From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #116 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Friday, July 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 116 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Portland, 7/14/98 - What Fruvous does when they think we're not looking! [dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Za] Re: fruvous mix [dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin)] Re: Sucky Fruvous Adventure Stories??? [Richard Butterworth sucky performers"--I am *not* exaggerating when I say that at least a >dozen people left early because of them: we watched them go, muttering >that they couldn't take the music. Heh. We tried to stop them, we did! For a while there, the bouncer peoples weren't letting Moz in (even though the crowd was pathetcially small, hmpf), so we were hanging out just outside the door of the club (but still inside the building) and promising to the peoples who were leaving that Fruvous is nothing like this, really! They smirked in sad disbelief and went on their merry way. *sigh* >the dance floor. It was a terrific show, high energy--Veek can attest >how I erp!ed when I saw Cal setting up the doumbec to start for >"Sahara" (I am *so* taken with that song). I don't know that erp!ed quite describes it... but yes, something like that. ;) >They >were dialoguing a lot with the crowd, especially discussing the World >Cup (and doing their impression of the French nonchalance over the >fact that, apparently, the Russian national anthem was played instead >of their own song Not just the Russian national anthem; the _Soviet_ national anthem. It was deliberate, though the reasoning behind it I don't know. The boys actually made several references to this during the show, but the first time Mike broke into the anthem, I was literally rolling on the floor in a fetal position. Not from laughing; they just managed to surprise me SO much. It was unreal, they literally knocked me over with that one. :) (Um, for those of you who don't know, I hail from the former USSR... I actually know the words to this song.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vika [VEE-kah] Zafrin Patron Saint of Caffeine dacilen at bu dot edu aka Coffee Fru "You and your hula dance of culinary delight..." -ceecee ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:12:06 GMT From: dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: fruvous mix On 17 Jul 1998 01:05:51 GMT, drayco@aol.com (Drayco) wrote: >Look at it this way: if the person likes the dub, they will most likely go out >and buy at least one album. If they don't like it, they haven't wasted 15$. But that's exactly what cheats people out of royalties for their work, the thing that Doug was talking about. I can't say that I haven't been guilty of the sin myself - I wouldn't be a fan if not for a dubbed B'ville, either - but Andy, the person who dubbed it for me, would have never done it if he didn't know that I *would* love them and *would* go out and buy their stuff. I think, sometimes the gamble can be worth it, Doug - as an introduction for people you're *sure* will appreciate it and support the artist. Perhaps, a mix tape and not a whole album is the way to go, though. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vika [VEE-kah] Zafrin Patron Saint of Caffeine dacilen at bu dot edu aka Coffee Fru "You and your hula dance of culinary delight..." -ceecee ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:02:48 +0100 From: Richard Butterworth Subject: Re: Sucky Fruvous Adventure Stories??? Colleen Campbell wrote: > We saw GBS and Fruvous two days in a row, > and I was step-kicking to both sets, both times--without stretching. > I, of all people, should know better! Ripped both my gastocs. Gastocs? Gastocs? No, can't find an entry for gastocs, ripped or otherwise. Would it be impertinent to ask what gastocs are? Are we talking hospitalisation or just a quick trip to the gastoc shop for a new pair? Pip pip Richard - ------------------------------------------------ Who knows what mystic thoughts may be whispering among the mossy groves of his crutty shins? (Spike Milligna -- the well known typing error.) - ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:05:11 GMT From: ceelove@ibm.net (Colleen Campbell) Subject: Re: Sucky Fruvous Adventure Stories??? On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:02:48 +0100, Richard Butterworth wrote: >Gastocs? Gastocs? No, can't find an entry for >gastocs, ripped or otherwise. Would it be impertinent to ask what gastocs >are? Are we talking hospitalisation or just a quick trip to the gastoc >shop for a new pair? *laugh!* Gastroc, short for gastrocnemius. Hey, if all you computer geeks can throw in vocab from your trade, so can I! It's the largest, most powerful muscle of your calves, one of the three that makes up the Achilles tendon. Hence, having ripped them makes walking an enterprise in agony. ceecee, utterly devoid of Fru-content ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:35:55 GMT From: "Demetriou, Melanie" Subject: RE: greetings from Alberta! On Tuesday, July 14, 1998 11:30 AM, dacilen@bu.edu [SMTP:dacilen@bu.edu] wrote: > On 14 Jul 1998 15:08:41 GMT, dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926) wrote: > > >but who makes up the public? are minors part of the american public? i believe > >so (and really hope so, as i am one), and therefore their indirect inibility to > >purchase labeled music, either by their parents or the music store itself is a > >form of censorship. > > Yes, minors are certainly part of the public. However, as a minor, > you are also your parents' responsibility, whether you (or they) like > it or not. The government isn't telling the parents not to let their > children buy records with the labels, it is merely calling their > attention and saying "Hey, we find this offensive, but it's up to you > to let or not let your child listen to it." As for censorship by > parents, I don't advocate it, but I also think it's a parent's right > to tell their child "I don't want you buying this record" (presumably > followed by an explanation why). If the kid *still* wants the record, > I'm sure the kid will have a friend who is over 18 (or looks > sufficiently old) and have that friend buy the record. That's working > around the system. Minors are part of the public, but they're not part of the voting public. Politically or economically. Althought people under 18 do consititute a large sector of the marketplace, by and large, their purchasing power is linked to their parents'. I know many teens have jobs, but not nearly enough to make them a market force. So the government & the businesses cater to the parents (and other adults), not to the kids. This is How It Works. And, as Vika points out, no-one is saying you can't buy it. (Unless the CD store itself has a policy, and then you, as a member of the economic voting public, can shop elsewhere. That is also How It Works.) Melanie ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:15:24 +0100 From: Richard Butterworth Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! It seems my two elegantly worded and argued posts (if I do say so myself) from this morning have disappeared into the Unfathomable Mystery that is my news server and show no signs of resurfacing on the newsgroup. Probably they'll pop up in couple of weeks and everyone'll think *still* going on about that Alberta thread? Starfox wrote: > The problem is that majority you spoke of earlier doesn't think for > themselves, and hence will believe what others tell them to. Therefore > those little stickers become censorship by proxy. Again this is rather unfair on the majority. Because I choose to not paint my nether regions blue and run naked up and down the high street shouting about submarines this makes me a conformist to *a* conservative norm. Nobody thinks of themself as a conservative, stodgy, brainless, flock-follower. I don't think this about this myself, but its not hard to argue that I'm yet another stereotypic white, middle-class, male academic. And someone who *does* paint his nether regions blue and run naked up and down the high street shouting about submarines probably thinks that I don't think for myself, etc, etc. Its all relative. Actually hows this for a silly argument? (Generated by a Friday afternoon and a sugar rush due to excessive chocolate consumption.) If we're talking about freedom of speech, why are we trying to restrict the freedom of speech of right wing bed-wetters? Surely saying `you can't put stickers on our CDs' is restricting their freedom of speech? And quite frankly if putting irrelevent stickers that anyone in their right mind ignores on CDs keeps them quiet for a bit, then I wholly approve. If we stop them and their silly stickers they might get involved in really important issues and that would never do. Pip pip Richard - ------------------------------------------------ Who knows what mystic thoughts may be whispering among the mossy groves of his crutty shins? (Spike Milligna -- the well known typing error.) - ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:28:36 GMT From: "Demetriou, Melanie" Subject: RE: greetings from Alberta! On Tuesday, July 14, 1998 10:50 AM, dot0926@aol.com [SMTP:dot0926@aol.com] wrote: > > dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) > > wrote: > > >>Quick: You see a video in a store with an NC-17 rating on it. What > >>things do you immediately assume about it? > > > >I immediately assume that there may be nudity, or violence, and I > >should probably watch the movie first before showing it to my kid > >(which I don't have. I'm being completely hypothetical here.) Will I > >automatically prohibit my kid from watching it? Don't be silly. I'll > >decide whether that happens, thank you. > > if everyone thought this way, there wouldn't even be an issue here, however, > the problem is that most people don't have the understanding to think like > that, and will automaticly prohibit their child from watching the film. (aka, > indirect censorship). most parents have an inherent desire to protect their > children from the outside world ( while this may seem like a positive thing, > taken to the extreme it can evolve into something quite dangerous), and any > label, whether a movie rating or a sticker on a cd, will automaticly cause the > parent to prohibit it to his or her child......anyway, im curious, what about > books on tape? would a book such as the women's room on tape recieve an > explicit lyrics sticker? or the clockwork orange? or any other book that > contains harsh language or sexual situations? just wondering..... Did anyone respond to this? Books and books-on-tape do contain warnings, depending on the distributor. Most book clubs have annotations if a book contains violence, sex or swearing. I can't speak for "most parents" because I only know about 50 parents well enough to speak for how they think. Based on that, however, I can say this: the parents I know (my own included) do not seek to protect their children from the outside world. They seek to protect their children from situations they are not yet equipped to handle. Emotional & intellectual growth is a progressive thing, which ideally comes from gradual exposure to ever more mature subject matter. I do not expect my 2 year old to behave gracefully when I do something she doesn't like (say, insisting she take a bath). However, I would expect a 7 year old to behave more maturely, and a 16 year old would be able to bathe on his/her own. That's what I mean by a progression. The point of this education process is to prepare your child to someday be self-sufficient in the so-called outside world. To teach them to handle a confusing or offensive situation which may arise in a mature, thoughtful manner. And also to teach them to appreciate the beauty and goodness which they will encounter, as well. A warning sticker on a CD is simply information. Each person who sees it will interpret it differently. If dispensing information was based on fear of adverse interpretation on the part of some people, this would be a stunted world indeed. The fact of the matter is, there *is* explicit language on _Live Noise_. As has been pointed out, knowing this (via the sticker) will cause some people not to buy it, some parents to disapprove, and some people to flock to it because of the "naughty bits." None of those reactions has anything to do with the sticker. The sticker is neutral, a statement of fact. It does not censor the artist in any way, shape or form. Moxy is still completely free to record and distribute anything they choose. I seriously doubt that record sales have suffered because of the sticker (but I have no stats, so can't back that up. It's just a guess.), so all the talk about the adverse reaction has been hypothetical. My point is, what I automatically assume about a warning sticker or an NC-17 rating is not the problem of the person/agency/association/whatever assigning the rating. The ratings and stickers are based on a generally accepted behaviors in the society at that time. There are carefully thought out guidelines based on current social mores as to how to assign ratings, generally imposed by the industry in question itself. Ratings systems have changed in the past and will continue to change as the culture does. Even as you descry ratings for TV shows, we live in a time when explicit language, violence and sex on broadcast TV is at an all time high. Don't thing for one second that ratings systems somehow limit the expansion of what is acceptable. History doesn't bear that out. Melanie ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #116 ********************************************