Off?: Spacerock Glossary

[DASLUD at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 6/13/00 3:08:43 PM, Chuckrecs at AOL.COM writes:

<<
--well then how the hell is someone supposed to write a review or recommend a
band??
=====
this one's written reviews, too, okay? got paid even, sometimes.

and i _really_ dislike this notion of a 'glossary' as discussed here.
====
 <<Believe it or not, some people are just trying to help musicians, not
"cul-de-sac" them.>>

what's to 'believe' or not, chuck? are you saying as a writer, you lean on
crib notes, convenient handles for what you describe? [wait, hang on, i'm not
saying you _are_.]

for all the sub-sub-sub-genres already out there...maybe it's enough.

'space  rock', as it's been referred to here, is _already_ a cul-de-sac.
_already_.
didnt you know?
but here, we're all having a block party. this is 'our' turf. [and you say
"who's 'our', paleface?] so it is in _all_ o' these cul-de-sacs; turf is
turf, y'know?
and there we'll remain, within the semantic paramaters of one's peculiar
cul-de-sac
didnt say (we) would be unhappy there, just....heh....categorized.
==
the issue today has been the compilaition of 'distinctions by which [it] can
be recognized'. a 'glossary'. =koff=
===
when das ludicroix had cassettes put out on that tiny english label, we were
a 'militant pro-cannabis psychedelic jam band', to the extent we were
categorized at all.
i _much_  prefer 'psychedelic' to 'space rock'. the latter makes me think of
bad '50s movies.
===
six of one
half a dozen of the other
how about we play some MUSIC
and let Buddha sort it out?

"<>"
.==
<<Sitting on two chairs in the company of knowledgable reasonable persons is
more or less possible, - doing same in the company of ravers results in a
fall, and taking of sides...>>
KISAKO 2K