From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #102 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 Tuesday, April 8 2003 Volume 03 : Number 102 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Dana Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Dana Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Holly Golightly? KO & The Knockouts [Wes_Vokes@eFunds.Co] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Aaron Mandel ] Re:Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Dana Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Dan Sallitt ] Re:Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Stewart Mason ] Re:Re:Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Dana Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Dave Walker ] [loud-fans] Mmmm, Beef Heart [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Dan Sallitt ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [John Cooper ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) ["John Swartzentruber" ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) ["G. Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) [Michael Mitton ] [loud-fans] Big Shot side 2 [Gil Ray ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:17:03 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) Of course, you need to contribute to your PBS station: otherwise, that's stealing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure what it is about copyright law that reduces otherwise intelligent people to arguing petulantly against straw men, e.g.: > (I note that eMusic does not include headphones with their subscription, > so presumably Rose and our cats are already guilty of listening to > pirated music, and I'm already a criminal in eMusic's eyes. but just for the record, it's perfectly legal to watch PBS without contributing. Ever so slightly tacky? Possibly, but really it's up to the individual to decide. Anyway, thanks for mentioning the DVD, Roger. I didn't know about that. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:27:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Dana Paoli wrote: > but just for the record, it's perfectly legal to watch PBS without > contributing. Some network exec (at ABC?) did say it was a breach of contract to ignore ads on TV, though, including, presumably, fundraising ads on PBS. As much as it would be invalid to puncture that argument and claim that everything Big Media says about copyright is false, the "blinkwrap" theory of contract is the kind of thing that scares people because the networks and the studios and the labels have a habit of getting their way when it comes to interpreting the law, and if they don't want people peeing during ads, you can bet they'll jump on the first idea for stopping people that's more practicable (not "more reasonable") than claiming the viewers have effectively signed a contract to watch ads. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:01:25 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) Some network exec (at ABC?) did say it was a breach of contract to ignore ads on TV, though, including, presumably, fundraising ads on PBS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a larger presumption than I'm willing to presume. I don't believe that PBS has ever stated any intent to make it illegal to watch without contributing. If Stewart wants to find someone to argue that it's stealing he'll have to keep looking. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:16:41 -0500 From: Wes_Vokes@eFunds.Com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Holly Golightly? KO & The Knockouts "I Just Don't Know What to do With Myself"... I like it.. It may be in too high of a key for Jack's voice, so there is some caterwauling, but they make nice use of dynamics... More Dusty than Elvis Roger Winston > cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Holly Golightly? KO & The Knockouts owner-loud-fans@s moe.org 04/04/03 08:25 PM At Friday 4/4/2003 12:07 PM -0600, Wes_Vokes@eFunds.Com wrote: >I think the new White Stripes is fab, by the way. I mean, Bachrach cover, >Meg lead vocal, "Ceque Alley"-esque duet with Holly Golightly... What more >could you want, except a bass player.... What Bacharach song do they cover? Is it decent? Scott Miller, in case you're listening... Happy 43rd Birthday!! Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:06:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Dana Paoli wrote: > Some network exec (at ABC?) did say it was a breach of contract to > ignore ads on TV, though, including, presumably, fundraising ads on PBS. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > That's a larger presumption than I'm willing to presume. > I don't believe that PBS has ever stated any intent to make it illegal > to watch without contributing. If ABC gets a law passed (or wins a court case, etc.) it affects everyone. Would PBS do the right thing and declare that their viewers are bound by no such implied contract even while they continue to hit those viewers up for money? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. I don't see any publishers rushing to release into the public domain works that would have left copyright by now had the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act not passed. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:27:51 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: Re:Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) If ABC gets a law passed (or wins a court case, etc.) it affects everyone. Would PBS do the right thing and declare that their viewers are bound by no such implied contract even while they continue to hit those viewers up for money? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. I don't see any publishers rushing to release into the public domain works that would have left copyright by now had the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act not passed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to say that the above isn't possible (no one can possibly predict what laws will/won't be passed in the future), but I think you're getting awfully speculative in defense of what was, ultimately, a kind of baseless snarky comment of Stewart's. Just to recap: it's legal to watch PBS without contributing. It's legal to play emusic for your wife and cats. It's illegal to violate copyright law. Still don't undestand what's so difficult about this. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:32:14 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) > If ABC gets a law passed (or wins a court case, etc.) it affects everyone. Has any such law (to make it a breach of contract not to watch commercials) been seriously considered? Is anyone trying to pass it? It's hard for me to believe. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:38:47 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re:Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) At 04:27 PM 4/7/2003 GMT, Dana Paoli wrote: >Just to recap: it's legal to watch PBS without contributing. It's >legal to play emusic for your wife and cats. It's illegal to violate >copyright law. Still don't undestand what's so difficult about this. It's not difficult at all. However, the Rumsfeldian level of humorlessness with which you treat the topic is, in itself, a hoot. Perhaps not a hoot and a half, but at least a hoot and one-quarter. The fact that you think I'm all in favor of violations of copyright law, when in fact I agree with you on the subject, is something I find endlessly amusing. S ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:10:31 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: Re:Re:Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) It's not difficult at all. However, the Rumsfeldian level of humorlessness with which you treat the topic is, in itself, a hoot. Perhaps not a hoot and a half, but at least a hoot and one-quarter. The fact that you think I'm all in favor of violations of copyright law, when in fact I agree with you on the subject, is something I find endlessly amusing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hate to be so blunt, but the "Stealing PBS" thing just wasn't particularly funny, didn't make any interesting points, and was slightly hostile. I'll assume that you're just having a bad day. It happens to us all. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:15:32 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) Dan Sallitt on 4/7/2003 10:32:14 AM wrote: > Has any such law (to make it a breach of contract not to watch > commercials) been seriously considered? Is anyone trying to pass it? > It's hard for me to believe. - Dan I believe what people were referencing is the comments Jamie Kellner (head of Turner Broadcasting) made several months ago that TiVo users who are skipping commercials are doing so (in his opinion) illegally. Needless to say, no one really agreed with him. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:16:59 -0400 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 02:15 PM, Roger Winston wrote: > I believe what people were referencing is the comments Jamie Kellner > (head of Turner Broadcasting) made several months ago that TiVo users > who are skipping commercials are doing so (in his opinion) illegally. > Needless to say, no one really agreed with him. The funniest thing was FCC Chairman Michael Powell talking about how much he loves his TiVo: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,57505,00.html -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:18:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: [loud-fans] Mmmm, Beef Heart I don't know that we needed any more commentary on Captain Beefheart, but since the commentary is from Matt Groening: http://tinyurl.com/909w From the UK Guardian. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:23:56 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Dan Sallitt wrote: > > If ABC gets a law passed (or wins a court case, etc.) it affects everyone. > > Has any such law (to make it a breach of contract not to watch > commercials) been seriously considered? Is anyone trying to pass it? > It's hard for me to believe. - Dan IIRC this was a joke. It was posted to pho (the music biz/tech/law mailing list) and a buncha folks missed the fact that the date on purported wire release was from 2008 or some such. i've been trawling through a zillion e-mails trying to figure out if this alleged story about the RIAA suing four students for 38.7 billion dollars of copyright infringement is an april fool's joke, but so far, that one seems to be in earnest. so i downloaded approximately 20 records by "mr t. experience" and by golly if they don't seem to have a ton of brilliant songs. i'm inclined to purchase somehting physical so dr. frank and the gang get some undiscounted points against their recoupment bills. i'm happy to take recommendations on which specific records are most worthy, 'specially anything super great that's not on e-music. i can't imagine that anybody around here would actually like it, but if anybody is craving some well-recorded intelligent hardcore that doesn't sound like all the hardcore records you already have, you could sure do worse than pg.99's "document 8" what was that thing that wsnt the new mcswy's? should i have heard of it? my object so sublime i will achieve in time to let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime - -- d. np ted leo/faskbacks/mr t. experience ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:32:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, dmw wrote: > IIRC this was a joke. I don't think it is. I searched for "kellner commercials" and the many reputable-looking sites that turned up said nothing about it being a hoax. One even described a follow-up interview: http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/3652830.htm a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:27:24 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) > I don't think it is. I searched for "kellner commercials" and the many > reputable-looking sites that turned up said nothing about it being a hoax. > One even described a follow-up interview: > > http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/3652830.htm Well, the fellow dismisses his "stealing" comment as having not been serious. Mostly he talks about how advertisers might react if new technologies lead to people not watching commercials, which is a legitimate avenue of speculation. The implicit threat seems to be that free TV might become pay TV, not that legislation will be enacted against commercial-skipping. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 15:51:15 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) At 10:54 PM 4/6/2003 -0700, Roger Winston wrote: >At Monday 4/7/2003 03:58 AM +0000, Dana Paoli wrote: > >>And lastly, I'm wishing that there was some cheap way to get the BBC >>station for one hour on Sunday nights, in order to watch Coupling, so we >>wouldn't have to bother our friend Justine every week. > >The first season of Coupling is out on DVD. Even though I have BBC America >on my satellite, the only way I've seen the show is from the DVD. I like >to watch things in order (especially important with a show like Coupling), >so I'll probably just watch the DVDs as they come out instead of risking >tuning in and seeing something from the third season or whatever. Let me re-add my endorsement of COUPLING (I think I was actually first, for once, on a Loud-Fan endorsement, though it was simply implied through my regular viewership of it -- see ). It's everything you wish FRIENDS actually was, it's as delightfully risque as SEX AND THE CITY pretends to be, and it's far more funny and original than those comparisons might lead you to believe. COUPLING's third season is cycling through a second or third time on BBC America; there should be at least a fourth series. Rog, I'm sure BBC America will do an every-episode marathon before the DVD releases catch up... I wonder if in all the inevitable FRIENDS retrospective articles that we'll see in 2003-2004, how many people will even bother to note that it was one of a horde of SEINFELD variants that debuted in 1994 after the former show's rise to megahit status in '93-'94? I feel 99% sure that its creators pitched it to execs as "like FRIENDS, only with twentysomethings..." later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:57:16 -0700 From: John Cooper Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) > From: Dan Sallitt > > The implicit threat seems to be that > free TV might become pay TV, not that legislation will be enacted > against commercial-skipping. - Dan Fine with me! I would gladly pay $6 a month for the two channels I watch regularly than the $40 I now pay for fifty-some mostly unused channels. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:59:15 -0400 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 15:51:15 -0500, Miles Goosens wrote: >I feel 99% sure that its creators pitched it to execs as "like FRIENDS, only with twentysomethings..." Nah, that would have been too prescient. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:02:55 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] before we go any further let's be I said: >I wonder if in all the inevitable FRIENDS retrospective articles that we'll >see in 2003-2004, how many people will even bother to note that it was one >of a horde of SEINFELD variants that debuted in 1994 after the former show's >rise to megahit status in '93-'94? I feel 99% sure that its creators >pitched it to execs as "like FRIENDS, only with twentysomethings..." Which would make no sense. "Like SEINFELD, only with twentysomethings," of course. Hey, it's not every weekend I spend driving to and from West Virginia in the space of 48 hours. Or if it became the norm, I hope I'd be living closer than 400 miles away. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 17:10:12 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) Aaron Mandel wrote: >If ABC gets a law passed (or wins a court case, etc.) it affects everyone. >Would PBS do the right thing and declare that their viewers are bound by >no such implied contract even while they continue to hit those viewers up >for money? > And even if the fundraising solicitation segments themselves were not affected, how about the "ads" now ubiquitous on PBS programming, advertising their corporate sponsors? I find it rather disgusting how PBS was "ad free" for so long, and would only run a list of sponsors or a brief mention before a program, and now they all have little mini ads. Naming a company isn't enough anymore; now we get a visual, a blurb about what they make, and how it makes our lives so much more wonderful. If that's not an ad, I don't know what is. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:23:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) > Mostly he talks about how advertisers might react if new > technologies lead to people not watching commercials, which is a > legitimate avenue of speculation. The implicit threat seems to be that > free TV might become pay TV, not that legislation will be enacted > against commercial-skipping. One alternate scenario, with "American Idol" as the trail-blazer: products and product name-checks woven into the flow of the show, thus theoretically negating any possibility of forwarding through them. I said "American Idol," but THE TRUMAN SHOW beat it by four years eh? Got mashed potato got mashed potato got mashed potato (you're with me this far I figure you can guess the punchline) Andy DL: How are you doing? Nice to meet you sir. DVV: How are you? Nice to meet you too. DL: Thank you very much. Have a seat there, if you will. DVV: Thank you. DL: You brought a little refreshment along? DVV Just water, just water. [brings Perrier bottle out of paper bag] DL: Would you like a glass for that? DVV: No, but the war is a pimple on a puffed up dragon, you know...What did I mean? DL: No, that's all right...you go ahead... [DVV sips from bottle. laughter] DL: uh...before you came out, I was looking at your album. Let me ask you one question about this gentleman here on the back. A picture, obviously of a guy who performed on the album, Richard "Midnight - Hatsize" Snyder... DVV: Yeah! Right! DL: I know that you sometimes give musicians names. DVV: Well I had to in this case. I mean "Snyder"...I mean I had to give him "Midnight Hatsize" because we got him that hat. I had him put those bow ties on the front and the back [points to band photo on back of "ICFC"]. Black one and the white one. Now it looked better. That red derby didn't make it without them. DL: uh-hunh DVV: But...uh...he's a Winnibago Sioux indian! DL: mmm-hmm [laughter] So "Midnight Hatsize", that's a very unusual name. DVV: He needed a hat. He called my manager, Gary Lucas, who is also on this album, he called him in the middle of the night - said he wore a size 8 hat. DL: Yeah? DVV: Now that's impossible. DL: It is impossible? That's a pretty big hat isn't it? DVV: Well, i mean, it's possible, but impossible in his case. DL: Well...um...[laughs] What size hat does he wear? DVV: Seven and three eighths. DL: Oh good. DVV: Which ain't bad. DL: Yeah. DVV: But not an 8! DL: No, not an 8, sure. [laughter] If you're just joining us, we're talking about hat sizes and uh...Now you have an interesting name yourself. Can you tell us a little about the origin of Captain Beefheart? DVV: Captain Beefheart - I have a beef in my heart against this society. They're cutting the beaks off of penguins down at the marina in L.A., you know that, the water... DL: No I didn't. DVV: Cutting the beaks off of...uh...not [penguins]...uh pelicans. Cutting the beaks off! The top beak... DL: I know, but why are they doing that? DVV: I don't know, but I sure would like to find out who's doing that, because they need a spanking. DL: Well it's cruel, if in fact that's the case. That seems like it might be cruel. DVV: It's not right. - --partial transcript of a conversation between David Letterman and Don Van Vliet, aka Captain Beefheart, from the former's TV show, 1982, at http://www.shiningsilence.com/hpr/people/vanvliet.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:23:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) > One alternate scenario, with "American Idol" as the trail-blazer: > products and product name-checks woven into the flow of the show, thus > theoretically negating any possibility of forwarding through them. > > I said "American Idol," but THE TRUMAN SHOW beat it by four years eh? Well, the idea is older than that. When television first began, wasn't advertising done this way? I remerber an episode of Jack Benny's TV show that had Bogart as a guest. Benny was a detective grilling a small time crook, Bogart, for info. It's been at least a decade since I've seen this but the exchange went something like this: Bogart: "He was smoking a cigarette." Benny: "Oh yea, what kind of cigarette." Bogart: "A Lucky Strike." Benny: "How did you know it was a Lucky Strike." Bogart: "By the smell." Benny: "How can the smell tell you it was a Lucky Strike?" Bogart [singing the jingle]: "They're fresher, cleaner, smoother! Lucky Strike!" Much funnier than my rendition suggests. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:39:55 -0400 From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Believer (ns) what was that thing that wsnt the new mcswy's? should i have heard of it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a magazine published by Eggers & Co. *Very* good looking from an artistic/design standpoint, it's printed beautifully on heavy stock. Its announced intent is to bring back an age of non-snarky literary discussion. I have to be honest and admit that I don't read enough to qualify as its intended audience. It includes an article on Interpol/the 80's revival, an interview of Terry Gilliam by Salmon Rushdie, an article about anti-war protests, and a bunch of other stuff that I haven't gotten to yet. Given the low price and how nice it looks, it's probably worth picking up as a potential eBay sale, if nothing else. Someone who follows the literary scene might be in a better position to say if it's important or not. Also, the new McSweeny's comes in two versions: a cheap one and a nice one. To get the nice one, you have to subscribe to the next three issues. The nice one is much better looking, but I bought the cheap one. I was a little vague before, but it's worth mentioning that McSweeny's has a store in Park Slope Brooklyn that's worth visiting at least once. The most notable feature is the counter where you pay, which is about eight feet off the ground so you have to reach up over your head to hand them your money or credit card (I find it kind of annoying). It's filled with dioramas and the overall effect is sort of like the back cover of AHWOSG. - --dana ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:21:40 -0400 From: glenn mcdonald Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fleet (ns) I find Coupling pretty amusing, too. And if you're ordering DVDs from the UK (to play in your multi-region PAL/NTSC DVD player, which of *course* you have), why not pick up the first seasons of _The Office_ and _People Like Us_, which are like Friends without the friends but with a mean-spirited sense of fake-documentary humor. Oh, and _Ripping Yarns_. glenn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:24:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Gil Ray Subject: [loud-fans] Big Shot side 2 Howdy folks, I believe we left off here: Crash Into June - 'bout the most straight ahead drum beat there is. Those snare drum whacks were overdubbed. I'm pretty sure the odd hi-hat pattern was a Scott thing. Another signature Scott chord progression that is really nice, and it's fun to listen to Suzi keeping up! What's that? Gil Ray backing vocals that can sorta be heard? Actually, it kind of bugs me that on my "in and out of tune" vocal parts, the first one is barely audible, while the second one is mixed just about right.Love the line that kicks the song off: "About this time the girls are rising early"....for some reason it gets me hot. The guitar chords at the end are very cool, along with the nice keyboard line Shelley is playing. Book Of Millionaires - I love a waltz! We got jazzy drums here! The keyboard break is Scott and Mitch playing at the same time, but not hearing what each other is doing. A very cool concept. Cool song. The Only Lesson Learned - Another straight ahead rhythm going on here. Disco hi-hats. Doesn't get much better than that. Good snare sound. Not so good kick drum sound, but I think that's the way they sounded in 1985. Groovy tambourine. Too Closely - I must admit I'm not a big fan of this one. I don't like songs that have varying tempos, and they don't like me! Sounds very Real Nighttime-like. Suzi's chirping away on backing vocals. I think Suzi had the best voice, as far as the backing vocals go. Good pitch and she sounds so damn...sweet! Never Mind - Crunchy rocker that actually shuffles! I love the 2 rhythm guitar parts and the way they we're recorded. Yes, that would be in STEREO! Oh yeah... Like A Girl Jesus - Great closer. Full of drumming bombast. Always a show stopper live and very fun to play. The tympani and gong sounds were done by me on some sort of keyboard thingy Mitch had. I used to include a timbale drum with my drum kit, but for this record, this is the only song I actually used it on (well, it was also used on Linus And Lucy, but that wasn't on the original LP.) Soon afterwards, I jettisoned that drum because it gave me a little less to set up and tear down come gig-time. I remember Scott going back and forth trying to decide if Suzi's vocal part should go up, or down, on the end of the word "fine". He chose down. Linus And Lucy - Not on the album, but a rare bonus track on the reissue. Great guitar and the drumming ain't nothing to sneeze at either. I remember we played a Xmas party for the company Scott worked at, and this was basically the only "Xmas" song we knew. Not a good plan. Ok, I think BSC is now a wrap. I really love this record. We were good, we were real cute, and aside from my personal problems, this was a good time and just what I needed after a stint with my previous death rock band, and a not so short stint with my ex-wife. I also met Stacey during this time and little did we know we would end up getting married in the next decade. Life is strange. Sometimes good, but always....strange. Peace. I mean it. Gil Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #102 *******************************