From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #141 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 Thursday, April 1 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 141 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- RE: words we usually mispronounce njc - and pet peeves about speech ["W] What is a "wilderland"? ["Kate Bennett" ] njc pet peeves about speech ["kerry" ] Re: njc pet peeves about speech [notaro@stpt.usf.edu] Re: njc pet peeves about speech [Smurfycopy@aol.com] Re: words we usually mispronounce njc - and pet peeves about speech [Cath] RE: words we usually mispronounce njc - and pet peeves about speech [Ca] Re: njc pet peeves about speech [Catherine McKay ] Joni Covers 51 - Fifty-One is Nifty Fun! [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] wilderland ["jlobello" ] RE: wilderland ["Richard Flynn" ] bette midler on gay marriage - njc ["patrick leader" ] Re: wilderland ["jlobello" ] Re: What is a "wilderland"? [Neil Orts ] Re: Listening to Jonatha's latest CD (NJC) [Neil Orts Subject: RE: words we usually mispronounce njc - and pet peeves about speech cath!!! this is such a great retort! may i borrow it? you are EVIL. wally, loving a language thread for a change > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Catherine McKay [mailto:anima_rising@yahoo.ca] > Enviado el: Miercoles, 31 de Marzo de 2004 09:29 p.m. > Para: Wally Kairuz; Garret; joni@smoe.org > Asunto: RE: words we usually mispronounce njc - and pet peeves about > speech > > > Grrrrr, my ex- used to use "aggravating" this way: > "You're aggravating me!" and I'd reply, "You couldn't > possibly BE any worse!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:13:22 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: What is a "wilderland"? >Speaking of "Clouds",What exactly is a wilderland?< Where the wildebeasts roam? Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:37:24 -0600 From: "kerry" Subject: njc pet peeves about speech I have an ongoing conflict with a woman at work about the use of the words "verbal" and "oral." She says "verbal" should only be used when talking about written language and "oral" only for spoken language. I read something in a grammar book that said this was originally true, but it's changed over time and now, for example, a "verbal agreement" is understood to mean that it was a spoken agreement. I agree with this. To me, if you say, "That child is very verbal," it means he talks a lot. If you say he's oral, it sounds like he's sucking on everything in sight. (No comments, Murphy!) My co-workers think we're pathetic when we argue about this, but I know I'm right. ;>) Any thoughts? Kerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:46:52 -0500 (EST) From: notaro@stpt.usf.edu Subject: Re: njc pet peeves about speech Quoting kerry : > I have an ongoing conflict with a woman at work about the use of the > words > "verbal" and "oral." She says "verbal" should only be used when > talking > about written language and "oral" only for spoken language. I read > something in a grammar book that said this was originally true, but > it's > changed over time and now, for example, a "verbal agreement" is > understood > to mean that it was a spoken agreement. Not necessarily. It just means an agreement was arrived at without anything being written. I know the difference seems slight, but there is one. How? Well, a nodding of the head, or a waving of the hand, such as in an auction. As to an "oral agreement," now that I'll leave to Smurphey! Jerry, just loving this thread ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:46:40 EST From: Smurfycopy@aol.com Subject: Re: njc pet peeves about speech Kerry writes: << If you say he's oral, it sounds like he's sucking on everything in sight. >> Honey, you said a mouthful! XO, - --Smurf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:22:52 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: words we usually mispronounce njc - and pet peeves about speech --- Smurfycopy@aol.com wrote: > Cuddly Catherine writes: > > << We came to the conclusion > that, in his case, he just wanted to come right out > and say to people, "Yeah, I'm gay. Get over it. Now > let's get to work." But I agree - it shouldn't be > necessary to say it at all. >> > > I don't object to people being referred to as gay, > Catherine, just "openly > gay." It's way overused, in my opinion, when "gay" > is descriptive enough. How > about "formerly furtively gay Congressman Barney > Frank," for example? Why does > there need to be any adjective modifying "gay" at > all? I dunno, maybe it's just > me, but "openly gay" reminds me of negatives, like > "confessed killer" or > "admitted pedophile." I agree. It's unnecessary. We were just wondering why our guy decided to write his bio that way & that's all we could come up with. > By the way, Catharine, I had a lister telephone me > today and ask what's up > with us! (You and me, baby!) > They're just jealous. ===== Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We all live so close to that line, and so far from satisfaction ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:27:14 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: RE: words we usually mispronounce njc - and pet peeves about speech --- Wally Kairuz wrote: > cath!!! this is such a great retort! may i borrow > it? > you are EVIL. Be my guest. That's what I'm here for. And I have this weird feeling we've been through this whole thing before. (Deja entendu.) Ironically, or maybe not, my ex- didn't have a clue what I was talking about, which probably makes me eviller still, but it's fun, ha ha ha ha ha. ===== Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We all live so close to that line, and so far from satisfaction ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:29:42 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: njc pet peeves about speech --- kerry wrote: > I have an ongoing conflict with a woman at work > about the use of the words > "verbal" and "oral." She says "verbal" should only > be used when talking > about written language and "oral" only for spoken > language. I read > something in a grammar book that said this was > originally true, but it's > changed over time and now, for example, a "verbal > agreement" is understood > to mean that it was a spoken agreement. I agree > with this. To me, if you > say, "That child is very verbal," it means he talks > a lot. If you say he's > oral, it sounds like he's sucking on everything in > sight. (No comments, > Murphy!) > > My co-workers think we're pathetic when we argue > about this, but I know I'm > right. ;>) > > Any thoughts? > I agree with you, Kerry. So there. Tell your co-worker to put THAT in her pipe and smoke it! Also "oral" always sounds dirty, no matter what the context. LOL. We argue and talk about this stuff all the time at work, because writing is what we does. ===== Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We all live so close to that line, and so far from satisfaction ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:39:02 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Joni Covers 51 - Fifty-One is Nifty Fun! Well, March may be over, but the march of Joni covers is far from done. And April showers us with yet another original collection of recordings from folks around the world, all celebrating our favorite composer. As is my custom, first things first...thanks to these wonderful folks who contributed recordings: Russ 'Coco Nutz' Bowden Susan Moss Laurent Olszer Thierry Antoine Dennis Weston Well, let's crank up the old victrola and give it a spin, shall we? 1. Big & Little Choruses, M.H. Stanley Intermediate School - Dreamland: This is a cover of the Roger McGuinn cover, hence the glut of wah-wah guitar and the "Errol Flynn" sarong. Gotta love it. 2. Silvio Cipriani Orchestra - Both Sides Now: This one answers the musical question "what would BSN sound like if it had been used as the theme song for The Munsters?" 3. David Frizzell - A Case Of You: Another oddball. I remember David from his country duets with Dottie West, so this one really comes off as a bizarre choice for a cowboy type, but he deletes the opening verse about that sissy country Canada so he still retains his machismo. 4. Jade - Big Yellow Taxi: A late 60's pop-folk-psych version from the UK, fortunately re-released last year on cd, so I didn't have to chase it down quite as hard. 5. MPE Band - Twisted: A really fun take on the Ross-Gray classic, check out the subliminal backing vocals for bonus yucks. And all the more fun as it's never been released by the band, another Joni-cover exclusive! 6. Cris Williamson/Holly Near - The Tea Leaf Prophecy (Lay Down Your Arms): I've said a lot about this one already, I'll simply add that this cover has brought me to a deeper appreciation of the song. 7. Vince Hill - Both Sides Now: Not to be confused with Vince Gill, who's married to Amy Grant, who recorded BYT a while ago. I would have sworn this was Anthony Newley if I didn't know better. 8. Rudy Linka - California: This Polish jazz trio turns in an ace knockout instrumental of a Joni song that hasn't gotten it's fair coverage yet, probably because its so darn hard to sing. 9. Yoghill - Harry's House 10. Yoghill - The Silky Veils of Ardor: Yoghill is really a French singer/songwriter (and JMDL'er) by the name of Theirry Antoine. He is insanely talented, and sings, plays all the instruments and produced these recordings. And as you can see, he has a preference to going off the beaten path to record some of Joni's lesser-covered stuff. We'll be hearing more from him on future volumes too! 11. Patty Weaver - Both Sides Now: I like this one; Patty's got a dynamo Broadway kind of voice, and she does enough unique things with the vocal arrangement to make her take on the franchise swing. 12. The Kids Pick Singers - Big Yellow Taxi: The downside to the Counting Crows BYT is that its starting to spawn a host of these "kids" recordings of their cover. Covers of covers of covers - yikes! Hey, at least Joni's reaping the benefits. 13. Steve Lacy - Goodbye Pork Pie Hat: Steve's a soprano saxman from way back, he's into his 6th decade of recording. This is a very mellow and oh so fine live recording, a duet that also features Eric Watson playing piano. 14. Tribe - Urge For Going: This one is very pretty, the vocalist reminds me a bit of Greg Lake, his voice has that warmth to it. And the vocal is surrounded by a variety of acoustic instruments. More great Joni music from France. 15. Ed Bruce - Both Sides Now: See #3 above...Ed is a country-western guy, and he definitely puts that spin on his BSN. Make me wanna smoke a Marlboro and put on a bandana. 16. Doris Hardoon - Conversation: A lovely and very true-to-the-original version of the LOTC classic, Doris is an Asian folk artist, but you'd never know it by her vocal which is very pure sounding. She's also very easy on the eyes, but you'd never know that unless I left one of the o's out of her last name. 17. The Bates College Merimanders - Big Yellow Taxi: Yawn. C'mon you guys, it's supposed to be fun...put some pep into it! And what the hell is a Merimander anyway? Sounds too much like salamander to me. 18. Azure McCall - Hissin' Summer Lawns: Ahhh, this one's more like it. Lovely lovely hawaaian jazz, also very true to the original but when the original is so fine, that's a lofty compliment indeed. 19. Mandy Moore - Help Me: And this one's in the same category...Mandy's mssion was to introduce some great songs and great songwriters to her generation, so my hat's off to her. Hey, she did an XTC cover too. She basically sticks to Joni's version, with just a slightly updated sound. 20. Titti Breitholtz - Both Sides Now: This one's OK. I can't help but think though that if she had Doris' last name, Titti Hardoon sounds like a good name for a James Bond girl. 21. Susuma Yokota - Kodomotachi: A bonus track. I don't really count this one as a Joni cover, but it's cool in it's own right. It's an electronic-ambient thing, featuring a Japanese voice chanting "songs to aging children come" over the flowing music. Zen Joni! Well, 21 tracks is plenty, I'd better stop now so I'll have more goodies for May. If you're interested in getting a copy of this (or any) volume in what's been called (by me) the GREATEST COMPILATION IN ROCK AND ROLL HISTORY, just drop me a line and we'll work it out. Until next month, be cool and keep those Joni covers playing! Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:54:06 -0500 From: "jlobello" Subject: wilderland I guess its equals "wilderness" but sounds better in the context of the song. It drives me out of this world the way she delivers it in I think I Understand. I like that word a lot--but it may not be a word. Jono ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:21:39 -0500 From: "Richard Flynn" Subject: RE: wilderland It's definitely Tolkien. Just as Gandalf Music is Tolkien. Here's a map of Wilderland from Tolkien Depot: http://tolkiendepot.com/wilderland.shtml - -----Original Message----- From: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]On Behalf Of jlobello Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 PM To: joni@smoe.org; icnh@hotmail.com Subject: wilderland I guess its equals "wilderness" but sounds better in the context of the song. It drives me out of this world the way she delivers it in I think I Understand. I like that word a lot--but it may not be a word. Jono ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:05:27 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: bette midler on gay marriage - njc this was sent to me a couple of weeks ago, and i don't think it has been forwarded to the list. it gave me some comfort, though god knows i don't have a same-sex fiancie on tap. patrick np - golijov, passion segun san marco +++ This is a letter from Bette Midler to President Bush, which she handed it out to everyone at a recent concert. Thought you would enjoy these pearls from the divine Ms M. Dear President Bush, Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why. In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen. This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment - and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard? Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression, and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace. You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe. Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment. Bette Midler +++ "the child is so sweet, and the girls are so rapturous. isn't it lovely how artists can capture us?" 'children and art', from sondheim's 'sunday in the park with george' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:12:29 -0500 From: "jlobello" Subject: Re: wilderland Yeah Rich, she definitely likes Tolkien. I wonder if she liked the movies? jono - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Flynn" To: "jlobello" ; ; Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:21 PM Subject: RE: wilderland > It's definitely Tolkien. Just as Gandalf Music is Tolkien. > > Here's a map of Wilderland from Tolkien Depot: > > http://tolkiendepot.com/wilderland.shtml > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]On Behalf Of > jlobello > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 PM > To: joni@smoe.org; icnh@hotmail.com > Subject: wilderland > > > I guess its equals "wilderness" but sounds better in the context of the > song. > It drives me out of this world the way she delivers it in I think I > Understand. I like that word a lot--but it may not be a word. > Jono ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:21:55 -0800 (PST) From: Neil Orts Subject: Re: What is a "wilderland"? It's a wilderness that rhymes with "sinking sand." - --- anon anon wrote: > Speaking of "Clouds",What exactly is a > wilderland? > > ===== Neil Ellis Orts 713-838-1787 Houston, TX keep up with my creative endeavors--join my newsletter list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/neonews ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:12:01 -0800 (PST) From: Neil Orts Subject: Re: Listening to Jonatha's latest CD (NJC) I guess I'm finding it hard to fault the songs. Granted, I don't always understand why something is a great song and why something else is a bad song, but I'm actually liking Jonatha's lyrics on this disk. I've mentioned previously my like of the title song and "Better After All." "It Matters Now" has won me over with the couplet that goes "And I wish I could say anything to wash away today; 'Cause it won't matter when when we're old." I think the whole songs captures the recognition of a rotten day, knowing it won't matter later but right now, it really hurts. I recognize that feeling and was glad to hear someone express it. It's really hard to write happy songs and maintain any depth, but I think "Everything I Wanted" works as a happy song that isn't all sweetness and light. I'm not overly fond of "Less than Love is Nothing," but I absolutely love the lines that go, "I wish you well, I wish you might, I wish you were alone tonight." I'm not sure, in the context of the song, what she was getting at exactly, but for myself, I get the mixed feelings of wanting to be big about an ex-lover's welfare and still kind of hoping s/he were as lonely as I am. The worse thing I can say about "Sally" is that the first line is rhythmically too close to "Annie" from Ten Cent Wings. Otherwise, I find it a very nice reflection on the two paths she and her friend have taken, now that they approach middle age. Sure, Joni did it better in "Chinese Cafe," but that doesn't make this a song bad. RE: Covers, I do find the "Fire and Rain" cover most distracting due to the drums. I love the original, probably because of JT's guitar playing more than anything, and I felt it was brave to not reference that very familiar riff that opens his recording, but I don't have a problem with her performance of it, mostly just the mix. "God Only Knows" has never been a favorite of mine, but I was pleased with what Jonatha did with that vocal break that's in it. I feel like she did something that doesn't sound like the Beach Boys and I like it. And truly, "Eye in the Sky" is a completely different song in Jonatha's hands. But for the most part, I feel like something is lacking in the production of this album. I know I hate the drums in "Fire and Rain" and I love the distorted, calliope-like sounds in "Back in the Circus," but otherwise, it seems to me the production is really blah. It's like she was trying for something between her acoustic sound the very slick sound of "Steady Pull," and just came out with bland. But I don't think it's the songs fault. A lot will be revealed if/when I get to hear these songs live. I think she's phenomenal live. And if these songs sound bland on stage, then maybe I'll have to re-think what I just said. But I bet she brings them alive on tour. - -Neil really hoping she comes to Houston. - --- SCJoniGuy@aol.com wrote: > I'm a > covers junkie, but there's a > major difference between what Shawn does on her > project and what Jonatha's doing > here. Truth be told, I actually liked the covers > (jonatha's) more than I liked > her original stuff. Better material! But it's > awfully hard to breathe any new > life into warhorses like Fire & Rain & God Only > Knows. Eye In the Sky done > acoustically? I'm down with that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 02:07:01 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today's Library Links: April 1 On April 1 the following articles were published: 2003: "Exploring Joni Mitchell's heart, mind" - Washington Times (Review - Documentary) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=1072 2003: "'Heart and Mind': both sides, now" - Long Beach Press Telegram (Review - Documentary) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=1074 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:35:47 +0100 From: "Ross, Les" Subject: Re: words we usually mispronounce - and pet peeves about speech N JC In recent years i've noticed that instead of saying 'should have' or 'would have', people are saying 'should of' or 'would of'! I've even seen this in print in the newspapers and in novels. It got to the point, because I'm far from bullish about my aptitude with the english language, where I wondered if this particular corruption was 'correct'. I wondered if maybe I'd missed or 'vagued out' the english class wherein the verb 'to of' was accounted for in its usage. For a while I thought that the institution the French have to protect their language from deterioration caused by the adoption of non-french words and slang was preposterous. Thinking, "'for god's sake, language is an evolving form, culture is not static, get over yourselves!" Now I'm not so sure. On a related matter, I recently employed someone to work on a team I have here on this project. I happened to overhear the conversation he was having with someone over the phone. His words were nearly all incomplete, reduced marvellously to monosyllables, and his sentences were strung with 'know wot ah mean' and 'innit' and 'like' to the extent that little could be understood about the subject of his exchange. And this last is critical, sure it's fine if you can understand what is being said, however disloyal it may be to the finer points of language usage, but, along with all the other lazy, lowest-common-denominator concessions to which we are given or are expected to tolerate, the consequence is this grunting, idiotic and incomprehensible 'patois'. Oh, what an achievement! Les ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #141 ***************************** ------- 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)