John Cage's 4'33"
David Glover
and Radio Three last night can still watch it, I recorded it off the
telly and have made it available for download. Grab it here:
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~12fg/4-33/
There's a low quality version and a high quality version, depending on
how much you want to download.
El Dave
Genius! I particularly enjoyed the bit at the beginning where someone
sets their digital watch, but the part with someone jingling their keys
was also an aural feast.
It's just a shame he didn't perform his masterpiece at the top of the
hour, as we would have been treated to a veritable cacophony of digital
watches. They are great!
MC
news:TtudnSbFIeq...@nildram.net...
I watched this just to see the reaction of the audience. I believe the only
people to find this rubbish entertaining are people who know absolutely
nothing about music but think they do. Also, the audience have too much
time and money on their hands. Brainwashed fools. How can "nothing" (that
is exactly what it is) get such huge applause.
Also, I wonder how many musicians will use this 4'33" as an audition piece.
The world has gone absolutely mad.
MC
John L
wrote:
>"David Glover" <use...@davidglover.org> wrote in message
>news:TtudnSbFIeq...@nildram.net...
>> Those who missed the live performance of John Cage's 4'33" on BBC Four
>> and Radio Three last night can still watch it, I recorded it off the
>> telly and have made it available for download. Grab it here:
>>
>> http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~12fg/4-33/
>>
>> There's a low quality version and a high quality version, depending on
>> how much you want to download.
>
>I watched this just to see the reaction of the audience. I believe the only
>people to find this rubbish entertaining are people who know absolutely
>nothing about music but think they do.
I believe the only people to rubbish this piece are people who know
absolutely nothing about music but think they do.
John L
notme
"John L" <jo...@zahidjohnBITLATENOW.plus.com> wrote in message
news:400a3d89...@usenet.plus.net...
along .................... you know the rest
--
BB4 All the news you may have missed
BB1,2,3- Kate beach pics! - Castaway2K - VW Bugs -
-Missiles on the Isle of Wight -
Pre&Post Natal Facts + FAQs - The whole lot at
www.gardencroft.co.uk
Julian Barkway
barely concealed anticipation:
>> >people to find this rubbish entertaining are people who know absolutely
>> >nothing about music but think they do.
>>
>> I believe the only people to rubbish this piece are people who know
>> absolutely nothing about music but think they do.
>>
>There was once this emperor right , and he was a fool and these blokes came
>along .................... you know the rest
There was once this point right, and... oh look! There it goes flying right
over your head at an altitude of 30,000'....
Just one more time, for the terminally hard-of-thinking, Cage's intention
was never to 'con' people, as you seem to suggest. If you look a little
more deeply into his other music (which is largely non-silent), you'll
realise he was famous for letting random elements influence his
compositions. 4'33" takes this concept about as far as it can go, with the
music being formed from the random sounds that occur around the listener
during the performance.
So now you know.
--
| Julian Barkway, |"In the US, irony is a mark left on your clothes by |
| Zurich, | a bad laundry service." - David Kennedy |
| Switzerland +------------------+---------------------------------+
| jbar...@LONDONpop.PARISagri.ch | (Hint: Capitals are out...) |
matt
"MC" <notinc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:107439656...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
It's like many so-called pieces of art out there (especially modern art)
that people find some kind of deep meaning for that doesn't really exist and
feel that they're 'hip' for 'getting' it.
And then there are the weak-minded people who manage to convince themselves
that they get it too so as not to appear out of the loop.
It's all brainwashing, like you said.
Paul K Hudson
He's just taking the piss
Like Picasso
PKH
"Julian Barkway" <jbarkwayLEA...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:BC302DFB...@80-218-54-231.dclient.hispeed.ch...
notme
"Julian Barkway" <jbarkwayLEA...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:BC302DFB...@80-218-54-231.dclient.hispeed.ch...
with
> barely concealed anticipation:
>
> >> >people to find this rubbish entertaining are people who know
absolutely
> >> >nothing about music but think they do.
> >>
> >> I believe the only people to rubbish this piece are people who know
> >> absolutely nothing about music but think they do.
> >>
> >There was once this emperor right , and he was a fool and these blokes
came
> >along .................... you know the rest
>
> There was once this point right, and... oh look! There it goes flying
right
> over your head at an altitude of 30,000'....
>
> Just one more time, for the terminally hard-of-thinking, Cage's intention
> was never to 'con' people, as you seem to suggest. If you look a little
> more deeply into his other music (which is largely non-silent), you'll
> realise he was famous for letting random elements influence his
> compositions. 4'33" takes this concept about as far as it can go, with the
> music being formed from the random sounds that occur around the listener
> during the performance.
>
> So now you know.
>
regular at Birmingham's Icon gallery that display all types of Turner Prize
shortlist art, I own several pieces at home that raise the "Art lover"
eyebrow. I'm not a philistine its just that though I have sat in dark
galleries watching a looped VHS of someone's hands whilst they smoked or of
a Rumanian street scene or other conceptual art forms. But to spend licence
fee on R3 & BBc3 then tell us its "serious" isn't on - I look at conceptual
art with an Ironic smile and nothing more - enjoy it but don't tell me its
anything less than the " puff of a dunce"
Geoff Phillips
Bah, while all that nothing was going on, I found a marvellous Mahler 2
being played on 3Sat, with the Pope (he played the triangle) in an awesome
concert hall. Good old Astra 19.2 dish.
Geoff.
Gordon Davie
> "notme" <ne...@here.ok> spake thusly to the assembled multitudes,
> agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>
>>>> people to find this rubbish entertaining are people who know
>>>> absolutely nothing about music but think they do.
>>>
>>> I believe the only people to rubbish this piece are people who know
>>> absolutely nothing about music but think they do.
>>>
>> There was once this emperor right , and he was a fool and these
>> blokes came along .................... you know the rest
>
> There was once this point right, and... oh look! There it goes flying
> right over your head at an altitude of 30,000'....
>
> Just one more time, for the terminally hard-of-thinking, Cage's
> intention was never to 'con' people, as you seem to suggest. If you
> look a little more deeply into his other music (which is largely
> non-silent), you'll realise he was famous for letting random elements
> influence his compositions. 4'33" takes this concept about as far as
> it can go, with the music being formed from the random sounds that
> occur around the listener during the performance.
>
> So now you know.
The Emperor was really naked, did you know that?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Horatio.
Listen to all of them before you treat the world to your opinions.
"Chesney Christ" <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8lcdi6Kd...@ntlworld.com...
> X-No-Archive:yes
>
> A certain David Glover, of uk.media.tv.misc "fame", writes :
>
> >There's a low quality version and a high quality version, depending on
> >how much you want to download.
>
> I much prefer my own performances.
>
> --
>
> "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com
>
Horatio.
"Paul K Hudson" <1@2.3> wrote in message
news:budu12$p3g$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Bullshit
>
> He's just taking the piss
>
> Like Picasso
>
> PKH
Get yourself a book about Picasso look at his early works* then move forward
following the line of his development until you get to the "Death of
Casagemas". By then you will understand. His early works resemble those of
El Greco. Today anyone trying to produce art of that sort would be accused
of trying to produce photographs with paint. After the photographic image
became ubiquitous, Picasso and Braque and a host of others looked for and
found new ways of illustrating objects & people and representing the world
as not just an image but with the relative values and significance of the
individual elements demonstrated in the manipulation of their simple forms.
Your language (above) reveals a lot about you.
I should have saved my breath. Enjoy your football.
Horatio.
Neil Hopkins
<thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>X-No-Archive:yes
>
>A certain John L, of uk.media.tv.misc "fame", writes :
>
>>I believe the only people to rubbish this piece are people who know
>>absolutely nothing about music but think they do.
>
>It's hardly an original or innovative composition is it ?
It was certainly original and innovative - nobody else has done
anything like it before or since. It's the same situation as the
people who criticise a piece of modern art by saying "well, anybody
could have done that" - the response is simply "why didn't you think
of it first, then?"
--
Anya : "I provide much needed sarcasm"
Xbox live : neil hopkins
Note that there is an exclusive spam filter on this email address.
Let me know via this group if you want to be added to my whitelist.
Antoine Blanche
>
> "Paul K Hudson" <1@2.3> wrote in message
> news:budu12$p3g$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> Bullshit
>>
>> He's just taking the piss
>>
>> Like Picasso
>>
>> PKH
>
> Get yourself a book about Picasso look at his early works*
Did you forget a footnote?
> then move
> forward following the line of his development until you get to the
> "Death of Casagemas". By then you will understand. His early works
> resemble those of El Greco. Today anyone trying to produce art of that
> sort would be accused of trying to produce photographs with paint.
Even if it was full of symbolic relation to some ingenious philosophy? If
it was a good, meaningful work, it strikes me that the deviation from an
expected modern style is more likely to see it criticised as a vastly
unoriginal piece (at worst).
> After the
> photographic image became ubiquitous, Picasso and Braque and a host of
> others looked for and found new ways of illustrating objects & people
> and representing the world as not just an image but with the relative
> values and significance of the individual elements demonstrated in the
> manipulation of their simple forms.
Indeed. For somebody who supposedly took the piss, Picasso didn't half
change the direction of twentieth century art. They all started to
disassemble the individual elements in order to find a radical new method
of expression.
On the subject of art, I'm trying to locate posters of Picasso's
self-portrait from his Blue Period (around 1904-1908 IIRC) and Poussin's
Et in Arcadia Ego, if anybody knows of an online poster shop that sells
'em. Preferably the same place for both (postage reasons). :)
--
Antoine Blanche
Et in Arcadia Ego
Mike Swift
<notinc...@hotmail.com> writes
>I watched this just to see the reaction of the audience. I believe the
>only people to find this rubbish entertaining are people who know
>absolutely nothing about music but think they do. Also, the audience
>have too much time and money on their hands. Brainwashed fools. How
>can "nothing" (that is exactly what it is) get such huge applause.
>
>Also, I wonder how many musicians will use this 4'33" as an audition
>piece.
>
>The world has gone absolutely mad.
Classic case of 'The Emperors New Clothes' if you ask me.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Dave Newt
Antoine Blanche wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:44:07 +0000, Horatio. wrote:
> >
> > "Paul K Hudson" <1@2.3> wrote in message
> > news:budu12$p3g$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >> Bullshit
> >>
> >> He's just taking the piss
> >>
> >> Like Picasso
> >>
> >> PKH
> >
> > Get yourself a book about Picasso look at his early works*
>
> Did you forget a footnote?
It was there all right. It was a conceptual one.
Gareth Flynn
news:buede6$gt0ke$3...@ID-162187.news.uni-berlin.de...
[snip]
> Your language (above) reveals a lot about you.
[snip]
> Enjoy your football.
Hehe... snobby at all?
--
Gareth Flynn
g...@staybeautiful.net
http://www.staybeautiful.net - a Manic Street Preachers website
MC
"Paul K Hudson" <1@2.3> wrote in message
news:budu12$p3g$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> He's just taking the piss
>
> Like Picasso
>
> PKH
>
>
At least picasso put paint on the canvas.
MC
MC
> wrote:
>
> >"David Glover" <use...@davidglover.org> wrote in message
> >news:TtudnSbFIeq...@nildram.net...
> >> Those who missed the live performance of John Cage's 4'33" on BBC Four
> >> and Radio Three last night can still watch it, I recorded it off the
> >> telly and have made it available for download. Grab it here:
> >
only
> >people to find this rubbish entertaining are people who know absolutely
> >nothing about music but think they do.
>
> I believe the only people to rubbish this piece are people who know
> absolutely nothing about music but think they do.
>
I do not pretend to know anything about music but I do know crap when it
hits me in the face.
I didn't know how to play a musical instrument until now. Nothing to it.
I just have to sit there with my digeridoo and do nothing. Oh, did you not
know you can play 4'33" on th didge?. Well you do now.
MC
Richard Brooks
I think you mean non-music !
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=music
I'm sure there must be at least one note to make a vibration against the ear
drum to make sound in the first place and silence is not sound in pure
terms.
Richard.
Antoine Blanche
//
> I do not pretend to know anything about music but I do know crap when it
> hits me in the face.
Indeed. That's why, instead of Radio One, I listen to the Sound of
Silence 40 times on a Sunday teatime. Beats all the dilge in the charts.
matt
"Neil Hopkins" <neil_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:400ac1d8...@news.individual.net...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:37:07 +0000, Chesney Christ
> <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >X-No-Archive:yes
> >
> >A certain John L, of uk.media.tv.misc "fame", writes :
> >
> >>I believe the only people to rubbish this piece are people who know
> >>absolutely nothing about music but think they do.
> >
> >It's hardly an original or innovative composition is it ?
>
> It was certainly original and innovative - nobody else has done
> anything like it before or since. It's the same situation as the
> people who criticise a piece of modern art by saying "well, anybody
> could have done that" - the response is simply "why didn't you think
> of it first, then?"
>
Those who say "anybody could have done that" didn't do it first because they
didn't think it worth doing. And they're right.
Antoine Blanche
//
> Those who say "anybody could have done that" didn't do it first because
> they didn't think it worth doing. And they're right.
It's one thing being a Philistine but quite another being intolerably
dense. It is beyond me how anybody can consider the production of oil
paintings that shift for over $50,000,000 USD, as "not worth doing";
to paraphrase you.
And IIRC Picasso is responsible for the five most valuable works of art in
history. He's up there with Renoir, Van Gogh & Cezanne and deservedly so.
Those who don't agree with that sentiment, and who suggest he's taking the
piss, clearly look for nothing more than a family-snap in fine-art, and
nothing more than a plot, in fine literature.
For a nation that prides itself on a sense of humour abstracted by irony,
it's pretty amazing that the minions miss so many of the abstract
ingredients that puts the fine into the finest of arts. And that applies
as much to a Michaelangelo as it does to a Picasso or a Pollock.
matt
"Antoine Blanche" <antoine...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.18....@hotmail.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:26:50 +0000, matt wrote:
> //
> > Those who say "anybody could have done that" didn't do it first because
> > they didn't think it worth doing. And they're right.
>
> It's one thing being a Philistine but quite another being intolerably
> dense.
You mean dense enough to miss the point of the thread? I'm not talking about
Picasso or Pollock, I'm talking about 4'33" and modern 'art' such as soiled
sheets and the like.
I like Picasso.
Horatio
> <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >X-No-Archive:yes
> >
> >A certain John L, of uk.media.tv.misc "fame", writes :
> >
> >>I believe the only people to rubbish this piece are people who know
> >>absolutely nothing about music but think they do.
> >
> >It's hardly an original or innovative composition is it ?
>
> It was certainly original and innovative - nobody else has done
> anything like it before or since. It's the same situation as the
> people who criticise a piece of modern art by saying "well, anybody
> could have done that" - the response is simply "why didn't you think
> of it first, then?"
Good to hear someone supporting artistic freedom. Regarding this piece: John
Cage's 4' 33" ; I'll never forget the reaction of Roland Milk, ex music
critic of "The Gramophone" to his first exposure to this piece. His senses
were so ravished by it's undeniable genius that he fell down; swooned in a
dead faint and announced himself "totally enervated" for several days after.
In fact he had to take to his bed and had a whole week off work because of
it. The remarkable fact is that most people don't realize that it is written
in three movements; that the first movement is in 2/4 time, the second in
4/4 time, and in the final (third) movement returns to 2/4 time again. This
produces a true crescendo of silence which is truly thrilling beyond all
other musical experiences.
Horatio.
Mike Swift
<antoine...@hotmail.com> writes
>It's one thing being a Philistine but quite another being intolerably
>dense. It is beyond me how anybody can consider the production of oil
>paintings that shift for over $50,000,000 USD, as "not worth doing"; to
>paraphrase you.
>
by how much money some moron is willing to pay to own it.
>And IIRC Picasso is responsible for the five most valuable works of art
>in history. He's up there with Renoir, Van Gogh & Cezanne and
>deservedly so. Those who don't agree with that sentiment, and who
>suggest he's taking the piss, clearly look for nothing more than a
>family-snap in fine-art, and nothing more than a plot, in fine
>literature.
>
Again you judge talent by 'value', Picasso is a dauber, as is Hockney
and Lowrey, all talentless IMHO, but then who am I to criticise, I just
like what I like.
>For a nation that prides itself on a sense of humour abstracted by
>irony, it's pretty amazing that the minions miss so many of the abstract
>ingredients that puts the fine into the finest of arts. And that
>applies as much to a Michaelangelo as it does to a Picasso or a Pollock.
You are of course taking the piss yourself, surely 'art' is in the eye
of the beholder, I like David Shepherd and his Trains and Elephants, to
me that's 'art', unlike you though I'm willing to accept that others
might just disagree with me.
Horatio
Interesting that his Blue period came about from necessity; he had a very
restricted palette because of the war. Some of his works were executed on
bedsheets in lieu of canvas for the same reason.
Isn't it sad that Raphael and Georgione died too young, and Delacroix with
so much undone? While the out-and-out swines like Titian (remember his
treatment of Pombonio) grab all the commissions then live till their
eighties? I mean his use of colour was very good but some of his figures are
abysmal. I have a mental image now of his self-portrait (the one where he's
holding a bag of money) and it's enough to make one shudder. Picasso was
divinely inspired but in his private life he was mean; in particular his
meanness to his women was unforgivable. He also stole his best friend's
wife, and drove him to suicide. Perhaps we shouldn't look so closely at our
idols, just live in the glow of their works.
horatio.
MC
news:buf9bg$h58bc$2...@ID-162187.news.uni-berlin.de...
No matter how people try and gloss it up it's still meaningless b****cks.
MC
Julian Barkway
barely concealed anticipation:
>> Just one more time, for the terminally hard-of-thinking, Cage's intention
>> was never to 'con' people, as you seem to suggest. If you look a little
>> more deeply into his other music (which is largely non-silent), you'll
>> realise he was famous for letting random elements influence his
>> compositions. 4'33" takes this concept about as far as it can go, with the
>> music being formed from the random sounds that occur around the listener
>> during the performance.
>>
>> So now you know.
>>
>Don't patronise me I understand the concept of conceptual art - I am a
>regular at Birmingham's Icon gallery that display all types of Turner Prize
>shortlist art, I own several pieces at home that raise the "Art lover"
>eyebrow. I'm not a philistine its just that though I have sat in dark
>galleries watching a looped VHS of someone's hands whilst they smoked or of
>a Rumanian street scene or other conceptual art forms. But to spend licence
>fee on R3 & BBc3 then tell us its "serious" isn't on - I look at conceptual
>art with an Ironic smile and nothing more - enjoy it but don't tell me its
>anything less than the " puff of a dunce"
First of all, music isn't a visual art. The visual arts seem to me to be
more and more about artists coming up with an intellectually fatuous
'concept' and illustrating it in a depressingly literal way... Here, at
least, I think we agree.
Now, back in 1963, John Cage was making a serious, and quite valid, point.
Music *is* all around you if you just make the effort to listen. 4'33" was
just a neat way of illustrating this fact.
Before you knock John Cage (and being part of the herd is so easy when it
means you don't have to think for yourself), check out some of his other
music. I would start with the early 'prepared piano' works as they are
probably easier to get into than some of his other stuff. Once you have
made the effort, then you can knock with authority...
Julian Barkway
agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>> produces a true crescendo of silence which is truly thrilling beyond all
>> other musical experiences.
>>
>
>No matter how people try and gloss it up it's still meaningless b****cks.
Of course it is. Anything is if you don't make the effort to understand it.
Or is that what you want? Art that you can appreciate without having to
*think* too hard?
Horatio.
Read the posting again, MC. You are missing something.
Horatio.
Lee@DVDDebate
>>I do not pretend to know anything about music but I do know crap when it
>>hits me in the face.
>
> Indeed. That's why, instead of Radio One, I listen to the Sound of
> Silence 40 times on a Sunday teatime. Beats all the dilge in the charts.
>
Dirge or bilge: which is it to be? You can't have both ;)
Lee.
--
Founder, DVD Debate
http://www.dvddebate.com
lee at dvddebate dot com
Upset motorists: remember, motorways offer a hard shoulder to cry on.
Antoine Blanche
I apologise Matt. I'll turn on threading in my newsreader so it doesn't
appear that all responses are relating to the Picasso branch.
/humble pie being chewed.
/egg being wiped off face.
:)
Hognoxious
news:BC302DFB...@80-218-54-231.dclient.hispeed.ch...
...
> There was once this point right, and... oh look! There it goes flying
right
> over your head at an altitude of 30,000'....
Fuck me, you're not up yourself much, are you?
> Just one more time, for the terminally hard-of-thinking,
Oooh, get her!
> Cage's intention
> was never to 'con' people, as you seem to suggest. If you look a little
> more deeply into his other music (which is largely non-silent), you'll
> realise he was famous for letting random elements influence his
> compositions.
In the same way as a dog paints, you mean?
> 4'33" takes this concept about as far as it can go, with the
> music being formed from the random sounds that occur around the listener
> during the performance.
I knew all that and I still think it's twaddle, so there. I suggest you sod
off back to alt.patronising.arseholes forthwith.
> So now you know.
He allegedly sued someone for copyright infringement. Him out of the
wombles, I think.
Hognoxious
news:buede6$gt0ke$3...@ID-162187.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Your language (above) reveals a lot about you.
Not as much as the following line reveals about you.
> I should have saved my breath. Enjoy your football.
You forgot to accuse him of reading the "Daily Mirror".
Hognoxious
>
> It was certainly original and innovative - nobody else has done
> anything like it before or since.
Not true. Similar works have been performed by French military bands for
centuries.
Hognoxious
news:bueoun$7tm$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> ...silence is not sound in pure terms.
What? Simon & Garfunkel were wrong!?!
Hognoxious
> John Cage has produced many many better works of this type since 1992.
> Listen to all of them before you treat the world to your opinions.
Learn how to use a newsreader before treating this group to yours.
Antoine Blanche
> In article <pan.2004.01.18....@hotmail.com>, Antoine Blanche
> <antoine...@hotmail.com> writes
>>It's one thing being a Philistine but quite another being intolerably
>>dense. It is beyond me how anybody can consider the production of oil
>>paintings that shift for over $50,000,000 USD, as "not worth doing"; to
>>paraphrase you.
>>
> I must be 'intolerably dense', I judge a painting by how I like it not by
> how much money some moron is willing to pay to own it.
I judge a painting not on it's value, but on the intelligence and passion
that's gone into it, and the exciting symbols and philosophy it emanates.
You miss the point. The comment was a reaction to the statement that it's
"not worth doing". Apparently, Matt wasn't talking about Picasso at all,
but as the thread has digressed in that direction, I stick to my point: If
getting $50,000,000 makes something "not worth doing", regardless of
whether it's an innovative piece or not, then the person with that POV
shouldn't expect many riches in life. I'd spend ten years putting
my life and soul into the most appalling painting if I was going to get
$50,000,000 out of it Mike.
>>And IIRC Picasso is responsible for the five most valuable works of art
>>in history. He's up there with Renoir, Van Gogh & Cezanne and
>>deservedly so. Those who don't agree with that sentiment, and who
>>suggest he's taking the piss, clearly look for nothing more than a
>>family-snap in fine-art, and nothing more than a plot, in fine
>>literature.
>>
> Again you judge talent by 'value',
No I don't. I just suppose the ten most expensive paintings to reside in
that category because they're the most exciting pieces from a global point
of view. Although, in fairness, I only mentioned the list because
somebody suggested "they're not worth doing". When they go for so much?
Yeah right.
> Picasso is a dauber, as is Hockney
> and Lowrey,
Yes, Hockney's polaroid collage's are a very good example of daubing, no?
<sigh>
> all talentless IMHO, but then who am I to criticise, I just
> like what I like.
It might be helpful if you *explained* why. Art isn't about what you
or anybody else *likes* after all.
>>For a nation that prides itself on a sense of humour abstracted by
>>irony, it's pretty amazing that the minions miss so many of the abstract
>>ingredients that puts the fine into the finest of arts. And that
>>applies as much to a Michaelangelo as it does to a Picasso or a Pollock.
>
> You are of course taking the piss yourself, surely 'art' is in the eye
> of the beholder,
You're confusing beauty with art and relying on cliché's to defend your
POV. That cliché doesn't work in the case of art IMHO. You can smack
somebody in the face with a Michaelangelo, and they'll still only see a
pretty picture; not the art.
> I like David Shepherd and his Trains and Elephants, to
> me that's 'art',
Why? I've already explained why I think something is art, going so far as
to compare fine literature to fine art. Some people read books and see a
tale. Others read a book and see far more. That "far more" is the
exciting thing about art. Consider Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms.
Merely a WWI tale on the surface of it. The substructure though, does
nothing but emanate an existential philosophy, and the underlying theme
is more about the central character's discovery of the unordered universe
("trying to break us") than about any of the war related catastrophe which
*appears* to dominate throughout.
Now consider Leonardo Da Vinci. Some people no doubt walk through the
Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie, and see in The Last Supper, little
more than a fantastically photographic, biblical painting. Those looking
for the meaning - the art - will get excited by the very human emotions of
the disciples, and the manner in which every single object in the painting
directs attention straight to Christ's head (probably the greatest example
of point-perspective ever). I could elaborate much further on the
symbolism that so many miss, but this post is already too long.
Those who only see a tale, who only see a picture, in my experience, are
those most likely to suggest some artists are taking the piss, because
they don't even try to understand. In fact, you and others in this
thread, have demonstrated your ignorance by not even trying to explain
what art is (beyond the cliché), despite having the audacity to insult
many artists. I've tried my best to demonstrate why I consider art art, so
why haven't you, instead of getting wound up by the more personal aspect
of my retort?
> unlike you though I'm willing to accept that others
> might just disagree with me.
I'm prepared to accept that Mike. Whatever made you think I don't? What
I don't like is when people make grand generalisations about "what most
people like", when in fact, I don't claim to speak on behalf of everybody
else myself. Do you?
Neil Hopkins
At victory parades, I presume? :-)
--
Anya : "I provide much needed sarcasm"
Xbox live : neil hopkins
Note that there is an exclusive spam filter on this email address.
Let me know via this group if you want to be added to my whitelist.
mick
Julian Barkway wrote:
> "MC" <notinc...@hotmail.com> spake thusly to the assembled multitudes,
> agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>
>>> produces a true crescendo of silence which is truly thrilling beyond all
>>> other musical experiences.
>>>
>>
>> No matter how people try and gloss it up it's still meaningless b****cks.
>
> Of course it is. Anything is if you don't make the effort to understand
it.
> Or is that what you want? Art that you can appreciate without having to
> *think* too hard?
Well art would be a start. Something that takes a bit of artistry.
mick
Hognoxious
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:49:47 +0000, Mike Swift wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2004.01.18....@hotmail.com>, Antoine Blanche
> > <antoine...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>It's one thing being a Philistine but quite another being intolerably
> >>dense. It is beyond me how anybody can consider the production of oil
> >>paintings that shift for over $50,000,000 USD, as "not worth doing"; to
> >>paraphrase you.
> >>
> > I must be 'intolerably dense', I judge a painting by how I like it not
by
> > how much money some moron is willing to pay to own it.
>
> I judge a painting not on it's value, but on the intelligence and passion
not on it is value?
> that's gone into it, and the exciting symbols and philosophy it emanates.
> You miss the point. The comment was a reaction to the statement that it's
> "not worth doing". Apparently, Matt wasn't talking about Picasso at all,
> but as the thread has digressed in that direction, I stick to my point: If
> getting $50,000,000 makes something "not worth doing", regardless of
> whether it's an innovative piece or not, then the person with that POV
> shouldn't expect many riches in life. I'd spend ten years putting
> my life and soul into the most appalling painting if I was going to get
> $50,000,000 out of it Mike.
You would make the spirit of art into a harlot? Out with you!
> >>And IIRC Picasso is responsible for the five most valuable works of art
> >>in history. He's up there with Renoir, Van Gogh & Cezanne and
> >>deservedly so. Those who don't agree with that sentiment, and who
> >>suggest he's taking the piss, clearly look for nothing more than a
> >>family-snap in fine-art, and nothing more than a plot, in fine
> >>literature.
Isn't it arroagant and patronising to assume that just because they don't
agree with you they're philistines?
> No I don't. I just suppose the ten most expensive paintings to reside in
> that category because they're the most exciting pieces from a global point
> of view.
That's naive. There is such a thing as speculative pressure a.k.a. the
'greater fool theory'.
> Although, in fairness, I only mentioned the list because
> somebody suggested "they're not worth doing". When they go for so much?
Except he was talking about 4'33", but never let the facts get in the way,
eh?
> Yeah right.
>
> > Picasso is a dauber, as is Hockney
> > and Lowrey,
>
> Yes, Hockney's polaroid collage's are a very good example of daubing, no?
Polaroid collage's what?
> <sigh>
>
> > all talentless IMHO, but then who am I to criticise, I just
> > like what I like.
>
> It might be helpful if you *explained* why. Art isn't about what you
> or anybody else *likes* after all.
I thought it was precisely that.
> >>For a nation that prides itself on a sense of humour abstracted by
> >>irony,
That doesn't make sense.
...
> You're confusing beauty with art and relying on cliché's to defend your
> POV.
Interesting, you can use an 'aigu' properly but not an apostrophe.
> That cliché doesn't work in the case of art IMHO. You can smack
> somebody in the face with a Michaelangelo, and they'll still only see a
> pretty picture; not the art.
>
> > I like David Shepherd and his Trains and Elephants, to
> > me that's 'art',
I like the tennis girl with no knickers on.
<rest snipped as it got far too Newsnight Review>
Hognoxious
...
>
> Before you knock John Cage (and being part of the herd is so easy when it
> means you don't have to think for yourself),
Before you knock notme, perhaps you should read his post. He didn't refer
to Cage's works as a whole, or the man himself. The thread was about 4'33".
Period.
...
>Once you have
> made the effort, then you can knock with authority...
Which he hasn't done, without it.
Thick and pretentious is a pretty bad combination.
Hognoxious
news:10745069...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
> Antoine Blanche wrote:
>
> >>I do not pretend to know anything about music but I do know crap when it
> >>hits me in the face.
> >
> > Indeed. That's why, instead of Radio One, I listen to the Sound of
> > Silence 40 times on a Sunday teatime. Beats all the dilge in the
charts.
> >
>
> Dirge or bilge: which is it to be? You can't have both ;)
Obviously the constrained mind of a lowbrow, expecting people to use words
that actually exist. I bet you like paintings that look like photographs,
music with 'a good beat' and read the Sun.
Hognoxious
...
> Interesting that his Blue period came about from necessity; he had a very
> restricted palette because of the war. Some of his works were executed on
> bedsheets in lieu of canvas for the same reason.
> Isn't it sad that Raphael and Georgione died too young, and Delacroix with
> so much undone? While the out-and-out swines like Titian (remember his
> treatment of Pombonio) grab all the commissions then live till their
> eighties? I mean his use of colour was very good but some of his figures
are
> abysmal. I have a mental image now of his self-portrait (the one where
he's
> holding a bag of money) and it's enough to make one shudder. Picasso was
> divinely inspired but in his private life he was mean; in particular his
> meanness to his women was unforgivable. He also stole his best friend's
> wife, and drove him to suicide. Perhaps we shouldn't look so closely at
our
> idols, just live in the glow of their works.
The "Ron Manager" of the art world ;-)
Antoine Blanche
//
>> >>And IIRC Picasso is responsible for the five most valuable works of
>> >>art in history. He's up there with Renoir, Van Gogh & Cezanne and
>> >>deservedly so. Those who don't agree with that sentiment, and who
>> >>suggest he's taking the piss, clearly look for nothing more than a
>> >>family-snap in fine-art, and nothing more than a plot, in fine
>> >>literature.
>
> Isn't it arroagant and patronising to assume that just because they don't
> agree with you they're philistines?
No. And that's not the point. How many others around here have such a
philistinian complex that they took such a comment to heart? It's far
more arrogant and patronising to assume that because you don't understand
(or even try to understand) an artist's work, then that artist must be
taking the piss.
There are many artists I don't understand, but I would never write them
off on that basis. Only if the meaning behind their work was irrelevant
or facetious (ala Tracey Emin) would I have the nerve to criticise.
>> Although, in fairness, I only mentioned the list because somebody
>> suggested "they're not worth doing". When they go for so much?
>
> Except he was talking about 4'33", but never let the facts get in the
> way, eh?
Even your petulance is the offspring of ignorance. I have acknowledged
the mistaken digression in the very post you're responding too (also
apologised to Matt) and decided to continue the debate as thought it were
indeed about Picasso (still entirely relevant to other articles in /that/
branch of this thread). If you want to pick, choose and ignore the
remaining message content, that's up to you. At best, your style
demonstrates an inability to provide a decent argument for the points now
being made.
>> > Picasso is a dauber, as is Hockney
>> > and Lowrey,
>>
>> Yes, Hockney's polaroid collage's are a very good example of daubing,
>> no?
>
> Polaroid collage's what?
Petulant and pedantic now? Are you reserving your right to digress on
incorrect apostrophe usage merely for the sake of diversion?
>> It might be helpful if you *explained* why. Art isn't about what you
>> or anybody else *likes* after all.
>
> I thought it was precisely that.
What a very undiverse world you take it for. There's a lot of much hated
art about; it doesn't make it any the less *art*.
>> >>For a nation that prides itself on a sense of humour abstracted by
>> >>irony,
>
> That doesn't make sense.
Yes it does. The common British excuse for misunderstood humour is irony.
If British humour is so sophisticated as to refine and incorporate such
an abstract ingredient as irony, then why can't the sophisticated - "he's
taking the piss" - types see the abstract symbols, motifs and themes
running so deeply through fine art?
I can't even say, "I guess it's a cultural thing," without you getting
your backs up.
> ...
>> You're confusing beauty with art and relying on cliché's to defend
>> your POV.
>
> Interesting, you can use an 'aigu' properly but not an apostrophe.
Why wouldn't I be able to use an 'aigu' properly? But anyway, there you
go again. Considering I'm dyslexic, I think I do quite well. Pray tell,
what has this to do with the subject? It's not like you misunderstood the
message.
>> That cliché doesn't work in the case of art IMHO. You can smack
>> somebody in the face with a Michaelangelo, and they'll still only see a
>> pretty picture; not the art.
>>
>> > I like David Shepherd and his Trains and Elephants, to me that's
>> > 'art',
>
> I like the tennis girl with no knickers on.
What more is to be expected of the Changing Rooms generation?
> <rest snipped as it got far too Newsnight Review>
The grammar got better then? Gee thanks. Maybe one day you'll elaborate
on art not being art merely because you don't like it. That's the only
point of interest in your message.
Antoine Blanche
//
>> Dirge or bilge: which is it to be? You can't have both ;)
>
> Obviously the constrained mind of a lowbrow, expecting people to use words
> that actually exist.
Oh do excuse a neologism, you sophisticated young man. Although it really
was a mistake: d's and b's ending up reversed quite often, whether I write
or type.
> I bet you like paintings that look like photographs,
> music with 'a good beat' and read the Sun.
Well I like music with 'a good beat' and I read the Sun (the Mirror this
morning too actually). The irony (!) here is that you are the one guilty
of stereotyping.
Lee@DVDDebate
>>>Indeed. That's why, instead of Radio One, I listen to the Sound of
>>>Silence 40 times on a Sunday teatime. Beats all the dilge in the
>>>charts.
>
>>Dirge or bilge: which is it to be? You can't have both ;)
>
> Obviously the constrained mind of a lowbrow, expecting people to use words
> that actually exist. I bet you like paintings that look like photographs,
> music with 'a good beat' and read the Sun.
>
You left out watching football.
Lee@DVDDebate
You're not dyslexic though, are you?** I mean really. Just because you
can't tell where an apostrophe goes or can't always get the i before e
rule right doesn't mean you're dyslexic, it just means you're not very
thorough at learning the rules of written English. In fact, you claiming
to be dyslexic does a severe injustice to those people who actually are
dyslexic. *Real* dyslexics couldn't even spell dyslexic, never mind
pecking out an ague on a keyboard.
Lee.
** OK, maybe you are, but it's a very mild form.
Antoine Blanche
//
> You're not dyslexic though, are you?**
Yes I am.
> I mean really.
Yes really.
> Just because you
> can't tell where an apostrophe goes or can't always get the i before e
> rule right doesn't mean you're dyslexic,
No it doesn't. Dyslexia is *hopefully* detected at a very young age to
make life much easier later on. Mine was detected at the age of five
years old, and I've had over twenty-five years of experience in
controlling it (through special tuition and ensuring my lifestyle has room
for various reading and writing exercises on a daily basis.) One reason I
use Usenet is to ensure I continue *writing* as often as I can.
> it just means you're not very
> thorough at learning the rules of written English.
It's not a *solid* indication of that though. I'm quite aware of the
posessive apostrophe, I just tend to misuse them when I pluralize. Such
minor traits aren't uncommon in older dyslexics. No matter how you learn
to control it, your grammar will always display various anomalies
(there's a definite pattern to mine). I'd spend far longer on a
University thesis than a Usenet message to iron out all the problems
required academically, although interestingly, Universities are kinder
to dyslexics than Usenet correspondents.
> In fact, you claiming
> to be dyslexic
I'm not claming to be dyslexic Lee. And I'm not a liar, nor...
> does a severe injustice to those people who actually are
> dyslexic.
...nor am I doing injutice to people who are dyslexic (myself included).
If you think dyxlecics og through file likke this, you're doing an
injustice to dyslexics yourself. I'll never get over problems like
occasional word-blindness (makes reading hell), but you're quite wrong to
expect dyslexia to be blatantly obvious.
> *Real* dyslexics couldn't even spell dyslexic, never mind
> pecking out an ague on a keyboard.
Yes they can Lee. You are merely showing your ignorance. Go to the
dyslexic newsgroup and notice the very eloquent messages alongside the
most chronically affected.
> ** OK, maybe you are, but it's a very mild form.
It appears mild *now*. Now that I'm over thirty and have had a lifetime
of help controlling it. Some of us have to work at making our grammar
instinctive; to some of you it comes naturally.
Horatio.
"Hognoxious" <hognoxious_kosher@!not!so!hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:400bb126$0$325$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Learn to read the posting before you miss the point entirely.
(Hint: John Cage, composer; 1912 - 1992).
Horatio.
Thunderbug
> There's a low quality version and a high quality version, depending on
> how much you want to download.
Very high quality! What hardware and software did you use to capture that?
Tân Coul
<hognoxious_kosher@!not!so!hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Julian Barkway" <jbarkwayLEA...@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:BC312F4F...@80-218-54-231.dclient.hispeed.ch...
>...
>>
>> Before you knock John Cage (and being part of the herd is so easy when it
>> means you don't have to think for yourself),
>
>Before you knock notme, perhaps you should read his post. He didn't refer
>to Cage's works as a whole, or the man himself. The thread was about 4'33".
>Period.
>
>...
That's six periods in a row - are you going for some sort of record
here ;-?
--
www.oscartelos.co.uk
The best Chester Zoo photo website ever made by a cat (probably.)
Last updated March 13th 2003 but watch this space...
Mike Swift
<antoine...@hotmail.com> writes
>> unlike you though I'm willing to accept that others
>> might just disagree with me.
>
>I'm prepared to accept that Mike. Whatever made you think I don't?
>What I don't like is when people make grand generalisations about "what
>most people like", when in fact, I don't claim to speak on behalf of
>everybody else myself. Do you?
>--
I can only speak for myself even if sometimes I do come over as a bit
aggressive, my only excuse for my reply last night is that I've had an
abscess under a tooth which has been driving me mad, now the anti-
biotics have kicked in and I've re-read my post perhaps I was a little
discourteous, I still don't rate Hockney though :-)
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Julian Barkway
assembled multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation:
[snip childish insults]
>> So now you know.
>
>He allegedly sued someone for copyright infringement. Him out of the
>wombles, I think.
Read the article properly. Mike Batt attributed his silent piece to Mike
Batt/ John Cage as a joke. Cage's publishers were rightfully miffed because
Batt didn't ask their permission first.
BTW, Cage himself hasn't sued anyone - on account of being dead since 1992.
But then ignorance is bliss, so they tell me...
Julian Barkway
assembled multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>> Before you knock John Cage (and being part of the herd is so easy when it
>> means you don't have to think for yourself),
>
>Before you knock notme, perhaps you should read his post. He didn't refer
>to Cage's works as a whole, or the man himself. The thread was about 4'33".
>Period.
Yawn. The point being made here is, I believe, that Cage was a fraud. Or,
at best, was having a laugh at other people's expense (Emperor's New
Clothes, etc.) To realise that he wasn't, you have to at least try to
understand what he was trying to say. This is my point.
>
>>Once you have
>> made the effort, then you can knock with authority...
>
>Which he hasn't done, without it.
Perhaps it's just me, but that sentence doesn't parse.
>Thick and pretentious is a pretty bad combination.
The fact that, once again, you feel you have to resort to insults says it
all...
Julian Barkway
agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>> Or is that what you want? Art that you can appreciate without having to
>> *think* too hard?
>
>Well art would be a start. Something that takes a bit of artistry.
So, are you familiar with the rest of Cage's music? Have you even attempted
to understand what it's all about? My guess is 'no'.
mick
Julian Barkway wrote:
> "Hognoxious" <hognoxious_kosher@!not!so!hotmail.com> spake thusly to the
> assembled multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>> Which he hasn't done, without it.
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but that sentence doesn't parse.
Perhaps it doesn`t need to. Perhaps it`s art. Perhaps you have to read his
other work to understand it.
mick
Hognoxious
news:9o7o00db5utbgar9u...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:58:10 +0100, "Hognoxious"
> <hognoxious_kosher@!not!so!hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Julian Barkway" <jbarkwayLEA...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:BC312F4F...@80-218-54-231.dclient.hispeed.ch...
> >...
> >>
> >> Before you knock John Cage (and being part of the herd is so easy when
it
> >> means you don't have to think for yourself),
> >
> >Before you knock notme, perhaps you should read his post. He didn't
refer
> >to Cage's works as a whole, or the man himself. The thread was about
4'33".
> >Period.
> >
> >...
>
> That's six periods in a row - are you going for some sort of record
> here ;-?
No there aren't. So probably not.
Hognoxious
> No. And that's not the point. How many others around here have such a
> philistinian complex that they took such a comment to heart?
Philistinian complex? LOL!
> It's far
> more arrogant and patronising to assume that because you don't understand
> (or even try to understand) an artist's work, then that artist must be
> taking the piss.
It would be if that's what "patronising" means. Sadly, it doesn't. It
means looking down one's nose, considering onesself to be better than
others. That's not a prerequisite for considering that someone is taking
the piss.
> There are many artists I don't understand, but I would never write them
> off on that basis. Only if the meaning behind their work was irrelevant
> or facetious (ala Tracey Emin) would I have the nerve to criticise.
So what your saying is, you're allowed to have subjective opinions too, but
they're better than everyone elses?
> >> Although, in fairness, I only mentioned the list because somebody
> >> suggested "they're not worth doing". When they go for so much?
> >
> > Except he was talking about 4'33", but never let the facts get in the
> > way, eh?
>
> Even your petulance is the offspring of ignorance.
...
> At best, your style
> demonstrates an inability to provide a decent argument for the points now
> being made.
A person who uses a phrase "your petulance is the offspring of ignorance"
would be well advised to avioid mentioning style.
...
> Petulant and pedantic now? Are you reserving your right to digress on
> incorrect apostrophe usage merely for the sake of diversion?
Just pointing out that you aren't as clever as you'd like to think.
> >> It might be helpful if you *explained* why. Art isn't about what you
> >> or anybody else *likes* after all.
> >
> > I thought it was precisely that.
>
> What a very undiverse world you take it for. There's a lot of much hated
> art about; it doesn't make it any the less *art*.
If somebody likes it, it's art, at least to them. Doesn't mean it is to
anybody else. Way to miss the point.
> >> >>For a nation that prides itself on a sense of humour abstracted by
> >> >>irony,
> >
> > That doesn't make sense.
>
> Yes it does.
Opposite water.
Irony cannot abstract a sense of humour. It just doesn't make sense.
> The common British excuse for misunderstood humour is irony.
And?
> If British humour is so sophisticated as to refine and incorporate such
> an abstract ingredient as irony,
How is irony abstract? It's saying one thing and meaning another.
Indeed, it would be pretty hard to be ironic and abstract.
> then why can't the sophisticated - "he's
> taking the piss" - types see the abstract symbols, motifs and themes
> running so deeply through fine art?
Because irony is a different thing to abstraction?
> I can't even say, "I guess it's a cultural thing," without you getting
> your backs up.
Yes you can.
...
> Why wouldn't I be able to use an 'aigu' properly? But anyway, there you
> go again. Considering I'm dyslexic, I think I do quite well. Pray tell,
> what has this to do with the subject? It's not like you misunderstood the
> message.
Maybe it was too abstract.
> > I like the tennis girl with no knickers on.
>
> What more is to be expected of the Changing Rooms generation?
Whoooosh!
I see you missed the irony (or was it abstraction?) there.
I hate "Changing Rooms". Another usenet mindreader bites the dust.
> The grammar got better then? Gee thanks. Maybe one day you'll elaborate
> on art not being art merely because you don't like it.
Maybe you'll learn to reply to what was written, rather than what you
imadgine was written?
> That's the only
> point of interest in your message.
Ooh. That stung. NOT!
Hognoxious
Which you just did, top-posting idiot.
> (Hint: John Cage, composer; 1912 - 1992).
Oh, you've found the down arrow then.
Now all you have to do is get some half sensible content.
Hognoxious
> "mick" <cough...@totlise.co.uk> spake thusly to the assembled
multitudes,
> agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>
> >> Or is that what you want? Art that you can appreciate without having to
> >> *think* too hard?
Pretentious? Moi?
> >Well art would be a start. Something that takes a bit of artistry.
>
> So, are you familiar with the rest of Cage's music? Have you even
attempted
> to understand what it's all about? My guess is 'no'.
Are you familiar with the subject line? It's usually up at the top
somewhere.
Hognoxious
> "Hognoxious" <hognoxious_kosher@!not!so!hotmail.com> spake thusly to the
> assembled multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>
> >> Before you knock John Cage (and being part of the herd is so easy when
it
> >> means you don't have to think for yourself),
> >
> >Before you knock notme, perhaps you should read his post. He didn't
refer
> >to Cage's works as a whole, or the man himself. The thread was about
4'33".
> >Period.
>
> Yawn. The point being made here is, I believe, that Cage was a fraud. Or,
> at best, was having a laugh at other people's expense (Emperor's New
> Clothes, etc.) To realise that he wasn't, you have to at least try to
> understand what he was trying to say. This is my point.
>
>
> >
> >>Once you have
> >> made the effort, then you can knock with authority...
> >
> >Which he hasn't done, without it.
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but that sentence doesn't parse.
It's just you. It does if you read it in context (that's the stuff before
it).
> >Thick and pretentious is a pretty bad combination.
>
> The fact that, once again, you feel you have to resort to insults says it
> all...
Kettle. Pot.
Mal Franks
said...
The burning question surely is whether it is going to come out on DVD-A
and/or SACD with a 5.1 surround mix? ;-)
Mal
ken baker
Hold it, 4'33" of nothing? Don't we have to thank the Arabs for that?
K.
Tân Coul
.
Period.
...
I make that six - that you joined three of them together for your own
nefarious purposes is neither here nor there.
Hognoxious
...
>
> I make that six - that you joined three of them together for your own
> nefarious purposes is neither here nor there.
It's called an ellipsis, you ignorant fuck.
Hognoxious
> //
> > You're not dyslexic though, are you?**
>
> Yes I am.
>
> > it just means you're not very
> > thorough at learning the rules of written English.
>
> It's not a *solid* indication of that though. I'm quite aware of the
> posessive apostrophe, I just tend to misuse them when I pluralize. Such
> minor traits aren't uncommon in older dyslexics.
And greengrocer's.
Richard Brooks
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:10:04 +0000, MC wrote:
> //
> > I do not pretend to know anything about music but I do know crap when it
> > hits me in the face.
>
> Silence 40 times on a Sunday teatime. Beats all the dilge in the charts.
>
live as the audience is then part of the musical process with the odd
crescendo cough added to it and as the numbers hopefully outweigh the
numbers in the orchestra then the audience should be paid for their efforts.
Richard.