Beast and Diamondback Analyses (+ more...)
Jeremy
reader for much longer since I've enjoyed the detailed, well-written
park and ride reports that are posted here, especially when it seems
like critical reviews are becoming harder to find online. It's great
looking through the archives here and seeing how it used to be
everyone would post a coaster review that focused on much more than
just quantifying the g-forces or how smooth it was or whatever.
Anyway, I hope some of you might then be able to enjoy my new website
I've been working on for the past few months called Roller Coaster
Philosophy ( http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/ ). My goal is
basically to provide some of the most in-depth and analytical coaster,
park and attraction reviews on the net. I recently finished writing a
piece on King's Island Beast, where I try dissecting how it is that a
layout that features a lot of flat, straight sections of track can be
as good, if not better (and in my personal opinion, the best) compared
to more 'forceful' or 'active' modern rides. The explanation doesn't
just come down to "well the woods are a cool setting that make up for
those shortcomings" that a lot of Beast apologists might use, since
really that doesn't explain anything about the quality of the ride; my
thesis actually is that the ride experience is actually a better one
for featuring flat sections of track than if they were filled with
airtime hills or twists or turns or whatever.
Here's the link for that one: http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/beast-30-analysis/
I also have a pretty lengthy write-up for KD's Diamondback, which I'm
much more critical of, at least relative to what the general viewpoint
on that ride is. The link for that one is:
http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/diamondback-analysis/
There's a lot more there as well, like I recently finished reviewing
all of Six Flags Great America's stuff as well, along with some
individual coaster analyses such as Steel Hawg, Phoenix and Ravine
Flyer 2, plus a really long report of the old Hard Rock Park I wrote
last year for CoasterSims.com before they went belly-up (partly what
prompted me to make my own site).
There's a comment box at the bottom of each of the pages, so if you
want to challenge some of my points I'd be more than happy to reply
there and hopefully get some good debates going.
-Jeremy Thompson
Wolf
> reader for much longer since I've enjoyed the detailed, well-written
> park and ride reports that are posted here, especially when it seems
> like critical reviews are becoming harder to find online. It's great
> looking through the archives here and seeing how it used to be
> everyone would post a coaster review that focused on much more than
> just quantifying the g-forces or how smooth it was or whatever.
>
> Anyway, I hope some of you might then be able to enjoy my new website
> I've been working on for the past few months called Roller Coaster
> Philosophy ( http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/ ). My goal is
> basically to provide some of the most in-depth and analytical coaster,
> park and attraction reviews on the net. I recently finished writing a
> piece on King's Island Beast, where I try dissecting how it is that a
> layout that features a lot of flat, straight sections of track can be
> as good, if not better (and in my personal opinion, the best) compared
> to more 'forceful' or 'active' modern rides. The explanation doesn't
> just come down to "well the woods are a cool setting that make up for
> those shortcomings" that a lot of Beast apologists might use, since
> really that doesn't explain anything about the quality of the ride; my
> thesis actually is that the ride experience is actually a better one
> for featuring flat sections of track than if they were filled with
> airtime hills or twists or turns or whatever.
How do you defend the fact that Beast has more length in trim brakes than
Idlewild's Rollo Coaster has in total length?
--
|\-/|
<0 0>
=(o)=
-Wolf
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
> ...I hope some of you might then be able to enjoy my new website
> I've been working on for the past few months called Roller Coaster
> Philosophy ( http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/ ).
>-Jeremy Thompson
*** Error: "406 Not Acceptable"
Richard Bonner
Managing Director:
The Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
www.CEC.chebucto.org
BaSSiStiSt
there!
Mark Rosenzweig
>
> How do you defend the fact that Beast has more length in trim brakes than
> Idlewild's Rollo Coaster has in total length?
>
Not since the skid trims were swapped out in favor of mags.
Jeremy
> > reader for much longer since I've enjoyed the detailed, well-written
> > park and ride reports that are posted here, especially when it seems
> > like critical reviews are becoming harder to find online. It's great
> > looking through the archives here and seeing how it used to be
> > everyone would post a coaster review that focused on much more than
> > just quantifying the g-forces or how smooth it was or whatever.
>
> > Anyway, I hope some of you might then be able to enjoy my new website
> > I've been working on for the past few months called Roller Coaster
> > basically to provide some of the most in-depth and analytical coaster,
> > park and attraction reviews on the net. I recently finished writing a
> > piece on King's Island Beast, where I try dissecting how it is that a
> > layout that features a lot of flat, straight sections of track can be
> > as good, if not better (and in my personal opinion, the best) compared
> > to more 'forceful' or 'active' modern rides. The explanation doesn't
> > just come down to "well the woods are a cool setting that make up for
> > those shortcomings" that a lot of Beast apologists might use, since
> > really that doesn't explain anything about the quality of the ride; my
> > thesis actually is that the ride experience is actually a better one
> > for featuring flat sections of track than if they were filled with
> > airtime hills or twists or turns or whatever.
>
> How do you defend the fact that Beast has more length in trim brakes than
> Idlewild's Rollo Coaster has in total length?
>
> --
> |\-/|
> <0 0>
> =(o)=
> -Wolf
Back when it was running with skids and that statement would still be
true they were hardly noticeable in terms of deceleration, nearly the
same as any other stretch of track. But if you were referring to the
long stretches of straight track that were used to accommodate the
skid brakes, I should have already explained why that isn't a
hindrance to the ride. I won't defend the new magnetic brakes as not
being a problem because they are.
Jeremy
wrote:
Hmm... thanks for reporting that, although I've never had that problem
myself and have no idea what might be causing it for you.
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
>On Dec 3, 9:59=A0pm, c...@chebucto.ns.ca (Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada)
>wrote:
>> Jeremy wrote:
>> > ...I hope some of you might then be able to enjoy my new website
>> > I've been working on for the past few months called Roller Coaster
>> > Philosophy (http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/).
>>
>> (Snip)
>>
>> >-Jeremy Thompson
>>
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Richa=
>rd Bonner
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Managing =
>Director:
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Coaster Enthusiasts o=
>f Canada
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0www.CEC.chebuc=
>to.org
>Hmm... thanks for reporting that, although I've never had that problem
>myself and have no idea what might be causing it for you.
*** I will try again. Stand by...
By the way, please set your font to ISO-8859-1 for text newsgroups.
Thanks.
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
>Jeremy wrote:
(Re: Error: "406 Not Acceptable")
>>Hmm... thanks for reporting that, although I've never had that problem
>>myself and have no idea what might be causing it for you.
>*** I will try again. Stand by...
> Richard Bonner
*** I still got the same error, but this time, it let me through to the
page.
I will add a link to your website from the CEC's site.
David Sandborg
I hope you don't just confine it to your site, but bring some of it
here--we could use some of it.
That being said, I remain unconvinced. It kind of felt like reading
that article on slate.com that tried to claim that Creed was actually a
good band. It's kind of fun to speculate about but in the end you
remain unconvinced.
One quick note: You misuse the term "exponential" twice, and that kind
of causes you to misstate the physical principles behind the airtime.
That's a nitpick though. It's the overall argument that's interesting.
I do agree with you this far...the Beast is a "radical" coaster in that
it's different from everything else. Presumably it's *trying* to be
different, so in that sense it's quite successful.
However, you have to then justify that it's *better* than anything else,
and I just don't think that's going to fly. Ultimately, such things are
a matter of judgment, but that's kind of the point. You have to accept
the kind of coaster aesthetic that will allow straight track and shallow
drops not to be a detriment (incidentally, I can't resist mentioning
that the brake shed never disappointed me as much as that shallow rise
and fall before the second lift did), and that's just not something most
people would be willing to adopt themselves. You shield the fact that
it's a matter of coaster aesthetics by insulting "Timmy the B&M fanboy",
but that's really just evading the issue. You've set the criteria up
yourself so that Beast and only Beast is going to be able to win by
them, but that won't help you convince anybody else.
Of course, you have the right to like Beast, as anybody has the right to
like their own favorite coaster. You'll probably be joined by most
Kings Island devotees, as Beast fans are certainly dedicated. But I
expect you'll remain in the minority as the coaster world has passed you
by. I personally won't be putting Beast high on my own wood poll (which
I must now rush to finish!)...
--
Dave Sandborg
Remove Spam-away to respond via e-mail.
Andrew Brawley
wrote:
I personally won't be putting Beast high on my own wood poll (which
>I must now rush to finish!)...
Oh Crap! Thanks for reminding me. I've been so busy getting into holiday mode that
it slipped my mind. I should be able to get to it somewhere between tonight's party
and tomorrow night's party!
Jeremy
wrote:
CEC, thanks, and sorry I still can't figure out what's causing that
error. By the way, how do I set font to ISO-8859-1, don't I just type
in the reply box?
Dave, thank you very much for your reply. I'll look into those uses of
'exponential' and figure out what I really meant. I also agree as far
as the layout is concerned that the rise before the second lift was
the one place that I'm still unsure about; I think I tried coming up
with some quick little defense for it but I should probably admit that
it doesn't work as well in the context of the ride as everything else.
I don't think it matters as much though since I kind of think of it as
an extension of the second lift, at least from a rider's perspective,
so rather than try to drag the middle portion of building speed out
more after it reaches it's lowest point it just quits and heads
directly to the lift without trying to add anything more. And you're
right, I probably should not have been setting it us as an argument
for being the greatest coaster ever since that always depends to a
certain degree on whatever subjective set of criteria you happen to be
using, and my *ahem* moderation in making that claim probably didn't
help win over any critics. However, I do think I can at least try to
justify that claim at least a bit more than beyond merely a set of
subjective criteria, since I do think it would be hard to find a
coaster that is as far removed and 'radical' from the more generally
accepted aesthetic principles used by most other coasters than the
Beast. So I guess there's an unstated premise somewhere in there that
"most radical" = "greatest ride ever", at least after I establish that
is succeeds at what it attempts to do (at least in theory, before the
magnetic brakes and helix modifications). But still, your point
remains true: I probably was a bit hyperbolic with some of the
language.
By the way, I actually was thinking of just posting my reviews on here
before I decided to make my own website, but I felt I was devoting a
bit too much time to the subject to just have them fall to the bottom
of online forums and wanted to get my own platform (especially after
the website I had been writing for went offline and I lost a couple
reviews I stupidly hadn't backed up on my computer), especially since
I could format and organize the content in ways I can't do if it's on
some other site. If you enjoyed this I'll definitely keep rec.r-c
updated whenever I have something new, although I don't really feel
like writing different content for different sites and just a copy/
paste of the content doesn't achieve anything.
Jeremy
particular) that doesn't just focus on the roughness.
http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2008/thunderhawk-analysis/
ri...@aol.com
> I've added a look at the SLC (Michigan's Adventure's Thunderhawk in
> particular) that doesn't just focus on the roughness.
Very interesting. I've never been on an SLC but I used to have a soft
spot for that-other-Vekoma-clone Boomerang at Knott's (the only
coaster on which I ever chose the middle as favorite). I enjoyed its
loopiness and the boomerang element backwards is really interesting,
but then a few years ago they added wings to the upper inside of the
OTSRs putting my ears into contact territory and it hasn't been the
same. Does any other Boomerang or Vekoma or Arrow have those?
Rik
David Sandborg
<7897840c-4762-4536...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for commenting. I'm glad you didn't take my criticism poorly, I
think you got the spirit of it quite well. I don't object to trying to
stretch the point a bit, that's what this kind of piece is all about
after all. But ultimately I think it comes down to a matter of personal
taste and I doubt you're going to convince many. I definitely buy your
argument about "radical". Whether that means "great" or not is up for
argumentation, but you did make a nice case for what the Beast fans see
in it.
mamoosh
wrote:
> Whether that means "great" or not is up for
> argumentation, but you did make a nice case for what the Beast fans see
> in it.
I rode Beast pre-HoliWood Nights this year, the first time since 2001
that I'd been to the park. One boneshaking ride was all I needed. I
didn't queue for a reride. Upon walking the exit path my motley crew
and I were commenting on how great the ride used to be -- something I
remember well when I got my first rides in 1982 -- and how poor the
experience is today. We also commented on the small group of diehard
fans the ride seems to retain. They reminded me a lot of people (we've
all seen them) who's taste in music stopped growing at it's most
impressionable, sometime in their high school years. They seem
oblivious to any new music that's been released since and are the ones
keeping White Snake, KC and the Sunshine Band, and The Monkeys playing
the "oldies" circuit.
I'm sure all those bands were wonderful in their time. The Beast was
wonderful in it's time. But it's no longer 1979. It's time to move on.
David Sandborg
<81eef4a8-b373-4ee2...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny! You seem to be taking the "it's a better ride than you think!"
approach to two somewhat maligned coasters, first the Beast and now an
SLC! I did read to the end and it seems the ride wasn't quite as good
for you the second time as the first, but you indicated it was more
popular for your non-enthusiast relatives. I think this is something we
lose sight of often, that our tastes are not always shared with the
general public. (At least one person on here takes that attitude to
extremes, I'll let folks try to guess whom I mean if they so choose!)
As for SLC's and other coaster types with a reputation for roughness,
I've had the experience more than once where somebody tells me, "you
should try such-and-such an SLC, it's really not bad!" and then I ride
and find it no better than any other. This has occasionally happened in
reverse where I find a particular ride not to be so rough, and then talk
to companions who were on the very same ride who say they hated it!
Roughness may be the most subjective aspect of the coaster experience of
all.
One note you might be interested in--the Inuit words for snow thing is a
kind of urban legend. I first read a great book by Geoffrey Pullam
called _ The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and other Irreverent Essays on
the Study of Language_ that has an essay demonstrating that this is
ultimately a kind of academic urban legend. Wikipedia has a decent
entry on it too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow.
No criticism of you, your statement is appropriately hedged to be
strictly true...
David Sandborg
<52a8f9d4-98db-4c1c...@v7g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
ri...@aol.com wrote:
I don't know what Knott's Boomerang's restraints are like specifically,
but having pads right next to the ears is very common on SLC's. I find
them very annoying. They subject one to needless ear-bashing, feel
really confining, restrict the field of view, and even sometimes have a
mildewy smell.
Jeremy
> approach to two somewhat maligned coasters, first the Beast and now an
> SLC!
Someone told me that I remind them of Socrates and how he always stood
against the popular opinion, questioning people's assumed beliefs.
While I don't think I'm anywhere near the intellect of Socrates, I do
like to figure out what the popular opinion of a ride/park is and then
present my viewpoint as being completely opposed that opinion, not
just because the discussions that happen afterward are normally a bit
more lively. The case of the SLC is a bit different though; generally
I'm not interested in roughness as being a reason for condemning a
ride, it's too easy, just a token label we can apply to anything we
don't like and doesn't say anything more about the type of ride it is.
If it is consistently rough not just because it wasn't well maintained
that day but because of some flaws in the design, then there's not
much you can do about it. Since I happened to get some smooth rides
and could appreciate it for the layout, I wanted to write about that
because that's much more interesting than saying "it's bad when it's
rough" which it is when it's true... which is frequent (although I've
been pretty lucky since T2 at SFKK wasn't that bad either and that's
generally supposed to be one of the worst in the country).
Mamoosh, roughness shouldn't be too much of a problem, at least not a
consistent one. I did have some problems with roughness on the Beast
in 2004, but every visit since then it's never been an issue, and I've
not heard from too many other people that it was for them as well, at
least not in recent years.
David Sandborg
<c47c615f-6cdb-4a28...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (although I've
> been pretty lucky since T2 at SFKK wasn't that bad either and that's
> generally supposed to be one of the worst in the country).
I find T2 to have a strange "front to back" roughness unlike the "side
to side" roughness of the other SLC's. It's maybe a more pronounced
sensation, but I never found it painful.
Wolf
"Jeremy" <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c47c615f-6cdb-4a28...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> Funny! You seem to be taking the "it's a better ride than you think!"
> approach to two somewhat maligned coasters, first the Beast and now an
> SLC!
Someone told me that I remind them of Socrates and how he always stood
against the popular opinion, questioning people's assumed beliefs.
-----------
They also told Socrates not to drink the hemlock...
Keith Hopkins
news:sanddave-5122DF...@earthlink.us.supernews.com...
Thanks, Dave. You pushed me into a Wikipedia singularity for ten
minutes.
Link, link, link, link...
--
Keith Hopkins
suss...@sssssssssgmail.ssssssssscom
[clear up the hissing to email]
"Perverts make the very best Scolds."
Mrs. Betty Bowers
ri...@aol.com
> Thanks, Dave. You pushed me into a Wikipedia singularity for ten
> minutes.
> Link, link, link, link...
Then don't go to tvtropes.org.
Seriously.
Rik
Keith Hopkins
news:2f64556e-2224-48ac...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Thankfully I already know about that deadly wormhole of Internet Time
dilation.
MUST...RESIST...
ri...@aol.com
> MUST...RESIST...
Even the entry for "Amusement Park of Doom"?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmusementParkOfDoom
Rik
David Sandborg
"Keith Hopkins" <suss...@sssssssssgmail.ssssssssscom> wrote:
> "David Sandborg" <sand...@Spam-away.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:sanddave-5122DF...@earthlink.us.supernews.com...
> >
> > Wikipedia has a decent
> > entry on it too:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow.
>
> Thanks, Dave. You pushed me into a Wikipedia singularity for ten
> minutes.
>
> Link, link, link, link...
Ten minutes is all you spend when trapped in Wikipedia? I am liable to
wind up linking around it for hours if I'm not careful!
Derek Gee
news:bd3d1f49-92c1-42f9...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Must be a Six Flags park... ;)
Derek
BaSSiStiSt
wrote:
> Ten minutes is all you spend when trapped in Wikipedia? I am liable to
> wind up linking around it for hours if I'm not careful!
I spent thirty minutes there today learning about the Halifax
Explosion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_explosion
Wikipedia is an amazing resource.
mamoosh
> I spent thirty minutes there today learning about the Halifax
> Explosion...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_explosion
UGH...why did I have to click on that link? Whyyyyyyyyyyy......?
> Wikipedia is an amazing resource.
True dat!
BaSSiStiSt
> UGH...why did I have to click on that link? Whyyyyyyyyyyy......?
Amazing story...I had no idea about this incident until it showed up
in my paper's "This Day In History" blurb yesterday. That first
picture of the explosion from 13 miles away is incredible. And then
they get hit by a "10-year" blizzard the very next day! The relief
effort is a pretty neat story and the whole incident would actually
make a good movie IMO.
Dana Schwartz
"Shattered City: The Halifax Explosion" (2003)
This is a docudrama, so I'm not sure how *good* it is from the "docu-"
or "drama" aspect. I vaguely recall hearing something about it when
it came out or was aired on TV. I thought at the time it was too bad
that 911 was still too raw for most people to make it a success, no
matter how interesting it might be (or how well produced).
I learned about the Halifax Explosion or Disaster somewhere along the
line, somehow, way before Wikipedia and instantaneous access to info
via web sources (maybe during a vacation in NS and PEI back in 1990).
I agree with you and Dave and Matthew. I can wander around and get
"lost" in Wiki World (and links from it, off to other places) for much
longer than I should at times. I think I've improved at playing along
with Jeopardy since The Internets became available to the masses.
Every day I find myself saying, "Hmmm... I didn't know that!" And,
"How'd I get *here*?!" :-)
An aside: Wow - two posts in two days (after no posts in many months)
from me, and *both* have Nova Scotia ties. Perhaps I'll have some
salmon for dinner! :-)
Dana Schwartz, Fount of Useless (or at least Trivial) Knowledge
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
>I rode Beast pre-HoliWood Nights this year, the first time since 2001
>that I'd been to the park. One boneshaking ride was all I needed. I
>didn't queue for a reride. Upon walking the exit path my motley crew
>and I were commenting on how great the ride used to be -- something I
>remember well when I got my first rides in 1982 -- and how poor the
>experience is today. We also commented on the small group of diehard
>fans the ride seems to retain. They reminded me a lot of people (we've
>all seen them) who's taste in music stopped growing at it's most
>impressionable, sometime in their high school years. They seem
>oblivious to any new music that's been released since and are the ones
>keeping White Snake, KC and the Sunshine Band, and The Monkeys playing
>the "oldies" circuit.
>I'm sure all those bands were wonderful in their time. The Beast was
>wonderful in it's time. But it's no longer 1979. It's time to move on.
*** I'd say that it's time that parks maintained their classic
rides.
--------
Regarding new music: I am in the entertainment business. One of the
reasons older bands are popular, besides the nostalgia reason, is that too
many of today's acts copy those bands instead of trying for originality.
In essence it is *they* who have not moved on.
Having said that, there are certainly original bands today but they
don't seem to be in the mainstream, and too often they lack the talent
(especially songwriting) to have longevity beyond a few hits.
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
>CEC, thanks, and sorry I still can't figure out what's causing that
>error.
*** Nor I, and I have not taken the time to look into it.
> By the way, how do I set font to ISO-8859-1, don't I just type
>in the reply box?
*** Yes, but your reply will be in the text as dictated by your
software. It is a settings issue. In your setup, you can select
"Plain Text" or similar, or might be able to select an ISO text standard
such as ISO-8859-1. Exactly what and how depends on your operating
system and newsreader software, so I cannot give specifics.
Keith Hopkins
news:77d0dc57-ddb3-4c56...@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I spent thirty minutes there today learning about the Halifax
> Explosion...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_explosion
Damn you. [click, click, click...]
Keith Hopkins
>
> Ten minutes is all you spend when trapped in Wikipedia? I am liable
> to
> wind up linking around it for hours if I'm not careful!
I somehow managed to uncouple from the damn thing. I'm starting to
build up a bit of resistance, after years of screwing around in sites
like Wikipedia and IMDB.
BaSSiStiSt
<sussk...@sssssssssgmail.ssssssssscom> wrote:
> I somehow managed to uncouple from the damn thing. I'm starting to
> build up a bit of resistance, after years of screwing around in sites
> like Wikipedia and IMDB.
What the hell did people do all day before the internets?
Keith Hopkins
>
> What the hell did people do all day before the internets?
I don't know. I don't remember what I used to do.
BaSSiStiSt
<sussk...@sssssssssgmail.ssssssssscom> wrote:
> I don't know. I don't remember what I used to do.
I think it has something to do with all this paper on my desk...
F*ck it, back to Wikipedia.
Wolf
<ri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2f64556e-2224-48ac...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Seriously.
Rik
-------------
I went there once. I woke up in 2017.
Wolf
> Thanks, Dave. You pushed me into a Wikipedia singularity for ten
Seriously.
Rik
-----------
Goddamnit. I just lost three hours there.
Wolf
"BaSSiStiSt" <bassis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:09d0d46e-14ec-45b3...@r40g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
-----------
Built Hugh Hefnor an empire?
BaSSiStiSt
> Built Hugh Hefnor an empire?
That was nice of us, wasn't it.
David H.--REMOVE "STOPSPAM" to reply
wrote:
>On Dec 6, 3:12�pm, David Sandborg <sandd...@Spam-away.ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Whether that means "great" or not is up for
>> argumentation, but you did make a nice case for what the Beast fans see
>> in it.
>
>I rode Beast pre-HoliWood Nights this year, the first time since 2001
>that I'd been to the park. One boneshaking ride was all I needed. I
>didn't queue for a reride. Upon walking the exit path my motley crew
>and I were commenting on how great the ride used to be -- something I
>remember well when I got my first rides in 1982 -- and how poor the
>experience is today. We also commented on the small group of diehard
>fans the ride seems to retain. They reminded me a lot of people (we've
>all seen them) who's taste in music stopped growing at it's most
>impressionable, sometime in their high school years. They seem
>oblivious to any new music that's been released since and are the ones
>keeping White Snake, KC and the Sunshine Band, and The Monkeys playing
>the "oldies" circuit.
>
>I'm sure all those bands were wonderful in their time. The Beast was
>wonderful in it's time. But it's no longer 1979. It's time to move on.
Don't most people have a particular fondness for the music of their youth?
And, in this hobby, the rides of their youth?
I think nostalgia is fairly universal.
David H, davi...@STOPSPAMbellatlantic.net, Boston, MA
PLEASE remove "STOPSPAM" from my address when replying via e-mail.
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by
the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree
in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support
him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not
to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he
fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is
unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or
anyone else."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
mamoosh
<davidhhhSTOPS...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Don't most people have a particular fondness for the music of their youth?
> And, in this hobby, the rides of their youth?
> I think nostalgia is fairly universal.
I don't disagree, but nostalgia is not what I'm talking about. I'm
referring to people who's musical (and coaster) tastes seem "stuck" in
a certain time frame.
Dave Althoff, Jr.
:
: By the way, please set your font to ISO-8859-1 for text newsgroups.
I prefer US-ASCII or ANSI... 8-)
--Dave Althoff, Jr
(the "A" in "ASCII" means Richard can use it, too, even though he is Canadian)
/X\ _ *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ /XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX
NEW! When emailing this account, include the 'canonical magic word' in
the body of your message for a quicker response.
Dave Althoff, Jr.
:
: By the way, I actually was thinking of just posting my reviews on here
: before I decided to make my own website, but I felt I was devoting a
: bit too much time to the subject to just have them fall to the bottom
: of online forums and wanted to get my own platform (especially after
: the website I had been writing for went offline and I lost a couple
: reviews I stupidly hadn't backed up on my computer), especially since
: I could format and organize the content in ways I can't do if it's on
: some other site. If you enjoyed this I'll definitely keep rec.r-c
: updated whenever I have something new, although I don't really feel
: like writing different content for different sites and just a copy/
: paste of the content doesn't achieve anything.
On the contrary...
If the content you are creating is relevant text content, by all means feel
free to post it here; consider it your part of the general effort to raise
the signal-to-noise ratio of the group. Obviously if the content is highly
dependent on graphics or illustrations you would be better to post a link
here, or better yet a quick summary with a link.
This is all about connecting with your audience, and the audience here on
rec.roller-coaster...at least those of us who have been around a
while...come to this group on a regular basis expecting to read through a
whole lot of information rather quickly, possibly engaging in multiple
conversations. That's the nature of a discussion forum, particularly a
USENET forum. Your site is a content site, which means by its very nature,
it's somewhat static...that is, we USENET readers are unlikely to pop over
to your site on a regular basis to see what is new, and quite frankly, if
all you post here is a quick note to say you've updated something on the
site, we're just as likely to dismiss it as only slightly less annoying
than spam and move along to the next message. Give us a good reason to go
through the extra effort to visit your site. The easiest way to do that is
to present the content here, perhaps noting that there is enhanced content
available elsewhere.
It isn't really like writing a blog or an RSS feed when you present here.
Here, you become part of the discussion. rec.roller-coaster is the
original roller coaster Internet discussion forum, and quite frankly, for
discussion it is a better and broader forum than anything you will find on
the Web because there is a little bit of everything here...a little bit of
everything EXCEPT a webmaster or editor (or moderator) trying to direct the
discussion and maximize the exclusivity to a single site. Because on
USENET, *nothing* is exclusive.
--Dave Althoff, Jr., who doesn't post as much as he used to, but has
been here for a long, long time... 8-)
Dave Althoff, Jr.
: > Funny! �You seem to be taking the "it's a better ride than you think!"
: > approach to two somewhat maligned coasters, first the Beast and now an
: > SLC!
:
: Someone told me that I remind them of Socrates and how he always stood
: against the popular opinion, questioning people's assumed beliefs.
: While I don't think I'm anywhere near the intellect of Socrates, I do
: like to figure out what the popular opinion of a ride/park is and then
: present my viewpoint as being completely opposed that opinion, not
: just because the discussions that happen afterward are normally a bit
: more lively.
Anybody remember Morton Downey Jr.? One of his tactics on his
talk^H^H^H^Hscream show was to figure out the vict...er...guest's point of
view and then to push the diametrically opposite position. Then if things
got slow, he'd switch sides if necessary. Of course his 'debating' tactic
was mostly to hurl insults across the studio, but the point was to generate
*argument*. After all, if everybody agrees, what is there to discuss?
(And no, I wasn't a fan of the show. But back when it was on, it was
pretty hard not to know about it.)
: The case of the SLC is a bit different though; generally
: I'm not interested in roughness as being a reason for condemning a
: ride, it's too easy, just a token label we can apply to anything we
: don't like and doesn't say anything more about the type of ride it is.
: If it is consistently rough not just because it wasn't well maintained
: that day but because of some flaws in the design, then there's not
: much you can do about it. Since I happened to get some smooth rides
: and could appreciate it for the layout, I wanted to write about that
: because that's much more interesting than saying "it's bad when it's
: rough" which it is when it's true... which is frequent (although I've
: been pretty lucky since T2 at SFKK wasn't that bad either and that's
: generally supposed to be one of the worst in the country).
Interesting that you mention that, as that's a thought that I am exploring
in the trip report that I am now writing for one of the least impressive
amusement parks I have ever visited. One of the park's attractions is a
truly awful wooden coaster. But the interesting thing about this truly
horrible ride is that it is *NOT* rough. In fact, it would be an extremely
re-rideable coaster if it didn't put you to sleep halfway through the first
turnaround. It is nice and smooth, it tracks extremely well, and it is an
absolutely pitiful ride. It got me to thinking about how we can define a
"bad ride" and what makes a ride "bad". I mean, Son of Beast is a rough
ride. There's documented evidence about that; it's broken two necks and
God only knows what else over the years. It is also a bad ride, because it
has an uninspired layout that is basically a waste of space and effort.
The ride has basically no redeeming qualities. And yet, the other ride I
speak of *does* have (as noted) some redeeming qualities, but is
unquestionably a much worse ride.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
David H.--REMOVE "STOPSPAM" to reply
wrote:
>On Dec 9, 7:35�am, "David H.--REMOVE \"STOPSPAM\" to reply"
But if you like and prefer the things of your youth, then isn't that what
you're talking about?
BDesvignes
> This is my first post here on rec.roller-coaster however I've been a
> reader for much longer since I've enjoyed the detailed, well-written
> park and ride reports that are posted here, especially when it seems
> like critical reviews are becoming harder to find online. It's great
> looking through the archives here and seeing how it used to be
> everyone would post a coaster review that focused on much more than
> just quantifying the g-forces or how smooth it was or whatever.
>
> Anyway, I hope some of you might then be able to enjoy my new website
> I've been working on for the past few months called Roller Coaster
> Philosophy (http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/). My goal is
> basically to provide some of the most in-depth and analytical coaster,
> park and attraction reviews on the net. I recently finished writing a
> piece on King's Island Beast, where I try dissecting how it is that a
> layout that features a lot of flat, straight sections of track can be
> as good, if not better (and in my personal opinion, the best) compared
> to more 'forceful' or 'active' modern rides. The explanation doesn't
> just come down to "well the woods are a cool setting that make up for
> those shortcomings" that a lot of Beast apologists might use, since
> really that doesn't explain anything about the quality of the ride; my
> thesis actually is that the ride experience is actually a better one
> for featuring flat sections of track than if they were filled with
> airtime hills or twists or turns or whatever.
>
> Here's the link for that one:http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/beast-30-analysis/
>
> I also have a pretty lengthy write-up for KD's Diamondback, which I'm
> much more critical of, at least relative to what the general viewpoint
> on that ride is. The link for that one is:http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2009/diamondback-analysis/
>
> There's a lot more there as well, like I recently finished reviewing
> all of Six Flags Great America's stuff as well, along with some
> individual coaster analyses such as Steel Hawg, Phoenix and Ravine
> Flyer 2, plus a really long report of the old Hard Rock Park I wrote
> last year for CoasterSims.com before they went belly-up (partly what
> prompted me to make my own site).
>
> There's a comment box at the bottom of each of the pages, so if you
> want to challenge some of my points I'd be more than happy to reply
> there and hopefully get some good debates going.
>
> -Jeremy Thompson
TL;DR
Dave Althoff, Jr.
: reasons older bands are popular, besides the nostalgia reason, is that too
: many of today's acts copy those bands instead of trying for originality.
: In essence it is *they* who have not moved on.
You are reminding me of my experience on Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit. Who
the hell is "Hinder" and why do I care? What is the point of doing a cover
of "Born to be Wild" and imitating Steppenwolf? Hell, I think John Kay
himself has done more stylistic variation with the song than Hinder. There
is nothing inherently wrong with doing a cover, but for crying out loud, do
something interesting with it. Make it your own, not just an impersonation
of the original.
For an example of what I am talking about, have a listen to the Bee Gees
doing their ear-splitting original version of "I've Gotta Get A Message To
You", then listen to hear what Moxy Fruvous do with the same song. A cover
ought to be something with some originality. Garth Brooks remade
"Shameless" so much in his own style that people forget that Billy Joel
ever recorded it. Going back to Moxy Fruvous, who were mostly known
for their original work, check out their covers of Tom Waits' "Jockey Full
of Bourbon" (although in fairness, nobody can...or for that matter,
should...actually imitate Tom Waits, though it didn't keep Los
Loobos from trying). If yo8u're going to cover a song, why try to imitate
the original?
: Having said that, there are certainly original bands today but they
: don't seem to be in the mainstream, and too often they lack the talent
: (especially songwriting) to have longevity beyond a few hits.
How much of that is a lack of songwriting talent, and how much of that is
the promotions machine grinding out formulaic crap because it's sure to
sell. Which is odd because when a good, unique song comes on the radio it
jumps out at you because it is different...and often pretty good!
BaSSiStiSt
<dalloff.gcfn....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> You are reminding me of my experience on Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit. Who
> the hell is "Hinder" and why do I care?
LOL! Apparently, the kids these days are into "Hinder". Kids have
notoriously poor taste in music. :-) Hell, White Lion and Winger
were popular when I was younger!
> There is nothing inherently wrong with doing a cover, but for crying out loud, do
> something interesting with it. Make it your own, not just an impersonation
> of the original.
Hear, hear! There's no point to doing a karoake version of someone
else's song. I pretty much despise covers...much like I will instantly
dislike any band if I can clearly hear whose sound they're ripping off
in the first minute of the song. If you can't make an original noise,
there's no point in listening to it for me.
> How much of that is a lack of songwriting talent, and how much of that is
> the promotions machine grinding out formulaic crap because it's sure to
> sell. Which is odd because when a good, unique song comes on the radio it
> jumps out at you because it is different...and often pretty good!
There's tons of good music out there these days, it just never gets
played on radio or TV. It takes a little research to find (knowing
Mooshie is a good start!) but it's out there.
Keith Hopkins
>
> Hear, hear! There's no point to doing a karoake version of someone
> else's song. I pretty much despise covers...much like I will
> instantly
> dislike any band if I can clearly hear whose sound they're ripping
> off
> in the first minute of the song. If you can't make an original
> noise,
> there's no point in listening to it for me.
See also: Lenny Kravitz.
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
>On Dec 7, 7:11=A0pm, David Sandborg <sandd...@Spam-away.ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>> Ten minutes is all you spend when trapped in Wikipedia? =A0I am liable to
>> wind up linking around it for hours if I'm not careful!
>I spent thirty minutes there today learning about the Halifax
>Explosion...
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_explosion
*** I went to the anniversary ceremony this year for the first time.
That is odd for me, because I have been an explosion buff since the 1970s
and have read a dozen or so books on it. At one time, I used to take
people on impromptu tours to show them the stuff the Museum of the
Atlantic doesn't.
The Explosion ties in loosely with an amusement park:
http://CEC.chebucto.org/ClosPark/Findlay.html
Richard Bonner
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
(Re: Halifax Explosion)
>Amazing story...I had no idea about this incident until it showed up
>in my paper's "This Day In History" blurb yesterday. That first
>picture of the explosion from 13 miles away is incredible. And then
>they get hit by a "10-year" blizzard the very next day! The relief
>effort is a pretty neat story and the whole incident would actually
>make a good movie IMO.
*** It was made into a two-part television movie a few years ago. I
believe the title was "Shattered City".
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
>What the hell did people do all day before the internets?
*** There are *two* of them now?
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
>Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada <c...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>:
>: By the way, please set your font to ISO-8859-1 for text newsgroups.
>I prefer US-ASCII or ANSI... 8-)
*** Those are acceptable, as well.
>--Dave Althoff, Jr
>(the "A" in "ASCII" means Richard can use it, too, even though he is Canadian)
*** Woo Hoo! Thanks for allowing me, Dave. (-:
Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada
>Coaster Enthusiasts of Canada <c...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>:
>: Regarding new music: I am in the entertainment business. One of the
>: reasons older bands are popular, besides the nostalgia reason, is that too
>: many of today's acts copy those bands instead of trying for originality.
>: In essence it is *they* who have not moved on.
>You are reminding me of my experience on Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit. Who
>the hell is "Hinder" and why do I care? What is the point of doing a cover
>of "Born to be Wild" and imitating Steppenwolf? Hell, I think John Kay
>himself has done more stylistic variation with the song than Hinder. There
>is nothing inherently wrong with doing a cover, but for crying out loud, do
>something interesting with it. Make it your own, not just an impersonation
>of the original.
*** I agree. A rearrangement of a well-known song can be wonderful.
(By the way, I did lighting for the Halifax dates of a Steppenwolf
reunion tour in the early 1980s.)
>For an example of what I am talking about, have a listen to the Bee Gees
>doing their ear-splitting original version of "I've Gotta Get A Message To
>You", then listen to hear what Moxy Fruvous do with the same song. A cover
>ought to be something with some originality. Garth Brooks remade
>"Shameless" so much in his own style that people forget that Billy Joel
>ever recorded it.
*** I can add to that both the Joe Cocker and the Arbors versions of
"The Letter" and Santana's version of "Black Magic Woman". I also love
Brothers Johnson's version of "Come Together".
>: Having said that, there are certainly original bands today but they
>: don't seem to be in the mainstream, and too often they lack the talent
>: (especially songwriting) to have longevity beyond a few hits.
>How much of that is a lack of songwriting talent, and how much of that is
>the promotions machine grinding out formulaic crap because it's sure to
>sell.
*** Some of each. Regardless, an act that does a good version of a song
can still be very popular. Record companies like anything that sells.
> Which is odd because when a good, unique song comes on the radio it
>jumps out at you because it is different...and often pretty good!
>--Dave Althoff, Jr.
*** I tend to agree, although I listen little to commercial radio.
Richard Bonner
Derek Gee
news:hge281$ad5$3...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca...
> BaSSiStiSt wrote:
>>What the hell did people do all day before the internets?
>
> *** There are *two* of them now?
Yes, there are. The general public can't use the other one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_II
Derek
Keith Hopkins
news:4b2af6b5$0$4895$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
More appropriately, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internets
Mark Rosenzweig
>
> There's tons of good music out there these days, it just never gets
> played on radio or TV. It takes a little research to find (knowing
> Mooshie is a good start!) but it's out there.
Thanks mostly to Moosh and Jimvid, my music education has been brought
back to the level of when I a DJ on college radio and attending the
annual CMJ convention.