Could The Hit Parade HoF Be The Cure For The Deficient Rock HoF?
curtjester1
http://www.hitparadehalloffame.org/
Rock Hall Of Fame
http://www.rockhall.com/
The Hit Parade HoF seems to be more people-orientated.
CJ
Sharx35
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:244dbdb1-5cd7-4424...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
People as opposed to crack monkey performers?
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I think the people are voting and not performing....but we are taking
all wise-crackers.
CJ
Dean F.
> People as opposed to crack monkey performers?
Or in your case: "people, as opposed to hate-mongering bigots."
Sharx35
"Dean F." <soule...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5af09327-93af-4c47...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 5:41 am, "Sharx35" <shar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> People as opposed to crack monkey performers?
>
> Or in your case: "people, as opposed to hate-mongering bigots."
>
In the mind of Dean F. and the other DEMONrats here, if you are white and
express a strong opinion, you are a "hate-mongering bigot" but if you are of
colour and express a strong opinion, you are simply "throwing off the yoke
of whitey".
robert...@gmail.com
> "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > On Apr 2, 5:41 am, "Sharx35" <shar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> People as opposed to crack monkey performers?
>
> > Or in your case: "people, as opposed to hate-mongering bigots."
>
> In the mind of Dean F. and the other DEMONrats here, if you are white and
> express a strong opinion, you are a "hate-mongering bigot" but if you are of
> colour and express a strong opinion, you are simply "throwing off the yoke
> of whitey".
Sharx, Dean just called you a bigot. He didn't say anything
inaccurate. Check the dictionary. I'm sure you will be fine with
what you find there.
--
Bob Roman
curtjester1
Well, I don't care about the residents and I see plenty of varying
color in both Hall arenas. The Hit Parade is for all genres of music
where as the Rock HoF has more of a exclusive area.
In the Hit Parade, one can have three sponsoring groups for
submitting. I suggested Bob Seger, Mary Wells, and the Buffalo
Springfield. What does that make me?
CJ
Sharx35
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a90f066-7a8f-46cd...@c11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Shove it.
Sharx35
An astute observer of music.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> Hit Parade Hall Of Famehttp://www.hitparadehalloffame.org/
>
> Rock Hall Of Famehttp://www.rockhall.com/
>
> The Hit Parade HoF seems to be more people-orientated.
>
> CJ
I LOVE the Hit Parade HOF. I helped vote several of my favorite
artists in last year. IMO it's not so much people-oriented as it is
fan-oriented - in that it seems to include nearly all the top charting
artists of the 50s. To me, this approach is much more valid (FAME
should be the prime criteria for induction into a "Hall of Fame") than
that of the Rock Hall, which excludes top selling artists on the
grounds that their #1 hits were "covers" of less popular records by
lesser known artists.
Thanks for helping to spread the word, CJ.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
The accuracy/inaccuracy of Dean's statement is not the issue. The
purpose of this forum should be to discuss 50s music - not to label
(and/or slander) other members as "bigots."
Boogity Boogity
FAME
> should be the prime criteria for induction into a "Hall of Fame")
That's indisputable. But the meaning and measurement of "fame" are subject
to debate.
Among the debatable points:
With the general public or a smaller, more specialized group?
Then or now?
--
Bill
robert...@gmail.com
> On Apr 4, 11:51 am, robertjro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Sharx, Dean just called you a bigot. He didn't say anything
> > inaccurate. Check the dictionary. I'm sure you will be fine with
> > what you find there.
>
> purpose of this forum should be to discuss 50s music - not to label
> (and/or slander) other members as "bigots."
If it's accurate, it cannot be slander. A bigot is someone who is
rigidly devoted to his own group at the expense of other groups.
Sharx would surely agree that the description fits him. Furthermore,
his belief that black music is inferior to white music is guided by
that opinion. Therefore, there is no reason why he should be offended
by the term.
As for your point about Dean... Given that Sharx's broad-stroke
opinions are driven by his bigotry, it is a reasonable rebuttal for
Dean to point that fact out.
--
Bob Roman
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
I don't believe that the meaning and measurement of "fame" are
debatable. At least not if one takes the word at face value (that is,
reads "fame" to mean in the eyes of the general public at a given
time). A 50s Hall of Fame should reflect fame achieved/enjoyed in the
1950s.
Otherwise the concept of "fame" becomes limited to the knowledge and/
or tastes of later generations. Patti Page, for example, had 111
charted hits, 15 gold records, 4 gold albums, her own tv shows, film
roles and the distinction of having the biggest selling record of her
era (Tennessee Waltz). The fact that few GenXers know who she is
should neither negate her accomplishments, nor reflect upon the level
of fame she enjoyed at the height of her popularity.
For example: to exclude her from a 50's Hall of Fame on the grounds
that she isn't a household name half a century after her era would not
make sense. If the "fame" refers only to the present day, then the
Hall of Fame should be labeled as such, and limit itself to present-
day celebrities.
*Fortunately Patti Page was inducted into the Hit Parade Hall of Fame
in the first year of its existence. :-D
I also think that "fame" should only be measured by the general
public, unless the Hall in question is clearly titled to show that it
is limited to a smaller, specialized group. A Napkin-Ring-Carvers'
HoF, for instance, would be the object of ridicule if it attempted to
imply that its "fame" reached beyond a few dozen afficionados.
The Rock HoF, otoh, ignores far too many of the most popular rock 'n'
roll artists of the 50s on the grounds that modern critics have
decided to reclassify them as "pop."
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
Actually, I said "and/or slander," implying that it may or may not be
the case. I don't think it is right for any of us to judge another,
and assign a label to him, based solely on the content of his posts.
We are each free to form our own opinion of Sharx, but our opinions
should remain private.
Dean's calling Sharx a "hate-mongering bigot" (regardless of whether
one agrees with his opinion), only serves to provoke further personal
attacks.
Anyway, using the dictionary definition of "bigot," the majority of us
would fall under that category, as most of us have a genre (or genres)
of music that we love (and praise to the skies) and at least one genre/
genres that we hate (and openly disparage).
Michael Scarlotti - Proud Disco-ist.
Mark Dintenfass
<171051e4-2c9f-4776...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:
I'll ignore your last comment lest we start old arguments, and I'll
agree up to a point about your definition of "fame." But I think it
might be helpful to distinguish between temporary and lasting fame,
just as we do in other artistic fields. If you're interested in
mid-century American literature, for example, "temporary fame" might
lead you to James Gould Cozzens, an "important writer" back then but
now almost completely and deservedly forgotten; and it would not lead
to Richard Yates, now enduring a substantial (and well-deserved)
revival. Arguing musical importance from the charts is like arguing
literary significance from the best-seller lists, but time has a way of
sorting things out, or obscuring the Salieris and enshrining the
Mozarts, and it's the duty of a hall of fame to recognize this simple
fact.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
curtjester1
I think fan is a better word than people, but I kind of met people as
the fan, and really the people taken out of the process at the top in
a large way, let's the throngs of people listeners have their say in a
larger way.
I am not sure what you mean by artists using covers as I would think
most selected in either Hall would have enough of their own stuff. I
believe the Hit Parade HoF has two top ten's for a basis for
consideration. I think the Rock HoF tries to define what importance
the artist represent and gave and ignores fan likes and too many
artists that had major impacts around the artists they select as
inductees. They seem rather silent too, on answering the critics of
their selections.
CJ
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> In article
> <171051e4-2c9f-4776-ace2-2303af589...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
I'm sorry to say that I'm unfamiliar with both Cozzens and Yates and
can't offer an opinion as to their individual merits. For what it's
worth, Wiki appears to rate both equally.
And as tantalizing as the idea of true talent eventually triumphing
over mere popularity may be, I don't believe the Salieri-Mozart
analogy is applicable. As far as popular music (including rock 'n'
roll) is concerned, I see it as being more of one genre (or offshoot)
replacing another than as one pop artist having more artistic merit
than his/her peers.
Nor have present day critics altered their opinions of 50s pop. From
the period reviews, tv shows, etc., I've come across, it seems that
they have always held the so-called Great American Songbook standards
(by Broadway composers) over the popular music (by Tin Pan Alley
composers) ... and the artists who concentrated on GAS albums over the
hitmakers.
What makes a Cole Porter song better than a Bob Merrill song? You got
me. I only know that I have more favorite Merrill songs than I do
Porters.
Sadly, I believe that time will eventually bury our cultural memory of
the great singers along with the mediocrities. I would never have
heard of Stanley Kirkby if I hadn't discovered an old 78 of his in my
grandmother's attic, and would never have learned of his peers (like
Billy Murray) if I hadn't searched the internet for Kirkby.
My prediction: 100 years from now 20th C popular music will be written
off with a passing mention of Sinatra, Elvis and the Beatles.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
>
Sure the artists have enough of their own stuff to merit inclusion. My
point was that the Rock HoF will never consider an artist like Pat
Boone (2nd only to Elvis in popularity) because most of his big rock
hits were covers.
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 1:09 pm, robertjro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 11:42 am, Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 4, 11:51 am, robertjro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > Sharx, Dean just called you a bigot. He didn't say anything
>> > > inaccurate. Check the dictionary. I'm sure you will be fine with
>> > > what you find there.
>>
>> > The accuracy/inaccuracy of Dean's statement is not the issue. The
>> > purpose of this forum should be to discuss 50s music - not to label
>> > (and/or slander) other members as "bigots."
>>
>> If it's accurate, it cannot be slander. A bigot is someone who is
>> rigidly devoted to his own group at the expense of other groups.
>> Sharx would surely agree that the description fits him. Furthermore,
>> his belief that black music is inferior to white music is guided by
>> that opinion. Therefore, there is no reason why he should be offended
>> by the term.
>>
>> As for your point about Dean... Given that Sharx's broad-stroke
>> opinions are driven by his bigotry, it is a reasonable rebuttal for
>> Dean to point that fact out.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Roman
>
>Actually, I said "and/or slander," implying that it may or may not be
>the case. I don't think it is right for any of us to judge another,
>and assign a label to him, based solely on the content of his posts.
Why not? Do you really believe that he is any different in real life.
Sharxie and his ilk are the ones that dive conservatives a black eye.
>
>We are each free to form our own opinion of Sharx, but our opinions
>should remain private.
Why?
>
>Dean's calling Sharx a "hate-mongering bigot" (regardless of whether
>one agrees with his opinion), only serves to provoke further personal
>attacks.
If that is your feeling how come you've never seen fit to Sharxie to
task?
Boogity Boogity
> On Apr 6, 11:45 am, "Boogity Boogity" <wlastn...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
>>
>> FAME
>>
>>> should be the prime criteria for induction into a "Hall of Fame")
>>
>> That's indisputable. But the meaning and measurement of "fame" are
>> subject to debate.
>>
>> Among the debatable points:
>>
>> With the general public or a smaller, more specialized group?
>>
>> Then or now?
> I don't believe that the meaning and measurement of "fame" are
> debatable. At least not if one takes the word at face value (that is,
> reads "fame" to mean in the eyes of the general public at a given
> time).
I don't agree that the word at face value means the general public at a
given time. That's what's debatable.
By the way, I notice there is not one black person out of 37 on the
nominating committee of the Hit Parade Hall Of Fame.
--
Bill
curtjester1
many black management people in the record business during the
heyday's of their careers. Many of the nominating committee's
influences are that of help making the careers of black artists. And
then too, I believe the majority of their 'nominating' is due to the
response of the fan's original nomination and not their's (as is in
the Rock HoF).
CJ
> --
> Bill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark Dintenfass
<87f6cb29-5073-4ec4...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2:37 pm, Mark Dintenfass <mdintenf...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <171051e4-2c9f-4776-ace2-2303af589...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> > I'll ignore your last comment lest we start old arguments, and I'll
> > agree up to a point about your definition of "fame." But I think it
> > might be helpful to distinguish between temporary and lasting fame,
> > just as we do in other artistic fields. If you're interested in
> > mid-century American literature, for example, "temporary fame" might
> > lead you to James Gould Cozzens, an "important writer" back then but
> > now almost completely and deservedly forgotten; and it would not lead
> > to Richard Yates, now enduring a substantial (and well-deserved)
> > revival. Arguing musical importance from the charts is like arguing
> > literary significance from the best-seller lists, but time has a way of
> > sorting things out, or obscuring the Salieris and enshrining the
> > Mozarts, and it's the duty of a hall of fame to recognize this simple
> > fact.
> >
> > --
> > --md
>
> I'm sorry to say that I'm unfamiliar with both Cozzens and Yates and
> can't offer an opinion as to their individual merits. For what it's
> worth, Wiki appears to rate both equally.
>
> And as tantalizing as the idea of true talent eventually triumphing
> over mere popularity may be, I don't believe the Salieri-Mozart
> analogy is applicable. As far as popular music (including rock 'n'
> roll) is concerned, I see it as being more of one genre (or offshoot)
> replacing another than as one pop artist having more artistic merit
> than his/her peers.
Really? You think, for example, Frankie Laine and Fabian are equal in
artistic merit and simply represent different genres? I'm going to
assume you misspoke. If not, I strongly disagree.
> Nor have present day critics altered their opinions of 50s pop. From
> the period reviews, tv shows, etc., I've come across, it seems that
> they have always held the so-called Great American Songbook standards
> (by Broadway composers) over the popular music (by Tin Pan Alley
> composers) ... and the artists who concentrated on GAS albums over the
> hitmakers.
>
> What makes a Cole Porter song better than a Bob Merrill song? You got
> me. I only know that I have more favorite Merrill songs than I do
> Porters.
>
> Sadly, I believe that time will eventually bury our cultural memory of
> the great singers along with the mediocrities. I would never have
> heard of Stanley Kirkby if I hadn't discovered an old 78 of his in my
> grandmother's attic, and would never have learned of his peers (like
> Billy Murray) if I hadn't searched the internet for Kirkby.
One problem with your analogy is that the recording technology was so
bad when Billy Murray was in his prime that the poor sound gets in the
way of experiencing him. From the 1930s on, recordings can be heard
reasonably well, especially when fixed up by digital processing (though
some "fixing up" of early music is quite horrendous.) But now a
"universal jukebox" is essentially available, everything is out there
to be re-discovered, and there's just no telling what might re-surface
and become popular in the future.
>
> My prediction: 100 years from now 20th C popular music will be written
> off with a passing mention of Sinatra, Elvis and the Beatles.
>
Maybe. But it's now 85 years since Louis Armstrong started recording
and there are more than a few people right now, I bet, listening to his
Hot Fives. What I believe the future holds is a multitude of audiences
listening to music from many different times. We're already halfway
there.
Dean F.
> Sharx, Dean just called you a bigot. He didn't say anything
> inaccurate. Check the dictionary. I'm sure you will be fine with
> what you find there.
Mmy definition of bigotry includes anyone who refers to people of
color as "crack monkeys." I'm funny that way.
robert...@gmail.com
> Actually, I said "and/or slander," implying that it may or may not be
> the case. I don't think it is right for any of us to judge another,
> and assign a label to him, based solely on the content of his posts.
>
> We are each free to form our own opinion of Sharx, but our opinions
> should remain private.
>
> Dean's calling Sharx a "hate-mongering bigot" (regardless of whether
> one agrees with his opinion), only serves to provoke further personal
> attacks.
>
> Anyway, using the dictionary definition of "bigot," the majority of us
> would fall under that category, as most of us have a genre (or genres)
> of music that we love (and praise to the skies) and at least one genre/
> genres that we hate (and openly disparage).
Genres are not people, so disparaging a genre is not an example of
bigotry. Let's not lose the point.
Dean was not upset at Sharx's taste. He was upset at the term "crack
monkey" as a label for African Americans. To say Dean is not
permitted to express offense at that term is absurd.
Equally absurd is someone with your history lecturing us on the danger
of provocation.
--
Bob Roman
robert...@gmail.com
> should be the prime criteria for induction into a "Hall of Fame")
That argument is historically inaccurate. The phrase "hall of fame"
was used before actual Halls were created. It was originally an
informal term. For example, if someone did something noteworthy a
writer could make a comment along the lines "That man just earned a
spot in the hall of fame." The person being honored is not honored
for his fame, but rather for merit. The statement meant his
achievement deserves to make him famous.
The first physical Halls of Fame followed the same logic. The
inaugural class of baseball players inducted to the baseball Hall of
Fame in Cooperstown were not necessarily the most famous, but rather
the greatest figures in the sport's history.
--
Bob Roman
Dean F.
> Dean was not upset at Sharx's taste. He was upset at the term "crack
> monkey" as a label for African Americans. To say Dean is not
> permitted to express offense at that term is absurd.
Sharx is just bitter that his precious Republicans got their asses so
thoroughly handed to them on Election Night. Notice that he still
insists on raving about "LIEbrals" and "DEMONcrats?" How utterly
pathetic!
Sharx35
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote in message
news:70d2116d-0ec8-4277...@r5g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If that is true about the Rock Hall, it, and those who support it, can go
straight to hell.
Sharx35
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fb9bd45-17fa-4e41...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Asshole, why don't you go and join you faggot friend Dean, stateside? Canada
would be better off.
Sharx35
<xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
news:9cskt4lg42o0f1pbk...@4ax.com...
Assholes like you give LIEbrawls/DEMONrats a black eye.
Sharx35
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c5630d5-b375-4aab...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
You are a fucking ignorant idiot. "Crack monkey" describes a STYLE of
performing, NOT restricted to any particular RACE or ETHNIC group.
Fucking politically correct LIEbrawl types, such as yourself, Dean and
xpenny get bent when there is even a SLIGHT possibility that a minority of
ANY TYPE might be involved.
Sharx35
"Dean F." <soule...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a80a83c2-1b76-40aa...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
MY precious Republicans? Uh, I'm a Canadian--while we do have naive,
ignorant LIEbrawls and NewDUMBocrats in Canada, we do NOT have any
Republicans, unless they are U.S. citizens up here to work, whatever. Wait
until 2012, YOUR precious faggot-loving DEMONrats will have their asses
handed to themselves on a platter.
Sharx35
"Boogity Boogity" <wlas...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:49da749c$0$5908$607e...@cv.net...
So, who gives a fuck about the race of ANY member of any nominating
committee of ANY hall of fame? Only ignorant DEMONrat LIEbrawls. Your
implication is that only members of the same race vote for each other.
Sounds like you are projecting YOUR bias onto others.
Sharx35
"Crack monkeys" with reference to the entertainment industry are those
artists of ANY COLOUR who ACT LIKE CRACK MONKEYS while performing. If a
particular race has a disproportionate number of crack monkeys, it may be
politically incorrect but it is the truth. What is "funny" about fools like
you is your adherence to bullshit politically correct shibboleths.
robert...@gmail.com
> You are a fucking ignorant idiot. "Crack monkey" describes a STYLE of
> performing, NOT restricted to any particular RACE or ETHNIC group.
Come on, Sharx, that's pretty weak. Are you trying to fool us or fool
yourself. Man up and embrace your hatred honestly.
--
Bob Roman
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
Yes, but fame in baseball is derived from statistics (like batting
averages). Fame in music is based on popularity (as reflected on the
charts).
The two fields are practically polar opposites in that sports players
become popular as a result of their achievements (statistics), whereas
music artists earn high statistics (charted songs) based on their
popularity.
And, while one can measure a baseball player's abilities by his
achievements (hits, strikes, home runs, etc.), one cannot measure
those of a successful singer. For while one singer may have perfect
pitch, and another sings flat, the latter might consistently produce
records that appeal to a significantly larger audience.
Lastly, as the various tastes among members of this group indicate,
musical talent/appeal is wholly subjective.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
>
> > Actually, I said "and/or slander," implying that it may or may not be
> > the case. I don't think it is right for any of us to judge another,
> > and assign a label to him, based solely on the content of his posts.
>
> > We are each free to form our own opinion of Sharx, but our opinions
> > should remain private.
>
> > Dean's calling Sharx a "hate-mongering bigot" (regardless of whether
> > one agrees with his opinion), only serves to provoke further personal
> > attacks.
>
> > Anyway, using the dictionary definition of "bigot," the majority of us
> > would fall under that category, as most of us have a genre (or genres)
> > of music that we love (and praise to the skies) and at least one genre/
> > genres that we hate (and openly disparage).
>
> Genres are not people, so disparaging a genre is not an example of
> bigotry. Let's not lose the point.
Here's how Webster Online defines the word "bigot":
": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the
members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance"
Since you were claiming Sharx may be justifiably called a "bigot"
based on a literal definition of the term, I was assuming that you
were referring to his being opinionated (like all of us) and
intolerant of those with whose opinions do not correspond with his.
(Unless I misread you, you stated something to this effect above.)
And, since this is a music-oriented newsgroup, I further assumed that
you were referring to his music-related opinions (his legendary hatred
of "ghetto-dreck").
"Ghetto-dreck" (defined roughly as r&b recordings whose appeal/sales
were limited to a small, inner-city audience) would qualify as a
"genre." Sharx often exhibits intolerance toward members of the group
within this newsgroup that champions r&b/ghetto-dreck.
In which case, my application of the term "bigotry" to "genres" would
be correct.
If, on the other hand, you were claiming that Sharx is bigoted against
African Americans (which you now appear to be implying below), then I
have to conclude that you were in fact slandering him.
For while Sharx often engages in politically incorrect language, he
has never to my knowledge expressed a hatred toward any group of
people (other than "Liebrals" - which would not qualitfy as a "racial
or ethnic" group).
> Dean was not upset at Sharx's taste. He was upset at the term "crack
> monkey" as a label for African Americans. To say Dean is not
> permitted to express offense at that term is absurd.
Dean was baiting him. And in doing so, Dean managed to turn an on-
topic discussion on musical Halls of Fame into yet another flame war.
> Equally absurd is someone with your history lecturing us on the danger
> of provocation.
Please bear in mind that I have not provoked or participated in any
flame wars here for the past 5 years (or so). Can you say the same?
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
I didn't say that.
My intended point was that I don't see *time* as distinguishing
between the artistic merits of pop artists like the above.
Time has, in fact, indiscriminately eroded the fame of both of these
artists.
That Frankie Laine had more vocal ability than Fabian is
indisputable. He also enjoyed a longer period of fame, and had far
more charted hits. However, I maintain that the artistic merit of his
or anyone else's records is entirely subjective. (Karen Shoemer, rock
critic and author of "The Great Pretenders," actually prefers Fabian.)
So, no, I don't feel that I misspoke when I said that time will
ultimately erase our cultural memory of the talented and not-so-
talented alike.
> > Nor have present day critics altered their opinions of 50s pop. From
> > the period reviews, tv shows, etc., I've come across, it seems that
> > they have always held the so-called Great American Songbook standards
> > (by Broadway composers) over the popular music (by Tin Pan Alley
> > composers) ... and the artists who concentrated on GAS albums over the
> > hitmakers.
>
> > What makes a Cole Porter song better than a Bob Merrill song? You got
> > me. I only know that I have more favorite Merrill songs than I do
> > Porters.
>
> > Sadly, I believe that time will eventually bury our cultural memory of
> > the great singers along with the mediocrities. I would never have
> > heard of Stanley Kirkby if I hadn't discovered an old 78 of his in my
> > grandmother's attic, and would never have learned of his peers (like
> > Billy Murray) if I hadn't searched the internet for Kirkby.
>
> One problem with your analogy is that the recording technology was so
> bad when Billy Murray was in his prime that the poor sound gets in the
> way of experiencing him. From the 1930s on, recordings can be heard
> reasonably well, especially when fixed up by digital processing (though
> some "fixing up" of early music is quite horrendous.) But now a
> "universal jukebox" is essentially available, everything is out there
> to be re-discovered, and there's just no telling what might re-surface
> and become popular in the future.
You're an optimist.
I'm glad that a "universal jukebox" currently exists - and especially
glad that I can discover songs by Murray and others simply by
searching the internet. But I cannot reasonably entertain the hope
that future generations will be listening to (or even aware of)
recordings by artists from several generations back.
I agree that the poor recording quality of the earlier records has
most likely contributed to their relative cultural obscurity; but I
don't believe that it is the only (or even the primary) factor. I
also don't see very many cds on Amazon for Bing Crosby's peers from
the early '30s: Gene Austin (3), Whispering Jack Smith 2), Sam Browne
(1), Sam Coslow (1), Johnny Marvin (1), Smith Ballew (0).
> > My prediction: 100 years from now 20th C popular music will be written
> > off with a passing mention of Sinatra, Elvis and the Beatles.
>
> Maybe. But it's now 85 years since Louis Armstrong started recording
> and there are more than a few people right now, I bet, listening to his
> Hot Fives. What I believe the future holds is a multitude of audiences
> listening to music from many different times. We're already halfway
> there.
True. But Armstrong is considered to be Jazz -- not pop. Jazz has
assumed a place among music critics/historians as being on a par with
Classical music. This is a further example of time's selecting a
genre of music over that of an individual artist.
> --
> --md
WilliamWMeyer
"Sharx35" <sha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K6CCl.20481$Db2.4162@edtnps83...
I agree with Bob Roman that this is a pretty weak justification for your
deliberate, purposeful provocation.
Sharx, you're a clown (I don't mean you're an idiot who embarrasses himself,
I mean you're funny)
robert...@gmail.com
> Yes, but fame in baseball is derived from statistics (like batting
> averages). Fame in music is based on popularity (as reflected on the
> charts).
>
> The two fields are practically polar opposites in that sports players
> become popular as a result of their achievements (statistics), whereas
> music artists earn high statistics (charted songs) based on their
> popularity.
>
> And, while one can measure a baseball player's abilities by his
> achievements (hits, strikes, home runs, etc.), one cannot measure
> those of a successful singer. For while one singer may have perfect
> pitch, and another sings flat, the latter might consistently produce
> records that appeal to a significantly larger audience.
>
> Lastly, as the various tastes among members of this group indicate,
> musical talent/appeal is wholly subjective.
It is not correct that there is an exact relationship between fame and
stats in baseball. Some of the most famous players will never get
into the Hall of Fame: Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey, Keith Hernandez,
Joe Carter, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, Fernando Valenzuela,
Mark Fidrych, Eddie Gaedel. When there is a gap between the fame and
the stats, they go with the stats.
And baseball is a special case anyway, because the key action is man-
to-man -- a pitcher vs. a batter. Other sports are more team oriented
-- a football quarterback is only as good as his protection, etc.
Evaluating a good football player, or basketball or hockey player, is
every bit as much a judgment call as evaluating artists.
Finally, a Hall of Fame intended to honor fame would be redundant.
Induction into a Hall in intended to "immortalize." It is not homage
to those who are already immortal.
--
Bob Roman
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 11:45 am, "Boogity Boogity" <wlastn...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
>
> >> FAME
>
> >>> should be the prime criteria for induction into a "Hall of Fame")
>
> >> That's indisputable. But the meaning and measurement of "fame" are
> >> subject to debate.
>
> >> Among the debatable points:
>
> >> With the general public or a smaller, more specialized group?
>
> >> Then or now?
> > I don't believe that the meaning and measurement of "fame" are
> > debatable. At least not if one takes the word at face value (that is,
> > reads "fame" to mean in the eyes of the general public at a given
> > time).
>
> I don't agree that the word at face value means the general public at a
> given time. That's what's debatable.
It's not debatable when clearly defined. For example a "Doo-wop Hall
of Fame" would be largely limited to the late 50s and early 60s. And
the fame (public recognition) of the individual doo-wop performers
would necessarily be mostly limited to that era as well (I doubt many
GenXers have ever heard of The Flamingos).
> By the way, I notice there is not one black person out of 37 on the
> nominating committee of the Hit Parade Hall Of Fame.
I'd never noticed.
I also don't believe that it should matter. Black artists have been
nominated and inducted, so one cannot accuse the Hall of racial
discrimination.
I was raised to believe that the only differences between "blacks" and
"whites" are purely physical and of no more significance than the
differences between a blue-eyed blonde and a green-eyed redhead. I
was also taught that categorizing people by ethnicity is itself a form
of bigotry, and that even with the best of intentions the drawing of
such distinctions only serves to perpetuate racial intolerance in
society at large. Right or wrong, that's what I believe.
Having come of age in the pre-equal rights era, you would
understandably see things differently. I could be wrong, but I
believe that most people my age and younger see things similarly to me
(as evidenced by the election of a black President).
Ideally, a Hall of Fame should recognize fame and/or achievement
(depending on its purposes) by artists of all ethnicities regardless
of the racial background of its committee members.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:36:21 -0700 (PDT), Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com
1. Because this newsgroup isn't called rec.music.rock-pop-r+b-sharx.
1950s.
2. Because voicing negative opinions about other members is ill-
mannered and in violation of the usernet rules.
> >Dean's calling Sharx a "hate-mongering bigot" (regardless of whether
> >one agrees with his opinion), only serves to provoke further personal
> >attacks.
>
> If that is your feeling how come you've never seen fit to Sharxie to
> task?
If what is my opinion? I only stated that Dean's attack on Sharx
serves only as a provocation for retaliation by Sharx. I have not
stated my opinion on Sharx's alleged "bigotry" because I do not feel
this is the proper forum for doing so.
Unfortunately, since you have misread my statement to somehow imply
that I feel Sharx is a bigot, I am forced to state that I do not
believe any such thing.
> >Anyway, using the dictionary definition of "bigot," the majority of us
> >would fall under that category, as most of us have a genre (or genres)
> >of music that we love (and praise to the skies) and at least one genre/
> >genres that we hate (and openly disparage).
>
> >Michael Scarlotti - Proud Disco-ist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Mark Dintenfass
<80e89858-893c-4a1d...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:
> However, I maintain that the artistic merit of his
> or anyone else's records is entirely subjective.
This is a main point of difference. Certainly subjectivity plays a
large part in what sort of music we like, and even more what genres we
attract us, but there is also an objective element at work--there IS
such a thing as good singing and bad singing, good song-writing and bad
song-writing, good arrangements and bad arrangements (and, of course,
lots of examples that fall in the middle). It's that objective element
that at least sometimes prevails after the vagaries of contemporary
public taste have faded.
Mark Dintenfass
<5fcc51b6-f343-49a8...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:
> > >We are each free to form our own opinion of Sharx, but our opinions
> > >should remain private.
> >
> > Why?
>
> 1. Because this newsgroup isn't called rec.music.rock-pop-r+b-sharx.
> 1950s.
Then why are you talking about him?
> 2. Because voicing negative opinions about other members is ill-
> mannered and in violation of the usernet rules.
Never noticed you pointing this out whenever the guy posts negative and
ill-mannered attacks on others. You have several chances a day.
F R
Nor have present day critics altered their opinions of 50s pop. From the
period reviews, tv shows, etc., I've come across, it seems that they
have always held the so-called Great American Songbook standards (by
Broadway composers) over the popular music (by Tin Pan Alley composers)
.. and the artists who concentrated on GAS albums over the hitmakers.
What makes a Cole Porter song better than a Bob Merrill song? You got
me. I only know that I have more favorite Merrill songs than I do
Porters.
--------------------------------
Of course this is all personal opinion Scarlotti, but I have a theory as
to why this is so (assuming it is).
I live in south Florida. The landscape is dotted with small venues that
present music reviews..not to mention the hundreds of conominium
theaters and clubhouses that also put on shows.
When the local newspapers run an ad, it could be the music of Rodgers
and Hammerstein or the music of Cole Porter, Lerner and Loewe, etc.
People remember these wonderful songs from a particular show (some
exceptions of course), but not done by a particular singer.
For non-show music 50s pop standards, they are much more likely to
advertise similar shows as the music of Patti Page or the music of Perry
Como. Their songs are identifiable to the audience, but not by the
composers of said tunes.
I couldn't tell you who wrote any of Patti's or Perry's songs, but i
know it was they who made them popular.
I do know which R&H songs came from which shows (again with a few
exceptions), so in this case it's the song not the singer that is
important to me, and i think the huge majority of those in attendance
as well.
Does this make sense?
Frank
Boogity Boogity
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote in message
news:253ccba4-b38c-43a3...@s22g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 5:31 pm, "Boogity Boogity" <wlastn...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 11:45 am, "Boogity Boogity" <wlastn...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
>
> >> FAME
>
> >>> should be the prime criteria for induction into a "Hall of Fame")
>
> >> That's indisputable. But the meaning and measurement of "fame" are
> >> subject to debate.
>
> >> Among the debatable points:
>
> >> With the general public or a smaller, more specialized group?
>
> >> Then or now?
> > I don't believe that the meaning and measurement of "fame" are
> > debatable. At least not if one takes the word at face value (that is,
> > reads "fame" to mean in the eyes of the general public at a given
> > time).
>> I don't agree that the word at face value means the general public at a
>> given time. That's what's debatable.
>It's not debatable when clearly defined. For example a "Doo-wop Hall
>of Fame" would be largely limited to the late 50s and early 60s.
That specifies the time frame for eligibility but still leaves open the
debatable questions:
With the general public or a smaller, more specialized group? It would
almost have to be the latter since, as you say, most GenXers have never
heard of the Flamingos. But how specialized? Rock & Roll fans or vocal group
music fans or Rock & Roll vocal group fans or members of this newsgroup
etc.? The title "Doo-Wop HOF" doesn't provide an answer at face value. The
only way this question would be non debatable is if the title spelled out
the specialized group:
Rec.musicrock-pop-r+b.1950s Doo-Wop HOF would meet that requirement, but not
the others of specifying the measurement yardsticks and time frame.
Then or now?
Where is it stated at face value that the fame should be measured when the
music was new? If the HOF is being created now it is certainly plausible
many will base their opinions on current reputations and even sales since
the period in which the music was popular. Others will use the earlier time
frame.
So now we're at:
Rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s Doo-Wop HOF based on fame when the music was
new.
Both questions are highly debatable. So how can you maintain it is spelled
out at face value by the title of the HOF? Then you can throw in the
debatable question of measurement.
OK, now it's:
Rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s Doo-Wop HOF based on fame (measured by a
combination of record sales and Popular music charts) when the music was
new. You might be able to take that title at face value, but I'm pretty sure
the members here could still find something to debate about it (other than
the definition of Doo-Wop).
In one breath you say fame at face value means in the eyes of the general
public at a given time, which you interpret as then, not now. And in the
next you say the title Doo-Wop HOF presents non debatable parameters at face
value. I have just debated those parameters. Ergo, the fame in HOF titles is
debatable, not to be taken at face value.
--
Bill
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
>> Why not? Do you really believe that he is any different in real life.
>> Sharxie and his ilk are the ones that dive conservatives a black eye.
>>>
>
>Assholes like you give LIEbrawls/DEMONrats a black eye.
>
your dolls.
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
>You are a fucking ignorant idiot. "Crack monkey" describes a STYLE of
>performing, NOT restricted to any particular RACE or ETHNIC group.
>Fucking politically correct LIEbrawl types, such as yourself, Dean and
>xpenny get bent when there is even a SLIGHT possibility that a minority of
>ANY TYPE might be involved.
If that's the case how you providing proof. Some web sites etc.
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
>For while Sharx often engages in politically incorrect language, he
>has never to my knowledge expressed a hatred toward any group of
>people (other than "Liebrals" - which would not qualitfy as a "racial
>or ethnic" group).
>
Sharx35
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fcafff0-7d68-4e8f...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Bob, if I actually DO have a hatred for any identifiable group, it would be
for West Coast LIEbrawls who happen to be realtors. You wouldn't know anyone
in that category, would you?
Sharx35
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote in message
news:9961812f-252d-49bb...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Case in point: those who think that acting like a crack monkey while on
stage represents talent.
Sharx35
<xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
news:dqent4hrdrcekm1pt...@4ax.com...
MY dictionary defines "faggot" as a bundle of sticks, for firewood, perhaps.
Sharx35
"WilliamWMeyer" <william...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:drCdnTOgnL8d8UbU...@megapath.net...
Yeah, I *do* have a sense of humour....unlike so many, many LIEbrawls who
take everything, oh so seriously...especially themselves.
I totally love baiting such self-indulgent fools.
Jim Colegrove
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 9:07�pm, robertjro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 11:36�am, Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > (FAME
>> > should be the prime criteria for induction into a "Hall of Fame")
>>
>> That argument is historically inaccurate. �The phrase "hall of fame"
>> was used before actual Halls were created. �It was originally an
>> informal term. �For example, if someone did something noteworthy a
>> writer could make a comment along the lines "That man just earned a
>> spot in the hall of fame." �The person being honored is not honored
>> for his fame, but rather for merit. �The statement meant his
>> achievement deserves to make him famous.
>>
>> The first physical Halls of Fame followed the same logic. �The
>> inaugural class of baseball players inducted to the baseball Hall of
>> Fame in Cooperstown were not necessarily the most famous, but rather
>> the greatest figures in the sport's history.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Roman
>
>Yes, but fame in baseball is derived from statistics (like batting
>averages). Fame in music is based on popularity (as reflected on the
>charts).
>
Not always. It is also based on influence.
>The two fields are practically polar opposites in that sports players
>become popular as a result of their achievements (statistics), whereas
>music artists earn high statistics (charted songs) based on their
>popularity.
>
And on their influence.
>And, while one can measure a baseball player's abilities by his
>achievements (hits, strikes, home runs, etc.), one cannot measure
>those of a successful singer. For while one singer may have perfect
>pitch, and another sings flat, the latter might consistently produce
>records that appeal to a significantly larger audience.
>
>Lastly, as the various tastes among members of this group indicate,
>musical talent/appeal is wholly subjective.
But this subjectiveness submits to objectivity in the long run in most
cases.
Jim Colegrove
www.lostcountry.com
robert...@gmail.com
> <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > On Apr 7, 2:04 am, "Sharx35" <shar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> You are a fucking ignorant idiot. "Crack monkey" describes a STYLE of
> >> performing, NOT restricted to any particular RACE or ETHNIC group.
>
> > Come on, Sharx, that's pretty weak. Are you trying to fool us or fool
> > yourself. Man up and embrace your hatred honestly.
>
> for West Coast LIEbrawls who happen to be realtors. You wouldn't know anyone
> in that category, would you?
Sharx, if your "crack monkey" category was not based on race, you
would not have used a racist term to name it. It's as simple as
that.
Your opinions are transparent. When you refuse to acknowledge them,
you look like less of a man.
--
Bob Roman
F R
Case in point: those who think that acting like a crack monkey while on
stage represents talent.
------------
Sharx,
I've probably lived too sheltered a life, but i have never heard the
phrase "crack monkey" until you employed it. Why not "crack zebra, or
"crack orstrich"?
Did Jerry Lee Lewis, in his prime, act like a crack monkey on stage?
Frank
Sharx35
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fcc51b6-f343-49a8...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Scarlotti, by all rights I *should* ignore the babblings of these fools.
However, it is akin
to shooting fish in a barrel as their sub-normal intellects make them such
easy targets.
That's not my *opinion*--that's simply stating the facts.
Sharx35
"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:070420091112500775%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
Mark, If I see a stupid remark, I comment. If I see someone posting a series
of stupid remarks, I'd suggest
that that person had a sub-normal intellect.
Sharx35
<xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
news:0dent4p6b0gr3glis...@4ax.com...
Better that *I* play with dolls than YOU, playing with small human
equivalents.
Sharx35
<xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
news:dgent4pvrk997qjnk...@4ax.com...
Get a life. You seriously need one.
Sharx35
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29082ee4-e7d0-44d1...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Like so many of your occupation, you wouldn't know TRUTH if it up and bit
you on your pasty,
Vancouver real estate market sinking, arse. You make lawyers look good.
Sharx35
"F R" <espo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18775-49D...@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net...
Jerry, the KILLAH, certainly had a high energy level. However, he coupled
his frenetic style with a whole load of talent--e.g. his piano skills were
second to none. He is near the top of his genre, an icon, even. Elvis, at
the time, seemed frenetic compared to his peers. Once again, though, it was
coupled with loads of talent.
To rely solely on smashing instruments, overly amplified sound and/or
frenetic activity marks an "entertainer" that I rate very lowly.
Dean F.
monkey" remark(s), check out this:
http://blogs.thetimes.co.za/minor/files/2009/02/deadmonkey.jpg
Or this:
http://aryanwear.com/images/obama-monkey-shirt.jpg
Or this:
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/obama_monkey.jpg
Or this:
http://www.sheeplepeople.com/images/sock-obama-monkey.jpg
Or this:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/Obama%20monkey/wteach/surrender/SMObamaCPUSA.jpg
Or this classic:
http://www.fiu.edu/~interad/marcus%20garvey.jpg
Oh, but you'd have to be a complete moron to think Sharx's repeated
"crack monkey" remarks about African-Americans are in any way, shape
or form racist!
Sharx35
Note how Dean calls anyone who disagrees with him a "moron". Dean's NOT a
moron--moron describes a place HIGHER on the intelligence scale that HIS
position....in the lower part of the Idiot range.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> In article
> <5fcc51b6-f343-49a8-8fb7-de836d9ff...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:
> > > >We are each free to form our own opinion of Sharx, but our opinions
> > > >should remain private.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > 1. Because this newsgroup isn't called rec.music.rock-pop-r+b-sharx.
> > 1950s.
>
> Then why are you talking about him?
>
> > 2. Because voicing negative opinions about other members is ill-
> > mannered and in violation of the usernet rules.
>
> Never noticed you pointing this out whenever the guy posts negative and
> ill-mannered attacks on others. You have several chances a day.
That's because I'm attempting to limit my posts to discussions of 50s
music. ;-)
Honestly Mark, my general impression (and I'm not going to sift
through 100s of old posts to test this) is that Sharx never initiates
the attacks. He makes provocative, sometimes witty, and often
politically incorrect statements calculated to stir things up around
here, When someone like Dean takes the bait and launches a personal
attack, Sharx responds in kind, launching a vicious circle of attack
and counterattack.
I like Sharx. I think his presence livens up the proceedings here. I
like Dean as well (although Sharx has better taste in music, IMO).
Dean's an easy mark, and it's often amusing to watch Sharx push his
buttons. I think that the often combative and/or humorous
contributions of Bruce, Dennis, Charles, and others (including myself
in past days) serve to make for stimulating interchanges.
But I also feel that personal attacks (and counter attacks) should
only be launched in a playful, tongue-in-cheek spirit. When Bruce and
I would go at it, we always did so in a friendly-enemy sorta way that
we both found enjoyable. We may have cluttered up the boards with
neverending, self-indulgent bouts of one-upsmanship, but at least we
were having fun -- with no hard feelings or grudges. But there are
certain lines that I don't believe should be crossed. Dean's calling
Sharx a "hate-mongering bigot" isn't really a problem, as it's part of
an ongoing interchange between the two which both (by their continued
participation) have implicitly agreed to accept. But Bob's serious
attempt to apply the dictionary definition of "bigot" to Sharx crosses
the line.
I feel that it's morally wrong attempt to place a negative label on
someone just because you don't agree with their politics or don't care
for their personality.
For the record, if someone made a serious attempt to label Bob as a
"racist," I'd jump to his defense as well.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
Yes. That makes a lot sense.
The only thing it doesn't explain is why the critics should deem show
tunes to be high art, while thumbing their noses at Tin Pan Alley
songs that are equally as good. It seems like there's some strange
sort of double-standard at play here.
Several double-standards, as a matter of fact: a song is legit if 1)
it was written for a Broadway show or by a predominantly Broadway-
affiliated composer; 2) if it can be classified as part of a non-
mainstream genre (jazz, blues, country); and 3) if it's associated
with a "legitimate" artist (Frank Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Louis
Armstrong).
The best explanation I can come up with is that critics feel a need to
look down on popular taste -- probably because they fear that
championing songs that are already hits would render their commentary
unnecessary. That and the ego-boosting effects produced by
intellectual snobbery.
Mark Dintenfass
<f0710b84-a0ab-4259...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:
So this is all Bob's fault? Come on, Mike. Sharx has never initiated an
attack because he has never initiated anything at all. He has never
said anything specific about a piece of music he likes and has never
offered one musical fact in all the hundreds or thousands of posts he
has made. He merely responds randomly and his responses are 100% nasty
and meant, as he admits, as political not musical attacks. That is,
he's a pathetic troll. He's not even worth having a flame war with. I
ignore him, and think it's absurd for others to respond to him, or even
worse discuss him, but your defense of him is so ludicrous it's caused
me to break my rule.
WilliamWMeyer
Sigh.
Sarcasm, Sharx. In my use of "clown" I meant the former, but I was
attempting to demonstrate the rhetorical mechanism of your "crack monkey"
dodge.
Someone who goes around trying to use words like "shibboleth" must know the
meaning of disingenuous, and when you deny you're race baiting with crack
monkey, that's disingenuous.
It's a weasel-y move, but I suspect your only friends are weasels, up there
in the great white north.
I've noticed you've stopped using the highly clunky "ghetto dreck" so why
don't you quietly weasel out of using crack monkey, too?
(btw, up there in northern Canada, what do you know about ghettos or crack,
except what you watch on tv?)
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> <Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote in message
I'm going to take this one backwards, Bill -- challenging your
conclusion before addressing the individual points that led you there.
> In one breath you say fame at face value means in the eyes of the general
> public at a given time, which you interpret as then, not now. And in the
> next you say the title Doo-Wop HOF presents non debatable parameters at face
> value. I have just debated those parameters. Ergo, the fame in HOF titles is
> debatable, not to be taken at face value.
Since "fame" is based upon public recognition, and since public
recognition is almost entirely limited to a given era or generation, I
still hold the concepts of "time" and "fame" to be inseparable from
one another.
The musical genre known as Doo-Wop was for the most part limited to
the late 50s-early 60s. Sure, one can point out Doo-Wop groups and
records from the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s; along with precursors from the
early 50s. But the early examples are more properly classified as
R&B, and the later examples were never popular or widespread enough to
justify including their decades as part of "the Doo-Wop era."
Thus a Doo-Wop Hall of Fame would, by virtue of its title, confine
itself largely to the late 50s-early 60s. It can make exceptions
every now and then by giving a nod to a modern artist who successfully
recreates the sound, *and* who achieves a successful enough level
popularity to stimulate interest in the genre (Billy Joel's Innocent
Man, for example, which has a retro feel and includes some Doo-Wop
elements).
> > >> Then or now?
> > > I don't believe that the meaning and measurement of "fame" are
> > > debatable. At least not if one takes the word at face value (that is,
> > > reads "fame" to mean in the eyes of the general public at a given
> > > time).
> >> I don't agree that the word at face value means the general public at a
> >> given time. That's what's debatable.
> >It's not debatable when clearly defined. For example a "Doo-wop Hall
> >of Fame" would be largely limited to the late 50s and early 60s.
>
> That specifies the time frame for eligibility but still leaves open the
> debatable questions:
>
> With the general public or a smaller, more specialized group? It would
> almost have to be the latter since, as you say, most GenXers have never
> heard of the Flamingos. But how specialized? Rock & Roll fans or vocal group
> music fans or Rock & Roll vocal group fans or members of this newsgroup
> etc.? The title "Doo-Wop HOF" doesn't provide an answer at face value. The
> only way this question would be non debatable is if the title spelled out
> the specialized group:
>
> Rec.musicrock-pop-r+b.1950s Doo-Wop HOF would meet that requirement, but not
> the others of specifying the measurement yardsticks and time frame.
I think you're making the smaller group a little too small. In 1959
Doo-Wop songs often crossed over onto the mainstream charts, and would
have been known by the general public. Then.
A Doo-Wop Hall of Fame would give the honor of its first inductions to
Doo-Wop songs that enjoyed a wide cross-over appeal (like Blue Moon by
the Marcels). It could later include songs that were popular among
Doo-Wop fans of the era, but which never broke onto (or, only reached
the lower rankings on) the mainstream charts.
Thus the Hall would be primarily time-specific (recognizing fame among
the general populace), while simultaneously recognizing success within
the smaller, more specialized group.
I'm afraid I don't see any need to include Rock 'n' Roll fans or Vocal
Group fans in the title. One can be a Rock 'n' Roll fan and/or a
Vocal Group fan in addition to being a Doo-Wop fan. But if one is
*not* a Doo-Wop fan, and only a Rock 'n' Roll and/or Vocal Group fan,
they have no business participating in a Doo-Wop Hall of Fame.
> Then or now?
>
> Where is it stated at face value that the fame should be measured when the
> music was new? If the HOF is being created now it is certainly plausible
> many will base their opinions on current reputations and even sales since
> the period in which the music was popular. Others will use the earlier time
> frame.
I stated it. :-D
And the Hit Parade Hall of Fame certainly implies it (by requiring
that a nominee have at least 2 top 10 hits).
But, of course, the "Hit Parade" segment of its title also specifies
that the song/artist had a "hit" record, which is itself necessarily
time-specific. Just as the title of our newsgroup is necessarily time-
specific ("1950s").
Current reputation and/or post-era sales cannot be discounted when
considering a recording (or artist's) fame, but should be considered
in context of the time-popularity correlation. For instance: a
million-selling record from 1959 was indisputably famous at the time
of its sales. Whereas a non-hit recording that has developed a post-
era reputation would only be well known within the confines of a
highly specialized group (present-day Doo-Wop fans).
Yes, one may justifiably honor a given recording/artist based on post-
era reputation/sales, but one should not exclude a recording/artist
that was popular during the height of the Doo-Wop era based on present-
day estimation. Firstly because the limited present-day in no way
diminishes the fame that was already achieved, and secondly because
present day opinion is limited to the members of small, highly
specialized circles and is not necessarily superior to the opinions
held by the majority of the listening public at the time.
Honor the recording that has grown in estimation among hardcore Doo-
Woppers over the decades, but not to the exclusion of the records that
were extremely popular during the actual Doo-Wop era.
> So now we're at:
>
> Rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s Doo-Wop HOF based on fame when the music was
> new.
>
> Both questions are highly debatable. So how can you maintain it is spelled
> out at face value by the title of the HOF? Then you can throw in the
> debatable question of measurement.
A record's fame is measured by record sales and airplay. These
meaures are reflected in the charts of the corresponding time. A Hall
of Fame should exist to preserve the memory of, and cast honor upon,
the songs that were loved by the majority of the listening public
during the era in which they were released.
The Hit Parade Hall of Fame, for example, is a monument to the artists
who contributed to the "soundtrack of our lives" -- the music that was
a large part of the cultural experience of the people who lived during
that era.
To me, that's what a Hall of Fame should be.
A Doo-Wop Hall of Fame would include the Crew-Cuts and the Hilltoppers
-- along with the Chords, Penguins, Spaniels, etc. A Rock Hall of
Fame should include Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Connie Francis, and
Fabian -- along with Little Richard, Buddy Holly, and Chuck Berry.
Present-day opinion aside (which, again, is limited to small, highly-
specialized groups), all were a big part of the popular music of their
era, as well as having played a significant role in the specific
genres to which I've assigned them (above).
They all deserve a place in any Popular Music Hall of Fame as well.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
I think it a perfect example of the "politically incorrect language"
I'd cited above.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:14:21 -0700 (PDT), Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 6, 9:07 pm, robertjro...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Apr 6, 11:36 am, Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > (FAME
> >> > should be the prime criteria for induction into a "Hall of Fame")
>
> >> That argument is historically inaccurate. The phrase "hall of fame"
> >> was used before actual Halls were created. It was originally an
> >> informal term. For example, if someone did something noteworthy a
> >> writer could make a comment along the lines "That man just earned a
> >> spot in the hall of fame." The person being honored is not honored
> >> for his fame, but rather for merit. The statement meant his
> >> achievement deserves to make him famous.
>
> >> The first physical Halls of Fame followed the same logic. The
> >> inaugural class of baseball players inducted to the baseball Hall of
> >> Fame in Cooperstown were not necessarily the most famous, but rather
> >> the greatest figures in the sport's history.
>
> >> --
> >> Bob Roman
>
> >Yes, but fame in baseball is derived from statistics (like batting
> >averages). Fame in music is based on popularity (as reflected on the
> >charts).
>
> Not always. It is also based on influence.
I see these terms more as being separate-but-related. Musical fame is
based on popularity. Popularity may sometimes come about as a result
of influence.
> >The two fields are practically polar opposites in that sports players
> >become popular as a result of their achievements (statistics), whereas
> >music artists earn high statistics (charted songs) based on their
> >popularity.
>
> And on their influence.
>
> >And, while one can measure a baseball player's abilities by his
> >achievements (hits, strikes, home runs, etc.), one cannot measure
> >those of a successful singer. For while one singer may have perfect
> >pitch, and another sings flat, the latter might consistently produce
> >records that appeal to a significantly larger audience.
>
> >Lastly, as the various tastes among members of this group indicate,
> >musical talent/appeal is wholly subjective.
>
> But this subjectiveness submits to objectivity in the long run in most
> cases.
I strongly disagree.
I don't believe that mediocre songs/singers are being slowly weeded
out of our cultural experience by the passage of time (ignoring the
potential argument over whether a true mediocrity could succeed). I
think that time is neither subject nor objective in its wholesale
destruction of past popular culture. How many people have lamented
the way in which our popular culture has come to be treated as a
disposable commodity?
My second point (above) is that musical "greatness" isn't always based
upon technical virtuosity. Johnnie Ray, for example admitted that he
sang "flat as a table" -- but he achieved a huge degree of popularity
in his time and (for fans like myself) is one of the most dynamic,
exciting, and greatest artists who ever lived. Mario Lanza admitted
that he sang sharp -- but he is considered to have had one of the most
beautiful tenor voices (if not *the* most beautiful) ever. Obviously
other factors contribute making a great singer than technical
virtuosity alone.
Then you've got singers like Bob Dylan, Hank Williams, and Ray Charles
whose voices are (charitably) an acquired taste, yet who remain
immensely popular today. Based solely upon present-day critical
opinion, one could argue that time is preferential to artists with ...
um ... minimal ... vocal ability. ;-)
>
> Jim Colegrovewww.lostcountry.com- Hide quoted text -
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> For some context on the allegedly non-racist nature of Sharx's "crack
> monkey" remark(s), check out this:
>
> http://blogs.thetimes.co.za/minor/files/2009/02/deadmonkey.jpg
>
> Or this:
>
> http://aryanwear.com/images/obama-monkey-shirt.jpg
>
> Or this:
>
> http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/obama_monkey.jpg
>
> Or this:
>
> http://www.sheeplepeople.com/images/sock-obama-monkey.jpg
>
> Or this:
>
>
> Or this classic:
>
> http://www.fiu.edu/~interad/marcus%20garvey.jpg
>
> Oh, but you'd have to be a complete moron to think Sharx's repeated
> "crack monkey" remarks about African-Americans are in any way, shape
> or form racist!
Dean, the examples you've linked up to were not made by Sharx.
You cannot claim that Sharx is a racist by citing examples of what you
perceive to be racism exhibited by others.
Secondly, the first two of your links (the only 2 I've followed) are
highly disputable as "racist" to begin with.
The cartoon referred to a real chimpanzee that made front page
headlines when it was shot by police after having bitten off a woman's
face. Its message was that Obama's economic reform bill (which wasn't
written by Obama) was so idiotic that only a lower life form (in this
case, a chimp) could have written it.
The second example -- a tee shirt depicting Obama as a monkey is no
different then the 100s of cartoons depicting former President Bush (a
white man) as a monkey. To maintain that it's racist to depict a
black President as a chimp (based on racist depictions of African
Americans from past centuries), but okay to depict a white President
as a chimp (ignoring similar racist depictions of Irish, Italian and
Jewish Americans from past centuries) is a double-standard that is
arguably racist in itself.
Boogity Boogity
> On Apr 7, 2:27 pm, "Boogity Boogity" <wlastn...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> <Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> I'm going to take this one backwards, Bill -- challenging your
> conclusion before addressing the individual points that led you there.
My conclusion is that the meaning of "fame" is debatable. And I believe I
proved that by debating it with you.
--
Bill
robert...@gmail.com
> Maybe. But it's now 85 years since Louis Armstrong started recording
> and there are more than a few people right now, I bet, listening to his
> Hot Fives. What I believe the future holds is a multitude of audiences
> listening to music from many different times. We're already halfway
> there.
New technologies have always slowed the process that erodes fame.
Recorded sound is just an eyeblink old in the grand scheme of things.
No one can say what the future hold regarding the lasting fame of
recording artists.
--
Bob Roman
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
>
>1. Because this newsgroup isn't called rec.music.rock-pop-r+b-sharx.
>1950s.
>mannered and in violation of the usernet rules.
>
>> >Dean's calling Sharx a "hate-mongering bigot" (regardless of whether
>> >one agrees with his opinion), only serves to provoke further personal
>> >attacks.
>>
>> If that is your feeling how come you've never seen fit to Sharxie to
>> task?
>
>If what is my opinion? I only stated that Dean's attack on Sharx
>serves only as a provocation for retaliation by Sharx. I have not
>stated my opinion on Sharx's alleged "bigotry" because I do not feel
>this is the proper forum for doing so.
???????????? So in other words Sharxie gets a free pass to say
whatever he likes?
>
>Unfortunately, since you have misread my statement to somehow imply
>that I feel Sharx is a bigot, I am forced to state that I do not
>believe any such thing.
No I didn't misread your statement as saying any such thing. I simply
see your position as being hypocritical. So you don't think one that
calls a person a "crack monkey" and/or "faggot isn't bigoted? I liked
to see Sharxie make his "crack monkey" remark to a black guy and see
what happens. I don't Sharxie would be to happy with the result.
>
>> >Anyway, using the dictionary definition of "bigot," the majority of us
>> >would fall under that category, as most of us have a genre (or genres)
>> >of music that we love (and praise to the skies) and at least one genre/
>> >genres that we hate (and openly disparage).
>>
>> >Michael Scarlotti - Proud Disco-ist.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robert...@gmail.com
> <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote...
> > Sharx, if your "crack monkey" category was not based on race, you
> > would not have used a racist term to name it. It's as simple as
> > that.
> > Your opinions are transparent. When you refuse to acknowledge them,
> > you look like less of a man.
>
> you on your pasty,
> Vancouver real estate market sinking, arse. You make lawyers look good.
You are upset at me for my real estate marketing in Vancouver?
I can see your concern. For the record, I would like to apologize to
you for any way I have hurt you as a Vancouver real estate marketer.
Furthermore, I am willing to apologize for any real estate marketing I
have ever done in Vancouver. In fact, you have shown me the light. I
will never again practice real estate marketing in Vancouver or any
other city.
Now let's be balanced. Are you willing to apologize for being a hate-
filled bigot? And are you willing to forswear ever again using a
racist term like "crack monkey"?
--
Bob Roman
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
Bob's fault? No. I just think that Bob crossed over the line.
I had a similar argument with Bob in the past regarding another
member. Unfortunately, in the course of that argument the member in
question issued some opinions that I could only regard as being
racist. I admitted my error, and promptly withdrew from the argument.
I don't see myself so much as defending Sharx, per se, as defending
the right to post opinions here (and by extension, elsewhere) that do
not conform to those held by the majority (even what some may deem
"nasty" opinions) without being subjected to slanderous personal
attacks.
You see Sharx as a "mean"-spirited, "pathetic troll." I respect your
right to express that opinion of him because the often argumentative,
controversial, and (in his rebuttals) "mean" and "nasty" comments
leave him open to such remarks.
This is not to say that I agree with your appraisal of him. It is
only to say that if someone posts a controversial statement
(especially one he openly admits is calculated to lure more fish into
his shooting barrel), then you have the right to get down and dirty
him (as this is part of the game).
But attempting to label someone as a "bigot" or a "racist" strikes me
as being much more serious than dismissing him as a moron. The first
2 examples are slanderous. The latter is merely insulting.
In modern society, charges of "bigotry" and "racism" are taken very
seriously, and many celebrities have had their careers injured or
destroyed because of them (some justly, some not). It's a big deal,
and a subject on which I feel very strongly. Sharx's real name (and,
if I recall correctly, address and a photo) have been posted here in
the past (without his consent), and Bob's charges of "bigotry" and
"racism" could conceivably have a negative impact upon his career and
personal life.
I remember Dean once posted some of my remarks in a blues-oriented
newsgroup, then posted the blues fans' responses here. The blues fans
were (jokingly -- at least that's how I took it) taking about beating
me up, killing me, and stealing my identity and emptying out my bank
account. I believe that you (and you'd ranked me far below Sharx at
the time) angrily noted that those sort of threats were unacceptable
even in jest. I don't remember if I'd thanked you at the time, but
please accept a belated one if such was the case.
So you needn't feel that you've compromised yourself in discussing
Sharx here. The real issue, while obstensively one of netiquette; is
ultimately one about the right of Freedom of Speech. In branding
someone a "racist" because of his differences in tastes, politics,
religion, or even because one doesn't like his personality is today's
form of McCarthyism and the Salem witch hunts.
Perhaps my reaction is a little extreme ... seeing that this newsgroup
is probably only read by a several dozen people ... but defamation of
character in a public forum is a dangerous practice to engage in.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> <snip>
> >Unfortunately, since you have misread my statement to somehow imply
> >that I feel Sharx is a bigot, I am forced to state that I do not
> >believe any such thing.
>
> No I didn't misread your statement as saying any such thing. I simply
> see your position as being hypocritical. So you don't think one that
> calls a person a "crack monkey" and/or "faggot isn't bigoted? I liked
> to see Sharxie make his "crack monkey" remark to a black guy and see
> what happens. I don't Sharxie would be to happy with the result.
No, Doug. I'm not being hypocritacal here.
If I believed for one moment that Sharx was a "bigot," I would allow
the incident to pass without comment.
Please explain to me how the term "crack monkey" translates to
"African American."
This is the first time I've come across the term, but "crack monkey"
appears to clearly indicate a crack addict (a person with a "monkey"
on his back).
Since addiction is not a racial characteristic, I see no reason to
apply it any ethnic/racial group.
Sharx has yet to state that he was using the term to indicate only
African Americans. So why should those of us who read his remark jump
to an unfounded conclusion?
Faggot, otoh, is politically incorrect slang for a homosexual. I
suppose it was derived from the term "flaming" -- although that is
only a guess on my part. If that is the case, I don't see how the
term should be particularly hateful or derogatory. Dean has offered
up the topic of his sexual orientation here on several occasions, so
Sharx cannot be accused of slander.
At its worst, Sharx can be viewed as looking down on/belittling Dean
for his sexual preferences, but it's a fairly minor offense.
I certainly don't agree with his use of P.I. slang in this instance,
nor with his belittling Dean for his sometime choice of partners. But
I also believe that Sharx's comment was less an example of his views
on homosexuality than his knowledge that the subject would provide
ample bait for Dean to jump at.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just to jump back in a little (sans personal character assassination),
I would say that a Pat Boone deserves his recognition in any Hall, and
didn't know he did 'covers' as I am not a huge fan (mostly because I
wasn't into music at that young of an age). I don't know a Michael
Bolton's status for record sales, but I would on a personal level not
include him in anything, but I guess I base that on personal taste and
what I think a Pat Boone was in the public eye, his popularity, and
how he dominated an era.
A Patsy Cline would be of interest to me, as I deem her the best
singer I have ever heard in the combination of voice and telling the
story in a song. For the Hit Parade, she has quite a bit of votes,
even though not voted in yet. She's not of course in the Rock HoF,
but she like many country artists transcend into Pop Charts on some of
their better songs. Some of her music is deemed rockabilly, and those
types have no problems in the Rock HoF like a Roy Orbison or a Ricky
Nelson. I feel too had she lived, she would have gotten more into
movie deals, and people would have wrote more pop songs for her, as
she was just hitting her zenith (and doing pop chart type songs) at
her untimely death. So, my personal taste has her in the Rock HoF,
but the fairness of the Hit Parade HoF seems to be her only chance.
CJ
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
wrote:
>
><xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
>news:dqent4hrdrcekm1pt...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>For while Sharx often engages in politically incorrect language, he
>>>has never to my knowledge expressed a hatred toward any group of
>>>people (other than "Liebrals" - which would not qualitfy as a "racial
>>>or ethnic" group).
>>>
>> Really? What do you think of Sharxie's use of the word faggot?
>
>MY dictionary defines "faggot" as a bundle of sticks, for firewood, perhaps.
Faggot
2 /?fæg?t/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fag-uht] Show IPA
–noun
Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a male homosexual.
Since I see in a later posts you suggest that Dean blow someone I
doubt that a bundle of sticks was what you were referring to, wanker.
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
wrote:
Stop projecting and seek professional help, Sharxie. Use that free
healthcare.
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
wrote:
That's interesting considering dictionaries define it as
xpen...@xearthlink.netx
wrote:
>On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, xpene...@xearthlink.netx wrote:
>> <snip>
>
>> >Unfortunately, since you have misread my statement to somehow imply
>> >that I feel Sharx is a bigot, I am forced to state that I do not
>> >believe any such thing.
>>
>> No I didn't misread your statement as saying any such thing. I simply
>> see your position as being hypocritical. So you don't think one that
>> calls a person a "crack monkey" and/or "faggot isn't bigoted? I liked
>> to see Sharxie make his "crack monkey" remark to a black guy and see
>> what happens. I don't Sharxie would be to happy with the result.
>
>No, Doug. I'm not being hypocritacal here.
>
>If I believed for one moment that Sharx was a "bigot," I would allow
>the incident to pass without comment.
>
>Please explain to me how the term "crack monkey" translates to
>"African American."
Seeing as I live in a suburb of Detroit and actually work in the city
I think I might just have a little better understanding of what "crack
monkey" means. Hypothetically let's say Sharxie came to Detroit and
called a Black person a crack monkey how long would it be before he
was beaten to a pulp?
>
>This is the first time I've come across the term, but "crack monkey"
>appears to clearly indicate a crack addict (a person with a "monkey"
>on his back).
>
>Since addiction is not a racial characteristic, I see no reason to
>apply it any ethnic/racial group.
Other than the singing group what other group and/or group have you
heard to as monkeys? Considering the remarks Sharxie has made over the
years I think the inference can fairly be drawn what he meant.
>
>Sharx has yet to state that he was using the term to indicate only
>African Americans. So why should those of us who read his remark jump
>to an unfounded conclusion?
Give me a break. You think Sharxie would admit it? My mother does all
kinds of crazy things but will staunchly deny it. One day I was home
when the phone rang. I didn't pick it up but heard her leave a message
that she wanted to go see my stepfather in the nurse home where he was
rehabing. I stop what I was doing went over to pick her up and take.
When I got there she denied asking any such thing. There's no two ways
about it Sharxie is a bigot and most likely racist to boot.
Considering his history the only logical conclusion is the one that
has been drawn. If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck it's
probably duck.
>
>Faggot, otoh, is politically incorrect slang for a homosexual. I
>suppose it was derived from the term "flaming" -- although that is
>only a guess on my part. If that is the case, I don't see how the
>term should be particularly hateful or derogatory. Dean has offered
>up the topic of his sexual orientation here on several occasions, so
>Sharx cannot be accused of slander.
>At its worst, Sharx can be viewed as looking down on/belittling Dean
>for his sexual preferences, but it's a fairly minor offense.
Faggot isn't a politically incorrect term for a homosexual. It's a
disparaging and derogatory term for a homosexual. IIRC at one time
Dean experimented which could hardly be called a preference. Even if
it was so what.
>
>I certainly don't agree with his use of P.I. slang in this instance,
>nor with his belittling Dean for his sometime choice of partners. But
>I also believe that Sharx's comment was less an example of his views
>on homosexuality than his knowledge that the subject would provide
>ample bait for Dean to jump at.
As I said from Sharxie's past ramblings the logical conclusion that
can be drawn is that is his view. Your opinion is your opinion but I'd
think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in this group that shares
the Is not his view of homosexuality.
>
robert...@gmail.com
> So you needn't feel that you've compromised yourself in discussing
> Sharx here. The real issue, while obstensively one of netiquette; is
> ultimately one about the right of Freedom of Speech. In branding
> someone a "racist" because of his differences in tastes, politics,
> religion, or even because one doesn't like his personality is today's
> form of McCarthyism and the Salem witch hunts.
Is the irony lost on you that you are using "Freedom of Speech" to try
to censor Dean?
As for diagnosing whether someone is a bigot, as you noted you have
been a little tone deaf on the issue in the past. But it's important
work. Please don't get in the way of those of us who can do it.
--
Bob Roman
Sharx35
"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:080420090853393742%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
What a hypocrite, a total waste of humanity you are. Remove yourself from
this planet and help the overpopulation problem. What a total waste of
oxygen.
Sharx35
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote in message
news:0eb5188a-5649-462f...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
The LIEbrawls here, e.g. Dinterprick and lousy realtor Bob, cannot STAND it
when others like you or me are more intelligent and more articulate than
they are.
Sharx35
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7606c7d8-2ee8-4ea7...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Ignorant saps like you should get a REAL job that involves WORKING FOR A
LIVING.
Sharx35
Crack cocaine is a severe problem here in Edmonton. Drug gang murders and
drive-by shootings and bombings are commonplace. Ghettos, not so much as
Edmonton is as multicultural as they come.
Sharx35
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote in message
news:7077be30-e4d6-4a57...@e25g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
LIEbrawls, on both sides of the 49th parallel, are well known for both their
duplicity and their dishonesty. Witness the half-wits in this newsgroup who
thought nothing of drawing simian allusions to Dubya but GOD (who they
seldom believe in) help it if ANYONE even remotely casts a shadow on one of
THEIR icons. Hypocrites all, subnormal intellects, too, in many cases.
Sharx35
<xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
news:68lpt41ml5bjuca5f...@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>>
>>1. Because this newsgroup isn't called rec.music.rock-pop-r+b-sharx.
>>1950s.
>>2. Because voicing negative opinions about other members is ill-
>>mannered and in violation of the usernet rules.
>>
>
>>> >Dean's calling Sharx a "hate-mongering bigot" (regardless of whether
>>> >one agrees with his opinion), only serves to provoke further personal
>>> >attacks.
>>>
>>> If that is your feeling how come you've never seen fit to Sharxie to
>>> task?
>>
>>If what is my opinion? I only stated that Dean's attack on Sharx
>>serves only as a provocation for retaliation by Sharx. I have not
>>stated my opinion on Sharx's alleged "bigotry" because I do not feel
>>this is the proper forum for doing so.
>
> ???????????? So in other words Sharxie gets a free pass to say
> whatever he likes?
>>
>>Unfortunately, since you have misread my statement to somehow imply
>>that I feel Sharx is a bigot, I am forced to state that I do not
>>believe any such thing.
>
> No I didn't misread your statement as saying any such thing. I simply
> see your position as being hypocritical. So you don't think one that
> calls a person a "crack monkey" and/or "faggot isn't bigoted? I liked
> to see Sharxie make his "crack monkey" remark to a black guy and see
> what happens. I don't Sharxie would be to happy with the result.
So, where you BORN an asshole or was it a product of your LIEbrawl
education, what little of it you had?
Sharx35
<xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
news:lk6qt4p1nj140mglo...@4ax.com...
Given the CRAP that many in this group call music, I'd hardly consider their
opinions in other matters to have much, if any, relevance to reality. FOAD,
already.
Sharx35
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4af6e89-b558-400b...@s19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Are you willing to apologize for being a complete, total asshole?
Sharx35
<xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
news:2m5qt49tptq3u10km...@4ax.com...
Typical fucking LIEbrawl--thinks that Canadian health care is FREE. Read a
fucking budget from any Canadian government--rest assured, health care in
Canada is FAR from free.
Sharx35
<xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
news:oe5qt4d71ds3amjse...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:18:31 GMT, "Sharx35" <sha...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><xpen...@xearthlink.netx> wrote in message
>>news:dqent4hrdrcekm1pt...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>For while Sharx often engages in politically incorrect language, he
>>>>has never to my knowledge expressed a hatred toward any group of
>>>>people (other than "Liebrals" - which would not qualitfy as a "racial
>>>>or ethnic" group).
>>>>
>>> Really? What do you think of Sharxie's use of the word faggot?
>>
>>MY dictionary defines "faggot" as a bundle of sticks, for firewood,
>>perhaps.
>
> Faggot
> -noun
> Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a male homosexual.
>
> Since I see in a later posts you suggest that Dean blow someone I
> doubt that a bundle of sticks was what you were referring to, wanker.
Wanker Slang: Disparaging and Offensive: a male masturbator
Mark Dintenfass
<0eb5188a-5649-462f...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see myself so much as defending Sharx, per se, as defending
> the right to post opinions here (and by extension, elsewhere) that do
> not conform to those held by the majority (even what some may deem
> "nasty" opinions) without being subjected to slanderous personal
> attacks.
Here's your pal's "opinion" about one of my posts.
> The LIEbrawls here, e.g. Dinterprick and lousy realtor Bob, cannot STAND it
> when others like you or me are more intelligent and more articulate than
> they are.
You're blowing your credibility here, Mike.
Anyway, I'm done with the topic.
Jim Colegrove
wrote:
If so few people engage here why do you try to make this into
something like McCarthyism or Salem witch hunts? It's more like a back
alley fight. There is nothing going on in this news group that means
jack. But if you want to bring up netetiquette then you need to talk
to Dave Bull about that first. So stop trying to be all mighty. The
fascists like Dave do it in public all the time--all the time. They
even have public broadcast stations to do it on.
Jim Colegrove
www.lostcountry.com
Sharx35
A likely story. You got spanked and you got spanked GOOD.
Sharx35
"Jim Colegrove" <co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote in message
news:redqt4dug0lsabma0...@4ax.com...
Public broadcast stations? I no longer own any "public broadcast stations".
Any attempts to enforce "netetiquette" on UseNet usually fail miserably.
You've met your match, admit it.
I have no hesitation about involving legal counsel, should it be required.
How much legal counsel can YOU afford?
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Colegrove
> www.lostcountry.com
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
Some of Pat's early hits were covers of songs by Fats Domino ("Ain't
That a Shame") and Little Richard ("Tutti Frutti"). He was pretty
much the first rock idol (hitting the charts half a year before
Elvis), and his clean-cut image went a long way toward helping the new
style of music (originally identified with the juvenile delinquents in
"Blackboard Jungle") gain acceptance among middle class Americans. He
was second only to Elvis in popularity during the latter half of the
50s. But despite multiple petitions (with their share of famous
signatures and endorsements), he has to be even nominated into the
Rock 'n' Roll Hall.
I don't know if this is due to a backlash over his having made a few
covers, his cleancut image, or (an opinion held by several members of
this group) that he is more of a traditional pop crooner than a rocker
-- or all of the above. Whatever the reason, his exclusion has soured
me on the Rock HoF.
>I don't know a Michael
> Bolton's status for record sales, but I would on a personal level not
> include him in anything, but I guess I base that on personal taste and
> what I think a Pat Boone was in the public eye, his popularity, and
> how he dominated an era.
>
> A Patsy Cline would be of interest to me, as I deem her the best
> singer I have ever heard in the combination of voice and telling the
> story in a song. For the Hit Parade, she has quite a bit of votes,
> even though not voted in yet. She's not of course in the Rock HoF,
> but she like many country artists transcend into Pop Charts on some of
> their better songs. Some of her music is deemed rockabilly, and those
> types have no problems in the Rock HoF like a Roy Orbison or a Ricky
> Nelson. I feel too had she lived, she would have gotten more into
> movie deals, and people would have wrote more pop songs for her, as
> she was just hitting her zenith (and doing pop chart type songs) at
> her untimely death. So, my personal taste has her in the Rock HoF,
> but the fairness of the Hit Parade HoF seems to be her only chance.
I'm hoping Patsy gets in the Hit Parade HoF as well. Both she and Jim
Reeves (also among the nominees) are two of my all-time favorite
country artists. Her reputation has really grown over the years
(spurred to a large part by her Hollywood biopic), and she remains a
significant part of our present day culture.
Back in the 1990s when I used to go bar-hopping with my college
buddies, there'd be at least one album by her on every cd jukebox in
every bar in Hoboken. And for anyone who's not familiar with Hoboken
-- that's a LOT of bars!