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 #6-7


          Chalkhills Digest, Volume 6, Number 7

                Wednesday, 12 January 2000

Today's Topics:

               The crew lost theirs at dice
                   RE: Paying Attention
                    XTC wedding songs
                    Bliss, Oh Bliss !
                       It's your...
                    Re: Wedding Songs
                         Ti Jean
               "guns don't kill people..."
           George and guns (was Re: melt them!)
                  Re: Homespun vs. AVv1
                      wedding songs
            Changing my money in the temple...
                     New developments
                      Re: melt them!
                      Re: melt them!
                  Re: Homespun vs. AVv1

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>).

Can't find the wound from where I'm bleeding.

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

Message-ID: <387B9C95.5B52E773@zfn.uni-bremen.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:11:49 +0100
From: Erich Sellheim <sellheim@zfn.uni-bremen.de>
Subject: The crew lost theirs at dice

Hello everyone,

something for the trainspotters: I recently saw a TV ad for a game in which
you had to roll around several dice, thus changing their numbers (is that
the word?). My question: Isn't that also the concept behind one of the
games invented by Andy Partridge and presented in the 1983 TV documentary
"Play At Home", called (I think) "Anthill"? Even the spelling of the game's
name (the one in the ad) seems to be a clue: it's called "Tactix"! Or is
all of this more like an indication that I'm getting paranoia?

Confusedly yours,
Erich Sellheim

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

From: Chauncy14@aol.com
Message-ID: <ce.ce50e7fa.25ad3a23@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:00:03 EST
Subject: RE: Paying Attention

Hey folks,

Bob Estus enquired:
<Can anyone else here confess of an XTC induced absent mindedness?>

When my mother was in the hospital recently, recovering from surgery and an
infection, I wondered over to read the medical chart.  On it was the
diagnosis:  Incarcerated Umbilical Hernia.

Now, it just popped out, I read aloud to my siblings and both parents, "Mom,
did you know you had an Incarcerated Um-bi-LI-cal Hernia?"  [Emphasis on the
third syllable, second word...of course you should know the reference herein.]

And, the clan retorted, "What was that?"

Now, since that inside-humor of a statement, when recalling my mother's
diagnosis to other friends of the family, it still pops out
wrong...Um-bi-LI-cal...goofy, eh?

<----and I break out in song ..."who's pushing the pedals on the season
cycle.."

Regards,
Chauncy in Chicago

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

Message-ID: <017001bf5cce$55fc9c20$a6841818@we.mediaone.net>
From: "Drew MacDonald" <drewmacdonald@mediaone.net>
Subject: XTC wedding songs
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:26:26 -0800

As others have noted earlier in this thread, "Harvest Festival" is a good
song to play at a wedding. I did just that at my sister's reception a few
months ago, and three different guests came up to ask me what "that
beautiful song" was. New XTC fans aborning!

Drew

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

Message-ID: <20000112115335.28655.qmail@hotmail.com>
From: "Andrew Gowans" <ratwhacker@hotmail.com>
Subject: Bliss, Oh Bliss !
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:53:35 EST

Ho, Ho, Ho There Folks !
Why the Chrissy mention ? Well, after receiving a modicum of personal
spending money from my favourite relatives I have plugged some glaring holes
in my CD collection. Until very recently I have had only Mummer, Nonsuch,
Upsy Daisy Assortment, The Dub Experiments and AV1 on CD and my ageing tape
collection to supply my daily dose of XTC. Only White Music and Homespun are
oustanding deliveries on my internet spending spree, with a few select
purchases, say Drums and Wireless and Transistor Blast for starters, at
Birthday time.

But why the gaps ? Well, there be vinyl in that thar shed, luvvingly packed
in cardboard and zip-lock plastic. Shame they and my old turntable cannot be
accomodated, ah well..no room at the inn.

The goodies arrived over a period of a week, almost a package a day in the
mail. Wow ! Like, usually all I get is bills, well these DID have bills with
them but they are for something tangible unlike telephone and power accounts
etc. Ensconced at my wash-up station in the kitchen I have been almost
overwhelmed by the music, the hooks, the vocals, the lyrics, the images. I
have had to calm my good lady by insisting that the drooling and frothing at
the mouth are caused by the steam and soap of washing up (I think she
believes me ?).

I must dash to check the status of my remaining orders my suppliers.

One last thing, I have been keeping track of the various prices for XTC and
Dukes CD's at a few of the internet-based suppliers, CD Now, Amazon, Music
Strip, MuZic Depot, Virgin Megastore, Chaos Music and Sanity (The last 2 in
Australia like me) and if any are interested I can give you a quick rundown
of the better prices available as of quite recently. Mail me off-list if you
wish.

Bye now,

Andrew Gowans

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

From: "Barry Koch" <barry@together.net>
Subject: It's your...
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:15:20 -0500
Message-ID: <NCBBJIDGOJNFJLOFJEJGOEPCCHAA.barry@together.net>

Robeach11@aol.com wrote:

> I'm getting married on the 22nd.... any ideas on XTC "marriage
> songs"?  I've got a few clues, but would like some input. And yes, I
> exposed my fiancee to XTC and she really digs 'em.

"Big Day"?

Ha ha.

Barry

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

Message-ID: <387C3DC9.724A@bhip.infi.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:39:41 +0000
From: Brian <mattone@bhip.infi.net>
Subject: Re: Wedding Songs

Tschalkgerz!

"Burning With Optimism's Flames" - it is HER day.
"I Can't Own Her" - well, you CAN'T... and it's a pretty song.
"Down In The Cockpit" - man needs a woman to pull him right out of it...
what IT is, I'm not sure.
"Ladybird" - I'll admit to perhaps not much deep understanding of the
real points behind some of these tunes, but at least the wedding
audience will have even LESS of a clue.
"Love On A Farmboy's Wages" - of course.
"Ball And Chain" - no- sorry, strike that... :-)

-Brian Matthews
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/sapringer

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

Message-ID: <001401bf5d07$a64112e0$795791d2@johnboud>
From: "John Boudreau" <aso1@mocha.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Ti Jean
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:59:57 +0900

>>>As Truman Capote said of Jack Kerouac:
>>>"That's not writing, that's typing."

>Truman Capote was everything I as a writer wanted to be, minus >the panama
>hat and the lisp...

Jack Kerouac was everything I as a writer wanted to be , minus the plaid
lumberjack shirts and cheap wine ( sake man myself ) .

Oh - and Capote had his head up his ass when he referred to Kerouac's work
as " not
writing ... that's typing " , and history proves that .
Sketching/spontaneous prose is Kerouac's major formal achievement , and a
source of joy for readers . Check out not only On The Road , but also
Visions Of Cody ; The Dharma Bums ; The Subterraneans ; or Big Sur .

Sushiman

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

Message-ID: <387C8DA1.49A19DCD@ci.conover.nc.us>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:20:17 -0500
From: erik schlichting <eriks@ci.conover.nc.us>
Subject: "guns don't kill people..."

Patricia wrote:

"If a person has the malicious intentions of hurting another
person, it
doesn't matter if they have access to a gun or not.  They
will find a
way to accomplish their goals..."

Yes. This is precisely the reason that whenever I'm attacked
by a vicious, crazed individual, I prefer that they are
using a knife or fork, rather than a gun. I think my chances
of thwarting or surviving a gun-less attack are much better
than when being shot.

Erik

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

Message-ID: <B195726DB50AD2118E880008C7FAA6FC0141F694@newman.partech.com>
From: Janis VanCourt <Janis_VanCourt@partech.com>
Subject: George and guns (was Re: melt them!)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:54:48 -0500

Patricia <gypsypg@pacbell.net> put forth:

<<If a person has the malicious intentions of hurting another person, it
doesn't matter if they have access to a gun or not.>>

Oh, but it matters immensely.  A gun makes murder ever-so-much easier, don't
you agree?

<<They will find a way to accomplish their goals, however twisted other
people think
those goals and/or people are.>>

Well, in the case of George Harrison's assailant, whose the goal was
presumably the murder of George and his family, that turns out not to have
been the case. Thank the gods.

<<Point in fact, I believe that he was stabbed.>>

Yes, that's correct; the stab wound was in fact only an inch away from his
heart.  A close-range bullet in the same location would surely have meant
his death.

<<I understand that the point was that it could have been much
worse had the assailant been armed with a gun.>>

Specifically, the point is that another beloved, generous, artistic and
beautiful human being would no longer be on the planet with us had the
assailant been armed with a gun.

<<But, without a gun, he still managed to get past security and into his
room!>>

Yes, well.  Knives tend to be much quieter, I'll grant you that.

<<It is not a gun that kills a person, it is the person holding the gun
that kills a person (or animal, et cetera).>>

Oh please.  All due respect for personal opinions, but how long will folks
go on spouting and believing the lame and faulty "people kill people"
argument?  For murderers, guns are a means to the end, and when we remove
guns from the equation, innocent folks tend to stay alive.

<<Shall we melt the "sick" individuals too?>>

If you insist.  But wouldn't it be nicer and more humane to help them with
their illnesses instead?  Perhaps early on, even, before they resort to
violence?

<<What about knives and sharp objects such as forks?>>

I find this comparison offensive in the extreme.  John Lennon wasn't poked
to death with a freaking *fork*; he was shot in the chest. Give the
criminally insane all the pointy cutlery you like, just give them therapy
and treatment and support as well, and for gosh sakes, keep them away from
any bloody firearms.

<<And, who will be deemed a just determiner of whom and what shall be
melted?>>

Perhaps that could be determined by a little process we call democracy.  And
perhaps halting the sale and manufacture of handguns (devices the only
purpose of which is to put a hole in a human) would be a good place to
start.

<<Let's play this out further...when the law abiding public has been
stripped of all means to defend itself, who will protect them from the
non law abiding public?>>

This is hardly a question of bad guys versus good guys anymore.  Because
sadly, good guys go postal, too.

Melt them,

(now)

Janis

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

From: RiknBkr@aol.com
Message-ID: <dc.dc98f923.25adf61c@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:22:04 EST
Subject: Re: Homespun vs. AVv1

> By the way, the year half the Beatles turned to shit was 1972--Lennon
>  released his awful Sometime in New York City and McCartney released Wild
>  Life. Both are horrible albums with absolutely nothing to recommend them.
>  Then again, the hard-core Beatles fan might appreciate them. I personally
>  like one track on Wild Life--McCartney answers How Do You Sleep? with the
>  song Dear Friend.

I'll have to delurk here for a moment.  That was the year I bought my first
single, which was incidently Ringo's "Back of Boogaloo".  As bad as those
albums were, Paul and John came out with a few  good singles for that year
that didn't make it on any album. Paul had "Give Ireland Back to the Irish"
(unfortunately his next release was "Mary had a little lamb", but that was
statement on his part) and "Hi, Hi ,Hi".  Where John had "Happy Xmas (War is
Over)".  That may not have been a productive year for an ex-Beatle, but those
songs still get played quite a bit.

Ok back to lurking.

Cheers,
Phil C.

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

Message-ID: <20000112170905.8585.qmail@web2102.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:09:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Tyler Hewitt <tahewitt@yahoo.com>
Subject: wedding songs

RE:
"I'm getting married on the 22nd.... any ideas on XTC
"marriage songs"?

I CANT BELIEVE i'm the only person to think of this,
so I guess I'm the only one willing to be cynical, but
how about "Big Day"?

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

Message-ID: <3AE4C7B8CC1BD31194140008C7B14DE8012DE449@hfd-exch008.aetna.com>
From: "Witter, Karl F" <WitterKF@aetna.com>
Subject: Changing my money in the temple...
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:19:01 -0500

>Rob in Carson: I'm getting married on the 22nd.... any ideas on XTC
>"marriage songs"? I've got a few clues, but would like some input.
>And yes, I exposed my fiancee to XTC and she really digs 'em.

I persuaded the church organist to roll out a piano and play "Then She
Appeared" right before the processional. For this I cobbled together
my own sheet music by ear, which was amazing since I'm practically
musically illiterate.

I neglected to mention that XTC also were the "Dear God" band. I feel
that I'll pay for that someday.

>Kevin Diamond: is it just me, or does it feel like the public has
>worse taste in music than in any other art medium?

It isn't you, it's how you experience the medium.
-Books you can read alone without a book club convening over some
best-selling fluff, and all the Stephen Kings and Michael Crichtons
in the world won't destroy the publishers and writers who don't
aspire to be sold in airport shops.
-Movies eventually show up in art cinemas (of which even Hartford CT
has two) and video; even an introvert like me can find someone to
make the experience communal with.
-I can't complain about theater when "Chess" is being staged at the
Bushnell again, and I live two hours via train from New York.
-In painting, sculpture, jazz and classical music my learning is
so poor that I can't begin to pretend snobbery.

Then there's popular music. Plug in the headphones for days on end; at
some point pop music, to those of us of a certain age and so inclined,
means communal dancing in semi-public settings. The mob rears its head.

At least my mob (30's-40's, generic suburban, college-bred) have
awfully low standards. Among three holiday parties (my job,
wife's job, New Year's) I encountered audience and DJ conspiracies to
play the same set list, except for a newer line dance and Will Smith
soundtrack single here & there. This is unchanged in 5 years.

All the "not at my wedding" songs were there. I couldn't even get a
word in edgewise with something like The One Grunge Song Everyone Knows,
Violent Femmes' "Gone Daddy Gone" and Cake's "Never There".

The sole reward: One DJ arranged all the men on one side and all the
women on the other, and had them sing Meatloaf's "Paradise by the
Dashboard Light" at each other. Muttered I, to my wife: "Wow! It's
like Grease meets Ethan Frome!"

Two sign-offs this time:
"I hate my generation. I offer no apologies."

"One is supposed to be gay and cheerful, and have a good time."
"How? By being stupid?"
Karl

PS Bonus points to those who can name the 2 sources of those lines.

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

Message-ID: <D9E6CEC7734AD111BCF70090273C5D67011ABEB0@user8.chemonics.net>
From: Todd Bernhardt <TBernhardt@chemonics.net>
Subject: New developments
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:28:47 -0500

Hi:

Just a quick clarification. Randy Hiatt said about King Crimson:
>I think you mean "double trio".. as in one group with 2
trio's inside it...or 6 players divided into 2 dividings of: drummer,
sticker, guitarer.<

Nope. They're down to a four-piece. Tony Levin's schedule has not allowed
for involvement in the album KC currently has in the works, and God, erm,
Bill Bruford declined to participate, citing the band's emphasis on
electronica and his own current preference for more-acoustic and
jazz-oriented endeavors. Apparently the door remains open for their return,
but for now KC is a double-duo.

>From Paul Stratford:
>I've not been reading the list for a while (I've even been deleting them
unread for about 2 months - I was busy - yes, *that* busy) what's the latest
on AV v2 and FW?<

Want the latest info? Check out
http://chalkhills.org/digests/

Simply type in the phrase you're searching for, and the issue(s) it's
contained in magically pops up! Apparently, something called a "search
engine" is responsible for this. Rumor has it that information about
Marillion and the School Guide to XTC can also be found in previous issues
of Chalkhills, and can be found in similar fashion. What *will* they think
of next?

Todd

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:22:14 -0600
Subject: Re: melt them!
From: William Loring <bloring@tirerack.com>
Message-ID: <B4A1F846.996%bloring@tirerack.com>

Patricia wrote:

> It is not a gun that kills a person, it is the person holding the gun
> that kills a person (or animal, et cetera).  Shall we melt the "sick"
> individuals too?  What about knives and sharp objects such as forks?
> And, who will be deemed a just determiner of whom and what shall be
> melted?

This is as old an excuse as you can find, and it just doesn't work for me.
While it's true that a gun (or a nuclear bomb for that matter) does not kill
a person by itself, it is also quite true that a person with a gun has the
capability to efficiently kill far more people than a person without a gun.
This is simply a price I am not willing to pay. Could the kids at Columbine
have "found a way" to kill as many people as they did, without guns?

I've not advocated outlawing knives, forks, pointy sticks, high fat foods,
or bad people. Guns, and handguns in particular have only one purpose: to
kill people. Many believe that killing humans is wrong. I happen to be one
of those people, and I think it's clear that XTC shares this view as well.

Removing guns from society will not turn the world into a violence-free,
loving world, but it _will_ prevent many accidental and intentional deaths
each year. There really can be no questioning this, in my mind.

Patricia also wrote:

> Let's play this out further...when the law abiding public has been
> stripped of all means to defend itself, who will protect them from the
> non law abiding public?

The public is _supposed_ to be defended by their elected officials, and the
system of laws and law enforcement officials that they put in place. Since I
am not a police officer, it is not my job to make the streets "safer" by
gunning down those who I _perceive_ to be a threat to me.

Anyway, all of this really gets away from the original point, which I think
was this: What did Andy Partridge mean when he said "Melt the Guns"?

Personally, I don't think he meant "pass laws against gun ownership,"
although I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some more controls put in place
here in the US.

What I think he meant was this: DECIDE to melt the guns. Make up your mind
that you don't need a gun. If you have a gun, destroy it. If enough people
come to the conclusion that guns are not necessary for humanity's survival,
then the problem will go away on its own. This may seem hopelessly
optimistic, but I rather like the idea of people willingly laying down their
arms. "Knuckle Down!"

I'm sorry for the long gun rant, but I think it's particularly relevant to
XTC and their lyrics. Flame away if you like.

Regards,

William Loring

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

Message-ID: <200001122000140790.004AD5A1@mail.tin.it>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:00:14 +0100
From: "HowTired" <nopat@tin.it>
Subject: Re: melt them!

Patricia wrote...

>If a person has the malicious intentions of hurting another person, it
>doesn't matter if they have access to a gun or not.  They will find a
>way to accomplish their goals, however twisted other people think
>those goals and/or people are.

killing, I think the whole point is about "killing", not "hurting".
This remembers me a Monty phyton sketch in which they had to learn to defend
themselves from assailants armed with a basketful of strawberries... :))
More guns means *also* more killings, not only more protection. It's just a
matter of being willing to pay the price.

>Let's play this out further...when the law abiding public has been
>stripped of all means to defend itself, who will protect them from the
>non law abiding public?

Now are you going to tell us how do you think they manage in the rest of the
world? Europe, for instance?

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

Message-ID: <200001122003190390.004DA6C8@mail.tin.it>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:03:19 +0100
From: "HowTired" <nopat@tin.it>
Subject: Re: Homespun vs. AVv1

>You could argue that Homespun is an "alternate" version of Apple Venus
>Volume One. While the Anthology analogy isn't exact, the way they compare
>to the finished product is similar to how Homespun compares with AV1. I'm
>surprised that you were disappointed since Andy's demos rarely vary from
>the finished product (in terms of the arrangements, etc.) While the
>Beatles Anthology series only recently appeared, the bootlegs have been
>floating around since 1970 or so -- they have been available just not
>officially.

And you used to pay a lot of money for vinyls with unlistenable songs, I
know. That's why is a good thing the Anthology eventually came out, although
in my opinion they did mess a little too much with the songs.
Take "a day in the life": why mixing together pieces from 3 different tapes
instead of publishing 2 or 3 full unfinished versions at different stages of
the recording/mixing sessions? What's the point in that? Those are not the
1967 Beatles rehearsing, it's just the 1998 (remaining) Beatles messing with
the mixer.

back to XTC, I had this romantic idea of listening to an acoustic guitar
version of "river of orchids", I'll admit it. My fault. :)
Still I think Colin' s rough versions are the best part of the CD.
But my question remains: why Andy/Colin felt the urge to publish this ? All
in all it remains an unnecessary album. I believe Andy is becoming a little
self-indulgent with age. (Come to think of it, "how Easter Theatre came to
be" was quite self-indulgent too)

>By the way, the year half the Beatles turned to shit was 1972--Lennon
>released his awful Sometime in New York City and McCartney released Wild
>Life. Both are horrible albums with absolutely nothing to recommend them.
>Then again, the hard-core Beatles fan might appreciate them. I personally
>like one track on Wild Life--McCartney answers How Do You Sleep? with the
>song Dear Friend.

I am convinced that at least half of the "shitty" post-1970 songs by John or
Paul would have been regarded as good songs if released in 1969.
(let's face the truth, "Let it be" had no more than a couple of really great
songs, and John was already missing. But no one has ever said or written
that "dig a pony" is shit, though it undoubtedly is.)

toto.

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

End of Chalkhills Digest #6-7
*****************************

Go back to the previous page.