100 sixties bands w better guitarists than BEATLES
Antal Adriaanse
compared to, let's say Blues Magoos' Mike Esposito? Do you think The Beatles
would have become what they were without George Harrison?
It's very difficult to label a guitarist as being "better" than another one.
It's all about taste and other subjective values.
Anyway, you describe Harrison as a lead guitarist, as in a rockband setup,
where I think he was a bandmember in a band where they did whatever worked,
instead of limiting themselves to their instrument.
A couple of random comments:
Brian Fripp?
You write: "He also sounds untypically terse and convincing on the well
constructed Taxman." The solo on Taxman is played by Macca.
I believe The Beatles got Fender amps in 1966, not Marshalls.
AA
garthus
than the beatles,
.
redpanda <redp...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ZQ7s5.897$4T2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
>
> 100 sixties bands with better guitarists than The Beatles
>
> 4425 words
>
> This long article is a list of 100 plus 1960's acts with more able
> guitarists than George Harrison and a reassessment of Harrison's career as
> Beatles lead guitarist.
>
>
> It will be of interest to Beatles fans and those interested sixties lead
> guitarists, psychedelia and obscure marvels.
>
> Sections:
>
> The List
> Reasons for writing this article
> The function of the guitar break.
> What makes a good lead guitarist? Tone, Content, Aggression and Technique.
> The Beatles Guitar Work
> The Best Lead Guitar Playing On Beatles Tracks.
> March 1966 - New Amps
> George's Contribution To The Band - Song writing, Vocals, Persona,
> Songwriting
> Shankar Or Clapton
> Blues Influences.
> The Beatles As A Live Band.
> Gratitude - The Gig Of All Time
> Rules for compiling the List
>
> 100 sixties bands with better guitarists than The Beatles
>
> Rules
>
> The list cites guitarists who were already apparently better players than
> George Harrison in the pre-1970 period.
> The opinion is based on recorded work I happened to have access to, not on
> critical opinion, or live reputation, or any other information. It could
be
> based on a single track.
> I apologise to at least 100 guitarists who didn't make the list because
(not
> owning a record shop or being rich), I didn't have access to their finest
> moments.
>
> RULES
> The act had releases before 1970.
> The same guitarist could only appear ONCE, not in multiple bands eg Eric
> Clapton only appears once, with one band - Cream.
> But I would cite more than one excellent guitarist in the same band (if
that
> guitarist was not cited elsewhere).
> I have included acoustic guitarists.
> Evidence -
> I tried to pick one track which would show the guitarist at their most
> interesting or impressive. I tried to pick a 60's release but sometimes
> compromised with an obvious gem from later. I tried to pick the most
> impressive track I knew of. I couldn't always cite an example where a
> particular guitarist knocked the ball out of the park - some guitarists
are
> more consistent than spectacular. Where undecided, I refrained from
> nominating a track.
> For the sake of those curious about the origin bands they are unfamiliar
> with, I indicate the country, usually UK or US.
> Guitarists who appear to be masters of the late 60's/early 70's style
guitar
> (usually blues derived hard rock players) are marked with an asterix eg
> BAND/ACT GUITARIST EVIDENCE
> Blonde On Blonde Gareth Johnson Ride With Captain Max(69) UK*
>
> I have included pre-1960 acts as they were pioneers of what was then a new
> and exciting instrument (more often than not they continued to be active
in
> the 1960's).
> My knowledge of blues pioneers is unfortunately thin. So is my knowledge
of
> the less successful pre-60's acts generally (rockabilly etc).
>
> Note - unfortunately the clearer original tabulation has not been
preserved
> in the transition to news post format.
>
>
>
>
>
> BAND/ACT GUITARIST EVIDENCE
> Pioneers Atkins, Chet US
> Pioneers Charlie Christian US
> Pioneers Sister Rosetta Tharpe US
> Pioneers Paul, Les US
>
> R&R Bill Haley & The Comets unsure Shake, Rattle & Roll (54) US
> R&R Buddy Holly US
> R&R Chuck Berry School Days (57) US*
> R&R Eddie Cochran Eddies Blues (c'59) US
> R&R Elvis Presley Scotty Moore That's Allright (54) US
> R&R Gene Vincent Cliff Gallup Bi-i-bicky-i-bo-bo-boo (56) US
> R&R Little Richard unsure Directly From My Heart (55) US
> R&R Ricky Nelson James Burton Believe What You Say (58) US*
> R&R Collins Kids Larry Collins c.57-59 US
>
> Blues Men BB King Sweet little Angel (65) US
> Blues Men Buddy Guy First Time I met The Blues (60) US
> Blues Men Otis Rush I Can't Quit You Baby (56) US
> Blues Men Elmore James Dust My Broom (60) US
> Blues Men Lowell Fulsom Reconsider baby (54) US
> Blues Men T Bone Walker Space Guitar (52) US
> Blues Men Skip James US
> Blues Men Guitar Slim The Things I Used To Do (53) US
> Blues Men Freddie King Hide Away (60) US
> Blues Men Albert Collins US
> Blues Men Earl Hooker US
> Blues Men Albert King Born under A Bad Sign (67) US
> Blues Men Bo Diddley US
> Blues Men - Howlin Wolf Hubert Sumlin Spoonful (60) US
>
> Acoustic masters Sandy Bull UK
> Acoustic masters John Fahey US
> Acoustic masters Davy Graham UK
> Acoustic masters Bert Jansch Angie UK
> Acoustic masters Jose Feliciano US
> Acoustic masters Leo Kottke Ojo (69) US
>
> Allman Brothers 1 Duane Allman Dreams (69) US*
> Allman Brothers 2 Richard Betts Jessica (73) US*
> Amboy Dukes Ted Nugent Baby please Don't Go (67) US*
> Amon Dull 11 John Weinzierl Dem Goten, Schonen, Wahren (69) Ger
> Andromeda John Du Cann Turns To Dust (69) (UK)*
> Autoslavage Rick Turner Autosalvage LP side 1 US
> Blodwyn Pig Mick Abrahams Summer Day (70) UK
> Blonde On Blonde Gareth Johnson Ride With Captain Max(69) UK*
> Blue Cheer Randy Holder Doctor Please (68) US
> Blues Magoos Mike Esposito Rush Hour (67) US
> Blues Project Danny Kalb US
> Booker T & the MGs Steve Cropper Green Onions (62) US
> Buffalo Springfield Stephen Stills US
> Byrds Roger McGuinn What's Happening? (66) US*
> Canned Heat Henry Vestine Fried Hooky Boogie (68) US
> Captain Beefart's Magic Band Ry Cooder US
> Caretakers Of Deception Unsure Cutting Grass US
> Chicago Terry Kath Poem 58 (69) US
> Chicken Shack Stan Webb UK
> Circus Maximus Bob Bruno US
> CA Quintet Tom Pohling Underground Music (69) US
> Colosseum James Litherland The Kettle (69) UK
> Country Joe & The Fish Barry Melton US
> Cream Eric Clapton Spoonful (66) UK*
> Creation Eddie Philips How Does It Feel To Feel? (68) UK
> Creedence Clearwater Revival John Fogerty I Put A Spell On You (68) US
> Darius Ben Benay Sweet Mama (68) US
> Deep Purple Richie Blackmore Highway Star (?) UK
> Dick Dale Misirlou (62) US
> Doors Bobby Krieger The End (67) US
> Dragonfly Name unknown I Feel It (70) US*
> Electric Prunes Ken Williams ? The Great Banana Hoax US
> Fever tree Michael The Man Who Paints The Pictures (68) US
> Fleetwood Mac Peter Green Green Manilishi (70) UK*
> Fleurs De Lys Bryn Haworth Daughter Of The Sun (67) UK
> Fraternity Of Man Eliott Inger In The Morning (68) US
> Flock Unsure Tired of Waiting For You (69) US
> Free Paul Kossoff All Right Now (70) UK
> Funkadelic Eddie Hazel Maggot Brain (71) US
> Grateful Dead Gerry Garcia US
> Ground Hogs Tony McPhee Eccentric Man (70) UK*
> Group 1850 Dien Van Bergen Steel Sings (68) Hol*
> Harper, Roy (acoustic) UK
> Hawkins, Ronnie Robbie Robertson Who Do You Love? (63) US
> Human Beinz Richard Belly The Shamen (68) US
> Isley Brothers Ernie Isley Summer Breeze (74) US*
> James Gang Joe Walsh Rock Mountain Way (74) US
> Jeff Beck Group Jeff Beck Rice Pudding (69) UK
> Jefferson Airplane Jorma Kaukonen US
> Jimi Hendrix Experience Jimi Hendrix Voodoo Chile (68) US*
> Joe Morelli (Guest Guitarist) Johnny Kidd & The Pirates Shakin All Over
(60)
> UK
> Juicy Lucy Neil Hubbard Who Do You Love? UK
> July Tony Buhig You Missed It All (68) UK
> King Crimson Brian Fripp 21st century Schitzoid Man (69) UK*
> Lazy Smoke Ralph Mazotta Salty people (69) US
> Led Zepplin Jimi Page Dazed and Confused UK*
> Link Wray US
> Litter Tom Caplan I'm So Glad US
> Lonnie Mack Memphis (63) US
> Love Scupture Dave Edmunds Sabre Dance (68) UK*
> Mad River - 1 David Robinson Merciful Monks (68) US
> Mad River -2 Lawrence Hammond ? War Goes On (68) US
> Marmalade Junior Campbell I See The Rain (67) UK
> Mayall, John Mick Taylor UK
> MC5 Wayne Krammer Tonight/Tutti Frutti (70) US*
> Misunderstood Glen Ross Campbell (steel guitar) Children of The Sun (66)
US
> Moby Grape Unsure Omaha (67) US
> Mott The Hoople Mick Ralphs UK
> Mothers Of Invention Frank Zappa & others?? Trouble Every Day (66) US
> Mountain Leslie West Theme F. Imaginary Western (70) US
> Moving Sidewalks Billy Gibson 99th Floor US
> Mystic Tide Joe Docko Frustration (66) US
> Nazz Todd Rundgren US
> Paper Blitz Tissue Bernie Lee Boy Meets Girl (67) UK
> Paul Butterfield Blues Band Mike Bloomfield East West (66) US
> Pentangle John Renbourn UK
> Pink Floyd David Gilmour Money (73) UK*
> Procol Harum Robin Trower The Devil Came From Kansas (69) UK
> Quicksilver Messenger Service John Cippolina Who Do You Love (69)? US
> Quintessence Alan Mostert Dive Deep UK*
> Rolling Stones (1) Keith Richards Its All Over Now (64) UK
> Rolling Stones (2) Brian Jones Little Red Rooster (64) UK
> Santana Carlos Santana Mex*
> Savage Resurrection John Palmer Expectations (68) US*
> Savoy Brown Kim Simmonds Train To Nowhere (69) UK
> Shadows Hank Marvin Apache (60) UK*
> Smallfaces Steve Marriott Song of A Baker (68) UK
> Social Deviants Unsure I'm Coming Home (67) UK
> Spirit Randy California Dark Eyed Woman (69) US
> Spooky Tooth Luther Grosvenor Hosanna (69) UK*
> Status Quo Francis Rossi Junior's Wailing (70) UK
> Steppenwolf Kent Henry ? The Pusher (68) CAN?
> Steve Miller Band Steve Millar US
> Stooges Ron Asheton US
> Strawberry Alarm Clock Ed King They Saw The Fat One Coming (68) US
> Taste Rory Gallagher Blister on The Moon (68) UK*
> Ten Years After Alvin lee Goin Home (69) UK*
> Thunderclap Newman Jimmy McCullough Accidents (69) UK
> Tomorrow Steve Howe My White Bicycle (67) UK
> Traffic Steve Winwood Dear Mr Fantasy (67) UK
> Turquoise Gus Peter You Missed It All (68) UK
> Velvet Underground Lou Reed I'm Set Free (69) US
> Voice (The) Unknown The Train To Disaster (66) UK
> West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band Danny Harris Shifting Sands (67) US
> Who Pete Townsend My Generation (65) UK*
> Winter, Johnny Group Johnny Winter Funky Music (70) US
> Young Rascals Gene Cornish? Slow Down (65) US
> Young, Neil Like A Hurricane (77) Can
> Youngbloods Lowell Levinger (?) Darkness, Darkness (69) US
>
>
> Why I've written this article:
>
> Listening to a lot of very obscure reissues of sixties material, I was
> extremely surprised to find how excellent a lot of it was - often by
> incredibly obscure bands eg Group 1850, Darius, Andromeda, Fleurs De Lys,
> Autosalvage ... Perhaps it was the hit bands who had more of a luxury of
> recording trashy material eg the Move, Status Quo (particularly acts on
the
> English Pye lable for instance where recording budgets were ultra-mean).
The
> unknowns were ambitious, hungry and trying extremely hard. A lot of
> unsuccessful music was amazingly accomplished, only a hit away from a
place
> in rock history, a couple of hits away from mansions, Rolls Royces and
> swimming pools... It was obvious that at least half of these obscure bands
I
> was hearing for the first time, had a better lead guitarist than the
> Beatles. The line between penury and abundance was a wafer thin one. Bands
> are usually carried by one or two talented people and a few average
members.
> Even then a great band can fail and a poor one can succeed, as frequently
> happened.
> If George had had to audition for Lead Guitarist for the average 1967-69
> recorded band, he simply wouldn't have got the gig. Yet in poll after poll
> of great guitarists, there he was (No17 of all time in a recent Mojo poll
of
> 100 great guitarists!). A great case of status by association - you played
> on a great record, therefore you must be a great player, which is
nonsense.
>
> Another reason for writing this is that although what I'm saying is rather
> obvious but no one else seems to have said it in print. The other three
> Beatle's or associates have never criticised each other's playing in
public.
> Viciously dismissive of Paul, in the early seventies, the outspoken John
> shied away from the subject of George's power or lack of it. The subject
> seemed to be a taboo. Even for critics and outsiders the Beatle's legend
is
> too sacrosanct. Eric Clapton while positively acidic about some of his
> contemporaries (eg Keith Relf c.66) valued his friendship with George and
> the Beatles far too much to say anything negative.
> George did have a particular talent for cultivating and sustaining
> friendships with rock luminaries like Clapton and Lennon. Other musicians
> had nothing to say on the subject as the backlash was potentially fierce
> (witness John Lennon's written tongue lashing of Todd Rundgren c. 1973).
> And so the myth goes on.
>
> The Function of the Guitar Break.
>
> From the earliest days of rock and roll in 1954, the instrumental solo was
> an integral part of a rock record eg Shake, Rattle & Roll. It usually had
a
> furious pace, feverish aggression and an element of virtuosity - a sudden
> blast of energy. It could be on lead guitar, saxophone or piano. So that
> element of attack, sudden contrast and impressive technique has been
> important in rock right from the start and after a lull, reasserted itself
> strongly with hundreds of bands built around guitar or keyboard virtuosos
in
> the 67-69 period.
> A second function was to provide a substitute for a proper middle eight (a
> contrasting strain which modulates in and out of a different key) in a
song.
>
> What makes a good lead guitarist? Tone, Content, Aggression and Technique.
> Tone
> It was FAR harder to get good guitar tones with 60's equipment. It
required
> real enterprise, originality and good engineering. By 1970 it had become
> normal to have a good guitar tone - simply a matter of some taste and
> plugging in to commercially available equipment. So kudos to any
guitarists
> who created impressive sounds particularly prior to 1969.
> Content
> Two main strands of guitar playing would be structured (part of a
> pre-arranged tightly organised composition) and improvisational. Eric
Bell's
> work on Whiskey In The Jar (Thin Lizzy, 1971) or Junior Cambell's I See
The
> Rain (Marmalade 1967) are examples of superb structured guitar parts.
> Someone with limited speed, even a rank beginner, could theoretically
create
> scintillating riffs (eg the riff in The Last Time) just by choosing great
> notes - a pity it doesn't happen more often. Personally I think that a
great
> idea is much more exciting than great velocity but speed can definitely be
> exhilarating.
> Aggression
> Aggression and a sense of excitement or fervency is extremely important
for
> lead guitarists. Lead Guitar is simply the most aggressive sound in music.
A
> good example is Joe Docko of The Mystic Tide's solo on Frustration, a
> self-fiananced local release that sold a few hundred copies at most.
> Technique.
> Sixties singers, bassists, drummers and song writers stand up extremely
> well. But the era is not really noted for great lead guitar technique.
> Tuition and text books were a LOT harder to come by in those days and a
lot
> of the theoretical basis wasn't exactly common knowledge. Technique comes
> down to sheer speed, manual dexterity, command of chords, scales, modes
and
> harmonies, and the ability to combine speed with expression - vibrato,
> bends, slides, hammer ons etc.
>
> The Beatles Guitar Work
>
> The Beatles rarely used an instrumental break as a prop or an excuse for a
> properly constructed middle. But some Beatle songs cry out for the
emotional
> release of a frenzied guitar solo - Day Tripper, Paperback Writer, She's A
> Woman, I'm Down, Can't Buy Me Love, Drive My Car, Got To Get You Into My
> Life or a melodic, emotional solo eg Let It Be, Long And Winding Road,
> Across The Universe - solos which never arrive or if they do are simply
run
> of the mill and predictable.
> Inappropriate solos occur in All My Loving (Chet Atkins, country
influenced
> wrong in an exquisitely melodic modal song), She's A Woman - a pedestrian
> echo drenched solo which dates an inspired and ageless rock song.
>
> The Best Lead Guitar Playing On Beatles Tracks.
>
> While My Guitar Gently Weeps - Eric Clapton, (not credited on the original
> album I believe)
> Good Morning, Good Morning, Helter Skelter, Sergeant Pepper, Ticket To
Ride,
> Paperback Writer - Paul
> I Want You (She's So Heavy), I Feel Fine* -John
> Looking down the list of best lead guitar playing on Beatles tracks,
almost
> inevitably someone else is playing lead!
> This is particularly apparent on Pepper where in a desperate effort to get
> some convincing lead guitar sounds, Paul shoulders George out of the way,
> and ably does it himself on Good Morning and the title track. From the
above
> list it is indisputable that Paul was the better lead guitarist of the
two.
>
> (*interestingly John said in an interview that he was toying with the idea
> of applying the same riff-counterpoint approach to the entire Beatle's For
> Sale album, something the Byrds did to great effect eight months later on
> the Mr Tambourine Man album).
>
> March 1966 - New Amps
>
> The Beatles took delivery of powerful new 100 wt marshal amps with built
in
> distortion control around March 1966 and it is apparent that the whole
band
> was turned on by this leap forward in audio technology. Thus the
magnificent
> performance on Rain - Beatle's bass, drums, and rhythm guitars never
sounded
> better.* Typically it is the Lead Guitar which fails to stand out. This is
> possibly the Beatles best performance as a band. The A-side Paperback
Writer
> with Paul on riffing lead guitar and bass is also one of the Beatle's most
> powerful and timeless.
> George's best work is on And Your Bird Can Sing where two guitars playing
> very melodically on a major scale in counterpoint, thicken up the usually
> thin guitar sound to charming effect. He also sounds untypically terse and
> convincing on the well constructed Taxman.
>
> carry this dense heavy mix over onto album tracks like She Said She Said.
>
> George's Contribution To The Band - Song writing, Vocals, Persona,
> Songwriting
>
> Harrison contributed a handful of classic songs - While My Guitar Gently
> Weeps, Something, Here Comes The Sun, I Want To Tell You and other
valuable
> ones like Old Brown Shoe, Blue Jay Way, Taxman, Think For Yourself and I
> Need You. Most of these benefit from excellent arranging and support.
> Many rock notables don't have ONE classic* song to their name and not many
> have three or four. The All Things Must Pass album was certainly a classic
> album - as a single album it would have been superb. All Thing's Must
Pass,
> Isn't A Pity and My Sweet Lord (plagiarism or not) are all excellent songs
> that would have graced the next Beatle's album, if there'd been one.**
> On the downside there were the 'one chord' philosophical Indianesque
dirges
> (Love You Too, Within You Without You, The Inner Light). Within You -
> superbly arranged and recorded as it may be, virtually brings Pepper to a
> grinding halt.
> Vocals
> George's lead vocals are also much weaker and lacking in energy compared
to
> John and Paul ( eg on Roll Over Beethoven - a Lennon vocal would have been
> far superior). The timbre is pleasant - he was a fair backing singer -
but,
> paralleling his lead playing, the power and attack isn't there.
> Persona
> His persona seemed to complete the Beatles 'Fool, Walrus, Clown, Mystic'
> chemistry. He appealed strongly to a large section of Beatle fans. He was
> also the most photogenic Beatle up until 1966 (a role which Paul seems to
> usurp by 1967).
> His philosophical, introspective style sat well with the low-key, sparsely
> arranged singer-songwriter movement which was about to take off c. 1970
with
> James Taylor, Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young and Cat Stevens.
But
> he failed to consolidate on his excellent solo debut, completely
undermining
> his career by delaying his next album for 31 months.
> *I would define a classic song in this context as say one the best 250
> tracks cut in rock history, a classic album as say one of the best 150
> albums.
> **If they had stayed together the next album would probably have been a
> double album dominated by George and John. Paul's song writing appears to
> have gone into a state of collapse.
>
> Shankar Or Clapton
>
> Around April 1966 Eric Clapton plugged his Gibson into one of the new 100
wt
> Marshal amps, tuned everything up full, and virtually invented modern lead
> guitar tone (listen to Bluesbreakers, July 1966, Stepping Out, Hideaway
> etc). At last the sixties had escaped from the shrill scratchy, guitars
> that seemed to be tuned an octave higher than the 1970's instrument.
Eric's
> friend George was in the best position in the world to be in at the start
of
> this - he could afford any instrument and amplification he wanted and even
> take a few lessons from Clapton. He also had special access to other
> revolutionaries - Townsend and Hendrix. But instead of benefiting from
this,
> he obsessed with the sitar - one of rocks most ineffectual cul de sac's.
> Choosing Shankar not Clapton and going off to practice sitar three hours a
> day was not a good move at the time!
>
> Blues Influences.
>
> The Beatle's were influenced by R&B far less than most of their
> contemporaries. They incorporated blues harmony approaches quite
brilliantly
> in classic rock singles but evolved considerably beyond them, virtually
> never using blues harmony and scales in a pure form which they would have
> considered cliched and simplistic. They were interested in music from a
song
> writers and singer's point of view, focused primarily on songs that could
> have been or should have been HITS and virtually every song they covered
was
> either a hit or at least a potential hit. Hit to them implying a certain
> level of (mainly) melodic surprise and invention and general potency that
> transcended cliche. I feel Paul and especially John, in their pre-drug
days,
> would have viewed non-Rock & Roll / Pop genres (blues, folk, protest) with
> something less than the reverence and avid curiosity of most of their
> contemporaries.
> Direct Jazz influence on the Beatles was apparently negligible.
> George Harrison obviously had a limited understanding of and interest in
> Blues and R&B. Its very doubtful if he had mastered the fundamentals of
the
> form, from which the majority of rock guitarist took their roots. His
> influences were from the country influenced finger picking Rockabilly end
of
> the spectrum - Perkins, Cliff Gallup, Chet Atkins and Scotty Moore.
> Unfortunately tone wise his choice of influences was from the shrill, thin
> toned, scratchy domain - Carl Perkins in particular.
> There doesn't seem to be any awareness of unusual scales or modes, or even
> the harmonic minor scale (surprising), in his playing. He exhibits far
less
> interest in chords and chord progressions than John and Paul. He seems to
> have a preference for set and predetermined rules* which could be
> constricting, for instance his insistence that George Martin try to
arrange
> Within You, Without You without any chords or harmonies whatsoever!
> He was influential in the use of the 12 string Rickenbacker, used well on
A
> Hard Day's Night, but this didn't develop and he could afford to buy any
> guitar he chose with a fraction of the commitment the average player had
to
> make in buying an instrument.
> *Lennon and McCartney's peculiar insight was that there were no scale
> defined rules for pop - follow the chords - they can lead anywhere!
>
> The Beatles As A Live Band.
>
> By late 1968, there had been a revolution in the sound of rock with the
> appearance of modern, extremely loud PA systems and a fashion for bands
> centred around virtuosi playing heavy progressive music. The Beatle's
still
> hadn't played a concert in the post 1966 sense of the word, neither in
terms
> of the length and variety of the set or in the use of a modern PA system.
> The Beatle's sets were incredibly short (25- 30 mins), a rigidly
programmed,
> uninteresting sequence of hits, some of these brief hits even rendered in
> truncated form. Whereas Dylan had been playing genuine concerts - 60
minute
> sets, crammed with fascinating unreleased material from 1964.
> On returning from India, about May 1968 and John's psychic twinning with
> Yoko Ono, a lamentable incompatibility had grown up with Paul and things
> were looking very ominous for the band. Group cohesion had deteriorated
> markedly. They were neither playing well together nor sounding
particularly
> good, as evidenced by the White Album and Let It Be. Some of the White
Album
> sessions had been thoroughly miserable, gruelling affairs, with Ringo in
> particular troubled by a loss of form as a drummer.
> By late 68 Paul realised that to regain solidarity as a group, they needed
> the discipline and pressure of a live tour. John was lacking in confidence
> in his ability as an instrumentalist and in his musical memory. But as one
> of the greatest singers in rock and one of the greatest heroes of the
whole
> 1960's, he was certainly able to handle live exposure. Ringo and Paul were
> solid musicians who would have thrived in a live situation, once Ringo had
> regained his nerve.
> The fatal lack of confidence was almost certainly coming from another
> source. Lead Guitar had developed fantastically since the arrival of
Hendrix
> and there was no where to hide tepid instrumental work with thousands of
> watts of live power available. The Beatles would have compete with scores
of
> new bands like Traffic, Colosseum, Cream, Spirit etc - masterful,
confident,
> ostentatious musicians.
> As it turned out they were never to play anything resembling a proper rock
> concert - an enormous failure for a band of their stupendous ability. In
> fact its arguable that they contributed nothing positive to the
development
> of the live concert in the 60's and that their live policy was money
> motivated, backward not forward looking. In this failure to make it as a
> modern live band, their weak lead guitarist probably tipped the scales.
> Ultimately their break up had a lot to do with this late 60's stage fright
> and inability to go out and face real audiences, even on a brief tour.
> *Another reason was John's sudden metamorphosis into the most wife-fixated
> man in Britain.
>
> The Gig Of All Time
>
> Though singled out by Fate to land the most enviable and well rewarded gig
> of all time for any ambitious and talented player, George was neither
> boastful, smug, apologetic or humble about his lead guitar prowess. He
> doesn't seem to have publicly acknowledged doubts about his musical
> limitations. It was as if the whole Beatle's gig and the immense wealth,
> fame, acclaim and opportunity that went it - was as much a burden, - a
> violation of his personal serenity and security - as a blessing.
> Celebration, thankfulness and recognition of his incredible good fortune
> would have been befitting.
>
>
> This is for all those .
>
> This is for all those great players and bands who could have made it,
should
> have made it and maybe even in an alternative universe where The Sonics -
> Cinderella,
> The Fleur De Lys - Daughter Of The Sun
> Tomorrow - My White Bicycle and
> Nirvana - Tiny Goddess
> were top five hits - did make it!
>
>
> This could be an ongoing project. Please send your nominations for
unlisted
> guitarists, with a note as to where they can be heard.
> The more obscure the better!
> There are bound to be errors in the list.
> Please help to fill in those gaps! (For instance nominating as evidence a
> stand out performance for ALL the listed guitarists).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
garry parker
Reuben Ayres
point.
I don't think anyone would disagree that at it not difficult to name
guitarists who are (or were) more virtuoso than George Harrison BUT
the beauty of Beatles music doesn't lie in virtuosity. It lies in
various other qualities such as:-
Composition
Balance
Structure
Form
This may sound a bit 'up myself' but it's true. The compositions are
superb for all sorts of reasons:-
Balancing the lyric against the meter
Balancing the lyric against the music
Blurring of major, minor keys
Making the unusual (many examples) sound obvious and unobtrusive
Instrumentation and orchestration
The musicianship is often very good (although I agree sometimes a bit
tatty) but not virtuoso (it isn't meant to be). These are
non-cluttered pieces (although sometimes surprisingly complex) played
well.
The best thing about these songs is that they play 'what fits the
piece rather than any deliberate displays of guitar aerobatics. It may
be that they couldn't perform guitar aerobatics if they tried (I don't
know) but that misses the point. I disagree entirely about the need
for screeming solos. These songs just are not written for that purpose
and don't require it.
For me, its a bit like like the difference between a piano concerto
(lots of virtuosity and tension between the solo instrument and the
orchestra - like a battle with an eventual resolution) and a string
quartet where the individual elements are deliberately balanced in
such a way that the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts.
Judged on these terms which I would argue are at least as valid
(probably more so) than pure virtuosity the Beatles' musicianship is
beyond reproach.
Ah well - just my six-penneth worth
Best wishes
Reuben
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 15:12:05 +0100, "redpanda" <redp...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
vinny burns
Jonathan Quick wrote in message <8ot8tq$45t$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
>garthus <gar...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:lsas5.1180$4T2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> A more taxing Task would be to name 100 Bands Ever with guitarists worse
>> than the beatles,
>
well
>each and every 80s/90s HM act...
>
>JJ.
>
What was wrong with 'each and every 80s/90s HM act'? Just because you don't
like a particular style of music does not make the musicianship bad. I
suppose you think players like Paul Gilbert, Steve Vai etc are much worse
than George Harrison.
Before you reply, I have not bought a single album by any of the players
I have mentioned because I do not particularly like them my self but I know
that they are very, very good players.
All the best.
Vinny.
steve_cobham
wrote:
><Steve> wrote:
>
>> Go ahead, punk - make my day.
>
>Yeah, come on back, you little sumbitch, and let us eat you for
>breakfast.
Goddam pinko commies...........
Now, y'all 'scuse me, ah'm off ta marry mah sister and eat me a mess
o' turnip greens 'n' chitlins..........
'Member, strangers're jes' folks you ain't shot yet.
;-)
Steve - still in country music mode.
================================================
Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels.
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm
E-mail: st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk
(Please remove obvious spam deterrent)
Interested in Zappa? Guitar? Beer?
Save money by setting up your own guitar!
How about trading Zappa and Danny Gatton tapes?
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/
Heb de Latz und schpill dini Gitare.
================================================
steve_cobham
<JNu...@AC30.Freefromspamserve.co.uk> wrote:
><Steve Cobham> wrote...
>> As for the Beatles using 100 watt Marshalls.....
>
>Tee hee!
>
>The "new 100 wt ... amps with built in distortion control around March 1966"
>were Vox solid-state units (probably the Defiant and/or the Conqueror for
>studio use, Super Beatles for stage work).
>> I have never to my knowledge seen or heard a Marshall in the presence
>> of the Beatles. All existing photos are chiefly of Vox's and, later.
>> Fenders.
>
>Correct. Truvoice and Gibson in the earliest days, then Vox AC15s (replaced
>by Vox AC30s) and a T60 amp and cab (replaced by an AC30 top then an AC50
>top and a 2x15" cab), then various Vox solid-state amps and finally (circa
>"Let It Be"), Fenders.
Here's a summary of the amp content of the November 1987 GP article:
Early Hamburg era - "Small nondescript (amp) models" - *definitely*
not Marshalls - tee-hee.
Pre '62 - Paul/Truvoice, John/Tweed Fender Deluxe, George/Gibson
GA-40T.
Summer of '62 - J and G/Vox AC30 (one white, one black), Paul/Vox T60.
J and G later acquired matching black AC30s.
(White? That Vox beige colour, surely?)
August '63 - Paul replaced his amp head with a 100W Vox head.
November '63 - J and G Vox AC50s.
Summer of '64 - J and G Vox AC100s.
April '66 - Custom-made Vox 150W valve amps with cabs containing 4X12"
speakers plus a horn (the article doesn't specify a model name or
number - possibly because they were custom jobs? - or whether Paul got
a bass version.)
'66 World Tour - J and G Vox AC100 and Paul 100W Vox head with T-60
speaker cab.
Pepper sessions (late '66/early '67) - the article seems to imply that
the custom 150W amps were used with Vox Super Twin 2X12" cabs. A
Fender Bassman was used for some guitar tracks. Paul played guitar
through a Selmer on occasion.
Post-Rishikesh retreat (spring 1968) - Vox out and Fender in. J and G
Twin Reverbs and Paul a Bassman 100.
And there the article ends - thus allowing any enterprising person to
conjecture that the last knockings of the Beatles were powered by 100W
Marshall stacks with "built-in distortion control". I wonder if he
meant a master volume control? It doesn't much matter, as Marshall
didn't produce amps with this feature until 1975.
As you say, I always thought that the later, larger Vox amps were
solid state and that 100W was as powerful as they got.
Also, I always understood, like you, that AC15s preceded the AC30s.
Perhaps the author was working on a lot of photographic evidence and
just cocked up.
One last thing - I'm sure I've seen a photo of Paul with a Vox head
running through a Vox AC30 - or am I just dreaming I did?
I'd be very interested indeed to hear your comments on this version of
the Beatles' amp history.
Steve.
steve_cobham
wrote:
>
>
>100 sixties bands with better guitarists than The Beatles
>BAND/ACT GUITARIST EVIDENCE
Selective opinion - not evidence.
Tip: Don't ever become a lawyer.
>Pioneers Atkins, Chet US
>Pioneers Charlie Christian US
>Pioneers Sister Rosetta Tharpe US
>Pioneers Paul, Les US
What about Django?
Robert Johnson?
See, I'd class someone like Scotty Moore, Merle Travis and Hank Marvin
as pioneers in that they brought something unique to the guitar and
pointed the way ahead to a lot of people.
OK, Scotty Moore might not be very high profile, but his sound on the
early Presley cuts just defined a certain style of rock guitar that
turned a lot of people on to guitar.
Again, thses are just my opinions, but I don't seek to present them as
facts or evidence.
Devise some sort of machine to measure what a good guitarist is and
then maybe, just maybe, we'll start to take you seriously.
>Acoustic masters Sandy Bull UK
>Acoustic masters John Fahey US
>Acoustic masters Davy Graham UK
>Acoustic masters Bert Jansch Angie UK
>Acoustic masters Jose Feliciano US
>Acoustic masters Leo Kottke Ojo (69) US
John Renbourn?
>
>Byrds Roger McGuinn What's Happening? (66) US*
Eight Miles High? Just my opinion - not evidence.
>Doors Bobby Krieger The End (67) US
*Robbie* Kreiger, actually.
>Fleurs De Lys Bryn Haworth Daughter Of The Sun (67) UK
Possibly Jimmy Page on this track. Fine though BH is.
>Grateful Dead Gerry Garcia US
Jerry.
>James Gang Joe Walsh Rock Mountain Way (74) US
RMW is not a James Gang track.
>Joe Morelli (Guest Guitarist) Johnny Kidd & The Pirates Shakin All Over (60)
Debatable - over to you, Jim?
>King Crimson Brian Fripp 21st century Schitzoid Man (69) UK*
Brian Fripp?
ROTFLOLUIP!
Robert Fripp.
>Led Zepplin Jimi Page Dazed and Confused UK*
Jimmy.
>Mothers Of Invention Frank Zappa & others?? Trouble Every Day (66) US
Not exactly the best Zappa guitar showcase from the 60s.......
>Mountain Leslie West Theme F. Imaginary Western (70) US
Not too much guitar on that one - how about Nantucket Sleighride?
>Pentangle John Renbourn UK
At last!
>Thunderclap Newman Jimmy McCullough Accidents (69) UK
Good choice - a far suprior song to "Something In The Air" IMO.
>Who Pete Townsend My Generation (65) UK*
Again, not much of a guitar showcase.
>Winter, Johnny Group Johnny Winter Funky Music (70) US
Not a very representative track.
*Brian* Fripp?
That just cracks me up.
Thank you, Binky.
James Screaton
<Steve Cobham> wrote lots :)
is it possible that they used a Marshall 100w PA system at some point, which
would presumably have a built in distortion control because it would distort
naturally by being used with a live drummer banging away.
apart from that ....
Cheers
James
steve_cobham
wrote:
>Lead Guitar is simply the most aggressive sound in music.
Much as I love the guitar, I just can't go along with that opinion.
Too sweeping when you have Illinois Jacquet's sax, Paul Roger's voice
and Keith Moon's drumming - to name but three aggressive sounds - to
listen to.
You really should listen more widely.
Besides, who needs "aggressive" necessarily?
The Tuck Andress solo album that Justin so kindly sent me isn't at all
aggressive, but it's got three out of the four qualities that you seem
to have adopted as the main critera for evaluating guitar playing -
erroneously in my opinion.
>Tone, Content, Aggression and Technique.
Where's "feel" in all of this?
Aggression and feel are not the same thing.
Sheesh.........
steve_cobham
wrote:
>This could be an ongoing project.
Why?
All I see is 4425 words of opinion, and, where there are what you
present as facts, errors.
You start off by talking as if you've made some sort of major
discovery rather akin to cracking the atom or inventing the wheel and
you've achieved precisely nothing.
Pointless, pointless and, indeed, thrice pointless.
This is going to be my last word on this subject until you appear here
to justify writing what you did and to rebutt your critics. I've
invited you to do this and I look forward to it.
If you're even mildly surprised that your post has provoked such a
reaction, then maybe you'll realise that not all of us want to put up
with badly-informed and subjective garbage. There's a superfluity of
that on the internet without taking up a lot of bandwidth adding more.
Paul Simpson
--
All the best,
Paul.
"Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers
believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
----- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~psimpson/planet/home.htm
<Steve Cobham> wrote in message
news:97h9rs08hi1uil7e4...@4ax.com...
James Screaton
"Paul Simpson" <p.r.s...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote
> You're enjoying this aren't you Steve? :-)
>
> --
Cheers
James
steve_cobham
<p.r.s...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
>You're enjoying this aren't you Steve? :-)
Sort of........but the amount of time and mental energy I've spent on
it could be spent on something more worthwhile.
That's why I posted saying that I'd written my last words on the
subject unless he responded here - which I invited him to do via an
e-mail I wrote him.
If he has something relevant/interesting/constructive to say then it
might be worth keeping the issue open.
Otherwise that's it.
David Galbraith
"redpanda" <redp...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ZQ7s5.897$4T2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
>
TELEGRAM:
To: Would be Journalist
From: Has Been Journalist
Subject: 4000 plus words of Utter Tosh
Message: THANK GOD STOP ASPIRING JOURNALISTS ARE STILL FULL OF SHIT STOP
THAT'S HOW I GOT TO BE A JOURNALIST AND THEY CONTINUE TO BE ASPIRING
JOURNALISTS STOP WHEN WILL THEY EVER TWIG THAT RESEARCH IS MORE IMPORTANT
THAT CONTENTION STOP OR THAT THE ULTIMATE SIN OF THE JOURNALIST IS
CONDESCENSION STOP
FOR GODS SAKE JUST STOP STOP
Rev Timothy N Nurse
<redp...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<100 sixties bands with better guitarists than The Beatles
Sorry. There were none. Just count the records sold, and that's all you need
to know.
<What makes a good lead guitarist? Tone, Content, Aggression and Technique.
uhuh. You forgot one important aspect. Guitarist play for the public masses.
It is they who decide what the 'entertainer' plays is 'good' or not.
<Around April 1966 Eric Clapton plugged his Gibson into one of the new 100 wt
<Marshal amps, tuned everything up full,
Uh-huh. That was a JTM-45 combo, not a 100 watt stack.
< and virtually invented modern lead
<guitar tone (listen to Bluesbreakers, July 1966, Stepping Out, Hideaway
<etc).
Straight copies from Freddy King, so what? Clapton aped King, whilst
Harrison went his own way.
<he obsessed with the sitar - one of rocks most ineffectual cul de sac's.
<Choosing Shankar not Clapton and going off to practice sitar three hours a
<day was not a good move at the time!
If Shankar is was good enough for MacLaughlan, why not Harrison? Anyway
Clapton had lost it by the end of the 60s.
[Rest of this tedious nonsense, which seems to be more interested in
knocking Harrison's playing than anything objective, deleted]
--
-------------------------------------------
Visit my exciting new *improved* web pages at:
http://members.xoom.com/The_Minister
-------------------------------------------
Rev Timothy N Nurse
<vbu...@thenorth.nwnet.co.uk> wrote:
<Brian Cullen wrote in message ...
<>
<>So, as with music, it's most definitely different strokes
<>for different folks......although it would shurely be fair
<>to say that Oscar was a better musician than Idi!
<>
<
<Hi Brian.
< Do you remember when Idi proclaimed himself the King of Scotland for no
<reason whatsoever.
He also awarded himself a Victoria Cross for nothing too!
<Strange guy.
Hmmm, I think 'nasty guy' would be more appropriate. Didn't he indulge
in genocide of a Rwandan scale against some other Ugandan tribes, back in
the 70s?
steve_cobham
Nurse) wrote:
>In article <ZQ7s5.897$4T2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "redpanda"
><redp...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <Around April 1966 Eric Clapton plugged his Gibson into one of the new 100 wt
> <Marshal amps, tuned everything up full,
> < and virtually invented modern lead
> <guitar tone (listen to Bluesbreakers, July 1966, Stepping Out, Hideaway
> <etc).
>
>Straight copies from Freddy King, so what?
As much as I like the earlier work of Freddie/Freddy King, and as
prone as I am to criticising Clapton. I have to say that Clapton
pisses over the originals in this case.
I believe that "Steppin' Out" is a Memphis Slim number.
Similarly, give me Mick Taylor's version of "Drivin' Sideways", Stan
Webb's version of "San-Ho-Zay" and Greeny's version of "The Stumble"
anytime.
Heresy maybe, but I just prefer their phrasing which is a little
smoother yet more adventurous than the originals.
He (EC) wasn't the first player to see the possibilities of distortion
and overdrive in the blues or rock field - and couldn't we have a long
discussion over that one? - but he was the first to really hook up the
Gibson Les Paul and a Marshall and explore its possibilities.
I don't think that, in this case and this case only, redpanda is
overegging the pudding.
If nothing else, Eric popularised the sound and we should all be
grateful to him.
>Clapton aped King, whilst
>Harrison went his own way.
Unfortunately, he aped a lot of other people and lost his own "voice".
Never been too much of a Hari Georgeson fan myself.
Strangely enough, my favourite later work by both gents is the album
with "Devil's Radio" on. They make a good team.
Reuben Ayres
I am somewhat worried by this assertion. I agree that
music is not a totally objective art form (I think). However, to
accept the assertion that it is totally subjective leads to all sorts
of conclusions which are intuitively unacceptable
e.g. 'Whether the music of Jimmy Osmond is of more or less artistic
worth than Bach is purely a matter of opinion.'
Most people would agree that this statement is false. I agree that it
is possible to construct arguements to support such a statement but it
intuitively feels wrong. I would say it IS wrong. Therefore there must
be some objective element. Exactly in what it subsists is much more
difficult to define and as you know has been a subject of debate and
arguement for centuries. However, intrinsic artistic worth must have
an objective element in my view if such inherently unacceptable
conclusions are to be avoided.
I cannot square the dilemma.
I'd be interested in your (and others') thoughts.
Reuben
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 08:58:52 +0100, em...@the.bottom (Adrian Clark)
wrote:
>
>"Better"? Music is a totally subjective art form.
JNugent
> <JNu...@AC30.Freefromspamserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> As for the Beatles using 100 watt Marshalls.....
> >The "new 100 wt ... amps with built in distortion control around March
1966"
> >were Vox solid-state units (probably the Defiant and/or the Conqueror for
> >studio use, Super Beatles for stage work).
> >> I have never to my knowledge seen or heard a Marshall in the presence
> >> of the Beatles. All existing photos are chiefly of Vox's and, later.
> >> Fenders.
> >Correct. Truvoice and Gibson in the earliest days, then Vox AC15s
(replaced
> >by Vox AC30s) and a T60 amp and cab (replaced by an AC30 top then an AC50
> >top and a 2x15" cab), then various Vox solid-state amps and finally
(circa
> >"Let It Be"), Fenders.
> Here's a summary of the amp content of the November 1987 GP article:
> Early Hamburg era - "Small nondescript (amp) models" - *definitely*
> not Marshalls - tee-hee.
OK.
> Pre '62 - Paul/Truvoice, John/Tweed Fender Deluxe, George/Gibson
> GA-40T.
Yep. The latest "Guitarist" issue (the one with a red Strat and a LP Deluxe
on the cover) has a nice article on the subject (extracted from the imminent
Beatles memoirs). George confirms the Gibson amp. I knew about John's Fender
Deluxe.
> Summer of '62 - J and G/Vox AC30 (one white, one black), Paul/Vox T60.
> J and G later acquired matching black AC30s.
The "summer '62" amps were AC15 Twins (looking almost identical to AC30s -
just half-an-inch narrower from front to back, for some reason (obviously,
production economies of scale meant nothing to Jennings Musical Industries).
They were bought from Rushworth & Dreaper, Whitechapel, Liverpool (a few
doors from Brian Epstein's office over the old NEMS record store in the same
street).
> (White? That Vox beige colour, surely?)
:-) Shows you how accurate the account is...
> August '63 - Paul replaced his amp head with a 100W Vox head.
AC30 head. Unmistakeable cabinet the same width as an AC30 combo (for
obvious reasons). The valve-powered AC30 head was (subjectively) more
powerful than the transistor T60 head (and objectively, more reliable). It
can be seen on the satge (on the floor) in any number of photos and film
clips (possibly including the "rattle your jewellery" Royal Variety
Performance of November 1963).
> November '63 - J and G Vox AC50s.
Never saw them with AC50s (piggy-back amps with "small" amp-tops and a
slightly-larger-than-AC30 speaker cab containing two 12" speakers and a horn
unit). But see below.
> Summer of '64 - J and G Vox AC100s.
Yep. That was the first introduction of the Vox AC100 top as well, proving
the incorrectness of the "Paul was using a Vox 100 watt top in 1963"
argument.
> April '66 - Custom-made Vox 150W valve amps with cabs containing 4X12"
> speakers plus a horn (the article doesn't specify a model name or
> number - possibly because they were custom jobs? - or whether Paul got
> a bass version.)
Super Beatles? They were in the catalogue for a short while 1966 -1967, but
never caught on with the general amp-buying public, as a new make called
"Marshall" upstaged them (endorsed by some blues player darn sarf).
> '66 World Tour - J and G Vox AC100 and Paul 100W Vox head with T-60
speaker cab.
Very likely. Their "touring amps" were reserved for the purpose by then -
and were probably returned to Jennings in the end (having been on indefinite
loan).
> Pepper sessions (late '66/early '67) - the article seems to imply that
> the custom 150W amps were used with Vox Super Twin 2X12" cabs. A
> Fender Bassman was used for some guitar tracks. Paul played guitar
> through a Selmer on occasion.
The Voxes *could* have been the AC50s referred to above, judging by the
description. But I don't know that.
> Post-Rishikesh retreat (spring 1968) - Vox out and Fender in. J and G
> Twin Reverbs and Paul a Bassman 100.
Yes - but the article fails to mention the JMI/VSL crossover period when
Defiants and Conquerors (with loads of built-in effects: tremolo / fuzz /
reverb / mid-range-boost) were supplied to the Beatles. One of them (a
Conqueror, I think) can be seen in that famous "on stage" colour promo film
for "Hello Goodbye" (the one where they are dressed in their "military"
outfits and John is playing a Martin).
> And there the article ends - thus allowing any enterprising person to
> conjecture that the last knockings of the Beatles were powered by 100W
> Marshall stacks with "built-in distortion control". I wonder if he
> meant a master volume control? It doesn't much matter, as Marshall
> didn't produce amps with this feature until 1975.
Sure they didn't use the 200 watt Marshalls? :-)
> As you say, I always thought that the later, larger Vox amps were
> solid state and that 100W was as powerful as they got.
Correct. For commercially-available units at least. Vox had a reputation for
custom-building too (remember Klaus Voorman's 10-string guitar/bass when he
was with Manfred Mann?), but I'm sure that won't have extended to whole new
bespoke circuit design and development. Well, would it?
> Also, I always understood, like you, that AC15s preceded the AC30s.
> Perhaps the author was working on a lot of photographic evidence and
> just cocked up.
Correct. The amps were AC15s. I have first hand oral evidence on that, from
the salesman who sold them to them (and the T60). Bob Hobbs (a great
Django-style player, BTW) was the guitar department manager at R&D (see
above) and is even pictured in the latest "Guitarist" magazine (he's the one
on the right, handing a Gibson J160E to John Lennon). Bob was difficult to
get to know, but melted if one wanted to discuss jazz (especially Barney or
Django).
> One last thing - I'm sure I've seen a photo of Paul with a Vox head
> running through a Vox AC30 - or am I just dreaming I did?
Perhaps it was the AC30 head running through the T60 cabinet (see above)?
> I'd be very interested indeed to hear your comments on this version of
> the Beatles' amp history.
Well, now you have. :-)
JNugent
> "redpanda" <redp...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >100 sixties bands with better guitarists than The Beatles
> >BAND/ACT GUITARIST EVIDENCE
[snip]
> >Joe Morelli (Guest Guitarist) Johnny Kidd & The Pirates Shakin All Over
(60)
> Debatable - over to you, Jim?
Joe *Moretti*, surely?
He *was* on "Shakin' All Over" and thought up the riff on the spot, basing
it on Ernie Shear's riff for Cliff Richard's "Move It" and on Duane Eddy's
"Shazam".
But I'll bet Big Jim Sullivan also claims to be on it... 0-)
Jonathan Quick
news:06larskcjimaol2b3...@4ax.com...
>
> e.g. 'Whether the music of Jimmy Osmond is of more or less artistic
> worth than Bach is purely a matter of opinion.'
Unfortunately it's true - artistic worth is defined by the opinions of the
audience, and just because the criteria used to judge a piece of music are
more rigidly defined by one section of an audience than another doesn't make
them any more valid except to themselves. At the end of the day numbers
count (?), although using this single rule to assess the worth of a piece of
music over time Bach wins hand down (after all how many people have listened
to and appreciated Bach over the centuries and how many will still be doing
so in centuries to come? I seriously doubt if lil' Jimmy Osmond will form
part of any musical curriculum in the year 2500 :-). But anyway at the end
of the day opinion is all there is. I've had some rather nice Flowers
Original and then some even nicer Valpolicella tonight btw, can you tell?
JJ.
--
Email: jonatha...@foxtrot.co.uk
Homepage: http://www.foxtrot.co.uk
Adrian Clark
> >Mothers Of Invention Frank Zappa & others?? Trouble Every Day (66) US
>
> Not exactly the best Zappa guitar showcase from the 60s.......
Possibly the best example from the original Mothers,
--
NEW WEBSITE! http://www.spaghetti-factory.co.uk
For email replies: adrian<<at>>spaghetti-factory.co.uk
"If you can say it, you can play it" - Frank Zappa
vinny burns
Rev Timothy N Nurse wrote in message ...
>In article <39b4...@news.telinco.net>, "vinny burns"
><vbu...@thenorth.nwnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <Brian Cullen wrote in message ...
> <>
> <>So, as with music, it's most definitely different strokes
> <>for different folks......although it would shurely be fair
> <>to say that Oscar was a better musician than Idi!
> <>
> <
> <Hi Brian.
> < Do you remember when Idi proclaimed himself the King of Scotland for
no
> <reason whatsoever.
>
>He also awarded himself a Victoria Cross for nothing too!
>
><Strange guy.
>
>Hmmm, I think 'nasty guy' would be more appropriate. Didn't he indulge
>in genocide of a Rwandan scale against some other Ugandan tribes, back in
>the 70s?
>
all. It is just funny that a man can proclaim himself the King of another
country and believe it. I did not know about the Victoria cross though I did
hear about his human head collection in the deep freeze. Like I said, not a
nice person.
All the best.
Vinny.
Leo Sadler
redpanda wrote in message ...
>
>
>100 sixties bands with better guitarists than The Beatles
>
>The Function of the Guitar Break.
>
>Aggression
>Aggression and a sense of excitement or fervency is extremely important for
A
>good example is Joe Docko of The Mystic Tide's solo on Frustration, a
>self-fiananced local release that sold a few hundred copies at most
The most aggressive sound in music?
Really?
I would reckon a shawm (particularly a disc shawm), bagpipes, some organ
stops (tromba exterior, say, or real),
natural trumpet played clarino, tromba marina, or contrabass a anche (so
harsh that even Italian town bands discarded it)all have a claim to be
cosidered aggressive - when played that way. Agression comes from the
player, it is not intrinsic to the instrument. You probably wouldn't rate
the recorder as an agressive sound, but try listening to David Munrow's
version of the istampitta tre fontane, then tell me it isn't.
Others have said it better, but, in my view, if you had titled your piece
100 60's lead guitarists I prefer to George Harrison, you could have saved
yourself a load of (justified) flak.
fatian
steve_cobham
<fatian...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>redpanda wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>100 sixties bands with better guitarists than The Beatles
>>
><snip>
>>The Function of the Guitar Break.
>>
>>.
>>Aggression
>>Aggression and a sense of excitement or fervency is extremely important for
>>lead guitarists. Lead Guitar is simply the most aggressive sound in music.
>A
>>good example is Joe Docko of The Mystic Tide's solo on Frustration, a
>>self-fiananced local release that sold a few hundred copies at most
>
>The most aggressive sound in music?
>
>Really?
>
>I would reckon a shawm (particularly a disc shawm), bagpipes, some organ
>stops (tromba exterior, say, or real),
I can confirm the aggressive quality of the shawm. I once played at a
folk dance festival held at a school during the holidays and we were
given a classroom as a band room. A guy suddenly appeared asking if he
could sit in with us later. He whipped out this thing that I later
found was a shawm, blew down it and proceeded to paste us against the
wall.
He didn't need much miking up.........
steve_cobham
<JNu...@AC30.Freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote:
><Steve Cobham> wrote in message
>> And there the article ends - thus allowing any enterprising person to
>> conjecture that the last knockings of the Beatles were powered by 100W
>> Marshall stacks with "built-in distortion control". I wonder if he
>> meant a master volume control? It doesn't much matter, as Marshall
>> didn't produce amps with this feature until 1975.
>
>Sure they didn't use the 200 watt Marshalls? :-)
Lest anyone try to infer that the Beatles used 200W Marshalls - this
is getting a bit silly, n'est-ce pas? - the amp wasn't a master volume
model in spite of the control labelling on the first examples.
The tone controls were active, thereby introducing a boost and cut
that would affect volume and could be used in conjunction with the
overall volume control.
The first 200W tops c. early 1967 looked very strange with a "master"
volume control - but see above - and a bass and treble control - no
presence, middle or anything else. Very sparse looking indeed - three
knobs and that's yer lot.
In fact, the later models from 1968 had passive tone controls and
looked virtually identical to the contemporary 100W tops.
Besides, redpanda's post stated that the Beatles' "Marshalls" were
acquired around March '66, so it doesn't really matter anyway.
Just applying "belt and braces" to ensure that the Beatles don't go
down in history - even the strange and elastic history you find on the
net - as Marshall users.
NP - Foxy Lady by the Beatles.
(I have a recording purporting to be Hendrix and Lennon playing
"Daytripper" widely dismissed as a fake.)
Jonathan Quick
news:39b5...@news.telinco.net...
>
> I agree with you totally. He was stark raving mad and not a nice person at
> all. It is just funny that a man can proclaim himself the King of another
> country and believe it. I did not know about the Victoria cross though I
did
> hear about his human head collection in the deep freeze. Like I said, not
a
> nice person.
Not only did he have the head collection, he was apparently rather fond of
"long pig". It's astonishing that this person is still allowed to be alive
somewhere on the planet really...
steve_cobham
wrote:
>vinny burns <vbu...@thenorth.nwnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39b5...@news.telinco.net...
>>
>> I agree with you totally. He was stark raving mad and not a nice person at
>> all. It is just funny that a man can proclaim himself the King of another
>> country and believe it. I did not know about the Victoria cross though I
>did
>> hear about his human head collection in the deep freeze. Like I said, not
>a
>> nice person.
>
>Not only did he have the head collection, he was apparently rather fond of
>"long pig". It's astonishing that this person is still allowed to be alive
>somewhere on the planet really...
Isn't he in Libya with that other shining example of sanity and
benevolence Colonel Gadaffi?
Either that or he's wearing a blond wig, sporting 48" knockers and
living in Amsterdam answering to the name of Scarlet.
The only consolation with these and others like Saddam Hussein is the
brevity of human life, although what comes after need not necessarily
be any better.
So, three cheers for Blair & Co - things could be a lot worse.
Huzza, etc........
NP - John Scofield - A Go-Go.
Justin
> The Tuck Andress solo album that Justin so kindly sent me isn't at all
> aggressive, but it's got three out of the four qualities that you seem
> to have adopted as the main critera for evaluating guitar playing -
I thought you'd enjoy that one! Then again, how could anyone not enjoy it?
ADM
> >in genocide of a Rwandan scale against some other Ugandan tribes, back in
> >the 70s?
> >
> I agree with you totally. He was stark raving mad and not a nice person at
> all. It is just funny that a man can proclaim himself the King of another
> country and believe it. I did not know about the Victoria cross though I
did
> hear about his human head collection in the deep freeze. Like I said, not
a
> nice person.
Definitiely not. My dad used to be a Captain in the King's African Rifles -
and Idi Amin was under his command for a very brief time. My mother
remembers him coming to the house one day for dinner - and ended up hating
the guy. She said there was nothing she could put her finger on - but she
had the impression he was a very evil man.
Later on when he was in power he had a penchant for executing his enemies
with a large iron tipped mallet. They would be forced to lay on their backs
on the ground, and then the execitioner would brign the mallet down on their
faces. Not nice at all.
He also has terminal Syphilis - which drives you mad too - as if he needed
any help.
Jonathan Quick
>
> Isn't he in Libya with that other shining example of sanity and
> benevolence Colonel Gadaffi?
Sounds familiar... actually Quadaffi does at least adhere to *some* of his
religious (moslem?) principles, istr the tale of him being invited to some
summit or other and when he saw all the delegates' tables stocked with
bottles of wine, walked down the line of tables smashing each and every
bottle with his cane. Quite how he justifies his terrorist training centres
though is another matter...
> The only consolation with these and others like Saddam Hussein is the
> brevity of human life, although what comes after need not necessarily
> be any better.
Trouble is while they're around, they kill people. Simple maths demands
their removal really.
> So, three cheers for Blair & Co - things could be a lot worse.
As indeed they will be when *I* become President of England, or perhaps the
world or indeed the whole of creation! Now I'm off to have some nice carpet
for lunch before being measured by my crown of laurel leaves...
steve_cobham
wrote:
><Steve Cobham> wrote in message
>news:477crskkkuobe9f7n...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Isn't he in Libya with that other shining example of sanity and
>> benevolence Colonel Gadaffi?
>
>Sounds familiar... actually Quadaffi does at least adhere to *some* of his
>religious (moslem?) principles, istr the tale of him being invited to some
>summit or other and when he saw all the delegates' tables stocked with
>bottles of wine, walked down the line of tables smashing each and every
>bottle with his cane. Quite how he justifies his terrorist training centres
>though is another matter...
>
>> The only consolation with these and others like Saddam Hussein is the
>> brevity of human life, although what comes after need not necessarily
>> be any better.
>
>Trouble is while they're around, they kill people. Simple maths demands
>their removal really.
Hmmmmm...........
Difficult - the Shayler case where he claims to have uncovered an MI6
plot to assassinate the good Colonel propoonds one point of view -
that it's not the role of governments to "take out" leaders with whom
they do not agree.
On the other hand, there are some undoubtedly evil bastards without
whom the world would be a better place.
Thinking how just it would be to get rid of the Husseins and their ilk
is one thing - accomplishing it is another.
Where would you draw the line?
OK, Thatcher might not have been in the Amin league, but she was evil
in my opinion in the way she acted without regard for people as
people. Should she have been a candidate for being "stopped" somehow?
Obviously the Brighton bombing by the IRA demonstrated that some
people thought she should have been, but it's all a question of point
of view then, really.
Talking to someone about Nelson Mandela on the TV, some pundit came
out with words to the effect that "one man's freedom fighter is
another man's terrorist" - a neat summation of the dilemma I'm trying
to identify.
I watched a documentary about the Tony Martin case last night and that
also presents a similar dilemma. To TM, the kid he shot was a
worthless little tea leaf who shouldn't have been there in the first
place to get shot. To the kid's uncle, whatever he was - and the uncle
was very upfront that the boy was trouble - didn't merit what TM did.
Of course "removing" people can be a term that could be taken in many
ways, although such people as Quadaffi - due to the very nature of
their exercise of power - would be hard to get rid of without the use
of force - possibly terminal in nature. The lack of democracy in Libya
would preclude the good colonel being voted out of power.
Jonathan Quick
>
> Difficult - the Shayler case where he claims to have uncovered an MI6
> plot to assassinate the good Colonel propoonds one point of view -
> that it's not the role of governments to "take out" leaders with whom
> they do not agree.
Depends on what the leaders do really, if they're abusing human rights to
the extent of killing people in and/or outside their country, then they
should be "taken out". I don't think anyone argued about the moral
implications of killing Mussolini or Hitler?
> Thinking how just it would be to get rid of the Husseins and their ilk
> is one thing - accomplishing it is another.
> Where would you draw the line?
Verrrry tricky... of course to people like the CIA anything vaguely commie
or non-Christian would probably be an excuse to bump off politicians all
over the world, doesn't mean that some of the time they might not be doing
humanity a service though.
> OK, Thatcher might not have been in the Amin league, but she was evil
> in my opinion in the way she acted without regard for people as
> people. Should she have been a candidate for being "stopped" somehow?
Thatcher's policies resulted in many people's lives being made a misery, and
arguably in actual avoidable deaths due to sections of the population being
forced below the poverty line and welfare and health benefits being
diminished or even removed. I for one would not have shed a tear if the
Brighton atrocity had taken her out.
> Talking to someone about Nelson Mandela on the TV, some pundit came
> out with words to the effect that "one man's freedom fighter is
> another man's terrorist" - a neat summation of the dilemma I'm trying
> to identify.
Exactly. To white South Africans Mandela was a terrorist, pure and simple.
To the rest of us he's a freedom fighter and a hero who fought an oppressive
regime. Now about Brighton...
> I watched a documentary about the Tony Martin case last night and that
> also presents a similar dilemma. To TM, the kid he shot was a
> worthless little tea leaf who shouldn't have been there in the first
> place to get shot. To the kid's uncle, whatever he was - and the uncle
> was very upfront that the boy was trouble - didn't merit what TM did.
There's a difference though, the kid wasn't a threat to TM's life. He's a
gun-happy killer imho, and should be treated as such. Shooting an unarmed
boy to protect your property is a bit different to assassinating an evil
tyrant to save lives, non?
Adrian Clark
> However, to
> accept the assertion that it is totally subjective leads to all sorts
> of conclusions which are intuitively unacceptable
>
> e.g. 'Whether the music of Jimmy Osmond is of more or less artistic
> worth than Bach is purely a matter of opinion.'
Aaaaaahhhh (you have to imagine Richard Herring saying that)... but it
*is* purely a matter of opinion. A rabid Jimmy Osmond fan or a rabid
Bach fan would defend their opinions with equal vigour.
And much as I love the music of Johann Sebastian, I feel his five-part
fugues frequently descend into the realms of mere mathematical
indulgence, whereas in the work of "Little" Jimmy Osmond, the aesthetic
concerns of the individual line never takes second place to the
academicism of the overall polyphonic study.
Okay, that last paragraph was just me being silly...
> Most people would agree that this statement is false. I agree that it
> is possible to construct arguements to support such a statement but it
> intuitively feels wrong. I would say it IS wrong. Therefore there must
> be some objective element.
I'd still say that was subjective - we all have different ideas of what
is right or wrong. Okay, so murder is definitely wrong, we all agree on
that, but that's more of a universally shared opinion than a proven
fact.
> Exactly in what it subsists is much more
> difficult to define and as you know has been a subject of debate and
> arguement for centuries. However, intrinsic artistic worth must have
> an objective element in my view if such inherently unacceptable
> conclusions are to be avoided.
But... I don't think such unacceptable conclusions are inherent. The
conclusions themselves are subject to personal opinion. One man's
meat/another man's poison etc.
If, however, music is produced for any reason other than "just for the
sake of it", then I'm not sure where I stand on the subjectivity
question. Part of me thinks that good music is good music, even if it's
produced for a Budweiser commercial, but another part of me thinks that
such music can never be good, as it's been created with an ulterior
motive.
Ultimately, though, my main guiding principle is: however or whyever
it's produced, good music ("good" IMO) is good music.
Adrian
vinny burns
ADM wrote in message >Definitiely not. My dad used to be a Captain in the
King's African Rifles -
>and Idi Amin was under his command for a very brief time. My mother
>remembers him coming to the house one day for dinner - and ended up hating
>the guy. She said there was nothing she could put her finger on - but she
>had the impression he was a very evil man.
>
>Later on when he was in power he had a penchant for executing his enemies
>with a large iron tipped mallet. They would be forced to lay on their backs
>on the ground, and then the execitioner would brign the mallet down on
their
>faces. Not nice at all.
>
>He also has terminal Syphilis - which drives you mad too - as if he needed
>any help.
You mean he could be even madder than he was. Now that is scary.
All the best.
Vinny.
Pete Croft
wrote:
> I don't think anyone argued about the moral
> implications of killing Mussolini or Hitler?
Actually, I rather suspect they did. With the benefit of hindsight,
rather fewer would argue the same things now, perhaps, but I expect there
is still a significant minority who could make a (legitimate) case
against.
Note the above is an observation, not a statement of my opinions on
whether or not figures such as the above should be topped for the greater
good.
Pete
steve_cobham
<Reu...@rull.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 08:58:52 +0100, em...@the.bottom (Adrian Clark)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Better"? Music is a totally subjective art form.
>Dear Adrian,
> I am somewhat worried by this assertion. I agree that
>music is not a totally objective art form (I think). However, to
>accept the assertion that it is totally subjective leads to all sorts
>of conclusions which are intuitively unacceptable
>
>e.g. 'Whether the music of Jimmy Osmond is of more or less artistic
>worth than Bach is purely a matter of opinion.'
>
>Most people would agree that this statement is false. I agree that it
>is possible to construct arguements to support such a statement but it
>intuitively feels wrong. I would say it IS wrong. Therefore there must
>be some objective element. Exactly in what it subsists is much more
>difficult to define and as you know has been a subject of debate and
>arguement for centuries. However, intrinsic artistic worth must have
>an objective element in my view if such inherently unacceptable
>conclusions are to be avoided.
>
>I cannot square the dilemma.
I'm afraid that I'm with Adrian on this one.
Art is a subjective concept, as is artistic worth.
People like what they like and prefer what they like and see more
worth in what they like.
If someone prefers that 'orrible picture of the girl with the green
face to the Mona Lisa - so be it.
If someone prefers the Spice Girls to Sibelius or Robbie Williams to
John Williams - so what?
That's the problem with a lot of so-called art - as Nigel Kennedy
pointed out in The Times' letters column last week, pundits and
critics who are trying to define what is and is not good art are doing
more harm than good.
Telling someone that what they like is not as good as something they
don't isn't going to help broaden their outlook in any way.
Besides, should anyone be in the business of changing people's tastes
anyway?
There's enough different things for people to like and there's never
been a better time to cater for all tastes.
I say just let everyone get on with enjoying what they enjoy - just as
long as no-one forces me to listen to stuff I despise.
There can be a million Robbie, D&C and Boyzone clones out there for
all I care - as soon as I slap some Zappa or XTC or Crims into the CD
player, why should it worry me?
I have to say that there's definitely no shortage of music "out there"
for me to enjoy, in spite of all the stuff I subjectively dismiss as
crap.
NP - Daphne & Celeste - pre-release copy of next single - "Message In
A Bottle" b/w "Turd On The Run".
vinny burns
Jonathan Quick wrote in message
much snipped
>There's a difference though, the kid wasn't a threat to TM's life. He's a
>gun-happy killer imho, and should be treated as such. Shooting an unarmed
>boy to protect your property is a bit different to assassinating an evil
>tyrant to save lives, non?
>
>JJ.
>
that after being robbed last year, (they did not get away with any of my
gear just a phone, purse... er not mine honest, computer.. oh and a car) but
if I catch anyone in my house again where my wife and kids are sleeping I
will most definitely let them know about it. It still winds me up when I
think of it now. It also sends a chill through me that I was lucky to still
have all my gear.
They did this while I was at the side of my house in my studio. It
should be everyones right to be able to protect their property. If these
people knew that they could get a good a serious kicking without any
questions being asked they may think twice before entering and stealing
peoples property.
Just my opinion.
All the best.
Vinny.
steve_cobham
(Pete Croft) wrote:
>In article <8p5kc9$ehp$1...@lure.pipex.net>, n...@spam.here (Jonathan Quick)
>wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone argued about the moral
>> implications of killing Mussolini or Hitler?
>
>Actually, I rather suspect they did.
Interesting thought. I believe that Hitler was wanted alive - he just
beat the Russians to it by shooting himself - and Mussolini was hanged
by a mob - along with his missus.
I don't think that in this day and age any democratic government could
justify a definite plan to kill anybody. They'd get away with it as
long as it was a "collateral" killing, however. Although who knows
what goes on in the murky corridors of power? Shayler might have been
telling the truth.........
> With the benefit of hindsight,
>rather fewer would argue the same things now, perhaps, but I expect there
>is still a significant minority who could make a (legitimate) case
>against.
I believe that such an act would be considered a sin by the Catholic
Church.
(I'm not a Catholic so I'm ready to be corrected)
>
>Note the above is an observation, not a statement of my opinions on
>whether or not figures such as the above should be topped for the greater
>good.
It just concerns me as to who decides who to top and who's going to do
it.
In theory it's great -
Hussein's a bastard - bang!
Qadaffi? Bang!
Milosevich? Take that you bugger!
In practice - more difficult.
What about people whose atrocities are on a much smaller level -
murderers, paedophiles, rapists, etc? OK, they may not have opted for
genocide or terrorism, but what they've done to individuals' lives is
just as devastating.
Personally I wouldn't lose any sleep over the loss of these along with
Hussein and the like, but then I probably wouldn't be the one who was
making the decisions and tightening the noose or whatever.
As someone pointed out, the maths does make sense, but there's more
than maths involved here.
Rev Timothy N Nurse
pete@_NO_SPAM_drufus.cix.co.uk wrote:
<In article <8p5kc9$ehp$1...@lure.pipex.net>, n...@spam.here (Jonathan Quick)
<wrote:
<
<> I don't think anyone argued about the moral
<> implications of killing Mussolini or Hitler?
<
<Actually, I rather suspect they did. With the benefit of hindsight,
<rather fewer would argue the same things now, perhaps, but I expect there
<is still a significant minority who could make a (legitimate) case
<against.
Refresh my memory. What was the case against Mussolinni, other than he sided
with Hitler in WW2? DId he round up people and gas them, as Hitler had done,
or did he aspire to Aryan supremacy? I'm not sure if Mussolini's 'crimes'
were any worse than the Emperor of Japan, who also sided with Hitler, and
they let him go. Is there something I'm missing?
Ross Edwards
>
(snip)
>
> Ultimately, though, my main guiding principle is: however or whyever
> it's produced, good music ("good" IMO) is good music.
>
Indeed...
In the words of Harry Enfield's "Old Gits":
"I may not know art; but I know what I like."
Ross.
--
"Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder..."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JNugent
> pete@_NO_SPAM_drufus.cix.co.uk wrote:
> n...@spam.here (Jonathan Quick) wrote:
> <> I don't think anyone argued about the moral
> <> implications of killing Mussolini or Hitler?
> <Actually, I rather suspect they did. With the benefit of hindsight,
> <rather fewer would argue the same things now, perhaps, but I expect
there
> <is still a significant minority who could make a (legitimate) case
> <against.
> Refresh my memory. What was the case against Mussolinni, other than he
sided
> with Hitler in WW2? DId he round up people and gas them, as Hitler had
done,
> or did he aspire to Aryan supremacy? I'm not sure if Mussolini's 'crimes'
> were any worse than the Emperor of Japan, who also sided with Hitler, and
> they let him go. Is there something I'm missing?
Yes, I'm afraid there is.
The Allies had nothing to do with the death of Benito - Italy had pulled out
of the war by the time of his flight and subsequent death. Mussolini was
shot (ie, murdered) by *Italian* partisans in Northern Italy, his mistress
with him (don't know her name). Some time after they had been buried, their
bodies were exhumed and displayed - hung up in the marketplace of a nearby
city (Turin? Milan?).
Musso was never charged or tried (and had he been, as you imply, it is not
at all clear that he would have been convicted of anything other then
"waging war" - which was not an "offence" until later arbitrarily and
peremptorily re-defined as one). I am not aware of any legendary war-crimes
committed by Italian troops during WW2. Still less of any allegedly
committed by any of the Italian governments of the period.
An Italian friend (living close to the Swiss border) can be a mine of
information - his father was an eye-witness to the displaying of the bodies
in the marketplace.
BTW, anyone seen any of these new Korean-built but Italian-inspired solids
reminsicent of early-60s EKOs?
Pete Croft
> In article <memo.20000906...@drufus.compulink.co.uk>,
> pete@_NO_SPAM_drufus.cix.co.uk wrote:
>
> <In article <8p5kc9$ehp$1...@lure.pipex.net>, n...@spam.here (Jonathan
> Quick) <wrote:
> <
> <> I don't think anyone argued about the moral
> <> implications of killing Mussolini or Hitler?
> <
> <Actually, I rather suspect they did. With the benefit of hindsight,
> <rather fewer would argue the same things now, perhaps, but I expect
> there <is still a significant minority who could make a (legitimate)
> case <against.
>
> Refresh my memory. What was the case against Mussolinni, other than he
> sided with Hitler in WW2?
Misunderstanding, I think. When I used "case against" I meant there are
people who could make a case against topping Hitler, Mussolini etc. not a
case against Mussolini in favour of topping him.
Personally I'm always very wary of anyone who suggests that scragging
someone else is a "good thing", almost regardless of the context - I can
very much appreciate the feeling, but I'm not sure it's necessarily the
right response.
Pete
Pete Croft
wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:28 +0100 (BST), pete@_NO_SPAM_drufus.cix.co.uk
> (Pete Croft) wrote:
>
> >In article <8p5kc9$ehp$1...@lure.pipex.net>, n...@spam.here (Jonathan
> Quick) >wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think anyone argued about the moral
> >> implications of killing Mussolini or Hitler?
> >
> >Actually, I rather suspect they did.
>
> I don't think that in this day and age any democratic government could
> justify a definite plan to kill anybody.
I rather suspect that if they do it, they do it in such a manner as never
to have to justify it, IYSWIM.
> What about people whose atrocities are on a much smaller level -
> murderers, paedophiles, rapists, etc? OK, they may not have opted for
> genocide or terrorism, but what they've done to individuals' lives is
> just as devastating.
How big a can or worms have you got there, Steve? ;-) When you start
getting serious about this kind of thing, you have to take into account
all kinds of "degree" of act: the words "murder, paedophile" etc. all tend
to conjure up images of the worst aspects of those behaviours, when in
fact I'd argue there's a huge range (not saying that none of them are
damaging, but ...). Trouble is sensible discussion on such topics
normally gets buried under the emotive responses. And if it doesn't, it
ends up with everyone shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well *I* don't
know what the answer is, I just know what it isn't".
> As someone pointed out, the maths does make sense, but there's more
> than maths involved here.
Most definitely.
Pete
Paul Simpson
> >> conjecture that the last knockings of the Beatles were powered by 100W
> >> Marshall stacks with "built-in distortion control". I wonder if he
> >> meant a master volume control? It doesn't much matter, as Marshall
> >> didn't produce amps with this feature until 1975.
> >
> >Sure they didn't use the 200 watt Marshalls? :-)
>
> Lest anyone try to infer that the Beatles used 200W Marshalls - this
> is getting a bit silly, n'est-ce pas? - the amp wasn't a master volume
> model in spite of the control labelling on the first examples.
I remember reading a Celestion brochure lamenting the fact that the Beatles
never used Marshalls but - hey! - they had Celestions in their Vox amps, so
thats ok then :-)
--
All the best,
Paul.
"Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers
believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
----- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~psimpson/planet/home.htm
steve_cobham
(Pete Croft) wrote:
>In article <9cpcrs4thkeq620bb...@4ax.com>, (Steve Cobham)
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:28 +0100 (BST), pete@_NO_SPAM_drufus.cix.co.uk
>> (Pete Croft) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8p5kc9$ehp$1...@lure.pipex.net>, n...@spam.here (Jonathan
>> Quick) >wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't think anyone argued about the moral
>> >> implications of killing Mussolini or Hitler?
>> >
>> >Actually, I rather suspect they did.
>>
>> I don't think that in this day and age any democratic government could
>> justify a definite plan to kill anybody.
>
>I rather suspect that if they do it, they do it in such a manner as never
>to have to justify it, IYSWIM.
>
>> What about people whose atrocities are on a much smaller level -
>> murderers, paedophiles, rapists, etc? OK, they may not have opted for
>> genocide or terrorism, but what they've done to individuals' lives is
>> just as devastating.
>
>How big a can or worms have you got there, Steve? ;-)
Well, rather a large one, actually, Pete ;-)
The thing with suggesting that a figure like Amin is offed is that it
soon becomes a question of where do you stop?
>When you start
>getting serious about this kind of thing, you have to take into account
>all kinds of "degree" of act: the words "murder, paedophile" etc. all tend
>to conjure up images of the worst aspects of those behaviours, when in
>fact I'd argue there's a huge range (not saying that none of them are
>damaging, but ...).
Quite - it worries me that given full rein, certain people in this
country would like to lop off people's hands for theft - not just the
guy on the Clapham Omnibus but also some politicians are almost
inclined that way.
Hell, even Blair is advocating zero tolerance in some cases.
I saw a documentary about prostitution the other night and in it you
saw zero tolerance in action in LA. It seems the best way to encourage
disease and associated crime. Contrasted with it was the more liberal
approach in Germany where the law against brothels is easy to
circumvent - the whole deal just seemed so much more sensible.
Perhaps if the LAPD spent less time hassling hookers and their clients
then drugs and guns might be less of a problem - just a thought.
As you say, it's a question of degree and there are perhaps some acts
which are considered crimes which are actually exacerbated by attempts
to prosecute them.
Shit - there goes another can of worms...... ;-)
>Trouble is sensible discussion on such topics
>normally gets buried under the emotive responses. And if it doesn't, it
>ends up with everyone shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well *I* don't
>know what the answer is, I just know what it isn't".
>
>> As someone pointed out, the maths does make sense, but there's more
>> than maths involved here.
>
>Most definitely.
Start down the road to officially topping people who piss you off and
who knows where it will stop..........
Reuben Ayres
argued that the music of Jimmy Osmond was of greater artistic worth
than Bach (or imagine some other ludicrous situation), one's intuitive
response is not to say 'OK, after all it is just a matter of opinion?'
One's intuitive response is 'Actually I think you're wrong.'
I appreciate that the Jimmy Osmond fan might vehemently argue his
corner but the sort of arguements that might be anticipated are
clearly a bit hollow.
I agree entirely with the Nigel Kennedy arguement that pundits and
critics telling people what's good for them is precious, pretentious
and generally awful but I don't think that you have to abandon
entirely the concept of objective artistic worth.
To say that it is all entirely subjective surely by definition reduces
all objective artistic worth to nothing. I can't believe that.
Furthermore, what if your interlocutor is mad, or has never heard any
music other than Jimmy Osmond, or has an ulterior motive for his/her
comments. Is the opinion still equally valid? If artistic worth is
purely subjective it must me. Are there no external (objective)
criteria that can be brought to bear. Clearly there are.
I'm still not convinced. Don't get me wrong, I'm prepared to accept
that in the arguement of Bach vs Jimmy Osmond I may have backed the
wrong horse (although I doubt it). I would rather accept the
consequences that my artistic judgement is flawed (i.e Jimmy Osmond
actually has the edge) rather than the consequences of the arguement
that it's just subjective.
Best wishes
Reuben
PS I hope Jonathan enjoyed his Flower and Valpolicella
Jonathan
<Steve Cobham> wrote in message
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 21:26:40 +0100, Reuben Ayres
> <Reu...@rull.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 08:58:52 +0100, em...@the.bottom (Adrian Clark)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Better"? Music is a totally subjective art form.
>
> >Dear Adrian,
> > I am somewhat worried by this assertion. I agree that
> >music is not a totally objective art form (I think). However, to
> >accept the assertion that it is totally subjective leads to all sorts
> >of conclusions which are intuitively unacceptable
> >
> >e.g. 'Whether the music of Jimmy Osmond is of more or less artistic
> >worth than Bach is purely a matter of opinion.'
> >
> >Most people would agree that this statement is false. I agree that it
> >is possible to construct arguements to support such a statement but it
> >intuitively feels wrong. I would say it IS wrong. Therefore there must
> >be some objective element. Exactly in what it subsists is much more
> >difficult to define and as you know has been a subject of debate and
> >arguement for centuries. However, intrinsic artistic worth must have
> >an objective element in my view if such inherently unacceptable
> >conclusions are to be avoided.
> >
> >I cannot square the dilemma.
Reuben - I tend to agree in that I think there "must" be "something causal
going on" however little we know about it or can (maybe ever) formulate or
represent it. This is not to deny the spread of subjective preferences in
different listeners but again - to me - there must be "something causal"
going on there too (same etc.). It's a sort reasonable presumption in the
sense that since science has found more "causation" year by year, that I
assume that the "unknown" is "caused" but we just don't know how yet.
Two not quite connected points (both inviting a good old flaming !). My
grandmother and two of her daughters and several of my friends were simply
completely disinterested in music. I consider that they could therefore have
no musical "taste" (between pieces of music) so therefore I consider that
some people have very much more "taste" than others and for instance, there
will be "musician's musicians" who impress people with *better* taste (of
whom I am one - naturally :-)).
Next - the "sugaring the pill" concept. This stuck in my mind from a dodgy
psychology book by Eysenck. Roughly - it's difficult to compare music "plus"
elements that are non-musical (e.g. video, sex, lyrics (?), charisma,
good-looking singer, dance, stage-show, teen-idol etc.) with music with less
or none of these elements added. Is "the appeal of Little Jimmy Osmond's
*music*" the same as that of Bach's or is it the "appeal" of a lot of
extra-musical things chucked in ?
Regards
Jonathan
Adrian Clark
actually finishing it. I'll try again:
<Steve> wrote:
> > Mothers Of Invention Frank Zappa & others?? Trouble Every Day (66) US
>
> Not exactly the best Zappa guitar showcase from the 60s.......
Possibly the best example from the original Mothers, but certainly not
Zappa's best recorded playing from the 60s. Has this man never heard
"Hot Rats"?
Reuben Ayres
Thank goodness. I was beginning to think I
was alone in these views. I agree, there is always a strong subjective
element it 'artistic appreciation.' But I'm sure you're right that
there is some 'causal link' between objective artistic value and
people's appreciation of it.
I agree with your points. It is unfashionable and very non-PC to say
that some people have 'better taste' than others but it is clearly
true. I'm perfectly happy to accept that I have crap taste in 'fine
art.' I know very little about it and spend relatively little time
actively appreciating it (although I do like it). I know what I like
but if someone with a greater knowledge and background than I were to
say, 'well you might like this particular painting but it actually
isn't really very good because of a, b and c,' I would probably
concede that my appreciation might have been swayed by the 'sugaring
of the pill' that you describe rather than true artistic worth. I
don't see what's wrong with that.
Best wishes
Reuben
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:09:14 +0100, "Jonathan" <jojen...@lineone.net>
wrote:
Reuben Ayres
disagreement rather than a simple acceptance of differing opion.
Reuben
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:17:44 +0100, "Leo Sadler"
<fatian...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
>Others have said it better, but, in my view, if you had titled your piece
>100 60's lead guitarists I prefer to George Harrison, you could have saved
>yourself a load of (justified) flak.
>
>fatian
>
>
Leo Sadler
JNugent wrote in message <8p5tcr$ed7$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
All these from memory, therefore not to be relied on :-
Musso's mistress was Clara or Claretta Petacchi.
Musso didn't join in the transport of Jews to the death camps, but the
Germans did grab some Italian Jews.
Italian troops did use poison gas against the Ethiopians - not sure if that
was a war crime or not.
Opponents of the Fascisti were routinely beaten up, forced to take large
doses of castor oil, and imprisoned without trial.
Idi Amin was a reasonable accordion player.
Italian troops & sailors did get mixed up in some fairly unsavoury acts
during Spanish civil war - but so did the other side.
Italy had not only left the Axis, a new government had been formed & they
were co-belligerents with the Allies. Musso was imprisoned, and German
troops (I think commanded by Otto Skorzeny) rescued him. The Germans then
set him up as a puppet ruler in Northern Italy.
What else did you not want to know?
fatian
steve_cobham
<Reu...@rull.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No, I can't agree with this. If someone really came up to you and
>argued that the music of Jimmy Osmond was of greater artistic worth
>than Bach (or imagine some other ludicrous situation),
If the JO advocate could justify what he said then his opinion is 100%
valid.
His opinion is still valid even if he can't - although personally I'd
value it more if he backed it up with cogent reasons for holding it.
>one's intuitive
>response is not to say 'OK, after all it is just a matter of opinion?'
>One's intuitive response is 'Actually I think you're wrong.'
I'm going with response #1.
> the concept of objective artistic worth.
I'm not sure that it's a legitimate concept to start with.
>
>To say that it is all entirely subjective surely by definition reduces
>all objective artistic worth to nothing. I can't believe that.
That's what I think, I'm afraid.
This whole debate hinges on what exactly "art" is.
I'm going with Zappa on this one and stating that if you put a "frame"
- real or imaginary - and call it art, it is art. The frame is the
boundary where the real world ends and art begins.
It might not be to everyone's taste, but it has become art - to be
welcomed or rejected as people see fit.
It's only because of the artistic elite in society that certain
examples in a frame get accepted or not as "art" and certain artforms
are judged to have more artistic worth.
This is why the Royal Opera House - or should that be the National
Opera? - receives grants and lottery money.
"Hey, opera is better than rock/dance/grunge/neo-Stalinist death metal
(delete as appropriate) so we're going to spend more money on it."
We get a nice new theatre in Milton Keynes and not one rock gig has
been put on - and this is in a large town with no major music venue,
apart from the much smaller "Stables".
It seems that in MK some art is considered more worthy than another.
Adrian Clark
> No, I can't agree with this. If someone really came up to you and
> argued that the music of Jimmy Osmond was of greater artistic worth
> than Bach (or imagine some other ludicrous situation), one's intuitive
> response is not to say 'OK, after all it is just a matter of opinion?'
> One's intuitive response is 'Actually I think you're wrong.'
>
> I appreciate that the Jimmy Osmond fan might vehemently argue his
> corner but the sort of arguements that might be anticipated are
> clearly a bit hollow.
Well, from your point of view and my point of view, the Jimmy Osmond
fan's arguments may seem hollow, but again, that's just our opinion.
I'm not going to try to claim my musical taste is "right" any more than
I'm going to try to claim that an Eagles fan is "wrong". It's all just
what we like.
> To say that it is all entirely subjective surely by definition reduces
> all objective artistic worth to nothing. I can't believe that.
Well, I'd say objective artistic worth *is* nothing, because once you
start to be objective about an art form, you destroy the abstraction.
Why has someone daubed multicolour pigment onto a piece of wood? Why is
someone hitting pieces of wire with a piece of plastic? Why is that man
wearing old-fashioned clothes and pretending to be someone he's not?
Paul Simpson
--
All the best,
Paul.
"Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers
believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
----- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~psimpson/planet/home.htm
<Steve Cobham> wrote in message
news:ppkersc7f8t5nnqh1...@4ax.com...
Adrian Clark
> I'm going with Zappa on this one and stating that if you put a "frame"
> - real or imaginary - and call it art, it is art. The frame is the
> boundary where the real world ends and art begins.
Good quote - I wish I'd remembered that one.
Rev Timothy N Nurse
(Adrian Clark) wrote:
<Reuben Ayres <Reu...@rull.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<
<> No, I can't agree with this. If someone really came up to you and
<> argued that the music of Jimmy Osmond was of greater artistic worth
<> than Bach (or imagine some other ludicrous situation), one's intuitive
<> response is not to say 'OK, after all it is just a matter of opinion?'
<> One's intuitive response is 'Actually I think you're wrong.'
<>
<> I appreciate that the Jimmy Osmond fan might vehemently argue his
<> corner but the sort of arguements that might be anticipated are
<> clearly a bit hollow.
<
<Well, from your point of view and my point of view, the Jimmy Osmond
<fan's arguments may seem hollow, but again, that's just our opinion.
<
<I'm not going to try to claim my musical taste is "right" any more than
<I'm going to try to claim that an Eagles fan is "wrong". It's all just
<what we like.
<
<
<> To say that it is all entirely subjective surely by definition reduces
<> all objective artistic worth to nothing. I can't believe that.
<
<Well, I'd say objective artistic worth *is* nothing, because once you
<start to be objective about an art form, you destroy the abstraction.
<Why has someone daubed multicolour pigment onto a piece of wood? Why is
<someone hitting pieces of wire with a piece of plastic? Why is that man
<wearing old-fashioned clothes and pretending to be someone he's not?
All this does remind me of the sort of argument that goes on in the art
(painting) world and how one measures the 'worth' of a piece of art and
whther or not it is 'good'. I have to say that I'm with Adrian and believe
that art is subjective. Is a sheep in a tank of formaldehyde in The Tate
'better' than say a Rubens? We have a Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow and,
down the road, we have The Kelvingrove Art Gallery housing, amongst others,
Dalis. The contrast between the two galleries couldn't be more different.
One is filled with technical expertise that takes the breath away, the
other is filled with youthful verve and exuberance, but very little traditional
technical skill. One entertains you, whilst the other demands you admire it.
Same with music types. Joe Satriani is a man with huge technical abilities
and blessed with the skill to say anything but, alas has little to say (IMO!!)
So he demands that you admire his technical expertise and a small group
of loyal fans will nod approval. The Osmonds, on the other hand, have
little technical expertise, so they put on a show that is aimed at
entertaining the audience and they did that to great adulation from the
public. Who's is
the better art? At the end of the day 'better art' is in the eye of the
beholder and therefore is subjective.
Aaron Turner
Organization:
Jonathan Quick <n...@spam.here> wrote:
: Quite how he justifies his terrorist training centres though is another
: matter...
The West does the same, so vive la difference. We just have the sense
to set them up in other people's countries normally.
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
Organization:
Steve Cobham wrote:
: I watched a documentary about the Tony Martin case last night and that
: also presents a similar dilemma. To TM, the kid he shot was a
: worthless little tea leaf who shouldn't have been there in the first
: place to get shot. To the kid's uncle, whatever he was - and the uncle
: was very upfront that the boy was trouble - didn't merit what TM did.
The scary thing about TM is that it wasn't the first person he'd shot,
and if he'd been less drunk it would have been the third (he missed his
brother-in-law). This is why the man had to use an illegal shotgun - he
was considered a danger and not allowed to have firearms.
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
Organization:
Jonathan Quick <n...@spam.here> wrote:
: There's a difference though, the kid wasn't a threat to TM's life. He's a
: gun-happy killer imho, and should be treated as such. Shooting an unarmed
: boy to protect your property is a bit different to assassinating an evil
: tyrant to save lives, non?
Shotting an unarmed boy. In the back. Emptying an illegal pump action
shotgun into him... While he was begging for his life.
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
Actually SOE had a fully developed plot to assasinate hitler in the
Eagle's Nest, but it was decided he was better off to the war effort
alive, making bad strategic decisions.
Aaron Turner
Jon Riley
news:3ridrssvp6ftr86ha...@4ax.com...
> Dear Jonathan,
> Thank goodness. I was beginning to think I
> was alone in these views. I agree, there is always a strong
subjective
> element it 'artistic appreciation.' But I'm sure you're right that
> there is some 'causal link' between objective artistic value and
> people's appreciation of it.
"Objective artistic value" is a meaningless phrase. Can you measure it
with scientific instruments? The various aspects of an art object
(painting, piece of music) may be objectively measurable (how many
brush strokes or colours, how many notes or key changes, etc.), but
their meaning and value is not.
> I agree with your points. It is unfashionable and very non-PC to say
> that some people have 'better taste' than others but it is clearly
> true.
I think what you're referring to would better be described as
"discrimination". Someone with so-called "taste" in any of the arts is
simply able (through inclination, learning, whatever) to discriminate
finer detail than someone with less "taste". That greater detail - or
the ability to either create it or spot it - is then given a moral
value: "aesthetic worth".
But a Jimmy Osmond fan (we're showing our ages here, eh?) will have -
or would have had - just as fine a discrimination over non-musical
aspects of their idol - dress, hairstyles, facial expressions, lyrics,
vocal phrasing maybe, etc. In that way, it's still "culture".
If you can speak of objective value in culture, then it can't relate
only to certain category details like "harmonic complexity" or
"painterliness".
In terms of intelligence, certainly, you can't discriminate between
one taste and another.
Our society just happens to give the highest moral weight to "taste"
in Fine Art and Classical music. That taste marks you out socially -
it's a class thing. It's called "high" culture, "fine" art.
Historically, it was the way the aristocracy marked out their
territory, their identity.
It's true that you can distinguish "high" culture by it's appeal
across history. But the fact that it lasts doesn't mean it's "more
important" than ephemeral pop culture, only that it's important in
different ways. We have the classics, and we have pop. We use them for
different purposes. A lot of people (some highly intelligent) find no
use for classical music in their lives. To them it is worthless.
(Opera, eg, is worthless to me.)
You're not a better person if you find classical music "speaks" to
you. You just believe that the meanings it conveys, its associations,
are important (to you, psychologically).
Sorry, I think I'm rambling...
> I'm perfectly happy to accept that I have crap taste in 'fine
> art.' I know very little about it and spend relatively little time
> actively appreciating it (although I do like it). I know what I like
> but if someone with a greater knowledge and background than I were
to
> say, 'well you might like this particular painting but it actually
> isn't really very good because of a, b and c,' I would probably
> concede that my appreciation might have been swayed by the 'sugaring
> of the pill' that you describe rather than true artistic worth. I
> don't see what's wrong with that.
Agreed. Your appreciation of the painting is no better or worse than
the "educated" critic's. He can probably see more in it than you can.
He has also been educated (probably) to assign value to those details.
If he says it's not "good", it's because it falls short of the ideals
accepted in that narrow world. He will be relating it to others of the
same type, to a whole history of art. OTOH you may like it because the
colours are nice, or because it shows an attractive scene, or
whatever. Those are the things that matter more to you.
Many people will find a Picasso portrait "bad" because it's a poor
likeness. To them, likeness in a portrait is the prime value (the more
like a photo, the better). To an art critic, likeness is probably the
least important parameter.
As I say, we all use various aspects of existing culture (high and
pop) for our own purposes.
(I love that sketch by Harry Enfield, in his Tim Nice-But-Dim
character. He and a critic are in an art gallery. Tim comes to one
painting and exclaims, "oh, look at the light on that!" The critic is
thrilled that Tim finally seems to appreciate the genius of the
artist, and agrees. Whereupon Tim indicates the lamp mounted above the
frame and says, "No, that light, isn't it nice, do you know where I
can get one?")
JonR
Jon Riley
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:23:36 +0100, "Jonathan Quick" <n...@spam.here>
> wrote:
>
(snip)
> I watched a documentary about the Tony Martin case last night and
that
> also presents a similar dilemma. To TM, the kid he shot was a
> worthless little tea leaf who shouldn't have been there in the first
> place to get shot. To the kid's uncle, whatever he was - and the
uncle
> was very upfront that the boy was trouble - didn't merit what TM
did.
I saw this too. Bizarrely, he reminded me of Tony Hancock, especially
the wierd bit where he could hear his dogs in the next room. A couple
of notes short of a major scale there, I reckon...
Seriously, what made my blood run cold was the recording at the end of
that woman on a phone-in who said she'd have done the same thing.
I.e., not out of fear, blind panic or paranoid derangement (which you
can argue motivated TM), but coldly stand there with a gun and kill
some kid, for attempted burglary... Makes you wonder how many other
apparently normal people walking around out there are actual head
cases.
JonR
Justin
Last year I had some nutcase get into my car while I had pulled up for a
second and hassle me, luckily I had no money so he just got lost. Really
made me think, though. Not a pleasant experience. Maybe if people knew
that once you step into someone else's house/car uninvited they are allowed
to club you like a baby seal (horrible reference, sorry!), less people would
do it.
The flipside of this is that the guy who got in my car was about 6 times my
size and there really wasn't much intimidating to be done on my part. I'm
surprised that the pigeons on the street don't hassle me for my money. So
what choice is anyone left with? If someone walks up to you and says 'give
me your wallet', what would the police have you do? Hand it over and say
have a nice day? If you're built like me, fighting's going to do you no
good. Use a weapon to defend yourself?
This doesn't really relate to the TM case, because I don't think that TM's
safety was in danger, but how does anyone know if the robber in their house
has a gun and is going to get scared and kill you?
Another point here which I have never, ever understood - WHY don't british
police carry guns??? Criminals have guns! Criminals have guns to spare,
BIG GUNS that they like to shoot people with. Sending someone with a billy
club to scare them is hardly going to work is it? The only thing that
happens when you don't arm policemen is that the criminals automatically
have the upper hand. In Canada (not sure how the states work), officers
have their guns in holsters with a 'seal' on it. If that seal gets broken,
they have a lot to answer for. Stops police from brandishing their guns,
stops criminals from shooting them like sitting ducks.
vinny burns <vbu...@thenorth.nwnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39b6...@news.telinco.net...
>
> Jonathan Quick wrote in message
> much snipped
> >There's a difference though, the kid wasn't a threat to TM's life. He's a
> >gun-happy killer imho, and should be treated as such. Shooting an unarmed
> >boy to protect your property is a bit different to assassinating an evil
> >tyrant to save lives, non?
> >
> >JJ.
> >
> I agree with every point you made JJ, but on this last point I have to say
> that after being robbed last year, (they did not get away with any of my
> gear just a phone, purse... er not mine honest, computer.. oh and a car)
but
> if I catch anyone in my house again where my wife and kids are sleeping I
> will most definitely let them know about it. It still winds me up when I
> think of it now. It also sends a chill through me that I was lucky to
still
> have all my gear.
> They did this while I was at the side of my house in my studio. It
> should be everyones right to be able to protect their property. If these
> people knew that they could get a good a serious kicking without any
> questions being asked they may think twice before entering and stealing
> peoples property.
> Just my opinion.
> All the best.
> Vinny.
>
>
ADM
"Jon Riley" <j...@jonriley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8p880t$vi3$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Leo Sadler <fatian...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > Opponents of the Fascisti were routinely beaten up, forced to take
> large
> > doses of castor oil, and imprisoned without trial.
On no ! Not the old Italian Castor Oil Torture.
Am I missing something here - or would good old fashioned thumbscrews have
worked better ?
ADM
"Justin" <jus...@NOSPAMparkerfly.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:968337212.17207.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> have a nice day? If you're built like me, fighting's going to do you no
> good. Use a weapon to defend yourself?
That's another reason you need the Telecaster - they are the ideal warrior's
guitar - and the real meaning of the word "Axe". I don't care how big
someone is - a Tele across the back of the head will make them think twice.
In the UK - I really doubt that the police would give you a hard time for
beating the crap out of a burglar, in fact, off the record they'd probably
say "Well done". It's just when you kill or maim them that it becomes a
problem.
I do agree with Vinny though - anyone breaking into my house is going to get
a real nasty surprise - even if I end up in court for it. I bought an
industrial size can of Pepper Spray in the USA, which my wife keeps under
her side of the bed - just in case. Plus a baseball bat by the door. ( I do
live in Brixton by the way !)
I KNOW it's illegal - but what the hell - it's an easy and effective way of
getting the upper hand on a potentially armed and dangerous criminal. It
will drop a twenty stone man to the floor from the other side of a room
without causing any serious injury.
Justin
> > good. Use a weapon to defend yourself?
>
> That's another reason you need the Telecaster - they are the ideal
warrior's
> guitar - and the real meaning of the word "Axe". I don't care how big
> someone is - a Tele across the back of the head will make them think
twice.
There we go! 'Honey, I really think we should buy this '52 reissue
Telecaster, for both of our sakes!'
> I do agree with Vinny though - anyone breaking into my house is going to
get
> a real nasty surprise - even if I end up in court for it. I bought an
> industrial size can of Pepper Spray in the USA, which my wife keeps under
> her side of the bed - just in case. Plus a baseball bat by the door. ( I
do
> live in Brixton by the way !)
>
> I KNOW it's illegal - but what the hell - it's an easy and effective way
of
> getting the upper hand on a potentially armed and dangerous criminal. It
> will drop a twenty stone man to the floor from the other side of a room
> without causing any serious injury.
And makes oven-chips a taste-sensation!
Reuben Ayres
disagree.
Whether something is objective or subjective is not a matter of
whether extrernal verifiable criteria can be established to validate
it or not. It is a matter of whether the nature of the issue resides
in the object (the thing under scrutiny) or the subject (the
scrutineer).
There are many things that one can imagine which are clearly objective
but are not verifiable e.g. 'Is there a dog hiding behind a distant
galaxy in such a way as to avoid detection?' Clearly, this is either
true or (probably) false. It cannot be verified but is an objective
issue to which opinions are either correct or incorrect.
The fact that we cannot establish external criteria does not in itself
make artistic judgements subjective.
Ah well that's my sixpenneth worth. I rather enjoy this.
Reuben.
steve_cobham
<j...@jonriley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
><Steve Cobham> wrote in message
>news:vldcrskej76tpgf1a...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:23:36 +0100, "Jonathan Quick" <n...@spam.here>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>(snip)
>
>> I watched a documentary about the Tony Martin case last night and
>that
>> also presents a similar dilemma. To TM, the kid he shot was a
>> worthless little tea leaf who shouldn't have been there in the first
>> place to get shot. To the kid's uncle, whatever he was - and the
>uncle
>> was very upfront that the boy was trouble - didn't merit what TM
>did.
>
>I saw this too. Bizarrely, he reminded me of Tony Hancock, especially
>the wierd bit where he could hear his dogs in the next room. A couple
>of notes short of a major scale there, I reckon...
Or even a top E short of a set of Super Slinkies.........
Seriously, I'm not qualified to say what his state of mental health is
- after all, what is normal?
From what emerged, however, it appeared as if the guy accepted guns as
a some sort of solution to his problems and made a concerted effort to
"ambush" the burglars - both of which seem to add up to a sort of
obssession in bringing a bit of "gun-justice" to those he considered
to be deserving of it.
If he'd missed when he shot, he could still be there at Bleak Cottage
now loading his (illegally held) 5-round pump-action shotgun and
waiting in the shadows for somebody to shoot.
Scary, eh?
If I caught a burglar and I had a baseball bat or similar blunt
instrument handy, I'd give him a bloody good twatting, but actually
killing him would seem to be, well, overkill...........
TM went too far - simple as that.
Anything other than a verdict of murder would have sent out the wrong
signals to everyone with a shotgun living out in the country.
Some of them might then be tempted to do a Tony Martin on the next
person who *seemed* to be up to no good.
Pity the guy from the water board who has such a place as Bleak
Cottage last on their list of calls on a December evening if the
resident shotgun owner has an itchy trigger finger and some sort of
paranoia........
Jonathan
> <Steve> wrote:
>
> > I'm going with Zappa on this one and stating that if you put a "frame"
> > - real or imaginary - and call it art, it is art. The frame is the
> > boundary where the real world ends and art begins.
Steve - No wonder Zappa drives me skitty. It sounds like it means something
but doesn't mean anything at all. There is nothing outside "the real world"
including the objective, the subjective and "art" ("if" it exists). Regards
Jonathan
steve_cobham
wrote:
>
>
>> <Steve> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm going with Zappa on this one and stating that if you put a "frame"
>> > - real or imaginary - and call it art, it is art. The frame is the
>> > boundary where the real world ends and art begins.
>
>Steve - No wonder Zappa drives me skitty. It sounds like it means something
>but doesn't mean anything at all. There is nothing outside "the real world"
>including the objective, the subjective and "art" ("if" it exists). Regards
Fair enough - but I know what it means.
And I also appreciate the cynicism behind his words.
vinny burns
Aaron Turner wrote in message <8p8763$odv$2...@pump1.york.ac.uk>...
The UK and USA are also only pissed off at Gadaffi because he booted them
out after they started taking over the newly discovered Libyan oil fields
and not giving the Libyans as good a cut as they should have been getting.
Before the US discovered oil in Libya it's biggest export was scrap metal
from world war 2. The US came in and offered the Libyan government a shitty
cut and Gadaffi when he took over the country booted them all out.
The next thing you hear is that he is a madman and the whole propoganda
machine goes into action against him. He took over his country by all
accounts without any bloodshed.
All the best.
Vinny.
vinny burns
Justin wrote in message >
>There we go! 'Honey, I really think we should buy this '52 reissue
>Telecaster, for both of our sakes!'
>
fancy being swiped with one. Hey Justin, maybe the police over here should
carry Tele's instead of guns :-).
All the best.
Vinny.
vinny burns
ADM wrote in message
<968341004.18661.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
I can only say 'nice one' and that I hope that you never have to use it. It
is bullshit though that you have no rights to protect your own property from
anyone else. It's my house, my wife , my kids and my gear. Why in the eyes
of the law does that count for nothing.
All the best.
Vinny.
Adrian Clark
> What you can't say, is "X's paintings have more artistic merit/value than
> Y's", or "Steve's playing has more artistic merit/value than Pete's"*
> because "artistic value" is a completely abstract and fluid CONCEPT, not a
> hard and fast standard or scale. Which is kind of a relief, because if
> it was some kind of codified system, I think all of the fun, life, soul
> and sparkle that makes up artistic work would be lost.
I've been babbling on for several posts, trying to put my thoughts into
English, and along comes Pete and puts it perfectly into one paragraph.
Nice one, Pete!
Adrian Clark
> But what do they "mean" ? :-)
Going back to to the Zappa quote, I interpret him as meaning "Art vs
not-Art should not be judged by any concepts of 'worth', but by
*intention*"
If you decide that your pink paint daubed onto a wall with a dead cat is
"art", then fair enough, it is. If you're just trying to paint the wall
pink, but haven't got a suitable paintbrush, then it's just dodgy
interior decorating.
steve_cobham
wrote:
>Jonathan <jojen...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> But what do they "mean" ? :-)
>
>Going back to to the Zappa quote, I interpret him as meaning "Art vs
>not-Art should not be judged by any concepts of 'worth', but by
>*intention*"
>
>If you decide that your pink paint daubed onto a wall with a dead cat is
>"art", then fair enough, it is. If you're just trying to paint the wall
>pink, but haven't got a suitable paintbrush, then it's just dodgy
>interior decorating.
.........and a poor concept of animal welfare.
Reuben Ayres
says...
>
> If the JO advocate could justify what he said then his opinion is 100%
> valid.
>
>
I agree entirely. In which case if the arguement(s) are persuasive then I
would have to revise my opinion of JO. If the issue were purely
subjective we would not have moved any further forward - we would still
be in a position of agreeing to disagree. If the issue is objective
(which I believe it is) a persuasive arguement would require me to change
my opinion.
It seems unlikely that such an arguement could be constructed in favour
of JO but clearly it is not beyond the realms of possibility and for this
reason one's opinions are always associated with a greater or lesser
degree of doubt. Little doubt in this case but certainly not zero.
Best wishes
Reuben
Pete Croft
(Adrian Clark) wrote:
> I've been babbling on for several posts, trying to put my thoughts into
> English, and along comes Pete and puts it perfectly into one paragraph.
> Nice one, Pete!
<blush> It's only 'cos my first degree was in Applied Bullshit (or
English, as the academics like to put it) :-)
Pete
Jonathan
Thanks.
Jonathan
<Steve Cobham> wrote in message
news:prsjrskg7vm5fios9...@4ax.com...
Paul Simpson
> would have to revise my opinion of JO. If the issue were purely
> subjective we would not have moved any further forward - we would still
> be in a position of agreeing to disagree. If the issue is objective
> (which I believe it is) a persuasive arguement would require me to change
> my opinion.
I can't see what you find fundamentally wrong about the thing being
subjective. "I genuinely think JO is God's gift to music and hate Bach".
Fine. "Bach is the be all and end all and JO is little more to me than a
bad musical joke". Also fine. Both these statements could be made by
people who are being 100% honest. No one is ever going to convince me that
the work of JO is art, but if someone else believes that it is, who am I to
say that they are wrong, and who are they to tell me what I like?
Oh hang a minute, dictating peoples taste, that the job of critics isn't it?
;-)
Joking aside, my own definition of what seems to constitute art is that it's
just something that provokes a deep, powerful reaction in you - you know,
that indescribable feeling you get when you put your favourite record on or
see your favourite film or see David Beckham score an amazing goal for
England or any one of a million other things that make you just go "Yeah!"
You can use a million and one fancy words to describe the above emotions,
but I bet anyone reading this knows the kind of feeling I'm talking about -
you can't really put it into words.
Modern notions of high art are just those popularised and dictated to us by
those traditionally in a position to take an interest in art - the upper
classes and aristocracy. In centuries gone by most of the population just
generally had a hard time breeding and staying alive, which are the really
important things in life, certainly higher up the scale than art. When a
populous has got the basics of survival covered (like in the western world
in the latter half of the last century), then an interest in art can
generally be fostered amongst the less well off. Hence Rock N Roll, modern
art and a million and one other wonderful things that kicked off since about
1960 when everyday young people actually had a bit of money and time to
express themselves.
--
All the best,
Paul.
"Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers
believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
----- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~psimpson/planet/home.htm
"Reuben Ayres" <Reu...@rull.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.142420c4b...@news.demon.co.uk...
Reuben Ayres
says...
> I can't see what you find fundamentally wrong about the thing being
> subjective. "I genuinely think JO is God's gift to music and hate Bach".
> Fine. "Bach is the be all and end all and JO is little more to me than a
> bad musical joke". Also fine. Both these statements could be made by
> people who are being 100% honest.
Yes, I agree they may both be honest but I reckon one is wrong (i.e. made
a bad judgement).
> No one is ever going to convince me that the work of JO is art, but
> if someone else believes that it is, who am I to say that they are wrong,
> and who are they to tell me what I like?
Surely you can say (or think) what you like. Surely it's conceivable
(although I agree highly unlikely) that in a situation similar to the
above (perhaps not JO but maybe even him) it would be possible to
construct an arguement that is sufficiently persuasive for you (or me) to
change your mind.
> Oh hang a minute, dictating peoples taste, that the job of critics isn't it?
> ;-)
Yeah, I know I'm perilously close to this but I'm really trying to avoid
it. I don't want to dictate anything. All I'm trying to do is to
establish a means (or at least establish the possibility) of getting away
from the acceptance that nothing (artistic) can be judged better or worse
than something else because all opinions on all things artistic are
equally valid. That seems sterile to me. I'm perfectly happy to hear that
my artistic judgments are 'b*****ks' - in fact I'd welcome it as a means
of getter closer to the subject (errr object).
Also, if you listen to people discussing these issues (like here in ukmg)
it doesn't sound to me as if the common stance is 'well that's my opinion
but any other opinion is equally valid.' Far more commonly the position
is 'I think a, b and c because of x, y and z. It doesn't deny the
possibility of being wrong neither does it sound to me to be the position
of the pure subjectivist.
>
> Joking aside, my own definition of what seems to constitute art is that it's
> just something that provokes a deep, powerful reaction in you - you know,
> that indescribable feeling you get when you put your favourite record on or
> see your favourite film or see David Beckham score an amazing goal for
> England or any one of a million other things that make you just go "Yeah!"
> You can use a million and one fancy words to describe the above emotions,
> but I bet anyone reading this knows the kind of feeling I'm talking about -
> you can't really put it into words.
Yeah, I agree. And that is the issue that makes me think I might be wrong
with this objectivist position. I do sometimes wonder if what really
happens is that you get 'that indescribably feeling' and then spend ages
trying to buttress it using whatever arguements can be brought to bear in
a sort of desparate self justification. I have been accused of this by a
music (piano) teacher in the past.
Ah well.
Best wishes
Reuben
Reuben Ayres
pete@_NO_SPAM_drufus.cix.co.uk says...
> I think you are confusing two subtly different things here. I agree
> that there seems to be a trend to "level" everything, and make everything
> equally valid (cf. common attitudes to religion, approaches to education
> etc.) and in certain areas this is making use of 'judgemental' words like
> "better" or "worse" to become almost taboo.
>
> However, I can't agree that "better taste" in the sense that I think you
> intend has any real meaning, other than to say "taste more in line with
> the societal group who are the arbiters of what good taste is".
>
I take your point but the two issues (i.e. artistic judgements vs
moral judgements) are related. If you argue that value judgements can be
made regarding issues such as religion and education, then I don't see
why they can't be made about art.
Furthermore, if they can't be made about art then I don't see the
justification for allowing them to be made with regard to the topics you
suggest. Now, if that's not possible (or justifiable) then surely we do
descend into an awful moral relativism within which anything goes.
> I would happily say "Child A is more academically and intellectually
> intelligent than child B, it's a fact, face it", and equally "Child X is a
> much better sports player than child Y" because those are things that can
> be measured and seen to be true. To deny it is to belittle the
> achievements of all parties involved; <aside> what you do need to do is
> make sure the "worse" child appreciates that the thing(s) they're crap at
> aren't the only things in the world that matter.
Absolutely
>
> Based on that, you could say "X paints more realistic landscapes than Y".
> Or "Steve plays the guitar a hell of a lot better than Pete". In both
> cases there are technical/practical aspects that can be assessed and
> compared, and the statements (more or less) proved/disproved.
Yes, I agree with this too but I still feel the process is equally
applicable to musical composition for example. It wouldn't be difficult
to find suitable criteria - after all composition is something which is
subject to examination in some institutions. In fact a mate's son came
round only last week to lay down a backing track for a composition for
his GCSE.
Best wishes
Reuben
steve_cobham
<Reu...@rull.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <memo.20000907...@drufus.compulink.co.uk>,
>pete@_NO_SPAM_drufus.cix.co.uk says...
>
>Yes, I agree with this too but I still feel the process is equally
>applicable to musical composition for example. It wouldn't be difficult
>to find suitable criteria - after all composition is something which is
>subject to examination in some institutions. In fact a mate's son came
>round only last week to lay down a backing track for a composition for
>his GCSE.
I can't think of a more subjective way of assessing a musical
composition and the criteria on which the marks are based aren't
objective simply because they're prescribed in a syllabus' scheme of
work somewhere.
The whole process of examining the unqualifiable and the
unquantifiable - be it music, the visual arts, whatever - is flawed
from the start.
Speaking as an ex-teacher, I recognize that you can give a percentage
for a piece of maths work in an exam, I'm not so sure that you can and
should do the same with something like art.
Let's take a student with an A* in art - he goes to college/uni, where
he gets assessed by yet another group of so-called experts in what is
or is not "good".
He can leave college with a First and - should he want to - start to
try and sell his work.
He might never sell a piece as long as he lives if it doesn't capture
the public's imagination in some way.
He might have fulfilled all the academic criteria of what makes up a
good artist.
On the other hand, someone can paint or whatever without any artistic
qualifications whatsoever and become a raging success.
Conclusion - public taste is all that matters - academic assessment
and performance mean nothing.
By extension - what "sells" has nothing to do with any concept of
inherent merit.
Reuben Ayres
says...
> I can't think of a more subjective way of assessing a musical
> composition and the criteria on which the marks are based aren't
> objective simply because they're prescribed in a syllabus' scheme of
> work somewhere.
>
OK, but it's not difficult to imagine various criteria which might be
applied. There is a large element of subjectivity, I agree. I don't
however agree that it is entirely subjective. Objective criteria can be
applied:-
1) repetition too much -> risk of bordom
too little -> no cohesion
2) existance of structure and form (not so much what the structure is
but at least the presence of one within which the ideas develop)
3) development of ideas (as opposed to a string of totally
unconnected ideas)
I'm sure there are many others one could come up with. I agree, its
certainly possible to reject deliberately all of the above and come up
with something 'brill.' But that would be deliberate. A one year old
playing at a keyboard with little conception of the above would be
unlikely to succeed in this endevour. A composer who chooses to 'throw
out the rule book' might succeed because he/she would replace the 'rules'
with others of his/her creation. It wouldn't be random (unless that was a
deliberate decision too).
> The whole process of examining the unqualifiable and the
> unquantifiable - be it music, the visual arts, whatever - is flawed
> from the start.
>
That may be true but I don't think it equates with the arguement
'anything goes' if someone likes it. I wonder for example, when it comes
to pieces of music you dislike; do you divide them into two camps:-
1) stuff I don't like but have some admiration for
2) stuff that I think is drivvle.
You may not do this but I think a lot of people do. I do. For example I
happen to think Jimmy Osmond is drivvle. I don't particularly like EVH or
Steve Vai but I can see what other people get fired up about and their
technique and virtuosity is obviously very impressive. So I admire them
but don't necessarily like most of their music.
> Speaking as an ex-teacher, I recognize that you can give a percentage
> for a piece of maths work in an exam, I'm not so sure that you can and
> should do the same with something like art.
>
I would not suggest that it is as scientific a process as emaining maths.
Clealy, dx^2 = 2x is either right or wrong. Examining music can never be
that objective and subjectivity is an important part of the process. The
only area were I would take issue is that I don't think that it is the
entire process.
> Let's take a student with an A* in art - he goes to college/uni, where
> he gets assessed by yet another group of so-called experts in what is
> or is not "good".
>
> He can leave college with a First and - should he want to - start to
> try and sell his work.
>
> He might never sell a piece as long as he lives if it doesn't capture
> the public's imagination in some way.
>
> He might have fulfilled all the academic criteria of what makes up a
> good artist.
>
> On the other hand, someone can paint or whatever without any artistic
> qualifications whatsoever and become a raging success.
This is true and sad for the academic artist who has invested years of
work in his/her studies and endevours. It doesn't make the 'non-academic
artistic success' any better or any worse simply because of commercial
success (cf Jimmy Osmond). On the other hand, someone without an academic
background may have innate artistic qualities and produce great art.
> Conclusion - public taste is all that matters - academic assessment
> and performance mean nothing.
My conclusion would be artistic merit does not necessarily equate with
commercial success.
> By extension - what "sells" has nothing to do with any concept of
> inherent merit.
I agree entirely.
Best wishes
Reuben
Stan Barr
Reuben Ayres <Reu...@rull.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <e0skrssvkhrbsugq5...@4ax.com>, Steve Cobham
>says...
>
>
>> I can't think of a more subjective way of assessing a musical
>> composition and the criteria on which the marks are based aren't
>> objective simply because they're prescribed in a syllabus' scheme of
>> work somewhere.
>>
>
>> The whole process of examining the unqualifiable and the
>> unquantifiable - be it music, the visual arts, whatever - is flawed
>> from the start.
>>
>
>
>That may be true but I don't think it equates with the arguement
>'anything goes' if someone likes it. I wonder for example, when it comes
>to pieces of music you dislike; do you divide them into two camps:-
>
>1) stuff I don't like but have some admiration for
>
>2) stuff that I think is drivvle.
>
I agree with whoever said (I think it was Sir Malcolm Sargent, it sounds like
one of his...): "There are only two sorts of music, good music and boring
music."
De gustibus non disputandum est...or something ;-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr st...@dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
Aaron Turner
Organization:
vinny burns <vbu...@thenorth.nwnet.co.uk> wrote:
: They did this while I was at the side of my house in my studio. It
: should be everyones right to be able to protect their property.
It is, but Tony Martin went well beyond that.
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
Organization:
Justin <jus...@NOSPAMparkerfly.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: That's a horrible story!
: Last year I had some nutcase get into my car while I had pulled up for a
: second and hassle me, luckily I had no money so he just got lost. Really
: made me think, though. Not a pleasant experience. Maybe if people knew
: that once you step into someone else's house/car uninvited they are allowed
: to club you like a baby seal (horrible reference, sorry!), less people would
: do it.
Well in the USA what they do is shoot you first, just to be on the safe
side, then try and rob your car. I don't really see that as progress...
: Another point here which I have never, ever understood - WHY don't british
: police carry guns??? Criminals have guns!
Not _that_ many criminals have guns in proportion to the number of
criminals around. I don't think the answer to a group of people coming out
of a building society with a sawn-off shotgun in a crowded high street is
for the police to have a gun battle with them. There would be far too much
potential for people getting shot in the cross-fire. If you give people
guns almost inevitably people will use them at the wrong times, like the
policeman who tried to get a fleeing villan (in this country) by opening
fire on the car ACROSS a dual carriageway.
: have the upper hand. In Canada (not sure how the states work), officers
: have their guns in holsters with a 'seal' on it. If that seal gets broken,
: they have a lot to answer for. Stops police from brandishing their guns,
: stops criminals from shooting them like sitting ducks.
They had the same system in Hong Kong. My uncle (in the RAF in the 1960s)
got pressed into service as extra police during one of the 1960s narcotics
emergencies. The standard practice was simply to obtain a hand gun on the
black market and use that rather than the service revolver. (my uncle
didn't, since he is possibly the world's worst shot).
Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
Organization:
Steve Cobham wrote:
: Pity the guy from the water board who has such a place as Bleak
: Cottage last on their list of calls on a December evening if the
: resident shotgun owner has an itchy trigger finger and some sort of
: paranoia........
Indeed. This is what happens in the USA. My girlfriend is American, and
she recounts how she broke down in the middle of winter and walked 2 miles
to the house of someone she knew rather than knock on someone's door
nearby and ask to use the phone. In Texas they could legally have shot her
dead as she walked up their drive.
Aaron Turner
steve_cobham
>5090017...@130.209.34.15> <39b5...@news.telinco.net> <8p53rv$5tf$1...@lure.pipex.net> <477crskkkuobe9f7n...@4ax.com> <8p5all$a83$1...@lure.pipex.net> <vldcrskej76tpgf1a...@4ax.com>
>Organization:
>
>Jonathan Quick <n...@spam.here> wrote:
>: There's a difference though, the kid wasn't a threat to TM's life. He's a
>: gun-happy killer imho, and should be treated as such. Shooting an unarmed
>: boy to protect your property is a bit different to assassinating an evil
>: tyrant to save lives, non?
>
>Shotting an unarmed boy. In the back. Emptying an illegal pump action
>shotgun into him... While he was begging for his life.
As far as someone who gets burgled is concerned, how do they know how
big a physical threat the burglar is going to be?
TM couldn't have known that his "visitors" were unarmed and, whilst
that doesn't excuse him shooting the kid in the back at close range
with an illegal gun, he took no chances that they didn't have a gun.
His action was drastic, yes, but we aren't exactly dealing with the
sharpest tool in the box here.
In retrospect, the murder verdict should have been one of manslaughter
with a finite gaol term, if only to appease public opinion and make
the whole deal less of a cause celebre.
It's not a sound basis for rational discussion of the whole
self-defence issue when there's a martyr-figure like Tony Martin.
Jon Riley
news:39b8...@news.telinco.net...
Well the law is subtle. (I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off here.
:-) )
AFAIK, the law (in principle anyway) protects "the person" and it
protects "property".
IOW - however unnatural it feels, and flawed it is in practice - it's
the law's job, not yours, to protect your property from theft or
damage.
You're obviously entitled to protect, within reason, what is yours,
but if that protection leads to the injury of another person, then
it's you that's broken the law protecting the "person" - whether or
not the other person has also broken a property law (breaking in or
stealing).
IMO, natural justice demands that "extenuating circumstances" apply if
you injure someone who's trying to rob or attack you or (esp) your
family. You would have to be technically guilty of a crime (against
the person), but the punishment (if any) would reflect your situation.
(Remember that road-rage killer, forget his name - he'd earlier killed
a policeman spying in his grounds and got off on the "frightened
householder" defence. Imagine how, if that defence were more enshrined
in law, how criminals could exploit it! If you wanted to murder
someone, you could just do it in the comfort of your own home then
claim he was trying to rob you!)
In the above example - a night-time burglar sprayed with pepper -
there are (I guess) 3 breaches of the law:
the house-breaking and any other crimes between that and your
apprehending him (his crime);
the attack (yours/mine);
and the ownership of an illegal weapon (yours/mine).
I imagine the police would be reluctant to charge you on the attack,
but would be happy (or would have) to charge on the other two
offences.
In that case, you would just have to accept - as Justin says - that
the result is worth it: better than what may have happened to you and
yours if you'd been unable to apprehend him (the police being
presumably unavailable in time).
A lot of the problems with this issue reflect a lack of trust in the
police, the law, or both, to deal adequately with such situations.
It's not a principle thing, IOW - there's nothing wrong with the
system *in principle* - but a matter of how well (i.e. badly!) the
system works.
JonR
Jon Riley
news:slrn8rnh9c...@citadel.metropolis.local...
That may have been MS, but it was also Duke Ellington. His two kinds
were "good" and "bad".
Of course, that still begs the question of definition of "good" and
"bad"...
BTW, (Reuben) "drivvle" is spelt "drivel". There's an objective
judgement for you! :-)
JonR
Jon Riley
news:1egl4x0.1hezkfe20zs8wN%em...@the.bottom...
> <Steve> wrote:
>
> > I'm going with Zappa on this one and stating that if you put a
"frame"
> > - real or imaginary - and call it art, it is art. The frame is the
> > boundary where the real world ends and art begins.
>
It may be a Zappa quote (whatever the wording is?), but it's a Marcel
Duchamp idea - from the 1910s or 20s.
What makes something "art" is simply a question of the kind of
attention one gives it. An artist is simply someone who persuades you
to view a piece of the real world with a different kind of attention,
and therefore - hopefully - expand your perceptive skills and,
therefore, your understanding. This principle was the foundation of
Conceptual Art, big in the 60s (like Mr Zappa).
Art of all kinds can be defined as something that changes the way you
look at the world, or makes you more conscious of how you perceive the
world. It's not a question of being "attractive" or "well-crafted" -
both good and bad art can be both, either, or neither. Questions of
"taste" confuse the issue.
"Good art attacks habits of perception. Bad art encourages them."
There - I made that quote up myself! (Which doesn't mean someone else
hasn't said it before...)
JonR
Jon Riley
news:prsjrskg7vm5fios9...@4ax.com...
> wrote:
>
> >Jonathan <jojen...@lineone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> But what do they "mean" ? :-)
> >
> >Going back to to the Zappa quote, I interpret him as meaning "Art
vs
> >not-Art should not be judged by any concepts of 'worth', but by
> >*intention*"
> >
> >If you decide that your pink paint daubed onto a wall with a dead
cat is
> >"art", then fair enough, it is. If you're just trying to paint the
wall
> >pink, but haven't got a suitable paintbrush, then it's just dodgy
> >interior decorating.
>
> .........and a poor concept of animal welfare.
Ah, but the cat's already dead. Maybe this is a bizarre religious rite
that is deeply respectful to the cat's spirit.
JonR
Jon Riley
Rev Timothy N Nurse <tnn...@XYZ.usa.net> wrote in message
news:tnnurse-ya0235800...@130.209.34.15...
> In article <1egkcdo.1d8os6q8befcxN%em...@the.bottom>,
em...@the.bottom
> (Adrian Clark) wrote:
>
> <Reuben Ayres <Reu...@rull.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <
> <> No, I can't agree with this. If someone really came up to you
and
> <> argued that the music of Jimmy Osmond was of greater artistic
worth
> <> than Bach (or imagine some other ludicrous situation), one's
intuitive
> <> response is not to say 'OK, after all it is just a matter of
opinion?'
> <> One's intuitive response is 'Actually I think you're wrong.'
> <>
> <> I appreciate that the Jimmy Osmond fan might vehemently argue
his
> <> corner but the sort of arguements that might be anticipated are
> <> clearly a bit hollow.
> <
> <Well, from your point of view and my point of view, the Jimmy
Osmond
> <fan's arguments may seem hollow, but again, that's just our
opinion.
> <
> <I'm not going to try to claim my musical taste is "right" any more
than
> <I'm going to try to claim that an Eagles fan is "wrong". It's all
just
> <what we like.
> <
> <
> <> To say that it is all entirely subjective surely by definition
reduces
> <> all objective artistic worth to nothing. I can't believe that.
> <
> <Well, I'd say objective artistic worth *is* nothing, because once
you
> <start to be objective about an art form, you destroy the
abstraction.
> <Why has someone daubed multicolour pigment onto a piece of wood?
Why is
> <someone hitting pieces of wire with a piece of plastic? Why is
that man
> <wearing old-fashioned clothes and pretending to be someone he's
not?
>
> All this does remind me of the sort of argument that goes on in the
art
> (painting) world and how one measures the 'worth' of a piece of art
and
> whther or not it is 'good'. I have to say that I'm with Adrian and
believe
> that art is subjective. Is a sheep in a tank of formaldehyde in The
Tate
> 'better' than say a Rubens? We have a Gallery of Modern Art in
Glasgow and,
> down the road, we have The Kelvingrove Art Gallery housing, amongst
others,
> Dalis. The contrast between the two galleries couldn't be more
different.
> One is filled with technical expertise that takes the breath away,
the
> other is filled with youthful verve and exuberance, but very little
traditional
> technical skill. One entertains you, whilst the other demands you
admire it.
>
> Same with music types. Joe Satriani is a man with huge technical
abilities
> and blessed with the skill to say anything but, alas has little to
say (IMO!!)
> So he demands that you admire his technical expertise and a small
group
> of loyal fans will nod approval. The Osmonds, on the other hand,
have
> little technical expertise, so they put on a show that is aimed at
> entertaining the audience and they did that to great adulation from
the
> public. Who's is
> the better art? At the end of the day 'better art' is in the eye of
the
> beholder and therefore is subjective.
I wrote a reply to another post in this thread that seems to belong
better to this one - so just in case you missed it...
Art of all kinds can be defined as something that changes the way you
look at the world, or makes you more conscious of how you perceive the
world. It's not a question of being "attractive" or "well-crafted" -
both good and bad art can be both, either, or neither. Questions of
"taste" confuse the issue.
"Good art attacks habits of perception. Bad art encourages them."
So if Damien Hirst's work makes you think about mortality, biology,
meat, and/or related subjects, in a way you didn't before, then it's
"good art" - if it doesn't then it's "bad". It can be both, depending
on the viewer.
(In any case, Hirst is only following conceptual art principles
invented by Marcel Duchamp.)
To ask if it's aesthetically pleasing or technically skilled is to
apply irrelevant principles. The question is "does it work?"
The principle can be applied to art from any era. (Of course, it helps
to understand the original artist's intentions, which are not always
known.) Medieval religious paintings, eg, weren't designed to be
attractive or technically "realistic" (however you define that), but
to tell a story or moral.
However, this rule applies less to music, because music doesn't refer
to the real world in the way that visual art does.
Ultimately, "value" in music really is a question of subjective taste.
"Good" music is that which works for us, which moves us, entertains
us, whatever. "Bad" music is that which doesn't, however technically
well-crafted it may be, and however much it may move someone else.
The set of values dictated by classical music culture (which pervade
most western music) are just those of one particular social group at
one particular time. In other cultures through history, music has had
(still has) other meanings and other criteria.
So, eg, for me, opera is "bad". It's meaningless, has no use for me,
comes from an "alien" (to me) culture. Even JO is not quite as bad -
at least JO's music was short and unpretentious, and bad enough
(sometimes) to be funny.
You could even argue that excruciating embarrassment is at least a
response of some kind, suggesting the music has a power that
completely boring music doesn't. That power of course derives from the
fact that I understand it - it's part of the pop culture I subscribe
to. In that genre, what's "good" or "bad" matters to me.
Opera belongs to a culture I don't understand, therefore I can't tell
a "bad" one from a "good" one - just as a classical buff can't tell a
good pop record from a bad one.
I couldn't say I "hate" opera - except when it claims superiority over
"my" culture.
(Oh dear I'm rambling again...
JonR
Aaron Turner
Organization:
Steve Cobham wrote:
: As far as someone who gets burgled is concerned, how do they know how
: big a physical threat the burglar is going to be?
: TM couldn't have known that his "visitors" were unarmed and,
I think after he had confronted both, they were both patently unarmed, and
were begging for their lives I think he knew. It wasn't as if he actually
shot them in the heat of the moment. He actually apprehended them first.
: whilst
: that doesn't excuse him shooting the kid in the back at close range
: with an illegal gun, he took no chances that they didn't have a gun.
The kid was kneeling down and not moving... I mean, I don't know that
someone walking down the street might not have a gun and an intent to kill
me, but that doesn't make it right to shoot first.
: His action was drastic, yes,
Criminal, in fact.
: In retrospect, the murder verdict should have been one of manslaughter
: with a finite gaol term, if only to appease public opinion and make
: the whole deal less of a cause celebre.
It would be manslaughter if it was shown he was insane. Remember this
isn't the first time he'd shot someone though...
Aaron Turner
Ian Spencer
"Jon Riley" <j...@jonriley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8pigqk$ee8$5...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip, snip snip>
Actually, I think it is simpler. The law makes a lot of use of the word
"reasonable". This is a wonderful word in the realms of legality, indeed I
highly recommend it to be used in all letters of complaint, contracts etc.
Basically, in this context, what you are allowed to do to govern yourself is
determined by the word "reasonable", which means that there is subjective
interpretation and also that it depends on the context.
If someone breaks into your house, you can use reasonable force to remove
them, to defend yourself and your property. What is reasonable force depends
on the circumstances, and on you. Interestingly, Kenneth Noye (sp?) got away
with killing a policeman with the dubious argument which went something
like, "I am a nasty villain who expects people to kill me so if someone
creeps up on me, I am defending my life".
In this country, wave a shotgun around and the law is unlikely to sympathise
with you shooting an unarmed person unless you can demonstrate that you had
reasonable cause to be in fear of your life, and it had better be good
reason, not paranoia (the test being reasonable person, not deluded). The
presumption is that most burglars are not murderers and so the fact that you
are being burgled doesn't mean per se that you are going to be killed. The
law would take a dim view of an argument that suggested protecting property
justified killing people.
Similarly, wafting around baseball bats causes the law a problem because it
implies a premeditated action rather than one that is a reasonable response
to the threat. (Understandably, this is a much greyer area). So some kid
breaks in to your house and you immediately clobber him with no warning, you
create a difficulty. That being said, you don't have to wait to be attacked
to take action. (Moral, get your story straight on why that bat just
happened to be lying around).
The other thing is that having been burgled, if you chase after them and
attack them to recover your property it is no longer self-defence, though
you are allowed to use reasonable force to make a citizen's arrest.
So there are circumstances that you can reasonably kill someone, beat them
up etc. The police will take a judgement on whether there is anything worth
pursuing, and when in doubt they will refer to the CPS. If the CPS think
your action is reasonable, they wouldn't take it to court. Of course, the
other party may pursue a complaint.
All in all, you will find that the law itself probably is ok, what is going
wrong is publicity to exceptional cases, but also the courts have become
outdated, and it is too easy for the court system to be swayed by clever
barristers and messed up juries who don't realise they can convict even
though they are not absolutely certain - they only need to be as certain as
a reasonable person would be - and that must take into account the
reasonable assumption that the defence (and indeed prosecution) may be
trying to confuse you so you can never be certain.
More fundamentally, the law is flawed because it entertains the argument
that somehow people are rational and reasonable and civilised, and when push
comes to shove, they rarely are. It is why I have a big problem with the
civil rights movement, and the "Sarah's Law" stuff which assume people in
general are capable of being able to deal with things reasonably in spite of
the wealth of evidence to the contrary.
Ian
Reuben Ayres
j...@jonriley.freeserve.co.uk says...
Dear John,
Many thanks for the correct spelling of drivel.
Best wishes
Reuben
Jon Riley
JonR
Ian Spencer <JustForN...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:8pinpd$lfv$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...