Dave's a jerk
Tom Mangini
I saw the Kinks in koncert back in 1985 during the Word of Mouth Tour in
Oakland,CA. The arena held 8,000, and I think there was about 8,200
people. Not only was it the rowdiest Kinks koncert I have attended but
also the best. The boys were hot.
Anyway, after the show, some friends and I waited near a side door where
we saw three limos pull up. Jim Rodford, Ian Gibbons, and Bob Henrit got
into the first limo and drove off into the night. Ray came out and
conversed with some fans. At the same time, Dave came out with a bottle
of Jack Daniels in one hand and a woman with her arms all over him. I'm
guessing she was his wife or girlfriend. Dave gave Ray a dirty look as
he got into his own limo and said "You're a bloody publicity hound
looking for as much attention as a two year old twit needs from his mum."
Ray kind of shrugged his shoulders and said " Brothers, you can't live
with em, you can't live without em." He then got into his own limo and
drove away after signing about twenty autographs as well as posing for
pictures.
Slumkid
I wouldn't judge their personalities so quickly. I saw Ray in West Palm,
and he snuck out to avoid signing! I don't think he's a jerk because of
it.
Plus it sounds like Dave was kinda busy that night..........
Frank Lynch
Emmett Hoops wrote:
>
> Yup, Dave's a schmuck in my book.
Comes off as a schmmuck in HIS book, too.
Frank
(PS Just saw a great Comedy of Errors last weekend at Brroklyn
College... Seems like they get all the best acts)
Emmett Hoops
I dunno. I saw the Kinks at Brooklyn College in 1977, and afterwards
I hung around to get a glimpse of my favorite band. I saw Mick Avory
first, then Dave.
"Hey, Dave! Thanks for all the music!" said I.
"Fuck off, asshole, " he replied.
Yup, Dave's a schmuck in my book.
JGa...@sprintmail.com
Emmett Hoops wrote:
>
> I dunno. I saw the Kinks at Brooklyn College in 1977, and afterwards
> I hung around to get a glimpse of my favorite band. I saw Mick Avory
> first, then Dave.
> "Hey, Dave! Thanks for all the music!" said I.
> "Fuck off, asshole, " he replied.
>
> Yup, Dave's a schmuck in my book.
>
> On 14 Mar 1997 06:39:54 GMT, slu...@aol.com (Slumkid) wrote:
>
> >
Boys for $7.77 and Soap opera for $7.77. I was also able to get the
last three lsited albums at their store in Michigan City, Ind. for these
same prices
JGa...@sprintmail.com
JGa...@sprintmail.com
JGa...@sprintmail.com
At musicforasong.com, you can get cutouts of Muswell Hillbilies for
$7.77, Soap Opera for $7.77, School Boys for $7.77, and Preservation, a
Play in 2 Acts for $9.77. I was able to buy the last three CD's at their
Michigan City, Ind. store at these same prices.
JGa...@sprintmail.com
JGa...@sprintmail.com
JGa...@sprintmail.com
JGa...@sprintmail.com
Emmett Hoops wrote:
>
> I dunno. I saw the Kinks at Brooklyn College in 1977, and afterwards
> I hung around to get a glimpse of my favorite band. I saw Mick Avory
> first, then Dave.
> "Hey, Dave! Thanks for all the music!" said I.
> "Fuck off, asshole, " he replied.
>
> Yup, Dave's a schmuck in my book.
>
> On 14 Mar 1997 06:39:54 GMT, slu...@aol.com (Slumkid) wrote:
>
> >
> Music For a Song at www.musicforasong.com has cutouts of Muswell Hilbillies for $7.77, Preservation, A Play In 2 Acts for $9.77, School
three lised albums at their store in Michigan City, Ind. for these same
prices
JGa...@sprintmail.com
JGa...@sprintmail.com
Sue G.
In article <332A3F...@interport.net>, Frank Lynch
<fra...@interport.net> writes
>Emmett Hoops wrote:
>>
>> Yup, Dave's a schmuck in my book.
>
>
>Frank
>
>(PS Just saw a great Comedy of Errors last weekend at Brroklyn
>College... Seems like they get all the best acts)
Well, he must have mellowed out as the years went by, I'm a young fan
(17) I think, and I met Dave last year, and he was honestly one of the
nicest people I've ever met...he even seemed quite shy and not arrogant
at all...well that my say in the matter :) Sue.
--
Sue G.
Frank Lynch
Sue G. wrote:
>
> Well, he must have mellowed out as the years went by, I'm a young fan
> (17) I think, and I met Dave last year, and he was honestly one of the
> nicest people I've ever met...he even seemed quite shy and not arrogant
> at all...well that my say in the matter :) Sue.
> --
> Sue G.
This is good news. While reading "Kink," I was very conscious of
thefact that DD was describing the past.
And you know, in spite of whether or not he's a jerk, some of what he
writes about Ray still makes me wonder about RD.
Frank
Mavarla
eho...@capital.net wrote:
>I hung around to get a glimpse of my favorite band. I saw Mick Avory
>first, then Dave.
>"Hey, Dave! Thanks for all the music!" said I.
>"Fuck off, asshole, " he replied.
>Yup, Dave's a schmuck in my book.
Say, Emmett, given the preponderance of instances in KINK wherein D.D.
uses the "F-word," how do you know that he *really* wasn't saying, "Why,
thank you---and you have a good evening, too, my friend!"
However, in all seriousness---you probably just caught him at a bad
moment---but if you *indeed* said, "Hey, Dave..." this, in and of itself,
may have *justifiably* irritated him.
In England, the fans seldom, if ever, approach anyone in the public eye by
addressing him or her by his or her Christian name: It's simply considered
rude.
In America, fans are more "familiar" with their faves and think nothing of
addressing him or her in this fashion, but in England---especially, it
shows a lack of *respect* on the part of the fan/admirer to do so and when
a fan shows disrespect, he/she is often treated, in return, as such.
I hope you haven't spent the last 20 years feeling bad about this
incident, because he (D.D.) probably doesn't even remember it...and since
this IS America, I'm fairly certain that you weren't the *only* young
American fan who got the "FOA!" treatment from him.
---Mavarla
Frank Lynch
Mavarla wrote:
> ...but if you *indeed* said, "Hey, Dave..." this, in and of itself,
> may have *justifiably* irritated him.
>
> In England, the fans seldom, if ever, approach anyone in the public eye by
> addressing him or her by his or her Christian name: It's simply considered
> rude.
>
OK, but would you figure the well-traveled DD to be aware of the
cultural difference? I mean, I bet that by now he knows to pay a NY
cabbie before he gets out of the cab.
Frank
Wall Duck
Frank Lynch <fra...@interport.net> wrote:
> OK, but would you figure the well-traveled DD to be aware of the
> cultural difference?
He can be aware of it without copping to it.
I'm no Brit, but I think it's rude (and silly), wherever you are, to
accost someone you don't know on the street, expect him to respond the way
you want, and call him a jerk if he doesn't. Dave's reaction strikes me as
honest, uninhibited, and, culturally speaking, appropriate NY behavior.
Are there really Kinks fans who don't know that Mr. Dave Davies is NOT the
type who never swears and always shakes you by the hand?
Frank Lynch
Mavarla wrote: [Frank interjexts in brackets]
>
> ...I put myself in Emmett's shoes and yes, I'd have to say that I probably
> would've been in somewhat of a state of shock if I'd just been chatting
> amiably (?) with Mick Avory, expecting D.D. to be just as
> "accessible," then hearing "F--k off, a--hole!" after I'd complimented
> him...but again, we don't know what was going on in D.D.'s head---maybe,
> D.D. thought it would just be a *funny* thing to say---we're all just
> speculating: I do know that everyone *has* good and bad days, though...
Now I see it, DD is also a brilliant wit. With poise, too. I'm sorry,
Ms. M., but I don't buy it. Mr. DD has to exist in the same world as us
all, and he must know that he is on a stage even out on the street. He
does NOT have to be Mr. Opened Arms, but he should not be addressing
perfect strangers with profanity. IMO. And when I am king, I will drop
the "IMO."
> There was something I *did* want to make a bit of an issue about, though:
> I, personally, would like to see a return to former addresses towards
> persons (i.e., "Mr." "Mrs. "Miss" etc.,). The whole question of addressing
> persons in the public eye by his or her first name, and referring to them,
> as such, to one's own friends, as well, has always been something which
> has *mystified* me: I mean, I personally, don't refer to Jerry Seinfeld as
> "Jerry," because I *don't* know him...I realize that everyone pretty much
> does the opposite of me these days and when I first noticed it starting to
> happen in the early-seventies (at least, out here in So. California), it
> struck me as weird and oddly-amusing.
>
> From a sociologist's standpoint, whatever can it all mean---this business
> of "familiarizing" stars in this way?
Unwittingly, you have touched on part of the issue. It is business, to
a degree. The days of the mysterious Garboes (er, Ms. Garboes) are
over, save for a few exceptions (like Madonna). The more approachable
that celebrities seem, the more embraceable, the better for their market
value.
But I sometimes wonder if I would buck the trend. Would you? Suppose
you are being interviewed on the Today Show? Do you refer to the Andy
Garcia (er, Mr. Andy Garcia) lookalike as "Matt" or as "Mr. Lauer"?
Somehow, in a journalistic setting, I have always felt that familiarity
even more insidious than in other mass media settings. I think that
familiarity in that arena softens the fundamental seriousness of
'news.' Even on MacNeil-Lehrer it's this way!!! (Er, Mssrs
MacNeil-Lehrer. Ooops, NewsHour with Mr. Lehrer.)
I am yours sincerely and entirely in deepest respect etc etc
Mr Frank
jonat...@aol.com
Mavarla,
However, in all seriousness---you probably just caught him at a bad
moment---but if you *indeed* said, "Hey, Dave..." this, in and of itself,
may have *justifiably* irritated him.
In England, the fans seldom, if ever, approach anyone in the public eye by
addressing him or her by his or her Christian name: It's simply considered
rude.
In America, fans are more "familiar" with their faves and think nothing of
addressing him or her in this fashion, but in England---especially, it
shows a lack of *respect* on the part of the fan/admirer to do so and when
a fan shows disrespect, he/she is often treated, in return, as such.
Where did you get that about Brits/Christian names from? I've never read such a load of old twaddle........ Dave is an irreverant sort of guy; neither an allround asshole/schmuck nor a saint so why try and categorise him? He obviously could/can go OTT. So what? We idolise his music, love of life etc. but what is there to be gained by endlessly analysing his reactions? We all have to accept others - he's hardly the Devil incarnate wherever he defacated/ who he yells at. You're right when you say we shouldn't spend too much time worrying over such incidents.
Mavarla
fra...@interport.net wrote:
>OK, but would you figure the well-traveled DD to be aware of the
>cultural difference? I mean, I bet that by now he knows to pay a NY
>cabbie before he gets out of the cab.
>Frank
Well, yes, Frank: I see your point, however, my point in making my post
was to enlighten Emmett a bit so he wouldn't take that incident altogether
so personally...it sounds like D.D. was feeling pretty defensive...maybe,
on his way out of the venue, he got accosted by a large groupie in the
corridors---some behemoth along the lines of Joan Blondell/Max Baer, Jr.
and Mercedes McCambridge meeting in a head-on collision, who growled, "Put
out or get it cut off, Big Boy!"
I put myself in Emmett's shoes and yes, I'd have to say that I probably
would've been in somewhat of a state of shock if I'd just been chatting
amiably (?) with Mick Avory, expecting D.D. to be just as
"accessible," then hearing "F--k off, a--hole!" after I'd complimented
him...but again, we don't know what was going on in D.D.'s head---maybe,
D.D. thought it would just be a *funny* thing to say---we're all just
speculating: I do know that everyone *has* good and bad days, though...
There was something I *did* want to make a bit of an issue about, though:
I, personally, would like to see a return to former addresses towards
persons (i.e., "Mr." "Mrs. "Miss" etc.,). The whole question of addressing
persons in the public eye by his or her first name, and referring to them,
as such, to one's own friends, as well, has always been something which
has *mystified* me: I mean, I personally, don't refer to Jerry Seinfeld as
"Jerry," because I *don't* know him...I realize that everyone pretty much
does the opposite of me these days and when I first noticed it starting to
happen in the early-seventies (at least, out here in So. California), it
struck me as weird and oddly-amusing.
From a sociologist's standpoint, whatever can it all mean---this business
of "familiarizing" stars in this way?
Is it a way for the general population to compensate for its "insecurity"
in being on a lower socio-economic plane (by "devolving" a public figure
thusly, does this somehow "evolve" the addressor?), or what?
Is it just stars who are subject to this "familiarization" process or have
"elders" and "higher-ups," in general (like Mom, Dad, Aunts, Uncles,
Bosses, Priests, etc., ), lost the titles of deference, (and quite
possibly, the attendant respect levels), as well?
On an entirely different note, (yet in the same song), how come guys who
used to be referred to as "garbage men" are now being referred to as
"Sanitation Engineers?" (With caps, no less?)
Maslow, Worms: What the heck is going *on* here?
Just some food for thought...
---Mavarla
Tony Muscarella
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:00:10 -0800, Frank Lynch <fra...@interport.net>
wrote:
>This is good news. While reading "Kink," I was very conscious of
>thefact that DD was describing the past.
>
>And you know, in spite of whether or not he's a jerk, some of what he
>writes about Ray still makes me wonder about RD.
>
>Frank
Mind if I jump in here? I just finished reading 'Kink' and I
believe that not only is Dave an *sshole, but also all the surrounding
muscles, arteries, etc.
In reading the book, one thought kept popping up. Dave is a
person who is incapable of showing respect, whether its to wives,
girlfriends, children or even his fans. And when he finally does show
respect for someone (his dying mother), he whines about how his
brother should show more respect (the pot calling the kettle black).
He talks about how his life was fulfilled by finally having a baby
girl, but has abused virtually every woman in his life, and is STILL
an extreme sexist, judging by the way he phrased sentences in his
books dealing with relationships.
I've never read a biography or autobiography before of someone I
truly don't like (and never hope to again). In this case, I read the
book because I wanted to know more about the man who is a truly
underrated guitarist. I obviously overrated him as a person,
though...
odsbodskin
Tony writes:
> I just finished reading 'Kink' and I
>believe that not only is Dave an *sshole, but also all the surrounding
>person who is incapable of showing respect, whether its to wives,
>girlfriends, children or even his fans.
I think you're being a bit hard on the guy.
....and I'm as in favor of courtesy , respect , and general niceness
as anyone !
I don't think Dave holds himself up as a model for anyone to follow.
I don't excuse his behavior toward women , but his blissful ignorance
of how his youthful self indulgence affects others gives him a roguish
charm !
Let's not forget , in the face of the politically correct protection
of women from all things vile , that women are intelligent beings too.
They make their choices and they pay the price of those choices just
like everyone else.
If a famous , selfish , immature , uneducated young guitar god seems
to a woman , like a good prospect to be the father of her
children....well, who are we to say she's wrong?
Dave is not admirable in many ways.
But he's not a demon either.
My impression , after reading Kink , was that Dave is very very much
like the rest of us....a very fallible human.
-ODS
Mark Lynch
I thought "Kink" was one of the most difficult books I've ever read, not
just for its poor colloquial style, but also for its repulsiveness. I am
not perfect myself, but if I do not pass judgements, I do not learn.
Frank Lynch
(at another site; please do not email here)
Mister Black
Varla asks:
>Is it just stars who are subject to this "familiarization" process or have
>"elders" and "higher-ups," in general (like Mom, Dad, Aunts, Uncles,
>Bosses, Priests, etc., ), lost the titles of deference, (and quite
>possibly, the attendant respect levels), as well?
This question is much too complex to be dealt with easily...
We could talk about society, about integrity, and about leadership.
We could ask:
What has happened to regard and respect?
What has happened to the appreciation of the ordinary
courtesies of yesterday?
Perhaps our figures of authority, with their affluent antics, have
corrupted our respect of authority...
Perhaps we have become pessimistic and skeptical after watching our
elders debase life with their crude ostentation...
What we need is true leadership...
A man who'll guide us and lead us...
A man who will not shirk responsibility...
A man who'll be a Shepherd of The Nation...
I have been watching this decline of deference...
From the sidelines, I have been watching the disintegration of respect
I have waited a long long time watching it all go wrong.
The people have been searching desperately for guidance.
The people deserve someone to respect !
The people need someone to turn to...
And that someone's going to be ME !
-Mr. Black
Tony Muscarella
On 24 Mar 1997 16:06:59 GMT, Mark Lynch <markf...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>I thought "Kink" was one of the most difficult books I've ever read, not
>just for its poor colloquial style, but also for its repulsiveness. I am
>not perfect myself, but if I do not pass judgements, I do not learn.
I do not think it is a matter of passing judgements, I think it
is that you hope that the main character of an autobiography is a
likable person or, at the very least, becomes one. Dave's writing
suggests that, outside of remembering not to mix certain drugs, he has
not really learned all that much through the years.
On a somewhat lesser note, I don't believe him. His lucidity in
describing certain events conflicts with the near constant haze he was
in during the 60s and 70s.
Mavarla
o...@ultranet.com wrote:
>The people need someone to turn to...
>And that someone's going to be ME !
>-Mr. Black
Well, it's about time *somebody* had the "gonads" to usurp Raymond Douglas
Davies---oops, I meant to say "Mr. Flash" of his diabolical and obdurate
hold on alt.fan.kinks! BTW, Mr. Black---so, how about that re-zoning
permit, a.s.a.p.? My girls are all au pairs, honest! We'll even cut you a
two-fer...
---Belle
Todd Lowenstein
>I've never read a biography or autobiography before of someone I
>truly don't like (and never hope to again). In this case, I read the
>book because I wanted to know more about the man who is a truly
>underrated guitarist. I obviously overrated him as a person,
>though...
>
Look, I was one of the first people to say I thought Dave came off as an
asshole in his book. But you have to realize that you have just read a
book, not met the person. I am sure there are lots of good sides to him
just as there are in everyone. So, speaking for myself, what's the point
in judging him? Dave Davies plays guitar and vocals in a rock band I
love. That's all I really know for sure.
Todd
Frank Lynch
Todd Lowenstein wrote:
>
> Look, I was one of the first people to say I thought Dave came off as an
> asshole in his book. But you have to realize that you have just read a
> book, not met the person. I am sure there are lots of good sides to him
> just as there are in everyone. So, speaking for myself, what's the point
> in judging him? Dave Davies plays guitar and vocals in a rock band I
> love. That's all I really know for sure.
>
> Todd
I hope you know from other postings that I respect your opinons and your
right to hold them. I disagree with you, however. It is by making
judgements and discriminating between good and bad behavior that we all
progress. It is very suitable to make a judgement about DD on the basis
of "Kink" (IMO), and to ALSO hold an opinion that he pklays guitar and
vocals in a rock band that you love. People are multi-faceted. For
some, one facet eclipses another, for others they can co-exist. (Lord
knows I am very glad no one asks me to put aside all my Charlie Parker.)
But to ignore the evidence, and say you don't know for sure, having read
his own expression, again IMO, is to behave like a nihilist. I would
rather draw a conclusion and get on with it.
Frank
Wes Gottlock
probably would not at all be offended if anyone told him he was an
asshole (in the past at least). I think that's a major difference
between the brothers. Dave "Trust Your Heart"; Ray "No one can
penetrate me". Wes
Frank Lynch
Mavarla wrote:
>
> Actually, as supportive as I *have* been of D.D. and KINK, I must say that
> there *was* one thing which I'd like to take umbrage about in his
> book...and that was his intimation (?) of us lefties (in re---John Gosling
> tipping over the beer with his left hand, in order to see what time it
> was), as being dummies...remember the "stupid is as stupid does," comment
> or something like that?
> ...
I have extracted this paragraph from your post, because it's the only
one I really want to deal with (as for the rest, let me just say "Wow, I
think thou doth protest too much." I am a confirmed southpaw, have been
all my life, and I think you sound a bit defensive.)
Most people I know wear their watches on their left wrist, whether they
are right handed or left handed. You are right, it is currently based
on convention, but I don't think the convention is based on penmanship
or getting the watch out of the way of the preferred hand, so much as
earlier watch design. You see, before battery-operated watches, or
auomatic watches, you had to wind them (and these days, you have to
adjust the time as you cross time zones or enter DST). The crown, used
for winding the watch or adjusting the time, is on the "3" side, not the
"9" side. Consequently, with the watch on the left, you can bend your
wrist and twist the crown more easily when the watch is on the left than
when it is on the right. (Try it it on both wrists.)
Now, it IS possible that watch designers understood that people prefer
to wear the watch on the left when they decided to put the crown by the
"3"... But unlike many things in our lives (even recorders, believe it
or not), to my knowledge there are no "left handed" watches, that is,
with the crown by the "9".
I have not said many kind things about "Kink", but I will say this: I
never really connected the JG portrayal as attached to left-handedness.
Perhaps that is a left-handed compliment. Nyuk nyuk.
Frank
Mavarla
todd...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>So, speaking for myself, what's the point
>in judging him? Dave Davies plays guitar and vocals in a rock band I
>love. That's all I really know for sure.
>Todd
Ain't it the truth?
Actually, as supportive as I *have* been of D.D. and KINK, I must say that
there *was* one thing which I'd like to take umbrage about in his
book...and that was his intimation (?) of us lefties (in re---John Gosling
tipping over the beer with his left hand, in order to see what time it
was), as being dummies...remember the "stupid is as stupid does," comment
or something like that?
Well, you see---I'M a lefty and I gotta say---contrary to what most people
think, we aren't "stupid," but rather, we're just a little bombarded with
too many right-handed conventions in this world...nuns slap our left hands
with rulers and we end up stutterers...and sometimes, even bedwetters! And
all because we aren't like everybody else!
As lefties, we comprise the world's largest and most discriminated against
minority...everything is geared towards right-handed people: Assembly
lines in factories, gear shifts and control pedals on cars, desks in
university lecture halls, etc., to name but a few.
We come into this world quite unaware that we're somewhat at a
disadvantage (when I was fifteen, I instinctually restrung my guitar
strings upside down because I couldn't seem to figure out how to play it
otherwise and it wasn't until several years later that I noticed that
other guitarists, who I then deduced must've been southpaws, had done
this, too). We're often accused of being "clumsy," as well (part of this
stems from the fact that we're always moving naturally to our left...if
you're right-handed and you are walking towards a lefty and about to
collide, the two of you, undoubtedly, will do an irritating little
"dance," you *know* which one I mean: You move to your right, I move to my
left, boom---we're right back where we started from and back and forth a
few times until finally, we embarrassingly giggle at our respective
doofussosities until one of us pauses and lets the other proceed). You
see, had the two persons facing each other been right-handed, each
would've naturally moved to his right and been on his way without a
glitch...conversely speaking, had the two persons been lefties, each
would've moved to his left and also been on his way without a hitch.
Hand preference is a mystery which has yet to be adequately solved: Some
say it's a "birth defect" of some kind---an anomaly, some say it's a
choice made, some say that it's a genetic trait. One female researcher in
San Bernardino during the Eighties dissected 500 human brains for her
thesis on the subject. 250 were of righties; 250 were of lefties. It was
revealed that the cerebrum (the little thingamajigger which sits between
the two halves), was decidedly larger in the lefties. Why? She couldn't
say, except that they were.
My personal theory, however, is this: Lefties are constantly reversing and
flipping configurations for this, that and the other over in his or her
mind---in essence, the lefty is forced to use both sides of his or her
brain continually, hence, the receptor/vehicle/translator or whatever the
heck that cerebrum thing is, gets bigger---like a muscle that's been
exercised more.
If the European style of handwriting (writing from left-to-right), had
been invented initially by a left-handed person, this sentence would read
from right-to-left---the way the Hebrews and the Chinese scripts are
configured (it is safe to assume that the individual who first
incorporated these ancient languages to a tangible, two-dimensional form
was indeed, a lefty).
In regards to John Gosling's "clumsy" move, I'd have to say that his
*first* mistake was not wearing his wrist watch on his right hand (I,
myself, wore my wrist watch on my left wrist for many years, suffering its
interference whenever I wrote, but wearing it on the left because that's
what the convention dictated).
So, with this in mind, I hope I've enlightened a few right-handers (and
one in particular), on the ways and the woes of us "sinister" few...
---Miss "Love A Lefty" Mavarla
* "Sinister" in Latin means "left." "Dexter" means "right."
Jaws793973
All this talk of lefties...sheesh. I haven't heard so much chatter about
lefties since Batista fled Cuba back in '59 (or was it '60?). I happen to
be a rightie, and I must say that there is not much outcry against all of
the discrimination WE have to face in this world. Some examples:
In the minor leagues, a mediocre left-handed pitcher has a MUCH better
chance of making "the show" than a mediocre right-handed pitcher.
Most fruit-stands are constructed in such a way as to favor left-handed
people. Let me tell you something: It's much easier to reach over
someone's head to grab a grapefruit or some celery with one's left hand
than with one's right hand. How do I know this? I read it somewheres.
It is a scientifically proven fact that back-itches occur more frequently
on the lower-right side of the back than the lower left. The result?
Lefties can reach the lower-right side of the back easier than righties.
When you open any book cover (assuming the text isn't in Hebrew), you have
to hold it open with your left hand. This requires far more muscle
strength in the left hand and arm. Lefties have more muscle strength in
their left hands and arms, so you see where this is getting us.
Well, I hope that clears up some issues for us all. And all you righties
out there, hang tight. Our day will come, like a dog that thinks you toe
is food.
Jowlz
Todd Lowenstein
The name of this thread is "DAVE'S A JERK", but our Mavarla has changed
the title to "John Gosling is Cute!" I didn't know you could do that.
See, I changed the title agoain, too! But when you go back to the
thread, the main title remains "DAVE"S A JERK"
Look, maybe this is no big deal to anyone else. But I think it's cool.
Look for some witty reply titles from me in the future (Oh God, no).
Todd
Tony Muscarella
On 31 Mar 1997 07:31:53 GMT, Todd Lowenstein
<todd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>I've never read a biography or autobiography before of someone I
>>truly don't like (and never hope to again). In this case, I read the
>>book because I wanted to know more about the man who is a truly
>>underrated guitarist. I obviously overrated him as a person,
>>though...
>>
>
>Look, I was one of the first people to say I thought Dave came off as an
>asshole in his book. But you have to realize that you have just read a
>book, not met the person. I am sure there are lots of good sides to him
>just as there are in everyone. So, speaking for myself, what's the point
>in judging him? Dave Davies plays guitar and vocals in a rock band I
>love. That's all I really know for sure.
>
>Todd
First off, virtually all of us judge people. It's not
unreasonable, as long as you judge them by their character and not
their physical appearance or ethnicity. For example, I can judge by
your reasoned response that you are both intelligent and respectful.
If you were to call me an asshole off the bat, I'd figure you to be
immature.
I read autobiographies to find out how ordinary people handle the
extraordinary circumstances they find themselves thrust into. Dave,
judging from his book, handled the circumstances by ingesting whole
drug stores, using hundreds if not thousands of women, and acting like
shit to fans who worked a whole day to buy tickets and just want an
autograph. If this was a story of awakening, then I'd be able to
judge it as that. But I gather he's still like that, at least from
his writing. There's no fool like an old fool.
But all this does not diminish the fact that he is a great
guitarist, any more than Woody Allen's personal problems diminish his
talent as a great director. I truly enjoy the Kinks, and have for
more than 20 years. But, pardon me if I reflect the same level of
respect to Dave as Dave shows his fans...
Bruce C. MacQueen
Todd Lowenstein wrote:
>
> Frank Lynch <fra...@interport.net> wrote:
> >Todd Lowenstein wrote:
> >>
> >> Look, I was one of the first people to say I thought Dave came off as an
> >> asshole in his book. But you have to realize that you have just read a
> >> book, not met the person. I am sure there are lots of good sides to him
> >> just as there are in everyone. So, speaking for myself, what's the point
> >> in judging him? Dave Davies plays guitar and vocals in a rock band I
> >> love. That's all I really know for sure.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >
> >right to hold them. I disagree with you, however. It is by making
> >judgements and discriminating between good and bad behavior that we all
> >progress. It is very suitable to make a judgement about DD on the basis
> >of "Kink" (IMO), and to ALSO hold an opinion that he pklays guitar and
> >vocals in a rock band that you love. People are multi-faceted. For
> >some, one facet eclipses another, for others they can co-exist. (Lord
> >knows I am very glad no one asks me to put aside all my Charlie Parker.)
> >
> >But to ignore the evidence, and say you don't know for sure, having read
> >his own expression, again IMO, is to behave like a nihilist. I would
> >rather draw a conclusion and get on with it.
> >
> >Frank
>
> with yours.
>
> But my point is kinda like this: if I were to meet Dave (other than at a
> concert), I really have no idea what he would be like. That's why I say
> about Kink "it's a book with a character" and that character is just a
> piece of the whole Dave. Personally, I just stop there. More apathy than
> nihilism, I think.
>
> Todd
I have only scanned the book, but get the drift that Dave was a rather
hedonistic, self-centered individual - regardless of the effect it had
on others around him. (He was an ass-hole.) Who cares? In the grand
scheme of things he's got his life to live as he sees fit and our
passing judgement on him doersn't change the past nor will it effec the
future for Dave (or anyone else for that matter... Thank God!) However,
on the few occassions I have met Dave, he was always the first one down
from his hotel room and was always very cordial and indulgent of the
fans such as meself who were looking for photo ops. or autographs.
He's a great musician whose contribution to the Kinks is indisputable.
How he lived and lives is his business. I'll just be glad when the Kinks
get back to doing it again as a band !
However, seeing as how Ray's one man shows have been so successful (and
lucrative, I assume) maybe a duo with Dave the next time around would be
the next logical step, starting where the chronology ends currently with
the 20th Century Man Tour!! Now there's a Rock & Roll Fantasy !
odsbodskin
>The name of this thread is "DAVE'S A JERK", but our Mavarla has changed
>the title to "John Gosling is Cute!" I didn't know you could do that.
>See, I changed the title agoain, too! But when you go back to the
>thread, the main title remains "DAVE"S A JERK"
See now... I thought people did that (change the title of threads)
only to aggravate those of us who like to follow a thread as it
progresses.
By adding an apostrophe, or changing a word, they get the immense
satisfaction of totally screwing up the flow of comments. It gives
them a sense of power when they can thwart the thoughtful design of
software manufacturers.
-ODS
Todd Lowenstein
odsbodskin
Varla writes:
>-I'M a lefty and I gotta say---contrary to what most people
>think, we aren't "stupid," but rather, we're just a little bombarded with
>too many right-handed conventions in this world...nuns slap our left hands
>with rulers and we end up stutterers...and sometimes, even bedwetters! And
>all because we aren't like everybody else!
HEY VARLA !
I'm a lefty.
I've had my hand slapped!
I'm a stutterer, and a bedwetter, too !
Ticks and twitches too numerous to mention !
Total inability to function in a right-handed world !
Years of therapy !
Years of Shame !
Been called Sinister.
Been called Gauche.
Been heaped with abuse from wristwatch manufacturers.
It never ends !
I'm sick of being the most despised minority on earth !
>. It was
>revealed that the cerebrum (the little thingamajigger which sits between
>the two halves), was decidedly larger in the lefties.
Yeah, that's it !
I'm gonna look into cerebrum-reduction surgery !
I'm tired of being different.
I wanna be NORMAL for a change.
I wanna be JUST LIKE everybody else.
-ODS
Oh...wait a minute....
If they make me Just Like Everybody Else
does that mean I wont like the Kinks ???
Duxinflite
mavarla wrote:
>My personal theory, however, is this: Lefties are constantly reversing
her
>mind---in essence, the lefty is forced to use both sides of his or her
>brain continually, hence, the receptor/vehicle/translator or whatever the
>heck that cerebrum thing is, gets bigger---like a muscle that's been
>exercised more.
Do you ever mix up concepts as my wife does, such as "Turn the heater on,
I'm hot."?
Just curious.
Dan G.
John Mulvey
> By adding an apostrophe, or changing a word, they get the immense
> satisfaction of totally screwing up the flow of comments. It gives
> them a sense of power when they can thwart the thoughtful design of
> software manufacturers.
I kinda think 'thread drift' is one of the *better* aspects of the
thing, though this group does indeed seem to have an almost psychotic
compulsion about it (in a *good* sense, of course).
John.
Mavarla
In re my defense of that Kute "Klutz Par Excellance," John Gosling, and
the trials and tribulations of our shared Southpawhood, Nor'easter
Northpaw Jaws793973 wrote:
>Well, I hope that clears up some issues for us all. And all you righties
>out there, hang tight. Our day will come, like a dog that thinks your toe
>is food.
>Jowlz
Darling, bite not the toe that feeds thee...however, thank you for a most
amusing post.
In two different posts on the subject, Southpaw Fra...@interport.net
wrote:
>Now, it IS possible that watch designers understood that people prefer
>to wear the watch on the left when they decided to put the crown by the
>"3"... But unlike many things in our lives (even recorders, believe it
>or not), to my knowledge there are no "left handed" watches, that is,
>with the crown by the "9".
>All kidding aside on this, it is supposedly true that the average
>life-span of lefties is shorter than the that of righties (although I do
>not know if the difference is years, months, or minutes...), due to the
>bias in the world as we know it (more right-handed refrigerators, for
>instance, means more accidents). And it IS true that turntable arms are
>built for right-handed people, meaning if you must buy a second-hand
>(nyuk nyuk) Kinks record, try and ascertain the handedness of the
>previous owner, as a left-handed owner's copy may have more
>skips/cuts...
>Frank
In re the knob on the watch itself...well, there you have it: A watch
designed for the convenience of the Northpaws...!
Back when John Gosling and I were growing up, there were no specialty
stores catering to the needs of the lefty...nowadays, one can get can
openers, scissors, watches, recorders and a million and one other things
you *never* knew you needed because you'd already unconsciously adapted
yourself to the other things...also, if you've never had a girlfriend who
was a southpaw, too, you'll be in for a treat someday, dude: It makes a
*major* difference in...uh...well, just try it sometime and you'll see
what I mean!
*Supposed* Southpaw O...@ultranet.com wrote:
>I'm a lefty...
>Been called Gauche...
>Oh...wait a minute....
>If they make me Just Like Everybody Else
>does that mean I won't like the Kinks ???
As ever, a brilliant post from Odsie...does anyone know if Ods is indeed a
lefty? He *says* he is...but why do I get the feeling that his *real*
agenda was just so's he could build up to that coup-de-grace "kinky"
postscript?
Ambidexterous Todd...@worldnet.att.net>
>The name of this thread is "DAVE'S A JERK", but our Mavarla has changed
>the title to "John Gosling is Cute!" I didn't know you could do that.
>See, I changed the title again, too! But when you go back to the
>thread, the main title remains "DAVE'S A JERK"
>Look, maybe this is no big deal to anyone else. But I think it's cool.
>Look for some witty reply titles from me in the future (Oh God, no).
>Todd
o...@ultranet.com (odsbodskin) wrote:
>See now... I thought people did that (change the title of threads)
>only to aggravate those of us who like to follow a thread as it
>progresses.By adding an apostrophe, or changing a word, they get the
immense
>satisfaction of totally screwing up the flow of comments. It gives
>them a sense of power when they can thwart the thoughtful design of
>software manufacturers.
>ODS
Gee, Odsie: I thought you knew me better by now...thwarting the fruits of
young and earnest technonerds' labors isn't exactly how this little cookie
gets her kicks (abruptly yelling "FIRE!" in the audience whilst watching
Jack Nicklaus getting ready to kiss his baby the long good-bye is a
possibility or breaking into an impromptu Charleston at a D.A.R.
meeting...yes...)...but actually, I'm sorry for changing the gist of the
post...it's just that after I'd read what I'd written, I realized that it
had less to do with Dave being a jerk, per se, than it did the reasons why
John Gosling was perceived by D.D. as being a klutz. I genuinely didn't
mean to be a smart-arse...honest!
Perhaps, to some, where I've taken this thread might seem silly and inane,
but I truly felt that it was worth shedding some light on...lefties are
constantly construed of as being "clumsy" and "klutzy" and it's
understandable: We *do* bump into other people quite a bit...when we go to
shake hands at business meetings, we instinctually put out our left hand
to shake with the other person...I had to mentally train myself to think,
"Stick out your right hand when you get introduced to so-and-so," lest I
force that other person to switch his briefcase into his other hand in
order to accommodate my outstretched left hand...we tend to die in head-on
collisions more so than righties because we naturally veer towards the
left, into center dividers, etc., in a panic situation and into the
oncoming traffic.
This all might sound inane, but it's really very logical and absolutely
germane to the topic, which was, that Dave Davies thought John Gosling was
a big klutz and I felt compelled to offer some good reasons as to *why* he
(Gosling) appeared to be so...he was after all, a real "kink," mucking up
the flow of the mainstream, don't you know?
---Miss "LEFTIES WILL RULE THE WORLD!"* Mavarla
* I actually have a backwards numbered twelve-inch ruler which proclaims
this mini-maxim on it.
Benzoil
Tony Muscarella wrote:
>> Dave,
judging from his book, handled the circumstances by ingesting whole
drug stores, using hundreds if not thousands of women, and acting like
shit to fans who worked a whole day to buy tickets and just want an
autograph.
<<
Doesn't sound any different than any other rock star in the 60's you could
name. Why single out Dave?
alt.fan.kinks
Benzoil
>> It is by making
judgements and discriminating between good and bad behavior that we all
progress.
<<
No, it is by trial and _error_ that we progress.
Taking "The Hard Way"..
alt.fan.kinks
Todd Lowenstein
>
>---Miss "LEFTIES WILL RULE THE WORLD!"* Mavarla
Rule? I thought you would only get what's left.
Todd
Tree Danls
Tony Muscarella wrote:
>>
Dave,
judging from his book, handled the circumstances by ingesting whole
drug stores, using hundreds if not thousands of women, and acting like
shit to fans who worked a whole day to buy tickets and just want an
autograph.
<<
Doesn't sound any different than any other rock star from the 60's you
Tree Danls
>>
I thought "Kink" was one of the most difficult books I've ever read, not
just for its poor colloquial style, but also for its repulsiveness. I am
not perfect myself, but if I do not pass judgements, I do not learn.
Frank Lynch
(at another site; please do not email here)
<<
So what is it you learned by passing judgement? (5 to 1 he won't
answer.)
What is repulsiveness but your own interpretation of what is repulsive?
Tree Danls
> It is very suitable to make a judgement about DD on the basis
> of "Kink" (IMO), and to ALSO hold an opinion that he pklays guitar
> and vocals in a rock band that you love. People are multi-faceted.
>
Matthew 7:18
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither _can_ a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit."
(Hmm.. so personal...)
Tree Danls
Frank Lynch writes:
> What did I learn by passing judgement? Well, Tree, my intent was
> not to learn in this case.
Yes.. obvious.
> It's because I've learned in the past that I am
> able to categorize DD's described behavior as repulsive.
A humanitarian award is merited, perhaps.
Categorizing for yourself or others? (popcorn, please..)
The words 'repulsive to me' were not part of any of previous diatribes.
> As for using my own criteria of what constitutes repulsive, that's
> OK wiith me.
Not ok with me.
DRUIDES
Dave a Jerk?
an autobiography is one thing ,he wrote the book from his
experiances and his openess is refreshing. And saying he is a jerk is
nonsense .I have met Dave a few times downed a few pints and shots of
cognac, and found the guy an excellent dude to hang out all night with. I
did not ever see a jerk those times just a funny wild man , and very real
no facade . What you see is what you get a great guy
eamon
odsbodskin
John says:
>I kinda think 'thread drift' is one of the *better* aspects of the
>thing, though this group does indeed seem to have an almost psychotic
>compulsion about it
OK , you want thread drift...
Here's thread drift...
(I even changed the subject line of your post)
A MORAL DILEMMA:
Suppose your favorite musicians are less than exemplary
human beings...
Suppose your President is a womanizer who sprains his knee jumping out
of a woman's bedroom window at 2AM...
Suppose the Bible is not the transcribed Word of God , but , rather,
was written by a few Greeks with a lot of imagination...
Suppose you discover that your favorite new age philosopher
( be it Black Elk , Deepak Chopra , Lynn Andrews, or Alan Watts)
turns out to be something other than his words would imply...
Does any of this detract from the actual accomplishments of these
people?
Is the value of the message diminished because of a character flaw in
the messenger?
Can the accomplishments of a person of questionable morality work
toward the betterment of mankind?
_____________________________
These questions are not very far off-topic....
..... Ray deals with similar dilemmas in Preservation.
-ODS
Tony Muscarella
On 3 Apr 1997 06:30:22 GMT, ben...@aol.com (Benzoil) wrote:
>Tony Muscarella wrote:
>>> Dave,
>judging from his book, handled the circumstances by ingesting whole
>drug stores, using hundreds if not thousands of women, and acting like
>shit to fans who worked a whole day to buy tickets and just want an
>autograph.
><<
>
>Doesn't sound any different than any other rock star in the 60's you could
>name. Why single out Dave?
Because he seems not to have learned from his experiences.
Tree Daniels
odsbodskin wrote:
> Suppose your President is a womanizer who sprains his knee jumping out
of a woman's bedroom window at 2AM...
You actually believe this ?
odsbodskin
>>Doesn't sound any different than any other rock star in the 60's you could
>>name. Why single out Dave?
I , for one , expect a lot from the people I admire.
I do expect them to be "good".
I think we were all quite familiar with the legal and romantic
misadventures of The Stones and The Beatles throughout their careers ;
but the Kinks were always a mystery. The two autobiographies are the
first glimpse I've had into the minds of two men I've admired for 30
years.
So , yes, I suppose I did hope that they were different.
I did want them to be the exception to the rule.
Maybe I should have paid attention when Ray was singing,
"I'm only me....Not someone better...Not someone good."
I disagree with the extreme response that so many people seem to have
had to Dave's honesty. How many of us would appear admirable if we
were brave enough to expose ourselves as nakedly as Dave has?
Dave has left himself wide open to criticism on many levels, so it
should be no surprise that discussion of his book has taken on the
nature of a personal attack. And , although I would have liked him to
be "good", I still respect his courage in telling us exactly what he
is.
I came away from KINK respecting Dave a little bit less than
I thought I would....
But liking him a little bit more.
-ODS
Mavarla
o...@ultranet.com wrote:
>Is the value of the message diminished because of a character flaw in the
>messenger?
>Can the accomplishments of a person of questionable morality work toward
>the betterment of mankind?
In answer to the first question: An absolute, unequivocal "No."
In answer to the second question: An absolute, unequivocal "Yes."
Scratch the surface of any great figure in history in *any* discipline and
nine-times-out-of-ten, you'll find what our modern day psychologists would
qualify as a "flawed character," but so what?
History has a way of softening the blow of a "flawed character," so to
speak, and in the end, posterity remembers *only* his message and if it's
a positive one, who are we to judge whether or not that person's
motivations were borne of a "hypocritical" nature or not? Chances are---he
or she didn't start out that way.
It's the innate *desire* to work towards the betterment of mankind which
counts...many great men start out passionately idealistic about their
beliefs---they achieve critical and/or wordly acclaim and many fall sway
to the temptations of "power for power's sake" alone and more often than
not, it seems, they lose touch with their own expectations of "integrity"
and indeed, some may even find the term, itself, *impossible* to define
any longer---but as that great old cliche goes, "You can't keep a good man
down," and a good man will *always* get back on track.
In re "Preservation Act 2" :
I think what impressed me the most back in the '70s about the juxtaposed
lead characters in "Preservation Act 2" was the fact that "Mr. Flash" was
actually the more honorable person of the two than was the saintly "Mr.
Black." Honorable because he, "Flash," didn't pretend to be something that
he wasn't, honorable because he told it like it was..."Money Talks" and
isn't this pretty much the way of the world? How many people can you count
who *can't* be "bought" with either money or "star power" in this
celebrity-obsessed world of today? "Flash" basically said, "Here I am,
warts and all---enter at your own risk---I'm a con and if you get 'burned'
don't say I didn't warn you," but still, I always had the feeling that
"Mr. Black" was the infinitely more and the "dirtier-minded" one...like a
Mormon missionary or a Catholic altar boy who never allows "foul" language
to fall from his august lips, but whose mind was a thousand times more
filthy than an "F-word" laden paragraph out of "Flash's" so-called "gutter
mouth."
Last night, I was talking to one of my friends about the "beauty standard"
in Southern California and how oppressive it's getting: in addition to
money talking, I swear to God, folks---the "Artificial Man" is alive and
walking the streets of Hollywood as I speak...in frightfully large
numbers; silicone calf-implants, pec implants, peeled faces and hair dye
and absurdly white, and plastic-looking teeth. It really *is* a
frightening thing to go into L.A. because there's so many artificial
people there...breast implants, old ladies whose facial skin has been
innumerably stretched beyond the point of tolerance, so much so, that
their dermis resembles that of white and shiny tambourines, nose jobs,
bleached hair, colored contact lenses, you name it---it's all treated as a
"fun" and an "innocuous" thing, but when you really stop and think about
it as you're watching the "schmoozing" interactions going on, you get a
sickening feeling in the pit of your stomach, as if you're in a morgue
surrounded by bodies which have just been re-animated by some invisible
mad scientist who has just pulled out a fiver ($5,000, that is).
As a teenager, I loved the values which The Kinks extolled in songs like
"God's Children" and as tough as it has been for me (a female---and a
regrettably *vain* one, as well), to grow old gracefully, I swear, I'm
going to leave this world "the way the Good Lord made me." I don't want to
"buy" ten or twenty years of my youth back because if I did, I think that
I'd always be wondering what I was *supposed* to have looked like when I
hit 50...I've had my day as "the belle of the ball" and it actually gets
easier to pass that torch on over to someone who really *is* young...after
all, there's nothing more pathetic than an artificially youthful-looking,
old heartbreaker still needing to add more "notches" on her "lipstick
case."
That's all folks.
---Mavarla
Mavarla
odsbodskin wrote:
> Suppose your President is a womanizer who sprains his knee jumping out
>of a woman's bedroom window at 2AM...
the...@sprynet.com wrote:
>>You actually believe this ?
Mav writes:
I'm confused...are we talking about President Clinton, D.D. or R.D.? (You
know, that anecdote in X-RAY?).
Frank Lynch
odsbodskin wrote:
> ...
> I , for one , expect a lot from the people I admire.
> I do expect them to be "good".
> first glimpse I've had into the minds of two men I've admired for 30
> years.
>
> So , yes, I suppose I did hope that they were different.
> I did want them to be the exception to the rule.
> Maybe I should have paid attention when Ray was singing,
> "I'm only me....Not someone better...Not someone good."
>
> I disagree with the extreme response that so many people seem to have
> had to Dave's honesty. How many of us would appear admirable if we
> were brave enough to expose ourselves as nakedly as Dave has?
>
> Dave has left himself wide open to criticism on many levels, so it
> should be no surprise that discussion of his book has taken on the
> nature of a personal attack. And , although I would have liked him to
> be "good", I still respect his courage in telling us exactly what he
> is.
>
> I came away from KINK respecting Dave a little bit less than
> I thought I would....
> But liking him a little bit more.
>
> -ODS
ODS, your feelings are very complex, but I'm left wondering something
about your disappointment. How were your expectations that the Kinks
were somehow "better" morally/behaviorally than the Beatles & Stones
established? Like you, I have admired the Kinks for 30 years, only more
specifically: I admired their musical abilities, and never extrapolated
to tehir personalities. Yes, it's disappointing to read about DD's life
of dissipation without any apparent regret; it p's me off about how his
brother has pinched some of his work and left him uncredited; and the
hee-yewj ego I encountered in X-Ray was also saddening. Perhaps I am
only making a distinction of degree here: rick gods I might have called
them, but always human.
As for DD's honesty, and thread reactions, I don't think people have
ridden him for his honesty. I've had the feeling that people wish the
ramblings in Kink were more from someone approaching fifty than someone
approaching fifteen. Honesty is welcome, stagnation is not.
Frank
Bruce C. MacQueen
Tree Daniels wrote:
>
> odsbodskin wrote:
>
> > Suppose your President is a womanizer who sprains his knee jumping out
> of a woman's bedroom window at 2AM...
>
If the knee brace fits, wear it !!
odsbodskin
> How many people can you count
>who *can't* be "bought" with either money or "star power" in this
>celebrity-obsessed world of today? "Flash" basically said, "Here I am,
>warts and all---enter at your own risk---I'm a con and if you get 'burned'
>don't say I didn't warn you,"
How about Dave (warts and all) Davies ?
How about Dave telling the musicians union to
"take those papers and shove them up your arse"?
-ODS
Tree Danls
>> I've had the feeling that people wish the
ramblings in Kink were more from someone approaching fifty than someone
approaching fifteen. Honesty is welcome, stagnation is not.
<<
"On my Supersonic Rocketship,
Nobody needs to be hip
Nobody needs to be outtasite..."
Mavarla
odsbodskin wrote:
> I disagree with the extreme response that so many people seem to have
> had to Dave's honesty. How many of us would appear admirable if we
> were brave enough to expose ourselves as nakedly as Dave has?
> Dave has left himself wide open to criticism on many levels, so it
> should be no surprise that discussion of his book has taken on the
> nature of a personal attack. And, although I would have liked him to
> be "good", I still respect his courage in telling us exactly what he
> is.
> -ODS
fra...@interport.net replied:
>>How were your expectations that the Kinks
>>were somehow "better" morally/behaviorally than the Beatles & Stones
>>established? Like you, I have admired the Kinks for 30 years, only more
>>specifically: I admired their musical abilities, and never extrapolated
>>to their personalities.
>>Yes, it's disappointing to read about DD's life of dissipation without
any apparent regret... and the hee-yewj ego I encountered in X-Ray was
also saddening.
>>As for DD's honesty, and thread reactions, I don't think people have
>>ridden him for his honesty. I've had the feeling that people wish the
>>ramblings in Kink were more from someone approaching fifty than someone
>>approaching fifteen. Honesty is welcome, stagnation is not.
>>Frank
Frank, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion---after all, this is
a forum for *discussion*, right? I, personally, apologize to anyone who I
may have indirectly and/or directly chastised for their having passed
judgement in a negative manner towards either of the brothers, because a
personal opinion *is* valuable---it's a barometer of your values and your
values *are* valuable...when all is said and done, values, ideals and
conscience are the *only* things truly worth having in life---they can't
be "bought," they can't be "borrowed" and they most certainly, cannot be
faked...and they are the only things which are genuinely immortal.
On another note, I think that the opinions of fans and admirers *do*
matter for other reasons...after all, what if *you* or I announced a show
date and no one bought tickets for it?
It's a *privilege* to be a celebrity and to foist his or her presence *on*
the public---not a "divine right" of persons who have some skewed sense
that they were born more intrinsically "superior" than their audience and
had therefore "merely" claimed their "destinate birthright" in being
there.
However, I've digressed, the point I really wanted to make was that I
disagree with you about Ray Davies having a "hee-yewj ego." Contrary to
what his brother, Dave, might think, I see R.D. as being almost completely
bereft---to a fault---of having an ego and were this the other way around,
I highly doubt that R.D. would've gone to so much trouble in the last
thirty years to have kept his profile at
such a modest level (this, I'll address later on in another post).
I think, perhaps, you're confusing the "stinky" old R.D. in the black mack
with the actual novelist, R.D. Davies, himself. Yes...it's confusing and
the confusion is, in and of itself, highly-amusing, but on an
idealistic/aesthetic level, who won out at the end of the novel (and do
keep in mind---X-RAY definitely IS a novel)?
The foul, bitter old coot kicks the bucket---he croaks---and the
"Corporation Lad," R.D.'s own wistful memory and vision of himself at a
younger age wins out to live a life free of that oppressive "black cloud"
which has been shadowing *both* of those characters throughout the
story---how can *anyone* miss the simplistic beauty and the hope in that
novel, not just for the author of the book, itself, but for the rest of
us?
I loved X-RAY: To me, it was one of the most *uplifting* books I'd *ever*
read---it was funny, sad, touching, absurd, eccentric, thought-provoking
and above all, *inspiring*: Everything I had expected a novel written by
one prolific songwriter and one of the greatest misunderstood geniuses to
have ever lived to have written.
I loved Dave Davies's book, as well, but I was distinctly aware that his
book, unlike his older brother's, was in fact an extremely *candid*
autobiography which was shot, pretty much, straight from the hip (n.p.i.),
and as far as memoirs go, it was one of the *best* ones I'd ever read.
Like Ods said, D.D. has left himself *wide open* to criticism "on many
levels" and that displays a great deal of bravery of the author's part...
As far as candid *content* goes, wouldn't it have been a terrible drag to
have picked up a book by one of the original British Invaders of the '60s
only to have been met with majorly limp anecdotes? We *wanted* the
"randy," wild stuff---he lived the consummate wild life that 99.9% of the
horny teenage boys the world over can only *dream* about and was damned
proud of it, but I don't see him as having remained stagnant...I mean,
does anyone know if Dave Davies has left any Lincoln Logs in any wash
basins at the Westin Bonaventure lately? I highly doubt it. It seems as if
he has a very healthy respect for his *own* age---he hangs out with his
sons---he calls them his "mates" and I think that's absolutely *beautiful*
...now, if "the old man" was consistently trying to steal his sons' "red
snapper" girlfriends with lines like, "Hey---my son is only a pale
imitation, but a mere chip off of the real block---me---I've had more
experience in trying to please a woman and a beautiful young woman such as
yourself *deserves* my expert Kundalini ways..." then yes, I'd have to say
that he was an old fool---but it's obvious to me that he isn't trying to
literally re-live his youth: He's fondly observing his offspring enjoying
*theirs*.
Again, my comments are not meant to be offensive to you or to anyone else
on the newsgroup, Frank, and I think that you're all a *great* group of
people...if you've ever lurked on some of the other Rock newsgroups, I
think you'd be greatly relieved and proud to be keeping the company that
you do here...of the other ones that I've seen, all I can think is,
"Wow---I'm glad I'm not in the band that these fans are writing
about---they're so embarrassing!"
I am reminded of this Animaniacs' "Pinky and The Brain" episode wherein
the two meeses go back to the Prehistoric Age via a time-travelling
vehicle in order to ensure that the mice---and not the humans---evolve
into the predominant species on the planet..."Brain" concocts a spectacle
wherein he, himself, emerges as the Hero (but at the last minute, "Pinky"
inadvertently fulfills this role), however, both mice are unaware of the
ramifications thereof until they travel into the future and see that the
earth, indeed, is being run by mice---and to "Brain's" horror---the mice
all act and talk like "Pinky." He decides to go back in time and undo this
damage. "Pinky" then says something like, "But, Brain...the mice HAVE
taken over the world!" But "Brain" just snorts something about,
"Yeah...but who'd *want* them to?" or something to that effect----it was
funny, though.
I particularly *enjoy* the threads here which are the most controversial:
I think that eventually, they bring out the best in all of us and since we
*are* Kinks fans, we *aren't* like *other* fans---thank God! And it really
does make for some interesting and inventive exchanges.
---Mav
odsbodskin
>I am reminded of this Animaniacs' "Pinky and The Brain" episode wherein
>the two meeses go back to the Prehistoric Age via a time-travelling
>vehicle in order to ensure that the mice---and not the humans---evolve
>into the predominant species on the planet.
WOW, Varla....
You've really out-done yourself this time ! *< :o )
Maybe it *is* time to go on another painting jag...
You obviously need something to burn off all that excess energy !
>I particularly *enjoy* the threads here which are the most controversial:
>I think that eventually, they bring out the best in all of us and since we
>*are* Kinks fans, we *aren't* like *other* fans---thank God! And it really
>does make for some interesting and inventive exchanges.
I have to disagree ....
I'm particularly fond of the one-line responses
and the ones that promise INSTANT MONEY.
> I, personally, apologize to anyone who I
>may have indirectly and/or directly chastised for their having passed
>judgement in a negative manner towards either of the brothers
But, seriously...
I don't think there has been any chastising being done by any of us
toward each other...Apparently some of us think that Dave needs a good
spanking and should be sent to his room until he decides to act his
age....But, nonetheless, we have all politely stated our opinions, and
listened to each other, while following this thread into curious and
curiouser regions...(Pinky and The Brain !!!?)
I think it's been fun....
And if anyone would rather pick up on the Jacques Brel thread,
well, I'm sure we could take that one in unexpected directions too!
-ODS
odsbodskin
Frank wonders:
>ODS, your feelings are very complex, but I'm left wondering something
>about your disappointment.
I'm only SLIGHTLY disappointed, Frank.
I've been saying all along that Dave is VERY human.
I LIKE the guy !
The people with the dashed expectations ,
the people with the crushing disappointment ,
are the people who are saying Dave is a jerk,
an asshole, a disgusting facsimile of a human being !
You're going to have to ask THEM why they're so outraged
by typical rock-star behavior....
-ODS
Dnslt
The everwise o...@ultranet.com (odsbodskin) wrote:
> ask THEM why they're so outraged by typical rock-star behavior
While you're at it, ask them why they think they're any different, in
their own way and life and time. It's always the biggest jerk who pretends
he's better than the rest ("and his own sweat smells the best").
I've found KINK refreshingly unpretentious, in a world full of jive.
Todd Lowenstein
o...@ultranet.com (odsbodskin) wrote:
>Frank wonders:
>>ODS, your feelings are very complex, but I'm left wondering something
>>about your disappointment.
>
>I'm only SLIGHTLY disappointed, Frank.
>
>I've been saying all along that Dave is VERY human.
>I LIKE the guy !
>
>The people with the dashed expectations ,
>the people with the crushing disappointment ,
>are the people who are saying Dave is a jerk,
>an asshole, a disgusting facsimile of a human being !
>
>by typical rock-star behavior....
>
>-ODS
Unfortunately, newsgroup postings don't allow tone inflection. When I
call Dave an "asshole", I'm not pissed at him. Or disappointed
personally. Look, what do you call someone who craps in a sink? Or
trashes a bar and then lies to the police about like it's none of their
business? Looking for more polite terms to describe this behavior,
"asshole" still seemed most appropriate. Fortunately, I don't think Dave
would argue about being called one, given his level of candor in the book.
If Dave wouldn't be insulted, why should anyone else? There are a few
postings to this thread saying people who think Dave is an asshole are
being ones themselves. A valid comment only if you elaborate on why you
think so. But most are "it takes one to know one" and stops there. Do
you know how stupid you look when that is the best you can do? Now, don't
take offense. It's a challenge to try again and explain better. Don't be
defensive.
Todd
odsbodskin
Todd writes:
>Unfortunately, newsgroup postings don't allow tone inflection. When I
>call Dave an "asshole", I'm not pissed at him. Or disappointed
>personally.
That's probably the problem here, Todd....
It's like my mama taught me.
She'd say: "Don't ever call anyone an asshole....
If what that person has done doesn't merit calling them
a FUCKING asshole , don't even bother with it."
-ODS
....and while we're on the subject.
How come written language has been around for thousands of years...
Millions of novels have been written...
And NOW , all of a sudden, we need emoticons?? :- )
Sue G.
In article <3345c63a...@news.ultranet.com>, odsbodskin
<o...@ultranet.com> writes
>
>
>I came away from KINK respecting Dave a little bit less than
>I thought I would....
>But liking him a little bit more.
>
>-ODS
--
Sweet Lady Genevieve
(or Sue to most people...)
Armand
In article <3347407...@news.ultranet.com>, o...@ultranet.com says...
>
>Frank wonders:
>>ODS, your feelings are very complex, but I'm left wondering something
>>about your disappointment.
>
>I'm only SLIGHTLY disappointed, Frank.
>
>I've been saying all along that Dave is VERY human.
>I LIKE the guy !
>
>The people with the dashed expectations ,
>the people with the crushing disappointment ,
>are the people who are saying Dave is a jerk,
>an asshole, a disgusting facsimile of a human being !
>
>You're going to have to ask THEM why they're so outraged
>by typical rock-star behavior....
>
>-ODS
I've just discovered this NG and I'm ecstatic. I'm 42, and been a Kinks
fan since the release of Arthur. It floored me! Been pretty rabid about
them till a little after Muswell, then thought that Ray and the crew
began to fizzle.
Don't know the specifics of the current argument and
have not read any books on the happenstances, but It seems that I remember
these two at each other's throats since the beginning. I guess it's sibling
rivalry taken to an extreme. I would hazzard to guess that it's tough to be
caught in the shadow of the genius that is RD.
Armand
Gonzosd
In article <3330CA...@interport.net>, Frank Lynch
<fra...@interport.net> writes:
>...but if you *indeed* said, "Hey, Dave..." this, in and of itself,
>> may have *justifiably* irritated him.
>>
>> In England, the fans seldom, if ever, approach anyone in the public eye by
>> addressing him or her by his or her Christian name: It's simply considered
>> rude.
at the Tonight show taping a few years back
a group of 5 or 6 of us Kink's fans approached Dave's station wagon and he
shook hands and signed
1 or 2 autographs. I just smiled shook his hand and said "Dave" and he
smiled back. oops....
He was pleasant to everybody.
C.T.
Beatles68
I suggest that everyone read Dave Davies autobiography, "Kink." I'm
reading it now and it's pretty good. Dave was a real character, and if you
want to know what the Kinks' lifestyle was during the sixties, this book's
gonna give it to ya.
Emshandar
>From: beat...@aol.com (Beatles68):
Does he give _The Truth_ (or _A Truth_, or even _his_ truth) about the AFM
ban on the Kinks?
...ya got drunk las' night -- swear ya saw the devil --
doncha know firewater seeks its own level...
mike weber <emsh...@aol.com>
Beatles68
>Does he give _The Truth_ (or _A Truth_, or even _his_ truth) about the AFM
>ban on the Kinks?
Yeah he gives the whole story on that, and he tells why the Kinks would
have been more successful and popular if it hadn't happened
Emshandar
>From: beat...@aol.com (Beatles68)
i'd say that that's a given...
...o, it's fine i like yer featherbed, an' it's better i like yer sheet,
and it's best of all i like yer lady wife, who lies in
me arms asleep...
mike weber <emsh...@aol.com>