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 #14-17 tmbg-list Digest, Volume 14, Number 17 Sunday, 17 January 1999 Today's Topics: TMBG: silly non-tmbg love business TMBG: tmbg-list FAQ TMBG: Non tmbg: Love Re: Non-TMBG: Love, Lust and Sex (was: Personal Mottos) Re: TMBG: Robert Quine Re: NON-TMBG: HHGTTG Re: TMBG: silly non-tmbg love business Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Re: Non-TMBG: Love, Lust and Sex (was: Personal Mottos) Re: NON-TMBG: EEP! LOVE! Re: NON-TMBG: EEP! LOVE! Re: NON-TMBG: EEP! LOVE! Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Re: TMBG: Robert Quine TMBG: doctor worm video 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: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:09:16 -0600 Subject: TMBG: silly non-tmbg love business Message-ID: <19990116.020919.13430.0.khurby@juno.com> From: khurby@juno.com (mike mike mike) the fact is : : lust, beauty, it's all goofy. while worry about any of that. everyone's main focus in life should be A.) falling -in- love, B.) saying "sucks" a whole lot, and C.) laughing. everything else is just uncivilized. as is using lesser than old spice forms of deodorant. : : mike : : motto : stop bed wetting NOW! ___________________________________________________________________ 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] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:15:01 -0500 (EST) From: Majordomo Message-Id: <199901160815.DAA27034@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Subject: TMBG: tmbg-list FAQ *** ADMINISTRIVIA *** This notice is posted twice a month to tmbg-list and tmbg-digest, as well as sent to all new users. Please read it if you have questions about the list. The TMBG mailing list is administered by Leo Bicknell . It provides a forum for discussing They Might Be Giants and Their music. 1) Unsubscribing from the list It is easy to unsubscribe from this mailing list. If you are subscribed to the regular, or "bounce" list, send the command unsubscribe tmbg-list e-mail@address in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe from the tmbg-digest digested version of the list, send the command unsubscribe tmbg-digest e-mail@address in the body of a message to . "e-mail@address" stands for the email address that is subscribed to the list. If you are sending the command from the email account that is subscribed, this part of the command is optional. If you have problems, send mail to . 2) Subscribing to the list Follow the instructions above for unsubscribing but send the word 'subscribe' rather than unsubscribe. :-) Keep in mind that tmbg-list will send you a copy of each message as it's written, which may be a lot. tmbg-digest will send you all the messages written in a day in the middle of the night. See http://www.tmbg.org/mail-news/ for more information. 3) Sending messages to the list To send a message to the list just mail it to tmbg-list@tmbg.org and it will get sent out to everyone. Please don't mail any chain letters, make money fast schemes, "me too" messages, or anything else that doesn't contribute to the discussion about TMBG. IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT When you send a message to the list you are sending messages to hundreds of people. Make sure that your message is one that hundreds of people need to read. Do not send "me too" messages to the list. Do not send messages about non-tmbg topics to the list. Hold private conversations in private e-mail. Sending messages that the list administrator deems off topic will result in your being removed from the list. 4) The TMBG FAQ The They Might Be Giants Frequently Asked Questions list is a compilation of the most requested information about the Johns. It is maintained by John Relph . To get the latest copy of the FAQ, you can do any of the following things. First, it is available on the World Wide Web at: http://reality.sgi.com/relph/music/TMBG-FAQ.html and, for a plaintext version: http://reality.sgi.com/relph/music/TMBG-FAQ Second, it is posted regularly on the newsgroup alt.music.tmbg. Third, if you can't get to one of those places, you can mail me and I'll send you a copy. 5) The websites The unofficial web site, http://www.tmbg.org/ has all sorts of good TMBG information including information on this mailing list (http://www.tmbg.org/mail-news/) as well as pointers to where you can read the list via news. You'll also find lyrics, chords, and interpretations for many of the songs. Also try out the Official TMBG Website at: http://www.tmbg.com/ As always, thank you for your mind. *** ADMINISTRIVIA *** ------------------------------ Message-ID: <004c01be4128$022aa8c0$f681fea9@cpdog.rma.edu> From: "Tim Clark" Subject: TMBG: Non tmbg: Love Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:12:50 -0500 I suggest "the four loves" by C.S. Lewis. The thing is, there are four kinds of love. We can just worry about two for now. (1) Eros (this is erotic love, meaning the sexual attraction which you feel for someone) and (2) agape (this is unselfish love, basically you want the best for the person no matter what it means to you.) Lust comes about, when (1) is completely seperated from #2. There is nothign wrong with feeling #1 for a person but if that is all you feel and it is completely cut off from caring about their well being (#2) then that is lust. See? 'course, I'm probably just full of Sh*t from writing this JavaScript... --Tim ------------------------------ Message-Id: <2.2.32.19990116085156.00749464@mail.utexas.edu> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:51:56 -0500 From: Mitchell Harding Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Love, Lust and Sex (was: Personal Mottos) >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. I don't think I'd describe love as dealing with perception of beauty. I certainly don't think that is the core of love. As well, I disagree that sexual activity is entirely lust, at the core. There can be sex without love, as well as love without sex, but the two can be merged as well. >>Moreover, green alligator has his mouth open. >he must be shocked. i was, too, mr. harf. as should you be. I think he's just hungry. Harf, Mitch http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/index.html "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:01:21 -0600 (CST) From: bill tatalovich Subject: Re: TMBG: Robert Quine Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > "Robert Quine guitar solo on 3 & 11" > > 11 is No One Knows My Plan > Robert Quine is not John Flansburgh True, Robert Quine is not John Flansburgh. Robert Quine, however, is a great guitar player, who has played with the likes of Matthew Sweet, the Voidoids, and Lou Reed. Great man...and I never made the connection when I saw his name in the liner notes for John Henry. > 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) [clip] I play guitar as well. I, however, suck. And as such (those pesky bar chords...), I have a bit of trouble with quite a few TMBG tunes...but that's just me...a bass player at heart. You want easy guitar parts...look at Galaxie 500. The Rev |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | Reverend Bill Tatalovich | Home page: | | | http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~wt3/ | | wt3@cec.wustl.edu |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | personnel@kwur.wustl.edu | | emogeek@hotmail.com | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19990116133110.15198.rocketmail@web303.yahoomail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:31:10 -0800 (PST) From: Talcott Starr Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: HHGTTG ---kelspots wrote: >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. He, he, he, another convert has joined our ranks. Actualy I just finished the fifth book of the triliogy a few months ago. Check out the official Deep Thought 42 page at http://www.empirenet.com/personal/dljones/index.html There's even a TMBG 42 sighting!!! Also if you haven't read it yet, get the Dirk Gently series. "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" and "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul" (My favorite book title). I also know they are together in one book, but I don't remember the name. == |\_________\ | 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: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:04:19 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Subject: Re: TMBG: silly non-tmbg love business Message-ID: "I thought the world would have had enough of silly love songs, But I look around and I see it isn't so. People just can't get enough of silly love songs, And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know . . . 'Cause here I goooooooo, agAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN! IIIIIIIII looooooooooove youuuuuuuuuuuu . . . *doot doot doo doo doo doo*" *ahem* On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, mike mike mike wrote: > everyone's main focus in life should be A.) falling -in- love, B.) saying > "sucks" a whole lot, and C.) laughing. Well, I already do all that, and I still have enough time to work on extracurricular activities such as post totally irrelevant messages to mailing lists! =] > : motto : stop bed wetting NOW! Aw, man, do I HAVE t- er, I mean, good motto, dude. *cough* Jim! ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: <45466a60.36a09f44@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:16:36 EST Subject: Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar In a message dated 99-01-16 00:49:27 EST, lps+@andrew.cmu.edu writes: << 11 is No One Knows My Plan Robert Quine is not John Flansburgh >> *laugh* heh. there's some odd ironic humor in that, you know. ah. forgive me, sir solomon: i long since lost the cd insert to john henry i'd just always .. assumed.. well, we all know what assumed means. << 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... >> it's not a matter of tmbg songs being hard to play: they deal in simplicity and little else, and thus have no difficulty to play whatsoever. they just exist, for even the most non-advanced guitarists to play with ease. most songs' parts are little more than strummed chord progressions, and the remaining parts--when they do exist--are .. as i said, simple. be it by accident or design. forgive me if i be deprecatory. however as a guitarist flansburgh isn't technically much better than anything else you'd hear on a pop station nowadays: he is, without doubt, more inventive in many other ways, but the music itself is not tmbg's strong point. something in their music inspires something in me, but certainly not like steve vai or chet atkins or steve howe might. peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay. ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:20:05 EST Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Love, Lust and Sex (was: Personal Mottos) In a message dated 99-01-16 03:52:28 EST, mitcharf@mail.utexas.edu writes: << As well, I disagree that sexual activity is entirely lust, at the core. There can be sex without love, as well as love without sex, but the two can be merged as well. >> i should clarify. i do not advocate romantic love without sex: it is my belief, however, that sex does not have the ability to embellish romantic love and is, in itself, only lust. << >>Moreover, green alligator has his mouth open. >he must be shocked. i was, too, mr. harf. as should you be. I think he's just hungry. >> if he's a nice alligator, isn't he? peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: <166442e1.36a0a22e@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:29:02 EST Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: EEP! LOVE! In a message dated 99-01-15 23:45:24 EST, rlowery@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us writes: << 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. >> actually: my argument was not that romantic love should be entirely sexless. it was that love is not sexual: sex IS lust, and cannot in any way embellish love. ie, it is not the "ultimate physical manifestation" of love. it is lust, as i have said. if two people in love wanna have sex, fine. but acknowledge that it is indeed.. 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.>> i digress that two persons in love might have sex, but not that love comes from lust. love comes from discovering that you might find someone beautiful: i guess you could meet her by lusting after her, as is the norm, but that's certainly neither the best nor the only way. i used "getting it on" due to my own inability to think of few more tactful ways to put it bluntly. ;P peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay, who promises this to be his last post to the list on the subject of love and sex! hooray! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:42:12 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: EEP! LOVE! Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 RabbiVole@aol.com wrote: > actually: my argument was not that romantic love should be entirely sexless. > it was that love is not sexual: sex IS lust, Sex is not lust already! Lust is a desire to have something, not strictly in order to have sex with a person! And even if you want to include the sex part, it's still just basic human (yes, human, for animals do not lust, yet they still have sex) need to own everything, and for millinea it has just so happened that males have decided to use sex to try and do just that. The very concepts of private property and marrige and the like came about when men finally sat down and thought out the fact that sex = babies = continuation of their genetic line. When they found this out, that is when lust, specifically lust for women, came about. After all, if you want to continue your line on the ol' family tree and even want to enhance it, you better start lusting for some good women, neh? But that doesn't mean that that is what lust is, entirely. As I said, once men figured out this stuff, their lust went crazy and they started grabbing land, animals, and whatever else they could get their grubby little hands on as fast as possible. This is how we came to live in our little patriarchal society that only within the past century have many countries tried to break out of. But, anyway, lust for women became the most overridding factor eventually, and that is why most people identify lust with wanting to have sex, but it's plain not true. Lust and sex are related, as I said, but they aren't one and the same! Sex is a tool and can be used in any way the wielder wants, much like you could use a screwdriver to do anything from tighten screws to crack nuts to clean off your boots. If someone wants to use sex to show their love, then they can, and they will, and many have before them. It's an act between two people that, for some odd reason, has become more taboo (and therefore not prone to be done in public) than other gestures of love, such as holding hands. And in closing . . . Lust and sex the same? More often than not, ideas like this are just part and parcel of the crap that is fed to us daily by a society that doesn't even realize that it's still shovelling the crap to us, nor that its been doing so for thousands of years now. > i digress that two persons in love might have sex, but not that love > comes from lust. love comes from discovering that you might find > someone beautiful: i guess you could meet her by lusting after her, as > is the norm, but that's certainly neither the best nor the only way. Eh, I don't see why it can't be the best way, really. Many people admire the sexual side of a person as being part of the whole "beautiful" package. I, myself, however, don't really go for that. *shrug* I've lusted after many sexually attractive women before of course (I mean, come one, I'm just a man, after all), but those that I'm really apt to fall in love with are more often than not those that wouldn't be considered particularly attractive to other guys. In fact, I'm supposed to be asking one such girl out right now instead of sending e-mail! Eep! > i used "getting it on" due to my own inability to think of few more tactful > ways to put it bluntly. ;P Heh. I just like the phrase "getting it on". =] > jay, who promises this to be his last post to the list on the subject of > love and sex! hooray! Yah, right. ;] Ah, well. I've been through this rigamarole too many times already. None of us will be able to change the others' minds, so it's all pretty much a futile mental exercise. I'm tempted just to delete this entire message and go on with my life. But . . . I've gone to all the painstaking trouble to type all this out when I was supposed to be doing something else, so you get to be subjected to it anyway! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! =] Jim! ------------------------------ From: RabbiVole@aol.com Message-ID: <76afd6fd.36a0be4b@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:28:59 EST Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: EEP! LOVE! In a message dated 99-01-16 10:37:27 EST, rlowery@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us writes: << Lust and sex the same? More often than not, ideas like this are just part and parcel of the crap that is fed to us daily by a society that doesn't even realize that it's still shovelling the crap to us, nor that its been doing so for thousands of years now. >> i'm sorry. i can't resist. what has your entire email proven? we can lust after anything. lust after knowledge, lust after diet coke, lust after bob dylan albums--or lust after sex. should i not have said lust is sex? i could have easily put it as sex is desire, or sex is want, or sex is the gratification if primitive needs to further a genetic line--or any number of things. forgive my usage of the word "lust." but that's what sex is: desire, whether it's to fornicate and have pleasure or further your genetic line. how we first got to desire sex is irrelevent, as we now desire it. even if love came about as a rationalization for marrying someone and furthering your wealth and last name .. well. if love is truly an entity, if it truly exists as anything like i hope--then something like sex (even as you put it) cannot show it. peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay. ------------------------------ From: GhostKrabb@webtv.net (Dexter Flansburgh) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:15:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar Message-ID: <13104-36A0D731-273@mailtod-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net> I think that after their drum machine days, Flans might have gotten a bit lazy, you know, with a full band and all. But I suddenly remind myself of such classics as Were Your Eyes Don't Go, & Hypnotist of Ladies, were Flans really sorta stole the show with his guitar. "Eyes" was just a simple thing, being repeated over & over, & "Ladies" was just him buggin' out, doin' I don't know what. But it sounded cool. Let's all think of those great times, when we think of John Flansburgh...a great man. I say we let him show us more of those "Madd skills on that mean stick of his!" (wait, that doesn't sound right.)--- Dexburger "I, have never done...acid" - Jim Infantino ------------------------------ From: KdsInThHal@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:17:41 EST Subject: Re: Non-TMBG: Personal Mottos ... "measurements for flansburgh"... you know, if i had a band.. hahaa..that's be a funny name. sarah ------------------------------ From: KdsInThHal@aol.com Message-ID: <33fafc5e.36a0ed14@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:48:36 EST Subject: Re: TMBG: Flans & his guitar In a message dated 1/16/99 12:49:27 AM, lps+@andrew.cmu.edu writes: >> 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... > i haven't seen this quine man at tmbg concerts...! ;) sarah ------------------------------ From: Alterian@aol.com Message-ID: <648a2a0e.36a111fa@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:26:02 EST Subject: Re: TMBG: Robert Quine In a message dated 1/16/99 6:04:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, wt3@cec.wustl.edu writes: << > 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) [clip] I play guitar as well. I, however, suck. And as such (those pesky bar chords...), I have a bit of trouble with quite a few TMBG tunes...but that's just me...a bass player at heart. You want easy guitar parts...look at Galaxie 500. >> Whats wrong with bar chords? Thats practically the only thing I can play..I don't know any of those fancy things at the top of the neck =P -Amber the Transcendent ------------------------------ From: deuels@juno.com Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:47:47 -0500 Subject: TMBG: doctor worm video Message-ID: <19990116.174748.-1679051.0.deuels@juno.com> musicvideos.com has the video on the net would any one be intrested in helping me start my bootleg collection? i will pay for mailing and tapes or cdr's please thanks Deuels ___________________________________________________________________ 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] ------------------------------ End of tmbg-list Digest #14-17 ******************************