From: les@jmdl.com (onlyJMDL Digest) To: onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Subject: onlyJMDL Digest V2000 #315 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/onlyjoni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com Unsubscribe: mailto:onlyjoni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe onlyJMDL Digest Monday, July 31 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 315 The 'Official' Joni Mitchell Homepage, created by Wally Breese, can be found at http://www.jonimitchell.com. It contains the latest news, a detailed bio, Original Interviews, essays, lyrics and much much more. --- The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. --- Ashara has set up a "Wally Breese Memorial Fund" with all donations going directly towards the upkeep of the website. Wally kept the website going with his own funds. it is now up to US to help Jim continue. If you would like to donate to this fund, please make all checks payable to: Jim Johanson and send them to: Ashara Stansfield P.O. Box 215 Topsfield, MA. 01983 USA ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: "For The Roses", circa 1972 [catman ] Re: "For The Roses", circa 1972 ["Helen M. Adcock" ] Re: memorable moments [Catherine McKay ] Re: DJRD - it just talked to me! [Catherine McKay ] Miles of Aisles Questions ["Eric Wilcox" ] Re: JMDL Digest V2000 #422, youth today [B Merrill ] Re: comments on last digest SJC, ambition & sincerity [B Merrill ] RE:Jericho!! ["Peg Eves" ] Shiny Toys! [Les Irvin ] Re: JMDL Digest V2000 #422, youth today [catman ] Re: Covers Train Keeps A Rollin' [Catherine McKay ] Hostage smiles on presidents [Relayer211@aol.com] RE: For the Roses/PIANO! ["Peg Eves" ] response to Bruce Merrill,re: young'uns ["c Karma" ] Joni on TV tonight [FMYFL@aol.com] SJC - '70s Male Singer/Songwriters [Murphycopy@aol.com] Re: RE: For the Roses/PIANO! [FredNow@aol.com] Re: Joni on TV tonight ["Reuben Bell" ] Re: Napster downloading SJC ["Kakki" ] A couple more Joni moments ["Van Metre, Gordon" ] Re: Napster downloading SJC ["Kakki" ] RE: SJC - '70s Male Singer/Songwriters ["Nikki Johnson" ] Re: Napster, case closed and all that other intellectual property [RandyR] Re: Miles of Aisles Questions ["Jamie Zubairi" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:16:28 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: "For The Roses", circa 1972 i read this to mean that when a horse has finished it's useful life as far as winning races, it is got rid of. Same as they do with racing greyhounds. It seems to me she was making a comment about this rather than saying she doesn't like winners. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:13:27 +1200 From: "Helen M. Adcock" Subject: Re: "For The Roses", circa 1972 Jim wrote: >Why is Joni talking about shooting a winner? Is she just being mean? >Doesn't everyone love a winner, as the expression goes? I would assume she's talking about the day when the horse stops winning, and gets turned into pet food. Making the comparison between what happens to a race-horse eventually, and to a new, hot young musical star. Eventually they stop being the flavour of the month, and start boring people in dark cafes? Either that, or people start saying things like "Oh, Joni Mitchell? She's that folk singer who lost her voice from smoking, isn't she?" Hell - not bitter and twisted on her 3rd day without a cigarette (except for one tiny little lapse this morning, when I had a combination of Mondayitis/road rage/rainy-day-blues all at once and couldn't help myself. And it wasn't my fault because I was giving a friend a lift to work on the first day of his new job and he was nervous and chain-smoking in the car). PS - I'll admit it now - the non-smoking won't/can't last! _____________________________ "To have great poets, there must be great audiences too." - Walt Whitman hell@ihug.co.nz Visit the NBLs (Natural Born Losers) at: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hell/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:41:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: memorable moments - --- zaide912@webtv.net wrote: > A memorable moment that continues.... > One winter day I was grocery shopping and I suddenly > became aware that > Come In From The Cold was playing!!! How did this > happen? Joni got on > the muzak tape in the grocery store!!! It was just > perfect and the > stranger part is that I continue to hear it in > different stores. > Friends have told me they hear it too, and we're not > merely projecting > our joni-love on to the stores audio system or > having some sort of > flashback. Has anyone else heard her in the grocery > store I have heard Joni surprisingly more often in grocery stores (and others that use Muzak) than I would ever have dreamed. I was sitting in McDonald's one day, staring into space, as I so often do, watching my son's fries get cold while he played video games (this particular McD's has Nintendo games that the kids can play which is the only reason Matthew prefers this particular McD's) when I heard Joni singing I-don't-remember-now-what-song (except that it wasn't one of her "greatest hits" which was even more surprising). Right after that, they played other songs by other female artists that I like (again, I don't remember who, or what songs, but no Mariah Carey in the lot!) I thought I was dreaming - I actually enjoyed that particular McD's experience! ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:47:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: DJRD - it just talked to me! - --- "Takats, Angela" wrote: > Hey Listers > I bought a copy of DJRD the other day...what better > way to cheer myself up > after a relationship break-up than getting a new > joni CD. I'd heard lots > about it...but finally got the chance to listen to > it for the first > time.....JONI HEAVEN....how good is this album!! > Like you, I had missed this one when it came out. I only bought it about six months ago. I was swept away. It was, from the moment I heard it, my favourite, and continues to be. This could change of course, but right now, DJRD is my very favourite of all Joni's stuff. ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:46:36 -0400 From: "M & C Urbanski" Subject: Joni and the Enneagram Hi everyone, This past year, while in school , I took a course called "Dating, Intimacy and Relationships". It was a Psych course. Our Professor introduced us to the Enneagram. It's a Middle Eastern tool used in looking into personality types. In the class we had to do a presentation and we could do a biography on someone as it pertained to this class. Of course I picked Joni. As I learned about the Enneagram, I learned that I was a "Romantic" (like duh!!), However, Joni fit the same traits. So that's what I focused my presentation on. Joni as the "Romantic". Here's a few ditties from one of the Enneagram books. Romantics are motivated by the need to experience their feelings and to be understood, to search for the meaning of life, and to avoid being ordinary. At their best Romantics are: warm, compassionate, introspective, expressive, creative and intuitive. At their worst they are: depressed, self-conscious, moody and self-absorbed. Joni?? In careers Romantics can inspire, influence, and persuade through the arts (music, fine art, dancing) and the written or spoken word (poetry, novels, journalism, teaching). Joni!!! There is much more , but you get the picture. In my presentation, I used clips from the Joni tribute. The part where Susan S. talked about Joni and at the end I showed Joni singing BSN. I read the Larry Kline piece from the BSN CD. After reading it I said "while we were taking this course Joni was exploring relationships too" (Just another one of those Joni coincidences of mine). Mine was the last presentation in the last class of the semester. After Joni sang BSN, my professor began to cry. She said "What a perfect way to end this class". Not only did I get an "A" but one of the YOUNG ladies in the class went out and bought a Joni CD!! If anyone would like to find out more about the Enneagram there is a website where you can test yourself to find out what personality type you are (I bet many of us are "Romantics!). www.EnneagramInstitute.com Have fun Marilyn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:16:49 -0500 From: "Eric Wilcox" Subject: Miles of Aisles Questions WEll, just picked up MOA and I have a few questions. First, were Jericho and Love or Money ever released on subsequent albums? Further-- can anyone tell me how much was lost when this 2LP set was transferred to CD? I hear that most of the middle parts were cut out-- IE, Joni talking and such. There's a few spots on this disc where the editing is SLOPPY-- so I just wonder. thanks! eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:51:49 -0400 From: B Merrill Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2000 #422, youth today HanknBG@aol.com wrote: >I was talking to a younger friend the other day, he's 19. Of course he said >he had never heard anything by Joni Mitchell... "who is she?" > >Rather then be disgusted, I pulled out 2 cd's "Court and Spark" and HOSL and >played a few tracks off each. . The next day he went out and bought HOSL and >hasn't stopped talking about her since. > >There is hope for the young people in this world. Or is there?? After playing Joni, Kate B, etc. for my two sons, ages 7 & 10, they brush it off and go back to Britney, Blink 182, the infernal Eminem, etc. "C'mon dad, we like you, but your music is nowhere...." I'm going to write to Dear Abby for advice. Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:57:56 -0400 From: B Merrill Subject: Re: comments on last digest SJC, ambition & sincerity Hi Erin, Thanks for your comments. >First, Marilyn's story of how Joni's music coincided >with her own life experiences really struck me. I >thought it was a great post. Yes, I agree. Marilyn's riff on Joni and her life was especially delightful. Thank you Marilyn! >Second, Bruce wrote: >"my first encounter with aggressive HOLLOW virtuosity >was King Crimson's "In the Court of the Crimson King." >Remember that one? Hard to imagine a woman being >caught up in that kind of empty showing off." > >I would ask you to define hollow virtuosity. In this case, "hollow virtuosity" refered to the instrumental interlude within the title cut. It is virtuosic given how tight and rehearsed it is, but it is un-musical and does not integrate properly (I find) with the song itself. Hence it comes across (to me) as empty showing off. The alternative, which I would prefer, is a technical virtuosity which is consistent with the lyric quality of a song, which serves the expressive purpose of the song, rather than the other way around. "In the >Court of the Crimson King" is a brilliant album, and >if it is beauty you are seeking, you'd be hard pressed >to find a song more beautiful than "I Talk to the >Wind." I treasure the intricate song so much I save >it for "special" occasions so I will never tire of it. > >I absolutely disagree that the ability to write >emotional, sincere songs has ANYTHING to do with one's >gender. Women are no better at it than men, in my >opinion. (And I am a woman, incidentally.) My point was not that men do not write sincere songs or sing expressively. It was that they are less likely to integrate their ambition with their sincerity and expressivity. By ambition I meam, above all, a desire to compose songs with are unusual (in structure, arrangement, instrumentation, content, etc.) and which are highly arranged and technically competent. Let me put my point as a question: Are you aware of any songs/albums by a man which are as ambitious as Joni's Hissing, and also sincere and expressive? If so I would love to learn about them. (As I said, the most striking exception to my tentative generalization-- THAT I AM AWARE OF-- is the second Andy Pratt album, which is both ambitious and very sincere.) As I point of comparison: Van Dyke Park's first album, Song Cycle. This virtually unknown album is even more ambitious than Hissing, in the sophistication of its arrangements certainly, but is not (to me) equivalently sincere, expressive, or lyrical. Therefore it comes off more as a kind of showing off, closer to hollow virtuosity, althogh of a different variety than KC. (Let me add that nevertheless I enjoy this unique album, tho I've never come upon anyone else who claims to like it. And all the reviews of it that I know of have uniformly trashed it.) Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm sure we don't agree on this, but I would like to think that I am at least making myself understood. Bruce NP Prince's "Emancipation." A real "find" for me, the kind of r&b and soul that "they don't make any more" and a wonderful instance of a guy using the full resources of his extraordinary voice. Hightly recommended! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:42:11 EDT From: IVPAUL42@aol.com Subject: Re: comments on last digest SJC, ambition & sincerity In a message dated 7/31/00 11:38:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, merrillb@crisny.org writes: << Let me put my point as a question: Are you aware of any songs/albums by a man which are as ambitious as Joni's Hissing, and also sincere and expressive? If so I would love to learn about them. >> Late for the Sky, which came out about the same time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:45:13 EDT From: IVPAUL42@aol.com Subject: Re: Miles of Aisles Questions In a message dated 7/31/00 11:41:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, edwilcox@students.wisc.edu writes: << First, were Jericho and Love or Money ever released on subsequent albums? >> Jericho is the third cut on Don Juan's Reckless Daughter. Love or Money was not released on any other album. Paul I ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:43:00 -0700 From: "Brenda J. Walker" Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC If only it were as simple as that... The reason why it isn't is because Napster does not host the music. They are not a broadcaster. Secondly, if they didn't have a leg to stand on there would not have been a stay. The fact is that they have more than one legally viable option to defend their position. As far as royalities are concerned, I think Napster is in a similar position to MP3.com's. Even if they had tried to get licenses from the music companies, it would not have happened. Not one of the major music comglomerates would have granted a worldwide blanket license because they have been and still are digging their feet in, thinking that they can be the ones to give the consumers what they want. In fact I had a recent conversation with Michael Robertson where we discussed this and his attempts to try to get the Big Five (soon to be Four) to play ball prior to launching My.MP3.com. In any event, I don't think this court case will really be about copyright and infringing on it. It will hinge on the value of peer to peer computing as the killer app on the internet. Neither the courts or the government will be in a hurry to squelch the development of that or to shut down what is now said to be a 20 million user consumer base. And ultimately the viability of copyright laws as they now exist will have to be challenged. Clearly they do not lend themselves well to what our world is becoming. If the vision of ubiquity plays out, then everything will be everywhere all the time and you'll access it and not own your own copy. Copying will become irrelevant. Finally, if you have gotten or shared a single bit of music, video or interview from the tape trees or any other source, (and I don't know if you have or not) then you really can't cast stones at Napster or it's users. Just my $.02, Brenda BTW - Technically, it is not stealing, it's infringing. Copyright does not give you ownership of property and theft applies to property. Copyright gives you the right for a certain period of time to control what happens to the material. That leads to what will hopefully be tested with this case - is the consumer infringing or does this fall under the fair use doctrine? The answer to that question will have quite an effect on all of us. IVPAUL42@aol.com wrote: > RoseMJoy@aol.com wrote: > >>Hey Jmdler's > Napster's still up until the mid-September, so > >>download, download..... to > your hearts content. ... You copy movies on your VCR's, don't you? Same > difference. Case Closed! > > In a message dated 7/30/00 4:47:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, FredNow@aol.com > regretfully writes: > > << The case is not closed ... if you want to do right by the artists you > profess > to admire, you should buy the CD (and if there's a CD worth buying it's > surely Herbie Hancock's "Gershwin's World"). > > ... How in the world is that cool? It's not ... it's called stealing. > > -Fred Simon > >> > Thank you, Fred. > I am continually shocked that people think an operation like Napster is not > obviously and patently (pun intended) illegal. > And I am further amazed that people who realize Napster will not have a leg > to stand on in its court case would rush to harvest Napster's illegal fruits > before it is put out of business or forced to pay its fair share in royalties. > The television station that broadcasts the movie that you copy for personal > use so that you or your immediate family or guests can enjoy it at your > convenience in your home pays royalties for the right to broadcast it. > At the very least, people who make a piece of music available for > downloading by others on the Internet should be paying the same kind of > royalty. > THAT is the appropriate analogy, NOT "it's free to copy movies on your VCR > so it should be free to download songs from Napster or other shady > operations." > > Paul I ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:26:02 -0400 From: "Reuben Bell" Subject: Re: Miles of Aisles Questions "Jericho" appeared three years later on "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter", and is one of the standouts on this album, as far as I'm concened. I LOVE this song! I've never seen "Love or Money" anywhere else. Reuben >>> "Eric Wilcox" 07/31/00 11:16AM >>> WEll, just picked up MOA and I have a few questions. First, were Jericho and Love or Money ever released on subsequent albums? Further-- can anyone tell me how much was lost when this 2LP set was transferred to CD? I hear that most of the middle parts were cut out-- IE, Joni talking and such. There's a few spots on this disc where the editing is SLOPPY-- so I just wonder. thanks! eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:22:59 -0400 From: "Peg Eves" Subject: RE:Jericho!! and is one of the standouts on this album, as far as > I'm concened. I LOVE this song! > Reuben Yes Reuben! Jericho. Doesn't that song just shoot you to the moon or what!!Not just a standout on the record, a standout in the universe of song!! Peg > -----O > , > > >>> "Eric Wilcox" 07/31/00 11:16AM >>> > WEll, just picked up MOA and I have a few questions. > > First, were Jericho and Love or Money ever released on subsequent albums? > > Further-- can anyone tell me how much was lost when this 2LP set was > transferred to CD? I hear that most of the middle parts were cut > out-- IE, > Joni talking and such. There's a few spots on this disc where the editing > is SLOPPY-- so I just wonder. > > thanks! > > eric > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:59:09 -0600 From: Les Irvin Subject: Shiny Toys! Joniphiles - I'm pleased to announce that Ken Slarty has accepted my invitation to house his collection of Joni icons, cursors, screen savers, and midi files on the JMDL site. He has dubiously dubbed it the "Shiny Toys" section. Check it out here: http://www.jmdl.com/shinytoys Thanks Ken, for all your work on the new section. Les NP: Rickie Lee Jones "Scary Chinese Movie" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:47:34 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2000 #422, youth today well, I know I wouldn't have appreciated Joni at 7 & 10 either!!! I remember the Tom Jones, Humperdink, Petula Clark, Monkees etc hits then-thay all had singalong melodys' even tho I didn't understand the words. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:59:30 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC > > > Finally, if you have gotten or shared a single bit of music, video or interview > from the tape trees or any other source, (and I don't know if you have or not) > then you really can't cast stones at Napster or it's users. > Much to my shame Brenda you have just written what i was too chicken to! I have been rather astounded at some of the self deceit and rationalisation being written on this subject. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:57:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Covers Train Keeps A Rollin' - --- SCJoniGuy@aol.com wrote: > Hi Gang, > > Just a quick note to the 'hunters and gatherers' out > there...the following > covers have been nabbed and will be added to Volume > 9 and will probably kick > off Volume 10... > > For Free - Petula Clark Petula Clark!?! When did she do that? ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:02:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: comments on last digest SJC - --- Erin Stoy wrote: > Some comments on posts from the last digest... >I actually DON'T copy movies, but > that's > not the point here. > *When people copy movies from tv, they are usually > not > then making thousands of copies for other people to > have. Napster makes it possible for thousands (or > millions, depending on how many people want it) to > own > a song without paying royalties to the artist or > helping to cover the huge costs incurred by the > record > companies (and here I am talking about all the costs > a > record label incurs in finding talent and investing > in > it, not the cost of CD production). Who pays for Napster? How do they stay in business? What if they paid royalties to the artists or the record companies? ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:07:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: "For The Roses", circa 1972 When you're a winner, you are that for a very short time, and while you're a winner, sure, everyone loves you. But at some point you've overstayed your welcome, or you can't keep up with your image, so you either fade into oblivion (yesterday's news) or, if you're a horse and you stumble and break your leg, they shoot you. (I love Joni's sick sense of humour!) - --- Mark Domyancich wrote: > I guess she was drawing a parallel between her > career and the life of > a horse. "Lilac sprays" and the wreath of flowers, > IMO. > > NP-Peter Rowan, 6/93-Panama Red > > At 8:44 PM -0400 7/30/00, Jim L'Hommedieu wrote: > >Why is Joni talking about shooting a winner? Is > she just being mean? > >Doesn't everyone love a winner, as the expression > goes? > > -- > Mark Domyancich > Harpua@revealed.net > tape trading: http://homepage.mac.com/mtd/ > "Close it yourself, shitty!" ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:24:24 EDT From: FredNow@aol.com Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC In a message dated 7/31/00 11:07:04 AM, brenda@killinggoliath.com writes: >Technically, it is not stealing, it's infringing. Ethically, morally, karmic-ally ... it's stealing. - -Fred Simon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:40:30 EDT From: Relayer211@aol.com Subject: Re: "For The Roses", circa 1972 In a message dated 7/31/00 2:13:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca writes: << if you're a horse and you stumble and break your leg, they shoot you. (I love Joni's sick sense of humour!) >> "They shoot Horses,don't they?"If you want to see a depressing movie,see that one... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:44:13 -0400 From: "Ken (slarty)" Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC As Homer Simpson would say: That's for the courts to decide. FredNow@aol.com wrote:Ethically, morally, karmic-ally ... it's stealing. > > -Fred Simon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:45:59 EDT From: Relayer211@aol.com Subject: Hostage smiles on presidents I've been thinking about "Shadows and light",and wondering about some of the lyrics.I never knew what Joni meant when she sang "hostage smiles on presidents",and "freedom scribbled in the subway".but now my guess is that she is contrasting different extremes on the continuum of reality.the presidents who feel like hostages, and subway riders who feel they have alot of freedom.Is my interpretation wrong?Does anyone have any other ideas? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:49:13 -0400 From: "Peg Eves" Subject: RE: For the Roses/PIANO! > The piano! The piano! The piano! > Fred Simon Fred, I know! I was just listening to it last night. Very RICH & provocative - that Joni piano. > It lifts you up while pulling you under. Peg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:10:56 GMT From: "c Karma" Subject: response to Bruce Merrill,re: young'uns Start 'em early. That's what I say. While my 5 year old Nic recognizes Joni's voice instantly (usually positively but he still prefers to listen to the Beatles'"Yellow Submarine"), 8 year old Amelia knows all the words to "Comes Love." Hell, I think even Joni has problems remembering all of them. Now if I could just get their mother to stop rolling her eyes when she realizes what's coming from the loudspeakers...I can't blame her actually: the competition (HA!) is tough. It's been an especially active Joni year, maybe I've overloaded her circuits. CC "When I was three feet tall and wide-eyed open to it all..." -- JM ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:40:09 EDT From: FMYFL@aol.com Subject: Joni on TV tonight Just a reminder for tonight, which Julius was so kind to let us know last week. (In case you don't have the JMDL video tape tree) Julius wrote: Joni is at #87. "100 Greatest Rock & Roll Moments on TV" airs as a five-hour, five-night special debuting Monday, July 31, to Friday, August 4, from 10:00-11:00 p.m. (ET/PT) each night. (On Tuesday-Friday, each new premiere installment will be immediately preceded by a repeat airing of the previous episodes.) The entire special will be repeated on Saturday, August 5 from 2:00-7:00 p.m. (ET/PT), and Sunday, August 6 at 4:00-9:00 p.m. (ET/PT). "100 GREATEST ROCK & ROLL MOMENTS ON TV" 87 GRACE SLICK, CROSBY, STILLS & NASH, JONI MITCHELL and others fresh from Woodstock appear on THE DICK CAVETT SHOW. Jimmy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:56:31 EDT From: Murphycopy@aol.com Subject: SJC - '70s Male Singer/Songwriters CDNOW has a Buyer's Guide called '70s Male Singer/Songwriters on their site right now. The following is their list along with albums CDNOW picked to review: James Taylor, Sweet Baby James Jackson Browne, The Pretender Paul Simon, Paul Simon Warren Zevon, I'll Sleep When I'm Dead Randy Newman, Sail Away Harry Chapin, Greatest Stories Live Jim Croce, Photographs and Memories John Denver, Greatest Hits Billy Joel, The Stranger Elton John, Honky Chateau Cat Stevens, Classics John Lennon, Plastic Ono Band Harry Nilsson, Nilsson Schmilsson John Prine, John Prine Tom Waits, Small Change Neil Young, Harvest Bob Dylan, Blood on the Tracks Gordon Lightfoot, Gord's Gold Loudon Wainwright III, Live One Al Stewart, Greatest Hits Bruce Springstein, Stevie Wonder and Jagger/Richard were also writing and performing during this period, but I guess CDNOW's list is more about the acoustic, sound-hole-on-your-knee kind of guys. Although several of these men died young and thus had shorter careers than Joni has had, and one, Cat Stevens, left show business, Joni is right up there with the best. She's number one on my list of singer/songwriters as anyone who knows me will tell you. Yet I think it's odd that she's always referred to in the media as "one of the best FEMALE singer/songwriters of her generation." I can understand someone being called the best female tennis player or marathoner or figure skater, but it always strikes me as sexist when gender is used to define women in the arts. It just seems like the media's way of subtly creating a subclass (female) of people within a category. I wonder if it bugs Joni and other women in the arts as much as it bugs me. Discovering my pissed-off inner feminist, --Bob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:04:52 EDT From: FredNow@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: For the Roses/PIANO! In a message dated 7/31/00 2:11:01 PM, peves@marlboro.edu writes: >> The piano! The piano! The piano! >> Fred Simon > >Fred, >I know! I was just listening to it last night. Very RICH & provocative >that Joni piano. > It lifts you up while pulling you under. >Peg Yeah, I really miss it. And the incredible thing is that it's all native talent, no academic knowledge, not that there's anything at all wrong with that but what I mean to say is that her harmonic/melodic thing is so far advanced for a "naif" ... compared to say, Jackson Brown, for instance, and his same 4 chords for almost every song he's ever written. And Joni has been able to produce this very rich harmonic self-invented language on piano and guitar ... simply astounding. - -Fred Simon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:10:26 -0400 From: "Reuben Bell" Subject: Re: Joni on TV tonight What channel is this airing on? Reuben >>> 07/31/00 03:40PM >>> Just a reminder for tonight, which Julius was so kind to let us know last week. (In case you don't have the JMDL video tape tree) Julius wrote: Joni is at #87. "100 Greatest Rock & Roll Moments on TV" airs as a five-hour, five-night special debuting Monday, July 31, to Friday, August 4, from 10:00-11:00 p.m. (ET/PT) each night. (On Tuesday-Friday, each new premiere installment will be immediately preceded by a repeat airing of the previous episodes.) The entire special will be repeated on Saturday, August 5 from 2:00-7:00 p.m. (ET/PT), and Sunday, August 6 at 4:00-9:00 p.m. (ET/PT). "100 GREATEST ROCK & ROLL MOMENTS ON TV" 87 GRACE SLICK, CROSBY, STILLS & NASH, JONI MITCHELL and others fresh from Woodstock appear on THE DICK CAVETT SHOW. Jimmy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:05:15 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brenda J. Walker" To: Cc: ; Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 8:43 AM Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC > If only it were as simple as that... > > The reason why it isn't is because Napster does not host the music. They are not > a broadcaster. > > Secondly, if they didn't have a leg to stand on there would not have been a stay. > The fact is that they have more than one legally viable option to defend their > position. > > As far as royalities are concerned, I think Napster is in a similar position to > MP3.com's. Even if they had tried to get licenses from the music companies, it > would not have happened. Not one of the major music comglomerates would have > granted a worldwide blanket license because they have been and still are digging > their feet in, thinking that they can be the ones to give the consumers what they > want. In fact I had a recent conversation with Michael Robertson where we > discussed this and his attempts to try to get the Big Five (soon to be Four) to > play ball prior to launching My.MP3.com. > > In any event, I don't think this court case will really be about copyright and > infringing on it. It will hinge on the value of peer to peer computing as the > killer app on the internet. Neither the courts or the government will be in a > hurry to squelch the development of that or to shut down what is now said to be a > 20 million user consumer base. And ultimately the viability of copyright laws as > they now exist will have to be challenged. Clearly they do not lend themselves > well to what our world is becoming. If the vision of ubiquity plays out, then > everything will be everywhere all the time and you'll access it and not own your > own copy. Copying will become irrelevant. > > Finally, if you have gotten or shared a single bit of music, video or interview > from the tape trees or any other source, (and I don't know if you have or not) > then you really can't cast stones at Napster or it's users. > > Just my $.02, > Brenda > > BTW - Technically, it is not stealing, it's infringing. Copyright does not give > you ownership of property and theft applies to property. Copyright gives you the > right for a certain period of time to control what happens to the material. That > leads to what will hopefully be tested with this case - is the consumer infringing > or does this fall under the fair use doctrine? The answer to that question will > have quite an effect on all of us. > > IVPAUL42@aol.com wrote: > > > RoseMJoy@aol.com wrote: > > >>Hey Jmdler's > > Napster's still up until the mid-September, so > > >>download, download..... to > > your hearts content. ... You copy movies on your VCR's, don't you? Same > > difference. Case Closed! > > > > In a message dated 7/30/00 4:47:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, FredNow@aol.com > > regretfully writes: > > > > << The case is not closed ... if you want to do right by the artists you > > profess > > to admire, you should buy the CD (and if there's a CD worth buying it's > > surely Herbie Hancock's "Gershwin's World"). > > > > ... How in the world is that cool? It's not ... it's called stealing. > > > > -Fred Simon > > >> > > Thank you, Fred. > > I am continually shocked that people think an operation like Napster is not > > obviously and patently (pun intended) illegal. > > And I am further amazed that people who realize Napster will not have a leg > > to stand on in its court case would rush to harvest Napster's illegal fruits > > before it is put out of business or forced to pay its fair share in royalties. > > The television station that broadcasts the movie that you copy for personal > > use so that you or your immediate family or guests can enjoy it at your > > convenience in your home pays royalties for the right to broadcast it. > > At the very least, people who make a piece of music available for > > downloading by others on the Internet should be paying the same kind of > > royalty. > > THAT is the appropriate analogy, NOT "it's free to copy movies on your VCR > > so it should be free to download songs from Napster or other shady > > operations." > > > > Paul I > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:15:12 -0500 From: "Van Metre, Gordon" Subject: A couple more Joni moments I mentioned this in my first post, but my first exposure to Blue was when I lived in Europe for most of 1986. We had already been there for a couple months, horribly music deprived. As it was we had taken an entire steamer trunk full of stuff, including copies of all my wife's films, so space was at a premium, and most of our collection at that time was on vinyl, and with little chance of access to a turntable, it seemed ridiculous to try taking music along. So we wrote home to all our friends saying, "Send music! Send music!" Well, my wife's best friend sent a cassette which she dubbed that had "Blue" on side one, with a segue to some of George Winston's "October", with King Crimson's "Beat" on side 2. One of the most perfect parts was that she had recorded it on an old French lesson tape and managed to keep the tail end of the lesson's monologue, which was about about the importance of vacation in French society and the French psyche. (I've now listened to it so many times I could probably transcribe it verbatim, but I'll spare all you non-Francophones the torture.) The beauty of the tape is that both Blue and Beat (in addition to being 4-letter words that start with B) are about being American expatriates in Europe. We went to a Grecian Isle with Carey, sat in a park in Paris France, reading the news and they wouldn't give peace a chance, went to a party down a red dirt road, met a man who did the goat dance very well, and saw a fallin' star burn up. Then we were wheels, moving wheels, and used odd shaped keys which led to new soap and envelopes. Those songs are like tatoos! The soundtrack of my life is full of Joni quotes.... Gordon in Kent ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:22:04 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC Oops sorry for the premature send on the last one - Brenda wrote: > The reason why it isn't is because Napster does not host >the music. They are not a broadcaster. That's correct. The issue here is whether their program facilitates copyright infringement, which is still currently against the law. > Secondly, if they didn't have a leg to stand on there would >not have been a stay The fact is that they have more than >one legally viable option to defend their position. Most defendants have some kind of legally viable defense but the courts in the U.S. traditionally (and ideally) base their decisions on what is best for the good of all, based upon the law. Essentially, it seems to me that in this case, the rights of the copyright owners must be weighed against the rights of Napster, Inc. > And ultimately the viability of copyright laws as > they now exist will have to be challenged. And this case seems to me to be ripe for setting new precedents. But it is difficult for me to imagine that several decades of intellectual property law could be completely overturned. > Clearly they do not lend themselves well to what our world is >becoming. If the vision of ubiquity plays out, then everything >will be everywhere all the time and you'll access it and not >own your own copy. Copying will become irrelevant. The law may well have to change to accomodate the new technology and ways of distributing music. But I cannot see that the copyright owners rights will be declared void. > Finally, if you have gotten or shared a single bit of music, video or interview from the tape trees or any other source, (and >I don't know if you have or not) then you really can't cast >stones at Napster or it's users. I think one can make a distinction between probably less than 100 people trading mostly live concerts for no profit and a commercial enterprise like Napster with its' consumer base of 20 million people. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:34:46 -0400 From: "Nikki Johnson" Subject: RE: SJC - '70s Male Singer/Songwriters Harry Chapin Greatest Stories Live is one of my all time favorite albums! My family never lets me forget about how when I was 4...yes 4...I would take out my Harry Chapin record and play it and play it and dance and sometimes just sit and listen. He is a great songwriter. Of course I like most of the other artists mentioned and they are all talented too. But Harry was a very passionate man...for his causes and his songs and that always struck me. I don't think it's so much putting 'female' in front of the title singer/songwriter (which is a narrow classification in itself) as much as it is certain expectations that come along with it that can become hindering or annoying. Thanks for reminding me about one of my fav albums! Take care Nikki "Ever since I was a baby girl the one thing I wanted most in this world was to keep my love alive" ~ Heart > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]On Behalf Of > Murphycopy@aol.com > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:57 PM > To: joni@smoe.org > Subject: SJC - '70s Male Singer/Songwriters > > > CDNOW has a Buyer's Guide called '70s Male Singer/Songwriters on > their site > right now. The following is their list along with albums CDNOW picked to > review: > > James Taylor, Sweet Baby James > Jackson Browne, The Pretender > Paul Simon, Paul Simon > Warren Zevon, I'll Sleep When I'm Dead > Randy Newman, Sail Away > Harry Chapin, Greatest Stories Live > Jim Croce, Photographs and Memories > John Denver, Greatest Hits > Billy Joel, The Stranger > Elton John, Honky Chateau > Cat Stevens, Classics > John Lennon, Plastic Ono Band > Harry Nilsson, Nilsson Schmilsson > John Prine, John Prine > Tom Waits, Small Change > Neil Young, Harvest > Bob Dylan, Blood on the Tracks > Gordon Lightfoot, Gord's Gold > Loudon Wainwright III, Live One > Al Stewart, Greatest Hits > > Bruce Springstein, Stevie Wonder and Jagger/Richard were also writing and > performing during this period, but I guess CDNOW's list is more about the > acoustic, sound-hole-on-your-knee kind of guys. > > Although several of these men died young and thus had shorter > careers than > Joni has had, and one, Cat Stevens, left show business, Joni is right up > there with the best. She's number one on my list of singer/songwriters as > anyone who knows me will tell you. Yet I think it's odd that she's always > referred to in the media as "one of the best FEMALE > singer/songwriters of her > generation." I can understand someone being called the best female tennis > player or marathoner or figure skater, but it always strikes me as sexist > when gender is used to define women in the arts. It just seems like the > media's way of subtly creating a subclass (female) of people within a > category. I wonder if it bugs Joni and other women in the arts as > much as it > bugs me. > > Discovering my pissed-off inner feminist, > > --Bob > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:02:06 -0700 From: "Brenda J. Walker" Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC > > Most defendants have some kind of legally viable defense but the courts in > the U.S. traditionally (and ideally) base their decisions on what is best > for the good of all, based upon the law. Essentially, it seems to me that > in this case, the rights of the copyright owners must be weighed against the > rights of Napster, Inc. I think the question will not be about the rights of Napster. It will be about the rights of its users. If this is considered fair use than the rights of the people will definitely rule...see the Sony Betamax case. And, as I stated, you have to compare the upside of peer to peer computing against lost revenues for the music industry. I will respectfully disagree and venture to say that the future benefit of peer to peer computing outways the interest of copyright owners in this case. > > And ultimately the viability of copyright laws as > > they now exist will have to be challenged. > > And this case seems to me to be ripe for setting new precedents. But it is > difficult for me to imagine that several decades of intellectual property > law could be completely overturned. I can imagine it. In the scheme of things copyright law is quite young. It is certainly preceded by individual rights as outlined in the Constitution. > > > Clearly they do not lend themselves well to what our world is >becoming. > If the vision of ubiquity plays out, then everything >will be everywhere all > the time and you'll access it and not >own your own copy. Copying will > become irrelevant. > > The law may well have to change to accomodate the new technology and ways of > distributing music. But I cannot see that the copyright owners rights will > be declared void. > I don't think that their rights will or should be voided. I do think that they will and should be changed. > I think one can make a distinction between probably less than 100 people > trading mostly live concerts for no profit and a commercial enterprise like > Napster with its' consumer base of 20 million people. Except that the people doing the trading aren't doing it commercially. (Neither is Napster yet because they still don't have a revenue model!) As a consumer, fair use for this list is no different from fair use for someone using Napster. If I exchange with you through the mail or through Napster, there is no difference. Brenda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:50:53 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC > As a consumer, > fair use for this list is no different from fair use for someone using Napster. > If I exchange with you through the mail or through Napster, there is no > difference. > > This is the way it works: say I have mp3's on my hard disk and am logged onto Napster. Anyone else logged onto Napster can 'see' my mp3's and may want them so they download them from my pc to their pc. I couild email them to anyone who asks(as I have). The only difference with napster is that i do not know who is downloading them nor do I have clue who i dowloaded the Carly song I wanted from. However, I have soince emailed that mp3 to someone I do know. When logged onto Napster you put a search in, say Joni Mitchell and it will list alll the joni songs people have on their pc's. You click on the one you want and download it. Of course there is this problem:it could take a good 20 minutes to do this dowload or more and the person whose PC you are downloading from could easily go off line and that is you bugggered!!! Now having explained that, i fail to see this as any different to all the trading that goes on between jmdl-ers. It seems to be a case of 'don't do as i do but do as i say' and that doesn't go down well. No matter which way you look at it what we do is no different-it is all an infringement. So unless you have never copied anything for other than persoanl use, you really can't condemn the people who use Napster. I don't think the law makes any distiction bewteen what is or not available. The fact that a live performance was not recorded by the artists record company does not make it all right for us to sneak in recording equipment and record it and then offer it around, even if it is offered for free. It is still doing what has been prohibited. I think it arrogant to excuse what we do but condemn what 'they' do. Amazing how easily we see 'they' as different from us and bad as well!(but then that come naturally to humans-they or them are different and therefore bad) I have copied stuff for myself and for people here. I will continue to do so. What I won't do is condemn people for doing precisely what i do. - -- Why don't sheep shrink when it rains? http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html http://www.tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:11:05 -0700 From: RandyRemote Subject: Re: Napster, case closed and all that other intellectual property c Karma wrote: > Before RMJ and RR get down all over the Napster thing, I'll throw my peeve > in now toward the record companies for: > 1.Overcharging their customers for the past 10 years for CDs (since CDs > became the predominant media for recorded music, there's no godly reason why > they should have stayed so expensive), and > 2. Being asleep at the switch for electronic media transfers via the > internet. > You reap what you sow. And 3. The record companies have been screwing the artists from their inception to the present day. Roger McGuinn recently told the Senate committee that despite the millions of Byrds albums sold, he has never made a penny on [artist] royalties. (The officials' reply: 'that's what I keep hearing, over and over'). TLC declared bankruptcy. An excellent overview of this situation is contained in the book "Star Making Machinery", also a more artist oriented book by Kashif called "Everything You'd Better Know About the Record Industry". So, while it's tempting to take the view that Napster is giving the record companies what they deserve, once again the artists are losing out, too. Side note: a recording artist recieves two types of royalties from a record, one as a performer on the record, which is held until the cost of the record is recouped, and another as a songwriter, which cannot legally be withheld. Since they hardly ever see the performer money, the copyright money is very important. That's the money that keeps a roof over Joni's head. RR ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:46:17 +0100 From: "Jamie Zubairi" Subject: Re: Miles of Aisles Questions Eric Wilcox wrote: > WEll, just picked up MOA and I have a few questions. > > > Further-- can anyone tell me how much was lost when this 2LP set was > transferred to CD? I hear that most of the middle parts were cut out-- IE, > Joni talking and such. There's a few spots on this disc where the editing > is SLOPPY-- so I just wonder. Hi Eric Well, I would buy the HDCD version of the CD as previously I have owned the first CD release and that cut a lot of the talking and the audience (More class than Richard Nixon, Gomer Pyle etc etc). The HDCD also comes in 2 versions: American and Canadian. I can't remember which is which but one has the original Joni writing 'Joni Mitchell, Miles Of Aisles' like the original record sleeve. The other version was how (I guess( Joni wanted it, with proper typeface replacing her rendering and the painting and the photograph are merged seamlessly. I have the first version and I think it's American but I can't be sure. When I first heard the new versions ( and you can tell that there is more music to it because the new versions have the track times and the whole thing is longer) I was struck by the LA Express 'This time it's our pleasure to introduce: MISS JONI MITCHELL!!!!!. On my old CD it just starts with YTMOIAR. If you were thinking about buying, please buy with no doubts as to editing out of her banter, it's all there like my original records. Jamie Zoob ------------------------------ End of onlyJMDL Digest V2000 #315 ********************************* ------- Post messages to the list at ------- Siquomb, isn't she?