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 #19-19 tmbg-list Digest, Volume 19, Number 19 Monday, 19 July 1999 Today's Topics: Re: NON-TMBG: The TMBG-list -Reply A.M.TMBG:Long Tall Weekend Review Re: NON-TMBG: To Karen and the rest. Feeling like a bastard...Deservedly Re: TMBG: TMBG = Beatles? Re: NONTMBG: TMBG-Related: A song, to Karen and the Rest Re: NON-TMBG: To Karen and the rest. Feeling like a bastard...Deservedly Re: TMBG: TMBG = Beatles? Semi-TMBG: The TMBG list Re: Some TMBG: The TMBG-list TMBG: LTW review TMBG:Long Tall Weekend Review -Reply Re: Semi-TMBG: The TMBG list Re: Some TMBG: The TMBG-list Re: A.M.TMBG:Long Tall Weekend Review Re: TMBG:Long Tall Weekend Review -Reply TMBG: 2001:The Statue Got Me High Re: Some TMBG: The TMBG-list NON-TMBG: TMBG-list Re: NON-TMBG: TMBG-list Re: NON-TMBG: TMBG-list Re: NON-TMBG: TMBG-list NON-TMBG: adieu! adieu! TMBG: NON TMBG-eyes wide shut NonTMBG:Pirates TMBG: TMBG-List concern TMBG: i'm flans' cousin... 7/15 & 7/16 reviews!!! TMBG: RE: regarding buckland & other list-related things TMBG: Recent TMBG Albums Re: TMBG: Recent TMBG Albums Non-TMBG: Why the list sucks so much TMBG: TMBG-LIST: other lists i've experienced... 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: <19990716053053.66644.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: The TMBG-list -Reply Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:30:52 PDT Richard Hilton wrote: >Let me start a new thread. What other goups do people subscribe to? Well, I'm on the Ozzy Digest mailing list. That's a forum in which to discuss the Oz books (and NOT Ozzy Osbourne, as many disappointed one-day subscribers have thought). If you want to include newsgroups, I try to read alt.music.tmbg and alt.tv.simpsons fairly regularly. I'm also sort of an on-and-off reader of alt.music.weird-al and alt.books.pratchett. -- May the light shine upon thee, Nathan Mulac "Dorothy lived in the middle of the great Kansas prairies, with her Uncle Henry, who was a farmer, and her Aunt Em, who was the farmer's wife" DeHoff DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:10:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Le Singe Savant Subject: A.M.TMBG:Long Tall Weekend Review Message-ID: Another Review from Pitchfork Online Reviews (www.pitchforkmedia.com), afraid it's a bit damning. They Might Be Giants Long Tall Weekend [Emusic.com] Rating: 7.6 I was in the ninth grade when I first discovered They Might Be Giants' Apollo 18. In retrospect, it wasn't their most shining moment, but at the time, it was the perfect blend of dark satire and catchy, quirky pop. Ah, there's that word. "Quirky." Diehard fans of this New Jersey/ New York- based duo complain that there's not a review of a They Might Be Giants album in existence without mention of the term. But y'know what? They're quirky. Sorry. I went into this one braced for horror. I mean, over the course of this decade, the band has become progressively less listenable, especially since abandoning their MIDI sequencers and keyboards for a live band setup. But even at this very moment, I sit listening, stunned. While these guys never let their irresistible pop hooks leave their sides (even on their last studio album, 1997's Factory Showroom, songs like "Till My Head Falls Off" and "How Can I Sing Like a Girl" got in your head and stuck like flypaper), the songs have lost some of the charm in favor of the attempted comeback single. The band's energy level seemed to be steadily dissipating. They quit experimenting with genres, and worse, their mix of morbid lyrics with head- bobbing pop melodies were nowhere in sight. Long Tall Weekend is set to be released strictly via MP3 by EMusic.com on July 19. It seems likely that these guys felt they could goof around a bit more because, hypothetically, no one would be listening. (This, by the way, is completely not the case. Just as Tori Amos and Morrissey still have massive rabid fanbases, They Might Be Giants fans will do anything they can to dig up unreleased tracks, be it in MP3 format or otherwise.) But whereas this might make for an unfocused and careless record for other bands, They Might Be Giants are actually at their best when they're not really trying. As it turns out, Long Tall Weekend is still not a stellar release, but is easily their best since Apollo 18. It compiles a few songs that originally debuted on their Dial-A-Song line, along with studio versions of songs they've been performing in concert for years. The album kicks off with the somewhat mediocre leadoff instrumental "Drinkin'," and is followed up the very average-- and depending on your mood, possibly annoying-- "(She Thinks She's) Edith Head." But these two numbers have nothing on "Maybe I Know," an incredibly poignant ballad whose helpless, succinct lyrics ("Maybe I know that she's been cheating/ Maybe I know that she's been untrue/ But what can I do") are strikingly effective. The brief "Token Back to Brooklyn" appears to be heavily influenced by Chicago post-rock auteurs Tortoise and the Sea and Cake with its artsy, vaguely electronic- sounding drum track. "Older" is, contrary to possible belief, not a medley of the songs from George Michael's last album, but a classic They Might Be Giants clever (but depressing) "mortality awareness" songs. The lyrics say it all: "You're older than you've ever been/ And now you're even older/ And now you're even older/ And now you're even older." Add in the memorable cartoony melody, written to emphasize every passing second, and bam!-- you've got a track that belongs on their self- titled debut or Lincoln. "Reprehensible" could only be described as "casual vaudeville." Were it not for the seriously wack lyrics, it'd fit nicely into an old Fred Astaire film. "They Got Lost" has been a live staple for what seems like forever. The standard live version appeared on last year's compilation album, Severe Tire Damage. This first-ever studio recording of the song is far more subdued than its rocking live counterpart, but the melody is so infectious, it could practically be a polka (an actual possibility with these two on the case) and it'd still be a prime cut. "Nina" is entirely a capella and sung backwards for that whole "Arm from 'Twin Peaks'" feel. And "Edison Museum" closes out the album, continuing their fascination with the famous institution, with accordians and harpsichords plinking the song's spooky tune. Long Tall Weekend has a few less- than- grand numbers, of course. The aforementioned "(She Thinks She's) Edith Head," the dorky wordplay of "Operators are Standing By," and the banjo- infested "Counterfeit Faker" are accidents gone awry. (You heard me.) I guess that's the benefit of only purchasing certain songs. But if you don't purchase them, does it mean they're not part of whole vision? Indeed not, guys. Call me an ass, but these tracks were recorded as part of the Long Tall Weekend album, and they detract from the overall quality. That said, Flansburgh and Linnell, in a rare moment of glory, have returned to their roots to create their first truly enjoyable album of the decade. But don't count on this excellence to continue. Like I said before, they're at their best when they're not trying. -Ryan Schreiber Enjoy, Remi ------------------------------ Message-ID: <378F3EA6.1BBD0F10@fruhead.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:16:06 -0500 From: Chad Maloney Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: To Karen and the rest. Feeling like a bastard...Deservedly Josh Buckland wrote: > (You are a cool person and you have a fine crew) and to Mike Leffel (If you > haven't already figured it out, all that was said about you was that while > you were away, people refered to you as being God) Ah, Leffel-Palindrome-Leffel is not God. He is a god and he IS bigger than the list. Well, he was bigger than the list at least. So many people these days are getting suckered into those get slim quick diet fads and buying thigh-masters. It's hard to tell who is bigger than who these days. But just as long as the list is bigger than lycos, we can make Leo happy and get ftp.tmbg.org back up again! - Chad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:10:22 -0400 Subject: Re: TMBG: TMBG = Beatles? Message-ID: <19990716.121522.-448189.0.hotel_detective1@juno.com> From: "Cap'n eriKa rae" >Nathan Mulac "I buried John" DeHoff Hey, yeah, there ya go. Both the Beatles had rumors out about band members being dead. On the children's album, Linnell won't have shoes on. It'll be a conspiracy... from some other post: >what kind of cereal they eat When the hell did the cereal discussion get on this list? We were talking about it on the off-topic list (but it was more like cereal characters and waffles), but I don't remember it here. My memory's getting poor in my old age though. dex: >Since there's already I kinda' Dan >Hickey robot, they should create John F., John L., Dan W. and Dan M. >robots as well, then call them They Might Be Cogs, Ah, they could never make robots as cute as either John. Those MIT guys can't work miracles. ever-sincere, eriKa, Cog, make me some waffles. "It's been cool to be cool for too long now and now it's cool not to be cool." - Ben Folds "Sexual frustration is caused by the Discovery Channel." - Kevan Peden ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:10:58 -0400 Subject: Re: NONTMBG: TMBG-Related: A song, to Karen and the Rest Message-ID: <19990716.121522.-448189.1.hotel_detective1@juno.com> From: "Cap'n eriKa rae" >"The TMBG-List" >By Me. Jeez o man, quit being so freaking melodramatic! You've already beaten your opinion upon us enough, you didn't have to put it to song. And even if you did, you didn't have to post it. What are you trying to do, give us all a guilt trip? Please. It's not gonna work, and now it's just getting whiny. >But, nonetheless, I am an American. Whee. Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean people are going to like what you say or how you say it, and usually this can effect how they percieve the image of you as a person in result, whether you like it or not. >And if you reply telling my that no one gives a shit about my opinion, that, my >friends, is hypocracy. No, it's hypocrisy. And no, it's actually not. Isn't that that just someone else's opinion? And when did anyone say that anyway? I fail to recall an incident. ever-sincere, eriKa, and thus, I wash my hands of this argument. "It's been cool to be cool for too long now and now it's cool not to be cool." - Ben Folds "Sexual frustration is caused by the Discovery Channel." - Kevan Peden ___________________________________________________________________ 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: <378F5AF9.DB670F1C@tmbg.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:16:57 -0400 From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: To Karen and the rest. Feeling like a bastard...Deservedly Chad Maloney wrote: > Ah, Leffel-Palindrome-Leffel is not God. He is a god and he IS bigger than > the list. Well, he was bigger than the list at least. So many people > these days are getting suckered into those get slim quick diet fads and > buying thigh-masters. It's hard to tell who is bigger than who these days. He's bigger than Careless Santa, right? :) (hey, now that I've explained it, it's not so much of an in-joke anymore, right? :) -- Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ zaph@tmbg.org "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:36:23 -0400 Subject: Re: TMBG: TMBG = Beatles? Message-ID: <19990716.123626.2942.0.Phone_Book@juno.com> From: polly j maloiseau oh captain, my captain: >Hey, yeah, there ya go. Both the Beatles had rumors out about band >members being dead. On the children's album, Linnell won't have shoes >on. It'll be a conspiracy... Linnell won't be wearing shoes, and so he'll show his dirty, ugly, fungi infested toenails, and EVERYBODY knew how Lennon's feet were. Atrocious. Yoko Ono still hasn't regained full sense of smell. They're kindred spirits. >When the hell did the cereal discussion get on this list? We were >talking about it on the off-topic list (but it was more like cereal >characters and waffles), but I don't remember it here. My memory's >getting poor in my old age though. Now THIS is a conspiracy! TMBG-list spies have invaded the off-topic list, and are stealing our threads! We must put a stop to this, dagnabbit! WAFFLES AND PANCAKES MAKE ME ILL! >Ah, they could never make robots as cute as either John. Those MIT >guys can't work miracles. They might look like John, but you'll be able to tell from their stiff-legged walks that they're really robotic doppelgangers sent to confuse fans. Next time anybody here sees either John, take a glass of water and splash it all over him: If you see sparks and he begins to shake uncontrollably, eventually puttering out and going dim, he was a robot; if he starts yelling and cursing and calling venue security, you've got yourself a live one. >ever-sincere, >eriKa, >Cog, make me some waffles. Hrmph. Nobody makes 'em like I do. peace, love, and good happiness stuff, jay, who's not a real robot but who is a real wafflemaker, who is an ACTUAL wafflemaker, and lives like a wafflemaker. ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:00:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Nicole Carlson Subject: Semi-TMBG: The TMBG list Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org wrote: > Recently, I think the 11th of this month, there was a TMBG concert. And > honestly, from the discussions on this list, you wouldn't know it. I read > this list because I'm interested in discussion of TMBG and TMBG-related > things, *especially* concert and album/song reviews. True, one can't expect a I will humbly disagree with Lawrence here and say that, IMHO, the root cause of this particular problem is has less to do with concertgoer apathy and more to do with declining numbers of concerts. TMBG haven't been touring as much recently, as a visit to Pollstar or tmbg.com will make plain, and I suspect that fewer concerts -> fewer reviews of concerts -> fewer people inspired (by other reviews) to review concerts. I suspect that the situation will ameliorate itself once LTW comes out or the fan concert happens (Note to people attending the fan concert: I WANNA REVIEW! A *detailed* one. And please, please, somebody tape this.) --nicole twn *** "Think and act glocally."--Moxy Fruvous, on thinking globally and acting locally Visit Nicolopolis! http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~carlsonn ana.ng@tmbg.org nmcarlson@ucdavis.edu ------------------------------ Message-ID: <378F698D.F7F3DC24@airmail.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:19:09 -0500 From: Danielle Gaither Subject: Re: Some TMBG: The TMBG-list Mike Leffel wrote: > > Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote: > > > > Mike Leffel wrote: > > >We should just assign the twenty people who are obsessed with TMBG > > >(every > > > concert, every molecule of information, etc..) the post of "Offical > > >List > > >Poster" and never have to worry about offtopic posts again. Because, > > > > Not really. There's more to TMBG discussion than cold, hard facts. > > But obviously, there's not much more. The minute someone deems Actually, I disagree with that. There's certainly a wealth of opinions out there as well. ;) > something > 'offtopic' it _usually_ gets berated and subjugated. Cold hard facts > and 'official' opinions, unmarred by the random posting possibilities of > others, would eliminate the biweekly flamewars about relevance. Sure, but it'd take all the fun out of things, too. > > If two > > people listen to _Severe Tire Damage_, or see a concert, these two people > > might have considerably different views on these things, and discussion > > could result from that. > > But that discussion might spawn something that someone would rather not > have to delete or skip over. That might continue to grow, and with each Oh, well. > A noninteractive list where only the people who ACTUALLY attend > concerts, > know whats happening, and believe they're totally on topic, would end > all > the possibilities of offtopic posts. And, I think that there's enough > of the 'regular' TMBG watchers to be given positions immediately. But again, it wouldn't be much fun, would it? > > Even if we did post only TMBG-related things (which > > I'm not advocating), there could still be some discussion. > > As long as its just the official posters, of course. Plain ol' people > would NOT post. Discussions would never transform into offtopic. They > would > automatically be deemed topical, for the people who would complain about > offtopic would be in charge. Wanna be a moderator? > > I mean, it's all > > very well that They are releasing _Long Tall Weekend_, but I want to know > > what other people think of it, and that couldn't happen in an > > information-only list. > > But why chance more offtopic posts? Perhaps I would like to say that Because with any enjoyable entity, you take the good along with the bad. > there > is not a copy in my town. Someone then would suggest ordering it from > CDNOW > or TMBG themselves. People would add on to that until someone mentions > other > things they've ordered from _x_ or _y_. People would comment on those > things. And that would be the end of the world? > "Me Too!" or "That Sucks!" or "other". I admit, these are somewhat annoying, but every list has 'em. > And people would add their opinions to that. And that. And that. > Mailboxes > would be clogged. People would complain. The same circle this list has > had > for a loooong time. > > And, as I speculate, a non-interactive list would be the answer to the > flamewars that overshadow even the offtopic posts. It would be an answer, but not necessarily the most satisfactory one. I'll explain shortly. > Would I like it personally? Not really, but I'm tired of the flamewars. > Since > it's so bad for people to go offtopic (as long as they fit certain > criteria, > I guess, it's not offtopic.) I think it would be a refreshing change of > pace, the perfect utopian list for those who would control it. And I'm > especially > tired of the people who claim to hate the list continually posting to > it. Same here. > Especially when they go off of it, spend their time complaining about it > to > others, have those opinions posted, and then complain that people got > offended by it. "You're a loser!" "I'm offended!" "You're offended? Get > a life!" Hey, man! You're making up flame wars that don't exist! ;) > I say, in all seriousness, enact the non-interactive list. Perhaps it's > better > that way. Actually, one of the most effective examples of a fan mailing list that I've seen is the Elvis Costello mailing list. There are actually two lists available: costello-l, much like this one, and costello-a, an announcement-only list. If you're only looking for hard core facts, such as "EC is performing at this venue on this date" or "here's an article about EC", then costello-a is for you. If you're more interested in opinions and just discussing things EC with fellow fans, then costello-l is for you. Sure, it strays off-topic from time to time, but there's always costello-a if the off-topic stuff gets to be too much for you. Perhaps this is kind of what Dex was trying to do with the offtopic list, but as I don't subscribe to it, I can't say for sure. > Appearantly too much freedom _is_ counterproductive. > > Mike "America." Leffel America you don't really want to go to war... On a bit of a Ginsberg kick lately, Danielle -- My ultimate vocation in life is to be an irritant. --Elvis Costello ------------------------------ From: Matt James Message-Id: <199907161719.NAA09311@fellspt.charm.net> Subject: TMBG: LTW review Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:19:32 -0400 (EDT) > Another Review from Pitchfork Online Reviews (www.pitchforkmedia.com), > afraid it's a bit damning. > > They Might Be Giants > Long Tall Weekend > [Emusic.com] > Rating: 7.6 > That's not a bad review, I'd say. 7.6 out of 10 isn't so bad and he did say that it was their best album since Apollo 18 which, if I calculate correctly was 3 albums ago. Sure the guy used the "Q" word and he was definitely an "old-school" TMBG and would have nothing of the new, full band, but I think there was enough older stuff on Long Tall Weekend to make it a good album for him. Personally, I thought John Henry was one of their best, if not my favorite albums of theirs, but to each his own. I've come to realize something recently, though. It seems that when a new album comes out by TMBG I know just about every song, I've heard it a bunch of times in concert and it seems like a slight drag. I realize that I'm a huge fan and I'm going to hear these in concert and on the web, it's just going to happen. But I can remember in the pre-Factory Showroom days especially when I hadn't been to so many concerts, or read up and listened to them so much on the web, when the albums were so new and fresh and I had heard some of the songs maybe once. But it's more than that with this release. Older, Edison Museum, Counterfeit Faker, and some others have been around for years and years. I kinda wish they would create about half of the songs within 4-6 months of the album release, have something that is really new and fresh. But I guess that isn't easy to do. While writing great songs may have seemed effortless at times for the Johns, it does take a lot of work to create a song, to test it out on the road and to play around with it in the studio. After so much time people are bound to hear some of these songs quite a lot of times. I guess it's similar to hearing a very cool song on the radio and just having it killed by playing it every hour for weeks on end. But I'm sure I'll come around to some of these songs and really take a liking to them. -Matt ------------------------------ From: rhilton@bitc.org.uk Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:14:38 +0000 Subject: TMBG:Long Tall Weekend Review -Reply Aaah that 'quirky' word! The rating of 7.6. Out of 10? Out of 20? I have to say that I don't think this is a very damming review. Richard >>> "j-treuer@sjca.edu" 16/July/1999 03:11pm >>> Another Review from Pitchfork Online Reviews (www.pitchforkmedia.com), afraid it's a bit damning. They Might Be Giants Long Tall Weekend [Emusic.com] Rating: 7.6 I was in the ninth grade when I first discovered They Might Be Giants' Apollo 18. In retrospect, it wasn't their most shining moment, but at the time, it was the perfect blend of dark satire and catchy, quirky pop. Ah, there's that word. "Quirky." Diehard fans of this New Jersey/ New York- based duo complain that there's not a review of a They Might Be Giants album in existence without mention of the term. But y'know what? They're quirky. Sorry. I went into this one braced for horror. I mean, over the course of this decade, the band has become progressively less listenable, especially since abandoning their MIDI sequencers and keyboards for a live band setup. But even at this very moment, I sit listening, stunned. While these guys never let their irresistible pop hooks leave their sides (even on their last studio album, 1997's Factory Showroom, songs like "Till My Head Falls Off" and "How Can I Sing Like a Girl" got in your head and stuck like flypaper), the songs have lost some of the charm in favor of the attempted comeback single. The band's energy level seemed to be steadily dissipating. They quit experimenting with genres, and worse, their mix of morbid lyrics with head- bobbing pop melodies were nowhere in sight. Long Tall Weekend is set to be released strictly via MP3 by EMusic.com on July 19. It seems likely that these guys felt they could goof around a bit more because, hypothetically, no one would be listening. (This, by the way, is completely not the case. Just as Tori Amos and Morrissey still have massive rabid fanbases, They Might Be Giants fans will do anything they can to dig up unreleased tracks, be it in MP3 format or otherwise.) But whereas this might make for an unfocused and careless record for other bands, They Might Be Giants are actually at their best when they're not really trying. As it turns out, Long Tall Weekend is still not a stellar release, but is easily their best since Apollo 18. It compiles a few songs that originally debuted on their Dial-A-Song line, along with studio versions of songs they've been performing in concert for years. The album kicks off with the somewhat mediocre leadoff instrumental "Drinkin'," and is followed up the very average-- and depending on your mood, possibly annoying-- "(She Thinks She's) Edith Head." But these two numbers have nothing on "Maybe I Know," an incredibly poignant ballad whose helpless, succinct lyrics ("Maybe I know that she's been cheating/ Maybe I know that she's been untrue/ But what can I do") are strikingly effective. The brief "Token Back to Brooklyn" appears to be heavily influenced by Chicago post-rock auteurs Tortoise and the Sea and Cake with its artsy, vaguely electronic- sounding drum track. "Older" is, contrary to possible belief, not a medley of the songs from George Michael's last album, but a classic They Might Be Giants clever (but depressing) "mortality awareness" songs. The lyrics say it all: "You're older than you've ever been/ And now you're even older/ And now you're even older/ And now you're even older." Add in the memorable cartoony melody, written to emphasize every passing second, and bam!-- you've got a track that belongs on their self- titled debut or Lincoln. "Reprehensible" could only be described as "casual vaudeville." Were it not for the seriously wack lyrics, it'd fit nicely into an old Fred Astaire film. "They Got Lost" has been a live staple for what seems like forever. The standard live version appeared on last year's compilation album, Severe Tire Damage. This first-ever studio recording of the song is far more subdued than its rocking live counterpart, but the melody is so infectious, it could practically be a polka (an actual possibility with these two on the case) and it'd still be a prime cut. "Nina" is entirely a capella and sung backwards for that whole "Arm from 'Twin Peaks'" feel. And "Edison Museum" closes out the album, continuing their fascination with the famous institution, with accordians and harpsichords plinking the song's spooky tune. Long Tall Weekend has a few less- than- grand numbers, of course. The aforementioned "(She Thinks She's) Edith Head," the dorky wordplay of "Operators are Standing By," and the banjo- infested "Counterfeit Faker" are accidents gone awry. (You heard me.) I guess that's the benefit of only purchasing certain songs. But if you don't purchase them, does it mean they're not part of whole vision? Indeed not, guys. Call me an ass, but these tracks were recorded as part of the Long Tall Weekend album, and they detract from the overall quality. That said, Flansburgh and Linnell, in a rare moment of glory, have returned to their roots to create their first truly enjoyable album of the decade. But don't count on this excellence to continue. Like I said before, they're at their best when they're not trying. -Ryan Schreiber Enjoy, Remi ------------------------------ Message-ID: <378F87E9.2C7584CD@tmbg.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:28:41 -0400 From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: Semi-TMBG: The TMBG list Nicole Carlson wrote: > I will humbly disagree with Lawrence here and say that, IMHO, the root > cause of this particular problem is has less to do with concertgoer apathy > and more to do with declining numbers of concerts. TMBG haven't been > touring as much recently, as a visit to Pollstar or tmbg.com will make > plain, and I suspect that fewer concerts -> fewer reviews of concerts -> > fewer people inspired (by other reviews) to review concerts. I suspect > that the situation will ameliorate itself once LTW comes out or the fan > concert happens (Note to people attending the fan concert: I WANNA REVIEW! > A *detailed* one. And please, please, somebody tape this.) Well, *I'm* going, and I'm bringing my little notebook to write down the setlist in (this notebook being the one that has ALL the Fruvous and TMBG shows I've been to since last July in it, and would have more if I hadn't torn them out) and as soon as I get back from New York, I can guarantee that I'll post a very detailed review. :) Sadly, I won't be taping it. If anyone has a good internet connection, though, it might be best to tape the RealAudio stream, since there you don't have to put up with the typical problems that you would at Irving Plaza. -- Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ zaph@tmbg.org "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:47:28 -0500 From: Mike Leffel Message-ID: <378F8C50.919856A@conpoint.com> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: Some TMBG: The TMBG-list Danielle Gaither wrote: > > Mike Leffel wrote: > > > > Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote: > > > > > > Mike Leffel wrote: > > > >We should just assign the twenty people who are obsessed with TMBG > > > >(every > > > > concert, every molecule of information, etc..) the post of "Offical > > > >List > > > >Poster" and never have to worry about offtopic posts again. Because, > > > > > > Not really. There's more to TMBG discussion than cold, hard facts. > > > > But obviously, there's not much more. The minute someone deems > Actually, I disagree with that. There's certainly a wealth of opinions > out there as well. ;) > But, opinons spawn Offtopic! > > something > > 'offtopic' it _usually_ gets berated and subjugated. Cold hard facts > > and 'official' opinions, unmarred by the random posting possibilities of > > others, would eliminate the biweekly flamewars about relevance. > Sure, but it'd take all the fun out of things, too. > I never said it wouldn't, but it would end the flamewars! ^_^ > > > Even if we did post only TMBG-related things (which > > > I'm not advocating), there could still be some discussion. > > > > As long as its just the official posters, of course. Plain ol' people > > would NOT post. Discussions would never transform into offtopic. They > > would > > automatically be deemed topical, for the people who would complain about > > offtopic would be in charge. > Wanna be a moderator? > HELL NO!!! Not only that, I wouldn't be one of the 20 or so! > > > I mean, it's all > > > very well that They are releasing _Long Tall Weekend_, but I want to know > > > what other people think of it, and that couldn't happen in an > > > information-only list. > > > > But why chance more offtopic posts? Perhaps I would like to say that > Because with any enjoyable entity, you take the good along with the bad. > But, obviously, a lot of people are tired/have been tired of doing that. All they want is TMBG, and the rest is wasted bandwidth. The end result of that, and the WildCards, and the Offtopic Rebellers, is the chaos that occurs every other week with the flamewars. > > there > > is not a copy in my town. Someone then would suggest ordering it from > > CDNOW > > or TMBG themselves. People would add on to that until someone mentions > > other > > things they've ordered from _x_ or _y_. People would comment on those > > things. > And that would be the end of the world? > To me? No. Remember, I'm merely suggesting a way to end the flamewars, I'm not actually declaring anything here. > > "Me Too!" or "That Sucks!" or "other". > I admit, these are somewhat annoying, but every list has 'em. > I wonder, do all the people who are on multiple lists, complain as loudly or as fervently about offtopic posts on THOSE lists as well? > > And, as I speculate, a non-interactive list would be the answer to the > > flamewars that overshadow even the offtopic posts. > It would be an answer, but not necessarily the most satisfactory one. > I'll explain shortly. > Again, I never said that _I_ would like it..... > > Would I like it personally? Not really, but I'm tired of the flamewars. > > Since > > it's so bad for people to go offtopic (as long as they fit certain > > criteria, > > I guess, it's not offtopic.) I think it would be a refreshing change of > > pace, the perfect utopian list for those who would control it. And I'm > > especially > > tired of the people who claim to hate the list continually posting to > > it. > Same here. > That there *WAS* my opinon too... > > Especially when they go off of it, spend their time complaining about it > > to > > others, have those opinions posted, and then complain that people got > > offended by it. "You're a loser!" "I'm offended!" "You're offended? Get > > a life!" > Hey, man! You're making up flame wars that don't exist! ;) > No no, I was inventing examples! ^_^ > > I say, in all seriousness, enact the non-interactive list. Perhaps it's > > better > > that way. > Actually, one of the most effective examples of a fan mailing list that > I've seen is the Elvis Costello mailing list. There are actually two > lists available: costello-l, much like this one, and costello-a, an > announcement-only list. If you're only looking for hard core facts, > such as "EC is performing at this venue on this date" or "here's an > article about EC", then costello-a is for you. If you're more > interested in opinions and just discussing things EC with fellow fans, > then costello-l is for you. Sure, it strays off-topic from time to > time, but there's always costello-a if the off-topic stuff gets to be > too much for you. > But there's also other venues in case the list is too much for tmbg fans, but they complain. Heck, even on the so-called offtopic list, there's a certain level of offtopic I sense... > Perhaps this is kind of what Dex was trying to do with the offtopic > list, but as I don't subscribe to it, I can't say for sure. > It's the TMBGCEREAL list! (wink and nod to the OTlisties) and we annoy certain people who join it!! "This is too offtopic! LA LA LA!" ^_^ > > Appearantly too much freedom _is_ counterproductive. > > > > Mike "America." Leffel > America you don't really want to go to war... > BRAINWASHING OUR LISTIE BOYS! > On a bit of a Ginsberg kick lately, > Danielle > Does that mean you want us to kick him out of you???? Mike "BWAAHAHAH" Leffel ^_^ > -- > My ultimate vocation in life is to be an irritant. > --Elvis Costello ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19990716195143.9770.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: A.M.TMBG:Long Tall Weekend Review Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:51:43 PDT Le Singe Savant (or, more accurately, Ryan Schreiber) wrote: >Diehard fans of this New Jersey/ New York- >based duo complain that there's not a review of a They Might Be >Giants >album in existence without mention of the term. But y'know what? >They're >quirky. Sorry. Perhaps they are, but this is a pretty poor way to start a review. It seems to be saying, in essence, "I'm too lazy to come up with my own description, so I'll use the same word that has already been used in a million other reviews." Really, I don't think that the word "quirky" is bad in and of itself; it has a positive connotation in my mind. Using the same description in numerous reviews, though, is a sign of poor writing, and it's no wonder that fans are sick of the word. Besides, trying to describe any subject, particularly one as diverse as TMBG, in one word is generally going to be an exercise in futility. >But whereas this might make for an unfocused and careless record for >other >bands, They Might Be Giants are actually at their best when they're >not >really trying. I definitely agree on this point. The Johns have stated that They don't write Their music with anyone in particular in mind, and that They just write what They want (or something along those lines). I think music often turns out to be better when the artist just writes what he or she wants, and doesn't think something like, "Okay, I'm going to write a song that appeals to angsty Generation X-ers." >But these two numbers have nothing on "Maybe I >Know," an incredibly poignant ballad whose helpless, succinct lyrics >("Maybe I know that she's been cheating/ Maybe I know that she's been >untrue/ But what can I do") are strikingly effective. It also wasn't written by TMBG. Do your research, Mr. Reviewer. >Long Tall Weekend has a few less- than- grand numbers, of course. The >aforementioned "(She Thinks She's) Edith Head," the dorky wordplay of >"Operators are Standing By," and the banjo- infested "Counterfeit >Faker" >are accidents gone awry. (You heard me.) I guess that's the benefit >of >only purchasing certain songs. But if you don't purchase them, does >it >mean they're not part of whole vision? Indeed not, guys. Call me an >ass, >but these tracks were recorded as part of the Long Tall Weekend >album, and >they detract from the overall quality. Well, actually, "Operators" was recorded for Dial-A-Song, and "Counterfeit Faker" was recorded for _Factory Showroom_. The point still stands, though. -- May the light shine upon thee, Nathan Mulac "History wants me; they made a mistake" DeHoff DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19990716195329.94855.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: TMBG:Long Tall Weekend Review -Reply Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:53:29 PDT Richard Hilton wrote: >I have to say that I don't think this is a very damming review. No, the river went right on flowing, despite this review. -- May the light shine upon thee, Nathan Mulac "I think you meant 'damning'" DeHoff DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:58:27 -0400 From: Sarah Subject: TMBG: 2001:The Statue Got Me High Message-id: <378F8EE0.A6012DDC@wmich.edu> SO... I finally saw Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey. Wow, what a movie... I can't even explain.... It put me in a trance and hurt my brain a lot.... and I found the black monolith to be rather... frightening? I know I seen countless scenes from the movie... but never the whole thing, and often without knowing what they were from... Anyway... I'd love to know what other people thought of this movie (I know many of you have seen it) But this is a TMBG list... so here's the TMBG relation. After watching 2001 I couldn't stop thinking about how it made me think of the Statue Got ME High. Has anyone else ever noticed this? It's like the black monolith is the statue (or rather the monolith that towers over him) It seems animated, like its alive. But then it's just an inanimate object.... I wish I could explain, but I don't even fully understand it myself... my brain is mush. Oh, and.... the video for Statue has the Space/Astronaut theme to it.. but why? Okay, that's my thought for the day... ~Sarah *What they found was just a statue standing where the statue got me high* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:28:22 -0500 From: Mike Leffel Message-ID: <378F95E6.6C7DB481@conpoint.com> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: Some TMBG: The TMBG-list "Jay G." wrote: > > >Mike Leffel wrote... > > > > I say, in all seriousness, enact the non-interactive list. Perhaps it's > > better that way. > > > > Appearantly too much freedom _is_ counterproductive. > > okay, you want a non-interactive list Leffel. That's fine. Why > don't you go make one? Don't start yelling.... I like the list. I don't like the flamewars. A non-interactive list would end the flamewars. Quid Pro Quo. E Pluribus Unum. Rosie o'Donnell. If the loud majority of the list dislikes offtopic posts, yet no matter HOW MANY TIMES either side complains, offtopic posts come along. Then, eventually, it breeds Anti-Offtopic complaints, which breed flamewars, which breet Posting Vultures who thrive on havoc. I think it would save a lot of time by just eliminating the chance of that. It's cold, it's cruel, but hey! TMBG info! What we want! No opinions from all across the land, only near NY, but it beats hearing the same old arguments over and over and over. (*)Please note, I am not advocating PURE TMBG -or- PURE OFFTOPIC. I _know_ that there's a balance. I've seen it. But, every so often, one side or another gets a hair up the bum and kaboom! FLAME WARS! I like the information that the people who actually see TMBG share. I like offtopic. I don't like elitism or abuse though, and thats all we seem to accomplish here. Give in to the folks who actually see TMBG, and voila! No flamewars between folks! And again, to perhaps prove a point about my thoery... I posted an opinion that perhaps, to stop the flamewars, the list should be turned non-interactive. Well, I did sound like I meant it because I did. I'd like to see the flamewars end at all costs. That sounds a bit extreme, I guess. But, look at the argument-ready replies I got! ^_^ Ho Ho! (Were I YouKnowWho or WhatstheyreFace I could have turned this into a jarring series of personal attacks on whoever! "well? why don't you MAKE a list?" OH YEAH? WELL YOU ARE A STUPID HEAD AND YOU POOP YOUR PANTS!! hee hee! Thus, Opinion Chaos.) > Dexter made an offtopic list, Don't pull anything there, damn it!!! I said don't pull!!!! And don't post!! GAAAAH! HOW DARE YOU GET MAIL WHEN YOU JOIN AN OFFTOPIC MAILING LIST! GAA!! (*silly mode) > so > a non-interactive list might be what some people need. ^^^^^^^^^^ 'swat I be sayin! ^_^ Of course, to the earlier suggestion of mimicking E.Costello's Dual Lists, perhaps that could be the way too. But, as OTlist proves, even under liberal conditions there are limits. And $1000 says that the 'non-announcemnt' TMBG list (in fantasy here) would return to the flamewars of the unified list anyway. Fact+Offical Opinion = Calm. Fact+ Opinion = Offtopic +Abuse+ elitism = Flamewars. = unhappy on all sides, except probably for the abusers. Mike "You can't attack what you can't post to" Leffel ---I thought I had made that one post clear... oh well! Screw me, Claritin!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:13:18 -0500 From: "Jay G." Message-ID: <7mo6hn$29bd$1@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: NON-TMBG: TMBG-list Mike Leffel wrote in message news:378F95E6.6C7DB481@conpoint.com... > > > "Jay G." wrote: > > > > >Mike Leffel wrote... > > > > > > I say, in all seriousness, enact the non-interactive list. Perhaps it's > > > better that way. > > > > > > Appearantly too much freedom _is_ counterproductive. > > > > okay, you want a non-interactive list Leffel. That's fine. Why > > don't you go make one? > > Don't start yelling.... I wasn't yelling, I was making a suggestion. Usually yelling in email involves capitol letters or at least exclamation points. > I like the list. I don't like the flamewars. A > non-interactive list would end the flamewars. > It's > cold, it's cruel, but hey! TMBG info! What we want! No opinions from all > across the land, only near NY, but it beats hearing the same old > arguments over and over and over. maybe some people come here for a sense of community. If it's just news people want, theymightbegiants.com seems to be pretty on the ball with it now. > (*)Please note, I am not advocating PURE TMBG -or- PURE OFFTOPIC. I > _know_ > that there's a balance. I've seen it. But, every so often, one side or > another > gets a hair up the bum and kaboom! FLAME WARS! I like the information > that the > people who actually see TMBG share. I like offtopic. I don't like > elitism or > abuse though, and thats all we seem to accomplish here. Give in to the > folks who actually see TMBG, and voila! No flamewars between folks! Since this list isn't moderated, it goes through phases. At some times, it's a perfect balance of on and off-topic material. Other times it shifts one way or the other. > Well, I did sound like I meant it because I did. I'd like to see the > flamewars end > at all costs. That sounds a bit extreme, I guess. And I was being serious. There's probably room for a moderated TMBG mailing list on the net. Heck, already there's a newsgroup, a mailing list, an off-topic mailing list, a message board, an off-topic message board, and a chat room. > > so > > a non-interactive list might be what some people need. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > 'swat I be sayin! ^_^ Of course, to the earlier suggestion of mimicking > E.Costello's Dual Lists, perhaps that could be the way too. But, as > OTlist > proves, even under liberal conditions there are limits. And $1000 says > that > the 'non-announcemnt' TMBG list (in fantasy here) would return to the > flamewars of the unified list anyway. Fact+Offical Opinion = Calm. Fact+ > Opinion = Offtopic +Abuse+ elitism = Flamewars. = unhappy on all sides, > except probably for the abusers. Huh? Who said they wanted a 'non-announcement' tmbg list? I like Rob Plass! anyway, I doubt tmbg-list is gonna go moderated or 'non-interactive' as you call it anytime soon, so I was just suggesting that you make a moderated list for all of those people who want one. -Jay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:07:42 -0500 From: Mike Leffel Message-ID: <378F9F1E.8BDD7550@conpoint.com> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: TMBG-list Jay: > And I was being serious. There's probably room for a moderated TMBG > mailing list on the net. Heck, already there's a newsgroup, a mailing list, > an off-topic mailing list, a message board, an off-topic message board, and > a chat room. > Sometimes they all are the newsgroup. > > anyway, I doubt tmbg-list is gonna go moderated or 'non-interactive' as you > call > it anytime soon, so I was just suggesting that you make a moderated list for > all > of those people who want one. > But.. No, you see, I was... ???????!?!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?!?!? Sheesh. Nevermind. Mike "Given up with 'splainin" Leffel ---don't know what went wrong here. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:30:53 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <378FA48C.AFFC21D9@conpoint.com> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: TMBG-list > > >Leffel said: > > > so > > > a non-interactive list might be what some people need. > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > 'swat I be sayin! ^_^ Of course, to the earlier suggestion of mimicking > > E.Costello's Dual Lists, perhaps that could be the way too. But, as > > OTlist > > proves, even under liberal conditions there are limits. And $1000 says > > that > > the 'non-announcemnt' TMBG list (in fantasy here) would return to the > > flamewars of the unified list anyway. Fact+Offical Opinion = Calm. Fact+ > > Opinion = Offtopic +Abuse+ elitism = Flamewars. = unhappy on all sides, > > except probably for the abusers. And then Jay G. wrote: > anyway, I doubt tmbg-list is gonna go moderated or 'non-interactive' as you > call it anytime soon, so I was just suggesting that you make a moderated list > for > all of those people who want one. It's called satire... Everyone who is complaining seriously about how the list isn't their own to manipulate exactly as they choose and how they can't stand offtopic posts, even on offtopic lists... Feh! Do you think Leffel is suggesting that there actually be a moderated or 'non-interactive' list? From the beginning, it's been obvious to myself, and I would assume to many others, that he's demonstrating the absurdity of this list taking such a turn. All the people who hate off topic posts simply say "Don't post off-topic posts, you grotty little people!" And then the Off-topic posters say "Skip it!"... But do you ever see the On-topic purists making suggestions that would make their dream list possible? Nothing beyond "Stop posting off-topic posts! Go to the Off-topic list!" This list is like a library, a music store, a supermarket, anything where you have to look for what you want. There's plenty that you don't want, and you just walk past it, but it takes time. Skipping messages, deleting messages, not reading messages: this takes valuable seconds out of a golden day! Time is money! Who wants to see threads that they don't want to see? No one! But if you see such a thread, wouldn't it make more sense just to skip it? It's been suggested repeatedly, but then people make analogies involving walking into a town and being punched and having to put up with it because it's how the town is! That's ridiculous! To find things you want on the net, you need to search. You need to know what the URL of the site you wish to visit is. Time! You don't have time to sift through tons of insipid messages about things you don't care about? THEN DON'T! There's only one side that ever whines in this On-topic/off-topic debate, and it's the on-topic side... We can't live like slaves!! We're being forced to see things which we don't want to! Wah! Turn on the radio! You hear a song you don't like, turn the channel or turn off the radio! This list is not killing anyone with Off-topic posts... What's killing this list is people who expect for perfection, mainly from everyone else. Many of the people who cry out for "On-Topic" aren't always on-topic! Most of the people who post something off-topic now and again post something on-topic as well! It's a web community, and there don't have to be lynchings every damn time someone has a bad day. Bob Scott ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:54:54 -0500 From: Mike Leffel Message-ID: <378FAA2E.E377065B@conpoint.com> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: NON-TMBG: TMBG-list Bob Scott wrote: > > > > >Leffel said: > > > > > so > > > > a non-interactive list might be what some people need. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > 'swat I be sayin! ^_^ Of course, to the earlier suggestion of mimicking > > > E.Costello's Dual Lists, perhaps that could be the way too. But, as > > > OTlist > > > proves, even under liberal conditions there are limits. And $1000 says > > > that > > > the 'non-announcemnt' TMBG list (in fantasy here) would return to the > > > flamewars of the unified list anyway. Fact+Offical Opinion = Calm. Fact+ > > > Opinion = Offtopic +Abuse+ elitism = Flamewars. = unhappy on all sides, > > > except probably for the abusers. > > And then Jay G. wrote: > > > anyway, I doubt tmbg-list is gonna go moderated or 'non-interactive' as you > > call it anytime soon, so I was just suggesting that you make a moderated list > > for > > all of those people who want one. > > It's called satire... Everyone who is complaining seriously about how the list > isn't their own to manipulate exactly as they choose and how they can't stand > offtopic posts, even on offtopic lists... Feh! Do you think Leffel is suggesting > that there actually be a moderated or 'non-interactive' list? In a way, I was. I don't like flamewars. That opinion I had is becoming a flamewar. I'm drawing out before it starts to hurt again. Mike "OFF!" Leffel ---I _was_ using satire, but I also _WAS_ serious.. and now I _AM_ giving up. ------------------------------ From: Matt James Message-Id: <199907162201.SAA16379@fellspt.charm.net> Subject: NON-TMBG: adieu! adieu! Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:01:26 -0400 (EDT) > In a way, I was. I don't like flamewars. That opinion I had is becoming > a > flamewar. I'm drawing out before it starts to hurt again. > > > Mike "OFF!" Leffel > ---I _was_ using satire, but I also _WAS_ serious.. and now I _AM_ > giving up. > And so another series comes to an end. Turn off the lights, say goodbye to the dog, tell ma you won't be back again. Jump on that plane to Aruba. Watch that sunset from a beach chair and drift away into the night... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:46:05 -0400 From: Daniel Landis Message-ID: <378FEE45.4B65@erinet.com> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: TMBG: NON TMBG-eyes wide shut I've noticed that we have quite a few fans out there, so I hope that no one will get mad if I take five seconds to tell you all to go see Eyes Wide Shut. Don't belive anything you read. It seem that all the trailers and interviews are almost purposefully missleading. In actuality, the film is MUCH better. See it before someone tells you what it's about. peace, love, and understanding, (what's so funny?) John "The Third John" Landis ------------------------------ From: Alterian@aol.com Message-ID: <5a0db55f.24c14674@aol.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:37:40 EDT Subject: NonTMBG:Pirates You mean Doug and Gary the happy pirates were really mean?! -Amber the Transcendent ------------------------------ From: GhostKrabb@webtv.net (Dexter Flansburgh) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: TMBG: TMBG-List concern Message-ID: <10725-37900C17-17112@postoffice-243.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Okay, this is bad. I (and many others, I'm sure) see this as the real low point of the TMBG-list. This is not good people! Can't we all just get along? We're all pretty cool people. I've only been on this list since about December, and I know some of you well, and know that this isn't how you usually are. The attitudes I've seen here lately are reminescent of the crap that's often (and unfortunately) displayed at alt.music.tmbg, which is pretty bad, for those of you who don't participate in the NG. We've all ben brought here because of our love for the Johns, which has now turned into hate for eachother. I really don't like to see this. There's not much TMBG stuff to talk about, which is why there's been so much NON-TMBG stuff lately, and some of you are gonna' have toget used to it. Of course, you could always join TMBGofftopic (oops!). Anyway, all I'm saying is that off topic posts will happen, or this list would die. Do you know how slow it will be if there's no off topic posts? And some NON TMBG stuff is often carried out too far, but most of it is all in good fun. So please, increase the peace ya'll. -dex n.p.- The Bogmen "Suddenly" <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>"You can't grow, you don't have enough room." <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:40:34 -0600 Subject: TMBG: i'm flans' cousin... 7/15 & 7/16 reviews!!! Message-ID: <19990716.234037.-472705.0.TMBgirl@juno.com> From: Joda Yedi Master ok so this is only a review of the 7/16 show. i have my setlist for the 7/15 show at home. needless to say, i was pretty disapointed in Their show and if it weren't for the opening band, a local group, mindGOflip (check 'em out at www.mindgoflip.com for more info) i would have felt as tho i wasted my money. Anyways, i know you're all sitting there like, "you suck you're lucky you even got to see them, they never come here" believe me, it's not like that at all. the show was pretty bad. i think it was just the fact that they got on stage at 11:30 and played until 1am and well if you think about it that's 1:30 to 3am EST. other than that... Jim K. (yeah like i'm gonna try to pronounce your last name! *grin*) it was nice to meet and thanks for letting us skip in line :) ok the good stuff... aka "HOW I BECAME JOHN FLANSBURGH'S COUSIN" - 7/16 in denver, co @ LoDo music fest. setlist for a show that was a lot better than last nights: -Dr Evil Intro -Sorry I Fucked Up The Show -JKP -Edith Head -Ana Ng -Racist Friend -Spiraling -She's Actual Size -Till My Head Falls Off -Don't Let's Start -"Say Hello To The Spotlight Ops" -Cyclops Rock -Particle Man --- linnell sang some bit about "when the rain comes... we'll all have electric shock" (totally misquoted). But needless to say it was outdoors and it was raining. -Polka -Spy -Mr. Tambourine Man -Mammal -Older -Istanbul, with dan miller intro -WDTSS? with "93 million miles away and that's why it rains so much" "ESTROGEN ESTROGEN!" -Born In A Graveyard -Shoehorn -Twistin' -So Loud -BiYS -Spider -THe Guitar -Everybody Conga (the first time i ever bothered to join the line, yay!) -No One Knows My Plan --------- -She's an Angel -Dr. Worm -NYC ok so after the show i talk to flans and ask him for tickets to the NYC fan-only show since well they dissed all of us kiddies with our mailing addy's for the info club in some other far away state. then all we got was a little postcard "midwestern TMBG shows." ok so where was i? oh yeah and he's like, "ok, what's your name?" he writes it down on a piece of paper for me and then talks to me for a bit about "hey you were at the show last night... i would've given 'em to ya then" blahblah. anyways, he tells me then to just go up to the box office and tell them that i'm his cousin and hehee... i'll be on the guest list. so there you have it. my name is sitting in john flansburgh's wallet and to top it all off, i get to be his coz. yeah. :) hehee. anyways, there's still that chance that i'll be on their plane. anyways, i'm off of the list now. so any replies to this mail should definately be sent to me personally... prolly at my latest online account: TMBgirl@snmnmnm.com that way i can check it at some creepy netcafe or something... take it easy, JOrdaN ___________________________________________________________________ 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: <379038DD.D6839E04@pacificnet.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:03:44 -0700 From: Bongo Subject: TMBG: RE: regarding buckland & other list-related things [Badly formed multipart message, contents not processed] ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19990717162947.83339.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: TMBG: Recent TMBG Albums Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:29:46 PDT Okay. Since so many people have been begging for more TMBG content, here are a few band-related thoughts that I've had recently: Does anyone else think that the recent albums just haven't worked all that well as albums? I mean, they have some good songs on them (although not quite as many as on the earlier albums), but the approach of such works as _Factory Showroom_ and _Severe Tire Damage_ seems to be less "Let's put our songs together into a full-sounding album," and more "Hey! We wrote some songs! Let's put 'em on this record in any old order!" This is a bit exaggerated; these records do have some sense of order, but nowhere near as much as earlier albums did. (Besides, "S-E-X-X-Y" doesn't really work as a lead song, but I'll have more on that in a later post.) Also, it seems that _Severe Tire Damage_ tried to be too many things at once. It's a live album, a greatest hits album, and a showcase of songs that have changed from the original album versions, with some new songs thrown in. It doesn't totally succeed at being any of these things, and this leads to disappointment no matter what you want from the album. If you want a more "conventional" live album, you'll be disappointed that there are so many studio tracks, and that the live tracks don't really reflect the feel of a TMBG concert. Someone who wants greatest hits would be disappointed that relative hits such as "Don't Let's Start" and "The Statue Got Me High" weren't on it (yes, I know They wanted to include "Don't Let's Start," but the fact remains that isn't on there), and that so many relatively unknown songs are. I think it works best as a showcase of changed songs, but, even in that respect, it fails somewhat because of tracks that sound too much like the original album versions (such as "Birdhouse In Your Soul" and "Till My Head Falls Off"). If you want new songs, you'll be disappointed to find that most of the album is made up of old stuff. Anyway, those are just a few TMBG-related things to think about. Would someone please comment on them? -- May the light shine upon thee, Nathan Mulac "Do not back up" DeHoff DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <3790C69E.3DE6F0F6@tmbg.org> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:08:30 -0400 From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Recent TMBG Albums Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote: > Does anyone else think that the recent albums just haven't worked all that > well as albums? I mean, they have some good songs on them (although not > quite as many as on the earlier albums), but the approach of such works as > _Factory Showroom_ and _Severe Tire Damage_ seems to be less "Let's put our > songs together into a full-sounding album," and more "Hey! We wrote some > songs! Let's put 'em on this record in any old order!" This is a bit > exaggerated; these records do have some sense of order, but nowhere near as > much as earlier albums did. (Besides, "S-E-X-X-Y" doesn't really work as a > lead song, but I'll have more on that in a later post.) I think Factory Showroom is a good example of some of Linnell's best work, and some of Flansburgh's worst. I mean, I'm not saying that Flansburgh's songs are necessarily *bad*, but that they just don't live up to the They Might Be Giants standard. John Henry, which came out two years before Factory Showroom, is a very strong, cohesive album. Subliminal is a great starter, and End of the Tour an almost automatic closer. The songs also seem to fit together. The kind of dark, cynical attitude is present in most of them. Factory Showroom isn't cohesive, but rather most of the same style. They had 23 songs to choose from (FS + Sensurround, Certain People, Reprehensible, Older, Rat Patrol, On the Drag, Counterfeit Faker, They Got Lost, Token Back to Brooklyn, and Dark and Metric) and left out 10. Most bands don't record 10 more songs than they plan on putting on an album, unless they're planning on putting out a lot of EPs. I can understand why Rat Patrol, On the Drag, and Sensurround got cut - too similar to the rest of the material. And They Got Lost has always been sort of a novelty song, because there's no way to really take a song like that seriously. But why not Certain People and Reprehensible? To either extend the album or replace a couple of the weaker tracks. I'd much rather hear Reprehensible than How Can I Sing Like a Girl... Certain People might fit in well between Exquisite Dead Guy and Metal Detector... Do we know yet whether the songs from that list that are appearing on LTW have been rerecorded, or if we're just getting the Factory Sessions versions? And what happened to On the Drag, which is conspicuously absent from LTW? > Also, it seems that _Severe Tire Damage_ tried to be too many things at > once. It's a live album, a greatest hits album, and a showcase of songs > that have changed from the original album versions, with some new songs > thrown in. It doesn't totally succeed at being any of these things, and > this leads to disappointment no matter what you want from the album. If you > want a more "conventional" live album, you'll be disappointed that there are > so many studio tracks, and that the live tracks don't really reflect the > feel of a TMBG concert. Someone who wants greatest hits would be > disappointed that relative hits such as "Don't Let's Start" and "The Statue > Got Me High" weren't on it (yes, I know They wanted to include "Don't Let's > Start," but the fact remains that isn't on there), and that so many > relatively unknown songs are. I think it works best as a showcase of > changed songs, but, even in that respect, it fails somewhat because of > tracks that sound too much like the original album versions (such as > "Birdhouse In Your Soul" and "Till My Head Falls Off"). If you want new > songs, you'll be disappointed to find that most of the album is made up of > old stuff. I think the biggest disappointment for me is that this was the only release of First Kiss. I wouldn't have cared if they'd included it with the studio tracks, but a live version as an initial release? The other major problem with it as a live album is that it's not a reflection of what their live show was like up to the release of the album. They didn't start playing She's an Angel again until after it was released, and XTC vs. Adam Ant was mostly retired by the time Hal Cragin showed up on bass (10/97). The best way to make such an album is to make setlists based on what they want on the album - instead of just recording *one* Mercury Lounge show (12/18/97), they should have recorded *all* of them. Determine the songs on the album first, and play them at all 7 of those shows, while varying the rest of the set so the audience doesn't get bored with the same 16 or 17 songs. And they should have saved Dr. Worm and First Kiss for their next studio album, making STD a fully live CD (and also getting rid of those damn bootleg tracks - another advantage to taping all the Mercury Lounge shows professionally) For Live Noise, Moxy Fruvous recorded I think 6 or 7 shows. (not including the MIT and Providence shows, which were both from bootlegs) As a result, they were able to get the best versions of all the songs they wanted to include. And I'd not be surprised if they had determined the contents of the album before writing their setlists for those shows. -- Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ zaph@tmbg.org "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ From: "Bridget Therease" Subject: Non-TMBG: Why the list sucks so much Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:08:14 -0700 Message-ID: <000001bed0a0$dd83cde0$7ac66ac6@tooms> my personal opinion? as a lurker of 4-5 years, i'd have to say the problem is... there's nothing ontopic to really talk about. when people *have* said ontopic things on the list, it's mainly been *criticizing* tmbg. not that they're "above the law", but when there's nothing good to say... i'd say the problem is people not being able to accept that there *isn't much going on* and *no one has anything to say about tmbg*. so they yell at people who talk about other things. ...well, sometimes. for whatever reason, the pirate thing went unscathed JUST UNTIL my *personal god* (winkwink!) mike leffel jumped into the fray. at which point the WHOLE LIST dissolved. i don't get why virtually EVERYONE ELSE can be offtopic, but if mike says one or two things, it's horrible. by the way, everyone who's saying the list will never get moderated... i've noticed you're all new within the last year or so. i remember (i think) 3 different periods in which leo had to moderate the list. it was NOT FUN. this list is NOT FUN without the personality of its members, not much of which can shine through when they're just saying "tmbg on conan tonight" or whatever. believe me. and this is, imho, WORSE than when leo decided to moderate the lists those past couple times. *sigh* the cycle goes on. next week: AKA's! (yum!) bridgie t. "i was a nice girl," she pleaded, "wasn't i?" http://www.proaxis.com/~tooms/ celestia@tmbg.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 17:43:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Jim Kuemmerle Subject: TMBG: TMBG-LIST: other lists i've experienced... Message-ID: hey, everybody. somebody a while back (i accidentally deleted it, so i've forgotten who) asked what other mailing lists listies have been on and how they've handled the kind of difficulties we've been having these past few days. so these are the lists i've been on and what they've been like: (1) "The Norm"'s virtual SW episode 1 line: for those of you unfamiliar with "the norm", it's a comic strip done by michael jantze. prior to the release of 'phantom menace', the main character takes time off work and sits in a line waiting to get in. so this list was dually about the comic strip and the movie. lots of people, about 96% on-topic. i didn't see any fights or flamewars break out. however, i didn't get to know anybody else on the list, and took nothing back from it beyond some trivia. (2) the will oldham mailing list: this is a mailing list devoted to the singer/songwriter/guitarist will oldham (palace music, palace songs, bonnie prince billy, etc.) not many people, about 60% on-topic. obscenely low bandwidth; i get less than 20 messages a week when that list is hoppin'. unlike our list, the 40% off-topic is very non-interactive in nature, rather impersonal, and usually about related bands (smog, edith frost, jim o'rourke, and others of the current chicago indie scene). i keep hanging around waiting for something of interest to show up, but i'm not holding my breath. i would even prefer a nice flamewar just to indicate that there are living, breathing people on the other end of the emails. (3) the eastern european folklife center list: this is a mailing list devoted to balkan folk music, dance, and related subjects. slightly larger than our list, about 92% on-topic. this, however, is no model for how to run a list. flamewars erupt biweekly, (if not weekly,) and last for about three or four times as long as ours. you should have seen the "discussion" about the amplification of live balkan folk music and the proper volume levels thereof. two months, no exaggeration, of intolerable bickering. i met a good many of these listies in person at a workshop last summer, and they seem to be (for the most part) very intelligent, friendly people. too bad so many of them are so socially maladjusted that they can't carry on an online conversation without screaming at each other. it was during a particularly bad screaming match that my address was accidentally booted off the list of recipients, and i just left it off. also, before i forget; like our list, the EEFC list has quite a few readily identifiable personalities. unlike our list, however, the listies' online personas are for the most part rather different than their 'in-real-life' personas. (4) us. (WARNING: warm fuzziness ahead. you've been warned.) i just want to take a moment to emphasize how much i love being on this list. to me, it seems like the perfect balance of on- and off-topic posts, silliness and seriousness, content and context, etc., etc. even our flamewars are short, handled with relative maturity, and bolstered with assurances of goodwill. and, most amazingly, the culture of this list is filled with enough trust and love to encourage an incredible amount of openness. if this means we're only about %30-40 on-topic, so be it. i can honestly say that i love many of the listies here, and i am thoroughly convinced that the structure and culture of the list are what let me get to know you guys enough for that. --jim kuemmerle, who probably should've just sent flowers instead, huh? j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ ------------------------------ End of tmbg-list Digest #19-19 ******************************