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 #22-28 tmbg-list Digest, Volume 22, Number 28 Thursday, 28 October 1999 Today's Topics: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was Re: TMBG: TMBG: The way things are. TMBG: State Songs mp3s Anyone have them? Re: TMBG: They Might Be Brilliance TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was Re: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was TMBG: Two John Linnell shows in Chicago TMBG: Many responses Re: TMBG: Many responses TMBG: Re: Favorite State Re: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was TMBG: Soul TMBG: TMBG Rules! TMBG: My little aside...please excuse our appearance (list construction Re: TMBG: My little aside...please excuse our appearance (list Re: TMBG: TMBG Rules! TMBG: An interesting find.... TMBG: Oops concerning my last post... Re: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was Re: TMBG: An interesting find.... Re: TMBG: TMBG Rules! Re: TMBG: Many responses TMBG: Re: Concert photos from the four Bowery shows up! Re: TMBG: An interesting find.... Re: TMBG: An interesting find.... Re: TMBG: An interesting find.... Re: TMBG: What are we going to do about grandpa's image? TMBG: Can an accordion be tuned? Re: TMBG: TMBG Suck! Re: TMBG: Can an accordion be tuned? Re: TMBG: Can an accordion be tuned? TMBG: Re: Chris's fav. states Re: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was Re: Re: TMBG: Can an accordion be tuned? Re: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was 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 ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <38169165.DF9112EA@fruhead.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:45:09 -0400 From: lawrence solomon Subject: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was Re: TMBG: Bridget Therease wrote: > "those horrible people! don't they know we're supposed to be their number > one priority? so what if they are all trying to settle down and have lives > and families? we think factory showroom was crap!" um, saying we don't like factory showroom isn't the same as saying they suck. saying elements of their live show are getting stale isn't the same as saying they suck. saying "Why on earth do you freaks listen to They Might Be Giants? They can't write or sing worth a damn!" is saying they suck. But I don't see anyone saying that. > no one said that. my only point was that fans shouldn't be so whiny when a > previously prolific band becomes less so. tmbg put out about as much as > other bands. well, not moxy fruvous of course. of *course*. whining? oh, of course. any criticism of anything must be whining. I forgot. We use Moxy Fruvous as the comparison because many people here are familiar with them. It's natural. If you were on the mailing list for another band where a lot of fans were also familiar with TMBG, would you not use them as an example? > *shrug* bands change. it's the same reason i don't like cure fans that liked > 'em in the early 80's and hate their new stuff AND PERSIST TO BE ON LISTS > talking exclusively about how much they hate all the new stuff. "aww, the > cure used to be so good! what happened?" and why shouldn't people stick around? the list isn't current-tmbg-list@tmbg.org or tmbg-but-not-before-1994-list@tmbg.org It's tmbg-list@tmbg.org[1]. People who like TMBG can join it. Why is that such a horrible thing? We're here to discuss TMBG because we do, for the most part, enjoy what they do. But apparently we're not allowed to mention the bits we don't like. > okay, buddy, i said *explicitly* in my message that i am leaving this list. I've seen a lot of people say that. Are you actually going to, though? I don't think anyone will miss you if you follow through with that "threat." > i said i am staying on offtopic because the people there are nice to each > other. it seems a bit doi to say "oh! well you're leaving the list? well why > don't you just LEAVE THE LIST?". read more carefully next time. doi? doi? wtf is doi? the offtopic list. ok. I'm going to say this here and whoever doesn't like it can just deal. the concept of an "offtopic list" is idiotic. it's like having a newsgroup alt.everything. do people get yelled at there for discussing tmbg, or can you discuss anything and everything? and if you *can* discuss anything and everything, what's the point? the idea for the offtopic list, among other things, have been those of people who think they have the responsibility to Take Charge And Do Things No Matter How Useless or Stupid They Are Just Because They Can. and usually not very carefully thought out. and give people a little credit. I read the content of your message, not the "I'm leaving in a huff because you all suck" part. So I missed a bit. The whole Careless Santa thread started because of that sort of thing. Longest lasting thread on the tmbg-list, I think. At least the most frequently non-naturally recurring thread. (unlike this thread, where someone misreading and misinterpreting everyone's posts with a holier-than-thou attitude about their own quality of fandom starts an argument because they don't think anyone should criticise their favorite band) > anyway. i'm unsubbing as of right about now, before i have to think of this > list as a congregation point for people who want to spend weeks on end > talking about why tmbg are stupid now. then go to your stupid offtopic list where everyone is happy and bouncy and no one ever speaks their mind because It Would Be Wrong To Criticise They Might Be Giants, who are quite obviously the greatest band that ever existed and will always be perfect, even when they're DEAD![2] Do you know how boring this list would be if "I love TMBG. They are perfect and can do no wrong" was all anyone ever said? besides. now we have a lot more interesting things to discuss. like this message, which I'm sure will gets its share of flames. :)[3] > bridget "any more replies must be sent to my personal email, as the Great > LPS has convinced me to unsubscribe. bow down! bow down!" guildner > -i hope "doi" isn't too big of a huge insult... bummer. I guess you won't see this, then. one of your friends from the "offtopic" list can probably send it to you. wtf does "doi" mean, anyway? [1] people, it's tmbg-list@tmbg.org, not tmbg-list@tmbg.com (although both seem to work) [2] John Flansburgh and John Linnell have actually been dead since 1991. The guys touring now are just really good actors. [3] it's nice having been around a long time and gotten involved in a lot of... interesting discussions. people have made up their minds a long time ago as to how they feel about me, so I don't worry too much about pissing off the "wrong people." :) -- lawrence solomon * http://www.fruhead.com/users/zaph * zaph@fruhead.com "You knew it was true, when I held you, there were no secrets. I believed it." -Moxy Fruvous, _I Will Hold On_ ------------------------------ Message-ID: <003801bf2042$3260d380$5a228a81@rcn.nmt.edu> From: "Nicholas Wolf" Subject: TMBG: The way things are. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:12:07 -0600 Hello everyone, I've been a bit silent of late, simply listening to the wondrous topics that have come forth on this list lately. Allow me to be egotistical for a moment... As far as I know, I am the only living person on this planet - the rest of you could just be puppets, or something. Based on this (skewed, and totally incorrect) logic, I suggest that my opinion is absolute. Ahem. Now for the part you're supposed to take seriously. I joined this list to discuss TMBG, and that I have done. I honestly don't care who says what, just as long as it has something to do with my favorite band, TMBG. I take the same attitude when it comes to concerts. As it stands, I've only had the fortune of going to one. If I had attended - oh - three or four dozen, I wouldn't care if they played the same songs every time. Just getting to watch them actually play is enough for me. No two shows can possibly be the same. And stop replying to Bridget, telling her how wrong or evil she is. She left the list already. It's a bit of a moot point. And if she hasn't left the list...oh, I don't know. I don't have answers for everything, I'm only an engineering student. :0) Everyone just calm down, take a deep breath, turn to your nearest neighbor, and hit them on the head with something heavy. It'll make you feel better. Signed, Nick Wolf, TMBG Ambassador to the State of New Mexico Oh yeah, and get paid to surf the web, while you're at it... http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=AVV-359 http://www.desktopdollars.com/default.asp?id=refund@nmt.edu (Hint: if you decide to join alladvantage.com, just tell me. You'll see why when you do...) [Attachment omitted, unknown MIME type or encoding (text/html)] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:13:58 -0400 From: "nanotech" Message-ID: <7v65jg$2ge1$1@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: TMBG: State Songs mp3s Anyone have them? Anyone have any? Could u email me the location nanotechcorp@yahoo.com? Thanks ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:25:08 -0500 From: "\"Bob \\\"1 message\\\" Scott\"" Message-ID: <38169AC4.48333CBE@conpoint.com> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: They Might Be Brilliance Chad Maloney wrote: > I guess I almost see TMBG as freeloading off their past 4 years. They > are working off stuff they did 4 years ago and getting away with it, > I guess because people are saying it could certainly be a lot worse. > I'd rather they put in the effort and give us another John Henry or > another Apollo 18 or another something totally different instead > of pulling out stuff from their live show from 4 years ago and > saying "here's some new stuff". > > I want the innovation back. I'm gonna venture out and say something, as I decided to peek in on what's been going on here (note: This is a single message. In no way does it signify my imminent and permanent return to this list.): As fans who are becoming discontent with the live performances of TMBG, perhaps you should look at the options that would serve your purposes. 1. Bitch and moan to a list that doesn't really care. Well, this has been going on for at least a year, and I don't see any major changes in the band because of it. 2. Stop going to the shows. This isn't to say you're not fans. It's just that by not attending shows (depending on how many people there are who are really so discontent with the same old TMBG), perhaps you'll send the band a message. Dwindling audiences at their performances would let them know how their fans feel, or perhaps even make them hang up their instruments for good! What joy! 3. Find a way of letting the Johns know what you think. I'm sure that there's some way to get constructive criticism to them through certain channels. Don't ask me how, though. You're the true fans! Oh, and from what I've heard of State Songs, *I* for one will continue to consider myself a fan, and the day they perform in Hicksville, USA, I'll be there! Bob "And now back to your Bob Scott-free list environment" Scott http://eagledna.cjb.net ------------------------------ From: LimeZinger@aol.com Message-ID: <0.cdf77dba.2547f72f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:35:27 EDT Subject: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was Re: narr. i wasn't gonna. but i am. and this is all i'm gonna say about it. (unless i think of something else.) ... > > >um, saying we don't like factory showroom isn't the same as saying they >suck. > >saying elements of their live show are getting stale isn't the same as >saying > >they suck. no, in a way, it is. the recent opnions posted here are an equivalent to saying "tmbg have been rather sucking lately." (or something like that.) comparing them to another band ("why can't they be more like this band? blah blah") is also putting them down somewhat. there is the argument of "tmbg don't change their setlist as much as (enter band here)! i hate tmbg concerts!" i don't understand how people who say this still go to see them. ...*and* still complain about it each time. as if it were a new occurrence. > >> no one said that. my only point was that fans shouldn't be so whiny when >a > >> previously prolific band becomes less so. tmbg put out about as much >as > >> other bands. well, not moxy fruvous of course. of *course*. > > > >whining? oh, of course. any criticism of anything must be whining. well "i want a new album, wah wah wah!" is closer to whining than criticism.. yes, in fact. it's rather greedy. you put out a new album if you want one so badly. my favourite band put out 3 albums (2 studio albums and a double live album) in a period of 16 months. that's pretty prolific. but note, i'm not saying "why can't tmbg be like my favourite band?" because i KNOW they are different bands. >We use Moxy Fruvous as the comparison because many people here are familiar > >with them. It's natural. If you were on the mailing list for another >band > >where a lot of fans were also familiar with TMBG, would you not use them >as an > >example? i think the fruvous comparisions are stupid. tmbg are not fruvous. fruvous are not tmbg. it's like apples and oranges. don't spit in my kool aid and call it pepsi. it's different. and i _am_ a fruvous fan. i just think there's absolutely no reason for comparison. > > >> *shrug* bands change. it's the same reason i don't like cure fans that >liked > >> 'em in the early 80's and hate their new stuff AND PERSIST TO BE ON LISTS > >> talking exclusively about how much they hate all the new stuff. "aww, >the > >> cure used to be so good! what happened?" > > > >and why shouldn't people stick around? go check out alt.music.sloan archives on deja, and read posts from a guy named ian who calls himself "zebra corp." there is your answer. > the list isn't > >current-tmbg-list@tmbg.org or tmbg-but-not-before-1994-list@tmbg.org It's > >tmbg-list@tmbg.org[1]. People who like TMBG can join it. Why is that >such a > >horrible thing? because the constant whining of how tmbg aren't living up to "godly fruvous standards" tends to scare away new list members? just a thought.. >the offtopic list. ok. I'm going to say this here and whoever doesn't >like > >it can just deal. the concept of an "offtopic list" is idiotic. have you been on it? seems silly to label something you've never seen before... >it's >like > >having a newsgroup alt.everything. do people get yelled at there for > >discussing tmbg, or can you discuss anything and everything? no one yells at anyone on the ot-list, because it is a friendly little group of people who love each other. > and if you >*can* > >discuss anything and everything, what's the point? having fun. something that i miss about this list. > >the idea for the offtopic list, among other things, have been those of >people > >who think they have the responsibility to Take Charge And Do Things No >Matter > >How Useless or Stupid They Are Just Because They Can. and usually not >very > >carefully thought out. i don't see it failing at all... do you have a problem with something that other people enjoy? is it harming you in any way? >The whole Careless Santa thread started because of that sort of thing. so if the tmbgofftopic list is done by people who (ahem, and i quote) "take charge and do things no matter how useless or stupid they are just because they can", explain to me the careless santa thread on *this* list, mm? >then go to your stupid offtopic list where everyone is happy and bouncy ooh, words, they hurt. ;p yeah, being happy sucks, right. happy people suck. >and no > >one ever speaks their mind because It Would Be Wrong To Criticise They >Might > >Be Giants, who are quite obviously the greatest band that ever existed >and > >will always be perfect, even when they're DEAD![2] tmbg are not my favourite band. so'xplain that. > >Do you know how boring this list would be if "I love TMBG. They are perfect > >and can do no wrong" was all anyone ever said? > > it's not what's being said, it's HOW it's being said. sarah ------------------------------ Message-Id: <199910270728.DAA69550@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:28:44 -0400 From: Jason Fickley Subject: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was At 01:45 AM 10/27/1999 -0400, lawrence solomon wrote: >the offtopic list. ok. I'm going to say this here and whoever doesn't like >it can just deal. the concept of an "offtopic list" is idiotic. it's like >having a newsgroup alt.everything. do people get yelled at there for >discussing tmbg, or can you discuss anything and everything? and if you *can* >discuss anything and everything, what's the point? Hmmmm....I generally try to stay out of all this confrontational shite that clutters the list, but I felt the need to put my two cents in on this one. I've never ventured into the little piece of cyberspace that is the offtopic list, but from what I've heard about it through this list it seems to be a relatively happy community, especially compared to this one. I'm guessing it's not meant to be an exclusively offtopic list, just more of a reaction against all of the bitching and moaning that goes on here. Lack of a better name, if you will. If you think that's dumb or idiotic or whatever, you're entitled to that opinion, but reducing yourself to virtual name-calling is really absurd. Also, there's nothing wrong with voicing your opinion on the state of the band if you think it's gone downhill. Just don't get all indignant when someone disagrees with you. (and I'm not speaking directly to LPS here) This is a TMBG list, after all. It shouldn't be entirely unexpected that there could be people here who actually *like* Factory Showroom, for example. (even...*gasp*...Pet Name!) In fact, I for example, recently made a tape of my fav TMBG songs, and Pet Name was included. So there. I'm not trying to single any one incident out, it just seems that there's an attitude among some people that the value of songs or albums is an objective matter. Just because you don't like a song doesn't mean it's a bad song. Sorry to stray so far off-topic, btw. (no pun intended) --Jason-- ------------------------------ From: MuseKJ@aol.com Message-ID: <0.ca6cd5b8.25484c52@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:38:42 EDT Subject: TMBG: Two John Linnell shows in Chicago Hey everybody: John Linnell will be playing at Schuba's in Chicago, IL on December 5th and 6th. Karen :-) MuseKJ@aol.com ------------------------------ Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991027083504.0096e5f0@130.127.28.14> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:57:56 -0400 From: Adam Tyner Subject: TMBG: Many responses At 01:45 AM 10/27/99 -0400, lawrence solomon wrote: >the offtopic list. ok. I'm going to say this here and whoever doesn't like >it can just deal. the concept of an "offtopic list" is idiotic. I can't speak for the off-topic list specifically because I haven't been on it, but I can say for sure that its purpose wasn't really acheived, although its intentions were good. After being frustrated that 95% of the posts on the TMBG Musings board were off-topic, I created another bulletin board (even using the same software, WebBBS, to keep the continuity) for off-topic discussion, and while that other board does receive posts, it's had little to no effect on the Musings board. If people are going to go off-topic, I don't think there's really anything that can be done. >The whole Careless Santa thread started because of that sort of thing. >Longest lasting thread on the tmbg-list, I think. I dunno...I think the longest thread was "Where's my OMLT money!?!?!" ;-) That said, where is my OMLT money? At 02:35 AM 10/27/99 -0400, LimeZinger@aol.com wrote: >there is the argument of "tmbg don't change their setlist as much as (enter >band here)! i hate tmbg concerts!" i don't understand how people who say >this still go to see them. ...*and* still complain about it each time. as >if it were a new occurrence. I've stopped going to shows...not in protest or anything, but mostly to recover that novelty aspect. If I wait a while between shows, maybe they'll seem fresher. (shrugs) I've done dumber things, I guess. >my favourite band put out 3 albums (2 studio >albums and a double live album) in a period of 16 months. that's pretty >prolific. but note, i'm not saying "why can't tmbg be like my favourite >band?" because i KNOW they are different bands. Sloan could learn from They Might Be Giants, too...maybe they could put out a music video compilation for release only on VHS, like TMBG. Oooh, wait a minute... >i think the fruvous comparisions are stupid. tmbg are not fruvous. fruvous >are not tmbg. it's like apples and oranges. don't spit in my kool aid and >call it pepsi. it's different. and i _am_ a fruvous fan. i just think >there's absolutely no reason for comparison. I try not to compare bands in terms of music, but by what they do. I don't think comparing TMBG to Moxy Fruvous is valid, but comparing Severe Tire Damage to Live Noise was accurate and worthwhile (and I did it, so...uh...whatever. I'm tired.). Just like we could've had a discussion on what about STD was better than "4 Nights At The Palais Royale" (sp? I'm too lazy to pick it up and check), what wasn't done quite as well, etc. Outside of live albums or other 'novelty' releases (which don't really apply to TMBG as much as other bands; for example, comparing the quality/content of CDs released through fan clubs), comparisons seem a bit silly. >it's not what's being said, it's HOW it's being said. The only thing that bothers me is how some people (just a few) are extrapolating that anyone who criticizes TMBG must hate them. This is definitely a problem I don't recall being on the list, at least since I've been on it (Summer '96). If we're on the list, we like TMBG and we're all friends. That's it. :-) At 03:28 AM 10/27/99 -0400, Jason Fickley wrote: >This is a TMBG list, after all. It shouldn't be entirely unexpected that >there could be people here who actually *like* Factory Showroom, for >example. (even...*gasp*...Pet Name!) In fact, I for example, recently made >a tape of my fav TMBG songs, and Pet Name was included. So there. FWIW, I like Pet Name too. :-) And opinions change...I didn't like Barenaked Ladies' "Born On A Pirate Ship" since its release, but now it's by far my favorite BNL album. Who knows? Maybe I'll feel the same way about Factory Showroom in a few years. >Just because you don't like a song doesn't mean it's a bad song. Aside from "Spitting Contest", which is a bad song. (Just kidding.) -Adam ------------------------------ From: MuseKJ@aol.com Message-ID: <0.402a22fe.2548580c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:28:44 EDT Subject: Re: TMBG: Many responses In a message dated 10/27/99 8:59:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ctyner@CLEMSON.EDU writes: << I can't speak for the off-topic list specifically because I haven't been on it, but I can say for sure that its purpose wasn't really acheived, although its intentions were good. After being frustrated that 95% of the posts on the TMBG Musings board were off-topic, I created another bulletin board (even using the same software, WebBBS, to keep the continuity) for off-topic discussion, and while that other board does receive posts, it's had little to no effect on the Musings board. If people are going to go off-topic, I don't think there's really anything that can be done. >> I can speak for the offtopic list because I am on it, and we actually receive (most of the time) a lot more messages than the ontopic list does...and we find it comfortable when we stray ontopic, as opposed to finding it uncomfortable when we stray offtopic on this list. If I do respond to an offtopic post that's been sent to this list, though, there's usually no way I can stay ontopic...and when others reply in kind to the same offtopic post, or my reply, the offtopicness just organically grows. It's just a natural thing that occasionally occurs on these kind of fan lists, and comes from our being humans, not robots -- unless we are self-disciplined enough to not respond to such offtopic posts (which doesn't necessarily mean that you've "become a robot") :-) Karen :-) MuseKJ@aol.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <3816C9DC.3841BFC5@bu.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:46:05 +0000 From: Casey Schreiner Organization: Boston University Subject: TMBG: Re: Favorite State State Songs is definately one of the best CDs I've bought in a long, long time. The music is kind of strange- not bizarre enough to scare people away, but just interesting enough to make people say, "Hey, what *IS* that?" (as someone asked yesterday when she was walking by my dorm room), and Linnell's voice magnificently soars over the whole CD. Did I mention how catchy the songs are? True to "The Songs of the 50 States," they kept me up all night listening to them :) As for favorites, it's really hard to pick, since I love all of them to death, but I think Arkansas is very cool: "..built on a scale of 1:1.... avast, ye hardys..." :) My favorite, though has got to be Iowa, even though she casts a spell on poor Vermont. -Casey ------------------------------ Message-ID: <381703B7.5CCE3942@fruhead.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:52:55 -0400 From: lawrence solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was LimeZinger@aol.com wrote: > no, in a way, it is. the recent opnions posted here are an equivalent to > saying "tmbg have been rather sucking lately." (or something like that.) > comparing them to another band ("why can't they be more like this band? blah > blah") is also putting them down somewhat. I think that, for the most part, the people who see our arguments as saying "TMBG suck" are those who also think that we shouldn't say anything negative about them at all, ever. And besides, when have I ever been known to *not* speak my mind, eh? :) > there is the argument of "tmbg don't change their setlist as much as (enter > band here)! i hate tmbg concerts!" i don't understand how people who say > this still go to see them. ...*and* still complain about it each time. as > if it were a new occurrence. but it's not the shows themselves we have a problem with. it's the fact that they're not really doing much new anymore. One individual isolated show is great. Hell, two individual isolated shows are great. But I think Chad is right - when they come back to a given city on a different tour, it only makes sense to do something different. I think you're making quite a leap of logic, there. > well "i want a new album, wah wah wah!" is closer to whining than > criticism.. yes, in fact. it's rather greedy. you put out a new album if > you want one so badly. my favourite band put out 3 albums (2 studio > albums and a double live album) in a period of 16 months. that's pretty > prolific. but note, i'm not saying "why can't tmbg be like my favourite > band?" because i KNOW they are different bands. hmmm. I don't think anyone is specifically saying "Why can't tmbg be like Moxy Fruvous," but more "They could learn a few things from Moxy Fruvous and other bands." The question I've been asking is why can't TMBG be more like TMBG? Even *they* talked about the "two year rule." > i think the fruvous comparisions are stupid. tmbg are not fruvous. fruvous > are not tmbg. it's like apples and oranges. don't spit in my kool aid and > call it pepsi. it's different. and i _am_ a fruvous fan. i just think > there's absolutely no reason for comparison. I'd say that the people who make such comparisons know quite well that they're different bands, and to a degree, that's the point in such comparisons. The whole idea with a live album, for example, being that TMBG might be fun to *see* live, but to some degree, it just doesn't translate well to CD. And yes, I do collect TMBG bootlegs, but for the most part, I'm doing it for the songs. I think some of the shows *are* pretty boring to listen to, but were probably fun for the people there. By your argument, nothing at all should ever be compared to anything else, because, after all, everything is different. (also, just a note, if I spit in your kool aid, it would most likely taste a lot better than pepsi :) > because the constant whining of how tmbg aren't living up to "godly fruvous > standards" tends to scare away new list members? just a thought.. I think if anything it's criticism that TMBG aren't living up to "godly TMBG standards," and "what happened?" And if you're worried about scaring away new list members, then I'd say the problem lies in those who feel the need to bitch out the people who have commented about the direction TMBG have or haven't taken. These things come up in discussions, and then someone decides to flame someone for it. *That's* when it gets scary for new members, I think. > have you been on it? seems silly to label something you've never seen > before... the concept of it, not necessarily the list itself. > no one yells at anyone on the ot-list, because it is a friendly little group > of people who love each other. oh, how sickening. > i don't see it failing at all... do you have a problem with something that > other people enjoy? is it harming you in any way? no, it's not harming me, it just seems really pointless. > so if the tmbgofftopic list is done by people who (ahem, and i quote) "take > charge and do things no matter how useless or stupid they are just because > they can", explain to me the careless santa thread on *this* list, mm? um, the "Take charge" part was meant to distinguish the people who do things *for other people* as opposed to people who just do things because they can. The way I see it, a lot of the new things that have popped up over the last year or two have been the work of a couple of people who thought everyone would want it. before really checking things out. granted, the offtopic list has apparently met with a lot of success, but I think that people should find out their leadership is wanted before trying to take charge and do everything. my careless santa postings are just because it's silly. > ooh, words, they hurt. ;p yeah, being happy sucks, right. happy people > suck. it was meant to all be one phrase. "happy bouncy and no one....." because I think it would be annoying to not be able to speak one's mind about things because everyone's supposed to have an artificially happy attitude, because Saying Anything Bad About TMBG Would Be Wrong. not to mention that by "happy bouncy" I intended to mean "obnoxiously happy," or "so happy it makes you want to puke." You know? The people who plaster their walls with corny motivational posters and stuff because why should anyone ever have anything negative to say ever? And talk in that soft, lulling tone that everyone hates, too. *That's* what I was talking about. > tmbg are not my favourite band. so'xplain that. it was *sarcasm*. > it's not what's being said, it's HOW it's being said. ah, so it's "TMBG suck, but I mean that in the nicest way possible?" -- lawrence solomon * http://www.fruhead.com/users/zaph * zaph@fruhead.com "You knew it was true, when I held you, there were no secrets. I believed it." -Moxy Fruvous, _I Will Hold On_ ------------------------------ Message-ID: <38170A9A.40125588@home.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:22:18 -0400 From: moses Subject: TMBG: Soul [Unknown MIME type or encoding (text/html), contents not processed] ------------------------------ Message-ID: <445F423C4F7BD211893900A0C9E4564153F58A@mail.schicktech.com> From: Robert Plass Subject: TMBG: TMBG Rules! Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:20:31 -0400 Hello exquisite living people, With regards to the recent thread about TMBG live setlists, all I have to say is that any concert TMBG plays is awesome. All of their music is absolutely perfect and the greatest thing in the universe and I am just happy to be alive and be at the concert to experience the greatness that is the Johns. I don't care if John and John go up on stage and play poker for an hour. Whatever. As long as I'm at least in the same room as John and John, I will feel the happiest I could possibly be in my whole life and whether they play a particular song or not is irrelevant. Even a single note from TMBG is enough to make me thrilled. Any music they bestow upon us is a wonderful gift and I could not possibly complain about receiving it. Okay. In other news, I got my State Songs autographed at the in-store and I also got my Austin Powers II Vol 2 autographed too and you can see it as well as other cool TMBG stuff not available anywhere else at my website http://i.am/announcement/ Love, Rob Plass ------------------------------ From: MuseKJ@aol.com Message-ID: <0.4e49c5bb.25486598@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:26:32 EDT Subject: TMBG: My little aside...please excuse our appearance (list construction LimeZinger@aol.com wrote: > because the constant whining of how tmbg aren't living up to "godly fruvous > standards" tends to scare away new list members? just a thought.. and then Lawrence wrote: <> Personally, I think it's 50% of each that might scare new list members...hopping onto this list in the middle of a lovely little reference flame war back in March of this year didn't exactly give me the best first impression. And, to dig down to an even more personal note, I've always found that you can get more flies with honey than you can with vinegar...After all these months on this list, I honestly sometimes wonder if you have a warm fuzzy side hiding somewhere underneath that critical exterior, Lawrence (I for one, have liked imagining that you do). Karen "woman says 'I thought he was with you' " Riley MuseKJ@aol.com Karen :-) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <381710A4.CC2A80A1@fruhead.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:48:04 -0400 From: lawrence solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: My little aside...please excuse our appearance (list MuseKJ@aol.com wrote: > these months on this list, I honestly sometimes wonder if you have a warm > fuzzy side hiding somewhere underneath that critical exterior, Lawrence (I > for one, have liked imagining that you do). oh, of course, but I guess it's just that I see less need to actively agree with people on the list than I do to respond to something when I disagree. (you thought people complained a lot when it got off topic - imagine how it would be if everyone posted "me too!" all the time :) -- lawrence solomon * http://www.fruhead.com/users/zaph * zaph@fruhead.com "You knew it was true, when I held you, there were no secrets. I believed it." -Moxy Fruvous, _I Will Hold On_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:49:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199910271049.AA207290494@megahits.com> From: "Lee Steel" Subject: Re: TMBG: TMBG Rules! I couldn't agree more with every point you have made. This whole live performance issue has been beaten to death! We ARE very lucky to be able to enjoy thier live performances, no matter what they might be. People 100 years from now may have the oportunity to read these digests and they will be the ones to point out how spoiled we all really are. -Lee ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Robert Plass Reply-To: Robert Plass Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:20:31 -0400 >Hello exquisite living people, > >With regards to the recent thread about TMBG live >setlists, all I have to say is that any concert TMBG >plays is awesome. All of their music is absolutely >perfect and the greatest thing in the universe and I >am just happy to be alive and be at the concert to >experience the greatness that is the Johns. I don't >care if John and John go up on stage and play poker >for an hour. Whatever. As long as I'm at least in the >same room as John and John, I will feel the happiest >I could possibly be in my whole life and whether they >play a particular song or not is irrelevant. Even a >single note from TMBG is enough to make me thrilled. >Any music they bestow upon us is a wonderful gift and >I could not possibly complain about receiving it. > >Okay. > >In other news, I got my State Songs autographed at >the in-store and I also got my Austin Powers II Vol 2 >autographed too and you can see it as well as other >cool TMBG stuff not available anywhere else at my >website http://i.am/announcement/ > >Love, > >Rob Plass > ------------------------------ From: MuseKJ@aol.com Message-ID: <0.8a04ca74.2548716b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:16:59 EDT Subject: TMBG: An interesting find.... I just realized something, rereading over the "state info" section inside the State Songs CD...I remember Linnell stating that his relative who is pictured on the album cover of Lincoln was his great-grandfather, whose name was "Louis T. Linnell," from Illinois in the 1880s. Now, in the state info for the song "Illinois" on the State songs album, John gives us the following information: "In 1875 my great-grandfather Josiah Linnell brought his family there to establish a homestead where he could grow fruit for the Chicago market." Now, John (and anyone else, of course) would have eight great-grandfathers, all with different last names -- *unless* there were cousins (or some other family relationship) in his family that married one another at one point, where he would end up with two great-grandfathers with the surname Linnell. But what I'm thinking is that Louis is John's great-grandfather, and Josiah is his great-great grandfather. Some folks just leave out the extra "greats," and refer to all generations of their grandparentage as "grandparents," or "great-grandparents," even though it might be someone who was their great-great-great-great grandparent. A more officious way to describe which great-grandparent you mean, and which saves on confusion between which generation grandparent you are talking about, is numbering them according to superior rank in your family tree, which runs on a patriarchal basis (the males figures are considered in a higher rank in our family trees than the female ones) -- but most people don't know about this fact, don't understand it, or don't care..so "great-grandfather" is what they are all often called by most people. Karen "in hyper-warp librarian speed...somebody pull the plug!" Riley MuseKJ@aol.com ------------------------------ From: MuseKJ@aol.com Message-ID: <0.a3d90c35.25487331@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:24:33 EDT Subject: TMBG: Oops concerning my last post... <> Darn, I meant to change the above date to 1800s, as I'm not exactly sure which part of the 1800s Louis was supposedly from. Sorry about the typo. Karen :-) MuseKJ@aol.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19991027155931.98923.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:59:30 PDT Lawrence: > > well "i want a new album, wah wah wah!" is closer to whining than > > criticism.. yes, in fact. it's rather greedy. you put out a new album >if > > you want one so badly. my favourite band put out 3 albums (2 >studio > > albums and a double live album) in a period of 16 months. that's >pretty > > prolific. but note, i'm not saying "why can't tmbg be like my favourite > > band?" because i KNOW they are different bands. > >hmmm. I don't think anyone is specifically saying "Why can't tmbg be like >Moxy Fruvous," but more "They could learn a few things from Moxy Fruvous >and >other bands." The question I've been asking is why can't TMBG be more like >TMBG? Even *they* talked about the "two year rule." The Johns did SAY that there was supposed to be a studio album out this year, so I suppose the complaints about there NOT being one have some foundation. Then again, who's ever heard of an album coming out on its intended release date? >the offtopic list. ok. I'm going to say this here and whoever >doesn't >like >it can just deal. the concept of an "offtopic list" is idiotic. >it's >like >having a newsgroup alt.everything. do people get yelled at there for >discussing tmbg, or can you discuss anything and everything? and if >you >*can* >discuss anything and everything, what's the point? You mean you can't talk about anything unless you have a set topic? >people, it's tmbg-list@tmbg.org, not tmbg-list@tmbg.com (although >both >seem to work) That's interesting. I suppose they do both run on the same server, though. Nick: >As far as I know, I am the only living person on this >planet - the rest of you could just be puppets, or something. You're the only real person. We're all actually androids, put here for you. Goodbye, blue Monday! sarah: >narr. Swing is a word, six feet down. >the recent opnions posted here are an equivalent to saying "tmbg have been >rather sucking lately." (or something like >that.) I think another thing about this list as it's been recently is that the ONLY threads that tend to take off at all are ones that criticize TMBG (and the Careless Santa stuff, but that's beside the point). Maybe some positive discussion to balance things out would be of some benefit, and make the list seem a bit more pleasant. And "I love everything TMBG does!" doesn't count, since there really isn't anything to discuss there. There must be something that we can discuss that won't degenerate into a flame war, though. Hey, I have an idea! What about that new Linnell solo album? I suppose a lot of us don't have it yet (I know I don't), but that strikes me as something that we can discuss without a whole lot of flames (although I could be wrong about that). >having fun. something that i miss about this list. You can't have fun here! It's been outlawed! All you can get here are Puritan ethics! >do you have a problem with something that other people enjoy? is it > >harming you in any way? Maybe the off-topic list is spitting into Lawrence's Kool-Aid. Don't ask me; I'm still trying to run away from Oregon. -- Relaxing on my hands and knees, relaxing on my face, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19991027160334.67835.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: TMBG: An interesting find.... Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:03:34 PDT Karen Riley wrote: > I just realized something, rereading over the "state info" section >inside >the State Songs CD...I remember Linnell stating that his relative who is >pictured on the album cover of Lincoln was his great-grandfather, whose >name >was "Louis T. Linnell," from Illinois in the 1880s. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Louis was John's grandfather, with no greats at all. I'm pretty sure that General Hospital was John Flansburgh's father's father, and the pictures on the Lincoln album would be more consistent if they were both grandfathers. Louis is probably John's father's father, unless both of his parents were Linnells (which doesn't necessarily mean inbreeding, although that might explain those exposed veins). -- Relaxing on my hands and knees, relaxing on my face, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: tmbgirl@juno.com Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:05:40 -0400 Subject: Re: TMBG: TMBG Rules! Message-ID: <19991027.120547.-393627.0.TMBgirl@juno.com> Hey rob... one quick question... isn't it different levels of being thrilled? like sitting in the same room is cool. and then you mention how awesome it would be if they just played one note. You further it by saying that the fact that we get to hear all these full songs is incredible. (right? correct me if i've misinterpreted or skewed your comments at all thus far). So in a sense i think you're backing up all of us "long-time" fans by explaining that there are different levels of being "thrilled." So that while we're just greedy and impatient wanting to get back to the times when TMBG was at that top level of thrilldom - you, somehow, have managed to remember that it's all great and can be satisfied with that. It's like the alcoholic's syndrome... you give 'em a little and it's great. The next time, you give 'em a little more and they can handle it so the time after that they want just as much if not more and will be somewhat dissapointed with anything less (or if they have to go back to the original). But if they don't get as much, they do recognize that it's still something and that's worth a lot. "take it easy, JOrdaN" http://www2.netcom.com/~arnot/joda/bootlegs.html http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palladium/3404/frustuff.html ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991027121830.00961760@130.127.28.14> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:19:29 -0400 From: Adam Tyner Subject: Re: TMBG: Many responses D'oh, d'oh, d'oh...I meant to put a qualifier in that message. Off-topic posts are completely, totally fine with me. It only bothers me when it gets out of hand, and if you take a look at the TMBG Musings board, you'll see what I mean. I don't think there's excessive off-topic posting here. -Adam At 09:28 AM 10/27/99 -0400, MuseKJ@aol.com wrote: >It's just a natural thing that occasionally occurs on these kind of fan >lists, and comes from our being humans, not robots -- unless we are >self-disciplined enough to not respond to such offtopic posts (which doesn't >necessarily mean that you've "become a robot") :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:54:48 -0400 From: Adrienne Spruill Message-ID: <38172E58.2BAD9C59@epix.net> Organization: Student Subject: TMBG: Re: Concert photos from the four Bowery shows up! I like the one pic taken on 10-20 of linnell with the blue background. -A The Demonic Kangaroo wrote: > > Hey, I just posted all the shots of TMBG I took at the four recent Bowery > Ballroom shows in New York City. I have also included some shots of the > opening acts.. I got some especically great shots of the Duo set on 10/21.. > check it totally out! > > -Mike > > http://www.ccnj.com/~tdk/tmbg.html ~ Go to my photos section. > > PS Look for my upcoming You Were Spirlaing website! ------------------------------ From: Matt James Message-Id: <199910271714.NAA14801@fellspt.charm.net> Subject: Re: TMBG: An interesting find.... Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:14:15 -0400 (EDT) > Karen Riley wrote: > > I just realized something, rereading over the "state info" section > >inside > >the State Songs CD...I remember Linnell stating that his relative who is > >pictured on the album cover of Lincoln was his great-grandfather, whose > >name > >was "Louis T. Linnell," from Illinois in the 1880s. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Louis was John's grandfather, > with no greats at all. I'm pretty sure that General Hospital was John > Flansburgh's father's father, and the pictures on the Lincoln album would be > more consistent if they were both grandfathers. Louis is probably John's > father's father, unless both of his parents were Linnells (which doesn't > necessarily mean inbreeding, although that might explain those exposed > veins). > -- If it is a shot from the 1800s, I'd find it hard to believe that it's Linnell's grandfather, although I think I've heard that it was supposed to be his grandfather in the past. Since Linnell was born in 1959, even if his father was 40 when his wife had Linnell and and Linnell's grandfather's wife had Linnell's dad when he was 40, that'd still make Linnell's grandfather 20 in 1899. Now looking at this pictures, those men have to be at least late 30s/early 40s. It'd probably make more sense if it was Linnell's great grandfather pictured on the Lincoln cover. So Karen's theory that it was his great-great grandfather that moved to Chicago in 1875 seems to make more sense. -Matt ------------------------------ From: MuseKJ@aol.com Message-ID: <0.a59f0342.25488f15@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:23:33 EDT Subject: Re: TMBG: An interesting find.... In a message dated 10/27/99 12:05:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, xornom@hotmail.com writes: << Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Louis was John's grandfather, with no greats at all. I'm pretty sure that General Hospital was John Flansburgh's father's father, and the pictures on the Lincoln album would be more consistent if they were both grandfathers. Louis is probably John's father's father, unless both of his parents were Linnells (which doesn't necessarily mean inbreeding, although that might explain those exposed veins). >> Yeah, that's what I thought a while back, when I first learned that the Johns' "grandfathers" were the photos on the Lincoln album (thinking that both were grandfathers, neither of them being great-grandfathers), but then I read a few things, such as some TMBG interviews and the following piece from The TMBG "Early Years" FAQ, which corrected me: 3.5 What's the deal with the cover art? ----------------------- Created by zithermaster/furniture craftsman Brian Dewan, it pictures John Linnell's great-grandfather (L), Louis T. Linnell, and Flansburgh's grandfather, whom he facetiously (?) identifies as General Hospital. The monument, which sits in Flansburgh's apartment, stands slightly higher than a television set on an average-size TV stand. The photos in question also appear in the "Ana Ng" video. So, I guess I am still more of the belief that Josiah Linnell is John's great-great paternal grandfather (Louis T. Linnell's father). Karen "Band Organs R Us" Riley MuseKJ@aol.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19991027173853.61763.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: TMBG: An interesting find.... Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:38:52 PDT Karen Riley wrote: >In a message dated 10/27/99 12:05:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >xornom@hotmail.com writes: > ><< Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Louis was John's >grandfather, > with no greats at all. I'm pretty sure that General Hospital was John > Flansburgh's father's father, and the pictures on the Lincoln album would >be > more consistent if they were both grandfathers. Louis is probably John's > father's father, unless both of his parents were Linnells (which doesn't > necessarily mean inbreeding, although that might explain those exposed > veins). >> >Yeah, that's what I thought a while back, when I first learned that the >Johns' "grandfathers" were the photos on the Lincoln album (thinking that >both were grandfathers, neither of them being great-grandfathers), but then >I >read a few things, such as some TMBG interviews and the following piece >from >The TMBG "Early Years" FAQ, which corrected me: > >3.5 What's the deal with the cover art? ----------------------- > Created by zithermaster/furniture craftsman Brian Dewan, it > pictures John Linnell's great-grandfather (L), Louis T. Linnell, > and Flansburgh's grandfather, whom he facetiously (?) > identifies as General Hospital. The monument, which sits > in Flansburgh's apartment, stands slightly higher than a > television set on an average-size TV stand. The photos > in question also appear in the "Ana Ng" video. > > >So, I guess I am still more of the belief that Josiah Linnell is John's >great-great paternal grandfather (Louis T. Linnell's father). Ah. I stand corrected. Or sit corrected, rather. -- Relaxing on my hands and knees, relaxing on my face, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: MuseKJ@aol.com Message-ID: <0.36e7f0fb.254895d2@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:52:18 EDT Subject: Re: TMBG: What are we going to do about grandpa's image? In a message dated 10/27/99 1:15:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, elrond@charm.net writes: << Now looking at this pictures, those men have to be at least late 30s/early 40s. It'd probably make more sense if it was Linnell's great grandfather pictured on the Lincoln cover. >> Also, if you look at the clothing a person is wearing, types of mustaches and beards the person might have, and the type of photograph it is (there are different methods of photography throughout the years), it is possible to gauge around what time period a photo was taken (although that is a talent I am not too proficient in, yet). It's amazing to see photographic experts tell when an ancient portrait was taken, sometimes getting the date down to the *year* it was taken, based on some simple clues and known patterns. I am 34, and have photos of my great-great grandfather and great-great grandmother too (from my maternal side, though)...the portraits are the same size as ones held up in the Ana Ng video. A lot of portrait photographs in the 1800s were just that big...I bet the photograph of Flansburgh's grandfather was blown up bigger, to match the size of Linnell's older photo for the Lincoln album cover. My photos have to be restored a bit, though. If you're wondering how photography studios fix flaws in such huge old photographs: first they carefully take the photo out of any frame it's in, take a picture of the photo...they touch up the negative they produce from this, and then produce another (now fixed) photograph from the retouched negative. The original photo itself is never corrected. It's always nice to have two versions of such old portraits, in case of fire or something (remembering to keep each version in a different building, of course :-) Karen " ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19991027203709.57740.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Ian Power" Subject: TMBG: Can an accordion be tuned? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:37:08 EDT The other day I tried to arrange "Shoehorn With Teeth" for a sax group. While playing along with my keyboard, I noticed that the Lincoln recording is wildly out of tune. I understand that Linnell's old Bari Sax didn't have the best intonation, but how did they get the accordion and glockinspiel to conincide? So what's gonna happen to Chess Piece Face? -Ian Power ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19991027204718.49272.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "John Landis" Subject: Re: TMBG: TMBG Suck! Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:47:17 PDT >I also haven't seen anyone claim to be their Number One Fan, as you say. >What > we have been doing is disputing the claim that a fan of a band must >absolutely > adore everything they do and never criticise it I feel a need to represent those of us who, as sick as it is, love TMBG unconditionally. Those of us who, if one day, went to a TMBG show and saw people in line drinking little plastic cus of cool aid, would get in line. Sure, years ago, when it all started, I listened because I thought the music was great. I still do. The difference now is that I've worked myself very deeply into the notion that "TMBG = Good" that I can no longer recognise any facts in contrary to that statement. If I were to hear a new TMBG song, and it was bad, I would not know. If they have lost their creative edge, I have no Idea. I applaud those who can recognise problems, but try to understand that for some of us, I'm not sure how many there are, we are uncapable of that realisation. It's irrational. It may even be wrong. I don't care. I'm having fun. I'm a hero worshiper. Love and all, John "the third John" Landis ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <38176933.F725F26C@fruhead.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:05:55 -0400 From: lawrence solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Can an accordion be tuned? Ian Power wrote: > The other day I tried to arrange "Shoehorn With Teeth" for a sax group. > While playing along with my keyboard, I noticed that the Lincoln recording > is wildly out of tune. I understand that Linnell's old Bari Sax didn't have > the best intonation, but how did they get the accordion and glockinspiel to > conincide? I have tried this, too, and wondered the same thing... the instrumentation on the album version of Shoehorn with Teeth is baritone sax, bass clarinet, accordion, and glockenspiel. The glockenspiel seems to be hitting a high A when it's used, and the others seem to be playing in approximately the key of D. It actually turns out to be somewhere between D and D#/Eb. The arrangement has sort of a detuned feel to it, so it's quite possible that the instruments *aren't* in tune with each other. But then again, that might just be standard saxophone timbre messing with our ears. An accordion *can* be tuned, and most aren't in tune unless they're brand new. (because to tune an accordion you have to open it up and change the sizes of all the reeds, and it's a real pain) However, a glockenspiel, especially one where only one note is being used, is remarkably easy to tune. All it takes is a good file. :) The shift he was using on Shoehorn sounds like it's a detuned one, as in, there are two reeds tuned to almost the same note, but one is a few cents sharp and the other is a few cents flat, so they come out with a vibrato sound to them, and the beats are perfectly on key. But if one of those gets out of tune, the whole thing will sound out of tune. I'm having this problem with my accordion now, because it's a few years old, and hasn't been kept under the best climatic conditions... Another idea is that the saxophone is off from the clarinet. Perhaps they did this deliberately to achieve the desired effect (where that effect was confusing the hell out of anyone who tried to figure it out :) because I doubt they'd have been satisfied with an out of tune recording otherwise. Although I'd guess that most people don't have precise enough senses of pitch to really notice. The other possible explanation is that the recording got sped up ever so slightly, after having been recorded in D. (or slowed down after being recorded in Eb) Having had the opportunity to see this played in concert on the accordion a couple of times, I can say that at shows he plays it in D. -- lawrence solomon * http://www.fruhead.com/users/zaph * zaph@fruhead.com "You knew it was true, when I held you, there were no secrets. I believed it." -Moxy Fruvous, _I Will Hold On_ ------------------------------ Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991027164035.00967240@130.127.28.14> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:41:31 -0400 From: Adam Tyner Subject: Re: TMBG: Can an accordion be tuned? I've never had to do it, but I've been told that accordions can be tuned by shaving bits off the reeds inside. Too dangerous for me. :-) -Adam At 04:37 PM 10/27/99 -0400, Ian Power wrote: > The other day I tried to arrange "Shoehorn With Teeth" for a sax group. >While playing along with my keyboard, I noticed that the Lincoln recording >is wildly out of tune. I understand that Linnell's old Bari Sax didn't >have the best intonation, but how did they get the accordion >and glockinspiel to conincide? ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19991027215747.14348.rocketmail@web220.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:57:47 -0700 (PDT) From: KRS Tyler Subject: TMBG: Re: Chris's fav. states hmm. prior to the whole album being relesed my favorate state song was defenatly south carolina but now i think my favorite is Iowa other favorates Montana Utah Mississippi Idaho New Hampshire but defenatly not NEVADA, it's so bad i'm sorry but it is ahh i'm listening to it right now well this parts good but once this ends who wants 7 minutes of parade zach thinks john linnell should have gone around with a tape recorder and recorded himself trying to pick up women and put it over this part and yes i agree. -Chris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 05:49:21 -0400 Subject: Re: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was Re: TMBG: TMBG Suck! Message-ID: <19991027.054923.-559929.0.hotel_detective1@juno.com> From: Capn eriKa rae So, I sat here and said to myself, "I'm not gonna say anything, I'm not gonna say anything, et cetera." But here I am. I guess this shows I need to better set goals for myself. First of all, if I really wanted to hear people complain about TMBG, I could have sat some of my friends down, made them all sit through John Henry, and then ask them what they think. That was the entire reason I joined this list a little over a year ago - I wanted to find fellow fans. >there is the argument of "tmbg don't change their setlist >as much as (enter band here)! i hate tmbg concerts!" I was thinking about this a bit. Judging from Karen's reports of the Bowery Shows, at least those for shows were pretty varied, actually. I mean, They had a day full of early stuff, They had an Apollo 18 show, stuff like that. But cut 'em some slack. When you've had *at least* 15 songs on each album you make over the course of tenplus years, you're not gonna be able to keep them all tucked away in the corners of your mind. And besides, no one goes to your (you being the term of the general public) job and goes, "Liven it up, will ya! You're boring me! Why can't you be more like John Doe two offices over!" (but eriKa, They're supposed to entertain us...) If you go to a TMBG show and are completely bored, then that probably says something more about your fandom than the band. >i think the fruvous comparisions are stupid. tmbg are not fruvous. fruvous >are not tmbg. it's like apples and oranges. don't spit in my kool aid and >call it pepsi. it's different. and i _am_ a fruvous fan. i just think >there's absolutely no reason for comparison. Why can't this sausage be more like Ben Folds? dammit! >and why shouldn't people stick around? Because most people don't like listening to incessant bickering. That could be a reason. But what do I know? >the concept of an "offtopic list" is idiotic. And the concept of this list gets a little blurier everyday. >have you been on it? seems silly to label something you've never seen >before... "Well, if I'm not on it, it's pretty effing stupid!" >no one yells at anyone on the ot-list, because it is a friendly little group >of people who love each other. This is true. I love being on the Offtopic List, and I adore everyone on it. Everyone on it - Bob Scott, Karen, Mike Leffel, multiple Sarahs, bridgie, jim k., Nathan, Jamal, everyone on there are really wonderful people. We have fun, and it's a great place to be. >i don't see it failing at all... The OT List has gone from having barely six or seven posting members in its earliest days, to having over twenty-five posting members and probably more lurking. If anything, it's thriving. It's gained at least five new members in the past month or so. >>then go to your stupid offtopic list where everyone is happy and bouncy >ooh, words, they hurt. ;p yeah, being happy sucks, right. happy people >suck. I forgot, I have to be sulking and hate everything! Silly me! ever-sincere, eriKa, poopie face! -- let's start a flame war! "It's been cool to be cool for too long now, and now it's cool not to be cool." - Ben Folds "Actually, I just like to saying smock. Smock smock smock smock smock smock!" - Hobbes hotel_detective1@juno.com, couple_skate@juno.com, JannisDoe@hotmail.com ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:11:27 -0400 From: Adrienne Spruill Message-ID: <3817788F.83EE943B@epix.net> Organization: Student Subject: Re: TMBG: Can an accordion be tuned? A general rule of thumb...anything...and i mean that...can be tuned by shaving, cutting, pushing or pulling, you just run the risk of breaking it thats all. :o) -A Adam Tyner wrote: > > I've never had to do it, but I've been told that accordions can be tuned by > shaving bits off the reeds inside. Too dangerous for me. :-) > > -Adam > > At 04:37 PM 10/27/99 -0400, Ian Power wrote: > > The other day I tried to arrange "Shoehorn With Teeth" for a sax group. > >While playing along with my keyboard, I noticed that the Lincoln recording > >is wildly out of tune. I understand that Linnell's old Bari Sax didn't > >have the best intonation, but how did they get the accordion > >and glockinspiel to conincide? ------------------------------ Message-ID: <38177B52.F2BB4F80@fruhead.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:23:14 -0400 From: lawrence solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Re: Bridget was the first person here who said "tmbg suck" was Capn eriKa rae wrote: > First of all, if I really wanted to hear people complain > about TMBG, I could have sat some of my friends down, > made them all sit through John Henry, and then ask them > what they think. That was the entire reason I joined this > list a little over a year ago - I wanted to find fellow fans. and you've found fellow fans, some of whom happen to have different opinions from yours. oh, the horror. > I was thinking about this a bit. Judging from Karen's reports > of the Bowery Shows, at least those for shows were pretty > varied, actually. I mean, They had a day full of early stuff, > They had an Apollo 18 show, stuff like that. But cut 'em some > slack. When you've had *at least* 15 songs on each album you > make over the course of tenplus years, you're not gonna be > able to keep them all tucked away in the corners of your mind. yeah, and you know what? I'd guess that they won't play most of those songs again, except maybe at more "special" shows in New York City. What's the point of learning a song for *one* show? I think more of the problem comes from the frequent changes the band goes through. Back when they used a tape, they could do pretty much anything they wanted without having to worry about teaching other people their own songs, which they presumably already knew. And until late 1995, they had a very stable band that could play close to 100 songs, maybe even more. Then Tony left, and they taught Graham most of the songs that Tony knew. Then Brian left, and they taught Dan 40 songs. He learned a few more over the years - new songs, a handful more they decided to revive, and so on. But then Graham left, and Hal showed up. He learned about 50 songs, give or take. Then he left and Danny Weinkauf came along. And they were back to square one. Maybe this band will stay stable enough to actually develop a fairly large repertoire. > And besides, no one goes to your (you being the term of the > general public) job and goes, "Liven it up, will ya! You're boring > me! Why can't you be more like John Doe two offices over!" actually, they do - if you're not doing your job as interestingly or as well as, say, someone who came in for an interview last week, they might very well be your replacement. > If you go to a TMBG show and are completely bored, then that > probably says something more about your fandom than the band. you're saying they're not allowed to have an off day even? I've seen shows that just are... lacking. Sometimes they just don't have energy. Sometimes the audience isn't into it. That contributes a lot to a show experience. I enjoy the shows I go to. Even if they played the same exact songs every time, I'd enjoy the shows. But they are changing their setlist some. It's the between song banter that's getting *really* stale. And the props. In 1994 they had Brian Doherty play the glockenspiel on Shoehorn for one very important reason - most of the audience hadn't yet heard the fast version of Why Does the Sun Shine. So they'd bring the glockenspiel out, and everyone would think they'd do WDTSS? but they played Shoehorn. Brian would tend to liven up his glockenspiel playing, kind of like Dan does, and then he'd take his seat behind the drums and later in the set they'd play WDTSS. When they did Shoehorn in 1996, Brian sat at his drum set and hit a cymbal for the glockenspiel part. Now everyone pretty much knows about the fast version of the Sun, especially since it's on Severe Tire Damage. And they've been doing the Dan on glockenspiel thing for almost 3 years now. That's just one example. > Why can't this sausage be more like Ben Folds? dammit! Because it's an apple, and he's an orange. > Because most people don't like listening to incessant bickering. That > could be a reason. But what do I know? and if you'll note, most of the people you seem to oppose are trying to make reasonable points, and then someone comes along and says something like "Don't insult my favorite band! What kind of fan are you?" > And the concept of this list gets a little blurier everyday. does it? it's the tmbg-list. We discuss TMBG and things that would be relevant or interesting to TMBG fans. Seems perfectly clear to me. > I forgot, I have to be sulking and hate everything! Silly me! No, but the incessant happiness that everyone on the OT list seems to rave about gets really old really fast. Howabout honesty? Did that ever occur to anyone? To be honest about their opinions and feelings, rather than covering them up and saying "Everything's fine?" -- lawrence solomon * http://www.fruhead.com/users/zaph * zaph@fruhead.com "You knew it was true, when I held you, there were no secrets. I believed it." -Moxy Fruvous, _I Will Hold On_ ------------------------------ End of tmbg-list Digest #22-28 ******************************