OT: Mr. Elvis Presley - Treat Me Nice - 1957
Uni
play loud! Says here this was a #18 Jockey hit. Not sure what an
underwear company was doing promoting music!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/treatnice-s.mp3
By the way, Mr. Love Is The Drug,, I, ahem, did prefix this "OT", so,
Treat Me Nice!!!!
Uni :-)
Tim
You Raving Loon: It reached #18, and would have faired alot better,
but for it's release timing. (it was the flipside of Jailhouse Rock)
Scarlotti
A number 18 hit would be a huge accomplishment for many artists. But
we're not talking about any old artist. We're talking The King!
Uni said that it wasn't one of Elvis' *big* hits. Elvis had 30 number
1 hits.
Thirty! Most singers don't even get 30 in the bottom end of the Hot
100.
I've always loved Treat Me Nice -- but, in light of the staggering
number of Elvis hits that scored higher, you can't really consider it
to be one of His big hits.
Uni
Thanks! :-)
Uni
Tim
Yeahbutt .. what percentage of his hit songs, big or small, were
handed to him on a silver platter by accomplished songwriters, just to
catch a ride on the Elvis money express? And why did this formula for
hit songs get itself crushed by 60's "self contained" singer/
songwriters?
Uni
> On Dec 21, 12:16 am, Scarlotti <Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 20, 7:26 pm, Tim <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Dec 20, 3:20 pm, Uni <no.em...@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>Not one of his big hits, but still nice. Besides, it's stereo! Made to
>>>>play loud! Says here this was a #18 Jockey hit. Not sure what an
>>>>underwear company was doing promoting music!...
>>>
>>>>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/treatnice-s.mp3
>>>
>>>>By the way, Mr. Love Is The Drug,, I, ahem, did prefix this "OT", so,
>>>>Treat Me Nice!!!!
>>>
>>>>Uni :-)
>>>
>>>You Raving Loon: It reached #18, and would have faired alot better,
>>>but for it's release timing. (it was the flipside of Jailhouse Rock)
>>
>>A number 18 hit would be a huge accomplishment for many artists. But
>>we're not talking about any old artist. We're talking The King!
>>
>>Uni said that it wasn't one of Elvis' *big* hits. Elvis had 30 number
>>1 hits.
>>
>>Thirty! Most singers don't even get 30 in the bottom end of the Hot
>>100.
>>
>>I've always loved Treat Me Nice -- but, in light of the staggering
>>number of Elvis hits that scored higher, you can't really consider it
>>to be one of His big hits.
>
>
> Yeahbutt .. what percentage of his hit songs, big or small, were
> handed to him on a silver platter
That's Silver Screen! He was an actor, you know! :-)
Uni
Uni
Not because of where it charted, but if I heard it on the radio, to be a
"hit". I don't think so, but maybe!
Uni
Tim
which he attempted to act in.
Uni
Watch it there, Elvis was a real American man. Today, we yell about the
overwhelming immigrants in this country. Hey, it all started with The
Beatles!!!! :-)
Uni
AllaBest
That is MY FAVORITE Elvis song!
The original has so my different vocal "tricks"!
Unbelievably great he was/is!
Scarlotti
Singer. Songwriter.
Sinatra. Gershwin, Mercer, Van Heusen, Cahn, et al.
IMO the rise (and deification) of the self-contained singer/songwriter
was the death of music. The number of 60s-forward singer-songwriters
I listen to can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Anyway, that's all beside the point. Treat Me Nice was still a
"minor" Elvis hit when compared to the likes of Hound Dog, Don't Be
Cruel, Heartbreak Hotel, Jailhouse Rock, Love Me Tender, Love Me,
Teddy Bear, Wear My Ring Around Your Neck, All Shook Up, It's Now or
Never, & co.
Scarlotti
It's one of my favs as well.
I keep trying to get my wife to pay attention to - and take a few
pointers from - the message.
Uni
LOL! Good one! :-)
Uni
Tim
T'was John Lennon who astutely observed that Elvis "died" when he went
into the Army.
Scarlotti
Yes, and The Beatles were "bigger than God."
The man was a veritable fount of self-aggrandizement and controversy.
BobbyM
news:0790e8ae-4f6c-4ab7...@3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
You might want to make that book you're writing a work of historical
fiction; it'll save you some time on research & fact checking.
Lennon's 1966 quote:
"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with
that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus
now; I don't know which will go first - rock 'n' roll or Christianity.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them
twisting it that ruins it for me."
Dean F.
> Yeahbutt .. what percentage of his hit songs, big or small, were
> handed to him on a silver platter by accomplished songwriters, just to
> catch a ride on the Elvis money express? And why did this formula for
> hit songs get itself crushed by 60's "self contained" singer/
> songwriters?
Why do so many rock fans insist on looking down at singers who didn't/
don't write their own material? Has anyone ever claimed that Caruso or
Pavarotti were bullshit because they never wrote a song? Why hold rock
'n' roll to a higher--or at least different--standard than so-called
"serious music?"
Tim
Actually, we're not looking down on the singers, but rather we're
snickering at the fans of these singers who treat them as thought they
should rate right along side the gifted singer/songwriters.
Tim
And for daring to speak his truths, there's still many X-tians, today,
who feel that Lennon was "justifyably" gunned down.
50s
I'm with Dean here. Recording artists should rate based on their
recordings, not on who wrote the songs. All that matters is what is
coming out of the speakers. I could care less that the Kingsmen didn't
write "Louie Louie." Their version is the definitive version and
that's all that matters. I could care less that Elvis didn't write
songs. All I care about is what the record sounds like when i hear it.
I'm not gonna rate Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby or Elvis Presley any
lower because they didn't write songs. And I'm not gonna rate anybody
higher because they wrote songs.
All that matters is what's coming out of the speakers. Knowing and
caring about who wrote a song only clouds a listener like Tim's
judgment of what he's hearing.
Way Back Jack
<tdwill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>T'was John Lennon who astutely observed that Elvis "died" when he went
>into the Army.
Wonder what he meant by that. Seem to recall that Elvis had a few
more hits after 1958.
Maybe he was talking about Elvis departure from the basic rock 'n'
roll stylings of the 50s. I would point out that a lot of E's 70s
stuff was very similar to his 50s offerings .. "a hunka hunka burnin'
love ...."
As for the subject in question, "Treat Me Nice" was a top 10 hit
locally. The disc was a genuine two-sided smash here.
Sharx35
"Tim" <tdwill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bffcf9d7-cef7-49b3...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
While his murder was certainly not justifiable, I do believe that his
so-called talent was greatly over-rated. Also, all that peace shit was so
much bullshit, along with the bullshit trips to India.
Sharx35
"50s" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8b9b518f-dd4d-4991...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Lord forbid but I partially agree: I care what comes out of the speakers
when I rate an artist, not whether he or she wrote or produced the record.
However, I also don't care WHAT THE ETHNICITY or RACE of the artist is. Can
you say THAT, Brucie?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Uni
Sounds like the lynch mob is out for you!!!
Uni :-)
Uni
I can, Mr. Sharx.
Uni
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Uni
When I was a tiny tot, my favorite Elvis song was Rock-a-Hoola, however
you spell it. While the other tots were sucking their thumbs, I was
snapping my fingers to Elvis!
Uni :-)
Tim
That's "Clarifiy" rather than "Cloud".
50s
Cloud was correct. When you listen to music and judge how good it is,
all that matters is what's coming out of the speakers. Once you start
changing your opinion based on who wrote it, or any other outside fact
that has NOTHING to do with what the record sounds like, your judgment
has been clouded.
If you heard a recording and thought it was great, would it then
become not great if you later discovered that
it was not actually written by the artist himself, even though his
name was listed as the writer?
Why should that matter? The sound of the record doesn't change
because you have discovered this fact.
Dean F.
> Sounds like the lynch mob is out for you!!!
"Lynch mob," nothing! I was making a legitimate point - a skill that
you've yet to display in these newsgroups.
Uni
I have yet heard anyone mention overdubbing. That was a serious side
effect to Rock & Roll, because the really wasn't that many great artists.
Uni
Roger Ford
>On Dec 23, 10:01=A0am, Tim <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 11:14=A0pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 21, 12:57=A0pm, Tim <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Yeahbutt .. what percentage of his hit songs, big or small, were
>> > > handed to him on a silver platter by accomplished songwriters, just t=
>o
>> > > catch a ride on the Elvis money express? And why did this formula for
>> > > hit songs get itself crushed by 60's "self contained" singer/
>> > > songwriters?
>>
>> > Why do so many rock fans insist on looking down at singers who didn't/
>> > don't write their own material? Has anyone ever claimed that Caruso or
>> > Pavarotti were bullshit because they never wrote a song? Why hold rock
>> > 'n' roll to a higher--or at least different--standard than so-called
>> > "serious music?"
>>
>> Actually, we're not looking down on the singers, but rather we're
>> snickering at the fans of these singers who treat them as thought they
>> should rate right along side the gifted singer/songwriters.
>
>I'm with Dean here. Recording artists should rate based on their
>recordings, not on who wrote the songs. All that matters is what is
>coming out of the speakers. I could care less that the Kingsmen didn't
>write "Louie Louie." Their version is the definitive version and
>that's all that matters. I could care less that Elvis didn't write
>songs. All I care about is what the record sounds like when i hear it.
>
>I'm not gonna rate Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby or Elvis Presley any
>lower because they didn't write songs. And I'm not gonna rate anybody
>higher because they wrote songs.
>
>All that matters is what's coming out of the speakers. Knowing and
>caring about who wrote a song only clouds a listener like Tim's
>judgment of what he's hearing.
>
I could not agree with Bruce and Dean more on this.
Its how the recording SOUNDS that really counts. Whether or not the
act wrote the song themselves is neither here nor there. If the answer
is in the affirmative it adds NOTHING to the recording as far as I'm
concerned and if its in the negative it takes NOTHING away!!
As Bruce rightly says the bottom line here is is
>All that matters is what's coming out of the speakers.
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
50s
> Way Back Jack wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:17:05 -0800 (PST), Tim
> > <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>T'was John Lennon who astutely observed that Elvis "died" when he went
> >>into the Army.
>
> > Wonder what he meant by that. Seem to recall that Elvis had a few
> > more hits after 1958.
>
> > Maybe he was talking about Elvis departure from the basic rock 'n'
> > roll stylings of the 50s. I would point out that a lot of E's 70s
> > stuff was very similar to his 50s offerings .. "a hunka hunka burnin'
> > love ...."
>
> > As for the subject in question, "Treat Me Nice" was a top 10 hit
> > locally. The disc was a genuine two-sided smash here.
>
> When I was a tiny tot, my favorite Elvis song was Rock-a-Hoola,
We don't care what was happening 4 months ago.
And that's a shit record besides.
Tim
I feel our fundamental difference of opinion has run it's course.
AllaBest
> T'was John Lennon who astutely observed that Elvis "died" when he went
> into the Army.
Sorry, but John was not always correct in his assessments!
This is hardly having "Died"!
50s
So far everybody else in the thread agrees with me.
Dean F.
> So far everybody else in the thread agrees with me.
Yeah, but we're just ignorant philistines, y'know.
Mark Dintenfass
<03b6ddf9-7243-44ed...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, 50s
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If you heard a recording and thought it was great, would it then
> > > become not great if you later discovered that
> > > it was not actually written by the artist himself, even though his
> > > name was listed as the writer?
> >
> > > Why should that matter? �The sound of the record doesn't change
> > > because you have discovered this fact.
> >
> > I feel our fundamental difference of opinion has run it's course.
>
>
> So far everybody else in the thread agrees with me.
Those that disagree are tired of this old argument.
Happy holidays everyone!
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
50s
> In article
> <03b6ddf9-7243-44ed-9486-6fd5a5833...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, 50s
>
> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If you heard a recording and thought it was great, would it then
> > > > become not great if you later discovered that
> > > > it was not actually written by the artist himself, even though his
> > > > name was listed as the writer?
>
> > > > Why should that matter? The sound of the record doesn't change
> > > > because you have discovered this fact.
>
> > > I feel our fundamental difference of opinion has run it's course.
>
> > So far everybody else in the thread agrees with me.
>
> Those that disagree are tired of this old argument.
I'd be tired too if i was on the illogical side of a debate. The
record doesn't suddenly sound any different just because you discover
that someone else wrote the song.
All that matters is what's coming out of the speakers.
"Chain Of Fools" by Aretha Franklin remains just as great whether or
not she and Covay stole the song from a gospel group. It's interesting
to know, but it doesn't change the record.
Tell me, if you suddenly discovered that Fats Domino paid $100 to
Bobby Charles to ghost write "I'm In Love Again" would you like the
record any less than you do now?
F R
into the Army.
And someone just as astute must have mentioned that John Lennon "died"
when he hooked up with Yoko? Oh no!!
F R
All that matters is what's coming out of the speakers.
ROGER FORD
Agreed, except that TWO things come out of the speakers.. the music and
the lyrics. Some people are cheating themselves when not paying
attention to the latter. In a good many songs, lyrics aren't important,
but in just as many or more, they are.
Would "60 Minute Man" be as popular without its lyrics?
Frank
50s
> As Bruce rightly says the bottom line here is is
> All that matters is what's coming out of the speakers.
> ROGER FORD
> ----------------------------
> Agreed, except that TWO things come out of the speakers.. the music and
> the lyrics. Some people are cheating themselves when not paying
> attention to the latter. In a good many songs, lyrics aren't important,
> but in just as many or more, they are.
That's up to the individual listener to decide.
F R
Frank
Or "Roll Over Beethoven"?
And those are 2 uptempo songs. So many doo-wop "love" ballads' lyrics
were important to those of us who were of a certain age when we heard
them.
50s
> Would "60 Minute Man" be as popular without its lyrics?
> Frank
> -----------------------
> Or "Roll Over Beethoven"?
"Roll Over Beethoven" was not all that popular. It failed to even make
the top 25 on the pop charts, probably BECAUSE off the lyrics that
some establishment people no doubt found objectionable. I would bet
that many program directors on mainstream radio stations would not
play the record.
Mark Dintenfass
<39c7070e-1fd4-4719...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, 50s
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
I'll be as brief about this as I can, since we've gone over and over it
in the past.
First, just as a matter of of fact, what "comes out of the speakers" is
just air vibrations. It takes a brain to translate the vibrations into
sound and a mind to translate the sound into what we call music.
Second, more importantly, to say that you like or dislike a record is
simple enough, but ask most people WHY they like or dislike the record,
and they might talk about a number of different things: the tune, the
words, the performance, the arrangement, the quality of the
instrumentation, the genre, and so on. That's because liking or
disliking something like a piece of music is complicated, even if the
complications produce something simple like a gut reaction. In part,
what we like is the kick of experiencing something being done well, and
the kick is greater if there are multiple things being done well. I
like a lot of Fats Domino records. I like him better on those records
where he's singing a really good song. I like him even more when his
piano playing is really good, too. So even if I'm not consciously
thinking about it, it takes a bunch of different things to add up to my
"gut reaction" to the record. And yes, because I get pleasure from
people doing things well, it adds something to my enjoyment of his
records when I know he had a hand in the writing as well.
So no, it's not just "what's coming out of the speakers," except on a
dumb superficial level. For a smart guy, you seem amazingly uncurious
about your own responses to the thing you enjoy the most.
F R
"Roll Over Beethoven" was not all that popular. It failed to even make
the top 25 on the pop charts, probably BECAUSE off the lyrics that some
establishment people no doubt found objectionable. I would bet that many
program directors on mainstream radio stations would not play the
record.
You may well be correct Bruce, but I'd guess you know the lyrics whether
they are important to you or not.
While, as you point out, it did not chart very high, I believe the
lyrics are what makes this song one of the "anthems" for many historians
and archivists such as yourself.
50s
So, I repeat. If you found out now that Bobby Charles actually wrote
"I'm In Love Again" would it then detrect from your enjoyment of the
song?
If yes, that is dumb.
> So no, it's not just "what's coming out of the speakers," except on a
> dumb superficial level. For a smart guy, you seem amazingly uncurious
> about your own responses to the thing you enjoy the most.
It's dumb and superficial for someone to change their opinion of a
piece of music based upon something that has nothing to do with how
the music sounds.
Knowing who wrote the song is superficial compared to just reacting to
what you are hearing. It's totally abstract knowledge that has nothing
to do with the finished product.
I'm sorry to hear that you are incapable of simply losing yourself in
the music.Judging music is not a mental exercise, it is entirely en
emotional exercise. Either it hits you, or it doesn't.
If you hear something you don;t need to know anything about it to
decide if it's good or not. It matters not who the artist is, when
it's from, who wrote it, or anything else.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS THROUGH YOUR
EARS AND INTO YOUR BRAIN.
Sharx35
"F R" <espo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19436-4B3...@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net...
Some records have such great lyrics that they are good NO MATTER who the
artist is.
Sharx35
"F R" <espo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19437-4B3...@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net...
Precisely. We're not metrosexual wusses like Bruthie.
Scarlotti
BRAVO!!!
Now try rephrasing that to include race:
"Once you start changing your opinion based on who wrote it, *what his
race was*, or any other outside fact that has NOTHING to do with what
Scarlotti
None of which challenges Bruce's argument. Tune, words, performance,
genre, etc., are all elements that have a bearing on the overall
sound. Authorship is not.
50s
Race would be included in "any other outside fact."
All that matters is what's coming out of the speakers.
It just so happens that most of time what's coming out of the speakers
sounds much better to me when the artist is black.
50s
I guarantee there are lots of records that Mark likes a lot where he
thinks that the song was written by the artist but in fact, the artist
either stole it from somewhere or paid some other songwriter for the
song. That kind of thing went on all the time in the 40s and 50s.
I can't fathom hearing a record and not deciding whether or not i like
it a lot until I know who the artist is, let alone know who wrote it.
When I hear something that I haven't heard before I will know pretty
quickly if I hate it, like it, love it, or don't think much of it.
Knowing who the artist is is only important so I can identify it and
catalog it, but that has no bearing on what I think of the record.
Fats Domino is my favorite artist, but there are several of his
records that I like better by other people, like "Would You" by Dave
Bartholomew and "I'm Gonna Be A Wheel Someday" by Bobby Mitchell.
Ron Fowler
own personality and style into it. Guys like Fats Domino and Chuck Berry
did this from time to time, in addition to writing their own material.
When their records come on, you immediately know who it is. Same with
Elvis. Doesn't matter that he didn't write the songs. Elvis took the
songs and made them his own. I'm sure Doc Pomus, Mort Shuman, Otis
Blackwell, Leiber and Stoller didn't mind when Elvis had a hit with one
of their songs.
Sharx35
"50s" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:97c34d39-1597-4e99...@27g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
No doubt you celebrate that bullshit holiday, Kwanza, instead of Christmas?
>
Uni
I thought it was Good Vibrations, especially, in Stereo!!!!!
Uni :-)
Mark Dintenfass
<29f836fc-1b84-44ec...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, 50s
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
As usual, you've reduced the whole argument to a simple straw man
that's easy to attack. I never said I would stop liking a record
because I found out I was mistaken about it's authorship, but you will
go on hammering at your straw man no matter what I say. Since there is
no way of convincing you that your "emotional response" to music is
worth the "mental exercise" of thinking about it (if you think you were
simply born with your current emotional reactions, you're wrong), I'll
step out now.
Mark Dintenfass
<96fce0a7-1650-488a...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Scarlotti <Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:
Since you're merely parroting Bruce's straw man, see my response to him.
DianeE
"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:251220091021436798%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
-----------------
I feel compelled to point out here that there *are* people who would stop
liking a record because they found out some upsetting information about the
artist, and I'm one of them.
As I've mentioned here before, this happened to me with Michael Jackson as
he got freakier and freakier--I couldn't enjoy his early records at all any
more.
It's true that most of the artists whose work I enjoy most were not nice
people at all. But there's just a certain line that some of them cross, and
then I can't listen to them any more. Why MJ and not Little Walter or Ike
Turner, I do not know.
But for me sometimes the emotional reaction to what the artist has done
outside the studio overrides the emotional reaction to what is coming out of
the speakers.
I don't apologize for that. I don't think I'd be a better person if I felt
differently.
DianeE
50s
> "Mark Dintenfass" <mdintenf...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:251220091021436798%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <29f836fc-1b84-44ec-80a9-0b60df0fa...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, 50s
Simple, you like Ike and Walter much more than you liked Michael. It's
easy to give up Michael because his music was never all that great to
you in the first place. Your conscience will only go so far.
Mark Dintenfass
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
That's an interesting sidelight to the argument. My position (and
yours, I think) is that you can't separate what you know from what you
feel--that what you know or think you know actually creates some of
what you feel. It's really pretty obvious. Music is, like all arts, a
form of expression--and what's being expressed in part is a product of
who's doing the expressing. Often, because performers create images of
themselves for their audiences, we can't know that much about the
"real" person behind the image, but if the created image gets shattered
or disarranged, as it was so blatantly with Michael Jackson, our
response is certainly going to be affected.
As for why you respond differently to MJ than to Ike Turner, I suspect
(going by my own reactions) it's because Turner merely evokes moral
disapproval while Jackson evokes a creepy sense of disgust. Moral
disapproval may interfere a bit with our response to Turner (though
there's a long history of people responding positively to performers
because they are somehow "bad"), but creepy disgust is a lot stronger
and can't so be easily set aside.
50s
> In article <BfKdncIUDoQJd6nWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdn...@giganews.com>, DianeE
>
>
>
>
>
> <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> > "Mark Dintenfass" <mdintenf...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:251220091021436798%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
> > > In article
> > > <29f836fc-1b84-44ec-80a9-0b60df0fa...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, 50s
Incredible. There's no creepy disgust. She just is not willing to
sacrafice the Ike Turner records that she likes much more than the
Michael Jackson records.
When I hear "I Want You Back" or "Billie Jean" I just enjoy the record
without even thinking about the people who perform it. It's a record.
What difference does it make what the people who perform it are like?
I have no interest in knowing those people. They are being compensated
to provide a service, just like the guy who delivers the mail or the
guy who fixes my car. As long as they do their job well that's all I
care about.
DianeE
--------------
Actually, Mark is right. There *is* creepy disgust. Same thing with
Charlie Manson's records. Refuse to even listen to them.
---------------
When I hear "I Want You Back" or "Billie Jean" I just enjoy the record
without even thinking about the people who perform it. It's a record.
What difference does it make what the people who perform it are like?
I have no interest in knowing those people. They are being compensated
to provide a service, just like the guy who delivers the mail or the
guy who fixes my car. As long as they do their job well that's all I
care about.
-----------
If I found out my mechanic was a child molester I wouldn't bring my car to
him any more. If he had weird plastic surgery that made me feel
uncomfortable I wouldn't bring my car to him either. I can't do anything
about who delivers my mail, so that's not relevant.
DianeE
50s
> "50s" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in message
Sure you can, you can move.
Tim
> On Dec 22, 4:17 pm, Tim <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > T'was John Lennon who astutely observed that Elvis "died" when he went
> > into the Army.
>
And I'm imperfectly entitled to think otherwise.
> This is hardly having "Died"!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z54-QHEZN6E
That was both dead and lame, all at once.
Tim
Ohh brother...
50s
But yet you told me yesterday that you still listen to "The Way You
Make Me Feel" by Michael Jackson, which proves that your disgust will
be ignored if you think enough of the record,
DianeE via Google
------------
Let's add some context here: We were watching Stevie Wonder and John
Legend perform the song on TV when I made that remark. Stevie Wonder
did a great job on that song. If his recording were available I would
prefer it to Jackson's.
DianeE
50s
But you'll still listen to Jackson's sometimes despite the "creepy
disgust."
And if he had records that you liked enough you'd listen to them to.
DianeE
But you'll still listen to Jackson's sometimes despite the "creepy
disgust."
And if he had records that you liked enough you'd listen to them to.
----------------
Bruce, I don't understand what you think this means.
I always have some kind of an emotional reaction to the music. But
sometimes I also have an emotional reaction to the artist. It could be
positive (Ricky Nelson, for example) or it could be negative (Diana Ross,
Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra, etc.).
Sometimes one outweighs the other, and sometimes it's the other way around.
I dislike listening to Frank Sinatra because of who he was, but I am very
fond of one record he sang--"Young At Heart." I like listening to Ricky
Nelson but some of his records are so terrible that even I can't listen to
them.
In every case it's a question of two conflicting emotions, and one of them
has to be stronger than the other. What is so fucking strange about that?
DianeE
50s
What it means is that no matter how much you despise something that
the artist did in his real life, if you like the record enough you
will still listen to it.
> I always have some kind of an emotional reaction to the music. But
> sometimes I also have an emotional reaction to the artist. It could be
> positive (Ricky Nelson, for example) or it could be negative (Diana Ross,
> Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra, etc.).
>
> Sometimes one outweighs the other, and sometimes it's the other way around.
> I dislike listening to Frank Sinatra because of who he was,
I don't get it. What is wrong with Frank in your eyes? Your politics
are certainly similar. He was probably a much better person than lots
of people that you love to listen to.
> but I am very
> fond of one record he sang--"Young At Heart." I like listening to Ricky
> Nelson but some of his records are so terrible that even I can't listen to
> them.
>
> In every case it's a question of two conflicting emotions, and one of them
> has to be stronger than the other. What is so fucking strange about that?
>
> DianeE
It's strange to me that anybody would care about the person making the
recording. Having an emotional reaction to the music has nothing to do
with an emotional reaction the person making the music. Recording
artists are no different than actors. They are performing. What they
do when they are not performing is irrelevant.
I like to hear stories about artists that I like, they are
entertaining, but it never affects what I think about their music.
Tim
> Tim wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 11:14 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 21, 12:57 pm, Tim <tdwilliams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Yeahbutt .. what percentage of his hit songs, big or small, were
> >>>handed to him on a silver platter by accomplished songwriters, just to
> >>>catch a ride on the Elvis money express? And why did this formula for
> >>>hit songs get itself crushed by 60's "self contained" singer/
> >>>songwriters?
>
> >>Why do so many rock fans insist on looking down at singers who didn't/
> >>don't write their own material? Has anyone ever claimed that Caruso or
> >>Pavarotti were bullshit because they never wrote a song? Why hold rock
> >>'n' roll to a higher--or at least different--standard than so-called
> >>"serious music?"
>
> > Actually, we're not looking down on the singers, but rather we're
> > snickering at the fans of these singers who treat them as thought they
> > should rate right along side the gifted singer/songwriters.
>
>
> Uni :-)
Fuck'em : )
Sharx35
"DianeE" <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote in message
news:uLqdncYa9IfZV6vW...@giganews.com...
Ditto for Wynooooonie, Howwwwwwlling woooooolf, Little WAllllllter, etc...
They just sound terrible to human ears.
DianeE
-------------------
He sang about love but in the same breath called women broads, chicks, and
other things not all of which could be put on vinyl back then. He was a
misogynist.
-------------------
> but I am very
> fond of one record he sang--"Young At Heart." I like listening to Ricky
> Nelson but some of his records are so terrible that even I can't listen to
> them.
>
> In every case it's a question of two conflicting emotions, and one of them
> has to be stronger than the other. What is so fucking strange about that?
>
It's strange to me that anybody would care about the person making the
recording. Having an emotional reaction to the music has nothing to do
with an emotional reaction the person making the music. Recording
artists are no different than actors. They are performing. What they
do when they are not performing is irrelevant.
--------------
If John Wilkes Booth had made any movies I wouldn't watch them either!
--------------
I like to hear stories about artists that I like, they are
entertaining, but it never affects what I think about their music.
----------------
Well, I know that guy Bono is a great humanitarian and raises all this money
for charilty and was on the cover of TiME magazine and all, but I still
can't stand his singing or U2's so-called music. So (as Herman's Hermits
put it) this door swings both ways.
DianeE
50s
Muddy Waters had much less respect for women than Frank did. Using
slang terms like "broad" was nothing compared to Muddy's escapades,
not to mention several other artists that you like who smacked women
around.
Have you stopped listening to Larry Williams the pimp?
Uni
Two groups/artist ban from NFL, The Who and Gary Glitter. F'k 'em :-)
Uni
>
>
Uni
That's the spirit!!! :-)
Have a Merry one.
Uni
Sharx35
"DianeE" <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote in message
news:CIGdnYzX28J7Z6vW...@giganews.com...
He CLAIMS to raise money although there is NO proof that he has ever
contributed ONE CENT of his OWN money to any charitable cause. Bono is an
asswad, a poor musician and a dip wad, to boot.
Uni
Was Spector's fetch-it boy!
Uni
DianeE
-------------
He LOVED women!
----------------
not to mention several other artists that you like who smacked women
around.
-----------------
Nobody worshipped Ike Turner or Phil Spector as a god, like they did with
Sinatra.
-----------------
Have you stopped listening to Larry Williams the pimp?
-----------
Again, he's not a major artist. I never listened to him that much in the
first place. I didn't know who sang "Boney Moroney" when I was a kid. I
didn't hear any of his other records until the 1990s, probably. Still
couldn't name 5 of his records without looking it up. Couldn't name *3* of
them, actually. Did he do "Slow Down?"
Whereas Sinatra was like the Beatles of his day, "more popular than Jesus."
Young people worshipped his *style* while critics praised his musical
skills. My whole life I had an intensely negative visceral reaction to that
*style*. It wasn't just the misogyny, it was the materialism and the
cynicism and above all that ring a ding ding bullshit!
DianeE
50s
You couldn't name "Short Fat Fannie" "Bony Moronie" and "Dizzy Miss
Lizzy?"
>Did he do "Slow Down?"
Nice rationalizations, but you know he was a pimp, so you should
refuse to listen to anything by him ever again.
> Whereas Sinatra was like the Beatles of his day, "more popular than Jesus."
> Young people worshipped his *style* while critics praised his musical
> skills. My whole life I had an intensely negative visceral reaction to that
> *style*. It wasn't just the misogyny, it was the materialism and the
> cynicism and above all that ring a ding ding bullshit!
What materialism? Frank was not walking around with tons of jewelry
and ridiculously expensive clothes like some of today's stars. He
wasn't driving some insnaely expensive car like many stars. If his
music was not really your thing that's fine, but loads of artists that
you really love were way worse people than Frank.
F R
If his music was not really your thing that's fine, but loads of artists
that you really love were way worse people than Frank.
Well, thanks Bruce. I just knew we could be pals.
Frank
DianeE
On Dec 27, 8:14 am, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> "50s" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Have you stopped listening to Larry Williams the pimp?
> -----------
> Again, he's not a major artist. I never listened to him that much in the
> first place. I didn't know who sang "Boney Moroney" when I was a kid. I
> didn't hear any of his other records until the 1990s, probably. Still
> couldn't name 5 of his records without looking it up. Couldn't name *3* of
> them, actually.
You couldn't name "Short Fat Fannie" "Bony Moronie" and "Dizzy Miss
Lizzy?"
-----------------
I had no idea he did "Dizzy Miss Lizzy"--I knew the Beatles didn't write it
but I couldn't tell you who the original artist was. If you'd asked me who
recorded "Short Fat Fannie" I probably couldn't have answered, or I might
have guessed Little Richard. Larry Williams isn't real big on my radar
screen.
>Did he do "Slow Down?"
--------------
Did he?
--------------
Nice rationalizations, but you know he was a pimp, so you should
refuse to listen to anything by him ever again.
------------
Do you think I'd be terribly upset if I could never hear "Bony Moroney"
again? Get real!
------------
> Whereas Sinatra was like the Beatles of his day, "more popular than
> Jesus."
> Young people worshipped his *style* while critics praised his musical
> skills. My whole life I had an intensely negative visceral reaction to
> that
> *style*. It wasn't just the misogyny, it was the materialism and the
> cynicism and above all that ring a ding ding bullshit!
What materialism? Frank was not walking around with tons of jewelry
and ridiculously expensive clothes like some of today's stars. He
wasn't driving some insnaely expensive car like many stars. If his
music was not really your thing that's fine, but loads of artists that
you really love were way worse people than Frank.
-----------
Sinatra was like Leona Helmsley except she couldn't sing. So people hated
her when she said "We don't pay taxes, only the little people pay taxes."
But they idolized Sinatra who essentially had that same attitude of "The
rules don't apply to me because I'm king of the world." It's Frank's world,
we just live in it. NOT. I don't know what kind of car he drove but you
can bet it wasn't a Ford.
DianeE
Sharx35
"50s" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6cc543dd-f15a-42ed...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
What he said. Really. Hundreds of ghetto assholes, all blinged out...makes
me wanna barf.
Scarlotti
I've read a few Sinatra biographies, and if there's any truth to the
stories related in them, I'd say you've got Francis Albert pegged.
How's this for materialistic? The man built a heliport, a string of
cottages, added 25 phones lines and a teletype to his Palm Springs
mansion because he *expected* President Kennedy to use it as his West
Coast White House. When JFK bowed out (due to Sinatra's mob
associations), Frank flew into a fit of rage and attacked the concrete
heliport with a sledgehammer.
xpen...@gmail.com
>
>What he said. Really. Hundreds of ghetto assholes, all blinged out...makes
>me wanna barf.
Looks like he forgot to tell that to his Rat Pack buddy Sammy Davis.
>
>
Sharx35
<xpen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sl4ij5pqq3s23s4i9...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>What he said. Really. Hundreds of ghetto assholes, all blinged out...makes
>>me wanna barf.
>
> Looks like he forgot to tell that to his Rat Pack buddy Sammy Davis.
>>
>>
>
Sammy Davis left the ghetto FAR behind him. He was hardly even blinged out.
Jay Dorfman
Dean F.
> On 2009-12-21 22:57:22 -0800, Scarlotti said:
don't even post anything to it? Get lost already.
The Bloomfield Bloviator
more fitting name for this schmuck unles he changed the f to a k.