If you have seen this:
Oliver North
Ronald Geskus
Love this.
Ronald Geskus.
.
"Oliver North" <j...@ft.fr> schreef in bericht
news:SyxCn.22324$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
John Doherty
> Wow really great
> Love this.
>
> Ronald Geskus.
>
> .
The addition of the crickets at the end of "You Never Give Me Your
Money" and beginning of SK does something new.
It echoes the transition of consciousness in "A Day in the Life"
between the John & Paul parts.
It makes it seem as the "all good children will go to heaven" part is
a lullaby, and the sun king is the dream that comes as the kiddies
fall asleep.
Makes me think the idea may have been there when the lads strung it
together, and this version makes the implicit explicit.
Jeff
Awesome
richforman
What to you think PR, monumentally awesome, huh? JUST KIDDING! (A
little tweak there, I know Rose is not a big Fab Faux Fan.) Myself,
I was impressed and fascinated (certainly entertained) but don't worry
PR, I know and admit that a big part of that is due to my own ongoing
involvement in sound-alike cover-band muscianship - I admire the
craft, the skill and I do think there's an art to it, an element of
self-expression the comes out maybe ironically through the
mimickry......in fact I think the whole enterprise is more worthwhile
than you do (but then, maybe I *would* think that!).
I would say that just about all, maybe 99% of professional, working
musicians, are at least a significant part of the time, cover
musicians, even if frequently they're just covering themselves!
richforman
TheWalrusWasDanny
> richforman <rforma...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 5:38 am, "Oliver North" <j...@ft.fr> wrote:
> > > I apologise.
>
> > > If not you may watch and be amazed.
>
> > >http://vimeo.com/11237479
>
> > What to you think PR, monumentally awesome, huh?
>
It was fabulous.
Danny
The Nice Mean Man
Then learn how to spell....
> If not you may watch and be amazed.
>
> http://vimeo.com/11237479
Then again, maybe not...
RichL
news:8f59c385-4147-46dc...@r6g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
PR doesn't respect outstanding musicianship as a form of talent.
Listening now...so far, really good! My only disappointment is that several
different voices are needed to recreate McCartney's range, both note- and
timbre-wise. It's still impressive!
TheWalrusWasDanny
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > PR doesn't respect outstanding musicianship as a form of talent.
>
>
> In most spheres of life, being an overt copycat is frowned upon. Not
> clear why a different standard should be applied to music.
I do take this point actually..but you have to admit Guru it is
clever!
I recall reading in the Longest Cocktail Party about Trash's version
of Golden Slumbers/Carry that Weight (apple 17)..JL was fucking
furious about it, since it reproduced the fabs version so
accurately..so your argument (within a Beatle concept) is fair..but
The FF are talented you have to admit that.
Danny
RichL
news:nursie-D19270....@news.eternal-september.org...
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> PR doesn't respect outstanding musicianship as a form of talent.
>
>
> In most spheres of life, being an overt copycat is frowned upon. Not
> clear why a different standard should be applied to music.
It's something that your narrow mind wouldn't comprehend.
You're applying standards from one form of "art" to another, in which those
standards don't apply for reasons that are obvious to anyone but a mindless
zombie.
Did Rembrandt go on touring shows in which he replicated his great works for
a live audience? Think about it!
Is there a definitive recording of classical music works, and does it
therefore follow that orchestras like the New York Philharmonic should
bother giving concerts?
Does the original performer of a classic pop or rock tune degrade himself by
playing that tune on stage, whether he attempts to precisely replicate the
"original" or not?
Do you ever sing Happy Birthday at a birthday party?
Now I won't argue that a cover of a tune is "art", but it IS music. SOME
music is obviously art, but "art" does not describe all music. The spheres
intersect; one is not completely embedded within the other. If you knew
more about the history of popular music, that would be obvious: many of the
origins of popular music are folk-based (folk in the most general sense),
and in those traditions, the idea of someone "owning" a song to the
exclusion of anyone else attempting to perform it were completely foreign.
I find this view of yours to be extremely strange.
Gripweed
"The Nice Mean Man" <hither...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b5d201ff-81c5-4a59...@l32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>Then again, maybe not...
That's because you do is listen and insult.
Read the simple sentence above carefully. Its all relevant to you but
especially the "listen" part. So obvious.
ermitano
the sound of the instruments is really close to the original,
specially the lead guitar (except for some solos). the idea of sharing
the voices without having someone doing always the same voice was a
great idea indeed, although i didn't like any particular voice,
they're not special, in my opinion.
i liked the strings, they did a good job, but i don't like the brass.
i don't know if it was a score or performers problem but they played
awful staccatos when they came in. it could be a microphone position
problem too, cos i don't like the way the string sounds, neither.
i enjoyed the video, though i never dig this cover bands. when i was
watching it i was always thinking about the beatles being filmed
recording this album..... maybe instead of Let It Be.. but i know, it
coudn't be the same.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> Just sad, Rich. Really sad.
You seem to get sad a lot. You must be a sad person. I feel sorry for
you.
TheWalrusWasDanny
> Oh, and thanks for informing me that cover songs are music. I was really
> unclear about that.
Should we simply dismiss a good part of the fabs catalogue then Guru?
Beatles at the Beeb is crap because they're covers then??
Danny
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> PR doesn't respect outstanding musicianship as a form of talent.
>> >
>> > I respect it as talent, but not necessarily as *art*.
>> >
>> > In most spheres of life, being an overt copycat is frowned upon. Not
>> > clear why a different standard should be applied to music.
>>
>> It's something that your narrow mind wouldn't comprehend.
>>
>> You're applying standards from one form of "art" to another, in which
>> those
>> standards don't apply for reasons that are obvious to anyone but a
>> mindless
>> zombie.
>>
>> Did Rembrandt go on touring shows in which he replicated his great works
>> for
>> a live audience? Think about it!
>>
>> Is there a definitive recording of classical music works, and does it
>> therefore follow that orchestras like the New York Philharmonic should
>> bother giving concerts?
>
> previous classical orchestras?
In the sense that they follow set sheet music in the performance, yes. In
the sense that the conductor adds his own 'flavor' to it, no. It's not
black and white; it never is. However, classical performances come closer
to duplicating the original works than do cover bands (and in fact when you
analyze the performances of "tribute" bands, I'd still say that classical
orchestras come closer to duplicating original works than they do.
>
>> Does the original performer of a classic pop or rock tune degrade himself
>> by
>> playing that tune on stage, whether he attempts to precisely replicate
>> the
>> "original" or not?
>>
>> Do you ever sing Happy Birthday at a birthday party?
>>
>> Now I won't argue that a cover of a tune is "art", but it IS music. SOME
>> music is obviously art, but "art" does not describe all music. The
>> spheres
>> intersect; one is not completely embedded within the other. If you knew
>> more about the history of popular music, that would be obvious: many of
>> the
>> origins of popular music are folk-based (folk in the most general sense),
>> and in those traditions, the idea of someone "owning" a song to the
>> exclusion of anyone else attempting to perform it were completely
>> foreign.
>>
>> I find this view of yours to be extremely strange.
>
> You're just fudging to save your own ego indulgences, as usual. Pitiful.
I expected that you wouldn't respond very much to my *content*, so I'm not
surprised that you're trying to deflect the valid points that I made by
attempting to relate it to *me*. Flinging poo isn't helping you here (not
that it ever does). My "ego indulgences", to the extent that they exist at
all, have nothing to do with my appreciation of the Fab Faux and similar
bands.
As usual, you snipped out the salient point, the heart of the matter, so
I'll repeat it here in a (probably vain) hope that you'll respond like a
sentient being:
"Now I won't argue that a cover of a tune is "art", but it IS music. SOME
music is obviously art, but "art" does not describe all music. The spheres
intersect; one is not completely embedded within the other. If you knew
more about the history of popular music, that would be obvious: many of the
origins of popular music are folk-based (folk in the most general sense),
and in those traditions, the idea of someone "owning" a song to the
exclusion of anyone else attempting to perform it were completely foreign."
> These arguments are utterly feeble. And you're WILDLY muddying the
> distinction between re-interpreting a famous song and trying to COPY
> every detail about an earlier recording.
You say that because, well, underneath it all, you're basically mad.
Cuckoo, as it were.
As in the case of a classical concert, it's not black and white. Besides,
you frown on cover bands as well. Once again, I said "not all music is
art". People DO go to hear local bands play, and the vast majority of those
bands DO cover tunes. It's part of the music scene, whether you like it or
not. Open mic nights, cover bands, tribute bands, it's all beneath you.
Fortunately, it's not beneath most people.
>
> Odd how copycat bands don't get record contracts, eh? I guess labels may
> not respect them much either.
Did I claim they get record contracts? Are you going to pull up some more
straw men to do battle with here, or is this as good as you can do? It's
absolutely nutty.
>
> Just sad, Rich. Really sad.
What's sad is your rejection of popular Western culture, and that's what it
is. Not only in the US, but worldwide. You've created this alternative
universe where the only music that's being played that's worth listening to
or seen is played by original artists (or, in a pinch, "creative" covers by
*ESTABLISHED* artists).
I'll give you a challenge: go to the Dylan group (I won't even suggest you
do it here, because it's clear that you hold people in RMB in great disdain,
to the extent that I and probably everyone else can't for the life of us
figure out WHY you bother posting here), and conduct a survey.
1. Do you ever see bar bands?
2. Do you ever sing other peoples' songs, or play them (if you're a
musician)?
I'll wager that the vast majority of people in that group (or here, for that
matter), will answer 'yes' to at least one of the above, and the majority
will answer 'yes' to both.
You gotta get out more.
The Nice Mean Man
> "The Nice Mean Man" <hitherand...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:b5d201ff-81c5-4a59...@l32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 5:38 am, "Oliver North" <j...@ft.fr> wrote:
>
> > I apologise.
>
> Then learn how to spell....
>
> > If not you may watch and be amazed.
>
> >http://vimeo.com/11237479
> >>Then again, maybe not...
>
> That's because you do is listen and insult.
>
Poor grammar..
> Read the simple sentence above carefully. Its all relevant to you but
> especially the "listen" part. So obvious.
Poor grammar is all that is "obvious". What do you mean..... "you do
IS"? What does that mean? You also fail to use an apostrophe! Your
entire point is rendered null and void SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU CANNOT
NAVIGATE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROPERLY.
So... what country were you belched from?
Gripweed
Poor grammar..
A quick glance through your posts shows your grasp of the language.
30th April:
"'cause you dfon't no any better.." I can excuse the odd word or letter
being left out. You just didn't "no" what was going on here did you?
30th April again:
"And we already got enough of them kinds of laws, do we not......?" Yeh,
you probably do "got enough of them. Your problems are deeper seated that
just a few hurried post aren't they?
and again:
"When ibeing you is YOUR responsibility," Hmm...real good, done strong,
keep it up.
These are just a small sample of some since I've been reading this list.
Can't wait to see your response.. You better get it proof read by someone
else. Probably someone not in your home. They've no doubt got the same
skills you have. Ask someone in another trailer.
LookingGlass
>
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> In most spheres of life, being an overt copycat is frowned upon. Not
> clear why a different standard should be applied to music.
Quite simply, the FF are *reproducing* a performance...they are not
playing music...there is no artistic interpretation. Perhaps it's one
of those *because we can* moments. We have the original Beatle
recordings. I don't get the point.
LookingGlass
>
> I don't understand why people keep attacking me as if I disdain all
> cover songs. I wish people were smarter.
As most of us realize...a cover is not necessarily a copy.
RichL
> Duh.
And that's about as good as it's going to get, isn't it? I suspect the
Nobel Committee is revising its list of nominees for next year, as I write.
You simply cannot formulate a cogent argument for your wacky view. Thick as
a brick.
RichL
news:a09b2cc2-c6f9-4ef3...@34g2000prs.googlegroups.com...
1. We can't see the Beatles in person any more.
2. I don't believe the Beatles ever performed anything *live* that was
recorded from Sgt. Pepper's on.
Why would people have gone to Beatles concerts when they had the original
recordings at home? In their pre-Pepper's concerts, they came pretty close
to reproducing the original recordings, much more so than many other bands.
Like I said to PR, it's not always necessarily about art.
Jeff
Actually, some copycat bands do get record contracts, or I assume they
do from checking Rhapsody I don't have a list in front of me
but one of the bands is called something like The Rolling Clones. You
don't even have to have a subscription to go there, type in names of
bands and you'll see plenty of copycat bands making money.
Oliver North
"Jeff" <yourimag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5039cfc-4834-440d...@r11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Dread Zeppelin are another.
LookingGlass
>
> 1. We can't see the Beatles in person any more.
>
> 2. I don't believe the Beatles ever performed anything *live* that was
> recorded from Sgt. Pepper's on.
>
> Why would people have gone to Beatles concerts when they had the original
> recordings at home? In their pre-Pepper's concerts, they came pretty close
> to reproducing the original recordings, much more so than many other bands.
I'm not sure how to address your first comment. We do see The Beatles
everyday when we look at our video ANTHOLOGY and such. Just as we can
hear them everyday if we so choose. I do. I'm out and about and the
local radio has a *Beatles at 12* every noonday. Four tracks. That's
good enough for me.
As to your second... Those are two different animals...a live concert
and a recording. I think your first statement covers the "live"
part...they aren't around anymore. I did see them in Boston 1966. I
love the recordings. I once saw RAIN in Vegas do The Beatles.
Impressive, but flat. There is merit to what the FF did...I just don't
get the point. Except to pay their bills...and there is nothing wrong
with that. We have the recordings. Imitation is just that...imitation.
I don't think it is flattering.
Edvado
> Listening now...so far, really good! My only disappointment is that
> several different voices are needed to recreate McCartney's range,
> both note- and timbre-wise. It's still impressive!
I enjoyed it too, but that first singer - The one with the lisp? No, they
can do better than that.
Jeff
He can't help his lisp and it didn't hurt the music. You're being
unkind
and there's no reason for it.
Jeff
> "Jeff" <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Right. Thank you.
Jeff
I don't know why anybody would pay to hear music though from
these copycat bands when you can pay to have/hear the original
recordings.
Dale Houstman
Every year I attend a local Lennon tribute put on by Curtis A. and a
rotating cast of local musicians. And I enjoy it immensely. I don't
know, but I gather the "point" is to share a common admiration, to
present songs almost everyone knows the words to, and to - for a moment
- melt the years away and engage in what is essentially a "tribal"
experience. As mentioned, it may not be "art" but it is musical and it's
fun, and deeply satisfying, as an entire roomful of people coalesce
around a set of shared memories. I can't see any problem with it.
dmh
richforman
> LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > PR doesn't respect outstanding musicianship as a form of talent.
>
> > > I respect it as talent, but not necessarily as *art*.
>
> > > In most spheres of life, being an overt copycat is frowned upon. Not
> > > clear why a different standard should be applied to music.
>
> > Quite simply, the FF are *reproducing* a performance...they are not
> > playing music...there is no artistic interpretation. Perhaps it's one
> > of those *because we can* moments. We have the original Beatle
> > recordings. I don't get the point.
>
> they have re-typed. How awesome would that be? The users could include
> data about how long they took to finish, and how many typos they
> initially made.
Obviously you know that that analogy is completely inappropriate -
that wouldn't be the same thing at all.
Anyway as someone who does it, I just want to mention that a big part
of the reason for playing copycat covers with likeminded fellow
musicians is that it's just *fun* and challenging - good reasons to do
something I'd say. (Also because it gets you attention, praise and
money, maybe those aren't such good reasons, but people are only
human.) But expressing and reveling in yout your shared love,
admiration and (in this case perhaps) reverence for the original music
is a joyous thing in itself. If it's not art, well lots of worthwhile
pursuits aren't.
richforman
The Arranger
> richforman <rforma...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > PR doesn't respect outstanding musicianship as a form of talent.
>
> > > > > I respect it as talent, but not necessarily as *art*.
>
> > > > > In most spheres of life, being an overt copycat is frowned upon. Not
> > > > > clear why a different standard should be applied to music.
>
> > > > Quite simply, the FF are *reproducing* a performance...they are not
> > > > playing music...there is no artistic interpretation. Perhaps it's one
> > > > of those *because we can* moments. We have the original Beatle
> > > > recordings. I don't get the point.
>
> > > There should be a website where people can share famous short stories
> > > they have re-typed. How awesome would that be? The users could include
> > > data about how long they took to finish, and how many typos they
> > > initially made.
>
> > Obviously you know that that analogy is completely inappropriate -
> > that wouldn't be the same thing at all.
>
> typing.
>
> > Anyway as someone who does it, I just want to mention that a big part
> > of the reason for playing copycat covers with likeminded fellow
> > musicians is that it's just *fun* and challenging - good reasons to do
> > something I'd say.
>
> it for fun...you're doing it for money. You don't overestimate its
> importance. You don't do it because your self-esteem aches for someone
> to validate you with a pat on the head. You don't push your song clips
> in the newsgroup, and you don't sulk for eternity if they don't get
> praised. And perhaps most importantly, you understand and acknowledge
> the difference between copycat covers and creative re-interpretation,
> and don't start sniveling about how being disinterested in hearing
> copycat covers means one spits on the entire cultural tradition of
> passed-down songs, etc. etc. etc. waah waah waah.-
You mean uninterested, not disinterested. I'd skip it, but you're a
writer, and better to be corrected here than have it rech print
somewhere.
The Arranger
RichL
> Needy Needy Needy <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Duh.
>>
>> And that's about as good as it's going to get, isn't it? I suspect the
>> Nobel Committee is revising its list of nominees for next year, as I
>> write.
>>
>> You simply cannot formulate a cogent argument for your wacky view. Thick
>> as
>> a brick.
>
> my view is so "out there"? Anything to save face for the DIY gang, I
> guess.
Never mind. Lookingglass answered my question intelligently, giving a view
similar to yours but without ascribing my viewpoint to spurious ulterior
motives. I *do* think yours is a minority viewpoint, however. But feel
free to do the survey I suggested (if you have the cojones to do it) if you
believe otherwise.
>
> You're really not much better than Topaz, at this point. Just beyond
> pathetic.
Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest. I do find it amusing, however, that when
you make comparisons of people you're flailing against with other posters in
the group, you do it with a certain sense of irony (as unintended as it may
be).
RichL
> richforman <rfor...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > PR doesn't respect outstanding musicianship as a form of talent.
>> >
>> > > > I respect it as talent, but not necessarily as *art*.
>> >
>> > > > In most spheres of life, being an overt copycat is frowned upon.
>> > > > Not
>> > > > clear why a different standard should be applied to music.
>> >
>> > > Quite simply, the FF are *reproducing* a performance...they are not
>> > > playing music...there is no artistic interpretation. Perhaps it's
>> > > one
>> > > of those *because we can* moments. We have the original Beatle
>> > > recordings. I don't get the point.
>> >
>> > There should be a website where people can share famous short stories
>> > they have re-typed. How awesome would that be? The users could include
>> > data about how long they took to finish, and how many typos they
>> > initially made.
>>
>> Obviously you know that that analogy is completely inappropriate -
>> that wouldn't be the same thing at all.
>
> typing.
<groan>
>
>> Anyway as someone who does it, I just want to mention that a big part
>> of the reason for playing copycat covers with likeminded fellow
>> musicians is that it's just *fun* and challenging - good reasons to do
>> something I'd say.
>
> Always seemed to me like you do it for the right reasons. You're doing
> it for fun...you're doing it for money.
So someone who does it purely for fun would be doing it for the wrong
reasons?
> You don't overestimate its importance.
Who do you think overestimates its importance? Don't put words in other
people's mouths. Just because I and others enjoy the craftsmanship (NOT
art) of a well-done cover performance (or "copycat", if you will) doesn't
mean we give it the same standing as a good original act.
> You don't do it because your self-esteem aches for someone to validate you
> with a pat on the head.
Only in your imaginary universe. Actually I can think of one person to whom
that description applies, and perhaps another "maybe". Otherwise, it's just
people having fun. You remember "fun", right?
> You don't push your song clips in the newsgroup, and you don't sulk for
> eternity if they don't get
> praised.
Again, maybe one person here marginally fits that description.
> And perhaps most importantly, you understand and acknowledge
> the difference between copycat covers and creative re-interpretation
Gawd, another straw man. How about all the shades of gray between the two
extremes?
> and don't start sniveling about how being disinterested in hearing
> copycat covers means one spits on the entire cultural tradition of
> passed-down songs, etc. etc. etc. waah waah waah.
You're the one sniveling, slick. Do you even read your own material?
RichL
news:pYmdndJxT-sJq0HW...@skypoint.com...
There ya go. You said it better than I could have.
Dale Houstman
Thamks. Personally - as an artist/writer myself - I find the struggle to
make rigid distinctions between art and "mere" craftsmanship to be
boring and rather old-fashioned - the boundaries between "high" and
"low" culture have been melting away for decades now, and any modern
creative person does themselves a disservice by attempting to re-engage
this tired battle. "Art" can be fun, and "fun" can be art, and either
can function in the world quite well without the other. And if one
considers that the earliest forms of art were most likely communal
expressions, meant to evoke a sense of group and identity, I am not at
all certain that such things as a good night at a "Beatles cover band"
concert doesn't work just as well as wailing nonsense into the clouds as
you burned a calf. Such expressions will most likely never become part
of "art history" but that's "mere academia". As a living evocation of
"being in the moment" a good cover will often do the trick.
dmh
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Never mind. Lookingglass answered my question intelligently, giving a
>> view
>> similar to yours but without ascribing my viewpoint to spurious ulterior
>> motives. I *do* think yours is a minority viewpoint, however.
>
> judges repeatedly grumbling about contestants not putting enough
> individual mark on songs.
Right, they're not fostering tribute acts either, are they?
>
> And of course, the Fab Faux is hardly anything resembling a
> "phenomenon." And they owe much of whatever fame they do have simply to
> having Will Lee in the band.
So what explains the popularity of other Beatles tribute acts like Rain,
Strawberry Fields, etc? I agree that Lee gives the Fab Faux a bit of an
edge (some might say an unfair one, since they've appeared more than once on
Letterman).
>
> But sure, just keep telling yourself that I'm some far-out nut for not
> being interested in the tribute-band world.
You're not a "far-out nut" because YOU'RE not interested but because you are
basically in denial that these guys and folks like them DO fill a niche in
the musical world. Your failure to understand WHY is extremely puzzling to
me. Dale explained it pretty well.
>
>> > You're really not much better than Topaz, at this point. Just beyond
>> > pathetic.
>>
>> Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest.
>
> Nope. Just watching you borrow her evasion tactics.
That sentence assumes that there is something substantive that you wrote.
One can't evade a vacuum. What is it precisely that you believe I'm
evading?
In the meantime, my substantive points were graced by your 'duhs', nothing
else.
I've actually never seen any of these acts in person. I just think they're
interesting, and I respect the craftsmanship and dedication of the players.
That is all.
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Anyway as someone who does it, I just want to mention that a big part
>> >> of the reason for playing copycat covers with likeminded fellow
>> >> musicians is that it's just *fun* and challenging - good reasons to do
>> >> something I'd say.
>> >
>> > Always seemed to me like you do it for the right reasons. You're doing
>> > it for fun...you're doing it for money.
>>
>> So someone who does it purely for fun would be doing it for the wrong
>> reasons?
>
I do it purely for fun, as does Nil, Abe, Eric, and another half-dozen
people who post music to the group.
I can't help it if you can't see that. To you, there has to be an ulterior
motive. You simply can't imagine that we get enjoyment out of it, period,
and somehow our sharing of our results with people who are *interested* (and
who may share their own) gets translated in your mind into "neediness".
You're the one with the problem here, not us. I can only guess, but could
it be that your own insecurities as an amateur musician leads you to PROJECT
that insecurity onto others?
I've posted originals, covers where I've lent my own interpretation to the
song, and yes, near-copycat versions. In the latter case, I've gotten
enjoyment out of dissecting the songs and learning how a well-written and
well-arranged song is constructed. Yes, FUN. All of it.
>
>> > You don't overestimate its importance.
>>
>> Who do you think overestimates its importance?
>
> You, for one.
Nonsense.
>
> I mean, really, just LOOK at how me not bothering to watch a Fab Faux
> clip has sent you reeling. Yet another of your endless parade of dork
> tantrums, where you inflate literally *a one-sentence post* from me into
> an apocalyptic threat to newsgroup security.
How often do you touch down onto Planet Earth?
I made an offhand, single-sentence comment (not even to YOU).
To state that what I've written somehow implies an "apocalyptic threat to
newsgroup security" is such a gross exaggeration that I'll leave it to
others to decide who's melting down here.
"It ain't me, babe."
>
>> > You don't push your song clips in the newsgroup, and you don't sulk for
>> > eternity if they don't get praised.
>>
>> Again, maybe one person here marginally fits that description.
>
> Well, you...Jeff...Robert....
Show me a single example of anything I've written that even approaches
sulking "for eternity" if I don't get praised. You're so backed into a
corner at this point that you're just making shit up.
>
>> > And perhaps most importantly, you understand and acknowledge
>> > the difference between copycat covers and creative re-interpretation
>>
>> Gawd, another straw man.
>
> Straw man? You must be kidding.
> You're the wounded nitwit <slap>
You want discussion or you want insults? You proudly proclaim your
admiration of "content", but you so easily lapse into that poo-flinging mode
that I can only conclude that you don't have much confidence in your
beliefs.
>> > and don't start sniveling about how being disinterested in hearing
>> > copycat covers means one spits on the entire cultural tradition of
>> > passed-down songs, etc. etc. etc. waah waah waah.
>>
>> You're the one sniveling, slick. Do you even read your own material?
>
> More of your Topaz-esque evasion tactics.
Your posts are laden with hyperbole, yet when you're called on it you
inevitably DODGE and PROJECT.
Your disdain for cover bands and bar bands has been made clear over the
years, and your increased disdain for what you call "copycat" bands is only
a matter of degree. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
>
> Lordy, what a quivering old fool you are. Just go hug one of your
> guitars, and stop sobbing in public.
There you go again, insult in place of substance.
Besides, if anything written here approaches "sobbing", it's your constant
hyperbole.
You're simply constitutionally incapable of participating in discussions in
which someone holds a different opinion than you do. You're just like those
right-wing blowhards that you decry: all that's missing is the derisive LOL.
>
> I've really gotta go back to lurking, and stop wasting my time dealing
> with needy cripples. I can't even avoid them, posting sporadically.
Better yet, just go. Don't lurk, you're starting to come across like
Usurper Tom, wringing your hands, an uncontrollable tic in one of your eyes
as you continue to read posts by people who you regard as your inferiors,
until, unable to control yourself any longer, you spit out sporadic posts
that look like they've been written by someone with a version of Tourette's
syndrome that manifests itself in writing rather than verbally.
Get help.
Fattuchus
> Needy Needy Needy <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Duh.
>
> > And that's about as good as it's going to get, isn't it? I suspect the
> > Nobel Committee is revising its list of nominees for next year, as I write.
>
> > You simply cannot formulate a cogent argument for your wacky view. Thick as
> > a brick.
>
> my view is so "out there"? Anything to save face for the DIY gang, I
> guess.
>
UsurperTom
> you're starting to come across like Usurper Tom
You should not have mentioned my name in a thread that I haven't
posted in. If you have a problem with my posts, you should reply in
the thread where the post occurs.
Jeff
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Anyway as someone who does it, I just want to mention that a big part
> > >> of the reason for playing copycat covers with likeminded fellow
> > >> musicians is that it's just *fun* and challenging - good reasons to do
> > >> something I'd say.
>
> > > Always seemed to me like you do it for the right reasons. You're doing
> > > it for fun...you're doing it for money.
>
> > So someone who does it purely for fun would be doing it for the wrong
> > reasons?
>
>
>
> > Who do you think overestimates its importance?
>
>
> I mean, really, just LOOK at how me not bothering to watch a Fab Faux
> clip has sent you reeling. Yet another of your endless parade of dork
> tantrums, where you inflate literally *a one-sentence post* from me into
> an apocalyptic threat to newsgroup security.
>
> > > eternity if they don't get praised.
>
> > Again, maybe one person here marginally fits that description.
>
I don't know why you would even care to second guess why Rich, myself
and Robert do what we do with our videos, and if we sulked for
eternity
if they don't get praised? This newsgroup just doesn't get enough
traffic
to make a difference in the youtube hits. You might get 20 hits to a
video
from this newsgroup which doesn't count for much. None of us 3 are in
our 20's, so we're way past our prime as far as taking it real
seriously.
We make the videos as a hobby...and that's all. I'm not even posting
my videos here anymore. They can sit in youtube for eternity for all
I care, with the hundreds of thousands of videos that don't get much
attention.
topaz
Thank you for thinking of me. :) You are probably singing the
song Got to Get You Into my Life right now, with me in mind :)
The Nice Mean Man
> "The Nice Mean Man" <hitherand...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:4874b323-0224-4a2d...@q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 6:14 pm, "Gripweed" <rol...@tecnet.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > "The Nice Mean Man" <hitherand...@aol.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:b5d201ff-81c5-4a59...@l32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 30, 5:38 am, "Oliver North" <j...@ft.fr> wrote:
>
> > > I apologise.
>
> > Then learn how to spell....
>
> > > If not you may watch and be amazed.
>
> > >http://vimeo.com/11237479
> > >>Then again, maybe not...
>
> > That's because you do is listen and insult.
>
> Poor grammar..
>
> > Read the simple sentence above carefully. Its all relevant to you but
> > especially the "listen" part. So obvious.
> >>Poor grammar is all that is "obvious". What do you mean..... "you do
> >>IS"? What does that mean? You also fail to use an apostrophe! Your
> >>entire point is rendered null and void SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU CANNOT
> >>NAVIGATE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROPERLY.
> >>So... what country were you belched from?
>
> A quick glance through your posts shows your grasp of the language.
>
> 30th April:
> "'cause you dfon't no any better.." I can excuse the odd word or letter
> being left out. You just didn't "no" what was going on here did you?
>
> 30th April again:
> "And we already got enough of them kinds of laws, do we not......?" Yeh,
> you probably do "got enough of them. Your problems are deeper seated that
> just a few hurried post aren't they?
>
> and again:
>
> "When ibeing you is YOUR responsibility," Hmm...real good, done strong,
> keep it up.
>
> These are just a small sample of some since I've been reading this list.
>
> Can't wait to see your response.. You better get it proof read by someone
> else. Probably someone not in your home. They've no doubt got the same
> skills you have. Ask someone in another trailer.
For the exception of the key-stoke blunders, mine is ALL intentional.
I have big fingers and I’m a two-finger typist and I don't really GIVE
A SHIT if I accidently choose the wrong word in spell-check. You, on
the other hand, are just plain butt-ugly illiterate. Your low-class
3rd world native tongue is constantly getting in the way of your
ability to speak proper English….. " In the world they are most
magnificent, a group, The Beatles", I think! LOL....!!! THAT is the
way you sound to US...
Learn ENGLISH. That is what we speekie around here, poncho.
The Nice Mean Man
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Never mind. Lookingglass answered my question intelligently, giving a
>> >> view
>> >> similar to yours but without ascribing my viewpoint to spurious
>> >> ulterior
>> >> motives. I *do* think yours is a minority viewpoint, however.
>> >
>> > Even that lowest of lowbrow musical bastions, American Idol, features
>> > judges repeatedly grumbling about contestants not putting enough
>> > individual mark on songs.
>>
>> Right, they're not fostering tribute acts either, are they?
>
> and Adam Lambert who do "weird" interpretations frequently get lauded.
>
>> > And of course, the Fab Faux is hardly anything resembling a
>> > "phenomenon." And they owe much of whatever fame they do have simply to
>> > having Will Lee in the band.
>>
>> So what explains the popularity of other Beatles tribute acts like Rain,
>> Strawberry Fields, etc?
>
> casinos, county fairs and mall openings? And that this represents some
> dominant enthusiasm for this approach to music, which only a
> misanthropic curmudgeon like me would resist?
The better ones do a lot better than to serve as "background noise"; they
seem to me to have dedicated followers and to play at venues a few notches
up from your suggestions. Nevertheless, I never said it's dominant now, did
I? And again, to make a point which should be obvious by now, my criticism
is that you frown on *others* who enjoy this sort of thing, not that you
don't care for it yourself...
>
>> > But sure, just keep telling yourself that I'm some far-out nut for not
>> > being interested in the tribute-band world.
>>
>> You're not a "far-out nut" because YOU'RE not interested but because you
>> are
>> basically in denial that these guys and folks like them DO fill a niche
>> in
>> the musical world.
>
> Once again, you muddy the difference between "filling a niche" and me
> allegedly being in a far-out minority which doesn't appreciate this
> "niche." And incidentally, you shoot yourself in the foot by using that
> word.
I never claimed it was anything but a "niche". My point was that this
niche, and lots of other niches, add up to a significant fraction of the
overall musical landscape even though none of them, taken by themselves,
would be considered "significant". Things don't have to be significant to
be fun.
>
> Sure, they fill a niche. If one of those bands plays in my area, they
> probably could draw 100-200 people (especially if the show is free, as
> they often are). But I'm fairly confident that quite a few more people
> than that will decide the show wasn't worth seeing.
As is true for just about any other musical show...many more people *don't*
attend than *do*, so it's a lousy measure of popularity in any case. In any
event, those few hundreds of people *do* believe it's worthwhile. Probably
because it's fun.
Jeff
I didn't post my video here. If you'll read below, I'm talking
to Robert and telling him I'm not posting my video here.
However Robert went against my wishes and posted
it here himself within the last week or so.
> From: Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Jeff Sings The Beatles "Yesterday"
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9g_MDqw4eI
>
> Jeff
>
> ***********************
>
> From: Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Hey, Danny....could you please do a funny version of "Kite"
> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
> Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
>
> On Mar 30, 12:41 pm, The Harmonic Wheel <from_me_to_...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 11:28 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Like, change it to half speed, and sing like an opera singer or
> > > something?
> > > Maybe Jazzy could insert a few words of the song to make it funnier?
> > > Just an idea.
>
> > Why don't you do that, Jeff! That could be fun!
> > Did you ever post your cover of "Yesterday" for the group?
>
> No, I did not post my cover of "Yesterday" to the group, Robert. Here
> are the reasons:
>
> 1. I look pale.
>
> 2. There is Nil interest in my videos. (Pardon the pun Nil if you are
> reading this) The videos are in youtube for my family out of state.
>
> 3. You find my videos on your own anyway, give me a compliment on the
> youtube site, and then you delete your comments, and afterwards promote
> my videos here yourself.
>
> 4. I would rather watch Danny. I am not an entertainer, nor do I pretend
> to be.
>
> 5. Goodbye.
See, read above. I did not post my video here.
Jeff
Donna
>
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I can't help it if you can't see that. To you, there has to be an ulterior
> > motive. You simply can't imagine that we get enjoyment out of it, period,
> > and somehow our sharing of our results with people who are *interested* (and
> > who may share their own) gets translated in your mind into "neediness".
>
> such longtime grudges over this matter, if it were simply for "fun." The
> same goes for Jeff, Robert, "dahldude"....
>
> Incredible that I'm watching someone who posts songs about his dead son
> now claim they're all just for "fun." Phew.
You are disgusting.
RichL
"poisoned rose" <nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote in message
news:nursie-C58F3F....@news.eternal-september.org...
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> So someone who does it purely for fun would be doing it for the wrong
>> >> reasons?
>> >
>> > What kind of idiotic, floundering half-logic was that? Yikes!
>>
>> I do it purely for fun, as does Nil, Abe, Eric, and another half-dozen
>> people who post music to the group.
>
> If it were purely a lark, you wouldn't aggressively pick fights with me
> simply because I'm not interested in your "fun."
Your basic hypothesis is nutty, yet you continue to engage in circular
reasoning based upon it.
You simply cannot demonstrate the validity of your statement above without
invoking that hypothesis, which is nothing more than a figment of your
twisted imagination and your elevation of your self-image to a level that is
far in excess of that which would be allowed by a reasonable sense of
self-image. Even setting aside the flawed hypothesis, I don't "pick fights"
with you any more than you "pick fights" with dozens of people in the group
with no provocation whatsoever.
Somehow I and everyone else are supposed to believe that you do this out of
the purest of motives but that I call you on it because I'm supposedly
nursing some sort of grudge that's based on your mistaken assumption that
*I* am wounded because *you* don't listen to my material? Please.
As in just about every other subject that you deign to comment upon in this
group, your self-impression is highly overrated.
<snip constantly recycled illogical garbage, except for the following>
> Incredible that I'm watching someone who posts songs about his dead son
> now claim they're all just for "fun." Phew.
Wow, that was low and dirty, even for you. We were talking about cover
songs, and you fling this at me out of the blue? Yes, I've done some
originals, and yes, some of them are about aspects of my life. People who
write songs often use personal subjects, in case you haven't noticed. Yet
another classic PR deflection.
> Still wondering what I can do to get killfiled by you. Just give me the
> words, and I'll say them.
No one forces you to read them, just as no one forces you to read a
newsgroup for which you have nothing but contempt.
Jeff
Rich wrote:
> I can't help it if you can't see that. To you, there has to be an ulterior
> motive. You simply can't imagine that we get enjoyment out of it, period,
> and somehow our sharing of our results with people who are *interested* (and
> who may share their own) gets translated in your mind into "neediness".
God, are you in denial. You wouldn't respond so emotionally and nurse
such longtime grudges over this matter, if it were simply for "fun."
The
same goes for Jeff, Robert, "dahldude"....
I don't know where you get the idea that I hold any grudges against
you. The only thing I've said is that I did not post my last video
here. Robert is the one who posted it.
Jeff
abe slaney
> richforman <rforma...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 5:38 am, "Oliver North" <j...@ft.fr> wrote:
> > > I apologise.
>
>
> I didn't watch it.
Um, *this* was the comment that provoked such ire?
brilton
What I dislike about the Youtubers is that they rarely say what it is
that they are linking to, so I have to actually click on the link
*before* deciding that I don't really want to see it.
brilton
>
> I recall reading in the Longest Cocktail Party about Trash's version
> of Golden Slumbers/Carry that Weight (apple 17)..JL was fucking
> furious about it, since it reproduced the fabs version so
> accurately..
If I recall, Lennon casually signed off on it, saying "Great, it sounds
like us", but it was McCartney who was less than enamoured with it, but
for what exact reason I can't recall.
Dale Houstman
>
>> Nevertheless, I never said it's dominant now, did I?
>
> If you charge that I'm in some extremist minority for not enjoying it,
> yes, this implies it's dominant.
>
Uh - no. He admits the genre is a "niche" but one which satisfies its
patrons just fine. You might be in an "extremist minority" for making
such a huge deal over something that is essentially marginal and totally
harmless. but that's a different subject. I don't particularly like
polka music (a much larger audience than cover bands I suspect) but if I
went out of my way to lambaste the stuff at length to people who
obviously enjoyed it, or at least appreciated it as good dance music for
a certain segment of the population, I'd be fair game for name-calling.
dmh
Jeff
> Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I didn't post my video here. If you'll read below, I'm talking
> > to Robert and telling him I'm not posting my video here.
>
>
> > However Robert went against my wishes and posted
> > it here himself within the last week or so.
>
> > > From: Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Jeff Sings The Beatles "Yesterday"
> > > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
>
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9g_MDqw4eI
>
> > > Jeff
>
> your video. March 14, 2010.
I know what video you are thinking of, but my "Yesterday" video
wasn't the video. You're talking about the video I put up
"before" the Yesterday video.
You posted the video, but no one replied
> because it was so embarrassing to watch.
No it wasn't the Yesterday video. It was my version of an Elvis
Presley
song you're thinking of, called "I want you". After I posted that one
you even said my voice was horrible, and I remember our
conversation. I never removed that video. And then I had a
disagreement
with Robert. First he gave me a compliment on my "Yesterday"
video, (You can see where his compliment has been removed if
you don't believe me) and then I disagreed with him, about
something, so he goes and posts my Yesterday video here without
my permission. I put up the Yesterday video "after" the Elvis
cover video.
> I pointed out how you posted the video, and then about two weeks later,
> inexplicably told Robert you *hadn't* posted it.
>
> R-E-A-D.
> P-R-O-C-E-S-S D-A-T-A.
>
> People still wonder why I get impatient with RMBers' stupidity. Phew.
You just have things a little wrong, that's all. Part of what you said
IS right.
> Do you want it with complete headers? OK. YOUR POST:
Jeff
Jeff
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > By "popularity," I assume you mean them serving as background noise at
> > > casinos, county fairs and mall openings? And that this represents some
> > > dominant enthusiasm for this approach to music, which only a
> > > misanthropic curmudgeon like me would resist?
>
> > The better ones do a lot better than to serve as "background noise"; they
> > seem to me to have dedicated followers and to play at venues a few notches
> > up from your suggestions.
>
>
> > Nevertheless, I never said it's dominant now, did I?
>
> If you charge that I'm in some extremist minority for not enjoying it,
> yes, this implies it's dominant.
>
> > is that you frown on *others* who enjoy this sort of thing, not that you
> > don't care for it yourself...
>
>
> > > If it were purely a lark, you wouldn't aggressively pick fights with me
> > > simply because I'm not interested in your "fun."
>
> > Your basic hypothesis is nutty, yet you continue to engage in circular
> > reasoning based upon it.
>
> songs. And somehow, this wounds you to the core.
>
>
>
>
>
> > You simply cannot demonstrate the validity of your statement above without
> > invoking that hypothesis, which is nothing more than a figment of your
> > twisted imagination and your elevation of your self-image to a level that is
> > far in excess of that which would be allowed by a reasonable sense of
> > self-image. Even setting aside the flawed hypothesis, I don't "pick fights"
> > with you any more than you "pick fights" with dozens of people in the group
> > with no provocation whatsoever.
>
> > Somehow I and everyone else are supposed to believe that you do this out of
> > the purest of motives but that I call you on it because I'm supposedly
> > nursing some sort of grudge that's based on your mistaken assumption that
> > *I* am wounded because *you* don't listen to my material? Please.
>
> > As in just about every other subject that you deign to comment upon in this
> > group, your self-impression is highly overrated.
>
> > <snip constantly recycled illogical garbage, except for the following>
>
> entrails.
>
> You are simply lying. You picked this fight, just like you've picked
> probably 20-25 other fights in recent months. You have appointed
> yourself Newsgroup Guardian Against PR and RMB Protector of Tender
> Self-Esteem, and thus you bound in as an aggressive third party whenever
> I say something which contains a little too much harsh reality. I
> wouldn't even know the last fight I picked with you. Nothing immediately
> comes to mind.
In all my years of posting here, I have never seen an individual
as screwed up as you are. You've picked more fights than
anyone in this group and then try and deny it. One of your
last fights was with Rich in which you post this to him:
"Incredible that I'm watching someone who posts songs
about his dead son now claim they're all just for "fun".
Phew.
What kind of a sick person are you Eric? Don't you
have any heart at all? That's about the lowest you
can get making a remark like that, and it's
uncalled for. Do you honestly believe anyone
takes your posts seriously after you write this?
I honestly think you are mentally ill to come up
with this. Maybe we should take a poll and find
out who all feels the same as I do? Maybe you
would just go away forever and never return.
Jeff
> Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > From: Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > Subject: Jeff Sings The Beatles "Yesterday"
> > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
>
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9g_MDqw4eI
>
> > > > > Jeff
>
> > > You are a complete nutter. I showed you THE EXACT POST where you posted
> > > your video. March 14, 2010.
>
> > I know what video you are thinking of, but my "Yesterday" video
> > wasn't the video. You're talking about the video I put up
> > "before" the Yesterday video.
>
> stupid.
>
> THE POST IS ABOVE. YOU POSTED A LINK TO "YESTERDAY."
>
> REALITY. LIVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
>
> > You posted the video, but no one replied
> > > because it was so embarrassing to watch.
>
> > No it wasn't the Yesterday video.
>
>
> From: Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Jeff Sings The Beatles "Yesterday"
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9g_MDqw4eI
>
> Jeff
>
> you posted. Not Robert. You. On March 14.
>
> REALITY. EMBRACE IT.
>
> I will NEVER fail to be astonished by the issues RMBers attempt to argue
> about. Even more amazing, I know that no one else will step in here and
> back me up on such a simple, straightforward fact.
Okay, now I remember what happened as far as what you are talking
about. My girlfriend posted my Yesterday video here. It was here
for about 10 minutes, and I came here I deleted it, cause she didn't
know that I didn't want it here. Robert asked me about the video in
which you posted my exchange with Robert. What you posted was
me telling him I didn't want it here. So then, Robert comes into
my youtube account and compliments me on the video. We
get into a heated discussion about something, he removes his
compliment, and then re-posts my video here. It's what he did.
You can still see the compliment he removed on my Yesterday
video. That's the story, and if you don't believe it, I don't really
care.
dahldude
> God, are you in denial. You wouldn't respond so emotionally and nurse
> such longtime grudges over this matter, if it were simply for "fun." The
> same goes for Jeff, Robert, "dahldude"....
Thanks for the invite, PR<ick>...
You infer a handful of eternal grudgeholders and sulkers who don't get
enough strokes here for their DIY tunes, but as usual you can't cite,
Mr. Hyperbole.
> Incredible that I'm watching someone who posts songs about his dead son
> now claim they're all just for "fun." Phew.
There you go, ladies and gentlemen of the jury - the Governor of "Good
Taste", the boy who places "art" over talent and craftsmanship, the
pretend elitist who declares that signing with a "record label" is
somehow akin to having a Good Housekeeping seal of legitimacy, jumps
tracks from cover tunes being done for "fun" (as PR<ick> declared in
his micro review for the Tater Totz' album full of cover songs) over
to an original song about RichL's son and then twists the blade.
A nasty fighter you are, PR<ick> and that comment was in bad taste,
even if you consider it "art".
Your analogy about retyping short stories was really a ridiculous
stretch. Re-penning an original manuscript might have been a closer
shot, but as usual, we expect lameness in your arguments.
And your comment about wanting to talk openly about music: why has it
been so hard for you to come right out and say which side you've
preferred all these years of the Tater Totz' album Alien Sleestacks
From Brazil:
side 1
Give Peace a Chance / We Will Rock You
Let's Get together
Tomorrow Never Knows
I've Just Seen a Face
Bat Macumba
Don't Count the Waves
Bharta's Boogie
Sing This All Together
Bat Macumba (Reprise)
side 2
Don't Worry Kyoko (Mummy's Got Her Hand in the Snow)
Don't Worry Kyoko (Mummy's Got Her Hand in the Snow)
Don't Worry Kyoko (Mummy's Got Her Hand in the Snow)
Don't Worry Kyoko (Mummy's Got Her Hand in the Snow)
Don't Worry Kyoko (Mummy's Got Her Hand in the Snow)
(yes folks- that's five takes)
It's a simple answer, Eric. One or two. Consider it one of your many
"nurture" jobs...
The Arranger
Well, that one didn't bother me. But this one...
> Incredible that I'm watching someone who posts songs about his dead son
> now claim they're all just for "fun." Phew.
...tore it for me.
The Arranger
LookingGlass
>
> What I dislike about the Youtubers is that they rarely say what it is
> that they are linking to, so I have to actually click on the link
> *before* deciding that I don't really want to see it.
If a link comes *un-announced*...no introduction...I do not click on
it, unless I *respect* the poster. If the original poster can't be
bothered to introduce the link, then it can't be that important...to
him/her OR me.
LookingGlass
>
> Uh - no. He admits the genre is a "niche" but one which satisfies its
> patrons just fine. You might be in an "extremist minority" for making
> such a huge deal over something that is essentially marginal and totally
> harmless. but that's a different subject. I don't particularly like
> polka music (a much larger audience than cover bands I suspect) but if I
> went out of my way to lambaste the stuff at length to people who
> obviously enjoyed it, or at least appreciated it as good dance music for
> a certain segment of the population, I'd be fair game for name-calling.
>
> dmh
Cheese and crackers!!! I am like the Incredible Shrinking Man...being
reduced to my UN-common denominators. Not only does disco disrupt the
lay of my tail-feathers, but I commit Polka-cide on a regular basis.
"Roll out the barrel!"
I am nondescript.
LookingGlass
>
> Well, that one didn't bother me. But this one...
>
> > Incredible that I'm watching someone who posts songs about his dead son
> > now claim they're all just for "fun." Phew.
>
> ...tore it for me.
>
> The Arranger
That was not a slight against Rich or the song...it was an
observation. Rich did not produce the song *for fun*...it was
obviously very meaningful to him. One needs to be precise when making
an argument, so as not to be misunderstood.
The Arranger
But why bring that up just to score a point? Dave, I can't help but
believe you're defending something you would be incapable of. That's
your prerogative, but the manner in which it was phrased was
offensive, and less forgivable from someone who is a writer.
The Arranger
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> That was not a slight against Rich or the song...
Horse shit. It was PR scraping as low as he could go in order to be
hurtful. It was not even germane to the discussion.
> it was an observation. Rich did not produce the song *for
> fun*...it was obviously very meaningful to him. One needs to be
> precise when making an argument, so as not to be misunderstood.
There was no misunderstanding. It is obvious what category that song
was in, and it was not a cover song as was being discussed. PR
mentioned it purely to lash out at Rich in his typical defensive,
paranoid, hateful manner.
LookingGlass
>
> But why bring that up just to score a point? Dave, I can't help but
> believe you're defending something you would be incapable of. That's
> your prerogative, but the manner in which it was phrased was
> offensive, and less forgivable from someone who is a writer.
>
> The Arranger
I would not have chosen that subject for comment because of its
sensitivity.
LookingGlass
>
> On 03 May 2010, LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote in
As has been pointed out before, PR's *style* may not be to everyone's
taste.
An *argument* can be made emotionally OR logically...engaging the
brain. I personally believe PR thows out *emotional* handgrenades to
test the cranial capacity of the opponent. That's just how I view it.
I can't help but notice the *emotional* energy in most of the
discussions (?) that occur between posters...myself included, (as
witnessed here some time ago.) Thinking needs to be involved in these
discussions to make any headway to understanding. THAT IS NOT A
RULE...just a common sense path. We can also have lots of fun and
nonsense stuff too. But for the purposes of learning and
understanding, certain prescribed proceedures need to be followed.
Leave emotions out of the argument...they have no place and just muddy
the waters of understanding.
...and lordy knows we get VERY emotional here at RMB. I now do my best
to NOT engage my *feelings* but rather my synapses and brain bumps.
Avoid the *strawmen* and zero in on the *content*. (I think I heard
that here...!!!)
:o)
Jeff
> Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > From: Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > Subject: Jeff Sings The Beatles "Yesterday"
> > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
>
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9g_MDqw4eI
>
> > > > > Jeff
>
> > > You are a complete nutter. I showed you THE EXACT POST where you posted
> > > your video. March 14, 2010.
>
> > I know what video you are thinking of, but my "Yesterday" video
> > wasn't the video. You're talking about the video I put up
> > "before" the Yesterday video.
>
> stupid.
>
> THE POST IS ABOVE. YOU POSTED A LINK TO "YESTERDAY."
>
> REALITY. LIVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
>
> > > because it was so embarrassing to watch.
>
> > No it wasn't the Yesterday video.
>
>
> Subject: Jeff Sings The Beatles "Yesterday"
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9g_MDqw4eI
>
> Jeff
>
> you posted. Not Robert. You. On March 14.
>
> REALITY. EMBRACE IT.
>
> I will NEVER fail to be astonished by the issues RMBers attempt to argue
> about.
Like you mostly, wanting to argue about every friggen thing and
analize everything to death. My Gawd, you must be a very
tormented person to go to all that trouble.
Even more amazing, I know that no one else will step in here and
> back me up on such a simple, straightforward fact.
Well, my videos aren't that important to most except
for you, who just re-posted my "Yesterday" video here
3 times, despite the fact that you said you hated it. I
I just want to thank you. I will be making many more
videos. Please feel free to post them here multiple
times.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> As has been pointed out before, PR's *style* may not be to
> everyone's taste.
His is not a style, it's a pathology.
> An *argument* can be made emotionally OR logically...engaging the
> brain. I personally believe PR thows out *emotional* handgrenades
> to test the cranial capacity of the opponent. That's just how I
> view it.
I think you give Eric Broome far, far too much credit. Practically
every word he types drips with contempt, and any time someone rises to
the bait he attacks. Rather than come to an understanding with another
party or to concede a point, he ratchets up the venom, like he did
here.
There are lots of ways to argue a point, and there's no need for it to
sink to that vile level. PR purposely takes it there time after time,
which can only mean that he's a troll or truly sick.
> I can't help but notice the *emotional* energy in most of
> the discussions (?) that occur between posters...myself included,
> (as witnessed here some time ago.) Thinking needs to be involved
> in these discussions to make any headway to understanding.
"Understanding" is not the goal for Gondola Bob.
LookingGlass
> But for the purposes of learning and
> understanding, certain prescribed proceedures need to be followed.
> Leave emotions out of the argument...they have no place and just muddy
> the waters of understanding.
Should that be *proscribed* proceedures???
LookingGlass
>
> "Understanding" is not the goal for Gondola Bob.
Food for thought. Perhaps a *feast*.
Jeff
> On 03 May 2010, LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote in
> rec.music.beatles:
>
> > As has been pointed out before, PR's *style* may not be to
> > everyone's taste.
>
> His is not a style, it's a pathology.
>
> > An *argument* can be made emotionally OR logically...engaging the
> > brain. I personally believe PR thows out *emotional* handgrenades
> > to test the cranial capacity of the opponent. That's just how I
> > view it.
>
> I think you give Eric Broome far, far too much credit. Practically
> every word he types drips with contempt, and any time someone rises to
> the bait he attacks. Rather than come to an understanding with another
> party or to concede a point, he ratchets up the venom, like he did
> here.
>
> There are lots of ways to argue a point, and there's no need for it to
> sink to that vile level. PR purposely takes it there time after time,
> which can only mean that he's a troll or truly sick.
What he'll do is bow out of this thread and re-launch his
attacks in another thread.
Dale Houstman
I once spent hours in a crappy little country bar dancing with an old
woman to polka music. I have nothing against it as dance music: it's
easy to move to it, because that's its purpose in life. If the woman had
asked me what I thought about polka music AS listening music, I would
have gladly told her that I found it pretty dull (for one thing, most of
its singers are amateur at best), but as a nice way to burn off alcohol?
Sure...
dmh
LookingGlass
>
> I once spent hours in a crappy little country bar dancing with an old
> woman to polka music. I have nothing against it as dance music: it's
> easy to move to it, because that's its purpose in life. If the woman had
> asked me what I thought about polka music AS listening music, I would
> have gladly told her that I found it pretty dull (for one thing, most of
> its singers are amateur at best), but as a nice way to burn off alcohol?
> Sure...
>
> dmh
I don't listen...I *bounce*.
Jeff
> Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Okay, now I remember what happened as far as what you are talking
> > about. My girlfriend posted my Yesterday video here. It was here
> > for about 10 minutes, and I came here I deleted it, cause she didn't
> > know that I didn't want it here.
> > care.
>
> huffy.
When have you ever apologized to anyone? Certainly not to me.
I have nothing to apologize for when you bring my name,
Robert, and Daldude's name into a thread that has nothing
to do with what is currently happening here. You're the
one who holds grudges, not us, for long forgotten posts.
Because certainly, no one could blame me for assuming a
> non-forged post under your name/address was, um, written by you.
>
> Also: Your post was only deleted from Google Groups. Google ‚ Usenet.
> Too often, naive Google users fail to understand this. If the post had
> been "deleted" altogether, I wouldn't have been able to find it again on
> my news server and copy/paste its details.
I thought I deleted the post, period, and I didn't expect anyone would
want to dig up a post that contained a link to a song they disliked
that was me, and repost it not just once, but 3 times. 3 times!
As I said before, thank you. I'll let you post all my videos, and
please post them 3 times apiece from now on.
Jeff
> LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That was not a slight against Rich or the song...it was an
> > observation. Rich did not produce the song *for fun*...it was
> > obviously very meaningful to him.
>
> should have claimed the song was just for laughs, instead.
>
> And this is entirely germane to the topic, since Rich wants us to
> believe the DIYers have no serious "validation needs" in their postings.
> Now, I suppose he can pretend that him posting an original song and
> posting a copycat cover have entiiiiiirely different sets of motives
> with absolutely no overlap, but...well, I'm sure some people here will
> lap up that claim, but not me.
Why do you care if I, Rich, Robert etc, post links to our songs
or covers? How does that effect your life? Nobody is asking
you to watch our videos. If you minded your own business
you might get more accomplished in a 24 hour day. You
waste so much valuable time judging others for things that
have absolutely nothing to do with you.
Jeff
> Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You're the
> > one who holds grudges, not us, for long forgotten posts.
>
It's true. You just deleted the part where I quoted
you as bringing up my name, Robert's and
Dahldude's. There was no reason for you to
bring up our names.
> > > Also: Your post was only deleted from Google Groups. Google ’ Usenet.
> > > Too often, naive Google users fail to understand this. If the post had
> > > been "deleted" altogether, I wouldn't have been able to find it again on
> > > my news server and copy/paste its details.
>
> > I thought I deleted the post, period
>
> Google users.
>
> > , and I didn't expect anyone would
> > want to dig up a post that contained a link to a song they disliked
> > that was me, and repost it not just once, but 3 times. 3 times!
>
> Reality check: I posted it three times only because that's how many
> times it took to jar what's left of your memory.
Hey, like I said, please feel free to repost all of my videos 3 times
a piece from now on. I do appreciate it. I just 7 more views on
my Yesterday video. Thanks again.
Fattuchus
Rich's loss of his son was a tragedy and it is a sensitive subject. I
don't think it should be brought up, especially during an argument.
I'm surprised you are defending PR on this issue.