Michael Jackson the "artist"

[Ian Pollard]

Rather than derailing Molly's thread on beauty, here's a new one continuing my discussion with Slip on Michael Jackson and art. Of course, anyone else is welcome to contribute.

2009/7/8 Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com>

Ian really, the Caravaggio comparison is pertinent but only in the
context of that era and Jackson in this era.  Equally they crossed the
line, creating a frenzy of mind boggling spectacle.  

Each to their own. If crotch-grabbing/thrusting is your bag, then more power to you! If you think that the moonwalk was art -- rather than a fun/cheesy gimmick -- then that's okay too.

I found nothing Jackson produced to be "mind-bloggling". He was labelled the "King of Pop", but pop -- by its very nature -- is asinine, disposable, and commercial... with due exception given to the genres of indie pop and C86. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_pop

Of course
if you can produce evidence of another artist that issued such
extraordinary talent preceding that of Jackson, I, as well as others,
would concede to your view.  

I can only assume this is a joke -- often hard to tell if we're not face-to-face -- or you have had very limited exposure to music. I am happy to talk about music and could offer up examples for longer than you'd likely care to hear them. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I'll give you a single, and I think comparable example, of a male solo writer and performer: David Bowie.



 

I personally have no interest, never had,
in the Jackson attraction.  I am only motivated by your lack of
recognition of the innovation,

Innovation is a serious word to throw around in music; I suggest you proceed cautiously with the examples I am looking forward to you offering up. I'd be particularly cautious when referring to Michael Jackson's contributions, however, because, as I am sure you know, he did very little himself... thus any credit for innovation will be, at the very best, diluted.

 

Art is something of a misnomer
in that people will and are paying thousands of dollars for
contemporary "Graffiti" art, which for me as an artist styled in
Renaissance period art view as pure "garbage".  So in that sense, your
view of Micheal Jackson as less than an art form is reflective of your
lack of understanding what "art" is all about.

Mend your tone a little, Slip.

Ian

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

MJ, well he was good at the start, with the rest of the family behind
him. There is no doubt that the Jackson 5 wrote and performed sopme
fine music. And yes the vidoe for the single Thriller was the first
of it's kind so i gues the label inovative is deserved. Ummm that is
about it though, The Jackson 5 and the video for Thriller, not that
much to get worked up about I fear, at least if we are trying to cal
MJ a prolific, constant, great artist.

[Ian Pollard]

Jackson's involvement in 'Thriller' is widely exaggerated. He did not do the choreography (Michael Peters did) or write the screenplay (he is credited with "co-writing" it with John Landis, who directed American Werewolf In London).

Jackson didn't write the song 'Thriller' either, it was written by Rod Temperton.

Ian

2009/7/8 leerev...@googlemail.com <l...@rdfmedia.com>

[Ian Pollard]

Actually... the Jackson 5 didn't write their own songs, but The Jacksons did. It may sound pedantic, but there are two very distinct eras to their music (the good and the bad, in my opinion).

As the Jackson 5, they made their name as a covers band, playing songs by Sly & The Family Stone, Smoky Robinson & The Miracles, etc. After they moved to the Motown label, their songs were written and produced by Gordy, Richards, Mizell, and Perren (aka The Corporation). This was the 'ABC' era Jackson 5. Later on Hal Davis took over as writer. During this time -- which was their peak in my opinion -- they didn't even play their own instruments.

After Motown dropped them, they did begin to write their own songs. However, they were now more famous as television stars; I think the quality of the songs had really dropped off. This was not the Jackson 5; they were now The Jacksons.

Ian

2009/7/8 leerev...@googlemail.com <l...@rdfmedia.com>

[Slip Disc]

Art is an open field full of oddity beyond comprehension and it is
always the beholders that decide what is and what is not to be
considered artistic. Obviously millions of people have perceived MJ
to be artistic and innovative. You have your individual perceptions
of art and so don't find anything of value in the MJ venue, still you
can't discount what others feel or see in artists. I won't discredit
MJ simply because I never thought he was anything special or never
understood what people saw in him. I always wondered why people see
some things as art, things like Andy Warhols can of soup. David
Bowie? lol. One of many writers and performers without similar
distinction and one that we could say had a cult following, as many
artists have.
I'm sure MJ was more than a crotch grabbing moonwalker and again that
perception, with mended tone, lacks the recognition of the "span" of
his career. Obviously there was talent there and innovation followed
and is noted in Lee's post.
In the world of art, one persons trash is another persons treasure.

[Slip Disc]

Exposing the substructure of a super star does not strip down the
talent rating to zero. Producers, writers, choreographers must have
"talent" to work with. Great movies are not great because of a
handful of actors but of course you have to have the right actors for
the presentation. There are billions of people in the annals of
artistic history and some stand out as "icons". I think what your
missing is that you just can't replace Micheal Jackson with someone
off the street and create the same iconic image. The idol shows of
late are proof of that. There has to be some talent there to work
with. It really doesn't matter who wrote the song, created the
costuming and choreographed the show, they didn't sing the song or
dance the dance. Some people think Ozzy Osborn is iconic, I think
he's a dirt bag. Despite all your picking apart Micheal Jackson Made
it happen. You can argue with millions of fans if you want and as I
said earlier, I have no personal interest nor own any MJ peripherals
but I do think he was a talented artist. My opinion of course!

On Jul 8, 9:13 am, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually... the Jackson 5 didn't write their own songs, but The Jacksons
> did. It may sound pedantic, but there are two very distinct eras to their
> music (the good and the bad, in my opinion).
>
> As the Jackson 5, they made their name as a covers band, playing songs by
> Sly & The Family Stone, Smoky Robinson & The Miracles, etc. After they moved
> to the Motown label, their songs were written and produced by Gordy,
> Richards, Mizell, and Perren (aka The Corporation). This was the 'ABC' era
> Jackson 5. Later on Hal Davis took over as writer. During this time -- which
> was their peak in my opinion -- they didn't even play their own instruments.
>
> After Motown dropped them, they did begin to write their own songs. However,
> they were now more famous as television stars; I think the quality of the
> songs had really dropped off. This was not the Jackson 5; they were now The
> Jacksons.
>
> Ian
>

> 2009/7/8 leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <l...@rdfmedia.com>

[ornamentalmind]

Creativity is a greatly misused term. Do we, as humans create life by
the copulative act? Do we create a car out of nothing? Do we create
the language we use? Do we create the specific vibratory scales used
in music? Philosophically, and actually, in almost every instance, it
is but a parody of previous works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Music

This has always been recognized and for centuries composers would copy
other people’s works with the recognition that such copying was not
only acceptable, but that doing so was recognition of the greatness of
that copied!
The research of the true origin of different pieces of music is
extensive and surprising if one takes the time to study it. From
Bartok to Bach, what today would be litigated as copyright
infringement, was used as common and accepted practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_B_Minor
Having played much by both in orchestras and bands, I can claim some
expertise in music. Also, having ‘created’ original music, I can only
say that what was played stands on the shoulders of all that came
before me.
Further, when it comes to today’s music, we immediately move into a
multimedia environment. This muddies the waters a bit in the expansion
of elements used.

I started out as a big musical snob, rejecting rock & roll as being
crass, shallow and of no value at all. Then framing the Beatles in a
similar mold. I felt that only the classics were worthy. Then, little
by little, I listened to and finally became a big fan of the former.
My previous prejudice was based on a lifetime of playing and studying
the classics along with a view from a position of entitlement and
superiority. Silly, no?

Quickly returning to the topic of creativity, I enjoyed much of MJs
works…when I first saw and heard ‘Remember the Time’, I was
fascinated! The same for his black and white futuristic works with his
sister. Without belaboring the point, all large productions today are
a collaborative effort. So, the synthesis is the result of the work of
many even though it centers often around an individual. About
everything in life is this way.

As to the term ‘pop’, it is a shortened form of popular. As I have
earlier admitted to here, it is all too easy to eschew such
presentations. Judgments, opinions and personal ‘tastes’ are just that…
and in the larger scope of things have little to no value at all.
Shall we reject things because they are popular? ‘Tis a very very easy
thing to do!

My final word is but yet another admonition about corporate media. I
seriously doubt if the current topic about MJ would have arisen or at
least reached the proportions and ‘seriousness’ it has without the
financial interests of today’s mass media’s manufacturing of consent,
consumerism and compliance.

> > > > Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[frantheman]

Ok, I started this with my comment about Jacko while replying to Molly
on the "beauty" thread, so I suppose I'd better clarify my own
position.

Jacko came to mind because the memorial thing was going on on TV in
the same room as I was writing. For the record, I don't agree with
most of the hype we've been innundated with since his death, and a lot
of what was said yesterday - Al Sharpton comes particularly to mind -
was way over the top. But, in that sense, his death and what has been
going on since then simply mirrors much of his life (... the man in
the mirror ...:-)). I zapped into CNN briefly before the memorial
service started and there were arial pictures of a dark limousine/
hearse speeding along a Californian highway - I was immediately
reminded of similar pictures from a few years ago with Jackson being
driven to the courthouse to hear the verdict in his abuse case.

I agree with Ian that there have been many other figures in rock and
pop in the past fifty years who have been more innovative and
artistically talented than Jacko. The example of Bowie is one I would
wholeheartedly endorse - I could add many others; from the Beatles,
through Pink Floyd, Lou Reed/Velvet Underground, U2, Oasis, etc., etc.
I would also cheerfully argue that Quincy Jones was the greater genius
behind "Thriller" (the parts of which I liked most being Eddie van
Halen's guitar solo on "Beat It" and "Human Nature").

And yet, "Thriller" was one of those rock/pop events which achieve a
synergetic greatness every now and again, maybe by just being the
right artist/sound/album/whatever at the right time. Like Dylan,
perhaps, in the early sixties, or Sergeant Pepper, or Dark Side of the
Moon, or The Joshua Tree, or, even, Norah Jones' "Come Away With Me."
And Jackson - at his best (and with "Thriller" he WAS at his best) -
was an talented, extremely professional musician.

As for the comparison with Caravaggio, I was referring to the fact
that, with time, the individual faults, idiosyncrasies, even life-
stories of artists fade away until only their work endures (or fails
to). Comparision of artistic genius usually is a pretty futile
occupation anyway. Personally I will never forget the day I wandered
into San Luigi dei Francese in Rome shortly after moving there in
1984, knowing nothing of the place and being astounded by the three
monumental canvasses of Caravaggio on the theme of St. Matthew. I
somehow doubt that Jackson's music will have the same kind of effect
in 400 years time!

Francis

On 8 Jul., 18:11, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Creativity is a greatly misused term. Do we, as humans create life by
> the copulative act? Do we create a car out of nothing? Do we create
> the language we use? Do we create the specific vibratory scales used
> in music? Philosophically, and actually, in almost every instance, it

> is but a parody of previous works.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Music

>
> This has always been recognized and for centuries composers would copy
> other people’s works with the recognition that such copying was not
> only acceptable, but that doing so was recognition of the greatness of
> that copied!
>  The research of the true origin of different pieces of music is
> extensive and surprising if one takes the time to study it. From
> Bartok to Bach, what today would be litigated as copyright

> infringement, was used as common and accepted practice.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_B_Minor

[archytas]

I've long been inclined to think 'each to her own' on art. There is
something sick about public art of all kinds - it feels like a worship
of dross and suggests some very sad lives. I would rather be dead
than want a ticket to Michael Jackson's funeral, or to view a
Caravaggio without an ulterior motive about some posh totty trying to
polish my rough diamond. I would cherish a witty jibe from Gabby more
than a whole tankful of dead sharks in aspic. Post-apocalypse
archeologists may well decide we venerated withered penis-thrusters in
400 years time and lived in rough shelters painted with religious
images to keep out the rain - the only beautiful use of a Caravaggio
canvas to me being to keep the rain and sun off those we have rendered
unfortunate because we have lost any clue about beauty. Even the
'original' Hirst shark, bought from an Aussie fisherman has rotted
away. Beauty would be leaving the sharks alone. In short, Orn is
right.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Chris Jenkins]

...posh totty trying to polish my rough diamond...

There's some poetry in you yet, old boy.

[archytas]

Indeed Jenkins - and I am more likely to consider you a work of art
than a Caravaggio. I might even forgive you a trip past my house in
your SUV with Jacko's 'Beat It' blaring. Of course, there would be no
possible repeat of this particular street theatre and I would charge
for the expended shotgun shells. A diamond cutter remains a rather
superior art form than the blue veiner, though the ravages of age do
rather extend one into the conceptual art arena and away from the
crudely physical. Francis' 400-year analysis is unnecessary - some of
us have already outlived Jacko and the presence of millions getting
their jollies watching his sad thrusting leaves a substantial shortage
of the ready and able with a few lines in the old art-crit department
of male sensitivity. There is, of course, no art except that of the
lies which lead to the truth. Sartre said he only wrote to attract a
better quality of woman, and judging by his plays, he does seem to
have been obsessed with boring them to consensual submission. Beauty
may well lie in that Mind's Eye in which one seeks to convince others
that one has the sensitivity to appreciate it. The origins of ballet
lie in prostitution and what purpose other than the tantric could
there be in opera or the art gallery? The phrase 'boring the pants
off' might well be the key of art-loving.

On 9 July, 03:27, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...posh totty trying to polish my rough diamond...
>
> There's some poetry in you yet, old boy.
>
>
>

> [ Attached Message ]From:archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" <Mind...@googlegroups.com>Date:Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:26:00 -0700 (PDT)Subject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Michael Jackson the "artist"

> ...
>
> read more »

[gruff]

Throughout MJ's popularity I fairly much ignored him but that was
primarily due to my general anti-popularity bent. Usually in later
years I come to see some of the artist, the art and the creation in
the work of those I've previously ignored for being popular --
however, I've yet to see the talent in a few of them such as Monroe.
Presley, well, I've seen him out of the spotlight and he every bit
lived up to that sneer he used so often in his act that I still fail
to appreciate his art as fully as I might. Sometimes it's better if
the audience, the consumer of art, not see the artist offstage. But
for a few rare occasions it always takes something away from their art

Such as it was for me and not only M but his entire clan which
notwithstanding the actual talent existing therein to me is just bad
circus. Crass exploitation of family by family even unto death and
beyond. I feel assured M's name will ring cash registers possibly
even greater in death than he did in life. This should all be behind
a curtain as should the disgusting display over it by that portion of
the general public who buy into it. The media are merely taking
professional advantage of the production staged for them and M's
daughter will live that for the rest of her life.

These outcries of alleged deep felt grief we witness even with our
eyes and ears held shut against them are an embarrassing and pathetic
display of severely misplaced concern. I want to shake these
slavering sycophants and yell at them ... my god people, we're in the
midst of some serious changes in our society, in our economy, in our
government but it takes the death of an ice cream icon to get you
moving and involved?

Yet on the other hand perhaps this display is providing nothing more
than an outlet, an escape valve, for the pressure a lot of society is
feeling and perhaps doesn't know how to otherwise release. But I have
to say that it seems all out of proportion. I don't think the death
of a great leader of state would generate this much coverage and
response, nor that of a renowned scientist nor any other figure that
comes to mind. It's just out of proportion. Perhaps something deeper
is amiss.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

'I don't think the death of a great leader of state would generate
this much coverage and response...'

Are you sure Gruff? I mean I have already been invited to several
parties once that Thatcher woman dies.

[gruff]

So you're Freudian then? I'd have to agree. Much of what people do
has a highly charged sexual component, it's strength and persistence
tied to the drive to live which seems to be tenacious as hell.

[Michael Berkovits]

Most of this thread seems to be about MJ's music. What about his
dance? Surely he was personally innovative and a great artist in that
regard?

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Sure perhaps when he first done the moonwalk. Have you seen anything
new dance wise from him since then?

[Slip Disc]

This would most likely be his "latest" dance, Lee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkhxjzc9uuE

On Jul 9, 10:56 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[frantheman]

"... for no mere mortal can escape,
the terror of the thriller!"

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[iam deheretic]

Interesting

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Michael Berkovits <MJBer...@gmail.com> wrote:

Most of this thread seems to be about MJ's music. What about his
dance? Surely he was personally innovative and a great artist in that
regard?

I have never been a great fan of wacko jacko, as he was always on the questionable side of the law or morality.  well as far as his dance,  original no,, it appears that it is a standard mime move, if using what others have created as yours, well I am not impressed. but mimes impress me . personally innovative? what I see is promotion , promotion, promotion.  I see charlie pride and nat king cole as innovative and the list goes on,, but wacko jacko naw all he was is promotion , promotion, promotion and the use of bizarre activities for promotion.

As for a great artist.. well if you admire con artist, who live off of others great.. each to his own taste. but it has been said you can fool a lot of the people all of the time and those people will supply you with a damn good living.

for me.. I won't be missing him any time soon..
Allan
 

--
(
 )
I_D Allan

[Michael Berkovits]

I don't know, I've heard that Fred Astaire himself - surely a true
talent - was a huge fan of Michael Jackson's dancing.


MJ did much more than the moonwalk. You don't have to invent a dance
move to be a great dancer, anymore than Dali had to invent a new color
or brushstroke to be a great painter. It's about combining already
invented techniques in novel, talented ways.

On Jul 9, 1:51 pm, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting
>

[ornamentalmind]

"... The phrase 'boring the pants off' might well be the key of art-
loving." - Neil

*** finds no exit from the punning ***

On Jul 8, 11:23 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[frantheman]

... although, come to think of it, this version of "Human Nature" is
"Miles" better than Jacko's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGBPSx1Zxlo

Francis

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[Tinker]

I agree with you whole heartedly Michael.
The man could dance!!!
That he did pelvic thrusts and crotch grabbing does not detract from
the physical performance of graceful and rhythmic movement.

peace & Love

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tinker]

Lee, new dance old dance don't mean squat. The Moon walk was a very
simple move that he did with such grace that it became significant. He
had control of his body akin to a martial arts master, tuned to dance.

peace & Love

On Jul 9, 10:56 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[rigsy03]

I think Diane Sawyer explained the moonwalk as special shoes fitted
into slots in the stage floor which made the moves possible.

I agree with your assessment of Jackson and two teens at the time
never were interested. An older brother liked Prince for a time.

Now, Scott Joplin, Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington are in an
entirely different class in my personal view.

I simply tuned out the entire circus event that I was forced to view
till reporters got around to mentioning seven USA dead in Afghanistan.

On Jul 8, 7:51�am, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Michael Berkovits]

As far as I know, the "special shoes fitted into slots in the stage
floor which made the moves possible" has to do with the physically
impossible leaning at a 30 degree angle that he did in the Smooth
Criminal video. The Moonwalk is a move that anyone can do without
special shoes. MJ just did it better than most, as he did most dance
moves better than most.

[Don Johnson]

I was turned off MJ long before the child molestation charges. His
speaking voice was a shock and then when I found out what his parents
did to him so he wouldn't lose his voice I felt ill every time I saw
him and repulsed when I heard him speak. Entering puberty myself at
about the same time I found out about his hormone alterations I was
grateful and proud of my croaking, cracking voice. Mike should have
been proud and excited about his body changes as well but instead I'm
sure he was made to fear it by his controlling father to get him to
take the shots. He became a freak in my eyes and all the bad press
and 'skin conditions' that followed just reinforced my opinion.

There is no denying the child and man could sing. I'm no judge of
dance but clearly the child/man could also perform. It also seems
clear Mike was an extremely focused individual and worked very hard at
his craft. These combined with marketing made him a success. I have
to respect that and I do.

I do find it ironic that a man that spent his entire adult life
attempting to erase his blackness to the point of physically deforming
himself and hiring white folks to create his children is lauded for
'bridging the gap' between whites and blacks. Ironic just doesn't
cover it. I'm baffled. Black artists in the rock world whom I think
had much more of a 'gap bridging' effect would be guys like Chuck
Berry and Jimi Hendrix.

dj

[ornamentalmind]

“…He became a freak in my eyes and all the bad press and 'skin
conditions' that followed just reinforced my opinion…” – dj

Yes, in many ways MJ was a ‘freak’ as are most entertainers.

“…I do find it ironic that a man that spent his entire adult life

attempting to erase his blackness to the point of physically deforming
himself and hiring white folks to create his children is lauded for

'bridging the gap' between whites and blacks. …” – dj

First, these two apparent events, the former being associated with a
skin condition and the latter most likely having to do with ability
(many support surrogate parents), are not what I believe most people
are referring to when the notion of ‘bridging the gap’ is mentioned.
So, we can address what WAS the most probable meaning here or, I
guess, we don’t have to. Since I see MJ as more of a victim, a truly
injured human being, I find little irony. Some pity and compassion
perhaps.

“…Black artists in the rock world whom I think had much more of a 'gap

bridging' effect would be guys like Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix.” –
dj

While I dearly love both of these musician’s music and performance
charisma, they both were very large ‘freaks’ in the same sense that MJ
was…along with being damaged goods too, IMV. (in my view)

> >> > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[rigsy03]

I thought the 30 degree angle was the moonwalk! Shows you what i know
about walking on the moon! Thanks.

[frantheman]

Somehow, everything today reminds me of music! Here's another method
of walking on the moon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxAPmKLWIyA&feature=related

[puppy]

if you can produce evidence of another artist that issued such

extraordinary talent preceding that of Jackson" I can name that
talent and it is Fred Astaire, a extraordinary talented performer.
His ten movies, during the 1930s, with Ginger Rogers are the evidence.
Micheal Jackson was one of the first exceptional dance innovator,
choreographer. And had a wonderful stage presence. I wasn't a fan
but I recognize why he became an idol.

[rigsy03]

Something is wrong with my video- it's like a bucking bronco!
Hopefully, my son will straighten it out in a couple of months because
I can't deal with computer books. zzz But have the cd- Every Breath
You Take- and am playing it as I type. Thank you, anyway.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rigsy03]

Also, Gene Kelly was terrific.

[ornamentalmind]

While I too appreciated Gene and Fred, there were better dancers.
Unfortunately, most were black and during that era of Jim Crow, these
great dancers had to play less suave and attractive characters
resulting, I would guess, in less general popularity.
If I didn’t know better, I would question our leaving out greats such
as Bill Robinson, the Hines family, Charles Coles et al any of which
could dance rings around MJ!

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rigsy03]

I agree- not sure who Coles is.// Also Eleanor Powell was a great
partner with Astair- an amazing duet- I forget the movie- Chicago used
to show those older films before Turner. Maybe RKO.//Recently, my
daughter-in-law sent a large black and white photo of the grand-
daughters sipping a soda in costume- one/taps the other/ballet- lost
in little girl thoughts- and I thought of this thread.

[rigsy03]

Astair/Powell might be featured in "That's Entertainment" re Hollywood
musicals.

On Jul 11, 3:45 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[gruff]

I would have to add Cirque d' Soliel and the Blue Man Group.

On Jul 11, 10:42 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

I found tap, acrobat and balet to be quite difficult. . . still have
photos of me and my brother in recital in soldier garb. Of course,
this was during the years my body was growing quickly...up, not out.
Primary teacher was Charisse, sister-in-law of Sid, yet another great.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -