3 Essential 60s Albums Pt.1
The Giant Brain
Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
Eric Ramon
in the great usenet tradition of being picky and finding fault with
just about anything, I'd like to point out that this would really be,
oh, maybe Pt. 15, not Pt. 1.
globular
I'd debate Forever Changes. It's appeal is local I think.
I'd definitely debate Let It Bleed, a bit anti-60s frankly.
Pet Sounds was important but dates.
The Giant Brain
"globular" <se...@there.invalid> wrote in message
news:he0sng$5vh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The point is that these albums are all excellent, ahead of their time and
deserve to be in any 60s rock music lover's collection.
50s
> "globular" <s...@there.invalid> wrote in message
I vehemently disagree. Don't like the Love album and really don't like
the totally wimpy Beach Boys album. In fact, I prefer listening to
individual songs rather than albums.
None of the three albums is excellent. The Stones album is good, the
Love album is not very good, and the Beach Boys album stinks.
If you want three excellent 1960s albums I'd go with...
Willie And The Poor Boys - CCR
Shotgun - Jr. Walker
The Ice Man Cometh - Jerry Butler
The Giant Brain
"50s" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b4ae23fc-1bad-42b6...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------
You are, of course, wrong.
50s
> "50s" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in message
No, you are, obviously wrong.
gullive...@yahoo.com
> Willie And The Poor Boys - CCR
> Shotgun - Jr. Walker
> The Ice Man Cometh - Jerry Butler
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> You are, of course, wrong.
You gotta admire someone who claims the Walker release is in any top
three, but this, just like the yearly Top 100 lists, is purely
subjective.
Just because a large number of people say that Pet Sounds is wonderful
doesn't make it so for everyone, particularly 50s.
For me, Forever Changes is one of the few 60s albums I listen to all
the way through, without skipping a song. Probably would make my top
five for sure my top ten of the 60s.
And, as much as I like the Beach Boys, Pet Sounds doesn't do much for
me. I think it is more important as a symbol.
But Willie/Poor Boys is arguably not even CCR's best album from the
60s.
50s
What is their best album for the 60s?
Maybe "Green River?"
You might be right about that.
It's close.
50s
> > Shotgun - Jr. Walker
> > The Ice Man Cometh - Jerry Butler
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------
>
> > You are, of course, wrong.
>
> You gotta admire someone who claims the Walker release is in any top
> three,
That "Shotgun" album is loaded with things that later became hit
singles, plus "Tune Up" is a great flip side.
SS-701 - Shotgun - Jr. Walker & All Stars [5/65] (7-65, #105) Released
in monaural as SM-701. Cleo's Mood/Do The Boomerang/Shotgun/Road
Runner/Shake And Fingerpop/Shoot Your Shot//Tune Up/Hot Cha/Monkey
Jump/Tally Ho!/Cleo's Back/Ain't That The Truth
Roger Ford
>On Nov 18, 1:14=A0pm, "gulliverfoy...@yahoo.com"
I tend to agree with Bruce on this one. Just look at the quality stuff
in abundance on this album!!
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Dean F.
> None of the three albums is excellent. The Stones album is good, the
> Love album is not very good, and the Beach Boys album stinks.
I've never heard the Love album, but I do agree about the Stones. As
for "Pet Sounds," it's OK but way overrated. If you want a Brian
Wilson effort that really hurts, try "Smile."
Dean F.
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/goldwax317/my_100_favorite_albums
50s
> My 100 Favorite Albums:
>
> http://rateyourmusic.com/list/goldwax317/my_100_favorite_albums
Greatest hits packages are not albums.
gullive...@yahoo.com
> My 100 Favorite Albums:
>
> http://rateyourmusic.com/list/goldwax317/my_100_favorite_albums
Very interesting list. I could agree on 12, but you earn a bonus from
me for the Joe South Introspection pick. Wore that vinyl out.
While 12 may not seem like many, it would go up to the mid 20s when I
considered a different release from artists. considering how diverse
our favorite music is, that seems entirely reasonable to me.
Dean F.
> Greatest hits packages are not albums.
For my purposes, they're close enough.
50s
That's insane, listing a box set as one of your favorite "albums"
Why list "Rubber Soul," why not just list the somplete Beatles box
set?
The Giant Brain
------------------------------------------------------------
Ah one of the witty rejoinders that make you the darling of the smart set.
50s
No doubt not as compelling as your brilliant "You are, of course,
wrong."
Look, dipshit. We don't just accept the party line here that says that
"Pet Sounds" is great. So far everybody who has responded to your
preposterous post has said that "Pet Sounds" is not great.
globular
But I remember hearing the album and not realizing it was anything
special for some years. I appreciate its part in 60s history and
certainly don't dislike it.
The Stones and Love albums I have only heard much more recently and just
aren't my cup of tea. They seem to reflect a move away from the sounds
of the 60s to what came in the 70s. I prefer The Move for that kind of
thing.
Forever Changes uses styles reflecting the LA area as far as I know.
Music Listener
> Look, dipshit. We don't just accept the party line here that says that
> "Pet Sounds" is great. So far everybody who has responded to your
> preposterous post has said that "Pet Sounds" is not great.
it's one of my favorite albums ever, 60s or otherwise.
as yet, my impression of your tastes is that you pretty much scorn
anything challenging, complex or nuanced, and just want catchy pop
singles with trivial lyrics. which is one way to go...but it makes your
charges about others not having educated ears look pretty empty and
juvenile.
Dean F.
> as yet, my impression of your tastes is that you pretty much scorn
> anything challenging, complex or nuanced, and just want catchy pop
> singles with trivial lyrics. which is one way to go...but it makes your
> charges about others not having educated ears look pretty empty and
> juvenile.
If I want challenging or nuanced, I'll listen to Beethoven, not rock
'n' roll.
The late-1960s infiltration of the pseudo-intellectuals was the worst
thing that ever happened to the music.
50s
> > Look, dipshit. We don't just accept the party line here that says that
> > "Pet Sounds" is great. So far everybody who has responded to your
> > preposterous post has said that "Pet Sounds" is not great.
>
> it's one of my favorite albums ever, 60s or otherwise.
I'm sorry to hear that, you have pretty bad taste IMO.
> as yet, my impression of your tastes is that you pretty much scorn
> anything challenging, complex or nuanced, and just want catchy pop
> singles with trivial lyrics. which is one way to go...but it makes your
> charges about others not having educated ears look pretty empty and
> juvenile.
Lyrics are of no interest to me.
I like rhythm, structure and emotional vocals, not interested in what
you refer to as "challenging."
There's nothing "educated" about liking things that are further and
further away from basic rock and roll. It just means that the real
thing does not really grab you.
Beach Boys are one of my favorite acts of the decade, but not for most
of the shit on "Pet Sounds."
My favorites by them:
1 - I Can Hear Music
2 - Little Deuce Coupe
3 - Surfin' U.S.A.
4 - I Get Around
5 - Little Saint Nick
6 - Surfer Girl
7 - Fun, Fun, Fun
8 - Good Vibrations
9 - You're So Good To Me
10 - Help Me Rhonda
Music Listener
> My favorites by them:
>
> 1 - I Can Hear Music
> 2 - Little Deuce Coupe
> 3 - Surfin' U.S.A.
> 4 - I Get Around
> 5 - Little Saint Nick
> 6 - Surfer Girl
> 7 - Fun, Fun, Fun
> 8 - Good Vibrations
> 9 - You're So Good To Me
> 10 - Help Me Rhonda
i knew you'd just respond with another list.
> There's nothing "educated" about liking things that are further and
> further away from basic rock and roll. It just means that the real
> thing does not really grab you.
this statement seems to include a presumption that 'basic rock and roll'
is somehow 'correct.' or even 'educated' beyond other styles.
Music Listener
this sort of "i hate brains!" bunk used to congratulate oneself for
having dull, lowest-common-denominator, top-40 tastes is why i mostly
lurk.
Eric Ramon
Today! is my favorite album of theirs and I think Wild Honey would be
the one I'd play, of their later records.
50s
"educated" is irrelevant to music. Whether or not you like a certain
musical piece is 100% about your emotional response to it. No amount
of "education" can teach that. Anybody who thinks he has "learned" to
like something is just delusional.
Jan Dean
> Look, dipshit. We don't just accept the party line here that says that
> "Pet Sounds" is great. So far everybody who has responded to your
> preposterous post has said that "Pet Sounds" is not great.
Pet Sounds IS great. Even the dogs and the choo choo train.
Jan Dean
> I've never heard the Love album, but I do agree about the Stones. As
> for "Pet Sounds," it's OK but way overrated. If you want a Brian
> Wilson effort that really hurts, try "Smile."
It hurts when I smile.
50s
Grate would be more descriptive of the fluff on most of that album.
Jan Dean
One of Brian's dogs is going to bite you.
Uni
Might get rabies from Bruce! :-)
Uni
50s
Brian made lots of great music.....but most of that album ranges from
mediocre to just plain bad.
Here's a post I made here back on Jan. 2, 2002, where i rated the
album:
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds - Capitol 2458 - 1966
Wouldn't It Be Nice - 8
You Still Believe In Me - 5
That's Not Me - 6
Don't Talk - 4
I'm Waiting For The Day - 5
Let's Go Away For Awhile - 3
Sloop John B - 8
God Only Knows - 7
I Know There's An Answer - 4
Here Today - 6
I Just Wasn't Made For These Times - 4
Pet Sounds - 3
Caroline, No - 5
What the hell happened to the "Beach" in "Beach Boys?" Where's the
cars?
Give me "Tack It Up, Tack It Up, Buddy Gonna Shut You Down" anyday.
Here's my thinking on these guys. They had a great style early on that
made you
fell like you were having fun, but they NEVER NEVER could sing!!!
There are a
couple of songs on that Christmas album where it's just embarassing
listening
to the lead vocal. There are some songs here where it's pretty bad
too.
I don't like a lot of production, so all the lush stuff and the
oddball
background instruments on this album just make it worse for me. This
album was
the beginning of the end for their careers. Once Brian became enamored
with
this sound, they didn't have a top ten single (after "Good Vibrations)
for 10
damn years, and what was that top 10 single in 1976? A remake of
"Rock And
Roll Music" done in the early Beach Boys style.
Same thing with the albums. They had 8 top ten albums before this one.
After
this one, they didn't have a top 10 album (other than hits packages)
until 1975
with "Spirit Of America." You guys can have this supposed
"masterpeice." It's nothing but a progressive
change in style that was accepted by some, but pretty much rejected by
most of
the people who loved the Beach Boys up to that point. It goes along
with my
feelings about what the Beatles started doing in later years, although
it's
worse here. At least a couple of the Beatles had good voices.
Don't get me wrong, I really like some Beach Boys songs that came out
after
this, but not really any of their ballads. The slow songs just magnify
their
lack of vocal ability. "I Can Hear Music" is probably my favorite
record of
1969, for instance.
Dean F.
> Here's my thinking on these guys. They had a great style early on that
> made you fell like you were having fun, but they NEVER NEVER could sing!!!
Brian Wilson could sing. Mike Love, not so much. I'm guessing that's
why Wilson always took over the lead on the more emotional, romantic
Beach Boys tunes while Love handled the surfing and car songs.
Music Listener
> > > There's nothing "educated" about liking things that are further and
> > > further away from basic rock and roll. It just means that the real
> > > thing does not really grab you.
> >
> > this statement seems to include a presumption that 'basic rock and roll'
> > is somehow 'correct.' or even 'educated' beyond other styles.
>
> "educated" is irrelevant to music. Whether or not you like a certain
> musical piece is 100% about your emotional response to it. No amount
> of "education" can teach that. Anybody who thinks he has "learned" to
> like something is just delusional.
actually, what's delusional is someone projecting his own tastes onto
the rest of the world and insisting they're general reality.
many people are able to both feel -and- think about music. that you
can't do both is something to regret, not boast about.
Music Listener
> Brian made lots of great music.....but most of that album ranges from
> mediocre to just plain bad.
and yet it's one of the most acclaimed albums of all time...and i'm sure
it's even their best-selling album today, except for anthologies. it
certainly gets repackaged and repackaged, as its legend grows.
you wouldn't have a shred of ability to reason why it's so renowned,
without being bitter and insulting. no ability to see the album through
someone else's eyes. dare you to try.
> Wouldn't It Be Nice - 8
> You Still Believe In Me - 5
> That's Not Me - 6
> Don't Talk - 4
> I'm Waiting For The Day - 5
> Let's Go Away For Awhile - 3
> Sloop John B - 8
> God Only Knows - 7
> I Know There's An Answer - 4
> Here Today - 6
> I Just Wasn't Made For These Times - 4
> Pet Sounds - 3
> Caroline, No - 5
people who -love- the album could give better reasons for liking the
songs than just slapping a number on them.
> Give me "Tack It Up, Tack It Up, Buddy Gonna Shut You Down" anyday.
and your lame Velvet Underground trashing said you'd take the Osmonds
anyday. formulaic much?
50s
> 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Brian made lots of great music.....but most of that album ranges from
> > mediocre to just plain bad.
>
> and yet it's one of the most acclaimed albums of all time
Like I give a fuck what some critic thinks.
DCar...@aol.com
The Osmonds' "Yo Yo" was written by Joe South, baby!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
DCar...@aol.com
Actually, I liked the Beach departure that "Pet Sounds" provided but
the album was hit and miss and has been burnished into the public
consciousness as an album you better exalt or you won't be cool!!!
I remember Matt Lauer asking Katy Couric on the Today show what her
favorite Beach Boys' song was and she answered "God only Knows" and
her second favorite was "Wouldn't it be nice".
I know right then that "Pet Sounds" has become the mindless rote
response from the wannabe yuppie hip set, baby!
Frankly, I was shocked that everybody didn't toss away the album
after the first cut as "Sloop John B" is one of my LEAST favorites of
theirs!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
50s
> On Nov 19, 2:12 am, 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 1:25 am, Music Listener <henderson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Brian made lots of great music.....but most of that album ranges from
> > > > mediocre to just plain bad.
>
> > > and yet it's one of the most acclaimed albums of all time
>
> > Like I give a fuck what some critic thinks.
>
> Actually, I liked the Beach departure that "Pet Sounds" provided but
> the album was hit and miss and has been burnished into the public
> consciousness as an album you better exalt or you won't be cool!!!
Yes, we have a couple of "monkey see, monkey do" folks in this thread.
Rocky
Music Listener
> > � Actually, I liked the Beach departure that "Pet Sounds" provided but
> > the album was hit and miss and has been burnished into the public
> > consciousness as an album you better exalt or you won't be cool!!!
>
> Yes, we have a couple of "monkey see, monkey do" folks in this thread.
never fails to astound me...people who live so far up their own
backsides that they not disdain other people's tastes, but can't even
accept that other people arrived at those tastes in a "legitimate" (?!)
way.
and to see "monkey see" charges from people whose tastes are so
-enormously- shaped by top 40 radio programmers.... hahaha.
50s
If it'll make you go back to full time lurking I'm on board with Dean.
Your preposterous inferrence that "the smarter you are the less you'll
like what was popular" is proof of your own LACK of intelligence.
Music Listener
i wouldn't say that. however, i might say that the more someone implies
liking popular music is some sign of admirable enlightenment, the less
intelligent he might be. and more likely he is to be a big ball of
self-deluded gas.
yay, you're most avid about music which '50s/'60s teenagers liked to
dance to. congratulations.
Uni
Never knew that!!!!!
Thanks, Mr. Dennis!
Uni
>
> Dennis C from Tennessee
Jan Dean
But we're too busy singin' to put anybody down.
50s
No, you've got it wrong here.
I'm saying that the more that someone falls in line with what the rock
critcs think, the less their musical IQ is. They are just ratifying
the party line. Some critic told them that "Pet Sounds" was great, so
they checked it out, wanting badly to "get it" so they could feel like
part of some hip club or something. The album did not do all that well
when it was current for a reason, it's very uneven and lacks
widespread appeal. It's not a BAD album, it's just nothing anywhere
near where the critcis rank it, as one of the top 3 or 4 albums ever
made. It's only a classic with the critcis and with the pretentious
music fans who consider themselves "smarter" than the general public.
To me, it's not even on the same planet as several Beatles albums, as
well as many other 60s and 70s albums. Something like "Bat Out Of
Hell" or "Rumors" is even a much better listen if you ask me.
I like what I like, it has nothong to do with what was popular. I
dinb't even become aware of music until mkid-1968, so I never heard
any of these things being played when they were current. I DON'T like
most of the mainstream hits of the 1970s, and even in my favorite
decade, the 1950s, I hate most of the top 40 stuff from the first half
of the decade, and it doesnlt get all that much better in the second
half.
Here are 29 non top 40 hits that are among my hundred favorite records
of the 1960's:
1960
Spoonful ¦ Howlin' Wolf
Madison Blues (unreleased master) ¦ Elmore James
Let's Do The Cha-Cha ¦ Magnificents
Suddenly There's A Valley ¦ Drifters
Sweet Rockin' Mama ¦ Hi-Tombs
Who's Been Talking ¦ Howlin' Wolf
1961
It Will Stand ¦ Showmen
No Sweet Lovin' ¦ Drifters
Lonely No More ¦ Little Milton
Hung Down Head ¦ Lowell Fulsom
I Hear You Knocking ¦ Fats Domino
1962
I'm In Love Again ¦ Upsetters
Pink Pegged Slacks ¦ Eddie Cochran
1963
I Want A Love I Can See ¦ Temptations
It Won't Be Long ¦ Beatles
Second Line ¦ Huey & Curley
1964
The Same Thing ¦ Muddy Waters
Beautician Blues ¦ B.B. King
Ain't Doing Too Bad ¦ Bobby "Blue" Bland
I Ain't Got You ¦ Yardbirds
1965
Thank You John ¦ Willie Tee
Bring It On Home ¦ Sonny Boy Williamson
Think ¦ Jimmy McCracklin
It's A Man Down There ¦ G.L. Crockett
Southern Country Boy ¦ Carter Brothers
1966
Waitin' On You ¦ B.B. King
Dust My Broom (Live) ¦ Howlin' Wolf
Wang Dang Doodle ¦ Koko Taylor
1967
Nine Pound Steel ¦ Joe Simon
Tim
> On Nov 18, 9:16 am, 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > None of the three albums is excellent. The Stones album is good, the
> > Love album is not very good, and the Beach Boys album stinks.
>
> I've never heard the Love album, but I do agree about the Stones. As
> for "Pet Sounds," it's OK but way overrated. If you want a Brian
> Wilson effort that really hurts, try "Smile."
Truth be known, The Beatles Love "mix mash" cd, reigns supreme over
any other Love album.
Music Listener
> I'm saying that the more that someone falls in line with what the rock
> critcs think, the less their musical IQ is. They are just ratifying
> the party line.
you're just straining to justify swimming against the tide.
you presume that anyone who has an opinion similar to the critics' only
does so because he's a mindless parrot. that's an asinine, malicious,
self-serving smear. you don't have any way to support this, beyond just
flexing your 'attitude.' you should be more of an adult than this.
why did critics like Pet Sounds in the first place? why is it impossible
that what critics responded to could also entice 'amateur' music fans?
you simply don't understand the virtues.
> Some critic told them that "Pet Sounds" was great, so
> they checked it out, wanting badly to "get it" so they could feel like
> part of some hip club or something.
you don't hear what others do, so you strain for a face-saving excuse to
trash others' credibility. dumb, dumb.
there's no doubt in my mind that i could make a far, far more convincing
case -for- Pet Sounds than you could against it. doesn't seem like
you're capable of much at all beyond posting lists, number grades and
irrelevantly sneering about other music you like better. it's a really
weak form of criticism.
> The album did not do all that well
> when it was current for a reason, it's very uneven and lacks
> widespread appeal.
why does widespread appeal matter so much?
meanwhile, if some album you liked -didn't- sell well, i'm sure you'd
abruptly reverse your reasoning and say it's because others don't have
your acute ear for music, etc.
> It's not a BAD album, it's just nothing anywhere
> near where the critcis rank it, as one of the top 3 or 4 albums ever
> made.
that's simply your opinion. can you really not understand this? reality
check........
> It's only a classic with the critcis and with the pretentious
> music fans who consider themselves "smarter" than the general public.
you already failed my test. i asked you to put yourself in others'
heads, and reason why they revere the album -without- being bitter or
insulting toward them. you couldn't do this. all you can do is make
empty accusations of them being pretentious & phony because it's
inconceivable that they could hold informed, sincere, credible tastes
different from yours. sorry, but it's pretty hard to respect
self-absorption that severe.
> I like what I like, it has nothong to do with what was popular.
that's just a pose. it is extremely important to you. even within this
post, you tried to use the popularity issue against Pet Sounds.
you listed some 60s songs you like a lot which weren't top 40, but you
don't even understand how you sabotaged your own argument. if your
tastes really had nothing to do with what's popular, you wouldn't even
-know- the chart performance of those songs. you wouldn't care enough to
have meticulously documented such trivia.
curtjester1
> Love - Forever Changes
> Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
> Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
Don't even know the first one. Rolling Stones, Let It
Bleed..excellent, but like stuff like Aftermath slightly better. Pet
Sounds would be a higher hit if it included Good Vibrations which was
made during the Pet sessions. The Beatles thought of it as high stuff
and word is that it got them to up their ante so to speak. Albums and
groups are so subjective...especially when there are people who prefer
Best Hits and Live Albums. I think of Surrealistic Pillow by
Jefferson Airplane, Are You 'Experienced by Jimi Hendrix, Cheap
Thrills by Big Brother, the first two Door's albums, Dylan's Highway
61 Revisted, and if I have to put a Beatles one in there, would choose
a Magical Mystery Tour...as albums that stood out for me. After
looking at this list...I'd add maybe a Tommy, Led Zep II, and for a
Credence I liked Born On The Bayou...
http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_albums60s.html
CJ
50s
> 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I'm saying that the more that someone falls in line with what the rock
> > critcs think, the less their musical IQ is. They are just ratifying
> > the party line.
>
> you're just straining to justify swimming against the tide.
>
> you presume that anyone who has an opinion similar to the critics' only
> does so because he's a mindless parrot. that's an asinine, malicious,
> self-serving smear.
It's the same thing you said about anybody who prefers mainly top 40
hits.
50s
> 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> why did critics like Pet Sounds in the first place? why is it impossible
> that what critics responded to could also entice 'amateur' music fans?
> you simply don't understand the virtues.
No, I fully understand the lack of virtues.
Music Listener
> > why did critics like Pet Sounds in the first place? why is it impossible
> > that what critics responded to could also entice 'amateur' music fans?
> > you simply don't understand the virtues.
>
> No, I fully understand the lack of virtues.
one-line answer! too funny. you lose.
50s
> 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Some critic told them that "Pet Sounds" was great, so
> > they checked it out, wanting badly to "get it" so they could feel like
> > part of some hip club or something.
>
> you don't hear what others do, so you strain for a face-saving excuse to
> trash others' credibility. dumb, dumb.
I'm far from the only hardcore music fan that doesn't hear whatever it
is you THINK you are hearing. Several others in this thread have
already panned this album.
50s
I guess Ingersoll wins every debate according to these rules.
50s
> 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> there's no doubt in my mind that i could make a far, far more convincing
> case -for- Pet Sounds than you could against it. doesn't seem like
> you're capable of much at all beyond posting lists, number grades and
> irrelevantly sneering about other music you like better. it's a really
> weak form of criticism.
Talking (or writing) about music is like dancing about architecture.
There's really not much to say. People can listen to the album and
decide for themselves. Nothing that anybody says is going to make them
like the album, or dislike the album.
50s
I'm just saying that there are SOME critically acclaimed things that
most people do really like, and then there are others, like this one,
that are much more limited in their appeal. Music critics, usually
being journalism majors, are much more likely to be impressed by
lyrics, for instance, than rhythms. People like the Velvet
Underground, Neil Young, and Bob Dylan are much more crotically
acclaimed than James Brown, for instance. A disproportionate
percentage of rock critcs are white, which causes some of thse
disparities.
Very few music critics actually know anything about music, so they
usually use most of their column space to analyze lyrics, rather than
to talk about chord changes, time, or any other musical terms.
50s
> 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> you listed some 60s songs you like a lot which weren't top 40, but you
> don't even understand how you sabotaged your own argument. if your
> tastes really had nothing to do with what's popular, you wouldn't even
> -know- the chart performance of those songs. you wouldn't care enough to
> have meticulously documented such trivia.
That's insane. You're telling us that if every one of my favorite
records was not a top 40 hit, that the mere fact that I know that
would mean that I would prefer music that was popular?
I didn't have to meticulously document anything. I just have a very
good working knowledge of the hit records of the 50s, 60s and 70s. I
worked in the music business in several capacities where it was
important for me to know those things. I have an avid interest in the
history of popular music.
Knowing about which records were popular doesn't mean that you prefer
the popular songs.
AND, apples with apples, the popular things happen to be better more
often anyway. Even if we look at the most critically acclaimed music,
an overwhelmingly large percenatge of those items were big hits.
If we take every top 40 hit single of the 60s, and every non top 40
recording, a much larger percentage of the top 40 hits are good
records. It has nothing to do with liking the records BECAUSE they
were hits. You're confusing the cause and effect here.
Top 40 hits are not good because they were hits.
Top 40 hits were top 40 hits because they were good, in most cases.
gullive...@yahoo.com
>
> Top 40 hits are not good because they were hits.
>
> Top 40 hits were top 40 hits because they were good, in most cases.
Perhaps you should say many cases, because the history of 60s music
has too many not good songs that were quite popular. How long was
Ballad of the Green Berets # 1? But I think you are right for the most
part.
These threads have been great, in that they have forced me to look at
what songs came from which release. I must admit that my music is
virtually all on the hard-drive, and much of it comes from
compilations. So I own 16 hours worth of Beach Boys, no doubt some
duplicated, but the only "album" I have is Pet Sounds, altho I do have
a couple of those "two albums on one cd" releases. I really had no
idea what was on what. Back in the day, it was all on the radio. Now,
I have several compilations and one box-set, so I do not really know
what would be my one favorite, altho I know it would be earlier than
Pet Sounds.
It just makes me realize that I collect music, songs, not albums or
cds.
I really think someone ought to post a list of about 100 60s albums,
and we each rank them according to our favorite ten or twenty. It is
still going to be quite varied, some significant similarities and vast
disagreements.
Thanks for all the discussion!
Dean F.
> There's really not much to say. People can listen to the album and
> decide for themselves. Nothing that anybody says is going to make them
> like the album, or dislike the album.
Well said, Bruce! When it comes to music, I prefer to trust my own
judgment over what the critics say I should love or hate. After all,
the pseudo-intellectuals of the '60s and '70s mostly disdained James
Brown, who happens to be my favorite musical artists of all time and
who a subsequent generation of critics and historians now credit as
being one of America's two or three most important and influential
20th-century musical figures.
Dean F.
> I'm far from the only hardcore music fan that doesn't hear whatever it
> is you THINK you are hearing. Several others in this thread have
> already panned this album.
In a related story:
Five years ago, I received a Best Buy gift card as a Secret Santa
gift. While looking through the store's CD section, I saw that Brian
Wilson's "Smile" had finally received an official release. For years,
I had read about how awesome it was; but since it was never generally
available, I never actually heard the music. So I used my gift card to
buy the CD and looked forward to finally learning what all the hoopla
was about.
Thirty seconds or so into the first track, I gaped incredulously at my
stereo and thought, "It has to get better than this. It just has to."
But it never did. As I writhed through each track, I muttered things
like, "You've got to be fuckin' kidding me," and, "This thing blows
like a category five hurricane!"
I subsequently exchanged the CD for a Motown anthology of Funk
Brothers instrumentals, which I treasure to this day.
I've no doubt that Brian Wilson was trying to say Something Big And
Important on "Smile," but I couldn't figure out what it was. Nor did I
give a fuck. Hey, if I want to work a rebus, I'll tune in to the Game
Show Network for reruns of "Concentration."
50s
<gulliverfoy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It just makes me realize that I collect music, songs, not albums or
> cds.
Hallelujah!!!
I've never listened much to "albums" and I'm very glad that the new
technology is bringing back the old days before people thought in
terms of "albums" rather than songs.
The Giant Brain
"Dean F." <soule...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cddeb0e1-3d96-48b6...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> After all, the pseudo-intellectuals of the '60s and '70s mostly disdained
> James Brown, who happens to be my favorite musical artists of all time and
who a subsequent generation of critics and historians now credit as being one of
America's two or three most important and influential 20th-century musical
figures.
I think you are completely full of shit.
First off, I'd like to see you back up the ludicrous assertions you made about
"pseudo-intellectuals" who "disdained" JB. I don't seem to be able to recall
any.
Secondly, let's see some of your references as to exactly who is claiming JB is
"one of America's two or three most important and influential 20th-century
musical figures."
My bet is you are just pumping out hot air...
50s
> "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's obvious that Brown is the most infeuntial musician on today's
music. He was a foreunner in R & B, soul, funk and even disco, and his
60s and 70s records led directly to funk, and then hip hop and rap,
which are the most dominant forms of popular music in the world over
the past 20 years or so.
He's # 3 on this list of the greatest rock artists:
http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
And he's # 3 on this list of the most influential rock artists:
http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_influential.html
but I wouldn't expect someone who thinks that San Francisco Jam Bands
are vitally important to grasp any of this anyway.
Rocky
news:he77ns$hft$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Dude, get a grip.
James Brown was a black social activist in the 60s.
Can you imagine that he was well despised by those hate mongering racists,
and therefore became a target of those dolts? Think Dixie Chicks.
Use that big brain and do the math.
The Giant Brain
"Rocky" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC9B2C007...@74.209.131.10...
You sir are a dolt.
Rocky
>
> "Rocky" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CC9B2C007...@74.209.131.10...
>> "The Giant Brain" <Gi...@Brain.invalid> wrote in
>> news:he77ns$hft$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dean F." <soule...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cddeb0e1-3d96-48b6...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.co
>>> m. ..
>>>> After all, the pseudo-intellectuals of the '60s and '70s mostly
>>>> disdained James Brown, who happens to be my favorite musical
>>>> artists of all time and
>>> who a subsequent generation of critics and historians now credit as
>>> being one of America's two or three most important and influential
>>> 20th-century musical figures.
>>>
>>> I think you are completely full of shit.
>>> First off, I'd like to see you back up the ludicrous assertions you
>>> made about "pseudo-intellectuals" who "disdained" JB. I don't seem
>>> to be able to recall any.
>>> Secondly, let's see some of your references as to exactly who is
>>> claiming JB is "one of America's two or three most important and
>>> influential 20th-century musical figures."
>>> My bet is you are just pumping out hot air...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Dude, get a grip.
>>
>> James Brown was a black social activist in the 60s.
>>
>> Can you imagine that he was well despised by those hate mongering
>> racists, and therefore became a target of those dolts? Think Dixie
>> Chicks.
>>
>> Use that big brain and do the math.
>
> You sir are a dolt.
lol
Ignore the message, and attack the messenger.
The Giant Brain
Only because the message was completely inane, indicating that you don't have a
clue as to what happened during the 60s.
Rocky
>
> "Rocky" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CC9BF9DCAE...@74.209.131.10...
>> "The Giant Brain" <Gi...@Brain.invalid> wrote in
>> news:he7a1f$46l$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>
>>> "Rocky" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CC9B2C007...@74.209.131.10...
>>>> "The Giant Brain" <Gi...@Brain.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:he77ns$hft$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dean F." <soule...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:cddeb0e1-3d96-48b6...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.
>>>>> co m. ..
Yeah, right.
Graduated HS, Got Married, Went to Nam, had a baby. and thosands of other
things. I lived the 60s. Ive always been a big R&B fan. I followed the
trials and tribulations of JB, including his two stints in jail.
You, on the other hand, have a Giant brain, obviously borrowed from a
Mastadon, incabable of cogent thought.
jughead
> On Nov 20, 3:06 pm, 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > There's really not much to say. People can listen to the album and
> > decide for themselves. Nothing that anybody says is going to make them
> > like the album, or dislike the album.
>
> Well said, Bruce! When it comes to music, I prefer to trust my own
> judgment over what the critics say I should love or hate. After all,
> the pseudo-intellectuals of the '60s and '70s mostly disdained James
> Brown
How do they feel about Hasil Adkins?
50s
They never heard of him.
"Chicken Walk" is pretty good.
Uni
> On Nov 20, 6:11 pm, "The Giant Brain" <Gi...@Brain.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:cddeb0e1-3d96-48b6...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...> After all, the pseudo-intellectuals of the '60s and '70s mostly disdained
>>
>>>James Brown, who happens to be my favorite musical artists of all time and
>>
>>who a subsequent generation of critics and historians now credit as being one of
>>America's two or three most important and influential 20th-century musical
>>figures.
>>
>>I think you are completely full of shit.
>>First off, I'd like to see you back up the ludicrous assertions you made about
>>"pseudo-intellectuals" who "disdained" JB. I don't seem to be able to recall
>>any.
>>Secondly, let's see some of your references as to exactly who is claiming JB is
>>"one of America's two or three most important and influential 20th-century
>>musical figures."
>>My bet is you are just pumping out hot air...
>
>
> It's obvious that Brown is the most infeuntial musician on today's
> music. He was a foreunner in R & B, soul, funk and even disco, and his
> 60s and 70s records led directly to funk, and then hip hop and rap
Rap? Heck, his wife should have beat him the hell up!!!
Uni :-)
The Giant Brain
Perhaps but at least I can spell...
Uni
But Rocky leads with punctuation!!!
Uni :-)
>
>
Evil Rev Returns
late-1960s infiltration of the pseudo-intellectuals was the worst
thing that ever happened to the music.
Uh-oh.....
Dean & I are actually going to agree on something....... :) :)
ER
DCar...@aol.com
> The Giant Brain wrote:
> > "Rocky" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9CC9DE21F96...@74.209.131.10...
>
> >>"The Giant Brain" <Gi...@Brain.invalid> wrote in
> >>news:he7kh5$ke5$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> >>>"Rocky" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:Xns9CC9BF9DCAE...@74.209.131.10...
>
> >>>>"The Giant Brain" <Gi...@Brain.invalid> wrote in
> >>>>news:he7a1f$46l$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> >>>>>"Rocky" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:Xns9CC9B2C007...@74.209.131.10...
>
> >>>>>>"The Giant Brain" <Gi...@Brain.invalid> wrote in
> >>>>>>news:he77ns$hft$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
Agree'd !!!
If you wanna be victorious in a battle to be the biggest ass, it's
best to lead by a colon, baby!!!
Actually!! I think the Colossal Cogitator has started and
perpetuated a series of the best threads in here in a while!!
Vibrant, informative, sophisticated expostulation and reply with a
good healthy dose of flaming which makes every thread a banquette for
the lurky, the quirky, and the jerky, baby!!!!!
Toss three album titles out there!!!
Trumpet them to the high heavens!!!
Watch the fur fly!!
Who knew???!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
Music Listener
> > James Brown, who happens to be my favorite musical artists of all time and
> who a subsequent generation of critics and historians now credit as being one
> of
> America's two or three most important and influential 20th-century musical
> figures.
>
> I think you are completely full of shit.
> First off, I'd like to see you back up the ludicrous assertions you made
> about
> "pseudo-intellectuals" who "disdained" JB.
i'd be curious how Dean differentiates between legitimate
'intellectuals' who don't share his musical tastes, and
'pseudo-intellectuals' who don't share his musical tastes. or does he
just share Bruce's apparent view that anyone who doesn't have his tastes
can only be a 'phony' or mental defective of some kind, since his own
tastes are mankind's only natural inclination?
it's interesting that the two fervent Pet Sounds naysayers are also the
two who work the hardest to impress the newsgroup with elephantine
'lists' of favorites. i don't think that's coincidence. a whole lotta
insecurity, and hunger for 'recognition.'
Music Listener
> > why does widespread appeal matter so much?
>
> I'm just saying that there are SOME critically acclaimed things that
> most people do really like, and then there are others, like this one,
> that are much more limited in their appeal.
it's a certified platinum album in the states. it reached #10 on the
charts when it was new, and it even re-entered the Billboard charts
twice in two other decades (-three- other decades, if you count "Top
Internet Albums"). i've already said that it is the group's best-selling
album today, minus anthologies (you still avoid acknowledging this).
it's so in demand that Capitol even expanded the album into a box set.
that you consider an album with such features "limited in appeal" again
just shows what an incredible stress you put upon popularity. even
"popular" isn't good enough...it's gotta be -mega- popular.
and you can't realize how funny it is to watch you criticize the album
for not being popular, simultaneous with charging that people only love
the album because that's what the 'party line' dictates. you're grasping
at straws.
> Music critics, usually
> being journalism majors, are much more likely to be impressed by
> lyrics, for instance, than rhythms. People like the Velvet
> Underground, Neil Young, and Bob Dylan are much more crotically
> acclaimed than James Brown, for instance.
not really true, and you're making broad broad generalizations just to
serve your own cause.
> Very few music critics actually know anything about music
another broad, self-serving generalization. loads of music critics have
also played in bands. in fact, it's a common swipe to see critics
dismissed as failed musicians.
> , so they
> usually use most of their column space to analyze lyrics, rather than
> to talk about chord changes, time, or any other musical terms.
as opposed to you, who's indifferent to lyrics and i'm betting doesn't
know a thing about chord changes or time either? so what do you spend
your 'column space' on? just talking about how well the music sold?
and you're making this charge in the context of discussing -Pet Sounds-,
which is -clearly- renowned much more for its music than its lyrics??
(heck, the album even has two instrumentals.) you really don't know when
to quit. grasping at straws.
> I'm far from the only hardcore music fan that doesn't hear whatever it
> is you THINK you are hearing.
never claimed every hardcore loves the album except you. but sorry, but
you're just going to have to come to grips with the reality of others
appreciating features of the music which you don't. i don't know why
this is so terribly terribly difficult for you. you simply don't get to
define other people's reality until you develop considerably more
supernatural powers than you currently show.
50s
Nobody is looking for any recognition, twat, Dean and i are just
looking to start some threads here, and have been succeeding. This
group has been horseshit for years now ever since Uni arrived. At
least lately, between Dean and I, we have been able to get a bunch of
conversations going to maybe revive this group.
50s
> it is the group's best-selling
> album today, minus anthologies
That's correct, "minus anthologies."
The facts are that many times more people only care about the Beach
Boys great hits than care about ANY of their "albums."
For people who do care about "albums" as a group they like that one
best, but many times more people feel like Dean and i do, that the
Beach Boys made a bunch of great "songs" and that they don't really
care very much about that particular album, or ANY of their albums.
You can like the album if you want, but it will never be the first
thing that most Beach Boys fans think of.
50s
> > being journalism majors, are much more likely to be impressed by
> > lyrics, for instance, than rhythms. People like the Velvet
> > acclaimed than James Brown, for instance.
>
> not really true, and you're making broad broad generalizations just to
> serve your own cause.
It certainly is true.
Check acclaimedmusic.net.
They calculate the concensus of critics rankings and here is their
list of the most critcically acclaimed artists:
The point is that that white guitar oriented lyrical music is vastly
overrated by music critics in comparsion to black rock of the 60s
and especially the 70s and 80s. Critics place way too much accent on
lyrics as compared to rhythms. Artists like Kool & the Gang and
Earth, Wind And Fire should be considered much more significant than
Joni Mitchell and Leonard Cohen or the stooges or Velvet
Underground. The general public certainly feels that way.
Just take a look at the top 100 most critically acclaimed artists:
1 The Beatles
2 The Rolling Stones
3 Bob Dylan
4 David Bowie
5 Led Zeppelin
6 Bruce Springsteen
7 Prince
8 The Who
9 Elvis Presley
10 Jimi Hendrix
11 Radiohead
12 The Beach Boys
13 R.E.M.
14 The Velvet Underground
15 U2
16 Marvin Gaye
17 Neil Young
18 The Clash
19 Nirvana
20 Stevie Wonder
21 Pink Floyd
22 Bob Marley and The Wailers
23 Elvis Costello
24 Van Morrison
25 Aretha Franklin
26 The Smiths
27 Talking Heads
28 The Byrds
29 Public Enemy
30 The Doors
31 Miles Davis
32 James Brown
33 The Kinks
34 Beastie Boys
35 Sex Pistols
36 Otis Redding
37 Creedence Clearwater Revival
38 Michael Jackson
39 Beck
40 John Lennon
41 Sly and the Family Stone
42 Roxy Music
43 Johnny Cash
44 Pixies
45 Blur
46 Lou Reed
47 Sonic Youth
48 Joni Mitchell
49 Madonna
50 Ramones
51 Joy Division
52 Oasis
53 Simon and Garfunkel
54 The Band
55 New Order
56 Kraftwerk
57 Ray Charles
58 OutKast
59 PJ Harvey
60 John Coltrane
61 The Police
62 Tom Waits
63 Massive Attack
64 The Jam
65 The White Stripes
66 The Stooges
67 Steely Dan
68 Björk
69 Al Green
70 Chuck Berry
71 The Cure
72 Frank Sinatra
73 AC/DC
74 Parliament/Funkadelic
75 Eminem
76 Nick Cave
77 Brian Eno
78 Metallica
79 Black Sabbath
80 Frank Zappa/The Mothers of Invention
81 Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band
82 Primal Scream
83 Buddy Holly & The Crickets
84 Patti Smith
85 Fleetwood Mac
86 Leonard Cohen
87 Pavement
88 Guns N' Roses
89 LCD Soundsystem
90 Wilco
91 Nick Drake
92 Pulp
93 Missy Misdemeanor Elliott
94 The Eagles
95 Grateful Dead
96 Elton John
97 Thelonious Monk
98 Little Richard
99 Pet Shop Boys
100 T. Rex
Obviously way too much of the list is white guitar oriented music.
Of the whopping three rap acts listed, two are white. Why Patti
Smith but not the Supremes? Why Leonard Cohen but not Wilson
Pickett or the Four Tops? Why the Smiths, Beck and Roxy Music, but
not the Temptations? It's not like the Temptations were only a
singles act. They ranked as the # 11 biggest LP act on Billboard's
pop album charts through 1996.
DCar...@aol.com
That is exactly right!!
Pet Sounds has three great songs a couple of average songs and then
some real shit!!
The "Pet Sounds" instrumental on that record sounds like Brady Bunch
incidental music and by itself drags the album as a whole down to its
real mediocre state!!!
This thread has proven first and foremost that you do NOT need a
Giant Brain to be a true Music Listener, baby!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
50s
> On Nov 21, 1:39 pm, 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 1:10 pm, Music Listener <henderson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 50s <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > it is the group's best-selling
> > > album today, minus anthologies
>
> > That's correct, "minus anthologies."
>
> > The facts are that many times more people only care about the Beach
> > Boys great hits than care about ANY of their "albums."
>
> > For people who do care about "albums" as a group they like that one
> > best, but many times more people feel like Dean and i do, that the
> > Beach Boys made a bunch of great "songs" and that they don't really
> > care very much about that particular album, or ANY of their albums.
>
> > You can like the album if you want, but it will never be the first
> > thing that most Beach Boys fans think of.
>
> You can like the album if you want, but it will never be the first
> thing that most Beach Boys fans think of.
>
> That is exactly right!!
>
> Pet Sounds has three great songs a couple of average songs and then
> some real shit!!
Which makes it no better than dozens of other albums from the era.
jughead
> it's interesting that the two fervent Pet Sounds naysayers are also the
> two who work the hardest to impress the newsgroup with elephantine
> 'lists' of favorites.
I don't think much of Pet Sounds either. Three or four good songs,
all available on singles, rounded out with a bunch of drowsy numbers
and obvious filler.
Music Listener
> > it is the group's best-selling
> > album today, minus anthologies
>
> That's correct, "minus anthologies."
>
> The facts are that many times more people only care about the Beach
> Boys great hits than care about ANY of their "albums."
>
> For people who do care about "albums" as a group they like that one
> best, but many times more people feel like Dean and i do, that the
> Beach Boys made a bunch of great "songs" and that they don't really
> care very much about that particular album, or ANY of their albums.
so, apparently you're trying to convince yourself that anyone who buys a
Beach Boys anthology doesn't care about Pet Sounds. or any other
original album, even.
still grasping at straws.
> You can like the album if you want, but it will never be the first
> thing that most Beach Boys fans think of.
whew. for someone who claims his tastes have nothing to do with what's
popular, you sure do -relentlessly- try to justify them based on
popularity issues. i wish you somehow could get yourself to stop talking
about this. you just chop whatever i write down to the "popularity"
stuff.
Music Listener
i wish you could organize your thoughts, and stop replying multiple
times to everything i post. it just makes you look flailing and
unbalanced.
> Check acclaimedmusic.net.
that site calculates critical acclaim for both singles and albums.
naturally, a group which has both critically acclaimed albums -and-
singles is going to have an advantage in the rankings over a group which
only had acclaimed singles.
as for the list being way too much 'white guitar oriented music,' you
again show such strange narcissism about believing your own tastes being
'law.' i don't know how much of the other you demand included, but i
guess i don't care that much. in any case, let's see...on that list,
there's Prince, Jimi Hendrix, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Bob Marley,
Aretha Franklin, Public Enemy, Miles Davis, James Brown, Beastie Boys,
Otis Redding, Michael Jackson, Sly/Family Stone, Madonna, Kraftwerk, Ray
Charles, OutKast, John Coltrane, Tom Waits, Massive Attack, Steely Dan,
Bjork, Al Green, Chuck Berry, Frank Sinatra, P-Funk, Eminem, Brian Eno,
LCD Soundsystem, Missy Elliott, Elton John, Thelonious Monk, Little
Richard and the Pet Shop Boys. i'm sure you'd love to obsessively haggle
for weeks (zzz) over me citing a couple of those names, but that's still
about a third of the acts, more or less, which aren't "white guitar
oriented music."
> Artists like Kool & the Gang and
> Earth, Wind And Fire should be considered much more significant than
> Joni Mitchell and Leonard Cohen or the stooges or Velvet
> Underground. The general public certainly feels that way.
whew. for someone who claims his tastes have nothing to do with what's
popular, you sure do -relentlessly- try to justify them based on
popularity issues. i wish you somehow could get yourself to stop talking
about this. you just chop whatever i write down to the "popularity"
stuff.
> They ranked as the # 11 biggest LP act on Billboard's
> pop album charts through 1996.
whew. for someone who claims his tastes have nothing to do with what's
The Giant Brain
<DCar...@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:6e02757a-bda6-4a3d...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> This thread has proven first and foremost that you do NOT need a Giant Brain
> to be a true Music Listener, baby!!!
> Dennis C from Tennessee
Whereas your post proves you don't even need A brain to post to Usenet.
Dean F.
wrote:
> Uh-oh.....
>
> Dean & I are actually going to agree on something....... :) :)
Hey, if Sharx and I can occasionally agree...!
Uni
Don't you be talkin' to Mr. Dennis like that!!!
Mr. Dennis is good people. Take notes!
Uni
>
>