. So my suggestion to you would be to try to get everyone else to post more, think of more things to talk about, and then maybe mine won't seem as dominant. You know I've actually only sent in maybe 3 or 4 posts in the past couple days. I could go a month without one and I bet you'd still find something to bitch about. So deal with it, or get over it, and let everyone have fun since that's all *we're* trying to do around here! PS...next time pleae use NJC for your non-Jewel related posts so other EDA's will know beforehand. It's just a courtesy thing with the list. I thought you knew. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 10:57:18 -0600 From: "Karacostas, Derrick W." Subject: [EDA] NJC: Fred and lying Actully I'm not the one who started the lying thread. As Cymbie stated. What I TOLD you was that Jewel has been known to tell a lie or two on occasion. I never said she *constantly* lies. So don't try to change up the words on me. And alot of people know that Jewel has indeed told lies before...over the past 5 or 6 years I mean. Some may have been little white lies that wouldn't impact much of anything, but they are still lies nonetheless. Alot of times though she would just forget certain things...dates, time spans, etc. I'm not counting those things...that's different. > ---------- > From: Fredsteve@aol.com[SMTP:Fredsteve@aol.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:20 PM > To: jewel@smoe.org > Subject: [EDA] Re: derrick > > In a message dated 12/5/01 4:10:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, > owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org writes: > > > > haha..... thats funny. people always associate alot of posts and alot of > > negativity to derrick. haha. what about sean hooks? now there's a jerk. > he > > never has anything nice to post. derrick has alot of positive things to > > say. > > . and i don't recall derrick starting threads about "jewels a bitch, she > > > has > > to sign sign autographs whether she likes it or not" and "jewel's a > liar! > > how dare she say that! we KNOW its not true!" "anyone who likes break me > or > > serve the ego has horrible taste in music" > > Actually Derrick was the one who suggested to me that Jewel constantly > lies.. > which is why I posted to the list to see if anybody had an example - I was > > trying to prove him wrong :) > > Steve ------------------------------ End of jewel-digest V6 #659 ***************************