Chalkhills Digest Volume 6, Issue 93
Date: Saturday, 29 April 2000
Chalkhills Digest, Volume 6, Number 93
Saturday, 29 April 2000
Topics:
#6-91
Los Angeles Meeting & TVT Records
Cover Art
Mummer
What to think?
WS mp3s??
damn/listening parties/gangway
Let's start a happy thread!!!
B.A.D II the bone
One more great part....
Nap Gap: Yap, Yap, Yap! Slap Cap, Pap! Zap!
couldn't say it better
Napster
#6-92
OVERLONG??
Pay attention , class!
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 3.7b (John Relph <relph@tmbg.org>).
I have watched the manimals go buy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:39:57 -0400
From: "Todd Bernhardt" <todd.bernhardt@enterworks.com>
Subject: #6-91
Message-ID: <3909DAFD.CBD58CFB@enterworks.com>
Organization: Enterworks, Inc.
Hi:
John Hedges said:
> In order to cash in on the Elian Gonzales hype, the Miami
> Heat basketball team has decided to rename itself the
> "Miami Relatives."
I'd like to point out that The Miami Relatives is a great name for a
band.
Garret Harkawik asked:
> Whats Rush?
Silly! It's that feeling you get when you stand up too fast, or take too
much supercool.
Tyler responded to me:
> 1. my one word comment (yawn) is vague enough to not
> be a comment on Napster at all. Read into it what you
> will.
>
> 2. I DID contribute (maybe). See point #1. You just
> didn't like my contribution.
So, which is it?
> 3. "yawn" is about the LEAST bitchy thing I have ever
> posted to Chalkhills. Why get your panties in a bunch
> over that?
Because it's a waste of bandwidth. As various people here have pointed
out before -- including you, I think -- the only thing more boring than
a boring debate is a post about how boring the boring debate is. The
combination of your subject line and post showed you were bitching about
how boring the debate is. If you don't like it, page-down. And so what
if you've been bitchier in the past?
BTW, I'm not wearing panties. Woof.
("Tell me, Scottie, is anything worn under your kilt?"
"Nah, lass, 'tis as good as it ever was!")
> 4. I fully agree that debate/discourse is important.
> Repetedly whining your point and not really seeing
> anyone else's point isn't. There's a fine line
> between the two. Quite possibly that line has been
> crossed regarding the Napster debate.
Quite possibly not. Depends on whose post you're reading, I suppose.
> 5. I thought I was being light hearted in my one-word
> comment. When it comes to bitchiness, maybe it takes
> one to know one!
Sorry, didn't catch your humor there. My fault.
Oh, one more thing: I'm rubber, you're glue...
-Todd "I like Nina Stratton's posts" Bernhardt
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:27:04 -0700 From: "Radiosinmotion" <radiosinmotion@earthlink.net> Subject: Los Angeles Meeting & TVT Records Message-ID: <000c01bfb13f$5b2b8ce0$0200a8c0@digitalpc> I also would be interested in getting together somewhere in LA. What about Venice? Hopefully XTC will have a signing party out here. They use to come out here quite often in the 80's. Remember the message I left regarding TVT not promoting Wasp Star right by not updating their site? The day after I wrote that message they put an update up and I had thought they would continue to put more up than just one paragraph with a vague message answering my question . Maybe we should complain to them again till they let us know what's going on. I don't want to sit down to watch TV and find XTC on Leno or something and that I missed going to the show because TVT did not promote their own artists right! All I ask is for some updates as to what is going on. Most of us on this list are pretty loyal fans. I am willing to bet at least 10% of us have been fans for over 10 years and some of us as long as 20. I think its a disgrace to the group that TVT wont at least put up regular updates regarding happenings with Wasp Star and the promotion tour. I understand about booking and what it takes to schedule events and record signings, etc. Regardless, they should put updates on the site to let us know what is going on considering they will make a good percentage of their profits from loyal supporters like us. At a time when people are defending and debating the positive and negative influences of MP3, TVT is not even giving us a reason to be loyal supporters by not keeping us up to date on what we should be planning for. Regardless, we are all going to support XTC, that is for sure, but I am going to be plenty pissed if XTC has an appearance in Los Angeles and I miss it because someone at TVT did not want to pay their web dept. an extra few dollars to put an update on their really overdone site (do we really need 2 windows open?). That is not how you should do business in my opinion. There is no excuse for not updating the site. As far as I know, John is not making any money and neither is the other people on this list who have XTC sites and they update their sites pretty regularly, even with full time careers (and they are not making a percentage off of XTC's work either!) So, TVT, please do us a favor and put a little more effort into promoting XTC. The album is less then a month away and it would be nice to know where and when they will be promoting the album. Oh, I heard Nonsuch recently and just don't understand why people feel its overrated. For one, I don't remember it getting that much attention in the first place and second, its a damn good album. I can't really say what my favorite record is, or worse for that matter. I think I am biased because I have liked everything spare a few songs (such as Collins songs from AV1 which are now starting to grow on me). Without putting too much thought into it, I would say Drums & Wires, only because it was a combination of their sound from yesterday and today. Other than that, it would be hard to put an order of favorites of XTC. That's all...
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:04:12 -0700 From: "Dane Pereslete" <peresd@tcwgroup.com> Subject: Cover Art Message-ID: <s9097046.084@acacia.tcwgroup.com> Hmmm..... First impression of the cover art for ITMWML: A comglomerate of New Order meets Yello... Discuss...
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:18:00 +0100 From: "John Bartlett" <John@bartlett132.screaming.net> Subject: Mummer Message-ID: <002501bfb146$2b353e80$31ec31d4@e.e> Jeff said; ">Here's a new list that has been swirling around in my little brain: The top >five "most controversial" XTC albums. I mean the ones where there seems to >be a pretty even split between "lovers of" and "haters of", all for reasons >you can never really quite comprehend, no matter how much they try to >defend their choices by explaining it to you in great detail on or >off-list. >My choices: 1) Mummer, 2) Nonsuch, 3) The Big Express, 4) O&L, 5) anything >by the Dukes >And, conversely, the top 5 "least controversial" XTC albums: >My choices: 1) Drums & Wires, 2) Black Sea, 3) White Music/Go 2, 4) ES, >5) Skylarking >I know, I know, I cheated on both lists. But they're my lists, so I can... And I don't think my list would change much this time around. Maybe this time, "Black Sea" would be the least controversial of all (because *everyone* seems to love it), "White Music" and/or "Go 2" would be either tied for first or close No. 2s (because *nobody* seems to love them), and "D&W" would come 3rd (because there was *one* dissenting voice one or two digests back)." And also; "The "transitional periods" are the in-between. These are the times when the band is searching for its direction, when it isn't certain where it is going -- and neither are we, as listeners. And the first 2 albums, "Mummer", "Express", and probably "Nonsuch" or maybe even "O&L" seem to fit into this group. " I would have to agree with Mummer being the no.1 choice in the controversial/hated list, although I don't actively hate Mummer, it and I just don't quite see eye to eye. I came to XTC via Nigel, Wait 'Till Your Boat Goes Down (a much underrated single) , Sgt Rock etc, around 79/80. I bought Black Sea 1st, followed by D&W, both of which blew me away, especially BS (uncontroversially!). Then they released the pop tour de force that is English Settlement. Well, I'd been spoilt with 3 albums of muscular pop from one of Britains' premier beat combos, so naturally, I was greatly looking forward to Mummer. I was sooo disappointed with it. The only track that made any impact at all was Funk Pop A Roll. Partridges' other efforts seemed to me to be a faux - jazz/rural pastiche mix that I just couldn't get on with. Its the only XTCcd reissue on which the bonus tracks are better the original album tracks, and I still,after 17 years, listen to Ladybird. Mummer has grown on me over the years, but its still my least listened-to XTC album. My 1st choice would be Black Sea. I have begun to wonder whether this is because I prefer the power-pop side of the group, or because its my 1st XTC love. Do the people who picked up on the group at Skylarking (or any other album for that matter) rate that album as XTCs' best, simply because its their 1st love. Was it just because I was a snotty adolescent at the time? How can I be right in thinking that a group who I've followed for 21 years, that have made such excellent albums since BS, produced their best work 20 years ago? In the light of this, you can understand my delight at the reports of guitars all over Wasp Star. Perhaps not Son of Black Sea, but a damn sight closer than Mummer was. I spent most of ' 83 saying how great Mummer was, because it seemed I was the only XTC fan in the UK. How nice it is to stop. John PS Anybody who can help with Mummer appreciation, I am certainly willing to listen.
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:09:18 -0700 From: "Macdonald, Robert " <RMacdonald@bcbc.bc.ca> Subject: What to think? Message-ID: <EB3FE924F73DD11187E400805FEA8E81049556ED@bcbcmail.bcbc.bc.ca> Hey all. Been meaning to mail for so long now that I've done gone forgotten half of the things that I'd thought up to say. Way back when (.... when Michael Penn's new cd was released...) I read an interview with MP who was asked about the Beatles influence in his music. He's reply would probably interest you all. He said that all the Beatles comparisons kind of piss him off because the his real inspiration and Beatle sound came second hand from great pop bands .....and I quote "like XTC". Seems odd that in this time of rejoicing when a new album is about to be released to the world that we'd be squabbling amongst ourselves about which XTC album is "crap". Clearly most people on this list including myself probably don't think any of it is. Some's better, some's worse in each person's opinion. It strikes me that some comments are thrown in just to bait the group (and it usually works). I had been floating along quite happily reading about WS and enjoying the anticipation of the whole thing. I had no interest in Napster (or Macster?? what am I missing?) But then people kept sending those easy clickable address's for that radio station along with their emails and finally I just couldn't stop myself. So I downloaded that 20 sec. real audio file of The Man Who Murdered Love.....and I just don't know what to think. My first listen just kind of wholloped me across the head. I wasn't quite ready for it and the volume was set on 11. Suddenly there's these loud off kilter crunchy sounding chords and sliding yowls and Andy's singing away "Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'm the man who murdered love.........Yeah!"....I've listened to that twenty seconds around fifty times now and to my ears (and of coarse it's a pretty crappy sounding file) those guitars are sounding pretty raw just as Andy promised. And by raw I mean by recent XTC standards for sure! Someone wrote about there being no use of reverb but it sounds like there is definitely some effects happening on the guitar and on his voice. I'm feeling more impatient that ever! Cheers (and hello to all my friends out there!) Rob (who is now listening to Elliot Smith's Figure 8 which is wonderful but still hasn't hit me like XO did yet.) Rob Macdonald Victoria, BC Canada
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:53:15 -0400 From: "Tom Paluzzi" <tmp@tmp.mv.com> Subject: WS mp3s?? Message-ID: <002801bfb143$02ce1a50$9606c90a@btrd.bostontechnology.com> Ok...So flog me if you must, be who has the WS mp3's they'd like to share/trade w/ me??...I've spent weeks on Napster looking for them to no avail... Please help!! Tom (who will buy the cd when its released)...
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 15:51:34 EDT From: WESnLES@aol.com Subject: damn/listening parties/gangway Message-ID: <33.45fa481.263b45c6@aol.com> Millions: Had a perfectly good line and screwed it up. I can't help but feel that beer is somehow to blame. (Omnibus) Just let my words pass you by Don't dwell on what's written Pull the blinkers from your eyes It's tongue cheek is pressed in Last line should be: It's cheek tongue is pressed in. Doesn't matter how clever you are, beer will soon put a stop to it. Okay, Listening parties. Not sure how these things are put together, but it does sound interesting. I've got hundreds of hours of boot XTC audio, curious if anyone would be interested in a listening party involving rarities. I've got some fantastic quality live schtuff as well as demos and interviews. Somebody drop me a line and explain how this little magic trick is pulled off. OR, I'd be happy to supply some audio to Molly to include in her gig. I certainly don't wanna step on your toes here Molly, not because they may be broken, but because_____well_____frankly, you frighten me. Lastly, though I love the way WASP opens up (Playground), I still think the lads missed the boat by not opening the release with Gangway Electric Guitar is Coming Through. C'mon folks, the return to axe grinding record kicking the door down with that line; GANGWAY! How better to say "prepare yourself for a slab o guitar." Plus the song is every bit as infectious as Robert Smith's cold sore. wesLONG http://members.tripod.com/~The_Last_Balloon/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:20:38 -0400
From: "Diamond" <arnos@nantucket.net>
Subject: Let's start a happy thread!!!
Message-ID: <200004282022.QAA02253@nantucket.net>
I'm tired of the whining and such that suddenly has become prominent on this
list, so I want to start a happy thread. It's a thread that has been done
many times, but everytime it's done, people think up something new. So,
again, I want to introduce you to a happy thread: some of your favorite XTC
moments... not songs, not albums, but moments... times when you listened to
a song, and it finally clicked what andy and colin where saying, or a
specific part in a song that you always listen for...
Well, I've been listening to Drums and Wires recently, so my coments right
now are mostly gonna be D&W based:
The begining drums of Nigel... I read in Chalkhills and Children that it was
an accident... oh, what a happy accident....
the hand claps in Life Begins at the Hop... I love the placement of those
handclaps... The make the song much more dancable.
The time in Life Begins at the Hop when he sings "Life begins at the top"
twice. For some reason, it sounds more natural song more then once. The way
the La la la la la la la slides down between the two times he sings it is
also great
AV1:
The first time I heard the album... I had just bought it when I was on
vacation, and I was waiting in the car, so that we could get on the boat
home (I live on Nantucket, an island off Cape Cod) and I put it in my
Discman... I remember the feeling of the sun coming through the car window
and warming my face as River of Orchids started up... I'm sorry, I love this
song so much. Beautiful.
The chair movement at the begining of Harvest Festavil.
Well, there's a bunch for now.... back to doing god knows what for god knows
how long.
Kevin "They Call Me Big Jewel" Diamond
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/79/the_french_electric_all-st.html
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/84/bass-cleff.html
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/85/starving_artists.html
--
"No one in the world ever get's what they want, and that is beautiful.
Everybody dies frustrated and sad, and that is beautiful"
-John Linnell (of They Might Be Giants) / "Don't Let's Start"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:09:38 -0400
From: "Diamond" <arnos@nantucket.net>
Subject: B.A.D II the bone
Message-ID: <200004282022.QAA02241@nantucket.net>
Francis Qouted:
>"Rush for a change of atmosphere."
> -- Big Audio Dynamite
Isn't that' techniacally by B.A.D II?
Drew:
>There is a generation of
>kids growing up thinking that they should be able to obtain art without ever
>compensating the artist, and I just can't go along with that. Maybe it's an
>age thing.
I'm not saying I disagree with what you're saying, but isn't it the "Nature
of the Beast," so to speak, of art that the artist doesn't get the money
they deserve? Isn't that the whole basis for the idea of the "Starving
Artist"?
Also, I must admit, I've owned the Mac-version of Napster, entitled Macster
(clever!), for a while now, though i've used it rarely. Personally, the one
thing I've gotten off of it that I've really enjoyed is the incredible
ode-to-video games "The Mario Bros. Theme - Orchoustic Version" This is a
brilliant piece of music, and I'm trying to encourage my band teacher to let
us play it.
But on to the napster arguement... I personally would really like one
question answered: What's the difference between downloading off of napster,
and tapping off of radio? Weren't the music companies just as upset about
that as they are at napster? And didn't they forget about it as soon as they
realized it wasn't worth the battle? I predict the same thing will happen
with Napster. And I don't think any of this "destruction of the Music
Buisness" will happen. Really, I think it's survived to many blows to let
this harm it.
I also predict that this napster thread will prolly be wrapping up soon, as
many people, including me, are getting tired of it. I just wanted to put my
thoughts in as it wrapped up, I prolly won't say anything else about it
unless specificly prompted by someone.
Go ahead, prompt me... if you dare!!!!
Smudgeboy:
>Peace, love and listen to some Prefab Sprout (in particular "Jordan,
>The Comeback") if you've not done so for a while.
This just reminded me of something I've been meaning to say for a while... I
don't really like Jordon all that much... at least not compared to Swoon and
Two Wheels Good... I find it to be very long, boring album, except for the
first track, and one or two more... I haven't listened to it in a while (not
Swoon or 2WG) but I distinctavly remembering that I didn't like it as much
as the other two...
oh, and another thing I've realized, especially prominent in your posts...
there are certaint songs that, when people say they don't like them, I
assume "Oh, it's just over their heads..." but sometimes people will like
one song, and not like another song, and these two songs seem, to me, to be
very similar in style... In particualrly, when someone says they like
Frivolous Tonight and not Fruit Nut, or Visa Mastercarda... I admit, I enjoy
one a bit more than the other (Friv over Fruit) but I can't see how someone
could absolutely LOVE one, and then HATE the other!
In smudge's particular case, I am amazed that he can grasp the beauty in
Rook and That Wave, yet not like Runaways... They aren't necisarilly similar
styles, but they're all examples of pop songs that are written almost
specifically to not be pop songs, if that makes any sense... they are all
brilliant pieces of music... and pink thing is just funny and creative as
hell, so I won't go there...
Of course, the whole point of your post was that arguments like mine here
are pointless. Just goes to show you that teenagers don't pay attention to
their elders. (I'm assuming you're an elder)
Also, admitedly, it took me some time to grasp Runaways myself. Oh, and I
don't know about anyone else, but I HATE the ending to Wrapped in Grey... I
think it ruins the entire feel of the song...
'tis only my two cents.
Kevin Diamond, Two Cents Poorer
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/79/the_french_electric_all-st.html
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/84/bass-cleff.html
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/85/starving_artists.html
--
"No one in the world ever get's what they want, and that is beautiful.
Everybody dies frustrated and sad, and that is beautiful"
-John Linnell (of They Might Be Giants) / "Don't Let's Start"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:56:30 -0400
From: "Diamond" <arnos@nantucket.net>
Subject: One more great part....
Message-ID: <200004282058.QAA05925@nantucket.net>
The part in "Nigel" when they go "Ste-a-al... ste-a-al... ste-a-al....
ste-a-al, yeah-yeah" ...it rocks
also, I have an idea for a way to get XTC more well known... It's a sneaky
trick, but's it's worked for the fans of They Might Be Giants. You see,
People.Com does this online poll for the Top Ten most Beautiful people...
two years ago, all the TMBG fans managed to propell John Linnell up to #9,
and he got to write an article about it, which was then shown on the
People.com website. RIght now, we've decided it's Flansburg's turn, and
we've got him up to #3 already! So maybe, if we all vote early and often
enough, we can get Andy or Colin (whomever we think is better looking) some
free press... think about it.
Kevin DIamond
P.S. the line "She got to be Obscene to be Ob-heard" is also brilliant.
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/79/the_french_electric_all-st.html
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/84/bass-cleff.html
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/85/starving_artists.html
--
"No one in the world ever get's what they want, and that is beautiful.
Everybody dies frustrated and sad, and that is beautiful"
-John Linnell (of They Might Be Giants) / "Don't Let's Start"
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:41:03 EDT From: Hbsherwood@aol.com Subject: Nap Gap: Yap, Yap, Yap! Slap Cap, Pap! Zap! Message-ID: <78.48b176a.263b515f@aol.com> >From: Herne <herne@earthlink.net> >Subject: XTC gets Nappy and about those promos... >I must say that I am stunned by all the anti-Napsterism here. Are you >people high? A device that lets you find and download music to try out >at home and to get rare and or bootleg stuff without having to search >the god damned world for it. This is bad why exactly? Because it's theft. All the virtues you ascribe to Napster are characteristics that help you, the end user-- trained through years of Internet use to expect an infinity of valuable content without having to pay for it--to acquire recordings immediately and at no cost. Of *course* you love Napster! Who wouldn't! Shit, free tunes! Program your own radio shows! Find old out-of-print rarities! Complete that collection! So what's missing? Well, money. That's what makes the difference between Napster and all the other delivery media you're comparing it to. Television, film, video, print--all have well developed and refined economies whereby money spent on production is recouped out of revenue. Any revenue that exceeds overhead is profit. This is rudimentary economics. Whatever its protestation to the contrary, Napster subverts this model--and in the process deprives artists of compensation. Napster makes it possible to do two things that can't be done in any other medium: 1) Digital music is infinitely reproducible. When you Xerox a magazine article, record a movie on tape, dump an album to cassette, you degrade the product by one generation. This being so, "traditional" home taping and trading practices are self-regulating. That's why the tape-trading comparison won't work. 2) Napster allows immediate, totally unregulated, and cost-free worldwide distribution. The distribution takes place regardless of whether the owner of the rights to the property reserves copyright. We are not talking about a few thousand brave little tape traders any more; we're talking about worldwide distribution of an infinity of perfect copies of a work of art that doesn't recompense the artist in any way whatever. The only possible word to use for this is "piracy." Justifying theft of intellectual property because the originator of the property is beholden to a record company is hideously selfish: You dislike the business practices of the entertainment industry, so....Fuck Andy Partridge? TVT demands 15 bucks for Wasp Star, so....Fuck Andy Partridge? Tower Records is a bricks-and-mortar behemoth, so...Fuck Andy Partridge? Something so inconvenient as property rights stands between me and immediate free gratification, so.... >For some reason this concept that to borrow music or movies without >paying for it is EVIL arose at some point. It arose because the >entertainment companies want you always to pay pay pay!!! I'm trying and failing to conceive of a moral universe where consuming a perfect copy of a work of art without paying for it can be defined as "borrowing." How exactly do you *return* it, once you've consumed it? It goes completely without saying: the entertainment industry is rotten to the core. I welcome any historical sea-change that makes them uncomfortable. They suck, and I hope as much as you do that the Internet will help artists market more directly to their audiences, eliminating parasitic middlemen. Napster as it stands now, though, is not the solution, and is in fact a large part of the problem. >The prospect of people burning >pirate cds of officially available product and selling them is a legit >fear. You miss the point. The danger is not with people burning CDs for sale. The danger is in the loss of sales of legitimate copies of CDs owing to their immediate cost-free availability on Napster. Napster claims to be self-policing, but all investigation to date shows this to be a cynical lie. I may not have the faith in human nature that you have, but to me all this protestation that Napster is just a really convenient try-before-you-buy system is a weak rationalization. If you have a perfect copy downloaded free from the Internet, why the hell would you buy one afterwards? But the companies will find a way to make it work. Just give >them time. When someone comes up with a business plan that is able to generate real revenue out of a commodity that is infinitely reproducible, unregulatable, and subject to inevitable, undetectable and unprosecutable piracy immediately upon its publication, let me know, and I'll drop a few bucks on its IPO. Meanwhile, I'll be over here alphabetizing my LP collection. Harrison "Hey! Heard the one about the Miami Relatives?" Sherwood
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 18:29:09 +0100 From: "Steven Paul" <spaul@armstronglaw.com> Subject: couldn't say it better Message-ID: <00b801bfb137$55ced840$0d2aa8c0@me.myoffice.com> Nina Stratton so eloquently said in #6-90 >One of things I've decided I like about XTC is this; it's very hard for >me to flat-out hate any XTC song. In the never ending debate over "this song sucks" I have always sat on the sideline nodding and shaking my head, or sometimes scratching. Ever since XTC became a staple in my art/music diet, I have never choked on a song. Some, like lima beans may not be my preferred choice for a main meal. But like mixed veggies, each album has its flavor and blend that if you take something away, the taste is altered. Has XTC served up an inedible song? Not to my palate. Dear Kate (same digest), she said: I usually listen to all of the albums in their entirely (yes, even White Music), but if I'm pressed for time I'll start cutting tracks. However, the song that I ABSOLUTELY refuse to listen to (no matter how much time I've got on my hands!) is 'Life Is Good In the Greenhouse'. Give that one a spin tonight and tell me it's the worst song XTC has EVER released. NOT - I love this song. I don't know what it means but it's catchy as hell. Steven "I'd rather be a plant than be your Mickey Mouse" Paul
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 22:06:18 EDT From: JStrole@aol.com Subject: Napster Message-ID: <b2.479d7f3.263b9d9a@aol.com> Has anyone noticed that Napster spelled backwards is Retspan, which is a measurement based on how long it takes to figure out how to say the word "retspan". This timing is exactly the attention span of how long people can stand hearing about Napster. Amazing isn't it. HS
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 22:09:23 -0400 From: "Todd and Jennifer Bernhardt" <toddjenn@erols.com> Subject: #6-92 Message-ID: <NABBKDAOLCDJBNEFDNLLKEHCCCAA.toddjenn@erols.com> Hi: My, we *are* getting feisty waiting for the albums to come out, aren't we? It fun to watch all the scuffling going on! > From: "Steve Pitts" <spitts@thesaurus-computers.co.uk> I'd like to point out that Steve has the coolest e-mail address on the list. and > Well, I'll be the (maybe lone) dissenting voice on this one then. > I've said > it before, and I'll say it again, IMO there is something to > 'love' in every > XTC album and these two are no exceptions. Add the rose-tinted nostalgic > hue of distance, and the fact that punk was 'my generation', and I see no > reason to dislike anything much on either album (and yes, I even like 'My > Weapon') Don't worry, you're not alone. White Music is what hooked me to this band, and the Society for the Defense of Go2 is lurking out there somewhere. (Show yourselves!) Scott Barnard said: > I would like to be the first to offer a warm welcome to Deepak > Chopra, who has recently joined the list. Thankyouveddymuch. Nina asked: > Do we have to call each other names? This is an XTC fan e-mail list, for > gosh sakes. How serious can it be that we must become uncivil? VERY serious. Welcome to one of the Chalkhills cycles, Nina. Bob J. spake: > The more I > think about it, the more absurd it seems to "rank" the albums of a group > with a long and tortured career like XTC. Right on. I'd change "tortured" to "rich" and/or "varied," but you've got the right idea. When you get to a certain level of songwriting or musicianship, thing or people aren't better or worse -- just different. Bill Loring said: > My opinion is exactly > like yours, and we're the smartest two people on the planet. Finally, someone with some sense! -Todd
------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 12:18:57 +1000 From: "Tom Pitsis" <lentom@healey.com.au> Subject: OVERLONG?? Message-ID: <001101bfb181$49a7e260$364519cb@tom> Chris Browning in his quite respectable summary of XTC albums says: >6. NONSUCH - overlong (thank God XTC have remembered why albusm >should be >forty five minutes long..) I don't get it. 'Love the band, but please, less of their music!' What's the 45 min theory? Right, this weekend I'm going to listen to Beethoven's 9th, oops, got to stop before the singalong bit, I've reached the 45 min mark. What about a limit on amount of albums. Wasp Star - enough albums please XTC - we have reached the limit(?). I think XTC cds should be 80+ mins long. If I've only got 45 mins to spare (or 45 mins music endurance) I could programme the thing to run 45 mins couldn't I?
------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 19:28:46 PDT From: "Duncan Kimball" <dunks58@hotmail.com> Subject: Pay attention , class! Message-ID: <20000429022846.54741.qmail@hotmail.com> So ... Ed fancies himself a literary critic, huh? >From: Ed Kedzierski <ed.kedzierski@blvdmedia.com> >Subject: I'd like to leap on something irrelevant, if I may You need to ask? >Today's my turn to jump on something someone said, even though it's not >their main point or anything (oh, let me do it this time, by birthday was >just a week ago). >Ira said: >>It's a classic example of catch-22. Although I found the book annoying >>and >>unreadable...etc. >Sorry, but you're quite mistaken. You must have been reading something >else. Steinbeck, perhaps. WAY off, Ed. If you'd picked Henry James, I might have agreed. My first-year English lecturer held "Portrait Of A Lady" to be the greatest novel in the English language. Frankly it struck me as grossly inflated Mills & Boon. At best, a tedious Jane Austen wannabe ... >Catch-22 was the book that opened my eyes to how weak crap like Vonnegut >really was (now there's annoying for you). Weak? Crap? Them's fightin' words, pal! "Slaughterhouse 5" is easily the equal of "Catch 22" - and I'll remind you, Ed, that Kurt actually went through the experiences on which the book is based. (Was Heller in the Air Force? I really don't know - I'm not knocking him - I just can't remember) Unfortunately "Slaughterhouse 5" doesn't quite have the catch-phrase value that "Catch 22" has. It's no less fine a novel for that. Moreover, I have read - and loved - many of Vonnegut's other books. I haven't read him in a while, but I love his work and I certainly think I'm not alone in considering him one of the most important writers of the 20th century. Kurt was of course considerably more prolific than Heller, but I think his "hit-rate" speaks for itself - "Slaughterhouse 5", "Cat's Cradle", "Breakfast of Champions", yadda yadda yadda. Heller - IMHO - had one brilliant idea, perfectly realised. Apart from that - what? Can Joe or Josephine Public name even one other Heller novel? Years back, I enthusiastically started reading Heller's follow-up to "Catch-22", which is amusingly titled "Something Happened". Nice one, Joe. Take my word for it, kids - NOTHING happens. One of the dullest books in the English language. Talk about a let-down ... >It's also one of the few books to have such >prominence in the 20th century >(imagine >writing a book whose title sinks into the language like that) to actually >be funny. What a load of cobblers!. Sure, the phrase became part of the vernacular. Big deal. So did "hoover" and "texta-colour". How many people who use the phrase have actually readi it? OK - it's a funny, famous book. But "one of the only..."??? Moreover, while its prominence is granted, and deserved, but there are *plenty* of equally great, funny books which haven't received the same attention. A perfect example is John Kennedy Toole's "A Confederacy Of Dunces", which in my personal opinion is one of the best and funniest American books ever written. Toole *should* be up there in lights with Heller and Vonnegut. Unfortunately, no-one would publish him in his lifetime; he became so disheartened he killed himself. Thankfully, his mother kept pestering people with the manuscript until she came across Walker Percy, who recognised it for the masterpiece it is, and arranged for it to be published. It subsequently won the Pulitzer Prize. >XTC content: next time someone interviews Andy, I'd like them to go more in >depth as to when and why he stopped reading fiction. Come on, I'm sure that >would get a better reaction out of him than yet another "so, are you guys >really never playing live again, or what?" Well, I'm guessing, but it's possibly related to the fact that reading other people's ideas might interefere with his own creative process. Also, maybe it's because Andy, who is highly intelligent, but apparently didn't get much schooling, is keen learn a bit more? Not that I'm comparing myself here (I wish), but I've had the same experience. Up to my 30's I was a voracious reader of fiction, especially sci-fi, speculative fiction and fantasy. NOT Terry Pratchett and all that guff, BTW - bores me rigid - I mean Toole, Bruno Schultz, Stanislaw Lem, Pater Carey, Ursula Le Guin Marge Piercy, etc etc. But these days it's biography and science and stuff like Daniel Yergin's "The Prize", and that nifty little book called "Longitude". Don't ask me why - just where my brain took me I spose. Fit the second: I swore I wouldn't get involved but ... >From: Herne <herne@earthlink.net> >Subject: XTC gets Nappy and about those promos... Herne - I haven't really followed the Napster debate, and I still don't really know what Napster is - but it seems evident that someone is getting ripped off, and it appears to be the artists. Sorry but this IS a bad thing. Napster is a BUSINESS. People are making money out of it. It's NOT like tape trading at all. >Remember the paperless office? Of course you don't cause it never >happended. Computers didn't eliminate paper. That didn't happen because >people prefer to have a hard copy. Something they can hold in >their hands. A rather simplistic analysis, but I get the idea. The paperless office will also never happen for legal and security reasons, but that's pretty dull copy. In fact the advent of office computers has VASTLY increased the use of paper, if only because it makes it so damn easy to print out draft after draft after draft, instead of working on the screen. And how many of us work in offices where people still routinely print out their emails before reading them? (Why?) What's my point? Shit, I don't know. >Napster won't destroy the world because normal people are >not going to fill their house up with a main frame to contain all those >songs. Actually I think we're more worried about the illegal use of copyright material. It doesn't destroy the world, sure, but it's still not right, fair or legal. >Trust me. The record biz will fight back by controlling all distribution >apparatus. They'll buy all the cable and internet >companies or merge with them to survive(a la Time Warner/AOL). The end >result hopefully being that they can have total pay per view on music. Exactly. Does this strike you as a good thing? And how will the total domination of the media by two or three massive companies benefit tha artists or the consumers. Monopoly capitalism on that scale is only a few short steps away from totalitarianism. >But it won't happen cause once again...people want their own copy to >keep. To pay for once and own. It's human nature. >Libraries didn't destroy books. *sigh* How can you even compare the two? >Tv didn't kill the movies. The vcr didn't kill >tv or the movies. Home >taping didn't destroy the music biz. No, but it sure made them smell funny. >Napster won't either. All it is is a high tech >way to do what everybody >has been doing >for almost 30 years...trade tapes. Wrong wrong wrong. >For some reason this concept that to borrow music or movies without >paying for it is EVIL arose at some point. Nothing wrong with borrowing, but I reiterate - Napster is THEFT, as far as I can see. If they are not paying royalties to the artists, as happens with radio play etc, then they are stealing. >It arose because the entertainment companies want you always to pay pay >pay!!! Studios were so dead against home video. They were dragged kicking >and screaming into it even though it ultimately >saved their ass. Maybe. Therir ability to adapt to technological change has varies. They certainly didn't need to be dragged kicking and screaming into talkies,which wrecked a unique art form and put thousands of theatre musicians on the street. They go where the money is. Sometimes it just takes them a while to smell it. >As far as the moral issue well... <snip> >In fact they plan on releasing all they can find in a box set. But in the >beginning, were you really meant to hear "Ship Trapped in the Ice" before >it was ready? >Were you? How quickly we forget. VIRGIN are releasing the demos. The same Virgin who ripped XTC off all those years, who prevented them recording for all those years and who are now forcing Andy and Colin to surrender ownwership of said demos for the boxed-set, just so (as I understand it) Andy an Colin can finally get free of their corporate clutches. >So why Napster, a device that just makes it >easier to do what you already >do is evil is beyond me. <snip> >Napster isn't exactly a non-profit organisation. Errr - I think you just answered your own question. >I mean remember when tv was free? That >was 17 years ago. They found a way >to make it acceptable to pay for tv and have you be used to it. They will >find a way to harness the internet and control >it. It's only a matter of time. Come on, pal - TV was NEVER free. They just figured out a sneaky way of hiding the charges. Now they know we're totally hooked, thay are brazen enough to make us pay for it upfront and STILL load the programs with advertising. uuurrrrgh - this hangover is killing me. I'll leave it there. Dunks
------------------------------ End of Chalkhills Digest #6-93 ******************************
Go back to Volume 6.
29 April 2000 / Feedback