From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #18 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Friday, January 10 2003 Volume 2003 : Number 018 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: JMDL Digest V2003 #17 [BRYAN8847@aol.com] My Favorite Poet ["Mark Connely" ] re: prepare - njc - rc [=?iso-8859-1?q?Joseph=20Francis?= ] prepare - njc - rc [Ron Greer ] Re: prepare - njc - rc [colin ] Re: prepare njc rc [colin ] Re: prepare ye - njc rc [colin ] Re: prepare - njc - rc [colin ] Re: Prepare, NJC PC [colin ] re:hell, jesus - njc - rc ["mike pritchard" ] Happy Music New Year to you all (NJC) ["Paul Castle" ] Re: Top cds of 2002 *lets try this again! NJC [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: Re : TOP CDS of 2002 NJC [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Pius XII, njc ["Laurent Olszer" ] Bible quotes, njc ["Laurent Olszer" ] Re: prepare - njc - rc [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: Bible quotes, njc [colin ] Re: Top cds of 2002 *lets try this again! [Rusty10113@aol.com] Re: Top cds of 2002 *lets try this again!njc [colin ] Re: hell, jesus - njc - rc [vince ] Re: NY Times review of Travelogue [Bobsart48@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 03:20:44 EST From: BRYAN8847@aol.com Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2003 #17 Bob wrote: - >I believe in God, but I don't believe in Hell or >Satan. I think Satan is man's creation in order to >manipulate people &behavior. Now, hang on there Bob. You believe in God, you believe in Jesus Christ, you liked Jesus Christ Superstar. Why do you think God sent Jesus to earth to die for us? Do you believe in the Bible? The Bible teaches that there is a Hell. Do you only believe in some of it? How can you do that? You either have to believe all that Jesus said, or none of it. You can't pick and choose. Either everything Jesus said in the Bible is true, or it isn't. Joseph I'm not speaking for Bob, but I gotta respond to this one. I believe in God. I pray every day. But I never crack open a bible. Why is it so incomprehensible to bible-quoting Christians (I mean no offense) that a person can have a relationship with God while not being a bible reader? I just don't get it. I try, in my very imperfect way, to connect with and submit my will to my higher power. But I am happy to applaud the efforts of atheists to get God out of public policy and public life. I was cheering that guy in California who objected to the mandatory inclusion of "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Bryan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:36:53 -0800 From: "Mark Connely" Subject: My Favorite Poet This talk reminds me of a poem by MY FAVORITE POET, Stevie Smith. It's called "Thoughts on the Christian Doctrine of Eternal Hell", and here it is: Isn't it interesting to see how the Christians continually try to seperate themselves, in vain, from the Doctrine of Eternal Pain. They cannot do it, They are commited to it. Their God said it, They must believe it. And so, the vulnurable soul is stretched without pity, over flames, forever! Is this not pretty? The religion of Christianity is mixed of sweetness and cruelty. Oh, reject this sweetness, For she wears a smoky gown of Hell fire. Who makes a God? Who shows him thus? 'Tis the Christian religion does. This God the Christians show- Out with him, Out with him, Let him go! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:56:51 +1300 (NZDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Joseph=20Francis?= Subject: re: prepare - njc - rc Kasey wrote :- >So the creator (God if you will) made good/evil. The bible says that when God created man/woman he gave us a free will. Now the angles were also created by God, but they didn't get free will. Yet Satin rose up against God. How did he do that without free will? I think Satin is only another name for free will.....or choice. Now, if indeed Satin was an angle, and lived in heaven, and spoke to God why would he leave. Heaven is perfect, how can an angle with no free will want more than perfection?< Church and Bible teaching says that angels have free will and that Satan was once Luficer, an angel of light - also in charge of music in heaven. He was God's "second in command", but he became proud and thought he was as good as God thinking, "why should I not be worshipped as God is worshipped?". So, there was a battle in heaven, and lucifer lost, taking a third of the angels from heaven with him, who became demons. Joseph. http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies - - What's on at your local cinema? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:45:05 +1300 From: "hell" Subject: Re: Stryngs - sample tracks on web (finally) (NJC) Chri wrote: > Shameless self-promotion time once again folks. > > I'm playing bass these days in a band called "Stryngs", > along with our very own Martin Giles on guitar, and > Sarah Stringer (a.k.a Strings, not on the list, but likes > Joni anyway) on vocals. I'm a bit late on this one, having been laid low with a bad throat/chest infection, but just wanted to say how much I love what you've done so far - can't wait for the official release! Hell ___________________________________ "To have great poets, there must be great audiences too." - Walt Whitman Hell's Home Page - NEW & IMPROVED! http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hell/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:11:33 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: Re: prepare NJC PC >>I'm beginning to get worried here: am I really the only atheist on the list?? Colin, I know you're no fan of organized religion, but you believe in a higher power. I don't, or at least I'm agnostic regarding that. I wouldn't want to say that everything we see is all that exists. But I also find a belief in god (in any traditional sense) as basically superstition.<< Hi Sarah, you are not alone. I am an atheist, as is well known here, and there are many more I suspect. It's just not a thing that people come out with and say because it is generally not pertinent to the discussion per se. My atheism is unrelated to my political/religious views on Northern Ireland/Six Counties (protestant/catholic), to Palestine/Israel (muslim/jewish) and certainly not to wider political issues (right/left). All of this means that I believe my atheist views 'work' for me and I accept that other people's religious views 'work' for them. I do not have the least problem with people worshipping or believing or practicing their religion. It's their right and their lives. I suppose other possible atheists here on the list may feel like I do and not feel the need to declare their views. Maybe they'll come out and maybe they won't. No big deal either way. Sorry if you feel alone, or worried. You are not, so don't. mike in barcelona PS good to read that you propose some solutions rather than just indulging in name calling and 'you it it first', something that I am occasionally guilty of, as are some others here. I do not think all your proposals are likely to work or even logical but they may have the basis of something to work on. Thanks for sending them. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:15:32 +0200 From: Ron Greer Subject: prepare - njc - rc hi colin wrote ""The assertion that God is Love on one hand and the assertion on the hand that people who dipelase God will go to hell, is yet another example of bamboozling.""" a common basic misconception - probably caused by people who didnt listen in sunday school growing up then becoming teachers in sunday school which doesnt leave much hope for the truth lasting 47 (or howevermany) generations......:-) god does not send "bad" people to hell because they offend him. what a petty god that would be & no wonder people with this misconception dont have any time for him. people are born on the way to hell. the whole "original sin" and "fallen nature" things apply to each & every one of us. which is not to say that these people are not capable of doing good things and being good in a lot of ways. just not on a godly level. god, through jesus, gives us an "out" of this state of original sin. ron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:13:08 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: prepare - njc - rc Joseph Francis wrote: >Colin, I can see that you and I just aren't going to >agree on this, but oh, well, that's OK. >You just don't understand where I'm coming from. > >You said something about "God has to punish someone". >You are confusing forgiveness of sin with expiation of >sin. God forgives sins, yes, but there also must be a >price to pay. eg, even if a criminal is sorry, he >still has to serve his time. God is a forgiving and >merciful God, yes, but He is also a God of Justice. > >EVen writing this, I know you still won't understand. > > don't be so patronizing. I understand well. what you cannot accept is that i don't agrree with you even tho i understand what you believe. it is not logical, it is based on fear(which you do not understand or more likely refuse to acknowledge) and is very damaging to people in general. bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:17:00 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: prepare njc rc sl.m@shaw.ca wrote: > Yup, I have similar memories. I was told by parents that god was > everywhere, saw everything, knew everything. To my 4 year old mind, > that meant he was in the bathroom when I went to pee, was everywhere > in the bathroom, including in the toilet, so when I peed, he was > looking up at my bare bum. That terrified and humiliated me. Sounds > funny now, but it wasn't at the time. And there were many other > similar things I was told, all of which frightened me. I agree that > teaching children things like this is nothing short of child abuse - > particularly telling them that they've been bad, and that there's a > god - a huge, all-powerful all-seeing monster figure who will love you > if you're good, but might send you to hell if you've been bad, so you > better make sure you don't die tonight, and in case you might, you'd > better beg him to forgive you before you go to sleep. That's a > dreadful thing to say to a child. > Sarah > > > > oh you have brought back memroies of what it used to be like. I recall the nighmares and the fear such as you describe. It is such a wicked thing to do to children. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:22:39 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: prepare ye - njc rc SCJoniGuy@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 1/9/2003 9:49:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, >mitchell_list@yahoo.co.nz writes: > > > >>Now, >>if you believe (as you have said) that there is some >>kind of higher good or power (which I call God), then >>you have to believe that there is also some kind of a >>greater evil (which I call Satan, or the devil). >> >> >> > >No. False. You don't HAVE to believe that at all. > >I believe in God, but I don't believe in Hell or Satan. I think Satan is >man's creation in order to manipulate people & behavior. I believe that we >are saved through God's grace, not through good acts. In much the same way, >we are not condemned to Hell by our sins, for if we were that's where we're >all going so f*ck it let's party! :~) >Of course I also believe that everyone's relationship with or without God is >a personal issue, so again I'm not trying to make converts... > > > in agreement with the above. In a sense we all, athiests, agnostics, believers have a realtionship with god in one way or another. I believ we are 'punished' BY our sins not FOR them. what you sow you reap. An example of what I mean about being punished BY our sins. I knew a woman who was suffering deeply. The reason for her suffering was her bigotry. Her daughter she had not seen for years becasue he not only married out of her faith but also out of her race. This womans desire was to have her daughter back in the fold but minus her husband and children. To me that was the beginning of my undersatanding about being reaping what we saow and being punished by and not for our sins. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:24:16 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: prepare - njc - rc Ron Greer wrote: >hi > > >colin wrote > > ""The assertion that God is Love on one hand and the assertion on >the hand that people who dipelase God will go to hell, is yet another >example of bamboozling.""" > > >a common basic misconception - probably caused by people who didnt listen in >sunday school growing up then becoming teachers in sunday school which >doesnt leave much hope for the truth lasting 47 (or howevermany) >generations......:-) > >god does not send "bad" people to hell because they offend him. what a petty >god that would be & no wonder people with this misconception dont have any >time for him. > >people are born on the way to hell. the whole "original sin" and "fallen >nature" things apply to each & every one of us. which is not to say that >these people are not capable of doing good things and being good in a lot of >ways. just not on a godly level. > >god, through jesus, gives us an "out" of this state of original sin. > this no different at all Ron. Still speaks of a wicked God who is tyrant. If god made us, he is pleased with us. I don't belive in original sin. what a sick concept. > >ron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:27:04 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Prepare, NJC PC sl.m@shaw.ca wrote: > What Feuerbach meant was - the more we attribute to god, the less we > can attribute to ourselves. So we shouldn't attribute anything to a > god. WE are god. So I think he'd agree with you. We are capable of much more than we give ourselves credit for As soemone else said 'miracles' happen everyday. i have seen them, experienced them. I have experienced God(love) working thru people. have also experienced the opposite of Love, Fear working thru people. The former wipes out the latter if given the chance. > > > Sarah > > > Sarah wrote: > >> I believe in the maxim of Feuerbach: "For god to be everything, man >> must be nothing". > > > > Colin wrote: > I don't agree with that. I think we are God. You and me and everyone > else. If God is the ocean, we are raindrops. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:29:54 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: re:hell, jesus - njc - rc >>many popes have been criminals, and I don't care much for our current one. i pray for him, but i wouldn't move a finger to further his cause. ditto fundamentalists of any kind, including the notorious opus dei, so powerful and so harmful in argentina and many spanish speaking countries.<< ...and ESPECIALLY in Spain itself. The Pope recently beatified? canonised? the founder of Opus Dei (Escriba?) as a step on the way to making him a saint. Sorry for the lack of the precise words about what happened in Rome. Opus Dei really has a strong influence on the present government here in Spain and in public life in general, not to mention the universities. mike ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:36:51 -0000 From: "Paul Castle" Subject: Happy Music New Year to you all (NJC) Lindsay wrote: > Shawn Colvin is playing here next month, and my dear, > dear, darling Neil Finn (did I mention supremely talented?) > is coming back to town in March. and Craig wrote: >Shawn did about three songs with him. I thought this >just a one shot deal but she did the same a year later >(I was in Chicago at the time). I recently heard a live recording of Shawn and Neil singing 'What I Get Paid For' - great to hear their two very distinctive voices in harmony. PaulC NP Richard Thompson & Shawn Colvin - I Swear PS Richard T has a new studio album out next month - you can hear a couple of tracks via http://www.acrossthepondmusic.net (scroll down) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 06:56:25 EST From: AzeemAK@aol.com Subject: Re: Rufus Wainwright In a message dated 09/01/2003 15:29:48 GMT Standard Time, Harry83house@aol.com writes: > Plus, can anyone recommend any of The > McGarrigle sisters' albums. I see their names pop up in some Top 100 > Album > lists and wonder about them, but can't find them in the record shops. Were > > they ever "big" in the states? A couple of albums have already been mentioned - a particularly love the debut, while the McGarrigle Hour has the bonus of having the whole extended family on it, in various different combinations, and having a mesmerising debut (as far as I know) from Martha Wainwright called Year Of The Dragon, which is just wonderful, and makes me wonder when we'll here more from her. I'd like to put in a personal shout for Heartbeats Accelerating, which is in some ways my favourite Kate & Anna album. The voices are older and wiser and still sound lovely, the harmonies are as delectable as ever, and the songs are terrific, ending with a spine-tingling rendition of the old cowboy standard St James Hospital. Azeem in London ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:16:52 EST From: Aerchak@aol.com Subject: Painting with Words and Music I had the fortune of finding a new copy of "Painting with Words and Music" on ebay. What a shame it was never shown on American television. Anyway, it is fabulous and I highly recommend that you get a copy, not just to watch , but to keep. Joni performs a wide variety of songs. She talks, she dances, she sings, she plays guitar. And she looks absolutely beautiful! It's just wonderful. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:21:09 -0500 From: Patti Witten Subject: Re: Top cds of 2002 *lets try this again! > Hi-great list, thanks for the reminder, Alanis and Aimee Mann had great My faves: Aimee Mann. Lost in Space Beck. Sea Change Gabe Tavares. Cipher Uniit. Uniit I don't get out much :) Patti - -- Patti Witten, Acoustic-Rock http://pattiwitten.com FA, AMA, Indiegrrl, JPF, I-Town Records stream the new CD "Sycamore Tryst" http://sycamoretryst.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:25:48 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Painting with Words and Music In a message dated 1/10/2003 7:18:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, Aerchak@aol.com writes: > Anyway, it is > fabulous and I highly recommend that you get a copy, not just to watch , > but > to keep. Definite agreement from me, Andrea! I bought the video when it came out, and now I have to upgrade to the DVD as the picture and sound is SO much better! It's worth it for Joni's knitting story alone! Bob NP: The Roots ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 1980 12:32:10 -0800 From: Tara Lindsay Subject: Re : TOP CDS of 2002 NJC Happy New Year to everyone.. I listen to a lot of World Music and loved the definition I read of it here recently. I'm writing this in Heathrow during a flight delay and except for Travelogue, I don't know what my best cds of 2002 were. So I'm going to nominate the ones I have in my bag. Langley Schools Music Project This is a collection of cover versions recorded by school children in British Columbia. The sound of the eleven year old singing Desperado is very beautiful. The version of Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft is very strange indeed. 90 Degrees South - A Distant Memory Of Home This music was composed in tribute to an interesting piece of Antarctic history - an adele penguin which is on display in Cheltenham Museum. The story is that the adele penguin was brought to England as a stuffed specimen from Captain Scott's first expedition and for many years it stood on a window ledge in Shurdington Village School. The music was composed as part of a weekend of celebrations when the penguin revisited the village in June 2000. I was reading a biography of unsung explorers of the Antarctic and this cd provided me with a perfect soundtrack. Ruisort - Acapulco Now ! This is one I borrowed from one of my housemates who is a dj. It is perfect music to melt away the winter blues and bring forth images of warm Mexican beaches. Tara ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:30:10 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Top cds of 2002 *lets try this again! NJC Hi Patti, and Happy New Year! When I bought my Rachael Davis CD the other day, I FINALLY got around to picking up Sycamore Tryst. I'm hoping CDBaby does their typical excellent delivery and I get this weekend...very excited to hear it. "Land of Souvenirs" wasn't a 2002 release BUT it was one of the solid best things I heard all year. Thanks for it. Speaking of JMDLer's & songs...I have to also say that "Eyes So Bright" from Kay Ashley is the single best song I heard all last year. Bob, all aflutter about his second date with Patti! :~) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:31:34 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Re : TOP CDS of 2002 NJC In a message dated 1/10/2003 7:28:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, walkinggreen@eircom.net writes: > Langley Schools Music Project > I've read about this one Tara & it fascinates me. I'll have to go search it out...it's gotten a lot of good press. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:30:24 -0000 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Pius XII, njc Joseph wrote: > Here are some links - > > http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/nazi02.htm > > http://www.corax.org/revisionism/admissions/010904popepius.html > > http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html > > http://ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p26_Martinez.html Dear Joseph, I have read the 4 links above. The 1st one is from Newsweek magazine, hardly a reliable source to write history (see why below). The 2nd one is from a revisionist organization, as you know, those same people also claim the holocaust never happened. The 3rd one mentions Einstein's quote you reprinted. If you read it, he makes no mention of the Pope himself. There is no question that SOME christians helped jews during the war (otherwise I wouldn't be here). As the article mentions, many christians ended up in camps. For example in Dachau alone, U.S troops found 326 german priests inmates, and those were only the survivors. HOWEVER, these acts were performed by local clergy and individuals WITHOUT the official encouragement from the Vatican, in fact in disobedience of the Pope. The article also mentions Pius XI, who was anti-german, not Pius XII. The 4th link is from a Vatican press representative. She also mentions that Paul VI released the Vatican archives. However, as I wrote yesterday, those were selected archives and historians have said all along that they cannot reach a conclusion without the entire archives. She also refers to a famous historian, Saul Friedlander, as being one of the 2 sources for this negative approach. Well it just so happens I read Friedlander's book last night (until 4 a.m, then I dreamed I was at Woodstock, weird uh?). The book is entitled Pius XII and the Third Reich and was printed in 1964. Before I delve into it, I would like to say there is a huge difference between journalists and historians. Historians such as Friedlander cross-analyze documents from various sources on the same events (in this case diplomatic sources and all the Third Reich foreign ministry archives except 1 missing volume which coincides to the day with the deportation of Roman jews!). He analyzes the personality and background of the writers of the documents, to see whether those sources are credible or not. He uses entire quotes almost exclusively, so as not to take them out of context. He replaces the quotes in the original context of the events. He only retains documents which can be correlated with ones from other sources. He uses extreme intellectual rigor and expresses reservations whenever there is a possible alternate explanation. It's precisely because Friedlander cannot compare the various sources to the Vatican archives that he reaches no definitive conclusion. I see no such rigor in the writings of journalists. Reading this book makes me feel like the analysis of historical events by journalists is like having brain surgery performed by a nurse. (no offense to Sarah, she's more informed than most journalists I know). Book summary: Pius XII, before becoming Pope in 1939, was the Vatican representative in Germany from 1917 to 1929. He is also a close personal friend of 30 years with the German ambassador to the Vatican from 1920-43 (Bergen, who is the author of many documents correlated by Friedlander). Pius XII has a special affection for the German people. As a Cardinal, he often defends Germany to Pius XI. He goes out of his way to have personal relations with the Third Reich, often writin in Latin and in German, and clearly sees Hitler's regime as politically acceptable as any other. So there is indeed a special relationship between the Pope and Germany, which was not altered by the nature of the Nazi regime until 1944. Moreover, Pius XII feared the bolcheviks more than anything, and he hoped that Hitler's Germany would block USSR's advance to the west. Friedlander concludes that he cannot reach a definitive conclusion about the SILENCE of the Vatican regarding the Holocaust since he only has incomplete documents. According to the documents available, there are 4 explanations given by the Pope or his secretary of state regarding this silence: * According to Cardinal Maglione, the Pope could not condemn specific atrocities. Pius XII observed that he could not condemn german atrocities without condemning Bolchevik ones. * In his letter to Cardinal Preysing, Pius XII wrote that he wouldn't give up his reserve in order to avoid even more evils. * In his speech to the Holy College of june 43, Pius XII reiterates the same argument, and also infers that all previous steps towards the Nazis have remained useless. * German archives contain no steps from the Vatican regarding the jews, except 3 interventions from Cardinal Orsenigo. Friedlander adds that the possibility exits that some other interventions may have taken place and the archives missing. Friedlander concludes by saying that upon reading the german documents, 2 questions remain which cannot be answered without access to Vatican archives: * How can one conceive that up to the end of 1943, the Pope and the high dignitaries of the Church wished for a German victory on the east front, and thus implicitly seemed to accept the status quo of the whole Nazi extermination machinery? * How can one explain the special affection marks that Pius XII went on giving to the Germans, even in 43, when he knew the nature of the Nazi regime? So, as you can see Friedlander is a moderate (as a true historian should be). Unfortunately, I never heard of the events you related. As I said, any hiding and saving of jews have been made by LOCAL clergy, often disobeying the Vatican's orders and often sent to the camps because of their disobeying Nazis. Pius XII himself excelled by his silence on the fate of jews. Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:51:23 -0000 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Bible quotes, njc Colin wrote: > Try reading all of Numbers for starters. Yeah right, like I have the time. Please give specific examples instead of burying others in data search. > I note you still have not explained how you can justify your stance on > the rightness of Israel based on a story, rather than fact. Colin, we seem to live on 2 different planets. Everything you say I (and others) misread, I have to watch every word I say because you often misinterpret them. What seems logical and obvious to you makes no sense to me, and vice versa. Sorry but I don't have the time and patience to argue with you anymore. After 18 months of this with you, the straw finally broke the camel's back. (I may occasionally pick up on some of your posts though). You're probably a nice guy but there is a failure to communicate between us. As Joni wrote (from memory); "different sets of circumstance"'. Best wishes to you. Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:50:28 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: prepare - njc - rc WHy do you think God sent Jesus to earth to die for us? Do you believe in the Bible? OK...FYI this is my last post on this subject. As I said, my beliefs, like yours, are personal. My relationship with God, like yours, is personal. I don't intend to put them all under a microscope for debate & defense, or get bogged down in theology. My bottom line is this: My being a Christian has everything to do with how I treat others and not so much how I interpret a passage of scripture, what I think about the Bible, etc. If you've seen the brilliant Albert Brooks film "Defending Your Life", that pretty much puts an exclamation mark on the way I believe. Now, about the Bible...I don't believe it to be the "word of God" per se, but rather the word of man's relationship with God, as written and understood by men, inspired by God. (I would describe John Irving's "A Prayer For Owen Meany" in much the same way). The apostle Paul (whom Joni put to music with "Love") also wrote so much bullshit (being a man of his times) it clouds a lot of his good stuff. But he was a man, flawed as are we all. So much of the Old Testament is a total train wreck, and it bogged down the people of its era so they forgot what a true relationship with God was about and imagined it to be nothing more than obeying a series of rules in order to "qualify" for oneness with God. I've always believed that that's why Christ appeared when he did - to try and re-direct people into what a relationship with God was really about and away from the laws & prejudices of man. Now, on to the music! ;~) Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:12:17 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Bible quotes, njc Laurent Olszer wrote: >Colin wrote: > > >>Try reading all of Numbers for starters. >> >> > >Yeah right, like I have the time. Please give specific examples instead of >burying others in data search. > It is necessary to read it all rather than just a couple of lines, and also to read the other books I mentioned. It doesn't take long. But then sitting up reading something you wnat to read till 4am rather leaves you with less time for those you don't want to read I guess. > > > >>I note you still have not explained how you can justify your stance on >>the rightness of Israel based on a story, rather than fact. >> >> > >Colin, we seem to live on 2 different planets. Everything you say I (and >others) misread, I have to watch every word I say because you often >misinterpret them. What seems logical and obvious to you makes no sense to >me, and vice versa. Sorry but I don't have the time and patience to argue >with you anymore. > what a shame. I don't call it arguing. Still, it saves you having to answer my question doesn't it? good luck and I am sorry you feel the way you do. I am sure we would have got on really well if I thought the same as you do. This is a good example of how things in the world work-two sides with opposing views and one or other or both can;t handle that and then demonise the other. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:16:18 EST From: Rusty10113@aol.com Subject: Re: Top cds of 2002 *lets try this again! Hi--i love this top 10 list, but wanted some advice from such a muscially evolved commu ity... if I'm totally into Beck and Tori Amos, can anyone suggest a few artists out there who have similar little gems out there waiting to be discovered? I've seen many artists popping up on lists but as I've never heard of them, a little wary of buying anything yet.. thanks everyone! Mitch in NYC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:22:25 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Top cds of 2002 *lets try this again!njc I was put onto Dar Williams by this list. You may like. 4 albums available Mortal City Honesty Room End of Summer Green World. Inteligent lyrics, witty, sad, guitars etc End of Summer is my favourite. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:36:32 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: Painting with Words and Music The DVD is a must. The sound is incredible. I made a cd copy for myself and it is a Joni favorite. I've read comments online from some who say the sound is "muddy." I'm convinced it is because some don't know how to set the audio properly. Jerry, excited about seeing MARY GAUTHIER tonight. Pazman, do you know her? SCJoniGuy@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/10/2003 7:18:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Aerchak@aol.com writes: > > > Anyway, it is > > fabulous and I highly recommend that you get a copy, not just to watch , > > but > > to keep. > > Definite agreement from me, Andrea! I bought the video when it came out, and > now I have to upgrade to the DVD as the picture and sound is SO much better! > It's worth it for Joni's knitting story alone! > > Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:38:46 -0500 From: vince Subject: Re: prepare - njc - rc Joseph Francis wrote >The Bible >teaches that there is a Hell. > No it does not. There is no doctrine of hell that arises from the Bible. (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:02:14 -0500 From: vince Subject: Re: hell, jesus - njc - rc vince wrote: > Before you so arrogantly ask Bob if he has ever read the Bible, before > you tell us what the Bible says, have you ever read it in koine Greek? > Do you know the references that Jesus was making? Do you know the > history of translation? Do you assume that your interpretations of > what appears in English is what applies? > > Gemmorrah was a large refuse dump outside Jerusalem in which garbage > was continually burned. What do you think they did before the days of > landfills and recycling ad garbage trucks - the allusions to be cast > in the pit where worthless things were burned is not a teaching that > there is a hell, no damned way. Jesus also talked about throwing > things to the dogs. Do you suppose God has a punch of pit bulls ready > to tear people apart as a cosmic life situation? > > (the Rev) Vince > > Joseph Francis wrote: > >> Are you kidding? Have you ever read the Bible?! >> Jesus talked about Hell *a lot* >> ... >> >> About Hell: "..if you say someone is worthless, you are in danger >> of the fires of hell" - Matthew 5:22 > >> >> WHy do you think Jesus came to earth to die for us if >> there was no hell, and we would all go to heaven >> anyway? Do you know why He died for us at Easter? I am >> sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense otherwise. > All is the pity for you if Jesus is just a fire escape. There are many reason for incarnation and for atonement, far more than you apparently are aware of. That is too bad, because you miss the richness of fait by reducing it all to fire insurance. Jesus lived to teach us love and show us a new way to know God and to care for other people. Love the Lord your God - love your neighbor. nd who is my neighbor? Everyone. That's what Jesus came to teach. By the way, Jesus died on Good Friday and was raised on Easter, as we teach it. I know that was a typo on your part but since you have been flailing everyone who doesn't agree with your particular interpretations and bragging on your Bible reading as opposed to the rest of us - I must really be a pain in the ass to you huh since I have studied it far more than you at far greater levels - since you have attacked others for the mite in their eye I thought I'd point out the log in your own. Normally I never get this personal with someone on faith - whatever works for someone, let it be - but you have attacked others for not believing as you do, and for that, you have no right. The openness to humanity that Susan spoke of - a point that I was trying to make and did not do well, it seems - is what God is all about, whether we believe in God or believe in a god or believe there is none. Faith is not about agreeing with your interpretations, which are narrow and lacking in Biblical substance, in my opinion. (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:11:16 EST From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: NY Times review of Travelogue Earlier this week, Fred wrote (in reply to some other posts): > For what it's worth, John Rockwell is one of the few music critics I've > admired, and although there are things about Travelogue I enjoy I do share > many of his reservations about it, chiefly that at its worst it is bloated > and self-indulgent. > > - -Fred > > P.S. Rockwell mistakenly attributes the arrangements to Larry Klein instead > > of Vince Mendoza, and I wrote to the NYT to inform them of the error. > > Fred - I do not often read Rockwell's reviews, and I have great respect for the opinions you post here on the list (I too have reservations about T, including those you share here). However, my view of this review is that he should be fired for it (not because of the bottom line - he thought T is terrible - but because of the way the review was written). This was an atrocious piece of writing and review work. I have fallen a week behind in my posts, so this could be a horse beaten to death over the past few days. But when a friend at work forwarded the text (which I had already read once) to me after hours, I felt the urge to respond to him with my (undedited) comments interspered. I kept getting more apoplectic, until I eventually started calling him names. I mean, this is the NY Times - there should be some standards. If this review is representative of his work, I am shocked that you admire his work (not necessarily shocked that you admire his opinions, just the way he expresses them). Grossly unprofessional. Anyway, attached is my reply to my colleague (I have edited out some of the libelous vituperatives, even though I believe that I would prevail on the grounds that the truth is a perfect defense). I repeat the whole review so that my comments can be taken in context (my insertion of (?) indicates my dissatisfaction with an often pathetic choice of words - either wrong in context or 'effetely' sarcastic - how's that for a word choice ?): JONI MITCHELL'S new "Travelogue" isn't billed as a farewell, but it's hard to see it any other way. Ms. Mitchell is 58 (no - she is 59), and her once-girlish soprano is now a frail and unsteady mezzo. This personally (not to say idiosyncratically) chosen, (well of course it's personally chosen - if it is idiosycratic to his ears, I think it is because he quit on her after Hejira in 1976 and does not really know or appreciate the later work) newly arranged collection of 22 of her songs from 1966 to 1994 presumably (?) represents some sort of retrospective summa (?). Of course, it's always dangerous to presume anyone's motivations, let alone those of an artist as hermetically private as Ms. Mitchell. (It may be true that she is impervious to the criticisms of others, but she is not hermietically private - in addition to the openness of her art, she has given many interviews over the years, including the ones he refers to later in this review). But in addition to this quasi memorial to herself (Nonesuch, two CD's) (clearly, this citation belongs in line 1 of this review), she has chosen to blast the music industry in a recent interview in Rolling Stone, denouncing the business as a cesspool and MTV's vulgarity, as she sees it, as "tragic." (Of what relevance is this comment to this review) ? It does not belong here, in any event. Perhaps later, as part of his summation or commentary about the source of the problem as he sees it. But first, lay out the problem. Having now fled her longtime base of Reprise, she didn't flee too far, however, since Nonesuch is also part of AOL Time Warner. (What a god-awfully written sentence - not really even a sentence - and who cares, anyway ? By the way, I do not believe she had complete control over which label she was put under. Will one of our grammar experts please critique this sentence for the class, please ?) As a longtime admirer of Ms. Mitchell - I even lived in her Laurel Canyon neighborhood in the early 70's - (is he kidding ? does that mean they were personal friends, or that he moved there to be around her ?) I must confess that my first reaction to this new set was one of horror. Asked recently by WNYC-FM to appear on air with some emblematic examples of American music in the 20th century, I thought of her song "Amelia," which was once my prime evidence when I called her a 20th-century American Schubert. (If he once called her that, then does it not make at least some sense to try to see if her work is strong enough to stand up against an orchestral arrangement ? I think this project was a good idea, even if one thinks it failed). The song appears on Ms. Mitchell's 1976 album "Hejira," which is full of songs about flight and wandering and loneliness. "Amelia" is Amelia Earhart, the doomed aviatrix. Ms. Mitchell's words tie together place and heart and mind, myth and history, womanhood and a lost love. She starts by evoking the emptiness of the desert and the sky, six jet vapor trails "like the hexagram of the heavens, like the strings of my guitar." Her "life becomes a travelogue" - you see how central this one song is to this new retrospective travelogue of her life in song. Suddenly she's missing a lover. She equates (surely "likens' would be a better word) herself with Amelia and with Icarus, "ascending on beautiful foolish arms." "I've spent my whole life in clouds at icy altitudes," she muses. (No, she is really musing about "Maybe I've never really loved" - which immediately precedes this incompletely-quoted line - he left out the words 'in clouds"). "And looking down on everything/ I crashed into his arms." Finally she pulls in to a desert motel, showers and sleeps "on the strange pillows of my wanderlust," dreaming "of 747's/ Over geometric farms." (This strikes me as an inordinate amount of time to spend on a single cut from this album. Of the 22 songs on the album, at least half of them are considered by fans to be among her finest work - many are closing songs or title songs, for example, and she does not choose those placements casually). And not a single mention of any of the other 21 cuts ! On the original studio recording, the accompaniment is electric guitars and vibraphones, electronically sustaining Ms. Mitchell's own inimitable vocals, cool and clipped, and almost pushing this sad, intimate, conversational song along to its conclusion. Even better, really, is the live version on her album "Shadows and Light" of 1980, just as nervously forward-moving but with a guitar backing closer to her folkish roots. (this is an ignorant remark - she uses almost exactly the same guitar arrangement for her part on both records, but on the live version she has Pat Metheny coloring her work with beautiful slide work, especially at the end of the song. Hardly folk-like). The new version, indeed the entire album, comes dressed (overdressed) in orchestral /soft-jazz arrangements by Larry Klein. (If he had said classically orchestral, I would have felt better about it - some of them are quite good. However, the arrangements were done by Vincent Mendoza, not Larry Klein. Klein co-produced it, and provided some artistic direction - but the arrangements were Mendoza's by and large. I believe that Joni allowed Shorter and Hancock and probably Klein to do their own thing on their parts of the arrangements) Mr. Klein and Ms. Mitchell were married for eight years (I believe that they were married for 11 or 12 years, but I could be mistaken), and although they broke up domestically in 1994, they have continued to collaborate professionally, having now completed nine projects together. Having heard "Amelia" in its new guise, I think I called it an abomination on the radio. Now I've listened to the whole album. (Well that's nice - you are reviewing it in the New York Times, after all. Of course, being the great critic that you are, a single listening is more than sufficient to write your review. After all, the person you once described as a modern day Schubert only put 2 years of her sweat and blood into it. What a dope). One must make allowances for an artist's right to evolve (nice of him to give her a little space) and for fans' right to cling, even unfairly, to what they once loved ( I assume he is referring, unflatteringly, to himself here). And one must concede a certain winsome communicativeness in Ms. Mitchell's vocal weaknesses. (Is he saying that she is singing sort of like Sinatra, but that since Sinatra never had a voice to lose in the first place, there was never any great tragedy about that ?) But I still think this set is pretty terrible. (Well finally a sentence I cannot complain about. He states it as his opinion, and he is clear about it). Part of the problem is simple taste. I personally have little use for the kind of bloated symphonic jazz heard here. Another honest concession. On balance, this is symphonic, but not jazz (except for a couple of cuts). It is really basically 'classical' in content-does he listen to / review classical music much ? If so, I am surprised. Ms. Mitchell clearly does have a taste for it, so much so that she now chops up the urgent flow of "Amelia" for soggy orchestral ditherings between the verses. Any artist must constantly question his or her past accomplishments; to repeat oneself risks becoming a hack. To repeat oneself no doubt has risks - including being perceived as a hack. One does not become a hack doing so, however. And Joni is not repeating herself at all with this record - these are truly re-interpretations. People who put out multiple greatest hits albums and lots of concert albums, and stick with the same formula album after album, are hacks. In fairness, Ms. Mitchell has undertaken a hejira of her own over some 23 albums (depending on how you count). From folk to folk rock to jazz (or jazz folk), all with her own highly personal inventiveness, and now to this, it's been a trip that has alienated fans along the way, throwing them off the curves, as it were. But the journey has presumably (?) helped keep her fresh. (What's this with the word presumably - couldn't he have thrown in an 'ostensibly' et al along the way ?) That said, restless experimentation also suggests a quality of unwelcome to whom ? to you - or to her fans who don't want change and new art ?) self-indulgence that has always marked her music and her personality. (He calls her self-indulgent - "her personality" - I doubt that he even knows her - what an ass) When one confronts the really naove ('really' - what a breathtaking adverb - and now he is the NY Times art critic, too, having shown so many of his own paintings - oh, I forgot, his name is Rockwell :~)) paintings that proliferate (?) in the lavish booklet with which these two CD's are packaged - let alone the rudimentary "multi-media content" on the one "enhanced audio CD" - one has to wonder whether Ms. Mitchell has slid too far into her own world. (She has done the artwork on virtually every one of her previous 20 odd albums - this is an epiphany for him ?) There is usually some kind of healthy link between creator and public, or at least imagined public, a link that sustains (?) even the most private artists and helps dampen the temptation toward vanity projects like "Travelogue." (Here, he probably is at least partly right - I think she did do this as a self-tribute of sorts, hoping to show the world that her work would stand up. But she is a truly committed artist - everything she touches, she does her best on, and tries to make art without worrying about record sales. Vanity may be a component, but it is not the sole motivation behind this project, I am certain). Her early jazz experiments could be welcomed as the honorable efforts of a folk-rock singer to connect with the wider world of improvisation in jazz. (He must be referring to the series of records Hissing of summer Lawns, Hejira, Don Juan's Reckless Daughter and Mingus - with some spillover into the 80's alubums. These were not at all improvisational. And they were far, far more than honorable efforts, - they were arguably her most artistic endeavors. It took me 20 years to appreciate them. But not Charles Mingus, who asked her to collaborate with him on his deathbed project. Nor Shorter, nor Hancock, nor Pastorius, nor Metheny, nor Michael Brecker, nor Tom Scott - and the list goes on of top jazz performers who were willing to play on her records and in some cases ask her to reciprocate with an appearance on theirs. This guy is really a pompous ass). One fears that this album marks some sort of aspiration to "art" in the classical, formalized sense. (Who is 'one' - him? The one who likened her to a modern day Shubert ? How hypocritical of him to call her on aspiring to levels he himself praised her for achieving 25 years earlier !) Nonesuch is, after all, AOL Time Warner's prestige label, especially for classical music and crossover projects of a certain vanguard sort. But a self-conscious aspiration for (?) gentility (?) can kill the essence of the idioms (?) that Ms. Mitchell grew up with. ("essence of the idioms". (?) Pitiful writing. And is one supposed to end one's sentences with prepositions ?) And one does not "aspire for" something, one "aspires to" or "after". Really, he could use an English 101 refresher. That said, I agree that it was utterly unwise for Joni to have selected For the Roses as a cut on this CD - a song with the lines "I heard it in the wind last night" and "Remember the days when you used to sit and make up your tunes for love, and pour your simple sorrow to the soundhole and your knee " and "The lights go up, and it's just you up there". These lines are screaming for just the singer and her guitar - which is how she did the original. It was a blunder to add an orchestra to this theme. Similarly, she was on shaky ground with The Circle Game - although the song's lyrics are so universal that I can understand her wanting to memorialize it on this recording. A brighter tempo and a real choir for the chorus might have helped what turned out to be a poor result, IMO. And, she closed the record with TCG. Too bad. Above, I called her singing inimitable. No, you did not. Patheticcally sloppy. But of course it isn't, quite. Right now, the best live Joni Mitchell is the countertenor-falsettist-drag artist (?) (I do not think the second dash is correct - blame the editor, I suppose) John Kelly in his periodic revivals of his Joni Mitchell act, fabled in downtown Manhattan. Mr. Kelly sings Ms. Mitchell far better than she sings herself now. If you want her unadulterated, buy albums like "Ladies of the Canyon," "Blue," "Court and Spark" or "Hejira." If you want to see her in person, catch John Kelly. A fine place for a plug for a first rate drag queen, who has been doing his Phony Mitchell act for years. That said, it is a joke to compare Kelly's imitations to her originals. Rockwell's vision/version of JM cannot be caught in person any more. If this guy wants to hear a 25-20 year old Joni with a 25-30 year old voice, he will have to settle for her old records like the rest of us. That said, there is much to criticise in Travelogue - and much to praise, too. That's because there is a lot there - much more than he has addressed in this review. A truly dreadful piece of work. He should be ashamed. This review was not just a total hatchet job - it was a total hack job by a reviewer who, I must assume, is a genuine hack. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #18 **************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she? (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm)