International Teletimes Vol. 3 No. 5 ==================================== ***** ****** ***** ****** ******* ***** * * * * * * * * * ***** ****** * * ****** * ***** * * * * * * * * ***** * ***** * * * ***** & L E I S U R E ************************************************************ * September 1994 ISSN 1198-3604 * ************************************************************ ======== CONTENTS ======== Features -------- THE TAO OF HIKING "Starting about mid-morning, I began the hike as if I were running a race-pacing and pushing myself over hills, up switch-backs, past ridge tops that baked in the sun and slopes that languished in shady canopy. I had been working out consistently before the trip, so I viewed the hike as a sort of test." - Jay Hipps, Petaluma, California, USA CUSTOM AND EXERCISE "I remember being dragged off on cross country runs in freezing (literally) weather wearing only shorts and a T-shirt (with the games master dressed in a track suit, gloves, woolly hat, pullover, etc.). In fact when I think about it, most of my childhood experiences with Physical Education were overwhelmingly negative." - Dr. Euan Taylor, Vancouver, Canada THE RUNNER NEXT DOOR "However, contrary to popular belief, most runners are, by nature, unhealthy. They shun doctors, run themselves into the ground and wonder why they are not setting pr's. And because obsessiveness is also a characteristic of the runner (almost a given in marathon and in ultra-distance runners), they may shun food altogether as well, not wishing to carry anything extra around those 25 laps on the track." - Sheila Eldred, Oxford, UK AN INVITATION TO FENCING "Fencing is about an interchange of ideas - ideas intended to deceive or surprise. Fencing is about thinking and transferring thoughts into action at the maximum rate and with the maximum precision." - Theo Norvell, Toronto, Canada Departments ----------- DEBATE ROOM "Although TV shows are starting to sport gay characters in their regular line-ups, these characters rarely lead realistic lives on screen. Of all the flirting, touching, kissing and steamy love scenes we are constantly bombarded with, how many occur between gay characters?" - Euan Taylor, Paul Gribble and Jon Gould MUSIC NOTES: FEATURE "Even a quick glance at this year's selections reveals a very real difference from previous Lollapaloozii. This cast is closer to the original intent of the all-day mega-concert." - Russell Weinberger, Davis, California, USA MUSIC NOTES: REVIEWS This month, Ken reviews Van Morrison, Boz Scaggs, Alison Moyet, The Brian Setzer Orchestra, Sir Douglas Quintet, Stanley Jordan, McCoy Tyner Big Band, and Cyrus Chestnut. - Ken Eisner, Vancouver, Canada DEJA VU "50 years later some of us seem to be pro-longing that day, not wanting it to end. How else to explain my arrival from the States to accompany one of the many 'D-Day Remembered' tours with about 20 of my alma mater's alumni?" - Andrew B. Shaindlin, Providence, Rhode Island , USA ============= EDITOR'S NOTE ============= Hello all! As you may have noticed, Teletimes has not been published for several months. We were planning to release a new edition in a format called "Replica" but have had to postpone it indefinately because of technical problems. This caused a huge slow-down in production, but you'll be happy to know that we're getting back on track and have some great things planned for the next few months. Staff Positions Available ------------------------- Teletimes has gone through incredible growth since it began in October 1992. Since Teletimes won the Best of the Net award in June, interest in the magazine has never been higher. Along with this new popularity and growth has come a lot of extra work. Unfortunately we do not have enough people to handle the extra workload, so I'd like to announce the following list of available positions. Please note that people will be hired on a volunteer basis initially. Section Editors --------------- People who are quite comfortable with the Internet and possibly have publishing experience and/or interest are needed as section editors. Section editors will be in charge of a defined section of Teletimes. Their tasks will involve finding and corresponding with potential writers, making sure that there is sufficient material in each section, rejecting articles which do not meet standards, and generally working directly with writers and correspondents for their area of the magazine. Sections which need editors are the Features section (monthly theme) and one or two editors to help out with running certain columns in the Departments section. Illustrators ------------ We need a couple of creative people to help out with illustrating articles and helping out with cover design. To get more information about what is involved, please e-mail our Art Director, Anand Mani (me@armani.com). Internet Guru ------------- We need a person who is extremely knowledgeably about the Internet to help with technical questions/problems related to the magazine. This person might also help out with online marketing and distribution. Writers ------- We need lots of writers, especially from outside of North America, to write for us. Monthly topics are provided as guidelines, but there are also some specialty columns which people may enjoy writing for. Female writers are extremely welcome as we'd like to try and even out the male-female ratio on our staff. If you are interested in any of these positions, or think there is some other way you could help out with Teletimes, please e-mail us your resume. - Ian Wojtowicz, Vancouver, Canada editor@teletimes.com ======= MAILBOX ======= Reactions to our Award ---------------------- Congratulations!!!! You're doing a damn fine job!! Greg Vogel San Diego, USA Congratulations! I've always appreciated your work, and am looking forward to lots of interesting articles to come. Awaji Yoshimasa Kisarazu, Japan Great magazine. I like the pictures, and I look forward to your Photon issue! Jeffrey E. Richardson Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Response to "Academic Freedom" ------------------------------ After reading the Debate Room column on "Academic Freedom" in the April issue, I have to make a few comments. While I mostly agree with Paul Gribble, my opinion comes with a few caveats related to Dr. Taylor's comments. While I do feel that a University must support freedom of speech, especially freedom to espouse unpopular positions, this does not mean to me that they have the right to say just anything in the classrooms and lecture halls. As an undergraduate, the most painful classroom moments came when the instructor was nattering on about some topic with little relevance to the course description in the catalog. As a student I was paying my own good money for that class time, and I didn't want it wasted. My personal favorite example was in an introductory course in Artificial Intelligence. I took this course during the period when the Strategic Defence Initiative was a hot issue. Our instructor thought that SDI was a horrible/evil idea and took up many a classroom hour explaining why in horrendous detail. Now, while it can be argued that there is some relation as computers would have to be used in any system such as SDI, this is more an issue for a Computers and Social Responsibility class (which did exist at that University). Very little AI was learned that semester. A year or so later I ran into an ex student of the same instructor from the early 70's who told me that back then this instructor was doing the same thing with the Vietnam War, including trying to organize the students in a sit-in. I partially agree with his opinions, but I wasn't paying for them. I was paying for an introductory survey of AI, hopefully relatively balanced. I wouldn't even have minded so much if his presentation of the issues of SDI had been more balanced. Checking the journals at the time, the software engineering community was close to evenly divided as to the practicality of the SDI system. In short, the academic community has another responsibility, to their students, to teach the subject matter that the students are paying for. Too many students I have met have had similar complaints and the situation is getting worse as tuitions increase. Thanks for the soapbox John Dougan Vancouver, Canada Great Graphics -------------- You have done a lovely job, and I am thoroughly impressed. Did you draw your own graphics? How? They are as good as any by professionals I know. I am looking to step into electronic publishing now, and you are clearly the standard setter! Good for you! Count me in on your mailing list!! Antoinette Burnham Washington D.C., USA Anand Mani Responds: Thank you. I produce all of the icongraphics in Fractal Painter using a Wacom tablet. I am an illustrator and iconographer by profession; most of my work being produced for companies. My work can also be found in Adbusters Quarterly. Electronic publishing is an exciting new field and I wish you the best of luck. E-Zine Recommendations? ----------------------- I've been looking for good e-zines but been disappointed. I'm not much interested in reading about music -- and the mid-eighties style 'zines moved over to the Net seem to lean toward the weakness they had in the original form. The formats of low-budget publishing and of e-zine appeal to me greatly but as with TV the reality is bleak (a real dirth of quality content)...yet I certainly don't have the talent to remedy the situation myself. I picked up 3 recent issues of your publication while "World Wide Webbing" around. The quality is superior. I think you are doing good work. Are there fellow e-publications of similar merit you can recommend? Daniel Amin St. Louis, MO, USA Ian Wojtowicz Responds: Well, I probably don't spend enough time reading other electronic publications, but I can recommend InterText as a good fiction magazine. For some better recommendations, try e-mailing John Labovitz (johnl@ora.com). He compiles an extensive list of e-zines and could probably recommend a few for you. Response to The Wine Enthusiast ------------------------------- Greetings. I was browsing around the Web and came across your zine, and even scanned the article in the April '94 issue by Tom Davis, on Beers. A nice general introduction to the topic, but he incorrectly cited Yuengling Brewery as being in Boston. It is in fact in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, and lists itself as America's oldest brewery (since 1826). It is still run by the same family. They make a pretty nice Black & Tan, and their Lord Chesterfield Ale isn't bad either. They also do a Porter, but I'm not one for that style, so I can't comment on their version. Rita Melnick Baltimore, USA ======== FEATURES ======== The Tao of Hiking ----------------- "Travelling is a fool's paradise... At home I dream that at Naples, at Rome, I can be intoxicated with beauty and lose my sadness. I pack my trunk, embrace my friends, embark on the sea, and at last wake up in Naples, and there beside me is the stern fact, the sad self, unrelenting, identical, that I fled from." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, from *Self Reliance* It's safe to say that Emerson didn't think too much of those who undertook recreational travel. His attitude seemed to be, "a fool at home is a fool abroad," and so be it. Trying to lose oneself in any experience is playing a fool's game -- when it's over, you'll still have yourself to contend with. It reminds me of a quote from the film character Buckaroo Banzai: "No matter where you go, there you are." Perhaps Emerson would look more kindly on backpacking. Backpacking takes us into the wilds not only geographically but spiritually as well. The distractions of our everyday lives are taken away, the annoyances of school, career, and competitive advancement replaced with a simple set of activities: cooking, walking, eating, and making camp. In such a setting it's nearly impossible to avoid recognizing who you are and coming to terms with yourself. Nature provides an unusually uncompromising mirror. I suppose this could also be experienced in a solitary cell at your local state prison, but backpacking is a much more pleasant way of accomplishing the same thing. Unless you've done it, it's hard to understand the experience. To begin with, a backpacking trip is the ultimate in self reliance: it's you and nature. Everything necessary for your survival you must carry with you. The food you eat and the water you drink are up to your devices -- either pack it in or purify it. Your shelter and the level of comfort it gives you are up to you as well. My wife and I recently returned from a three-day trip in Big Sur, California, which was also my first backpacking trip. My mindset changed dramatically over the course of the days we were gone. On the way in -- a relatively strenuous seven- mile hike up and into the coastal mountains -- I focused my attention completely on reaching camp, our day's ultimate goal. Starting about mid-morning, I began the hike as if I were running a race-pacing and pushing myself over hills, up switchbacks, past ridge tops that baked in the sun and slopes that languished in shady canopy. I had been working out consistently before the trip, so I viewed the hike as a sort of test. I stopped the times my wife needed to rest, made insinuations as we waited that she would probably be making better time if she had been working out too, and trudged on. We eventually reached camp only to face a variation on Emerson's travel query: once you get away from it all, what do you do when you're there? Being away from it all means that you can't hide yourself in television or other diversions. Having no grand task to set about doing, I was left with just myself and the woods. This is where the miracle happened -- my senses began to clear from the dynamics of life as I usually live it -- filled with deadlines, driving, the din of the media, and the hum of my hard drive. Instead there was the sound of a river running its course, insects serenading the evening breeze, and the smell of coastal wildflowers in bloom. All the hard edges to life that I had accepted as givens faded away as the natural dynamics of life on earth moved to the forefront. The sun fell to reveal more stars than can be viewed in a city month, and I slept. The following days were a joy. Instead of focusing on the destination, I began to enjoy wherever I was on the way. Finally reaching the destination was great, too, and allowed for selection of a new goal -- but the path on the way was more than just an obstacle standing between me and where I wished to be. Unanticipated problems confronted us and were dealt with in the best way possible at the time. My sense of adventure returned along with my curiosity. I'm sure that there are other recreational activities that give the same results. Backpacking isn't the only way toward self-knowledge, but it does provide a useful metaphor. How often do we focus on achieving a goal, forsaking all enjoyment until we reach it? Or refuse to move in a new direction because we can't anticipate all the obstacles we might encounter? These are all lessons taught by the trail. I wonder what I'll learn on my next trip. - Jay Hipps, Petaluma, CA, USA jhipps@crl.com Custom and Exercise ------------------- I was thinking about the theme for this month's issue while I was jogging the other day. My mind conjured up images of my schooldays. I remember being dragged off on cross country runs in freezing (literally) weather wearing only shorts and a T-shirt (with the games master dressed in a track suit, gloves, woolly hat, pullover, etc. I'm sure plenty of you know the scene). In fact when I think about it, most of my childhood experiences with Physical Education were overwhelmingly negative. Whenever I could avoid Phys. Ed. (or P.E. as we called it in England), I did. Once I finished school, I (eventually) took to fairly regularly running and swimming, the former at University where about 7 years after my last compulsory cross country, I went jogging down the river at the end of a long evening studying. The latter took place rather later (slightly more than fifteen years after my last school swimming lesson). In fact when I think about Phys. Ed. I am uncomfortably aware of some very negative stereotypes. So I before I launched into a wildly prejudiced opinion column on the subject I decided to find out something more about it. I wondered how a such a department at a university compares to my experience of other University Departments. What kind of people work there? What sort of training takes you into a career in Physical Education, etc. My expectations were very uncertain, mostly featuring old men in tracksuits and lots of shouting. So I spoke to Professor Robert Schutz of the School of Human Kinetics at U.B.C. (University of British Columbia) here in Vancouver to get an inside perspective on a range of questions. It turns out my own preconceptions are not unusual, in fact that type of reaction is one of the reasons the name was changed from School of Physical Education and Recreation the more appealing "Human Kinetics" which lacks some of those negative (or at least stereotypical) associations. Mention Phys. Ed. and practically everyone thinks of volleyball, rugby or whatever, and someone screaming "come on, RUN!" The physical rather than the cerebral.

It is, says Schutz, "a prejudice we fight all the time." The School is in fact quite separate from Athletics which is a separate entity. The Faculty includes people who have no interest at all in sports as such. Its work covers a wide range of activities, and he makes a point of correcting me when I talk of "training," he prefers to talk of "education," and points out that they have faculty members funded by the Medical Research Council, The Social Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC, and others, just like any other faculty. He sums up by recounting a conversation with a Wisconsin bus driver towards the end of his three year doctoral study in mathematical psychology and computer science (he started out as a mathematics and sports teacher). "What do you do?" the driver asked. "Well, I'm finishing my Ph.D." "What in?" "Physical Education." "Wow, how many push ups can you do?" Given my own experiences I wondered how much the quality of the Phys. Ed. experience was valued both within and without the subject. The "party line" is that positive experiences at a younger age encourage participation later and even when participation is not voluntary it seems it may have some connection with activity at later stages of life. Schutz believes that one of the things which contributes to a helpful environment is a healthy level of competition, but "healthy" is defined rather differently from what my preconceptions might have told me. In fact there has been a good deal published about the effects of competition, the National Coaching Association has even published guidelines outlining the desirable levels of competition for different age groups. The overall feeling seems to be that at certain ages at least, declaring a winner should be avoided, and Schutz himself prefers to emphasize the participation in competition rather than who wins and who loses. In fact he had raised one of the problems I had been loosely thinking about myself. The disincentive an unhealthy competitive environment can provide when only the winners get any positive feedback and everyone else is a loser -- leaving the experience with very negative impressions. I vividly recall a very strong "winner" ethic -- explicitly stated or otherwise. There were empty phrases that went with it "its not winning that matters," but school and society around one made it quite clear by their behaviour that winning was all that really mattered. I retain the uneasy feeling that however noble ones conscious sentiments about the subject (and by no means everyone would agree that obsessive competitiveness is altogether a bad thing), changes of policy do not necessarily find expression in changed attitudes at a deeper level. Attitudes and beliefs are expressed by far more than simply what we tell each other verbally or even consciously. But then I "did my time" (as I think of it) on the other side of the Atlantic and I wondered if there was some difference in the Canadian perception of sports as opposed to other nations. As it turns out, Schutz himself along with a colleague (Frank Small) at the University of Washington did research in that area. Generally, he thinks that psychologically the values associated with sports remain very similar across Canada, the US and Europe. However, he noted that whilst many US institutions absolutely require their students to take part in one or two semesters of Phys. Ed. courses, he is aware of no Canadian Universities that have such a requirement, a fact which may reflect some underlying differences in the philosophy of the two countries. In fact it seems that (in general) parents, teachers and students all value Physical Education pretty much equally with (if not higher than) other subjects, up until having to compete for university places, then it drops somewhat in the list of priorities (you don't need Phys. Ed. to get into college, but you do need a lot of other things). Well, if there were no big national differences I wondered if there were province to province differences. After all the possibilities in British Columbia (with an accessible coastline, mountains all over the place, and fairly stable weather) are very different from Manitoba (-40C on a bad day and chronically cold all winter, no realistically accessible coastline, and inescapably flat), you might think that aside from the inevitable differences in what sports people do, there might also be differences in attitude to it. Apparently not however, the only variation that Schutz could suggest was that in BC people may tend to be more active (because there is more variety of available activities), but at the same time that fitness monitoring programmes are less active here. I wonder if it is simply that the assessment programmes a re most used where people have the least choice of what they can do, where people have more choice they are out doing something rather than worrying about how much exercise they ought to be taking. In any case there is little doubt that public exercise is financially significant both because of the commerce related to sporting activities and because of the probable health costs of unhealthy life styles including leading a very inactive life and not maintaining a "healthy" level of fitness. I was certainly surprised by the reality of a Phys. Ed. Faculty compared to my one dimensional preconceptions. Above all, I was pleased to find that the things which had left me (and I think most of my schoolfriends) with such negative impressions have in fact been recognized by professionals in the Phys. Ed. area. Whether that has translated or ever will translate into a changed mindset in society at large is something we shall just have to wait and see. - Dr. Euan Taylor, Vancouver, Canada ertaylor@unixg.ubc.ca The Runner Next Door -------------------- If the terms "negative splits," "fartleks," "polyurethane midsoles," "butt-kicks," and "LSD runs" fail to conjure up any corresponding images in your mind, at least you'll admit that this jargon sounds rather intriguing. It's runners' talk, and they can spew this stuff for hours on end. To become proficient yourself, read on and learn all about the inner workings of that skinny guy in the purple tights you almost ran over with the snow plow the other day. 6:15 a.m. Alarm. A dedicated runner's day often starts with an easy run in the morning in preparation for a hard workout later in the day. Following this typical 5-miler, the healthy runner will consume vast quantities of cereal, explaining that she is replenishing her glycogen supplies. However, contrary to popular belief, most runners are, by nature, unhealthy. They shun doctors, run themselves into the ground and wonder why they are not setting pr's. And because obsessiveness is also a characteristic of the runner (almost a given in marathon and in ultra-distance runners), they may shun food altogether as well, not wishing to carry anything extra around those 25 laps on the track. 12:00 Noon Runners will either use their lunch break to (surprise) go for a run, although the netheads -- those of you reading this article, for example -- may also use this time to catch up with their virtual running partners. 5:00 p.m. Off to the track for an interval session. Here the runner may come into contact with the jogger. In order not to offend runners, it is crucial to understand the difference between running and jogging and to use these terms appropriately. When in doubt, always use the word "runner;" a jogger won't know the difference anyway. Basically, a "runner" runs to improve; a "jogger" jogs to lose weight, to be healthy, or to cross-train. With some practice, you'll immediately be able to tell the difference -- that man wearing the headphones, Ked sneakers, and fuchsia sweat ensemble is a jogger. But that woman who zoomed by so fast you couldn't tell if she was wearing anything, she is a runner. Once at the track, the runner will probably think about stretching, and may even succumb to bending over a bit before going for a warmup "jog." (The term 'jog' can be used here as in this case it is preliminary to the "run" -- real runners do jog occasionally.) The track session could include any number of intervals, ladders, or repeats, but most likely it will leave the runner tired and famished, ready to finally head home. If he doesn't fall asleep over his fifth plate of pasta, the runner may engage in some non- running-related activities before bed. Of course, this is only an ordinary day in an typical runner's life. Often, though, races disrupt this normal flow, for as much as a week previous to the actual day of the race (depending on the race's distance and importance). During pre-race periods, it's important to be careful what you say to a runner. Don't say the wrong thing (or the right thing at the wrong time), anything at all at certain times, or nothing at other times. This, too, will take some practice. Don't feel insulted if a runner ignores you during this period; in fact, you may want to ignore anything she says until after the race. But be careful about post-race comments as well, and follow the same pre-race guidelines about what to say. A final comment: despite anything you've just read to the contrary, runners are actually some of the most intriguing people on this planet. Don't be intimidated by them -- they won't bite, and they'll tell you more than you ever wanted to know about their current overuse injury if you just ask. - Sheila Eldred, Oxford, UK sheila.eldred@keble.oxford.ac.uk An Invitation to Fencing ------------------------ The image of fencing is sometimes confused with the clashing of swords seen in the movies, from the classic exploits of Errol Flynn to the latest incarnation of The Three Musketeers. When fencers see sword fighting on the silver screen they are almost always disappointed by the lack of thought that is displayed in the fights. For fencing is about an interchange of ideas -- ideas intended to deceive or surprise. Fencing is about thinking and transferring thoughts into action at the maximum rate and with the maximum precision. Of course movie sword fighting is not intended to be fencing, but as many people have seen more sword play on the movie screen than in a fencing competition, perhaps a few words about how these two activities differ is one way to convey some of the spirit of the modern sport. For example in the movies the sword-fighters often just launch themselves into the action and then start banging away. But a big part of fencing is in choosing the best moment for attack and this involves a certain amount of legwork in order to lure the opponent into a false step or a false sense of security. A second example is that when an attack is begun to the head--for example--it finishes on the head, or more often is blocked by a parry. This may be realistic with a period sword, but with the light weapons used in modern fencing, an important aspect of the game is to conceal the intended target of a thrust by threatening another, or to change the intended target on the fly in response to the opponents defensive actions. One thing that the movies and fencing do share, though, is passion. Whether fighting for one's life or for a medal, fencing requires a complete focusing of one's mental energy on the task of striking the opponent. Fencing can be done with any one of three different types of weapons (fencers do not tend to use the word "sword"), each with slightly different rules: Foil, Sabre, and Epee. All three share a great deal in terms of technique, but each has its own distinctive character and athletes of a high calibre generally concentrate their training and competition in one of the three weapons. Foil Ironically, the roots of fencing go back to the introduction of gunpowder into Europe and the invention of the gun. This innovation made armour ineffective and that meant an end to the heavy two handed swords that were needed in order to make an impression on a man in armour. Swords became lighter and were used less for warfare and more for self-defense and for duelling. In order to train for duelling in a non lethal way, swords were tipped with a dull point and certain conventions of scoring were introduced with the intention of instilling the habits that would prove most useful in a duel. The rules of Foil can be understood in these terms. In a duel with weapons such as the shortsword popular with the French nobility of the 17th century, it is important to hit with a thrust and to hit a vital part of the body. In Foil points can only be scored when the tip of the weapon lands on the torso of the opponent; the arms and legs are deemed not vital enough, and the head was not a suitable target in practice, until the development of the fencing mask. Furthermore, as it is small satisfaction to seriously wound ones opponent in a duel only a split second before one is seriously wounded oneself, Foil fencing does not award points solely based on who hit first. Instead the rules encourage defensive play by dictating that an attack must be defended against before a valid response--or riposte--can be given. Thus the right to attack ("right of way") goes back and forth like the ball in tennis. In the case of hits arriving at about the same time, the point is scored by the fencer who had "right of way." Much of the essence of foil comes from the fast exchange of the right of way and the consequent alternation of attack and defense. The fencers will generally move along the strip "pushing" and "pulling" each other with threats and retreats either looking for the best moment to attack, or attempting to fool the opponent into believing the advantage is his when it isn't. It usually doesn't take long before one of the fencers takes the plunge and attacks -- typically pushing off the back foot into a lunge. If the defender cannot (or chooses not) to step away, he or she will try to "parry" the attack and if successful will "riposte." Now the tables are turned and the original attacker must defend and may be able to make a riposte back ("counter-riposte"). This is the basic pattern but it comes in a splendid variety. The attack may be made directly or might involve some preparatory attacking of the defender's blade. The defense can be made with a number of different parries. The defender may even decide not to parry, but rather attempt to force the attacker to miss by either stepping back or even stepping forward. The attacker may deceive (avoid contact with) the parry and continue the attack either to the same area of the torso or another. The method of deceiving the parry depends on which type of parry is used and thus requires extremely fast reaction or careful reading of what the defender is most likely to do. If the first parry is deceived, the defender may have time to form a second parry -- especially if the first parry was a mere ruse and the second was part of the original plan. Once the parry is made everything turns a round the defender is now attacking with a riposte and the attacker must defend against it. The riposter may attempt to hit with simple thrust, or may deceive the original attackers parry. You may think this could go on for quite a while, but usually either a hit is made, or someone defends by re t reating and the game of looking for just the right moment to attack starts again. Sabre The Sabre is descended from the cavalry sabre. The version used in competition though is a far cry from it's heavy antecedent. It is light and quick. Points may be scored either with a thrust as in Foil or with the side of the blade, the latter is called a "cut." The target is the entire body above the waist including the head and arms. The conventions concerning the right to hit are the same as in Foil. Because the parries must defend against cuts from many angles, they require fairly large movements, this makes them more easily deceived with some fast fingerwork than in Foil and shifts the advantage towards the attack. Thus there is little waiting a round in sabre, one or the other fencer will soon attack -- and often both attack at the same time. Thus one aspect of its cavalry heritage Sabre has not lost is the charge. But that is not to say that Sabre is merely a race to see who can attack first. Tricking your opponent into attacking at the wrong time can lead to a fairly easy parry and riposte. And the fact that the arm is target makes the attacker susceptible to being hit on the wrist as he or she prepares for the attack. The exchange of attacks parries and ripostes seen in Foil is also seen in Sabre, but the emphasis is perhaps even more on attacking at the right time with the right distance. Epee The Epee is a direct descendant of the short sword used by courtiers for duelling. As honour was generally satisfied by drawing first blood, in Epee points are scored by hitting first, anywhere on the body. The conventions of right of way do not apply. As with the Foil, the Epee is strictly a thrusting weapon, hits with the edge are not counted. The absence of conventions that put an emphasis on parrying means that the best defense in Epée is often a good offense. If your opponent attacks the body, it may be possible to attack them back on the arm, the difference of distance translates to a difference in time and the "counter attack" to the arm is likely to get the point. Even an attack to the arm can be defended against by a thrust that defends with the guard of the weapon and counter attacks with the tip. Of course the option to parry is still there. It is ironic, but the absence of conventions to promote defending makes attacking a risky proposition. Thus Epee, more than foil and much more than sabre, can be a waiting game. But it is an active waiting. The feet are constantly being used to push or pull the opponent. The hand is busy making false attacks to test the defenses and to disguise the real attack when it comes. The eyes are busy learning the reactions of the opponent to each action. And the fingers are feeling the reaction of the opponent whenever the blades meet. When the attack does come, if it is not a short attack to an ill-defended part of the arm, it is often done in such a way as to neutralize any possible defense. For example the "envelopment" is a spiralling thrust made with the point towards the target so as to pick up the opponents blade on the way in. This pushes the opponent's point safely out of the way and makes the angle of his or her blade unfavourable for a successful parry. Doesn't it Hurt? The typical hit in fencing noticable, but doesn't hurt. The occasional hit will sting for a bit and may leave a small red mark for a day or two. Fencing is one of the safest sports there is. An Ontario Government study found that of all sports surveyed it was second only to lawn bowling in it's safety record. In recent years the introduction of better equipment has made it even safer. Most injuries are of the nature of twisted ankles or pulled ligaments. It is possible for a broken blade to penetrate the protective clothing, but this is extremely rare. Learning to Fence Fencing is an enjoyable sport or pastime for people of all ages. It is my observation and that of other fencers and coaches that almost anyone can learn to fence well -- that is at a level where one begins to touch on the beauty of the sport. The only prerequisite is enough dedication to stick with it for a while. The learning curve for fencing is generally quite long. In few other sports do you have to learn to walk all over again and learn to make finger movements as fine as are used in writing while holding a half kilogram mass in your hand. When I learned to fence we were taught the basic footwork and handwork for three months before being allowed to engage in any sort of bouting. Nowadays most teachers will get to bouting a lot sooner (perhaps even on the first day), but it still takes about three months before ones basic ability is at a level where the bouting starts to resemble fencing. Of course a good teacher will manage to make that initial learning time rewarding and enjoyable. Although there are three different weapons, there is a core of skills and ideas common to all three. Thus it doesn't matter which weapon you are taught first. So if you are hell-bent to become a sabreur, but the local club teaches Epee first, don't worry, almost everything you are taught will be useful for all three weapons. Once the basic technical skills are sufficiently mastered comes the most intangible part of learning: learning to apply those skills appropriately against an opponent doing their utmost to confound you. This is a never-ending process of self-improvement. There are always better fencers and a reaction can always be made just a millisecond sooner. Beyond technique there is tactics: picking the moment, picking the attack, combining footwork and handwork appropriately, deciding what attacks are likely and what to do first in each case; and beyond tactics there is strategy: deciding if it is better to attack or defend, deciding if it is better to dominate the footwork or respond to the opponent's footwork, deciding whether to repeat a previously successful tactic (because it was successful), avoid it (because it will be expected), or elaborate on it (for example begin the same way, but finish differently). Fencing is usually taught in fencing clubs either private or associated with larger bodies such as universities or the local Y. Most clubs will have classes for beginners at least once a year. To find out about clubs near you the easiest thing is either to check local universities or to contact the national fencing organization. The addresses of three of these are listed at the end of this article and also the address of the international governing body. The highest level of teacher is a "master" or "maitre" who will have had extensive experience and passed exams set by the national organization. Competitive & Recreational Fencing Some fencers are satisfied to fence with the other members of their club and engage in friendly competition with their comrades. Others seek new challenges and test their progress by competing on a local, national, or international level. Fencing has been an Olympic sport since the first modern games in 1896. Both men and women complete in all three weapons -- although at the international level women's sabre is not yet recognized. Competitions are also often broken into age groups so that younger fencers do not have to complete against much more experienced competitors. There are no weight divisions as size confers little advantage except in Epee where long arms can be useful. Fencing bouts in competitions are observed by referees who keep track of the score, start and stop bouts, award penalties when rules are broken, and--in Foil and Sabre-- decide which fencer had the right to hit when there are hits close in time. The referee is assisted by an electrical system that senses hits made on target. In Foil and Sabre the competitors wear electrically conductive clothing and in Foil and Epee each weapon is tipped with a small spring loaded button. Recreational fencers will find fencing an excellent source of fitness. Whereas running, swimming, and cycling are calmingly repetitive and aerobics has a certain pack appeal, fencing allows an infinite variety of creative expression while providing a combination of aerobic and anaerobic conditioning. Competitive fencers find that they need to be in top shape in order to remain in peak form throughout the many bouts it takes to get to the pedal podium. They also need to keep honing their technical, tactical, and strategic skills through regular practice and one-on-one training sessions with their coach. The Spirit of Fencing For me the beauty of fencing lies in the difficulty of some of its concepts and in the interplay of ideas between two opponents. Take for example, distance and timing. Distance does not mean just the simple distance between the fencers as can be measured with a metre stick, it includes the way that each fencer is moving. For an elementary example, one of the best ways to obtain a favourable opportunity for attack is to reverse direction from going backward to going forward, your opponent is still coming forward and the distance suddenly closens and now is the moment for attack (timing). But this is not so easy as it sounds, for your opponent is already coming forward and may be in a better position to attack than you who are in the midst of changing direction, so any anticipation of your plan by the opponent is likely to be disastrous. And timing does not mean just picking the moment for an attack. It includes the rhythm that actions are performed -- for example, two steps and a lunge might be done in the rhythm slow-fast-slow (thus affecting distance) -- and it must be tailored to exploit the weaknesses or to make weaknesses of the strengths of the opponent. The interplay of ideas in fencing is very fast. In a few seconds there can be several parry-riposte sequences. Each action made is a challenge to the opponent to come up with a counter action. An attack is a challenge to find and execute an effective parry. A parry is a challenge manage its deception or to land the hit before the parry is complete. The responses must be made at reflex action speed, yet the best response and the best way to execute the best response vary from opponent to opponent and from situation to situation. This makes fencing very challenging, always different and hence extremely rewarding. For More Information Online - There is an internet newsgroup (rec.sport.fencing) devoted to fencing discussion. A WWW home page is also available at "http://www.ii.uib.no/~arild/fencing.html". Offline - There are numerous books on fencing although they can be hard to find. [A list of good fencing books is maintained as part of the Fencing FAQ, by Morgan Burke. E-mail him at morgan@sitka.triumf.ca for more information. - Ian] National and International Organizations Federation Internationale d'Escrime 32, Rue La Boetie 75008 Paris, France Amateur Fencing Association (Britain) 1 Barons Gate 33-35 Rothschild Road London W4 5HT Tel: 081 742-3032 Canadian Fencing Federation 1600 Prom. James Naismith Drive Gloucester, ON K1B 5N4 TEL: (613) 748-5633 FAX: (613) 748-5742 22 - Theo Norvell, Toronto, Canada =========== DEPARTMENTS =========== Debate Room ----------- * The Portrayal of Gays on TV * Over the past few years gay and lesbian characters have started appearing on popular TV shows and in the movies. For example, the highly rated Roseanne show now sports a lesbian couple, the Northern Exposure nighttime serial added a gay male couple to its regular cast of characters, and on the popular prime-time generation-X serial Melrose Place, a gay man has been a regular resident since the show's premiere years ago. Although TV shows are starting to sport gay characters in their regular lineups, these characters rarely lead realistic lives on screen.Of all the flirting, touching, kissing and steamy love scenes we are constantly bombarded with, how many occur between gay characters? None. Northern Exposure was even afraid to show two men kissing after reciting their wedding vows to each other -- instead they were shown giving each other a hug. In this month's debate column, Teletimes contributors Jon Gould and Paul Gribble will address the question, how much gay content is enough, and how much is too much? Jon will argue that it's acceptable for a TV network to adjust its programming for the taste of its viewers. Paul will take an opposing view and argue that although the existence of gay people in the popular media is an enormously important step forward, the way in which gay people are portrayed on screen reduces them to mere token gay characters, which ultimately amounts to two steps backwards. - Dr. Euan Taylor, Vancouver, Canada ertaylor@unixg.ubc.ca * Two Steps Backwards * The portrayal of gay people on popular television shows and the manner in which these shows address gay themes has changed enormously in recent years. Twenty years ago gay characters didn't exist on television, and the only "gay themes" addressed were when characters like "Archie Bunker" made "fairy" and "fag" wisecracks. Today popular prime time television shows are beginning to sport regularly appearing, "openly" gay characters. However, despite this important improvement, an exploitive and insulting double standard exists that supports the censorship of realistic depictions of the lives of gay characters on television. In order to fully understand the impact of this kind of depiction of gay people, it is necessary to form an appropriate context by examining the ways in which gay people have been portrayed on television in the past. The Myth of Non-Existence Up until the 1970's gay people didn't exist on television at all. Homosexuality was simply not something to be discussed, either in private or in public. Homosexuality was something to be hidden, something to deny. This myth of non-existence was reflected in television programs; gay characters and storylines dealing with any sort of gay issues or themes simply didn't exist. It is important to consider how deeply this kind of denial affects people who consider themselves to be gay. Wherever you fall upon the gay region of the Kinsey continuum, from completely gay to slightly gay, living in a society that implicitly denies the existence and value or your feelings is emotionally devastating. If you're gay, or if you ever thought you might be gay, you've more than likely experienced the feelings I'm trying to express. If you're not gay, indulge me for a moment in a revealing thought experiment, and consider living in a world that denies the existence of heterosexual people. Imagine that everyone around you is romantically attracted to people of the same sex. Imagine that everyone on television, in the movies, in magazine ads, on billboards, and in books, have same-sex partners. At the end of the day your father comes home to his husband and they smooch while you watch TV. Your brother goes out on dates with other boys, your sister is married to another woman, and even though you're secretly attracted to someone in your class who happens to be of the opposite sex, you're expected to bring a same-sex partner to your high school prom. The predominant message you get from people around you is that you don't belong. Nowhere do you see heterosexual people portrayed in a positive way -- in fact, you don't see them portrayed at all. The only exposure you get to heterosexuality is when it's the brunt of someone's joke, when it's referred to as a sickness, an aberration, something to be hidden from view until people can be cured of it. Denying your existence in this way judges you without even granting you the consideration of which everyone around you is automatically entitled. You feel very alone. You know that other heterosexual people do exist in the world, but you never see them. They live their lives within an unspoken subculture, separated from the rest of society. At an early age you accept the uncomfortable fact that you have a choice to make as to how to live your life -- to submit to society's pressures and participate in the denial of your own feelings by living life as a perpetual lie, or to separate yourself from "normal" society so that you can live a life you can finally call your own. Exploitive Comedy If you begin to understand how this perpetual denial eats away at one's individuality and self-esteem, then you can appreciate how devastating it was when television finally started to acknowledge the existence of gay people in the form of exploitive comedy. Campy and effeminate characters like "Monroe" on Too Close For Comfort perpetuated insulting stereotypes about what it means to be gay. On Three's Company, main character "Jack Tripper" pretended to be gay so that his landlord would let him share an apartment with two female roommates. His charade was a reliable source of humour, but it reinforced the message that homosexual people aren't real, but are caricatures; homosexual feelings aren't real or valid but are surreptitiously funny. While there are notable exceptions, television programs today still exploit gay people for cheap laughs by portraying gay people as campy, effeminate caricatures (for example, "Jules" on Anything But Love). By depicting gay people in this way, homosexuality isn't afforded any dignity or respect but is considered a hilarious act to be laughed at and made fun of. During this time in history it was much more difficult than it is now for gay people to "come out" and acknowledge their homo-sexuality, so the only gay people most heterosexual people were exposed to were those portrayed in the popular media. Let's briefly return to our thought experiment and think about what effect this might have on you and your self- esteem if the tables were turned and heterosexual people were regularly represented in the popular media by insulting stereotypical caricatures. Being heterosexual in a sea of homosexual people, you feel like you don't exist. You search your environment for other heterosexual people with whom to identify. The message that is conveyed to your friends, to your family, to people that haven't ever met you, and perhaps most damaging, to you, yourself, is that people who are heterosexual are jokes, their heterosexual feelings are funny, and their existence in general is a hilarious circus act to be mocked and exploited for cheap laughs. You've gone from feeling like people won't acknowledge your existence to feeling like people are pointing at you and your emotions and laughing, at the expense of your dignity and self esteem. AIDS & "Issue" Episodes In the early 1980's the onset of the AIDS epidemic had a profound impact upon the way gay people were portrayed in the news and popular media. The unknown disease was first identified widely in gay men, and was hence called "GRID" (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) and sometimes "Gay Cancer." The general public was bombarded with news stories about the fatal threat; gay people everywhere were in danger of dying of this new unknown disease. It took a considerable amount of time before the Center for Disease Control in the U.S.A. publicly stated that the disease could be transmitted sexually -- by homosexual or heterosexual contact, and in doing so opened (some) people's eyes to the fact that the disease doesn't discriminate based upon sexual orientation. By the time the disease was renamed "AIDS" (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), gay people, gay organizations, and homosexual issues in general had experienced a sudden profound increase in widespread media exposure, thanks mostly to unjustified paranoia and general misinformation. Suddenly the words "gay" and "homosexual," and indeed gay people themselves, were appearing where they had never before seen the light of day -- on the front pages of newspapers, on national news programs, and of course on popular televisions shows. Weekly series shows like St. Elsewhere and Hill Street Blues, as well as daytime soap operas began to address the "AIDS issue" by centering one and sometimes two episodes around a character dying of AIDS -- usually a gay man. The horrible predicament these characters and their friends and families found themselves in was consistently milked for all the melodrama the screenwriters could squeeze out of the situation. The controversy surrounding the disease coupled with the boldness of including a gay character on screen made airing an "AIDS episode" good sense in terms of ratings. While these kinds of shows usually accurately depict the hateful intolerances that these people experience daily because of the fear and prejudice surrounding AIDS, they consistently miss the otherwise rare opportunity to explore the many personal and social issues surrounding homosexuality. The implicit message is that homosexuality, and all that it means to live as a gay person in a heterosexual society, is not worthy of our consideration. The gay characters are only revealed as being gay because they have AIDS. Their homosexuality is not aff o rded any validity or dignity on its own. All of the emotions and experiences involved in growing up and living as a gay person -- homosexual life -- are ignored and instead our attention is focused time after time on homosexual death. Returning to our thought experiment, you find yourself bombarded by the message that "heterosexual = AIDS = death." Craving any form of exposure of heterosexual people and their lives in the mass media, you're suddenly bombarded with melodramatic accounts of the slow and painful deaths of heterosexual people everywhere. Fundamentalist preachers sermonize to you and millions of others that AIDS is God's wrath for the evils of heterosexuality. You witness heterosexual people (irregardless of their "HIV status"), and people with AIDS (irregardless of their sexual orientation) being treated with hateful indignity. Heterosexual people are suspected as contagious harbingers of evil disease, and people with AIDS are suspected as sexually irresponsible queers. Whatever remnants of self- esteem you may have held on to up until now are undoubtedly seriously threatened. Today's Double-Standard The past five years or so have witnessed a lot of improvements in the way gay people are portrayed on television. A few popular prime time shows now include gay characters in their regular ongoing storylines. A lesbian couple is regularly featured on the Roseanne show; a recent episode of Northern Exposure featured the wedding of two regularly appearing gay men; a young gay man has been on the regular cast of Melrose Place from the very beginning. However, although it appears that a real effort is being made to portray gay characters on television in a more positive and realistic light, a ridiculous double standard exists that robs these characters of the same dignity and respect automatically afforded to heterosexual characters. On the season finale of Melrose Place, for example, a scene in which "Matt," the young gay character, kisses another man was shamefully censored -- the scene was edited so badly, the video and sound slowing down, speeding up, and jumping around, that the sacrifice in image quality probably didn't justify the exclusion of the kiss -- or did it? The embarrassing fact is that it probably did. The new police drama N.Y.P.D. Blue has recently broken new ground in prime time television by including heterosexual love scenes depicting partial nudity. While it is considered acceptable to show half-naked heterosexual characters kissing, fondling, and making love to each other, a simple kiss between two fully clothed consenting adult gay men is out of the question. This show in addition to many others over the past decade has also broken new ground in terms of depicting violence on prime time television. What kind of message is sent to people -- especially to children -- when murder, rape, assault, and other gory violence is regularly depicted on television, yet beautiful, romantic love between two adults (who happen to be of the same sex) is considered wrong? The message that this double standard sends to people is that although it is acceptable to acknowledge the existence of gay people, their lives should be hidden away. This reduces these characters to token gay characters whose existence, while intended to reveal the "progressive" sensibilities of the TV networks that produce the programs, ultimately send an implicit message to television viewers, both gay and straight, that although gay people exist, their interests, their loves, their fears and joys, indeed their entire lives should be hidden from view. Let's delve into our thought experiment one more time, (and if you're getting tired of it, just imagine living it every day of your life!). After many years of disappointment in watching heterosexual people depicted as jokes and "issues," you finally observe heterosexual characters being depicted simply as everyday people who happen to be heterosexual. You eagerly tune in every week expecting to finally watch the comedy and drama of these characters' lives explored with the same frankness and openness afforded to the lives of homosexual characters. Before you know it, however, it's the end of the season, and although the other (homosexual) characters have each experienced crises, loves, injustices, and soul-searching angst in all its melodramatic glory, the only thing you know about the heterosexual characters is that they are heterosexual. Although the homosexuality of the gay characters constantly played an integral role in the storylines surrounding them, (who they fell in love with, who fell in love with them, who dumped them, who they surreptitiously slept with, what jealous lover threatened to kill them, their changing relationship with their parents and friends), the heterosexuality of the heterosexual characters did not play any part whatsoever in their on screen lives. You wonder what people are afraid of. You wonder what it is about your heterosexual feelings and experiences that makes people so vehemently opposed to acknowledging them in the same open, honest environment in which gay issues are so regularly explored. You reflect on the unfortunate fact that the answer is wrapped up in the complex social history of public attitudes toward heterosexuality over the past few hundred years. Then you realize that the answer is not so complex after all. The answer is simple. The reason behind the history of the portrayal of heterosexual people on television is identical to the reason behind today's outrageous double standard: simple, unacceptable prejudice -- narrowÑminded discrimination because of the gender of the person you love. You wonder what possesses people to embrace this unjustifiable bigotry and reject so much sincere, honest, romantic (heterosexual) love in a world that seems to be so devoid of harmony. It has been said that television is a reflection of our society. It is clear then from both the (often recurring) history of the treatment of gay people on television and the present insulting double standard that until gay characters are depicted with the same levels of candor and honesty automatically granted to heterosexual characters, gay, lesbian and bisexual people in the real world will have to continue the painful daily struggle, both privately and publicly, for equal dignity, equal respect, and most importantly, equal treatment. - Paul Gribble, Montreal, Canada gribble@motion.psych.mcgill.ca Sources "Queer Resources Directory" (QRD) - accessible by electronic mail, BBS, FTP, WAIS, gopher, and WWW (lynx and Mosaic). For details e-mail qrdstaff@vector.casti.com or ftp/gopher to vector.casti.com (149.52.1.130) and look in "/pub/QRD." * You Get What You Pay For * Is homophobia wrong? Yes. Do I think network censors should be less conservative in depicting gay life on television? Perhaps. But should they be expected to? No. Paul and I don't agree with the result desired -- we both seek a society in which heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are accepted and tolerated. The difference is how we get there Paul believes that the media has an affirmative obligation to expose more viewers to gay lifestyle. I don't. Television is a mirror of life; it depicts the values and appeals to the tastes of its viewers. If we want to see more gay characters on television, we shouldn't expect the television producers to take the initiative. We need to change social attitudes, from which television will follow. To be sure, there is a bit of a chicken and egg question here. Television can play a part in changing social attitudes, but its responsibility should be limited to news coverage. If gay and lesbian issues are newsworthy, they should be covered. But there is a big difference between the media's reacting to news-worthy events and its affirmative decision to depict gay lifestyle in entertainment programming. The difference is viewers. Television survives only to the extent that it attracts viewers. If viewers want to see gay characters, television should have more of them. Conversely, if viewers want Christian broadcasting, a television executive would be foolish to ignore their wishes. This is exactly why we see organised protests over television programming. Parent groups who want to reduce sex and violence, educators who argue against sophomoric programming, housewives who petition for a soap opera -- all are trying to tell television executives what they want, and the producers ought to pay attention. Run croquet three times a day and you are likely to lose your station. In the end, the question is whether viewers want, or are willing to tolerate, gay lifestyles on television. My sense is that we're beginning to see inroads, but viewers aren't ready for the kiss that Northern Exposure avoided. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe CBS was off. But you have to convince them that their read of society was wrong. Write letters. Protest their sponsors. Start a cable station dedicated to gay and lesbian programming. But don't expect them to buck general sentiment. Changing viewers' preferences is not the responsibility of the broadcasters. - Jon Gould, Chicago, USA Music Notes: Feature -------------------- * A Whole Lollapalooza Goin' On! * [The rock ' n ' roll bandwagon is on its way, and Russell Weinberger, our man in Davis, California, takes a look at this year's line-up. - Ken] ************************************************************ The fullblaze of summer now hints at its imminent arrival. And with the heat and dust of yet another dry California season comes the long-awaited arrival of Lollapalooza 1994. The new line-up may disappoint alternative-junkies looking for another fix of Pearl Jam before the world realizes they are, in fact, a pop band. Even a quick glance at this year's selections reveals a very real difference from previous Lollapaloozii. This cast is closer to the original intent of the all-day mega-concert. In its first conception, Jane's Addiction frontman Perry Farrell wanted to offer a real barrage of new and different types of music. The first three concerts, though a true change of stadium pace, were really festivals of college rockers, with a dash of rap and R&B for flavor. This year, the organizers have something different planned: MAINSTAGE Smashing Pumpkins Beastie Boys George Clinton & P-Funk Allstars The Breeders A Tribe Called Quest Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds L7 Green Day SECOND STAGE (Check dates to find out who's taking the second stage in your town) Jul 1 - Aug 3 The Flaming Lips Jul 1 - Aug 3 Verve Ju 1 - July 8 The Souls of Mischief Jul 1 - July 15 Rollerskate Skinny Jul 1 - July 15 The Frogs Jul 9 - Aug 3 Luscious Jackson Jul 16 - Aug 3 Palace Songs Jul 16 - July 24 Guided by Voices Jul 25 - Aug 3 Girls Against Boys Aug 4 - Sept 4 Stereolab Aug 4 - Aug 11 Blast Off Country-Style Aug 4 - Aug 18 Charlie Hunter Trio Aug 4 - Aug 11 Fu-Schnickens Aug 4 - Aug 11 Lambchop Aug 12 - Sept 4 Shudder to Think Aug 12 - Sept 4 The Boo Radleys Aug 12 - Aug 18 King Kong Aug 19 - Sept 4 The Pharcyde Aug 19 - Sept 4 Shonen Knife For everyone wondering what to expect for their 30+ dollars, here's a brief overview: First, there's Green Day. This Berkeley, California-based band recently made it big with the release of Dookie, moving to the top of alternative and college charts all over the U.S. The band, however, is far from new. I remember seeing them for five bucks at the Gillman St Project in Berkeley when they had a hard edge and an attitude that wouldn't quit. Even then, when they were still figuring out how to play their instruments, they were a band with unmatched energy and a stage presence that brought crowds back week after week. Their new album, quite a bit tamer than their former works, is reminiscent of classic English power pop the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Buzzcocks. (It would probably be quite a bit more fun to see them in the closed, sweaty confines of a smokey club.) Next comes L7, the all female hardcore band which has recently appeared in John Waters' latest movie, Serial Mom (under the nom du flique, Camel Lips) Definitely not for the timid, L7 takes up the slack where 45 Grave and The Slits left off. Their music is some of the strongest stuff around, complete with big nasty guitars, heavy bass lines, and spitfire drumbeats sure to send any general-admission crowd into a frenzy. Add to this the emergence of the Riot Grrrl movement, and it's easy to understand why L7 was chosen to fill the slot Babes In Toyland left behind last year. Then, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds will take fill main stage with the sounds of doom and gloom that has made them legendary in underground circles. Cave, backed by Blixa Bargeld on guitar (of Einsturzende Neubauten fame) and the rest of the Bad Seeds combines gothic mystique with the lyrical story-telling styles of Leonard Cohen and Tom Waits to produce a sound that is nonetheless unique. Featured in several Wim Wenders movies, including Wings of Desire, Cave's resonant baritone voice is both chilling and enthralling. This combined with a variety of instruments from violin to piano make his music some of the most diverse and varied around. More impressive is his range of subject matter which spans from tales of bar brawls to lost loves to diatribes on the sad state of the modern world. The Seeds' latest release, Let Love In, is a definitive "theme album" replete with a cynical sense of humor. The tone changes yet again with A Tribe Called Quest, a smart act which combines intricate rap with jazzy rhythms and melodious harmonies. With the overwhelming success of their first album and their recently released second already on its way up the charts, the Tribe is proving itself a band whose unstoppable innovation has changed and influenced hip- hop as well. Following them is The Breeders. Fronted by ex-Pixi Kim Deal, the Breeders' blend of psychedelia and punk have made them an MTV smash as well as a college radio favorite. The power and strength of this band make it difficult to accurately describe. However, if all you have heard is their hit single, "Cannonball," get ready for quite a bit more. Their repertoire includes several more traditional punk songs along with a cover of The Beatles' "Happiness is a Warm Gun" which is innovative enough to add another dimension to John Lennon's classic anthem to heroin. There really isn't enough to be said for the next act. The founder of Parliament, Funkadelic and their various off shoots, George Clinton is the godfather of post- James Brown funk and, without a doubt, one of the most influential musicians of our time. Let's just say this: without this Clinton, there would be no Red Hot Chili Peppers, no Faith No More, and even Prince would be struggling for a musical identity. The Beastie Boys started as a NYC hardcore act with little or no talent which tried rap out as a joke and has since become one of the biggest and most important hip-hop acts around. From their first album, the humorous Licensed to Ill, the Boys have come a long way in helping to redefine and reshape hip-hop. They are unique in that they have been able to continue to produce music that is wholly their own and still draw fans of every discriminating taste. They were, most importantly, one of the first hip-hop bands to actually play their instruments both on their album and on stage, replacing a drum machine with a live drummer, and using guitars instead of samples. Their next release, due May 31, promises to deliver more of the same with further innovations. Headlining Lollapalooza is The Smashing Pumpkins, a Chicago- based psychedelic band whose haunting melodies and harmonies make them one of the most successful bands of their sort. Like Jane's Addiction, Smashing Pumpkins attract fans from heavy metal, alternative rock, and just about every other circle of music listeners. Their second, critically acclaimed release topped college charts and made them one of the premier bands of the '90s. Unfortunately, judging from interviews on MTV and in Rolling Stone, it looks as though this may be one of the last times they play live. At least they're likely to go out with a bang. There you have it. Lollapalooza 1994 looks as if it may be the best yet, topping even the tremendous lineup of the first Lollapalooza in 1990. Definitely worth the money and who knows, they might even have the body-piercing booth again, and you can go home with a little permanent memento. - Russell Weinberger, Davis, California, USA c/o tt-entertainment@teletimes.com Music Notes: Reviews -------------------- All reviews based on a five star rating system Van Morrison - A Night in San Francisco **** (Polydor/Polygram) With his last few releases approaching snooze-control, it's only natural to see a Van Morrison live record as a plain holding-pattern move. In fact, one glance at the song-list sets off alarm bells: isn't this the third time around for "Vanlose Stairway"? But the proof is in the listening, and it turns out this two-disc, 22-cut album--recorded on two Bay Area nights last year--is for people who miss the old rambunctious, eclectic Van-the-Man. There's little meditative about his rowdy, Celtic-flavoured reworkings of early fare like "Moondance" or "Tupelo Honey", and even his mellower recent stuff, like "In the Garden" and "So Quiet in Here" is interrupted by surprising snippets of tunes from James Brown, Sly Stone, and Rogers and Hart (as in "My Funny Valentine"). Expected guests like Georgie Fame, John Lee Hooker, saxist Candy Dulfer, and guitarist Ronnie Johnson (Morrison's current musical director) turn up the fun quotient, and he has bluesers Junior Wells and Jimmy Witherspoon shouting some of the songs which first inspired the Belfast Cowboy in his pre-Them days. He also shows the sense to have other singers tackle some of his over-exposed ditties, like Hooker's growling "Gloria" or Brian Kennedy's subtle take on the sentimental "Have I Told You Lately That I Love You?". But even without the cameos, the record offers something Morrison hasn't delivered in years: real excitement. Boz Scaggs - Some Change ***1/2 (Virgin/EMI) In the 1970s, Boz Scaggs was an Al Green for people scared of black music, and little happened in his sporadic subsequent output to dispel that notion. The thing is, you imitate something long enough, sometimes you turn into the real thing. Actually, Boz was always a guitarist and singer of excellent taste, going back to his Texas days with the Steve Miller Blues Band. Surprisingly, some of that early enthusiasm infuses Some Change, a record more engaging than it has any right to be. His ersatz soul-man vocals are still up front, but the Jim Nabors goofiness--which always threatened to put another "O" in his first name--has fallen away in favour of a more genuinely ruminative style. Scaggs played most of the instruments, along with co-producer and drummer Ricky Fataar (although guest key-boardists like Booker T. Jones and Smitty Smith pop up), giving the album an intimate, late-night feel. After a clumsy, pop-eager opening tune, it settles down to older-but-wiser observations of wayward love. And even if there's little revelatory in the lyrics, tunes like "Time", "Illusion" and the gently propulsive title cut have a seductive sweep that makes everything feel as profound as a second scotch with a long-lost friend. Alison Moyet - Essex * (Columbia/Sony) It's hard to believe that the big-voiced Moyet, as part of the pre-Eurythmics Yaz (or Yazoo, in some places), was once a tower of soul in the vanilla-synth world of "New Wave" music. Now that everybody's rediscovered dance music, not to mention Aretha Franklin (the original edition, anyway), this once-innovative diva is just another singer, churning out would-be hits in the faceless English pop machine. Sure, she wrote most of these forgettable numbers, but she sounds numb and detached in the Pet Shop Boys-like production provided by Ian Broudie and Pete Glenister. The only time she wakes up, ironically, is for one acoustic-guitar-based cut written by Jules Shear. But even "Whispering Your Name" is shot in the house remix ending the disc. What's next, hitting the disco-revival circuit with Gloria Gaynor? The Brian Setzer Orchestra ** (Hollywood/WEA) It's funny what happens to some rockers as they get older: as the edge goes, they slowly become whatever they were rebelling against. Of course, Setzer's retro-billy Stray Cats were always in pose mode, and his guitar often betrayed more intelligence than the song selection let on. Now he's gone the Colin James route and embraced music made before he was born. Although many of the tunes were written by Setzer, they're intended to recall the late-'40s milieu in which big-band, blues, and hillbilly sounds collided for the first time. But primordial chemistry like that can't be recreated, and anyway, his voice isn't up to the task. His off-key Holiday Inn croon sounds silly on pseudo-raunchy items like "Ball and Chain" and "Sittin' on It All the Time", and the sub-Jack Jones impression is driven home by ill-advised covers of "Route 66" and (I kid you not) "A Nightingale Sang in Barkley Square". His guitar-playing, though used sparely, is always tops, and you have to wonder when Setzer'll stop kidding around and put out a smart instrumental record. Sir Douglas Quintet - Day Dreaming at Midnight **** (Elektra/WEA) Sir Doug is back, and it's a testament to changing tastes that his retooled '60s sound fits in perfectly with today's jangly alternative music. What's startling is how little it's retooled. The Beatle hair may be gone, but the Austin, Texas-via-Sooke, B.C. songwriter is still purveying his infectious blend of Tex-Mex rhythms, bluesy singing, cheesy garage-band effects, and wall-o'-guitar twang (maybe too much guitar on some tracks). It helps that veteran Quinteters, like Farfisa-man Augie Meyers and guitarist Louie Ortega, are back, and they're joined by Creedence Clearwater rhythm-men Doug Clifford and Stu Cook. Son Shawn Sahm is also in the fold, on guitars and vocals, and he co- wrote the set's catchiest tune, "Too Little Too Late", with his gruff-voiced dad. "Intoxication" and "Dylan Come Lately" are other standouts, with lyrics about the music Sahm still loves to death. Stanley Jordan - Bolero ** (Arista/BMG) Like the world really needs a 23-minute fusion version of Ravel's sensual masterpiece. It is worth hearing once for the African rhythms and odd instruments (shakuhachi flute and jazzy flugelhorn) wafting through the mix. But the whole thing is anchored--as in sunk--by one of those maddening click tracks which made the "Hooked On..." records so annoying in the early '80s. An antique air hangs over the rest, as well, with '70s tunes like "Betcha By Golly Now" and Herbie Hancock's "Chameleon" showing up. The effect is intentional, but Jordan doesn't really add anything new to the oldies, except that which any modern studio can provide. Mainly, it's painful to see how the young guitarist, with that unique, fingerboard-tapping style, has failed to live up to his early promise. What good does it do to swamp a revolutionary technique in a sea of dated synthesizers? This mindless crossover approach even makes the 4-minute solo closer sound more like an apologetic afterthought than a hint of sweet things to come. McCoy Tyner Big Band - Journey ***1/2 (Verve/Polygram) In which John Coltrane's favourite pianist and enduring jazz warrior gets back to his compositional roots in a well- recorded set of tunes in the vein of his classic turn-of- the-'70s output for Blue Note and Milestone. With pals Billy Harper, Joe Ford, and Steve Turr in the horn section, and with Avery Sharpe and Aaron Scott on bass and drums, the large group delivers punchy new versions of Tyner's "Peresina" and "Blues on the Corner" and lively Latin grooves on three cuts written by bandmembers (Turr's romantic "Juanita" is the stand-out). Still, the most effective piece mutes the ensemble for a lovely Dianne Reeves reading of Sammy Cahn's "You Taught My Heart to Sing", with lyrics by Tyner and a fine trumpet McCoy Tyner solo from Jerry Gonzales. This is the blend he tried years ago with Phyllis Hyman, and its success points to putting away the orchestra in favour of a quiet duo record of standards and more rediscovered originals. Cyrus Chestnut - Revelation **** (Atlantic/WEA) This young New Orleans pianist, known for supporting trumpeter Donald Harrison and singer Betty Carter, is more playful than Marcus Roberts, but he shares the latter's encyclopedic grasp of jazz piano idioms--albeit towards the modern end. With subtle help from bassist Christopher Thomas and drummer Clarence Penn (although a few cuts are solo), Chestnut recalls Thelonious Monk on the title cut, Herbie Nichols on the sprightly "Blues for Nita", and Horace Silver on the groovin' "Cornbread Puddin'". He also assays Massenet's brief "Elegie" and approaches the traditional gospel of "Sweet Hour of Prayer. If the record has a flaw, it's that Chestnut favours the same few keys, and sometimes drives his homage-laden pieces a few minutes longer than necessary. Maybe after backing others for so long, he can barely contain himself; still, I'd rather see his prodigious talent meted out in tastier bites. - Ken Eisner, Vancouver, Canada tt-entertainment@teletimes.com The Quill --------- .. !le!surE :. 4 H.H.C. (18**) & T.L. & S.R. (19**) ?do u>m!chael.schre!ber@wu-w!en.ac.at