Damn, Freddy King was good!!!

[Dean F.]

Tonight for the first time in maybe a decade, I played my "Best of
Freddy King" CD from start to finish. Needless to say, I enjoyed the
hell out of it. FK was the man!!!

Here's some of what I grooved to before:

Hide Away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjPLDxe6sZQ

Have You Ever Loved A Woman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Zo7ijWlz0

Side Tracked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOhbYfftEJM

You've Got To Love Her With A Feeling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Xg8scBM4Q

The Stumble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szorg5_XDPE

I'm Tore Down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pISR6Xfjv_A

[Dean F.]

On Aug 1, 9:59 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm Tore Down:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pISR6Xfjv_A

Turns out, this ain't the original. Couldn't find it in YouTube,
either. What a shame....

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 1, 9:59 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wonder which Freddy King record is Poisoned Rose's favorite?

[Marc Dashevsky]

In article <bed2abcb-7684-48b1...@c11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, soule...@gmail.com says...

Remington Ride: http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7k3F8cd_kQ

--
Go to http://MarcDashevsky.com to send me e-mail.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Aug 1, 9:59 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wtf's a "Freddie King"?

[BobbyM]

Probably Grand Funk's "We're An American Band".

[BobbyM]

On 02-Aug-12 11:30 AM, poisoned rose wrote:

> BobbyM <massey...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I wonder which Freddy King record is Poisoned Rose's favorite?
>>
>> Probably Grand Funk's "We're An American Band".
>

> That group is dogshit. They suck and blow too.
>
> Look, I'm critiquing music the SavoyBG way now.

IMO they actually got better when they decided to grow up & stop being
the garage version of Led Zeppelin.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 1, 10:30 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I wonder which Freddy King record is Poisoned Rose's favorite?
>
> > Probably Grand Funk's "We're An American Band".
>

> That group is dogshit. They suck and blow too.
>
> Look, I'm critiquing music the SavoyBG way now.

About time you assimilated here.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 1, 10:41 pm, BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 02-Aug-12 11:30 AM, poisoned rose wrote:
>

> > BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I wonder which Freddy King record is Poisoned Rose's favorite?
>
> >> Probably Grand Funk's "We're An American Band".
>
> > That group is dogshit. They suck and blow too.
>
> > Look, I'm critiquing music the SavoyBG way now.
>
> IMO they actually got better when they decided to grow up & stop being
> the garage version of Led Zeppelin.

I'm currently selling some issues of Record World from 1972 when there
was a legal battle over the use of the name Grand Funk Railroad. Their
recently fired manager Terry Knight took out several full page ads in
various issues showing legal documents about who owned the rights to
the name. I think the best thing that happened to the group was
hooking up with Todd Rundgren as their producer.

[Dean F.]

On Aug 1, 10:30 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > I wonder which Freddy King record is Poisoned Rose's favorite?
>
> > Probably Grand Funk's "We're An American Band".
>

> That group is dogshit. They suck and blow too.
>
> Look, I'm critiquing music the SavoyBG way now.

I think "We're An American Band" is a great record, but I could have
done quite nicely without their remake of "The Loco-Motion." (Ratchet
that up 25-30 times for Kylie Minogue!)

[BobbyM]

I like the record too, but I only brought it up because the lyrics
mention Freddy King. Guess Grand Funk did some touring with him.

"Bad Time" is my favorite by them & "Closer to Home" probably at a
distant 2d.

[BobbyM]

> No interest whatsoever.
>
> I don't enjoy an awful lot of music in that macho, old-school,
> arena-rocker vein. Zeppelin, Stones, Who, some Alice Cooper...can't come
> up with any other names at the moment. Soundgarden?

Love or hate the others, Soundgarden doesn't belong in the same
category. So your taste in music leans more toward feminist or
androgynous new-school lounge music?

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

LOL......

Maybe it's me, but I'll never be able to consider acts like Led
Zeppelin and The Who as old school. I mean, Led Zeppelin didn't
release anything until nineteen fucking sixty nine. That's barely even
second generation rock and roll.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

Their version of "Some Kind Of Wonderful" is good. The Soul Brothers
Six version was apparently a big hit in the area they were from.

[Dean F.]

On Aug 2, 12:01 am, The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:

> Their version of "Some Kind Of Wonderful" is good. The Soul Brothers
> Six version was apparently a big hit in the area they were from.

According to our pal Dave Marsh, it was top ten in his native Detroit.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 1, 9:59 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tonight for the first time in maybe a decade, I played my "Best of
> Freddy King" CD from start to finish. Needless to say, I enjoyed the
> hell out of it. FK was the man!!!

By the way, when I was proofreading and fact checking the R&R HOF site
a while back, I told them that it should be Freddy King, rather than
Freddie King. They checked with his daughter who said that her father
preferred it to be Freddie, so they left it that way, even though most
of his classic records listed it as Freddy.

[BobbyM]

Yeah, I got tired of messing with my database of songs by him & finally
just started listing everything under one of the names, I forget which,
and then adding "(aka & the other name).

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 2, 2:35 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > I don't enjoy an awful lot of music in that macho, old-school,
> > > arena-rocker vein. Zeppelin, Stones, Who, some Alice Cooper...can't come
> > > up with any other names at the moment. Soundgarden?
>
> > Love or hate the others, Soundgarden doesn't belong in the same
> > category.
>

> Shrug. Your opinion. I don't have the ferocious chronological bias
> commonly found around here. And I added that band name with a question
> mark anyway, so it's a weak issue to harp upon.

>
> > So your taste in music leans more toward feminist or
> > androgynous new-school lounge music?
>

> Probably. I can't think of any music that doesn't fall into one of those
> three categories.

That just shows the limits of your musical taste and your lack of
knowledge of anything before the rock album era.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 2, 2:59 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> The Bloomfield Bloviator <savo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > So your taste in music leans more toward feminist or
> > > > androgynous new-school lounge music?
>
> > > Probably. I can't think of any music that doesn't fall into one of those
> > > three categories.
>
> > That just shows the limits of your musical taste and your lack of
> > knowledge of anything before the rock album era.
>

> Not to mention your dire inability to detect sarcasm. No wonder you
> think my sense of humor blows.

EVERYONE here thinks your sense of humor blows.

Bobby retort to you was FUNNY.

Your reply, sarcasm or not, was not funny.

[BobbyM]

On 8/2/2012 3:35 PM, poisoned rose wrote:
> BobbyM <massey...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't enjoy an awful lot of music in that macho, old-school,
>>> arena-rocker vein. Zeppelin, Stones, Who, some Alice Cooper...can't come
>>> up with any other names at the moment. Soundgarden?
>>
>> Love or hate the others, Soundgarden doesn't belong in the same
>> category.
>

> Shrug. Your opinion. I don't have the ferocious chronological bias
> commonly found around here. And I added that band name with a question
> mark anyway, so it's a weak issue to harp upon.

Sure it's worth harping on. Soundgarden wasn't around until the 80's &
if you don't know that then you shouldn't have mentioned the group. Do
you think a question mark excuses your ignorance? Arena rock is more
closely associated with bands of the 80's than the 60's so Soundgarden
is more appropriate there. The other bands were major acts before
playing stadiums/arenas became par for big name acts. You throw around
terms like "old school" & "arena rock" but haven't a clue of their
proper usage.

>> So your taste in music leans more toward feminist or
>> androgynous new-school lounge music?
>

[BobbyM]

On 8/2/2012 4:54 PM, poisoned rose wrote:

> Bobby wrote:
>
>>> Shrug. Your opinion. I don't have the ferocious chronological bias
>>> commonly found around here. And I added that band name with a question
>>> mark anyway, so it's a weak issue to harp upon.
>>
>> Sure it's worth harping on.
>

> Wow.

>
>> Soundgarden wasn't around until the 80's &
>> if you don't know that then you shouldn't have mentioned the group. Do
>> you think a question mark excuses your ignorance?
>

> Wow. Woooooow. Just look at you go!

>
>> Arena rock is more
>> closely associated with bands of the 80's than the 60's so Soundgarden
>> is more appropriate there. The other bands were major acts before
>> playing stadiums/arenas became par for big name acts. You throw around
>> terms like "old school" & "arena rock" but haven't a clue of their
>> proper usage.
>

> Wow. You are really around the bend now, aren't you? I mean, clearly,
> there's no way to deal with you rationally anymore.
>
> I'll briefly address the issue but there can't be any real point.
>
> My main reason for giving Soundgarden the "question mark" is that
> they're more of a technical-dazzle band with precision time changes and
> intricate interaction, rather than having that comfortable, boozy,
> blues-based ambience. But they do have guitar-hero appeal, that
> arena-rock grandeur and a narcissistic singer with an old-fashioned
> "Golden God" persona (which isn't something that I typically enjoy). The
> band has plenty of fans in the classic-rock community because their
> sound is so compatible with that world. This doesn't apply as much to,
> say, Nirvana, whose sound had a tangible punk influence that ticked off
> many old-timers.

Which old-timers? Cobain ate a gun before he had the real opportunity
to turn into the arena rocker you obviously despise, assuming the
drawing power didn't erode; after all the follow-up to Never Mind was a
flop compared to it.

Or to Mudhoney, or various other less popular Seattle
> acts who arose around the late '80s. Many of whom I saw live at various
> times.
Congratulations on your achievement.

> If you think you are more equipped to discuss this particular realm than
> me, you are sadly mistaken.

You've proven that you will write more on the subject than I'm willing
to waste.

[Travis_Trite]

>> I think "We're An American Band" is a great record, but I could have
>> done quite nicely without their remake of "The Loco-Motion." (Ratchet
>> that up 25-30 times for Kylie Minogue!)
>>
>
> I like the record too, but I only brought it up because the lyrics mention
> Freddy King. Guess Grand Funk did some touring with him.
>
> "Bad Time" is my favorite by them & "Closer to Home" probably at a distant
> 2d.
>

I like those two a lot, and We're an American Band. I agree with what you
said about the earlier stuff versus the mid-period.

I got hooked on the idea that there was good stuff to find on the GFR and GF
albums because I liked several things on the album produced by Frank Zappa
from 1976, Good Singin' Good Playin'.

I disagree with Bruce about Some Kind of Wonderful. 70s rock bands would do
themselves and their audience a service by doing songs like that (J. Geils,
Santana). Those versions often led me to the original and in those cases I
usually end up liking both. The GF isn't what led me to the Soul Brothers
Six version, but I think GF come up empty with it. (I like their Locomotion
with the gated snare and they know they come up big when they come in with
the chug-a chug-a rhythm which is one of their "things." Kind of like when
Eddie Van Halen manhandles You Really Got Me.)

Freddy King I only know Hide Away and I'm Tore Down. Hide Away has a good
groove but the melodic idea isn't interesting enough to anchor an
*instrumental.* I feel that way also about Bill Doggett's Honky Tonk.

His singing in I'm Tore Down is pretty good. One of my rules is, is the
person a singer or an instrumentalist? Blues aficianadoishness, I think,
maybe doesn't take that distinction seriously enough.

[Michael Pendragon]

A: "Damn, Freddy King was good!!!"

Q: What did 5-year old Dean say after having spent the night on Freddy
King's tour bus?

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 2, 8:10 am, "Travis_Trite" <Travis_Tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Freddy King I only know Hide Away and I'm Tore Down. Hide Away has a good
> groove but the melodic idea isn't interesting enough to anchor an
> *instrumental.* I feel that way also about Bill Doggett's Honky Tonk.

Good thing you were not a record compnay executive back then. You
would have bankrupted the label with your shit ear for what
works........Both records were monstrous hits. "Honky Tonk" was one of
the biggest records of the 1950s.

[Travis_Trite]

>
> "The Bloomfield Bloviator" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:dae2f39a-3cdd-4bf5...@j7g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

Pearl Jam's Alive was and is a huge hit on Modern Rock and still-existing
classic rock stations.

I've probably heard it 40 to 100 times, but as I'm hearing the intro, the
stuff that happens before the singing, I never know that it's a song I've
heard before. In other words, there's no accounting for why certain records
are hugely popular.

Those rather anonymous, but with a beat, r&b instrumental work-out hits like
Honky Tonk may have been hits because they "cleansed the palate." If you
were hearing a jukebox, or listening to a radio station, you'd hear a bunch
of vocal songs that demand a certain amount of attention. Then that instro
would come on, and you could groove to it, but it's not like its top-level
musical interest (melody, structure) is that important. (I'm not sure Hide
Away is in this category because the lead guitar line is kind of piercing.)

The issue is paradoxical or counterintuitive. I've been looking into what I
characterize as "blank British vocals." Eno, Damon Albarn, Ian Hunter, the
vocalist on Hawkwind's Quark Strangeness & Charm, and several others I've
identified -- their voices all kind of sound the same. High-pitched, whiney,
and with less accent-masking than a lot of British r&r. I like the songs,
singers, and bands a lot. It's not that there's no personality in the
singing, but just somehow that the personality is readymade, boilerplate,
one-size-fits-all. The acts can focus on the qualities of the song, without
having to worry about fashioning a "new" vocal approach.

[Travis_Trite]

>
> Pearl Jam's Alive was and is a huge hit on Modern Rock and still-existing
> classic rock stations.
>
> I've probably heard it 40 to 100 times, but as I'm hearing the intro, the
> stuff that happens before the singing,

Actually, I think I have to be well into the singing part before I recognize

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

You clearly have a very bad ear for music, so this is no surprise.

[Eric Ramon]

there was a game made out of those Oldies But Goodies albums

http://www.amazon.com/OLDIES-GOODIES-MUSIC-TRIVIA-GAME/dp/B0029QLSGI

I would always clean up because I'd recognize songs from the first
saxophone notes, or first drum beats, or whatever. You hear the
cowbell in Hello Mary Lou and you know what song it is. Or the drum
intro to Hello Josephine. It always makes me cringe when some famous
artist will start a famous song in concert, like say Paul McCartney is
playing the piano intro to Maybe I'm Amazed, and people start
whistling and cheering when he starts singing, as if they had no idea
what he was doing.

[Travis_Trite]

>> singers, and bands a lot. It's not that there's no personality in the
>> singing, but just somehow that the personality is readymade, boilerplate,
>> one-size-fits-all. The acts can focus on the qualities of the song,
>> without
>> having to worry about fashioning a "new" vocal approach.
>

> I'm not really "getting" your concept here. I wouldn't equate "blank"
> with those other characteristics you cited, nor would I ever say Eno and
> Ian Hunter sound the same.


Yeah, I know. I'll have to listen to some of the stuff to see what I'm
thinking of. For instance maybe Eno belongs in a blank but not Ian
Hunter-ish subcategory. And perhaps much of the rest is due to the pervasive
influence of Ian Hunter over some later British vocalists :)


> The first name that comes to mind of a "blank British vocalist" I like
> is Wire's Colin Newman. Very detached and deadpan. But I wouldn't call
> him high-pitched or whiny.


I'm not a big Wire fan so I haven't listened to them much, but my memory is
that he's (they're) a little talky and mid- to low-pitched.

I'm also a little heretical in having liked at least one or two songs from
the 80s comeback @ The Ideal Copy.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 5, 9:49 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> poisoned rose wrote:
> > If you asked me for the
> > '60s/'70s acts I "hate" most, there are no names that immediately come
> > to mind. I could come up with a few if I hunted and ruminated for
> > awhile, but it's just not an issue that preoccupies me.
>
> Musical topics are always more interesting to me than coddling others'
> neuroses and self-esteem issues, so the above question lingered in my
> mind. I hadn't really considered it before. (Note: I'm thinking about
> '60s/'70s acts ONLY).
>
> I don't think I truly "hate" any of the below acts, especially because I
> haven't explored some of them to a significant degree. I can't even
> decisively point to a #1. But....
>
> Barry White

Interesting that even with your "ugh" list you could barely come up
with one black artist. That style of music is not even on your radar.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 5, 10:24 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> Wow, what a shocker. You attempted to change the subject to white vs.
> black music? Incredible! I am floored. I was just so SURE you'd focus on
> the insult I aimed at various "AOR" acts.
>
> (Why be so BORING?? Why can't you debate more than the same handful of
> topics OVER AND OVER AND OVER?)
>
> And actually, what my list demonstrates is that I don't have any
> seething beef against "black artists," as you pretend.

It looks like it's more a matter of that black music is just not a big
part of your music world, either good or bad. Even some that you would
dislike much more than some of the AOR stufff you listed just don't
come to (your) mind, as they are not part of you Album oriented world,
aside from maybe Stevie Wonder and a handful of other albums by
various artists.

Do you have opinions one way or the other (thumbs up or thumbs down)
on artists like Jerry Butler, Wilson Pickett, Gladys Knight and the
Pips, Tyrone Davis, the Dells, the Chi-Lites, Aretha Franklin, The
Isley Brothers, Earth, Wind and Fire, Kool and the Gang, the O'Jays,
Joe Simon, the Spinners, the Manhattans, Johnny Taylor, Joe Tex, the
Dramatics and the Stylistics?

Are any of these acts better in your opinion, than the Creation?

There was a lot more going on in the 60s and 70s than white guitar
oriented artists that you seem to be much more aware of than the black
artists of the day.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 6, 12:43 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > And actually, what my list demonstrates is that I don't have any
> > > seething beef against "black artists," as you pretend.
>
> > It looks like it's more a matter of that black music is just not a big
> > part of your music world, either good or bad.
>

> And it isn't. So?

It's a shame that your musical scope is so limited to one part of
American culture. Hard to believe that something like this would not
turn you on.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzcdNwIkmYA

....But to each his own I guess. You apparently are more interested in
complex lyrics and compositions than in raw emotion.


> Who are you to tell me that's "wrong"? Especially
> given your own enormous blind spots about other realms of music? Do I
> childishly pummel you with lists of favorite contemporary artists,
> clucking at you for not enjoying them as I do?

We're talking about you now, not me. You sound like a 6 year old who
wants ice cream and when his mother says, no, he says, but (my
brother) Brucie jiust had some, mommy.


> And a big difference between you and me is that I rarely rant and fume
> about music that doesn't happen to turn me on. As you can see, I
> couldn't even name more than a dozen or so vintage acts who measurably
> irritate me. I feel loads of "indifference" toward various artists, but
> not much "hate." A biiiiig difference between you and me.

Why do you feel that this is a competition between you and me? As
someone who says that music is exceedingly important in his life, I
would think that you would be open to other styles of music that you
may not have seriously investigated yet?

Are you hear to discover music that you might like, or are you hear to
list what you see as negatives about othyer posters?


> It's also worth pointing out that I enjoy plenty of black jazz that you
> would bitterly denounce. You also exhibit almost no interest in any
> "Third World" music. But you conveniently pretend this "doesn't count."

Yes, it does seem that many serious music fans who like white guitar
rock and don't like much black rock (R&B, soul, funk, hip hop) are
also fans of jazz.

> > Even some that you would
> > dislike much more than some of the AOR stufff you listed just don't
> > come to (your) mind, as they are not part of you Album oriented world,
>

> Don't invent thoughts for me. Thanks.

>
> > Do you have opinions one way or the other (thumbs up or thumbs down)
> > on artists like Jerry Butler, Wilson Pickett, Gladys Knight and the
> > Pips, Tyrone Davis, the Dells, the Chi-Lites, Aretha Franklin, The
> > Isley Brothers, Earth, Wind and Fire, Kool and the Gang, the O'Jays,
> > Joe Simon, the Spinners, the Manhattans, Johnny Taylor, Joe Tex, the
> > Dramatics and the Stylistics?
>

> I would never list any of those acts among my big "dislikes."

Are ANY of them among your big "likes?" Do you enjoy Aretha Franklin
more than the Creation?


> WHY must you turn every damn thread back to the exact same topic? And
> why are you so thick-headed that you don't understand this is not really
> so much a white/black issue?

No, it's a music style issue. You vastly prefer the white style of
rock to the balck style of rock. Jimi Hendrix and Arthur Lee are
blacks who play the white style of rock. You probably like them.
Johnny Otis and Teena Marie are whites who play the black style of
rock. You probably have no interest in them, and likely you dislike
Teena Marie, if you are even familiar with anything by her.


> Think about all the "white" picks on your '70s-songs lists that I
> criticized. Think about WHY I was skeptical about those songs. It's the
> same sort of reasons why I'm not so keen on many of your black faves. I
> don't know why you can't see past color to MUSICAL CONTENT. You're so
> terminally superficial!

What is it about the musical content of, let's say, Clyde McPhatter
and the Drifters that makes them not appeal to you?

> > Are any of these acts better in your opinion, than the Creation?
>

> What is "better"? Are you talking about my personal enjoyment or overall
> significance?

Your personal enjoyment.


> And did any of those acts fail to chart a single during
> the '60s? If no, it doesn't make any sense for you to bring up the
> Creation, since I endorsed the Creation exclusively within that
> not-charting context.

The Creation charted two singles in the UK, but that's not really
relevant here. I'm simply asking if you enjoy the Creation more than
you enjoy any of the black acts that I listed above? Those black acts
are all far more "revered" than the Creation, so I;m wondering if you
just don't "get" why people revere them.


> I am NOT really a big Creation fan, which was
> quite evident from me saying they only had a handful of songs that I
> like.

Okay, so then would you say that you prefer the Temptations to the

Creation?


> > There was a lot more going on in the 60s and 70s than white guitar
> > oriented artists that you seem to be much more aware of than the black
> > artists of the day.
>

> Being aware of Top 40 black music really isn't the elite knowledge you
> pretend it is.

No one says it's elite, although I am much more aware of those artist
beyond just their top 40 hits on the Pop (white) chart.


> And my "They didn't chart" mini-thread indicates that I enjoy a lot of
> '60s music that YOU are not much aware of.

Oh, I'm "aware" of almost every act you mentioned there. Most of them
just never appealed to me.


> You're going to have to work really hard to make further exchanges about
> this interesting, because I am DEADLY bored of you steering every single
> topic back to the same reverse-racist obsession.

I've never said you were a racist, I'm sure you enjoy Stevie Wonder
and Charles Mingus much more than you enjoy Pat Boone and Donny
Osmond. This is about musical styles, not about racism.

As someone who seems to be aware of rock history and of which artists
and songs are revered, you don't seem to personally like or love ANY
of the most revered black rock acts of the 50s or 60s. The shit that
grabs hold of many of us here just has no appeal for you I guess.

Do you like blues? Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, BB King, etc?

Neither Muddy nor Wolf ever had a single on the pop chart, but both
are among my 20 favorite artists of all time.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 6, 4:50 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > And actually, what my list demonstrates is that I don't have any
> > > > > seething beef against "black artists," as you pretend.
>
> > > > It looks like it's more a matter of that black music is just not a big
> > > > part of your music world, either good or bad.
>
> > > And it isn't. So?
>
> > It's a shame that your musical scope is so limited to one part of
> > American culture.
>

> It's a shame that you feel others' limited musical scope is a shame, but
> that your own limited scope is something to boast about.

>
> > You apparently are more interested in
> > complex lyrics and compositions than in raw emotion.
>

> That's not so far from the truth (a lot closer than your deranged
> "Asshole"-type accusations) but, on the other hand, which of us likes
> the Sex Pistols, Stooges and VU? Which of us likes the gritty,
> unpolished music of recent decades?

Really, are you a big fan of the Wu-Tang Clan and the 2 Live Crew?

Or do you only like the raw emotion of white people?


> Which of us finds most Top 40 songs
> slick and inhuman?

Most Top 40 songs contain more emotion than most of what you listen
to.

> > > Who are you to tell me that's "wrong"? Especially
> > > given your own enormous blind spots about other realms of music? Do I
> > > childishly pummel you with lists of favorite contemporary artists,
> > > clucking at you for not enjoying them as I do?
>
> > We're talking about you now, not me.
>

> You know why that is? Because I don't continuously berate you about not
> liking music that I like, under the pretense that it's a "failing" to
> reject it.
>
> I don't care much if others don't care for the music I like. What
> bothers me most -- and this is abundantly supported by my posting
> history -- is people like you who put so, so much energy into being
> loud, hateful and negative without having any thoughtful reasoning
> behind your venom. It's all grandstanding noise. "Lou Reed sings like a
> dead cow." That sort of nonsense. Just throwing careless word bombs in
> the hopes of wounding someone else's sacred...er...cow.

>
> > > And a big difference between you and me is that I rarely rant and fume
> > > about music that doesn't happen to turn me on. As you can see, I
> > > couldn't even name more than a dozen or so vintage acts who measurably
> > > irritate me. I feel loads of "indifference" toward various artists, but
> > > not much "hate." A biiiiig difference between you and me.
>
> > Why do you feel that this is a competition between you and me?
>

> Mainly because you've thrown a few hundred insulting posts calling me an
> inferior "AOR Asshole," "follower," etc. etc. etc.?
>
> You seemed to be at the good end of your mood swings last night, but
> don't pretend your other side doesn't exist. And you're back to
> screaming "FUCKING JACKASS" like a mental patient again today.

>
> > someone who says that music is exceedingly important in his life, I
> > would think that you would be open to other styles of music that you
> > may not have seriously investigated yet?
>
> > Are you hear to discover music that you might like
>

> I wouldn't say that's a prime reason why I'm here. I might say something
> different given a different group of subscribers, but not with this
> bunch.
>
> > , or are you hear
>
> Come on, dude...misspelling it TWICE? ;)

>
> > to list what you see as negatives about othyer posters?
>

> Well, my first post was sharing some "Summer" tracks that I liked. I was
> trying to beef up the dying '70s-rock group. I've also posted capsule
> descriptions of quite a few overlooked bands that I like. That's the
> typical thing I like to do -- try to make OTHERS discover music they
> might like. But the lack of constructive feedback has discouraged me
> from pursuing that much further here.

>
> > > > Do you have opinions one way or the other (thumbs up or thumbs down)
> > > > on artists like Jerry Butler, Wilson Pickett, Gladys Knight and the
> > > > Pips, Tyrone Davis, the Dells, the Chi-Lites, Aretha Franklin, The
> > > > Isley Brothers, Earth, Wind and Fire, Kool and the Gang, the O'Jays,
> > > > Joe Simon, the Spinners, the Manhattans, Johnny Taylor, Joe Tex, the
> > > > Dramatics and the Stylistics?
>
> > > I would never list any of those acts among my big "dislikes."
>
> > Are ANY of them among your big "likes?"
>

> No, they are not. Do you ever get tired of this "testing" game?

>
> > Do you enjoy Aretha Franklin more than the Creation?
>

> Hard to say. I have more "respect" for what Franklin accomplished. Put
> it that way. But her classic songs have been so drummed into me that I
> just don't feel driven to own copies of them. That's the down side of
> radio.

LOL...what a fucking hipocrite. I'm sure you're not missing anything
by artists whose records have been even more drummed into you, like
the Beatles, The Who, Dylan, etc.......The fucking guy does not even
own anything by the greatest female artist of the rock era, and maybe
of all time.

> > No, it's a music style issue. You vastly prefer the white style of
> > rock to the balck style of rock. Jimi Hendrix and Arthur Lee are
> > blacks who play the white style of rock. You probably like them.
> > Johnny Otis and Teena Marie are whites who play the black style of
> > rock. You probably have no interest in them, and likely you dislike
> > Teena Marie, if you are even familiar with anything by her.
>

> You still don't get it. At all. You should think more about those
> "craftsmanship vs. art" or "simple vs. complex" issues you brought up.
> Or "personal" vs. "impersonal." Distinctions like that. It's not "white
> style" and "black style." Beyond the observable trait of physical color,
> I wonder if you even know what you mean by those terms.

So you don't think that music made by blacks and music made by whites
differs most of the time?

>
> > > Think about all the "white" picks on your '70s-songs lists that I
> > > criticized. Think about WHY I was skeptical about those songs. It's the
> > > same sort of reasons why I'm not so keen on many of your black faves.
>

> > What is it about the musical content of, let's say, Clyde McPhatter
> > and the Drifters that makes them not appeal to you?
>

> Try again. Think about why I was so skeptical about those white songs I
> criticized. Why did I feel that way? Why don't I like the Grass Roots?

Non responsive to the question. Let me try again.

What is it about the musical content of, let's say, Clyde McPhatter
and the Drifters that makes them not appeal to you?

> > I'm simply asking if you enjoy the Creation more than
> > you enjoy any of the black acts that I listed above?
>

> Of course.

That's very telling. The fact that you prefer unsuccesful third rate
talents to many of the greatest acts of the era that you grew up in.

> > Those black acts
> > are all far more "revered" than the Creation, so I;m wondering if you
> > just don't "get" why people revere them.
>

> Why would me saying I prefer the Creation indicate that I don't "get"
> why other people revere the other names? This is you projecting your own
> blind spots onto me again. How you invent hateful, insulting or, at the
> very least, condescending descriptions for anyone who fails to like the
> music you enjoy. Rather than just shrugging "That's for them, but not
> for me."
>
> The Velvet Underground is more revered than most of your favorites, but
> you can't say why other people revere the band without using character
> assassination. (And if you respond to this, you'll probably haggle about
> the side issue of how revered they are rather than responding to the
> central challenge.)

As I said, this is not a competition. When I make a point about your
lack of capacity to understand why certain acts that you don't listen
to are revered, that's not your cue to think of an act that's revered
that I don't care for.

Do you think there are many non-whoites who revere the Velvet
Underground?

> > Okay, so then would you say that you prefer the Temptations to the
> > Creation?
>

> Mmm...I'd say that is true.

Halelujah.

> > The shit that
> > grabs hold of many of us here just has no appeal for you I guess.
>

> I do not have tastes based around listening to Top 40 radio.

I listened to top 40 radio for exactly 4 years, 1969-1972. As I've
repeatedly told you, my favorite music of all time mainly came from
before there was top 40 radio. Several of my 20 favorite artists of
all time never even has any pop charts hits, let alone top 40 hits
(Mudddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Smiley Lewis, Wynonie Harris, The
Robins)..


< I do not
> fetishize old playlists, old sales charts or old DJs. I view "mainstream
> popularity" as a characteristic rather than as a virtue.

I think you're some kind of musician, right? Have you ever had a
recording that was released?



> That makes me very, very different from most others here.

One of hundreds of things that does, yes.

> > Do you like blues?  Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, BB King, etc?
>
> > Neither  Muddy nor Wolf ever had a single on the pop chart, but both
> > are among my 20 favorite artists of all time.
>

> BB King is not for me.

So the biggest bluesman ever, a guy who released more music than
probably any other artist of the rock era, is just "not for you." I
think maybe your lily white existence has stunted your emotions so
much that you just can't identify with anything earthy, unless it;s
the filthy smelly earthiness of degenerates like te Stooges or the Sex
Pistols. You probably also like the Anti-Nowhere League.


> Muddy is more a case of "respect" rather than
> "enjoyment." I have inadequately explored Howlin' Wolf and could quite
> possibly become a fan, if his dissonant qualities transcend the
> predictable song structures.

So you "respect" artists that you don't like, but are revered, but you
don't respect artists that you don't like, but are not revered. Why?

Why respect Muddy but not respect, let's say, Tom Jones?

> I wish you could just write "...among my favorite artists of all time"
> without the "20." I can feel you aching to forward another compulsive
> "list" in every post.

I feel sorry for you man, you're missing out on a large part of the
greatest music that was made during the rock era.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 6, 6:42 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's not so far from the truth (a lot closer than your deranged
> > > "Asshole"-type accusations) but, on the other hand, which of us likes
> > > the Sex Pistols, Stooges and VU? Which of us likes the gritty,
> > > unpolished music of recent decades?
>
> > Really, are you a big fan of the Wu-Tang Clan and the 2 Live Crew?
>

> And back to your infantile "testing" and to yet MORE harping on your
> white/black mania. BE LESS BORING.
>
> Utterly sick of how you pretend nothing matters except to my reaction to
> the artists YOU decide to harp on.
>
> I don't care for Wu-Tang or 2 Live Crew, no. And many would say 2 Live
> Crew is one of the worst hip-hop acts ever, so that's a stupid example
> to use.

Too gritty for you. huh?

Many would also say that the VU are one of the worst rock acts ever.
Many more people dislike them than people who like them. Same tith the
Stooges and the Pistols. They all have a relatively small core of
devoted fans, but are pretty much despised by the general public.

Here's the 2 Live Crew stats from Last.FM

902,961 scrobbles
138,970 listeners

and here's the Creation stats from Last.FM

467,999 scrobbles
75,103 listeners

Seems that the 2 Live Crew is roughly about twice as popular in 2012
as the Creation is.



> That you would even bring up this obsolete group tells me how
> little familiarity you have with the genre.

LOL....o you think about these things before you post them?

When somebody is familiar with lesser known bands that usually means
they are MORE familiar with the genre, not LESS familiar.


> I'd rather listen to acts like Public Enemy, A Tribe Called Quest, De La
> Soul, 2Pac/Dr. Dre/Snoop Dogg, the Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, P.M.
> Dawn, OutKast and Kanye West. Or Ornette. Or Coltrane. Or Miles. Or
> Mingus. Etc. All that emotional jazz that you have the nerve to insist
> is not really liked by anyone.

No Eminem?

What does jazz have to do with hip hop acts?

> > > Which of us finds most Top 40 songs slick and inhuman?
>
> > Most Top 40 songs contain more emotion than most of what you listen
> > to.
>

> Gee, I guess this is something else we disagree about.

Yes. What else is new?

>
> > LOL...what a fucking hipocrite. I'm sure you're not missing anything
> > by artists whose records have been even more drummed into you, like
> > the Beatles, The Who, Dylan, etc.......The fucking guy does not even
> > own anything by the greatest female artist of the rock era, and maybe
> > of all time.
>

> Wow, did you run away from replying to a whole huge section of material.
> So, so cheap.
>
> When you start the demented, tuff-guy profanity, my eyes glaze over in
> boredom.

Nobody's forcing you to continue posting.

The point remains, your story of not needing to own it bcause it's
been drummed into you so much is horseshit, because you certainly own
lots of things that have been more drummed into yet than Aretha
Franklin. Considering you claim not to listen to Top 40 radio, where
exactly were you hearing all of this Aretha Franklin?


> You know the difference between your "radio soul" and Beatles/Dylan/Who?
> Instrumental intrigue. The difference between instrumental music that
> repeatedly grabs you with fresh, distinctive jabs and twists, and
> session-player music that strives to be "felt but not heard." There are
> certainly exceptions (like when James Jamerson steps out to a notable
> degree) or a few "psychedelic soul" guitar licks, but they are not
> common.

Thankfully. he should stick to what is on the charts and never be
improvising.

Radio soul like "My Girl" and "Respect" and "Grapevine" and "I Can;t
Help Myself" grab hundreds of million of people.

> > > You still don't get it. At all. You should think more about those
> > > "craftsmanship vs. art" or "simple vs. complex" issues you brought up.
> > > Or "personal" vs. "impersonal." Distinctions like that. It's not "white
> > > style" and "black style." Beyond the observable trait of physical color,
> > > I wonder if you even know what you mean by those terms.


> > So you don't think that music made by blacks and music made by whites
> > differs most of the time?
>

> You are so, so superficial. You just can't talk about music beyond what
> your eyes see. So BORING.

And you can't just namswer a simple wuestion, instead always analyzing
me rather than supplying a simple answer.

It's not a difficult question.

Do you think that there's a discernable difference in the music that
is created by most blacks as opposed to the music that is created by
most whites?

> > > > > Think about all the "white" picks on your '70s-songs lists that I
> > > > > criticized. Think about WHY I was skeptical about those songs. It's the
> > > > > same sort of reasons why I'm not so keen on many of your black faves.
>
> > > > What is it about the musical content of, let's say, Clyde McPhatter
> > > > and the Drifters that makes them not appeal to you?
>
> > > Try again. Think about why I was so skeptical about those white songs I
> > > criticized. Why did I feel that way? Why don't I like the Grass Roots?
>
> > Non responsive to the question. Let me try again.
>
> > What is it about the musical content of, let's say, Clyde McPhatter
> > and the Drifters that makes them not appeal to you?
>

> You are such a fraud. I asked my question first. Instead of changing
> subjects, ANSWER IT.

>
> > > > I'm simply asking if you enjoy the Creation more than
> > > > you enjoy any of the black acts that I listed above?
>
> > > Of course.
>
> > That's very telling. The fact that you prefer unsuccesful third rate
> > talents to many of the greatest acts of the era that you grew up in.
>

> Yes, it's very telling about how terribly insecure you are. Always
> believing tastes must be validated by popular opinion. Words couldn't
> possibly do justice to how gladgladGLAD I am that I don't carry around
> Billboard archives as a monkey on my back like you do.

>
> > > The Velvet Underground is more revered than most of your favorites,

Only by a small segment of listeners. The general listening public
reveres Wayne Newton more than the VU, as do I.

> > Do you think there are many non-whoites who revere the Velvet
> > Underground?
>

> God. Does anyone know a way to make Bruce stop talking about race and
> start talking about music?

Apparently you don't.


> I'm really losing interest. I can't give this post as much attention as
> it demands, but you're just too damn one-note.

Nobody is forcing you to continue posting in this thread, or in this
newsgroup.

> > You probably also like the Anti-Nowhere League.
>

> Nah. You pulling that random name out of the air makes me suspect that
> they are one of the few underground-ish punk acts you have heard of.

Your assumptions are laughable. I was buying and playing underground-
ish punk acts when you were just discovering that your penis had
another use aside from urinating.

> Stumbled upon the name by chance somewhere, I guess.

I have three of their singles, bought them when they were current. My
favorite is "So What."

> > Why respect Muddy but not respect, let's say, Tom Jones?
>

> Because Tom had no creative vision and was just a guy stepping up to the
> mike, singing over tracks others provided for him.

As if you could that well.

I guess you have no respect for Sinatra, Crosby, the Supremes, the
Temptations, Elvis Presley, the Mills Brothers, Darlene Love, or Tony
Bennett either.

ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS.

Who wrote the song, who plays on it, are not relevant to how good (or
bad) the final product is. Tom Jones made some killer records. That's
why he's a legend and the Creation are a forgotten never been.

> > > I wish you could just write "...among my favorite artists of all time"
> > > without the "20." I can feel you aching to forward another compulsive
> > > "list" in every post.
>
> > I feel sorry for you man, you're missing out on a large part of the
> > greatest music that was made during the rock era.
>

> I feel sorry that you perceive music with your eyes rather than your
> ears.

I perceive what YOU like with my eyes. The fact that you care about
who came up with the songs and tracks rather than just LISTENING to
the final prodcut is very telling. A first class musical snob you
are.

I'll bet thaty before you will give your opinion on what you nthink of
a record you have to first assertain who wrote the song, who playued
on it etc..., as if that has any bearing on how good (or bad) is
sounds.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 6, 8:07 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Considering you claim not to listen to Top 40 radio, where
> > exactly were you hearing all of this Aretha Franklin?
>

> Her music is on TV and in movies, all the time.

ROFLMAO....so you expect us to believe that her music was "drummed"
into you because you heard it in movies and on TV? Gee, you might
have heard one of her songs two or thrre times a month that way. How
could you stand it?

> > > You know the difference between your "radio soul" and Beatles/Dylan/Who?
> > > Instrumental intrigue. The difference between instrumental music that
> > > repeatedly grabs you with fresh, distinctive jabs and twists, and
> > > session-player music that strives to be "felt but not heard." There are
> > > certainly exceptions (like when James Jamerson steps out to a notable
> > > degree) or a few "psychedelic soul" guitar licks, but they are not
> > > common.
>
> > Thankfully. he should stick to what is on the charts and never be
> > improvising.
>
> > Radio soul like "My Girl" and "Respect" and "Grapevine" and "I Can;t
> > Help Myself" grab hundreds of million of people.
>

> A typically unresponsive post. I'm really losing interest in you.

You keep saying that. If you're losing interest, stop posting. Why
keep declaring that you're losing interest?


> Everything you write just ignores what I say and bounces to something
> else. Useless.

>
> > Do you think that there's a discernable difference in the music that
> > is created by most blacks as opposed to the music that is created by
> > most whites?
>

> Yes. Now, why don't you just talk about what those differences are? Then
> we might have a prayer of entering a topic worth discussing.

One of the differences is that the blacks are not neurotic pencil thin
losers who need to wine about how fucked up life is in most of their
songs.

> > > Why don't I like the Grass Roots?
>

> You have no idea. This question completely throws you. Or you don't want
> to answer, because you know the answer will indicate I dislike music for
> reasons beyond simply observing the singer's race.

I would guess you don;t like the Grass Roots for reasons that have
little to do with what the records sound like. You don't like them
because they did not write their own songs, probably did not play on
many of them, had huge hits with covers of songs by other artists, and
were simply "crafting" some great pop rock that was all over the top
40 charts from 1967 to 1971. Their one of my favorite acts of that
era, by the way. That's one thing that me and the IPO crowd agree
with. We don;t give a shit about "point of view" and who wrote the
songs, we just care about how the songs sound. Well crafted top 40
style rock from that era > neurotic shitheads with a "point of view."

Let me ask you, why would you possibly care about some musician's
"point of view?"

What makes some guy who can play a guitar, or sing, or both, have any
better take on things outside of music than any other person out
there. You might as well get your plumber's "point of view."

You sound like marcus here. Because John Lennon could sing and play
guitar, he cared aboutnwhat John nthought about other issues. Why
would you care about what some musician thinks about things outside of
music?

>
> > > > Why respect Muddy but not respect, let's say, Tom Jones?
>
> > > Because Tom had no creative vision and was just a guy stepping up to the
> > > mike, singing over tracks others provided for him.
>
> > As if you could that well.
>

> At least write in English. I deserve that much.

>
> > I guess you have no respect for Sinatra, Crosby, the Supremes, the
> > Temptations, Elvis Presley, the Mills Brothers, Darlene Love, or Tony
> > Bennett either.
>

> Those acts have a lot more essential catalog than Tom Jones does.

Yeah, like you listen to tons of Mills Brothers.

They had more talent in their little fingers than these guys you like
have in their entire bodies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUjayFrxcQo


> I'm going to be cutting a lot more of your redundant nags from now on.
> I'm just dead bored with you turning every discussion into the same
> three or four topics. You have an incredibly limited perspective on
> music.

Bend over and I'll drive you out of the newsgroup.

[BobbyM]

On 07-Aug-12 9:54 AM, The Bloomfield Bloviator wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:07 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
>> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Considering you claim not to listen to Top 40 radio, where
>>> exactly were you hearing all of this Aretha Franklin?
>>
>> Her music is on TV and in movies, all the time.
>
> ROFLMAO....so you expect us to believe that her music was "drummed"
> into you because you heard it in movies and on TV? Gee, you might
> have heard one of her songs two or thrre times a month that way. How
> could you stand it?

Rosie enjoyed the Blues Brothers' movies so much he had to watch them
repeatedly. He knows at least a couple of Aretha's songs.

[BobbyM]

On 07-Aug-12 11:07 AM, poisoned rose wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Sav...@aol.com> wrote:

Whether you've "kill-filed" me or not, you're still reading my posts. I
must admit you have clearly stepped off the deep end now & are just
making up shit.

> But because you aren't a thinking person who subjects his lazy
> prejudices to any serious test, you don't give any thought to how the
> above factors affect the music. Like, it's not just an issue of writing
> one's own songs or not. Taking a song from someone else means the lyric
> is highly unlikely to have any interesting and/or personal material.
> It's going to be something generic, universal and craftsmanship-like.
> Because a non-recording songwriter isn't going to give a song with
> personal perspective to someone else.
This is pure horseshit. Don't ask me for examples; multitudes exist & I
won't waste my time.

> And if the musicians are session guys, they're trained to stay out of
> the way and be essentially "invisible." So, there's not going to be much
> spontaneous chemistry, personal style or unexpected dissonances in the
> instrumental music. Nothing much to discover. So, that's how this
> affects "WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS."

More horseshit. I'll give you an example on this one, to save you from
having to work your feeble brain. "Blonde on Blonde", considered one of
the GREAT albums, practically everyone on it was a session musician.
Don't come back by naming Joe South, Al Kooper, Robbie Robertson; I said
"practically" & those people didn't perform on every song.

> And when you're "crafting" music with nothing in mind except having a
> hit single, that's going to affect "WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS"
> too.

Strange how you try to bait someone with that statement but qualify it
with "with nothing in mind except having a hit record". OK, smart guy,
name some of those people who recorded a song ONLY for that reason.

>I enjoy music that feels
> "personal." Whether that music feels personal in terms of music, lyrics
> or both.

Good for you. Then you must love Nilsson's song,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02lXLiFsRtE,
because he's singing just for you.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

Yes, she must have 3 or 4 songs that he's heard in movies.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 6, 10:07 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> Lots of nonsense not worth answering...the more badly you fall behind,
> the more you sink into your infantile "LOL, you fucking jackass" mode.
> Just making a big, big noise to reassure yourself that your manhood
> hasn't been dented.

>
> > > > > Why don't I like the Grass Roots?
>

> > I would guess you don;t like the Grass Roots for reasons that have
> > little to do with what the records sound like. You don't like them
> > because they did not write their own songs, probably did not play on
> > many of them, had huge hits with covers of songs by other artists, and
> > were simply "crafting" some great pop rock that was all over the top
> > 40 charts from 1967 to 1971.
>

> That is fairly accurate. Along with their music being so dully
> streamlined that there's very little to get from their songs with repeat
> listens. It's nothing but surface melody. Once I can hum the catchy part
> in my head, there's no need to return to the song again.

So you would agree that the Grass Roots records were NOT art?

>
> But because you aren't a thinking person who subjects his lazy
> prejudices to any serious test, you don't give any thought to how the
> above factors affect the music. Like, it's not just an issue of writing
> one's own songs or not. Taking a song from someone else means the lyric
> is highly unlikely to have any interesting and/or personal material.

Perfect. I don't want any singer to be singing about anything
personal. They are performers, just like actors. I want them to be
playing a role when they sing.

> It's going to be something generic, universal and craftsmanship-like.

Great.

> Because a non-recording songwriter isn't going to give a song with

> personal perspective to someone else. So, that's how this affects

> "WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS."

Yes, it affects it in a very positive way. I have no interest in any
musician's "personal perspective" on anything outside of his playing
and singing. I fail to see why anybody would care about a musician's
personal perspective on anything. The guy is there because he can play
and/or sing, not because he's a brilliant philosopher.

There are plenty of songs that were written and first recorded by
"recording" songwriters, but were done much better by other artists.
Take "Respect" for instance. It was a real good record by Otis
Re4dding, but b y Aretha Franklin it's one of the greatest recordings
of all time, in any genre.

Besides, a non recording songwriter who writes a song with a personal
perspective is.....

A - Probably starving
B - Not in control, of who records his song once it is copyrighted.

The Grass Roots covered "Midnight Confessions" which was and done
first by a group called Evergreen Blues. The song was written by their
manager, who had no say in the Grass Roots recording it or not.

> And if the musicians are session guys, they're trained to stay out of
> the way and be essentially "invisible." So, there's not going to be much
> spontaneous chemistry, personal style or unexpected dissonances in the
> instrumental music.

Tes, another huge plus.

> Nothing much to discover. So, that's how this

> affects "WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS."

If so, it's a huge positive effect. I don't want anybody improvising
anything.

Sounds like you're not much of a Phil Spector or Brian Wilson fan,
guys who wanted things played exactly the way they heard them in their
heads, with no deviation at all.

>
> And when you're "crafting" music with nothing in mind except having a

> hit single, that's going to affect "WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS"
> too.

I really have no interest in what affects it, only in the finished
product. Someone the other day sent me a bunch of session clips from
the Beach Boys recording "I Can Hear Music," which is my favorite
recording from 1969. I did not even listen to them. I don;t want to
hear all the mistakes and problems that had to be ironed out to get to
the finished product. I don't want to be thinking about those things
when I hear the record.


> It adds up to some really boring tunes.

No, it adds up to incredibly exciting tunes like "Midnight
Confessions" and hundreds of classic and "revered" Motown hits.

I enjoy music that feels
> "personal." Whether that music feels personal in terms of music, lyrics
> or both.

But yet do don't enjoy much soul or 1950s R&B, if anything. There's
nothing more "personal" than that stuff.


> It might be about songwriting, or it might be about
> performance. I don't know why you can't just accept hearing something
> like this, without having a frothing compulsion to go on an extended
> assault campaign against anyone who doesn't have your "Top 40 singles"
> mentality.

It would be fine if you did not have a top 40 singles mentality, if
you appreciated non top 40 R&B from the 50s and 60s, or something else
aside from neurotic white guys whining about life. But it's not just
Top 40 that you don't care for, It's almost anything that you perceive
as being beneath your deluded idea of what you think is your amazing
ability to recognize what is good.

> You are terribly, terribly insecure. Anyone with different
> tastes poses a threat to you.

zzzzzzzzzzz

Guys with your taste and attitudes about music are a dime a dozen. A
white guy born in the mid-60s who grew up in a mainly white area, who
likes mainly white guitar oriented rock, and buys into the album thing
and the point of view thing. Thinks he has much better taste then the
general public.

You're not the one with the unique ability to overcome your musical
environment. That would be me. Born in 1957, grew up in an all white
town, yet prefers mainly R&B from around the time he was born and
before.

> > Their one of my favorite acts of that
> > era, by the way. That's one thing that me and the IPO crowd agree
> > with. We don;t give a shit about "point of view" and who wrote the
> > songs, we just care about how the songs sound. Well crafted top 40
> > style rock from that era > neurotic shitheads with a "point of view."

> The IPO crowd loves the Kinks. And "Pet Sounds." And "Sgt. Pepper." And
> Big Star. And various other acts who infuriate you because they had
> ambitions of creating something "artistic" beyond superficially catchy
> tunes.

They also love Herman's Hermits and the Grass Roots and Edison
Lighthouse and the White Plains. "Love Grows" by Edison Lighthouse was
one of IPO founder Dave bash's favorite records, along with "My Baby
Loves Lovin'" by the Whiote Plains, and his favorite record of 1970,
"Yellow River" by Christie.


> Profane namecalling...boring, boring, boring.

Keep mentioning that, as if it's gonna change.

> > Let me ask you, why would you possibly care about some musician's
> > "point of view?"
>

> Because that's something that makes me feel a human, emotional
> connection to music. Rather than just appreciating songs as mechanical
> widgets, as you do.

You ought to be reading poetry instead of listening to music. What is
lacking in your life that you need to get your emotional feelings from
a recording?

You're 47 years old, ever been married? Kids? a girlfriend? a
boyfriend?

> > What makes some guy who can play a guitar, or sing, or both, have any
> > better take on things outside of music than any other person out
> > there. You might as well get your plumber's "point of view."
>

> Despite all your noise about it, you really don't understand this topic
> at all.

I understand that you're looking for love and other emotions in all
the wrong places. An emotional misfit who sits around trying to feel
human through recordings.


> You don't even understand that "point of view" doesn't have to be about
> analyzing world events and that sort of thing. It can be simply talking
> about one's own feelings or experiences. And good lyrics don't have to
> be about "point of view," either. They could be entertaining stories.
> They could have witty puns and wordplay. They could be something
> romantic or hateful that creates an emotional reaction in the listener.
> You seem to have this utterly stupid delusion that "good lyrics" can't
> be about anything except ideological preaching about politics and
> society.

I feel sorry for you, man. Needing to get your fill of emotions from
some guy singing a song. It's sad.


> In lurking, I've seen you yammer about this issue a hundred times and
> you never accomplish anything but flaunting your ignorance and use of
> flashy abuse/anger as a substitute for thinking.

Then why continue to discuss it with me.

> > > > I guess you have no respect for Sinatra, Crosby, the Supremes, the
> > > > Temptations, Elvis Presley, the Mills Brothers, Darlene Love, or Tony
> > > > Bennett either.
>
> > > Those acts have a lot more essential catalog than Tom Jones does.
>
> > Yeah, like you listen to tons of Mills Brothers.
>

> Bouncebouncebounce.

>
> > Bend over and I'll drive you out of the newsgroup.
>

> I'm sure you will. I only have so much tolerance for dealing with
> loudmouths who rely on being as noisy as possible to cover for their
> glaring inability to think, reason and debate.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, you're just about useless on any subject that's
> anything beyond pure facts and statistics.

At least I'm useful on something them. Your useless on everything.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

> On 07-Aug-12 11:07 AM, poisoned rose wrote:
>
> > with nothing in mind except having a hit single,

Which is how 99% of all 1960-1969 rock music was recorded.

Certainly every single Motown track other than some LP filler was this
way.

So you're obviously not much of a Motown fan until the Wonder/Gaye
stuff of the 1970s maybe.

These artists laugh at schmucks like you, thinking your feeling
something personal from a recording.

Like John Lennon said when asked about what a particular song was
about, "it may just mean I had a good shit that day."

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 6, 10:54 pm, BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 07-Aug-12 11:07 AM, poisoned rose wrote:
>

> > The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Whether you've "kill-filed" me or not, you're still reading my posts.  I
> must admit you have clearly stepped off the deep end now & are just
> making up shit.
>
> > But because you aren't a thinking person who subjects his lazy
> > prejudices to any serious test, you don't give any thought to how the
> > above factors affect the music. Like, it's not just an issue of writing
> > one's own songs or not. Taking a song from someone else means the lyric
> > is highly unlikely to have any interesting and/or personal material.
> > It's going to be something generic, universal and craftsmanship-like.
> > Because a non-recording songwriter isn't going to give a song with
> > personal perspective to someone else.
>
> This is pure horseshit.  Don't ask me for examples; multitudes exist & I
> won't waste my time.

As if he could tell the diffference. I guarantee you that if we played
him a song he did not know by three different artists he'd only be
able to pick out which version was by the songwriter.........one third
of the time.

[Dean F.]

On Aug 6, 11:51 pm, The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:

> These artists laugh at schmucks like you, thinking your feeling
> something personal from a recording.
>
> Like John Lennon said when asked about what a particular song was
> about, "it may just mean I had a good shit that day."

Q: What's worse than a clueless buffoon?
A: A clueless buffoon who's convinced he knows what he's talking
about.

(I refer of course to PR, not the BB.)

[BobbyM]

How about those singer/songwriters when they decide to record another
person's song? Are they sell-outs? Hendrix was a singer/songwriter -
biggest hit - Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower". Charlie Rich - he &
his wife wrote hundreds of songs - biggest hit (I think) - "Behind
Closed Doors" written by another but less known singer/songwriter. And
on & on. How about Rosey's favorite group, The Beatles? They sure did
a bunch of remakes; according to Rosey's own words, those remakes must
have been generic & uninteresting. But I guess Bloomin' pretends that
part of Beatles' history doesn't exist.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

And even worse is a clueless buffoon who's getting hammered in a
debate but who keeps declaring himself as "winning."

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

His biggest was "The Most Beautiful Girl," written by Bill Sherrill,
Norris Wilson, and Rory Michael Bourke.

And on & on.  How about Rosey's favorite group, The Beatles?  They
sure did
> a bunch of remakes; according to Rosey's own words, those remakes must
> have been generic & uninteresting.

Well, he agrees with another of his enemies there, Roger Ford.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 6, 10:54 pm, BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 07-Aug-12 11:07 AM, poisoned rose wrote:
>

> > The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Whether you've "kill-filed" me or not, you're still reading my posts.  I
> must admit you have clearly stepped off the deep end now & are just
> making up shit.
>
> > But because you aren't a thinking person who subjects his lazy
> > prejudices to any serious test, you don't give any thought to how the
> > above factors affect the music. Like, it's not just an issue of writing
> > one's own songs or not. Taking a song from someone else means the lyric
> > is highly unlikely to have any interesting and/or personal material.
> > It's going to be something generic, universal and craftsmanship-like.
> > Because a non-recording songwriter isn't going to give a song with
> > personal perspective to someone else.
>
> This is pure horseshit.  Don't ask me for examples; multitudes exist & I
> won't waste my time.

I guess the schmuck prefers "Bridge Over Troubled Water" by Paul Simon
alone since Garfunkel had no part in writing the song.

I'm surprised he likes the Who, other than "Going Mobile" and maybe a
couple of other things where Pete does the lead vocal.

He must not like "God Only Knows," as Carl could not possibly really
feel the song as he did not write it.

[BobbyM]

Forgot about that one. Sherrill was a big country producer but he also
takes writing credit on a bunch of songs (don't know whether he actually
wrote them or not); had a brief stint as a singer early in his career.
I don't know anything about the other two; but I'll bet Rich put a lot
more emotion into the song that Sherrill would have.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 12:24 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Besides, a non recording songwriter who writes a song with a personal
> > perspective is.....
>
> > A - Probably starving
> > B - Not in control, of who records his song once it is copyrighted.
>

> I don't know why you're making this point. That's practically what I
> already said. Yes, non-recording songwriters aren't likely to write
> personal songs.

Oh, horseshit. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Do I have to start citing examples of this now?

Jimmy Webb was one of the greatest non recording songwriters of the
60s. Several of his most famous songs were personal, and he gave them
all to other people to record.

-----------------------------------------

The song "Worst That Could Happen" depicts a man reflecting on an
affair he'd had with a woman with whom he is still in love, but who is
about to marry someone else. It has been stated that, along with
"MacArthur Park" and "By The Time I Get to Phoenix", "The Worst That
Could Happen" is about a relationship that Webb had had with a woman
named Susan.

--------------------------------------

Besides, most of the writers who wrote songs for people like the Grass
Roots and the Monkees WERE recording. Neil Diamond, Boyce and Hart.
Even Carole King was recording then. Seceral Grass Roots hits were not
written "for" them, but were songs that were out by other artists
where they covered or remade the song.

Besides "Midnight Confessions" which I already spoke of, "Let's Live
For Today" was first by the Rokes, and then by the Living Daylights on
Buddah, which is the one that the Roots copied. Then there's "The
River Is Wide" which was a fairly big hit for the Forum a couple of
years before the Roots did it. "Lovin' Things" was a cover of a UK hit
by the Marmalade.

> > > And if the musicians are session guys, they're trained to stay out of
> > > the way and be essentially "invisible." So, there's not going to be much
> > > spontaneous chemistry, personal style or unexpected dissonances in the
> > > instrumental music.
>

> > Yes, another huge plus.
>
> You're just making noise now. You don't believe this.

I certainly do, just as Brian Wilson and Phil Spector and Berry Gordy
did, but naturally you know better than they do, right?

> > If so, it's a huge positive effect. I don't want anybody improvising
> > anything.
>

> More noise. You don't even care how stupid you look.

>
> > Sounds like you're not much of a Phil Spector or Brian Wilson fan,
> > guys who wanted things played exactly the way they heard them in their
> > heads, with no deviation at all.
>

> I don't have narrow, hard-and-fast rules about how all music should be,
> as you do. I'm more likely to prefer this or that, but I don't spend
> every day pounding my fist, dictating what music MUST be.

You do that a lot more than me. Unless the song is written by the
performer and you perceive it as personal, you;re not interested.
Doesn't matter what it sounds like.

> > I enjoy music that feels
> > > "personal." Whether that music feels personal in terms of music, lyrics
> > > or both.
>
> > But yet do don't enjoy much soul or 1950s R&B, if anything. There's
> > nothing more "personal" than that stuff.
>

> I do not believe that is true.

Is this 1950s song personal in your opinion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syxgc2665w4

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 12:24 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
>
> > The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Besides, a non recording songwriter who writes a song with a personal
> > > perspective is.....
>
> > > A - Probably starving
> > > B - Not in control, of who records his song once it is copyrighted.
>
> > I don't know why you're making this point. That's practically what I
> > already said. Yes, non-recording songwriters aren't likely to write
> > personal songs.
>
> Oh, horseshit. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
>
> Do I have to start citing examples of this now?

There's Doc Pomus, a famous rock and roll hall of fame non-recording
songwriter who wrote "Save The Last Dance For Me" for the Drifters:

In the song, the narrator tells his lover she is free to mingle and
socialize throughout the evening, but to make sure to save him the
dance at the end of the night. During an interview on Elvis Costello's
show Spectacle, Lou Reed, who worked with Pomus, said the song was
written on the day of Pomus' wedding while the wheelchair-bound groom
watched his bride dancing with their guests. Pomus had polio and at
times used crutches to get around. His wife, Willi Burke, however, was
a Broadway actress and dancer. The song gives his perspective of
telling his wife to have fun dancing, but reminds her who will be
taking her home and "in whose arms you're gonna be."

Sounds pretty fucking personal.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Bareett Strong, whp was not recording anymore by then, wrote "I heard
It Through The Grapevine," a personal song, and gave it to other
artists to record, first the Miracles, then Gladys knight and the
Pips, and then marvin Gaye.

In 1966, Barrett Strong, a former recording artist for Motown Records
and the singer behind the label's breakthrough hit, "Money (That's
What I Want)", had begun to work in the songwriting staff after
failing to produce a follow-up hit. Motown CEO Berry Gordy hired
Strong to work with Norman Whitfield to work on recordings for The
Temptations following the success of Whitfield's recording of the
group's "Ain't Too Proud to Beg".

Strong originally composed "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" due to
his own personal relationship.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 12:30 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > with nothing in mind except having a hit single,
>
> > Which is how 99% of all 1960-1969 rock music was recorded.
>
> > Certainly every single Motown track other than some LP filler was this
> > way.
>
> > So you're obviously not much of a Motown fan until the Wonder/Gaye
> > stuff of the 1970s maybe.
>
> > These artists laugh at schmucks like you, thinking your feeling
> > something personal from a recording.
>

> Just more noise. Actually, they're more likely to laugh at a boob like
> you who constantly brags about being a music expert yet lacks even the
> most fundamental musical training.

I know nothing about music. I'm an expert on the history of rock and
roll recordings from the 50s and 60s. You don;t have to know how to
load film in the camera to be an expert on movies. You don't have to
have played major league baseball to be an expert on its history.

> > Like John Lennon said when asked about what a particular song was
> > about, "it may just mean I had a good shit that day."
>

> John Lennon was a notorious, shoot-from-the-hip bullshitter who said all
> sorts of dumb, rash things. It's ridiculous for you to clutch that quote
> to your breast, especially given that he only says a song MAY just mean
> nothing to him. On the other hand, it MAY mean something deeply
> personal. He obviously wrote quite a few songs based on passionate
> personal beliefs, though many others were not.

So I guess you enjoy "Give Peace A Chance" more than most anything
else he wrote, since that was a pasionate personal belief.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 1:15 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> You're the one who introduced the description "non-recording,"
> not me.

No, that was you. I've never even heard that term before you used it.

Here it is:

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 1:30 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>

> Did he put something in the song about having polio? Of course not. And
> the lyric specifically goes against reality because it says things like:
>
> "If he asks if you're all alone/Can he walk you home, you must tell him
> no"
>
> Which obviously isn't going to happen when a wedding guest talks to the
> bride.

Boy, for someone who claims to care so much about lyrics, you are
fucking putrid at interpreting them.

It was about what their future life together was going to be like, not
just about that one day at the wedding.

"when we're apart, don't give your heart to anyone."

Did he think she was going to fall in love with someone else during
the reception while he went to take a piss?

He happened to some up with the idea for the song while they were at
their wedding reception, That doesn't mean the song is about that day
and that day only.

Do you also think that "Penny Lane" is about the events of just one
afternoon?

Fucking buffoon.

He was letting her know that when they would be going out over the
years that she did not have to sit there next to him all night if he
was immobile at the time. She could dance and have fun with other
guys, as long as she remembered who she was going home with.

You shouldn't even be posting in this thread, because if you even know
who Freddy King is, you certainly don't think his music was good.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 2:05 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Just more noise. Actually, they're more likely to laugh at a boob like
> > > you who constantly brags about being a music expert yet lacks even the
> > > most fundamental musical training.
>
> > I know nothing about music. I'm an expert on the history of rock and
> > roll recordings from the 50s and 60s. You don;t have to know how to
> > load film in the camera to be an expert on movies. You don't have to
> > have played major league baseball to be an expert on its history.
>

> Terrible analogies.

>
> > > > Like John Lennon said when asked about what a particular song was
> > > > about, "it may just mean I had a good shit that day."
>
> > > John Lennon was a notorious, shoot-from-the-hip bullshitter who said all
> > > sorts of dumb, rash things. It's ridiculous for you to clutch that quote
> > > to your breast, especially given that he only says a song MAY just mean
> > > nothing to him. On the other hand, it MAY mean something deeply
> > > personal. He obviously wrote quite a few songs based on passionate
> > > personal beliefs, though many others were not.
>
> > So I guess you enjoy "Give Peace A Chance" more than most anything
> > else he wrote, since that was a pasionate personal belief.
>

> No, I don't. I get so tired of dealing with black-and-white thinkers.
> "If you like cheese, why do you ever eat anything else????"
>
> And anyway, who says that song was his most "personal"?

We're not talking about "most personal," we're talking about
"passionate personal beliefs," your words.

Something like "In My Life" might be very personal, but it;s not about
beliefs, it's about personal memories.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 2:19 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
>
> I think someone who believes music cannot be art and only exists to make
> money for someone shouldn't be posting about music in any forum at all.

Music doesn't only exist for making money. There's all kinds of music.
The band in high school, people harmonizing together on a street
corner, Andy Taylor playing a song on the guitar for Opie and Aunt Bee
after dinner, none of that is for making money.

But commercial recordings that get released on record labels, those
are for making money. Every record from the 60s that we talk about
here was released for the purpose of making money, for the label
owner, the artists, the songwriter(s), the pressing plant, the
distributors, the salesmen, the record shop owners, etc.....

I don't recall the Beatles gibing away free records as they walked
through the streets. Paul McCartney got very involved in protecting
his copyrights as they were nearing expiration in Europe awhile back.
Doesn't he have enough money?

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 2:45 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> The Bloomfield Bloviator <savo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I think someone who believes music cannot be art and only exists to make
> > > money for someone shouldn't be posting about music in any forum at all.
>
> > Music doesn't only exist for making money. There's all kinds of music.
> > The band in high school, people harmonizing together on a street
> > corner, Andy Taylor playing a song on the guitar for Opie and Aunt Bee
> > after dinner, none of that is for making money.
>
> > But commercial recordings that get released on record labels, those
> > are for making money. Every record from the 60s that we talk about
> > here was released for the purpose of making money, for the label
> > owner, the artists, the songwriter(s), the pressing plant, the
> > distributors, the salesmen, the record shop owners, etc.....
>

> > I don't recall the Beatles giving away free records as they walked

> > through the streets. Paul McCartney got very involved in protecting
> > his copyrights as they were nearing expiration in Europe awhile back.
> > Doesn't he have enough money?
>

> More tapdancing.
>
> The difference between saying "recordings are for making money" and your
> past contentions that every artist wants nothing but to sell records and
> will do anything to do so because they have no principles.

This is the 1960s music newsgroup. Every act and every label who
released records in the 1960s did so for the purpose of attempting to
make money.

i have no fucking idea or interest in what people do now. If that's
what you want to talk about can you find somewhere else to do it
rather than the "1960s Music Newsgroup?"

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 2:55 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <savo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Every act and every label who
> > released records in the 1960s did so for the purpose of attempting to
> > make money.
>

> And they never, ever, ever compromised the pursuit of money in favor of
> an artistic choice.

The record labels, just about never. That's why Beatles albums had
less songs than the UK versions of the albums. The label had ZERO
interest in what you would call "artistic integrity."

My grandfather at Savoy certainly had no interest in artistic
integrity, or in music at all for that matter. He was a businessman
who stumbled upon owning a record label that grew out of his radio
parts business in Newark in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

The only artists who ever did what you suggest in the 60s were a few
who were in the position where whatever they released would sell like
hotcakes regardless, like the Beatles.

Certainly the Motown label did not compromise the pursuit of money,
and the artists there in the 60s had virtually no say in any decisions
concerning these matters.

More likely in the 60s it was the opposite....an artist going MORE
commercial to appeal to a wider audience, like Ray Charles being
chastised for "selling out" to appeal to whitey, as depicted in the
movie "Ray."

There were very few acts who had any say over their releases in the
1960s. The label owners controlled all of that.

Maybe you missed Mick Jagger singing "let's spend some time together"
on the Sullivan show. If artistic integrity was so fucking important
to the group, why wouldn't they refuse to go on the show if their
lyrics were being censored? By 1967 the Stones didn't really need to
go on Ed Sullivan to make money, but they not only went on, they
allowed their lyrics to censored.

I think you just don't realize how different things were in those
days. Nobody had ever even spoke of an act's "point of view" in the
60s. That phrase was never used concerning music in those days.

[Travis_Trite]

> > > These artists laugh at schmucks like you, thinking your feeling
> > > something personal from a recording.
> >
> > > Like John Lennon said when asked about what a particular song was
> > > about, "it may just mean I had a good shit that day."
> >
> > Q: What's worse than a clueless buffoon?
> > A: A clueless buffoon who's convinced he knows what he's talking
> > about.
> >
> > (I refer of course to PR, not the BB.)
>
> And even worse is a clueless buffoon who's getting hammered in a
> debate but who keeps declaring himself as "winning."
>

clueless buffoon


His buffoonery is George Cloonerific


Would'a helped you, brother. Was looking for the right opportunity to make
it a quadruple-team, but I didn't cause I was pretty sure we'd STILL lose,
baby!!!


Dennis C from Tennessee

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 5:36 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> Switching subjects yet again. But yes, I know. Not one '60s person gave
> a darn what Dylan, Paul Simon, Joan Baez, Beatles, etc. were singing
> about.

That crowd has long since lost interest in 1960s "music," since they
never really had it in the first place. Just a bunch of young folks
hanging out and trying to find something to occupy their time.

> All they wanted to do was dance to Tommy James.

He's certainly more relevant today than Joan Baez.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 7:23 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Switching subjects yet again. But yes, I know. Not one '60s person gave
> > > a darn what Dylan, Paul Simon, Joan Baez, Beatles, etc. were singing
> > > about.
>
> > That crowd has long since lost interest in 1960s "music," since they
> > never really had it in the first place. Just a bunch of young folks
> > hanging out and trying to find something to occupy their time.
>

> Your usual sloppy attempt to stack the deck and pretend no one "counts"
> except people/music with your own skewed orientation.

>
> > >  All they wanted to do was dance to Tommy James.
>
> > He's certainly more relevant today than Joan Baez.
>

> I'd agree that his old hits are more durable than hers. On the other
> hand, Baez is much more marketable as a contemporary act. People still
> love that voice, and folk is a genre that's friendly to older
> performers. Bubblegum pop played by sixtysomethings, on the other
> hand....

Tommy is working regularly, and his show is great, although not for
you, because he sounds as much like the records as just about any act
I've ever seen, which is what i want to see.


Saturday, January 28th 2012 CASINO RAMA ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
9PM SHOWTIME Rama Ontario,
75 miles north of Toronto
Canada

Friday, March 23rd 2012 RIVER SPIRIT CASINO EVENT CENTER
7PM SHOWTIME Tulsa, Oklahoma

Saturday, March 31st 2012 CAMDEN COUNTY COLLEGE
DENNIS FLYER THEATER
8PM SHOWTIME Blackwood, New Jersey

Friday, May 18th 2012 JOHN A. WALKER COMMUNITY CENTER
8PM SHOWTIME Wilkesboro, North Carolina
80 miles north of Charlotte

Friday, June 8th 2012 SHOOTING STAR CASINO EVENT CENTER
8PM SHOWTIME Mahnomen, Minnesota
60 miles north of Fargo

JULY 4TH CONCERT THE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA
SHOWTIME - EVENING PERFORMANCE TBA
GIVEN BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK Madison and Eagle Streets
Albany, New York

Saturday, July 14th 2012 HEARTLAND EVENTS CENTER
HALL COUNTY FAIR - 8PM SHOWTIME Grand Island, Nebraska
150 miles west of Omaha

Saturday, July 28th 2012 FORTUNE BAY CASINO RESORT BALLROOM
5PM SHOWTIME Tower, Minnesota
75 miles north of Duluth

Saturday, September 8th 2012 LITTLE RIVER RESORT CASINO Manistee,
Michigan
100 miles north of
Grand Rapids

Saturday, October 20th 2012 NYCB THEATRE AT WESTBURY
'HOT AUTUMN NIGHTS' - 7PM SHOWTIME Westbury, New York

Friday, November 2nd 2012 HARD ROCK HOTEL & CASINO
8PM SHOWTIME Biloxi, Mississippi

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 7, 11:44 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Tommy is working regularly, and his show is great, although not for
> > you, because he sounds as much like the records as just about any act
> > I've ever seen, which is what i want to see.
>

> A pop act like James SHOULD sound just like his records. It's different
> for other sorts of acts.
>
> Only on this newsgroup would someone tout an act's tour of the casino
> circuit as proof of the act's vitality.

That's where the money is.

[Dean F.]

On Aug 8, 1:45 am, The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:

> > Only on this newsgroup would someone tout an act's tour of the casino
> > circuit as proof of the act's vitality.
>
> That's where the money is.

Exactly! Deborah Harry of Blondie said she loves the working circuit
because she knows the band's going to get paid.

By the way, I was just waiting for Rosie to make a sneering comment
about the casino circuit. These elitist jerk-offs are as predictable
as they are pathetic.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 8, 3:06 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Only on this newsgroup would someone tout an act's tour of the casino
> > > > circuit as proof of the act's vitality.
>
> > > That's where the money is.
>
> > Exactly! Deborah Harry of Blondie said she loves the working circuit
> > because she knows the band's going to get paid.
>

> Yeah, I bet all the acts touring arenas are just ACHING that they can't
> play the casino circuit instead.

How many acts from Tommy James era are playing arenas?

>
> You guys are ridiculous. You know perfectly well that the casino circuit
> is for has-beens.

How many acts who had their hits in the 1960s are not has beens?

Where are the Creation playing?

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 8, 3:44 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> > > Yeah, I bet all the acts touring arenas are just ACHING that they can't
> > > play the casino circuit instead.
>
> > How many acts from Tommy James era are playing arenas?
>

> Why grade him on a curve? The question is who is popular today. His
> popularity is measured against everyone else, not just other oldsters.

That's not how you wanted to measure the Kinks sales on Amazon, you
said it was unfair for them to compete with current acts. You wanted
to grade on a curve there.


> And there are other '60s-era acts who may not be playing "arenas," but
> are at good-sized, mainstream theaters.

Casino crowds are as mainstream as it gets.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 8, 3:57 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
>
> It's a very old crowd,

The average age of the casino crowd is younger than you are.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Aug 8, 3:57 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Yeah, I bet all the acts touring arenas are just ACHING that they can't
> > > > > play the casino circuit instead.
>
> > > > How many acts from Tommy James era are playing arenas?
>
> > > Why grade him on a curve? The question is who is popular today. His
> > > popularity is measured against everyone else, not just other oldsters.
>
> > That's not how you wanted to measure the Kinks sales on Amazon, you
> > said it was unfair for them to compete with current acts. You wanted
> > to grade on a curve there.
>

> Changing subjects yet again.
>
> The reason I said it was unfair to compare the Kinks with current acts
> was that the real issue was your claim that the Kinks' late-'60s
> material is glaringly unpopular versus other phases of Kinks music. It
> was a discussion internal within the Kinks' catalog. Once you lost that
> topic (based on both last.fm and Amazon statistics),

I won that topic. All of their 10 most popular tracks were hit
singles. None were album tracks with messages, ,and like I told you,
their two biggest tracks are "You Really Got Me" and "All Day And All
Of The Night," Amazon LP numbers mean little today, people don'
listen to "albums" anymore. If you want to use Amazon you need to llok
uo the numn=bers on digital downloads of individual tracks,


you switched
> subjects to chiding the band's overall sales level instead.

>
> > > And there are other '60s-era acts who may not be playing "arenas," but
> > > are at good-sized, mainstream theaters.
>
> > Casino crowds are as mainstream as it gets.
>

> It's a very old crowd, and artists in their prime rarely play that
> world. You know this. Why are you arguing about such obvious facts?

Do you think that I am trying to cliam that Tommy James is sill in his
prime?

Casino crowds are much more in line with a cross section of ages than
people who go to other concerts. Those are more young people who are
dating.

The acts you named (Cohen, Newman) were "around" in the 60s, but were
not in their prime until later.

How many acts who were in their prime in the 60s can still play venues
that current acts play?