From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #415 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Monday, December 2 2002 Volume 02 : Number 415 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Lunatics Anonymous (ns) ["W. David Barnes" ] Re: [loud-fans] Lunatics Anonymous (ns) [Carolyn Dorsey ] [loud-fans] chatting? [Phil Fleming ] RE: [loud-fans] Big Hits and Cookies (ns) ["glenn mcdonald" ] RE: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris [Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lunatics Anonymous (ns) Already lots of positives here on the iPod so I'll make this short. I dig the heck out of mine though i struggle with the size (5Gb never seems like enough and I pine away for the higher capacity model) but particularly enjoy the smart playlists and have no idea if the concept carries over to the pc version (i have the Mac version). The software keeps a rolling 25 most played songs and sometimes when I'm not sure what I want to listen to, I choose that. I am always surprised and delighted by the order and combination of songs I get from that playlist. Sort of a new loud-fans swap CD when I'm not expecting one... On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 09:51 PM, Aaron Mandel wrote: > On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Dana Paoli wrote: > >> Also, it's that time of the year, and I'm trying to decide whether to >> buy an iPod or one of its competitors. Anyone care to put in a word >> for >> or against any of the 20 gig (or bigger) mp3 players? I Mac not. > > I don't know how the Windows iPod compares to the Mac one, but I have > the > latter and am thrilled with it. The interface was just fine to begin > with > and gains a few "hey, that's neat" little details with every firmware > revision. 5 gigs is enough for most of my favorite albums plus a > rotating > cast of most of the new records I think I'll be listening to a lot; > with > 20 gigs I'd have to spend a solid weekend just loading it up to start > out... > > a ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:32:24 -0500 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] HI!!! > Richard Thompson - hmm, dunno - prominent female posters like Pam > Winters make me think that maybe there are two lists I'm on that beat > Loud-Fans, but I have no idea of the real numbers... I'd still be > willing to bet that Loud-Fans is less skewed male. Dan Sallitt and > Michael Bowen might weigh in here with their impressions... Sorry I'm late on this - been away or busy for a few weeks. I'm no longer on the Thompson list, but my impression is that the female representation there - as well as on the Gene Clark list, which I still subscribe to - is higher than on loud-fans. Of those three lists, however, loud-fans is the only "geek" list - i.e., the only one where a wide range of music is discussed regularly. And, of the geek lists I've been on, I'd guess that loud-fans has the most women. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:59:18 -0500 From: Carolyn Dorsey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Lunatics Anonymous (ns) Another nice thing about the ipod is that if you have a tape player in your car, you can hook it up to play through the speakers in your car. Put in one of those fake tape things that have an electronic strip in them instead of a tape. Very nice for road trips without all the extra cds and tapes. The tape player has to be the kind that doesn't completely swallow your tape. My tape player takes the tapes in sideways and it works just fine. You have to get this adapter thing that attaches to the fake cassette you put in. But you have to remember to turn off both devices when you leave the car, and there will be 2 sets of volume control. Carolyn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 15:54:20 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris The thing about Asians being dopey for sticking to chopsticks after being shown forks is my favorite kind of ignorant joke, the one that's almost certainly funnier to the people it's intended to insult. The fork is a fairly clever invention, since it's capable of both spearing *and* some rudimentary scooping, but chopsticks are *opposable*, which makes them rather more capable as tools. A culture's dishes are prepared with its eating utensils in mind, of course, so Belgian waffles and whole chicken-fried steaks definitely require some hacking-apart for which chopsticks are badly ill-suited, but I think one might very reasonably contend that in this kind of cooking the chef has not completed the process of preparing the food to be eaten gracefully. At any rate, if you pick the most effective eating tool for each meal at hand, independent of culture, I think you'll find that chopsticks are better than the alternatives for quite a lot of non-Asian food. As for sushi, I've read lots of authoritative-seeming dicta about how it's "supposed" to be eaten, at least half of it contradictory. One source contends that you should never add wasabi to anything, since administering the proper amount of wasabi is the chef's job, but neglects to explain why the chef personally presents you with an extra lump of the stuff if it isn't supposed to be used for anything. Another stridently insists that *only* the fish should be dipped in soy sauce, never the rice, but fails glaringly to say how this idea could be extended to maki, where you're going to be dipping some amount of rice no matter what approach-angle you employ, not to mention any nigiri served with any kind of scattered topping on it. One source claims that only a westerner would eat sushi with utensils at all, but another insists that Japanese diners never need napkins, which two ideas appear to have irreconcilable differences on the subject of eel, at least. I think, in the end, that unless you are trying to *pass* for Japanese, there's not much reason to be overly concerned with these things. I draw the line at attacking sushi with knives and forks, which simply seems inappropriately violent, but pretty much anything else goes. Oh, except for the patently preposterous tactic of putting the slices of ginger *on* the pieces of fish, as if it's a topping rather than a palate-cleanser, which ought to be grounds for evicting the offender from the whole cuisine. I have no iPod experience to share, but it looks like I'll be getting a 20GB model from myself for Christmas this year. Along with a PowerBook to run it. Titanium, yum. In unrelated news, I went to see Solaris last night, and I recommend getting out to see it as soon as possible, before the ill-informed initial crowds are gone. Not only did I like the movie a *lot*, but my enjoyment was markedly enhanced by the steady stream of other people getting up and walking out, starting about 20 minutes in. glenn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:51:28 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris At Sunday 12/1/2002 03:54 PM -0500, glenn mcdonald wrote: >In unrelated news, I went to see Solaris last night, and I recommend >getting out to see it as soon as possible, before the ill-informed >initial crowds are gone. Not only did I like the movie a *lot*, but my >enjoyment was markedly enhanced by the steady stream of other people >getting up and walking out, starting about 20 minutes in. Allow me a dissenting opinion. I just got back from SOLARIS myself. (Note: No one walked out of the showing I saw, though two people did come in a half hour in, stay for 20 minutes or so, and then leave. So that may have affected my enjoyment.) Though the movie had interesting ideas and style, I felt it was pretty vacant overall. Supposedly there exists a longer cut. I have mixed feelings about that. I don't know if I could stay awake for it, but maybe it would add more heft to the whole thing. I just didn't get a good sense of who these people were, what they were doing, why this was happening to them, and why I should care. Things I wanted to shout at the screen: To Jeremy Davies, whom I just watched in CQ, where I had the same opinion of him: "Stop gesturing and talk like a normal person, you freak!!" To Natasha McElhone: "Knock it off with the puppy dog eyes!!" To all characters: "Stop WHISPERING!!" And on the sushi front, I tried the fingers method the other day, and it didn't work out all that well for me. I kept having to lick sticky rice off my fingers. And I still wasn't able to eat a piece in two bites - maybe my teeth aren't made for biting through fish or something. I may stick to chopsticks. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:08:52 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re:Re: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris And on the sushi front, I tried the fingers method the other day, and it didn't work out all that well for me. I kept having to lick sticky rice off my fingers. And I still wasn't able to eat a piece in two bites - maybe my teeth aren't made for biting through fish or something. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You might want to try to find a better sushi place. Possibly. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 14:32:30 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Toren Subject: [loud-fans] 'They'_ late, redundant Scott show review Saw Carpenter's 'They' last night, not a very good film of course, but... Scared me pretty good_ The Ring had more clever, spooky ideas, but 'They' drove old ideas right into my memories of nightmares_ Later, in bed, I tried not to remember certain scenes, and today, while hiking a lovely california morning trail, I was looking deeply into shadowy bushes and wondering what might be around the next hill... So, uh_ if you like a scare... <:-0 btw_ below are comments I sent to Gil re: Scott's Aimee Mann opening gig_ Best, RT > scott was real good! > stood there alone in the white spotlights > (backgrounded with all aimee's band equipment) > surrounded by about three of his guitars (and a > metal > sheet on stand on which he dropped several marbles > during don't respond she can tell) > half of the almost full house was still hanging in > the lobby, but the floor looked full, the balcony about > 1/3 full, and they mostly paid attention and > applauded and almost gave him an encore > he was in good voice and well-rehearsed, confident, > no major errors_ and the song choice seemed to > emphasize catchy repeated phrases (throwing the > election, don't respond) > he was real impressive, i must say > about 5 songs into aimee's set she thanked scott > (who > was offstage), talked about their project for a > minute > or two, and ended with "because he's great" > wouldn't want to get my hopes up, but riding > aimee's > rocket looks like a pretty damned good place for him > to be right now > i had binoculars - he was wearing black tailored > jacket and looked real good_ made a few witty > remarks, > etc > hmp! ===== "Monotheistic religion has always brought out the best in us humans; thank you so much for the idea of a vengeful supernatural entity who rewards people in the afterlife! That shit makes a lot of sense!"http://www.mnftiu.cc/ Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:50:23 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, glenn mcdonald wrote: > In unrelated news, I went to see Solaris last night, and I recommend > getting out to see it as soon as possible, before the ill-informed > initial crowds are gone. I just saw it (in a theater with 10 people, half of whom I came with -- so, no walking-out action) and I thought it was a mess. I'll leave some blank space before I elaborate... 1) There was too much left out in the storytelling. I like ellipsis, I like filling things in myself... but many scenes left me a little confused about what was happening. The tension in the first few scenes on the station was more from lack of information than anything else -- Kelvin presumably knew how many people had been in the crew and how long they'd been up there, but we didn't, and so his initial unhelpful conversation with Snow had almost no context for the viewer. And do Snow and Gordon talk to him about what's going on after it starts happening to him? We don't see Kelvin having any contact with his shipmates between Rheya's first appearance and the scene with all four of them around the table, but they act like there were antecedent conversations. Grrrrr. I hear that it was heavily cut for release, but I don't know if the material I'm looking for is what was cut. 2) Kelvin's relationship with Rheya seems to have been awful from the beginning. It would have worked narratively if it were good/rewarding/loving but flawed, even deeply flawed -- and I suppose one could extend a substantial benefit of the doubt to Soderbergh and assume that the real relationship was better than Kelvin remembers it because Kelvin is a little bit of a selfish asshole. But I've seen too many movies where the kind of infatuation Kelvin and Rheya had is presented as True Love, and where the kind of mistrust and conflict they had is just Proof that they Really Love Each Other but Don't Know How To Show It. This really seemed like shorthand for one of those relationships. Those two things sort of wrecked it for me. The premise, considered as hard sci-fi, had promise, but it barely got explored (except in a few heavy-handed moments like the "what is God?" conversation in flashback)... Clooney mooning over a lost love that he either never deserved or never even HAD occluded both the question of what was really happening with Solaris and the related questions of what had happened to all the rest of the crew. I found Jeremy Davies irritating at first, but he did turn out to more than a collection of tics. Still kind of think he belongs in a biopic about Conor Oberst, the guy from Bright Eyes. In the end I suspect that the way I felt about it was how some people felt about Punch-Drunk Love -- the main character was a caricature (or an expressionist distillation, if you prefer) of a particular kind of unhealthy dead-end thinking (or of a universal human failing). Bizarre events (or an imaginative plot) turn his emotional crippledom into a kind of transcendence while the director heaps on manipulative and emptily portentous (or expressive and thought-provoking) sensory experiences for the viewer. Except I think Punch-Drunk Love worked. a ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:29:21 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris > I'll leave some blank space before I elaborate... And before I respond... I agree that much was left out, but I guess I thought the style, especially visually, established that this was going to be that sort of movie, so it didn't bother me. If you're going to do a plot movie, you don't, for example, point the camera away from your characters while they're talking, or leave their faces out of focus or light when their expressions would be informative. I didn't experience the station-arrival scene as suspense at all, for example, so it didn't even occur to me to wonder how many people were on board. It didn't feel to me like the kind of movie where the viewer had to be concerned about surprises or try to think ahead. The plot lacunae all seemed perfectly in-character to me. I didn't have any wants of my own for the characters, and in particular *didn't* feel like the film required me to sympathize with them or want the couple to be together or apart. I didn't take anybody as emotional cripples, and didn't think anything was presented as transcendence! Nor did I take it seriously as science fiction at all. In a way I thought it amounted to a Star Trek episode done by grown-ups. It seemed to me like a film that had chosen to linger on a few moments, according to some hidden logic, rather than try to rush through *all* the moments. Maybe we're saying essentially the same things, but I don't know whether that means you just don't like that sort of thing, or that I was fortunate to be watching in a mode for which the film was better suited. Or that our enjoyments differed for some other reason. And _Punch Drunk Love_ seems like such an elementally different kind of movie that I don't know how I'd even begin comparing them. glenn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:46:38 -0500 From: Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] Big Hits and Cookies (ns) One of our own should congratulate himself for kicking off the movement to destroy the distinction between two homophones. It might be coincidence, but rock critics are an insular bunch, and my instincts tell me that a certain rock critic's influence is beginning to show up in subtle ways. From this week's Time Out, and I quote: "When [Ben] Folds and his new band played Town Hall last fall, he introduced the song by announcing that he wrote it specifically to get a hit...and it didn't work! The singer's absence from the airwaves did not seem to phase his crowd..." - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:54:58 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Fleming Subject: [loud-fans] chatting? irc.eskimo.com #loudfans I'm there...and...hopefully you! Phil F. Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:33:50 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Big Hits and Cookies (ns) > One of our own should congratulate himself[:] "...did not seem to phase his crowd..." A flattering thought, but I very much doubt this has anything to do with me, and in any case I'm not *advocating* substituting "phase" for "faze", it's just a mistake I make regularly. It's just too easy to imagine that when you disconcert someone you throw them out of phase, and thus that "phase" has a "faze" meaning... glenn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:41:17 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: RE: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, glenn mcdonald wrote: > > I'll leave some blank space before I elaborate... > > And before I respond... > If you're going to do a plot movie, you don't, for example, point the > camera away from your characters while they're talking, or leave their > faces out of focus or light when their expressions would be informative. Hm. That's true. I felt like the gaps and blurrinesses were so pervasive that I didn't think they could all have been intentional. There were several bits of information that I only understood a while after they were presented, like the fact that the red pills were uppers or, geez, even that Solaris was the enormous natural object as opposed to the space station. You might look at either of those and think I'm just off my feed today, but this was happening CONSTANTLY. The visual language didn't work for me. This also happened a lot with the passage of time. The way the scene with him sending the first Rheya away in an escape pod was edited I first thought it was supposed to be a montage of several disconnected incidents (him showing her around the whole station) and then thought it was a dream. It doesn't seem like either of these effects would have been intentional. If anything, it seemed during individual scenes like life on the station was super-concrete, with the visitors' existence seeming unarguable and Gordon's antipathy toward them reachable only through an absolute resoluteness of thought and maybe a little heartlessness. But the construction of the movie conflicted with that, I thought. > It didn't feel to me like the kind of movie where the viewer had to be > concerned about surprises or try to think ahead. But we didn't even know (while it was happening) whether Kelvin's first conversation with Snow was Kelvin's only chance of finding out what had happened, or if Snow was just the first person out of a dozen that Kelvin ran into. We didn't know if Snow's weird demeanor was the sequel to him losing half his shipmates or if he was nonplussed because he didn't much care. And yet I knew that Kelvin knew these things, but I couldn't read the answers to these questions on Clooney's face. A vague conversation in a clear context, or vice versa, would have suited me fine, I think; this way, I was at a loss. > I didn't take anybody as emotional cripples, and didn't think anything > was presented as transcendence! Not even the scene of the kid reaching his hand out to Kelvin as the ship was consumed? I'm curious how you took that. > It seemed to me like a film that had chosen to linger on a few moments, > according to some hidden logic, rather than try to rush through *all* > the moments. While to me, it felt like they'd made a really long, methodical movie that lingered over everything, and then out of frustration started dropping entire scenes. > Maybe we're saying essentially the same things, but I don't > know whether that means you just don't like that sort of thing, I can't remember if you've seen Chungking Express and Fallen Angels, but those are the first movies that come to mind for me as fitting the description you're giving of Solaris but which I liked (and which in particular felt spare, not gappy). > And _Punch Drunk Love_ seems like such an elementally different kind of > movie that I don't know how I'd even begin comparing them. I wouldn't normally, but the criticisms I'd heard of it just leapt to mind as I was leaving the theater today. On the other hand, I did watch two movies today, Solaris second, and I almost never do that. The first one was Following, which was sort of Memento-lite in its content but which I really liked. I came home from Solaris and watched it again with Nolan's commentary and found that my few gripes with it were things he'd been trying to minimize anyway, so I felt pretty positive about the movie. a ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:52:19 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris I think this is now vague enough to do away with the spoiler space. > I'm curious how you took that. Surrender, if anything. But I'm definitely not sure yet what I think (or make) of the last few minutes. > to me, it felt like they'd made a really long, methodical movie that > lingered over everything, and then out of frustration started dropping > entire scenes. Could be. I'm sure we'll find out on the DVD. > Chungking Express and Fallen Angels Haven't seen either, but _Chunging Express_ is up soon. glenn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:08:01 -0500 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] chatting? As seems to have become the norm, actual conversation started taking place about 10 EST. The last three lines, for example: Hmmmm.... Have either of you seen FAR FROM HEAVEN yet? no Don't miss out! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:32:27 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: RE: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris At Sunday 12/1/2002 09:41 PM -0500, Aaron Mandel wrote: >While to me, it felt like they'd made a really long, methodical movie that >lingered over everything, and then out of frustration started dropping >entire scenes. That's exactly what it seemed like to me, though I didn't realize it at the time. Thanks for crystallizing my thoughts for me. Anyone seen the new one and the 1972 version, and wish to compare them? Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:40:09 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: RE: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Roger Winston wrote: > Anyone seen the new one and the 1972 version, and wish to compare them? The plot summary on IMDB made it sound almost completely different. Was this based on that, or were they both just based on the same book. a ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 22:44:48 -0500 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris > The plot summary on IMDB made it sound almost completely different. Was > this based on that, or were they both just based on the same book. Nah, the two movies are pretty close in their basic plot lines. I don't know the book, but apparently Soderbergh drew on both the book and the Tarkovsky movie for material. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: 01 Dec 2002 22:45:58 -0500 From: Dan Schmidt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris Aaron Mandel writes: | While to me, it felt like they'd made a really long, methodical | movie that lingered over everything, and then out of frustration | started dropping entire scenes. If you like long and methodical, you might enjoy the Tarkovsky film better. I've only managed to get around two-thirds through it so far, myself. (I enjoyed it overall, though my opinions are closer to Aaron's than Glenn's.) Dan - -- http://www.dfan.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:54:42 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Quoting Dana Paoli : > --dana, now in posession of my Word Police diploma: > > www.theatlantic.com/unbound/wordpolice/nine/ They have, however, notified the Spelling Police about you. I refused to proceed further than the first question (about the pronunciation of "painter") on the grounds that people who overenunciate the extent of clearly pronouncing the "t" in "painter" (as opposed to making it more or less a glottal stop, distinguishing it from "painer" as such) sound like idiots, and probably are, and are probably the same folks who think the second syllable of the word "mountain" ought to be sung to rhyme with "rain," even though the word has probably never been pronounced such in any dialect of English. Hmmph. There was a public radio DJ locally who enunciated like that: his first name was "Peter," and it was deeply weird to hear him say it with a very pronounced "t" sound, unlike the halfway-glided "d" that everyone else speaking English uses. (Actually, if you normally turn the last syllable into more or less "-ah" - that is, if you speak a particular variety of British English - then you may well hammer that "t" in a more clearly "t"-like manner. But otherwise....not.) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: Californians invented the concept of the life-style. :: This alone warrants their doom. :: --Don DeLillo, _White Noise_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 22:31:17 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris At Sunday 12/1/2002 10:44 PM -0500, Dan Sallitt wrote: >Nah, the two movies are pretty close in their basic plot lines. I don't >know the book, but apparently Soderbergh drew on both the book and the >Tarkovsky movie for material. - Dan The credits mention only the book. I've never heard Soderbergh say anything about getting any material from the first movie. One reviewer (who likes both filmed versions) I read said that the book contains long digressions on the physics of the planet and such, and "Thank God neither Soderbergh or Tarkovsky went that route" (paraphrased). Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:02:09 -0800 From: Tim Walters Subject: Re: [loud-fans] chopsticks, sushi, iPods, Solaris I haven't seen the new one yet--don't know if I will--but I saw the Tarkovsky film back in the mid-Eighties (around the first time I encountered somebody using "phase" for "faze"), in some sort of "restored version." As far as I could tell, that meant flinging every bit of footage in that they could find, including some that was dubbed rather than subtitled like the rest of the film. Possibly because of this meddling, I thought it dragged, but the plot was clear enough. I'd already read the book, though. I like the other Tarkovsky films I've seen better (especially STALKER, which is up there with 2001 and LA JETEE as one of my favorite SF films). I'm a bit afraid to see the new one--my fear is that it will bear the same relation to the Tarkovsky version as TWELVE MONKEYS did to LA JETEE. - -- Free Exquisite Music : The Doubtful Palace : http://www.doubtfulpalace.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #415 *******************************