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, Volume 42, Number 18 tmbg-list Digest, Volume 42, Number 18 Monday, 18 June 2001 Topics: Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site Re: TMBG: Re: top ten sad songs Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site TMBG: I am not a robot... Re: TMBG: Re: tmbg-list Digest #42-16 TMBG: Re: proposed site TMBG: UnLtd TMBG: Re: tmbg-list Digest #42-17 Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site Re: TMBG: Versions of Edith Head Administrivia: For all administrative issues, such as change of address, withdrawal from the list, etc., send a message to the following address: ÁÁowner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors. tmbg-list is compiled with Digest 3.7b (John Relph ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:52:05 -0700 From: Bongo Subject: Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site Message-ID: <3B2C538E.21E86CCE@pacificnet.net> Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote: > An idea that I have been throwing around for a little while is to make sort > of an annotated TMBG file, mentioning references in TMBG songs, as well as > just general information on them. If you have any submissions, ideas, or > general comments for this (or, for that matter, if you just want to tell me > why it's a dumb or unnecessary idea), let me know. I'm mostly looking for > stuff like this: This is the greatest post I've read in a long time. That's an excellent idea and I had always hoped that tmbg.org would feature exactly such a thing. I couldn't have put it any better. Leo Bicknell then said: > I would like to build tmbg.org to be the ultimate fan site. To > that end, I'd like to integrate tmbg.net, and some of the other > sites on the web ring. One site, one interface, everything you > could ever want. Until that happens, I agree with the non-duplication > sentimate. I don't want to duplicate what others are doing without > formally integrating it into the site. > > Another great idea. I suppose some fan site owners might not want to shut down their own personal shrines to instead be a part a community project but I hope they would realize the benefit. We don't want great pieces scattered all over the Net. I'm all for consolidating. Leo also said: > So, you might ask, what do you need to know in order to work on > tmbg.org? Well, I believe we are at a turning point, where we need > to automate many functions. The site is already based on a SQL > database, along with some Apache extensions. I would like a small > group of people with Perl + SQL + Web experience to work on the > infrastructure scripts and programs that make the site work. > This part kind of scared me and maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. At first it seemed that the emphasis was being put on having a technically exquisite site rather than one with great content. It would be great to have both. Whatever works is fine but I think a lot of folks have seen that and stepped back in fear. The way I see it, it would take 3 things to make this great tmbg.net resurrection: 1) Person/s with the technical know how to put it all together but not *necessarily* to be the "editors" of the site. And not even necessarily to design the graphics, layout or organize how the content is arranged. 2) Many, many fans with contributions, corrections, suggestions etc. 3) Person/s to sort through submissions, etc. then either put the stuff up on the site themselves or have the Perl/SQL/web gurus do it. Though many of the folks in each of these categories will be the same, they don't necessarily HAVE to be. Maybe this webmaster extraordinare will be a guy that will design, contribute, and decide what goes on the site. That's fine with me if that works. tmbg.org was the first tmbg site I ever seen and along with the official site, its the best. (It has so much great content that the official site doesn't, can't and shouldn't include.) -B O N G O ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 05:17:03 -0700 From: Bongo Subject: Re: TMBG: Re: top ten sad songs Message-ID: <3B2C9FBC.F0B364ED@pacificnet.net> Bongo wrote: > ..and others I'm probably forgetting. > > -B O N G O ...such as "On Earth My Nina" for example. -B O N G O ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:39:44 -0600 From: "makebase" Subject: Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site Message-ID: <9gic23$2h8c$1@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0F700.AD6AEB60 Content-Type: text/plain; ÁÁcharset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've given this some more thought. It would be nice, as you say, to = have all you want in one place. It would also be nice to, as Mr. = Bicknell suggests, have the same interface to access all that = information. Just think how nice it would be to get accurate tour = dates, a full discology, lyrics and interps to EVERY song, midis, = (legally) exchange mp3s, games, band info, find radio stations that play = TMBG, pics, articles, setlists, etc. all at one URL with the same = interface for it all. Once you figured out how to get lyrics, you'd = know how to get midis, and so on. There is much to be said for = centralization. On the other hand, there is much to be said for independent sites or = compartmentalization as well. With many sites, you spread out the costs = of server space and bandwidth, and you distribute the labor involved in = building and maintaining content to many individuals that can be = physically seperated by great distances. Building a community of great TMBG web sites is a great idea. Perhaps = several web sites could agree to work together to develop a common = interface and form a "TMBG Web Network" or something, where a person = could go to www.tmbg.org, for example, and be presented with two frames: = one for the "network" and one "content frame" for the games, lyrics, = interps, etc. that are already at tmbg.org, but there would be a link = to, say, articles. When you click the articles link, you are sent to = www.tmbg.net where you encounter the same interface and are left with = the "network" frame and the "content frame," this time including .net = material. While the casual user would just think he/she is traveling to = a different part of the same site, they would in fact be at a different = site that is participating in the communal TMBG web project where .net = would provide content relating to articles, setlists and so forth, .org = would provide lyrics, interps and so forth, and other sites that = currently have unique content could continue to contribute what they = have. This way, not every site has to put in all the labor to figure = out how to do this and that and our many sites will become one large = super site. We could all agree on certain protocols to use as a = condition of participating in the network to allow for aesthetic and = functional consistency, and we can all help each other with content. = For example, we could all share in the work of formatting fans' = submitted interpretations in the agreed upon HTML format so that .org = isn't overloaded with work, but it would be .org's responsibility to = host the interps on their server. Not every part of a super site will = require technology like PERL and SQL. This way we could apply that = where it was needed and keep it out of where it was not. I don't know if this is quite what Leo or Nathan or Bongo had in mind, = but I think this would work well, allowing each site owner autonomy over = his/her site and creative power to enhance it, but providing the = universal interface and common location that we all seem to agree would = be an improvement over the present situation. Just my thoughts. I hope I'm not just rehashing what y'all have already = said. Shaun of www.tmbg.cc Aspiring TMBG Ambassador to the People's Republic of Utah Bongo wrote in message = news:3B2C538E.21E86CCE@pacificnet.net... Leo Bicknell then said:=20 I would like to build tmbg.org to be the ultimate fan site. To that end, I'd like to integrate tmbg.net, and some of the other sites on the web ring. One site, one interface, everything you could ever want. Until that happens, I agree with the non-duplication sentimate. I don't want to duplicate what others are doing without formally integrating it into the site. Another great idea. I suppose some fan site owners might not want = to shut down their own personal shrines to instead be a part a community = project but I hope they would realize the benefit. We don't want great = pieces scattered all over the Net. I'm all for consolidating.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0F700.AD6AEB60 Content-Type: text/html; ÁÁcharset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've given this some more = thought.  It would=20 be nice, as you say, to have all you want in one place.  It would = also be=20 nice to, as Mr. Bicknell suggests, have the same interface to access all = that=20 information.  Just think how nice it would be to get accurate tour = dates, a=20 full discology, lyrics and interps to EVERY song, midis, (legally) = exchange=20 mp3s, games, band info, find radio stations that play TMBG, pics, = articles,=20 setlists, etc. all at one URL with the same interface for it all.  = Once you=20 figured out how to get lyrics, you'd know how to get midis, and so = on. =20 There is much to be said for centralization.
 
On the other hand, there is much to be = said for=20 independent sites or compartmentalization as well.  With many = sites, you=20 spread out the costs of server space and bandwidth, and you distribute = the labor=20 involved in building and maintaining content to many individuals that = can be=20 physically seperated by great distances.
 
Building a community of great TMBG web = sites is a=20 great idea.  Perhaps several web sites could agree to work = together to=20 develop a common interface and form a "TMBG Web Network" or something, = where a=20 person could go to www.tmbg.org, for = example,=20 and be presented with two frames:  one for the "network" and one = "content=20 frame" for the games, lyrics, interps, etc. that are already at = tmbg.org, but=20 there would be a link to, say, articles.  When you click the = articles link,=20 you are sent to www.tmbg.net where = you=20 encounter the same interface and are left with the "network" frame and = the=20 "content frame," this time including .net material.  While the = casual user=20 would just think he/she is traveling to a different part of the same = site, they=20 would in fact be at a different site that is participating in the = communal TMBG=20 web project where .net would provide content relating to articles, = setlists and=20 so forth, .org would provide lyrics, interps and so forth, and other = sites that=20 currently have unique content could continue to contribute what they = have. =20 This way, not every site has to put in all the labor to figure out how = to do=20 this and that and our many sites will become one large super site.  = We=20 could all agree on certain protocols to use as a condition of = participating in=20 the network to allow for aesthetic and functional consistency, and we = can all=20 help each other with content.  For example, we could all share in = the work=20 of formatting fans' submitted interpretations in the agreed upon HTML = format so=20 that .org isn't overloaded with work, but it would be .org's = responsibility to=20 host the interps on their server.  Not every part of a super site = will=20 require technology like PERL and SQL.  This way we could apply that = where=20 it was needed and keep it out of where it was not.
 
I don't know if this is quite what Leo = or Nathan or=20 Bongo had in mind, but I think this would work well, allowing each site = owner=20 autonomy over his/her site and creative power to enhance it, but = providing the=20 universal interface and common location that we all seem to agree would = be an=20 improvement over the present situation.
 
Just my thoughts.  I hope I'm not = just=20 rehashing what y'all have already said.
 
Shaun of www.tmbg.cc
Aspiring TMBG Ambassador to the = People's Republic=20 of Utah
 
 
Bongo <ggr@pacificnet.net>=20 wrote in message news:3B2C538E.21E86CCE@pac= ificnet.net...

Leo Bicknell then said:=20 

I would like to build tmbg.org to be =
the ultimate fan site.  To
that end, I'd like to integrate tmbg.net, and some of the other
sites on the web ring.  One site, one interface, everything you
could ever want.  Until that happens, I agree with the =
non-duplication
sentimate.  I don't want to duplicate what others are doing without
formally integrating it into the site.


     Another great idea. I suppose some fan = site=20 owners might not want to shut down their own personal shrines to = instead be a=20 part a community project but I hope they would realize the benefit. We = don't=20 want great pieces scattered all over the Net. I'm all for = consolidating.=20

 

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0F700.AD6AEB60-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:58:52 -0400 From: Leo Bicknell Subject: Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site Message-ID: <20010617095852.A83796@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Organization: United Federation of Planets On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 11:52:05PM -0700, Bongo wrote: > Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:52:05 -0700 > From: Bongo > Subject: Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site > Reply-To: Bongo > To: undisclosed-recipients:; > > Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote: > > > An idea that I have been throwing around for a little while is to make sort > > of an annotated TMBG file, mentioning references in TMBG songs, as well as > > just general information on them. If you have any submissions, ideas, or > > general comments for this (or, for that matter, if you just want to tell me > > why it's a dumb or unnecessary idea), let me know. I'm mostly looking for > > stuff like this: > > This is the greatest post I've read in a long time. That's an excellent idea > and I had always hoped that tmbg.org would feature exactly such a thing. I > couldn't have put it any better. > > Leo Bicknell then said: > > > I would like to build tmbg.org to be the ultimate fan site. To > > that end, I'd like to integrate tmbg.net, and some of the other > > sites on the web ring. One site, one interface, everything you > > could ever want. Until that happens, I agree with the non-duplication > > sentimate. I don't want to duplicate what others are doing without > > formally integrating it into the site. > > > > > > Another great idea. I suppose some fan site owners might not want to shut > down their own personal shrines to instead be a part a community project but I > hope they would realize the benefit. We don't want great pieces scattered all > over the Net. I'm all for consolidating. > > Leo also said: > > > So, you might ask, what do you need to know in order to work on > > tmbg.org? Well, I believe we are at a turning point, where we need > > to automate many functions. The site is already based on a SQL > > database, along with some Apache extensions. I would like a small > > group of people with Perl + SQL + Web experience to work on the > > infrastructure scripts and programs that make the site work. > > > > This part kind of scared me and maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. > At first it seemed that the emphasis was being put on having a technically > exquisite site rather than one with great content. It would be great to have > both. Whatever works is fine but I think a lot of folks have seen that and > stepped back in fear. > > The way I see it, it would take 3 things to make this great tmbg.net > resurrection: > > 1) Person/s with the technical know how to put it all together but not > *necessarily* to be the "editors" of the site. And not even necessarily to > design the graphics, layout or organize how the content is arranged. > > 2) Many, many fans with contributions, corrections, suggestions etc. > > 3) Person/s to sort through submissions, etc. then either put the stuff up on > the site themselves or have the Perl/SQL/web gurus do it. > > Though many of the folks in each of these categories will be the same, they > don't necessarily HAVE to be. Maybe this webmaster extraordinare will be a guy > that will design, contribute, and decide what goes on the site. That's fine > with me if that works. tmbg.org was the first tmbg site I ever seen and along > with the official site, its the best. (It has so much great content that the > official site doesn't, can't and shouldn't include.) > > -B O N G O > > -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:05:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Rob Subject: TMBG: I am not a robot... Message-ID: <20010617180517.6126.qmail@web11606.mail.yahoo.com> > Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:21:14 EDT > From: Instaboy@aol.com > Subject: TMBG: Re: tmbg-list Digest #42-15 > Message-ID: > > I love it when people tell me I'm not a true fan > because I do not blindly love everything a band > releases. I am not a robot. I try and stay totally > objective to all new music that is released. If I > don't like it I try and analyze why. Even if I was > dissapointed by an album, I will still give the band > another chance when they release the next one. > > I have learned to never trust the opinion of anyone > who who loves everything. > > george > Yeah, and I just love it when somebody blindly comments on a post without reading the whole thing because they think they know what it will say. I never said a true fan would blindly love everything a band releases. In fact, if you had read all of the posts on the subject, I said quite the opposite. A true fan WOULD stay totally objective to new music, a true fan WOULD analyze why they didn't like a song, they would also search for things that they did like about those songs, and above all they would respect the band. The next time you make a comment about a post, to avoid placing your foot in your mouth, be sure that you have read the whole thing. ===== 'There is nothing... nothing more important than the truth.' __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:29:42 -0500 From: "James & Kimberly Mohan" Subject: Re: TMBG: Re: tmbg-list Digest #42-16 Message-ID: <3B2CF716.EB660601@uswest.net> I can't recall all the versions I've heard, but, I have to say, I like the one on McSweeney's 'WttJ' Jim TMBG Amb to MN Instaboy@aol.com wrote: > Out of all the versions of "She Thinks She's Edith Head" I would like the one that is a actually a completely different song on Mink Car. > > I have never found that sound pleasing in anyway. Well actually, the verses are pretty good, but the choruses annoy me. It's sad really. > > george ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:20:01 -0400 From: "Jen Childs" Subject: TMBG: Re: proposed site Message-ID: <001801c0f762$825d4460$2a000a0a@raven> Nathan, I think that's a great idea for a site. I wouldn't worry about format until you have some content up, then you can see what fits naturally. If you want a home outside Geocities for your site, I can host it on my personal server- as long as you don't start posting multimedia or something. While using tmbg.org as a central repository for all things TMBG is a nice concept, in reality a lot of people are more interested in working on their own, smaller sites, where they have ownership and can take more personal pride in the result. Plus, of course, many fans aren't serious geeks and can't really contribute to tmbg.org at this time. I would recommend using tmbg.org as a central clearinghouse by posting annotated links to smaller sites, while these other sites endeavor not to replicate what's on tmbg.org. If tmbg.org is going to continue to have a backlog, perhaps a smaller site could carry the backlog, in static form, until people have time to add it to the main site. ÁÁ- Jen (SpiderEyes) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:57:03 -0700 From: "Bryan T. Hoerber" Subject: TMBG: UnLtd Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20010617125250.00aa2be8@pop3.norton.antivirus> I like the idea of UnLtd and the ability to leech all I want from eMusic.com. But there is one thing that really annoys me to no end. The fact that they use that pseudo CD-Quality that everyone thinks is great. I personally can't stand 128KBit - Joint Stereo MP3s. I hear too many digital artifacts. It sounds like the drums are under water. If they must use 128 KBit they should at least make the files true stereo. All of their MP3s are like this. And what is up with that recording of the Ritz show that was on May's UnLtd? It sounded really tinny and distorted. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:55:33 EDT From: GoodOmenz@aol.com Subject: TMBG: Re: tmbg-list Digest #42-17 Message-ID: <118.6ed330.285e9d75@aol.com> In a message dated 6/17/01 1:11:52 AM, owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org writes: >An idea that I have been throwing around for a little while is to make >sort >of an annotated TMBG file, mentioning references in TMBG songs, as well >as >just general information on them. I think its a good idea! just thought i'd offer encouragement (and i'd even help out if i have the time.) show how tmbg and american culture are slowly but surely converging into... something. god help us having been out of the country for about 6 months i really dont know whats going on with the they might be giants. so far im mildly underwhelmed by the mcsweenys thingie but i was expecting that. liz everything in us resembles god... except for one thing -gogol bordello ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:16:47 -0000 From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: TMBG: Proposed TMBG site Message-ID: John Ferrer: >I don't know if I'll get mauled for this or not, but this sounds like >it >would be a good place for some interpretations. TMBG.org is the >most >informative site I've come across, but it's not exactly up-to->date, and >I've always found TMBG interps to be better reading than, >well, James >Joyce at least! So I don't know, is it illegal to have two >major sites >with fan-submitted interps, or would that bother people? >Discuss amongst >yourselves, please. I have no problem with another interpretation archive being opened (possibly one that could be incorporated into tmbg.org when it gets back on its feet, if the maintainer is agreeable, but that's neither here nor there at the moment), but I sort of want to keep it separate from the annotated files. (I actually think a minor problem with tmbg.org's interpretation pages is that they lump everything together, be it official, unofficial but well-thought-out, really stretching it, humorous, or not really an interpretation.) A tiny bit of interpretation might sneak into what I want to do (it might be hard to draw the line sometimes), but I think interpretations in general should have a home on another site. I agree that they can be enjoyable reading, although some (probably including mine, but oh well) are REALLY stretching it, and others are just plain bad (the "Number Three" interpretation at tmbg.org, for instance). -- May the light shine upon thee, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/fablesto/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com makebase: >Meanwhile, those of us with sites, can we agree that, in the best interest >of web site quality, that we will not just duplicate the content of sister >TMBG sites? I'm trying to come up with something relatively unique here. If another site explains something better than I could, I'm planning on providing a link to that content. If something hasn't been documented, or it's documented in a place that's really difficult to find (an old magazine article or interview, for instance), however, I'd like to make that information easier to find, so a fan won't have to go on a wild goose chase every time he or she is wondering what song inspired a lyric in "West Virginia" ("Georgie Girl," by the Seekers, as established in both a webchat and a radio interview). -- May the light shine upon thee, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/fablesto/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:52:59 -0000 From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: TMBG: Versions of Edith Head Message-ID: Jim Mohan: >I can't recall all the versions I've heard, but, I have to say, I like the >one on McSweeney's I think that's the same as the version on Long Tall Weekend. The version of "Drinkin'" on the McSweeney's disc sounds slightly different from the LTW one, though (possibly a different mix). >Instaboy@aol.com wrote: > > > Out of all the versions of "She Thinks She's Edith Head" I would like >the one that is a actually a completely different song on Mink Car. > > > > I have never found that sound pleasing in anyway. Well actually, the >verses are pretty good, but the choruses annoy me. It's sad really. -- May the light shine upon thee, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/fablesto/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ End of tmbg-list Digest #42-18 ******************************