From: owner-jewel-digest To: jewel-digest@smoe.org Subject: jewel-digest V1 #103 Reply-To: jewel@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jewel-digest Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "jewel-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. jewel-digest Wednesday, 27 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 103 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Producer! Re: joan osborne's career over? JO and Jewel Re: DYlan, new CD, more Re: Dylan Dates Con't..... Spew Re: joan osborne's career over? Re: JO and Jewel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 20:05:36 -0800 Subject: Re: Producer! I'm sorry... is this not the Jewel list??? Why are we talking about Rush?? As a marching and set drummer, i am a big fan of Neil Peart, but the fact remains... THIS IS THE JEWEL LIST!!!! I come home after only 2 days, and i get 40 (yes, 40) pieces of mail from this list alone. Let's all be smart about what goes on this list. hope i didn't offend anyone. Jason. PS- just so there is some sort of Jewel content in the letter, does anyone have a tape of jewel @ the wiltern theater in LA w/ liz phair?? At 08:56 PM 3/26/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 22:23 25/03/96 -0500, Pooh wrote: >>Peter Collins has produced many of Rush's albums..In case anybody was >>wondering. > >Since I can forsee a barrage of Rush hate-mail to come in the next few days, >let me just cast my vote in favor of this one. Love 'em or hate 'em, >there's no denying that Rush are perfectionists when it comes to their >production sound, and their albums are technically excellent. I expect >Collins will offer some valuable production input, and help put together a >clean, tight sound that's not glossed over. Interesting. > >Dan >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >DAN STARK PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS >danstark@netcom.ca dstark@freenet.npiec.on.ca will be forwarded >Windsor, Ontario, Canada danstarkds@aol.com is cancelled >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------ From: nebulous@panix.com (friendly neighborhood psychopath) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 23:33:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: joan osborne's career over? >So, are you saying that *anyone* with a hit single, video on MTV, or hit >singles is achieveing their success in a "superficial" way? Joan Osborne well, pretty much. these musicians are becoming well known because 30 mtv executives decided that it was the direction they are going to steer youth culture. not because they like it, not because they think YOU will like it, but because they think they can sell it. shit, the entire idea of a 'single' is so limited. why record an album of music just to highlight a song or two from it (a song or two that you don't even pick)? i realize that a lot of people don't have the time or inclination to actively investigate music, but the entire system of radio/mtv seems so little about music that i have to wonder why anyone would enter the market if their primary motives aren't simply financial. >achieved a fan base *before* she was ever on MTV, through touring and releasing >albums independently. and what's wrong with continuing to grow like that? almost every record deal amounts to being musically owned by that record company. they can do what they want with your music. YOUR music. if joan (or anyone else) hadn't signed a big deal, sure she wouldn't have been nominated for a grammy this year, but she would retain artistic control and be building a true fan base (AND keeping all the money and creative control for herself). >If you have trouble going back to an artist after he/she has gained success, >whose fault is that? Take Tracy Chapman, for example. She released one of the i admit that i ask a lot, but once a band or artist shows me that they are willing to be swept along by a record company that has literally taken control of their music, i lose a lot of respect for them that can't be won back when they aren't in favor anymore. >I'm having trouble with the word "self-induced". Are you saying that Jewel >should never have signed with a major label and continued to sing in coffee >houses for the rest of her life? Is constant touring and appearing on any >TV show that will take her, which was her ticket to success, really a >superficial, self-induced way of achieving success. There's a similar am i saying jewel never should have signed with a major label? well, yes. if i were in her situation i would not have signed so quickly. i would have waited until i was in a position to get a deal with full creative control. there is ONE thing that major labels can offer that no one else can: widespread distribution. why would she have to sing in coffee houses for the rest of her life? YES, she should constantly tour, you don't NEED a record company for that, trust me, i've seen it done quite a few times. as far as tv shows, well, i never quite understood that phenomenon. what is so great about seeing jewel sing wwsys and talk for a minute about growing up in alaska x100? jewel IS very attractive and i guess it gives the more fashion-conscious jewel fans a chance to check out her clothes, but what else is there to those shows? >done constant touring and appearances to gain this success. Of course it is >self-induced, but doesn't everyone want success? Just MHO. i don't think i'll ever understand this facet of american culture. why is bigger always better? why is money the supposed key to happiness? shouldn't artistic integrity be more important than the cover of rolling stone? i'm a musician, and am planning on a life in music (i'm 17, thus 'planning'). i would hate to feel that my outlook on all this stuff is so rare. either way, i know that hard work and honesty go much farther than mtv can ever reach its dirty claws... ben *-----------------------------------------------------------------------* | ben sterling 'though we haven't even spoken, | | new york, ny still i sense there's a rapport' | | nebulous@panix.com morphine | *-----------------------------------------------------------------------* ------------------------------ From: UrbanField@aol.com Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: JO and Jewel First of all, I know that we read enough on Osborn but I would still like to throw my $.02 in. Sure, she was nominated for some awards, but with enough publicty and money from the record company any album can be nominated (keep in mind that it is all done to encourage sales). As far as I know, she got snuffed by each major music award group, maybe I am wrong. Sure, it is nice for the record company to invest that much money and faith in an artist but come on now, Joan Osborn? Here today, gone tomorrow. She will exploited then dropped. I think artist like here represent the tragedy of popular music, if her sales go down, she is gone. I believe that it takes time to mature as a artist. Excuse this rude comparison, but artist like J.O. are like wine that hasn't aged long enough. Sure, drink it, it may not taste all that bad(but definitely not great), it will still get you drunk and after it starts kicking in, you really don't notice the taste. Ahh but wait, if you had let it age, what it could have been. I know this is not an excellent example (in fact it is pretty darn bad) but my point is these artists are exploited for a talent that hasn't matured. By the time the talent blossoms, people are sick of them. I know there are many who came onto the scene raw and developed as the albums went by, but the ones who made the record company a lot of many and then were never heard from again are truely a tragedy, and these poor souls are countless. Also, sometimes the sucess of a singer or band seems to ruin my enjoyment of their work. I know many of you may feel the same way and yes, this may be selfish. Some phrase it differently, like by saying "they sold out". There is something to be said about the "diamond in the ruff" that only we know about. I enjoy listening to Jewel with my friends and turning them on to her, but at the same time I don't think I would enjoy pulling up next to some punk with his windows down jamming on Jewel. I guess I know she is good, I like to know something that everybody else doesn't. My point is, once the cat is out of the bag the chances for exploitation seem to increase.I see that she is becoming more popular, let's hope sucess doesn't ruinher career. I just don't want that to happen. ------------------------------ From: Steve Chiaramonte Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:02:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: DYlan, new CD, more > Has anyone else been able to confirm the Penn State show on Apr. > 20 that Hiranya mentioned? There appears to be a Dylan show on that > date elsewhere, so she won't be at both! As far as I know Dylan is scheduled to play in Portland,Me on the 20th...one of the few shows I know of with a confirmed venue.... ------------------------------ From: Steve Chiaramonte Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:14:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Dylan Dates Con't..... Hey y'all- Bob Dylan's latest dates are available on the web at: http://www.execpc.com/~billp61/dates.html Hope this ends all the confusion.....:) Steve ------------------------------ From: "christopher dale vaught" Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:23:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Spew Hello from Bloomington IN. I have found a copy of the promo disc "Atlantic's CMJ Survival Kit" PRCD6360 It has 18 tracks all from Atlantic recording artists including: #17."A Case of You" - Tori Amos (previously unreleased) #18."Angel Standing By" - Jewel I would like to trade it if anyone is interested. What I am looking for is "You Were Meant For Me" PRCD6605 Track listing: 1.Remix-3:13(Juan Patino version) 2.Album Version-4:13 3.Acoustic Version-3:38 or, "Knock OUT 2" featuring "Women's Song" E-mail me directly if interested. Thanks, Christopher ------------------------------ From: Tazarazz@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:27:50 -0500 Subject: Re: joan osborne's career over? You write - ------> building a true fan base TRUE fan? A true fan is someone who really loves and supports an artist. Just because a personI might have been exposed to an artist thru a medium such as MTV doesn't mean they're not a true fan! Listen, artists become famous because people like their music. There is nothing superficial about it if it happens to be thru MTV. What sounds superficial to me is if someone doesn't like an artist because they are on MTV! Think about it. ------------------------------ From: "J.j. Varley" Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 21:41:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: JO and Jewel On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 UrbanField@aol.com wrote: > Also, sometimes the sucess of a singer or band seems to ruin my > enjoyment of their work. I know many of you may feel the same way and yes, > this may be selfish. Some phrase it differently, like by saying "they sold > out". There is something to be said about the "diamond in the ruff" that only > we know about. I enjoy listening to Jewel with my friends and turning them on > to her, but at the same time I don't think I would enjoy pulling up next to > some punk with his windows down jamming on Jewel. I guess I know she is good, > I like to know something that everybody else doesn't. I find myself somewhere in the middle of this concept, between the music industry rhetoric and the anti-capitalist artist types. I'm not saying Urban Field here is either one, but UF's point is an issue that is viewed in a dramatically different way by both sides. There is a trend these days--and I call it a trend because this kind of thinking never gained popularity until, say, 30 years ago--to discount the _quality_ of a work, be it a musician, filmmaker, chef, writer, or any sort of artist due to their success. It is believed that in the very act of achieving wealth, fame, and a celebrity girlfriend, the essence of their work is lost. And this does happen. I feel it is undeniable. But because of these instances, the artists as a whole have been discounted. Now, whenever a band gets a hit single, they've somehow lost their charm. To succeed beyond the low-budget coffee-house circuit is a Faustian bargain, these people say. What we have to remember is that this is exactly what many people want. It has been said that if most musicians could have their career fantasies realized, it would mean they could never step out in public again without being mobbed. And I'll make another digression. There are a couple guys I know who are complete lunatics. They listen to the weirdest European digital french rock that they superciliously refer to as "experimental". When they notice that people think this music sucks, they lament the state of mind of the American people, that they're programmed to adore whatever the local Alternative rock station plays and ostracize the experimental. I point out to these guys that the greatest musicians of our time were pushing the envelope, they were just a little bit out of sync with what was accepted. Hendrix, The Beatles, Elvis, U2, Miles. Where I'm going with this, is that people know quality when they see it. No matter whether they see her on Letterman or him playing guitar for quarters at Venice Beach, there is something about a musician, a _good_ musician, that makes people take notice. That is universal, and people recognize that regardless of what The Media has to say about it. - -- J.j. Varley | jvarley@netcom.com | San Diego, CA "He has two consuming ambitions, never achieved: to overthrow the government and to get his trousers mended." ------------------------------ End of jewel-digest V1 #103 ***************************