From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #277 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Thursday, November 25 2004 Volume 06 : Number 277 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] Re: shindell-list-digest V6 #276 [DrTobs@aol.com] [RS] Mavis as meta-writing [Jolie ] [RS] Thanksgiving ["greg z" ] Re: [RS] Why do I like RS ["kunigunda" ] [RS] Why do I like RS? (cont) [Ron Alderfer ] [RS] "too sweet" [Christy Thomas ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:20:31 -0500 From: DrTobs@aol.com Subject: [RS] Re: shindell-list-digest V6 #276 Hey Vanessa! As I read your earlier post about the Calamari, I thought that maybe that was you! I too ate it and halfway through got totally gooshed out by the oil. My husband ( the guy sitting in front of you) polished it off, no problem. The woman sitting across from him, Janice, is also on the list. I think next Philly show we need to have a way to identify ourselves so fellow-listers can get together! Tricia-I heard what Richard said about Waiting for the Storm and getting bored with his songs while in the process of writing them. I think that's what happened with Mavis, and I think he said that at his last show at The Point ( amidst the fire engines). The song was going nowhere, he was kind of stuck in it, so after he took his daughter to get her canary, he returned to the song and added a canary. I guess I can see someone as talented as Richard, with the sense of humor that he appears to have, coming up with ways to amuse himself during the writing process. If it befuddles his listeners and stimulates conversation, all the better! By the was, I saw you get your Che shirts signed in Philly, and put two and two together much too late, but were you/are you a nurse at VHUP? I was class of 1988 :) I meant to ask Richard after the show if he planned on playing Concerts Under the Stars this year-it's been way too long. Does anyone if he will? Toby-still basking in the afterglow of yet another amazing RS show ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:56:01 -0500 From: Jolie Subject: [RS] Mavis as meta-writing Hi all, First of all, Happy Thanksgiving! Thanks, Deb, for that gentle reminder to keep the spirit of the holiday in mind while gorging on all that turkey (or, as in my case, non-meat turkey substitute.) We all have so much to give thanks for. Now, of course, I have to add a couple of my Mavis thoughts to the fray. I've been absolutely fascinated by this song from the first time I heard Richard play it (I believe it was at Falcon Ridge '03.) I frequently connect with his songs at first blush without fully understanding what they mean for me; I just knew that that one was rich with metaphor and meaning, and somehow it spoke to me. Plus, it has that delicious bossa nova thing going on! I came to understand the song as sort of a meta-writing experience. The crumbling sand castle metaphor always conjures up images of a personal, self-reflective struggle...sort of the tortured-soul artist striving to create something grand. It's clearly not a bleak or hopeless or even lonely endeavor, but it still feels very solitary. Very personal. Enter the bird. The focus suddenly snaps from the personal to the global. I believe that Mavis lands on the flagpole as a literal distraction, but also becomes a metaphor for the narrator, our erstwhile castle builder. The narrator's horizon literally expands. Hope (which, as we've heard, springs eternal) is released, the song ends on a very uplifted note. Meanwhile, back in his office...Richard has talked about how stuck he was on the crumbling sand castle, which he already saw as a metaphor. He knew that he had the seeds of something which really spoke to him, but was having a hard time actualizing it. Hmmm...the solitary artist locked in a personal, self-reflective struggle. Enter the bird. In desperation, he literally injects Mavis into the song (by injecting her into the narrator's landscape.) Mavis-in-the-flesh does for Richard what Mavis-in-the-song does for the narrator. Meta-writing! Okay, perhaps I should leave future literary analysis for the experts. But the beautiful thing is that [what I see as] Richard's transforming metaphor became for me my own metaphor, which does for me what it did for the song which is what it did for him... When Richard was on WFUV's City Folk Morning last Friday, they welcomed him into the studio by playing the album cut of Mavis...so they naturally began the interview by talking about the song and its meaning(s). Richard's one and only explicit point was that the song is a metaphor through and through. Claudia Marshall kept encouraging him to give us the "magic decoder", to reveal what he thought the song meant. He just insisted that he likes people to be able to interpret for themselves. I love that. And with that, I'll excuse myself so I can go give thanks and eat my weight in yams. Cheers, Amy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:25:37 -0500 From: "greg z" Subject: [RS] Thanksgiving From a guitar newsgroup, same applies here: *********************** > Happy Thanksgiving Day. > Don't eat too much. What you drink is your concern (grin). > Wallow in the family and friends that you have around you. > Remember those who are missing. > Think of the things that make this a day to be thankful. > Try to share something with someone who may not have enough. > > Ed On Richard Shindell's latest cd, Vuelta, there is a song which he says is a true story about a family gathering at his aunt "Hazel's House." No one seems to know that this is heaven They say we only know it bye and bye One day all will be revealed Here it is Taking Ed and Richard's advice, Greg Z ******************* From the schedule it appears Richard may not be in the US. If not, perhaps he will feast on some type of bird in Argentina. (preferably not a canary) - -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:31:53 -0600 From: "kunigunda" Subject: Re: [RS] Why do I like RS Greg sez: " musically, I feel extremely alone in the world. Like everyone is strange. My friends all talk about "Greg's music". They humor me, but I sense that songs like Fishing, Transit, and Next Best Western have absolutely no effect on them! What is wrong with them? Are they human? I don't get it. These are just the songs that initially caught my attention. I don't even bother playing Wisteria, Calling The Moon, or I Saw My Youth Today - they'd think I'm nuts." Greg - You're not alone. It seems to me that, to many music listeners, it is the melody not the lyrics that's important. I have tried to convert several friends to Shindellic music with varying degrees of success. My brother-in-law for instance (rest his soul) was a jazz musician leaning towards the improvisational side. To him it was all the notes and how they related to each other; the varying way one could interpret a tune. It didn't matter whether or not a song had lyrics. Another friend likes music in the background. It must take a back seat to what she happens to be talking about at the time, otherwise it's irritating to her. Another friend likes big music; a catchy, rocking rythym with unusual sounding instuments. The words are just there to help the tune along. To Shindellites (well, I'm talking about myself) on the other hand, the lyrics are extremely vital. They have a message, and the message has clout. The tune, although important, is there to strengthen the lyrics. It's much like a poem set to music. I would think that most Shindellites enjoy reading poetry, while many others eschew it perhaps because they are not willing to take the time to analyze and interpret what the artist is trying to say. I've decided that most people do not want to have to think when listening to "music" and therefore cannot get the full impact of Shindellic songs. Just my take. On now to turkey.... Carrie in KC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:33:17 -0500 From: Ron Alderfer Subject: [RS] Why do I like RS? (cont) Well, Greg, I'll throw my opinion into the ring..... It's all a little hazy, but I believe I discovered RS through Lucy and CCC. Richard's unique voice caught my attention. I loved his guitar work. His style of song arrangement and playing was comfortable and appealing. But mostly, I love his stories. As a storyteller, he towers above almost anyone I can think of - including my other favorite singer songwriters. I can listen to his songs over and over (and I do), and they always pull me in. Welcome (belatedly) to the list! Happy Thanksgiving to all the US listers! Ron A ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:38:39 -0800 (PST) From: Christy Thomas Subject: [RS] "too sweet" Vanessa (& all) i certainly never meant to even imply that your comment (or anyone's) indicates you (or they) knew nothing about what Mavis was about - it is entirely possible that i don't...!... i believe i indicated in my initial post that this was simply my take on the song...whether i explicitly stated it or not at the time, i fully believe that there are many possible interpretations to most things ...and only richard knows what he intended... as i mentioned...i was just sharing my interpretation...and my interpretation is far from "sweet" - which is no surprise to anyone who knows me ;-) ...so when i saw someone mention "sweet" in reference to this song it drew me out of lurker-hood to share my (rather NON-sweet) perspective... i apologize if i mis-represented what you said...i didn't have your post in front of me when formulating my post...and, in fact, i had no idea who said it. i just knew that i read something about it in the digest and this seemed an opportunity for me to jump into the conversation...i didn't mean to imply that this was "your interpretation of the song" (and don't think that i did)...my post wasn't intended as a response to YOU in particular...i just wanted to share my view... i simply differ with your perspective that the song is too sweet (for YOU)...it is not sweet at all (to ME)... again, i have no idea what richard intended...i was only sharing my own take on the song... perhaps i should remain a lurker... c > Vanessa wrote: > I wasn't gonna say anything earlier in this > conversation, but now I'm > becoming "That person who has no idea what Mavis is > about"! Well, boo > to that. ;) > > I should say that I never meant to be giving an > analysis of the > song--in fact, I agree with quite a bit of what > others have said about > it. And I didn't say the song as a whole was "too > sweet," I said that > I really rather liked the song now that I'd seen it > live a few times, > but found the lyrics still perhaps a bit too > sweet--for *me*. I don't > see how anyone can infer from that that I must > subscribe to some > particular interpretation of the song. > > That said, after hearing the song played a couple > times in concert, I > do find it easier to turn my attention from the > canary and toward the > castle. It's funny that what happens to the > characters in the song can > happen to the listener, as well: even the listener > may find herself > distracted from the coming flood by Mavis and the > little girl. Maybe > Richard intended this. > > Best, > The Grouch > > > > > someone, however, mentioned that the song was > "too > > > sweet" for them...i beg to differ (rather > > > respectfully, if i may) > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #277 ***********************************