Errors-To: owner-chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Reply-To: chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Sender: owner-chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
From: owner-chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
To: chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Subject: Chalkhills Digest #5-213


         Chalkhills Digest, Volume 5, Number 213

                  Saturday, 22 May 1999

Today's Topics:

                    Testimonial Emetic
                         Greenman
        And now for something completely different
             The *All New* Testimonial Diner
                        Green Man
                      Not Fade Away
             then he appeared (or so he said)
             C'est la verite de la situation!
                   Erica's movie career
          Art Critics VS. Abstract Expressionism
                      Under cover...
                   Andy NOT on the list
          Re: Monty Python: consensual relations
                      My vote is in
                        The Grays
              Jackson Pollock is over-rated
                        questions
                 no, I'm not Andy either.
                Re: various and sundry...
                Scream For Me, Swindon!!!!

Administrivia:

    To UNSUBSCRIBE from the Chalkhills mailing list, send a message to
    <chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org> with the following command:

	unsubscribe

    For all other administrative issues, send a message to:

	<chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org>

    Please remember to send your Chalkhills postings to:

	<chalkhills@chalkhills.org>

    World Wide Web: <http://chalkhills.org/>

    The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors.

    Chalkhills is compiled with Digest 3.7 (John Relph <relph@sgi.com>).

All that fancy play-talk.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Michael Versaci" <stormymonday@sprintmail.com>
Subject: Testimonial Emetic
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:12:24 -0400
Message-ID: <000f01bea2ba$05cb9f40$0f6b0a26@laptop-mversaci.mtwconsulting.com>

Folxtc,

1)  "Living Through Another Cuba"               The Bee Gees
2)  "Harvest Festival"                          Patti LaBelle
3)  "Miniature Sun"                             Kenny G
4)  "Easter Theater"                            Electric Light Orchestra
5)  "Dear God"                                  Debbie Boone
6)  "Respectable Street"                        Pat Boone
7)  "Generals & Majors"                         Harry Connick Jr.
8)  "Grass"                                     The Mormon Tabernacle Choir
9)  "Funk Pop A Roll"                           Hanson
10) "Knights In Shining Karma"                  Bob Seger
11) "Love On A Farmboy's Wages"                 Kansas
12) "Senses Working Overtime"                   Natalie Imbruglia
13) "Wake Up"                                   Night Ranger
14) "Pink Thing"                                George Michael

Michael Versaci

------------------------------

From: OMBEAN1@aol.com
Message-ID: <e7a57047.24755f40@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:51:12 EDT
Subject: Greenman

Hillers,
 LISTEN UP!!!
 As explained by Andy HIMSELF on the World Cafe interview, The Greenman is
the character painted on church ceilings by pagans. He is father nature. He
has branches & leaves growing from his body. The Christians hired the
pagans to paint their religious figures on church walls & ceilings but the
Pagans added some of their own beliefs. One of them being The
Greenman. Andy says go to some of the old churches in England and look
up.No more speculation.
 Class dismissed.
 AV2 cant come quick enough. We've already drifted from AV1. Theres still a
video for Geenman coming out, but already the threads are about non-XTC
stuff. Its getting quite boring. COME ON MITCH, YOURE OUR ONLY HOPE!!
     Adieu for nieu (cousin of ciao for niao)  Roger

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19990520125549.28467.rocketmail@web1.rocketmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 05:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: nross <phoenixyellowrose@rocketmail.com>
Subject: And now for something completely different

If you go into a battle, it's better to win the first time.
--George S. Patton

War dance.... a patriotic romance.
Oh, hell! I like that damn song, okay?!!!

Anyway -  for all you bloody American chicks who watched (the soap)
General Hospital in the early 80's (do these shows hop across the
pond???) I recently saw something that made me smile and laugh... and
for Godsakes... listen,  because because because:

Rick Springfeild has a new album out!!!

Just thought I'd make the (no doubt) minority smile a bit. Admit it,
girls... ya'll listened to 'im then... and Jack Wagner, too.

Thought I'd fluff the pillow a bit.

By the way, Gene... your subject line to your greenman post was
classic. Really top-dawg #1, damn good. Schweet. :-)

-Nicole

------------------------------

Message-ID: <900822C71730D2118D8C00805F65765C605D6F@EINSTEIN>
From: Jill Oleson <oleson@moneystar.com>
Subject: The *All New* Testimonial Diner
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:15:40 -0500

Greetings.  Here at the *All New* Testimonial Diner
we serve dinner day and night accompanied by the
effervescent sounds of XTC covers.  Here's a brief sampling
of our offerings:

"Chalkhills and Children" - Michael Jackson
"Pale and Precious" - Marilyn Manson
"Merely a Man" - RuPaul
"Wrapped in Grey" - Calvin Klein
"Hold Me My Daddy" - Soon-Yi
"My Love Explodes" - Hugh Grant
"Set Myself on Fire" - Richard Pryor
"Me and the Wind" - Rush Limbaugh
"Here Comes President Kill Again" - The Reagan/Bush/Clinton Trio
"The Disappointed" - Bob Dole
"No Thugs in Our House" - Charlton Heston
"Vanishing Girl" - Patty Hearst
"When You're Near Me I Have Difficulty" - Mark David Chapman
"I Can't Own Her" - John Hinckley, Jr.
"Pink Thing" - Monica Lewinsky (backed by Pee Wee Herman)
"Cynical Days" - uh, er, that must be me!

llij eek!

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19990520152836.42392.qmail@hotmail.com>
From: "Ralph Simpson DeMarco" <sawpit@hotmail.com>
Subject: Green Man
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:28:36 PDT

Dear Affiliated Members:

I am very confused.

James Isaacs
>Jeremias Gotthelf "The Black Spider", this Green man is the devil)

Mor_Goth
>The color green has been traditionally been associated with nature,
> >obviously, and the Green Knight shows his association with paganism
> >through this color, which gives him his power, and other element >(holly
>plants, etc.)

Here in the States we have canned and frozen vegetables produced under the
label "Green Giant". He is a huge green guy with a vegetation loin cloth and
hair. I always assumed that the Green Giant was based on Celtic/English lore
of a fertility god who is the co-worker, if you will, of the earth mother,
so to speak (see also Johnny Appleseed). The Green Man is "dressed in the
fruit of the wild.." and has been around for millions of years - an ancient
guy I must say! Although I have a literature degree I've not read Sir Gawain
or Beowolf in a while but my gut tells me that "Green Man" does have
something to do with The Green Knight of Sir Gawain - for Goth makes a
compelling argument. Spencer's The Fairy Queen also comes to mind.

Ralph

------------------------------

Message-ID: <D9E6CEC7734AD111BCF70090273C5D671318FB@user9.chemonics.net>
From: Todd Bernhardt <TBernhardt@Chemonics.net>
Subject: Not Fade Away
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:31:12 -0400

Hi:

Old soldiers that we are, Gene and I had agreed to let this discussion fade
away, but I feel compelled to respond to Mario Beaulac's recent rebuttal of
my opinions about conversation and speculation here.

Though the distance from brain to keyboard is a relatively short one,
things can get lost or scrambled along the way, so I'll try and make myself
more clear. As usual, gentle reader, feel free to exercise your prerogative
to use the page-down key.

>Should any participant hereabouts censor themselves out of concern for the
feelings of any of the band's members or entourage? Come on!<

Mario, I've never intended for anyone to censor themselves, and in the past
have come out strongly against the presence of the "relevancy police." I
also wasn't trying to protect anyone's feelings (as Gene can attest to!).
What I dislike is sloppy, undisciplined writing. IMO anyone can say
anything they want, as long as they back it up with facts or qualify it
with an "in my opinion" or the like.

> I'm sure they've read worse in published forums (i.e.: music criticism,
or plain vanilla criticism) than most anyone can spew forth amongst the
ranks of the faithful roaming these chalkhills,<

So, two wrongs make a right?

> and isn't it Mr. Partridge himself who sang eloquently: "I believe the
printed word should be forgiven/Doesn't matter what it said"? I guess we
can safely hazard that he would extend that immunity to the e-words traded
amongst the XTC brethren...<

IMO, Andy is coming out in that song against a broad evil: censorship. A
stand against something (censorship) does not constitute an endorsement of
a subset (sloppy, potentially slanderous writing) of what you're taking a
stand against. In other words, he's defending our right to write what we
want, but I don't think that means he'd agree with unsubstantiated attempts
on our part to divine his motives.

>Judging by how one chalkhillian or other stands up to Mr. Partridge's
defense with zealous solicitude every time the man's character is impugned,
or thought to be, you'd think the man *was* an emotional cripple who would
be unable to put in perspective the bad, bad things said about him that
could pop up here.<

To speak for myself here, I wasn't jumping to Andy's defense; I was coming
out against a form of expression that I dislike, no matter where I see it.
I'll repeat what I said in #207: "I'm not saying that Gene is wrong in his
assessment of Andy's personality or his motivations. For all we know, he
might be right. But -- and this is the crux of the biscuit for me -- we
_don't_ know, and so I think that's territory we should steer clear of," no
matter how tempting or easy it may be to go there.

> Somehow, the thought of Andy Partridge being seriously pained, or even
chagrined, by the discussions unfolding amongst ourselves is a preposterous
one, on at least two levels: first, the man sure doesn't come off as a
cream puff, what with his scathing wit and his steady artistic course
maintained against all odds during the last few harrowing years (of course,
a lot of arena-rock fixtures on the Terry Chambers wavelenght might
consider Partridge something of a sissy for his opting out of live
performance, but the less said about this particular outlook the better);
and second, the idea that either character assassination OR a sycophantic
rebuttal of such would undermine or boost such an artist's confidence in
himself sounds a bit grotesque, and more like a fan's wishful thinking than
anything else ("HE read my post! I got noticed!" -- after which "Dear Andy"
begins to sound a lot like "Dear G*d"...).<

Don't quite get your logic in the first point -- since we're speculating
about how such writing would affect him, I suppose I could come up with
alternative and equally valid (which is to say, not at all valid)
arguments.  As for any sycophancy or "wishful thinking," again, I don't see
how that applies, at least from my point of view. I've never thought that
Andy was part of this list, and wasn't writing for him. I was writing for
myself (to express my POV) and for people on the list who cared enough
about the subject not to hit "page down." Even if Andy were on the list, it
wouldn't make a lick of difference to me. What I generally write about are
my opinions about or my experience with his art (or about others' comments
or points of view), not about his motives. When I do guess at them, for
whatever reason, I try to make it clear that I'm guessing or basing my
theory on a particular set of facts that I describe. That's just Writing
101.

>>I wasn't offended [by Greg's post]. It made me angry to see the kind of
writing that keeps Andy off the list in the first place.<<

>Was that substantiated, or just idle speculation on Partridge's stance
towards this list? (To take on the cross-questioning manner employed by Mr.
Bernhardt towards Greg, for a second.)<

See Paul Culnane's recent post in #210 about his interview w/Andy, who has
also made this point in numerous other interviews. I suppose I should have
pointed that out, eh?

>>As far as I know, this public forum is about the music and art of XTC,
and how it relates to us, the participants in the forum. It's not -- IMO,
and I guess I might be wrong -- a place to bandy about ill-informed
theories about why the members are living their lives in one way or
another.<<

>I, too, strongly suspect you might be wrong; after all, one can find in
Chalkhills what could be termed "ill-informed" theories of everything
ranging from the "meaning" of the songs to the particulars of the
Gregory/Partridge split, and has this in any way hurt the level of
discussion to be found here?<

Theories about the meaning of songs are usually spelled out as personal
opinions. Look at Greg, er, Gene's gentle dig at me from #211 as an
example: >The Greenman, I believe, is a representation of the
speaker/narrator of the song (note I did not say Andy Partridge, for that
would be speculative attribution.... :-) ).<

Actually, Gene stays away from speculative attribution here because he says
"I believe," not because he doesn't expressly name Andy as the
"speaker/narrator" -- but the point is the same. He's telling us _his_
interpretation of the lyrics, not Andy's.

Most of the discussion of the split was on the same level, and when it did
stray into the tempting territory of assumption and speculation ("Andy/Dave
acted this way because", rather than "I think they acted this way because,"
etc.), I spoke out against it. I may be an asshole, but at least I'm a
consistent asshole!

>(Which should hover at what "correct" level, or around which "pertinent"
topics? Determined by whom? From the number of times Partridge has been
hailed as a "genius", it's no wonder speculation is rife about the make-up
of such an artist, and that sure makes him the main topic on a variety of
levels...)<

I have no interest in determining the topics that people discuss here. I
would like people to express themselves responsibly, though.

>>Knowing the art and knowing the artist are _not_ the same thing.
Responsible critics, scholars, writers and historians know this.<<

>At least one sensible observation, which doesn't altogether remove the
possibility of considering the artist as a person just the same (as far as
I'm concerned, knowing more about the man hasn't detracted much from my
enjoyment of his music, if at all; but it sure adds a human dimension to my
"rapport", mediated as it may be, "with" XTC, and his community of fans).<

Thanks for throwing me that bone, Mario. But, based on your comments, I
also think I didn't make my point clearly there, so I'll try again: Knowing
more about the artist can, of course, enhance the enjoyment of the art. But
IMO it's also the responsibility of the viewer/listener/whatever to know
the difference between the artist and the art, and to realize that even an
encyclopedic knowledge of a person and their actions does not get you
inside that person's head, or give you the right to act as if you are.

>>I care about Chalkhills and its -- certainly, when compared to other
similar Internet lists -- consistently high level of discourse, and so I
tend to get rather vehement in my defense of what I see as the proper rules
of engagement.<<

>Well, if Chalkhills' level of discourse is "consistently high", surely
there's no need to review its "rules of engagement", be it vehemently or
with a Mother Hen compunction to prevent any word from reaching Andy
Partridge's critical mind, is there?<

I've already responded above to the "Mother Hen compunction" issue -- or,
IMO, the non-issue -- but I don't understand your logic in the point above.
Are you saying that once something reaches a certain level, you don't have
to work to keep it there? Do you stop working at a relationship once you're
happy in it? Once a sports team achieves a championships, can it rest on
its laurels and take it easy next season? Do we have to stop defending
freedom of speech because the Constitution already guarantees it?

>I think Belinda Blanchard's post two issues later (#209) pretty much sums
up how one can be annoyed by a particular topic without thinking this
should curtail anyone's right to write what they bloody well think:<

Actually, Belinda sort of missed my point, too. I was trying to be bit of a
bastard so she'd want me.  ;^)

>"Bitch away, scream, but at least post." Could these be sensible rules of
engagement for anyone passionate enough about XTC to take the trouble of
writing about that fact?<

You and I are on the same page here. I genuinely appreciate every
contribution made to the list. I just wanted to point out that when people
speculate about the motives of others, they're on shaky ground.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program: To the question <<What would
Elvis sing?>>, I'd love to hear him -- the _young_ him -- sing any song
from the first two albums, and mebbe a cut or two from D&W. Can't you just
hear him doing "Crosswires" or "I'm Bugged"?

And James Dignan said: >oh, and to all pagan babies out there :) I send the
following blessing in the name of the four elements, courtesy of B. Andrews
& co - "May the fire be your friend and the sea rock you gently, may the
moon light your way till the wind sets you free". Yup, it ain't just
A. Partridge that writes pagan lyrics!<

I probably won't be the only one to point this out, but Barry's only
batting .750 on this one, since the third element should be earth, not moon
(unless, of course, you consider that the moon was probably part of the
Earth long, long ago...)

Life's a ball! TV tonight...
Todd

------------------------------

From: dan@gge.com
Message-ID: <37446F01.6A43DA2E@gge.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 13:22:32 -0700
Subject: then he appeared (or so he said)

ok, it's been almost a week now and no one has said a word about it:

>Message-ID: <19990514190310.27669.rocketmail@send205.yahoomail.com>
>Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
>From: pancho artecona <partecona@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: No, My Name is Andy Partridge
>
>OK, Enough baiting you good folk.
>
>Stage Right: Enter Andy Partridge and it is ME!!!!
>
>I figured no on would believe there was an actual fan of XTC in Puerto
>Rico but no one figured my ruse. Well, I am here and listening to you
>loony folk has been quite interesting. Any questions feel free to go
>back to the chalkhills archives, I think they have me covered. BTW, I
>think that Dom is much nicer than he gets credit for.
>
>Andy PRXTCFAN

hello?! am i the only one who saw this or the only one who fell for it?
if this was in fact a visit from sir john johns himself it was a timely
appearance amidst the "is andy here?" thread. mr. relph, or other
associates of the band, can you validate this? i was expecting a deluge
of digests screaming "kiss him, kiss him" and some interesting detective
theory by "us good folk" after reading that. it seems just understated
enough to be real. hindsight is always 20/20, but i really did suspect
for a moment that PARTecona@yahoo.com who signed his name ANDY to be
him, but said "naaah, couldn't be!" would it be rude to *accuse* someone
of being andy partridge?
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
i've noticed on the 'dream tribute album' line-ups that people are
mostly assigning the songs of xtc to the artist(s) whose style sounds
the most like that song.

happy standing on my feet of clay,
dan

------------------------------

Message-ID: <37447BF8.BB656AFC@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:17:44 -0700
From: Yoshiko Yeto <beaudrillard@earthlink.net>
Subject: C'est la verite de la situation!

Reading the latest issue of Gourmet Magazine, I was a bit startled by this
month's installation of the "Wine Journal", which features Chardonnays from
Sonoma.  The last portion of the article focuses upon the Chalk Hill
Estate's vineyard.  I have transcribed a single sentence from that article:

"But the imprint of vintage and the particular character of Chalk
Hill-plump and smooth, a hint of lime, an effusiveness---came through in
every one of Knuttel's wines."

I think it's a particularly apt description of the Chalkhills Journal as
well.  However, I am now left with the disturbing thought that Andy and
Colin are systematically kidnapping us hapless Chalkhillians and forcing us
into indentured slavery on their vineyard.  Perhaps, Cooking Vinyl has
skimped on their salary.  Given all their references to gardening and
poverty, I think that my theory is quite plausible.  Heed my warning:
beware of the Greenman!

Cautiously yours,

Malady "Garden of Earthly Delights" Nelson

Earn Enough For Us?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 21:21:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Harms <tmharms@library.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Erica's movie career
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.990520211823.22766F-100000@library>

Well, I can't answer the 'Was Erica in Saturday Night Live?' trivia
question, but the Internet Movie DataBase does have an 'Erica Wexler'
listed as playing 'Susan' in Joan Crawford-as-living-hell flick
Mommie Dearest.

Is it the same Erica, who knows?

Ted Harms                                    Library, Univ. of Waterloo
tmharms@library.uwaterloo.ca                         519.888.4567 x3761
                "Everything changes."    Shunryu Suzuki

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19990521014730.7417.rocketmail@web116.yahoomail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 18:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tyler Hewitt <tahewitt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Art Critics VS. Abstract Expressionism

RE:

Jackson Pollock made no secret of the contempt that he felt for art
critics.  So much so, (as the story goes) that he once set-up canvases at
the monkey house at a zoo, and supplied the apes with paintbrushes and
paints and let them create some "paintings."  He then showed the works as
his own, mocking the critics as they "interpreted" the "statements" that
these paintings made.

... haven't heard that exact story (although I know a great one about
Pollock peeing into Peggy Guggenheim's fireplace).
I have heard a similar one about someone taking a bunch of monkey
paintings and scattering them throughout a gallery along with paintings
by toddlers and 'real' paintings by 'real'artists. The critics were
supposed to figure out which paintings were which.  I think you can
figure out the punchline.

Abstract Expressionism got a lot of flack in it's day. What is
interesting is that while abstract art is now very acceptable (you can
see it hanging in banks and other public buildings everywhere), what
people object to now is representational art (when it depicts things
others find objectionable).

------------------------------

From: WTDK@aol.com
Message-ID: <5f11983c.247618da@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:03:06 EDT
Subject: Under cover...

I don't recall who mentioned this on the last post but I have long had a
"covers" album in mind for the band.

1.Omaha (Moby Grape)
2. Together Alone (Crowded House)
3. Miss Judy's Farm (Faces)
4.A Rose For Emily (The Zombies)
5. Hoover Dam (Sugar)
6. Death May Be Your Santa Claus (Mott The Hopple)
7. You Don't Say (Richard Thompson)
8. Gypsy (Suzanne Vega)
9. Church (Lyle Lovett)
10. Kind Words (Joan Armatrading)
11. Your Dad Did (John Hiatt)
12. Draw The Line (Aerosmith)
13. Paperback Writer/Rain (Who know who)
14. The Letter (The Boxtops)
15. Free Man In Paris (Joni Mitchell)

Yeah, it's all over the map--as befits a band that continues to break
musical boundaries. In defense of Nonsuch--it's a much more consistent,
less derivative album than O&L. O&L sounds like the band stepping back into
Dukes mode...nothing wrong with that, but I kind of treat the efforts a
little differently (almost as if they were two different bands). That
doesn't mean I believe O&L is a bad album, on the contrary it's quite good
but inconsistent.  With a bit more pruning and less excess it could easily
have been as good as Skylarking (if not better).

By the way, does anybody else notice that River Of Orchids is thematically
similar to Talking Heads Nothing But Flowers?

Wayne
wtdk@aol.com

------------------------------

From: Chauncy14@aol.com
Message-ID: <69d3d143.24761a40@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:09:04 EDT
Subject: Andy NOT on the list

Would Andy put out posts, like *Hermaneutics,* or, *Sycopations,* or,
*Tabla and Time Signatures?*

Andyone?

John Gardener
CLeveland- NOT

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19990521020526.20494.rocketmail@web1.rocketmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 19:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jennifer Linnea Strom <jlinnea@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Monty Python: consensual relations

"Steve Oleson" wrote:

> I believe that Monty Python's Flying Circus had a large influence on
> British and American culture. Elvis Pressley was a big fan of Monty Python
> (although you would never know it) I've inferred that the Beatles wackiness
> in later years, must have been inspired by MP.
>
> Does anyone out there harbor similar delusions?

Hell yes! I believe Ringo made a brief appearance on the series.
Further proof of their connection is that (correct me if I'm wrong)
George Harrison's production company, Handmade Films, produced the
Life of Brian because no one else would touch it, due to the
controversial subject matter. The Life of Brian was also supposed to
feature Keith Moon, had he not passed away. I think their influence on
this hemisphere is more obvious on SCTV than Saturday Night Live
(though The Rutles featured members of both Saturday Night Live and
Monty Python as well as a cameo by George Harrison), but I think it's
safe to say that both owe something to Monty Python, no question about
it. The same could be said for Kids In The Hall.

And just to make this XTC content, I believe I read somewhere that
Dave Gregory was a fan of Michael Palin's.

Okay. Back to my delusions.

--Jennifer

------------------------------

From: Chauncy14@aol.com
Message-ID: <f141e65b.24761eaa@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:27:54 EDT
Subject: My vote is in

Here is my vote for Andy Partridge - the pseudonym-person - on the digest:

<"Aaron Pastula" <apastula@earthlink.net>>
Wat dcha think?

Nelson Gardner
South Africa

------------------------------

Message-ID: <3744D7D6.6B4EC64F@tmbg.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 23:50:00 -0400
From: Ben Gott/Loquacious Music <gott@tmbg.org>
Organization: http://listen.to/loquacious
Subject: The Grays

Li'l goobers,

So: I was at my local CD store (the one run by XTC fans), and I asked Mark
(the co-owner) if he had heard the new Jason Falkner.  He said "no," but
then he told me that a friend of his used to be in this band called...The
Grays!  According to Mark's friend, Falkner was "a freak."  I told him (in
my haughty Chalkhills way) that The Grays' CD was hard to find; he
responded "No way!  You can find it in tons of used CD bins across the
country!"

So -- if any of you would like me to have Mark keep an eye out, please let
me know.  Let's see how "easy" this CD is to find!

I've been listening to "White Music" lately, and it's really growing on me.
Has this happened to anyone else?

-Ben

+----------------------------------------------------------------+
     Benjamin Gott . Loquacious Music . Salisbury, CT 06068
AOL: Plan4Nigel . Telephone (860) 435-9726 . Mobile (207) 798-1859
      I can see a hole in the sky / As wide as your smile...
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

From: "Don Rogalski" <tonikuo@ms10.hinet.net>
Subject: Jackson Pollock is over-rated
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:22:39 +0800
Message-ID: <000001bea349$f1bd2ec0$a6fa1ea3@user>

On the topic of Jackson "Bollock" and criticism:

> This whole notion of critics seeing some kind of relevance and genius in
> bad (as in poorly executed) art reminds me of a wonderful story... (snip)
> ...Jackson Pollock made no secret of the contempt that he felt for art
> critics.  So much so, (as the story goes) that he once set-up canvases at
> the monkey house at a zoo, and supplied the apes with paintbrushes and
> paints and let them create some "paintings."  He then showed the works as
> his own, mocking the critics as they "interpreted" the "statements" that
> these paintings made.

Is it what I'm seeing obvious to anyone else?  Namely, that this story
is less commentary upon the supposed vacuity of art critics
than it is upon the supposed art of Mr. Bollock itself.  The parallel,
between critics of the Shaggs finding relevance and genius in their
"bad music" and the art critics interpreting the paintings of monkeys
passed off as those of Jackson Bollock, doesn't work.  Why?  Because
with the Shaggs (whom I haven't heard, but have heard talked about
enough on this list to get the idea/joke), the poorly executed nature of
the songs was always up front, an inescapable fact.  The critics who
rave about them are exercising their right to express "post-modern
irony" (Harrison, you have been cued).

Whereas with the monkeys' paintings, the critics were fooled from
the get go.  Perhaps they thought he'd had a bad day or month or
year, but they were still fooled.  Undoubtedly they accepted them as
"serious" art.

Ultimately this nifty little anecdote helps to illustrate the fact that
Jackson Bollock's work functions as little more than imaginative
wallpaper.  Revolutionary for its time, perhaps, with the spirit of the
zeitgeist clenched in its pretentious fist, and I will admit to finding
it interesting for ten minutes or more, but still... wallpaper.

Not that I would stoop to defending critics, mind you.  But critics
come in all shapes and sizes -- there are good and bad ones.

All this begs the question:  what would classical music critics in
the early years of this century have said about blues and jazz?
That they were "poorly executed" musics?  And yet the outgrowth
of those musical forms, rawk and roll, has been touted as this
century's major musical development.  No one would deny the
incredible creativity behind our beloved XTC.  But what about
Robert Johnson?

Is this opening up a can of worms?

Yours,
Don Rogalski

------------------------------

From: jsteich@mindspring.com
Message-ID: <001101bea352$4619e320$a8908ad1@funtosplamisham>
Subject: questions
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 02:22:15 -0400

what are these fuzzy warbles and jules verne (sorry if i cant spell) ablums?
im in the dark as to what they are... demos?  full albums that weren't
released? reply privately as im sure most people know this...  unless you
have a nice short reply.
thanks,
jesse

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19990521121744.8739.rocketmail@web806.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 05:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Desmond <c_desmond@yahoo.com>
Subject: no, I'm not Andy either.

Chalkly gathering,

Sad to say, but I'm not Andy either.  Sorry.

Actually, considering my reputation on this list, I'm sure you all are
breathing a sigh of relief (especially our resident polymath Mr.
Gardner).  I can be thought of as many people, but not Andy.

Cheers,

Chris D.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:27:48 -0400
From: Dorothy Spirito <spiritod@techmail.gdc.com>
Subject: Re: various and sundry...
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.00.9905201135500.460-100000@esun2028>

Mark Strijbos said:
>What's up with this list lately? I would have thought the release of a
>new album and several singles plus the myriad of media events would have
>kept us happily pre-occupied for at least a year.  But the level of XTC
>content is dropping as fast as the number of personal attacks and other
>off-topic bullshit is rising.

Some of us *are* happily pre-occupied; we've already said "I love Apple
Venus" and have gone back to enjoying it (over, and over, and over,...).
We've already posted our meeting-Andy-and-Colin experiences.
We've already exclaimed our eager anticipation of AV2.

Fie on you malcontents!
: )

Thank you, Paul Culnane, for posting the excerpt of your Andy interview in
re: him *not* lurking onlist.  Topical, interesting, and insightful.

FWIW: I tooooootally appreciate the bonus tracks!  I grovel to have a copy
of every single they've ever recorded -- the unreleased ones, too!  Next
demos CD I'd like to score a dup of: Demos 8 "Be Brought Up in the Lap of
Luxury" from Extatic.  If you've got it, I might have something you'd
like, too.  : )

--Dorothy.

------------------------------

Message-Id: <4782AD6ADDBDD2119B570008C75DD5C10A313A@MGMTM02>
From: Lawson Dominic <LawsonD@parliament.uk>
Subject: Scream For Me, Swindon!!!!
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:11:20 +0100

OK, pop fans, keep those prejudices at bay for a few more seconds and then
I'll shut up about Metal once and for all. Well actually I won't,
obviously, but I'll give it a rest for a few weeks at least....honest!

Firstly, this is really for Nicole. Sorry for being a lazy shit and not
sending you a tape yet. Also, sorry for not having done this
sooner. Ladies, gentlemen and Harrison, I give you my METAL
RECOMMENDATIONS!!!!

(and before anyone says "why don't you fuck off to a Metallica discussion
forum?" I'd just like to point out the bleeding obvious.......BECAUSE I CAN
READ AND WRITE! I mean, have you seen any of these bands' guestbooks?
Seriously, spare yourself the pain.....I'm all for defending the music, but
I'd rather not be an apologist for the follies of adolescence!)

One:  OLD SCHOOL "CLASSIC" METAL

These are for the nearly-converted only. If the cliched view of HM turns
your stomach then don't bother checking ANY of these out. We're talking
spandex, we're talking BIG hair, we're talking VERY LONG GUITAR SOLOS.....

IRON MAIDEN - Live After Death (EMI 1985)
http://www.ironmaiden.com

MANOWAR - Hell On Stage Live (Nuclear Blast 1999)
http://www.manowarkingsofmetal.com

THIN LIZZY - Live & Dangerous (Vertigo 1977)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~koolus/thinlizzy/tlhome.html

Two: THRASH/DEATH/BLACK METAL

This is the really fast stuff. Hold on to your face! There are, naturally,
differences between the above genres, but since this is an XTC forum it
hardly seems worth being too anal about it. Needless to say, these records
feature lots of grunted or screamed vocals, impossibly fast drumming and
(some would say) needlessly complex arrangements. As with some jazz,
listening to this stuff takes a certain amount of perseverance but (for some
people at least) it's well worth the effort. Visceral thrills don't come
cheap you know!

SLAYER - Reign In Blood (Def Jam 1986)
http://www.diabolus.net

SEPULTURA - Against (Roadrunner 1998)
http://www.sepultribe.com

MORBID ANGEL - Formulas Fatal To The Flesh (Earache 1998)
http://www.morbidangel.com

EMPEROR - IX Equilibrium (Candlelight 1999)
http://www.emperorhorde.com

OPETH - My Arms Your Hearse (Candlelight 1998)
http://www.advent.8m.com/links.htm

Three: STONER METAL

This stuff all stems from an understandable fixation with Black Sabbath.
Having invented Heavy Metal, and written most of the best riffs of all time,
it's no wonder that "the Sabs" have had a lasting affect on the Metal scene.
In recent years their influence has become more and more apparent, with
countless bonged-out psychedelic space rock merchants releasing albums and
stinking the place out with their wicked weed and their flared jeans. My
favourite area of the current Metal scene by a long way. It's good times
music, 90s blooze, genuine rock'n'roll......it's 'kin great!

BLACK SABBATH - Master Of Reality (Castle Comm. 1971)
http://www.black-sabbath.com

KYUSS - Blues For The Red Sun (Dali 1992) / Sky Valley (Elektra 1993)
(no decent site available but try http://www.xs4all.nl/~roadburn for an
excellent Stoner Metal webzine)

CATHEDRAL - Caravan Beyond Redemption (Earache 1999)
http://www.cathedralcoven.com

CLUTCH - Clutch (Columbia 1994) / The Elephant Riders (Columbia 1998)
http://www.pro-rock.com

IRON MONKEY - Our Problem (Earache 1998)
http://www.kyuss69.swinternet.co.uk/marksound

Four: NEW METAL

Not a real sub-genre, but the handiest phrase I could come up with to
describe the end of the extreme music scene which most regularly links up
with so-called "alternative" music (and don't get me started on that
one...GRRRrrrr!!!!) and MTV (KILL! KILL! KILL!). None of this stuff should
overly tax anyone, although as with all this stuff if you really hate
distorted guitars and aggressive music in general then there's very little
point in (a) checking any of these out or (b) being alive.

SYSTEM OF A DOWN - System Of A Down  (American 1998)
http://www.systemofadown.com

DEFTONES - Adrenaline  (Maverick 1995)
http://www.deftones.com

LIMP BIZKIT - Three Dollar Bill Y'All (Interscope 1997)
http://www.flip-records.com/Limp%20Bizkit/limp.htm

TOOL - Aenima (Interscope 1996)
http://www.toolband.com

HELMET - Aftertaste (Interscope 1997) / Meantime (Interscope 1992)
http://www.helmet.org

AMORPHIS - Tuonela (Relapse 1999)
http://www.amorphis.net

...and that's about it. Sorry for having taken up so much space........yeah
right!

And furthermore, here's my proposed XTC tribute album..."Scream For Me,
Swindon!!":

Side A (Old School)

1. Iron Maiden - Jason & The Argonauts
2. Black Sabbath - That Wave
3. Motorhead - Red
4. Slayer - Science Friction
5. Kyuss - Battery Brides
6. Tool - Travels In Nihilon
7. Napalm Death - Shake You Donkey Up
8. Morbid Angel - Dear God

Side B (New School)

1. System Of A Down - Great Fire
2. Turmoil - The Ugly Underneath
3. Opeth - River Of Orchids
4. Emperor - Garden Of Earthly Delights
5. Masters Of Reality - No Language In Our Lungs
6. Clutch - Bungalow
7. Bongzilla - You're My Drug
8. Amorphis - Towers Of London

Mmmmmm.....if only! Anyway, if anyone wants more info on any of the above
cack, then mail me privately otherwise there'll be tears before bedtime....

Salut!

Dom.

------------------------------

End of Chalkhills Digest #5-213
*******************************

Go back to the previous page.