Fight War, Not Wars - Crass - The Feeding Of The 5000 (The Second Sitting) (Vinyl)

Quick links. Post Reply. Tape cassette release is fine. Have traded with fine folks here such as Dan, Rhydian and Geneterror just so you know I'm no rip-off artist. PM me and watch the quality of your life begin to increase exponentially. Re: Records etc for trade Quote Post by toothbrush » Tue Sep 09, am i could trade you Angry Samoans - back from samoa and JSBX - crypt style if you have any other stuff you would wanna trade i may be into it.

Brainbombs - genius and brutality, taste and power Men's recovery project - resist the new way thrones - sperm whale jesus lizard - goat Jesus Lizard - head.

Re: Records etc for trade Quote Post by toothbrush » Fri Sep 12, am hey, a-frames 1 is available from born bad records. Type of paper. Academic level. Pages words. Basic features. On-demand options. Paper format. Our guarantees Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.

Read more. Zero-plagiarism guarantee Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. Free-revision policy Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. Privacy policy Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Fair-cooperation guarantee By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Calculate the price of your order Type of paper needed:.

Pages: words. You will get a personal manager and a discount. Academic level:. We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, at AM. Total price:. The price is based on these factors:. I'm thinking here of 'fiscal sponsors' like Fractured Atlasthat allow artists and artistic projects to access contributed funds without forming as nonprofits themselves.

I'm thinking here of microloans and co-ops and other support efforts currently focused on technology and biotech entrepreneurship. If there's powerful value in the fringes of our current system, let's send more energy to the fringes to see what happens. I'll admit that this may not be the realm of public subsidy, but there's certainly opportunity for public policy to play a role in zoning, in tax code, in corporate structure options, and such.

If the vitality of this individual and social connection is really the engine of all good things including all the intrinsic outcomesthen arts managers and arts organizations should strive to understand it, to engage it, to build their business and their buildings around its possibility.

I suggest that many organizations, funders, and managers have so readily accepted the trappings of the corporate metaphor, that they've lost part of the pipeline to the most powerful resources at their disposal -- meaning, message, discovery, purpose. Ironically, such a management style is strikingly similar to our recommendations here for effective advocacy: not just talking but listening, connecting to why audiences really are drawn to what we do This doesn't mean, necessarily, that we alter our art to suit the consumer Some of this essential work has finally begun, in projects like The Values Study in Connecticut, which wasn't just a research study, but an effort to train a community of arts managers and leaders to truly listen.

In part the goal was to lead organizations toward a conversation, rather than the traditional one-directional efforts of 'outreach,' 'presenting,' 'education,' and 'marketing.

Bob, as usual and as is to be expected given his line of workhas made a solid argument for an inclusive approach to advocacy. As I said in my first posting, there is no obligation to be absolutely truthful when you're trying to make a case.

Yes, our instrumental arguments might leak here and there, but they also contain some solid truths Not Wars - Crass - The Feeding Of The 5000 (The Second Sitting) (Vinyl) they work. Bob's mention of the turnaround at the NEA leads me to ruminate, for a moment, on the things that we changed within the agency that put the brakes on the three-year phaseout and got the Endowment's budget growing again.

Responding parenthetically to Doug, I think the notion of arts exceptionalism makes it hard to let arts organizations pass away gracefully -- death of the entitled reeks of moral failure. Also, back in the late '90s I also got the feeling that arts people in and out of government held the concerns of members of Congress in what I would describe as "minimal high regard," and I'm convinced that many members "got the message" that they and their ideas were not worthy of serious consideration.

The staff I inherited at the Endowment insisted that I didn't have time to Fight War the job but had to do something right away They were correct; your time is always shorter than you think in those political positions.

So, in the summer of we gathered up much of the staff and developed a new strategic plan for the NEA. Most notably in that document, we moved away from describing the agency as one that "served art and artists" toward language that said we "served the American people by partnering with artists and arts organization. They bought in, and the Challenge America Initiative is what Bob's many advocates came together around and supported with such coherent enthusiasm in, and We had come up with a program that was really about community arts, and was geared toward helping communities realize their dreams through the arts with small, fast-turnaround grants.

To our surprise, this was a program that made sense to the Hill, because it was like other federal programs intended to improve quality of life in their states or districts, and it left key decisionss to local leaders -- we weren't telling communities what they had to do. We also somewhat unconsciously had come up with political language in naming the program, and members of Congress were quick to incorporate "Challenge America" into committee comments and floor speeches.

But the Endowment was in a pretty deep hole, and even with a new program that clicked with members, and even with a strong advocacy effort that was really "on point," it still took two years of work to get the first budget increase. I go on at such length because, to me, the lesson I took away from the success of Challenge America was how much arts advocates have to gain by casting ourselves as a regular, mainstream, citizen-oriented part of the public policy process.

That means accommodating demand, holding in check those feelings of entitlement and exceptionalism, and really listening to policy leaders with contrary views. My message was "I'm the NEA Chairman from Nashville with a solid program that helps your communities realize their dreams through the arts. On my way home after flying I'd often stop off at the Wal-Mart to acquire those Wal-Mart items we all have to buy from time to time.

I'd stand in the middle of the store, look at all the shoppers I bet you didn't know that more than half of Wal-Mart shoppers don't even have checking accounts. However, I think there's an answer out there -- not the old, "build it and they will come," or the even older "bring great art to the unwashed, and they will be grateful" -- but something that really makes art and artists partners in improving quality of life for Americans.

Many good strands here. Bob lays out a clear map of the constituencies to which one must make a case for the arts and frames the languages they speak. Bill pulls the current situation into perspective by taking us back to the cultural landscape of 40 years ago, enumerating the challenges, and pointing to the solutions created then to address them. And Adrian touches on the perhaps skewed balances between supply and demand after a heady decade of arts building and four decades of attempting to "spread culture across the land.

Creative industries of all types - whether commercial or non-profit - are currently seeing the ground under them shift and their business models needing to be reinvented. Mass culture is disolving before our eyes, and aggregated audiences seem to be declining across the board for TV, music, movies, books, sports Some ventures, like the recording industry, cling desperately to their traditional model, evolving only when forced. Others are trying to grow new models, sensing opportunity in change.

It's not that there are fewer people consuming culture, it's that their access to more things has expanded exponentially. In this context, the arts seem to be doing very well indeed at holding their own Fight War compared to popular culture. Are there any such opportunities in change for "the arts"? Much of this conversation has been about the language we use to "make a case". I guess I'm wondering if moving beyond the language anyone has practical ideas or strategies?

Something solid to take away from this at the end? We seem to be agreed that instrumental arguments aren't convincing for the potential arts audience though they may be for the politicians and business leaders. We seem to be agreed that the supply of arts is ample if not overly so. So is the problem in building demand? Do we need more outreach? Earlier exposure to the arts so as to build better arts consumers? Are we simply looking for more bodies, or should we care more about the kinds of bodies that come through the door?

And finally - what, exactly is our definition of success? Is it to get more people through the doors each year? To keep on building more museums, theatres and concert halls?

I gotta say - there are plenty of times when I wish there were fewer people in the museum or theatre while I'm there. And if things are so bad, where are the wide-scale failures? Where are the orchestras and theatre and museums going out of business? Oh, there have been a few, and stories about clinging to the edge of the raft abound, but as I look around I see a lot more companies that seem to have lost their artistic reason for being and get by year after year than I do actual going-out-of-business signs.

Maybe that's the real sign of distress - that we'd rather allow persistent artistic declines than some honorable deaths. See all reader comments here I agree with Midori's suggestion that more artists need to get involved with advocacy and fundraising efforts. As a musician who is deeply involved in aesthetic education, I witness the affect on children when they are introduced to, in this case, classical music, by a living, breathing, composer.

I believe that a long term solution in garnering support for the arts would be to make sure that every child is exposed to arts education in the schools.

Current marketing practices in this country target children because they know they are building relationships that can last a lifetime. Nostalgia plays an important role in consumers' loyalty to certain brands. Children who have had creative, hands-on artistic experiences in the school will more likely become advocates as an adult. Fight War, maybe, we can craft yes, craft or create We're all on different pages.

As Jim Kelly says, parks as a public benefit are rarely questioned. What's the message that will give the arts this kind of acceptance? Maybe what we are seeking is not a definitive case for the arts, not THE case for the arts, but some new suggestions for presenting multiple cases for the arts. Some audiences need a brief-case, others a train-case, and a few a makeup-case. What do these look like? This raises a key evaluation factor: for how many people do the arts have to be important, for art to be important?

Why, as is reflexively raised by those from the arts, do the arts have to be uniquely important? If so, can you demonstrate it: if not re-formulating the arts in society with other partners would seem the logical consequence. My personal belief is it is not bums in seats but brains in motion that matter, and these do not have to be all brains in motion, let alone the spurious indicator of value of lots of bums in seats.

Maybe organzations should be putting their money into storefront theatres and stand alone black boxes where insecurities about dress code and ettiquette aren't as big an issue because everyone is wearing jeans. We tell people they don't necessarily have to dress up, but then they arrive at the venue and the veteran attendees are looking snazzy which gives a contradictory message.

Once people feel comfortable and good about themselves, then you point out that if they enjoyed this, maybe they want to try the mainstage over on 6th Street--or just keep coming back.

In Europe, most orchestras, opera companies, theater troupes, and ballet companies are owned and operated by governments. We view the arts as if they were something inherently crippled, like one-winged birds. Most of our arts administrators rise in the profession because they are especially adept at working with these crippled, one-winged birds.

Under the American system, which will always be ineffective and under-funded, it is inevitable that capital funds will have to be used for operating expenses. If the arts on which this discussion is focusing were a vital part of the lives of the majority of our population there would be no need for this weblog. Good answers to the latter question make the former superfluous. New voices joining welcome Robert Lynch and others leaving wish I had a chance to ask Joli to give a more tangible, practical definition of what "expressive logic" sounds like.

Robert's first post lays out a good, workable three-part division of much of what has been said here. At various places, in different contexts, we have been talking about the deeply felt personal passion for the arts, strategies for getting new audiences to share that passion, and the ongoing work of convincing public officials to use public resources to make the arts accessible to everyone.

Americans for the Arts does the unglamorous business of lobbying, and it's all too easy for people who are already deeply in love with art to find this sort of business a bit vulgar and dull, even anti-art in its practicality and compromise.

I'm glad that this work is being done, but as someone who responds to art in an essentially erotic, sensual way, it seems a zillion miles away from anything that I know or care about music, theater, painting, dance.

I need art in the same way that other people need bookies and dealers, so I 've read many of the posts in this web conversation with a sense of alienation, as if they're happening on a strange planet where all the usual laws of nature are reversed. Of course, if I can't get my fix, I'll be the first one on the barricades.

I confess I found the Rand study a crushing bore. I respect its logic, and ultimately, I agree with the basic conclusion that if we can't communicate to new audiences the essential, intrinsic pleasures of art, we're not going to have new audiences. And yes, the problem is not supply, it's demand. But I'm skeptical of the idea that we can create demand through new programs, new educational efforts, new sources of support for arts groups.

All of those are worthy efforts, and I officially support them because they keep artists busy, and put food on their tables. But a deep, ongoing, sustaining passion for art requires a personal need for it that is from my experience generated internally, as a reaction against ugliness in the world. Our politicians are already doing admirable work in creating that need. They deluge us with lies and hypocrisy, cliches and euphemisms. They insult our intelligence and betray our trust. From this fertile ground arises the need for art.

Needless to say, popular culture is also doing admirable work on this front as well. I wanted to jump in here with links to a couple of stories posted on ArtsJournal last night: The first a story quoting Tony Hall who runs the Royal Opera House in Londonarguing that major new investments in the arts are an obvious benefit: "They are part of something fundamental and big, which is the creative economy, which is now what we live off.

And when you look at it like that then arts funding becomes a no brainer - our future depends on creativity. The second is amusing. A mayor in a town in Mexico has "ordered all 1, members of the municipal police to read at least one book a month or forfeit their chance of promotion.

Reading will make them better police officers and better people'. Sorry to be late to the blog. They are three entirely different situations. That figure includes folks who attended just one event so the percentage of involved truly passionate folks is much smaller. I assume that all of us and all arts advocates are in my first category above. However, I assume that we have a lot of cultivation work still to do to get most of America's adults and children to become Fight War marginally interested in what we love.

That comes first from there being an opportunity for these people to be engaged in some way and secondly once an opportunity theater, dance, music, literature, an arts center, a close to home visual or performing arts venue, a decent art program in the local schools is available there needs to be some way to involve and excite these prospects in an art form of their choice.

This necessitates engagement and passion and people to help and guide others along that journey. But is that new? That is what some 50, nonprofit arts organizations in America try to do every day up from 7, nonprofit arts organizations in America in This is always all done by getting people to experience intrinsic Not Wars - Crass - The Feeding Of The 5000 (The Second Sitting) (Vinyl).

And anyone who works in the arts knows this already. So this brings me to my third area which is convincing decision makers--whether public or private; whether national, state or local--that they should do something to support the arts or arts education like allocate money or pass a policy.

For now I am just focusing on the nonprofit sector sorry Bill. So just like all of America we can expect that the backgrounds and arts interests of these decision makers is a mix with a small percentage being really passionate about the arts, a bigger number being somewhat interested, and an even bigger number not really getting it because they have not really known the full wonder of the arts in their lives.

Next week Americans for the Arts along with some 70 of our national arts organization colleagues will host cultural advocates from around the country for National Arts Advocacy day to advocate for more federal arts dollars for the arts and arts education.

Some, the very unlucky ones, will meet a decision maker who mostly on philosophical grounds will never support funding for the arts. These are libertarians and strict constitutionalist or fiscal or ideological arch conservatives.

And they will prove to be quite a mixed bag to those who visit them. Some care about the economy, some about jobs, some the federal deficit, some about kids after school, some about how kids grades in school compare to other communities, some pretty much only about getting more money to their districts, and all about getting reelected. Every year Americans for Arts consults the National League of Cities for their annual survey of elected officials, which highlights the top issues concerning their 1, city members.

The arts are never in this list but the arts make a contribution to each of these areas and we need more research to even more effectively draw these connections.

Anyone making a case for the arts to a public decision maker who ignores the full spectrum arguments necessary to reach the full spectrum of decision makers in todays environment of miniscule vote margins will lose. And the private sector decision makers are no less tough.

There is no evidence that social good and economic arguments have begun to wear thin. To research this all anyone needs to do is look at the congressional record, state legislature and local city council and county commission voting records. It will be an eye opener. Finally here are a few random thoughts. We need not decrease or de-emphasize any arguments we have but new arguments are very much welcome and needed. The landscape varies.

The rise and fall of state government funding has risen and fallen in direct relationship to local state economies. The rise and fall of federal monies has been more ideological and political, and the pretty steady rise of local government funding has been directly linked to issues of community development. So there is no one size fits all. There are suggestions that economic, educational, and social benefits of arts arguments are new since the late 80s and 90s.

Not true. The United States evolved from very practical roots. Practicality and self reliance are still core values. Think of the John Adams quote we all know about the number of generations of practical endeavors it would take before the arts and letters could be a key part of peoples lives.

The reason that public money, private money, and earned income for the arts have all been challenged over the last four years has very little to do with the arguments and a whole lot to do with Sept. Elimination of the NEA was turned around by enormous national advocacy efforts focusing on instrumental arguments that could allow moderates to find reasons to support federal cultural funding that were compatible with party policies which compelled the Senate to keep the NEA alive.

Then in we won for FY the first increase for the NEA in 9 years because of continuing enormous national advocacy efforts and the fact that some 20 moderate republicans crossed party lines and voted for the arts based almost entirely upon economic impact arguments because they could defend this rationale to their own constituents. I have gone on too long. Supposed to keep this short. Too late. I've been thinking a lot lately about what we should be doing now, early in a new century, to try to shape a more vibrant cultural system that serves the public interest.

Here's why I'm convinced that the time is right for us to take a step back to try some really different ideas:. Scroll back forty or fifty years. If you were an arts-engaged policy leader living, say, in New York, Boston, or DC in orand you wanted to come up with a few interventions that would make the arts scene more vibrant, what might you have considered? Well, first of all, you might have looked at your big-city nonprofits and said, "Let's nurture more organizations like this in other parts of the country; that will improve the cultural landscape.

If you could influence an NGO, then grants to these new and established cultural non-profits might be just the ticket; if you were positioned to invent and lobby for a new state or federal government cultural agency, that agaency could employ the same matching grant model to build up a sector that would provide an alternative to commercial culture and a healthier overall arts landscape. And, what about TV, already, by the s, declared a "vast wasteland? Now, all of those strategies were put in play and, in retrospect, they appear to have been both appropriate and remarkably effective.

If we'd looked at the situation in, say, or evenwe would have made the correct assessment that these three or four interventions in the U. But let's fast-forward to today, and, as arts-concerned public intellectuals, ask ourselves the same question: how we might intervene to enhance the vitality of our 21st-century arts system? We could, of course, answer the question by saying, "Well, we need better arguments so we can keep building nonprofits and touring non-profits, and we need to keep improving the content of public TV.

We're not starting our effort to advance classical music with 30 or 40 orchestras in place, but with or more. And, at the same time, the expanded reach of copyright, mergers in art and broadcasting industries, and the loss of independent book and record retailers have narrowed the gates through which most artists build careers and through which most citizens consume culture.

A whole new approach to nurturing and gatekeeping may be what's required. So, maybe we need to really reprise the process that was initiated in the early '60s, when the NEA, Dance in America, and state arts agencies were just various glimmers in various eyes. If we take on that task and take it seriously, I don't think we'll end up placing the highest priority on intervention through arguments and case making that are grounded in decades-old intervention strategies.

The Rand study has given us an "emperor's-new-clothes" moment, exposing the truth that our non-profit cultural community may be like Wile E. Coyote when he first runs off the edge of a mesa, standing secure in midair for the brief second before he looks down, realizes he's got nothing under him, glances toward the audience for a momemt of sympathy, and then comes crashing down.

One element we haven't really addressed directly yet is the role of the professional argument makers in addressing the value of the arts. That would be journalists, arts journalists who regularly attend and review performances and exhibitions, and journalists who are engaged with improving civic life through editorializing and opinion columns.

I've spent some time doing both kinds of work, reviewing music, and working for the editorial page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, making arguments for maintaining architectural landmarks, supporting arts groups, and rebuilding the fabric of downtown life. As an editorial writer, I often fought a kind of blank despair. We would craft arguments using every rhetorical resource we could muster, instrumental, intrinsic, etc.

It was good training in the frustrations of a one-sided conversation, which I imagine is what many in the business of promoting the arts feel, day to day.

As a music critic, I rarely engaged with anything so bluntly promotional as a direct argument about the merits, uses, values, of great music. It seemed to me that my role was to demonstrate the relevance of music, rather than argue for it. And that demonstration came in the form I hoped of lively, regular reviewing. Which leads me to the one real point I have to add to the previous entries about the experimental vitality of the non-profit arts sector.

There are a lot of "arguments" with the public about art going on at every level, in all sorts of different media. Television advertisments that make an evening out at the theater a glamorous thing are a kind of argument. And reviewing is an argument as well. If you want to harness the demonstrative power of the critical "argument," you have to provide critics something interesting to talk about. There's a reason why critics rarely cover community choruses, dinner theater, and so forth.

Not because we think the world would be better without them, but because they give us so little material with which to engage a thinking public. As Andrew points out, understanding the consequences of the language we choose is important work….

This is alas! So one final entry:. But, what, no Altered Images? The Scars. This Edinburgh band was formed in early by brothers Paul and John Mackie. A window ad in a record store roped in idiosyncratic vocalist Robert King and drummer Calumn Mackay and away they went. Their debut album, Author! Ahead of their time some say, and despite leaving a back catalogue of excellent singles and the album, The Scars were gone by Josef K.

They lasted two years if thatreleased one album during their existence, and scrapped another - a decision that is almost universally regarded as one of the biggest mistakes in pop history - but Josef K are one of the most feted and cultist bands to emerge from the post-punk era. The Only Fun in Town featured reworked versions of five of the songs on the Sorry for Laughing album.

A month later they broke up. You can get both albums on a combined release and make up your own mind which should have been issued first. The Associates. In contrast, The Associates told the world through their third studio album: this is us, take it or leave it. Sulk was both opulent and strange. Their year of magnificent triumph was also their last as MacKenzie and Alan Rankine parted ways before Christmas. MacKenzie revived The Associates two years later, but other than the operatic pop opus of Waiting For the Love Boat it was never quite the same.

Simple Minds. Empires and Dance is long forgotten but is memorable for the futuristic single I, Travel. A couple of albums released on the same day inand effectively siblings, developed the prog rock meets new romantic sound.

Sally Goodin - Hank Williams - Health & Happiness Shows (cassette 2) (Cassette), Michelle McManus - All This Time (CD), Versuchung - Lacrimosa - MP3 Collection (CDr), Yung Joc - The Grind Flu (File, MP3, Album), Mind Cinema - The Farthest Sea (File), W Deszczu Płacz, No Tragedy - Various - Classic Eighties (CD), Touch Too Much - Hot Chip - Made In The Dark (CD, Album), Investigate - Major Lance - Investigate / Little Young Lover (Vinyl), How Great Thou Art - Ornans Floor - Live Worship (CD, Album), We Live For The Music (Noisecontroller Remix) - Various - Hardstyle Attack 2011.1 (CD)