From: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org (jewel-digest) To: jewel-digest@smoe.org Subject: jewel-digest V6 #371 Reply-To: jewel@smoe.org Sender: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk jewel-digest Thursday, August 30 2001 Volume 06 : Number 371 * 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: ----------------- (NJC) RE: [EDA] Standing Still ["LH" ] Re: [EDA] Speaking of Britney Spears... ["Kristie Biggs" ] [EDA] RE: Owing the Fans ["LH" ] [EDA] oh god... ["jamie mathews" ] [EDA] My thoughts [RachKat926@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:56:43 -0500 From: "LH" Subject: (NJC) RE: [EDA] Standing Still My mistake....I had her confused with Christina ...or was it Jessica Simpson...no wait...Mandy Moore....aw..forget it.... Matrix The Phunky Angel with the Phunny name.... www.coilback.com Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:34:48 -0500 From: "dan dowell" Subject: (NJC) RE: [EDA] Standing Still Lewis, I can't believe you dissed Britney...don't blame her for all the poppy stop she puts out--she doesn't write any of it ; ) dan, just plain silly angel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:35:07 -0500 From: "Kristie Biggs" Subject: Re: [EDA] Speaking of Britney Spears... Ohhh, I'd like to know as well! Kristie >>> 08/29/2001 8:40:56 PM >>> Hey Angels, A while back I heard that Britney Spears made fun of Jewel. Is this true? If so, what did Britney say about Jewel? Thanks and take care. ~Kristin the who-likes-to-change-her-angel-name Angel :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:54:05 +0100 From: "Chris Groves" Subject: Re: [EDA] Sean's comments about Spirit - ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: 30 August 2001 02:02 > I think Sean made a very insightful comment about Spirit in his last post. > He said that Jewel made a record that was neither true to herself or true to > the fans. I think this is a very good point. Jewel has even recently > alluded to her distaste for Spirit and it's pop-production. In the recent > interview with George Varga she mentioned not wanting a producer to come in > and take over (which is what I think she thinks Patrick Leonard did)... and > there's also this quote from a recent article in the LA Times: > > "On the first record it was easy to keep it raw and undone," she says. "Then > suddenly people are thinking they have to make hits for radio. I was really > protective of the songs this time." Jewel's also been quoted as saying that she alone was responsible for the sound of Spirit, all Patrick Leonard had to do was push the right buttons on the mixing desk for her. Also here's a couple of interview extracts which give us an idea of what Jewel really thinks of her first two albums. USA Today (24th November 1998) "While Jewel describes Spirit as a more personal album than Pieces of You, and hopes it reflects creative and emotional growth, the new material doesn't present a significant shift in style or attitude. Produced by Madonna collaborator Patrick Leonard whom Jewel chose after interviewing numerous boardsmen "because he was the only one who understood the album's theme and wasn't afraid of it" - Spirit is full of spare, sweetly folky tunes that promote love, faith and positive action." Telegraph Magazine (27th February 1999) 'I cried the first time I heard Pieces Of You,' she confesses. ' I can't listen to it. I've never listened to it again. I was really uncomfortable and self-conscious. I just can't listen to my singing on that record, it doesn't sound like me. I mean, it's a good record for a teenager - it's honest, it's awkward, it's all there - but having it taken so seriously was like having a student's artwork taken seriously. Student art isn't meant to be critiqued. You're supposed to go, "Has potential if she keeps going".' Chris. http://www.jewelfan.co.uk : Jewel - Pieces Of UK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:02:56 -0300 From: "FabioJJ" Subject: [EDA] Re: I won't walk away question Absolutely Keith! I totally agree with you. I mean, I said I didn't like Standing Still alot, but I still love Jewel. Sure I'll buy her new CD, because it'll be great, but I'm really into her "deep dark" songs and this one is really not what I wanna hear, you know what I mean? Fabio PS: I believe I won't walk away is a brand new song. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:19:45 -0500 From: "LH" Subject: [EDA] RE: Owing the Fans Okay, I really feel like responding to this one, even though, who knows where it's going to go.... These are segments of Sean's post... "First is that of "owing the fans." A true artist does what they/he/she wants and says to hell with the fans. An Artist yes, but as a performer, you are also an entertainer. Any good songwriter can write a song that will entertain a large amount of people, but also be able to express their views and style. It's the mixture of the two which makes a great musical performer. There are many bands who have said "to hell with the fans" and they don't tend too last long...on the flip side, there are many bands who have done exactly what the people want and that doesn't work either. The main reason...music fans are fickle. I've worked on both sides of the industry, for a label (as a manager/promoter) AND in a band, so I know this from direct experience. True. However, there's a flip side to that coin. If it weren't for "the fans," Jewel would still be waiting tables in San Diego. She's thanked her fans many times in the past, most genuinely back when she was first starting to break through and be able to afford to live off being a singer, back when she was opening for Bob Dylan and her small tour in 1996 for example. So there's a duality to address. Yes, and saying thank you is appropriate, but once again, that doesn't mean that they owe you anything. We give out free CDs at our gigs right now because we don't feel like charging anyone for our music until it gets to the point where we have to pay production costs. We spent a few thousand dollars recording that album (which some of you have a few tracks off of). But if someone who had been to all of our gigs came up to us and started complaining because we didn't give them an album...they'd never get one. We do it because we choose to, NOT because we have to. Why I don't like Spirit. Well, this is the case of an artist playing neither for herself nor for the fans. It's a record company trying to quickly cash in on an artist's success by putting out a radio-friendly pop record. Had Jewel disagreed with Atlantic or presented them with an album of say, country music, I am sure she would have been rebuffed. There are numerous recent examples of this that have happened to similar women artists. Sophie B. Hawkins's and Joan Osborne's most recent albums took years to get released, and in Joan's case on a different label, because their record companies thought their albums weren't commercially viable enough. It happened with Neil Young back in the early 80s when he was trying a more experimental sound. It happened to Aimee Mann, who was told her music was too artsy and not commercial enough. You really can't state that as fact since you were not personally there. Jewel may have wanted to go that direction at the time, then changed her mind. You can blame "The Man (i.e. record companies)" all you want, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes the artist chooses to go more commercial. Even Jewel had stated on Storytellers that POY wasn't really "radio ready"....she could have decided to go for a more radio crowd, then afterwards said "Hmm...now I'm not happy, but it's too late to change it" So when I say people siding with record companies and giving me the whole "It's their property, they can do what they want with it," I find it the equivalent of someone taking the side of an insurance company. These are greedy corporate scumbags with no appreciation for art or the artist. Their in it for, to quote Cosmo Kramer, the Big Mammoo(money). Yes, they are greedy, yes they are all about the money...but there is a bottom line. They PAID for it...they can do what they want and no amount of "Grey Matter" changes that fact. If I paid for my car and then won the lottery, that doesn't mean my neighbor can demand to use it because I don't need it as much. Even if it stays parked in my yard forever...I still paid for it. Encouraging stealing. I'm not encouraging it. I just said I enjoyed my copy of Dave Matthews Band's "Lillywhite Sessions" and how it got out or whatever isn't my problem. I traded for it, most everyone who has it got it that way. Are bands and artist's obliged to release everything they noodle around with in the studio? Of course not. If someone happens to "steal" those recordings and make a bootleg of it, will I buy or trade for that bootleg, of course. Once it's been bootlegged it's been bootlegged, it's not my problem. Just not "being your problem" doesn't mean that it's right (or even legal). I could accidently knock a baseball into your car's windsheild....is it my problem ? Not really...but I don't think you'd see it that way. And note I make a HUGE distinction between studio material and live performances. A band or artist should be held responsible for their live shows, period. People are gonna tape them whether or not the band "encourages" it. While I do wish that record companies and artists would be more lax about live recording (because I feel if people want to listen to a crappy quality live recording for free....have at it....I like em), right now it is still not allowed and just because people are gonna do it anyway, once again doesn't mean "Oh, well if they are gonna do it anyway, I guess it's free game for everyone" People are gonna shoot people everyday, that doesn't make it ok. They are being paid to perform in front of an audience, they are accountable for what they perform, be it crap or greatness. In the studio the concept of artistic ownership and property rights is something I hold to a high standard. They can leave whatever songs of an album or not release whole albums. That's their choice. But like I said, should someone leak those recordings, then they're already out and if I can hear those songs, I'll hear them. I may be against online music services conceptually, and if I were a musician, I wouldn't want people to be downloading my music for free and not getting a dime out of it. Fuck that. But when online music services were putting stuff out left and right, I took advantage of the fact that it was available and at the time legal. This could breed a whole argument about how, to use someone who posted's cookie analogy, about how "Isn't the person who eats the stolen cookie just as bad as the person who steals the cookie?" The answer by the way is Of course fucking not! The person who eats the stolen cookie is a person eating a cookie. Yes, but there's a law about receiving stolen property. If someone stole your TV then sold it to me when I KNEW it was stolen, then I am now breaking the law too. Now, I am ENCOURAGING that person to steal more because I am making it worthwhile for them. The person who stole it is a thief. Does eating stolen cookies encourage theft? Hell no. Actually yes it does. Especially if the person who stole it will make gains from it (be it monetary, or just some kind of promotion [i.e. Napster]) then the person will continue. If no one responds to it, then they will not. And movies don't make kids shoot up schools. That I agree with. It takes more than one or two movies to influence someone....environment also plays a role...someone has to be there to tell them the difference in movies and reality (if they can't figure it out on their own) And Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction are not responsible for drug use. Except in the case of needing some sort of drug to understand the time line of Pulp Fiction ;-) And of course prostitution should be legal. It is in Nevada and Amsterdam End of Dennis Miller-esque rant. Anyway, like I said, just a few things I wanted to respond to. I'm looking forward to the new album from Jewel, and would like to concur with all those who've agreed that it would be great to hear Fritz Creek Store recordings, hear Jewelstock Tape 4, or see the Jewelstock video. Yes, I think it would be great....if they willingly issued it Oh, and to the question of meanness on the list. I try not to jump all over people. On the other hand, sometimes people say asanine things. Same here, and I'm not jumping on you on this...just stating a counter point for discussion. I know you are allowed your viewpoints just as much as everyone else as long as it's presented in a mature fashion (which this post pretty much was). As I said it a post awhile back. This list needs a little Tolerance...(which means, more meaniful stuff...less whiney crap) Hell, I've prob'ly even said some over the years. Let's not be too harsh, but certainly let's not try to make this a place where everyone sits in awe and reverence of Atlantic and Mr.BB and Jewel just because we have a "relationship" with them and they've done things for us in the past. It's not awe....it's appreciation. They should set the standard on how all record companies should interact with their fans. While some of you still don't think it's enough, they've done more than they ever HAD to. Jewel would get fans regardless of whether or not there were any EDA's. There are not millions upon millions of EDAs...so the rest of those CDs were bought by someone.... True fans are the most critical, not the least, because we know the artist has the potential for greatness, and whenever that artist falls short of greatness, we are that much more unsatisfied because we know it is beneath them and their abilities. It is not up to the fans to decide the level of greatness. Unless you are a personal friend of Jewel's you know little about her. You know what she wants you to know. People tend to feel like they "know" an artist because they've read every interview, watched every concert, etc. I know all the bands I've ever known personally, worked with...etc. can be very different while doing what we called "playing rock star" than on a personal level. Some are better, some are worse, but Jewel is gonna do the best Jewel thinks she can do. It isn't up to us to decide if she hasn't hit the mark. If she disappointed you, then, that sucks for you, but there are most likely 5 other people who feel she has outdone herself. If you feel disappointed, then you don't have to buy the album (or sell it and then someone will by the used copy and it won't chalk another mark up for her sales), in the end, the numbers don't lie and the record company and Jewel will know if she did it right or not. Thanks for listening. Sean Hooks Thanks for listening to my rant, Matrix/Lewis/EDA Person ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:40:25 -0500 From: "jamie mathews" Subject: [EDA] oh god... This is just riidiculous. Derrick posted: "I know some things about some people on this list that would really bother many list members. Supposed "friends" who backstab each other all the time. How do I know this? Because they have told me. " You wonder why people flame you? It's all right there. You like to start shit. You keep grouping you and Sean in this whole "us against the rest of the list" thing, but the fact is, your posts and Sean's posts are completely different. Sean expresses his opinion in hopes of sparking an interesting read on this list. Although usually negative in the past few years due to his lack of interest in Jewel's music, he usually always has something somewhat insightful to say, he usually always makes a good point somewhere, and he's ALWAYS interesting. You, on the other hand, like to start shit. This is why people flame you. I'm sure you'll come back with some very unclever insult to throw at me, and of course, I, along with the rest of the list, will ignore it. I'm just tired. Jamie Mathews http://www.geocities.com/greyjamie http://www.mp3.com/jamiemathews http://www.geocities.com/jeweltabs _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:11:40 EDT From: RachKat926@aol.com Subject: [EDA] My thoughts Hi all! I just thought I would throw in my two cents for all they're worth: I am very for lack of a better word, on how I feel about Jewel's songs and how she makes her albums. Sometimes I feel that she completely ignores trends and does what she wants, and she says that. But other times I feel that she creates singles for the sole purpose of putting them on the radio and selling albums. I'm sure for her it's a double-edged sword and she knows she can't please everybody no matter which way she goes. (take for example this list... it epitomizes the problem with "pleasing everybody..." it's obviously impossible) In some ways I want people to listen to her music, but on the other hand I do not want her to "sell-out" and just produce music to sell records. She needs to stay true to herself, but she also needs to make a living. Bottom line-- I'll be the first in line to get the album no matter what's on it and I'll love it. I can tell you that right now-- I'll love it and I'll always be a fan of Jewel. I just thought I would pass on my opinion. ~Rachel~ ------------------------------ End of jewel-digest V6 #371 ***************************