From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V2 #62 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Wednesday, November 25 1998 Volume 02 : Number 062 Today's Subjects: ----------------- re: an essay ... (yup, it's long) [Srm9988n@aol.com] Re: Name rhymes [jkpolk@ntplx.net (Andrea Krause)] Re: DOH!! [katrin@dimensional.com (Katrin Luessenheide Salyers)] (N)ettiquette ["Jack S. Porcello" ] I Will Hold On [] Re: ~~~~MOXY FRUVOUS ARE PATHETIC--WHY?~~~~ [Ben Cordes No. No-one here has any more right to speak for the band than anyone >else. There is no Fruvous-correctness enforced by a clique of FruNazis >(a thoroughly revolting expression I must say). I absolutely agree. Harsh words, describing what would be an extremely harsh situation of enforcement, by intimidation or overt disapproval, against the slightest appearance of dissent, disagreement, or novel thinking. >Hand on heart I can say >that there is no hierarchy of fandom here and I'd be the first to >unsubscribe if there were. Everyone is welcome here, whether they've >seen no shows or a million, whether they've travelled two inches to see >a show or they've cycled a light year, whether they've heard King of >Spain on the radio once or whether they've got all the albums and >singles on CD, tape and wax cylinder gramophone records and all the >recordings of every show they've ever done, whether they saw Dave in a >supermarket queue once or whether they've had repeated sex with the >whole band. I don't give a shit `how much' of a fan I am and neither, as >far as I can tell, does anyone else here. I'm glad you haven't had these experiences, Richard. In your writing you possess an uncommon grace and self-deprecating humor that takes the edge off many of your posts. It is charming, and it is hard to stay offended when one is charmed. But because you possess a rare skill of being able to say almost anything and have people nod, if not agreeing with you at least pleased with your generous spirit and common sense, doesn't mean that everyone here has the same level of delicacy and spirit in writing. Yes, some people are careless with their phrasings and get slammed for it. And some people are careless with their slams, before they think through what the person they're slamming actually has said. I have seen both, and what I request is that no one invalidate the concerns of those who have experienced this. They are real, and quite legitimate. >The question of a Fru-clique >pops up now and again and honestly, honestly, honestly, honestly, >honestly, honestly it just does not exist. Do people *really* think that >there's a Machiavellian group of Frufans who meet up in darkened rooms >and decide what is Fru-right and Fru-wrong, who is a Fru-head and who >isn't? Of course not. This would imply conscious, malicious exclusiveness. I don't think anyone's guilty of that. What I do question is a seemingly recurrent tone of suspicion directed toward newcomers when they show themselves to be inquisitive or creative. I also dislike how their possible motives are parsed in public when all they do is ask a question about something they didn't understand, but wanted clarified. I always thought that curiousity, inventiveness, and asking questions were good things, not to be discouraged. When someone states to me that they don't have an ulterior motive...well, call me stupid, but in the absence of real reason for doubt, I'm inclined to believe them. I don't think method acting theory necessarily belongs in a fan-based newsgroup. What was Lynne's motivation for asking about guest passes? Frankly, I don't care. The issue is not her motivation, but whether the idea she proposed is sound. And there's no point in fans getting huffy about it. They can state their opinion on the likelihood of her suggestion being approved, or even whether they think it's a reasonable thing to ask the band, without injecting that level of judgment of her as a person into the discussion. That was the tenor of the discussion that I found extremely objectionable -- that someone was entitled to explore her purely theoretical motives in the first place, and pass judgment on her for them when she stated that in fact she had no personal motivation. Ultimately Moxy Fruvous is the only party to decide whether or not they think she's overstepping, or whether it's a more-or-less sound idea but not practical, or whether they want to pursue it (as they have done with certain venues in the past). >*All* the >Fruheads I've met are, without doubt, some of the kindest, loveliest, >intelligent, almost edibly gorgeous, fluffy, bouncy people its been my >pleasure to encounter, not a malacious bunch of frusnobs. I'll second that heartily. But lots of people out there haven't yet met *any* ng Fruheads. The image we project with our written words is the only view of us they have. So when they see ballistic reaction to what seem to be peas of disagreement under the Frumattress, they wonder whether it's really worth it, and yes, why we're so damn sensitive and persnickety about minor details that don't look emotion-laden on the surface. And to a newcomer, the surface is *all* they see. Those of us who know the deeper context need to be aware of what level the discussion is really on, and we need to not go beyond that indiscriminately. Of course it's justified at times to go into things more deeply, or to launch a real, animated debate when there is a topic of disagreement -- but not whenever a simple "do you know -- yes, no, or not sure?" type question is asked. All that going into that kind of subjective depth -- what somebody might *mean* by a post, what their angle or motivation could conceivably be, whether they're in a bad mood or premenstrual or any other subjective measure -- all that hypothesizing does is muddy the discussion. Because there's no concrete way to judge, no way to make an educated guess based on a newsgroup post, unless the poster specifically states such a condition is affecting him/her. All that happens is that an objective issue gets clouded, and emotions build, and nothing is clarified. >However, call me a socialist but I believe that we are however a group, >a society, not a bunch of unconnected individuals. Therefore there are >group norms and ideas, and if you post things that go against the group >norm, people will disagree with you. Nobody *enforces* a norm >here, but there is a norm all the same. If you cross the norm and people >disagree with you it is not really very fair to cry foul and claim you're >being picked on. Well put. All communities have standards. But successful communities try to enforce them in a positive, inclusive way, and to point out areas of disagreement or misapprehension tactfully, not by questioning the motives of newcomers who admit they don't understand something and ask for clarification or who say "hey, I had a thought ..." Nor do they act as if the novice is stupid, inconsiderate, or posing a threat to the community merely for bringing it up. (That's what evil newsgroups that have constant flame wars do!) Lynne and Alex posted on way different subjects, with way different points of view. Lynne has shown herself through actions, not merely through the motives we ascribe to her in the absence of any evidence, to be an enthusiastic if new Frufan. She has leapt into the newsgroup, has spent time co-ordinating New Year's plans for those planning to be in New York, has come up with concrete suggestions and thoughtful queries. She is not, imvho, looking for attention and uproar to surround her every post. Yet if anything her treatment here has been much more humorless and negative than Alex's. We joke about him; indeed, he has become our comic relief this week as we debate, with all the gravity of Ken Starr, whether indeed Lynne has horns. Maybe she does have horns. I don't know; I haven't met her. But I maintain that there's something screwy about ng members freaking out over her enthusiastic ideas -- whether or not they consider them good ideas or not. Freaking out is just way too strong a reaction to a fellow fan who has never shown the slightest indication of being anything but well-meaning. >but because the band *already* go way beyond the call of >duty for their fans. Asking for more seems a little ungrateful. It sort >of has the ring of a small child shouting up the chimney on Christmas >morning `Oi! Santa! I want more presents than these!' Now I'm no expert >on these things, but I beleive there are certain things that the band >have `let be known' to the fans. Things like taping shows and not >distributing the tapes for profit. It is only fair that we respect these >wishes. Of course, you all know this surely. Am I preaching to the >converted or what? Here's the assumption I have trouble with, Richard. And that's not an attack on you or anyone else. Newcomers are not yet among the converted. They're curious. They're probably positively inclined toward the band and the ng. But they probably want to know more about these things that the band have "let be known", and explore the ng's parameters and values a little further. They're way behind on the learning curve. And most surely they *don't* all know this. If we scold them whenever they ask a question, instead of just supplying the information they seek, they're not going to stay positive. They're going to think we're self-righteous jerks. FruNazis. FruThought Police. And other revolting things that I certainly don't want them to consider me or any of the endearing people that 95% of the time I have such a wonderful time associating with. That is my concern. Pure and simple. No motivation other than helping this newsgroup slog through a time of rapid growth, which is generally a trying, even painful experience for any organism, and to continue to have as much fun as I've had in the past few months. I do hope I have not offended anyone with this post and my previous one on this topic. I apologize if I have, but I will not apologize for my directness. My choice of words has been considered and reconsidered, and I know the weight they carry. But I spent many years making a conscious effort not to cause other people any trouble, at the sacrifice of honesty, and I have no desire to walk on little cat feet again with a group of people, some of whom I now consider new friends, others whom I have learned enough about through their generally thoughtful, thought-provoking, and often hilarious posts to care about. I do hope that those of you whom I have met, and the many others I look forward to meeting at FruCon, are assured that I really, really do enjoy hanging out here. But I'd like other new people to have as generally a positive experience as I have had. And when there are things being written, probably without the slightest intention of being off-putting, that strike me as overly harsh, and other people also are indicating that yes, they are taking it to heart too, it seems to me that there is a cognitive dissonance between what we *think* we're saying and what is really going on. And I don't think I'm so far out in left field that my point of view is irrelevant, or that it shouldn't be brought up. I respect the norms of the group. But I'd like one of those norms always to be civility, cordiality, and consideration for fellow ng members. >Oh and one last thing. This ng can be really, really, really fun. Can we >make it like that again please? In my opinion it never has stopped being fun. We just hit a rough patch occasionally -- but even when these *heavy* threads take up more time and emotion than maybe we'd like, it's almost guaranteed that the next post will bring tears of laughter to our eyes. That's a good newsgroup! Happy Thanksgiving to the Yanks! Lori ******************************* "And when I go to sleep at night I hear someone else's song, sung by some Canadians and thousands sing along. And everyone is dancing but I don't know the words, mystery and chimera and a million flying birds" -- the Nields "When I am dreaming, I don't know if I'm truly asleep or if I'm awake And when I get up, I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming." - -- Forest for the Trees "then a flashback to the dream and angels singing songs" - -- my favorite angels ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:47:13 GMT From: jkpolk@ntplx.net (Andrea Krause) Subject: Re: Name rhymes On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 03:11:50 GMT, "Jack S. Porcello" wrote: >Lizzie expounded: > >> Lizzie (who is wishing her name rhymed with something you could >> sing in that song) > > >What about the old favourite Dizzie Miss Lizzie? > >Ok, not real flattering, but it does the trick, eh? > >Peace, > >Jack > > My possibilities are extremely limited...I'm stuck with rhyming with things like mitochondria and hypochondria. :) (Though my friend Aimee and I used to sign our names on emails slipped into Früvous songs. Like Aimee Set Fire and stuff like that. My favorite one has been I Will Hold On-drea. I quite like the imagery. :) ) Andrea K. "I was your fountain of youth and you were my mountain of truth. But, you have drunk me dry and I'm afraid of heights." - The Nields ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:18:06 -0700 From: katrin@dimensional.com (Katrin Luessenheide Salyers) Subject: Re: DOH!! In article <73hihq$e87$1@camel25.mindspring.com>, puggles@mindspring.com says... > Well here is my lyric about the whole spam issue: > > What makes a person so poisonour righteous that they think less of > anyone who just disagrees > > I don't know about the rest of you but it would seem that this would > be a good time to take this to heart and bow before the great wisdom > of those crazy canadians we all love. Just a few minutes ago I got that song stuck in my head, popped it in the player, and as I was listening all I could think of was this thread. Kelly's right. k@ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 23:30:56 GMT From: "Jack S. Porcello" Subject: (N)ettiquette Yes, there are different protocols for ettiquette based on the context, and some would make little sense when applied to others, but what it all boils down to is my basic philosophy: It's nice to be important, but it's much more important to be nice. Or, as we say in the Warm Fuzzie Club: Warm Fuzzies are good. Cold Pricklies are bad. Such a shame that politeness is looked upon with such scorn and derision these days. Even so, it is so easy to stand against the norm in this arena. Just be nice. So long as we are considerate and compassionate of others, it is hard to go wrong. Not impossible, just hard. When we have an environment such as the Internet that brings together so many from such diverse cultures, at times some will offend without meaning to. But I feel that when all is said in the grand spirit of natural affection which is constantly demonstrated in Frudom, then it is easier to clear up these occassional occurances of unmeaning offence. So, who's up for a nice hot cup of cocoa? My treat! :) Peace, Jack ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:38:32 GMT From: puggles@mindspring.com (Kelly MacDougal) Subject: Re: [Things to do in Toronto] I just want to issue a warning to anyone who hasn't been to Toronto before and who (like myself) has a real life love affair with books: THERE ARE BOOKSTORES ON ALMOST EVERY SINGLE BLOCK!! So unelss you have super human will power or the wealth of midas leave th credit cards at home, take a chaperone with you when you venture out and for heaven's sake just say no!. I don't have any will power and even less money and I didn't say no. My husband and I have a co-dependant relationship when it comes to books (own over 4,000) but hey if you have to pick a way to go..... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:57:41 -0500 From: Chad Schrock Subject: Re: MF '92 tape for sale! FruWench wrote: > > Chad reminds us: > >Note also that a sealed Indie Tape is the prize for 25 stamps > >from shows > > 23 stamps and counting . . .tell Tobey to bring me one to > start my New Year out right!!! Yes, but will you really open the tape up and listen to it? I already have a copy of it. If I had the real thing, I'd keep it wrapped up. (Hey, the Smithsonian might want it one day! :) > ladywench > Willing to work for my Fruvous Fix You work hard for your Früney. - -- chad at radix dot net All lunacy must have its limits --Russian PM, Yevgeny Primakov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:40:31 -0500 From: Subject: I Will Hold On Hi there all. This is my first post here, although I am a big fan, and go to a lot of shows. Constantly reading, but never writing. Anyways, I'm in my hour of need. I need a copy of IWHO desparately. I heard it for the first time at Katonah, and it was beautiful. The point is, my girlfriend and I have been looking for a song to be "our song". Well, not loooking, but just not content with not having a "song". We saw the show, and right when Jian started singing we both looked at each other and knew. It was one of those moments that she I often share. Anyways, I would love a tape or MP3 of this song if anyone can help me out. I don't know what the deal with the taper that is at the shows, but if anyone could help me out with obtaining a copy, I would be forever thankful. - -Mark ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 1998 09:45:07 -0500 From: Ben Cordes Subject: Re: ~~~~MOXY FRUVOUS ARE PATHETIC--WHY?~~~~ the.way@mailexcite.com (Alex Stetson) writes: > They're almost laughable. They were riding the trend of the funny, > witty, satiracle, goofy accapella style of the Barenaked Ladies in the > early-90's Not to slam BNL, but they aren't exactly the pioneers of satirical music. How long have They Might Be Giants been around? I'll admit that BNL and Fruvous are similar in their musical styles, but attributing the entire genre to BNL is giving them _way_ too much credit. > now the Ladies are huge megastars Again, not to slam BNL, but they're really only megastars because of one song which the radio stations happen to have come across and like. Many 'new' BNL fans don't know anything other than 'One Week', and don't really care what the rest of their music sounds like. If you like having fans like that, then more power to you. This point was driven home to me a couple of years ago when I was at a Cure concert. I had great seats, but I spent the entire show listening to 15-year-old girls screaming for them to play "Friday I'm In Love" between every song. I mean, it's a pretty good song, but it has little to do with the rest of their music. > while Moxy Fruvous are nobodies I wouldn't say that. Fruvous has a much larger fan base than, say, a local band/performer. They haven't "made it big", that's for sure. But any band who can tour the northern half of the United States and most of Canada and pull in the crowds that they do can't be called 'nobodies'. > that's because they lack talent. I've watched Moxy Fruvous try > different images/musical styles from afar--and it's a lost cause. > They'll never get anywhere. You haven't really provided any sort of reasoning behind that first statement. Other than, obviously, it's your own opinion. Fine, but why troll a newsgroup for a band you don't like? It's kind of like devout pro-life Christians posting to alt.support.abortion saying "Abortion is evil, you'll all burn in hell". > Number one, you can start by changing their IDIOTIC name: people > don't want esoteric band-names that people can't decipher: they want > names they can grasp and identify with. What the fuck is a Moxy > Fruvous? Three words: Squirrel Nut Zippers. Two more words: Pearl Jam. Would you like me to continue? I will mention that Ed Robertson and Steven Page have been seen on TV saying that they think "Barenaked Ladies" is kind of a stupid name for a band. VH-1 still shows that interview every now and then before they play 'One Week'. > Two, the lame hippy hair of that Ghomeshi guy has to go--it's an > eysore, it's a distraction, it's the frickin' 90's. He looks like > he's living in the past, more specifically %22puberty%22 when > growing your hair long was considered cool. He basically looks > stupid. Sorry, I wasn't aware that 1998 wasn't part of the 90's. When did we pass into the next millenium? Guess I missed the party. Also, you're implying that a band's musical talent and quality is dependant on the physical appearance of the band members. I won't even bother to refute you. > Three, it's time to pack your bags in Moxy. Is this a third reason, or have you finally come around to a conclusion? > You've kicked around for so long, taking a kick at the can several > times, to try and impress the mass-public--and you've failed each > time. Okay, I can't honestly refute this one, but I do have a question to the other readers of this newsgroup (and the band, if they happen to be listening): How important is it to Fruvous to "impress the mass-public", to "make it big", etc.? It seems to me that they enjoy playing small-to-medium sized clubs, meeting their fans after the show, seeing the same faces every now and then, and getting to know some of them (you know who you are). On the other hand, every band would love to strike it big and make a lot of money doing stuff that they like to do. I really don't know: have they really tried several times and failed each time? > Plain and simple. Moxy Fruvous STINKS. Thanks for sharing your opinion. It's always good to hear the flip side of the coin every now and then. Having someone point out the band's faults keeps us from turning into raving lunatic fans who think that Fruvous can do no wrong. Oh, wait, I forgot what I was reading. You've completely FAILED to provide any sort of useful criticism. Never mind what I just said. > Aside from your pathetic little fan-base Whom you are directly addressing, in case you haven't figured it out. It's sentences like these that just scream "Hi, I'm a Troll! Flame me because I think it's funny!" > the real public, who might happen to catch you on some obscure > Variety Show--laugh at you. Give it up. Evidentally the Mr. Neilson of the music world has popped his head in to offer some advice. *sigh* I guess I've just been slow to pick up on the fact that the 'real public' is made up of people who have difficulty thinking for themselves, know what they like (or dislike) but can't describe why, and have pretty poor grammar skills, too. D'oh! I almost made it through an entire flame without commenting on the poster's grammar. Damn. Maybe next time. - - ben p.s. An Appeal to all Fruheads: PLEASE don't flood the newsgroup with lots of "YOU SUCK! GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM, #@!#HEAD!" responses to this guy. If you're going to flame, make it long, drawn out, and un-entertaining, just like mine :) - -- Ben Cordes ben.cordes@compaq.com Hardware Design Engineer, Compaq Computer Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:04:59 -0500 From: Chad Schrock Subject: itchin' (was: Re: Repost: re: Fruvous Egegesis- Sahara Demetriou, Melanie wrote: > Speaking of the Murr-man, didn't somebody mention Tony Levin > the other day? I was listening to some Peter Gabriel and > thinking, man, Murray would *fly* on these bass lines! (Not > that Tony Levin didn't do them justice, of course.) Of course Tony did them justice. Murray would totally rock, though. > Melanie, itchin' to get the h*ll out of here I left work when my workstation told me to. Which was right after my Xserver bit the dust and ate a long mail message I was sending to my boss about why I despise my current office. I figured that that was a good time to exit, stage right. > Happy Thanksgiving, y'all! And to you, M'lady. - -- chad at radix dot net All lunacy must have its limits --Russian PM, Yevgeny Primakov ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 01:35:10 GMT From: Srm9988n@aol.com Subject: re: Beware of short-term day planner memory -- or of Fordy?? Marie-claude gave us food for thought: > And right beside >"FORDY'S D-DAY!" was written "full-frontal nudity". In my own handwriting. I >have no recollection of ever writing this. Should I worry? hmmmm. Context is everything. Does your day-planner think the first phrase has anything to do with the second? Maybe it was just day-dreaming, and you caught it. :) On the other hand...has it accepted any drinks from flirty strangers? Has it suffered any effects other than momentary forgetfulness? Does it seem withdrawn or subdued lately? This could be its way of screaming out to you for help... I hope it wasn't taken advantage of. But to be on the safe side, I'd give it a brief rehash of safe dating practices. One can never be too careful in the supervision of impressionable young day planners. - -- Lori, concerned ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 1998 02:20:47 GMT From: fruwench@aol.com (FruWench) Subject: Re: (N)ettiquette >but what it all boils >down to is my basic philosophy: It's nice to be important, but it's much >more >important to be nice Yeah. And use your capital letters wisely. ladywench FruSpace - We came, we saw, we slept on the floor . . . "For we can still love the world, who find a famished kitten on the step and know recesses for it from the fury of the street" - Hart Crane "Chaplinesque" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 02:17:24 GMT From: Srm9988n@aol.com Subject: re: an essay...(yup, it's long) Steve wrote so many brilliant things that I'm as much in love with him as Angie is with Richard. (Hmm. *My* Steve might have a problem with that. Hush, folks! Our little secret!) >Newsgroups are populated by people probably somewhat above the >average in intelligence and eloquence (obligatory noblesse oblige: especially >this one!), but still 90% couldn't write as well as the people who have books >published and bought by libraries. Thank you, and exactly. > Yes, it's true >that a gifted writer can convey shades of feeling (to a gifted reader!) using >"nothing but text," but the reader of a newsgroup article is not looking for >the same thing that the reader of a book or other "professional" writing is except we *do* tend to write treatises here, and many of them are exceptionally well-put. Perhaps that's why we tend to forget we're not pundits, just fans. :) >If I were to read a book and find, "Steve, you were wrong about the question of >using a photostrobe at a concert. I think it's a moral imperative to..." I'd be >taken aback. I might get angry that someone is taking me to task in front of an >abstract public. It's more disturbing to see it done in front of a group of >people I have been directly communicating with through newsgroup posts. That >doesn't mean that nobody should ever post opinions like that. It means that as >a reader I have to take two or three steps back. Yes. *But*.... >It also means that in >disagreeing with someone, I will avoid grief if I take a little extra care and >remember that the considerable magnetism of my personal charm is largely >hidden when I deliver my bold and trenchant criticisms without the brotherly pat on >the elbow or understanding, sympathetic gaze. Which means, basically, if you think you're catching unfair grief, try not to take it personally. But if you're getting grief for giving out grief, don't auto- matically assume that the complainant is de facto hypersensitive. >So, writers and readers of newsgroups benefit from the notion of "netiquette", >keeping in mind that most people aren't literary artists, and that most people >will post with good intentions, however poorly expressed. The benefit of the >doubt, and a pint of whiskey, makes the NG experience more enjoyable. Tolerance, folks. Not such fondness for one's own opinion, which of course is eminently sensible and right, that one is oblivious to the inevitable biases it carries, or disrespectful of the equally-valid, if disagreeing, opinions of others. >Of course the whiskey goes without saying. Of course. Apologies for breaching the laws of netiquette by quoting so extensively, but Steve said, much less dispassionately and therefore much more clearly, what I was *trying* to say. Thanks for a useful example, Steve. May we all learn from it. - -- Lori "If I said you were crazy would you have to fight me?" ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 1998 02:35:20 GMT From: fruwench@aol.com (FruWench) Subject: Re: MF '92 tape for sale! Chad responded with: >Yes, but will you really open the tape up and listen to it? Oh, don't make me decide that until I have it in hand!!! I have never actually listened to the tape, or a copy. Just an mp3 or 2. Oh, the delicious agony! :-) ladywench FruSpace - We came, we saw, we slept on the floor . . . "For we can still love the world, who find a famished kitten on the step and know recesses for it from the fury of the street" - Hart Crane "Chaplinesque" ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V2 #62 *******************************************