Precedence: bulk
Subject: Chalkhills Digest #8-38

          Chalkhills Digest, Volume 8, Number 38

                  Thursday, 27 June 2002


                    Jam-based content
                     various thoughts
             RE: A Bumper sticker someplace..
           old friends and territorial pissings
                      Re: Sgt;. Rock
                       Harrison BS
                    Where oh Where???
                  Album recommendations
             *Brushes dust off her computer*


    To UNSUBSCRIBE from the Chalkhills mailing list, send a message to
    <> with the following command:


    For all other administrative issues, send a message to:


    Please remember to send your Chalkhills postings to:


    World Wide Web: <>

    The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors.

    Chalkhills is compiled with Digest 3.7d (John Relph <>).

You are sweeping / In swish-back broomstick rhythm.


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 05:23:18 EDT
Subject: Jam-based content
Message-ID: <>

Hi chalkies

Slightly non-XTC but seeing as we seem to be on a Jam thing at the moment...
If you want to hear some very Jam/early-XTC-a-like sounds you could do a lot
worse than check out some of Stiff Little Fingers earliest stuff.  This
recommendation comes courtesy of the film High Fidelity, which is very well
worth checking out if you have any musical inclination whatsoever :).  Using
that film's way of linking SLF to Green Day can we assume therefore that XTC
were also an influence on our American friends?   Scary thought!

Jamie Crampton


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:13:24 -0500
From: William D Sherlock <>
Subject: various thoughts
Message-ID: <>

Hello all,

Reading all the posts about the upcoming Oxford gathering is a
bittersweet experience. I was slated to attend the party had it been held
on the original date. Alas! Hope everyone has a great time.

My wife and I were in Swindon in late May and couldn't have had a better
time. I didn't get to do too much XTC prowling (the spouse was a good
sport to even go to Swindon but she probably would have drawn the line at
trying to ring Andy's doorbell) but we did make it up to the White Horse.
On an incredibly windswept showery day we hiked across a sheep pasture
and trudged up the hill and were treated to a picture postcard view, not
to mention a very up close look at a bit of British history. It was well
worth the trip.

I would recommend a stop at the White Horse pub in Uffington after the
pilgrimage but stay away from the Arkell's Jubilee. If that is how you
guys honor your queen's 50th I would daresay that her reign is nearly

As for carving out my sphere of influence in the realm of XTC, since the
estimable Jamie Lowe resides in the same metropolitan area as I
(Chicago), albeit in the suburbs, I will lay claim only to the, as we say
it here, Nort'west Side.

Since a NP is now de rigeur I will toss in a hearty recommendation for
the Super Furry Animals' Guerrilla. Almost anything this unbelievably
eclectic band does is worth a listen.

Bill Sherlock


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:06:22 +1000
From: "Peter Brown" <>
Subject: Moby
Message-ID: <005501c21d01$8bea8310$aaf438cb@pc1>

It seems poor old Mr Moby has been getting attacked from all sides
recently.  I recently read an interview with the rather smashing
Avalanches where they bagged Moby mercilessly, and then of course we
have all heard Mr Eminem getting all pantsy over our favourite
Christian Vegan (or Vegan Christian)

I have to admit I am an amoral music buyer and to be honest like most
people I do not really care where Mr Moby has acquired said song (or
parts thereof) from. What I do know is that I rather do like like
Moby's Porcelain and think it would go very well with the following
songs (in some order):

XTC - Summer's Cauldron
Massive Attack - Unfinished Symphony
Portishead - Sour Times
Future Sound Of London - Papua New Guniea
Lamb - Gorecki
PPK - ResurRection
Robert Miles - Children
Solar Stone - Seven Cities
Faithless - Insomnia (Monster Mix)
John-Michel Jarre - Oxygene Pt. 4

Also, I am pleased to announce that I have managed to pilfer XTC Song
Stories from a friend of mine.  Hopefully by the time he has noticed I
will have finished it and neatly placed back in his bookcase.



Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:40:47 -0700
From: Henry Martinez <>
Subject: RE: A Bumper sticker someplace..
Message-ID: <>

Sounds great!...may I suggest adding a size, say 2.5x6 (white on clear),
suitible for a bike frame?

Let me know when.



Quoth "Jamie Lowe" <>:
> What if I could offer a 4X6 (stick it on the bumper) white on green
> Uffington Horse and xtc logo similar to the English Settlement album
> cover, and a white on clear piece that is glueless designed to
> attach to the inside of a window for about $4 pp for US and $5 for
> EU and AUS buyers.  How many of you would be interested?


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:31:32 -0500
From: "Mark & Barb Kirk" <>
Subject: old friends and territorial pissings
Message-ID: <003d01c21d37$507d7040$>

"Tim Brooks" <> wrote:
> Also Phil's spot on with his "Elvis Costello Album of the year so
> far, by a long way" comment.  Actually thus far I struggle to think
> of another album that really does it for me thus far, no doubt I
> will now receive some reccomendations?
> Tim
> PS Nice to see Mark Kirk with a posting. Where's your site gone???

Hi Tim!
And it's nice to hear from you also - long time etc., etc...
Couldn't agree more with you on 'When I was Cruel', good to hear EC back in
form (not that I've minded any of his past incarnations - Brodsky, Bacharach
and the like). As the homies say on the talk shows "It's all good..."
I don't know what's up with Netscape, but the sites been down for a while.
I've also got listings elswhere, not in such detail - but they're out there.
Drop me a line if you're interested.

"Ted Harms" <> wrote:
> Well, I wonder how much of Ontario I can claim?
> Is anybody going to get upset if I raise my ensign over the
> south-west?  For now I won't be so bold to include the Golden
> Horseshoe/armpit of Lake Ontario area but will happily annex it if
> nobody complains...

Whoa, not so fast Ted... we may have a border skirmish on our hands here.
I'm but a stones throw from UW (beside Laural Creek as a matter of fact),
and I've been a Chalkhooligan since the release of Go2... I take it you were
but a gleam in the old mans eye at the time.
But I'd be happy to share the rights to all of Southeren Ontario with you -
why be greedy?
(nice to meet you sir!)

-mark kirk-


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alex Stein <>
Subject: Re: Sgt;. Rock
Message-ID: <>

Great punky feel and a kazoo solo!  What's not to like?



Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:52:42 +0100 (BST)
From: Bert Millichip <>
Subject: Harrison BS
Message-ID: <>

Back in Digest #8-35, Harrison got his knickers into a
right old twist over this Moby nonsense.

Well, Harrison, much as I'd enjoy tearing your post to
pieces untruth by untruth, I've decided to do
everybody a favour and let most of it pass. For one
thing, it would take pages for me to refute every one
of your blatant falsehoods (I counted thirteen) and
misrepresentations, not least because to do so would
necessitate quoting great chunks of your verbose
rhetoric. But the main reason I won't bother is that
all those untruths have already been exposed by my
previous post and the various articles I provided
links to, and I'm happy just to let those with an
interest discover the truth for themselves, as I did.
(Anyone who really wants to read my point-by-point
rebuttal, which I have written but decided to leave
out of this post, is welcome to e-mail me.)

What I *will* respond to is your "central assertion",
since you complain (wrongly) that I failed miserably
to do this last time. Your central assertion being
that Moby is "immoral" because:-

"What I do assert is that to take recordings that were
never intended as
commercial speech, recordings made by people who
cannot object to their use,
and to put those recordings to a use that would be
obnoxious and insulting
to the original artist -- that is, putting an
endorsement of a commercial
product into the mouth of a person incapable of
objecting to this use of his
or her art -- is reprehensible and cowardly,
particularly when the author of
this act profits disproportionately from the

That sentence is like my todger - very long and thick.

Let's assume, just for a moment, that "the author of
this act" really is an immoral sack of shit. Your
entire anti-Moby argument still collapses for the
rather obvious reason that the "author" in question is
not Moby. You are condemning a man for something he
didn't do. That's really crap, Harrison.

You keep droning on that "Moby" negotiated a deal with
the Lomaxes and that "Moby" licensed his tracks to ad
agencies. He did nothing of the sort. How can you be
so naive? Do you really think that Moby - perhaps
unique among recording artists - has any control
whatsoever over what the record company does with his
songs, or that he writes his own licensing contracts?
I might expect such ignorance from a complete layman,
but not from an XTC fan: you, of all people, should be
well versed in the myriad ways that record companies
shit on their artists.

There's a huge irony here: Moby himself once made a
very public protest at the use of one of his songs in
a car commercial, an act he was utterly powerless to
stop. He was a bona fide *victim* of the very thing
you falsely accuse him of doing to others!

Just in case I haven't hammered this point hard enough
to penetrate your rather thick skull, consider the
following unlikely (though perfectly possible)
scenario. Virgin Records license "Dear God" for use in
a McDonalds commercial. (I told you this was
unlikely...) Andy and Colin have no say in the matter.
Jasmine Veillette isn't asked and she receives no
money for the ad as she was paid a flat fee for the
original recording, as is standard practice. Moreover,
she is a radical vegetarian (I've made that bit up)
and is distinctly unchuffed about an endorsement for
hamburgers being "put into her mouth".

This won't happen, but it *could* happen tomorrow if
Virgin and McDonalds wanted it to. Would Andy and
Colin be morally reprehensible cowards? No. And
neither is Moby.

That's your first mistake. If you want to assassinate
someone's character and call their morals into
question, at least take the trouble to get the right
person, otherwise it's *your* morals that end up
looking a little dubious.

I could just call it quits at this point. But since
you have certainly made a case for *somebody* to
answer, and it's such a weak case, I'm happy to take
it on, even though that somebody is not the person you
think it is.

You begin by saying that these recordings were never
intended to be put to commercial use. I don't see how
you can substantiate that (were you there? Have you
seen the contracts?) but it's not that important. You
go on to say that the artists cannot object. This is
obvious enough. Cadavers are seldom quarrelsome. But
on its own, this "we can't ask them" argument is
cobblers. To appreciate its full cobblers-ness, just
consider that it could be applied equally "validly" to
just about every posthumously-released work in the
history of the arts and media: everything from the
book I am currently reading ("Snake Oil" by John
Diamond) to the Elvis single that is currently sitting
atop the UK charts. Ante-mortem permission wasn't
granted for either of them. I guess your response
would be: "Commercial endorsements are completely
different." Don't worry, I'll come to that.

So we've established that we can't speak *to* dead
people - but that doesn't stop you speaking *for* dead

" a use that would be obnoxious and insulting to
the original artist..."

How can you be so cocksure? What qualifies you to
speak for dead people with such confidence? Dead
people who - unless I'm very unlucky in my assuming -
you never met, never knew, were not related to, in
fact have no personal knowledge of whatsoever. You
don't bother with a "perhaps" or a "probably" or even
a "possibly". No, you're so omniscient that you are
capable of speaking for these people even as they
crumble to dust.

It is patronising arrogance for you to simply *assume*
that those artists would have shared your political
and economic demonology. Most people don't. I would
suggest - and it's just a suggestion, made with none
of your hubristic confidence, and based only on
anecdotal evidence gathered during thirty odd years of
living in the real world - that the vast majority of
ordinary people (by which I mean: not rich) would very
much approve of the idea of their kids making a few
thousand quid some day from an old recording of their
deceased parent's voice. When I shuffle off the old
mortal coil I want my kids to profit from me in any
way they can. They can sell my bones to the glue
factory for all I'm going to care. As long as they
obey the Golden Rule (and who, pray tell, has been
harmed in any way by these commercials?) then I'm not
remotely arsed about what happens to me or my work
after I turn up my toes.

I'm not saying the dead artists would definitely have
taken the same attitude - I'm merely offering it as a
possibility. I don't know what those artists would
feel about this, and you don't know, but at least I
know I don't know. [Copyright (c) Bernard Levin.] The
best we can do is weigh up the probabilities; this is
the sort of complex moral calculation the Lomax
Archive people no doubt have to make every day when
deciding how best to look after the interests of the
artists and their families.

If those artists could speak to us, I wouldn't be at
all surprised if they said something along the lines
of: "Sure, I'm not terribly keen on appearing in a
commercial, but if my kids get some money out of it, I
can live [for want of a better word] with it." This is
the exact same reasoning the Lomax Archive people have
used to overcome their "mixed feelings" and justify
licensing in all its many forms, and I happen to think
they are right. It's called "pragmatism" and it's the
way sensible people run their lives.

Another major problem with your "assertion" is that
the whole thing is underpinned by an assumption that
there is something uniquely evil about advertising.
You provide this as a given. It doesn't appear to have
crossed your mind that most people view advertising as
a harmless enough commercial activity most of the time
- something of an irritant when it interrupts a good
film, perhaps, but nothing more sinister than that.
Your line about "putting an endorsement of a
commercial product into the mouth of a person
incapable of objecting to this use of his or her art"
is redder than any of my herrings. Do you really think
people are so stupid as to believe that the musicians
who appear in the soundtrack of a commercial are
personally endorsing the product? I'd be impressed if
you could find one such person anywhere on the planet.

The distinction you make between advertising and other
forms of commercial exploitation (you admit that
Moby's record is not immoral) is completely phoney. If
Sony Music release a record, and then use that record
in a commercial for Walkmans, both share exactly the
same purpose: to make money for Sony. I guess your
response would be that the commercial is an
endorsement, the record is not, but I've just
explained the fallacy behind that. In your fantasy
world, Britain is populated by morons who believe that
J.S. Bach personally endorses Hamlet cigars. The
reality is that people perceive soundtrack music for
what it is: soundtrack music.

In summary, if there is no evidence that the artists
would have objected to the commercials - and you offer
none beyond a smug belief that everybody ought to
agree with you - and if the surviving families are
happy to take the money (I am unaware of any
complaints), then quite frankly I don't see what the
hell it has got to do with you or anybody else. Let
these people enjoy their money. They deserve it. And
they *did* get paid - Lomax's daughter says so. I'm no
fan of commercials - they may not be evil, but they're
pretty shit. On the other hand, the Lomax Archive and
the artists/their families have received a lot of
money and recognition they wouldn't have got
otherwise. The good far outweighs the bad. Don't
forget that Moby could easily have got some session
singer in to replace those vocals - the end result may
have been more morally acceptable to you, but it would
have provided zero financial relief for those
"desperately oppressed people" you profess to care

I'll finish with another of my "diversionary red
herrings." I hope you don't mind, as this is a story
that should warm the cockles of even your heart.

James Carter was a prisoner on a chain gang back in
1959 when Alan Lomax stuck a tape recorder in his face
as he sang an old spiritual. Forty years later, the
Coen Brothers used his voice in a film, without his
permission since he was one of the many Lomax artists
whose identity or whereabouts were unknown due to
incomplete (or non-existent) records. The soundtrack
album sold millions. As the royalties mounted up, Don
Fleming of the Lomax Archive put a platinum record on
the wall behind his desk to remind him each day of the
importance of finding Carter and paying him his dues.
Eventually, after months of detective work, he was
traced. Carter grinned like a Cheshire cat as they
handed him an enormous cheque, and didn't seem too
perturbed that those nasty film/music corporations had
used his voice to flog cinema tickets/CDs/popcorn
without his prior permission. Isn't that nice?


"PS: Quit fucking with me, Bert. It's pretty goddamned
obvious to me and everybody else what you're trying to
do, so knock it off."

What's Chalkhills coming to, when you can't disagree
with an opinion without getting aggressive
sub-Scorsese lines thrown back at you? You're paranoid
if you think I'm "obsessed with disagreeing" with you.
Have you forgotten that it was YOU who picked a fight
with ME over this? My original post was in response to
Duncan Kimball and some others, NOT you. How was I to
know my anti-anti-Moby sentiments would piss you off?
You could have been president of the Moby fan club for
all I knew. Get real.


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:43:56 -0400
Subject: Where oh Where???
Message-ID: <>

Hello, CHALKHILLions:
I've two small points this time:

First of all, I'm hearing sporatic chat here and in ICE Magazine's July
issue about the availability of the mini-LP sleeve editions of some of the
XTC albums--even ICE Magazine had a small blurb, making it clear that
certain titles are already available, but it seems that this availability
will only happen through strange sources listed on the Caroline (or
Carolyn) Records website.  My big favor is this:  I desperately--make that
*DESPERATELY*--need information as I'd had friends busily searching out the
proper name of the website or some sort of link to it.  According to the
majority of those honorable mentions of the special limited editions,
almost none of you have actually eagerly acquired the special editions.  So
am I to believe that ICE Magazine is jumping the figurative (or melted) gun
and not getting *THEIR* facts straight?  Forgive me, I'm manic about
special editions ever since I missed my opportunity to snag PAUL MCCARTNEY
UNPLUGGED, not ever hearing about when that album was discontinued.  Ever
since that time, way back when, I've been a bother at major record shops
whenever I hear about a limited edition bit of musical mayhem when the
artist in question is someone whose creativity I enthusiastically support!
Trouble is, the megastores do not enthusiastically support that artist in

Which reminds me, I *STILL* haven't found any albums by the Nines!  Are all
of these out of print in the U.S.?  Were they ever available in the U.S.?

This leads me to my next head's up on a set that I'm sure a lot of you will
be interested in, judging by the music that some of you have suggested to
the throng in the past--there will be a four-disk Jellyfish box issued any
day or week now.  Around here, I heard that the set will strangely sell for
a whopping $75!  Wow, this must be some elaborate package, especially since
I'm only aware of two existing Jellyfish albums.  If there was an album in
the can shortly before they broke up, I'm unaware of it but will welcome it
with the same eagerness and fanaticism as I do anything unreleased by XTC,
as would you all!

I'll never understand why this band broke up, but, hey, other bands of
every sort have claimed that the hardest thing, harder than a marriage of
two people, is to keep a group together, especially if that group decides
to tour, a grueling task that splits even the most tightly knit band of
merauders!  Ya gotta really love what you're doing!

We know that our boys of summer's cauldron stopped touring and, eventually,
whittled themselves down to two mad hatters.  I don't know the full story
on Jellyfish, 'cept to say that former front man to Blood, Sweat & Tears,
Al Kooper had been singing their praises for a long time and was sorry to
hear about the disbanding.  He was, however, happy that they recorded a
cover of a Harry Nilsson song that was included on the FOR THE LOVE OF
HARRY tribute album that Kooper co-produced and compiled, with other
contributors being Adrian Belew, Aimee Mann and the Roches.

Jellyfish, like XTC's alter-ego, the Dukes of Stratosphere, were very good
at aping the styles of many, many bands whose sound you know but whose
names you might not easily remember.  Former band member Jason Faulkner is
still out there doing the same kind of '70's pop with a dark twist, and
that is basically waht Jellyfish are about.  The set is called FAN CLUB,
and that is all I know about it.  I'm really anxious to know what the other
two disks are comprised of to jack up the price so high!  But, hey, like
the music of XTC, the good stuff is important, and we'll support it if it
can be easily gotten.

One last thing:  I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who got
onto the Caroline (or Carolyn) Records website.  He told me that the
limited editions are *NOT* available at the website but that Caroline are
distributors of the disks.  I hear that the disks are available to Best
Buy, a store I've not been able to find as yet.  Geez, guys, why couldn't
you pick Tower or J&R?  Or even Other Music, one of the best dealers in all
that is good in current and classic music.  Other Music supports and
nurtures the music of groups like XTC, Beat Happening, Pearlfishers and all
those bands that the megastores don't really support as rabidly as, well,
whatever the corporate structure wants!

Of course, the best source for music is on the internet sites, which is why
Aimee Mann's forthcoming album, LOST IN SPACE, will be sold only through
that source, her website!  Yet, I'm totally out of the loop there.  Please,
people, help me out and, if the guys of XTC actually get a chance to read
this, please make it more widely available so the good stuff could be
easily gotten through many different venues.  The sites never really list,
say, whether or not the albums being offered are the limited edition
mini-LP sleeve editions or not.  I don't want to take a chance and buy
those listed only to find that they are not those limited editions...and
where is all the information on what the bonus tracks will be for each
disk?  I thought for sure that all that info would be posted all over the
place by now!

We'll all keep diggin' in that candy mine!!



Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:38:50 +0000
From: "Simon Knight" <>
Subject: Album recommendations
Message-ID: <>

Tim Brooks wrote:

>Also Phil's spot on with his "Elvis Costello  Album of the year so >far, by
>a long way" comment.  Actually thus far I struggle to think of >another
>album that really does it for me thus far, no doubt I will now >receive
>some reccomendations?

Ok, how about the Candy Butchers' "Play With Your Head".  It came out about
a month before the Costello disc, is packed with similiar vitriolic
wordplay, (albeit less overwritten), combined with fun hooky melodic pop
music, all in a concise 36 minute package that frequently recalls XTC ("My
monkey made a man out of me", "Ruby's got a big idea") or the spikier songs
of Crowded House.  Michael Penn fans should take note too, "Baby it's a long
way down down" will probably cause you to do a double take.

Drop me a line Tim and i'll make you a mix CD, there's plenty of other great
power pop bands out there that might perk up your interest if the radio let
you know they existed.


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:38:40 -0500
From: "Amanda Owens" <>
Subject: *Brushes dust off her computer*
Message-ID: <>

As I wander out of delurk moment for just a second...

J Randles did sayeth:
>Actually, if you are in the US and (sadly) watch MTV
>or BET, the first lyric about getting hot would remind
>you of the recent smash called "Hot in Herre" (yes, 2
>R's!) by Nelly, the St. Louis rapper of mega
>popularity and much bling bling, but little talent.
>And I quote:

>"It's gettin hot in herre
>so take off all your clothes-"
>Then a female voice responds:
>"I am gettin so hot, I wanna take my clothes off..."

Thankfully, I stopped watching MTV when they stopped playing MUSIC,
somewhere around the time that Headbanger's Ball was canceled.
Unfortunately, living in an urban neighborhood, I do have to put up with
that mindless drivel that is supposed to be known as "music" on a daily
basis. (Usually when it's being driven by my house sometime around one in
the morning, permeating from speakers the size of a yacht in a car the size
of a gerbil.)

>Waiting for the XTC cover of this song... ;)

*Shudders at the mere thought*

Kyla did sayeth:
>I, too, have trouble separating an individual's art from their

I can definitely agree with you there, only for me it extends to movies and
tv too. If I don't like a band, musician, or actor's views on certain
subjects, or the way they carry themselves in the public, that sullies their
reputation for me and I have a hard time getting into their product, even if
those views have nothing to do with whatever product they're putting forth.

>that new song 'We Are All Made of Stars' is very limp>

Agreed, but the video's actually kind of cool. (Could've done without the
shot of the N'Sync member though. That group is comparable to human Ipecac.)

Debora Brown did sayeth:

>And those of you who are incensed that someone dare to have a
>negative opinion about a public figure, and then furthermore has the
>cheek to post it on this forum?  Well, duckies, to youz I
>say.. Lighten up!  It's all about point/counterpoint, provided one
>keeps it from becoming a personal attack.  Debate is what makes life
>interestin'.. are you guys with me?  Thought so.

Wish I would've thought of that a few years ago when I first joined the
group. Need to know why? Check back to the '96 digests, or ask any of the
old regulars. They can tell you. :)

>And, yes, you are ALL invited to join me.. But if you want to score
>the highly coveted comfy chaise lounge next to moi, then remember to
>bring a six pack of Beck's to share with me, ya got it? ;o)

Only if I can bring a six pack of Doc Otis Hard Lemon too!

Oh yeah, and I like Sgt. Rock too!

Recently had the pleasure of speaking with Senor Gregory again, this time to
ask his opinions on some British food I was planning to order online. (All
Cadbury chocolate, of course.)

Tis all for now,
Amanda C. Owens
XTC song of the day-In Another Life
non XTC song of the day-Leather and Lace-Stevie Nicks & Don Henley
"If you're going to be worried everytime the universe doesn't make sense,
you're going to be worried every moment of every day for the rest of your
natural life."-Ambassador G'Kar


End of Chalkhills Digest #8-38

Go back to the previous page.