Precedence: bulk
From: Chalkhills <>
Subject: Chalkhills Digest #9-53

          Chalkhills Digest, Volume 9, Number 53

                 Tuesday, 4 November 2003


                  A question for Dunks -
                    spinning top help
    A Morningwood response to a Sherwood flattery-fest
                Some Very Important Things
                  Blegvad - "King Strut"
                      Sales figures
              DVD news @
              Boycott for the right reasons


    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 3.8 (John Relph <>).

Just think twice before you try to steal.


Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:37:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Nicole Ross <>
Subject: A question for Dunks -
Message-ID: <>

Dunks, hot air balloon ride to see the horse would be
great... but wasn't it a great experience to be able
to walk right next to this 2000-3000 year old
artifact? I got the biggest thrill with that! Did you
visit Avebury? I love that whole region...

Also... are you are neuroscientist? Okay, thats two

-back to lurking -



Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:19:28 -0800 (PST)
From: travis schulz <>
Message-ID: <>

I think it's been about two years since I've posted
anything here but I wanted to share some possibly
helpful information for those who still want to get
their hands on the Fuzzy Warbles collections. is a used (and some new) cd website
that has disc 3 and 4 of the Warbles for sale- with
shipping and handling- $23 total.  And it usually
takes less than a week for the discs to arrive.  Check
it out...and by the Dave really with the
Dukes on that new Wish List cd?


Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:10:52 EST
Subject: spinning top help
Message-ID: <>

Hi!  I'm in a band that plans to cover "Spinning Top", and was wondering if
anyone could give us help figuring out the chords?
Thanks so much!


Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 19:18:38 -0500
From: <>
Subject: A Morningwood response to a Sherwood flattery-fest
Message-ID: <000001c3a1a0$0af40770$0500a8c0@stymie>

Oh my. A rare emergence from the land of lurk for lil' ol' me. This
call, however, could not go unanswered.

In Chalkhills Digest, Volume 9, Number 52, esteemed wordsmith
extraordinaire Harrison Sherwood wrote to/of The Morningwood Brothers'

>....Quit your day jobs!
>Claque Picks Track to Click -- Mix Packs Licks, Tricks & Chicks
>"Sub-phucking-lime" Says Stunned Hapless Goober
>Squirreled away amid the Good, the Bad, and the Fugly in the tall grass
>that is the King for a Day collection is a Bauble of Wonderfulness, the
>kind of thing that makes me weak in the knees with jealousy while making
>me glad I'm a member of a race of beings that can create something so
>ding-dong purty.
>This thing of which I rave is the version of "Then She Appeared" done by
>the Morningwood Brothers' Auxiliary. Immaculately produced, beautifully
>rearranged for acoustic instruments, and sung by a (by my count) quartet
>of celestial beings. (Invite them over, they can all sit on my lap,
>thereby testing the age-old question: How many angels can fit on a
>The thing is very slightly country, folky, relaxed -- yes, pastoral,
>even, but pastoral in the sense that we mean it on *this* side of the
>Atlantic. Easy on the Constable, heavy on the Grant (Morning) Wood. Nice
>"Pet Sounds" cop in the middle, there: the sort of thing that has to be
>executed perfectly if it is to be done at all -- and, natch, it is.
>Think Nickel Creek without all the Hobbit crap and you're in the
>Have I fawned enough? Seek it out, folks: Filed under "T." Then She
>Appeared.  Morningwood Brothers' Auxiliary. May they prosper and
>multiply. If you're still within the sound of this post, give me a call,
>kidz, let's talk management.
>Harrison "The name's gotta go, though" Sherwood

Wow. A bazillion thanks Mr. Sherwood. I'm going to be wheeling my head
around in a shopping cart for the next week or so after those kind and
flattering words. I'll dispense with my usual, aw shucks, overly modest
and self-critical response, and simply say thanks on behalf of the group
and meself, and I hope we passed the audition. And yeah, the name blows
(so to speak), but there's a very short (no pun intended) and
uninteresting story behind it. We'll dispense with that as well. While
I'm feeling so uncharacteristically vocal, let me mention some of my own
personal favorites so far.

"Crocodile" by The White Horse Hillbillies (Yee hah! Nice job fellas!)

"Let's Make A Den" by Frank Agnello (Of Fab Faux fame. Very nicely done.
Check out his band if you ever get the chance.)

"Are You Receiving Me" by Toast66 (pseudo-psychedelic bossa-nova...
slightly dark, and darkly sleight.)

"Boarded Up" by The Nearly Men (I almost wish Colin had done it like
this. Almost. Crash Test Dummies meets Smashmouth??)

"Stupidly Happy" by Debora Brown (Interesting, gentle take on this one.
Also, I loved watching Gigantor as a kid!)

"Earn Enough For Us" by Chomsky (I'm no huge fan of Green Day, but if
Green Day wrote songs like XTC ...hmmmm)

"Omnibus" by George Reeves (It beats that other slagging version on the
disc! Besides, I loved watching Superman as a kid.)

BTW - Nice job Mr. Pedretti-Allen

Jeffrey "I know the name's gotta go, though" Fariello


Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:06:13 -0500
From: Benjamin Gott <>
Subject: Some Very Important Things
Message-ID: <>


First off: I saw Ween last Tuesday night, performing in Northampton,
they're a "joke" band, but, if you get the chance to see them live, DO
NOT pass it up!  They played everything from "Doctor Rock" to "You
Fucked Up" to "Zoloft" and "Transdermal Celebration" (from the new
album, "Quebec") to my favourite Ween song of all time, "Exactly Where
I'm At" (the opener to their Beatles pastiche, "White Pepper").  The
show was a touch over two hours long, which, for $20 a ticket, was a
bargain.  Please, please, PLEASE treat yourself to this show.  You
won't be disappointed.

Secondly: you must pick up the following CD's: "Muscle" by The
Adventures of Jet and "Puss 'n' Boots" by Crash Test Dummies.  AOJ are
a band out of Dallas, TX who play the best power pop I've heard in a
long time (imagine a blender full of XTC, Weezer, and Fountains of
Wayne set to "puree").  They're signed to Suburban Home Records, an
indie label; you can write to Hop, the lead vocalist and keyboard
player, listen to songs, and see pictures at their website:

[ ]

Thankfully, Brad Roberts has stopped fucking around and has returned to
his Harlem-via-Canada roots.  Five or six years of living in NYC and
listening to hip hop and R & B has changed Brad's voice for the better
(it's sexy and slinky, not just bass baritone-y), and he's reunited
with his brother Dan (a fabulous bass player) and Ellen Reid (on
vocals) for this album.  Songs like "Triple Master Blaster" signal a
new, harder direction, while "Flying Feeling" and "If Ya Wanna Know"
recall the days of "God Shuffled His Feet."  It's all right not to like
Brad the man, but give the new Dummies a chance.

[ ]

Finally: I was asked to DJ my school's dance on Halloween night.  Armed
with an iBook chock full of stuff the kids like (R. Kelly's "Ignition,"
Blink 182's "Action," and the horrible "Holiday Inn" by Chingy and
Snoop Dogg) and stuff I like (Biz Markie's "Just a Friend," "Don't You
Forget About Me," "The Humpty Dance," and "Thriller"), I think I ran a
pretty successful show.  In between "If You're Gone" and Ashanti's
"Rain on Me," I stuck Mandy Moore's "Senses Working Overtime."  Yes,
they danced to it -- and some of the boys on my dorm came up to me and
yelled, "ISN'T THIS THAT XTC SONG, MR. GOTT?!?"  Yeah, I'm teaching
them well, don't you think?

A few weeks ago, I lent "Black Sea" to a boy on my dormitory who was
having a really bad week.  He had been telling me how hard it is to say
what he means, so I told him to listen to "No Language in Our Lungs."
The next day, as it happened, I was set to perform a song at the midday
chapel; I did an acoustic piano version of "No Language...," for Max.
I walked into his room a few nights later, and he and another boy,
John, were sitting there listening to "Towers of London."

The next day, Max came up to me at breakfast.  "Hey, Mr. Gott," he
said.  "You know what?  John can't get 'Towers of London' out of his
head!"  Sure enough, as I walked past John by the juice machine, he was
humming: "La la Londinium..."




Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:09:38 -0500
From: "J. D. Mack" <>
Subject: Blegvad - "King Strut"
Message-ID: <>

Hey all, has some copies of Peter Blegvad's "King Strut" for
$15.00, compared to $30.00+ everywhere else.  Just in case anyone hasn't
picked this up yet.

If anyone goes to to order this, you have to click on "new
releases" on the lefthand side, then scroll to the bottom of the page that
comes up and click on "more."  Click "more" at the bottom of the next page
that comes up, and you should be on the page which lists this CD.

J. D.


Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 18:34:28 -0800
From: "WAYNE KLEIN" <>
Subject: Sales figures
Message-ID: <>

Any sales figures for the Fuzzy series? Just curious as to how they are
doing. On the unrelated side of things got an email from Morton Vindberg
about a poll on a Badfinger boxed set. I'm assuming that fans are going to
petition Apple/Warner or maybe an independent like Not Lame to put something
together. Based on sales potential, convincing the majors that it should be
done, etc. seems like Not Lame would be the logical choice.

Any one interested should go to Morton's site  at "The Ultimate Badfinger

Just paste in the hyperlink and away you go.

Sadly, Badfinger was abused about as much as Xtc. If the band hadn't been
torn apart by management issues and personality conflicts, perhaps they
might have come through it all similar to Andy, Colin and Dave.  Another sad
example of a great band and songwriters who were fucked over by the majors.
Speaking of which, I'm hoping there is a big backlash against them by
consumers. Suing their customers? It's a pretty wacky business. I'm not for
filesharing at the expense of the artist but when a major company won't
release material, it seems to me that they're asking for it. You'd think
that the majors would have gotten wise to this then again, the core audience
for many of these overlooked bands are so small they probably just don't
give a damn.

Incidently I put on Wasp Star after a long break and am even more amazed at
the album than when I first heard it. The song craft is stellar but the
quality of almost every song would put just about every other working band
to shame. I'm hoping to order the CD with the Dukes on it fairly soon please
share some thoughts when someone else on the list gets it.

Any final sales figures for Wasp Star and who will be distributing the
band's next album when it comes out?

Still stupidly happy



Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:09:07 +0100 (CET)
Subject: DVD news @
Message-ID: <>


Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:11:04 -0500
Subject: Boycott for the right reasons
Message-ID: <>

Hello Chalkhillers.

After many months of lurking, I have come back to put in my two cents
in once again.  This time it's the dreaded P2P file sharing issue.  I
know this horse has been beaten ad nauseum, but it is clearly not dead

Such a strange turn of events, this technological/cultural phenomenon
has brought about, isn't it?  What record label would have thought
that their obnoxious, abhorrent behavior would lead to the world being
against them even when they were being seriously wronged??  And who
finds it hard to believe that they'd go to any ridiculous length to
protect themselves, including trampling on individual rights!  Not me,
and probably not any of you.

But there's a perspective to this issue we cannot dismiss. I'll take
my cues from the recent post by the venerable Mr. Chris Vreeland, who
I believe has the right spirit, but like many of us, may have been
skewed a bit by the propaganda surrounding the situation.

Before anyone accuses me of being a major record label patsy, (and the
implied baby killer/rapist reputation that goes along with that),
please keep in mind that I have but one main point:  The RIAA is a
scumbag organization that deserves to be boycotted for many reasons,
however its opposition to unauthorized file sharing is not one of

Right now, the RIAA is the only organization I can think of that is
actively fighting to protect the rights of the recording artist
against what has arguably become a major criminal theft situation.
Yes, the RIAA is acting it out of greed, but this is to be expected.
Every large scale, profit-oriented business operates on the principal
of maximizing profits, ie., greed.   It is most unfortunate that they
are using their lobbying capability to trample on individual freedoms
by obtaining bullshit subpoenas under the Digital Millennium Act, and
this is perhaps the primary reason I would support a boycott. It is a
situation that should not be tolerated.  The Digital Millennium Act is
an abomination and should be repealed or rewritten to respect the
intent of the US Bill of Rights.  That's where our boycott energies
INFRINGEMENT AT THE SAME TIME.  We can't throw the baby out with the
bathwater.  Chris gives !

 us several other valid reasons for an RIAA boycott.  I'll quote:

  >>>>>>The RIAA represents the major record labels who for 50 years
  have stolen artist's copyrights, pushed shady contracts with
  horrid royaltyschemes, cooked the books, underpaid what little
  royalties wereactually due artists, often refused to release
  albums that wererecorded, and refused to return the copyrights
  of these recordings totheir rightful owners, or release
  unsatisfied and unhappy artists fromunprofitable contracts-- the
  list of practically criminal misdeeds bythe recording industry
  can and has filled books.<<<<<<

All true.   But then suddenly and regrettably our friend begins an
implied but systematic defense of illegal file sharing which begins
with this:

  >>>I have absolutely no patience or sympathy for these criminals.<<<

Nor do I.  But not every Muslim is a terrorist and not everyone who
benefits from RIAA business activities is a criminal.  You are
painting with a very wide brush.

  >>>>> I am,however, sorry that artists might be missing out on their
  minisculeshare of royalties as a result of a decline in album
  sales, but thetruth of the matter is that filesharing is not the
  only reason saleshave declined.  It is a contributing factor in
  a complex situation, and nobody can really say with ANY certainty
  how many sales were lost as aresult of downloading.<<<<<<<<

I'm sorry, Chris, but these are particularly disturbing statements for
several reasons. 1. Copyright infringement through unauthorized file
sharing is NOT a victimless crime. 2. The artist's share of royalties
is generally not miniscule, and the remaining shares that go to other
people are often paying honest people for hard work that needs to be
done.  I am an artist, and my entire annual income is based on
copyright royalties. Other people get parts of my royalties and
without those people I would have no royalties at all.  I'm not rich,
but I make a good living,and the same is true for those I work with.
If I lose my ability to control the distribution of my work, we all
lose everything, and file sharing DEFINITELY threatens my ability to
control distribution.  3. The fact that there are other reasons for
sales decline is in ADDITION to sales losses from file sharing.  And
if you use the argument that we can't know how much sales loss is due
to file sharing, you have to admit the same thing about the other
possible reasons.  But even if sales were increasing, unauthorized
file sharing would be an infringement on the rights of artists and
copyright holders.  4. The fact that we cannot say with certainty how
many sales were lost as a result of downloading does not in any way
imply that we cannot say sales were lost.  Sales were lost.  Lots of
sales.  In fact, in certain sub-genres that don't get much press,
entire industry profits are being wiped out.  I'll admit this is
anecdotal, but producers are telling me that it's nearly impossible
for a small, independent artists to make money on a dance hit now, or
a college/alternative hit, largely because of file sharing. It's not
highly publicized because it's not on the big boys' radar screens.

  >>>> Let's look at some of the other possible factors:

  1. More used copies available for sale.2. The initial rush to replace
  vinyl collections with CDs has largelygot to be over.3. The economy
  is probably responsible for at least 5% of the decline.4. Legal
  technology-- People with CDs backed up on their computer havea
  recourse if their orig. copy gets damaged, and less are
  gettingdamaged, due to people taking burned backups or MP3 players
  out of thehouse instead of originals.5. The homogenization of major
  label artist's stables due toconsolidation in the industry,
  resulting in less choice.

  There's probably more, but that list alone could negate illegal
  copyingand swapping, statistically.<<<<<<

Good list, but no, it doesn't "negate" file sharing.  It just makes
the problem worse for anyone trying to make money in the music
business.  If the list were a list of things that caused sales to go
UP, maybe that would negate the statistical effects of file
sharing. But it would not exonerate the practice.

  >>>Sure, some people might have bought if downloads weren't available,
  butothers might not have.<<<

Try that argument in court and see if it holds any water.

  >>> And quite a few sales were MADE to people whodownloaded, then went
  and got the album because they liked a song.<<<<


  >>>There's no way to reconcile downloads with declining sales figures.<<<<

1.  This is not an entirely true statement.  You can't get an accurate
number, but correlations can be made.2.  The implication that "You
can't prove sales are being hurt, therefore they aren't" is a logical
fallacy.3.  Once again, the effect on sales may be of great concern to
record companies, but it is not relevant to the argument of whether or
not copyright protection laws are being infringed, and will not be the
deciding factor when this hits the courts.  If someone walks into a
movie theater with a camcorder, records the new "Matrix" release on
opening day and distributes it on the internet, I suspect few of us
would object to their stern prosecution. It's clearly against the
law. The assertion that movie theater sales were not significantly
affected is not a defense.  The assertion that some people downloaded
the bootleg, but then went and saw it in the theater is not a defense.
The assertion that the big movie mega-conglomerates are filthy rich
scumbags is not a defense.  The assertion that movie theaters charge
too much money and show crappy movies is not a defense.  The assertion
that the movie theater still "has the movie" even though someone's
taken a copy of it, is not a defense.  I see no difference with music
file sharing.

Perhaps you are arguing that the copyright law should be changed.  OK,
but then my question becomes, what are you suggesting the law should
be? Should artists really not have the right to control the
distribution of their intellectual property over the internet?  Isn't
that what we imply when we rail against those who would litigate
against file sharers?  But if that is what we are implying, do we
recognize the ramifications of it?

    >>>>>>They've had their heads buried in the sand for ten years when
    theyshould have been embracing new technology and the internet
    in an effortto build a business model there, and they're making
    us consumers payfor their shortsightedness.<<<<<

On this, I respectfully disagree.  You can't MAKE a consumer pay for a
discretionary entertainment item. Bad business practice can result in
unfairly passed-on costs for necessities like food, utilities,
etc. but with entertainment, consumers can vote with their wallets.
No one is forcing you to go into Tower and spend $18.99 US on a CD.
Yes, the industry needs to wake up and figure out how to use the new
distribution system.  Yes, much of the industry is not controlling its
costs, and it's providing poor quality product at a ridiculously high
prices.  But stealing the product is not an appropriate or ethical

Also, be aware that lots of folks are "embracing new technology and
the internet" (witness,CD Baby, Amazon, etc.) but none of them
have yet figured out a way to generate significant revenue through
internet music sales. Attempts to bypass the major labels and provide
full access to independents have resulted in a sea of mediocre crap
that has to be waded through to find one or two good cuts. The buying
public does not appear to be interested in sifting through 100 pounds
of chaff to find a grain of wheat. For the same reasons, just posting
your own music site and selling CD's from it probably won't work to
feed the families of very many artists either.  You need a highly
organized, big-draw site.  Apple's i-music and the other big-boy
forays are showing potential, but at this point, that's all it is -
potential.  The real business model is not evident yet. When a viable
money-maker comes along, will the big labels step in and dominate it?
In all likelihood, yes. Those with the most money will use it to get
the most exposure and the highest sales, and they won't allow little
independent "Jose Augilera" to piggyback on their publicity dollars by
having his CD appear next to Christina Aguilera's on the same website.
It won't happen.  And finally, "embracing" the internet would NOT
preclude attempts to control or limit the unauthorized downloading of
copyrighted music files. On the contrary, control and enforcement
would likely become even more necessary.

  >>>>>Let us celebrate the independent musician, instead. Power to the
  AniDiFrancos, Mike Keneallys and XTC's of the world. It's their
  oyster, atthis point.<<<<<<

Agreed.  But Ani DiFranco, Mike Keneally and XTC do have something in
common - they protect their copyrights and do not advocate the
unauthorized file sharing of copyrighted material.  We should all be
careful to do the same.

  >>>Buy something from an independent artist today.<<<<

Yes -"Buy" is the operative word.  And don't download it unless you
have their permission.

  >>>>They're everywhere, and they get to keep most of the profit,
  instead of havingto split it 10/90 with the AR guy and

In itself, a split like that is neither a crime, nor a criticism of
major labels.  Actually, 10/90 is a pretty good split if the label is
doing it's job.  Many of the musicians I've met whine about their
split, but want to do little other than play music, sign autographs
and boff groupies.  If, like Ani DiFranco, you choose to give that up
for artistic independence and a better split, be prepared to do all
your marketing, product development, publishing, promotion, publicity,
accounting and distribution yourself.  In other words, be prepared to
spend as much time (and money) running your business as you do playing
your music, and be prepared to do it with miniscule resources and
hardly any leverage compared to a bigger label.  How many musicians do
you know who can do that and be successful and profitable on a
national or global scale? Three? It's a tradeoff, and it's a fair
tradeoff, provided you get a fair recording contract. (The subject of
a whole different discussion.)

  >>>>Lastly, to put my money where my mouth is, here's a free song for
  ya,courtesy, me. Please, download, copy, burn and share with
  wanton randomness.<<<<<

This is a Pink Floyd song.  You don't indicate on your site how it is
that you have permission to post it and offer it for downloading, but
if you do have permission, I hope you get a million downloads.  I
predict, under those circumstances, you would realize that you have a
huge potential market for selling music that will only benefit you if
you start charging money for it.  Let's also hope that by then, you
still have a right to.

Dr. Pilpy.

PS - I enjoyed reading the various anecdotes about my good friend Mike
Versaci's visit to the great city of London.


End of Chalkhills Digest #9-53

Go back to the previous page.