From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V5 #27 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 Friday, January 28 2005 Volume 05 : Number 027 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Camper Van Beethoven was right! [Jeff ] Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves [JRT45] [loud-fans] final poll reminder [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves [Jeff ] Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves [JRT45] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves [LkDyl] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves [JRT45] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Rex Broome ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] final poll reminder [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Matthew Weber ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Chris Murtland ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Chris Murtland ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up ["Bradley Skaught" ] Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves [Jeff ] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves [JRT45] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves ["Ste] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Roger Winston ] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20[loud-fans]=20mail=20from=20Kim=20Cooper=2 0?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?regarding=20Lost=20in=20the=A0=20Grooves?= [] Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves [Jen] Re: [loud-fans] growing up [Chris Murtland ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:12:22 -0600 From: Jeff Subject: [loud-fans] Camper Van Beethoven was right! Apparently, Ringo Starr does have secret superpowers...: - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:53:54 -0600 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up On Jan 26, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Jenny Grover wrote: > > Of course the subversive eccentricity of wearing clothes that might > be considered tacky and not caring has been coopted into a uniform, so > how subversive is it anymore? > > Jen > > Insert name of favorite rebellious fashion statement (grungy flannel, punky colored hair & leather, hip-hop baggy trousers, etc.) here for derisive snickering. Chris np: Let's see what Itunes gives me (click); Microphones, the Glow pt 2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:02:47 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves In a message dated 1/27/05 1:58:37 AM, LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com writes: > yeah..."What an asshole." > Hey, somebody actually read all the way to the end of one of Professor Secretary's postings! Now can somebody tell me if the Absent-Minded Miss Hathaway actually thinks I contributed to Kim Cooper's book, or is he just serving his own interests by rationalizing the exploitation of people who can't earn a living doing what they want to do? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:37:36 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: [loud-fans] final poll reminder The 2004 album poll is winding down-- as usual, voting will close on February 1st. Don't miss your chance! http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~aaron/poll/lf04 a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:19:39 -0600 From: Jeff Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:02:47 EST, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Hey, somebody actually read all the way to the end of one of Professor > Secretary's postings! Other than yourself, you mean. > Now can somebody tell me if the Absent-Minded Miss Hathaway > actually thinks I contributed to Kim Cooper's book, or is he just serving his > own interests by rationalizing the exploitation of people who can't earn a > living doing what they want to do? You mean like editors of books on obscure rock music that are unlikely to see enough of a profit to guarantee writers cash payments? But really, I type the above only to stave off my miserable feelings of worthlessness, valuing as I do the regard of the hack journalists and part-time pornographers of the world. My eggshell-like self-esteem has been cracked on the bowl of your withering disdain, and the yolk of my heart has poured out in a feeble, rancid dribble only to be dumped disgustedly into the insinkerator of your curdled-nose rejection. I am so very hurt and injured that I will do nothing but go home, listen to Morrissey albums, and listlessly masturbate to the topless women I've freezeframed on my Monty Python DVDs. Did I happen to mention that I cried? - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:15:41 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves In a message dated 1/27/05 2:22:09 PM, jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com writes: > But really, I type the above only to stave off my miserable feelings > of worthlessness, valuing as I do the regard of the hack journalists > and part-time pornographers of the world. > I'm a part-time pornographer? Well, maybe by the most prudish definition of the word. Calling me a journalist, however, is really out of bounds. I've certainly denied it on a regular basis. And Kim Cooper didn't think that LOST IN THE GROOVES was so obscure that she shouldn't put her name prominently on the spine and cover. It's still a fun read, though. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:28:03 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up Chris Prew wrote: > Insert name of favorite rebellious fashion statement (grungy flannel, > punky colored hair & leather, hip-hop baggy trousers, etc.) here for > derisive snickering. Exactly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:08:39 EST From: LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves In a message dated 1/27/05 1:57:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, JRT456@aol.com writes: > Now can somebody tell me if the Absent-Minded Miss Hathaway > actually thinks I contributed to Kim Cooper's book, or is he just serving > his > own interests by rationalizing the exploitation of people who can't earn a > living doing what they want to do? > All I was doing was remembering what the young Alvie says in AH...please don't think I was jumping in with any subtext or anything. Don't confuse me...you'll make me tinkle. As much as I try spinning around and pouncing on the thing, I just can't seem to catch my tail, - --Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:49:40 EST From: LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up In a message dated 1/27/05 3:30:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, sleeveless@zoominternet.net writes: > Chris Prew wrote: > > > Insert name of favorite rebellious fashion statement (grungy flannel, > > punky colored hair & leather, hip-hop baggy trousers, etc.) here for > > derisive snickering. > > > Exactly In the post everything age, there are no more rules to play by regarding fashion statements meaning anything. I think this ties into the western world being so connected now and, more specifically, our country isn't a melting pot, but actually a stew pot, so all the veggie chunks are taken as acceptable now, which I think is kind of cool ("You're a carrot, and we don't take too kindly to your kind"...lol). In the eighties, if you dressed in wire-framed glasses and black t-shirts and Chuck Taylor low-tops with a crew cut, you were considered "cutting edge." Now you just look "normal," though some more passionate folks may comment on your Chinese made sneakers being a no-no (but that's cultural imperialism, and another e-mail altogether). I think it was Doug who mentioned in an article a few years back about how people are into themselves on the inside now as a pursuit, that external material pursuits are passe. It's all about improvement of oneself mentally, spiritually, physically (health and diet, not bodybuilding or dieting). Quality of life is in and income and job status isn't. It's all about doing what is right for you, how and when YOU want to do it, not following a norm, because a norm no longer exists. It's now about making your standard of comparison yourself, not others (which is the way I feel it always should have been). I think living in our current mental climate is pretty good. When people make comments or give me looks regarding the car I drive or my living arrangement I actually feel sorry for them now, not because I'm all smug and self-actualized, but I think that they are bound by an outmoded, soul-killing paradigm that benefits American industry...all created by Madison Avenue in another decade. Or, maybe they just need to grow up. And maybe I have meself, and am more comfortable with who I am. Free your Reagan era mind, and your smile will follow, - --Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:22:56 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves In a message dated 1/27/05 5:10:01 PM, LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com writes: > All I was doing was remembering what the young Alvie says in AH...please > don't think I was jumping in with any subtext or anything. > I blame your bisexuality, Mark. Still, you kept us on topic as far as Losers Who Get Exploited Because They Want To Pretend They're Things They Aren't. In fact, I'm caring enough to write for more than a few sentences about that: If any Listers care to contact me off-list, I'll be happy to inform them of just how much a person can make from working only 14 hours a week while writing about music and film. It may seem vulgar to talk about money, but people like Kim Cooper, and most likely the boss of any Lister, would prefer it if no one discussed how much they earn. That's why Kim thought it was "animosity" to point out that her writers weren't paid. She'd rather keep her writers thinking that nobody's supposed to make money from writing about things that really matter to them. Likewise, most bosses don't want their employees to ever learn what their jobs are really worth. Be a revolutionary and put up a sign at your desk announcing your annual salary. See how long it takes before somebody makes you put it away. That said, more power to citizen journalists and people who write for free...for themselves, that is. If you're writing for MAGNET or AMPLIFIER, though, demand a cut of their advertising scams. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:41:59 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com wrote: > I think it was Doug who mentioned in an article a few years back about > how people are into themselves on the inside now as a pursuit, that > external material pursuits are passe. It's all about improvement of > oneself mentally, spiritually, physically (health and diet, not > bodybuilding or dieting). Quality of life is in and income and job > status isn't. It's all about doing what is right for you, how and > when YOU want to do it, not following a norm, because a norm no longer > exists. It's now about making your standard of comparison yourself, > not others (which is the way I feel it always should have been). That's the ideal, but if it were the core of truth in this society, we wouldn't have so many extreme make-overs, Hummers wouldn't interest anyone outside the army, people wouldn't inject food poisoning into their foreheads, etc. Turn on the TV or pick up a magazine and it's all pimp my house, pimp my car, pimp me, have my neighbors pimp my house, have my friends pimp my car, have caracature gay people pimp me, etc. And this wouldn't be all over the TV and mags if people didn't watch it and want it. If people were more into spirituality and self-actualization and self-acceptance, we wouldn't have mags and self-help programs and public health campaigns working so hard to curb anorexia and bulimia and self-loathing and shame at not looking like airbrushed pictures of models. Magazines featuring plus size models, grey-haired models, etc. are still a novlety, a niche market. If it were about diet rather than dieting, we wouldn't be bombarded by "low carb" and "no carb" everything every time we walked into a grocery store, or see all those ads for miracle diet pills that let you burn fat without having to bother with exercise. And if bodybuilding didn't still have wide appeal and make money, that freaky dude that looks like his head is pasted on someone else's body wouldn't have commercials all over TV. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:47:55 -0800 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up Jenny: > If people were more into spirituality and > self-actualization and self-acceptance, we wouldn't have mags and > self-help programs and public health campaigns working so hard to curb > anorexia and bulimia and self-loathing and shame at not looking like > airbrushed pictures of models. Magazines featuring plus size models, > grey-haired models, etc. are still a novlety, a niche market. If it > were about diet rather than dieting, we wouldn't be bombarded by "low > carb" and "no carb" everything every time we walked into a grocery > store, or see all those ads for miracle diet pills that let you burn fat > without having to bother with exercise. And if bodybuilding didn't > still have wide appeal and make money, that freaky dude that looks like > his head is pasted on someone else's body wouldn't have commercials all > over TV. And at the risk of sounding cynical, a lot of this self-improvement and spirituality stuff seems to be put on for image's sake, too. I mean, I know people who take their yoga seriously, but would they be doing it if all their friends weren't doing it too? And frankly, there's money to be made in those fields, and muthafuckas is making it. Broader still, I have a suspicion that the modern Western version of spirituality is (A) at least in general practice, reserved for those with the money and leisure time to explore it, and (B) fairly facile and convenient. I'd heard comments like this a few times, but it was hearing Monica Lewinsky describe herself as "not so much religious as spiritual" that drove this one home for me: people, and often vacuous people, are largely picking and choosing from various religious traditions, which may sound like a good thing, but I'm not so sure. If religions and spirituality are supposed to guide our actions and open us to higher knowledge, how can they if you just pick the bits of various religions that fit a world view you've already established and morals and ethics you've already determined? You don't grow from that, you just find a label for yourself... at which point put on the red hat and get if over with. Hell, even if there was a religion or spiritual path that held that the way to enlightenment was being a skinny white Appalachian fucker who smokes too much and listens to Scott Miller, why would I, despite my obvious qualifications, need it? Apparently its tenets would make it clear that I'm already the damn buddha. The owls are just not always what they seem, is all I'm saying. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:10:39 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up At Thursday 1/27/2005 03:49 PM, LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com wrote: >I think living in our current mental climate is pretty good. When people >make comments or give me looks regarding the car I drive or my living >arrangement >I actually feel sorry for them now, not because I'm all smug and >self-actualized, but I think that they are bound by an outmoded, >soul-killing paradigm >that benefits American industry...all created by Madison Avenue in another >decade. Or, maybe they just need to grow up. And maybe I have meself, >and am more >comfortable with who I am. Whew! Good to see you're not suffering any signs of self-delusion like the rest of us working shlubbs. Say, does the pizza place have a pretty good 401(K) and health plan, or will you be depending on the government to take care of you in old age and/or sickness? Or maybe you've got that big inheritance coming and don't have to worry about it. I am definitely one of those people who (unlike you) needs to grow up and you should feel sorry for me, as I can't seem to be saving as much money and thinking about the future as much I should. This personal responsibility thing is a drag! Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:12:24 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up Rex Broome wrote: >Hell, even if there was a religion or >spiritual path that held that the way to enlightenment was being a >skinny white Appalachian fucker who smokes too much and listens to >Scott Miller, why would I, despite my obvious qualifications, need it? > Apparently its tenets would make it clear that I'm already the damn >buddha. > > Can I join this religion even if I don't smoke and I'm not a native Appalachian? Or would that be considered picking and choosing just the parts I want? Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:01:48 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up So, certain people on this list have defined "growing up" as being willing and able to live on your own and support yourself financially. That seems mostly fine as a partial definition, though it doesn't seem to take into account those who are unable to work to support themselves owing either to disabilities or unavailability of employment sufficient to support oneself or one's family. It also doesn't take into account mature individuals who don't have to work because someone else in the family is making enough money to provide for the household (housewives and househusbands, stay-at-home moms or dads, etc.) or people who choose to live in extended family households (which used to be the norm and considered proper, and still are in certain ethnic groups) in which they are not the principal householder. But all that aside, it still doesn't address the media fueled societal ideas of what "growing up" entails. I'm still at a loss (and at odds) when people say things like 40 year olds at a rock show never grew up. What does being at a rock show, at whatever age, have to do with maturity? What does taste in music, or clothing, or household artifacts, or vehicle choice, or hairstyle, or anything else like that have to do with determining if someone has "grown up", and why should the rules of having "grown up" be different for people of different ages? Why is what is acceptible adult behavior for a 30 year old be different from that of a 40 or 50 or 80 year old? It honestly makes no sense to me. Where did these "rules" come from, and why do they perpetuate? Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:05:05 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] final poll reminder At Thursday 1/27/2005 11:37 AM, Aaron Mandel wrote: >The 2004 album poll is winding down-- as usual, voting will close on >February 1st. Don't miss your chance! > > http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~aaron/poll/lf04 Okay, I've submitted mine, finally: 5 points: The Killers: Hot Fuss 4 points: Franz Ferdinand: s/t Ted Leo: Shake the Sheets 3 points: Shalini: Metal Corner Statuesque: Choir Above, Fire Below Dogs Die in Hot Cars: Please Describe Yourself 2 points: Starflyer 59: I Am The Portuguese Blues Arcade Fire: Funeral A.C. Newman: The Slow Wonder The Features: Exhibit A 1 point: Action Action: Don't Cut Your Fabric To This Year's Fashion Keane: Hopes and Fears Aveo: Battery Green Day: American Idiot Modest Mouse: Good News For People Who Like Bad News Bubbling just under (in alphabetical order): The Cure: s/t The Delays: Faded Seaside Glamour Julianna Hatfield: In Exile Deo L'Arc-en-Ciel: Smile The Libertines: s/t Magnetic Fields: i Morrissey: You Are The Quarry Bill Nelson: Satellite Songs Poster Children: On The Offensive John Sharples: I Can Explain Everything Elliott Smith: From A Basement On The Hill Stranglers: Norfolk Coast (actually, this probably should've been one of the one-pointers, replacing Modest Mouse) Tears for Fears: Everybody Loves A Happy Ending The Thrills: Let's Bottle Bohemia ...and so much more... Really good album I've downloaded from eMusic but listened to too late: Get-Up Kids: Guilt Show It was a *very* good year! Very hard to decide. Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:12:38 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up >At 4:47 PM -0800 1/27/05, Rex Broome wrote: > >Broader still, I have a suspicion that the modern Western version of >spirituality is (A) at least in general practice, reserved for those >with the money and leisure time to explore it, and (B) fairly facile >and convenient. I'd heard comments like this a few times, but it was >hearing Monica Lewinsky describe herself as "not so much religious as >spiritual" that drove this one home for me: people, and often vacuous >people, are largely picking and choosing from various religious traditions, which may sound like a good thing, but I'm not so sure. In my experience, this kind of syncretism largely involves picking what's "cool" from one religion or another, and ignoring anything that seems to make a demand on the practitioner. It's cheap and phony, and California is overrun with it. - -- Matt (beleaguered Anglo-Catholic in a syncretist country) As it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel. The Holy Bible (Old Testament) : The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 1:16 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:12:55 -0500 From: Chris Murtland Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up I think it has something to do with "old" people resenting the young... murt Jenny Grover wrote: > So, certain people on this list have defined "growing up" as being > willing and able to live on your own and support yourself > financially. That seems mostly fine as a partial definition, though > it doesn't seem to take into account those who are unable to work to > support themselves owing either to disabilities or unavailability of > employment sufficient to support oneself or one's family. It also > doesn't take into account mature individuals who don't have to work > because someone else in the family is making enough money to provide > for the household (housewives and househusbands, stay-at-home moms or > dads, etc.) or people who choose to live in extended family households > (which used to be the norm and considered proper, and still are in > certain ethnic groups) in which they are not the principal householder. > > But all that aside, it still doesn't address the media fueled societal > ideas of what "growing up" entails. I'm still at a loss (and at odds) > when people say things like 40 year olds at a rock show never grew > up. What does being at a rock show, at whatever age, have to do with > maturity? What does taste in music, or clothing, or household > artifacts, or vehicle choice, or hairstyle, or anything else like that > have to do with determining if someone has "grown up", and why should > the rules of having "grown up" be different for people of different > ages? Why is what is acceptible adult behavior for a 30 year old be > different from that of a 40 or 50 or 80 year old? It honestly makes > no sense to me. Where did these "rules" come from, and why do they > perpetuate? > > Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:17:54 -0500 From: Chris Murtland Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up "threw my youth away now I want yours" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:48:13 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up In a message dated 1/27/05 9:12:25 PM, sleeveless@zoominternet.net writes: > I'm still at a loss (and at odds) > when people say things like 40 year olds at a rock show never grew up. > You should really try reading this article that's gotten you so concerned. I don't think it suggests that people with disabilities who rely on others have never grown up. Nobody's complaining about housewives who aren't bringing in income, either. Also, I'm fairly sure that the article doesn't say anything to suggest that there's something immature about people in their 40s being at a rock concert. As I recall, there's just this one slacker (yes, it's a slacker article) who says that he or she feels a lot better about eventually taking on responsibility when they see older people at rock shows. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:11:24 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up JRT456@aol.com wrote: >You should really try reading this article that's gotten you so concerned. > Is it online somewhere? > I >don't think it suggests that people with disabilities who rely on others have >never grown up. Nobody's complaining about housewives who aren't bringing in >income, either. > I didn't say it did. I said that that expression from some Loud-fans who posted didn't address these issues. > Also, I'm fairly sure that the article doesn't say anything to >suggest that there's something immature about people in their 40s being at a >rock concert. > That may well be, but that was the tack taken by whoever posted about it in the first place, that seeing a 40 year old at a rock show gave some person interviewed in the article "hope" or some such. Hope is a good thing. The feeling of need for hope in a situation like this is a sad thing. > As I recall, there's just this one slacker (yes, it's a slacker >article) who says that he or she feels a lot better about eventually taking on >responsibility when they see older people at rock shows. > > > Maybe I'd have to read the article, but I don't see what one has to do with the other. Or are you saying this person had some misguided idea that being responsible meant not having any fun anymore? Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:09:03 -0800 From: "Bradley Skaught" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up > would they be > doing it if all their friends weren't doing it too? I think the illusion of there being completely self-realized people is at the core of a lot of these issues. I don't think that's a fundamentally unhealthy thing, merely a key way that identities are built. It's an easy thing to manipulate, though, and so it's always going to be suspect. I also think it's the kind of thing we're uncomfortable with as it seems to be the opposite of our sense of free will and independence. It's nice when a trend like yoga or something comes along--something that can benefit people no matter how they come around to it. It might be a round about way of accomlishing something good, and it might not have the street cred of real spiritual enlightenment, but it works. B songs from the disco infernal: www.davidbowie.com/users/bjskaught/index.html - -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.3 - Release Date: 1/24/2005 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:43:01 -0600 From: Jeff Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:15:41 EST, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/27/05 2:22:09 PM, jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com writes: > > > But really, I type the above only to stave off my miserable feelings > > of worthlessness, valuing as I do the regard of the hack journalists > > and part-time pornographers of the world. > > > > I'm a part-time pornographer? Well, maybe by the most prudish definition of > the word. Calling me a journalist, however, is really out of bounds. I've > certainly denied it on a regular basis. My apologies. I retract the accusation that you're a journalist. I'll just stick with "hack." As for "pornographer": I was using an older etymological variation and twisting it a bit: I meant "the writing of a whore." - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:53:18 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up At Thursday 1/27/2005 08:11 PM, Jenny Grover wrote: >I didn't say it did. I said that that expression from some Loud-fans who >posted didn't address these issues. Since I was just addressing one person's lifestyle in my "responsibility" post, those other issues were outside the scope of my interest and so I didn't address them. If you want to get into a discussion about welfare issues - fine, I'm probably one of the most qualified people here to talk about it. But I don't want to bore people. As for people being supported by other people, more power to them. I hope to find a sugar mama myself someday so I can write Internet diatribes all day long instead of just during my lunch hour or in the evenings. >That may well be, but that was the tack taken by whoever posted about it >in the first place, that seeing a 40 year old at a rock show gave some >person interviewed in the article "hope" or some such. Hope is a good >thing. The feeling of need for hope in a situation like this is a sad thing. As the poster of that original post, I wish I had known what I was starting. All I know about the article was that the person quoted said that seeing 40-year old's at a rock show gave him/her hope. Whether that person meant "hope for the older generation" or "hope that I myself am still enjoying things like that at 40" was not stated. My comment was that I find it amusing that I, as a 40-something who goes to rock shows, gave the younguns hope. Since I'm... y'know... hopeless. I have no idea what it means to be grown up and I think it's a pretty useless designation. I'm one of the most immature people I know in many ways, but my goal in life is pretty much just to enjoy myself for as long as possible and to avoid messing things up for other people (especially for other people who don't want to mess me or others up). And to eat a lot of salmon, because it's high in Omega-3. Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:24:18 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves In a message dated 1/27/05 10:46:13 PM, jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com writes: > As for "pornographer": I was using an older etymological variation and > twisting it a bit: I meant "the writing of a whore." > And there you have it, folks. A lot of would-be writers end up that bitter when they realize they can't get paid. Start putting value on your work now, before you're in your 40s and stuck refilling a closet of office supplies. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:45:36 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up Roger Winston wrote: > > Since I was just addressing one person's lifestyle in my > "responsibility" post, those other issues were outside the scope of my > interest and so I didn't address them. If you want to get into a > discussion about welfare issues - fine, I'm probably one of the most > qualified people here to talk about it. What I wanted to get into was a discussion of what people thought constituted maturity. What I didn't expect was so many displays of immaturity, like using someone's general post to pick on another person specifically (in what masqueraded as a general post) who had said nothing I recall in this discussion to provoke such an attack. I don't appreciate your trying to use me as a vehicle for your bullying. > I have no idea what it means to be grown up As evidenced. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:59:09 -0800 From: "Steve Holtebeck" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:24:18 EST, wrote: > And there you have it, folks. A lot of would-be writers end up that > bitter > when they realize they can't get paid. Start putting value on your > work now, > before you're in your 40s and stuck refilling a closet of office > supplies. On behalf of myself, I'd like to apologize for posting to loud-fans about the book LOST IN THE GROOVES, and unwittingly unleashing JRT's venom on the list. I just wanted people to know that there was a book out that featured a couple of Scott Miller albums, and since this list was originally formed to discuss Scott's work, I thought some people might be interested. And it's all come down to this. - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:10:29 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up At Thursday 1/27/2005 10:45 PM, Jenny Grover wrote: >What I wanted to get into was a discussion of what people thought >constituted maturity. What I didn't expect was so many displays of >immaturity, like using someone's general post to pick on another person >specifically (in what masqueraded as a general post) who had said nothing >I recall in this discussion to provoke such an attack. I don't appreciate >your trying to use me as a vehicle for your bullying. Yep, that's me: Mr. Bully. Everyone says so. You have to realize that those of us who were bullied as youths jump at the chance to finally, in our mature days, be able to push around those in whom we perceive weakness. It's not like I'm trying to question someone (in my own sarcastic and hopefully non-boring way) who keeps annoyingly repeating over and over again how happy he is with his lifestyle, in a manner that surely suggests that he isn't but is constantly trying to sell himself and others on it anyway, while simultaneously putting down the lifestyle of anyone who isn't him (i.e. the bullies). Any discussion of maturity on this list surely has to address this point, as it seems to be the focal point of the list after all. I guess I didn't know what I was trying to do - thanks for pointing it out. I'll sleep now. Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:15:37 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20[loud-fans]=20mail=20from=20Kim=20Cooper=2 0?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?regarding=20Lost=20in=20the=A0=20Grooves?= In a message dated 1/28/05 1:10:19 AM, smholt@ix.netcom.com writes: > On behalf of myself, I'd like to apologize for posting to loud-fans about > the book LOST IN THE GROOVES, and unwittingly unleashing JRT's venom on > the list. > "Venom"? Hey, why the animosity? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:23:33 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] mail from Kim Cooper regarding Lost in the Grooves Steve Holtebeck wrote: > > On behalf of myself, I'd like to apologize for posting to loud-fans > about the book LOST IN THE GROOVES, and unwittingly unleashing JRT's > venom on the list. > > I just wanted people to know that there was a book out that featured > a couple of Scott Miller albums, and since this list was originally > formed to discuss Scott's work, I thought some people might be > interested. > > And it's all come down to this. I'm interested, Steve, and I wouldn't likely have known about this book if you hadn't posted, so I thank you. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:45:21 -0500 From: Chris Murtland Subject: Re: [loud-fans] growing up I imagine it's the same mechanics as automobile selection. You have a Mercedes or a BMW? Why, that's proof that you made something out of yourself. On the flip side, you have a rusty Ford Econoline 150? Why, that's proof that you are a true bohemian rock star. And of course this could be applied to age, hair, clothes, geographic location, occupation, political persuasion, the fundamental metaphysical decision, etc. Perhaps human culture is just a vapid machine with a dearth of redeeming qualities? Or the stories are always more complicated than we want them to be, excepting of course that story in which we are the protagonist? Two or more people in the room and the rules (mechanics?) will play themselves out. So the rules come from us. "at the first sign of strength turn into your fiercest rival" - a pretty nice summary of the rules, I would guess, although "at the first sign of any characteristic that might distinguish you from me" might be more accurate (albeit harder to utilize for breaking into song). murt Jenny Grover wrote: > still doesn't address the media fueled societal ideas of what "growing > up" entails... Why is what is acceptible adult behavior for a 30 year > old be different from that of a 40 or 50 or 80 year old? It honestly > makes no sense to me. Where did these "rules" come from, and why do > they perpetuate? ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V5 #27 ******************************