From: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org (jewel-digest) To: jewel-digest@smoe.org Subject: jewel-digest V3 #551 Reply-To: jewel@smoe.org Sender: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk jewel-digest Thursday, October 15 1998 Volume 03 : Number 551 * 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: ----------------- Re: MrBB and CHANGE [Jesse A McDonald ] Re: Jewel not the same [MAXMOUZE@aol.com] Re: Hands... Like everything else around here [Jesse A McDonald ] Beatles vs Jewel [Jesse A McDonald ] let her be -- Jewel ["Adrian du Plessis" ] Sheryl's thoughts on Jewel [Marcel.Ummelen@dsm-group.com] Change?! [David Parry ] Re: NJC: Re: spare change, by Mr BB [ABershaw@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:20:18 -0300 (ADT) From: Jesse A McDonald Subject: Re: MrBB and CHANGE > I am totally applauding MrBB here !!!! Music is in constant evolution as are > human beings! Jewel's song "HANDS" is great ... as was her previous music > ...as will be her future music. I think we should celebrate this and be > happy for her accomplishments as well as her talent. You and Mr.BB are missing the point! If she had changed and made something that I loved and respected the way I did POY, I would not be complaining. But she changed and made something that I don't love at all and barely respect, and that's my problem. Sure I'm happy for her accomplishments... I guess... I mean, I hope she's happy. I just hope her music hasn't suffered too much. | Jesse Dangerously http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ad309 | subterranean seraph 16 Trust Everyone | ad309@chebucto.ns.ca Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:33:28 EDT From: MAXMOUZE@aol.com Subject: Re: Jewel not the same I'm totally confused -- since when has Jewel's sound been "solo acoustic"? I don't think "Amen" or "Foolish Games" were featured on the album with just a guitar? And what about "Down" and "Been Down So Long" or "Carnivore" or "Marital Carnival"? None of these songs are acoustic guitar. Why are people so surprised? I mean, can you really picture "Painters" on the radio? It's good to enjoy but it's not a radio hit. Maybe if it had different instruments and a DIFFERNET SOUND it would be acceptable. For some songs just can't be blasted while driving to work and those songs shouldn't be released as singles. If Jewel's other songs are like "Hands", I will be pleasantly pleased. "Pieces of You" is good but it's amateurish in its "live recording" sounds. It's a great CD but not necessarily one that others beyond us EDAs would appreciate. We have the Angelfood as our own momento of Jewel's special sounds (I think all of her Innerchange work is beautiful, but at the same time, her new stuff is beautiful as well but in a different was...). For the rest of the world, she has to become a full-fledged performer and lose the folk music and become a pop artist. - -- Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:15:52 -0300 (ADT) From: Jesse A McDonald Subject: Re: Hands... Like everything else around here > Like right after I posted, I heard it for the first time. ("It" being Hands, > of course...) And I have to say that although a nice song, it didn't get me > emotionally and grip me and tear out my heart along with the soaring vocals > like some songs of hers (Ex. Carnivore, SIBTW) have. If I were a person who > was listening to Hands without ever having heard her before, I wouldn't think > much of her. I felt as if she didn't use her voice to its full extent. It was > mostly low-key the whole duration of the song. Though an alright song, the > kind I'd listen to when feeling quite mellow, I feel Hands is not one of my > favorite Jewel songs. That's all... Hmmmm this reminds me of something, and it might be a good sign (from my perspective)... my first exposure to Jewel was when they would play the second YWMFM video all the time on Much Music... every time it came on, I would avoid it and I thought I couldn't stand it. There was something I didn't like about it, but there was something that intrigued me... still, I was being fatheaded and ignored it until my girlfriend exposed me to the full glorious splendor of the POY album. So... maybe just because Hands bugged me the only time I've heard it, doesn't mean I won't grow to like it... and doesn't mean I won't love Spirit. Maybe. | Jesse Dangerously http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ad309 | subterranean seraph 16 Trust Everyone | ad309@chebucto.ns.ca Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:45:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Charlie Watkins Subject: Re: Morning Song That should be the German import with 3 (4?) version of Morning song, including a Reggae mix (!). On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Airhead Angel wrote: > I went to CDNOW.com, and they had the SINGLE Morning Song!?!?! That > was a SINGLE!?!?!? And the were selling it for $12.49! That's the > same price as YWMFM! Yikes! > Carolyn Chopped Liver (Charlie) watkins@selway.umt.edu http://members.aol.com/cwatkins/jerra.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 02:55:56 -0300 (ADT) From: Jesse A McDonald Subject: Beatles vs Jewel I realize that I shouldn't be replying to so many mails publically, and I'll try not to anymore today, after this one. > composing; one of the other big Beatle mistakes -- and one that Jewel might > commit as well -- was to experiment with increasingly sophisticated > production and arrangements; if the Fab Four hadn't mixed with that fellow, > George Martin, instead of those weird, over-produced, recordings like Sgt. > Peppers, the White Album and Abbey Road -- the group might have continued > putting out discs with the simply charming production qualities of their > first Parlophone single, Love Me Do; (and, hey, why didn't they stick with > that dummer, Pete Best, instead of bringing in a NEW guy, Ringo Starr?! and, > dammit, why did that folk singer Dylan -- sometimes mentioned in Jewel > articles and who smoked pot with the Beatles -- have to pick up an ELECTRIC > guitar?!!) etc. etc. etc. I think it's terribly mistaken to compare the changes in Jewel's sound with the changes in The Beatles' sound circa Sgt. Pepper. For one thing, George Martin drastically changed the world of music with that record. He did things that had never been done before. In a world of hands on, analog, physical production, he innovated and created new sounds, new techniques, et cetera. This is not the case with Patrick Leonard's treatment of Jewel. The innovations on Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts' Club Band were based around the compositions of Lennon and McCartney (mostly Lennon, really, in the case of the wilder pioneering things; Paul was rather more traditional). The record and production grew around this music and feeling, and a lot of sappy stuff like that. In my humble opinion, that is NOT the case with Hands. There are no innovations. Why bother? The radio doesn't want a NEW sound, just a CLEAN sound. And so the standard pop production philosophy is in play - take a song, arrange it all nicely with the proper chords and everything, give everyone a click track so the rhythm doesn't waver, compress EVERYTHING, add digital reverb, chorusing and other effects, and make it sound like robots made it. My point is that George Martin created new techniques in search of the perfect sound for those songs... whereas Patrick Leonard used standard techniques to achieve the standard sound for the radio. I'm not saying The Beatles were better than Jewel is or that Martin is better than Leonard (although he probably IS ^_-), I'm just saying that it cheapens the great achievement that was Sgt Pepper to compare it to modern hit-factory production. | Jesse Dangerously http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ad309 | subterranean seraph 16 Trust Everyone | ad309@chebucto.ns.ca Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:20:37 -0700 From: "Adrian du Plessis" Subject: let her be -- Jewel Am I the only one that finds amusing the logic (or sophistry) of arguments put forward by the small number of fans who seem to want Jewel to do everything THEIR way?! Most artists, and Jewel definitely, are intelligent enough to be given credit for knowing the direction of their OWN personal growth -- how some would deny them this imperative can be comical, but shortchanges Jewel and the listener. Sean Hooks, in complaining today about Jewel's growth (which he implies is "Change for the sake of change") says to Mr BB: "If it ain't broke don't fix it. Ever hear of that one?" Is this the same Sean Hooks who just last month was complaining on this list about Pieces of You: "There are some decent to excellent songs on it but on a whole it is a very flawed piece and... it is such a young, unrefined, choppy record that in no way gives even the smallest hints at the much fuller artist and musician she has become 4 years later."?! Is it broke or ain't it? What can Jewel (or any artist) possibly do to satisfy such fans? She can only be herself. Those that want to find fault with Jewel's lyrics, set-lists, popularity, her choice of producers, venues, guitar-strings, whatever... will continue to do so because that's the way they are... music enters through our ears, hearts and souls -- the brain, as many have observed before this particular discussion, is an over-rated organ. If people would stop trying to intellectualize Jewel's artistic growth, they'd stand a better chance of appreciating its real worth. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:07:45 +0200 From: Marcel.Ummelen@dsm-group.com Subject: Sheryl's thoughts on Jewel Hello Angels, Yesterday a dutch commercial tv-station called "The Music Factory (TMF)" broadcasted an one hour interview with Sheryl Crow. She was looking relaxed. She freely talked about music, herself and her feelings to other artists and their music. She has bad memories about the MTV awards. The chat was about how artists pretend to be different then who they really are. She said that she sometimes has difficulties herself staying the person she is at this sort of moments (moment of MTV Awards). The topic changed in the changing your music with the years thing. She said she can imagine she looses some fans and gets new ones. And then she says .... I don't think it works like the young-girls-artists like Jewel, Fiona and Walflowers. They have a large fangroup of yelling female teenagers and they don't have to worry about changing their music. Ok, I can't tell you if all these words are exact the words she used but this was definately the point she made. She named these three artists. She was explaining a lot and I think she didn't want to say names at all. So by talking about other things quickly after that I think she didn't mean to be so honoust :-)) Well, it's obvious that Sheryl has no idea about the diversity is of the group who loves Jewel's music. If I turn my head at concerts I see a more older audience at Jewel concerts than at Sheryls concerts. And reading all mails about the change I doubt that Sheryl knows what she is talking about here. The Angel who mentioned Melissa's song 'Change' gets a kiss :-)) Let's say that only Melissa makes a point with a song called Change but Sheryl knows about it also .......:-)) Greetings, Marcel. (Angel From The Netherlands) <<< 32 days to go and still counting......>>> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:42:18 +0100 From: David Parry Subject: Change?! Change, evry one's talking about change, about weather it's good or bad and what ever, but if Jewel has written/wrote? These songs as they are and put them on the album as they are, then it's probably her who wanted to change, as an artist she wouldn't want anything she doesn't like on there, so....... And the quote about REM and U2, I like early U2, not too fussy on the newer stuff, REM I love all their stuff, not cos it's REM but I like the songs it's all completely different, I can listen to different albums when I'm in different moods, maybe Jewels trying a similar Idea, every album different Just my thoughts, Still not heard Hands yet, I'm in Britain!? Thank you and good night! Parry The Virginal Angel! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:45:57 EDT From: ABershaw@aol.com Subject: Re: NJC: Re: spare change, by Mr BB In a message dated 10/15/98 12:16:36 AM, Sean35RL@aol.com wrote: >>Staying the same is boring. Change is interesting. MrBB > >Wrong Alan. Change is not inherently or intrinsically good. Change for the >sake of change is actually bad. Wow, in the first sentence you've already veered off, Sean. I can't find the word good or bad in anything I said. >I sure wish U2 and REM would have "stayed the same" a little more >because if you compare their more recent albums to their older pieces, >one can see that change has not done them well. I'm not particularly interested in either band myself, but I'm curious how you know their changes "has not done THEM well"? Isn't it more like the changes haven't sat well with YOU? And this is really my point,when I said those crying "Sell Out!" are really saying "Don't change", which you exemplify perfectly with the above statement, Sean. >If it ain't broke don't fix it. Ever hear of that one? Sure, I recall hearing that, but it was always applied to mechanical applications & certainly not anything remotely artistic or creative. I wonder how many people would dare say that to a great writer, as in "Hey, Plato, write "The Symposium" again!" Or to a great artist, as in "Hey, Van Gogh, paint "A Starry Night" again!" (note: yes I stole this one from a classic Joni Mitchell comment) But people do it all the time to musicians. And personally I think its a very disheartening & a destructive attitude. But thats my opinion only. MrBB ------------------------------ End of jewel-digest V3 #551 ***************************