Peter-John Vettese slams Ian?
Stephen Stair
for
the name "Peter-John Vettese" and found an interview from Aug 1991
containing the following excerpt.
.... He [PJV] was
best-known, though, for a stint with Jethro Tull, which began when
he answered a
trade journal "keyboardist wanted" ad and ended one memorable night
when band
leader Ian Anderson, bedeviled by throat problems and tour
pressures, "exploded"
during an L.A. concert.
"He stopped the band, jumped into the audience, and gave them a
whole load of spec
[i.e., create a spectacle]. At that point, Jethro Tull as a unit
kind of crumbled. Although
I understood Ian's problem, I thought his behavior was despicable.
That was it for me;
that turned me off from continuing with the band any further."
Interview at http://hiregun.com/go_west/interviews/pj_vettese.html
I am unfamiliar with the incident mentioned.
Would anyone who was at that show care to elaborate?
--
Stephen Stair
sstair...@iname.com
Jckalynn
Would anyone who was at that show care to elaborate?>
This must've been during the Under Wraps tour when the rest of the shows got
cancelled. I had tickets for the next night...:( Anyway, the way I heard it
was that Ian was having throat problems that evening, and he asked for someone
to quit blowing pot smoke in his face. When the person didn't stop, Ian
stopped the show and told the folks if they didn't put it out, that the band
would not continue. I have the news article around here somewhere. It didn't
sound like Ian exploded. It seems to me that his complaint was legit.
Jackalynn
Alex Lozupone
> I understood Ian's problem, I thought his behavior was despicable.
> That was it for me;
> that turned me off from continuing with the band any further."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PJV in the band, or playing with the
band, for that 1985 (or possibly 86) show, whatever it was..? My memory
is a bit hazy... but it would seem strange that that's the show he's
talking about, since his voice already had problems...
anyone else?
KCRvrRnnr
band, for that 1985 (or possibly 86) show, whatever it was..?
And didn't he contribute to a couple of Songs on Rock Island (circa 1989?) I'd
check the liner notes but the damn CD is in the car.
sda...@rocketmail.com
yes PJV contributed to *RI*. From reading *MITG* it appears that IA
considered asking him to rejoin for *CFR* but he wasn't available due to
other commitments. Whatever _distastefulness_ may have caused him to split,
I'd guess that it's a long-dead issue.
SDM
--
UTS album & Systems Theory EP are to be released in Jan 99. The ST album
sometime after that...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ina Hacker
Berlin...
Ina
Biffyshrew
>On 2 Dec 1998 23:35:41 GMT, kcrv...@aol.com (KCRvrRnnr) wrote:
>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PJV in the band, or playing with the
>>band, for that 1985 (or possibly 86) show, whatever it was..?
>
>I must correct you, because it was Eddie Jobson who was with in
>Berlin...
Yes, Eddie Jobson was the keyboardist for Tull's one 1985 show, but
PJV was back for the (very brief) 1986 tour.
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
Visit me at http://members.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
"It is a pie, but it could have caused injuries."--San Francisco Police Chief
Fred Lau
Ina Hacker
>>
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PJV in the band, or playing with the
>>>band, for that 1985 (or possibly 86) show, whatever it was..?
>>
>>I must correct you, because it was Eddie Jobson who was with in
>>Berlin...
>
>Yes, Eddie Jobson was the keyboardist for Tull's one 1985 show, but
>PJV was back for the (very brief) 1986 tour.
>
That's right and it was great to see Peter for that time....
Ina
Mlmorale
three scheduled LA shows of the Under Wraps tour)and proceeded to curse "you
Americans for smoking your marijuana. I am tired of it. It gets on my teat
(?). If you don't stop right now I will terminate this concert. If you don't
believe me just try me. Now, here's a song you probably don't remember."
During his diatribe at the Universal Theater, you could actually hear a pin
drop. The audience was stupefied. PJV was gesturing in the background trying
to make light of Ian's tirade.
I won't say it ruined the concert but as you can see it left a memorable
impression on me 14 years later.
Mickey
Jckalynn
if not, when did he stop?
>
I understand that he completely quit during Catfish Rising time.
Jackalynn
WiseGuy
Meaning that you hadn't imbibed, as you wouldn't be able to recall much
of this if you had.
Duh, what were we just talking about? Darn, lost the train again.
Hilarious, isn't it.
seal driver
> During his diatribe at the Universal Theater, you could actually hear a pin
> drop. The audience was stupefied.
Are you sure it wasn't the marijuana?
Mark Colman
I thought he quit around '79 and took up a rather large Sherlock Holmes
style pipe.
MC
Nick Andrew
>I was at the concert in LA. Ian did indeed stop the concert (the first of
>three scheduled LA shows of the Under Wraps tour)and proceeded to curse "you
>Americans for smoking your marijuana. I am tired of it. It gets on my teat
>(?). If you don't stop right now I will terminate this concert. If you don't
>believe me just try me. Now, here's a song you probably don't remember."
I guess this is an appropriate time to ask whether Ian still smokes, and
if not, when did he stop?
The 20-years video shows a clip of Heavy Horses and it looks like
Ian couldn't get through a whole scene without taking a drag.
Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
Casey
>
> Jckalynn wrote:
> >
> > >I guess this is an appropriate time to ask whether Ian still smokes, and
> > if not, when did he stop?
> > >
> >
> > Jackalynn
>
> I thought he quit around '79 and took up a rather large Sherlock Holmes
> style pipe.
> MC
He was smoking like a fiend in '89.... Roll yer owns.
--
-Casey
Please visit my website at:
Http://www.angelfire.com/mi/nitecap/index.html
Bruce Kline
he makes huge amounts of cash playing great music, and then thinks it
is fine to tell the whole audience who payed through the nose to see
a show, what they can do.
I am an non-smoker, and I would prefer people not to smoke, although
the marijuana smoke is not as unpleasant to me as tobacco, but I just
know when I am out in public that I will often times be subject to
smoke that I don't like. Fortunately that is changing now, but back
then, it was the expectation that one could go to a concert and smoke,
drink and smoke marijuana. Why threats to the audience, and at a rock
concert - be get real.
I guess I don't get it, he just seems like a joker. Nothing against
him, and I like his music. Temperamental artist type I guess?
Ian seems to be a very rigid character and very ego-centric. I did not
see the last concerts, but can imagine if I had tickets to see him
perform a normal concert and he came out in a wheelchair, and it affected
his performance (I would imagine it would), where he sung even worse than
normal for these late days and could not play up to the expectations of
the audience, I would be very disappointed. Don't imagine he give a
rat's touche after all it's only solitiare how clever. whack whack
The way the CDs were released first the lousy version, and then the
remastered versions - I buy'em, but I don't appreciate the usereous
attitude implied.
I did see the Divinites and the concert before last, the last one
in Bay Area, California, and for about ever 3 words of lyrics only
one came out. I know there are Ian apologists that try to tell me
that it was the mixer, or that they actually heard the whole song.
I just know it weren't so!
Ian wants respect from his fans, then why does he not respect us.
Why does he not wait to tour until he is well. He chose to smoke,
so why blame the audience for his own self-inflicted ailments. I
hate the normal rock concert going public and it is a trial to make
it to a concert, why not try something different. Divinities
came off perfect, until the Tull/vocal parts.
Is he just in a pissing contest with the public he survives off.
Perhaps this is why they has never really made it to the mainstream
publics hearts, he just comes off as a super-brilliant and talented
but selfish and ornery and umpleasant character. I hope I am wrong,
I'd like to believe that anyone that can play music like that has
got to be connected to the muses.
But Ian, if you try to make it to the Bay Area again soon, I promise
I won't smoke and will write nice things about you on the Internet
every chance I get. :-)
Bruce
Biggles
Bruce Kline wrote:
>
> Wow, I like Tull music, best of anything, but Ian is strange.
> Imagine, he makes huge amounts of cash playing great music, and then
> thinks it is fine to tell the whole audience who payed through the
> nose to see a show, what they can do.
It's called "not needing it any more", especially after putting up with
it for so long after reaching that point. Sounds like you have a problem
with ticket prices.
> I am an non-smoker, and I would prefer people not to smoke, although
> the marijuana smoke is not as unpleasant to me as tobacco, but I
> just
> know when I am out in public that I will often times be subject to
> smoke that I don't like. Fortunately that is changing now, but back
> then, it was the expectation that one could go to a concert and
> smoke,
> drink and smoke marijuana. Why threats to the audience, and at a
> rock concert - be get real.
This could have something to do with the fact that he is trying to reach
a younger audience and not just the "veterans". I personally am deeply
conflicted as I am trying to introduce two junior-high school aged kids
to Tull. Bringing them to a venue where they will be subjected to such
influences will contrast sharply with certain values I have instilled in
them from Day 1, and I am keenly aware that actions speak much, much
louder than words. So for now, the answer is "no Tull concerts". This
bugs me to no end.
> I guess I don't get it, he just seems like a joker. Nothing against
> him, and I like his music. Temperamental artist type I guess?
Sure.
> Ian seems to be a very rigid character and very ego-centric.
Egomania is not an option for sucess. It's a requirement. Especially
when the success in question is of the degree Mr. A has attained. I
personally know people who have achieved similar heights without
becoming "pompous a**holes", but their success didn't involve anything
nearly as creative as what Ian has done. Sometimes you have to take the
bad with the good and decide if it's worth it, and there's nothing else
you can do.
> I did not
> see the last concerts, but can imagine if I had tickets to see him
> perform a normal concert and he came out in a wheelchair, and it
> affected
> his performance (I would imagine it would), where he sung even worse than
> normal for these late days and could not play up to the expectations of
> the audience, I would be very disappointed. Don't imagine he give a
> rat's touche after all it's only solitiare how clever. whack whack
Low blows. Try to give a little more benefit of a doubt. I know you
don't really mean it the way it sounds.
> The way the CDs were released first the lousy version, and then the
> remastered versions - I buy'em, but I don't appreciate the usereous
> attitude implied.
Might be a case of an artist not maintaining adequate control over his
product. He *has* been occupied with other things, y'know.
> I did see the Divinites and the concert before last, the last one
> in Bay Area, California, and for about ever 3 words of lyrics only
> one came out. I know there are Ian apologists that try to tell me
> that it was the mixer, or that they actually heard the whole song.
> I just know it weren't so!
See posts regarding lyrics, words that end A Passion Play, and so on for
an example of how subjective these things are.
> Ian wants respect from his fans, then why does he not respect us.
Low again. Remove all assumptions. Try to be objective.
> Why does he not wait to tour until he is well. He chose to smoke,
> so why blame the audience for his own self-inflicted ailments.
Is that why he was in the wheelchair? I had no idea.
> I hate the normal rock concert going public
Of which you are part.
> and it is a trial to make
> it to a concert, why not try something different. Divinities
> came off perfect, until the Tull/vocal parts.
>
> Is he just in a pissing contest with the public he survives off.
> Perhaps this is why they has never really made it to the mainstream
> publics hearts, he just comes off as a super-brilliant and talented
> but selfish and ornery and umpleasant character. I hope I am wrong,
> I'd like to believe that anyone that can play music like that has
> got to be connected to the muses.
>
> But Ian, if you try to make it to the Bay Area again soon, I promise
> I won't smoke and will write nice things about you on the Internet
> every chance I get. :-)
I'm sure you've just made his day (actually, I imagine he appreciates
the input in some fashion).
Brian Trosko
: This could have something to do with the fact that he is trying to reach
: a younger audience and not just the "veterans". I personally am deeply
: conflicted as I am trying to introduce two junior-high school aged kids
: to Tull. Bringing them to a venue where they will be subjected to such
: influences will contrast sharply with certain values I have instilled in
: them from Day 1, and I am keenly aware that actions speak much, much
: louder than words. So for now, the answer is "no Tull concerts". This
: bugs me to no end.
It really sounds like you're being overly protective. There are any
number of social situations where there are influences that will contrast
with certain values you've instilled in them from Day 1.
But if you've been instilling those values from Day 1, how on earth will
attending a Tull concert, or even, say, a Marilyn Mason concert, subvert
them?
: > his performance (I would imagine it would), where he sung even worse than
: > normal for these late days and could not play up to the expectations of
: > the audience, I would be very disappointed. Don't imagine he give a
: > rat's touche after all it's only solitiare how clever. whack whack
: Low blows. Try to give a little more benefit of a doubt. I know you
: don't really mean it the way it sounds.
And, actually, the reason Ian *continued* that tour in a wheelchair was
most likely because he felt he owed it to the fans to be professional and
not cancel the remainder of the tour. Could he have done it? Sure. It
certainly wouldn't have been a financial hardship for him to cancel, and
it just as certainly would have been safer from a medical standpoint, but
he went onstage anyway. It was the first time I'd seen him since the Rock
Island tour, and I felt he did a wonderful job, and still feel that the
hullabaloo about his voice is a bunch of bellyaching about the good ol'
days.
: > The way the CDs were released first the lousy version, and then the
: > remastered versions - I buy'em, but I don't appreciate the usereous
: > attitude implied.
: Might be a case of an artist not maintaining adequate control over his
: product. He *has* been occupied with other things, y'know.
Yah. Some stuff wasn't mastered right in the *first* place, and has
needed to be cleaned up since day one.
: > Why does he not wait to tour until he is well. He chose to smoke,
: > so why blame the audience for his own self-inflicted ailments.
: Is that why he was in the wheelchair? I had no idea.
Yeah, I don't what the person to what you're replying to is smoking, but
he's waaaaay of base on this.
Ian's concerned about preserving his voice as much as possible; smoke from
the front row seats is likely not something he wants to be sucking up.
If I want to smoke at a Tull concert, I'll walk away from the stage.
BoyHowdy
>
> It really sounds like you're being overly protective.
Our children are our #1 legacy. Twig-bending is my most important job,
much more important to me than the castle-building I do. My mind is very
clear about this. Fortunately for me, I live in a community where the
vast majority of others in my situation feel exactly the same way.
I for one will not stand for much playing with my kids' brains. If I
choose to do it to myself, that's my business--as long as I impact
nobody else. This is a tough thing to do. Just ask Ian.
> There are any
> number of social situations where there are influences that will
> contrast with certain values you've instilled in them from Day 1.
>
> But if you've been instilling those values from Day 1,
> how on earth will
> attending a Tull concert, or even, say, a Marilyn Mason concert,
> subvert them?
Again: Actions speak louder than words. Actions (example-setting,
mostly) are the A#1 way we've instilled those values.
The conflict between the values we've instilled through our actions and
the ones we'd be demonstrating by taking them to an environment filled
with illicit drugs is very real. I know they will be in contact with
these things; they probably already have. But I'm not going to bring
them to them. That could nullify a helluva lot of hard work.
This is also why I would not, for example, let my kids take Ritalin
without a very compelling case for it. Many teachers favor use of this
drug with children who clearly are not far enough along the bell curve
to merit it, for little reason more than that it makes their job much
easier. But if you agree, effectively saying through action, "Here's a
little something to help you deal with reality", then how do you expect
your kid to react when some other kid--who at this point s/he likely
thinks is "way cooler" than you--says effectively the same thing while
handing him/her a funny substance?
Alex Lozupone
> : to Tull. Bringing them to a venue where they will be subjected to such
> : influences will contrast sharply with certain values I have instilled in
> : them from Day 1, and I am keenly aware that actions speak much, much
Well, speaking personally, I think you should educate, not shield, the
kids... It wasn't long ago at all that I was that age, and if I have to
say that knowledge is the key... Shielding only builds rebellion when
the shield (inevitably) must be removed..
Of course, to some extend shielding is good.. but if the kids are smart
enough to think on their own, only education will do.
*stands off soapbox*
BoyHowdy
>
> Well, speaking personally, I think you should educate, not shield, the
> kids... It wasn't long ago at all that I was that age, and if I have to
> say that knowledge is the key... Shielding only builds rebellion when
> the shield (inevitably) must be removed..
>
> Of course, to some extend shielding is good.. but if the kids are smart
> enough to think on their own, only education will do.
Shielding isn't the idea. Involvement is. Ask virtually any expert in
child-rearing. Too many kids go astray because their parents aren't
involved in their lives. My wife and I do not make this mistake.
Our school district has a drug education program called D.A.R.E. (Drug
Abuse Resistance Education). It is much better than the laughable stuff
we got, that pretty much drove us *toward* drugs due to its obvious
ridiculousness and unhipness.
According to our local newspaper, D.A.R.E. is a miserable failure.
BoyHowdy
>
> So what does it say if the example set by the parents pales when they see
> an example set by some nameless folks at a concert?
All I'm saying is that it's a mixed message, and who needs it.
Frankly, I would expect my kids to be able to go alone with no ill
effects at all. If they were offered anything illicit, they would
probably look at the offereors as if they were nuts. Maybe even laugh in
their faces. They really respect their bodies and know what's going on.
I know them well enough to know this. Problem is, I'm not sending any
11- and 14-year-olds far off by themselves.
> : these things; they probably already have. But I'm not going to bring
> : them to them. That could nullify a helluva lot of hard work.
>
> Question: What happens when the kids grow up, and go to a rock concert
> and see people smoking weed? If they've never had to make the choice
> before, how do you know they'll make the right one?
See above.
>
> My parents raised me to make the right decisions when placed in difficult
> situations. That's an entirely different thing from sheltering a child
> from difficult situations.
>
> The kids I've seen go to college and, exhilirated from being free of
> parental control, burn themselves out in an orgy of partying are the ones
> who were forbidden to attend parties, rock concerts, etc, while living at
> home. They quickly decide to see what they've been missing, and take
> things too far in the opposite extreme.
>
> That seems to me to be a lot more damaging than taking them to a rock
> concert, and securing in them the knowledge that while some people choose
> to drink and smoke, there is a cost to such behavior.
The main thing I see in all this is, "Do these people think for
themselves?" If they do, then I am confident all will work out well in
the long run. So I see an important job as teaching my kids, not what to
think, but to think for themselves. I see potential conflict in
introducing them to situations where they could interpret my actions as
hypocritical.
I assure you we'd discuss what they were likely to see in detail. For
me, having to cover all that is no bonus. It certainly could not add to
their enjoyment of the performance, although it might have some "social
phenomenon" entertainment value.
We're really making way too much of this. The conflict I see isn't all
*that* big. It just bugs me.
Mark Colman
>
> Wow, I like Tull music, best of anything, but Ian is strange. Imagine,
> he makes huge amounts of cash playing great music, and then thinks it
> is fine to tell the whole audience who payed through the nose to see
> a show, what they can do.
>
> the marijuana smoke is not as unpleasant to me as tobacco, but I just
> know when I am out in public that I will often times be subject to
> smoke that I don't like. Fortunately that is changing now, but back
> then, it was the expectation that one could go to a concert and smoke,
> drink and smoke marijuana. Why threats to the audience, and at a rock
> concert - be get real.
>
> him, and I like his music. Temperamental artist type I guess?
Ian is a perfectionist and an artist who becomes "preoccupied with the
down-side of any gig". He wants more than most to perform to the high
standards his perfectionism has created. Anything in the way of
performing to the highest level has to be removed. I am sure that in
those days, having such serious vocal problems for the first time must
have been very scarey.
Let's face it, IA is under a huge amountof pressure not only to sing but
to play flute, guitar, mandolin, stand on one leg, be entertaining etc.,
etc., etc.
We are very lucky to have him around and STILL performing great
cconcerts and recording wonderful music.
TRUST ME Ian is NOT a one line joker!
MC
PS Put out that joint or I'll....
BoyHowdy
>
> I can understand that. On the other hand, going to a Bob Dylan concert
> with my father when I was 12 was absolutely kickass. From my current
> perspective, the benefit certainly outweighted whatever costs there were.
That's valuable information to me. I lost my dad when I was quite young,
and consequently I sometimes grapple with things that are plain to
others who have better experience.
BoyHowdy
>
> Agreed. But going to a concert with your kids is involvement.
Yes, going to a concert with your kids is involvement. But coaching
their basketball team is even more involvement, with no similar
reservations. Which is why I do such things. A lot.
All I'm saying here is that the concert experience would be suboptimal
thanks to some of the same people who are evidently bugging Ian. Maybe
what's really bugging me is how people do things with so little regard
for the effects on other people's lives. Including his.
> Forbidding your kids to go to a concert 'cause of the naughty stuff
> they might encounter is shielding.
Thought it should be plain I wasn't talking about any sort of
"forbidding". That's putting words in my mouth. In fact, I would
*prefer* for them to go separately. But they aren't quite ready for that
yet. Not at 11 and 14 and their particular maturity levels (actually,
the 11-year-old is of less concern in that regard).
Maybe my kids would find it amusing that there were people in the
audience actually short-circuiting their short-term memories and doing
so willingly. In a perverse way, this might actually add to my kids'
enjoyment of the show.
Problem is, there's no way to be certain 'til we/they go if it would add
to their enjoyment or disgust them. Knowing them as well as I do, I
suspect that for them it would be the latter. In any case, how would
their thinking that a bunch of idiots also go to Tull concerts possibly
*promote* their opinion of the band?
(Note to stoners: I did not say you are idiots; I'm only saying my
offspring might think you are. Oh, hell--I know they would think that.
They spend far too much effort protecting their mental acuity for it to
be otherwise.)
I'll have to spend more time on the DARE comments. Thanks for posting
them. It's good to know you care as much about all this as you evidently
do.
Brian Trosko
: > how on earth will
: > attending a Tull concert, or even, say, a Marilyn Mason concert,
: > subvert them?
: Again: Actions speak louder than words. Actions (example-setting,
: mostly) are the A#1 way we've instilled those values.
So what does it say if the example set by the parents pales when they see
an example set by some nameless folks at a concert?
: these things; they probably already have. But I'm not going to bring
: them to them. That could nullify a helluva lot of hard work.
Question: What happens when the kids grow up, and go to a rock concert
and see people smoking weed? If they've never had to make the choice
before, how do you know they'll make the right one?
My parents raised me to make the right decisions when placed in difficult
Brian Trosko
: Shielding isn't the idea. Involvement is. Ask virtually any expert in
: child-rearing. Too many kids go astray because their parents aren't
: involved in their lives. My wife and I do not make this mistake.
Agreed. But going to a concert with your kids is involvement. Forbidding
your kids to go to a concert 'cause of the naughty stuff they might
encounter is shielding.
: Our school district has a drug education program called D.A.R.E. (Drug
: Abuse Resistance Education). It is much better than the laughable stuff
: we got, that pretty much drove us *toward* drugs due to its obvious
: ridiculousness and unhipness.
: According to our local newspaper, D.A.R.E. is a miserable failure.
D.A.R.E is a miserable failure. A recent, major US Department of Justice
concluded that DARE's effect on drug use is slight and "not statistically
significant."
As one of the few major studies to interview students as well as
educators, the study further concluded:
Students overwhelmingly reject the "no-use" or zero tolerance
messages as not credible.
Seven out of 10 students said they felt "neutral" or"negative"
toward DARE and DARE educators.
Four out of 10 said the programs had no impact "at all" on their
substance use decisions.
Only one in 10 students said the programs affected them a lot or
completely.
Programs intended to assist "at-risk" students failed to provide
needed services and often resulted in detention, suspension and expulsion.
DARE is a failure because it lies to kids, and kids aren't dumb. Dr. Joel
Brown, the uauthor of this study, says the program's no-use message is the
reason kids don't buy it. "They know that one beer is not as bad as 10, and they see their parents
have a glass of wine with dinner without ill effects. "Their educational
reality doesn't match their everyday reality; and the result is cognitive
dissonance, where students come to believe educators lack credibility".
So, since the educators have no credibility, kids turn to each other for
advice and help the quick-to-condemn DARE program is unable to give,
because it has already compromised itself. Since the kids aren't
qualified or experienced enough to give *good* advice, and the kids don't
trust the programs to give *good* advice, *that's* when they end up in
trouble.
And here's a bit that's *my* personal opinion. Many parents today have
used drugs, and they mostly look back on their toking days during the 70s
and 60s with a bit of fondness. How do they reconcile their pleasant
memories with the no-use antidrug message programs like DARE tell them
they should be drumming into their kids? And the children know that their
parents' generation is the one that essentially invented drug
experimentation. A hardcore parental antidrug message basically boils
down to "Do as I say, not as I do," and that's a bit hypocritical. Far
better to educate your children with facts. "Marijuana does *this* to
your body." "The penalties for being caught are *this*." *Not* "Trying
marijuana means you're a loser."
The fact is that marijuana use, or alcohol use, in moderation is not
likely to harm a healthy, well-adjusted person. Thousands of people use
these substances every day, without ill effect. They're effective and
useful members of society. Winners occasionally *do* use drugs, and any
antidrug program that denies the reality kids see every day is doomed to
failure.
You can't educate your children by lying to them, much as some have tried.
Brian Trosko
: Frankly, I would expect my kids to be able to go alone with no ill
: effects at all. If they were offered anything illicit, they would
: probably look at the offereors as if they were nuts. Maybe even laugh in
: their faces. They really respect their bodies and know what's going on.
Then you've done your job.
: I know them well enough to know this. Problem is, I'm not sending any
: 11- and 14-year-olds far off by themselves.
So why not go with them? You're a Tull fan, they're Tull fans.
: We're really making way too much of this. The conflict I see isn't all
: *that* big. It just bugs me.
I can understand that. On the other hand, going to a Bob Dylan concert
Jckalynn
cconcerts and recording wonderful music.
TRUST ME Ian is NOT a one line joker!
MC>
>
Mark, you said this all so perfectly. I kept saving the original message
wondering what I'd say...but you took care of it for me.
I.A. is neither ignorant or uncaring of what his fans want.
but...
BTW, did any of you happen to see one of those shows where I.A. was in the
wheelchair? I, unfortunately, saw it on a video only. I thought that he put on
one hell of a show. He is, afterall, a showman. He delivered more than was
expected by his fans, during those shows. He could've just 'hung it up'. I am
so glad that he didn't and I am so glad to see him up and about:))
Keep it up I.A.!!!
Still loving you tonight...
Jackalynn
coro...@flash.net
>BTW, did any of you happen to see one of those shows where I.A. was in the
>wheelchair? I, unfortunately, saw it on a video only. I thought that he put on
>one hell of a show. He is, afterall, a showman. He delivered more than was
>expected by his fans, during those shows. He could've just 'hung it up'. I am
>so glad that he didn't and I am so glad to see him up and about:))
>Keep it up I.A.!!!
>
>Still loving you tonight...
>Jackalynn
>
I saw one of the "wheelchair shows", and I can tell you that there was
absolutely no decline in his playing or singing.
I felt bad because after having seen the " wheelchair and canes"
entrance at the twenty-fifth anniversary tour, we thought it was
another joke when Shona wheeled him out and many of us laughed.
What concert did you see on tape?
Mark Colman
>
> >We are very lucky to have him around and STILL performing great
> cconcerts and recording wonderful music.
> TRUST ME Ian is NOT a one line joker!
> MC>
> >
>
> Mark, you said this all so perfectly. I kept saving the original message
> wondering what I'd say...but you took care of it for me.
> I.A. is neither ignorant or uncaring of what his fans want.
> but...
> wheelchair? I, unfortunately, saw it on a video only. I thought that he put on
> one hell of a show. He is, afterall, a showman. He delivered more than was
> expected by his fans, during those shows. He could've just 'hung it up'. I am
> so glad that he didn't and I am so glad to see him up and about:))
> Keep it up I.A.!!!
>
> Still loving you tonight...
> Jackalynn
I too saw it only on video (via Larry B). Great show! Sometimes peole
are too hard on IA!
Now if we could only hear some of the new stuff...
RTB was soo good, what a record to follow! And I have a feeling the next
Tull album will be even better!
Rumours of Sir Lancelot breaking the chains...
Mark
BLOC...@prodigy.net
Biggles wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Kline wrote:
>
>
> > The way the CDs were released first the lousy version, and then the
> > remastered versions - I buy'em, but I don't appreciate the usereous
> > attitude implied.
>
> Might be a case of an artist not maintaining adequate control over his
> product. He *has* been occupied with other things, y'know.
>
I don't think the artists had any control over this situation.
The Big record companies needed product on the shelves
when they jerked the Vinyl Versions out from under us.
In their rush to do so they took very little time and care
in whipping something out.
I'm also sure they knew they would sell it to us again later.
The hard-core collecting public will buy the same product
as many times as they care to issue it. I know, I'm one of 'em.
I don't know if I have more versions of Aqualung or Dark Side of the Moon.
(Hmmmm, I'll have to count them up one day.)
In my small town when cds hit it was like a vinyl black out.
No stores carried the elusive black creature anymore.
I didn't care for the idea that I was being told that I had to
change formats or be left out.
I eventually did and I'm glad of it now but......
I think I read that Ian still doesn't have a cd player.
Can anyone verify?
Block
BLOC...@prodigy.net
relate the story of how his father, Frank, would take him
to concerts at a very young age and explain,
"See those people, they are on drugs and alcohol,
see how stupid it makes them act?"
Dweezil said that he has never taken up drugs and alcohol
from that experience passed on from his Dad.
I'm not advocating this method.
I am not even a parent.
I imagine this is a tough decision for parents out there.
Block
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Would you sell the colors of your sunset
and the fragrance of your flowers,
and the passionate wonder of your forest
for a creed that will not let you dance?
--Helene Johnson"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BoyHowdy
>
> I was very impressed when I heard Dweezil Zappa
> relate the story of how his father, Frank, would take him
> to concerts at a very young age and explain,
> "See those people, they are on drugs and alcohol,
> see how stupid it makes them act?"
This reassuring feedback is the kind of sensible attitude that my
anger--apparently occasionally shared by Mr. Real--was obscuring.
What I neglected to mention to Brian was that I do things like take my
kids to sports bars and other places where there are less-than-wholesome
influences all the time. Doing so has not tempered their "Who the hell
do you think you are to push dirt into my lungs and jeopardize everyone
on the road the moment you walk out of here?" attitude one iota.
My main point here is that if questionable activities were making a fair
Tull fan--as indicated by my making this my first, and so far only,
venture into newsgroup-posting land--feel even a little ambivalent about
introducing newcomers to Tull concerts, then how many lesser but
nonetheless interested fans weren't going for the same reason? And I
*should* feel ambivalent when it comes to risking sending mixed
messages.
I can imagine that one reason that Ian and others of his profession tend
to remain quiet is that they don't want to alienate *any* fans, no
matter what their persuasion regarding less-than-brilliant mood
enhancement decisions. I am only tring to point out another side to the
story. Who knows how much of Ian's reported flareup is attributable to
recognition of this other angle?
> Dweezil said that he has never taken up drugs and alcohol
> from that experience passed on from his Dad.
Although this may have been the experience that did it for Dweezil,
Dad's message on this was clear and consistent from Day 1. Could be that
Dweezil was being a little bit dramatic for his own purposes--just as I
was.
The main reason I carried on with Brian as extensively as I did was that
I was fascinated with the possibility that he was actually taking up for
the druggies. That, and respect for his intellect.
> I'm not advocating this method.
We all need to use what works for us based on our knowledge of the
situation.
> I am not even a parent.
> I imagine this is a tough decision for parents out there.
It's nice to have this example of someone being able to see things from
another person's perspective. Some say this is what separates humans
from primates.
sdavmor
>BoyHowdy wrote:
>
>> It's nice to have this example of someone being able to see things from
>> another person's perspective. Some say this is what separates humans
>> from primates.
>
nuk nuk nuk
Cheers
SDM
seal driver
BoyHowdy
>
> > Some say this is what separates humans from primates.
>
> I thought it was the strict laws against beastiality.
Sorry, typo. Meant to say "their privates".
Jckalynn
> It's nice to have this example of someone being able to see things from
> another person's perspective. Some say this is what separates humans
> from primates.
I thought it was the strict laws against beastiality>
LOL!!
Bruce Kline
: Bruce Kline wrote:
:>
:> Wow, I like Tull music, best of anything, but Ian is strange.
:> Imagine, he makes huge amounts of cash playing great music, and then
:> thinks it is fine to tell the whole audience who payed through the
:> nose to see a show, what they can do.
: It's called "not needing it any more", especially after putting up with
: it for so long after reaching that point. Sounds like you have a problem
: with ticket prices.
No, but when I purchase something, I have the expectation of getting
what I pay for, and further (and this does not affect me, but did affect
the people in the cancelled LA concerts) I would have the expectation,
especially at that time, that a concert is going to be a concert, and
in most concerts I sent to back then. there was pot smoking. It seems
particularly egomaniacal for Ian to expect the whole world to stop for
him. He was or is a smoker at the time anyway - what a hypocrit.
If you sent to a movie, and everyone talked throughout the movie, and
the management did not stop it, I think you would be upset. You would
come to the conclusion that the average moviegoer is an inconsiderate
jerk, and stop going to movies there, or decide it is still worth it
to go, and suffer the problem. If you were one of the loud jerks, you
have had your expectations set by the crummy management that it is OK
to talk in the middle of the movie, so if someday someone kicks you out
of the theater, without warning or explanation, the jerk is righteously
pissed (mad).
So, these days in the US, you can't go anywhere practically without
the lowest common denominator setting the tone for our whole society.
It is a pain, go to the movies and people think is is fine to put their
feet right up on the chair behind your head. Drive and people think they
are playing a video game with your life. Go shopping and people cut in
line... but anyway - I digress. I sympathize with Ian that the public
are jerks, but he chose the businees he is in, he has concerts every
day, he gets paid alot to do them, and he shouldn't disappoint the
people who are not guilty - in my humble opinion - if he in fact
even did this.
I expect if I get tickets to see a Tull concert, to see Ian Anderson in
good health, and hear him sing - if not, it should be mentioned in the
ad for the concert - Jethro Tull (Aqualung singing) or some such. I
am sure that for example Frank Sinatra was singing in a way that caused
pain to his listeners just would have the professionalism not to even try
it - Ian seems to not care. On the other hand, don't think old blue eyes
could play the flute.
WiseGuy
Bruce Kline wrote:
>
> line... but anyway - I digress. I sympathize with Ian that the public
> are jerks, but he chose the businees he is in, he has concerts every
> day, he gets paid alot to do them, and he shouldn't disappoint the
> people who are not guilty - in my humble opinion - if he in fact
> even did this.
When I said "it's called not needing it any more", I am at least
partially referring to the fact that this is not the only business Ian
is in. Push him too far and we might just push him right out of show biz
altogether.
I for one see where we could do more to show a little class and
consideration after years of paying hundreds to get value in the
thousands (referring to recorded material, mainly). As you point out, we
would be going against cultural grains at this point.
Oh, boy--another social upheaval!
Michael Schuerig
> No, but when I purchase something, I have the expectation of getting
> what I pay for, and further (and this does not affect me, but did affect
> the people in the cancelled LA concerts) I would have the expectation,
> especially at that time, that a concert is going to be a concert, and
> in most concerts I sent to back then. there was pot smoking. It seems
> particularly egomaniacal for Ian to expect the whole world to stop for
> him. He was or is a smoker at the time anyway - what a hypocrit.
[snip]
> I expect if I get tickets to see a Tull concert, to see Ian Anderson in
> good health, and hear him sing - if not, it should be mentioned in the
> ad for the concert - Jethro Tull (Aqualung singing) or some such. I
> am sure that for example Frank Sinatra was singing in a way that caused
> pain to his listeners just would have the professionalism not to even try
> it - Ian seems to not care. On the other hand, don't think old blue eyes
> could play the flute.
Just a thought: What if you were visiting a show where Ian asks the
people not to smoke. Not surprisingly, though, they ignore his request.
As a consequence through the show Ian's voice gets much worse than it
would have, had there been less smoke.
Now, are you going to blame Ian for his bad voice and for being
unprofessional when he expresses his anger about people who keep him
from performing as well as he would like to?
Just a thought, of course.
Michael
pam_an...@geocities.com
Bruce Kline <bru...@shell14.ba.best.com> wrote:
> Biggles <hofw...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> : Bruce Kline wrote:
> :>
> :> Wow, I like Tull music, best of anything, but Ian is strange.
> :> Imagine, he makes huge amounts of cash playing great music, and then
> :> thinks it is fine to tell the whole audience who payed through the
> :> nose to see a show, what they can do.
>
> : It's called "not needing it any more", especially after putting up with
> : it for so long after reaching that point. Sounds like you have a problem
> : with ticket prices.
>
> what I pay for, and further (and this does not affect me, but did affect
> the people in the cancelled LA concerts) I would have the expectation,
So, was Ian like supposed to take vitamins or something?
Ian lost his voice and cancelled most of the Australia shows as well as one
LA show (I had tickets too). I heard the show on Thanksgiving was pretty bad,
and that Ian was really having a bad time. The cancellations were not a
result of people smoking in the audience. My guess is he anticipated the loss
of voice and cancellation of shows, and in anger took it out on the smokers,
in hopes that might make the problem go away .... which of course didn't
work. But he didn't cancel those shows because he wanted too.
> especially at that time, that a concert is going to be a concert, and
> in most concerts I sent to back then. there was pot smoking. It seems
> particularly egomaniacal for Ian to expect the whole world to stop for
Why not? Californians do. :-)
> him. He was or is a smoker at the time anyway - what a hypocrit.
>
>
Lets see if I have this straight. You are complaining because Ian was upset
about pot in the concerts? Personally, I think going to "see" a concert, but
getting blasted is pretty rude myself; bouncing around, spilling drinks on
people, totally ignoring the show.
But I believe Ian's main complaint about pot was the smoke which is much
harsher than nicotine.
--
pamela http://www.geocities.com/soho/cafe/3604/muse.htm
Remove cats _pam...@geocities.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nick Andrew
>But I believe Ian's main complaint about pot was the smoke which is much
>harsher than nicotine.
Ian is also on record as saying that he thinks people should not be
stoned when the listen to Tull.
Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
Lenester Taxidean
> I thought it was the strict laws against beastiality.
Hey, they aren't THAT strict.
------------------------------------------------- http://www.asis.com/~liefc/
As the clock ticks away a lifetime -----------------------> Lenester Taxidean
hold your head up to the gun of a million cathode ray tubes <-----------------
aimed at your tiny skull -------------------------- Jethro Tull: "Quizz Kid"
Bruce Kline
: Just a thought: What if you were visiting a show where Ian asks the
: people not to smoke.
I think that would be NOT OK. When people go somewhere that they have
an reasonable expectation that they will be able to smoke, or whatever,
To, after they have paid their money and are in the door subject them
to unfair abuse and tell them they cannot do what it was that they
expected to be able to do, and indeed were able to do the week or day
or year before in some cases, is not only wrong, but controlling, and
worse ineffective. I would prefer concerts where people behaved. I
remember my first Tull concert - Nov 23, Oakland Ca 1973, Passion Play.
Absolutely the best concert! Would have been better had not the guy
behind us and to the right (fortunately) drank too much and began puking
all over the floor. That was certainly not my expectation of what to
expect at a "concert" (funny that term) But I was a kid, and imagine
my disappontment when upon going to other concerts, they were almost
all like that.
Apparently that is the norm. If IA does not like that, why did he not
risk his own money and try to do something like Divinties many years
ago to make a statement and an REAL effort. He has influence and
power as a popular artist and to hear about him throwing a hissy fit
to a whole mostly innocent group of fans in LA is not very heroic.
Hey everyone makes mistakes, I am not saying he should be boycotted or
shunned, or his music is bad for goodness sake. He just may have had
a bad day and done something wrong that because of his position hurt
alot of people who liked him.
: Not surprisingly, though, they ignore his request.
: As a consequence through the show Ian's voice gets much worse than it
: would have, had there been less smoke.
I also, and not being a doctor I cannot verify this, but seem as if
you'll find disgreement in the sceintific community as well, I just
don't think that the diffuse smoke in the air during a concert could
have anywhere near the effect that actual smoking does to your lungs
and voice. I quit smoking and wish I had never smoked, but if I
had health effects, I would not blame them on second hand smoke when
I know I sucked down the raw stuff from the ends of thousands of
cigarettes.
: Now, are you going to blame Ian for his bad voice and for being
: unprofessional when he expresses his anger about people who keep him
: from performing as well as he would like to?
No, expressing his anger could be an artistic statement and well-
deserved; ruining a show without refunding people's money is not right.
I would not go to work, and walk through some people smoking and start
complaining that I cannot do my job, so I am going home, and by
the way going to charge the company for my work anyway. And I
won't be in for the rest of the week either.
: Just a thought, of course.
: Michael
Keep thinking! It's good for all of us.
Bruce
PS. To really drive this miles into the ground, why do people defend
celebrities or polititians wrong behavior in general (example Clinton).
To elevate someone to preferred status because they can do something
very well is a great threat in general. Why can't we just appreciate
them without having to pretend they are perfect? Especially famous
people, because alot of them are just images anyway, they are not what
they seem. There is a powerful dynamic at work with people's unconscious
minds and mythology and all that stuff, they think they are defending
a higher thing that this person may represent to them when they are
really just allowing that person to have a big ego-trip and perhaps
give in to temptation to the detriment of all.
Michael Schuerig
>
> : Not surprisingly, though, they ignore his request.
> : As a consequence through the show Ian's voice gets much worse than it
> : would have, had there been less smoke.
>
> I also, and not being a doctor I cannot verify this, but seem as if
> you'll find disgreement in the sceintific community as well, I just
> don't think that the diffuse smoke in the air during a concert could
> have anywhere near the effect that actual smoking does to your lungs
> and voice.
That's been a misunderstanding. I meant his voice would get worse in the
course of a single show if people were smoking.
Have you ever tried to sing for an extended period in a smoke-filled
room? Well, at least in my case, it even strains my vocal chords
considerably if I loudly talk to someone for some time in a such a room.
So, my suggestion is, to better judge Ian's reaction you really ought to
try to smoke and sing for an hour or so. If that doesn't affect your
voice negatively, then repeat it for several days in sequence.
Michael
Kevin Thurston
Bruce Kline wrote:
> Michael Schuerig <schu...@acm.org> wrote:
> : Just a thought: What if you were visiting a show where Ian asks the
> : people not to smoke.
>
> I think that would be NOT OK. When people go somewhere that they have
> an reasonable expectation that they will be able to smoke,
Why should anyone have a reasonable expectation to smoke anywhere? It is a
failure to recognize that smoking is an imposition on anyone in proximity.
> or whatever,
> To, after they have paid their money and are in the door subject them
> to unfair abuse and tell them they cannot do what it was that they
> expected to be able to do, and indeed were able to do the week or day
> or year before in some cases, is not only wrong, but controlling, and
> worse ineffective.
Controlling is a poor point of view, since one could easily argue that smokers
have no right to control the immediate environment.
> I would prefer concerts where people behaved.
Does that include following the law against smoking marijuana?
> Apparently that is the norm. If IA does not like that, why did he not
> risk his own money and try to do something like Divinties many years
> ago to make a statement and an REAL effort.
So somehow everything Ian has done except Divinities are fake efforts? Please
tell us how Divinities somehow merits more worthy consideration?
> He has influence and
> power as a popular artist and to hear about him throwing a hissy fit
> to a whole mostly innocent group of fans
Innocent except for violating the law against smoking marijuana.
"...after all, your only crime was violating U.S. law" ... Marge Simpson
-Kevin Thurston
Gregory M. Amov
>Michael Schuerig <schu...@acm.org> wrote:
>: Just a thought: What if you were visiting a show where Ian asks the
>: people not to smoke.
>
>I think that would be NOT OK. When people go somewhere that they have
>To, after they have paid their money and are in the door subject them
>to unfair abuse and tell them they cannot do what it was that they
>expected to be able to do, and indeed were able to do the week or day
>or year before in some cases, is not only wrong, but controlling, and
>worse ineffective.
What? And where is this? It is against fire laws to smoke inside most concert
venues in California. The Galaxy Theater in Santa Ana also serves dinner.
Smoking is not allowed in restaurants in California. So none of the smokers
at an LA venue had *any* reasonable expectation that they could smoke. In
point of fact, people who have not gone to concerts in small clubs due to
cigarette smoke (like myself, due to allergies) are now going to these places,
and we have an expectation that the local laws will be upheld. Ian deserves
the same courtesy that I require from other patrons in the establishment.
My 2cts.
Later
Greg
Gregory M. Amov
>On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:27:58, seal driver <seal....@jethro.tull> wrote:
>
>> I thought it was the strict laws against beastiality.
>
>Hey, they aren't THAT strict.
Yeah!
Just ask Catherine the Great!
Later
Greg
Jaknthegrn
>
>venues in California. The Galaxy Theater in Santa Ana also serves dinner.
>Smoking is not allowed in restaurants in California. So none of the smokers
>at an LA venue had *any* reasonable expectation that they could smoke. In
>point of fact, people who have not gone to concerts in small clubs due to
>cigarette smoke (like myself, due to allergies) are now going to these
>places,
>and we have an expectation that the local laws will be upheld. Ian deserves
>the same courtesy that I require from other patrons in the establishment.
>
>My 2cts.
>
>Later
>
>Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I think this argument is about a concert back in 84 at the Universal
Amphitheater. And while things have changed recently with the new anti-smoking
laws. In 84 I think it was reasonable to assume that one could smoke marijuana
at a Tull concert in L.A. I was there and saw what happened. Ian was having
major problems with his voice-probably for the first time. He had a bit of a
hissy fit with the people upfront who were blowing potsmoke at the stage. He
lost his cool. That's all. A bad night. He should have talked to security
between songs and had them deal with the offending partiers.
Andrew
Bruce Kline
Knock, Knock, is anyone home!?
What year are we talking about again? Do you know what this
converstaion is about Gregory?
Your whole argument here just goes up in, dare I say it, SMOKE.
I agree with and endorse the anti-smoking laws, but they were not
instituted back then, and people smoked up a storm of both tobacco
and pot at virtually 100% of concerts that I went to, not to mention
other annoying behavior. Posting beforehand that there would be no
smoking at the concert might have helped, but I kind of doubt it,
because, and here is another comment that is going to make me real
popular, the rock and roll listening audience is pretty far from
civilized. That's been my observation at the "concerts" I've been to.
I'd kind of like to go to a concert where people don't try to sing
or yell along with the artist, so I can actually hear the artist,
or yell to each other during the performance, or get up and start
dancing right in front of you as if no one else is even there. Not
to mention putting feet up on chair, or throwing up, or throwing
things, and other behavior you might expect from monkeys in the zoo.
Ooooh, don't get me going :-)
Gregory M. Amov <greg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: What? And where is this? It is against fire laws to smoke inside most concert
WiseGuy
>
> I'd kind of like to go to a concert where people don't try to sing
> or yell along with the artist, so I can actually hear the artist,
> or yell to each other during the performance, or get up and start
> dancing right in front of you as if no one else is even there. Not
> to mention putting feet up on chair, or throwing up, or throwing
> things, and other behavior you might expect from monkeys in the zoo.
>
> Ooooh, don't get me going :-)
Ah, go on. Keep right on going. Nobody's taking it personally, or if
they are, they're probably the ones who need to take a closer look at
their own behavior anyway.
--
What did the Deadhead say when the drugs wore off?
"Hey, this band sucks!"
--
Gregory M. Amov
>
>Knock, Knock, is anyone home!?
>
>What year are we talking about again? Do you know what this
>converstaion is about Gregory?
If I assume I can read, it is about smoking at a Tull concert. If it is
indeed about a concert in 84 (see previous post) then the thread from my ISP
had no mention of it.
>Your whole argument here just goes up in, dare I say it, SMOKE.
Bad puns are grounds for execution by firing squad.
>I agree with and endorse the anti-smoking laws, but they were not
>instituted back then, and people smoked up a storm of both tobacco
>and pot at virtually 100% of concerts that I went to, not to mention
>other annoying behavior. Posting beforehand that there would be no
>smoking at the concert might have helped, but I kind of doubt it,
>because, and here is another comment that is going to make me real
>popular, the rock and roll listening audience is pretty far from
>civilized. That's been my observation at the "concerts" I've been to.
>
>I'd kind of like to go to a concert where people don't try to sing
>or yell along with the artist, so I can actually hear the artist,
>or yell to each other during the performance, or get up and start
>dancing right in front of you as if no one else is even there. Not
>to mention putting feet up on chair, or throwing up, or throwing
>things, and other behavior you might expect from monkeys in the zoo.
>
>Ooooh, don't get me going :-)
I'm with you there 100%. There was a silly git in front of us at the Galaxy
who just *had* to stand up and conduct the entire concert. I'm sure he is the
only reason the band was able to stay together on stage. Fume Fume Fume 8-)
WiseGuy
> >Your whole argument here just goes up in, dare I say it, SMOKE.
>
> Bad puns are grounds for execution by firing squad.
Yes, but does he get the traditional "one last cigarette"?
sdavmor
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
That's droll...
SDM
sdavmor
<75nr0g$mm$2...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>In article <367e87ad$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Bruce Kline
<bru...@shell14.ba.best.com> wrote:
>>
>>Knock, Knock, is anyone home!?
>>
>>What year are we talking about again? Do you know what this
>>converstaion is about Gregory?
>
>If I assume I can read, it is about smoking at a Tull concert. If it is
>indeed about a concert in 84 (see previous post) then the thread from my
ISP
>had no mention of it.
>
>
>Bad puns are grounds for execution by firing squad.
>
>>instituted back then, and people smoked up a storm of both tobacco
>>and pot at virtually 100% of concerts that I went to, not to mention
>>other annoying behavior. Posting beforehand that there would be no
>>smoking at the concert might have helped, but I kind of doubt it,
>>because, and here is another comment that is going to make me real
>>popular, the rock and roll listening audience is pretty far from
>>civilized. That's been my observation at the "concerts" I've been to.
>>
>>I'd kind of like to go to a concert where people don't try to sing
>>or yell along with the artist, so I can actually hear the artist,
>>or yell to each other during the performance, or get up and start
>>dancing right in front of you as if no one else is even there. Not
>>to mention putting feet up on chair, or throwing up, or throwing
>>things, and other behavior you might expect from monkeys in the zoo.
>>
>>Ooooh, don't get me going :-)
>
>I'm with you there 100%. There was a silly git in front of us at the Galaxy
>who just *had* to stand up and conduct the entire concert. I'm sure he is
the
>only reason the band was able to stay together on stage. Fume Fume Fume
8-)
That guy was a moron and a half. He was the only thing that spoiled the
Galaxy gig.
Cheers
SDM
<snip>
WiseGuy
>
> That's droll...
droll (drÅl) adj. droller, drollest.
1. Amusingly odd or whimsically comical.
—droll n. Archaic.
A buffoon.
"Whimsical odd buffoon".
Sounds right.
Adrian Burd
> Gregory M. Amov wrote in message
> <75nr0g$mm$2...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >I'm with you there 100%. There was a silly git in front of us at the Galaxy
> >who just *had* to stand up and conduct the entire concert. I'm sure he is
> the
> >only reason the band was able to stay together on stage. Fume Fume Fume
> 8-)
>
>
>
> That guy was a moron and a half. He was the only thing that spoiled the
> Galaxy gig.
>
Perhaps the individual in question has been watching too many Last
Night of the Proms. I haven't seen it in a few years now, so perhaps
someone can say whether or not that guy (you know who I mean if you've
seen it) still makes it there.
--
____________________________________________________________
|
Adrian Burd, | Quidquid Latinae dictum sit,
Dpt. of Oceanography, | altum videtur.
Texas A&M University, |
College Station , |------------------------------------
Texas 77843-3146 |
F: (409) 847 8879 | http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/~ecomodel
W: (409) 845 1115 |
_______________________|____________________________________
Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone,
for which organisations that use spokespersons
are profoundly grateful.
_____________________________________________________________
kl...@my-dejanews.com
Perhaps if we all keep in mind that we, the audience, are paying for the
privilege of seeing a favored musician perform. Said artist does not owe us
friendship nor anything really, except the performance. Sadly enough people
seem to think that buying a concert ticket is somehow buying them more.
In October I was fortunate enough to attend a ProjeKct Four concert. Before
the show started it was made very clear to the audience by the venue
organizers that smoking was not tolerated anywhere near the stage and must be
kept confined to the bar.
I saw Tull in September at an outdoor venue where smoke floated round on all
sides, from multiple sources. Frankly, it was an irritant to have someone
blowing smoke at me while I tried to listen/watch. It's also highly
frustrating to see people dump the debris of smoking all over the place with
even less regard for the environment than is being shown for peers and
performers. At a recent Billy Bragg concert I was struck again at the
insensitivity of people to throw cigarettes on the floor of a historic venue
and crush them out.
If we respect these artists so much as to pay for the priviledge of seeing
them perform, then why do people insist that they be allowed to behave in a
manner which is disrespectful. I personally do not think it matters if the
smoke in question was tabacco, clove, or marajuana based, it's smoke.
This is not, actually an attack on smokers. It is some rather sad commentary
about the behavior of some smokers who feel that they should be allowed to
indulge and dispose where & whenever they please.
********************
and thru the wire*
*I touch the power
********************-->Peter Gabriel
Mark Colman
Fripp, Levin, Bruford? Or Belew, Fripp, Gunn? Let us know what it was
like.
Thanks,
Mark
Block Dog
wrote:
Belew, Firpp and Gun would be Projekt 2.
Block
Block Dog
wrote:
>Blowing the smoke aside- How was that Projekt 4 gig? That would be
>Fripp, Levin, Bruford? Or Belew, Fripp, Gunn? Let us know what it was
>like.
>Thanks,
>Mark
From: Mar...@aol.com
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998
Subject: KC
One question I have, and I asked Trey Gunn without much success,
"P2, 3 guitars, What were you thinking????" I'm curious about
what
your ideas about that association was going to bring (of course,
before the "wonder drums" entered the picture). Was it going to
be
a Guitar Craft like thing? Soundscapes with noise and Warr riffs
overtop?
Take care,
Mark J.
ADRIAN:
Last year Robert and I talked twice about the idea of a trio
with Trey.
The first time we talked I thought we might do some Crimson
classics
with a new twist. Say, for example, using our guitar synthes to
create
a string trio-with-vocal rendition of FRAME BY FRAME. By the
time we
spoke about a trio again I was revved up about this new compact
VDrum
system I had just seen at the NAMM show, and I quickly mentioned
the
idea of taking along such a small kit so we could on occasion be
a
power trio of sorts. The next time Trey, Robert, and I met it
wasn't
to form a trio but to continue working out new Crimson material.
We
began, the three guitarists, playing a piece called
ConstruKCtion.
We took a coffee break. Just two days earlier my VDrums had
arrived
and were set up in the corner of the studio. When we started
again I
asked what we would like to do next. Robert requested a
demonstration
of the "wonder drums". As I started playing, Trey and Robert
joined me
in an improvised 20-minute piece. Voila! P2 was born. So you
see there
was no grand plan, I simply became the drummer so we could play
together
as a band. Within 3 days we made a double-record and decided to
do some
live shows as ProjeKCt Two. By that time the thought of three
guitarists
playing Crimson classics no longer seemed as exciting.
ABQA*ABQA*ABQA*ABQA*ABQA*ABQA*ABQA*ABQA*ABQA*
From: ASchu...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
Subject: KC
If ProjeKCt Four is rehearsing in Nashville as per the press
release,
will they be using your facilities and, if so, do you mind not
being
included? What will you do while they're rehearsing and touring?
Arnie
ADRIAN:
P4 have been rehearsing here in my studio all week. Today was
their last
day. I've been catching up on business calls, home maintenance,
and
writing new guitar sounds and song ideas. I'm happy not being a
part of
it since their main aim is to do a short tour, something which
I'm not
interested in at this time. How did they sound? I don't know, I
couldn't
hear them and didn't want to intrude on their brief rehearsal.
While
they tour I'll be continuing the making of my next solo record.
~ ~
@@
(< )
(::':':':::'''::O::)
W
bruc...@msn.com
> While listening to my just aquired CD of "Walk Into Light", I searched
> for
> the name "Peter-John Vettese" and found an interview from Aug 1991
> containing the following excerpt.
>
> .... He [PJV] was
> best-known, though, for a stint with Jethro Tull, which began when
> he answered a
> trade journal "keyboardist wanted" ad and ended one memorable night
> when band
> leader Ian Anderson, bedeviled by throat problems and tour
> pressures, "exploded"
> during an L.A. concert.
>
> "He stopped the band, jumped into the audience, and gave them a
> whole load of spec
> [i.e., create a spectacle]. At that point, Jethro Tull as a unit
> kind of crumbled. Although
> I understood Ian's problem, I thought his behavior was despicable.
> That was it for me;
> that turned me off from continuing with the band any further."
>
> Interview at http://hiregun.com/go_west/interviews/pj_vettese.html
>
>
> I am unfamiliar with the incident mentioned.
> Would anyone who was at that show care to elaborate?
>
> --
> Stephen Stair
> sstair...@iname.com
Steven, I was there at the Tull show you spoke of. Ian Anderson told off the audience for smoking Pot. And that was irritating to his throat. Ian sounded Awful, but he just played a lot of Flute, instead of singing. It was a Crazy show. I was there, Bruce L.A. California