From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #95 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 Tuesday, March 2 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 095 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Gibson's movie njc [cul ] Re: Voting njc [cul ] Re: Trivia njc [Gary Zack ] Trivia, njc ["Lama, Jim L'Hommedieu" ] RE: Watching the Oscars njc ["Kate Bennett" ] re Gibson movie njc ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: Gibson's movie njc ["Kakki" ] Today's Library Links: March 2 [ljirvin@jmdl.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:06:45 -0500 From: cul Subject: Re: Gibson's movie njc Catherine McKay wrote: I have never understood that. Just because some of the people calling for Jesus' death were Jewish, doesn't mean all of them were Jewish, nor does it mean that all of them wanted him dead, nor does it have anything to do with anyone, Jewish or otherwise, who wasn't there, in that crowd, at that time, howlin' and yowlin'. Two thousand years have passed since that time. So anyone who uses the torture and death of Jesus as an excuse for anti-Semitism is ignorant and misinformed and would in all likelihood find some other reason to hate Jews (or other group of your choice), just so they could justify their hateful stupidity. Catherine Exactly! Jews as a group are about as responsible for the death of Jesus as the majority of Americans are responsible for how Gibson presented it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:15:41 -0500 From: cul Subject: Re: Voting njc Kate Bennett wrote: >I agree with those who say it would be a monumental mistake to vote for >any third party or to not vote at all thinking the two parties are >similar... The past few years should be evidence enough of how >radically different the two parties are... The dems in power may be more >right but the repubs in power are so far right they are wrong! > >I am starting to hear some of the same arguments I heard in 2000 which >is that there is not a lot of difference between the dems & the repubs & >that 4 more years of bush might really mobilize radical change... This >thinking really scares me because things have already happened since >2000 that I never imagined would happen in this country (& I am not >talking about 9/11)... > >To say there is no difference between the parties is an insidious form >of fatalistic thinking that is not empowering & has echoes of >victimization... It does not take into account how healthy >bodies/cultures/etc take time to heal or in the reverse, become sick... >We didn't get to where we are overnight & it will take time to get back >to being a healthy society... I believe this is possible if we can >embrace change as a subtle movement rather than expect an instant >gratification of radical change... The dem party may not be perfect but >they are the only sane option we have to steer us away from the growing >tentacles of fascism that are spreading themselves into our culture.... > >It is difficult to imagine how much irreversible damage might happen if >this administration were to stay in power 4 more years... Whoever it was >that pointed out why (supreme court justices) made an important point... >To have all three branches of our government controlled by such radical >right wing interests would be the end of democracy as we know it... > >Politics is not about idealism, it is about compromise & skill & >negotiation... Idealism is the landscape of music & art, etc... I think >it is naove to expect too much too soon within the political pool at >this point in time... Maybe in the future as long as we have a future... > > >My feeling is this may be our last chance to have a government of the >people by the people or at least by a peaceful process... There are so >many rights that we have taken for granted during our lifetime that >could simply be legislated away before our very eyes if we do not stop >this tide... Like others, I have never in my lifetime felt any election >was so vitally important not just to the health of this country but to >the entire planet... Now let's just hope the voting machines are on the >up & up... > >Kate >www.katebennett.com >"bringing the melancholy world of >twilight to life almost like magic" >The All Music Guide > > > > Well, that was one of the most poignant posts I've ever seen on this list. Kudos! cul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:28:30 -0500 From: Gary Zack Subject: Re: Trivia njc It appears that Carole's first released album was "Writer" (1970) http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=1085684&cart=179159297&style=music Followed by "Tapestry" in 1971. Another cool CD is "The Carnegie Hall Concert - June 18, 1971" which is almost like a live "Tapestry" album (with a few different songs); James Taylor joins her on stage for "You've Got A Friend." This CD was released in 1996. Her voice and great piano are markedly similar to her sound on "Tapestry." 1966 sounds about right for Laura Nyro's first album on Verve, "More Than A New Discovery," then re-released simply as "Laura Nyro" on Verve and then obtained by Columbia and again renamed "The First Songs." I am fairly certain that Peter, Paul and Mary were the first artists to ever record a Laura Nyro song. The song was "And When I Die" and was recorded on their 1966 release called "Peter, Paul and Mary Album." I loved Peter, Paul and Mary and remember loving "And When I Die" and seeing the name beneath the song "Laura Nyro." I had no idea who she was at the time. I thought they did a great job on her song, and the harmonies are gorgeous. I love trivia! Best regards, Gary Detroit Catgirl wrote: >Hello, >I thiank Carole King's first LP was Rhymes and Reasons. I saw her a few years ago with her daughter and she was full of energy and very amazing. If she ever tours again, it is worth seeing her! >Debi > >David Sadowski wrote: >I think Tapestry (1971) might've been Carole King's first as a recording >artist. Before that, she had been a Brill Building songwriter going >back to the late 1950s. > >Laura Nyro recorded her first album in 1966, I believe. > >Kate Bennett wrote: > >>>there was also Carole King (who had to have preceded Joni with an LP by >>> >>> >>at least two or three years) and Laura Nyro< >> >>Pre joni I remember Janis Ian & Leslie Gore (though I don't know if she >>wrote her own songs), both are still touring.... >> >>Kate >> > >*It's all a dream, she has awoke* >Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 00:23:58 -0500 From: "Lama, Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: Trivia, njc Sorta. I mean, if you think about this topic for awhile, it means less as you go along. What I mean is, Rolling Stone magazine framed Joni, JT, & Carole King as "the next big thing" around 1969. They hinted at the time that there was more to Los Angeles than the Byrds. Who knew? :) After the Beatles, they said we had "supergroups" and "singer-songwriters". These categories are a bit artificial. They are constructs of critics. Saying she was "among the first singer-songwriters" is meaningful as a sketch of the pop culture at that moment but... It's like saying you were "among the first" in your graduation class to "discover" the diner near school. It had a history before and since! Annie Ross (and others) put lyrics to jazz before Joni did. Ms. Ross is not classified as a "singer-songwriter" by the 1969 Rolling Stone yardstick but does that matter? In a very concrete sense, she "did it" before Joni did. That doesn't make Joni disposable any more than Joni makes Natalie Merchant disposable. Was Annie Ross disposable because David Lahm's mother wrote songs before her? Nah. It's all academic, and as you said, "trivia". Interesting though. Is Dolly Parton a "singer-songwriter"? Yes in the dictionary sense. No in the "1969 Rolling Stone" lexicon. Did she write "Coat Of Many Colors" before Joni released "Song To a Seagull"? What if she did? I'm not arguing. Let me give a different example of stuff that transcends labels and categories. np (Now playing on the big stereo in my music room in Covington, Kentucky, USA): HOBO FLATS by Jimmy Smith, recorded March 1963. This album has eclectic flavors. Is it a "big band record"? Not exactly but there are arrangements. Is it "a funk record"? No, not exactly but there is a Hammond organ. Is it "a Jass record"? Well, it is not Dixieland, so in that sense it is not. But, as Joni once said about something else, "It is *WIDE* like Jazz." It is Jazz but not Jass, get it? (Can somebody please describe to me the difference between Funk and other pop music without mentioning race? Every single time somebody tries they immediately skate very, very close to using the phrase "race music". That's BS and demeaning. I suspect there's no such thing as funk if you know what I mean. There's only good stuff and bad stuff.) When Jimmy Smith has a blues harmonica soloing while a big band vamps, and he holds it together with a simmmering texture on the Hammond organ, it transcends labels. Sometimes Oliver Nelson's arrangements sound like Henri Mancini but no one ever called Mancini "race music". Classifications get in the way. All the best, Jim L'Hommedieu PS, I just put my father's birthday present in the mail: "KING PLEASURE AND ANNIE ROSS SING" and Stan Getz' "FOCUS", both on CD. Jono said, >I was talking to a female friend of mine last night I said that Joni was the first female singer-song writer in her genre, but now, when thinking about that statement, there was also Carole King (who had to have preceded Joni with an LP by at least two or three years) and Laura Nyro ( the great and sorely missed) to consider.> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:23:49 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: Watching the Oscars njc Oh darn! I missed most of it as we were driving home from san diego...well I saw the very beginning from the malibu inn & the end at home (ahhh home)... I am glad lord of the rings got all those awards as I think the movie deserved it... I still don't get the nomination or the award for lost in translation though... I think its just cuz it was made by ffc's daughter to be honest... Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:29:53 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: re Gibson movie njc >I wish it was true that assholes paid for it all themselves. It would probably clean up the world real fast. Look at that dictator guy from Chile. Killed all those people, tortured them. Lived to be 90. Martin Luther King, Jesus, and John Lennon didn't make to 40.< Well length of life isn't the whole story, neither is outside appearances (as opposed to inside torment which anyone who kills & tortures others has got to be)... Also there is the after life, karma, & other lives to consider in the bigger picture... :~} Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:28:51 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Gibson's movie njc Deb wrote: > That's what many of us were taught! But many historians say that Pontius > Pilate was a ruthless tyrant, so bloodthirsty that he was ultimately > recalled by the emperor. Many biblical scholars believe that the gospel > writers de-emphasized Pilate's role in Jesus' execution because they were > trying to placate/curry favor with the Roman rulers at the time. Of > course, many lay people (and some scholars) believe that the gospel > accounts represent literal truth, so they would dismiss my argument out of hand The way it was presented to me on the Catholic side was that Pilate's moral equivocation and weakness, when he held the ultimate power to stop it was, in many ways, worse than the frenzied mob thirsting for blood and spectacle. I never thought or was taught "the Jews killed Jesus." I think that any such simplistic, uninformed thinking misses the whole point. The darkness in the souls of the people in the crowd and their political overseers is the same darkness that can lie in the souls of everyone anywhere. Man's inhumanity to man. It's real. I haven't seen the movie - only some clips and lots of different interpretations and reactions. Without seeing it, I would agree it would not be appropriate for children. In the teachings I was exposed to, the suffering of Jesus was not de-emphasized and was presented in a fairly grave and solemn way. It can be a bit heavy for younger children. I do think it is an intergral part of the overall story, however. I don't interpret it to mean I have to feel bad or guilty but, rather, that Jesus knows how we all can be hurt and suffer and be brutalized in this life because he allowed himself to be subjected to those experiences to a horrific degree. I think that sense of empathetic knowledge that he personally knows what it is to suffer helps some people who suffer feel comforted and hopeful for healing. I am not trying to be "religious" here or say this is what anyone else should believe. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents of how I interpret some of the story. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:27:48 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today's Library Links: March 2 On March 2 the following articles were published: 1978: "Joni Mitchell Meets Don Juan's Reckless Daughter" - Circus (Review - Album) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=715 2003: "Joni Mitchell's both sides now on display" - Toronto Star (Interview) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=1058 ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #95 **************************** ------- 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)