Errors-To: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Reply-To: tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Sender: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Precedence: bulk From: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org To: tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Subject: tmbg-list Digest #14-16 tmbg-list Digest, Volume 14, Number 16 Saturday, 16 January 1999 Today's Topics: Re: Mix Tapes (was Re: TMBG: re: Greatest Hits) Re: Mix Tapes (was Re: TMBG: re: Greatest Hits) Re: TMBG: silly critiquing action TMBG: Re: Greatest Hits) Re: TMBG: Puzzled... TMBG: NON-TMBG Re:FruCon2 Re: TMBG: NON-TMBG Re:FruCon2 TMBG: "!" Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos TMBG: Flans & his guitar Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... NON-TMBG: the biology of sexual attraction Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... NON-TMBG: thrill is gone, thrill is gone away... Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos Re: NON-TMBG: the biology of sexual attraction NON-TMBG: definitions of love... Re: NON-TMBG: the biology of sexual attraction Re: NON-TMBG: thrill is gone, thrill is gone away... Semi-TMBG: Mixes Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... Re: NON-TMBG: the biology of sexual attraction NON-TMBG: Michael Shelley and HHGTTG NON-TMBG: Michael Shelley and Lincoln NON-TMBG: one last sex & love post from me... Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar TMBG: love.... Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar NON-TMBG: EEP! LOVE! TMBG: TMBG fans of Oregon Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Administrivia: If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing send mail to tmbg-digest-request@tmbg.org for instructions on how to be automatically removed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tmbg-list is digested with Digest 3.5b (John Relph ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:39:15 -0800 (PST) From: "A. Rice" Subject: Re: Mix Tapes (was Re: TMBG: re: Greatest Hits) Message-ID: I've made several TMBG mix tapes in the past for when I'm in my car and am tired of the so called "new rock" stations playing songs from three years ago. The thing I've found is that order is that the order of the songs really isn't important. The music is great no matter what. It is kindof funny though...if I listen to a single tape for a long time, i'll start forgeting the actual order of the songs on the cds. For instance, on the album factory showroom, after the song "XTC vs. Adam Ant" my mind prepares myself to hear "Spiraling Shape", but now that I have been hearing "Particle Man" after XTC for several weeks on my mixed tape my mind prepares to hear XTC whenever I hear XTC, even if i'm listing to factory showroom. If that was vague or hard to follow, I'm sorry, but I think you get the point. Adrian - the newbian waif in the tmbg list scene ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:13:27 EST Subject: Re: Mix Tapes (was Re: TMBG: re: Greatest Hits) In a message dated 99-01-15 03:40:02 EST, arice@u.washington.edu writes: << if I listen to a single tape for a long time, i'll start forgeting the actual order of the songs on the cds. For instance, on the album factory showroom, after the song "XTC vs. Adam Ant" my mind prepares myself to hear "Spiraling Shape", but now that I have been hearing "Particle Man" after XTC for several weeks on my mixed tape my mind prepares to hear XTC whenever I hear XTC, even if i'm listing to factory showroom. >> i've had a similar problem: the first recording i had of dr. worm, before the release of std, was on a tape i'd recorded from a local radio station. i'd also recorded for some time after dr. worm's finish, and the song directly following it was a recorded in-station violent femmes performance. therefore every time i hear dr. worm i brace myself to hear: "we're the violent femmes, and you're listening to 97x, the fuuuture of rock and roll." the std theme never fails to come as a shock. peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19990115142426.20882.rocketmail@send205.yahoomail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 06:24:26 -0800 (PST) From: Talcott Starr Subject: Re: TMBG: silly critiquing action ---The Li'l Depressed Boy wrote: > or do you mean BNL being compared to TMBG? I've heard BNL called the TMBG > for Hippies several times, and not once has it ever made me mad. I happen > to like BNL, even their recent CD, it's a good CD. > I would say that Moxy Fruvous is more like TMBG for hippies. I think that the best comparison I have ever read about BNL was in a Columbus newspaper that said BNL was basicly what it would be like if Garison Keeler (I hope that's spelled right) had a rock band. As for Stunt, personaly I think it's BNL's worst CD, but it's still better than most stuff out there. == |\_________\ | Co-Owner of ThetaSoft| | \|___ ___| | http://members.xoom.com/ThetaSoft | || | |-----------------------------------| || | "If you can't see dreams, your eyes are blind" || | -Moxy Fruvous- "Fly" \|___|ALCOTT STARR _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:38:54 -0500 Subject: TMBG: Re: Greatest Hits) Message-ID: <19990115.103943.13462.0.Superman75@juno.com> From: superman75@juno.com (Adam Schaaf) hi. > The thing I've found is that order is that the order of the >songs really isn't important. The music is great no matter >what. i recommend this, if you have, or have access to, a multi-disc cd player, stick as many albums as you can in it and hit the random play button. saves the hassle of sitting down and deliberating which songs to put on. plus, every time you make a tape, there's a bit of atticipation wondering which song you're going to hear next! your underking of pop trivia, adam schaaf * ------------------------------------------ Random Simpsons Quote "Drinking has ruined my life. I'm only 32 years old." ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: Alterian@aol.com Message-ID: <6486452f.369f8030@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:51:44 EST Subject: Re: TMBG: Puzzled... When i first got into them I thought there was one guy who sang all the low stuff (whistling in the dark) and the other guy who sang the rest. I haqve to disagree..Flan's voice sounds smoother compared to Linnells. Linnell has a more distinct..how to say it..nasaly voice usually. (i.e. The Spiralling shape) not much more to say. -Amber ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:45:19 -0500 From: Sarah Subject: TMBG: NON-TMBG Re:FruCon2 Message-id: <369F9ACF.406@wmich.edu> Man, I would simply *LOVE* to go to FruCon2.... but alas, I have no one to go with. No one I know really even knows them, and when I try to teach them, they refuse to care. Nice friends huh? Sometimes I feel like the only person in MI who knows 'em..... but I know its not true. I've never been to one of their shows so I'm considering at least checking 'em in a few weeks at a folk festival, but who knows! ~Sarah ------------------------------ Message-ID: <005001be40c0$3892dd00$5999e7ce@Balloon> From: "Balloon" Subject: Re: TMBG: NON-TMBG Re:FruCon2 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:49:49 -0500 Hey don't let the fact that you have no one to go with stop you from going to frucon!! I'm making the 8 or 11 hour bus ride from Albany to toronto by myself. you just need to set your priorities in the right places and get to frucon! -HellHotel > Man, I would simply *LOVE* to go to FruCon2.... but alas, I have no one to go with. No one I know really even knows them, and when I try to teach them, they refuse to care. Nice friends huh? Sometimes I feel like the only person in MI who knows 'em..... but I know its not true. I've never been to one of their shows so I'm considering at least checking 'em in a few weeks at a folk festival, but who knows! ~Sarah > ------------------------------ From: cambot@juno.com Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:02:23 -0500 Subject: TMBG: "!" Message-ID: <19990115.150223.-108409.0.Cambot@juno.com> >TMBJon@aol.com >Jon! Katz (the only guy who uses punctuation in his name) LIAR!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers Steve! ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Message-Id: <2.2.32.19990115224137.02619d44@mail.utexas.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:41:37 -0500 From: Mitchell Harding Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos >In a message dated 99-01-14 16:19:22 EST, RabbiVole@aol.com writes: >> sexual activity as an extension of romantic love is a foolish >> idea. I completely disagree. Moreover, green alligator has his mouth open. Harf, Mitch http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/index.html "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:00:19 EST Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos << >> sexual activity as an extension of romantic love is a foolish >> idea. I completely disagree. >> oh? nothing's better than having someone disagree with you: if nothing else it affirms your existence, heh. at any rate, sexual activity in its core is a physical outcropping of the emotion of lust, and, therefore, has no place in love--love deals with perception of beauty. lust does not deal in any sort of beauty at all. << Moreover, green alligator has his mouth open. >> he must be shocked. i was, too, mr. harf. as should you be. peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay, who's new motto is ta gra agam do tu, faer. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:20:27 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 RabbiVole@aol.com wrote: > << >> sexual activity as an extension of romantic love is a foolish > >> idea. > > I completely disagree. >> > > oh? nothing's better than having someone disagree with you: if nothing > else it affirms your existence, heh. "You disagree, therefore I am"? > at any rate, sexual activity in its core is a physical outcropping of > the emotion of lust, and, therefore, has no place in love--love deals > with perception of beauty. lust does not deal in any sort of beauty at > all. Then you have two people affirming your existence. ;] Lust indeed deals with beauty, somewhat. After all, people who lust after ugly things/people (which, even then, often fall under the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" deal) are in a distinct minority. Now, as to sex . . . sexual activity has been used over the centuries by countless couples as the ultimate physical manifestation of their love (not lust). The way out society shows/views the connection between lust and sex may distance the sex and love connection, but the connection is still there. Oh, and my motto is: "JESUS CHRIST! What the hell?!" Oh, no, wait, that's not it. I just happen to say that a lot. ;] Jim! ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: <2f05f0fa.369fce62@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:25:22 EST Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos In a message dated 99-01-15 18:13:49 EST, rlowery@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us writes: << Then you have two people affirming your existence. ;] >> hooray. i'm here, i'm really here. ;) << Lust indeed deals with beauty, somewhat. After all, people who lust after ugly things/people (which, even then, often fall under the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" deal) are in a distinct minority. >> ah! not true. lust is, simply, a primitive desire to fornicate. beauty has little to do with it; and what we lust after isn't "beauty." it's the collective attributes that we evolved to desire--those that would best bear or father our children. beauty is an entirely different matter. remind yourself that i said love is the perception of beauty: beauty encompasses all, not just physical attraction. << Now, as to sex . . . sexual activity has been used over the centuries by countless couples as the ultimate physical manifestation of their love (not lust). The way out society shows/views the connection between lust and sex may distance the sex and love connection, but the connection is still there. >> love needs no physical manifestation, if it is truly love. love came about as a need for companionship; lust came about as a need for children. very different things. i should show a girl i love her by holding her hand, by hugging her or kissing her or any number of things--but sex is always lust, or neither party would want it. (ie, i don't desire sex when i watch a sunset or speak to someone i love, do i?) duh. ;) peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay, whose favorite beverage is goat's blood in a can. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:42:37 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Kuemmerle Subject: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 RabbiVole@aol.com wrote: how's *that* for a subject heading, huh? ;) > oh? nothing's better than having someone disagree with you: if nothing > else it affirms your existence, heh. at any rate, sexual activity in > its core is a physical outcropping of the emotion of lust, and, > therefore, has no place in love--love deals with perception of beauty. > lust does not deal in any sort of beauty at all. jay, i must also disagree. i would argue that you're simplifying a very complex issue here... (1) lust (for starters and to keep details to a relative minimum) deals with perceptions of physical beauty, instinct, biochemistry, odor, environment of upbringing, the genetics and evolution of the immune system, extent of inebriation, (as well as the inhibitions inebriation toys with, which are largely social constructs themselves,) as well as the degree of similarity between the lustor and the lustee (that is, many males might lust after your typical playmate-of-the-month as long as she's on paper, but not as many would actually follow up on it if the two people were in the same place at the same time, largely because, on average, there's waaaay too much physical dissimilarity.) this is the whole 'birds of a feather' thing -- ie, why cheerleaders and quarterbacks are so frequently found intermingling, and much less so cheerleaders, quarterbacks, and band geeks. :) and that's for starters. moving right along, (doobie doo, doobie doo...) (2) love (IMHO) has far too many meanings to use it in this context without further defining it. even if you restrict it to the obvious "okay, smartass, i meant romantic love," that still leaves open the distinction between: (a) the love of two people who are dating casually (b) the love of two people who are dating seriously (c) the love of two newlyweds (d) the love of two people, married with kids (e) the love of two people, married with grandkids etc.... (3) and even when you define *that*, there's still (as jim lowery pointed out) the question of how you define 'beauty'... and with that, i will be shutting up. i've obviously had waaaaaaay too much caffeine this week. > jay, who's new motto is ta gra agam do tu, faer. 'zat gaelic? --jim kuemmerle, whose new motto, as i live and learn, is "dig and be dug in return"... j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ although somehow "mr. kuemmerle says" just doesn't flow as well... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos Message-ID: <19990115.182508.-135667.0.gray42@juno.com> From: gray42@juno.com (Claire V Gray) I shall now affirm your existence :P > > Then you have two people affirming your existence. ;] > Lust indeed deals with beauty, somewhat. After all, people >who >lust after ugly things/people (which, even then, often fall under the >"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" deal) are in a distinct >minority. > Now, as to sex . . . sexual activity has been used over the >centuries by countless couples as the ultimate physical manifestation >of >their love (not lust). The way out society shows/views the >connection >between lust and sex may distance the sex and love connection, but >the >connection is still there. Sex comes from the insinct to keep the species on the planet. Earth has reached a point of near overpopulation (or maybe we're alredy there. All these birth control devices have ruined the point of sex, and now people do it for enjoyment, pain, revenge, and many other reasons. Sex is not nessecary, and is different from love. A person can love without sex, and it can sometimes ruin things. Take for instance all the divorces that have occured because the spouse was "no longer any fun in the sack" Sex is physcal, love is mental. IMHO Mysterio Gal (The notorious "Hooded Rat") "Trink Ziegeblut in eine Kanne!" --Das Hooded Rat MST3K#88182 ICQ#9585405 gray42@juno.com, send attachments to mr_realgal@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/4871 The Official Project Omicrom website: www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/9007 > Oh, and my motto is: > "JESUS CHRIST! What the hell?!" > Oh, no, wait, that's not it. I just happen to say that a lot. > ;] > > Jim! > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: GhostKrabb@webtv.net (Dexter Flansburgh) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:49:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Message-ID: <3918-369FD410-800@mailtod-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Well, I've noticed that John Flansburgh never plays lead guitar on songs. I know that on some, (especially their earlier stuff), he's the only one playing guitar. But those are mostly just tame licks. When it comes to wailing out on a solo, they bring somebody like Eric Schemerhorn in, & Flans is just doin' rythym guitar. I'll bet that he's an excellent guitarist, but he's just modest, or doesn't get enough oppuritunities, or something. Why is this?--- Dexburger "I, have never done...acid" - Jim Infantino ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:33:56 -0500 Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... Message-ID: <19990115.183426.-135667.1.gray42@juno.com> From: gray42@juno.com (Claire V Gray) > >(2) love (IMHO) has far too many meanings to use it in this context > without further defining it. even if you restrict it to the >obvious > "okay, smartass, i meant romantic love," that still leaves open >the > distinction between: > (a) the love of two people who are dating casually > (b) the love of two people who are dating seriously > (c) the love of two newlyweds > (d) the love of two people, married with kids > (e) the love of two people, married with grandkids > etc.... waaaaaaait... Don't forget these (f) the love from parent to child or vice versa (g)the love of siblings (h)the love between pet and owner (i)the love in friendship and so on, I think this group of love is important enough to leave the etc. bit Mysterio Gal (The notorious "Hooded Rat") "Trink Ziegeblut in eine Kanne!" --Das Hooded Rat MST3K#88182 ICQ#9585405 gray42@juno.com, send attachments to mr_realgal@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/4871 The Official Project Omicrom website: www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/9007 >(3) and even when you define *that*, there's still (as jim lowery >pointed > out) the question of how you define 'beauty'... > >and with that, i will be shutting up. i've obviously had waaaaaaay >too >much caffeine this week. > >> jay, who's new motto is ta gra agam do tu, faer. > >'zat gaelic? > >--jim kuemmerle, whose new motto, as i live and learn, is "dig and be >dug >in return"... > >j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu >http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ >although somehow "mr. kuemmerle says" just doesn't flow as well... > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: <2310917b.369fd547@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:54:47 EST Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos In a message dated 99-01-15 18:47:36 EST, gray42@juno.com writes: << Take for instance all the divorces that have occured because the spouse was "no longer any fun in the sack" Sex is physcal, love is mental. IMHO >> in considering that, my dearest mysteriogal, one must wonder: if their love's longevity was dependant on sexual activity, then was it really love? true love .. is .. love. it needs no physical affirmation. peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:52:42 EST Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... In a message dated 99-01-15 18:44:23 EST, J.Kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu writes: << (1) lust (for starters and to keep details to a relative minimum) deals with perceptions of physical beauty, instinct, biochemistry, odor, environment of upbringing, the genetics and evolution of the immune system, extent of inebriation, (as well as the inhibitions inebriation toys with, which are largely social constructs themselves,) as well as the degree of similarity between the lustor and the lustee (that is, many males might lust after your typical playmate-of-the-month as long as she's on paper, but not as many would actually follow up on it if the two people were in the same place at the same time, largely because, on average, there's waaaay too much physical dissimilarity.) this is the whole 'birds of a feather' thing -- ie, why cheerleaders and quarterbacks are so frequently found intermingling, and much less so cheerleaders, quarterbacks, and band geeks. :) >> i gotta love ya, jim, but i have no idea what your point is. :) insofar as disagreeing that sex is not an extension of love, that is--sure, you've defined several parameters for lust, but that doesn't prove it's anything but lust. lust is lust and lust isn't beautiful. << (2) love (IMHO) has far too many meanings to use it in this context without further defining it. --snip different types of romantic love >> sure, love has many faces, many applications. but it still doesn't make sense to use lust to define or embellish it. << (3) and even when you define *that*, there's still (as jim lowery pointed out) the question of how you define 'beauty'... >> everyone defines it differently. that is what love is--defining, and continuing to define, your definition of beauty as it pertains to a certain person. romantic love, at least. peace, love and good happiness stuff, jay, the world's only teenaged male who'd argue a poing like this ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:10:15 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Kuemmerle Subject: NON-TMBG: the biology of sexual attraction Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 RabbiVole@aol.com wrote: DISCLAIMER: this is fairly long and relatively technical in nature; also i apologize in advance for not being able to restrain myself... ;) > << Lust indeed deals with beauty, somewhat. After all, people who > lust after ugly things/people (which, even then, often fall under the > "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" deal) are in a distinct minority. >> > > ah! not true. lust is, simply, a primitive desire to fornicate. > beauty has little to do with it; and what we lust after isn't "beauty." > it's the collective attributes that we evolved to desire--those that > would best bear or father our children. beauty is an entirely different > matter. ah, not so!! i would argue that beauty (at least in the physical sense of the term) is *exactly* that, and that the concept of beauty is made up largely of what evolutionary biologists refer to as "sexual selectors". in humans, a primary sexual selector is the waist/hip ratio (for both females and males) -- due to the fact that waist/hip ratio is a good marker of overall health and robustness. if i remember correctly, the figure is about .73-.76 for females, .92-.98 for males? something like that. and this is both broadly applicable across the species (the same in america, laos, greece, central africa, what have you) and without regard to other, more locally developed sexual selectors such as ornamentation, body type (height/weight/musculature), or other secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts, body hair, voice, etc. also, these other sexual selectors don't override the more basic one -- as in the fact that no amount of makeup can hide the symptoms of schistosomiasis (sp?)... (btw, does anybody know the measurements of mr. flansburgh (arwen?) and/or mr. linnell? just curious...) furthermore, on a more personal level, much of what we consider physical attraction is related to odor, specifically the differences in personal body odor related to what's called the MHC complex. the MHC (Major HistoCompatibility) complex is a highly variable group of genes that's key to proper immune function. (you know how we have variation in eye color between blue, brown, green, hazel, gray, etc.? take that variation and take it to an umpteenth level and you have the basic idea behind MHC variability.) all cells in the body express MHC proteins, and use them to present little bits of protein to the cells of the immune system. the way that the immune system cells look at the combination of the MHC proteins and the little bits of protein that the MHC proteins carry determines whether the cell may be infected with a virus or intracellular bacterium (and hence attacked to get rid of the infection), whether the cell may be just fine, or whether the cell gets attacked abnormally, as is the case in autoimmune diseases like lupus, multiple sclerosis, and the like. *anyway*, from an evolutionary perspective, it is in your offsprings' best interest that you avoid mating with people who have the same MHC markers as you do, as this would make them more susceptible to disease and parasites. thus, there's an evolutionary way to bring this about (and it goes back at least as far as mice, probably further) which is that when you're growing up, you become sensitized to the body odor of the family you're raised with such that you avoid that odor in potential mates. (and this isn't based on your *own* body odor, as you can take mice when they're born, raise them among a different and unrelated litter, and they avoid mates that share their littermates' odors...) there are related studies that have been done with people, but i can't remember the details. anyway -- none of these details are acted on on a conscious level. they just pop up as "wow. he/she's pretty cute." and "he/she is fun to cuddle with" vs. "he/she's nice enough, but the... er... chemistry just isn't there." ;) > love needs no physical manifestation, if it is truly love. love came > about as a need for companionship; lust came about as a need for > children. very different things. i should show a girl i love her by > holding her hand, by hugging her or kissing her or any number of > things--but sex is always lust, or neither party would want it. huh?? > (ie, i don't desire sex when i watch a sunset or speak to someone i love, do > i?) > > duh. ;) maybe not *right that moment* or *at that phase of the relationship.* :) --jim kuemmerle, who still believes in love anyway, just in addition to biochemistry.... ;) j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ ------------------------------ From: Alterian@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:10:10 EST Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... In a message dated 1/15/99 6:56:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, gray42@juno.com writes: << waaaaaaait... Don't forget these (f) the love from parent to child or vice versa (g)the love of siblings (h)the love between pet and owner (i)the love in friendship and so on, I think this group of love is important enough to leave the etc. bit >> I think the person was referring to romantic love...and I surely don't love my family romantically or my hamster...i guess in other states but.... -Amber the Transcendent Mistress of the Known Cosmos, Empress for Eternity ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:17:43 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Kuemmerle Subject: NON-TMBG: thrill is gone, thrill is gone away... Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 RabbiVole@aol.com wrote: > << Take for instance all the divorces > that have occured because the spouse was "no longer any fun in the sack" > Sex is physcal, love is mental. IMHO >> > > in considering that, my dearest mysteriogal, one must wonder: if their love's > longevity was dependant on sexual activity, then was it really love? true > love .. is .. love. it needs no physical affirmation. au contraire, mon frere! (sp??) also: au contraire, mon Claire! (because if i'm interpreting the two of you correctly, you're coming to the same conclusion...) i would argue (and thank you both, because i've not had an argument as good as this in quite some time)... ...that this goes to show that sexual attraction *is* a necessary component of certain kinds of romantic love. and that if that attraction ceases to be there, the relationship either: (a) progresses to a different *definition* of love, such that, as you say, Jay, it needs no physical affirmation, or (b) falls apart. --jim kuemmerle, who loves coming to opposite conclusions based on the same data... :D j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: <3662abd1.369fd8e7@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:10:15 EST Subject: Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar In a message dated 99-01-15 18:50:50 EST, GhostKrabb@webtv.net writes: << Well, I've noticed that John Flansburgh never plays lead guitar on songs. I know that on some, (especially their earlier stuff), he's the only one playing guitar. But those are mostly just tame licks. When it comes to wailing out on a solo, they bring somebody like Eric Schemerhorn in, & Flans is just doin' rythym guitar. I'll bet that he's an excellent guitarist, but he's just modest, or doesn't get enough oppuritunities, or something. Why is this?--- Dexburger >> flans knows what he's doing; however, he is no virtuosic guitar player. he writes songs, not complex or intricate music, and thus the occasional presence of guys like schermerhorn and their ilk. that's why he doesn't solo often .. simply, he's not very good at it. though i admit that john henry has a few flans-played solos that aren't really that bad .. listen to "no one knows my plan." eh, if i want to listen to complex solos i'll pop in some frank zappa or steve vai. not flans. :) peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay, who's on a posting spree today ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:22:30 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Keeler Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Claire V Gray wrote: > > Sex comes from the insinct to keep the species on the planet. Earth has > reached a point of near overpopulation (or maybe we're alredy there. All > these birth control devices have ruined the point of sex, and now people > do it for enjoyment, pain, revenge, and many other reasons. Sex is not Uh-oh. now youre talking like "sex is for procreation and if you start enjoying it then youre bad." like...the enjoyment (physical gratification), even from a "functional" standpoint has gotta (well..not *gotta*.....but in the way i figger) serve the same person as the "survival of the species" instinct. basically, what im saying is that no matter how strong the "instinct" may be (and im heitant to call it an instinct), if it didn't send a warm tingly down both parties spines, i dont think it would be as common. "I'm sposed to do *what*? In there? weird, man..i dunno bout that" in other words, dont knock the pleasure as missing the point, when the pleasure is mre likely vital to the point, dig? --kevin i usually stay out, but this person struckthe anti-prude chord deep within me ------------------------------ From: Alterian@aol.com Message-ID: <8feced1c.369fda73@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:16:51 EST Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: the biology of sexual attraction In a message dated 1/15/99 7:11:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, J.Kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu writes: << furthermore, on a more personal level, much of what we consider physical attraction is related to odor, >> And my friend said I was weird cause I told her that my boyfriend smells good =P -Amber the Transcendent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:23:33 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Kuemmerle Subject: NON-TMBG: definitions of love... Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, I wrote: > >(2) love (IMHO) has far too many meanings to use it in this context > > without further defining it. even if you restrict it to the > >obvious > > "okay, smartass, i meant romantic love," that still leaves open... (snip) and then Claire wrote: > waaaaaaait... Don't forget these > (f) the love from parent to child or vice versa > (g)the love of siblings > (h)the love between pet and owner > (i)the love in friendship > and so on, I think this group of love is important enough to leave the > etc. bit i totally agree that these classes of love are important, and very relevant (particularly to my contention that "love" is way too broad to just state and leave alone) but i was proceeding on (see above) the assumption that Jay was leaving these out of his definition of "love"... which, now that i reflect further, may or may not have been a very good assumption to make. --jim kuemmerle, who suddenly has "narrow your eyes" running through his head... j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: <12e2bcde.369fdad8@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:18:32 EST Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: the biology of sexual attraction --snip a bunch of technical stuff from jim-- ah! thank you. ;) you have just defined physical attraction to the list. but it's not love, is it? i don't love someone 'cause she looks good: if i did i'd be less than a decent guy, no? i'm talking not about physical beauty but about EVERY type of beauty.. it's the latter that constitutes love. << huh?? >> i was saying that if sex was love instead of lust, then neither party could .. eh.. get it on, so to speak. peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay, who never loves, never lusts, and certainly never eats past midnight ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:21:16 EST Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: thrill is gone, thrill is gone away... In a message dated 99-01-15 19:18:36 EST, J.Kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu writes: << ...that this goes to show that sexual attraction *is* a necessary component of certain kinds of romantic love. and that if that attraction ceases to be there, the relationship either: (a) progresses to a different *definition* of love, such that, as you say, Jay, it needs no physical affirmation, or (b) falls apart. >> nay, jim, nay. many couples think their sexual attraction IS love--but it's not, and that's why their marriages fall apart. i cannot see myself truly loving someone, but only WITH sexual gratification. peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990115193658.007a4100@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:36:58 -0500 From: Ben Bradshaw Subject: Semi-TMBG: Mixes I'd just like to say that mixes are the bane of all musical appreciation, especially your own mixes of stuff you own. Mixes repeat and end up killing the songs you put on the tape. By killing just one song from an album, that can effectively kill that album. I never listen to mixes anymore, however, I can not fight the urge to make mixes for other people. TMBG is probably the best and worst band ever for making tapes. They are so good because their songs are short and you can fit them into the most awkward times slots. The reason they suck so much is because every single one of their songs, with the exception of The Worlds Address Remix, is worthy of taking up precious minutes on a tape. Just last night I made an introductory tape of Ben Folds Five and They Might Be Giants for my friend. Although the Ben Folds Five was fairly hard to narrow down to only 45 minutes, the TMBG side was insanely impossible. I went through each album picking out whichever songs first came to my head and rejecting every other one that attempted to find favor in my head. Turning away those songs was like having to give one of your children over to labratory experiments to cure eye bleeding. Amazingly, I fit at least two songs off every album except for STD from which I could only use STD. Ben Personal Motto: "The movies are wrong. You need good looks, lots of money and friends to lead a good life." Take A Gander, part 2 http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/lights/5364 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:36:29 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Kuemmerle Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 RabbiVole@aol.com wrote: > i gotta love ya, jim, but i have no idea what your point is. :) insofar as > disagreeing that sex is not an extension of love, that is--sure, you've > defined several parameters for lust, but that doesn't prove it's anything but > lust. lust is lust and lust isn't beautiful. well, my point was primarily to try and counter your assertion that lust doesn't have anything to do with beauty, with the implication further below that certain kinds of romantic love include lust as a component and others don't. > << (2) love (IMHO) has far too many meanings to use it in this context > without further defining it. --snip different types of romantic love >> > > sure, love has many faces, many applications. but it still doesn't make > sense to use lust to define or embellish it. i would disagree here. elsewhere, you (or was it somebody else? i've forgotten) defined love as the need for companionship vs. lust as the need for procreation. now, in so-called "pre-agrarian" societies, i would argue that your assertion quoted above is entirely true. sex in those societies is largely promiscuous (the default mammalian state, to the chagrin of those who would try to link human morality to facts of nature). however, the more usual human sexual style is serial monogamy, and that didn't come about until the development of patriarchal agrarian societies, the subsequent invention of inheritances, and the impulse to supply said inheritances primarily or exclusively to one's own biological offspring. now, with women, it's fairly obvious to know whose kids are whose, but with men, it's not as easy. hence the development of serial monogamy as a social (patriarchal) construct. i'm not really sure if love as we know it enters the picture until much, much later... > everyone defines it differently. that is what love is--defining, and > continuing to define, your definition of beauty as it pertains to a certain > person. romantic love, at least. i like that! :) > jay, the world's only teenaged male who'd argue a poing like this except that i'm not teenaged anymore... but when i was, i would be too... :) --jim kuemmerle, who's older than he's ever been and now he's even older... j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:57:19 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Kuemmerle Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: the biology of sexual attraction Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 RabbiVole@aol.com wrote: > --snip a bunch of technical stuff from jim-- > > ah! thank you. ;) you're welcome. ;) > you have just defined physical attraction to the list. but it's not > love, is it? not in and of itself, but i don't recall that i claimed it *was*. i was trying to come to a definition of physical beauty as it applies to lust and sexual attraction, in response to your claims that: "lust is, simply, a primitive desire to fornicate. beauty has little to do with it; and what we lust after isn't "beauty." it's the collective attributes that we evolved to desire--those that would best bear or father our children. beauty is an entirely different matter." my arguments about the connection between physical attraction and love are elsewhere. also, it seems to me at this point like we're really in agreement on a conceptual level (no pun intended), if each of us were to accept the other person's definitions. i think it's largely a factor of our definitions of the terms 'love' and 'beauty' (my loose definitions vs. your tight definitions) that are causing the apparent disagreement. > << huh?? >> > > i was saying that if sex was love instead of lust, then neither party could .. > eh.. get it on, so to speak. i'm sorry, jay, but i still don't follow you on this one. would you please elaborate? who are the parties again? do you mean "if sex was a manifestation of love rather than a manifestation of lust"? how does the claim that neither party could 'get it on' follow? by the way, and on a different note, i would like to say that my loose definition of the word "love" was inspired in part by the paul simon lyric "and i may be obliged to defend every love, every ending or maybe there's no obligations now". by this i mean, if i claim i love somebody, and then that relationship falls apart, does that mean i didn't love them? i would argue that it doesn't, but rather that the definition of the word "love" is different as it applies the case of each individual relationship where it's used. --jim kuemmerle, who has loose definitions for almost anything: art, love, on-topic posting, you name it... :) j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ ------------------------------ Message-ID: <004501be40ed$08d73160$c0d12581@oemcomputer> From: "kelspots" Subject: NON-TMBG: Michael Shelley and HHGTTG Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:09:14 -0500 I know a lot of you here are fans of Michael Shelley, and The Onion did an interview with him this week. Go here to see it: http://avclub.theonion.com/bonusfeature1.html Also, I just finished reading the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy, and all this time I had no idea what everyone was hyping it up for. All I have to say is go to http://www.amazon.com and order The Ultimate Hitch Hiker's Guide, which contains all 5 books plus a short story, and read it as quickly as possible. The book was only $14.99 and I can't wait to read it again. I'd just like to add that my original subject line was "Totally off-topic things" but then I read the thread that was started by personal mottos, and decided that I wasn't as off-topic as I originally thought. Amy :) Come trade with me! http://www.strangemud.net/~agreen/boots.html [Attachment omitted, unknown MIME type or encoding (text/html)] ------------------------------ From: Alterian@aol.com Message-ID: <6de935e9.369fe92d@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:19:41 EST Subject: NON-TMBG: Michael Shelley and Lincoln Has anyone else whose heard both of their music find that they sound kinda similar? (as in style) They have their own unique qualities, but I get the same feeling when I listen to both of them. Hard to explain -Amber the Transcendent Mistress ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:35:12 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Kuemmerle Subject: NON-TMBG: one last sex & love post from me... Message-ID: i'm pretty sure this is the last one i'll post. definitely my last post for today. > basically, what im saying is that no matter how strong the "instinct" may > be (and im heitant to call it an instinct), if it didn't send a warm > tingly down both parties spines, i dont think it would be as common. > > "I'm sposed to do *what*? In there? weird, man..i dunno bout that" which is probably related to the fact that humans, chimps, and dolphins are (i think) the only animals known to *enjoy* sex. (i can't remember if maybe some other primates and cetaceans do or not...) i also seem to recall that these same three (again, i'm not entirely sure about the number) are the only animals who copulate face-to-face. all of which argues that concomitant with the development of intelligence is the necessity to increase the reward beyond just the passing on of genes... this probably also has something to do with the development of emotional bonding between parents and offspring such that there are rewards after the fact as well. :) in fact, i would hypothesize that the emotional bonding developed first such as in moderately intelligent animals (dogs, rodents, etc.), as opposed to the more primitive style of child-rearing ('lay 'em and leave 'em')... --jim kuemmerle, who means the word 'lay' as in 'lay an egg' lest somebody misinterpret it... j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ ------------------------------ From: OHLERT@accuwx.com Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:43:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Message-id: <01J6LAIZ4D6QDCPS6T@accuwx.com> Organization: AccuWeather, Inc hey this reminds me, does anyone know what kind of guitars flans plays??? peter ohlert@accuwx.com ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:44:59 EST Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: mottos, lust, beauty, love, and sex... In a message dated 99-01-15 19:37:22 EST, J.Kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu writes: << well, my point was primarily to try and counter your assertion that lust doesn't have anything to do with beauty, with the implication further below that certain kinds of romantic love include lust as a component and others don't. >> lust has everything to do with attraction, little to do with the whole of beauty--beyond the physical, beauty is everything encompassing an individual. << i like that! :) >> thanks. i don't happen to know quite a lot, but what what philosophy i fabricate generally makes sense. ;) << not in and of itself, but i don't recall that i claimed it *was*. i was trying to come to a definition of physical beauty as it applies to lust and sexual attraction, in response to your claims that: >> well, physical beauty does indeed dictate lust. but, as i said, beauty is every part of individual: the physical as well as the mental. i could come to love romantically the physical form of someone i didn't lust after. << i'm sorry, jay, but i still don't follow you on this one. would you please elaborate? who are the parties again? do you mean "if sex was a manifestation of love rather than a manifestation of lust"? how does the claim that neither party could 'get it on' follow?>> how shall i put this? if sex is an extension of love rather than lust, than neither person in a relationship would have the lust necessary to have sex. does that make any sense? i don't get horny because i love someone. i get horny because i lust after her .. therefore sex is not love. there, i think. ;) eh, well. in the end i guess everything i say must be taken with a grain of salt: you never ask a fish what the desert's like. peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay. ------------------------------ From: CajunGram@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:32:28 EST Subject: Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar In a message dated 99-01-15 20:45:51 EST, you write: << hey this reminds me, does anyone know what kind of guitars flans plays??? >> When I saw Them in concert awhile back ('96)Flansy played this awesome guitar that was all weird and square shaped, it was crazy! It looked like a regular electric guitar, but had no round edges, it was so cool! If I remember right it was a sparkly silver color... Graham ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:16:09 -0500 Subject: TMBG: love.... Message-ID: <19990115.220907.10294.4.SailorMorningStar@juno.com> From: sailormorningstar@juno.com (Karen M Majetic) I just have to say that my belief is that love should not be based on physical attraction, and that if it is, then you are a truly shallow person indeed. I have fallen in love once in my life, and then there was the time when I THOUGHT that I had. The pure truth is that the guy....we'll call him Sean....who I was very greatly attracted to...had the personality of a popsicle stick....and I truly cannot see myself falling for anyone like that today. Sure Sean could be a great guy....sometimes.....but to say the least.....his bad times outweighed the good. Then last year, I found what was truly love...I did not fall for the guy instantly (ok ok..so he wasn't exactly what most people would call a stud) but after getting to know him....I began to like him A LOT....until finally........I fell in love with him....not based on sexual attraction, or how he looked, but because of HIM...the real person that lied beneath his scrawny funny looking outside exterior. I very much prefer to ignore the technical mumbo jumbo that some scientists or people have come to believe. BECAUSE I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE IT. True love is something that is felt deep within your heart, in that special place inside yourself, not a chemical in your brain. Oh...and please do not bother disagreeing with me. I really don't see a need for it...because this is my PERSONAL belief. Imf not saying that anyone should share it, or that anyone shouldnt....and I am not trying to preach. Just trying to get my opinion across. :) -Karen :P ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: Alterian@aol.com Message-ID: <4ae99a3f.36a00c62@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:49:54 EST Subject: Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar I think he plays a Gibson.... drool......someday I'll own a gibson -Amber ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:39:08 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Subject: NON-TMBG: EEP! LOVE! Message-ID: Well, that's what I get for going to work. I was hoping to get into the argument about love vs. lust when I got back, but there's way too many posts to go through and answer to! ARGH! I sped-read 'em, tho', but this point may have been gone over before and I didn't notice it (but I don't think so, and it's pretty much my main one, so) . . . The main thing that the loyal opposition (tee hee) seems to want to do is totally divide lust from love. I mean, totally, without leaving any connection behind whatsoever. The reasoning, as I saw it, was that one did not NEED the other. Well, this is true. One doesn't need the other, I concede that. But just because they don't NEED to go together doesn't mean they do all the same anyway. The majority of humans, when first meeting/seeing a person they find beautiful, will lust after said person. "Lust" being the basic want of humans to gain what they desire (not nessicarily "want to have sex with them", for that is not entirely what lust is), so this could mean they want to do anything with the person ranging from (yes) having sex to simply wanting to get to know them better. From there, lust could stay just lust, and you get the broken homes and the divorces etc. etc., or, if you're REALLY lucky, the lust could develop into love. People who can fall into actual true romantic love right off the bat are, unfortunately, virtually non-existant. That kind of love can develop over time totally without the help of lust, but that only carries a SLIGHTLY better chance. Anyway, point is, love from lust. Now, let's go from the other side of the spectrum (as it were). For this example, let's just make up a couple of people . . . Mike and Jane. Mike and Jane are in love, the deep romantic love of which we have spoken. They have not yet "gotten it on", as it has been so succintly put in an earlier post, but one day their biological clocks kick in and, lo and behold, Mike and Jane are ready to "get it on". They begin to *gasp* lust. But do they go off and do the getting with other people? Well, they COULD, but we have to remember that these two are in true love. So, they will more than likely begin to lust for each other and "get" each other in the process. As I said, Mike could just up and head on over to, say, Jill's house and have sex with her, and Jane could decide to stay the night at Bob's for some extracurricular activities, but they probably won't. Anyway, second point, lust from love. So, you see (I hope), that while the two may not absolutely have to go together, they do anyway. We humans are just wired weird. Deal with it! =] Oh, and if this point (or points, whatever) HAVE been gone over and I'm just restating something, may the fire gods stick their tongues out at me and may my underwear be itchy for a month. But if I AM making a new batch of point-like thingies, and you still disagree with me, then may your radio only pick up AM stations and any public transportation service you board be driven by gun toting terrorists who only know this one English phrase, "SH!^, I BURN YOU TO DAMN TOAST, MOTHERF#(&ER!" Muahahahahaha . . . =] Jim! ------------------------------ From: GhostKrabb@webtv.net (Dexter Flansburgh) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:48:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: TMBG: TMBG fans of Oregon Message-ID: <3932-36A01A0C-774@mailtod-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Are there any Oregon fans of TMBG out there who have John Linnel's "State Songs?' If so, are you at all offended by the Oregon song, which opens with the line "Oregon is bad, stop it if you can." I'd just like to know.--- Dexburger "I, have never done...acid" - Jim Infantino ------------------------------ Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:48:00 -0500 (EST) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 15-Jan-99 Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar by RabbiVole@aol.com > of guys like schermerhorn and their ilk. that's why he doesn't solo often .. > simply, he's not very good at it. though i admit that john henry has a few > flans-played solos that aren't really that bad .. listen to "no one knows my > plan." "Robert Quine guitar solo on 3 & 11" 11 is No One Knows My Plan Robert Quine is not John Flansburgh sorry to disappoint you... also, I play guitar, too, and have found that most TMBG songs aren't too hard to play (even Rest Awhile, with its odd progressions) but I can play the solos in songs like See the Constellation, Where Your Eyes Don't Go, Don't Let's Start, and Snail Shell, but not New York City, S-E-X-X-Y, XTC vs Adam Ant, or Out of Jail... this seems to be the breakdown of what Flans can and can't play (or rather, does and doesn't play) also... Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "You keep handing out horseshoes * This space inadvertently Horseshoes have gotta be tossed." -Moxy Fruvous * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ End of tmbg-list Digest #14-16 ******************************