What is a musician?
CharlesBunch995
is:
"One skilled in composing *or* performing music (emphasis mine)." It doesn't
say that one must be completely original in everything they do, and do a piece
of music in a trailblazing style that has never been done before. Actually,
that would be closer to the definition of a composer. Are classical musicans
original? They play the notes exactly as they are written on the page. Same
for studio musicians and cover bands. Beethoven assclowns. LOL While it's
true that orchestras don't dress up in period costumes for the era that the
composer came from,they would do just that if their audiences expected it.
Just my two cents. Uh oh, I'd better go run for cover now.
Chuck
Richard
wrote:
> Are classical musicans
>original? They play the notes exactly as they are written on the page. Same
>for studio musicians and cover bands.
BUT. But. Isn't it true (and I'm not really into classical music these
days, although I did study it at school and had to learn to read a
score and all that crap, so I do feel vaguely qualified to say this)
the orchestras and conductors who do nothing more than just "play the
notes exactly as they are written on the page", are thought less of
than the ones who put a bit more into it?
Even I can tell the difference. If you go to your local Poundstretcher
shop, and buy one of those "The Complete Beethoven Symphonies" boxes,
where you get about ten CD's for the cost of a chart single, and then
compare it to the same thing done by Von Karajan, the first one sounds
like the musicians were watching the football on TV at the same time
as they were playing, while on the second, you get the feeling that
they were looking at the death penalty if they didn't put their heart
and soul into it.
As for studio musicians and cover bands, those guys (and gals) can
play superbly, but if they had any originality at all they wouldn't BE
studio musicians, or in cover bands. Would they? Yes, I know, Jimmy
Page, blah blah, but he knew that the future lay in being his own man.
If he'd stayed a studio musician we wouldn't even know his name today.
Richard
CharlesBunch995
>Page, blah blah, but he knew that the future lay in being his own man.
>If he'd stayed a studio musician we wouldn't even know his name today.
I guess it all depends on the ambitions of the musician and whether or not he
or she aspires to be known by the world, or is content just playing music for
the enjoyment it brings them. I know that was a long sentence and probably
could have been better constructed, but I can't be bothered at the moment. heh
heh
Chuck
Rev Rockabilly
name of this NG again ??)
2) It seems to me that a majority of the people who "take swipes" at
cover musicians are ones who don't "do it" (perform music) in their own
lives
"Combination Rock & Roll Archaeologist & Minister Of Information"
http://community.webtv.net/revrockabilly/REVROCKABILLYHOME & CD-R
TRADING LIST
Richard
Rockabilly) wrote:
>1) Not every talented musician or performer can write songs (what's the
>name of this NG again ??)
Did I miss something? Who said they had to? Oh I see, it was an
implication. Well no, they can't all do that but...see below.
>2) It seems to me that a majority of the people who "take swipes" at
>cover musicians are ones who don't "do it" (perform music) in their own
>lives
I used to be a cover musician. I even got paid for doing it. But I
didn't do it in a jumpsuit, wearing prescription lens TCB glasses.
Which is by the by, and nothing to do with this thread, but I like to
throw those little jabs in all the same, seeing as how much I hate
Elvis impersonators.
No, nobody's knocking cover bands as such, but the very fact that
people are in cover bands for years and years, never getting anywhere
else, does imply that they aren't in the same league as somebody who
breaks out and sells records on their own. The term "cover band" would
suggest to me that they try to faithfully recreate another persons
records. Whereas somebody who can't write their own material, but
sings songs written by somebody else, must at least make the effort to
develop their own style if they want to make a name for themselves.
It's like these blokes who copy great works of art. They have terrific
technique, and they can knock you off a Mona Lisa that would fool all
but the most expert eye, but ask them to paint something from scratch
and you wouldn't look at it twice.
I'm sick to death of the arguments that run along the lines of "if you
can't do it yourself, don't knock it". If you aren't a working
musician, don't knock those who are. If you aren't the successful
manager of a world famous rock and roll act, don't knock those who
are. Bullshit.
Working along these lines, I have this to suggest. Next time you pop
along to the doctors with a suspected sprained ankle, and he asks you
to take off all of your clothes so he can give you an intimate rectal
examination, don't question his methods. After all, you're not a
doctor, so what the fuck would you know anyway?
Richard
Colin B
There are some great studio musicians who had
their own careers besides.
People like Floyd Cramer.
Colin B
"Richard" <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:rsvqlv4t7q66v8gv8...@4ax.com...
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> As for studio musicians and cover bands, those guys (and gals) can
> play superbly, but if they had any originality at all they wouldn't BE
> studio musicians, or in cover bands. Would they? Yes, I know, Jimmy
> Page, blah blah, but he knew that the future lay in being his own man.
> If he'd stayed a studio musician we wouldn't even know his name today.
Studio musicians can be the most highly regarded and skilled musicians
out there. YOU may not know their names, but rest assured that people
like Hal Blaine and Tommy Tedesco are known to most musicians. Plus
they made more money than you can possibly imagine.
Do you think guys like Jerry Scheff and James Burton would have less
respect among their peers if they didn't write and record original
material? Can you even name ONE of James Burton's solo CDs?
If you play music, you're a musician, plain and simple.
CT
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> No, nobody's knocking cover bands as such, but the very fact that
> people are in cover bands for years and years, never getting anywhere
> else, does imply that they aren't in the same league as somebody who
> breaks out and sells records on their own.
It really doesn't imply anything of the sort.
To "break out and sell records on their own" requires an ENORMOUS
concindence of luck, skill, timing, location, and contacts.
I'd like to think that I'm a pretty damned good singer, guitarist, and
songwriter. But I live in Madison, Wisconsin. The odds of me ever
getting a record contract are slim to none. I've released 4 or 5 CDs of
original material, and have another on the way, but the fact that I play
in cover bands to make a little bit of cash from my art doesn't
necessarily mean I don't "have what it takes" or that I'm not "in the
same league" as those who have record contracts.
If it were as simple as "those who are good enough get record
contracts", the world would be a much better place.
But as I said, getting a contract is much more about a coincidence of
luck, timing, skill, location and WHO YOU KNOW.
CT
Devildog
>From: Richard r.pa...@virgin.net
>It's like these blokes who copy great works of art. They have terrific
>technique, and they can knock you off a Mona Lisa that would fool all
>but the most expert eye, but ask them to paint something from scratch
>and you wouldn't look at it twice.
>
Great analogy. Never underestimate originality.
Scottie TLC
Re: What is a musician?
r.pa...@virgin.net (Richard)
Excellent post!
Scottie+++++++TLC
Charles Thomas
> along to the doctors with a suspected sprained ankle, and he asks you to
> take off all of your clothes so he can give you an intimate rectal
> examination, don't question his methods. After all, you're not a doctor,
> so what the fuck would you know anyway?
Actually, working along YOUR lines, I have this to suggest.
The next time you have a suspected broken bone why not just treat it at
home? Hell, you must know as much about it as those damned doctors do.
They can't have learned THAT much in school.
There's a big difference between having an opinion, and realizing when
you're talking out your ass about something you know nothing about.
I'm not specifically saying anything about YOU personally, Richard,
because I have no idea what your experience in music is... but many of
the people who criticize musicians and music in general don't know the
first thing about what they're talking about. They wouldn't know a
major chord from a minor chord if it hit them in the ass.
Obviously these people have every right to blather on mindlessly and
ignorantly about whatever they want.
The rest of us, however, should make certain to give their uninformed
opinion all the weight and authority it deserves.
CT
Richard
<colin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Richard -
>
>There are some great studio musicians who had
>their own careers besides.
>
>People like Floyd Cramer.
Yes, I know. Glen Campbell too. The fact that they broke out of the
studios is because they were more than just "read it off the page"
musicians.
The world will always need good studio musicians, but you don't see
the majority of them going on to sell records, or perform concerts
under their own name.
I can't se what's so controversial. I'm not putting down studio
musicians. They may be technically brilliant. But they don't sell
records, and I doubt if anybody here would rush out and boo tickets to
see one of them headlining a concert.
This whole argument reminds me of those people who write letters in to
newspapers saying things like "I don't see what was so wonderful about
Salvador Dali (insert the name of any other so-called weirdo artist).
My wife Susan has been painting for years, and her still life pictures
of fruit and kitchen appliances are so realistic they are like
photographs. When will the public start to appreciate good art such as
that done by my wife?"
Richard
Richard
<cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In article <rsvqlv4t7q66v8gv8...@4ax.com>,
> Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> As for studio musicians and cover bands, those guys (and gals) can
>> play superbly, but if they had any originality at all they wouldn't BE
>> studio musicians, or in cover bands. Would they? Yes, I know, Jimmy
>> Page, blah blah, but he knew that the future lay in being his own man.
>> If he'd stayed a studio musician we wouldn't even know his name today.
>
>Studio musicians can be the most highly regarded and skilled musicians
>out there. YOU may not know their names, but rest assured that people
>like Hal Blaine and Tommy Tedesco are known to most musicians. Plus
>they made more money than you can possibly imagine.
Yes I know about them. The Wrecking Crew played on some of my
favourite Beach Boys albums. You patronising twat.
>Do you think guys like Jerry Scheff and James Burton would have less
>respect among their peers if they didn't write and record original
>material? Can you even name ONE of James Burton's solo CDs?
Nope. Can you name an album by Half Man Half Biscuit?
>If you play music, you're a musician, plain and simple.
I think the argument has moved on ever so slightly, knobhead.
Richard
Richard
<cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In article <7horlv0ks44rub6vr...@4ax.com>,
> Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> No, nobody's knocking cover bands as such, but the very fact that
>> people are in cover bands for years and years, never getting anywhere
>> else, does imply that they aren't in the same league as somebody who
>> breaks out and sells records on their own.
>
>It really doesn't imply anything of the sort.
What does it imply then? That you have an enormous chip on your
shoulder, and those bastards selling millions of records are all lucky
sons of bitches and if the general public weren't all so stupid they
would have made you a star and not them?
>To "break out and sell records on their own" requires an ENORMOUS
>concindence of luck, skill, timing, location, and contacts.
And originality has nothing to do with it.
>I'd like to think that I'm a pretty damned good singer, guitarist, and
>songwriter. But I live in Madison, Wisconsin. The odds of me ever
>getting a record contract are slim to none. I've released 4 or 5 CDs of
>original material, and have another on the way, but the fact that I play
>in cover bands to make a little bit of cash from my art doesn't
>necessarily mean I don't "have what it takes" or that I'm not "in the
>same league" as those who have record contracts.
Near where I live, there are five blokes who stand in front of the
cathedral in the precinct on a Saturday, wearing Kaftans and playing
Pan Pipes, and they've released some CD's too. I know they have
because they sell them out of a wooden box.
>If it were as simple as "those who are good enough get record
>contracts", the world would be a much better place.
>
>But as I said, getting a contract is much more about a coincidence of
>luck, timing, skill, location and WHO YOU KNOW.
Have you always had this persecution complex?
Richard
Richard
<cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> Working along these lines, I have this to suggest. Next time you pop
>> along to the doctors with a suspected sprained ankle, and he asks you to
>> take off all of your clothes so he can give you an intimate rectal
>> examination, don't question his methods. After all, you're not a doctor,
>> so what the fuck would you know anyway?
>
>Actually, working along YOUR lines, I have this to suggest.
>
>The next time you have a suspected broken bone why not just treat it at
>home? Hell, you must know as much about it as those damned doctors do.
>They can't have learned THAT much in school.
That makes no sense at all. I was talking about the two people who
said that (1) you must only criticise Tom Parker if you are a
successful manager in the music business, and (2) you shouldn't knock
musicians unless you are one yourself.
Number (1) is clearly bollocks, and as for (2), if that was correct
then you might as well shut down every newsgroup going, because nobody
would be allowed to have an opinion about anything. I can't play the
piano, but I know when somebody else is playing one badly.
>There's a big difference between having an opinion, and realizing when
>you're talking out your ass about something you know nothing about.
I think what you mean is, yours is the only opinion worth reading.
You've proved this to be your belief time and time again.
>I'm not specifically saying anything about YOU personally, Richard,
>because I have no idea what your experience in music is...
Well no, you wouldn't have. I did say that "I used to be a cover
musician. I even got paid for doing it.", but I wouldn't expect you to
have taken that in because it wasn't about you, and therefore wouldn't
have been processed by your egotistical brain.
>but many of
>the people who criticize musicians and music in general don't know the
>first thing about what they're talking about. They wouldn't know a
>major chord from a minor chord if it hit them in the ass.
You've released 5 CD's, but the only people who are allowed to have an
opinion about them are the people who know the difference between a
major and a minor chord? What do you do - set a test before somebody
is allowed to buy one? Maybe that's why you don't sell them Chucky
boy.
>Obviously these people have every right to blather on mindlessly and
>ignorantly about whatever they want.
>The rest of us, however, should make certain to give their uninformed
>opinion all the weight and authority it deserves.
Right that's it. Newsgroup closed. Come on, everybody out, you aren't
wanted. Order of Charles Thomas.
What a complete and utter arsehole.
Richard
atomic_elvis
No need for this man!
ELPrsley
> out there. YOU may not know their names, but rest assured that people
> like Hal Blaine and Tommy Tedesco are known to most musicians. Plus
> they made more money than you can possibly imagine.
>
> Do you think guys like Jerry Scheff and James Burton would have less
> respect among their peers if they didn't write and record original
> material? Can you even name ONE of James Burton's solo CDs?
>
> If you play music, you're a musician, plain and simple.
>
> CT
Certainly Hal Blaine is one of the best drummers on the face of the
planet and perhaps on more recordings than any other drummer.
Now for James, they may not have been Compact Discs but on one of
those big old 12" discs he was close to solo and original music on
Corn Pickin and Slicken with Ralph Mooney in 1968 and in 1971 James
recorded an album called The Guitar Sounds of James Burton. He
certainly was not covering anyone on Suzi Q in fact it was Fogerty
that covered Burton. Matter of fact he was not "Covering" anyone on
any of his studio recordings. He was and is James Burton original
guitarist with influences from those he respects just like any other
guitarist. We all have a style of our own be it guitar, drums or
whatever. I agree with CT and certainly wouldn't waste my time
arguing with anyone who believes otherwise but "If you play music,
you're a musician, plain and simple.
E.
ELPrsley
> I'd like to think that I'm a pretty damned good singer, guitarist, and
> songwriter. But I live in Madison, Wisconsin. The odds of me ever
> getting a record contract are slim to none. I've released 4 or 5 CDs of
> original material, and have another on the way, but the fact that I play
> in cover bands to make a little bit of cash from my art doesn't
> necessarily mean I don't "have what it takes" or that I'm not "in the
> same league" as those who have record contracts.
I for one would love to here some of your music CT.
>
> If it were as simple as "those who are good enough get record
> contracts", the world would be a much better place.
>
> But as I said, getting a contract is much more about a coincidence of
> luck, timing, skill, location and WHO YOU KNOW.
And about $100,000.00 starting money for promotion.
Some of those on the radio don't have much skill actually.
Again I am finding myself agreeing with ou on this subject.
Johnny Fortune was and is a better guitar player than most. Sammy
Hagar and Terry Stafford both refered to him as the best fucking
guitar player in the world. He had some minor hits in the 60's as a
Surf Music musician through luck, timing, SKILL, location and who he
knew. Fortune-attly he met Bob Summers (Les Paul's brother in law and
producer of "Suspicion" by Terry Stafford) and is still receiving
royalty checks to this day. However most of his career he has taught
guitar lessons and played in cover and "originals" bands scraping out
a living. Many studio musicians and back-up musicians make a living
playing in bars or casuals etc. This doesn't make them any less a
musician than anyone else.
E.
ELPrsley
>
Let's see a major chord is when you use all 4 fingers in a barred
position and a minor chord is when you lift your middle finger to flip
off those who put musicians down right?
E.
ELPrsley
then you might as well shut down every newsgroup going, because nobody
would be allowed to have an opinion about anything. I can't play the
piano, but I know when somebody else is playing one badly.
Richard
Too bad Lennon couldn't tell when Yoko was singing badly.
Oh wait she was always singing badly.
E.
atomic_elvis
>
>
> Too bad Lennon couldn't tell when Yoko was singing badly.
> Oh wait she was always singing badly.
>
> E.
That was considered "art" - but Lennon loved to f*** with people, that's why
he put that 15k tone on Sgt. Pepper's - to drive dem dowgs insane!
atomic_elvis
>
>
> Let's see a major chord is when you use all 4 fingers in a barred
> position and a minor chord is when you lift your middle finger to flip
> off those who put musicians down right?
>
> E.
hehehe - not bad!
atomic_elvis
HAHAHAHA
CharlesBunch995
>it
>> is:
>> "One skilled in composing *or* performing music (emphasis mine)."
(SNIP)
>> Chuck
>
>
>No need for this man!
>
>
Perhaps, but this thread DID spark some lively debate, so it served a good
purpose. :-)
Chuck
Charles Thomas
ELP...@aol.com (ELPrsley) wrote:
> Let's see a major chord is when you use all 4 fingers in a barred
> position and a minor chord is when you lift your middle finger to flip
> off those who put musicians down right?
Well, it is when you're barring at the top of the neck!
;-)
CT
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Have you always had this persecution complex?
If you want to talk about a persecution complex let's talk about you,
Richard.
You're the one who CONSISTANTLY goes personal and as far as you can with
your insults when I'm talking generally about a subject.
You need to get a grip.
I even went so far as to say "I'M NOT TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT YOU
RICHARD", I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
If anyone has a persecution complex around here, it's you.
I'm done discussing this topic with you because clearly you can't
discuss ANYTHING without getting insulting and personal, and just as
clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
CT
Richard
<cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In article <qdislv4se0dgphvop...@4ax.com>,
> Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> Have you always had this persecution complex?
>
>If you want to talk about a persecution complex let's talk about you,
>Richard.
>
>You're the one who CONSISTANTLY goes personal and as far as you can with
>your insults when I'm talking generally about a subject.
>
>You need to get a grip.
>
>I even went so far as to say "I'M NOT TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT YOU
>RICHARD", I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
But you preceded that with
"Actually, working along YOUR lines, I have this to suggest.
The next time you have a suspected broken bone why not just treat it
at home? Hell, you must know as much about it as those damned doctors
do. They can't have learned THAT much in school.
There's a big difference between having an opinion, and realizing when
you're talking out your ass about something you know nothing about."
Doesn't sound to me like you were being polite and friendly. You were
just being your usual "I'm going to steamroller in and let everyone
know that I'm right" self. What do you want me to do - just let it
slide and let you insult me?
>If anyone has a persecution complex around here, it's you.
>I'm done discussing this topic with you because clearly you can't
>discuss ANYTHING without getting insulting and personal, and just as
>clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, you are only
able to converse with people who agree with you and who think you're
the fountain of all knowledge.
By the way, I downloaded your song. I have to say, it was very
competent. I'd even go so far as to say that it was bland.
Richard
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> By the way, I downloaded your song. I have to say, it was very
> competent. I'd even go so far as to say that it was bland.
Let's hear your shot at an Elvis song, Brave-O.
I could use a laugh.
CT
Charles Thomas
> There's a big difference between having an opinion, and realizing when
> you're talking out your ass about something you know nothing about."
>
> Doesn't sound to me like you were being polite and friendly.
Richard is actually correct here.
I should have said "There's a big difference between having an opinion,
and realizing when one is talking out of ones ass about something one
knows nothing about."
My use of "you" instead of "one" is a Midwest thing, I think, and it's
not the first time it's gotten me in trouble. It's a colloquialism.
I honestly didn't mean "Richard" when I was typing "you" in that
statement.
I stand by the essence of what I said which is anyone can have an
opinion and spout off about it. But that doesn't mean they have any
idea what they're talking about, nor that their opinion should be given
any respect.
I could sit here and blather on all day about what they ought to do to
fix the situation in Liberia. Doesn't mean I have a clue about
international relations.
More specifically, Richard, if you know so bloody much about music you
should seriously know better than to have such ridiculous opinions about
who gets signed and why.
It's a sad state of affairs, but has always been thus. Originality and
talent have nothing to do with who gets signed. Being deserving of a
record contract has nothing to do with geting one. And getting a
recording contract is certainly no indication of either originality or
of talent.
If you need any proof of this, simply turn on MTV sometime.
CT
Charles Thomas
Charles Thomas <cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > By the way, I downloaded your song. I have to say, it was very
> > competent. I'd even go so far as to say that it was bland.
And to follow up on this, I'd be even more curious to hear your original
compositions. Preferrably ones you wrote, sing on, play guitar, bass,
and percussion on, and which you recorded, mixed, engineered, and
mastered in your own studio.
I can direct you to several such CDs of my own music. Let's hear yours.
You're so full of jealousy it's palpable.
CT
Devildog
>From: Charles Thomas cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu
>And to follow up on this, I'd be even more curious to hear your original
>compositions. Preferrably ones you wrote, sing on, play guitar, bass,
>and percussion on, and which you recorded, mixed, engineered, and
>mastered in your own studio.
>
>I can direct you to several such CDs of my own music. Let's hear yours.
>
>You're so full of jealousy it's palpable.
>
>CT
>
Is there an end in sight to this or are you gonna stretch this out for another
three or four posts telling us how mean he is and what an innocent you are?
Richard
No, because it wouldn't be very good. I don't have the equipment, and
I'll be buggered if I'm going to hire a studio.
Besides which, even if I had all the equipment it still might not be
all that good, and then I'd look stoopid. Or it might be brilliant.
We'll never know. But so what? It comes back to what I said earlier -
are the only people who are allowed to pass comment the ones who can
do better themselves? You actually believe that to be true?
Richard
atomic_elvis
"Richard" <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:jf8vlvcen429bv06o...@4ax.com...
NO NO NO - MY DICK IS THE BIGGEST!!!
feel cellophane
We are not terribly religious but made friends with a youth pastor
through a mutual acquaintance. She invited my wife and daughter to
come to vacation bible school and my wife, who was staying home with
our 3-year-old daughter said sure, why not? All went pretty well. My
daughter was pretty quite all week. On the last day they invited all
the parents to come for a "graduation" ceremony. There were probably
100 people from the church there. They asked the children some
questions like who built the ark, and what is the first book of the
bible, etc. Then our friend asked the children if anyone knew who the
king of kings was? My daughter's hand shot up in the air and when our
surprised friend called on her, she stood up proudly and said in a
loud and confident voice, "Elvis!" We love that story.
Phil
atomic_elvis
"feel cellophane" <feel_ce...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8856dd7f.03091...@posting.google.com...
ALADDIN137
>Date: 9/8/2003 11:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030909022645...@mb-m18.aol.com>
>
>Just looked up the definition in the
>American Heritage dictionary, and here it
>is:
>"One skilled in composing *or* performing music (emphasis mine)."
>It doesn't
>say that one must be completely original in everything they do, and do a
>piece
>of music in a trailblazing style that has
>never been done before. Actually,
>that would be closer to the definition of a composer. Are classical musicans
>original? They play the notes exactly as they are written on the page. Same
>for studio musicians and cover bands. Beethoven assclowns. LOL While it's
>true that orchestras don't dress up in period costumes for the era that the
>composer came from,they would do
>just that if their audiences expected it.
>Just my two cents. Uh oh, I'd better go run for cover now.
>Chuck
Actually, wherever you run for cover should be crowded. I will be there too.
In the mid-evil ages of court jesters or costumes in plays, done and re
done...what would "Cats" have been without the dressing up as........ lol ????
Phantom of the Opera certainly does not have half of his face disfigured as
written, but it appears so. The audiences believe it. For a while anyway.
Musicians are a bit like writers and commedians in my opinion. They seldom ever
try to change anything, from experience they know it "Might" be worse, but yet
that urge to, it "Might" be better. I doubt will ever go away.
As with the Courst Jester's it is said that if they were not pleasing, they
were killed! I imagine the dancers and singers as well.
We can't do that anymore, very impolite.
Now, I'm running for cover too.
~Aladdin
ALADDIN137
>Date: 9/9/2003 12:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <rsvqlv4t7q66v8gv8...@4ax.com>
>
>On 09 Sep 2003 06:26:45 GMT, charles...@aol.com (CharlesBunch995)
>wrote:
>
>> Are classical musicans
>>original? They play the notes exactly as they are written on the page.
>Same
>>for studio musicians and cover bands.
>
>days, although I did study it at school and had to learn to read a
>score and all that crap, so I do feel vaguely qualified to say this)
>the orchestras and conductors who do nothing more than just "play the
>notes exactly as they are written on the page", are thought less of
>than the ones who put a bit more into it?
>
>Even I can tell the difference. If you go to your local Poundstretcher
>shop, and buy one of those "The Complete Beethoven Symphonies" boxes,
>where you get about ten CD's for the cost of a chart single, and then
>compare it to the same thing done by Von Karajan, the first one sounds
>like the musicians were watching the football on TV at the same time
>as they were playing, while on the second, you get the feeling that
>they were looking at the death penalty if they didn't put their heart
>and soul into it.
>
>As for studio musicians and cover bands, those guys (and gals) can
>play superbly, but if they had any originality at all they wouldn't BE
>studio musicians, or in cover bands. Would they? Yes, I know, Jimmy
>Page, blah blah, but he knew that the future lay in being his own man.
>If he'd stayed a studio musician we wouldn't even know his name today.
>
>
>I thought the same of the beautiful score from "Somewhere In Time" and yet,
isn't it Roger Williams....playing The title song?
It is also composed and conducted by Mr. John Barry...a really long way from
the works of Rachmaninoff..say in" Rhapsody In A Theme Of Paganini"
Also, taking note that the lovely and talented Sarah Brightman alters some of
the classicals most brilliantly.
~Aladdin
atomic_elvis
> Perhaps, but this thread DID spark some lively debate, so it served a good
> purpose. :-)
>
> Chuck
Got some blood pumping!
Richard
<elvi...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>NO NO NO - MY DICK IS THE BIGGEST!!!
Not only that, but some people round here confuse the word 'having',
with the word 'being'.
Richard
Kevin
>It's a sad state of affairs, but has always been
>thus. Originality and talent have nothing to do
>with who gets signed. Being deserving of a
>record contract has nothing to do with geting
>one. And getting a recording contract is
>certainly no indication of either originality or of
>talent.
Chuck,I clean these recording studios from time to time. If you'll show
me which button in the studio turns on the air conditioning,I'll give
you a stack of unused recording contracts that I've collected from the
trash over the years. Yes,Chuck...I can get you signed up,but it's up to
you to find the one button on that board that will make you a star.
Kevin
Devildog
>From: Charles Thomas cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu
>the people who criticize musicians and music in general don't know the
>first thing about what they're talking about. They wouldn't know a
>major chord from a minor chord if it hit them in the ass.
>
>Obviously these people have every right to blather on mindlessly and
>ignorantly about whatever they want.
>
>The rest of us, however, should make certain to give their uninformed
>opinion all the weight and authority it deserves.
>
It's this attitude that caused the Punk Rock movement to start in England.
Elitist bullshit I think is how they viewed it.
Richard
wrote:
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin....don't you know that this answer will be
completely lost on Charles, who will never understand until the day he
dies why Justin Timberlake is the idol of millions, while he spends
his time sending home recordings to an Elvis newsgroup in the hope
that somebody will pay him a compliment.
Richard
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Kevin, Kevin, Kevin....don't you know that this answer will be
> completely lost on Charles, who will never understand until the day he
> dies why Justin Timberlake is the idol of millions, while he spends
> his time sending home recordings to an Elvis newsgroup in the hope
> that somebody will pay him a compliment.
And here's the part YOU'LL never understand, Richard.
I agreed to contribute to Atomic's Elvis CD because I've been playing
music for a long, long time, but I've never played rockabilly guitar in
the style of Scotty Moore. And I've never done any recordings that
weren't gone over with a fine-toothed comb, and I liked the idea of
approaching a project with that devil-may-care energy that the Sun
Sessions had. I did the entire recording, mixing, and digital mastering
in just a couple of hours.
I agreed to do it because it would be a challenge for me as a player to
try to play in a style that I've never attempted, a challenge as an
engineer and producer to try to capture some of that "rawer" sound and
feel, and also because it would be some small albeit personal way of
saying "thanks" to an entertainer who has given me so much enjoyment
over the years.
Nobody's getting paid for this, and there's certainly no glory in it. A
I said in my original posting, Elvis fans are hardly the best audience
to play your version of an Elvis song for. Mostly, they're going to sit
back, snort, and say "Ain't as good as Elvis", no matter how good your
version is.
I've got a lot of paying work to do in my studio. But I felt like it
would be a very personally rewarding project to try, so I agreed to do
it.
Besides, Atomic had a good idea and if nobody contributed his idea was
just going to die. So I pitched in and did my part.
Having people like BroadwayChris or Dawn say "nice job" is just a
pleasant side-benefit.
I don't expect you to understand any of this.
CT
Charles Thomas
Elv...@webtv.net (Kevin) wrote:
> Chuck,I clean these recording studios from time to time. If you'll show
> me which button in the studio turns on the air conditioning,I'll give
> you a stack of unused recording contracts that I've collected from the
> trash over the years. Yes,Chuck...I can get you signed up,but it's up to
> you to find the one button on that board that will make you a star.
Don't know what you're implying, Kevin. Sorry.
If your implication is that I'm some musician who's never done any
"real" work, we can go over my work history if you like.
We can start with the years of plowing fields, baling hay in 100+ degree
dusty barns, shoveling cow manure, and carrying 100 pound bags of seed
corn in the frigid Wisconsin Winters to feed about 150 head of beef
cattle when I was a farm hand.
Then we'll move on from there to sweeping and mopping floors in
restaurants, then to running a hydraulic paper cutter all day in a
crappy printing shop, then to repairing bindry equipment in a factory.
Bottom line: I can find the air conditioning. I could even probably
help you fix it if it was broken. I've got a lot of experience with
such thing.
But I'm not going to apologize for not sweeping floors and wearing a
name-tag at my job anymore. I've been there and done that, but I found
computer software engineering to be a lot less of a pain in the ass.
Sorry if I mis-interpreted your post.
CT
Cathy
"Charles Thomas" <cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in
message news:cthomas-3E9BBD...@teta.doit.wisc.edu...
> In article <7horlv0ks44rub6vr...@4ax.com>,
> Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > No, nobody's knocking cover bands as such, but the very fact that
> > people are in cover bands for years and years, never getting anywhere
> > else, does imply that they aren't in the same league as somebody who
> > breaks out and sells records on their own.
>
> It really doesn't imply anything of the sort.
>
> To "break out and sell records on their own" requires an ENORMOUS
> concindence of luck, skill, timing, location, and contacts.
Don't forget ambition. Most of the success stories about
musicians/performers have the tale about the time they left towns just like
Madison Wisconsin, chasing their dream to the places where luck, skill,
timing and contracts are more likely to happen.
When you put it down to luck, timing, skill and location it sounds so much
like people who've dismissed Elvis over the years.
You know the "right time, right place" explanation for why he was the one
who spread rock 'n' roll to the masses? Not that there isn't an element of
truth or "truths" to why it happened for Elvis, but being an Elvis fan, I'm
sure you'd have to agree that "skill" doesn't quite cover the kind of
mesmerizing talent he had.
>
> If it were as simple as "those who are good enough get record
> contracts", the world would be a much better place.
>
> But as I said, getting a contract is much more about a coincidence of
> luck, timing, skill, location and WHO YOU KNOW.
Maybe you're saying things are different now than when Elvis got signed, but
I still believe (all the Timberlakes and Spears aside) overtly talented
people get signed because a producer or someone hears something that screams
"THIS PERSON SHOULD HAVE A CONTRACT!"
And, the bottome line is one really doesn't need to be able to read a note
of music to have an intelligent, worthwile opinion about who is good at it
and who isn't.
Cathy
>
> CT
Charles Thomas
> musicians/performers have the tale about the time they left towns just like
> Madison Wisconsin, chasing their dream to the places where luck, skill,
> timing and contracts are more likely to happen.
Ambition is part of it too. But all the ambition in the world doesn't
mean squat without luck, skill, timing, and contacts. L.A. and New York
are FULL of millions of struggling artists who have infinitely more
talent than many of the losers clogging up our radios and MTV, but for
whatever reason the luck, timing, and contracts parts of the equation
have let them down.
> You know the "right time, right place" explanation for why he was the one
> who spread rock 'n' roll to the masses? Not that there isn't an element of
> truth or "truths" to why it happened for Elvis, but being an Elvis fan, I'm
> sure you'd have to agree that "skill" doesn't quite cover the kind of
> mesmerizing talent he had.
Without the right time & right place he would have been just another
truck driver or electrician who recorded a couple records at a cheesy
studio in Memphis. Ten years earlier or ten years later and nobody
would have paid his records a moment of attention.
> Maybe you're saying things are different now than when Elvis got signed
To say the least.
> but
> I still believe (all the Timberlakes and Spears aside) overtly talented
> people get signed because a producer or someone hears something that screams
> "THIS PERSON SHOULD HAVE A CONTRACT!"
Yeah, sometimes it's the shape of their breasts, or their willingness to
strip almost naked in a video. Sometimes it's the silly makeup they
wear, or the fact that they're reasonably good looking and willing to
sign a contract giving a team of managers the power to do anything with
them they wish. Sometimes it's that they're a flavor of the month and
someone feels they can cash in on it. Only very rarely does it have
anything to do with there relative merits as artists or musicians.
> And, the bottome line is one really doesn't need to be able to read a note
> of music to have an intelligent, worthwile opinion about who is good at it
> and who isn't.
You can certainly have an opinion. How intelligent it will be is
another matter.
It's true that any Joe Schmoe or soccer mom off the street can say "I
like this car" or "I don't like this car". But if a professional
mechanic tells me "I like this car" I'm sure going to give his opinion a
whole lot more weight.
CT
Cathy
> > Don't forget ambition. Most of the success stories about
> > musicians/performers have the tale about the time they left towns just
like
> > Madison Wisconsin, chasing their dream to the places where luck, skill,
> > timing and contracts are more likely to happen.
>
> Ambition is part of it too. But all the ambition in the world doesn't
> mean squat without luck, skill, timing, and contacts. L.A. and New York
> are FULL of millions of struggling artists who have infinitely more
> talent than many of the losers clogging up our radios and MTV, but for
> whatever reason the luck, timing, and contracts parts of the equation
> have let them down.
>
commenting about how lucky he was? Maybe it's myth, but here goes: He said
something to the effect that "The more I play, the luckier I get." People
make their own luck in many instances and ambition is the driving force.
I think you have cyncially convinced yourself that success is for the
beautiful (I mean this very broadly) and the lucky and I don't think one has
to have ever sung, composed, or played an instrument to intelligently
conclude that this is your opinion and not facts based on your ability to
play, sing, write, etc.
>
> > You know the "right time, right place" explanation for why he was the
one
> > who spread rock 'n' roll to the masses? Not that there isn't an element
of
> > truth or "truths" to why it happened for Elvis, but being an Elvis fan,
I'm
> > sure you'd have to agree that "skill" doesn't quite cover the kind of
> > mesmerizing talent he had.
>
> Without the right time & right place he would have been just another
> truck driver or electrician who recorded a couple records at a cheesy
> studio in Memphis. Ten years earlier or ten years later and nobody
> would have paid his records a moment of attention.
That argument is very much on par with Luuk's "without the Col. Elvis would
have been on flatbed trucks and friendless (no money to pay them) till
death." It doesn't acknowledge that what Elvis offered musically was unique
and timeless. And that that might have a whole lot to do with his
commercial success, notwithstanding all the cynical reasons some people
succeed while other deserving talents never get anywhere.
>
> > And, the bottome line is one really doesn't need to be able to read a
note
> > of music to have an intelligent, worthwile opinion about who is good at
it
> > and who isn't.
>
> You can certainly have an opinion. How intelligent it will be is
> another matter.
You've concluded that the "Spears" calibre of newcomer success is more down
to looks and what's in vogue. I agree. Imagine that. I can reach the same
opinion and haven't written a song or played an instrument in my life.
People that don't know how to cook still know how to eat. If it isn't
palatable to them it's not because they don't know the difference between
dredging in flour and rolling in bread crumbs.
>
> It's true that any Joe Schmoe or soccer mom off the street can say "I
> like this car" or "I don't like this car". But if a professional
> mechanic tells me "I like this car" I'm sure going to give his opinion a
> whole lot more weight.
Because there's more at risk in buying a car than buying a cd. You want
safety, reliability, value for your money, right?
Music is art, not science. Opinions about music are gut-level reactions,
often subjective, but they don't require consultation with the technicians
before a valuable opinion can be formed.
Cathy
>
> CT
Charles Thomas
"Cathy" <Cat...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I think you have cyncially convinced yourself that success is for the
> beautiful (I mean this very broadly) and the lucky
Ummm... ok. Nice theory. Now turn on MTV for about an hour or two and
get back to me.
> That argument is very much on par with Luuk's "without the Col. Elvis would
> have been on flatbed trucks and friendless (no money to pay them) till
> death." It doesn't acknowledge that what Elvis offered musically was unique
> and timeless. And that that might have a whole lot to do with his
> commercial success
Just about any serious music historian and even Elvis himself would cop
to the "right place, right time" factor in his amazing success. Was he
talented? Undoubtedly. Was he charismatic? Absolutely. Was he also
in the right place at the right time. YES. The same could be said of
the Beatles for any number of reasons. Were they talented? Sure. Did
timing and luck have something to do with their phenomenal success? OF
COURSE IT DID!
> Because there's more at risk in buying a car than buying a cd.
Missing the point entirely.
> Opinions about music are gut-level reactions,
> often subjective, but they don't require consultation with the technicians
> before a valuable opinion can be formed.
I guess we just disagree on the "value" of that opinion.
I'm sure it fills you with a certain sense of importance to think that
someone who turns on a radio every once in a while can, in your opinion,
know just as much about music as those who spend a lifetime studying it
and creating it, but I don't agree that is the case.
You may feel okay letting a second grader write art reviews for the New
York Times, but I'd rather listen to someone who has studied art, and is
preferrably an artist themselves. At the end of the day, I have a
feeling I have a better shot at getting a fair review of someone's
talent from the artist than the second grader.
If you listen to my niece, "Brush Your Teeth" is the greatest song ever
recorded. While it's fine that she has that opinion, I don't happen to
think her opinion is particularly informed.
I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about "an informed
opionion means more than an uninformed opinion", but if its logic eludes
you I guess we should just agree to disagree.
CT
Charles Thomas
> Have you heard the one about the famous golfer who responded to someone
> commenting about how lucky he was? Maybe it's myth, but here goes: He said
> something to the effect that "The more I play, the luckier I get."
This is not a good analogy at all.
Golf is a skill. It's not an art, nor a science. If someone
consistantly shoots 12 under par every game they play they can and will
be invited to be on the Pro Tour and win Tournaments. Winning a golf
tournament isn't about "who you know" or your image, or about being
trendy, or timely, or having a great manager, or anything else. It's
about being more skilled than anyone else you're playing against. Golf
is also not subjective. It is concrete. You don't need a fan base, or
a Nike endorsement. If you shoot better than the #2 guy, you win the
tournament, plain and simple.
In contrast, just because someone is a skilled musician there is
absolutely no guarantee that they'll become successful in any way as a
musician.
CT
Charles Thomas
> People that don't know how to cook still know how to eat. If it isn't
> palatable to them it's not because they don't know the difference between
> dredging in flour and rolling in bread crumbs.
People that don't know how to cook still know how to eat, true. But you
won't find them judging high-level cooking competitions. Why is that,
do you suppose? Perhaps because people who are cooks know more about
what constitutes great cuisine than some random schlub?
As I've said, anyone can have the opinion "I think Velveeta is the best
cheese there is!". And I understand that, to you, that's just as valid
an opinion as a master cheesemaker who's been toiling in a factory in
Switzerland for 40 years.
But myself, if I want someone to pick out a great cheese for me, I'll go
with the guy in Switzerland. And that's just where we differ.
CT
Devildog
>From: Charles Thomas cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu
>You can certainly have an opinion. How intelligent it will be is
>another matter.
Damn, that's condescending to say the least. What makes your opinion so much
more valuable or intelligent? Ultimately the public is the final arbiter of
what good or bad, sometimes they are right and in the case of Milli Vanilli
they are dreadfully duped.
Dawn in Memphis
>Date: 9/11/2003 3:05 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030911160541...@mb-m07.aol.com>
This entire discussion is getting irritating to say the least.
Opinions are what make the world go round.........to each his own and all that
jazz.
Opinions are what has made crappy rap the biggest craze since the invention of
plastic. (My opinion)
Opinions have a way of dictating our every day life choices, ie; "what shall I
wear, where should I eat. etc. Opinions are valuable to the person with the
opinion, it doesn't matter if it's an informed opinion or NOT. It is the factor
that will cause that person to make whatever choice he sees fit.
It is My opinion that this subject needs to be put to rest.
Charles Thomas
freed...@aol.com (Dawn in Memphis) wrote:
>>You can certainly have an opinion. How intelligent it will be is
>>another matter.
>
>
>Damn, that's condescending to say the least. What makes your opinion so
>much more valuable or intelligent?
You guys need to step back for two seconds and stop acting like this is
some kind of personal vendetta against you long enough to listen to what
I'm saying. You keep reacting out of some kind of sense of being
wounded instead of hearing the words I'm saying.
Again, if I you don't at least acknowledge the reasoning of "an informed
opinion is more valuable than an uninformed opinion" we need to agree to
disagree. Plain and simple.
If you want to debate, give me some logical reasons why an uninformed
opinion should be given as much weight as an informed one.
This whole thread started when Richard basically said (paraphrasing) "It
really chaps my ass when people act like one needs to know something
about music to have an opinion about it".
My only point all along has been that those who study and DO probably
know more about the subject in contention than those who do not study
and do not DO. Therefore, while everyone can have an opinion, the
opinion of those who know more should be given more merit. Seems like
common sense.
If you feel that it makes me seem egotistical, or arrogant, or
condescending when I say "an informed opinion is more valuable than an
ininformed opinion" I'm sorry about that. Again, it just seems like
common sense to me.
I'm not really sure why any of this surpises me. There are certainly
many here who feel that those who actually KNEW Elvis and were around
him thoughout most of his life know less about him than a bunch of fans
who have read some books about him.
> It is my opinion that this subject needs to be put to rest.
Of course you could always stop reading the thread. On the irritation
scale this thread hasn't even come close to the 120+ post Alladin
fire-fests of just a few months ago. ;-)
CT
Charles Thomas
Charles Thomas <cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
> I'm not really sure why any of this surpises me. There are certainly
> many here who feel that those who actually KNEW Elvis and were around
> him thoughout most of his life know less about him than a bunch of fans
> who have read some books about him.
Just as a disclaimer: The above statement does NOT have anything to do
with the people involved in this specific debate.
The people I'm referring to know who they are, and so do the rest of you.
CT
Richard
You missed by a mile. And the meaning wasn't even hidden - he's saying
that any dork can get a recording contract, but it takes somebody with
that extra special "something" to be a success.
Richard
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> any dork can get a recording contract, but it takes somebody with
> that extra special "something" to be a success.
Agreed.
Unfortunately that "something" doesn't have to be talent. Sometimes it
just takes looking good in some tight clothes.
CT
Richard
<cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> Opinions about music are gut-level reactions,
>> often subjective, but they don't require consultation with the technicians
>> before a valuable opinion can be formed.
>
>I guess we just disagree on the "value" of that opinion.
>
>I'm sure it fills you with a certain sense of importance to think that
>someone who turns on a radio every once in a while can, in your opinion,
>know just as much about music as those who spend a lifetime studying it
>and creating it, but I don't agree that is the case.
So, if I listen to a record and hate it, hate it so much that I want
to run screaming at the radio and throw it out of a window, that
opinion is invalid because I don't have the necessary expertise to
criticise the process that went into creating it? And if somebody who
hasn't heard it, asks me my opinion of it and I tell them just how bad
it really is, they should ignore me and go seek out a working musician
who will tell them how wonderful the chord structure is, and how the
production values are top notch, and how the singer is pitch perfect -
and then they'll hear it for themselves, and hate it too, but so what
because their opinion is just as invalid as mine. the record is really
excellent, they and I just don't know it.
Is that how it goes?
>You may feel okay letting a second grader write art reviews for the New
>York Times, but I'd rather listen to someone who has studied art, and is
>preferrably an artist themselves. At the end of the day, I have a
>feeling I have a better shot at getting a fair review of someone's
>talent from the artist than the second grader.
Yes, if I want an opinion on a piece of art I won't bother to look at
it myself, I'll just buy it on the say so of some snooty arsed prat
who has spent the last twenty years learning how to make a white
canvas covered in white paint sound like it has been wrung from the
artists tortured soul, whereas in fact it is actually - well, a white
canvas covered in white paint.
All art is subjective, and just because some poncey professor tells me
I should enjoy looking at something does not mean I will. In fact,
anyone who falls for that has no free will of their own and deserves
to get ripped off.
>If you listen to my niece, "Brush Your Teeth" is the greatest song ever
>recorded. While it's fine that she has that opinion, I don't happen to
>think her opinion is particularly informed.
Of course it's informed. It's informed by the mind of a young kid.
You're a snob.
Richard
Richard
<cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> but
>> I still believe (all the Timberlakes and Spears aside) overtly talented
>> people get signed because a producer or someone hears something that screams
>> "THIS PERSON SHOULD HAVE A CONTRACT!"
>
>Yeah, sometimes it's the shape of their breasts, or their willingness to
>strip almost naked in a video. Sometimes it's the silly makeup they
>wear, or the fact that they're reasonably good looking and willing to
>sign a contract giving a team of managers the power to do anything with
>them they wish. Sometimes it's that they're a flavor of the month and
>someone feels they can cash in on it. Only very rarely does it have
>anything to do with there relative merits as artists or musicians.
Good lord, the jealousy almost crawls off the screen and grabs you
round the throat, doesn't it?
Richard
Richard
You sound to me like you would rather listen to somebody else than
make a judgement on something yourself.
Let me try this one for size:
You are at a club watching a comedian. He tells dozens of jokes that
you've heard a hundred times before. And you've heard them told ten
times better. And they weren't even funny then. Nobody in the audience
is laughing. You aren't laughing.
But there's a man at the back, who thinks he's wonderful. He's a
professional comic himself, and he thinks that this guy has put a new
slant on old material, his timing is good, his delivery is excellent.
But still nobody laughs. You just don't find him funny.
You and the other couple of hundred people sitting stoney faced must
however be wrong. Because you aren't comedy experts.
So why aren't you laughing?
Richard
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Good lord, the jealousy almost crawls off the screen and grabs you
> round the throat, doesn't it?
On the contrary. Knowing as much as I know about the music business I
have absolutely no desire to have a recording contract. I can point you
to some resources that will let you know a bit more about it, but I can
sum it up thusly: The vast majority of bands who get recording contracts
end up in debt up to their asses and oweing the record company tens of
thousands of dollars.
Since I'm not an 18 year old kid with no assets, I have no desire to
lose everything I own to some record label.
I find it interesting that instead of debating your point of view you
once again just throw around insults.
CT
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> So, if I listen to a record and hate it, hate it so much that I want
> to run screaming at the radio and throw it out of a window, that
> opinion is invalid because I don't have the necessary expertise to
> criticise the process that went into creating it? And if somebody who
> hasn't heard it, asks me my opinion of it and I tell them just how bad
> it really is, they should ignore me and go seek out a working musician
> who will tell them how wonderful the chord structure is, and how the
> production values are top notch, and how the singer is pitch perfect -
> and then they'll hear it for themselves, and hate it too, but so what
> because their opinion is just as invalid as mine. the record is really
> excellent, they and I just don't know it.
>
> Is that how it goes?
So it's all about you and your need to feel validated in your opinions?
> Yes, if I want an opinion on a piece of art I won't bother to look at
> it myself, I'll just buy it on the say so of some snooty arsed prat
> who has spent the last twenty years learning how to make a white
> canvas covered in white paint sound like it has been wrung from the
> artists tortured soul, whereas in fact it is actually - well, a white
> canvas covered in white paint.
Seems to me that this is really about your discomfort when people who
know something about a subject have opinions you don't agree with.
You've got all this anger because your tastes are different than some
"snooty-arsed prat" who's spent 20 years making art when you don't.
Maybe you shouldn't take it so personally.
Maybe you should consider that if someone who's studied art for 20 years
likes a painting you don't like that perhaps he could point out some
things about it you hadn't considered.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Some guy likes Budweiser. Then he hangs around someone who brews beer,
and that brewer explains about the different hops. The guy eventually
learns to taste the difference between different malts and starts to be
able to tell the differences between the various brewing processes. He
tastes the differences between a lagar and a pilsner and a porter. And
eventually he come to appreciate the subtelties in a truly well-crafted
beer. And somehow he doesn't really dig Budweiser so much anymore.
It's called "developing appreciation" and it comes about when you delve
deeper into something than what a layperson gets at first glance.
> You're a snob.
Again with the insults instead of debating the issue.
CT
Charles Thomas
Charles Thomas <cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> Someone who posesses only the barest knowledge about any art be it
> painting, music, sculpture or whatever may "know what they like", but be
> unable to appreciate the true depth of what is being presented.
To follow up on this, the reverse is also often true.
What impresses a layperson can often be seen by someone more
knowledgeable to be just gloss, or fluff... insubstantial or unoriginal.
For example, teens don't know about auto-tune, and pitch-polishing, and
doing 200 takes in the studio, or that some pop-star has a team of
million-dollar songwriters who write all her stuff for her. They don't
know about studio tricks and lip synching, or that the song she's
singing was done before by a group in the 60's and done better.
So they see their favorite singer on the TV and say "She's such a good
singer and songwriter!".
But someone in the music business can hear that the track has been
auto-tuned, and that there are punches every line, and that she's lip
synching. And they may know The Neptunes or Dianne Warren wrote all her
stuff... they know it's all a facade.
So who's right? Is she a good singer and songwriter or not?
I'd trust the person who knows what's really going on. Because the less
one knows about something the more easily one is able to have the wool
pulled over ones eyes.
CT
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> You sound to me like you would rather listen to somebody else than
> make a judgement on something yourself.
Heh. I've certainly never been accused of not being opinionated enough.
> But there's a man at the back, who thinks he's wonderful. He's a
> professional comic himself, and he thinks that this guy has put a new
> slant on old material, his timing is good, his delivery is excellent.
> But still nobody laughs. You just don't find him funny.
> So why aren't you laughing?
The possiblity certainly exists that I don't have the sophistication
necessary to appreciate what he's doing, and the professional comic does.
There's a lot of things that are like that. Literature for instance.
I could not appreciate Moby Dick when I was 15. It was beyond me. I
could not appreciate the symbolism, the subtle use of metaphor, the
masterful way that words were being strung together to paint a picture.
Melville's use of vocabulary, etc. Ditto Shakespear.
At 15 I found Moby Dick and Shakespeare boring and dull, full of
concepts and excecution I didn't understand.
Does that mean that Moby Dick sucks? Or that King Lear sucks? Or does
it mean that I lacked the sophistication at 15 to "get it"?
Someone who posesses only the barest knowledge about any art be it
painting, music, sculpture or whatever may "know what they like", but be
unable to appreciate the true depth of what is being presented.
That's exactly why I feel like the opinion of someone with more
knowledge about a subject is worth more than the opinion of someone with
less knowledge.
CT
Marty
Personally, I like Turkey. Turkey sammich on white bread with mayo and
ketchup and lettuce and tomato.
And Thanksgiving? Whooooweee! Roast Turkey and dressing, can;t beat it!
Marty
Bill
Charles Thomas wrote:
>
> For example, teens don't know about auto-tune, and pitch-polishing, and
> doing 200 takes in the studio, or that some pop-star has a team of
> million-dollar songwriters who write all her stuff for her. They don't
> know about studio tricks and lip synching, or that the song she's
> singing was done before by a group in the 60's and done better.
Nah, teens know about all this stuff, they just don't care. As long as
the song sounds good, as long as they enjoy the video of said song and
as long as they have fun watching their favorite performer doing that
song "live", that's all that matters.
Bill
Broadway
>get back to me.
Now wait a minute, Fifty Cent is on MTV.
>The same could be said of
>the Beatles for any number of reasons. Were they talented? Sure. Did
>timing and luck have something to do with their phenomenal success? OF
>COURSE IT DID!
The Beatle worked hard to play and get signed to anything.
_________________________________________________
Broadway
>with the guy in Switzerland. And that's just where we differ.
>
You being from Wisconsin needing help with the fromage? I don't believe it.
Dude, go with the French guy, the Swiss can tell you about clocks and gadget
knives.
_________________________________________________
Coolrockndaddy
>If you feel that it makes me seem egotistical, or arrogant, or
>condescending
You have always seemed that way......
Just my opion..... ; )
~AL~
"Lost track of how far I've gone,
How far I've gone, how high I've climbed,
On my back's a sixty pound stone,
On my shoulder a half mile of line,
Come on up for the rising" BS
Coolrockndaddy
>>From: Charles Thomas
>>If you feel that it makes me seem egotistical, or arrogant, or
>>condescending
>
>You have always seemed that
>way......
>Just my opion..... ; )
>~AL~
Make that "OPINION"!
~AL~
Devildog
>All art is subjective, and just because some poncey professor tells me
>I should enjoy looking at something does not mean I will. In fact,
>anyone who falls for that has no free will of their own and deserves
>to get ripped off.
No truer words have been spoken. When I was in an art class in high school, I
painted a still life and recieved a lower grade on the piece than I felt I
deserved. The teacher's eplanation was that the background was too bright of a
yellow. Well it was supposed to be, that was how I intended it to be. It still
pisses me off to this day.
Like Richard said, all art is subjective.
Devildog
>Personally, I like Turkey. Turkey sammich on white bread with mayo and
>ketchup and lettuce and tomato.
>
>And Thanksgiving? Whooooweee! Roast Turkey and dressing, can;t beat it!
Yeah, well what about the cranberry sauce? I think the shit sucks and should be
left off the menu!
Devildog
>Nah, teens know about all this stuff, they just don't care. As long as
>the song sounds good, as long as they enjoy the video of said song and
>as long as they have fun watching their favorite performer doing that
>song "live", that's all that matters.
>
Gotta agree with that. Remember Solid Gold when it was on TV? I don't think
there was one song that wasn't lip synched, yet the show did very well in the
ratings.
Richard
wrote:
I've yet to see an explanation of how somebody can train to be an art
critic. Yes, they can learn when an artist was born, when he/she died,
when he painted this or that, and maybe other factors in the artists
life that may have influenced their art. They can learn about the
techniques used to achieve various effects, and they can learn to
recognise if or when another painter has influenced a particular
painting. They can read what other art critics have said about their
works before them, but at some point they have to take a step back and
say whether or not they like a work of art themselves, and at that
point if all they are doing is some kind of mathematical formula - "It
is good because it excels in that area, and that area, although it is
not so strong in that one, however that area makes up for it..." then
you might as well set up a production line and churn them out by the
dozen with a sticker on saying "this is good art because it meets the
following criteria...".
I can show you a hundred paintings in our local art gallery, all of
which are technically brilliant. Almost photographic (although in my
mind that is a serious flaw) and yet not one of them would sell for
more than a few hundred pounds at auction. Why? Because they're
chocolate box art, the kind of thing that would look great on the lid
of a box of Milk Tray, but you wouldn't want it on your wall.
And so we come to music. What is a musician going to tell me about a
song that I might need to know? What key it is in? What instruments
were used? What deck it was mixed on? What classical composition was
tweaked to help form the middle eight? Where the lyricist got the idea
to write that song?
All very interesting I'm sure, and that's why books are written on the
subject. They're a good read, but if there's a song that I can't
stand, I'm not going to suddenly appreciate it just because I find out
that the words are about the death of the guys mother, or that the
composer was blind deaf and dumb, and it took two years to get
somebody to transcribe his ideas onto paper.
Is there anybody here who likes the Elvis Sun recordings because they
are seminal works? Or do you like them because they move you on some
emotional level that you can't quite put into words? If you didn't
know anything at all about the records, then the fact that they are so
important historically is something which an 'expert' would be able to
tell you about at great length, and you might argue that his opinion
on them is more 'informed'. But by that point, you've already heard
the songs, fallen in love with them, and his views are just something
to regurgitate and bore people at parties with.
Had Picasso never become famous, and had he attended your art class, I
suspect your teacher would probably have taken one look at his work
and said "Jesus lad, she looks like she's been in a car crash. Start
again".
Richard
Bill
Well, lip synching on tv shows is long standing tradition. Mostly
because it saves time in that there are no sound checks needed and there
is no chance of technical problems with microphones ect. Also, in some
countries, there are union concerns. I know that was the problem in the
UK, not sure if it still is. The lip synching I'm talking about are in
"live" concerts. Britney, Michael and Janet Jackson, Madonna and
probably others all incorporate lip syncing in the shows and their fans
don't seem to give a shit.
Bill
Broadway
>there was one song that wasn't lip synched, yet the show did very well in the
>ratings.
You're right, but Chuck Berry wasn't lip synched. He made one or two excellent
appearances on Solid Gold.
_________________________________________________
Hadji Derabertis
Bill wrote:
Shania Twain unfortunately lip-syncs a lot of the time as well.
Jason~~
ALADDIN137
>Date: 9/11/2003 1:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cthomas-30E214...@teta.doit.wisc.edu>
>Of course you could always stop reading the thread. On the irritation
>scale this thread hasn't even come close to the 120+ post Alladin
>fire-fests of just a few months ago. ;-)
>CT
It is spelled Aladdin, thank you very much.
I argued a point yes, and I will no doubt be involved in a few others.
However, if we take to heart your point of view on this thread, what is truly
the difference on the many I have defended myself? Being at the very least a
reasonably good sorce of medical information.
Having seen or met Elvis for 15 min or 5 days is neither a big deal or point.
Calling me ignorant or uninformed is.
Thank you for the smile though, it shows me that you are not being entirely
unkind.
I have promised myself not to do anymore 120+ fire-fests. For my sake of
course, I burn too many bridges that way. Pretty self defeating move.
~Aladdin
Broadway
>course, I burn too many bridges that way. Pretty self defeating move.
> ~Aladdin
Wasn't there a song-
woo-ooh-ooh, what a little surgery can do...
_________________________________________________
Tom James
Not when she tours. Shania has lip-synched for a few TV performances
like the Top of the Pops show and the Superbowl (neither of which is
known for great live performances), but Shania has never lip-synched
on her actual world tours.
Hadji Derabertis
Tom James wrote:
Id have to disagree with that.
Jason~~
ALADDIN137
>Date: 9/13/2003 6:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030913091032...@mb-m11.aol.com>
Haha!
Maybe brain surgery, but that isn't what happened. Still, your right.
~Aladdin
ELPrsley
> This doesn't count - because drummers ARE NOT musicians!
>
> HAHAHAHA
Yeah every once in awhile you get some blithering idiot that really
believes that. I love the expression on some of these nuts faces when
I'm playing drums and end up advising them what key they are in and
the chord progression. I deliberately never start out telling them I
play guitar as well.
Of course now when a drummer really knows how to tune their drums
you'd have to say they are indeed a musician since they are tuned to
actual notes.
LOL
E.
atomic_elvis
> believes that. I love the expression on some of these nuts faces when
> I'm playing drums and end up advising them what key they are in and
> the chord progression. I deliberately never start out telling them I
> play guitar as well.
>
> Of course now when a drummer really knows how to tune their drums
> you'd have to say they are indeed a musician since they are tuned to
> actual notes.
>
> LOL
>
> E.
hehehehe - glad you knew I was kidding!
Probably only 2 out of the last 10 or 12 drummers I've played with
could actually tune their drums properly. The others were merely
cavemen that could have been beating on a log and wouldn't know the
difference in sound. The type of guys that use those "blak dot" heads!
I love having fun with the goodin's though - when they tune 'em up,
that's when we bastard guitarists tune down a semitone or change keys.
Hadji Derabertis
atomic_elvis wrote:
A funny drumming story,
When I was in high school, back in the day, we had a little garage band
going. We were far from superstars, but we had a lot of fun with it. Usually
just playing blues tunes, JJ cale stuff,, just basic, not too complicated
material. The hardes we attempted was the Stones' 'hand of fate' and 'silver
train',, even those arent too hard a numbers to play.
Anyways our drummer stopped playinbg with us, so I brought this new guy in.
So wed be playing then this guy would just start on his own tangent, and
screw us all up. So I 'd look at the guy, "Hey Steve" I 'd say.."just keep
time man"....
"Oh ya sure Jay,, ya ya no swet man"... So we'd start again and we'd be
going pretty good,, then he's start doing these roles all over the place and
doing this little wail out and leave us all dummmb founded. So Id be getting
these dirty looks from the guys, and whispers of "Hey Jace,, what's with
your buddy man?" Is he all there or what?"
So I'd be like " Hey Steve, slow down cowboy!, You know, just wait a bit
and we'll give you a little solo or something to play".... "Oh ya Jay, sure
man,, so Ya,,,I'll just keep time then for now?".. Ya just do that Steve
good idea".. Well that didnt last long before he was doing his own little
wail again, with his toungue hanging out the side of his mouth, and the swet
starting on his brow. It was allmost like an SCTV or sat night live skit.
Just a few years ago I bumped into a guy who I used to jam with, and he
asked me if I ever saw that wacked out drummer dude anymore,, "you know Jay,
that Buddy Rich wanna be"?. My drummer 'buddy' was all we talked about
during our little 10 minute reunion. I hadnt seen this guy in 10 yrs, and
all we talked about, and laughed about was that drummer. Then the jokes
started like he's the studio drummer for Rush, he just joined the new
guns n roses.....Anyways,,, you probably had to be there.
Jason~~
Charles Thomas
Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> And that, I think, sums up your problem. You're totally unable to see,
> do, or hear something unless it's been picked over and explained to
> you by an expert. You are one of those people who just take something
> pleasurable, and over-analyse it until you've completely sucked all
> the fun out of it. You are a snob, a word I use not as an insult, but
> as a description.
** My last post on this topic, I promise! **
By the way, Richard, this was fun. A good intellectual exercise and I
enjoyed it a lot. Thanks for bringing your point of view to the
discussion.
On to the last post.
I see your point of view, Richard, but here's my problem with it:
Basically your point of view is that if you like something it's GOOD,
plain and simple, and anyone who doesn't like it is dumb. And if you
don't like it it's BAD, and anyone who likes it is a "snob". It's a
viewpoint driven by ego, and I don't mean that as an insult, but rather
as something you ought to recognize.
Essentially you want to believe that you know everything worth knowing.
That anything you don't understand well isn't worth understanding, and
that if there are nuances about a subject that would allow you to
appreciate it at a deeper level... screw it... they aren't worth getting
into. Who the hell has time?
And personally I would really hate to go through life thinking that I
didn't have anything to learn.
Here's the most to-the-point example I could give you. I've seen
several Jackson Pollack paintings. He's the guy who kind of splashed
paint around on a canvas... an abstract artist. And to me it just looks
like a bunch of paint splashed around on a canvas.
So there's the temptation to walk around and say "Fuck Jackson Pollack.
ANYONE could splash paint around on a canvas! Anyone who likes his
stuff is an idiot." You know... the emperor has no clothes kind of
thing. To walk around feeling like I, in my almost total ignorance of
the subject, am somehow qualified to dismiss this guy as a charade
because I don't understand his approach to art.
But what I'd be missing out on is this: a whole lot of people who know a
whole lot more about art than I do think he's a genius. These people
have a deeper understanding of art, and a deeper appreciation of it than
I do. They know more about it than I do. MAYBE I HAVE SOMETHING TO
LEARN HERE. Maybe if I took the time to try to understand it, I'd come
to appreciate his talent for composition, color juxtaposition, or
whatever.
And once I really understood the subject better, I may STILL not like
his artwork. But at least at that point it would be an informed
opinion.
Bottom line: I guess I'd rather make my decision about something from an
informed point of view instead of judging things I don't know anything
about and saying that anyone who disagrees with me is a snob.
Again, thanks for the discussion Richard. It was stimulating and gave
me lots to think about.
CT
Charles Thomas
coolroc...@aol.com (Coolrockndaddy) wrote:
> >From: Charles Thomas
> >If you feel that it makes me seem egotistical, or arrogant, or
> >condescending
>
> You have always seemed that way......
> Just my opion..... ; )
In the interest of keeping the newsgroup civil, I'll refrain from giving
my opinion of YOU, Al.
CT
Cathy
> In article <8mv2mv8rnp9qji8ci...@4ax.com>,
> Richard <r.pa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > And that, I think, sums up your problem. You're totally unable to see,
> > do, or hear something unless it's been picked over and explained to
> > you by an expert. You are one of those people who just take something
> > pleasurable, and over-analyse it until you've completely sucked all
> > the fun out of it. You are a snob, a word I use not as an insult, but
> > as a description.
>
> ** My last post on this topic, I promise! **
If you break the promise, you should be forgiven. This has been a
challenging discussion.
> By the way, Richard, this was fun. A good intellectual exercise and I
> enjoyed it a lot. Thanks for bringing your point of view to the
> discussion.
>
> On to the last post.
>
> I see your point of view, Richard, but here's my problem with it:
>
> Basically your point of view is that if you like something it's GOOD,
> plain and simple, and anyone who doesn't like it is dumb. And if you
> don't like it it's BAD, and anyone who likes it is a "snob". It's a
> viewpoint driven by ego, and I don't mean that as an insult, but rather
> as something you ought to recognize.
I think it really has more to do with being confident in your intellect and
knowledge gleaned from life experiences to sort through information and make
up your own mind. It's not a lack of respect for those who know more than
we know,
it's not an ego-driven closed minded view that we know best from our gut,
and to hell with those who have studied, performed practiced the art, etc.
Guralnick is a student of music history, whose opinion of Elvis' total
output has evolved through the years, but in his earlier writings he was so
kneejerk against anything that was popular with the mainstream, that didn't
adhere strictly to the confines of blues and the free spirit of Sun Elvis,
that he dismissed two decades of Elvis music, with the exception of the '68
Special, of course. His subjective biases were getting in the way of his
ability to assess music that he didn't personally like. In short, the
informed are not immune to the gut leading while the brain kicks back on a
break.
And so in conclusion (Applause!)....
Tolerance for differing views shouldn't be argued out by resorting to
blanket assumptions that the detractors of the position you advocate are
oblivious to logic, don't know what they're talking about, too stupid to
live, etc.; it'll meet with resistance every time.
Yes, you may add calling people "cynical snobs" to the above.
Cathy
Richard
<cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>On to the last post.
>
>I see your point of view, Richard, but here's my problem with it:
>
>Basically your point of view is that if you like something it's GOOD,
>plain and simple, and anyone who doesn't like it is dumb. And if you
>don't like it it's BAD, and anyone who likes it is a "snob". It's a
>viewpoint driven by ego, and I don't mean that as an insult, but rather
>as something you ought to recognize.
I don't think that you will see anywhere where I have said that if
somebody likes something I don't, that I automatically think they're
dumb. I am sure I have never said that. All I have said is that just
because somebody explains something to me (or they think they are
explaining it to me - maybe I already knew enough?) does not mean I
will appreciate it more.
That seems to be your argument, that if you don't like something then
you have this assumption that the more you learn about it, the more
you might like it.
Well if that works for you, fine, but I trust my own judgement. If I
hear a rap record for example, 99 times out of 100 I will hate it.
It's a style of music that affects me physically, and not in a good
way. I genuinely feel uncomfortable listening to it, and I want to
turn it off as soon as it gets going.
Now, if somebody writes out the words for me, and then goes on to tell
me how the singer had a deprived childhood, his parents were gunned
down in a drive-by shooting, and that he was a former crack addict
only saved from death by his music, I might be impressed, but I'll
still hate the record.
You say that I am now at least making that decision from an informed
point of view, but I say that as far as art is concerned that
information is totally irrelevant, and if you can't appreciate
music/poetry/art or whatever on an emotional level, then no amount of
information is going to make a bit of difference.
YES, if we are talking about a car, I'd go to an expert. If I look at
a car and say "I don't like it, it's green and I hate green cars,
because green cars are slower than red ones", then frankly I need all
the help I can get. If after finding out that in fact the green car is
the best car in it's class for reasons a,b, and c, I STILL don't like
it, because it's green - THEN I am making an informed decision.
>Essentially you want to believe that you know everything worth knowing.
>That anything you don't understand well isn't worth understanding, and
>that if there are nuances about a subject that would allow you to
>appreciate it at a deeper level... screw it... they aren't worth getting
>into. Who the hell has time?
>And personally I would really hate to go through life thinking that I
>didn't have anything to learn.
Hell man, I agree 100%. I know nothing about lots of things, and I
like to learn. I even like to learn about the music and art that I
don't like. I hate Charlie Chaplin films, but I am fascinated by the
process of making them. I watched some great documentaries on the man,
and read a couple of good books, and now I appreciate that his films
were works of genius. The trouble is, I still hate them, and I knew
that I would even after learning about them.
You need to separate art from the other things in life, because that
failure to do so is where your theories break down.
(snip)
>Bottom line: I guess I'd rather make my decision about something from an
>informed point of view instead of judging things I don't know anything
>about and saying that anyone who disagrees with me is a snob.
No, I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me is a snob, I'm
saying that anyone who has to rely on somebody elses judgement to come
to a conclusion is one.
Actually that was a sweeping statement on my part, but sometimes it's
easier just to lash out than spend an extra half hour on the keyboard.
I do find that a lot of art critics are snobs, and not because they
disagree with me but because of WHY they disagree with me. It's OK to
look at a Jackson Pollock painting and say you like it (I do, I love
them, and I always have done, and yet I have no idea who the bloke
even was) but don't try and dress it up with a thousand fancy words.
Just "feel it", as they say.
I suspect that most dead artists would be appalled if they could come
back and hear the crap that is talked about their works. They would
say that they painted because they had no choice, they were driven to
it, and all the bullshit that attracts itself to their art detracts
from it rather than adding to it.
It's only today when we have pseudo-art bollocks such as Tracey Emin's
"bed" that art critics are really necessary, because so many modern
artists know that without the critics speaking out on their behalf,
the public would see them for what they are - con men and women.
Unfortunately a lot of people get caught up in the trendiness of it
all, and are afraid to say what they really think, which is that a
filing cabinet with a coffee cup standing on top of it, is not "art",
it's a piss easy way for somebody just out of art school to make a few
hundred quid.
Richard
Coolrockndaddy
>> >If you feel that it makes me seem egotistical, or arrogant, or
>> >condescending
>> You have always seemed that way......
>> ~AL~
>In the interest of keeping the newsgroup civil, I'll refrain from giving
>my opinion of YOU, Al.
>CT
Please don't let that stop YOU ... it never has before!
~AL~
"Together we moved like spirits in the night, all night....
Baby don't know what they can do to you
Spirits in the night, all night....
Stand right up and let it shoot right through you" BS
ALADDIN137
>Date: 9/15/2003 9:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cthomas-B53DFD...@teta.doit.wisc.edu>
With all due respect CT, you rather lined that up in words of your own choice
and discription. Sometimes I still laugh and call myself a little redhaired
troll, it's so funny I have one sitting here on my desk.
Just see the humor, please.
We all have our opinions of one another, but we are all Elvis fans and
basically friends. Of course I have a great opinion of AL...but that is from a
woman's viewpoint. Still, your a very intelligent gent and he was just taking
your lead....; )
~Aladdin
Charles Thomas
coolroc...@aol.com (Coolrockndaddy) wrote:
> >In the interest of keeping the newsgroup civil, I'll refrain from giving
> >my opinion of YOU, Al.
> >CT
>
> Please don't let that stop YOU ... it never has before!
Yeah. You see how we're all growing up?
CT
Coolrockndaddy
>> >In the interest of keeping the newsgroup civil, I'll refrain from giving
>>>my opinion of YOU, Al.
>>>CT
>> Please don't let that stop YOU ... it never has before!
>>~AL~
>Yeah. You see how we're all growing up?
>CT
Like I said that has never stopped YOU before!! ; )
~AL~
"And after all this time to find we're just like all the rest...
Stranded in the park and forced to confess...
To hiding on the backstreets" BS
ELPrsley
There ya go... Eb
A little Stevie Ray. Yeah wish I could play like that.
Black dots, yuck. You are right most guys with a kit think all they
have to do is slam down some 5b's and they are great.
I found a new love for Evans Hydraulic Oils... Blue to match my kit.
E.
ELPrsley
Geez Jason maybe you shoulda tried a Who tune!
E.
ELPrsley
Yep I'm about 6 mos older now.
E.