Saving Private Ryan
Policrat'
thread, and to set the record straight about what I was trying to say...
***
I don't think I was ever debating the relative merits of British and
American viewpoints about WWII: I never realised quite how different US
views about WWII, both at the time and now, were to those in Britain, and I
got sidetracked into sub-threads where I questioned certain assumptions I
thought some American RASSMers were making about both differences and
similarities between the history of their country and that of the UK, but
that doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making about SPR.
What I was always tallking about (at least in the SPR parts of the thread)
was the quality of SPR as a film. When I first brought up the subject in
that thread (a throwaway line in a post that was an attempt to defuse the
nasty spat between Ted and Jeremy), I described it as:
a muddled mess of a film which didn't actually have the guts to give the
hard answers to the questions it wanted to ask.
And I still believe that claim to be true.
***
First of all, I need to clarify one basic belief: that SPR presents the
perspective of its characters, and the conclusions it reaches, as having a
universal validity. This isn't just about a few fictional people: it's about
the Normandy Landings at the very least, almost certainly about WWII, and
probably about War.
Why do I think this? Perhaps it's because it's a 'Holywood Blockbuster', and
I have preconceptions about what Holywood Blockbusters seek to do; but IMHO,
there is more to it than mere subjective preconception on my part:
throughout the film, the characters keep asking themsleves not just why
they're going after Ryan, but why they're in the Army and in Normandy in the
first place. And then there's the archetypal nature of the characters: the
supporting cast make for a remarkably cohesive cross-section of America, and
as someone else on RASSM remarked, 'Ryan' is an 'All American boy'.
The most 'official' authority on the WWW is probably the 'official' site for
the film (http://www.rzm.com/pvt.ryan/index.html - although in some
respects, it seems more like TF.N than sw.com, this is the site for the film
linked from the Dreamworks SKG official site, dreamworks.com)
The blurb there for the official SPR tie-in book at speaks of:
"one of the most profound events of the century... brought to life by
one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of our time."
***
To come back to my initial claim, what is this 'question' that I believe SPR
asks? The 'official' site's summary of the film says the following:
Captain Miller's men find themselves questioning their orders. Why is
one man worth risking eight... why is the the life of this private worth
more than their own?
Amid the chaos and terror of those days in early June 1944, this
remarkable story searches to find decency in the sheer madness of war.
In other words, the film is asking why men fight and die in war, and what
'decency' can come out of war, all with particular reference to WWII...
***
So what is the 'answer' that SPR gives, and why do I think that answer's
wrong?
When most of the characters meet the 'All American' Ryan, they decide to
stand and fight against some convenient Germans, and they get shot. Then Tom
Hanks' character gives 'Ryan' a charge to make sure that the sacrifices made
weren't vain, and there's a flash-forward scene where 'Ryan' stands with his
family at Hanks' character's grave, and looks up at the faded but
untarnished Stars and Stripes fly in a sunlit sky while a piece of music
called "Hymn for the Fallen" plays.
There is a message here that the most abused and dispirited of soldiers can
say 'fuck it' and turn and fight for something inspiring, and a message is
that servicemen in WWII died, so that some of their comrades could "go home"
(as someone else put it); and that those survivors, and all of us, owe them
a debt of honour and gratitude.
Now where's my problem with this? Besides from the fact that we shouldn't
need a two-hour extravaganza to tell us that we are the benefactors of the
Allied victory in WWII?
My problem is with what it leaves out.
Now it is probably true that a great many soldiers in WWII didn't understand
why they were fighting - this is something that SPR manages to get across,
although IMHO it belabours that point excessively.
But they *were* fighting for something: freedom.
Not their own freedom, which they often had no need to defend, but the
freedom of others - the freedom of people who were tied to them by no other
bond than common humanity, and who were oppressed by some of the most
successful, aggressive and cruel tyrannies in human history.
Now again, this is blindingly obvious; but in SPR, the camera is carefully
pointed away from any reminders of it.
We se no-one except American servicemen, and one shit-scared (and
America-loving) German.
The French are conspicuous from the France of SPR only by their utter
absence. In the place of the grateful civilian population and the Resistance
units who in reality met up with the invasion force, we have a bombed-out
and deserted village which looks more like something out of Germany, 1945
than France, 1944.
Even one grateful Frenchman or Frenchwoman to leaven this cast of archetypes
and stereotypes would have served as a reminder of why Americans were dying
in Normandy in 1944: but such a character would also have undermined the
over-simplified message of the film.
SPR could have been a powerful film about War, showing that in spite of the
chaos and horror and fear, there was a reason for the deaths which all
mankind. The tragedy of WWII is that it involved falable human beings
suffering for the sake of the most over-riding of moral imperatives:
precisely because we're all falable and human, Allied soldiers often didn't
fully grasp the importance of the cause they were serving, and their
suffering was magnified by incompetence, cowardice, inexperience, cruelty,
and any number of other things...
But we don't get that. And if the idea that all this suffering was
necessary, impelled by a belief in human rights is totally omitted, isn't it
thereby belitted.
So what of the message that is set up in its place?
People can be given courage by other people or by sheer bloody-mindedness?
That's morally neutral at best - consider Hitler; consider a lot of posts to
RASSM.
War scars the survivors? That's true, but surely Speilberg had a duty to
show what those scars were the ransom for.
We owe some sort of debt to those who died in WWII? Yes, definately.
That debt, though needs to be set in a wider context: we've not done
terribly well in paying it off, but if we could see more clearly that some
people took the brave decisions in 1939-45 to fight not in self-defence, not
out of sheer human stubborn-ness, but for the principle of freedom, in spite
of all the hardship, fear, pain, death and incomprehension that they knew
that fight would involve, both on their part and on the part of others who
didn't understand what it was all about, to prevent the world becoming a
place where racism and genocide were acceptable and even celebrated, but
rather to keep alive the idea that every human life is of equal worth, then
maybe we can be inspired try a little harder.
***
None of this even begins to address my other serious problem with SPR,
namely that it is a 'muddled mess' - derivative, inconsistent in tone,
boring, contrived and didactic, manipulative in the way it plays on the
emotions of the audience.
Those are my opinions on the cinematic merits of this film; but they are
subjective and personal opinions.
On the other hand, I do believe that it is possible to judge how well the
film represents the truth, and the shared moral beliefs of Western
Civilization. In short: does this film's 'message' - the 'answers' it gives
to the 'questions' it asks - reflect the reality of War, WWII, and Normandy,
1944?
While I cannot claim to know everything about War, WWII, or Normandy, 1944,
or treat what I do know fully objectively, I cannot see how the 'answers'
SPR gives make sense unless you are willing to interpret an event only
retrospectively: from its effects, rather than its causes.
***
To sum up, I would like to offer you all a quote which I believe can serve
as a critical commentary on all this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security.
Sincerely,
Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
Çheètah!
<snippage>
> Sincerely,
> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
Really?
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
=)
Wes Hutchings
> From: Policrat' <policr...@hotmail.com>
> Organization: Oxford University, England
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:20:59 +0100
> Subject: Saving Private Ryan
>
> This is an attempt to get away from all the unpleasantness in another
> thread, and to set the record straight about what I was trying to say...
>
> ***
>
> I don't think I was ever debating the relative merits of British and
> American viewpoints about WWII:
Your side was right and we stating what our side actually was, was wrong.
> I never realised quite how different US
> views about WWII, both at the time and now, were to those in Britain, and I
> got sidetracked into sub-threads where I questioned certain assumptions I
> thought some American RASSMers were making about both differences and
> similarities between the history of their country and that of the UK, but
> that doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making about SPR.
You're the one who incorporated the viewpoint. I just defended against it.
>
> What I was always tallking about (at least in the SPR parts of the thread)
> was the quality of SPR as a film. When I first brought up the subject in
> that thread (a throwaway line in a post that was an attempt to defuse the
> nasty spat between Ted and Jeremy), I described it as:
>
> a muddled mess of a film which didn't actually have the guts to give the
> hard answers to the questions it wanted to ask.
>
> And I still believe that claim to be true.
Which still comes down to it not giving your specific choice for answers,
points, people and situations, rather than what the film was actually about.
>
> ***
>
> First of all, I need to clarify one basic belief: that SPR presents the
> perspective of its characters, and the conclusions it reaches, as having a
> universal validity. This isn't just about a few fictional people: it's about
> the Normandy Landings at the very least, almost certainly about WWII, and
> probably about War.
It touches on all of those aspects. It does so through the characters we
see.
You STILL seem to think that they should have been crafted as other than
real characters to make your point.
>
> Why do I think this? Perhaps it's because it's a 'Holywood Blockbuster', and
> I have preconceptions about what Holywood Blockbusters seek to do; but IMHO,
> there is more to it than mere subjective preconception on my part:
> throughout the film, the characters keep asking themsleves not just why
> they're going after Ryan, but why they're in the Army and in Normandy in the
> first place. And then there's the archetypal nature of the characters: the
> supporting cast make for a remarkably cohesive cross-section of America, and
> as someone else on RASSM remarked, 'Ryan' is an 'All American boy'.
Point? Minus the HOLYwood references, which are meaningless.
>
> The most 'official' authority on the WWW is probably the 'official' site for
> the film (http://www.rzm.com/pvt.ryan/index.html - although in some
> respects, it seems more like TF.N than sw.com, this is the site for the film
> linked from the Dreamworks SKG official site, dreamworks.com)
>
> The blurb there for the official SPR tie-in book at speaks of:
>
> "one of the most profound events of the century... brought to life by
> one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of our time."
>
> ***
>
> To come back to my initial claim, what is this 'question' that I believe SPR
> asks? The 'official' site's summary of the film says the following:
>
> Captain Miller's men find themselves questioning their orders. Why is
> one man worth risking eight... why is the the life of this private worth
> more than their own?
>
> Amid the chaos and terror of those days in early June 1944, this
> remarkable story searches to find decency in the sheer madness of war.
>
> In other words, the film is asking why men fight and die in war, and what
> 'decency' can come out of war, all with particular reference to WWII...
Yes, problem?
No, the camera is specifically pointed at a few people.
>
> We se no-one except American servicemen, and one shit-scared (and
> America-loving) German.
And a family trying to give away their daughter so she can be safe and some
Germans in a command center caught with their pants down and some more
Germans defending a few feet of beach.
Finally, we're shown a small group of people who wouldn't even be alive
were it not for the events portrayed in the film.
>
> The French are conspicuous from the France of SPR only by their utter
> absence. In the place of the grateful civilian population and the Resistance
> units who in reality met up with the invasion force, we have a bombed-out
> and deserted village which looks more like something out of Germany, 1945
> than France, 1944.
Please explain why people would stay in a bombed out town?
>
> Even one grateful Frenchman or Frenchwoman to leaven this cast of archetypes
> and stereotypes would have served as a reminder of why Americans were dying
> in Normandy in 1944: but such a character would also have undermined the
> over-simplified message of the film.
Or your lack of attention to detail and instead creating out of thin air the
fact that it wasn't your film?
>
> SPR could have been a powerful film about War, showing that in spite of the
> chaos and horror and fear, there was a reason for the deaths which all
> mankind. The tragedy of WWII is that it involved falable human beings
> suffering for the sake of the most over-riding of moral imperatives:
> precisely because we're all falable and human, Allied soldiers often didn't
> fully grasp the importance of the cause they were serving, and their
> suffering was magnified by incompetence, cowardice, inexperience, cruelty,
> and any number of other things...
>
> But we don't get that. And if the idea that all this suffering was
> necessary, impelled by a belief in human rights is totally omitted, isn't it
> thereby belitted.
No, as I've tried explaining to you time and again, this is a one group of
eyes. You want (for absolutely no reason) to show it from a more complete
set of eyes or to somehow make the view we see be representative of the
entire scope of events instead of what we actually see.
How would these imaginary characters acquire this information?
>
> So what of the message that is set up in its place?
>
> People can be given courage by other people or by sheer bloody-mindedness?
> That's morally neutral at best - consider Hitler; consider a lot of posts to
> RASSM.
That's not the message, you know this, you insist on making it mean
something else, with no evidence whatsoever.
>
> War scars the survivors? That's true, but surely Speilberg had a duty to
> show what those scars were the ransom for.
Why? It's a localized focus film. Do you watch films and ask yourself if a
character, never shown on screen, because the hero never sees him, happens
to be eating a Twinkie right now?
If you know from second hand information that he in fact did eat a Twinkie,
what is the film makers responsibility to tell you what you already know,
but the characters have no clue about?
>
> We owe some sort of debt to those who died in WWII? Yes, definately.
Why? Show a reason why a film with a specific focus MUST change it's focus
to accomodate another viewpoint.
Should a film about Viet Nams Tet Offensive also cover events elsewhere
inthe theater, even though the film is set up to explore only the Tet
Offensive? Only a specific aspect of that offensive?
>
> That debt, though needs to be set in a wider context: we've not done
> terribly well in paying it off, but if we could see more clearly that some
> people took the brave decisions in 1939-45 to fight not in self-defence, not
> out of sheer human stubborn-ness, but for the principle of freedom, in spite
> of all the hardship, fear, pain, death and incomprehension that they knew
> that fight would involve, both on their part and on the part of others who
> didn't understand what it was all about, to prevent the world becoming a
> place where racism and genocide were acceptable and even celebrated, but
> rather to keep alive the idea that every human life is of equal worth, then
> maybe we can be inspired try a little harder.
Or maybe Humanity needs to look within itself instead of blaming a film for
it's oh so obvious shortcomings?
Do you think?
>
> ***
>
> None of this even begins to address my other serious problem with SPR,
> namely that it is a 'muddled mess' - derivative, inconsistent in tone,
> boring, contrived and didactic, manipulative in the way it plays on the
> emotions of the audience.
Because it's still a film. It is also trying to entertain, as well as make
us think.
You keep faulting it for being real in places.
>
> Those are my opinions on the cinematic merits of this film; but they are
> subjective and personal opinions.
>
> On the other hand, I do believe that it is possible to judge how well the
> film represents the truth, and the shared moral beliefs of Western
> Civilization. In short: does this film's 'message' - the 'answers' it gives
> to the 'questions' it asks - reflect the reality of War, WWII, and Normandy,
> 1944?
>
> While I cannot claim to know everything about War, WWII, or Normandy, 1944,
> or treat what I do know fully objectively, I cannot see how the 'answers'
> SPR gives make sense unless you are willing to interpret an event only
> retrospectively: from its effects, rather than its causes.
It deals with the event from a narrow perspective. Not the perspective of
history.
It deals with it from ONE perspective as to how that one person views the
events which lead up to him being alive and actually having relatives around
him, rather than have his entire families line die and have no one to visit
his grave or the person who helped make it all possible.
You want it to portray events they never saw or experienced in places they
didn't know about and discuss things they couldn't possibly have known. All
to meet YOUR idea of a correct film portraying all the events YOU wanted
covered.
>
> ***
>
> To sum up, I would like to offer you all a quote which I believe can serve
> as a critical commentary on all this:
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
>
> That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
>
> That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
> it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
> effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
> Governments long established should not be changed for light and
> transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
> mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
> right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
> same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
> is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
> provide new Guards for their future security.
Which has NOTHING to do with this discussion at all.
wes
Policrat'
> Policrat' wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
>> Sincerely,
>> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
>> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
>
> Really?
And why not?
>> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>> ---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
>> 8========##<^>##========8
>
> =)
;)
Pol'
Çheètah!
>
> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çhečtah!:
>
> > Policrat' wrote:
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
> >> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
> >
> > Really?
>
> And why not?
Just confirming that this wasn't smoke & mirrors... =)
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
How do you tell a happy sperm? It has egg on its face!
Explosion at sperm bank, nurses overcome....
Policrat'
>
>
>> From: Policrat' <policr...@hotmail.com>
>> Organization: Oxford University, England
>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
>> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:20:59 +0100
>> Subject: Saving Private Ryan
>>
>> This is an attempt to get away from all the unpleasantness in another
>> thread, and to set the record straight about what I was trying to say...
>>
>> ***
>>
>> I don't think I was ever debating the relative merits of British and
>> American viewpoints about WWII:
>
> Your side was right and we stating what our side actually was, was wrong.
I am he as you are he
As you are me and we are all together.
See how the run like pigs from a gun;
She how they fly.
I'm cryin'.
Sitting on a cornflake
Waiting for the van to come.
Corporation t-shirt,
Stupid bloody Tuesday,
Man, you been a naughty boy.
You let your face grow long.
I am the eggman. (Ah..)
They are the eggmen. (Ah..)
I am the walrus.
Goo goo g'joob.
Mr. City, p'licemen sitting.
Pretty little p'licemen in a row.
See how they fly like Lucy in the sky;
See how they run.
I'm cryin'.
(Cryin'..)
I'm cryin'.
(Cryin'..)
Yellow matter custard
Dripping from a dead dog's eye.
Crabalocker fishwife,
Pornographic priestess,
Boy, you been a naughty girl.
You let your knickers down.
I am the eggman. (Ah..)
They are the eggmen. (Ah..)
I am the walrus.
Goo goo g'joob.
Sitting in an English garden
Waiting for the sun.
If the sun don't come,
You get a tan from standing in the English rain.
I am the eggman. (How are you, sir?)
They are the eggmen. (No man maintains his fortune.)
I am the walrus.
Goo goo g'joob.
G'goo goo g'joob.
Expert texpert choking smokers,
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
(Ho, ho, ho. He, he, he. Ha, ha, ha.)
See how they smile like pigs in a sty;
See how they snied.
I'm cryin'.
Semolina pilchard
Climbing up the Eiffel Tower.
Element'ry penguin
Singin' Hare Krishna,
Man, you should have seen them
Kicking Edgar Allan Poe.
I am the eggman. (Ah..)
They are the eggmen. (Ah..)
I am the walrus.
Goo goo g'joob.
G'goo goo g'joob.
Goo goo g'joob.
G'goo goo g'joob.
G'goo.
Jooba jooba jooba.
Jooba. Jooba. Jooba.
Jooba jooba.
Jooba jooba.
Jooba jooba.
>> I never realised quite how different US
>> views about WWII, both at the time and now, were to those in Britain, and I
>> got sidetracked into sub-threads where I questioned certain assumptions I
>> thought some American RASSMers were making about both differences and
>> similarities between the history of their country and that of the UK, but
>> that doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making about SPR.
>
> You're the one who incorporated the viewpoint. I just defended against it.
Ce n'est pas un viewpoint...
>> What I was always tallking about (at least in the SPR parts of the thread)
>> was the quality of SPR as a film. When I first brought up the subject in
>> that thread (a throwaway line in a post that was an attempt to defuse the
>> nasty spat between Ted and Jeremy), I described it as:
>>
>> a muddled mess of a film which didn't actually have the guts to give the
>> hard answers to the questions it wanted to ask.
>>
>> And I still believe that claim to be true.
>
> Which still comes down to it not giving your specific choice for answers,
> points, people and situations, rather than what the film was actually about.
"Have I been a good film?"
>> ***
>>
>> First of all, I need to clarify one basic belief: that SPR presents the
>> perspective of its characters, and the conclusions it reaches, as having a
>> universal validity. This isn't just about a few fictional people: it's about
>> the Normandy Landings at the very least, almost certainly about WWII, and
>> probably about War.
>
> It touches on all of those aspects. It does so through the characters we
> see. You STILL seem to think that they should have been crafted as other than
> real characters to make your point.
"Private Ryan, he dead..."
>> Why do I think this? Perhaps it's because it's a 'Holywood Blockbuster', and
>> I have preconceptions about what Holywood Blockbusters seek to do; but IMHO,
>> there is more to it than mere subjective preconception on my part:
>> throughout the film, the characters keep asking themsleves not just why
>> they're going after Ryan, but why they're in the Army and in Normandy in the
>> first place. And then there's the archetypal nature of the characters: the
>> supporting cast make for a remarkably cohesive cross-section of America, and
>> as someone else on RASSM remarked, 'Ryan' is an 'All American boy'.
>
> Point? Minus the HOLYwood references, which are meaningless.
When you were here before,
couldn't look you in the eye.
You're just like an angel,
your skin makes me cry.
You float like a feather,
in a beautiful world
I wish I was special,
you're so fucking special.
But I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo.
What the hell am I doing here?
I don't belong here.
I don't care if it hurts,
I want to have control.
I want a perfect body,
I want a perfect soul.
I want you to notice,
when I'm not around.
You're so fucking special,
I wish I was special.
But I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo.
What the hell am I doing here?.
I don't belong here
She's running out the door,
she's running,
she run, run, run, run, run.
Whatever makes you happy,
whatever you want.
You're so fucking special,
I wish I was special,
but I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo.
What the hell am I doing here?
I don't belong here,
I don't belong here.
>> The most 'official' authority on the WWW is probably the 'official' site for
>> the film (http://www.rzm.com/pvt.ryan/index.html - although in some
>> respects, it seems more like TF.N than sw.com, this is the site for the film
>> linked from the Dreamworks SKG official site, dreamworks.com)
>>
>> The blurb there for the official SPR tie-in book at speaks of:
>>
>> "one of the most profound events of the century... brought to life by
>> one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of our time."
>>
>> ***
>>
>> To come back to my initial claim, what is this 'question' that I believe SPR
>> asks? The 'official' site's summary of the film says the following:
>>
>> Captain Miller's men find themselves questioning their orders. Why is
>> one man worth risking eight... why is the the life of this private worth
>> more than their own?
>>
>> Amid the chaos and terror of those days in early June 1944, this
>> remarkable story searches to find decency in the sheer madness of war.
>>
>> In other words, the film is asking why men fight and die in war, and what
>> 'decency' can come out of war, all with particular reference to WWII...
>
> Yes, problem?
No, cup-cake.
You don't mind me calling you 'cup-cake', do you?
Imagine RotJ without any Ewoks...
(You may say that I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one,
Maybe some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one)
>> We se no-one except American servicemen, and one shit-scared (and
>> America-loving) German.
>
> And a family trying to give away their daughter so she can be safe and some
> Germans in a command center caught with their pants down and some more
> Germans defending a few feet of beach.
> Finally, we're shown a small group of people who wouldn't even be alive
> were it not for the events portrayed in the film.
In the room the women come and go,
talking of Michelangelo.
>> The French are conspicuous from the France of SPR only by their utter
>> absence. In the place of the grateful civilian population and the Resistance
>> units who in reality met up with the invasion force, we have a bombed-out
>> and deserted village which looks more like something out of Germany, 1945
>> than France, 1944.
>
> Please explain why people would stay in a bombed out town?
Unreal City,
Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.
Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
And each man fixed his eyes before his feel.
Flowed up the hill and down King William Street,
To where Saint Mary Woolnoth kept the hours
With a dead sound on the final stroke of nine.
There I saw one I knew and stopped him crying: Stetson!
You who were with me in the ships at Mylae!
That corpse you planted last year in your garden,
Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?
Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed?
Oh keep the Dog far hence, that's friend to men,
Or with nails he'll dig it up again!
>> Even one grateful Frenchman or Frenchwoman to leaven this cast of archetypes
>> and stereotypes would have served as a reminder of why Americans were dying
>> in Normandy in 1944: but such a character would also have undermined the
>> over-simplified message of the film.
>
> Or your lack of attention to detail and instead creating out of thin air the
> fact that it wasn't your film?
April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm' aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the arch-duke's,
My cousin's, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie,
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You canot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Frish weht der Wind
Der Heimat zu
Mein Irisch Kind,
Wo weilest du?
'You gave me hyacinths first a year ago;
They called me the hyacinth girl.'
--Yet when we came back, late, from the hyacinth garden,
Your arms full and your hair wet, I could not
Speak, and my eyes failed, I was neither
Living nor dead, and I knew nothing,
Looking into the heart of light, the silence.
Oed'und leer das Meer.
Madame Sosostris, famous clairvoyante,
Had a bad cold, nevertheless
Is known to be the wisest woman in Europe,
With a wicked pack of cards. Here, said she,
Is your card, the drowned Phoenician Sailor,
(Those are pearls that were his eyes. Look!)
Here is Belladonna, the Lady of the Rocks,
The lady of situations.
Here is the man with three staves, and here the Whell,
And here is the one-eyed merchant, and this card,
Which is blank, is something he carries on his back,
Which I am forbidden to see. I do not find
The Hanged Man. Fear death by water.
I see crowds of people, walking round in a ring.
Thank you. If you see dear Mrs. Equitone,
Tell her I bring the horoscope myself:
One must be so careful these days.
>> SPR could have been a powerful film about War, showing that in spite of the
>> chaos and horror and fear, there was a reason for the deaths which all
>> mankind. The tragedy of WWII is that it involved falable human beings
>> suffering for the sake of the most over-riding of moral imperatives:
>> precisely because we're all falable and human, Allied soldiers often didn't
>> fully grasp the importance of the cause they were serving, and their
>> suffering was magnified by incompetence, cowardice, inexperience, cruelty,
>> and any number of other things...
>>
>> But we don't get that. And if the idea that all this suffering was
>> necessary, impelled by a belief in human rights is totally omitted, isn't it
>> thereby belitted.
>
> No, as I've tried explaining to you time and again, this is a one group of
> eyes. You want (for absolutely no reason) to show it from a more complete
> set of eyes or to somehow make the view we see be representative of the
> entire scope of events instead of what we actually see.
> How would these imaginary characters acquire this information?
fcuk (sic) you...
>> So what of the message that is set up in its place?
>>
>> People can be given courage by other people or by sheer bloody-mindedness?
>> That's morally neutral at best - consider Hitler; consider a lot of posts to
>> RASSM.
>
> That's not the message, you know this, you insist on making it mean
> something else, with no evidence whatsoever.
I know...
>> War scars the survivors? That's true, but surely Speilberg had a duty to
>> show what those scars were the ransom for.
>
> Why? It's a localized focus film. Do you watch films and ask yourself if a
> character, never shown on screen, because the hero never sees him, happens
> to be eating a Twinkie right now?
> If you know from second hand information that he in fact did eat a Twinkie,
> what is the film makers responsibility to tell you what you already know,
> but the characters have no clue about?
RYAN: Tell me I've been a good man!
MRS. RYAN: You helped stop Adolf eating Twinkies, didn't you?
>> We owe some sort of debt to those who died in WWII? Yes, definately.
>
> Why? Show a reason why a film with a specific focus MUST change it's focus
> to accomodate another viewpoint.
Inconcievable!
> Should a film about Viet Nams Tet Offensive also cover events elsewhere
> inthe theater, even though the film is set up to explore only the Tet
> Offensive? Only a specific aspect of that offensive?
Look, sir - locals!
>> That debt, though needs to be set in a wider context: we've not done
>> terribly well in paying it off, but if we could see more clearly that some
>> people took the brave decisions in 1939-45 to fight not in self-defence, not
>> out of sheer human stubborn-ness, but for the principle of freedom, in spite
>> of all the hardship, fear, pain, death and incomprehension that they knew
>> that fight would involve, both on their part and on the part of others who
>> didn't understand what it was all about, to prevent the world becoming a
>> place where racism and genocide were acceptable and even celebrated, but
>> rather to keep alive the idea that every human life is of equal worth, then
>> maybe we can be inspired try a little harder.
>
> Or maybe Humanity needs to look within itself instead of blaming a film for
> it's oh so obvious shortcomings?
[dancing stars]
> Do you think?
Occasionally...
>> ***
>>
>> None of this even begins to address my other serious problem with SPR,
>> namely that it is a 'muddled mess' - derivative, inconsistent in tone,
>> boring, contrived and didactic, manipulative in the way it plays on the
>> emotions of the audience.
>
> Because it's still a film. It is also trying to entertain, as well as make
> us think.
You keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means...
> You keep faulting it for being real in places.
Stop... *saying*... that...!
>> Those are my opinions on the cinematic merits of this film; but they are
>> subjective and personal opinions.
>>
>> On the other hand, I do believe that it is possible to judge how well the
>> film represents the truth, and the shared moral beliefs of Western
>> Civilization. In short: does this film's 'message' - the 'answers' it gives
>> to the 'questions' it asks - reflect the reality of War, WWII, and Normandy,
>> 1944?
>>
>> While I cannot claim to know everything about War, WWII, or Normandy, 1944,
>> or treat what I do know fully objectively, I cannot see how the 'answers'
>> SPR gives make sense unless you are willing to interpret an event only
>> retrospectively: from its effects, rather than its causes.
>
> It deals with the event from a narrow perspective. Not the perspective of
> history.
>
> It deals with it from ONE perspective as to how that one person views the
> events which lead up to him being alive and actually having relatives around
> him, rather than have his entire families line die and have no one to visit
> his grave or the person who helped make it all possible.
>
> You want it to portray events they never saw or experienced in places they
> didn't know about and discuss things they couldn't possibly have known. All
> to meet YOUR idea of a correct film portraying all the events YOU wanted
> covered.
Yes. Yes, but why's that a good thing? No, as you've said yourself. They may
take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom. No, and no again. And no
again. And, unsurprisingly, no...
There is no spoon.
>> ***
>>
>> To sum up, I would like to offer you all a quote which I believe can serve
>> as a critical commentary on all this:
>>
>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
>> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
>> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
>>
>> That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
>> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
>>
>> That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
>> it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
>> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
>> effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
>> Governments long established should not be changed for light and
>> transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
>> mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
>> right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
>> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
>> same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
>> is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
>> provide new Guards for their future security.
>
> Which has NOTHING to do with this discussion at all.
karma police
arrest this man
he talks in maths
he buzzes like a fridge
he's like a detuned radio
karma police
arrest this girl
her hitler hairdo
is making me feel ill
and we have crashed her party
this is what you get
this is what you get
this is what you get
when you mess with us
karma police
i've given all i can
it's not enough
i've given all i can
but we're still on the payroll
this is what you get
this is what you get
this is what you get
when you mess with us
for a minute there
i lost myself i lost myself
phew for a minute there
i lost myself i lost myself
for a minute there
i lost myself i lost myself
phew for a minute there
i lost myself i lost myself
Policrat'
> Policrat' wrote:
>>
>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çheètah!:
>>
>>> Policrat' wrote:
>>>
>>> <snippage>
>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
>>>> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> And why not?
>
> Just confirming that this wasn't smoke & mirrors... =)
What gave you that idea?
>> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>> ---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
>> 8========##<^>##========8
>
> How do you tell a happy sperm? It has egg on its face!
>
> Explosion at sperm bank, nurses overcome....
=>
Pol'
Çheètah!
>
> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çhečtah!:
>
> > Policrat' wrote:
> >>
> >> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çhečtah!:
> >>
> >>> Policrat' wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snippage>
> >>>
> >>>> Sincerely,
> >>>> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
> >>>> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
> >>>
> >>> Really?
> >>
> >> And why not?
> >
> > Just confirming that this wasn't smoke & mirrors... =)
>
> What gave you that idea?
It was easier than reading the entire post, as I hadn't been keeping up
with the thread...
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
simple, huh? =)
Wes Hutchings
> Organization: Oxford University, England
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
> Subject: Re: Saving Private Ryan
Much more coherent than your earlier arguments.
>
>
>>> I never realised quite how different US
>>> views about WWII, both at the time and now, were to those in Britain, and I
>>> got sidetracked into sub-threads where I questioned certain assumptions I
>>> thought some American RASSMers were making about both differences and
>>> similarities between the history of their country and that of the UK, but
>>> that doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making about SPR.
>>
>> You're the one who incorporated the viewpoint. I just defended against it.
>
> Ce n'est pas un viewpoint...
Mrs. Dezanni was right.
>
>>> What I was always tallking about (at least in the SPR parts of the thread)
>>> was the quality of SPR as a film. When I first brought up the subject in
>>> that thread (a throwaway line in a post that was an attempt to defuse the
>>> nasty spat between Ted and Jeremy), I described it as:
>>>
>>> a muddled mess of a film which didn't actually have the guts to give the
>>> hard answers to the questions it wanted to ask.
>>>
>>> And I still believe that claim to be true.
>>
>> Which still comes down to it not giving your specific choice for answers,
>> points, people and situations, rather than what the film was actually about.
>
> "Have I been a good film?"
Have you gotten tired of logic yet?
Rhetorical question.
>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> First of all, I need to clarify one basic belief: that SPR presents the
>>> perspective of its characters, and the conclusions it reaches, as having a
>>> universal validity. This isn't just about a few fictional people: it's about
>>> the Normandy Landings at the very least, almost certainly about WWII, and
>>> probably about War.
>>
>> It touches on all of those aspects. It does so through the characters we
>> see. You STILL seem to think that they should have been crafted as other than
>> real characters to make your point.
>
> "Private Ryan, he dead..."
Policrat, he's lost.
More coherent still, but having nothing to do with the discussion.
I guess this would be your version of taking your football and leaving.
>
>
>>> The most 'official' authority on the WWW is probably the 'official' site for
>>> the film (http://www.rzm.com/pvt.ryan/index.html - although in some
>>> respects, it seems more like TF.N than sw.com, this is the site for the film
>>> linked from the Dreamworks SKG official site, dreamworks.com)
>>>
>>> The blurb there for the official SPR tie-in book at speaks of:
>>>
>>> "one of the most profound events of the century... brought to life by
>>> one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of our time."
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> To come back to my initial claim, what is this 'question' that I believe SPR
>>> asks? The 'official' site's summary of the film says the following:
>>>
>>> Captain Miller's men find themselves questioning their orders. Why is
>>> one man worth risking eight... why is the the life of this private worth
>>> more than their own?
>>>
>>> Amid the chaos and terror of those days in early June 1944, this
>>> remarkable story searches to find decency in the sheer madness of war.
>>>
>>> In other words, the film is asking why men fight and die in war, and what
>>> 'decency' can come out of war, all with particular reference to WWII...
>>
>> Yes, problem?
>
> No, cup-cake.
>
> You don't mind me calling you 'cup-cake', do you?
Not as long as you get within arms reach.
Those were the ones the camera was pointed at.
Are you going to complain because the other side of the planet where a chunk
of the DS2 fell and killed a small village wasn't covered?
How about (continuing the SPR point) if the Pacific theater was ignored in
a film concerning the BoB?
Or a particular pilot and his wingman were covered?
>
>>> We se no-one except American servicemen, and one shit-scared (and
>>> America-loving) German.
>>
>> And a family trying to give away their daughter so she can be safe and some
>> Germans in a command center caught with their pants down and some more
>> Germans defending a few feet of beach.
>> Finally, we're shown a small group of people who wouldn't even be alive
>> were it not for the events portrayed in the film.
>
> In the room the women come and go,
> talking of Michelangelo.
And they actually have a point and a few brain cells.
>
>>> The French are conspicuous from the France of SPR only by their utter
>>> absence. In the place of the grateful civilian population and the Resistance
>>> units who in reality met up with the invasion force, we have a bombed-out
>>> and deserted village which looks more like something out of Germany, 1945
>>> than France, 1944.
>>
>> Please explain why people would stay in a bombed out town?
>
> Unreal City,
> Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
> A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
> I had not thought death had undone so many.
> Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
> And each man fixed his eyes before his feel.
> Flowed up the hill and down King William Street,
> To where Saint Mary Woolnoth kept the hours
> With a dead sound on the final stroke of nine.
> There I saw one I knew and stopped him crying: Stetson!
> You who were with me in the ships at Mylae!
> That corpse you planted last year in your garden,
> Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?
> Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed?
> Oh keep the Dog far hence, that's friend to men,
> Or with nails he'll dig it up again!
There was someplace to go still in a major metropolitan area. We're
discussing the French Countryside and small villages.
Pol (copy&paste) crat
>
>
>>> SPR could have been a powerful film about War, showing that in spite of the
>>> chaos and horror and fear, there was a reason for the deaths which all
>>> mankind. The tragedy of WWII is that it involved falable human beings
>>> suffering for the sake of the most over-riding of moral imperatives:
>>> precisely because we're all falable and human, Allied soldiers often didn't
>>> fully grasp the importance of the cause they were serving, and their
>>> suffering was magnified by incompetence, cowardice, inexperience, cruelty,
>>> and any number of other things...
>>>
>>> But we don't get that. And if the idea that all this suffering was
>>> necessary, impelled by a belief in human rights is totally omitted, isn't it
>>> thereby belitted.
>>
>> No, as I've tried explaining to you time and again, this is a one group of
>> eyes. You want (for absolutely no reason) to show it from a more complete
>> set of eyes or to somehow make the view we see be representative of the
>> entire scope of events instead of what we actually see.
>> How would these imaginary characters acquire this information?
>
> fcuk (sic) you...
Your whit is shining at it's absolute brightest. How sad for you.
>
>>> So what of the message that is set up in its place?
>>>
>>> People can be given courage by other people or by sheer bloody-mindedness?
>>> That's morally neutral at best - consider Hitler; consider a lot of posts to
>>> RASSM.
>>
>> That's not the message, you know this, you insist on making it mean
>> something else, with no evidence whatsoever.
>
> I know...
Stick to masturbation, it's cleaner.
>
>>> War scars the survivors? That's true, but surely Speilberg had a duty to
>>> show what those scars were the ransom for.
>>
>> Why? It's a localized focus film. Do you watch films and ask yourself if a
>> character, never shown on screen, because the hero never sees him, happens
>> to be eating a Twinkie right now?
>> If you know from second hand information that he in fact did eat a Twinkie,
>> what is the film makers responsibility to tell you what you already know,
>> but the characters have no clue about?
>
> RYAN: Tell me I've been a good man!
> MRS. RYAN: You helped stop Adolf eating Twinkies, didn't you?
It's so nice to see you lose it.
>
>>> We owe some sort of debt to those who died in WWII? Yes, definately.
>>
>> Why? Show a reason why a film with a specific focus MUST change it's focus
>> to accomodate another viewpoint.
>
> Inconcievable!
Only it seems, in your mind.
>
>> Should a film about Viet Nams Tet Offensive also cover events elsewhere
>> inthe theater, even though the film is set up to explore only the Tet
>> Offensive? Only a specific aspect of that offensive?
>
> Look, sir - locals!
Poor baby Pol.
>
>>> That debt, though needs to be set in a wider context: we've not done
>>> terribly well in paying it off, but if we could see more clearly that some
>>> people took the brave decisions in 1939-45 to fight not in self-defence, not
>>> out of sheer human stubborn-ness, but for the principle of freedom, in spite
>>> of all the hardship, fear, pain, death and incomprehension that they knew
>>> that fight would involve, both on their part and on the part of others who
>>> didn't understand what it was all about, to prevent the world becoming a
>>> place where racism and genocide were acceptable and even celebrated, but
>>> rather to keep alive the idea that every human life is of equal worth, then
>>> maybe we can be inspired try a little harder.
>>
>> Or maybe Humanity needs to look within itself instead of blaming a film for
>> it's oh so obvious shortcomings?
>
> [dancing stars]
You've had too much to drink it seems.
>
>> Do you think?
>
> Occasionally...
This has not been one of those times.
>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> None of this even begins to address my other serious problem with SPR,
>>> namely that it is a 'muddled mess' - derivative, inconsistent in tone,
>>> boring, contrived and didactic, manipulative in the way it plays on the
>>> emotions of the audience.
>>
>> Because it's still a film. It is also trying to entertain, as well as make
>> us think.
>
> You keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means...
You probably want to know the reason the people of Gilder did not have their
plight covered in more detail.
>
>> You keep faulting it for being real in places.
>
> Stop... *saying*... that...!
Stop exemplifying that.
>
>>> Those are my opinions on the cinematic merits of this film; but they are
>>> subjective and personal opinions.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I do believe that it is possible to judge how well the
>>> film represents the truth, and the shared moral beliefs of Western
>>> Civilization. In short: does this film's 'message' - the 'answers' it gives
>>> to the 'questions' it asks - reflect the reality of War, WWII, and Normandy,
>>> 1944?
>>>
>>> While I cannot claim to know everything about War, WWII, or Normandy, 1944,
>>> or treat what I do know fully objectively, I cannot see how the 'answers'
>>> SPR gives make sense unless you are willing to interpret an event only
>>> retrospectively: from its effects, rather than its causes.
>>
>> It deals with the event from a narrow perspective. Not the perspective of
>> history.
>>
>> It deals with it from ONE perspective as to how that one person views the
>> events which lead up to him being alive and actually having relatives around
>> him, rather than have his entire families line die and have no one to visit
>> his grave or the person who helped make it all possible.
>>
>> You want it to portray events they never saw or experienced in places they
>> didn't know about and discuss things they couldn't possibly have known. All
>> to meet YOUR idea of a correct film portraying all the events YOU wanted
>> covered.
>
> Yes. Yes, but why's that a good thing?
It is a FACTUAL thing. Would Ryan know about Hiroshima or the numbers of
dead or wounded on Omaha Beach? Then why would the characters discuss these
matters?
> No, as you've said yourself. They may
> take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom. No, and no again. And no
> again. And, unsurprisingly, no...
>
> There is no spoon.
There is no brain.
It's nice to see you have a hobby now.
Pity this is it.
wes
Sara Waterfall
see if Policrat' notices:
[snip]
The Beatles, "I Am the Walrus," Magical Mystery Tour.
Radiohead, "Creep," Pablo Honey.
John Lennon, "Imagine," Imagine.
T.S. Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock."
T.S. Eliot, "The Waste Land."
Radiohead, "Karma Police," OK Computer.
If you wanted to babble nonsense, you could have done it without
quoting everything.
Then again, if you want to talk Radiohead, I can do that too. At great
length.
Sal
-you are warned
--
MiSTie #92866, death-bitch, and all around wonderful person.
"I am trapped in the society page of your magazine, of your magazine.
I don't know what it means." - Radiohead
cshore.com enjoys getting email for lull.
C'Pi
"Sara Waterfall" <lu...@cshore.com> wrote in message
news:8ehmgt0cu8mbotj71...@4ax.com...
>
> Then again, if you want to talk Radiohead, I can do that too. At great
> length.
Sal, what I want to know is why I bought Kid A 9 months ago and have only
listened to it once?
Did I miss something?
C'Pi
"I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine.
And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten
Policrat'
> Policrat' wrote:
>>
>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çheètah!:
>>
>>> Policrat' wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çheètah!:
>>>>
>>>>> Policrat' wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snippage>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
>>>>>> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> And why not?
>>>
>>> Just confirming that this wasn't smoke & mirrors... =)
>>
>> What gave you that idea?
>
> It was easier than reading the entire post, as I hadn't been keeping up
> with the thread...
Do I blame ya?
>> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>> ---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
>> 8========##<^>##========8
>
> simple, huh? =)
Like an AFWer... ;)
Pol'
Policrat'
> We've secretly replaced the Pacific Ocean with Folgers crystals. Let's
> see if Policrat' notices:
>
> [snip]
>
> The Beatles, "I Am the Walrus," Magical Mystery Tour.
>
> Radiohead, "Creep," Pablo Honey.
>
> John Lennon, "Imagine," Imagine.
>
> T.S. Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock."
>
> T.S. Eliot, "The Waste Land."
>
> Radiohead, "Karma Police," OK Computer.
>
> If you wanted to babble nonsense, you could have done it without
> quoting everything.
There was in fact quite definate method to my madness...
> Then again, if you want to talk Radiohead, I can do that too. At great
> length.
Probably far more than me... it was just what was kicking around in my head
at that time of the morning...
> Sal
> -you are warned
Pol'
Çheètah!
>
> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çheètah!:
>
> > Policrat' wrote:
> >>
> >> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çheètah!:
> >>
> >>> Policrat' wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çheètah!:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Policrat' wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snippage>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>>> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
> >>>>>> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Really?
> >>>>
> >>>> And why not?
> >>>
> >>> Just confirming that this wasn't smoke & mirrors... =)
> >>
> >> What gave you that idea?
> >
> > It was easier than reading the entire post, as I hadn't been keeping up
> > with the thread...
>
> Do I blame ya?
Would you ask me a rhetorical question?
> > simple, huh? =)
>
> Like an AFWer... ;)
Here we go again... =)
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
How do you tell a happy sperm? It has egg on its face!
Policrat'
> Policrat' wrote:
>>
>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çheètah!:
>>
>>> Policrat' wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çheètah!:
>>>>
>>>>> Policrat' wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Çheètah!:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Policrat' wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snippage>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
>>>>>>>> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just confirming that this wasn't smoke & mirrors... =)
>>>>
>>>> What gave you that idea?
>>>
>>> It was easier than reading the entire post, as I hadn't been keeping up
>>> with the thread...
>>
>> Do I blame ya?
>
> Would you ask me a rhetorical question?
What do you think?
>>> simple, huh? =)
>>
>> Like an AFWer... ;)
>
> Here we go again... =)
Yippee!-)
>> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>> ---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
>> 8========##<^>##========8
Pol'
Sara Waterfall
>"Sara Waterfall" <lu...@cshore.com> wrote in message
>news:8ehmgt0cu8mbotj71...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Then again, if you want to talk Radiohead, I can do that too. At great
>> length.
>
>Sal, what I want to know is why I bought Kid A 9 months ago and have only
>listened to it once?
>
>Did I miss something?
Yes. You did.
Actually, no, I shouldn't say that. But Kid A is definitely the type
of album that has to be listened to at least twice before it makes any
sense.
Well, maybe I shouldn't say that either. You just have to get over the
shock that Kid A was made by the same band who put out Pablo Honey,
the Bends, and OK Computer.
Kind of like Phantom Menace. Except equating Kid A to the Phantom
Menace makes me want to cry.
Sal
-didn't we already have the "compare Radiohead albums to Star Wars
films" thread?
--
MiSTie #92866, death-bitch, and all around wonderful person.
"There is no significant risk to your health." - Radiohead
NeshaKovalick
>
> We've secretly replaced the Pacific Ocean with Folgers crystals. Let's
> see if Policrat' notices:
>
> [snip]
>
> The Beatles, "I Am the Walrus," Magical Mystery Tour.
>
> Radiohead, "Creep," Pablo Honey.
>
> John Lennon, "Imagine," Imagine.
>
> T.S. Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock."
>
> T.S. Eliot, "The Waste Land."
>
> Radiohead, "Karma Police," OK Computer.
>
> If you wanted to babble nonsense, you could have done it without
> quoting everything.
>
> Then again, if you want to talk Radiohead, I can do that too. At great
> length.
Do tell. Because I've got OK Computer, and I definitely feel like I've
missed something. I've listened to it several times, and all I think is
- "Why are these guys so depressed?"
>
> Sal
> -you are warned
> --
> MiSTie #92866, death-bitch, and all around wonderful person.
> "I am trapped in the society page of your magazine, of your magazine.
> I don't know what it means." - Radiohead
> cshore.com enjoys getting email for lull.
Nesha
-who will get back to WWII when she's got just a trifle more energy.
Policrat'
To explain what I was talking about at 5am...
> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Wes Hutchings:
>
>>
>>
>>> From: Policrat' <policr...@hotmail.com>
>>> Organization: Oxford University, England
>>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
>>> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:20:59 +0100
>>> Subject: Saving Private Ryan
>>>
>>> This is an attempt to get away from all the unpleasantness in another
>>> thread, and to set the record straight about what I was trying to say...
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> I don't think I was ever debating the relative merits of British and
>>> American viewpoints about WWII:
>>
>> Your side was right and we stating what our side actually was, was wrong.
>
> I am he as you are he
> As you are me and we are all together.
> See how the run like pigs from a gun;
> She how they fly.
> I'm cryin'.
[snip]
Something about the rythm of what Wes said, and the fact that it was an
incomprehensible non-sequitur, reminded me of "I am the Walrus"...
This set the tone for most of what followed...
It's also the Balance Point Thread's favourite song...
Goo-goo-g'joob.
>>> I never realised quite how different US
>>> views about WWII, both at the time and now, were to those in Britain, and I
>>> got sidetracked into sub-threads where I questioned certain assumptions I
>>> thought some American RASSMers were making about both differences and
>>> similarities between the history of their country and that of the UK, but
>>> that doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making about SPR.
>>
>> You're the one who incorporated the viewpoint. I just defended against it.
>
> Ce n'est pas un viewpoint...
This one should be self-explanatory...
>>> What I was always tallking about (at least in the SPR parts of the thread)
>>> was the quality of SPR as a film. When I first brought up the subject in
>>> that thread (a throwaway line in a post that was an attempt to defuse the
>>> nasty spat between Ted and Jeremy), I described it as:
>>>
>>> a muddled mess of a film which didn't actually have the guts to give the
>>> hard answers to the questions it wanted to ask.
>>>
>>> And I still believe that claim to be true.
>>
>> Which still comes down to it not giving your specific choice for answers,
>> points, people and situations, rather than what the film was actually about.
>
> "Have I been a good film?"
I assume most of you can see what I'm getting at here... if not, I'll
explain, but I don't want to insult people's intelligence, and I can come
across like an arrogant and sanctimonious twat...
>>> ***
>>>
>>> First of all, I need to clarify one basic belief: that SPR presents the
>>> perspective of its characters, and the conclusions it reaches, as having a
>>> universal validity. This isn't just about a few fictional people: it's about
>>> the Normandy Landings at the very least, almost certainly about WWII, and
>>> probably about War.
>>
>> It touches on all of those aspects. It does so through the characters we
>> see. You STILL seem to think that they should have been crafted as other than
>> real characters to make your point.
>
> "Private Ryan, he dead..."
I can't see how fictional charatcers can be anything *except* "other than
real"...
With the way I was thinking, that led me back to surrealism, and thus to
Heller and Coppola, and how surreal War-story polemics can be less annoying
and more effective and moving precisely because they don't aim for the
'honest', quasi-documentary style of SPR...
Had SPR laid less emphasis on being a 'reconstruction' of the Normandy
Landings, or been shot in such a prosaic style, then I wouldn't have been
nearly so bothered by it...
>>> Why do I think this? Perhaps it's because it's a 'Holywood Blockbuster', and
>>> I have preconceptions about what Holywood Blockbusters seek to do; but IMHO,
>>> there is more to it than mere subjective preconception on my part:
>>> throughout the film, the characters keep asking themsleves not just why
>>> they're going after Ryan, but why they're in the Army and in Normandy in the
>>> first place. And then there's the archetypal nature of the characters: the
>>> supporting cast make for a remarkably cohesive cross-section of America, and
>>> as someone else on RASSM remarked, 'Ryan' is an 'All American boy'.
>>
>> Point? Minus the HOLYwood references, which are meaningless.
[snip]
> What the hell am I doing here?
> I don't belong here,
> I don't belong here.
The characters in SPR keep asking 'what the hell am I doing here', or words
to that effect - which was one of the things which made me think that
(whatever degree of universality the film aimed for) it wasn't just about
the search for Ryan, as Wes has tried to claim far too often: it was about
men asking what they were doing in a war.
My bad for mis-spelling "Hollywood", though.
>>> The most 'official' authority on the WWW is probably the 'official' site for
>>> the film (http://www.rzm.com/pvt.ryan/index.html - although in some
>>> respects, it seems more like TF.N than sw.com, this is the site for the film
>>> linked from the Dreamworks SKG official site, dreamworks.com)
>>>
>>> The blurb there for the official SPR tie-in book at speaks of:
>>>
>>> "one of the most profound events of the century... brought to life by
>>> one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of our time."
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> To come back to my initial claim, what is this 'question' that I believe SPR
>>> asks? The 'official' site's summary of the film says the following:
>>>
>>> Captain Miller's men find themselves questioning their orders. Why is
>>> one man worth risking eight... why is the the life of this private worth
>>> more than their own?
>>>
>>> Amid the chaos and terror of those days in early June 1944, this
>>> remarkable story searches to find decency in the sheer madness of war.
>>>
>>> In other words, the film is asking why men fight and die in war, and what
>>> 'decency' can come out of war, all with particular reference to WWII...
>>
>> Yes, problem?
>
> No, cup-cake.
>
> You don't mind me calling you 'cup-cake', do you?
I was just flirting with Wes at this point.
More Lennon lyrics (for no good reason, of course), and an attempt to equate
the French who *should* have appeared in SPR - not because it suits my
'viewpoint', but because they were *there* - with the 'natives' in SW...
Consider "Three Kings", a *great* war film which is, IMHO, everything SPR
could have been... not because it's about the Marsh Arabs, but for the
random civilians, the French Special Forces doctor, the way the Obligatory
Cross-Section Of American Stereotypes is assembled as a logical part of the
film's plot, and the far more diverse and realistic cross-section of
military attitudes to war, including three various forms of abject terror
rather than just one.
>>> We se no-one except American servicemen, and one shit-scared (and
>>> America-loving) German.
>>
>> And a family trying to give away their daughter so she can be safe and some
>> Germans in a command center caught with their pants down and some more
>> Germans defending a few feet of beach.
>> Finally, we're shown a small group of people who wouldn't even be alive
>> were it not for the events portrayed in the film.
>
> In the room the women come and go,
> talking of Michelangelo.
Now sure, the were good reasons for having the non-American characters as
largely incomprehensible, but that doesn't excuse the complete excision of
the civilian population of Normandy.
Heck, an ancient French person thanking Old Ryan for his freedom would have
been cheesy, but it would have been *true* (the same scene came up in a lot
of the veterans' testimonies I found on-line) and not much different from
the end of "Schindler's List" - yet instead, SPR contrives just to show the
American family group in the graveyard...
This, I guess, is my main problem: there were plenty of 'accurate' and
'real' ways of putting SPR in touch with the *real* moral imperatives
associated with the War, but the film just plain ignored them...
I don't know why that particular bit of poetry came into my head to
exemplify the contrast between background chatter and comprehensible
conversation, but it did...
>>> The French are conspicuous from the France of SPR only by their utter
>>> absence. In the place of the grateful civilian population and the Resistance
>>> units who in reality met up with the invasion force, we have a bombed-out
>>> and deserted village which looks more like something out of Germany, 1945
>>> than France, 1944.
>>
>> Please explain why people would stay in a bombed out town?
>
> Unreal City,
[snip]
The question is actually about the very *existance* of bombed-out towns in
Normandy, 1944 - again, whether through ignorance or device, the liberated
former thralls of Nazism are cut out of the film...
The values I was attaching to the quotation from "The Waste Land" here are
quite obscure: following the theme of various forms of non-realism, and the
fact I already had the poem in my head, "Unreal City" seemed as good a way
as any to sum up the problem of the 'bombed-out town'; "The Burial of the
Dead" is traditionally what people return to do after a day of warfare; and
the poem is (in part, on one level) about the horrors of an earlier World
War, its aftermath and its ghosts - though the poet's journey to the "Four
Quartets" is implicit, and both parallels and supercedes the fictitious
'journey' of the characters in SPR...
>>> Even one grateful Frenchman or Frenchwoman to leaven this cast of archetypes
>>> and stereotypes would have served as a reminder of why Americans were dying
>>> in Normandy in 1944: but such a character would also have undermined the
>>> over-simplified message of the film.
>>
>> Or your lack of attention to detail and instead creating out of thin air the
>> fact that it wasn't your film?
>
> April is the cruellest month, breeding
> Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
> Memory and desire, stirring
> Dull roots with spring rain.
[snip]
At this point, the quotation has no more to do with what Wes had just said
than what he had said has to do with what I had said earlier on, but it does
continue on the themes of death, recognition and understanding.
I'm still mystified as to why Wes was criticising me: he seems to be unable
to understand the idea of criticism...
Which is odd, for someone who's so damn good at it.
Troll, anyone?
>>> SPR could have been a powerful film about War, showing that in spite of the
>>> chaos and horror and fear, there was a reason for the deaths which all
>>> mankind. The tragedy of WWII is that it involved falable human beings
>>> suffering for the sake of the most over-riding of moral imperatives:
>>> precisely because we're all falable and human, Allied soldiers often didn't
>>> fully grasp the importance of the cause they were serving, and their
>>> suffering was magnified by incompetence, cowardice, inexperience, cruelty,
>>> and any number of other things...
>>>
>>> But we don't get that. And if the idea that all this suffering was
>>> necessary, impelled by a belief in human rights is totally omitted, isn't it
>>> thereby belitted.
>>
>> No, as I've tried explaining to you time and again, this is a one group of
>> eyes. You want (for absolutely no reason) to show it from a more complete
>> set of eyes or to somehow make the view we see be representative of the
>> entire scope of events instead of what we actually see.
>> How would these imaginary characters acquire this information?
>
> fcuk (sic) you...
"French Connection UK" for those who don't know...
>>> So what of the message that is set up in its place?
>>>
>>> People can be given courage by other people or by sheer bloody-mindedness?
>>> That's morally neutral at best - consider Hitler; consider a lot of posts to
>>> RASSM.
>>
>> That's not the message, you know this, you insist on making it mean
>> something else, with no evidence whatsoever.
>
> I know...
This much was true, except for the fact that I was paraphrasing an
interpretation someone else (Wes or Nesha) had said...
>>> War scars the survivors? That's true, but surely Speilberg had a duty to
>>> show what those scars were the ransom for.
>>
>> Why? It's a localized focus film. Do you watch films and ask yourself if a
>> character, never shown on screen, because the hero never sees him, happens
>> to be eating a Twinkie right now?
>> If you know from second hand information that he in fact did eat a Twinkie,
>> what is the film makers responsibility to tell you what you already know,
>> but the characters have no clue about?
>
> RYAN: Tell me I've been a good man!
> MRS. RYAN: You helped stop Adolf eating Twinkies, didn't you?
I'm very disappointed by the slow progress Wes is making in understanding
the use of the _Reductio ad absurdum_, let alone the idea of the gun on the
wall in Act I...
>>> We owe some sort of debt to those who died in WWII? Yes, definately.
>>
>> Why? Show a reason why a film with a specific focus MUST change it's focus
>> to accomodate another viewpoint.
>
> Inconcievable!
*spork*
>> Should a film about Viet Nams Tet Offensive also cover events elsewhere
>> inthe theater, even though the film is set up to explore only the Tet
>> Offensive? Only a specific aspect of that offensive?
>
> Look, sir - locals!
I'm really struggling now to find creative ways of saying that, _contra_
SPR, there was no more a lack of French people in Normandy in 1944 than
there was of Vietnamese in Vietnam or Ewoks on Endor...
>>> That debt, though needs to be set in a wider context: we've not done
>>> terribly well in paying it off, but if we could see more clearly that some
>>> people took the brave decisions in 1939-45 to fight not in self-defence, not
>>> out of sheer human stubborn-ness, but for the principle of freedom, in spite
>>> of all the hardship, fear, pain, death and incomprehension that they knew
>>> that fight would involve, both on their part and on the part of others who
>>> didn't understand what it was all about, to prevent the world becoming a
>>> place where racism and genocide were acceptable and even celebrated, but
>>> rather to keep alive the idea that every human life is of equal worth, then
>>> maybe we can be inspired try a little harder.
>>
>> Or maybe Humanity needs to look within itself instead of blaming a film for
>> it's oh so obvious shortcomings?
>
> [dancing stars]
I'll let John explain this one...
>> Do you think?
>
> Occasionally...
Look, sir - puns!
>>> ***
>>>
>>> None of this even begins to address my other serious problem with SPR,
>>> namely that it is a 'muddled mess' - derivative, inconsistent in tone,
>>> boring, contrived and didactic, manipulative in the way it plays on the
>>> emotions of the audience.
>>
>> Because it's still a film. It is also trying to entertain, as well as make
>> us think.
>
> You keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means...
I couldn't think of a better way than this of bringing "My name is Inigo
Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die" into this thread...
>> You keep faulting it for being real in places.
>
> Stop... *saying*... that...!
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. My name is
Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. My name is Inigo
Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Whereas when Wes uses a non sequitur, he's trying to irritate me and avoid
answering the question (even when there isn't actually a question to answer,
as here - he just slaps a knee-jerk response in after every paragraph), I'm
just using them to set up gratuitous quotes ;>
In other words, Wes is raging aginst the spoon - the idea that I want to
re-envisage SPR - when what I'm doing is criticising it for the lack of
accuracy in its depiction of Normandy, 1944, and the fact that its 'message'
seems to depend on that lack of accuracy and cinematic emotional
manipulation...
*spork!*
The quotation from the Declaration of Independance was designed to
encapsulate both the moral imperative of WWII (or is it only a man's duty to
fight for his own freedom?) and the reason I'm still carrying on this
discussion; the Radiohead was... well, you make your mind up as to that
one...
Sara Waterfall
>Sara Waterfall wrote:
>
>> Then again, if you want to talk Radiohead, I can do that too. At great
>> length.
>
>Do tell. Because I've got OK Computer, and I definitely feel like I've
>missed something. I've listened to it several times, and all I think is
>- "Why are these guys so depressed?"
It's not so much Radiohead as it is Thom Yorke. He writes the lyrics.
For the most part. Yorke has what most people would call a very
pessimistic view of the world. So the music reflects that.
My suggestion? If you can stand it, listen to everything except....uh.
Fitter Happier, and Climbing Up the Walls. And you might want to skip
Electioneering too, although I like the nifty guitar on that.
You might also want to skip Let Down or Exit Music but I like the
latter and everyone else likes the former.
Usually that much improves OK Computer.
And if that doesn't work, get the Bends. That's much less depressing.
Sal
-or maybe not. Radiohead is essentially a depressing band.
--
MiSTie #92866, death-bitch, and all around wonderful person.
"If there's one thing I've learned from movies and TV it's that evil
is terminal. Well, except for Darth Vader." - Mr. Penguin from ATNR
C'Pi
> We've secretly replaced the Pacific Ocean with Folgers crystals. Let's
> see if C'Pi notices:
>
> >"Sara Waterfall" <lu...@cshore.com> wrote in message
> >news:8ehmgt0cu8mbotj71...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Then again, if you want to talk Radiohead, I can do that too. At great
> >> length.
> >
> >Sal, what I want to know is why I bought Kid A 9 months ago and have only
> >listened to it once?
> >
> >Did I miss something?
>
> Yes. You did.
>
> Actually, no, I shouldn't say that. But Kid A is definitely the type
> of album that has to be listened to at least twice before it makes any
> sense.
>
> Well, maybe I shouldn't say that either. You just have to get over the
> shock that Kid A was made by the same band who put out Pablo Honey,
> the Bends, and OK Computer.
>
> Kind of like Phantom Menace. Except equating Kid A to the Phantom
> Menace makes me want to cry.
>
> Sal
> -didn't we already have the "compare Radiohead albums to Star Wars
> films" thread?
Ok, I listened to Kid A again.
Everything in it's Right Place - Not bad. I'm sure I would like it, the
more I listened to it.
Kid A - snore
The National Anthem - This song starts out so great and then just gets lost
in all the noise.
How to Disappear Completely - Awesome
Treefingers - No edge. Sounds like it should be on a New Age meditation
tape. I guess that is what they were going for though.
Optimistic - Good song
In Limbo - Don't really like this song. Too disjointed. Whatever that
means.
Idioteque - I like this one a lot and it's the only song on the album that I
have seen the video.
Morning Bell - Ok
Motion Picture Soundtrack - No
I guess on the whole it's not a bad album and some of the songs are great
but over all it's just too mellow for my tastes and strangely lacks edge. I
don't know if that makes sense because I like mellows songs but they have to
have a lot of edge to them. Like on OK Computer my favorite songs are
Climbing up the Walls and No Surprises, two mellow songs but damn they have
edge to em. I guess if I was stoned when I listen to it my might like it
more but I don't get stoned and rarely get into a stony mood.
Time to go listen to some Echo and the Bunymen
Wes Hutchings
I started answering you, answering you here and thought better of it.
When you get through masturbating here, feel free to answer ME.
wes
> From: Policrat' <policr...@hotmail.com>
> Organization: Oxford University, England
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
> Subject: Re: Saving Private Ryan
>
NeshaKovalick
>
> We've secretly replaced the Pacific Ocean with Folgers crystals. Let's
> see if NeshaKovalick notices:
>
> >Sara Waterfall wrote:
> >
> >> Then again, if you want to talk Radiohead, I can do that too. At great
> >> length.
> >
> >Do tell. Because I've got OK Computer, and I definitely feel like I've
> >missed something. I've listened to it several times, and all I think is
> >- "Why are these guys so depressed?"
>
> It's not so much Radiohead as it is Thom Yorke. He writes the lyrics.
> For the most part. Yorke has what most people would call a very
> pessimistic view of the world. So the music reflects that.
>
> My suggestion? If you can stand it, listen to everything except....uh.
> Fitter Happier, and Climbing Up the Walls. And you might want to skip
> Electioneering too, although I like the nifty guitar on that.
>
> You might also want to skip Let Down or Exit Music but I like the
> latter and everyone else likes the former.
Uh - so you just told me 5 albums *not* to listen to. Which albums
exactly should I buy?
>
> Usually that much improves OK Computer.
>
> And if that doesn't work, get the Bends. That's much less depressing.
>
> Sal
> -or maybe not. Radiohead is essentially a depressing band.
Well, I've always thought of myself as a depressing enough sort of
person, but Exit Music (for a film) may well be the most depressing song
I've ever heard.
I think I've just gotten too old to be so depressed anymore. Sigh.
> --
> MiSTie #92866, death-bitch, and all around wonderful person.
> "If there's one thing I've learned from movies and TV it's that evil
> is terminal. Well, except for Darth Vader." - Mr. Penguin from ATNR
> cshore.com enjoys getting email for lull.
Nesha "I might give up wearing black pretty soon, unless Darth Gary
croaks."
NeshaKovalick
>
> This is an attempt to get away from all the unpleasantness in another
> thread, and to set the record straight about what I was trying to say...
>
> ***
>
> I don't think I was ever debating the relative merits of British and
> American viewpoints about WWII: I never realised quite how different US
> views about WWII, both at the time and now, were to those in Britain,
I've found this quite interesting, I really have. WWII is not my period.
I'm a generation older than you are and I realize that I haven't thought
much about WWII as "history" - rather it's "stuff my dad did, the reason
my parents got married, stories the grownups told when I was a kid."
It's been fascinating to hear your POV on all this.
and I
> got sidetracked into sub-threads where I questioned certain assumptions I
> thought some American RASSMers were making about both differences and
> similarities between the history of their country and that of the UK, but
> that doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making about SPR.
>
> What I was always tallking about (at least in the SPR parts of the thread)
> was the quality of SPR as a film.
And again - I'm not all that crazy about SPR. It doesn't have anything
new to say to me, but obviously quite a few people relate to it
differently. I agree that Three Kings is a far more interesting movie,
but then, its sensibility is very, very different. Its perspective is
very '90's and I don't think you can apply that to the 1940's. Well, you
can, people do it all the time in fictionalized history of this sort,
but it's just a different kind of lie. Look at the pop psychology in
Gladiator. Yuck.
When I first brought up the subject in
> that thread (a throwaway line in a post that was an attempt to defuse the
> nasty spat between Ted and Jeremy), I described it as:
>
> a muddled mess of a film which didn't actually have the guts to give the
> hard answers to the questions it wanted to ask.
>
> And I still believe that claim to be true.
>
> ***
>
> First of all, I need to clarify one basic belief: that SPR presents the
> perspective of its characters, and the conclusions it reaches, as having a
> universal validity. This isn't just about a few fictional people: it's about
> the Normandy Landings at the very least, almost certainly about WWII, and
> probably about War.
I'm still not agreeing with you about this. I think it's about a
particular group of guys stuck in the middle of a particular war. I
don't think you can EVER make a war movie without saying *something*
about War, but I don't think it's the primary intention of SPR to do
that, nor even a very big element.
I really feel like I need to watch the movie again, and I don't
especially want to do that, because I wasn't that thrilled by it the
first time and the Normandy footage was too yucky for me anyway.
>
> Why do I think this? Perhaps it's because it's a 'Holywood Blockbuster', and
> I have preconceptions about what Holywood Blockbusters seek to do; but IMHO,
> there is more to it than mere subjective preconception on my part:
> throughout the film, the characters keep asking themsleves not just why
> they're going after Ryan, but why they're in the Army and in Normandy in the
> first place.
I don't see that that adds up to them asking the audience "Why are we
here? What is this war about? Let us tell you about it, let us hand down
our wisdom to you, our descendents..."
It seems to me that if *I* were in the middle of Normandy, that *I*
would most certainly be asking myself what the f*** I was doing there,
but the answers that *I* came up with in that situation would probably
not be the same answer that people looking back 50 years would come up
with.
Yes, I do believe that people go to war for Freedom, Liberty, Equality,
Brotherhood, the Glorious Revolution, Defence of the Motherland, Mom and
Apple Pie, as well as States' Rights, Libensroom (sp? too lazy to look
it up right now) and the possibility of some cool looting, pillaging
and raping.
But - and this as a big but - when people are actually shooting at you,
I suspect that your immediate motivations are considerably less
abstract. I've never been in a war and neither have you, so we're just
guessing about this. Still, when I was your age, guys my age were coming
home from Vietnam. The ones I knew, some were pretty cynical about the
whole experience. Many felt that they had been fighting the Good Fight -
Freedom, Democracy, etc. But I certainly got the feeling from their
stories that when people were actually getting shot, they were fighting
for the buddies in their unit, the people they were with. I think war
works that way, and I think SPR reflects that experience, and I think
that's why so many guys who actually fought in that war found such
resonance in the movie.
Spielberg already *made* a movie about What The War Was For, didn't he?
And then there's the archetypal nature of the characters: the
> supporting cast make for a remarkably cohesive cross-section of America, and
> as someone else on RASSM remarked, 'Ryan' is an 'All American boy'.
I have come to suspect that 'All-American' may have a slightly different
connotation to you than it does to American English speakers.
It's only a good movie if it tells the story from *our* POV?
Again, I think the story is told from *their* POV. This doesn't stop us
from stepping back 50 years later and looking at the meaning of that
war. It doesn't mean that when those men had a chance to reflect on it,
they didn't find that same meaning. But it also doesn't mean that there
is something lacking because no one in the movie said "Boy, it's a great
thing that we're here to defeat Fascism, liberate the death camps, free
Europe from this Dark Cloud, all with the help of our valiant allies,
the British!" Maybe there's some great way to work this into the movie,
but I myself think it might be a little clunky. We all KNOW what the war
meant already, don't we? Why does Spielberg have to tell us? Why isn't
it more interesting to think about how weird and meaningless it might
seem to fight even for a cause that you think is right? Or how you might
hunt around for a way to make sense of that, a way that works
psychologically for someone who is in the middle of devastation, in a
way that "Freedom" might just not do it?
Ummm - I think he already made a movie about that.
>
> We owe some sort of debt to those who died in WWII? Yes, definately.
>
> That debt, though needs to be set in a wider context: we've not done
> terribly well in paying it off, but if we could see more clearly that some
> people took the brave decisions in 1939-45 to fight not in self-defence, not
> out of sheer human stubborn-ness, but for the principle of freedom,
Is someone questioning whether the Good Guys won in this particular way?
I don't think so. Has there been some shortage of movies where the
Allies are virtue incarnate, and the Germans (not to even mention the
Japanese) are hissing bad guys in black?
The trouble is that people quite often go off to war filled with good
intentions, even the Bad Guys.
I'm pretty sure that just as many 18 year old Germans put on their
uniform the first time thinking that they were going to do Good Stuff,
make the world a better place, save civilization, and so on, as did the
Americans and British. There's an interesting movie to be made there -
but not the story Speilberg wanted to tell.
Well, that's an interesting example of another war which we on this side
of the Atlantic learn was a clear cut case of Absolute Good (us)
triumphing over Absolute Bad (you). And when I ask mildly "Tell
me...just how would you say we are freer today than the British?" I have
yet to get a coherent answer.
>
> Sincerely,
> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
Nesha
C'Pi
"NeshaKovalick" <Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote in message
news:3B0D58...@cboss.com...
> Sara Waterfall wrote:
> > >
> > >Do tell. Because I've got OK Computer, and I definitely feel like I've
> > >missed something. I've listened to it several times, and all I think is
> > >- "Why are these guys so depressed?"
> >
> > It's not so much Radiohead as it is Thom Yorke. He writes the lyrics.
> > For the most part. Yorke has what most people would call a very
> > pessimistic view of the world. So the music reflects that.
> >
> > My suggestion? If you can stand it, listen to everything except....uh.
> > Fitter Happier, and Climbing Up the Walls. And you might want to skip
> > Electioneering too, although I like the nifty guitar on that.
> >
> > You might also want to skip Let Down or Exit Music but I like the
> > latter and everyone else likes the former.
>
> Uh - so you just told me 5 albums *not* to listen to. Which albums
> exactly should I buy?
Nesha, those are songs on OK Computer not albums. And by the way, you're
not supposed to say albums anymore. You're supposed to say CD's.
You're so unhip.
C'Pi
(I still say albums too.)
Policrat'
> Policrat' wrote:
>>
>> This is an attempt to get away from all the unpleasantness in another
>> thread, and to set the record straight about what I was trying to say...
>>
>> ***
>>
>> I don't think I was ever debating the relative merits of British and
>> American viewpoints about WWII: I never realised quite how different US
>> views about WWII, both at the time and now, were to those in Britain,
>
> I've found this quite interesting, I really have.
=)
> WWII is not my period. I'm a generation older than you are and I realize that
> I haven't thought much about WWII as "history" - rather it's "stuff my dad
> did, the reason my parents got married, stories the grownups told when I was a
> kid." It's been fascinating to hear your POV on all this.
Thank you... ;)
>> and I got sidetracked into sub-threads where I questioned certain assumptions
>> I thought some American RASSMers were making about both differences and
>> similarities between the history of their country and that of the UK, but
>> that doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making about SPR.
>>
>> What I was always tallking about (at least in the SPR parts of the thread)
>> was the quality of SPR as a film.
>
> And again - I'm not all that crazy about SPR. It doesn't have anything
> new to say to me, but obviously quite a few people relate to it
> differently. I agree that Three Kings is a far more interesting movie,
> but then, its sensibility is very, very different. Its perspective is
> very '90's and I don't think you can apply that to the 1940's. Well, you
> can, people do it all the time in fictionalized history of this sort,
> but it's just a different kind of lie.
True... I guess I find it dishonest that the 'lie' had such an effect on so
many people. Have you heard about the Great Kansas Internet Hoax yet?
> Look at the pop psychology in Gladiator. Yuck.
Hey, I *enjoyed* Gladiator - very interesting recreation of Roman ways of
thinking...
>> When I first brought up the subject in that thread (a throwaway line in a
>> post that was an attempt to defuse the nasty spat between Ted and Jeremy), I
>> described it as:
>>
>> a muddled mess of a film which didn't actually have the guts to give the
>> hard answers to the questions it wanted to ask.
>>
>> And I still believe that claim to be true.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> First of all, I need to clarify one basic belief: that SPR presents the
>> perspective of its characters, and the conclusions it reaches, as having a
>> universal validity. This isn't just about a few fictional people: it's about
>> the Normandy Landings at the very least, almost certainly about WWII, and
>> probably about War.
>
> I'm still not agreeing with you about this. I think it's about a
> particular group of guys stuck in the middle of a particular war. I
> don't think you can EVER make a war movie without saying *something*
> about War, but I don't think it's the primary intention of SPR to do
> that, nor even a very big element.
How about "something about the US involvement in WWII"?
> I really feel like I need to watch the movie again, and I don't
> especially want to do that, because I wasn't that thrilled by it the
> first time and the Normandy footage was too yucky for me anyway.
Heh!-)
Oh, absolutely. And the very narrow focus captured that experience very
well, though mainly through cinematic trickery and in-your-face SFX.
I guess it does come down to the fact that I always took the film to be
asking the Big Questions, presenting itself as "historically accurate",
D-Day "brought to life" by Speilberg...
Which may be a moot point...
> Spielberg already *made* a movie about What The War Was For, didn't he?
Yep...
>> And then there's the archetypal nature of the characters: the
>> supporting cast make for a remarkably cohesive cross-section of America, and
>> as someone else on RASSM remarked, 'Ryan' is an 'All American boy'.
>
> I have come to suspect that 'All-American' may have a slightly different
> connotation to you than it does to American English speakers.
Perhaps - I think of it as 'sports jock' with some connotations of clean-cut
honesty and an affable ability to get on with people...
No... there are movies which I disagree with *totally* in their 'message'
but which I still enjoy immensely as movies.
> Again, I think the story is told from *their* POV. This doesn't stop us
> from stepping back 50 years later and looking at the meaning of that
> war. It doesn't mean that when those men had a chance to reflect on it,
> they didn't find that same meaning. But it also doesn't mean that there
> is something lacking because no one in the movie said "Boy, it's a great
> thing that we're here to defeat Fascism, liberate the death camps, free
> Europe from this Dark Cloud, all with the help of our valiant allies,
> the British!" Maybe there's some great way to work this into the movie,
> but I myself think it might be a little clunky. We all KNOW what the war
> meant already, don't we? Why does Spielberg have to tell us? Why isn't
> it more interesting to think about how weird and meaningless it might
> seem to fight even for a cause that you think is right? Or how you might
> hunt around for a way to make sense of that, a way that works
> psychologically for someone who is in the middle of devastation, in a
> way that "Freedom" might just not do it?
I guess I felt that the framing device of Old Ryan implied some sort of
perspective, that Ryan was a little unconvincing as a character, and that
the utter lack of liberated French civilians (either in the WWII context or
in the graveyard 'frame') smacked a little of myopia - in short, the film
shirked anything which might suggest that there was anything valid *beyond*
the hellish perspective of the soldiers and the idea that a 'good man' was
valuable...
That added to the effect, but left me feeling that the film was all about
cinematic trickery and emotional manipulation...
Was there an on-screen "this is their story" caption at some point in the
fim as well, or is that just my memory playing tricks on me?
Yes =)
See my previous post...
>> We owe some sort of debt to those who died in WWII? Yes, definately.
>>
>> That debt, though needs to be set in a wider context: we've not done
>> terribly well in paying it off, but if we could see more clearly that some
>> people took the brave decisions in 1939-45 to fight not in self-defence, not
>> out of sheer human stubborn-ness, but for the principle of freedom,
>
> Is someone questioning whether the Good Guys won in this particular way?
> I don't think so. Has there been some shortage of movies where the
> Allies are virtue incarnate, and the Germans (not to even mention the
> Japanese) are hissing bad guys in black?
>
> The trouble is that people quite often go off to war filled with good
> intentions, even the Bad Guys.
>
> I'm pretty sure that just as many 18 year old Germans put on their
> uniform the first time thinking that they were going to do Good Stuff,
> make the world a better place, save civilization, and so on, as did the
> Americans and British. There's an interesting movie to be made there -
> but not the story Speilberg wanted to tell.
I got the impression that, to a degree, that *was* the story he wanted to
tell...
LOL!
I don't think we regret it in the long run... ;)
>> Sincerely,
>> Policraticus McEwok of Wookie
>> Unofficial RASSM Scotsman (Retd.)
>
> Nesha
Pol'
NeshaKovalick
>
> "NeshaKovalick" <Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0D58...@cboss.com...
> > Sara Waterfall wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Do tell. Because I've got OK Computer, and I definitely feel like I've
> > > >missed something. I've listened to it several times, and all I think is
> > > >- "Why are these guys so depressed?"
> > >
> > > It's not so much Radiohead as it is Thom Yorke. He writes the lyrics.
> > > For the most part. Yorke has what most people would call a very
> > > pessimistic view of the world. So the music reflects that.
> > >
> > > My suggestion? If you can stand it, listen to everything except....uh.
> > > Fitter Happier, and Climbing Up the Walls. And you might want to skip
> > > Electioneering too, although I like the nifty guitar on that.
> > >
> > > You might also want to skip Let Down or Exit Music but I like the
> > > latter and everyone else likes the former.
> >
> > Uh - so you just told me 5 albums *not* to listen to. Which albums
> > exactly should I buy?
>
> Nesha, those are songs on OK Computer not albums.
So they are. fitter happier is written in exceedingly small print,
though. But I guess the question I'm really asking is...did I start
with the wrong album? I've heard a lot about Radiohead, but OK Computer
does not explain to me why anybody would buy another album if they'd
heard this one.
And by the way, you're
> not supposed to say albums anymore. You're supposed to say CD's.
I'm pretty sure they are still officially called albums, as in "album of
the year". It's "records" that are passe' (shhhh... we won't tell all
the ones still sitting on my shelves.)
>
> You're so unhip.
Like this is news to *me*?
DarthGumby
telepathically conveyed to me:
>>> And then there's the archetypal nature of the characters: the
>>> supporting cast make for a remarkably cohesive cross-section of America, and
>>> as someone else on RASSM remarked, 'Ryan' is an 'All American boy'.
>>
>> I have come to suspect that 'All-American' may have a slightly different
>> connotation to you than it does to American English speakers.
>
>Perhaps - I think of it as 'sports jock' with some connotations of clean-cut
>honesty and an affable ability to get on with people...
I think of the sports commentators comparing the US
skaters Michelle Kwan and Tara Lipinski and saying
Lipinski was "All-American".
*grumble*
Gumby
DarthGumby
telepathically conveyed to me:
>> And by the way, you're
>> not supposed to say albums anymore. You're supposed to say CD's.
>>
>> You're so unhip.
>
>I'm pretty sure they are still officially called albums, as in "album of
>the year". It's "records" that are passe' (shhhh... we won't tell all
>the ones still sitting on my shelves.)
Someday I'll learn to stop calling it the 'record club'
when I get those cards in the mail.
Gumby
(still have my Hits of 1977 crackly vinyl thing with
the Fleetwood Mac and Wings knock offs... weird
record.)
Sara Waterfall
see if NeshaKovalick notices:
>C'Pi wrote:
[snip]
>> Nesha, those are songs on OK Computer not albums.
>
>So they are. fitter happier is written in exceedingly small print,
>though.
I wouldn't really call it a song, either.
>But I guess the question I'm really asking is...did I start
>with the wrong album? I've heard a lot about Radiohead, but OK Computer
>does not explain to me why anybody would buy another album if they'd
>heard this one.
I don't know. I started with OK Computer and went on from there. I
enjoy depressing music, though. The Bends is, on the whole, a lot more
uneven in tone, but it's a lot more...accessible, I guess. Because
once you get into OK Computer, it's all downhill from there--but only
in terms of depression, not quality.
I'd recommend Pablo Honey to you, except it sucks. Well, not quite,
but it's standard alternative fare with the occasional flash of
intelligence. The Bends is where Radiohead picks up their distinctive
sound. OK Computer refines that. Then Kid A and the upcoming Amnesiac
drop that and go in another direction.
Sal
-that's pretty much all I have to say
--
MiSTie #92866, death-bitch, and all around wonderful person.
"Now it's over, I'm dead and I haven't done anything that I want, or
I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do." - They Might Be
Giants
C'Pi
> C'Pi wrote:
> >
> > Nesha, those are songs on OK Computer not albums.
>
> So they are. fitter happier is written in exceedingly small print,
> though. But I guess the question I'm really asking is...did I start
> with the wrong album? I've heard a lot about Radiohead, but OK Computer
> does not explain to me why anybody would buy another album if they'd
> heard this one.
Frankly speaking if you don't like OK Computer then you're not going to like
any other album. Go listen to Smashing Pumpkins instead. If that doesn't
do it for you, dig out your old Rolling Stones and Beatles albums and
remember when music used to be great.
> And by the way, you're
> > not supposed to say albums anymore. You're supposed to say CD's.
>
> I'm pretty sure they are still officially called albums, as in "album of
> the year". It's "records" that are passe' (shhhh... we won't tell all
> the ones still sitting on my shelves.)
You are most correct. My faux pas. I wish I still had my records but where
am I going to find a turntable to play them on?
> > You're so unhip.
>
> Like this is news to *me*?
You and me should start a new association - the Official RASSM Uncool People
sdti...@newsreader.com
> The Bends is where Radiohead picks up their distinctive
> sound. OK Computer refines that. Then Kid A and the upcoming Amnesiac
> drop that and go in another direction.
I finally got to hear parts of two tracks from Amnesiac.
I'm really, *really* looking forward to that album now.
Steve Tilson
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
sdti...@newsreader.com
> You and me should start a new association - the Official RASSM Uncool
> People
No, no. Much too on-the-nose.
C'Pi
"DarthGumby" <DarthMyHe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nmjtgt4gra64p7l1o...@4ax.com...
I wish I still had my K-Tel silly songs record. Hello Mother, Name Game,
Alley Oop, Disco Duck, Transfusion and many more great classics. I also
want my record of Star Wars story record. Forget what it was called but it
had all the dialogue from the movie and C-3PO on the cover. It's how I
memorized the movie.
C'Pi
<sdti...@NewsReader.Com> wrote in message
news:20010525220920.344$I...@newsreader.com...
> "C'Pi" <jas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You and me should start a new association - the Official RASSM Uncool
> > People
>
> No, no. Much too on-the-nose.
>
> Steve Tilson
Isn't that part of being uncool?
Policrat'
>
> "NeshaKovalick" <Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0E61...@cboss.com...
>> C'Pi wrote:
>>>
>>> Nesha, those are songs on OK Computer not albums.
>>
>> So they are. fitter happier is written in exceedingly small print,
>> though. But I guess the question I'm really asking is...did I start
>> with the wrong album? I've heard a lot about Radiohead, but OK Computer
>> does not explain to me why anybody would buy another album if they'd
>> heard this one.
>
> Frankly speaking if you don't like OK Computer then you're not going to like
> any other album. Go listen to Smashing Pumpkins instead. If that doesn't
> do it for you, dig out your old Rolling Stones and Beatles albums and
> remember when music used to be great.
>
>>> And by the way, you're
>>> not supposed to say albums anymore. You're supposed to say CD's.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure they are still officially called albums, as in "album of
>> the year". It's "records" that are passe' (shhhh... we won't tell all
>> the ones still sitting on my shelves.)
>
> You are most correct. My faux pas. I wish I still had my records but where
> am I going to find a turntable to play them on?
CD's are like, what you had before mp3, right?
>>> You're so unhip.
>>
>> Like this is news to *me*?
>
> You and me should start a new association - the Official RASSM Uncool People
>
> C'Pi
> "I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine.
> And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten
Pol'
DarthGumby
<jas...@yahoo.com> telepathically conveyed to me:
>> >> And by the way, you're
>> >> not supposed to say albums anymore. You're supposed to say CD's.
>> >>
>> Someday I'll learn to stop calling it the 'record club'
>> when I get those cards in the mail.
>>
>> (still have my Hits of 1977 crackly vinyl thing with
>> the Fleetwood Mac and Wings knock offs... weird
>> record.)
>
>I wish I still had my K-Tel silly songs record. Hello Mother, Name Game,
>Alley Oop, Disco Duck, Transfusion and many more great classics. I also
>want my record of Star Wars story record. Forget what it was called but it
>had all the dialogue from the movie and C-3PO on the cover. It's how I
>memorized the movie.
K-Tel ruled. I had a breakdancing album that contained
the classic Boogiehead. *waxes nostalgic*
Rhino rereleased a lot of those as Dr. Demento
compilations.
I have yet to find an mp3 version of the SW 45. Someday
I'll just have to make one. >:)
>C'Pi
>"I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine.
>And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten
Gumby
remove MyHelmet to e-mail me.
I want to look upon your e-mail... with my own eyes...
*wheeze*
--Anywhere my computer hangs is home
NeshaKovalick
>
> "NeshaKovalick" <Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0E61...@cboss.com...
> > C'Pi wrote:
> > >
> > > Nesha, those are songs on OK Computer not albums.
> >
> > So they are. fitter happier is written in exceedingly small print,
> > though. But I guess the question I'm really asking is...did I start
> > with the wrong album? I've heard a lot about Radiohead, but OK Computer
> > does not explain to me why anybody would buy another album if they'd
> > heard this one.
>
> Frankly speaking if you don't like OK Computer then you're not going to like
> any other album. Go listen to Smashing Pumpkins instead. If that doesn't
> do it for you, dig out your old Rolling Stones and Beatles albums and
> remember when music used to be great.
But I thought Sal was going to tell me why Radiohead was great. Cuz I
want to know. People keep saying "Radiohead is *great*!" and I thought
it must be the lyrics, and then I listened to the lyrics, and I thought
it must be something else.
I don't think I've ever heard the Smashing Pumpkins, but I do have a
very nice tshirt from one of their tours.
So I guess I'll go back to Bach. Don't be mean.
>
> > And by the way, you're
> > > not supposed to say albums anymore. You're supposed to say CD's.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure they are still officially called albums, as in "album of
> > the year". It's "records" that are passe' (shhhh... we won't tell all
> > the ones still sitting on my shelves.)
>
> You are most correct. My faux pas. I wish I still had my records but where
> am I going to find a turntable to play them on?
You can still get them in high-end equipment. Or the thrift store.
>
> > > You're so unhip.
> >
> > Like this is news to *me*?
>
> You and me should start a new association - the Official RASSM Uncool People
Finally - something I'm really qualified for. But you're our
representitive from the Mysterious East, so you're cool by definition.
>
> C'Pi
> "I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine.
> And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten
Nesha
NeshaKovalick
I wish I still had my album of Space Songs. I thought I was the only one
who had every heard that, but then they started singing "The Sun is A
Mass of Incandescent Gas" on Animaniacs, and I knew there was just so
much more to it...
>
> C'Pi
> "I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine.
> And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten
Nesha
NeshaKovalick
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 14:45:06 +0100, NeshaKovalick
> <Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote:
>
> >So they are. fitter happier is written in exceedingly small print,
> >though. But I guess the question I'm really asking is...did I start
> >with the wrong album? I've heard a lot about Radiohead, but OK Computer
> >does not explain to me why anybody would buy another album if they'd
> >heard this one.
>
> The Bends, so you might just listen to it and see if you can like the
> band.
>
> I listened to that CD over and over and over for a while. It was not
> a happy time of my life and this CD is one of the few good memories I
> have from then. It is my favorite out of all of Radiohead's CDs, one
> of my favorite CDs out of my entire collection, and it has several
> songs that are pretty easy to enjoy right off the bat.
But I want someone to tell me what it is they like about it! Is it just
that it's depressing, and you were depressed, and it all seemed to fit
together? Or is their some point of artistic merit I've overlooked?
Someone or other said that we all tend to go on listening to the music
that was playing when we first had sex.
>
> But you do not seem too crazy about OK Computer and if you do not like
> it, it is unlikely that you will like Kid A or Amnesiac at all. I
> absolutely love OK Computer and even I have not quite fell in love
> with the newer stuff yet. I still only like bits and pieces.
>
> A lot of Radiohead fans _hate_ Pablo HOney for the most part, but one
> option would be to start with that one and go through them in order.
> I bought that CD after hearing Creep on the radio back when it first
> came out and loved it. I now like the second two CDs better, but I
> still like PH too. It is an easy introduction to the band and if you
> listen to them in order, I think it might be easier to enjoy the
> progression. They started out comparable to a lot of the popular
> radio bands at the time and slowly turned in a totally different
> direction from everything else. The first CD is good it is just not
> as unique as most of the later stuff.
>
> -Stephen
>
> bar...@cox-internetPIN.com
> Pull out the pin before tossing me an email.
Nesha - I like BNL a lot, though - because they're really funny.
sdti...@newsreader.com
> <sdti...@NewsReader.Com> wrote in message
> news:20010525220920.344$I...@newsreader.com...
> > "C'Pi" <jas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You and me should start a new association - the Official RASSM Uncool
> > > People
> >
> > No, no. Much too on-the-nose.
> >
> > Steve Tilson
>
> Isn't that part of being uncool?
Oooh... good point.
sdti...@newsreader.com
[snip]
re: Radiohead:
> But I want someone to tell me what it is they like about it! Is it just
> that it's depressing, and you were depressed, and it all seemed to fit
> together? Or is their some point of artistic merit I've overlooked?
I think that may be an impossible question to answer. Not because there's
no reason anyone would like them, but because anyone's reasons for liking
*anything* are typically arcane.
I like them, but I can't really put my finger on why. They do things right
by me, that's all, musically and lyrically. De gustibus and all that, you
know.
C'Pi
> C'Pi wrote:
> >
> > "NeshaKovalick" <Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B0E61...@cboss.com...
> > > C'Pi wrote:
> > > >
> > Frankly speaking if you don't like OK Computer then you're not going to
like
> > any other album. Go listen to Smashing Pumpkins instead. If that
doesn't
> > do it for you, dig out your old Rolling Stones and Beatles albums and
> > remember when music used to be great.
>
> But I thought Sal was going to tell me why Radiohead was great. Cuz I
> want to know. People keep saying "Radiohead is *great*!" and I thought
> it must be the lyrics, and then I listened to the lyrics, and I thought
> it must be something else.
I don't think you can tell someone what music is great and why. For me I
either like it or I don't. It's pretty simple.
> I don't think I've ever heard the Smashing Pumpkins, but I do have a
> very nice tshirt from one of their tours.
Hey I've got all their albums but no T-shirt. Can I have your T-shirt?
> So I guess I'll go back to Bach. Don't be mean.
That hack.
> > > > You're so unhip.
> > >
> > > Like this is news to *me*?
> >
> > You and me should start a new association - the Official RASSM Uncool
People
>
> Finally - something I'm really qualified for. But you're our
> representitive from the Mysterious East, so you're cool by definition.
Hey, you mean I'm cool at last? I had to move to the other side of the
world to achieve it but I am finally cool. Yeah!!
Rimrunner
<Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote:
[snipped Radiohead]
>But I thought Sal was going to tell me why Radiohead was great. Cuz I
>want to know. People keep saying "Radiohead is *great*!" and I thought
>it must be the lyrics, and then I listened to the lyrics, and I thought
>it must be something else.
I think it's one of those things you either get or you don't.
If it's any consolation, I don't get it either. A former co-worker lent me
"OK Computer" with plenty of reasons for why it was so great (none of
which I now recall, years after the fact) and it just didn't have much of
an impact on me.
But I will accept the notion that I'm missing something when it comes to
Radiohead. (I will not accept this notion when it comes to, say, Britney
Spears.)
>I don't think I've ever heard the Smashing Pumpkins, but I do have a
>very nice tshirt from one of their tours.
The college radio station I DJ'ed at (man, I miss that) had a lovely vinyl
edition of "Siamese Dream".
Someone stole it, of course.
>So I guess I'll go back to Bach. Don't be mean.
Nothin' wrong with Bach.
>> > And by the way, you're
>> > > not supposed to say albums anymore. You're supposed to say CD's.
>> >
>> > I'm pretty sure they are still officially called albums, as in "album of
>> > the year". It's "records" that are passe' (shhhh... we won't tell all
>> > the ones still sitting on my shelves.)
>>
>> You are most correct. My faux pas. I wish I still had my records but where
>> am I going to find a turntable to play them on?
>
>You can still get them in high-end equipment. Or the thrift store.
Sony, at least, still makes a turntable. I intend to pick one up as soon
as I can justify the purchase (read as, "find a way to write it off as a
business expense," for which you may call me a capitalist yuppie sellout
if you like).
Someone calling something a record is a sure sign of the sort of diehard
portrayed with such uncanny accuracy in "High Fidelity". I've known a lot
of these people. (Warning: if you hang around long enough, you could turn
into one. <2 pts.>)
>> > > You're so unhip.
>> >
>> > Like this is news to *me*?
>>
>> You and me should start a new association - the Official RASSM Uncool People
>
>Finally - something I'm really qualified for. But you're our
>representitive from the Mysterious East, so you're cool by definition.
Hey, it's hip to be unhip.
-g,
just ask any scenester
--
Murder of Crows @ http://www.murderofcrows.net
NEXT SHOW: Sun Jun 17 @ Satyricon, Portland, OR w/ Faith & Disease
"I'm really very sorry for you all; but it's an unjust world, and virtue
is triumphant only in theatrical performances." -- G&S, "The Mikado"
Rimrunner
<Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Someone or other said that we all tend to go on listening to the music
>that was playing when we first had sex.
I can't remember what was playing when I first had sex.
It was probably the Who, though, given who I first had sex with.
I still listen to the Who, but not THAT much.
-g,
and i just lent all my who cds to somebody else, to boot
Rimrunner
>NeshaNo...@where.com wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>re: Radiohead:
>
>> But I want someone to tell me what it is they like about it! Is it just
>> that it's depressing, and you were depressed, and it all seemed to fit
>> together? Or is their some point of artistic merit I've overlooked?
>
>I think that may be an impossible question to answer. Not because there's
>no reason anyone would like them, but because anyone's reasons for liking
>*anything* are typically arcane.
I dunno, I spend a lot of time trying to answer that precise question. Or,
sometimes, explaining why people *wouldn't* like something, typically much
easier to do. (That's sort of depressing; it's so much easier to describe
how something sucks than how it kicks ass.)
But, the reasons I think something kicks ass might not be the reasons
someone else likes it. I liked "Shakespeare in Love" because, silliness
and plot unlikelihoods aside, it's an accurate representation of how an
experience transitions from an author's life into a story. Erik's reasons
for liking it (though he didn't care for the ending) were quite different.
The hardest things to write about are the things that clearly have appeal
but you, the writer, don't understand why. Radiohead is sort of in that
category for me.
And a close second are the things that are trying so hard to be really
good, but don't quite make it. Which is where I'd put tPM.
-g,
somewhere in there, a great film is struggling to get out
sdti...@newsreader.com
> On 27 May 2001 02:17:15 GMT, sdti...@NewsReader.Com
> <sdti...@NewsReader.Com> wrote:
> >NeshaNo...@where.com wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >re: Radiohead:
> >
> >> But I want someone to tell me what it is they like about it! Is it
> >> just that it's depressing, and you were depressed, and it all seemed
> >> to fit together? Or is their some point of artistic merit I've
> >> overlooked?
> >
> >I think that may be an impossible question to answer. Not because
> >there's no reason anyone would like them, but because anyone's reasons
> >for liking *anything* are typically arcane.
>
> I dunno, I spend a lot of time trying to answer that precise question.
> Or, sometimes, explaining why people *wouldn't* like something, typically
> much easier to do. (That's sort of depressing; it's so much easier to
> describe how something sucks than how it kicks ass.)
>
A lot more fun, too.
Aside: David Ansen managed to say everything about Pearl Harbor that I
wanted to but didn't quite manage to get across. MSNBC's site seems a
bit buggy, but it's worth a read, if anyone's considering going to see
the movie. Which I would advise against. And I saw a comment by an
unnamed critic who summarized it very well: "It's really like a cereal
commercial, with death raining down."
> But, the reasons I think something kicks ass might not be the reasons
> someone else likes it. I liked "Shakespeare in Love" because, silliness
> and plot unlikelihoods aside, it's an accurate representation of how an
> experience transitions from an author's life into a story. Erik's reasons
> for liking it (though he didn't care for the ending) were quite
> different.
>
> The hardest things to write about are the things that clearly have appeal
> but you, the writer, don't understand why. Radiohead is sort of in that
> category for me.
For me, too. I tried to answer Nesha several different ways, but nothing
seemed quite right, so I threw up my hands and said "Hey, I just like 'em,
y'know?"
Though Radiohead does seem to appeal more to me than to you.
> And a close second are the things that are trying so hard to be really
> good, but don't quite make it. Which is where I'd put tPM.
>
> -g,
> somewhere in there, a great film is struggling to get out
I'd dearly love to see "The Phantom Edit." Supposedly there are going to
be MPEG's soon.
Barring that, maybe I could just do my own edit, with my own copy.
Rimrunner
>rim...@NOSPAMdrizzle.com (Rimrunner) wrote:
>> On 27 May 2001 02:17:15 GMT, sdti...@NewsReader.Com
>> <sdti...@NewsReader.Com> wrote:
>> >NeshaNo...@where.com wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >re: Radiohead:
>> >
>> >> But I want someone to tell me what it is they like about it! Is it
>> >> just that it's depressing, and you were depressed, and it all seemed
>> >> to fit together? Or is their some point of artistic merit I've
>> >> overlooked?
>> >
>> >I think that may be an impossible question to answer. Not because
>> >there's no reason anyone would like them, but because anyone's reasons
>> >for liking *anything* are typically arcane.
>>
>> I dunno, I spend a lot of time trying to answer that precise question.
>> Or, sometimes, explaining why people *wouldn't* like something, typically
>> much easier to do. (That's sort of depressing; it's so much easier to
>> describe how something sucks than how it kicks ass.)
>
>A lot more fun, too.
Well, yes.
There are a number of reasons why Rita Kempley is my favorite film critic,
but I confess that chief among them is that when she thinks something
sucks, she does so with the precision and thoroughness of a brawl in a
Jackie Chan flick. (Gimme a break, I just watched "Shanghai Noon" again
last night.)
>Aside: David Ansen managed to say everything about Pearl Harbor that I
> wanted to but didn't quite manage to get across. MSNBC's site seems a
> bit buggy, but it's worth a read, if anyone's considering going to see
> the movie. Which I would advise against. And I saw a comment by an
> unnamed critic who summarized it very well: "It's really like a cereal
> commercial, with death raining down."
Thanks to Ted (actually I'd intended to read it anyway), I'm now reading
"Fast Food Nation".
Films like this take on a whole new meaning in such a context.
>> And a close second are the things that are trying so hard to be really
>> good, but don't quite make it. Which is where I'd put tPM.
>>
>> -g,
>> somewhere in there, a great film is struggling to get out
>
>I'd dearly love to see "The Phantom Edit." Supposedly there are going to
>be MPEG's soon.
Oo. That'd be COOL.
>Barring that, maybe I could just do my own edit, with my own copy.
Some days, I wish I'd studied film.
-g,
then again, other days i wish i'd studied particle physics, so there you
go
Sara Waterfall
see if NeshaKovalick notices:
[snip]
>But I want someone to tell me what it is they like about it! Is it just
>that it's depressing, and you were depressed, and it all seemed to fit
>together? Or is their some point of artistic merit I've overlooked?
I like the horns in the National Anthem.
I like the bridge in [Nice Dream].
I like the sounds of the foreign--Czechoslovakian?--train station in
the beginning of A Reminder.
"Where do we go from here? The planet is a gunboat in a sea of fear,
and where are you?"
I like the guitar riff in I Might Be Wrong.
I like the imagery in Palo Alto.
I like the triumphant sound to Yorke's vocals during Lucky and Airbag.
I like the energy of Ripcord.
I like the bizarre recorded-backwards-but-played forwards trick of
Like Spinning Plates.
"I wrapped you inside my coat when they came to firebomb the house. I
didn't feel pain, 'cause no one can touch me now that I'm held in your
spell."
I like the distorted orchestra in the background of How to Disappear
Completely.
I like the dreamy quality of Subterranean Homesick Alien.
I like the distinct, old recording sound to You and Whose Army?
I like the desperation in Fake Plastic Trees.
I like the twisted lullaby feel to Kid A.
I like the xylophone on Lull.
"I want you to know he's not coming back. He's bloated and frozen,
still there's no point in letting him go to waste."
I like the Tourist.
Sal
-there's no way to explain it, though
--
MiSTie #92866, death-bitch, and all around wonderful person.
"I am trapped in the society page of your magazine, of your magazine.
I don't know what it means." - Radiohead
Policrat'
> But I will accept the notion that I'm missing something when it comes to
> Radiohead. (I will not accept this notion when it comes to, say, Britney
> Spears.)
INDEEEEEED
(BOOBIES!)
> -g,
Pol'
Rimrunner
What? If I want to see boobies, all I have to do is look in a mirror, for
chrissakes.
-g,
sheesh
Çheètah!
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 13:58:46 +0100, Policrat' <policr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Rimrunner:
> >
> >> But I will accept the notion that I'm missing something when it comes to
> >> Radiohead. (I will not accept this notion when it comes to, say, Britney
> >> Spears.)
> >
> >INDEEEEEED
> >
> >(BOOBIES!)
>
> What? If I want to see boobies, all I have to do is look in a mirror, for
> chrissakes.
Show us your proof...
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
=d
Rimrunner
<Rabid...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>Rimrunner wrote:
[snip]
>> What? If I want to see boobies, all I have to do is look in a mirror, for
>> chrissakes.
>
>Show us your proof...
No.
-g,
cope
Policrat'
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 13:58:46 +0100, Policrat' <policr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Rimrunner:
>>
>>> But I will accept the notion that I'm missing something when it comes to
>>> Radiohead. (I will not accept this notion when it comes to, say, Britney
>>> Spears.)
>>
>> INDEEEEEED
>>
>> (BOOBIES!)
>
> What? If I want to see boobies, all I have to do is look in a mirror, for
> chrissakes.
Neck troubles?-)
It's what she does with them...
Well, it's the size as well...
Och, you know what I'm getting at... the whole self-assured innocent
white-trash virgin whore thing...
> -g,
> sheesh
Pol'
Çheètah!
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 13:33:10 -0700, Çheètah!
> <Rabid...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
> >Rimrunner wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> What? If I want to see boobies, all I have to do is look in a mirror, for
> >> chrissakes.
> >
> >Show us your proof...
>
> No.
[cockney accent] Oh, please!
> -g,
> cope
Why? ..life has no meaning, now..
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
How do you tell a happy sperm? It has egg on its face!
Explosion at sperm bank, nurses overcome....
DarthGumby
<Neshas...@cboss.com> telepathically conveyed to
me:
>> I wish I still had my K-Tel silly songs record. Hello Mother, Name Game,
>> Alley Oop, Disco Duck, Transfusion and many more great classics. I also
>> want my record of Star Wars story record. Forget what it was called but it
>> had all the dialogue from the movie and C-3PO on the cover. It's how I
>> memorized the movie.
>
>I wish I still had my album of Space Songs. I thought I was the only one
>who had every heard that, but then they started singing "The Sun is A
>Mass of Incandescent Gas" on Animaniacs, and I knew there was just so
>much more to it...
I have They Might Be Giants' version of it, and until a
few years ago I had no idea it wasn't their own song,
how scary is that?
>> C'Pi
>> "I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine.
>> And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten
>
>Nesha
Gumby
DarthGumby
<snipped Radiohead>
>
>Nesha - I like BNL a lot, though - because they're really funny.
Now THEM, I'll listen to all day. :D
Even their more serious songs have really nice music.
(I'm thinking of Call and Answer, for instance)
I do like a couple of Radiohead's songs, mainly the
ones with HGTTG references (and Karma Police, which for
my own twisted reasons I think of as a HGTTG reference)
but I can't actually explain why. Then again, I can't
explain why I like Billy Joel either.
I just go with a blank look and "it's got a good beat
and you can dance to it?"
Gumby
I don't dance. It scares people.
A good friend of mine told me, when he was about 15,
"Thom Yorke is a hunka burning love". I always think of
that whenever I see or hear Radiohead.
Rimrunner
<Rabid...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>Rimrunner wrote:
[SACAIGAP]
>> cope
>
>Why? ..life has no meaning, now..
Dude, go get laid or something. Please.
-g,
can't believe i'm still having this conversation
TROG
flaming each other.
Wes Hutchings
Presley, Roy Orbison, The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Willie
Nelson, Styx, Missing Persons, Blur, Concrete Blonde, Romeo Void, Wire
Train, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Police, Jimi Henderix, The Doors, AC~DC,
Alan Parsons Project, Tangerine Dream, Bachman Turner Overdrive, Alien Ant
Farm, Aerosmith, Badlands, Bad Co., Fastway, Zebra, Black Sabbath, Nazereth,
ZZTopp, Blue Oyster Cult
Ok, I'm done typing for now.
wes
NeshaKovalick
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2001 19:22:30 +0100, NeshaKovalick
> <Neshas...@cboss.com> telepathically conveyed to
> me:
>
> >> I wish I still had my K-Tel silly songs record. Hello Mother, Name Game,
> >> Alley Oop, Disco Duck, Transfusion and many more great classics. I also
> >> want my record of Star Wars story record. Forget what it was called but it
> >> had all the dialogue from the movie and C-3PO on the cover. It's how I
> >> memorized the movie.
> >
> >I wish I still had my album of Space Songs. I thought I was the only one
> >who had every heard that, but then they started singing "The Sun is A
> >Mass of Incandescent Gas" on Animaniacs, and I knew there was just so
> >much more to it...
>
> I have They Might Be Giants' version of it, and until a
> few years ago I had no idea it wasn't their own song,
> how scary is that?
My second favoite is "How does a cow give milk?" on a different album by
the same group (whoever they were.) Why does no one write great music
like that anymore? *sniff*
>
> >> C'Pi
> >> "I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine.
> >> And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten
> >
> >Nesha
>
> Gumby
Nesha
NeshaKovalick
>
> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> flaming each other.
Well, the CDs sitting by the stereo next to my desk right now are:
The Beatles 1
Bare Naked Ladies - Maroon
Radiohead - OK Computer
Paul Simon - Graceland
Rejoice! - Singing Praise to God (made by group at summer camp kids went
to)
Rachmaninov-Prokofiew Dello Spmatas (Emanuel Ax & Yo-Yo Ma)
Nesha
NeshaKovalick
Thank you. Now I can listen for those bits. That does help, you know.
> --
> MiSTie #92866, death-bitch, and all around wonderful person.
> "I am trapped in the society page of your magazine, of your magazine.
> I don't know what it means." - Radiohead
> cshore.com enjoys getting email for lull.
Nesha
NeshaKovalick
>
> "NeshaKovalick" <Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0FF4...@cboss.com...
> > C'Pi wrote:
> > >
> > > "NeshaKovalick" <Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3B0E61...@cboss.com...
> > > > C'Pi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > Frankly speaking if you don't like OK Computer then you're not going to
> like
> > > any other album. Go listen to Smashing Pumpkins instead. If that
> doesn't
> > > do it for you, dig out your old Rolling Stones and Beatles albums and
> > > remember when music used to be great.
> >
> > But I thought Sal was going to tell me why Radiohead was great. Cuz I
> > want to know. People keep saying "Radiohead is *great*!" and I thought
> > it must be the lyrics, and then I listened to the lyrics, and I thought
> > it must be something else.
>
> I don't think you can tell someone what music is great and why. For me I
> either like it or I don't. It's pretty simple.
A lot of music critics are going to be sorry to hear about this.
I agree that personal taste is always a factor in "liking" something
aesthetically, but still... some art is better than other art. Some of
that is always culturally determined, of course, but we spend an awful
lot of time talking here about why some movies are just better done than
others, personal tastes aside. Doesn't that also apply to music?
I mean - I don't especially care for war movies as a genre, but I can
still be interested in pinning down what people do/don't like about SPR
specifically. <eg>
>
> > I don't think I've ever heard the Smashing Pumpkins, but I do have a
> > very nice tshirt from one of their tours.
>
> Hey I've got all their albums but no T-shirt. Can I have your T-shirt?
No, I like the tshirt a lot. It's very pretty. I also have a tshirt from
the Rolling Stones concert I didn't go to because I was in labor, but
that tshirt had some kind of defective ink and has always smelled funny.
Maybe you'd like that one?
I inquired as to the nature of the Smashing Pumpkins songs, and was
informed that they are pretty depressing too. So ...
>
> > So I guess I'll go back to Bach. Don't be mean.
>
> That hack.
>
> > > > > You're so unhip.
> > > >
> > > > Like this is news to *me*?
> > >
> > > You and me should start a new association - the Official RASSM Uncool
> People
> >
> > Finally - something I'm really qualified for. But you're our
> > representitive from the Mysterious East, so you're cool by definition.
>
> Hey, you mean I'm cool at last? I had to move to the other side of the
> world to achieve it but I am finally cool. Yeah!!
>
> C'Pi
> "I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine.
> And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten
Nesha
Val O.C. Raptor
> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> flaming each other.
My tastes vary from day to day, but the constants are:
The Beatles
Eric Clapton
Rush
classical movie soundtracks
Alanis Morisette
(How's THAT for an odd mix?)
Policrat'
> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> flaming each other.
Hmm... it depends...
Anything from Vaughan Williams to Robbie Williams, by way of Clapton, the
Beatles, Coldplay, Frank Sinatra, Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, Elgar, Wagner,
Fauré...
The cheesy side of eclectic...
Pol'
C'Pi
"TROG" <TR...@TROG.TROG> wrote in message
news:h1j3htope6u15t603...@4ax.com...
> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> flaming each other.
Smashing Pumkins, Radiohead, Blur, Pink Floyd, The Who, The Beatles, Rolling
Stones, Echo and the Bunnymen, Roxy Music, The Clash, Sex Pistols, Devo,
Kate Bush, Blancmange, Garbage, Peter Gabriel, Jethro Tull, John Cougar,
John Lee Hooker, Dire Straights, Talking Heads, The Doors, Joe Cocker and
U2.
Those are most of the main ones. Anything else you want to know?
C'Pi
> TROG wrote:
> >
> > Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> > flaming each other.
>
>
> Well, the CDs sitting by the stereo next to my desk right now are:
>
> The Beatles 1
>
> Bare Naked Ladies
Gosh, I wish I had bare naked ladies next to my desk right now. Or even
just one.
C'Pi
"I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine.
And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten
> Nesha
C'Pi
> C'Pi wrote:
> >
> > I don't think you can tell someone what music is great and why. For me
I
> > either like it or I don't. It's pretty simple.
>
> A lot of music critics are going to be sorry to hear about this.
Let em get a real job.
> I agree that personal taste is always a factor in "liking" something
> aesthetically, but still... some art is better than other art. Some of
> that is always culturally determined, of course, but we spend an awful
> lot of time talking here about why some movies are just better done than
> others, personal tastes aside. Doesn't that also apply to music?
Personal taste can never be set aside. Whether somebody else considers
something to be good or bad is irrelevant to whether I consider something to
be good or bad. That an incredibly large amount of people consider Whitney
Houston and Celine Dion wonderful and talented singers does not get rid of
the fact that I feeling like putting a gun to my head when I hear them sing.
Is that an indication of whether I have better or worst tastes then all
those other people? Does it matter?
> I mean - I don't especially care for war movies as a genre, but I can
> still be interested in pinning down what people do/don't like about SPR
> specifically. <eg>
If that is what you are interested in, but does another person's opinion
ever effect whether you like a movie of not?
> > > I don't think I've ever heard the Smashing Pumpkins, but I do have a
> > > very nice tshirt from one of their tours.
> >
> > Hey I've got all their albums but no T-shirt. Can I have your T-shirt?
>
> No, I like the tshirt a lot. It's very pretty. I also have a tshirt from
> the Rolling Stones concert I didn't go to because I was in labor, but
> that tshirt had some kind of defective ink and has always smelled funny.
> Maybe you'd like that one?
Is the ink toxic? Would it melt my skin?
> I inquired as to the nature of the Smashing Pumpkins songs, and was
> informed that they are pretty depressing too. So ...
Not so. While some songs could be labeled depressing, really their songs
run through a gambit of emotions. Many of their albums are guitar driven
rock which I have the feeling you are not much of a fan of, but if you ever
want to give them a try, then listen to Adore. They mellowed out for that
album. Much to the displeasure of many of their fans. I liked it anyways.
Celaeno
<Rabid...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com>:
>Rimrunner wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2001 13:33:10 -0700, Çheètah!
>> <Rabid...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>> >Rimrunner wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> What? If I want to see boobies, all I have to do is look in a mirror, for
>> >> chrissakes.
>> >
>> >Show us your proof...
>>
>> No.
>
>[cockney accent] Oh, please!
>
>> -g,
>> cope
>
>Why? ..life has no meaning, now..
*evil grin*
Rakelle
sdti...@newsreader.com
> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> flaming each other.
In no particular order:
REM, U2, Simple Minds, Metallica, Talking Heads, Thomas Dolby, Skinny
Puppy, Mr. Bungle, The Cult, Smashing Pumpkins, The Cure, Joy Division,
Peter Gabriel, Sisters of Mercy, VNV Nation, The Pixies, The Church, The
Smiths, Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, Jane's Addiction, Depeche Mode,
New Order, Thompson Twins, Hall and Oates, Front 242, Frontline Assembly,
Pink Floyd, Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, Dead Can Dance, Tool, Murder of
Crows, Bjork, Dream Theater, etc. etc. etc.
DarthGumby
<TR...@TROG.TROG> telepathically conveyed to me:
>Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>flaming each other.
What everyone else said and Tom Waits, I'm partial to
his more recent stuff but I enjoy the earlier stuff as
well.
There's this other song, Plantman by Gary Young, I
would seriously suggest listening to it.
I'll listen to anything, and usually like it all.
Gumby
DarthGumby
>> >I wish I still had my album of Space Songs. I thought I was the only one
>> >who had every heard that, but then they started singing "The Sun is A
>> >Mass of Incandescent Gas" on Animaniacs, and I knew there was just so
>> >much more to it...
>>
>> I have They Might Be Giants' version of it, and until a
>> few years ago I had no idea it wasn't their own song,
>> how scary is that?
>
>My second favoite is "How does a cow give milk?" on a different album by
>the same group (whoever they were.) Why does no one write great music
>like that anymore? *sniff*
I don't know. *sigh*
I went on a hunt a few years back for "Robin Walking to
Missouri", the only way I could get it was through a
webpage run by a man that had the 78s and would tape
songs off them.
Almost like a very early Napster. :)
>Nesha
Gumby
Simon Lee
line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>flaming each other.
Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Doors... and a host of
other bands that are older than I am ;)
--
__ (-o-) <*> A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _ "...sometimes the need to mess with their heads
__)|| | |(_)| \ outweighs the millstone of humiliation."
Çheètah!
Right on, Simon! Finally, someone who's interested in the classics!
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
And, what's your take on Styx?
Celaeno
>Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>flaming each other.
Tori Amos, Loreena McKennit, Enya, Disturbed, 3 Doors Down, Nine Inch
Nails, K's Choice, Creed, random Celtic sounding stuff (Celtic, not
Irish/roots), random angry sounding stuff (but not black/death metal),
random stuff (not rap or run of the mill pop or dance)
Rakelle
Simon Lee
line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>Simon Lee wrote:
>>
>> TR...@TROG.TROG choreographed a chorus
>> line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>> >Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>> >flaming each other.
>>
>> Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Doors... and a host of
>> other bands that are older than I am ;)
>Right on, Simon! Finally, someone who's interested in the classics!
"You like Bach, Mulder?"
"I live for Bach."
>And, what's your take on Styx?
Fun for the road...
--
__ (-o-) <*> A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _
__)|| | |(_)| \ "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Çheètah!
>
> Rabid...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com choreographed a chorus
> line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
> >Simon Lee wrote:
> >>
> >> TR...@TROG.TROG choreographed a chorus
> >> line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
> >> >Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> >> >flaming each other.
> >>
> >> Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Doors... and a host of
> >> other bands that are older than I am ;)
>
> >Right on, Simon! Finally, someone who's interested in the classics!
>
> "You like Bach, Mulder?"
> "I live for Bach."
Bach to Basics...
> >And, what's your take on Styx?
>
> Fun for the road...
Ahh, the other night I just videotaped Styx: Paradise Revisited (In
stereo).. It was a kickin' concert..
(Time to burn a CD)
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
How do you tell a happy sperm? It has egg on its face!
NeshaKovalick
>
> "NeshaKovalick" <Neshas...@cboss.com> wrote in message
> news:3B11F0...@cboss.com...
> > TROG wrote:
> > >
> > > Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> > > flaming each other.
> >
> >
> > Well, the CDs sitting by the stereo next to my desk right now are:
> >
> > The Beatles 1
> >
> > Bare Naked Ladies
>
> Gosh, I wish I had bare naked ladies next to my desk right now. Or even
> just one.
You're just not living right. See, I often have naked young women
wandering through my house. (No, I'm not sending you my address.)
Which reminds me of a story - one time a whole bunch (so it seemed at
the momenty anyway) of very small naked girls climbed into my bed at the
crack of dawn, and I said to Darth Gary (yawning) "See? You should have
been careful just what you wished for. All those years you spent wishing
to have a couple of naked girls in bed with you, and here it is - you
should have remembered to specify that they not be two year olds!"
NeshaKovalick
Yes. Okay, I can't give an example of a movie, but I can think of many
instances where I have not liked a book the first time I read it, but
when someone knowledgable told me what s/he liked about it, showed me
what to look for, how the story was constructed ... and I saw the book
with new eyes, and came to love it. I've had some brilliant literature
teachers. OTOH, I haven't really studied film in any organized sort of
way.
I suppose age does come into it... there have been books that I loved
when I first read them at 16 or 20, and upon rereading them more
recently, I just think they are awful. (Wuthering Heights, for one.) And
there are a great many books that I didn't much like the first time
through which have really grown on me. So maybe I'm just not the right
age for Radiohead... whatever they've got to say won't click because I'm
just not *there*.
>
> > > > I don't think I've ever heard the Smashing Pumpkins, but I do have a
> > > > very nice tshirt from one of their tours.
> > >
> > > Hey I've got all their albums but no T-shirt. Can I have your T-shirt?
> >
> > No, I like the tshirt a lot. It's very pretty. I also have a tshirt from
> > the Rolling Stones concert I didn't go to because I was in labor, but
> > that tshirt had some kind of defective ink and has always smelled funny.
> > Maybe you'd like that one?
>
> Is the ink toxic? Would it melt my skin?
>
> > I inquired as to the nature of the Smashing Pumpkins songs, and was
> > informed that they are pretty depressing too. So ...
>
> Not so. While some songs could be labeled depressing, really their songs
> run through a gambit of emotions. Many of their albums are guitar driven
> rock which I have the feeling you are not much of a fan of, but if you ever
> want to give them a try, then listen to Adore. They mellowed out for that
> album. Much to the displeasure of many of their fans. I liked it anyways.
I like music which emphasizes the lyrics. I think I'm more verbally
oriented than anything else, and if I have a hard time hearing what
they're saying, I'd rather listen to music without lyrics to start with.
Sara Waterfall
>Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>flaming each other.
Anything that amuses me in some way, shape or form.
Right now the bands with the most play are Belle and Sebastian, Tool,
Filter, PJ Harvey, They Might Be Giants, and Radiohead. There's also
some Grandaddy, Incubus, Dead Can Dance, Beatles, Hendrix, Cake, Kula
Shaker, Our Lady Peace, Sean Lennon, Placebo, Squirrel Nut Zippers,
Blur, Jeff Buckley, Stone Roses, Nine Inch Nails, Mighty Mighty
Bosstones, and Doves.
Sal
-should really try buying some of them before I forget all over again
--
MiSTie #92866, death-bitch, and all around wonderful person.
"Breaking into your starship and killing your guards is wizard.
Yippee." - Vader, the abridged "A New Hope" script
(http://ter.air0day.com/swnewhope.html)
Wes Hutchings
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:35:03 -0400
> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>
> We've secretly replaced the Pacific Ocean with Folgers crystals. Let's
> see if TROG notices:
>
>> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>> flaming each other.
>
> Anything that amuses me in some way, shape or form.
>
> Right now the bands with the most play are Belle and Sebastian, Tool,
> Filter, PJ Harvey, They Might Be Giants, and Radiohead. There's also
> some Grandaddy, Incubus, Dead Can Dance, Beatles, Hendrix, Cake, Kula
> Shaker, Our Lady Peace, Sean Lennon, Placebo, Squirrel Nut Zippers,
> Blur, Jeff Buckley, Stone Roses, Nine Inch Nails, Mighty Mighty
> Bosstones, and Doves.
Someone should really crossreference these and see what our band choices are
overall.
I bet we could come up with a top five list that encompasses all of us.
wes
C'Pi
"Wes Hutchings" <w_hut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B7372238.283B1%w_hut...@hotmail.com...
> 3 Doors Down, Creed, Veruca Salt, Bach, Brahms, Chopin, Patsy Cline, Elvis
> Presley, Roy Orbison, The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Willie
> Nelson, Styx, Missing Persons, Blur, Concrete Blonde, Romeo Void, Wire
> Train, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Police, Jimi Henderix, The Doors, AC~DC,
> Alan Parsons Project, Tangerine Dream, Bachman Turner Overdrive, Alien Ant
> Farm, Aerosmith, Badlands, Bad Co., Fastway, Zebra, Black Sabbath,
Nazereth,
> ZZTopp, Blue Oyster Cult
>
> Ok, I'm done typing for now.
>
> wes
Hey, somebody else that likes Echo and the Bunnymen.
I look at your list and know that we are the same age. Just take off a few
of those bands, replace Willie with Waylon and it would be close to mine.
Actually if you combined Tilson and you, you would pretty much have me. Or
you could just end up with that creature from The Thing (Kurt Russel
version).
Rimrunner
>TR...@TROG.TROG choreographed a chorus
>line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>>Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>>flaming each other.
>
>Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Doors... and a host of
>other bands that are older than I am ;)
Heh. Heard "Reptile" yet?
What I've listened to lately:
Rammstein, Tool, Willow, Two Loons for Tea, Stevie Nicks, Tim Eriksen,
Kodo, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Godhead, Sinister Kitchen, Luminous Flux,
Banco de Gaia, Sumerland, and a host of other bands no one else has ever
heard of.
-g,
well, okay, some of them
--
Murder of Crows @ http://www.murderofcrows.net
NEXT SHOW: Sun Jun 17 @ Satyricon, Portland, OR w/ Faith & Disease
"I'm really very sorry for you all; but it's an unjust world, and virtue
is triumphant only in theatrical performances." -- G&S, "The Mikado"
Wes Hutchings
> From: "C'Pi" <jas...@yahoo.com>
> Organization: DCI HiNet
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:31:14 +0800
> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>
>
> "Wes Hutchings" <w_hut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:B7372238.283B1%w_hut...@hotmail.com...
>> 3 Doors Down, Creed, Veruca Salt, Bach, Brahms, Chopin, Patsy Cline, Elvis
>> Presley, Roy Orbison, The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Willie
>> Nelson, Styx, Missing Persons, Blur, Concrete Blonde, Romeo Void, Wire
>> Train, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Police, Jimi Henderix, The Doors, AC~DC,
>> Alan Parsons Project, Tangerine Dream, Bachman Turner Overdrive, Alien Ant
>> Farm, Aerosmith, Badlands, Bad Co., Fastway, Zebra, Black Sabbath,
> Nazereth,
>> ZZTopp, Blue Oyster Cult
>>
>> Ok, I'm done typing for now.
>>
>> wes
>
> Hey, somebody else that likes Echo and the Bunnymen.
>
> I look at your list and know that we are the same age. Just take off a few
> of those bands, replace Willie with Waylon and it would be close to mine.
> Actually if you combined Tilson and you, you would pretty much have me. Or
> you could just end up with that creature from The Thing (Kurt Russel
> version).
This is my short list. Granted I got up and took a peak at my CD shelf, but
I have much more stuff.
My description I use to describe my musical interest usually goes " I listen
to anything but Rap and country music newer than 85. Everything else is
accepted or rejected based on my mood."
I don't want to be a thing. Most people already confuse me with a walking
talking pile of shit. If there's a visual cue as well, then face it, I'm
typecast.
wes
wes
Wes Hutchings
> From: rim...@NOSPAMdrizzle.com (Rimrunner)
> Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 06:40:30 -0000
> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 22:50:59 GMT, Simon Lee <lo...@this.thing> wrote:
>> TR...@TROG.TROG choreographed a chorus
>> line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>>> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>>> flaming each other.
>>
>> Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Doors... and a host of
>> other bands that are older than I am ;)
>
> Heh. Heard "Reptile" yet?
>
> What I've listened to lately:
>
> Rammstein, Tool, Willow, Two Loons for Tea, Stevie Nicks, Tim Eriksen,
> Kodo, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Godhead, Sinister Kitchen, Luminous Flux,
> Banco de Gaia, Sumerland, and a host of other bands no one else has ever
> heard of.
I've heard of 3 of them. Listened to 2 of those.
wes
J. D. Redding
TROG wrote:
>
> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> flaming each other.
Are you ready?
Rage against the Machine, Pink Floyd, Tone-Loc, Boston, NWA [Niggers
With Attitude], Pearl Jam, Jewel, Mother Love Bone, Soundgarden, DJ Rob
Base, Bob Marley [along with most other Reggae they play on the public
radio], Skid Row, Bob Dylan, Madonna, The Who, Simon and Garfunkel,
Aerosmith, Ministry, Ice-cube, Tori Amos, Lynard Skynard, Garth Brooks,
Scorpions, Dave Matthews Band, Veruca Salt, Patsy Cline, Elvis Presley,
Roy Orbison, The Beatles, Extreme, Rammstein, Tool, Dr. Dre, Perfect
Circle, Korn, AC/DC, Ray Charles, DJ Magic Mike, Old Motley Crew, Old
Mettallica [pre-Black Album], Enigma, Guns-n-Roses, Jethro Tull,
Anything off the "Animal House", "The Muppets", or "The Blues Brothers"
soundtracks, Ted Nugget, Bo Diddley [along with most other Blues and
Jazz they play on the public radio], U2, Telsa, John Cougar, The Police,
Godsmack, James Brown, Pantera, Jimi Henderix, The Doors, almost any Big
Band Music, Def Lepard [anything but the Hysteria album], Willie Nelson,
Ozzy Osbourne, Eagles, Janes Addiction, The Charlie Daniels Band,
Silverchair, Mozart, Black Sabbath, Nazereth, Elton John, Primus, Ice-T,
Air Supply, Body Count, Smashmouth, Slayer, Handel, The Rolling Stones,
Lenny Kravitz, Beethoven, Frank Sinatra, Smashing Pumkins, Nine Inch
Nails, Eric Clapton, Led Zepplin, Carly Simon, Helen Reddy, Steve Miller
Band, Fleetwood Mac, Night Ranger, Sabatage, Hank Williams Jr. ... and
alot of other singles ... and alot of the newer stuff, older stuff, and
odd-ball stuff I just can't name right now ...
I have a pretty electic music taste ...
J. D. Redding
Oh, yea, and of course the Music off the SW soundtracks ...
This message, including the header, is
Copyright ©2001 J. D. Redding. All rights reserved.
Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
employers, has to pay for them, subject to applicable
licensing agreement. Use or dissemination on any
distribution list of any e-mail address that appears
above is prohibited without specific prior written permission.
DarthGumby
rim...@NOSPAMdrizzle.com (Rimrunner) telepathically
conveyed to me:
>>>Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>>>flaming each other.
>>
>>Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Doors... and a host of
>>other bands that are older than I am ;)
>
>Heh. Heard "Reptile" yet?
The song? Yes! (I'm a sap for the light jazz station in
my area, I can't help it.)
The album, no, not yet.
>What I've listened to lately:
>
>Rammstein, Tool, Willow, Two Loons for Tea, Stevie Nicks, Tim Eriksen,
>Kodo, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Godhead, Sinister Kitchen, Luminous Flux,
>Banco de Gaia, Sumerland, and a host of other bands no one else has ever
>heard of.
>
>-g,
>well, okay, some of them
I'm wondering what Trog listen to. :)
Gumby
Simon Lee
line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>rim...@NOSPAMdrizzle.com (Rimrunner) telepathically
>conveyed to me:
>
>>>>Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
>>>>flaming each other.
>>>
>>>Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, The Doors... and a host of
>>>other bands that are older than I am ;)
>>
>>Heh. Heard "Reptile" yet?
>
>The song? Yes! (I'm a sap for the light jazz station in
>my area, I can't help it.)
>
>The album, no, not yet.
What he said.
And now I hear that Clapton's next tour may be his last...?
(Well, so far he's not built up a record of saying that repeatedly,
unlike some other folks...)
>>What I've listened to lately:
>>
>>Rammstein, Tool, Willow, Two Loons for Tea, Stevie Nicks, Tim Eriksen,
>>Kodo, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Godhead, Sinister Kitchen, Luminous Flux,
>>Banco de Gaia, Sumerland, and a host of other bands no one else has ever
>>heard of.
>>
>>-g,
>>well, okay, some of them
>
>I'm wondering what Trog listen to. :)
Trog drum go bong bong?
Skuzz
TROG wrote:
>
> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> flaming each other.
R.E.M. is the only group I actually buy new, and I'm too lazy to go look
at the pile in my room.
--
Skuzz the Merciless
also
U2
Barenaked Ladies
Dark Lord Karno Dal
> Trog wonder what music RASSM listens to. Tell Trog if not busy
> flaming each other.
I'm listening to a LOT of Japanese pop (JPOP) right now. No I don't
speak Japanese. That's what makes it interesting. That, and that it
has a very cool sound. What I find myself listening to most is:
Ayumi Hanasaki, Two-Mix, Romantic Mode, MAX, Every Little Thing,
Speed, Eriko Imai, Megumi Hayashibara, Favorite Blue, Dream, and Okui
Masami.
I'm also listening to a lot of anime soundtrack cuts, particularly
from DiGi Charat, Gundam, Initial D, Slayers, Cyber Team in Akihabara,
Sailor Moon, Sabre Marionettes, and Card Captor Sakura.
On the English side of things, KISS is still my favorite. I also get
exposure to a lot of top forty (sigh), as this is Lily's favorite and
must be on any time we're in an automobile together.
Dark Lord Karno Dal
si...@lords.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JTFC:SE Co-Commander: Sith Wars III and VIII
Special Envoy to the Bith Empire: Sith War IV
Official RASSM Cool Person
RASSM Hall of Fame Member since 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I survived the Great Endor ClusterF*ck.
Çheètah!
> Trog drum go bong bong?
Only when he's "hitting" them...
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
The NBC staff MUST be high, just listen to their tune: Bong-Bong-Bong!
Rimrunner
>On the English side of things, KISS is still my favorite. I also get
>exposure to a lot of top forty (sigh), as this is Lily's favorite and
>must be on any time we're in an automobile together.
That's how ya know it's love, man.
I even let Erik listen to ABBA in the same car with me.
-g,
what's a few hives now and then?
Çheètah!
> what's a few hives now and then?
As long as you don't scratch them, they'll stay "few"..
Man, I used to get them all the time during adolescence, what would be
bad is when it was a bout of what I call "racing" hives... Man, just a
little bit of scratching and suddenly they're spreading everywhere - out
of control, and itching so bad that your skin actually starts
`crawling'... <shudder>
I'm glad that doesn't happen anymore... =)
> 8========##<^>##========8
>>>---> {Çheetus Maximus!}
> 8========##<^>##========8
How do you tell a happy sperm? It has egg on its face!
Lord Darth Bluegum Mizan
Blur,
So you've obviously been able to solemnly identify with charmless man, right?
DBG>
> Ok, I'm done typing for now.
Try forever.:)
> wes
Wes Hutchings
> From: darth...@hotmail.com (Lord Darth Bluegum Mizan)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
> Date: 30 May 2001 07:47:33 -0700
> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>
> [snip]
> Blur,
>
> So you've obviously been able to solemnly identify with charmless man, right?
No clue what you mean.
>
> DBG>
>
>> Ok, I'm done typing for now.
>
> Try forever.:)
This would be more of those insults sans profanity we discussed.
You need a class or something.
wes
DBG>
>
>
>
>> From: darth...@hotmail.com (Lord Darth Bluegum Mizan)
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
>> Date: 30 May 2001 07:47:33 -0700
>> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>>
>> [snip]
>> Blur,
>>
>> So you've obviously been able to solemnly identify with charmless man, right?
>
>No clue what you mean.
>
"Charmless Man"? Or is it that you misconstrued my meaning in that i am saying
you are charmless and therefore can identify with the song.
>>
>> DBG>
>>
>>> Ok, I'm done typing for now.
>>
>> Try forever.:)
>
>This would be more of those insults sans profanity we discussed.
>You need a class or something.
You were the one to origionate the whole thing. I didn't say I never insulted
you, that would be an insult to your intelligence ( maybe ), I just didn't
insult you as bad as you did me. Clear?
DBG>
Policrat'
> In article <B73A60E8.2923C%w_hut...@hotmail.com>, Wes Hutchings says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: darth...@hotmail.com (Lord Darth Bluegum Mizan)
>>> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
>>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
>>> Date: 30 May 2001 07:47:33 -0700
>>> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>> Blur,
>>>
>>> So you've obviously been able to solemnly identify with charmless man,
>>> right?
>>
>> No clue what you mean.
>>
> Okay, so you're a Blur fan and you don't know the song they released called
> "Charmless Man"? Or is it that you misconstrued my meaning in that i am
> saying you are charmless and therefore can identify with the song.
For the benefit of Mr Hutchings, there will be a song tonight... with
trampolines...
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/72E5DBB18722232C482568A10025
3B1B
OK, so chorus aside, the lyrics don't fit that well... but remember, in the
words of Robbie Williams:
They're just like you, they need love too...
>>> DBG>
>>>
>>>> Ok, I'm done typing for now.
>>>
>>> Try forever.:)
>>
>> This would be more of those insults sans profanity we discussed.
>> You need a class or something.
>
> You were the one to origionate the whole thing. I didn't say I never insulted
> you, that would be an insult to your intelligence ( maybe ), I just didn't
> insult you as bad as you did me. Clear?
FACPOV =)
> DBG>
Pol'
Wes Hutchings
> From: DBG> <nos...@newsranger.com>
> Organization: http://www.newsranger.com
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:01:22 GMT
> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>
> In article <B73A60E8.2923C%w_hut...@hotmail.com>, Wes Hutchings says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: darth...@hotmail.com (Lord Darth Bluegum Mizan)
>>> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
>>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
>>> Date: 30 May 2001 07:47:33 -0700
>>> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>> Blur,
>>>
>>> So you've obviously been able to solemnly identify with charmless man,
>>> right?
>>
>> No clue what you mean.
>>
> Okay, so you're a Blur fan and you don't know the song they released called
> "Charmless Man"?
The question asks music we like. I am not a Blur fan.
> Or is it that you misconstrued my meaning in that i am
> saying
> you are charmless and therefore can identify with the song.
SA.
>
>>>
>>> DBG>
>>>
>>>> Ok, I'm done typing for now.
>>>
>>> Try forever.:)
>>
>> This would be more of those insults sans profanity we discussed.
>> You need a class or something.
>
> You were the one to origionate the whole thing.
In this thread or are you going to state you're holding a grudge?
> I didn't say I never insulted
> you, that would be an insult to your intelligence ( maybe ),
And the hits just keep coming.
> I just didn't
> insult you as bad as you did me. Clear?
Yes, you're holding a grudge based on my past behavior, indicating you've
established a bias and have been incapable of modifying it, which is partly
what I'd already established as being part of your behavior. You of course
denied it, but now you've reinforced it.
wes
Wes Hutchings
> From: Policrat' <policr...@hotmail.com>
> Organization: Oxford University, England
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:54:02 +0100
> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>
> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark DBG>:
>
>> In article <B73A60E8.2923C%w_hut...@hotmail.com>, Wes Hutchings says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: darth...@hotmail.com (Lord Darth Bluegum Mizan)
>>>> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
>>>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
>>>> Date: 30 May 2001 07:47:33 -0700
>>>> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Blur,
>>>>
>>>> So you've obviously been able to solemnly identify with charmless man,
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> No clue what you mean.
>>>
>> Okay, so you're a Blur fan and you don't know the song they released called
>> "Charmless Man"? Or is it that you misconstrued my meaning in that i am
>> saying you are charmless and therefore can identify with the song.
>
> For the benefit of Mr Hutchings, there will be a song tonight... with
> trampolines...
>
> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/72E5DBB18722232C482568A10025
> 3B1B
>
> OK, so chorus aside, the lyrics don't fit that well... but remember, in the
> words of Robbie Williams:
>
> They're just like you, they need love too...
Which means what to me or this discussion?
>
>>>> DBG>
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I'm done typing for now.
>>>>
>>>> Try forever.:)
>>>
>>> This would be more of those insults sans profanity we discussed.
>>> You need a class or something.
>>
>> You were the one to origionate the whole thing. I didn't say I never
>> insulted
>> you, that would be an insult to your intelligence ( maybe ), I just didn't
>> insult you as bad as you did me. Clear?
>
> FACPOV =)
Correct, so would this be a complaint that you each are using weaker insults
and you feel that when you insult me I should be as weak at it as you?
wes
>
>> DBG>
>
> Pol'
>
DBG
>
>
>
>> From: DBG> <nos...@newsranger.com>
>> Organization: http://www.newsranger.com
>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
>> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:01:22 GMT
>> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>>
>> In article <B73A60E8.2923C%w_hut...@hotmail.com>, Wes Hutchings says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: darth...@hotmail.com (Lord Darth Bluegum Mizan)
>>>> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
>>>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
>>>> Date: 30 May 2001 07:47:33 -0700
>>>> Subject: Re: [TROG] music
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Blur,
>>>>
>>>> So you've obviously been able to solemnly identify with charmless man,
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> No clue what you mean.
>>>
>> Okay, so you're a Blur fan and you don't know the song they released called
>> "Charmless Man"?
>
>The question asks music we like. I am not a Blur fan.
Fair enough, but when you listen to a band and note it on usenet the general
consensus it that people would concieve you are a fan of said band.
>> Or is it that you misconstrued my meaning in that i am
>> saying
>> you are charmless and therefore can identify with the song.
>
>SA.
What?
>>
>>>>
>>>> DBG>
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I'm done typing for now.
>>>>
>>>> Try forever.:)
>>>
>>> This would be more of those insults sans profanity we discussed.
>>> You need a class or something.
>>
>> You were the one to origionate the whole thing.
>
>In this thread or are you going to state you're holding a grudge?
I'm holding a grudge, yes, but only because you are continuing in the way that i
didn't take to originally.
>> I didn't say I never insulted
>> you, that would be an insult to your intelligence ( maybe ),
>
>And the hits just keep coming.
It was a true statement. I don't know you in RL, i can't make statments about
you. You like to make statements about me and others, which if mine was seen as
insulting, imagine how your's are viewed.
>> I just didn't
>> insult you as bad as you did me. Clear?
>
>Yes, you're holding a grudge based on my past behavior, indicating you've
>established a bias and have been incapable of modifying it, which is partly
>what I'd already established as being part of your behavior. You of course
>denied it, but now you've reinforced it.
Not really, i can modify my prceptions of you when i have a solid reason to do
so.
DBG>