Define Conceptual Continuity
Jerry R. Blevins
--Joe--
--
================================================
MY SIG. SEZ:
I'm not Jerry
================================================
David Demery
>...for a newcomer. Please.
Okay, I'll try.
Imagine a jig-saw, where each piece represents some musical theme,
lyrical snippet, `secret word', touring folklore, etc. The sum
total of the jig-saw pieces represents the artist's total work.
Then you take the pieces, toss them in a box, and start picking
them out, piece by piece. At first things seem unconnected,
but slowly a pattern starts to emerge, as more of the pieces
seem to interact. Eventually, a clear picture presents itself.
In FZ's case, only he was able to see the completed jig-saw
puzzle. The rest of us have had to try to piece together as
much of it as we can from records, bootlegs and interviews.
A.f.f-z regular, Mike Keneally, has also had a chance
to see other parts of the puzzle through his work with FZ.
Fortunately for the rest of us, he has been kind enough to
share a lot of that information.
So, basically, conceptual continuity refers to the fact that
Zappa's works were all part of some larger whole, and as a
result, certain identifiable patterns run through most, if
not all, of them. The key is how to spot them, some are
obvious, others less so. The great thing about a.f.f-z is
that so many people are able to share their views about the
CC clues. In this way we all improve our view of the image
that FZ had.
Well, that's my take on CC for you.
Dem
Konrad
: >...for a newcomer. Please.
: Okay, I'll try.
: Imagine a jig-saw, where each piece represents some musical theme,
: lyrical snippet, `secret word', touring folklore, etc. The sum
: total of the jig-saw pieces represents the artist's total work.
: Then you take the pieces, toss them in a box, and start picking
: them out, piece by piece. At first things seem unconnected,
: but slowly a pattern starts to emerge, as more of the pieces
: seem to interact. Eventually, a clear picture presents itself.
[snip]
: So, basically, conceptual continuity refers to the fact that
: Zappa's works were all part of some larger whole, and as a
: result, certain identifiable patterns run through most, if
: not all, of them.
[snip]
IMHO, CC refers to the underlying threads of Zappa's body of work,
and the "clues" people talk about here refer to little references in songs
and performances that crop up again and again. These references are
sometimes lyrics, sometimes melodies, sometimes stage antics. The "larger
whole" that Dem mentions here is Zappa's life as a composer and social
force, and the threads consist in his interests, concerns, habits and
obsessions.
I still love the lines in Stinkfoot, where he has the following
dialogue between a man and a dog:
Man: What is your conceptual continuity?
Dog: It should be easy to see. The crux of the bisquit is the
apostrophe.
(whereupon the man goes into extreme denial of the dog's assertion)
konrad
--
Dog Biz
>From: dem...@natlab.research.philips.com (David Demery)
>Subject: Re: Define Conceptual Continuity
>Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:52:52 GMT
>In <4kf4pu$h...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu> jrbl...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (Jerry R. Blevins) writes:
>
>>...for a newcomer. Please.
>
>Okay, I'll try.
>
>Imagine a jig-saw, where each piece represents some musical theme,
>lyrical snippet, `secret word', touring folklore, etc. The sum
>total of the jig-saw pieces represents the artist's total work.
>Then you take the pieces, toss them in a box, and start picking
>them out, piece by piece. At first things seem unconnected,
>but slowly a pattern starts to emerge, as more of the pieces
>seem to interact. Eventually, a clear picture presents itself.
>
>puzzle. The rest of us have had to try to piece together as
>much of it as we can from records, bootlegs and interviews.
>A.f.f-z regular, Mike Keneally, has also had a chance
>to see other parts of the puzzle through his work with FZ.
>Fortunately for the rest of us, he has been kind enough to
>share a lot of that information.
>
>Zappa's works were all part of some larger whole, and as a
>result, certain identifiable patterns run through most, if
>obvious, others less so. The great thing about a.f.f-z is
>that so many people are able to share their views about the
>CC clues. In this way we all improve our view of the image
>that FZ had.
>
>Well, that's my take on CC for you.
>
>Dem
.....the jig-saw itself, when completed, is a picture of a bunch of
jigsaw pieces randomly tossed into a box.
Gregory J. Sandell
: >In <4kf4pu$h...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu> jrbl...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (Jerry R. Blevins) writes:
: >
: >Imagine a jig-saw, where each piece represents some musical theme,
: >lyrical snippet, `secret word', touring folklore, etc. The sum
: >total of the jig-saw pieces represents the artist's total work.
: >Then you take the pieces, toss them in a box, and start picking
: >them out, piece by piece. At first things seem unconnected,
: >but slowly a pattern starts to emerge, as more of the pieces
: >seem to interact. Eventually, a clear picture presents itself.
: >
: >In FZ's case, only he was able to see the completed jig-saw
: >puzzle. The rest of us have had to try to piece together as
: >much of it as we can from records, bootlegs and interviews.
Pardon me for being pessimistic, but I'd add a modification to this
otherwise fine definition: that CC is the *creation of the illusion of
global meaning* in the listener's mind. There is no actual "clear
picture"...just the suggestion that there might be one.
: .....the jig-saw itself, when completed, is a picture of a bunch of
: jigsaw pieces randomly tossed into a box.
Exactly. Should the day come that we actually "see" the clear picture,
it will be a mirror of our own expectations rather than something FZ
actually created.
Greg
--
Gregory J. Sandell, Research Associate, san...@sparky.parmly.luc.edu
Parmly Hearing Institute, Loyola University Chicago
6525 N. Sheridan Chicago IL 60626 USA voice:312-508-3976 FAX:312-508-2719
WWW: http://www.parmly.luc.edu/sandell/
Peter de B. Harrington
>
> In article <demery.829140772@hpas11> dem...@natlab.research.philips.com (David Demery) writes:
> >From: dem...@natlab.research.philips.com (David Demery)
> >Subject: Re: Define Conceptual Continuity
> >Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:52:52 GMT
> >
> >Okay, I'll try.
> >
> >lyrical snippet, `secret word', touring folklore, etc. The sum
> >total of the jig-saw pieces represents the artist's total work.
> >Then you take the pieces, toss them in a box, and start picking
> >them out, piece by piece. At first things seem unconnected,
> >but slowly a pattern starts to emerge, as more of the pieces
> >seem to interact. Eventually, a clear picture presents itself.
> >
> >In FZ's case, only he was able to see the completed jig-saw
> >puzzle. The rest of us have had to try to piece together as
> >much of it as we can from records, bootlegs and interviews.
> >to see other parts of the puzzle through his work with FZ.
> >Fortunately for the rest of us, he has been kind enough to
> >share a lot of that information.
> >
> >So, basically, conceptual continuity refers to the fact that
> >Zappa's works were all part of some larger whole, and as a
> >result, certain identifiable patterns run through most, if
> >not all, of them. The key is how to spot them, some are
> >obvious, others less so. The great thing about a.f.f-z is
> >that so many people are able to share their views about the
> >CC clues. In this way we all improve our view of the image
> >that FZ had.
> >
> >Well, that's my take on CC for you.
> >
> >Dem
>
> jigsaw pieces randomly tossed into a box.
>
Succintly
Everything is happening all the time!
Pete -- "Almost a true Zen saying"
Charles Ulrich
(Gregory J. Sandell) wrote:
> Dog Biz (ais...@news.salford.ac.uk) wrote:
> : >In <4kf4pu$h...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu> jrbl...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu
(Jerry R. Blevins) writes:
> : >
> : >Imagine a jig-saw, where each piece represents some musical theme,
> : >lyrical snippet, `secret word', touring folklore, etc. The sum
> : >total of the jig-saw pieces represents the artist's total work.
> : >Then you take the pieces, toss them in a box, and start picking
> : >them out, piece by piece. At first things seem unconnected,
> : >but slowly a pattern starts to emerge, as more of the pieces
> : >seem to interact. Eventually, a clear picture presents itself.
> : >
> : >In FZ's case, only he was able to see the completed jig-saw
> : >puzzle. The rest of us have had to try to piece together as
> : >much of it as we can from records, bootlegs and interviews.
>
> Pardon me for being pessimistic, but I'd add a modification to this
> otherwise fine definition: that CC is the *creation of the illusion of
> global meaning* in the listener's mind. There is no actual "clear
> picture"...just the suggestion that there might be one.
>
> : .....the jig-saw itself, when completed, is a picture of a bunch of
> : jigsaw pieces randomly tossed into a box.
>
> Exactly. Should the day come that we actually "see" the clear picture,
> it will be a mirror of our own expectations rather than something FZ
> actually created.
The best argument for Greg's position is Watson's The Negative Dialectics
of Poodle Play.
--Charles
Gregory J. Sandell
: In article <4l935i$p...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, san...@sparky.parmly.luc.edu
: (Gregory J. Sandell) wrote:
: > CC is the *creation of the illusion of
: > global meaning* in the listener's mind. There is no actual "clear
: > picture"...just the suggestion that there might be one.
: >
: > : .....the jig-saw itself, when completed, is a picture of a bunch of
: > : jigsaw pieces randomly tossed into a box.
: >
: > Exactly. Should the day come that we actually "see" the clear picture,
: > it will be a mirror of our own expectations rather than something FZ
: > actually created.
: The best argument for Greg's position is Watson's The Negative Dialectics
: of Poodle Play.
Bwa ha ha ha! Charles are you razzing me?? If Watson holds this
position too, good for him. I haven't read his book, but from what I've
seen of it, I don't find it that flattering to be considered in
agreement with him! :-)
Charles Ulrich
(Gregory J. Sandell) wrote:
> Charles Ulrich (ulr...@sfu.ca) wrote:
> : In article <4l935i$p...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, san...@sparky.parmly.luc.edu
> : (Gregory J. Sandell) wrote:
>
> : > CC is the *creation of the illusion of
> : > global meaning* in the listener's mind. There is no actual "clear
> : > picture"...just the suggestion that there might be one.
> : >
> : > : .....the jig-saw itself, when completed, is a picture of a bunch of
> : > : jigsaw pieces randomly tossed into a box.
> : >
> : > Exactly. Should the day come that we actually "see" the clear picture,
> : > it will be a mirror of our own expectations rather than something FZ
> : > actually created.
>
> : The best argument for Greg's position is Watson's The Negative Dialectics
> : of Poodle Play.
>
> Bwa ha ha ha! Charles are you razzing me?? If Watson holds this
> position too, good for him. I haven't read his book, but from what I've
> seen of it, I don't find it that flattering to be considered in
> agreement with him! :-)
I am not at all sure that Watson would agree with you. My point was that
anyone who read Watson's book would have to concede your point. In other
words, The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play is about Watson as much as
it is about FZ. (And unlike another author we could mention, I'm not sure
Watson intended it that way.)
--Charles
David Demery
>In article <4l935i$p...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, san...@sparky.parmly.luc.edu
>(Gregory J. Sandell) wrote:
>> Dog Biz (ais...@news.salford.ac.uk) wrote:
>> : >In <4kf4pu$h...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu> jrbl...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu
> (Jerry R. Blevins) writes:
>> : >
>> : >Imagine a jig-saw, [snip]
Don't wish to rattle anybody's cage here, but I wrote the piece about
the jigsaw, and I don't see my name above. Please try to ensure you
quote the correct party, if only to avoid someone else drawing any
flames (not something that happens that often around here, but it's
better to be safe than sorry). If anybody does want to take issue
with the jigsaw analogy (and I agree with the modifications that have
been suggested), then please direct them to me, and not to Jerry
Blevins.
Thanks, Dem
P.S. I'm not directing this at Charles Ulrich either: I have no idea
who is responsible for the mis-quote. I'm just bringing it to
everyone's attention.
Gregory J. Sandell
Charles Ulrich (ulr...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: In article <4lkhuk$p...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, san...@sparky.parmly.luc.edu
: (Gregory J. Sandell) wrote:
: > : > Exactly. Should the day come that we actually "see" the clear picture,
: > : > it will be a mirror of our own expectations rather than something FZ
: > : > actually created.
: >
: > : The best argument for Greg's position is Watson's The Negative Dialectics
: > : of Poodle Play.
: >
: > Bwa ha ha ha! Charles are you razzing me?? If Watson holds this
: I am not at all sure that Watson would agree with you. My point was that
: anyone who read Watson's book would have to concede your point. In other
: words, The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play is about Watson as much as
: it is about FZ. (And unlike another author we could mention, I'm not sure
: Watson intended it that way.)
Gack! I missed your subtle little joke! Which means the joke is on me.
Cheers,
WilsonWood
FZ on CC
reprinted from
*Circular*
"a weekly news device from warner/reprise"
vol. 3 number 29
monday, september 20, 1971
burbank, california
(Note: original contains bold face & italic)
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL
Hey Hey Hey, Mister Snazzy Exec! Here
It Is! Your Very Own M.O.I. Customized
Press Kit...With the Answers to the
Questions That Must Have plagued You
Day and Night for the Past Two Years
of Our Contractual Association!
In Case You've Never Heard
of Our Group...
Hi! We're the M.O.I. (Mothers Of
Invention), or just plain Mothers. We
like to make that clear so you don't
get us confused with that "Mothers/
Brothers" campaign that Herbie
called you guys about and said
"What's the deal?"...to make it
very plain, verging on redundant:
WE ARE NOT THE DOOBIE BROTHERS,
NOR DO WE HAVE ANY CONNECTION
WITH MOTHER EARTH, CAT MOTHER &
THE ALL NIGHT NEWSBOYS, AND/OR
EVERY MOTHER'S SON...(with
all the rock & roll groups you got,
and the ones everybody else has
got, we can understand the sort of
lonely confusion a busy executive
must experience while attempting
to make rational judgments about
things like good or bad taste in an
ad campaign...we like you...we
understand).
Our group has been together
since late 1964. During the past 7
years we have released 10 albums,
F.Z. has released 3, and MGM/
Verve (that other company) has re-
packaged 3 anthologies against our
wishes. This is a list of our "real"
albums In the order of recording,
not release.
1. Freak Out
2. Absolutely Free
3. Lumpy Gravy
4. We're Only In It For The Money
5. Cruising With Ruben & The Jets
6. Uncle Meat
7. Hot Rats
6. Burnt Weeny Sandwich
9. Mothermania
10. Weasels Ripped My Flesh
11. Chunga's Revenge
12. Mothers/Fillmore June, 1971
13. 200 Motels
(for September release on
United Artists)
This list does not include the 3 ugly
MGM packages.
Maybe you know (maybe you
don't know) about our plan for the
release of the historic 9-disc "His-
tory & Collected Improvisations of
The Mothers" around Christmas or
after the first of the year. Maybe if
you're in the promotional areas of
WB/Kinney entertainment factory
and heard about this unprecedented
release you might have scratched
your head and mumbled to your
buddies at lunch "...I never
heard of these guys and I'm supposed
to promote a NINE DISC
HISTORY ALBUM... I mean 'I
HEARD OF THEM A LITTLE BIT,'
but I mean I never HEARD of them
... I mean so who else ever HEARD
of them and THEY SHOULD CARE?
Some group dumping NINE FUCK-
ING ALBUMS? During the depres-
sion and everything?"
Maybe you talked to somebody
else later at the office. Maybe you
asked some more reasonable, in-
telligent questions (see specimen
above). Maybe some of the other
questions went like this:
What's So Special About
This Group?
Perhaps the most unique aspect
of The Mothers' work is the con-
ceptual continuity of the group's
output macrostructure. There is,
and always has been, a conscious
control of thematic and structural
elements flowing through each
album, live performance, and
Interview.
What?
This is a silly analogy, however
...Imagine the head of a pin. On the
head of this pin is an amazingly
detailed illustration of some sort. It
might be a little thought or a feeling
or, perhaps, an obscure symbol. It
might just be a picture of a sky or
something with birds in it...but it's
on the head of this pin, remember,
and it's infinitely detailed. Now,
imagine this pin is not a pin...it's a
musical note with a corresponding
physical action, like the secret
raising of an eyebrow to add special
emphasis. Even in a recording
studio where nobody can see you
do it.
Now, imagine enough of these
abstracted pins (with the needle part
chopped off to save space) to fill an
area as large as the North American
Continent and most of Central
Europe, piled to a depth of 80 feet.
Now, imagine this area is not geo-
metric space. Imagine a collection
of decades (the exact number to be
disclosed eventually). Pause.
Do you know about Earth Works?
Imagine the decades and the pile of
stuff on them subjected to extensive
long-range conceptual landscape
modification. Housing. Offices.
People live there and work there.
They even make movies there.
Imagine that you could be living
there and working there and not
even know about it. Whether you
can imagine it or not, that's what
the deal is.
Listen, Nobody Puts Together a
Pep Group, Simultaneously
Planning Years of Absurdly Com-
plicated Events, Lives out Those
Events, Then Writes About It In a
Press Kit and Expects Somebody to
Believe It. You're Nuts.
The basic blueprints were exe-
cuted in 1962-63. Preliminary
experimentation in early and mid-
1964. Construction of the project/
object began in late 1964. Work is
still in progress.
No Wonder You Guys Never
Had a Hit Single.
I'm sure you realize that total
control is neither possible, nor
desirable (it takes the fun out of it).
The project/object contains plans and
non-plans, also precisely calculated
event-structures designed to ac-
commodate the mechanics of fate
and all bonus statistical Improba-
bilities attendant thereto.
Yeah, Sure... I'm Supposed to
Sell Records for You Guys, and I'm
a Little Pressed for Time, So Why
Don't You Just Tell Me Normal
Stuff... Like What Your Group
Sounds Like, Maybe...
What we sound like is more than
what we sound like. We are part of
the project/object. The project/
object (maybe you like event/organ-
ism better) incorporates any avail-
able visual medium, consciousness
of all participants (including audi-
ence), all perceptual deficiencies,
God (as energy), The Big Note (as
universal basic building material),
and other things. We make a special
art in an environment hostile to
dreamers.
I Still Don't Get it... Art? What Art?
Rolling Stone And All Other Groovy
Important Publications Have
Convinced Me That You Guys Are
Nothing More Than a Bunch of
Tone-Deaf Perverts, Faking It on
the Fringe of the Real Rock & Roll
World. All You Guys Do Is Play
Comedy Music. So I Should
Believe This Crap About a Con-
ceptual Program Spanning
Decades?
Yes.
You Been Doing This Stuff for
7 Years...
Almost 10 years if you include
pre-planning.
So Why Didn't I Ever Know About
Any of This Stuff? I'm Aware and
Intelligent and Everything...
How Come You Never Mentioned it?
There are several possible
reasons:
1. Maybe you never asked because
you never heard any of the albums
so perhaps the long-range con-
tinuity wouldn't occur to you.
2. Maybe you never asked because
you never saw The Mothers per-
form live. and the conceptual
aspects of this phase could not be
described without you having
seen many concerts.
3. Maybe you never read any inter-
views where this phenomenon
was briefly described producing
varying degrees of semantic con-
fusion.
4. Maybe now is when you should
know.
What Is It? Like a Plot or
Something?
Not exactly. What I'm Trying to
describe is the type of attention
given to each lyric, melody, arrange-
ment, improvisation, the sequence
of these elements in an album, the
cover art which is an extension of
the musical material, the choice of
what is recorded, released, and/or
performed during a concert, the
continuity or contrasts of material
album to album, etc., etc., etc....
all of these detail aspects are part of
the Big Structure or The Main Body
of Work. The smaller details com-
prise not only the contents of The
Main Body of Work, but, because of
the chronology of execution, give it
a "shape," in an abstract sense.
So You Say You're Aware of the
"Overall Shape" of the Group's
Output So Far...
I say we're not only aware of it, we
control it. It is an intentional design.
You Think This Makes The Mothers
Better Than Some Other Group?
It makes The Mothers different,
certainly. We do not claim that con-
trol of conceptual continuity auto-
matically insures superiority on any
level. The reason for explaining this
process is to simply let you know it
exists, and to give you, as an exec-
utive, some criteria by which to
rationally judge what we do. It is not
fair to our group to review detail
aspects of our work without consid-
ering the placement of a detail In the
larger structure.
Why Don't You Guys Just Play Rock
& Roll LIke Everybody Else and
Forget All This Other Crap?
Sometimes we do play Rock &
Roll like everybody else (sort of).
Our basic stylistic determinant is
Rock, only sometimes it gets extrap-
olated into curious realms.
You Probably Get into That
"Classical Rock"... Real Intel-
lectual With Ugly Chords and
the Beat's No Good...
Any association we might have
with "serious music" has to be con-
sidered from a Rock viewpoint be-
cause most of us are strictly Rock
musicians. There is also the element
of humor to consider.
You Guys Could Never Really Play
Any Good Rock & Roll. You're Not
Serious Enough. You Couldn't Even
Play Any Good Serious Music
'Cause You're Not Serious Enough.
Have You Ever Considered Employ-
ment In Another Field?
I would like to bring to your at-
tention at this time one of the basic
tenets of our group philosophy: IT
IS, IN SPITE OF ALL EVIDENCE TO
THE CONTRARY, THEORETICALLY
POSSIBLE TO BE "HEAVY" AND
STILL HAVE SENSE OF HUMOR.
(We direct this specifically toward
people who suffer feelings of am-
bivalence when given an opportun-
ity to laugh at themselves.)
And another precept which
guides our work: SOMEBODY IN
THAT AUDIENCE OUT THERE
KNOWS WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND
THAT PERSON IS GETTING OFF
ON IT BEYOND HIS/HER WILDEST
COMPREHENSIONS.
Biffyshrew
Charles Ulrich (ulr...@sfu.ca) expostulated:
><4lkhuk$p...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, san...@sparky.parmly.luc.edu
>(Gregory J. Sandell) wrote:
>
>> : > Exactly. Should the day come that we actually "see" the clear
picture,
> > : > it will be a mirror of our own expectations rather than something
FZ
>> : > actually created.
>> : The best argument for Greg's position is Watson's The Negative
Dialectics
> > : of Poodle Play.
> >
>> Bwa ha ha ha! Charles are you razzing me?? If Watson holds this
>
>I am not at all sure that Watson would agree with you. My point was that
>anyone who read Watson's book would have to concede your point. In other
>words, The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play is about Watson as much as
>it is about FZ. (And unlike another author we could mention, I'm not sure
>Watson intended it that way.)
Funnily enough, even if Charles didn't intend it this way, I think this is
not an inaccurate description of Watson's treatment of conceptual
continuity. Watson revels in drawing connections and exploring symbols in
the Zappa oeuvre that Zappa himself never intended. Watson finds
reinforcements for his own Marxist philosophy in Zappa's art and public
pronouncements. Obviously, Zappa was no Marxist and Watson knows this.
The too-literal reader therefore considers Watson's findings far-fetched
and irrelevant, or just plain loony. But this overlooks Watson's
rejection of the primacy of the text--the idea that ferreting out the
conscious intentions of the artist exhausts the art. Watson really does
make a good case for using Zappa's art as a key to explore both Zappa's
subconscious and the collective unconsicous of us all. [This last bit
actually sounds more like Jung than Watson's hero Freud to me, although
I'm biased by being more sympathetic to the former. Topic for discussion:
Biffy the Elephant Shrew is himself a variant of the Jungian archetype of
the Trickster.] In other words, conceptual continuity mirrors the
audience's own psychological makeup. Watson overtly poo-poos the idea
that there is any "right answer" to conceptual continuity, and I agree
with him. Anyone who tries to find a concrete "big picture" (or "big
note"?) as envisioned by Zappa from the beginning is falling for Zappa's
tease. CC doesn't work that way. Never did. But it exists, even if it
is its own red herring. ("Jeder Mann sein eigener Fussball.")
I've recently re-read The Negative Dialectics Of Poodle Play, and on
second reading it has gone way up in my estimation. Lack of grounding in
the philosophical background Watson is working from was a significant
impediment to my fully appreciating the intellectual rigor and
insightfulness of the book. (For the record, I've read some Freud, very
little Marx, none of the postmodern theorists Watson scorns [including
Derrida & Lacan], and never even heard of Theodor Adorno until Poodle Play
and its attendant reviews appeared.) But reading it again, knowing where
it was all going, I got FAR more out of it.
BTW, this re-reading was of the new, revised edition. Oddly, Mike
Keneally supplied Watson with a vast number of corrections, all of which I
totally concur with [even though, like Watson, I believed for 23 years
that Ricky Lancelotti's ad lib in "50-50" was "I just might have something
to say _to my friends_," but by God, Mike is right--it's "ants in my
pants"!], and Watson incorporates many, but he leaves out others. Why
this half-assed job? Also, before tackling the text for a second time, I
read the postlude--basically Watson's response to his critics. What an
arrogant bastard! And I still think the book reveals a nasty streak of
rampant hypocrisy. But he's an arrogant hypocrite who's written a damned
good book.
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
(representing Michael P. Dawson - Compositeur Americain)
Visit us at http://users.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
"She spat playfully, 'I'm ahead of you, Johnny'...I studied the swell of
her enormous boobs and said, 'Baby, you're so far ahead it's
BEAUTIFUL!'"--Vivian Stanshall, "Big Shot"
Konrad
WilsonWood (wilso...@aol.com) wrote:
[snipped great scanned or typed-in FZ press-kit quote]
Thanks for that!
konrad
--