From: les@jmdl.com (onlyJMDL Digest) To: onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Subject: onlyJMDL Digest V1 #95 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk onlyJMDL Digest Saturday, June 26 1999 Volume 01 : Number 095 The Laborday JoniFest is happening this fall! For information: send a message to Join the mailing list at: ------- The Official Joni Mitchell Homepage is maintained by Wally Breese at http://www.jonimitchell.com and contains the latest news, a detailed bio, original interviews and essays, lyrics, and much more. ------- The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Joni's Pussy ["Eric Taylor" ] Re: Joni's _______ [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: Joni's _______ [IVPAUL42@aol.com] Re: Joni's Pussy [Ginamu@aol.com] Re: Joni's Pussy [Brian Gross ] Re: Joni's _____ [Ginamu@aol.com] Re: Joni's _____ ["Gerald Notaro (LIB)" ] Re: Joni's Pussy [TerryM2442@aol.com] Re: Joni's Pussy [Ginamu@aol.com] Re: Joni's Pussy [Susan Chaloner ] Re: Joni's _____ [Ginamu@aol.com] Re: Joni's you-know-what [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: Joni's you-know-what ["Gerald Notaro (LIB)" ] Re: Joni (ahem) titles ["Kakki" ] Re: Joni (ahem) titles ["Gerald Notaro (LIB)" ] Re: Joni's __ [TerryM2442@aol.com] re: Mingus Vinyl Gatefold? [j.pukkila@pp.inet.fi] Re: Joni and Ebay [CaTGirl627@aol.com] Re: Joni (ahem) titles [catman ] Re: Joni (ahem) titles ["Kakki" ] Jonatha In the Sticks - Long (SJC) ["Beverly" ] Re: Joni (ahem) titles [Mark Domyancich ] Re: Joni's __ [Jason Maloney ] Re: The Joni Mitchell Companion [CaTGirl627@aol.com] Re: Joni and Joan [CaTGirl627@aol.com] Re: Joni's.....hmm....whatever :-) [Deb Messling ] Re: Jonatha In the Sticks - Long (SJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: Joni's.....hmm....whatever :-) [catman ] Re: Joni's _____ [Zapuppy@webtv.net (Rick & Penny Gibbons)] Re: E-mail @ Work and Privacy Was:Re: Joni (ahem) titles ["Helen M. Adcoc] Clouds questions ["Takats, Angela" ] Re: Jonatha In the Sticks - Long (SJC) [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: Clouds questions [TerryM2442@aol.com] Re: Clouds questions [Vince Lavieri ] Joni's? ____ "Sweet Sucker Dance (Abundance And Decline)" [simon@icu.com] Re: Clouds questions [CaTGirl627@aol.com] Re: Clouds questions [Vince Lavieri ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 05:08:10 -0400 From: "Eric Taylor" Subject: Joni's Pussy I'm up all night in my studio & just checked into the JMDL. Yes the penis-on-Joni-covers debate is SO old & tired! But what amazes me is that, while many are looking at Joni's wrist on Hejira as some sort of phallic symbol, the Mingus cover prominently displays the real thing & few seem to see it. The Mingus cover also contains a nude self-portrait of Joni spread eagle. Perhaps the reason no one sees it is because no one on the list owns the LP. Or possibly the painting is beyond the 20th Century mindset for people still trying to figure out Dali & Warhol.... Whatever the reason, this just reinforces my long-held belief that it will take another generation for the masses to finally begin to appreciate the magnitude of Joni Mitchell's artistry. I just hope I live to see the day when all of her paintings go on tour! E.T. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 08:27:28 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's _______ In a message dated 6/26/99 4:32:39 AM Central Daylight Time, ewwtaylor@adelphia.net writes: << Perhaps the reason no one sees it is because no one on the list owns the LP. >> Au contraire, mon frer! Catgirl has a copy that we bought in Philly to include as a Giveaway at the Jonifest. Brian was pointing out all the genitalia, but he must have a keener eye for that sort of thing cuz I didn't see any. Of course, I never saw Jesus in the billboard or Elvis in the Mattress stain either... Bob NP: Red Hot Chile Peppers, "Parallel Universe" (from Californication - nice comeback for the Peppers!) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:32:15 EDT From: IVPAUL42@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's _______ In a message dated 6/26/99 8:30:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, RMuRocks@aol.com writes: << << Perhaps the reason no one sees it is because no one on the list owns the LP. >> Au contraire, mon frer! Catgirl has a copy that we bought in Philly to include as a Giveaway at the Jonifest. Brian was pointing out all the genitalia, but he must have a keener eye for that sort of thing cuz I didn't see any. Of course, I never saw Jesus in the billboard or Elvis in the Mattress stain either... Bob >> What is it they say about the eye of the beholder? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:53:27 EDT From: Ginamu@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's Pussy In a message dated 6/26/99 5:32:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ewwtaylor@adelphia.net writes: > Perhaps the reason no one sees it is because no one on the list owns the LP. > Or possibly the painting is beyond the 20th Century mindset for people still > trying to figure out Dali & Warhol.... I own the LP and I see what you're talking about. So, what is there to figure out here? Gina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 07:59:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Gross Subject: Re: Joni's Pussy Eric Taylor writes (and I have to paraphrase him, because I already deleted the original post) that Joni is spread eagle on the cover of Mingus. I take great exception to that observation First, I don't believe for a nanosecond that Joni would have painted herself like that. And second, if you look at the painting closely, you will see the legs of a female figure relatively close together, with the right side of the right leg and butt exposed to observer's eye. The right knee is lower than the left knee, and the legs are DEFINITELY NOT SPREAD EAGLE Brian np: Eleanor McEvoy - Snapshots === "No paper thin walls No folks above No one else can hear the crazy cries of love" yeah, right _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:40:58 EDT From: Ginamu@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's _____ In a message dated 6/26/99 11:21:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, briangross@rocketmail.com writes: > I take great exception to that observation > > First, I don't believe for a nanosecond that Joni would have painted herself > like that. > > And second, if you look at the painting closely, you will see the legs of a > female figure relatively close together, with the right side of the right > leg > and butt exposed to observer's eye. The right knee is lower than the left > knee, and the legs are DEFINITELY NOT SPREAD EAGLE > I looked again, very closely (BEFORE reading Brian's post) and I do still see a female figure with her legs spread apart, however, I'm inclined to agree with Brian, for the reason that I don't believe Joni would depict herself that way. I've doubted somewhat all along it was Joni and now I'm convinced it's not of her. I will look again to see what Brian describes above as seeing. Now that I see what I see, though, it may be hard to see anything else, though I'm not convinced at all that the female figure I SEE, is in fact, Joni. I don't particularly care for this painting personally, but I do very much like the one of Mingus on the back of the cover. My opinion, for what it's worth. Take Care, Gina NP: Trio - Emmylou Harris, Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt P.S. Someone, I don't recall who, had the good taste to put a blank after Joni's name above and I though I'd follow suit : } ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:55:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald Notaro (LIB)" Subject: Re: Joni's _____ Oh y'all would see Mother Theresa in a Bun! :o)Jerry On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 Ginamu@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/26/99 11:21:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > briangross@rocketmail.com writes: > > > I take great exception to that observation > > > > First, I don't believe for a nanosecond that Joni would have painted > herself > > like that. > > > > And second, if you look at the painting closely, you will see the legs of a > > female figure relatively close together, with the right side of the right > > leg > > and butt exposed to observer's eye. The right knee is lower than the left > > knee, and the legs are DEFINITELY NOT SPREAD EAGLE > > > > I looked again, very closely (BEFORE reading Brian's post) and I do still see > a female figure with her legs spread apart, however, I'm inclined to agree > with Brian, for the reason that I don't believe Joni would depict herself > that way. I've doubted somewhat all along it was Joni and now I'm convinced > it's not of her. I will look again to see what Brian describes above as > seeing. Now that I see what I see, though, it may be hard to see anything > else, though I'm not convinced at all that the female figure I SEE, is in > fact, Joni. > > I don't particularly care for this painting personally, but I do very much > like the one of Mingus on the back of the cover. My opinion, for what it's > worth. > > Take Care, > Gina > NP: Trio - Emmylou Harris, Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt > > P.S. Someone, I don't recall who, had the good taste to put a blank after > Joni's name above and I though I'd follow suit : } > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:51:41 EDT From: TerryM2442@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's Pussy Am I the only one here who finds the title of this thread incredibly objectionable? I must be getting old... Terry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 12:16:15 EDT From: Ginamu@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's Pussy In a message dated 6/26/99 11:55:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TerryM2442@aol.com writes: > Am I the only one here who finds the title of this thread incredibly > objectionable? I must be getting old... > > Terry I do also, Terry and I was annoyed with myself for forgetting to change it in a previous post. Thanks for mentioning this. Take care, Gina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:19:16 -0700 From: Susan Chaloner Subject: Re: Joni's Pussy TerryM2442@aol.com wrote: > > Am I the only one here who finds the title of this thread incredibly > objectionable? I must be getting old... Naw Terry...if you find the subjectification of body parts objectionable you're just getting repressed Susan L.A. Honey McBabe-"...Sex sells everything..."-that Joni ;~) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 12:37:15 EDT From: Ginamu@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's _____ In a message dated 6/26/99 12:21:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ginamu@aol.com writes: > I do also, Terry and I was annoyed with myself for forgetting to change it in > > a previous post. Thanks for mentioning this. > > Take care, > Gina Arrrrrgh...i did it again in the last post! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:29:00 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's you-know-what In a message dated 6/26/99 10:55:28 AM Central Daylight Time, TerryM2442@aol.com writes: << Am I the only one here who finds the title of this thread incredibly objectionable? I must be getting old... >> Not at all Terry - that's why I "changed" it to a _______. A lot of us do get these messages at work, Michael Y kindly asked us to keep that in mind when titling posts. I'm not a prude by any means, but I do try to consider the community-at-large sometimes... Bob NP: Jonatha, "The Choice" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:15:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald Notaro (LIB)" Subject: Re: Joni's you-know-what Yes, folks. I'm at the Reference desk and I came back to find that juicy subject heading on my screen. That was a shock! Jerry On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 RMuRocks@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/26/99 10:55:28 AM Central Daylight Time, > TerryM2442@aol.com writes: > > << Am I the only one here who finds the title of this thread incredibly > objectionable? I must be getting old... > >> > Not at all Terry - that's why I "changed" it to a _______. A lot of us do > get these messages at work, Michael Y kindly asked us to keep that in mind > when titling posts. I'm not a prude by any means, but I do try to consider > the community-at-large sometimes... > > Bob > > NP: Jonatha, "The Choice" > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:42:37 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Joni's.....hmm....whatever :-) Well, may I take up my position on that lovely fence in the middle over there? To those who were shocked/offended/thought it inappropriate....I can see where you're coming from on that. I must admit that subject line looks mighty eye-catching and disconcerting....I was talking with a friend earlier today when the message appeared, and I couldn't help but become distracted by it :-) I told her : "I have Joni's ____ (the actual words)" on my screen here!"..... I can also appreciate that Eric was being wickedly (willfully, even) provocative with his choice of subject header....but it certainly brought more attention to the matter, didn't it? :-) Jason, perhaps wishing for closure on the subject to spare the blushes of his fellow beloved jmdl-ers :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:40:41 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Joni (ahem) titles Bob wrote: > A lot of us do get these messages at work, Michael Y kindly asked us to keep that in mind > when titling posts. I'm not a prude by any means, but I do try to consider > the community-at-large sometimes... A few months ago my law firm did a surprise surveillance check of everyone's saved email. Apparently they had some consultants come in who used a program that went through the system and automatically picked out titles based on key words that may indicate "suspect" or "inappropriate" content. Those emails were then automatically retrieved from the system for further perusal. They notified everyone of this *after* the fact, so feeling paranoid I went back through my emails to see what was in there. A couple of joke posts that were probably not exactly "proper" had been left in unscathed. But one post had been red-flagged and extracted - it was from a fellow listmember and titled "Photos of Joni". Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:19:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald Notaro (LIB)" Subject: Re: Joni (ahem) titles I'm a little surprised, especially since you work for a law firm. The interpretation here is that just because the firm may provide you with an account and the equipment does not mean they have access to your personal communications, much like they have no right to tape your phone calls that are personal. The ruling here is that if it business related then they are the firms right to read and store. If not, they don't. Of course not allowing anything of a non business nature is there right, but I don't believe that gives them the right to read all of your e-mail without your permission. Smells like Big Brother to me. Jerry, a proud card carrying ACLU member On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Kakki wrote: > Bob wrote: > > > A lot of us do get these messages at work, Michael Y kindly asked us to > keep that in mind > > when titling posts. I'm not a prude by any means, but I do try to consider > > the community-at-large sometimes... > > A few months ago my law firm did a surprise surveillance check of everyone's > saved email. Apparently they had some consultants come in who used a > program that went through the system and automatically picked out titles > based on key words that may indicate "suspect" or "inappropriate" content. > Those emails were then automatically retrieved from the system for further > perusal. They notified everyone of this *after* the fact, so feeling > paranoid I went back through my emails to see what was in there. A couple > of joke posts that were probably not exactly "proper" had been left in > unscathed. But one post had been red-flagged and extracted - it was from a > fellow listmember and titled "Photos of Joni". > > Kakki > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:19:57 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Joni (ahem) titles Kakki wrote: > A few months ago my law firm did a surprise surveillance check of everyone's > saved email. Apparently they had some consultants come in who used a > program that went through the system and automatically picked out titles > based on key words that may indicate "suspect" or "inappropriate" content. > Those emails were then automatically retrieved from the system for further > perusal. They notified everyone of this *after* the fact, so feeling > paranoid I went back through my emails to see what was in there. A couple > of joke posts that were probably not exactly "proper" had been left in > unscathed. But one post had been red-flagged and extracted - it was from a > fellow listmember and titled "Photos of Joni". Well, god help them if you don't happen to delete any of the posts from this thread! Jason, trying not to get paranoid but clearing his tracks dilligently anyway :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:17:20 EDT From: TerryM2442@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's __ In a message dated 6/26/99 12:23:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ondulees@bc.sympatico.ca writes: << Naw Terry...if you find the subjectification of body parts objectionable you're just getting repressed >> Geez, sounds like another 20 years of couch training for Dr.SigMondegreen. Terry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:17:00 +0300 From: j.pukkila@pp.inet.fi Subject: re: Mingus Vinyl Gatefold? > Trying to settle a mystery here -- one recollection has that Mingus is > not a > gatefold; another recollection is that it is. Concensus, please? At least my German copy is a gatefold. And I believe it's more or less a direct copy of the original US Asylum sleeve. - --jussi - --------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:31:55 EDT From: CaTGirl627@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni and Ebay In a message dated 6/23/1999 4:54:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, FMY FL writes: << I'm not sure if it would work or not, but maybe something like "onelist.com" which Catgirl has her "jonifans" list might be a solution. JMDLers who occassionally bid from eBay could post to a new list called JMDLeBay@onelist.com (or whatever name you wanted to use), and say they are bidding on a certain Joni item so others who were interested wouldn't bid against their fellow JMDLer. Probably a dumb idea, but just trying to think of some kind of solution to this problem. Jimmy >> Great Idea Jimmy. Those in favor please respond and I or someone can set up the site! Remember we are all friends here! Some of the items are going at too high of prices. I want to be fare to the seller but not highway robber! Catgirl NP Hejira *live*- unplugged and jamming ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:34:24 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Joni (ahem) titles What an apalling invasion of privacy! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 12:19:12 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Joni (ahem) titles Jerry wrote: > I'm a little surprised, especially since you work for a law firm. The > interpretation here is that just because the firm may provide you with an > account and the equipment does not mean they have access to your personal > communications, much like they have no right to tape your phone calls that > are personal Jerry, I don't know the intricacies of the law on this but I think the general concept is that because they own the equipment and it is situated in their firm, to be used for business purposes, they have a right to review the contents. Also, because of the nature of legal work, there could be many other reasons they want to prudent as to what type of content is being backed up on the system. They do tell everyone upfront that they may, at their discretion, access your email acount at any time, so there is notification or "fair warning" in advance. But even though the employees knew this, it was still a surprise that they actually did it. When I worked for a government contractor years ago, they also told us upfront that our telephone conversations may be monitored at any time. I guess if they tell you in advance, it's up to you to make the choice to either not work for that employer, or to be careful about your communications at work. And Jason, I get the list at home - not at work - for this any other reasons! Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:47:30 -0000 From: "Beverly" Subject: Jonatha In the Sticks - Long (SJC) I couldn't believe my eyes when the calendar section of our paper said that Jonatha Brooke was coming Orlando, and playing, not the The Hard Rock Cafe, but at the Sapphire Supper Club which, although boasts a dark, exotic and intimate ambiance, it usually only showcases our best local talent. Since I have introduced almost anyone who will listen to me to Jonatha, I reserved a table for 10 "the Sapphire" for last Wednesday night. Doors opened at 6:00 PM and Jonatha came on at 7:00. We got a table "in the pit" front and center. It was raining that night, and since I work downtown where the club is also located, I ran over with in the rain with a huge golf umbrella. I got there around 5:40 and it was raining cats and dogs. Although they weren't letting people in until 6:00, they took pity on me and let me in. WHAT A TREAT!!! First, I ran into Jonatha in the bathroom. I couldn't believe it; I just walked in all wet with this dripping umbrella and there was she was, standing there applying butterflies to her short hair. She smiled this huge, friendly smile and asked me if it was raining and started laughing and said "DUH," before I did. I wanted to gush and pull out all the CD's I had stashed in my bag for her to sign, but I just went in a stall and peeked through the crack in the door while she applied some more butterflies. I stayed in the stall longer than I needed too. When she left the bathroom, she said "I hope everything's ok in there, Bye-eee." I could'a died. When I came out, she was doing a sound check. I was the only one at my big reserved table for 10. This is my favorite part. While doing the sound check she ran through several songs, not all of them hers. She played two bars of "River," and, of course, I started clapping. She looked at me said, "whose better, me or Joni"? I did what I thought was a toss-up kinda shoulder shrug thing. She smiled. God, does she have a charming smile. At 6:45 the rest of my Jonatha converts started traipsing in including, my husband and daughter and several people from work. Jonatha came on at 7:10 with a different outfit on from the one she had on earlier in the bathroom - all the butterflies were in tact. She is just so charismatic and charming, she smiles constantly and holds her pick in her front teeth between songs. She is also very flirty and coquettish with the audience. I was too entranced and busy taking pictures to take made note of the set list, but she played most of my favorites from both her solo CDs, as well as "Angel in the House" and "Grace in Gravity." She started the set with "West Point." From what what I remember, she played "Angel in the House," "Blood from a Stone," Nothing Sacred," "In the Gloaming and "At the Still Point," after which she told a story about her performance the night before in Atlanta. In the middle of the set, she asks the audience if they have any questions. She related a story about an eight year old child who was with his mother at the Atlanta performance, who raised his hand and asked what "The Still Point" means. She said something like, "this was the hardest question I've ever been asked by an audience member, I mean, how can you explain so abstract." Anyway, this is what she said she told him: "You know when you go swimming and you swim so much that you're really, really tired, and then you get out of the pool and your mom gives you a sandwich and some chips while you rest. Then after you finish your sandwich and chips your mom surprises you with Cake! And later, when your sitting in school, or bored, you can remember how good that cake tasted after that swim?" Well, that's "the still point, sorta." Apparently, the kid was happy with her answer. The rest of night, when anyone shouted out a request, she said, that's not on tonight's set list, but we'll have cake later." It really was an enchanting night! Jonatha is so graceful and emotive. Her voice was better than in the studio, especially when she hits those beautiful high notes, like when she harmonized with her guitar on "In the Gloaming." She is just incredibly enchanting. After the show, I bought her new Live CD entitled "Live," as Bob said, the first from her new label "Bad Dog Records." She signed three CD's for me; Plumb, which I brought with me, and two "Lives" one of which I bought for an attorney, Mike, from work, who will forever regret not having come along. On mine, she signed: "Beverly, Love and Cake ~Jonatha," and on Mike's she wrote: "Mike! WERE YOU! ~ Jonatha," after I explained that he had planned to come, but bailed out at the last minute. After seeing the inscription, he said it was almost worth not coming along - to have her write something special - "just to him." I'll just let him dream. Well, that's it. Sorry for all the detail, but it was just so incredible to have Jonatha in my tourist town, so near and so graceful and beautiful. I took about 10 digital pictures, which amazingly, came out very good. A couple are wonderful. If anyone would like to have some pics forwarded, just let me know. Bev Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:50:13 -0500 From: Mark Domyancich Subject: Re: Joni (ahem) titles This may be the case in other companies, but my sister works for an insurance company. Internet access is provided but they monitor information going out rather than information coming in, so they can watch if their employees are giving out trade secrets. Could this be one of their reasons for searching the network? At 12:19 PM -0700 6/26/99, Kakki wrote: >Jerry, I don't know the intricacies of the law on this but I think the >general concept is that because they own the equipment and it is situated in >their firm, to be used for business purposes, they have a right to review >the contents. Also, because of the nature of legal work, there could be >many other reasons they want to prudent as to what type of content is being >backed up on the system. They do tell everyone upfront that they may, at >their discretion, access your email acount at any time, so there is >notification or "fair warning" in advance. But even though the employees >knew this, it was still a surprise that they actually did it. When I worked >for a government contractor years ago, they also told us upfront that our >telephone conversations may be monitored at any time. I guess if they tell >you in advance, it's up to you to make the choice to either not work for >that employer, or to be careful about your communications at work. Mark Domyancich Harpua@revealed.net http://home.revealed.net/Harpua http://jmdl.com/guitar/mark "This conformity factory is now closed!" -Homer Simpson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:09:58 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Joni's __ TerryM2442@aol.com wrote: > Geez, sounds like another 20 years of couch training for Dr.SigMondegreen. Da goot dokter eez avay at zees time, so eef I may.... :-) Ya, it vould zeem Joaneez vondnez for velein kompanyons is korzink egsdreem konfuzion aymungsd her vanz. Zees luff ov, how you say, puzee, stemz I beleef from voze heedan veelinks in orl ower parstzs. Vor Joanee, dee big luvamann komplex runneeng vrue her verk vines eetz balantz een a deezyerr to deesplay erselv een her painteengz. Zumtimez, zees incloodz zee intamutt playceez..... Yorz een Joanee-spireet..... Yorin Mybuttz. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:11:06 EDT From: CaTGirl627@aol.com Subject: Re: The Joni Mitchell Companion In a message dated 6/25/1999 6:33:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, messling@enter.net writes: << Does anyone know the latest word on The Joni Mitchell Companion, a collection of interviews, essays and reviews? The company where the library orders books has a release date listed of June 1999, but I don't have my copy yet! >> I want to get one too! Catgirl..looking up from her computer at her Joni Picture shrine!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:15:20 EDT From: CaTGirl627@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni and Joan In a message dated 6/25/1999 12:06:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, donbvs@lightspeed.net writes: << What I found was that, for me, Joan sort of takes me "outside" into the world so to speak. The stuff of hers I really like is from the Viet Nam War era, and when I listen to her records from then, I think and feel about the things that were very intensely affecting so many of us as a community. As I spent a very intense year-and-a-half battling the draft, I was very inspired by her and her hubby, David. She's very powerful. When I listen to my favorite Joni stuff, she takes me into my self more - personal feelings re: love and loss and stuff like that - I go to places in myself that I normally wouldn't discuss with anyone else but there's Joni, tapping in, waking up those little memories long asleep, letting me know that SHE knows exactly how I have felt. She articulates those experiences/feelings much better than I can (did I need to say that?). >> PERFECT!!! Catgirl ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:23:20 -0400 From: Deb Messling Subject: Re: Joni's.....hmm....whatever :-) Okay, am I the only one who immediately assumed the post would be about cats???? >To those who were shocked/offended/thought it inappropriate....I can see >where you're coming from on that. I must admit that subject line looks >mighty eye-catching and disconcerting Deb Messling messling@enter.net http://www.enter.net/~messling/ ~there are only three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:31:54 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Jonatha In the Sticks - Long (SJC) Beverly wrote: > > I couldn't believe my eyes when the calendar section of our paper said that > Jonatha Brooke was coming Orlando, and playing, not the The Hard Rock Cafe, > but at the Sapphire Supper Club which, although boasts a dark, exotic and > intimate ambiance, it usually only showcases our best local talent. > Well, that's it. Sorry for all the detail, but it was just so incredible to > have Jonatha in my tourist town, so near and so graceful and beautiful. I > took about 10 digital pictures, which amazingly, came out very good. A > couple are wonderful. If anyone would like to have some pics forwarded, > just let me know. Bev, Thank you so much for sharing this wonderful experience with us all. I loved reading it, details and all. I only discovered Jonatha by being on this list, and I'm amazed at what I could so easily have missed out on. I'd sell my soul (almost) for the chance to see her in those circumstances! I'd love to see some of the pics, so please please pretty please with sugar on top? Thanks, Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:27:43 EDT From: MGVal@aol.com Subject: E-mail @ Work and Privacy Was:Re: Joni (ahem) titles In a message dated 99-06-26 15:53:31 EDT, Harpua@revealed.net writes: >but they monitor >information going out rather than information coming in, so they can >watch if their employees are giving out trade secrets. Could this be >one of their reasons for searching the network? Where I work, nearly everyone has e-mail access. It's not our AOL or Juno or whatever address, but Valley Media's. My boss told me and I regularly emphasis to my staff that the e-mail is monitored and as a rule, Internet access is not allowed. As a supervisor, my issue with private e-mail is that it cuts into work time, just like a personal phone call. My department is responsible for processing a huge volume of cash every day and the personal e-mail nickels and dimes their productive time to death. And I know this first hand because I used to get the JMDL mail at work. It was either accounting stuff or Joni stuff and since last I looked, Les did not sign my paycheck, so..... I don't know about the legality of this, but I seem to recall our H/R department saying that the e-mail issue was the same as one's work locker issue. I.E. that their contents are always subject to inspection. MG np: "What are we going to the pool? Huh? HUh? HUH?" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:39:36 EDT From: CaTGirl627@aol.com Subject: Re: CD-R's and mixed tapes or mixed CD! In a message dated 6/26/1999 8:37:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, RMuRocks@aol.com writes: << And after hanging with Mr. & Mrs. Catgirl, I'm lusting for a CD burner, so maybe THAT's the way to go...mix-CD's instead of mix-tapes.... Bob >>Well, I must say that Mewsikmann and myself have been going crazy making tons of CD's from other CD's. Making variety CD's are also real fun and sound great in any CD player. Remember better CD-R's are the way to go if you are doing *archive* work. All of the CD's I am making for myself are on CD-GOLD! Anyone wanting GOLD from me should ask for the GOLD when making requests. You cna go to Masterpeiceav.com and get GOLD for $2.30 a peice. They sound wonderful and the price is not too bad considering what *real* CD's cost. They are by HHb. They are 74 mins long and are suppose to last 100 years unlike the others that only last up to 10 years. The GOLD contain Phtaylo-Cynine which is the best you can buy. The other contain Cynine which only lasts about 10 years. So it is your choice! Catgirl...making CD archive 9909!! (which means my 9th one) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:58:22 EDT From: TerryM2442@aol.com Subject: Re: Jonatha In the Sticks - Long (SJC) Bev, I drooled over your entire post. PLEASE send me your photos!! As I've mentioned a zillion times on the list, I'm a huge JB fan too, and had the chance to see her in concert here in Detroit as well as hearing her recently at a CD signing. Like you said, she is so charming and engaging, with no pretense. I told her that there's a lot of JB fans here on Joni's list and she was very pleased. In her words: "Yay Joni!". Get the LIVE CD you guys! Terry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:34:46 -0400 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Re: Joni's Pussycats TerryM2442@aol.com wrote: > Am I the only one here who finds the title of this thread incredibly > objectionable? I must be getting old... > > Terry No, Terry, you are not. I find it objectionable from the standpoint of class, not of obscenity, but it is classless, IMHO, rather 7th grade boyish. And the only pussy that I see on a cover is on Taming the Tiger, where the cat's legs are spread but not to the viewer. And there is the cat on the back of that cover, arched. Now there may be other cats on other covers but I do not intend to look for them all now. I am sure that others will point them out. Vince ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:46:49 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Joni's.....hmm....whatever :-) Deb Messling wrote: > Okay, am I the only one who immediately assumed the post would be about > cats???? No, Deb, you are not. > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:58:27 -0400 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Re: Joni (ahem) titles ALL emails are retrivable, however many yearsb old and trashed, and one should never say anything in an email that you don't want to show up in court. This has been a boon is workplace sexual harrassment cases, allowing proof to be obtained that people thought was trashed, and in criminal law, ie the anti-trust action against Microsoft. For people who can afford it, it is also a nasty device to prove fault in divorce cases, or as in Michigan where we have no-fault divorce but fault may be factor in a property settlement, a nasty tool. Right or wrong, that is the way of it. And I always thought that Big Brother was a part of the Holding Company, who back up Janis Joplin (Janis is with Joni, and Aretha, in my heart). Also an ACLU member and a legal assistant by day but (the Rev) Vince none the less "Gerald Notaro (LIB)" wrote: > I'm a little surprised, especially since you work for a law firm. The > interpretation here is that just because the firm may provide you with an > account and the equipment does not mean they have access to your personal > communications, much like they have no right to tape your phone calls that > are personal. The ruling here is that if it business related then they are > the firms right to read and store. If not, they don't. Of course not > allowing anything of a non business nature is there right, but I don't > believe that gives them the right to read all of your e-mail without your > permission. Smells like Big Brother to me. > > Jerry, a proud card carrying ACLU member > > On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Kakki wrote: > > > Bob wrote: > > > > > A lot of us do get these messages at work, Michael Y kindly asked us to > > keep that in mind > > > when titling posts. I'm not a prude by any means, but I do try to consider > > > the community-at-large sometimes... > > > > A few months ago my law firm did a surprise surveillance check of everyone's > > saved email. Apparently they had some consultants come in who used a > > program that went through the system and automatically picked out titles > > based on key words that may indicate "suspect" or "inappropriate" content. > > Those emails were then automatically retrieved from the system for further > > perusal. They notified everyone of this *after* the fact, so feeling > > paranoid I went back through my emails to see what was in there. A couple > > of joke posts that were probably not exactly "proper" had been left in > > unscathed. But one post had been red-flagged and extracted - it was from a > > fellow listmember and titled "Photos of Joni". > > > > Kakki > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:53:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Zapuppy@webtv.net (Rick & Penny Gibbons) Subject: Re: Joni's _____ Gina wrote: <> We have the same taste, Gina dear! I've had that above mentioned print, "Charlie Down in Mexico" framed and hanging in my living room since 1980. I'll will it to you, hopefully a long time from now.....;-) Penny ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 09:57:58 +1200 From: "Helen M. Adcock" Subject: Re: E-mail @ Work and Privacy Was:Re: Joni (ahem) titles >I don't know about the legality of this, but I seem to recall our H/R >department saying that the e-mail issue was the same as one's work locker >issue. I.E. that their contents are always subject to inspection. I work for a local government body, and all staff have access to external email and Internet. We monitor web access, ie. the web addresses people go to are recorded, and monitored on a random basis - I'm not sure about email. But as a member of the IS section, I know that the position of the company is that since the hardware and software are owned by the company (not the employee), and the Internet access costs money each time it is accessed, then they "own" the data held within. They describe it better by saying that any mail received or sent should be able to be read by any person in the organisation without offense. This seems entirely reasonable to me - after all, people are at work to work, not to read personal mail, or visit their favourite web sites! Having said that though, I do access my mail at home in my "quiet" periods (when I get them), and occasionally I'll surf the Web (usually www.jonimitchell.com or www.jmdl.com !) in my lunchhour, and as long as it's not an excessive amount of time, there's no problem. I think it gets tricky when you get into the issue of "personal privacy". Our policy is also that a certain amount of personal files may be stored on the work servers or PC's, but people must be aware that these may be accessed/checked at any time, if space becomes an issue, and the time spent on these files must not interfere with work tasks. I guess it's difficult to draw a line between good business practice and invasion of privacy, but I still think work is work, and personal time is personal time! Helen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 08:04:47 +1000 From: "Takats, Angela" Subject: Clouds questions Hello Listers, As I was looking through my new record collection I noticed somethings on the back of Clouds that I am sure you guys can help me out with: Comparing the lyrics on the bak of the album and the inside of my CD: Album: "sunny day, braiding brown flowers and leaves in my hair" CD: "sunny day, braiding wild flowers and leaves in my hair" (And all along I thought she sang "fall flowers") So, I'm sure this has been brought up before - any reasons for this - did the lyrics just change over time, so they were printed differently on the CD cover?? ALSO, who is Sadie J McKee? Is there an interesting story as to why this beautiful album was dedicated to her? - - Ange, (always wondering) Sydney ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:22:39 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Jonatha In the Sticks - Long (SJC) In a message dated 6/26/99 2:49:02 PM Central Daylight Time, TheFishPond@prodigy.net writes: << Sorry for all the detail, but it was just so incredible to have Jonatha in my tourist town, so near and so graceful and beautiful. >> Wow Bev, great story, PLEASE never apologize for details, they're what add color to the canvas of this list...I got chills having just experienced what you did...I felt like I was watching Joni at the Second Fret, getting a chance to see a talent before they become huge. Bottom Line: If Jonatha comes to your town, DO NOT miss her! Bob NP: "A Case of You" from Hawaii '73 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:49:23 EDT From: TerryM2442@aol.com Subject: Re: Clouds questions In a message dated 6/26/99 6:07:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ATAKATS@ninenet.com.au writes: << CD: "sunny day, braiding wild flowers and leaves in my hair" >> This is how I've always heard it. Terry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:13:43 -0400 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Re: Clouds questions "Takats, Angela" wrote: > Hello Listers, > > As I was looking through my new record collection I noticed somethings on > the back of Clouds that I am sure you guys can help me out with: > > Comparing the lyrics on the bak of the album and the inside of my CD: > > Album: "sunny day, braiding brown flowers and leaves in my hair" > CD: "sunny day, braiding wild flowers and leaves in my hair" > (And all along I thought she sang "fall flowers") > On my album, bought new when it was new, says "wild flowers" in "I Don;t Know Where I Stand" which was the first MY song off that album. I just checked it to be sure. (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:04:18 -0800 From: simon@icu.com Subject: Joni's? ____ "Sweet Sucker Dance (Abundance And Decline)" Eric Taylor ~ displaying bad taste and less judgement, writes ... >_______________________________________________________________________ >Subject: Joni's Pussy > >I'm up all night in my studio & just checked into the JMDL. Yes the >>penis-on-Joni-covers debate is SO old & tired! But what amazes me is >that, while many are looking at Joni's wrist on Hejira as some sort of >phallic symbol, the Mingus cover prominently displays the real thing & >few seem to see it. The Mingus cover also contains a nude self-portrait >of Joni spread eagle. > >E.T. >_______________________________________________________________________ Oh really?! gimme-a-break. assuming the observation were correct, what makes you think it's Joni? Eric, perhaps, this another case of seeing what you want to see. perhaps, you have a vivid imagination or prurient interests. listen, i'm no prude and i DON'T believe in censorship or restricting other peoples' right to express themselves in their own way. However i DO believe there are instances when restraint and 'good taste' might lead one to choose a less onerous word it's one thing to use the word 'pussy' as double entendre when actually referring to cats. it's another matter entirely when you *choose* to use this word in all of its offensiveness. and make No! mistake about it, some women as well as some men find this term offensive. objectifying women *as* Body Parts is not what i would have expected from you. FTR: according to the book 'STARART' the painting on the cover of the 'Mingus' album is titled: "Sweet Sucker Dance (Abundance And Decline)" 1974, latex & gesso, 60" x 72" here is Joni's description ... "This painting was like a mystical process, it went through a lot of changes. It was painted over a period of about four years. First, there was a hostile male figure on the left hand side who was like a pure woman hater. After a while I couldn't stand to look at it so I turned him into a conga player and i put this flute player in with him but they didn't seem to have any relationship. So I painted out the conga drums and as the paint flowed a woman dancing began to appear. So now there was a strange relationship between this very calm musician with the deluge of water coming down on him, and this dancing figure which seemed to be eminating out of fire, with this unexplainable haunted look on her face. Then I noticed there was a trigram, half of a hexagram from the 'I Ching', actually painted in the upper right hand corner. So I began to look for the other half of the hexagram, thinking if there was a whole hexagram I could look it up in the 'I Ching' and it would explain the painting. In The 'I Ching', the combination of water pushing down on fire turned out to be the change called 'Abundance'. It explained that in a time of abundance, at the peak of things being bountiful, prematurely you would recognize that you were at the peak, and once you were cogniscent of it you would already set your course of change to decline. In this painting, the figure is dancing at her fullest and yet her face is haunted, which to me represents the moment of change. When you're having such a good time or when you're so much in love, you suddenly know you can't stay there." the painting on the back cover**, it's titled: "Charlie Down In Mexico" 1978, acrylic, 12" x 16" here is Joni's description ... "'Charlie Down In Mexico' was done from a photograph taken by Sue Graham. The study itself in shadows and shapes was interesting to me and that big sombrero on Charlie added an air of festivity to it. Even though he was paralyzed and given to moodiness, he was still capable of enjoying things to a tremendous fullness. So I was compelled to paint this to balance out the other vision of him that contains the wrestling with fear and death." **the painting 'Charlie Down In Mexico' is on the back of the 'original' album and the recent HDCD re-issue CD. the first CD editions of the "Mingus" album used the front cover painting on the back CD Jewel-box insert. they put the painting inside on the last page of the CD booklet and deleted the 'legend' _In Memory Of Charles Mingus_ 1922 - 1979 the HDCD re-issue also restores the other two paintings missing from the original CD release. - ------- simon - ------- Remember, if you don't stand for something ... you'll go for anything. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:07:37 EDT From: CaTGirl627@aol.com Subject: Re: Clouds questions In a message dated 6/26/1999 6:07:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ATAKATS@ninenet.com.au writes: << Album: "sunny day, braiding brown flowers and leaves in my hair" CD: "sunny day, braiding wild flowers and leaves in my hair" (And all along I thought she sang "fall flowers") >> You are on the money. Joni does sing *braiding FALL flowers and leaves in my hair* ALSO, who is Sadie J McKee? Is there an interesting story as to why this beautiful album was dedicated to her? I do beleive that Sadie McKee is her grandmother on her fathers side...right folks? Help me out here. Her grandmother played a musical instrument. It is in the Hinton book so I don't know if it is credible or not! Anyone, anyone??? Catgirl..going through the garbage and the flowers for that Hinton book..... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:09:06 -0400 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Re: Clouds questions The Birthday Catgirl writes, on her birthday eve, > Joni does sing *braiding FALL flowers and leaves in my > hair* I disagree, oh nativity feline one! No one in human history, recorded or unrecorded, can claim to have listened to that song as many times as I have, and she sings "wild flowers." This is a song for all seasons. > > ALSO, who is Sadie J McKee? Is there an interesting story as to why this > beautiful album was dedicated to her? > > I do beleive that Sadie McKee is her grandmother on her fathers side...right > folks? Help me out here. Her grandmother played a musical instrument. It > is in the Hinton book so I don't know if it is credible or not! Anyone, > anyone??? This one, I do not know. (Write that down; not many times I confess to not knowing something!) But for tomorrow, only, it can be fall flowers for our wonderful catgirl! (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ End of onlyJMDL Digest V1 #95 ***************************** The Song and Album Voting Booths are open! Cast your votes by clicking the links at http://www.jmdl.com/gallery username: jimdle password: siquomb ------- Don't forget about these ongoing projects: Glossary project: Send a blank message to for all the details. FAQ Project: Help compile the JMDL FAQ. Do you have mailing list-related questions? -send them to Trivia Project: Send your Joni trivia questions and/or answers to Today in History Project: Know of a date-specific Joni fact? - -send it to ------- Post messages to the list at Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe onlyjoni-digest" to ------- Siquomb, isn't she?