3 Essential 60s Albums redux
The Giant Brain
Love - Forever Changes
Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
Jimi Hendrix Experience - Electric Ladyland
The Mothers of Invention - Freak Out
Jefferson Airplane - After Bathing At Baxter's
James Brown - Live At The Apollo
The Beatles - Abbey Road
The Doors - The Doors
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Happy Trails
Traffic - Mr. Fantasy
Big Brother & the Holding Company - Cheap Thrills
Frank Sinatra - A Man and his Music
Vince Guaraldi - Jazz Impressions of Black Orpheus
Mamas & Papas - If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears
Blood, Sweat & Tears - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Rolling Stones - Beggar's Banquet
What amazes me is that people are actually getting angry and practically
irrational over a list of albums.
Get a grip guys...
F R
-----------------------------
No surprise that a few would use inconstitent logic to further their
"argument". Happens all the time.
I'd add a big band representative album.. "Two of a Kind" with Bobby
Darin and Johnny Mercer, backed by Billy May and his orchestra.
Darin was only about 23 when it was recorded and Mercer perhaps our
most successful (and cleverest) lyrcist, were both in great voice and
the album is as much fun as 2 people can have doing the recording as can
easily be heard after just one listen.
Frank
Dean F.
> What amazes me is that people are actually getting angry and practically
> irrational over a list of albums.
> Get a grip guys...
This is a discussion forum, pal! Did you expect us to drop to our
knees and kiss your feet for deigning to impart your sage wisdom upon
our undeserving philistine minds? If anyone needs to get a grip, it's
you.
Dean F.
> No surprise that a few would use inconstitent logic to further their
> "argument".
And you're living proof, Mr. Bush-Was-Legitimately-Elected.
The Giant Brain
"Dean F." <soule...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:baf57041-9273-40c8...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------
What surprised me is the level of irrational anger, as demonstrated by your
post.
The posts were made to foster discussion, not to enrage borderline psychotics.
F R
No surprise that a few would use inconstitent logic to further their
"argument".
Dean >
And you're living proof, Mr. Bush-Was-Legitimately-Elected.
----------------------------------
Excellent segue Dean, although you flatter yourself by thinking I was
referring specifically to you. I was speaking generically.
Since you refuse to let facts get in the way, perhaps you forgot the
article I posted about the 2000 election.
Maybe another one will show you it is not my "opinion", but just the
facts.
It's been 9 years already. Get over it. Even Mr. Gore was gracious
enough to finally concede.
-----------------------------
The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined,"Newspapers'
recount shows Bush prevailed" by reporter Dennis Cauchon:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots
if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study
of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than
triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and
mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami
Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive
review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of
Florida's disputed presidential election....
That look was followed in November by an analysis by a consortium of
media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los
Angeles Times, CNN and AP (ALL LEFT OF CENTER MEDIA OUTLETS WHO
ENDORSED GORE EITHER TACITLY OR IN NEWSPAPER EDITORIALS.. AS YOU KNOW).
It determined that George W. Bush still would have won under either
legally possible recount scenario which could have occurred: The Florida
Supreme Court ordered recount of undervotes statewide or Gore's request
for a recount in certain counties. The New York Times led its November
12, 2001 front page article, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds
Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote", by reporters Ford Fessenden
and John M. Broder:
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's
presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if
the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount
of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have
charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to
Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close
examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a
slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount
more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States
Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the
Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four
predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead,
according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news
organizations....
In summarizing the consortium's findings, however, the November 13, 2001
MRC CyberAlert recounted CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather gave equal
weight to a scenario which never could have occurred, a statewide
recount of all overvotes in which the intent of the voter would have
been intuited, as to how Bush would still have won in the only legally
possible scenario, a recount of undervotes:
In the second half of the hour-long CBS Evening News on Monday night
[November 12], Rather announced:
A consortium of news organizations today released their joint findings
on the disputed Bush/Gore presidential election results from Florida.
They suggest the limited hand re-count of votes requested by Democrat Al
Gore would still have given Florida and the presidency to George W.
Bush. But this study also found that if there had been a re-count of all
disqualified ballots statewide it might have produced a narrow Gore
victory.
As Monday's New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed
Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," but
Rather failed to correct his earlier reporting. At the top of the CBS
Evening News back on the December 13, 2000, Rather had declared:
Good evening. Texas Governor George Bush tonight will assume the mantle
and the honor of President-elect. This comes 24 hours after a sharply
split and, some say, politically and ideologically motivated U.S.
Supreme Court ended Vice President Gore's contest of the Florida
election and, in effect, handed the presidency to Bush.
Neither ABC's World News Tonight nor the NBC Nightly News, both of which
remained the usual half-hour on a busy news day on Monday, mentioned the
latest media effort at a Florida re-count.
---------------------------
There you have it Dean. Also keep in mind that a few stations
prematurely announced the outcome of Florida, despite the fact that a
good part of the panhandle was on Central time (meaning the voting there
still had an hour to go), and also "Bush Country". Many, no one can tell
for sure, no doubt stayed home after hearing the results were in when
they were not.
As well, the Gore people tried to get the overseas military's vote
disqualified because there was no stamp on their envelope... quickly
withdrawn when they found out military personnel are not required to put
stamps on the envelope of absentee ballots... but the chutzpah of trying
to eliminate their votes... of all people, says volumes, no?
Michael Black
Especially when it's just a list, no explanation of why they are on that
list, and it's presented as "Essential" rather than "My Essential" or some
other way of defining it as their own.
There are lots of albums I can live without ever hearing, yet they
invariably land on someone's list of "definitive albums you have to hear".
Michael
Music Listener
> > This is a discussion forum, pal! Did you expect us to drop to our
> > knees and kiss your feet for deigning to impart your sage wisdom upon
> > our undeserving philistine minds? If anyone needs to get a grip, it's
> > you.
> >
> Especially when it's just a list, no explanation of why they are on that
> list
and when i asked him how many total albums he would be citing, or
whether the 'parts' were in any order, the kook got furious and
announced he was 'plonking' me. he's a big silly.
Rex Garvin
"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@darkstar.example.net...
>There are lots of albums I can live without ever hearing, yet they invariably
>land on someone's list of "definitive albums you have to hear".
How would you know you can live without hearing them if you never heard them?
Unfortunately, yours is the type of head-up-your-ass logic that seems to prevail
on Usenet these days.
Michael Black
Come on, someone tells me "you have to hear this" but can't explain why
it's so important? It's easy to make such lists, especially when someone
is really saying "these are the albums I can't live without" or "these are
the albums I like the best".
The whole notion of marketing is to convince people that they have to have
something.
Unless someone is actually talking about such albums, to convey what it is
they like about them (whether it's actually critically reviewing the
album, or at least sounding enthusiastic), then it is merely hype.
The minute someone claims people can't live without an album, the chances
are good that lots of people can live without them. Because it's pretty
much always hyperbole. People actually talking about albums are far more
likely to have something of value to say about those albums.
Michael
Rex Garvin
So far all I've seen is a string of posts featuring 3 albums the poster
considers "essential".
No hyperbole, no "you have to hear this", nothing but a list of albums.
A list which seems to enrage you and put you in a tizzy of self-righteous
blather and illogic.
Music Listener
> So far all I've seen is a string of posts featuring 3 albums the poster
> considers "essential".
hi 'rex'...why do you post as if you're not the same person who started
the thread?
Ken Whiton
*-* In Article <heaaah$3bh$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
*-* The (self-proclaimed) Giant Brain wrote
*-* About 3 Essential 60s Albums redux
<snip>
"Essential" + "60s Album" = oxymoron. ;-)
Ken Whiton
--
FIDO: 1:132/152
InterNet: kenw...@surfglobal.net.INVAL (remove the obvious to reply)
Rex Garvin
"Ken Whiton" <kenw...@surfglobal.net.INVAL> wrote in message
news:hedh6...@enews5.newsguy.com...
> "Essential" + "60s Album" = oxymoron. ;-)
Ken + Whiton = Moron
If you don't like 60s music, why come here, jackass?
50s
> "Ken Whiton" <kenwhi...@surfglobal.net.INVAL> wrote in message
You can like 60s music without caring about "albums," jackass.
I've got way more 60s music than you, and i NEVER listen to albums.
Dean F.
> You can like 60s music without caring about "albums," jackass.
>
> I've got way more 60s music than you, and i NEVER listen to albums.
That makes two of us!
Eric Ramon
interestingly enough (to me) when I loaded up my iPod I added only one
complete album. One. Everything else has a song or two, on rare
occasions (Beatles) as many as four. I think there might be six from
an early Beatles album. But I chose those songs because of the songs
themselves.
And the album that's in my iPod? Coast to Coast by the Dave Clark
Five. Go figure.