Irony of The Beatles
BeatleUn...@gmail.com
in the beginning. Yet as a group they are the most successful musical
team of the 20th century.
However, during their solo years they recorded with musicians who were
better trained and much more skilled than they were as Beatles. Yet,
even though they played with such incredible musicians on their solos
albums, these songs did not become anywhere near as successful as
their Beatles music did.
Odd if you really think about it.
cuppajoe2go
RichL
message news:1177637676....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Not to me at all, and I have really thought about it.
In sports, we hear a lot about team chemistry, the way a group of
individuals can be assembled in which the sum is greater than the parts.
An outstanding performer in such a team can be traded to another team and
completely flop. He didn't fit in the same way.
The Beatles IMHO needed each other in a way they never realized. I know
this opinion will differ from those of many of the RMB regulars, but to me
it started to fall apart once the "individuals" started flexing their own
muscles more. After Revolver, it was never the same. But then again,
individuals do grow in different ways, and "The Beatles" wouldn't have
lasted much longer than they did anyway, even without Yoko, Linda, and the
rest of the gang of "usual suspects".
In the songwriting, Lennon and McCartney accomplished so much in such a
short period of time. Even though few of the songs were true collaborations
as we think of the term, it's possible it was a rivalry of sorts in which
the latest effort by one inspired the other to come through in a way that
wouldn't have been possible if they weren't in it together. Kind of like,
"Oh yeah, you think that's good, well listen to this!"
All this is sheer speculation on my part; I am nowhere near as well-read on
the subject as some of the others in the NG.
t...@aerovons.com
> "BeatleUniversityREMOVET...@gmail.com" <BeatleUnivers...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1177637676....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Why is this a mystery? The greatest musicians in the world won't make
a bit of difference if the song isn't there. Like having a huge budget
and shooting a film with a weak script....;)
TH
RichL
news:1177638911....@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Why is this a mystery? The greatest musicians in the world won't make
> a bit of difference if the song isn't there. Like having a huge budget
> and shooting a film with a weak script....;)
Part of my point. The songs weren't there after they split up because they
needed each other.
dahldude
Chemistry and the fact that when they went solo, each needed to come up
with ("write") a lot more songs per year. If one just factors the solo
hits, they did well. The solo albums (with extra one-authored filler)
were bound to be lackluster overall...
Dale Houstman
Not really. Rock music isn't primarily about instrumental proficiency
(much like its ancestor the blues wasn't); it's about a less easily
definable quality, which some may call "heart" or "soul" or whatever,but
really comes down to having something to say, and taking the time to
discover an interesting way to say it. And it really is all about love
after all. If one loves what one is doing, and finds others who love it
also, then they create something which - possibly lacking in virtuosity
- trascends the mundane. Energy, a willingness to explore, a sense of
humor and of the times one is living in, etc. These are more important
than merely being able to hire hot shots.
dmh
abe slaney
> Not really. Rock music isn't primarily about instrumental proficiency
> (much like its ancestor the blues wasn't); it's about a less easily
> definable quality, which some may call "heart" or "soul" or whatever,but
> really comes down to having something to say, and taking the time to
> discover an interesting way to say it. And it really is all about love
> after all. If one loves what one is doing, and finds others who love it
> also, then they create something which - possibly lacking in virtuosity
> - trascends the mundane. Energy, a willingness to explore, a sense of
> humor and of the times one is living in, etc. These are more important
> than merely being able to hire hot shots.
I don't disagree, I've just got my eye on that mention of "having
something to say". That can mean almost anything. Charlie Parker
certainly had something to say on the saxophone, just as Little Richard
had something to say in "wop bop a loo wop a lop bam boom!".
Jeff
Fantastic post you wrote. It just goes to show you..that 4 guys who
play together well..is the most important thing. It doesn't matter how
well these other musicians were better trained..and more skilled than
the Beatles were. It is strange though..if you think about it.
How can this be? It just shows that when the 4 Beatles got together,
there was this magic between them that no one can't explain..all of
these years later. Also, they continue to be the most difficult band
to imitate...despite the combination of simplicity..and something
complex
that most of us will never understand.
Lookingglass
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:46316884...@skypoint.com...
>
> Not really. Rock music isn't primarily about instrumental proficiency
> (much like its ancestor the blues wasn't); it's about a less easily
> definable quality, which some may call "heart" or "soul" or whatever,but
> really comes down to having something to say, and taking the time to
> discover an interesting way to say it. And it really is all about love
> after all. If one loves what one is doing, and finds others who love it
> also, then they create something which - possibly lacking in virtuosity -
> trascends the mundane. Energy, a willingness to explore, a sense of humor
> and of the times one is living in, etc. These are more important than
> merely being able to hire hot shots.
>
> dmh
Correctamundo! Oh Wise One. (Give that Man a cigar!)
As a listener of "classical" music (and other genres), I sometimes find
myself wishing the musicians in the orchestra would just 'let loose' and
forget all the academics. Give me passion! (Though restraint is important
too.)
Dale Houstman
Of course it can mean almost anything: that's the point. It doesn't
matter what one has to say in terms of creating art, only that one has
something to say, other than "look! I can play my instrument and make a
million dollars overnight."
dmh
Dale Houstman
Well - you shouldn't really expect classical musicians to "let go"
because they are among the world's most astute and particular
interpreters, whose job is to "correctly" recreate what they (and the
conductor) guess was the intent of the composer. Which always leaves
room for variation, and - with luck - passion. Maybe the go home on the
weekends and play Ornette Coleman songs...
dmh
Wind River
>
> Of course it can mean almost anything: that's the point. It doesn't
> matter what one has to say in terms of creating art, only that one has
> something to say, other than "look! I can play my instrument and make a
> million dollars overnight."
I thought the paperback writer was the one who makes a million dollars
overnight. :)
Manfred Noland
to artsy fartsy prog rock or fusion or jazz. As for vocals... we'd all
love opera. It's about entertainment.
MikeLawyr2
religious terms. This is not to say that The Beatles is God, or that
Beatleism is or should be a religion, or that The Beatles is/are to be
worshipped.
But what happened in the sixties is that four, and only four, and the
only four, combined into something infinitely more important than the
sum of any of its parts. The Beatles would not have been The Beatles
without any of the four of them. Conversely, if you have ever seen
Paul McCartney fumbling at a microphone without a guitar, you can
understand how even the most "show-businesslike" of them wasn't
exactly entertainer material.
In a sentence, the story of The Beatles is how, in short order, the
world came to realize that the biggest fad since yo-yos and hula hoops
was, in fact, the most important phenomenon in the history of music.
July 6, 1957 was indeed a special day.
Jimbace
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qLadncvHiPWOyqzb...@comcast.com...
Actually you did a perfect job of summarizing it.
>
>
Jimbace
of thingie.
Dave The Rave
It's hard to believe. I read an entire thread without any troll/flamer
BS. Refreshing.
Dave The Rave
JohnB
> "Dale Houstman" <d...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4631DFCB...@skypoint.com...
>
>
>
> > Lookingglass wrote:
> >> "Dale Houstman" <d...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
Of course, famously, when John & Paul wanted the orchestra to "let go"
and create the cacophonic crescendo in A Day In The Life, they
couldn't. George Martin had to score the "letting go". I bet the
looks on the faces of the orchestra during the first part of that day
would have made an interesting picture. Are there any? ("You want us
to do what ...???")
Jimbace
> "BeatleUniversityREMOVET...@gmail.com" <BeatleUnivers...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> > I find it ironic. The Beatles were not technically skilled musicians
> > in the beginning. Yet as a group they are the most successful musical
> > team of the 20th century.
>
> > However, during their solo years they recorded with musicians who were
> > better trained and much more skilled than they were as Beatles. Yet,
> > even though they played with such incredible musicians on their solos
> > albums, these songs did not become anywhere near as successful as
> > their Beatles music did.
>
> > Odd if you really think about it.
>
> Not to me at all, and I have really thought about it.
> In sports, we hear a lot about team chemistry, the way a group of
> individuals can be assembled in which the sum is greater than the parts.
> An outstanding performer in such a team can be traded to another team and
> completely flop. He didn't fit in the same way.
>
> The Beatles IMHO needed each other in a way they never realized. I know
> this opinion will differ from those of many of the RMB regulars, but to me
> it started to fall apart once the "individuals" started flexing their own
> muscles more. After Revolver, it was never the same. But then again,
> individuals do grow in different ways, and "The Beatles" wouldn't have
> rest of the gang of "usual suspects".
You bet even without her. She didn't do nuthin to break up the
Beatles. No one did. No one but John. Fokes, one thing you gotta
learn is, you can't control John. You can't. He couldn't even
control hisself. So if you think he's just some poppy onna leash bein
controlled by Yoko, you got another thing comin.
Fokes, if the Yoke had the power to control peoples, how come she
don't control me? Need I remind you, we met once. Sat on the same
couch together and rebuffed my desprate handshakes. And ever since
then, I've come in here, postin my praise for this woman. Day in, day
out. No exceptions. So how come she don't control me? I ain't some
poppy on a leash, nosir. Hell, I can't even control myself.
Jimbace
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fokes I seddit before and I'll say it again. Art is subjective. Some
say John dabbled in drugs and his relationship with the Yoke was drug
tinged, he encouraged her to lead a less respectable life then her art
world. But this was the 60s, a time fer experimentation, a time of
new perceptions, a time of Beatles, a time of me raidin my parents
medicine cabnet, a time fer fun! Whose to say whats right or wrong,
John gettin the Yoke to smoke doobage, much as I smoke doobage. You
can't judge it. Its the 60s. And the 60s changed everything. Why
look at yours truly..
Jimbace
Wise words were never smokin my friend, wise words. It aint about
skill, it's about feelin. And I gotta lotta feelins! Have I told you
bout the time I met the Yoke? It wasn't about skill or her dislikin
my smell and rejectin my handshake. It was about feelin. Above all
else. The acts don't matter, it's the feelin. And did it feel good
to be sitting with her there right next to me? Heck yes. I remember
it likes yesterday...
When love was such and easy game to play...
And the Yoke wasn't far away.
Oh, I believe in yesterday.
Jimbace
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:qLadncvHiPWOyqzb...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "BeatleUniversityREMOVET...@gmail.com" <BeatleUnivers...@gmail.com> wrote
> > in
> > messagenews:1177637676....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> I find it ironic. The Beatles were not technically skilled musicians
> >> in the beginning. Yet as a group they are the most successful musical
> >> team of the 20th century.
>
> >> However, during their solo years they recorded with musicians who were
> >> better trained and much more skilled than they were as Beatles. Yet,
> >> even though they played with such incredible musicians on their solos
> >> albums, these songs did not become anywhere near as successful as
> >> their Beatles music did.
>
> >> Odd if you really think about it.
>
> > Not to me at all, and I have really thought about it.
> > In sports, we hear a lot about team chemistry, the way a group of
> > individuals can be assembled in which the sum is greater than the parts.
> > An outstanding performer in such a team can be traded to another team and
> > completely flop. He didn't fit in the same way.
>
> > The Beatles IMHO needed each other in a way they never realized. I know
> > this opinion will differ from those of many of the RMB regulars, but to me
> > it started to fall apart once the "individuals" started flexing their own
> > muscles more. After Revolver, it was never the same. But then again,
> > individuals do grow in different ways, and "The Beatles" wouldn't have
> > rest of the gang of "usual suspects".
>
> > In the songwriting, Lennon and McCartney accomplished so much in such a
> > short period of time. Even though few of the songs were true
> > collaborations
> > as we think of the term, it's possible it was a rivalry of sorts in which
> > the latest effort by one inspired the other to come through in a way that
> > wouldn't have been possible if they weren't in it together. Kind of like,
> > "Oh yeah, you think that's good, well listen to this!"
>
> > All this is sheer speculation on my part; I am nowhere near as well-read
> > on
> > the subject as some of the others in the NG.
>
> Actually you did a perfect job of summarizing it.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Much better than you could have, troll.
kjohn...@rogers.com
musicianship
and songwriting was evidence of an irreplaceable well oiled machine
that
could only happen with four people working in such tight quarters for
so many years. I'm just saying
the obvious but it sometimes gets lost in the fray that The Beatles
as Ed Sullivan first labelled them during his first night introduction
of them that they were also primarily a 'singing group'. What is
dearly
lacking on their solo albums is their combined voices. Not an
irrelevant omission
it turns out ? As Jerry Lee Lewis once
quoted something to the effect when he first heard their records in
January 1964
on the radio, "OH MY GOD those guys can sure sing" !
Kent
Jimbace
"JohnB" <john...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1177688231.4...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
He basically drew a squiggly line from the lowest note to the highest. Not
much of a score, just an indication of where he wanted each instrument to
start (they are not all tuned alike) and where he wanted them to stop. That
was about it.
>
Jimbace
Good. :O)
"Jimbace" <smoke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177688960....@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Jimbace
it's not obvious, but I relish knowing he is so pissed and yet so afraid to
come out on his own that he resorts to this childish method of extracting
'revenge'.
:O)
"Jimbace" <smoke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177688774....@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Dale Houstman
Not him - the company he's begging to write for. They have all the rights.
dmh
Jose Perdoorman
> It IS obvious, which makes compulsively "clarifying" these forgeries
> both pointless (because everyone already knows) and stupid (because
> you're giving him the upset response he craves, thus insuring you'll
> draw more forgeries in the future).
>
> In fact, when the forger writes in this exaggerated "hillbilly"
> tone, it seems clear that he's not even TRYING to fool anyone. It's
> parody, not imitation.
Also, keep in mind that there's a certain percentage of readers (98%?
99%?) who simply don't care.
Jimbace
"Jose Perdoorman" <jo...@didntdoit.com> wrote in message
news:R8idnboX2ajL3a_b...@comcast.com...
I care.
So long as he is disturbed enough to be an idiot, I will let him know how
much I appreciate it. If you don't care, don't read it.
As for Rose's usual dyspeptic attack, since you are not the one being
forged/spoofed your opinion is, as usual, totally worthless. Wank away.
Jose Perdoorman
>>Also, keep in mind that there's a certain percentage of readers (98%?
>>99%?) who simply don't care.
>
>
> I care.
>
> So long as he is disturbed enough to be an idiot, I will let him know how
> much I appreciate it. If you don't care, don't read it.
>
> As for Rose's usual dyspeptic attack, since you are not the one being
> forged/spoofed your opinion is, as usual, totally worthless. Wank away.
So you're in the 1% or 2%.
If you claim that you get lots of support via private email, we can
raise that to 3%.
Jimbace
I don't really get email support. I don't usually talk to anyone from this
group in email. So keep it in the 2% category.
O'Leary
> I don't really get email support. I don't usually talk to anyone from this
> group in email. So keep it in the 2% category.
But be proud. We were probably both in the 5% that didn't like Bush when
he was so popular.
Jimbace
"O'Leary" <ol...@yahou.com> wrote in message
news:eM-dnTY5CLv1xK_b...@comcast.com...
LOL
Indeed!
I am not proud of many things, especially being involved with arguments
here, but by God I am proud of being anti-Bush before he was even elected in
2000.
TAR
>
> Oh, and Charlie, I've probably been forged 10 or 12 times. It's just
> that I don't throw a fit over it, so the forger finds me a less
> satisfying mark. You, on the other hand, are a dream come true for
> him, because you give him an emotional, defensive reaction every
> time.
I didn't see anyone throwing a fit over it, and neither did you. It was
rather amusing, actually, watching how much this forger felt the need to
lash out today.
"I just called to say I don't ever think about you."
O'Leary
> I am not proud of many things, especially being involved with arguments
> here, but by God I am proud of being anti-Bush before he was even elected in
> 2000.
Yeah. Sometimes you just gotta go with instinct. I guess it could be
worse, but it could be a whole lot better.
Jimbace
"TAR" <tom....@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:46325C...@ix.netcom.com...
He lies anyway, as usual. I've seen him forged once. Maybe twice, tops, by
the usual fart forger.
And here he is today perched like a vulture on the rmb branch leaping upon
every reply to his ridiculous, petty and typical accusations. He loves this
stuff.
TAR
>
> "Jimbace" <mondoo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > He lies anyway, as usual. I've seen him forged once. Maybe twice, tops, by
> > the usual fart forger.
>
You know, Eric, I'm getting rather bored with the "angry man" garbage
that you keep trying to attach to Charlie. Like everything else, keep
saying it often enough, and maybe it'll stick.
You want angry? Here's angry...
DROP DEAD YOU GIFTED MORON!!!!!!!!
Of course, I don't really mean for you to drop dead, but it did feel
good to say it. :)
Jimbace
Funny. There was no anger in what I said, just truth.
He is GOP'er, I just know it.
TAR
>
> Funny. There was no anger in what I said, just truth.
>
> He is GOP'er, I just know it.
I'm just getting sick of all the habitual exaggerations, strawman
arguments, and game playing around here. Too many insecure people on
this group. We've reached our quota.
Jimbace
Yay! We're Number ONE! We're Number ONE!
(I know, I agree, I just can't take Mr. Broome seriously anymore.)
TAR
>
> Jimbace wrote:
>
> > TAR wrote:
> >
> > > I'm just getting sick of all the habitual exaggerations, strawman
> > > arguments, and game playing around here. Too many insecure people on
> > > this group. We've reached our quota.
> >
> > Yay! We're Number ONE! We're Number ONE!
> >
> > (I know, I agree, I just can't take Mr. Broome seriously anymore.)
>
> making a phony show of puffing up each other's egos again and again.
> If one gets scratched, the other two show up to massage him/her back
> to life. As predictable as the sunrise.
Just more of your usual b.s. and trying to make it stick. There's no
phony show of anything, Eric. I'm being very real here. Don't you
recognize truth, or were you just raised around liars?
Jimbace
> poisoned rose wrote:
>>
>> Jimbace wrote:
>>
>> > TAR wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm just getting sick of all the habitual exaggerations, strawman
>> > > arguments, and game playing around here. Too many insecure people on
>> > > this group. We've reached our quota.
>> >
>> > Yay! We're Number ONE! We're Number ONE!
>> >
>> > (I know, I agree, I just can't take Mr. Broome seriously anymore.)
>>
>> It really is becoming pitiful, watching this same needy threesome
>> making a phony show of puffing up each other's egos again and again.
As opposed to one needy asshole puffing up his flaccid ego again and again?
>> If one gets scratched, the other two show up to massage him/her back
>> to life. As predictable as the sunrise.
As predictable as Eric fancying himself both a writer and a sharp witness of
human beings.
>
> Just more of your usual b.s. and trying to make it stick. There's no
> phony show of anything, Eric. I'm being very real here. Don't you
> recognize truth, or were you just raised around liars?
I'm bored with him. Let's pretend he doesn't exist. :)
TAR
> > phony show of anything, Eric. I'm being very real here. Don't you
> > recognize truth, or were you just raised around liars?
>
> I'm bored with him. Let's pretend he doesn't exist. :)
Now watch Eric reply. He won't directly reply to me because he declared
that he has me killfiled. In the meantime, he slipped a few months back
and replied directly to one of my posts. But you'll never hear him
admit that (and by now he's had that post deleted by Google). He just
goes right back to it, acting as if it never happened.
TAR
> > > phony show of anything, Eric. I'm being very real here. Don't you
> > > recognize truth, or were you just raised around liars?
> >
> > I'm bored with him. Let's pretend he doesn't exist. :)
>
> exaggerating the number of times I've been forged. And even further
> talk of me "lying" (!). No intellectual integrity, whatsoever.
>
> Meanwhile, could there be anything phonier than Charlie suggesting
> ignoring me? Because anyone knows just how unlikely THAT is.
>
> Now let's sit back, and watch the two dance together some more. "No,
> you're cuter!" "No, YOU are cuter!" "No, YOU!!" "Nope...YOU!!!!"
You bonehead, I'm my own person, as we all are. But you just like to
say that we've formed some kind of team because you're embarrassed by
the fact that we all happen to see through your garbage.
Rhonda
Yes we have, Sweetie!
Jimbace
> poisoned rose wrote:
>>
>> "Jimbace" <mondoo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Just more of your usual b.s. and trying to make it stick. There's no
>> > > phony show of anything, Eric. I'm being very real here. Don't you
>> > > recognize truth, or were you just raised around liars?
>> >
>> > I'm bored with him. Let's pretend he doesn't exist. :)
>>
>> Yup, still zero retraction of his false accusation about me
>> exaggerating the number of times I've been forged. And even further
>> talk of me "lying" (!). No intellectual integrity, whatsoever.
Um, you showed two links and mentioned vaguely two others. That's four, not
10-12. But *I* am the dishonest one? LOL!
>>
>> Meanwhile, could there be anything phonier than Charlie suggesting
>> ignoring me? Because anyone knows just how unlikely THAT is.
You've been in my killfile for yonks. I see your replies in other's posts
and then decide to see what other little nasty things you're spewing.
Otherwise I could give a squat about you. Not like you stalk me, marcus and
Donna. You won't find me over at dylan's group following you around
berating you. I should, God knows, but then I'm not like you.
>>
>> Now let's sit back, and watch the two dance together some more. "No,
>> you're cuter!" "No, YOU are cuter!" "No, YOU!!" "Nope...YOU!!!!"
Hands down, Donna is cuter than either one of us.
>
> You bonehead, I'm my own person, as we all are. But you just like to
> say that we've formed some kind of team because you're embarrassed by
> the fact that we all happen to see through your garbage.
It's his mantra. He has said nothing different, illuminating, true or even
new. Just trots out the same old canards every time he gets a bee up his
ass and goes ballistic for half a day or two. Mr. Anger indeed.
Sixties Gen
>
> Hands down, Donna is cuter than either one of us.
>
You can say that again !!! ;-)
Sixties Gen
> poisoned rose wrote:
The replies that Eric has been issuing today show someone on the verge
of collapse.
TAR
Thank you. What a sweet thing to say. :)
Jimbace
Well, it's certainly true.
Even then I'd come in a distant third. I've seen Marcus' pic.
Jimbace
"Sixties Gen" <sixti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177718158....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
They really do. Angry man.
>
>
Lookingglass
"JohnB" <john...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1177688231.4...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Of course, famously, when John & Paul wanted the orchestra to "let go"
> and create the cacophonic crescendo in A Day In The Life, they
> couldn't. George Martin had to score the "letting go". I bet the
> looks on the faces of the orchestra during the first part of that day
> would have made an interesting picture. Are there any? ("You want us
> to do what ...???")
Well you CAN see the musicians' faces...if you look behind the masks they
were asked to wear...in the video that was taken at the time. I think it is
on the ANTHOLOGY dvd set. Yes, the musicians did complain, but eventually
they got in the mood.
Even within the classical genre of musical performances, the manner in which
the same musical work is played can vary greatly from conductor to
conductor...even the same conductor from night to night. "Letting go" within
the context of a classical performance is not the same as letting go within
the context of a band playing at a rock concert. For instance, when playing
Mussorgsky's A NIGHT ON BARE MOUNTAIN, I would prefer the musicians play a
bit more fiendishly. But that's just me!
Hey...they're my ears!
;^)
TAR
>
> "Jimbace" <smoker...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> Charlie, your posts for this entire DECADE have shown someone on the
> verge of collapse. But feel free to keep flailing with face-saving
> insults to avoid initial, concrete subjects such as how you
> encourage the forger by getting so upset
Getting "so upset"? Are you nuts, Eric? Trying to make your little
fibs stick again, I see. Too bad it's not working. Only super glue can
help you now.
Just trying to keep it real, dawg.
Jimbace
Racioppi
> Just trying to keep it real, dawg.
*cough*
Sean Carroll
> Of course it can mean almost anything: that's the point. It doesn't
> matter what one has to say in terms of creating art, only that one has
> something to say, other than "look! I can play my instrument and make a
> million dollars overnight."
I play my instrument at least four times a night, and no one pays me a
damn thing. And I go to all the trouble of making the instrument stand
upright, too.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Fascinating story. Have you thought of adapting it for the stage?' --Dr
Gregory House
Dale Houstman
Sean Carroll wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>> Of course it can mean almost anything: that's the point. It doesn't
>> matter what one has to say in terms of creating art, only that one has
>> something to say, other than "look! I can play my instrument and make
>> a million dollars overnight."
>
>
> I play my instrument at least four times a night, and no one pays me a
> damn thing. And I go to all the trouble of making the instrument stand
> upright, too.
>
Parade rest?
dmh
Jimbace
> Jimbace wrote:
>>
>> "TAR" <tom....@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:4632C0...@ix.netcom.com...
>>
>>
>> Word.
>
I shouldn't try to 'street' a Brooklyn chick.
TAR
>
> Here are a few of Charlie's easy-going, not-at-all-agitated
> responses to the forgeries -- taken from recent days alone. What,
> him "upset"? Nah....
>
> "Uh, fuck off, forger."
>
> "Since I outted the idiot forger it was only a matter of minutes
> before the dickless wonder forged me."
>
> "The useless flap of skin spoof/forger plays the same tired old game
> with the same tired old bits (as with RAGS 'poems')."
>
> "For someone who allegedly 'plonked' me (and you know damned well
> you are responding to a cowardly forger), you sure still are
> interested in me."
>
> Sure, no anger in that syntax at all. Just breezy, bemused
> indifference (groan).
Not indifference, but certainly no anger. Why shouldn't he call a
forgery a forgery... while calling the forger an idiot, as well? You're
into abstract picture painting, I see.
Jimbace
AH, Olde Eric is still nattering on I see, using his old routines of
selective quiotes and cut and paste. And of course as he nearly completely
melted down lasy night he had to scramble to post a Beatle title thread, to
reassure himself or perhaps his ISP that he really isn't 100% trolling.
Meh. Pathetic and pitiable is Mr. Broome.
I was certainly not angry last night, I was amused by his and Shadow's
attempts to 'hurt' me yet again, as if years of their complaints have made a
difference or that anyone else (as mentioned the other day, 2%) even want to
read this crap or care? (I know I don't)
Of course the worst part is the sheer lying hypocrisy used by both, the
sheer personal vendetta Rose attempts to paint over, in how his victims are
almost always the same three people. His umbrage is never with the perps,
it's always with the victims. No harsh words for Chewslop, or the forgers,
just for the ones who don't like being attacked. Or slimed. Funny kind of
justice there, Mr. Poisoned.
I am on my way out to spray weeds. I can only hope someone in Eric's area
does the same to relieve us all of his constant, monotonous, predictable
hypocritical and dishonest rants.
Sixties Gen
> > And of course as he nearly completely
> > melted down lasy night he had to scramble to post a Beatle title thread, to
> > reassure himself or perhaps his ISP that he really isn't 100% trolling.
> > Meh. Pathetic and pitiable is Mr. Broome.
Oh, you mean, the attempts to pick-up on the linguistics thread that
he was so critical about?
>
> If this is your big principle, I can't imagine why you're in bed
> with Donna. She's the most intellectually dishonest person in the
> entire group. Even moreso than Marcus.
There is no one more intellectually dishonest in this newsgroup than
you, Eric.
Sixties Gen
> "TAR" <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46335D...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> > Jimbace wrote:
>
> >> "TAR" <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4632C0...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> >> > Just trying to keep it real, dawg.
>
> >> Word.
>
> > Wud up, yo.
>
> I shouldn't try to 'street' a Brooklyn chick.
Hey, Charlie, I've seen pics of Donna...trust me, we're not in the
same league as her.
We're lucky she even "talks" to us. ;-)
tis a beauty, is she.
TAR
I am probably the most frank and honest person Eric's ever run across in
his entire life. But I guess he'll say just about anything to try to
save face here after his underlying inferiority complex was stripped
naked and exposed by a goil.
Sixties Gen
> <sixties...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > melted down lasy night he had to scramble to post a Beatle title thread,
> > > > to
> > > > reassure himself or perhaps his ISP that he really isn't 100% trolling.
> > > > Meh. Pathetic and pitiable is Mr. Broome.
>
> > Oh, you mean, the attempts to pick-up on the linguistics thread that
> > he was so critical about?
>
> much less focused on linguistics than on you immediately turning the
> thread into yet another broadly dismissive, pearls-before-swine
> sniff. If you hadn't pulled that manuever (again), I wouldn't have
> posted any objection. As I wrote in the original post, you "fooled"
> me. I didn't post until I realized the thread was just another of
> your self-righteous booby traps.
You obviously didn't see the explanation I gave to Abe Slaney in a
post early this morning.
>
> And now you're trying to turn my "title thread" into yet ANOTHER
> self-indulgent, off-topic political battle. Unbelievable.
I thought you might appreciate the irony.
>
> > Hey, Charlie, I've seen pics of Donna...trust me, we're not in the
> > same league as her.
>
> > We're lucky she even "talks" to us. ;-)
>
> > tis a beauty, is she.
>
> Yet more internal sycophancy from the massage gang. Becoming more
> and more of an island unto themselves.
But, Eric, if you ever saw Donna, you'd know what I'm talking about.
TAR
>
> <sixti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > melted down lasy night he had to scramble to post a Beatle title thread,
> > > > to
> > > > reassure himself or perhaps his ISP that he really isn't 100% trolling.
> > > > Meh. Pathetic and pitiable is Mr. Broome.
> >
> > Oh, you mean, the attempts to pick-up on the linguistics thread that
> > he was so critical about?
>
> much less focused on linguistics than on you immediately turning the
> thread into yet another broadly dismissive, pearls-before-swine
> sniff. If you hadn't pulled that manuever (again), I wouldn't have
> posted any objection. As I wrote in the original post, you "fooled"
> me. I didn't post until I realized the thread was just another of
> your self-righteous booby traps.
>
> self-indulgent, off-topic political battle. Unbelievable.
>
> > same league as her.
> >
> > We're lucky she even "talks" to us. ;-)
> >
> > tis a beauty, is she.
>
> Yet more internal sycophancy from the massage gang. Becoming more
> and more of an island unto themselves.
Thanks, but make it go away, you're really embarrassing me, Marcus.
Just first let me say... No, YOU'RE cuter! :] Now, if you don't mind,
I have a crick in my neck... r i g h t t h e r e.
Sixties Gen
Yes Ma'am.
I shall cease and desist.
I just can't help being honest...especially when I'm miles away, and
your husband can't get his hands around my neck. ;-)
TAR
>
> Yes Ma'am.
>
> I shall cease and desist.
>
> I just can't help being honest...especially when I'm miles away, and
> your husband can't get his hands around my neck. ;-)
Sure he can. When it's your turn for the therapeutic neck massage, I
can ask him if he wouldn't mind taking over for a while. :>
Hey, maybe we can all get back to the Beatles now? I think the time has
come.
Sixties Gen
Better than wasting time talking about Eric.
Sixties Gen
> Sixties Gen <sixties...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > You obviously didn't see the explanation I gave to Abe Slaney in a
> > post early this morning.
>
> Perhaps not, because the only fresh post I see directed at Abe is
> your re-paste of those belligerent filk lyrics.
Then, you haven't looked hard enough...your cyber-stalking skills must
be slipping.
>
> Incidentally, the meter of your alternate lyrics is absolutely
> *hideous*. Of all those new lines, there are maybe *six* of them
> which flow right and don't have awkward extra syllables or misplaced
> accents.
>
And yet I have received a ton of accolades for it during the past four
years.
Go figure, Eric, go figure.
Sixties Gen
> Sixties Gen <sixties...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here, Eric, because I'm beginning to feel sorry for your withering
research skills, look at my 12:12 AM posting for today in the "Guns"
thread.
All will be explained to you.
An Innocent Doorman
having small talk, "It's kinda cloudy today, isn't it? You're interested
in the Beatles? Really? Me too." :-)
Sixties Gen
wrote:
> I'd like to see all of you in the same room drinking cocktails and
> having small talk, "It's kinda cloudy today, isn't it? You're interested
> in the Beatles? Really? Me too." :-)
You would be more likely to see Bush and bin Laden in the same room
than any of us.
TAR
>
> Sixties Gen <sixti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Then, you haven't looked hard enough...your cyber-stalking skills must
> > be slipping.
>
> "stalker" just for repeatedly objecting to your posts within the
> newsgroup, and then YOUR gang maliciously combs the Web, trying to
> find "dirt" about me to bring into the newsgroup as weaponry.
> Another bit of your bold hypocrisy.
His gang combs the web for dirt? Well, now I know PR has flipped his
Beatle wig. Can you say paranoid?
Sal, is that you?
TAR
I don't drink cocktails, but I probably wouldn't mind making small talk
with you or talking about the Beatles, Mr. Doorman. You seem like a
cool kinda guy.
An Innocent Doorman
> An Innocent Doorman wrote:
>
>>I'd like to see all of you in the same room drinking cocktails and
>>having small talk, "It's kinda cloudy today, isn't it? You're interested
>>in the Beatles? Really? Me too." :-)
I did leave out the comment about cops and paramedics arriving after 15
minutes :-)
> I don't drink cocktails, but I probably wouldn't mind making small talk
> with you or talking about the Beatles, Mr. Doorman. You seem like a
> cool kinda guy.
I'm so cool that I get the chills.
Jimbace
"An Innocent Doorman" <door...@perception.invalid> wrote in message
news:xMNYh.155405$DX7.1...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> I'd like to see all of you in the same room drinking cocktails and having
> small talk, "It's kinda cloudy today, isn't it? You're interested in the
> Beatles? Really? Me too." :-)
Could have happened that way at one time. Not now. Well, three of us
could. It'd be up to the other one and I doubt he'd deign to ever do so.
Jimbace
PR has exhausted any worthwhile thread he participates in, which is anywhere
we are.
I suggest we go to a different one. The only irony I get from the Beatles
at this point is that their newsgroup seems to attract such creeps, for
reasons unknown.
Sixties Gen
>
> Withering? Why can't my skills be dwindling, like Abe's intellectual
> acumen?
>
> Firstly, "early this morning" is a very liberal description for
> 12:12am.
>
> Secondly: Sorry, bubba. I see no such post either through my
> newsreader or through Google.
>
> My news server shows posts from you today at....
> 7:30am, 8:11am, 10:18am, 10:24am, 10:26am, 10:31am 10:39am, 11:02am,
> 11:05am, 11:14am, 11:21am, 11:23am, 12:30pm, 12:34pm, 12:44pm and
> 1:03pm. Nothing between 12:00am and 7:30am.
>
> Give me a keyword, because I wouldn't want to miss another dose of
> your self-glorifying, hypocritical chicanery. Or should I just
> search for phrases like "not worth my time" and "your mother" and
> "meds"?
I'm really startting to worry about you, Eric. I mean you've always
been a royal pain in the ass, pompous bore, and cyber stalker, but it
appears that your resource searching techniques are starting to fail
you.
Ironically, the post you seek is the one you quoted above where I call
Abe on his dwindling intellectual acumen.
Just look in "Here's a novel idea...some actual *facts* re: guns in
the US" again and you will see it.
I hope it's not getting to the point where you need to be led by the
hand.
Sixties Gen
> Sixties Gen <sixties...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Perhaps not, because the only fresh post I see directed at Abe is
> > > your re-paste of those belligerent filk lyrics.
>
> > Then, you haven't looked hard enough...your cyber-stalking skills must
> > be slipping.
>
> "stalker" just for repeatedly objecting to your posts within the
> newsgroup, and then YOUR gang maliciously combs the Web, trying to
> find "dirt" about me to bring into the newsgroup as weaponry.
> Another bit of your bold hypocrisy.
>
> > > *hideous*. Of all those new lines, there are maybe *six* of them
> > > which flow right and don't have awkward extra syllables or misplaced
> > > accents.
>
> > And yet I have received a ton of accolades for it during the past four
> > years.
>
> > Go figure, Eric, go figure.
>
> self-congratulatory ilk, and they applauded it because it was
> anti-Bush.
>
> You can't deny that the meter stinks. You can only argue that this
> doesn't matter as much as the message.
>
> Just another self-adoring afternoon for you, I guess.
Country Joe liked it.
Again, go figure.
abe slaney
> Ironically, the post you seek is the one you quoted above where I call
> Abe on his dwindling intellectual acumen.
It seems I had the temerity to repost a couple of your own recent words
about Bob Dylan in a thread about...Bob Dylan. Which you then chose to
characterize as "an idiotic interpretation from that escapee from
reality". Which was funny, since it was your words and yours only; I
added nothing. Were you really so surprised that I made a crack about
you later that evening?
Have a good night.
Sean Carroll
> I wonder how many disingenuous posts the insular daisy-chain trio
> will require before they feel they've properly covered for Charlie's
> latest meltdown and misstatements? 50? 60? 70? I'm checking the
> newsgroup earlier than usual today, and *already* there's a string
> of mutual-massage posts between C. and D.
Everyone!
Repeat after me!
I will not talk about the Beatles!
I will talk about other posters!
I will start incredibly boring, tedious, and juvenile threads about
other people in this group!
I will suck up a giant chunk of bandwidth with posts about other posters!
I am not here to have discussions with Beatles fans!
I am here to carry on idiotic, never-ending flame wars!
And I am-- *gets shot in the head*
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Fascinating story. Have you thought of adapting it for the stage?' --Dr
Gregory House
Sixties Gen
>
I wrote it after Midnight on Saturday, april 28, 2007. It says 12:12
AM on my post.
Fix your clock.
>
> And naturally, it was just another disingenuous pose from you. You
> posted a typically condescending sniff about how you "should have
> known better" than to start the thread in the puny environs of RMB,
> and then you attempted to re-spin that broadside as nobly "trying to
> disarm the situation." Ohhhh brother.
>
> > Country Joe liked it.
> > Again, go figure.
>
> "You fed it to other leftist political bullies of your
> self-congratulatory ilk, and they applauded it because it was
> anti-Bush."
Country Joe...a bully? tsk tsk
>
> What was he supposed to say? Of course he would be generous with
> you. Did you ever hear a nursery-school teacher tell a kid, "That's
> a terrible picture, honey -- fix it"?
I didn't ask him what he thought about it. His remark was voluntary.
I mean the guy only wrote the song...yeah, what would he know?
>
> Randall Bart, 1/11/03: "The scansion is pretty bad...In the
> original, 'Vietnam' was rhymed with 'damn'. I thought you were
> rhyming 'Saddam' with the same mispronunciation of 'Vietnam'. Now I
> find you're rhyming them with 'bomb'. That's a better pronunciation,
> but it's weird to do a parody of a song and pronounce a key word
> differently. It was also quite jarring to stumble on it half way
> through reading the song, though if it's sung consistently that's
> not a problem."
If I had been striving to imitate each syllable of every word, and
rhyme each word exactly, I'd see his point...but I wasn't.
Maybe you like my "Eve Of Destruction" parody from 2005 better.
Sixties Gen
Obviously, you missed my post to Charlie about my feelings about Bob
Dylan.
Sean Carroll
> Sean Carroll wrote:
>> Dale Houstman wrote:
>>> Of course it can mean almost anything: that's the point. It doesn't
>>> matter what one has to say in terms of creating art, only that one
>>> has something to say, other than "look! I can play my instrument and
>>> make a million dollars overnight."
>> I play my instrument at least four times a night, and no one pays me a
>> damn thing. And I go to all the trouble of making the instrument stand
>> upright, too.
> Parade rest?
Woodwind, minus the wind.