Since ABWH will be on the box set...
Clyde
finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
Rob Allen
>
>Since there will be at least one ABWH cut on the box set..does this
>finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
I'm wondering if this is a _real box set_ or just some sad joke, put out by
some cruel bastards, who seem to have questionable tastes in a number of
different areas.
Rob Allen
" Honesty isn't always the most intelligent policy." -- Theus
Stephen Bruun
news:5a411ed.02050...@posting.google.com...
> Since there will be at least one ABWH cut on the box set..does this
> finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
By that logic, "Run With The Fox" was a real Yes single.
It comes down to a sort of epistemological debate over what makes something
a "real" Yes recording. I class ABWH with Yes (it's in my CD collection
between "Big Generator" and "Union") but I don't question the sanity or
morals of those who file it under "A." I certainly think that ABWH has a
much, much stronger CLAIM to being a "real" Yes album than any other
Yes-related effort that was not actually released under the Yes name.
Theus
> finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
I doubt it.
--
Michael E.J. Smith
Rob "internet kook and troll wannabe" Allen's new #1 obsession
Ed Arnold
wrote:
>Since there will be at least one ABWH cut on the box set..does this
>finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
Yes
Eric Donin
Rob Allen wrote:
> bob.m...@redstone.army.mil (Clyde) wrote:
> >
> >Since there will be at least one ABWH cut on the box set..does this
> >finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
>
> I'm wondering if this is a _real box set_ or just some sad joke, put out by
> some cruel bastards, who seem to have questionable tastes in a number of
> different areas.
You really do have to wonder about that and a number of things, not least of
which: here's a set produced by a guy who has had a hardon the last couple of
years to play his beloved To Be Over live again, yet no mention of that, live
or studio, for the boxed set. What's up with that? Are they too cheap or
petty to pay Moraz royalties or did somebody get stoned and forget where they
put the tape? And how many of us are staying awake all night with excitement
and anticipation awaiting the definitive "full-length album versions" of
Roundabout and ISAGP? "Quick, Martha, better post our other dozen versions of
Roundabout on e-bay, before In a Word: Yes (1969 - ) is released and completely
devaluates them!"
Henry Potts
>You really do have to wonder about that and a number of things, not
>least of which: here's a set produced by a guy who has had a hardon the
>last couple of years to play his beloved To Be Over live again, yet no
>mention of that, live or studio, for the boxed set. What's up with
>that? Are they too cheap or petty to pay Moraz royalties or did
>somebody get stoned and forget where they put the tape?
45 or so tracks are yet to be announced. I guarantee you that there will
be something from _Relayer_ among those!
--
Henry
Stephen Bruun
news:3CD979FF...@bellsouth.net...
> You really do have to wonder about that and a number of things, not least
of
> which: here's a set produced by a guy who has had a hardon the last couple
of
> years to play his beloved To Be Over live again, yet no mention of that,
live
> or studio, for the boxed set. What's up with that?
What's up with what - the fact that To Be Over was not one of the four named
tracks listed in the press release? Might it not be one of the other 45
tracks? If they had mentioned "To Be Over," we'd be hearing complaints
about how "South Side..." isn't mentioned. I suspect "To Be Over" might be
a likely inclusion if only because it's the shortest "Relayer" track and
space is kinda tight.
Stephen Bruun
news:3cd9762b...@news.craftech.com...
No, because for everyone who says "It's on the box, it's a real Yes track,"
there will be someone else saying "They put it on by mistake" or "the record
company forced them to do it" or "Howe just wanted to piss off Squire." By
this time, I suspect that everyone who cares already has made up their mind
about whether ABWH is a Yes album - there is no debate to settle, just
people looking for arguments to back up a position they've already taken and
will never give up. The ABWH argument has come up before on AMY and I've
never seen anyone reply by saying "well, that argument certainly changed my
mind about whether it's a real Yes album."
Michel Forest
Stephen Bruun wrote:
> Clyde <bob.m...@redstone.army.mil> wrote in message
> news:5a411ed.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > Since there will be at least one ABWH cut on the box set..does this
> > finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
>
> By that logic, "Run With The Fox" was a real Yes single.
I don't know about that but it's much better than any ABWH song.
Steven Sullivan
: bob.m...@redstone.army.mil (Clyde) wrote:
:>
:>Since there will be at least one ABWH cut on the box set..does this
:>finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
: I'm wondering if this is a _real box set_ or just some sad joke, put out by
: some cruel bastards, who seem to have questionable tastes in a number of
: different areas.
Yes.
--
-S.
"AMY gets real boring when all you read is flames too" - jman.
Lee
Squire record his own basswork into these songs. THEN they could be
called Yes songs? Or would we call them ABWHS songs?
Jeff Troutman
That would work for me. Haven't read the press release but I wouldn't be
surprised if "Soon" shows up. I'd just like to see more from "Relayer" get
included.
Jeff Troutman
Tiz
>By this time, I suspect that everyone
>who cares already has made up their
>mind about whether ABWH is a Yes album
I'm amongst those always prepared to be Going For The 2 ;-)
Tiz (delete anti-spam 'Q' to email me!)
in...@progress.freeserveQ.co.uk
ProgressForum site - for CD reviews
+ YES-related CD stock for sale (till all is sold)
http://www.geocities.com/progressforum/
+ supporters club YES Music Circle (1980 onward)
Nonny
<<
Since there will be at least one ABWH cut on the box set..does this
finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
>>
No.
--
A. Nonny-Muss
Iron Chef Vegetarian
~
The Yes Chronicles
www.geocities.com/blackfedora3/yeshome.html
~
Peace through liberty
www.libertarians4peace.net
ideapower
Here's my (recently revised) formula for Yesness.
Yesness = any sum of 5 or greater by adding the following elements:
Squire 3
Anderson 3
Howe 2
Wakeman 1
Bruford 1
White 1
Kaye 0
Moraz 0
Downes 0
Horn -1
Rabin -1
So... ABWH fits. Even an Anderson-Howe collaboration would fit for me.
But Wakeman featuring Bruford does not count, but a
Wakeman-Bruford-Squire collaboration does.
Anybody agree or disagree?
-ideapower
Henry Potts
So "Spring - Song of Innocence" from _Ramshackled_ and "Sad Eyed Lady of
the Lowlands" from _Portraits of Bob Dylan_ *are* Yes, but "White Car"
(_Drama_), "Si" and "Solly's Beard" (both _9012Live - The Solos_)
aren't...
--
Henry
YesELPkCrimson
<< Yesness = any sum of 5 or greater by adding the following elements: <snipped
for brevity>
>
>Anderson 3
>Howe 2
>White 1 >>
Henry Potts wrote:
<< So "Spring - Song of Innocence" from _Ramshackled_ [*is*] Yes, [...] >>
Of course it is! There's even a Dean Yes logo embossed on the album cover. ;-)
--
'YesELPkCrimson'
MAFortFam<at>aol<dot>com (MarkF)
"Parts without parts are simples.
All simples are parts of moments.
Not all moments of parts are simples."
- Kenneth Derus: _Memories And Their Objects_
Tiz
>[...] "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands"
>from _Portraits of Bob Dylan_ *are* Yes
Imagine : Bob Dylan is in the audience of a Classic Yes 2002 show - and
Messrs Howe and Anderson pay tribute to their special spectator!
What do you reckon, a.m.y. musicians, would it take an age to rehearse?
Could the other guys contribute?
IMHO it's a remarkably interesting track on the CD - and could intrigue
media people, if only they realised it exists - and that Dylan has publicly
shown respect for Howe.
http://www.geocities.com/progressforum/r2.how-s.html
carries the ProgressForum review of the CD - further comments welcome, for
possible addition to that page
Tiz
now carries the ProgressForum review of Steve Howe CD _Portraits of Bob
Dylan_
(Several pages are moving on the site, during revamping...!)
marek jedlinski
>>Squire 3
>>Anderson 3
>>Howe 2
>>Wakeman 1
>>Bruford 1
>>White 1
>>Kaye 0
>>Moraz 0
>>Downes 0
>>Horn -1
>>Rabin -1
>>
>
>So "Spring - Song of Innocence" from _Ramshackled_ and "Sad Eyed Lady of
>the Lowlands" from _Portraits of Bob Dylan_ *are* Yes, but "White Car"
>(_Drama_), "Si" and "Solly's Beard" (both _9012Live - The Solos_)
>aren't...
"White Car" scores 5, "Solly's Beard" scores 6, so they both make it. I
assume we count all members in a lineup, even for solo performances. If we
don't, then it still makes sense, because "White Car" scores 5, while
neither "Solly's Beard" nor "Mood for a Day" make it.
.marek
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Say NO to HTML in email
\ / Homepage, PGP Public Key: http://www.pdi.net/~eristic/
X No ads, no nags freeware: http://www.pdi.net/~eristic/free/
/ \
Henry Potts
... and nor are "Clear Days", "Cinema", "Evensong" or "Sign Language"...
--
Henry
Steven Sullivan
: Henry Potts <he...@REMOVETOEMAILbondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>>Squire 3
:>>Anderson 3
:>>Howe 2
:>>Wakeman 1
:>>Bruford 1
:>>White 1
:>>Kaye 0
:>>Moraz 0
:>>Downes 0
:>>Horn -1
:>>Rabin -1
:>>
:>
:>So "Spring - Song of Innocence" from _Ramshackled_ and "Sad Eyed Lady of
:>the Lowlands" from _Portraits of Bob Dylan_ *are* Yes, but "White Car"
:>(_Drama_), "Si" and "Solly's Beard" (both _9012Live - The Solos_)
:>aren't...
: "White Car" scores 5, "Solly's Beard" scores 6, so they both make it. I
: assume we count all members in a lineup, even for solo performances. If we
: don't, then it still makes sense, because "White Car" scores 5,
Nope, White Car scores -1, since it's just Downes and Horn.
ideapower
> > >Yesness = any sum of 5 or greater by adding the following elements:
> > >
> > >Squire 3
> > >Anderson 3
> > >Howe 2
> > >Wakeman 1
> > >Bruford 1
> > >White 1
> > >Kaye 0
> > >Moraz 0
> > >Downes 0
> > >Horn -1
> > >Rabin -1
> > >
> > >Anybody agree or disagree?
> >
> > So "Spring - Song of Innocence" from _Ramshackled_ and "Sad Eyed Lady of
> > the Lowlands" from _Portraits of Bob Dylan_ *are* Yes, but "White Car"
> > (_Drama_), "Si" and "Solly's Beard" (both _9012Live - The Solos_)
> > aren't...
>
> ... and nor are "Clear Days", "Cinema", "Evensong" or "Sign Language"...
Just to clarify... Yes albums are Yes albums. Ever since Fragile,
there have been solo pieces with albums here and there... and the YES
logo or name appearing on anything would qualify it automatically. All
YES albums fit the formula when you take the album as a whole anyway.
What I'm really talking about is stuff like ABWH and other
collaborations that aren't CALLED Yes, but which I consider to be
anyway... like someone said, ABWH falls between Big Generator and
Union in my CD collection. You could pick apart ABWH's tracks if you
want to, and then "The Meeting" wouldn't qualify since it only scores
a 4. But I count the whole album.
-ideapower
Stephen Bruun
news:a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com...
> Just to clarify... Yes albums are Yes albums. Ever since Fragile,
> there have been solo pieces with albums here and there... and the YES
> logo or name appearing on anything would qualify it automatically. All
> YES albums fit the formula when you take the album as a whole anyway.
>
> What I'm really talking about is stuff like ABWH and other
> collaborations that aren't CALLED Yes, but which I consider to be
> anyway... like someone said, ABWH falls between Big Generator and
> Union in my CD collection. You could pick apart ABWH's tracks if you
> want to, and then "The Meeting" wouldn't qualify since it only scores
> a 4. But I count the whole album.
I don't know if I was the only one, but I said I put ABWH between Generator
and Union.
Obviously, who plays on the album is a crucial consideration. The fact that
four Yes guys - who had all been in Yes at the same time - are on ABWH is a
big factor. But there's also the question of "intent." You need to look at
an album's hanging chads and figure out where the band was heading.
A Bruford-Moraz album isn't a Yes album. Squire's first solo LP has two
other Yessians on it - Bruford and Moraz, oddly enough - but they weren't in
Yes together, and it was intended all along as an outside project. Same
with Wakeman's "Criminal Record" and any number of solo albums that happen
to have other Yessians on them.
ABWH was conceived as a Yes project or at least a Yes-like project. All of
them got equal billing. (Some say it was Jon album in disguise, but
undisputed Yes albums have sometimes been dominated by one member or
another, so that doesn't prove much.) Not everyone loves ABWH, but to me at
least they seem to be going for a Yes "feel" with the album. It seems to
fit much more snugly with Yes' material than with Jon's solo work, for
instance.
By way of comparison I will observe that Ringo Starr put out a solo album,
"Ringo," in 1973. Among the special guests on the album were John Lennon,
Paul McCartney, and George Harrison (and even Billy Preston, for a "Get
Back" session reunion). But it's not a Beatles album and no one says it is.
It's a Ringo album with Beatles on it. A strict head count of band members
would suggest Beatlehood but that ignores the content of the record.
Confusing and convoluted perhaps, but that's a big part of why I, for one,
consider ABWH to be, at the very least, an honorary Yes album. (There are
other factors as well, such as the essential default by "Cinema" owing to
its near-total dormancy after 1987.)
--
To reply, remove YOUR OWN EYES
rObert
> bob.m...@redstone.army.mil (Clyde) writes:
>
> <<
> Since there will be at least one ABWH cut on the box set..does this
> finally end the argument that ABWH is a REAL YES ALBUM?
>
> >>
>
>
> No.
>
>
"Yes" might mean different things to different people, and in
different contexts. Offcially, for-sure, canon, ABWH is not Yes,
"Yes" here being a proper noun. But in terms of the essence of the
thing, ABWH might be considered Yes if "Yes" is taken more as an
adjective--like, "Some of these tracks are so
mostoftheguyswhoplayedonFragile-ish." I guess the bottom line answer
to "Is ABWH Yes?", is "Well, yes and no...", just like most of the
main features of the band (lineup, style, etc) are pretty hazy.
Is some ways it reminds me of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. Are
CSN, CSNY, and CN all the same band? Had they used some group name,
like The Fat Hippies or something, the answer would probably be yes.
But since the name made it sound like a collaboration, the answer is
not so clear.
ideapower
> > collaborations that aren't CALLED Yes, but which I consider to be
> > anyway... like someone said, ABWH falls between Big Generator and
> I don't know if I was the only one, but I said I put ABWH between Generator
> and Union.
you're not the only one. pretty common i would think .
> big factor. But there's also the question of "intent." You need to look at
> an album's hanging chads and figure out where the band was heading.
good point about intent, except that, like with most artists, the
audience is seldom if ever able to know the full intent of the artist,
and so we have to interpret from the work itself.
>
> A Bruford-Moraz album isn't a Yes album. Squire's first solo LP has two
> other Yessians on it - Bruford and Moraz, oddly enough - but they weren't in
> Yes together, and it was intended all along as an outside project. Same
> with Wakeman's "Criminal Record" and any number of solo albums that happen
> to have other Yessians on them.
i attribute Yesness to Squire's FOOW not only because of the
contributions, but because of the spirit that is in much of the music
- it feels very Yes to me... and also because of the context of this
album, just like Olias and even King Arthur, and arguably Ramshackled
(but not Story of I- sorry) because they were done in lieu of another
Yes album, but in the Yes spirit, as a Yes experiment, much like King
Crimson's Projeckts. So despite the formula it just earns browning
points in my book.
-ideapower
JT
Hey, ABHW is YES Music!!! Everyone who disagrees, get over it.
Semantics be damned. Hell, they would have recorded and toured as YES
if Anderson or Howe had owned the YES name instead of Squire and we
all know it. They toured for the album and played a whole let of YES
music in the set. Didn't play any Zepplin or Genesis, they played
YES. Then, they turned around and put the second ABHW material on to
a YES cd called Union. Most of which sounds less "Yessish" than the
stuff on ABHW. Now they are putting ABHW material in to a YES box
set. That seals the deal.
Now on the other hand is the ABHW album material quality YES music?
Jim "I'm right on this one" Thomas
Rob Allen
>
>ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com...
>
>> Just to clarify... Yes albums are Yes albums. Ever since Fragile,
>> there have been solo pieces with albums here and there... and the YES
>> logo or name appearing on anything would qualify it automatically. All
>> YES albums fit the formula when you take the album as a whole anyway.
>>
>> What I'm really talking about is stuff like ABWH and other
>> collaborations that aren't CALLED Yes, but which I consider to be
>> anyway... like someone said, ABWH falls between Big Generator and
>> Union in my CD collection. You could pick apart ABWH's tracks if you
>> want to, and then "The Meeting" wouldn't qualify since it only scores
>> a 4. But I count the whole album.
>
>I don't know if I was the only one, but I said I put ABWH between Generator
>and Union.
I have a rack dedicated to Yes and Yes-related, so ABWH is up top, after
Damion, Deborah and Jade Anderson, but before Jon solo...although, now that I
think of it, I'm not sure why...
rOjO...@aol.com
>
> Yesness = any sum of 5 or greater by adding the following elements:
>
> Squire 3
> Anderson 3
> Howe 2
> Wakeman 1
> Bruford 1
> White 1
> Kaye 0
> Moraz 0
> Downes 0
> Horn -1
> Rabin -1
>
This is actually a pretty neat idea but this scale allows for too
much prejudice. Moraz, Kaye and Downes deserve a single credit.
According to this method Relayer has less Yesness than Tormato. Also
OYE scores equal to Relayer.
Another example of prejudice is that many were of the opinion that
Homeworld was possibly the best track Yes had recorded since early
Yes, but Sherwood who wrote a good portion of the song isn't even
mentioned. How can one of the best recent Yessongs not attain some of
it's Yesness through it's very author? Igor is credited on
Homeworld/The Ladder.
My opinion is that anyone appearing on a track should get 1 point.
Anyone with writing credit should get 2. Members felt to be more
proximal to the Yesness of the track should then receive higher credit
accordingly.
gmelin
ideapower <idea...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in article
<4e78d141.0205...@posting.google.com>...
| i attribute Yesness to Squire's FOOW not only because of the
| contributions, but because of the spirit that is in much of the music
| - it feels very Yes to me... and also because of the context of this
| album, just like Olias and even King Arthur, and arguably Ramshackled
| (but not Story of I- sorry) because they were done in lieu of another
| Yes album, but in the Yes spirit, as a Yes experiment, much like King
| Crimson's Projeckts.
_King Arthur_ was recorded at a time was Wakeman had no connection to the
band whatsoever. It was in no way recorded "in lieu of a Yes album" or "as
a yes experiment." On the other hand, _i_ was indeed recorded as part of
the big solo album break the band collectively took. For you to exclude
it, and yet to *include* _Ramshackled_, whereon *none* of the material was
written by any member of Yes, but rather was material dating back to before
White had any involvement with the band, seems entirely arbitrary. In the
end, your "Yesness scale" seems based on nothing more than whether you
personally like the individuals involved.
So despite the formula it just earns browning
| points in my book.
"Browning points"?
--
gmelin
Somebody has to be the grown-ups, and now it's our turn.
-- Dave Barry
Stephen Bruun
news:01c1f947$cbc58bc0$4ff8fc9e@computer...
> "Browning points"?
You know . . . how is this a Yes album? Let me count the member points....
ideapower
> _King Arthur_ was recorded at a time was Wakeman had no connection to the
> band whatsoever. It was in no way recorded "in lieu of a Yes album" or "as
> a yes experiment."
True... although it was not preceded by a Yes split, it formed a
foundation of the work Wakeman would later do on GFt0 and Tormato.
Perhaps i misspoke if you take it that I consider it a Yes ALBUM. I
just think it has a small amount Yes relevance considering its
context.
> On the other hand, _i_ was indeed recorded as part of
> the big solo album break the band collectively took.
Moraz's other projects have no more relevance than the Buggles, in my
book. He's very talented, but he doesn't MAKE Yes. That's why he
scores a "0"
> For you to exclude
> it, and yet to *include* _Ramshackled_, whereon *none* of the material was
> written by any member of Yes, but rather was material dating back to before
> White had any involvement with the band, seems entirely arbitrary.
Now, see, there's something I didn't know (about the material
predating Yes.) Except of course for "Spring- Song of Innocence"...
there's one track NO Yes fan should be without. Are you saying that
one was recorded before White joined Yes? That would be weird if its
true, but it seems unlikely to me.
In the
> end, your "Yesness scale" seems based on nothing more than whether you
> personally like the individuals involved.
Well, I don't know any of the individuals. But if you're implying that
my formula is based on my personal opinion of what makes Yes-ness in
the music of my favorite group of musicians... guilty as charged. I'm
no scientist - just a fan.
>
> So despite the formula it just earns browning
> | points in my book.
>
> "Browning points"?
Yes, browning points. It's Squire, for crying out loud? It's gotta
count for something. :)
ideapower
> gmelin <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:01c1f947$cbc58bc0$4ff8fc9e@computer...
> > "Browning points"?
>
> You know . . . how is this a Yes album? Let me count the member points....
you got me... it doesn't fit the formula.
-ideapower
ideapower
> This is actually a pretty neat idea but this scale allows for too
> much prejudice. Moraz, Kaye and Downes deserve a single credit.
Yeah, well maybe Kaye and Downes.
> According to this method Relayer has less Yesness than Tormato. Also
> OYE scores equal to Relayer.
Yeah, well they've both got their strong points and their weak points.
> Another example of prejudice is that many were of the opinion that
> Homeworld was possibly the best track Yes had recorded since early
> Yes, but Sherwood who wrote a good portion of the song isn't even
> mentioned. How can one of the best recent Yessongs not attain some of
> it's Yesness through it's very author?
point taken.
Igor is credited on
> Homeworld/The Ladder.
>
> My opinion is that anyone appearing on a track should get 1 point.
> Anyone with writing credit should get 2. Members felt to be more
> proximal to the Yesness of the track should then receive higher credit
> accordingly.
Nice idea.... but my scale is based on albums. It would seem like
sacriledge to me to cut Fragile apart by cutting "Cans and Brahms"
"Mood for a Day" "The Fish" and "We Have Heaven" out of Yes-ness.
Like I said before... anything appearing on a Yes album qualifies
because every Yes album as a whole fits the formula, AND because they
say "Yes" on the cover... and you can't take that away.
I'd love to see a version of this kind of formula, though. It would be
very interesting to see which tracks don't make it into "supreme
Yes-ness". But I'm just talking about "basic Yes-ness".
....
IDEAPOWER'S REVISED FORMULA:
Yes-ness = any sum of 6 or greater by adding the following elements:
Squire 4
Anderson 4
Howe 3
Wakeman 2
Bruford 2
White 2
Sherwood 1
Kaye 1
Moraz 1
Khoroshev 0
Downes 0
Horn -1
Rabin -1
any holes in the formula now?
Stephen Bruun
> Yes-ness = any sum of 6 or greater by adding the following elements:
>
> Squire 4
> Anderson 4
> Howe 3
> Wakeman 2
> Bruford 2
> White 2
> Sherwood 1
> Kaye 1
> Moraz 1
> Khoroshev 0
> Downes 0
> Horn -1
> Rabin -1
>
> any holes in the formula now?
Side one of "Criminal Record" is now a Yes record, with 8 points.
"Fish Out Of Water" has 7 points and is a complete Yes album.
Several tracks on "Conspiracy" (with White on drums) are now Yes tracks.
No point value for Banks?
Theus
> book. He's very talented, but he doesn't MAKE Yes. That's why he
> scores a "0"
>
without him and you'll won't notice any significant difference, unless you
go before TYA and after Drama.
--
Michael E.J. Smith
Rob "internet kook and troll wannabe" Allen's new #1 obsession
gmelin
ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com>...
| > For you to exclude
| > it, and yet to *include* _Ramshackled_, whereon *none* of the material
was
| > written by any member of Yes, but rather was material dating back to
before
| > White had any involvement with the band, seems entirely arbitrary.
|
| Now, see, there's something I didn't know (about the material
| predating Yes.) Except of course for "Spring- Song of Innocence"...
| there's one track NO Yes fan should be without.
"Song of Innocence" sucks. You'd realize that if you could get past the
"It has Jon and Steve on it!" part.
Are you saying that
| one was recorded before White joined Yes?
Umm. . . no. It was recorded at the same time as the rest of the album.
| > So despite the formula it just earns browning
| > | points in my book.
| >
| > "Browning points"?
|
| Yes, browning points. It's Squire, for crying out loud? It's gotta
| count for something. :)
WTF are "browning points"?
gmelin
ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com>...
| IDEAPOWER'S REVISED FORMULA:
| Yes-ness = any sum of 6 or greater by adding the following elements:
|
| Squire 4
| Anderson 4
| Howe 3
| Wakeman 2
| Bruford 2
| White 2
| Sherwood 1
| Kaye 1
| Moraz 1
| Khoroshev 0
| Downes 0
| Horn -1
| Rabin -1
|
| any holes in the formula now?
I'm reminded of the scene in "Dead Poets Society" where they calculate how
good a poem is on a cartesian plane. I believe the Robin Williams
character called it "excrement."
ideapower
going back to previous post... this scale is for entire albums. not
individual tracks or "side one" of an album. entire albums. both
sides. all tracks collectively.
and the scale does not necessarily make something a Yes album... only
official Yes albums are Yes albums.. .what I am attributing to the
other projects is Yes-ness. Another poster (claim credit if you must)
called ABWH an "honorary Yes album." .... this is what i am talking
about.
Fish Out of Water has Yes-ness in my book. If I were recommending
albums for a budding Yes fan who already has all the official albums,
this one would definitely be near the top of the list, because of its
YESNESS FACTOR®
>
> No point value for Banks?
oh, yeah. poor banks. I suppose if I put Downes and Moraz in there...
he at least gets a 0. i'm sure i'm not the only one who forgets about
him.
once again....
YESNESS FACTOR
(ideapower's revised formula 4.0)
------------------------------
Yes-ness = any sum of 6 or greater by adding the following elements:
------------------------------
Yes name on cover +37
Squire +4
Anderson +4
Howe +3
Wakeman +2
Bruford +2
White +2
Sherwood +1
Kaye +1
Moraz +1
Khoroshev 0
Downes 0
Banks 0
Horn -1
Rabin -1
since we're getting way off topic on this... it's not just about ABWH
anymore, I'm starting a new thread, in case anybody is interested.
it's called the YESNESS FACTOR.
ideapower
> a YES cd called Union. Most of which sounds less "Yessish" than the
> stuff on ABHW. Now they are putting ABHW material in to a YES box
> set. That seals the deal.
>
> Now on the other hand is the ABHW album material quality YES music?
>
> Jim "I'm right on this one" Thomas
what's funny to me is that you repeatedly refer to them as "ABHW" as
opposed to "ABWH." It's obvious which of Howe or Wakeman you prefer.
No argument here, but was that purposeful or subconscious?
ip
Stephen Bruun
> official Yes albums are Yes albums.. .what I am attributing to the
> other projects is Yes-ness. Another poster (claim credit if you must)
> called ABWH an "honorary Yes album." .... this is what i am talking
> about.
'Fraid I must (or at least can):
news:a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com
>
> Fish Out of Water has Yes-ness in my book. If I were recommending
> albums for a budding Yes fan who already has all the official albums,
> this one would definitely be near the top of the list, because of its
> YESNESS FACTOR
All right, but that does stray a bit from whether something is a Yes album.
You're not all that far from "no one from Yes is on this album, but fans
will like it." Why would Yesness NECESSARILY have to involve Yes members?
What about another band that has fully assimilated the influence? etc...
Stephen Bruun
gmelin <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> I believe the Robin Williams character called it "excrement."
Is that the opposite of an "increment"?
ideapower
I think you missed my point. What I am talking about are projects that
have enough of Yes in them to be near-Yes in nature. If there's no
element of Yes in them at all, then their Yesness is simply 0, despite
how much they have been influenced by Yes. But I understand what you
mean. And I'm not talking about what NECESSARILY makes something a Yes
album. "near-Yes" is a better description of these things. I still
don't think ABWH is full-fledges Yes, but pretty dang close.
-ip
JT
Both? Who knows, I gave up on psychoanalyzing my own Freudian slips
there too frequent to keep track of.
Jim
Jeremy Weissenburger
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> | >
> |
> | Yes, browning points. It's Squire, for crying out loud? It's gotta
> | count for something. :)
>
> WTF are "browning points"?
They're used in marshmallow toasting competitions.
--Jeremy
ideapower
> | predating Yes.) Except of course for "Spring- Song of Innocence"...
> | there's one track NO Yes fan should be without.
>
> "Song of Innocence" sucks. You'd realize that if you could get past the
> "It has Jon and Steve on it!" part.
>
your opinion. but so do a lot of "Yes" tracks, but we still count them
as worth having don't we?
> Are you saying that
> | one was recorded before White joined Yes?
>
> Umm. . . no. It was recorded at the same time as the rest of the album.
>
now you're just contradicting yourself.
> | > So despite the formula it just earns browning
> | > | points in my book.
> | >
> | > "Browning points"?
> |
> | Yes, browning points. It's Squire, for crying out loud? It's gotta
> | count for something. :)
>
> WTF are "browning points"?
geez - what country are you from??? bonus points. extra credit. it
wins the daily double. the kick is good - extra point. it gets an
extra skee-ball ticket. it makes it to the showcase showdown. do you
speak my language now?
Paul Goodwin
> > >
> > WTF are "browning points"?
>
> geez - what country are you from??? bonus points. extra credit. it
> wins the daily double. the kick is good - extra point. it gets an
> extra skee-ball ticket. it makes it to the showcase showdown. do you
> speak my language now?
I don't (thankfully)
In my land it's "brownie points"
--
Paul
Rob Allen
I'm from America...and there is no such thing as "browning points".
(unless we're talking about cooking or tanning")
Rob Allen
lol, well geez - what country are *you* from?
gmelin
ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<a8523581.0205...@posting.google.com>...
| > "Song of Innocence" sucks. You'd realize that if you could get past
the
| > "It has Jon and Steve on it!" part.
| >
|
| your opinion. but so do a lot of "Yes" tracks, but we still count them
| as worth having don't we?
Very few actual Yes songs suck. Those that do are not worth having.
| > Are you saying that
| > | one was recorded before White joined Yes?
| >
| > Umm. . . no. It was recorded at the same time as the rest of the
album.
| >
|
| now you're just contradicting yourself.
How so? _Ramshackled_ consisted entirely of material that dated back to
before White's involvement with the band, which White decided to record
during the solo album break. That includes "Song of Innocence." And in
that case, the lyrics actually date back to the early 19th Century.
| > WTF are "browning points"?
|
| geez - what country are you from???
The US
bonus points. extra credit. it
| wins the daily double. the kick is good - extra point. it gets an
| extra skee-ball ticket. it makes it to the showcase showdown. do you
| speak my language now?
No, because your language appears to be gibberish. Do you perhaps mean
"brownie points"?
Paul Goodwin
"Rob Allen" <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in message
news:20020514093900...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> > >
> >In my land it's "brownie points"
>
> lol, well geez - what country are *you* from?
>
Why, the *best* country, of course ;-)
--
Paul
Stephen Bruun
> Very few actual Yes songs suck. Those that do are not worth having.
Is there anything (apart from vacuum cleaners) that sucks that IS worth
having?
[INSERT LEWD REFERENCE]
"huh, huh, huh, he said 'INSERT'"......
Stephen Bruun
> have enough of Yes in them to be near-Yes in nature. If there's no
> element of Yes in them at all, then their Yesness is simply 0, despite
> how much they have been influenced by Yes.
Here's where I get tripped up.
Say that Anderson, Squire, White, Howe, and Wakeman record a note-perfect
rendition of the Beach Boys "Don't Worry Baby," "without all the Yes
fiddle-faddles" to use Howe's phrase. In other words, not a big reworking
like they did with "America," but rather a straight carbon copy of the Beach
Boys record. With Alan and Rick handling all the vocals. That recording
would have more "Yesness" than a note-perfect cover of "Revealing Science of
God" played by John Entwistle, Keith Emerson, et al?
But I understand what you
> mean. And I'm not talking about what NECESSARILY makes something a Yes
> album. "near-Yes" is a better description of these things. I still
> don't think ABWH is full-fledges Yes, but pretty dang close.
This is all getting kind of metaphysical. My view of the "near Yes"
situation is that, if the World Court at the Hague announced that one
already-existing album, that does not already carry the "Yes" name, should
be hereby rechristened as a Yes album, I cannot think of a more qualified
candidate than ABWH. Partly because of who's on it, partly because of the
music, etc.
In the end I don't think "Yesness" is something that can be objectively
quantified, unless you rely on a strict and limited definition of "Yesness."
In that case, good luck getting a consensus on what that definition should
be....
:-)
ideapower
> ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <a8523581.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> | > "Song of Innocence" sucks. You'd realize that if you could get past
> the
> | > "It has Jon and Steve on it!" part.
> | >
> |
> | your opinion. but so do a lot of "Yes" tracks, but we still count them
> | as worth having don't we?
>
> Very few actual Yes songs suck. Those that do are not worth having.
>
> | > Are you saying that
> | > | one was recorded before White joined Yes?
> | >
> | > Umm. . . no. It was recorded at the same time as the rest of the
> album.
> | >
> |
> | now you're just contradicting yourself.
>
> How so? _Ramshackled_ consisted entirely of material that dated back to
> before White's involvement with the band, which White decided to record
> during the solo album break. That includes "Song of Innocence." And in
> that case, the lyrics actually date back to the early 19th Century.
oh, so it was all WRITTEN prior. SO WHAT? just because it wasn't
written by Yes doesn't devalue the fact that Anderson Howe and White
collborated on a very Yes-sounding track. The track, and therefore the
album, score sufficient Yesness on the scale, despite the fact that
you don't like it personally. It's still a very valid piece of Yes
history.
>
> | > WTF are "browning points"?
> |
> | geez - what country are you from???
>
> The US
> bonus points. extra credit. it
> | wins the daily double. the kick is good - extra point. it gets an
> | extra skee-ball ticket. it makes it to the showcase showdown. do you
> | speak my language now?
>
> No, because your language appears to be gibberish. Do you perhaps mean
> "brownie points"?
nope.
somebody help me out here... where I come from the phrase is "browning
points." I've heard people say "brownie points" but usually only in
the context of some kind of bakery promotion where they were
unsuccessfully trying to be funny by using it as a double meaning.
Have I (and practically everybody I know) been saying it wrong, or is
it some kind of Girl Scout / Brownie points system from which this
originates? I've heard a few people say "brownie points" in the same
context that I say "browning points" but I always assumed they were
just saying it wrong. Kinda like I always say NU-KLEE-AR instead of
NUKE-YA-LUR for "nuclear."
I can't find a definition online, and I've found references of it
being used both ways.
-ideapower
ideapower
from Dictionary.com:
"brownie point"
An amount of credit considered as earned, especially by favorably
impressing a superior. Often used in the plural.
[From the practice of awarding points for achievement to Brownies in
the Girl Scouts.]
from Mirriam-Webster:
"brownie point"
Function: noun Usage: often capitalized B Date: circa 1962
: a credit regarded as earned especially by currying favor (as with a
superior)
from the Concise Oxord Dictionary:
"brownie point"
colloquial. a notional credit for something done to please or win
favour.
relish this now, because you won't hear it often...
i was wrong. sorry.
at least it makes sense now, with the girl scout reference.
-ideapower
Chris Jemmett
> relish this now, because you won't hear it often...
> i was wrong. sorry.
Why will we not hear it often? Are you leaving us already?
Theus
> i was wrong. sorry.
>
giot...@ix.netcom.com
<YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote:
>gmelin <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>news:01c1fb4e$33abc300$8bf8fc9e@computer...
>> Very few actual Yes songs suck. Those that do are not worth having.
>
>Is there anything (apart from vacuum cleaners) that sucks that IS worth
>having?
>
>[INSERT LEWD REFERENCE]
Here you go, Stephen. Comment from a friend: "Everything sucks except
my wife".
The Giotto Lady
ideapower
>
> Here's where I get tripped up.
>
> Say that Anderson, Squire, White, Howe, and Wakeman record a note-perfect
> rendition of the Beach Boys "Don't Worry Baby," "without all the Yes
> fiddle-faddles" to use Howe's phrase. In other words, not a big reworking
> like they did with "America," but rather a straight carbon copy of the Beach
> Boys record. With Alan and Rick handling all the vocals. That recording
> would have more "Yesness" than a note-perfect cover of "Revealing Science of
> God" played by John Entwistle, Keith Emerson, et al?
>
Point taken.. that's a nice what-if, but the truth is nothing like
that has ever happened and probably never will.
Now I'm going to nail down what I think this whole theory implies:
Yesness exists in a "6+ Yesness factor collaboration" because of the
presence of the Yes members involved, but ALSO because whenever a
collaboration of this sort occurs, the music will ALWAYS bear enough
resemblance to Yes to be considered Yes-like (whether they wrote the
music or not). They just can't help it.
>
> In the end I don't think "Yesness" is something that can be objectively
> quantified,
probably not, but doggone it, i sure am trying! :)
ideapower
gmelin
Stephen Bruun <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in article
<abrbto$b53$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
A high school physics teacher friend of mine introduces her students to the
concept of a vacuum by explaining how the higher relative pressure in the
region of higher density is the force that propels matter into the region
of lower density, while the vacuum provides no force whatsoever. She ends
this demonstration by observing that "Physics doesn't suck, it blows."
gmelin
ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com>...
| relish this now, because you won't hear it often...
| i was wrong. sorry.
Theus <mejs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<CLiE8.11684$t2.14...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
| Surely it is not the first time?
Chris Jemmett <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in article
<ue35jta...@corp.supernews.com>...
| Why will we not hear it often? Are you leaving us already?
Is it any wonder so many people here are reluctant to apologize or admit
error? Look what happens when someone does. Hardly worth it, if it's just
fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
going on and on.
Yes, I realize the irony, since I am often accused of never admitting when
I'm wrong, but when was the last time before right now that you saw
*anyone* here do it? Theus? Chris? Tim? Sullivan? Henry? Quick to
point out error in others, quicker to deny it in ourselves. We're just a
whole bunch of black-kettle-calling pots.
I for one accept Ideapower's apology.
Paul Goodwin
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> I for one accept Ideapower's apology.
>
I didn't, and don't, see how IP has done anything to apologize *for*
--
Paul
Chris Jemmett
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com>...
> | relish this now, because you won't hear it often...
> | i was wrong. sorry.
>
> Theus <mejs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <CLiE8.11684$t2.14...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> | Surely it is not the first time?
>
> Chris Jemmett <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in article
> <ue35jta...@corp.supernews.com>...
> | Why will we not hear it often? Are you leaving us already?
>
> Is it any wonder so many people here are reluctant to apologize or admit
> error? Look what happens when someone does. Hardly worth it, if it's
just
> fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
> going on and on.
>
> Yes, I realize the irony, since I am often accused of never admitting when
> I'm wrong, but when was the last time before right now that you saw
> *anyone* here do it? Theus? Chris? Tim? Sullivan? Henry? Quick to
> point out error in others, quicker to deny it in ourselves. We're just a
> whole bunch of black-kettle-calling pots.
Check the cabinet. The Lighten Up pills should be right beside the Calm Down
pills.
> I for one accept Ideapower's apology.
Sorry Bob, it seems that someone hid all your Clue pills and Humor pills
some time ago.
I'm sorry that happened and I apologize for that person's cruelty.
Theus
You've yet to do it with the whole digital vs analog.
--
Michael E.J. Smith
Rob Allen
>
>ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
><a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com>...
>| relish this now, because you won't hear it often...
>| i was wrong. sorry.
>
>Theus <mejs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
><CLiE8.11684$t2.14...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>| Surely it is not the first time?
>
>Chris Jemmett <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in article
><ue35jta...@corp.supernews.com>...
>| Why will we not hear it often? Are you leaving us already?
>
>Is it any wonder so many people here are reluctant to apologize or admit
>error?
not really, people being what they are, and all...
>Look what happens when someone does.
I don't know what there was to apologize for, but I'm not all that sure about
the 'you won't see me often wrong' comment. WTAJ?
>Hardly worth it, if it's just
>fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
>going on and on.
er...yeah...and there's a name for that...gmelin.
>
>Yes, I realize the irony, since I am often accused of never admitting when
>I'm wrong, but when was the last time before right now that you saw
>*anyone* here do it? Theus? Chris? Tim? Sullivan? Henry?
Chris may be the only candidate in that group...but then again, he's a guy who
does "Dear John" posts, so I wouldn't put anything past him.
>Quick to
>point out error in others, quicker to deny it in ourselves. We're just a
>whole bunch of black-kettle-calling pots.
I prefer to think of myself as a _stone throwing glass house_.
>
>I for one accept Ideapower's apology.
remind me of what he had to apologize for...I must have missed it.
Rob Allen
Rob Allen
Paul Goodwin
"Rob Allen" <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in message
Now why would *Rob Allen* know about a station like that? Do we have a
closet Garth & Shania fan in our midst? ;-)
<villagers begin lighting torches>
--
Paul
gmelin
Chris Jemmett <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in article
<ue4gpd7...@corp.supernews.com>...
gmelin
Theus <mejs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<OesE8.13872$oF2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
| Use google. I have admitted I was wrong when it was effectively
proven.
| You've yet to do it with the whole digital vs analog.
I'm not "wrong" in my dislike of digital music. You were wrong about Bach
being a "technological innovator," but you dodged that rather than
admitting it. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what technological
innovation Beethoven was behind. However, I'm not going to argue this
issue any more. You are welcome to continue doing so, if you still feel
compelled to prove to everybody that you are "right."
--
gmelin who had to drop out of the argument first, or the other guy would
never have let it end
gmelin
Rob Allen <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in article
<20020515095035...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
|
| >Hardly worth it, if it's just
| >fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
| >going on and on.
|
| er...yeah...and there's a name for that...gmelin.
I suggest you check the status of the digital music thread, and note who
was the only person willing to let the issue drop.
Then I'll await your apology. . .
Rob Allen
>
>"Rob Allen" <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in message
>news:20020515100529...@mb-mq.aol.com...
>> "Paul Goodwin" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >"Rob Allen" <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in message
>> >news:20020514093900...@mb-ch.aol.com...
>> >> > >
>> >> >In my land it's "brownie points"
>> >>
>> >> lol, well geez - what country are *you* from?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why, the *best* country, of course ;-)
>>
>> um...er...
>>
>> http://www.kalf.com/
>>
>
>Now why would *Rob Allen* know about a station like that? Do we have a
>closet Garth & Shania fan in our midst? ;-)
uh, well...I like a lot of different stuff.
>
><villagers begin lighting torches>
but just a sec, you anxious villagers...before you off funny, try searching
"The Best Country", and see what you get.
Rob Allen
Paul Goodwin
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> Rob Allen <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in article
> <20020515095035...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
> |
> | >Hardly worth it, if it's just
> | >fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
> | >going on and on.
> |
> | er...yeah...and there's a name for that...gmelin.
>
> I suggest you check the status of the digital music thread, and note who
> was the only person willing to let the issue drop.
>
It's not just the "digital" thread, it's all of them. Has anyone here,
*ever* posted to the effect of "after all this debate you've convinced
me---I've changed my mind----you were right and I was wrong"?
Somehow I think a days long Google session would turn up nothing ;-)
--
Paul
Paul Goodwin
"Rob Allen" <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in message
>
> but just a sec, you anxious villagers...before you off funny, try
searching
> "The Best Country", and see what you get.
>
I did... and I got
*Canada*
round and round and round we go, where we stop no-one shall know....... lol
--
Paul
Rob Allen
>
>Rob Allen <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in article
><20020515095035...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
>|
>| >Hardly worth it, if it's just
>| >fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
>| >going on and on.
>|
>| er...yeah...and there's a name for that...gmelin.
>
>I suggest you check the status of the digital music thread, and note who
>was the only person willing to let the issue drop.
no way I'm reading through that load of nonsense...besides, that there might be
an exception to every rule, doesn't change the rule.
>
>Then I'll await your apology. . .
lol, you carry on a long thread with the trolls troll and then want *me* to
apologize for...er...*anything*? YGBFKM.
Rob Allen
Rob Allen
>
>"Rob Allen" <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in message
>news:20020515124802...@mb-mq.aol.com...
>>
>> but just a sec, you anxious villagers...before you off funny, try
>searching
>> "The Best Country", and see what you get.
>>
>
>I did... and I got
>
>*Canada*
well sure...but that came up number 33 on my search. How can "the best" come
in at number 33?
>
>round and round and round we go, where we stop no-one shall know....... lol
er...*Canada*, it may be number 33 on "The Best Country" search, but it's
number 1 in everyone's heart.
Rob Allen
Steven Sullivan
: "gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
: news:01c1fbd8$3fbf64a0$5ef8fc9e@computer...
:>
:>
:> ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
:> <a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com>...
:> | relish this now, because you won't hear it often...
:> | i was wrong. sorry.
:>
:> Theus <mejs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
:> <CLiE8.11684$t2.14...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
:> | Surely it is not the first time?
:>
:> Chris Jemmett <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in article
:> <ue35jta...@corp.supernews.com>...
:> | Why will we not hear it often? Are you leaving us already?
:>
:> Is it any wonder so many people here are reluctant to apologize or admit
:> error? Look what happens when someone does. Hardly worth it, if it's
: just
:> fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
:> going on and on.
:>
:> Yes, I realize the irony, since I am often accused of never admitting when
:> I'm wrong, but when was the last time before right now that you saw
:> *anyone* here do it? Theus? Chris? Tim? Sullivan? Henry? Quick to
:> point out error in others, quicker to deny it in ourselves. We're just a
:> whole bunch of black-kettle-calling pots.
: Check the cabinet. The Lighten Up pills should be right beside the Calm Down
: pills.
here's a Google Pill for gmelin to choke on
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lKhv8.2670%24hi5.5343%40grover.nit.gwu.edu&output=gplain
--
-S.
"AMY gets real boring when all you read is flames too" - jman.
gmelin
Paul Goodwin <pgoodwin2N...@cogeco.ca> wrote in article
<abu3iu$kjk9m$1...@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de>...
| It's not just the "digital" thread, it's all of them. Has anyone here,
| *ever* posted to the effect of "after all this debate you've convinced
| me---I've changed my mind----you were right and I was wrong"?
| Somehow I think a days long Google session would turn up nothing ;-)
I was going to argue that someone *has* posted to that effect, but you've
convinced me -- I've changed my mind -- you were right and I was wrong
about that. . .
Todd Mitchell
news:<01c1fbd8$3fbf64a0$5ef8fc9e@computer>...
> Is it any wonder so many people here are reluctant to apologize or admit
> error? Look what happens when someone does. Hardly worth it, if it's just
> fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
> going on and on.
LOL. And just when I was looking for a new sig....voila!
Todd
Theus
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
For Bob Gmelin, from a google search.
"Nic Caciappo" <nic...@mlode.com> wrote in message
news:3C5F831B...@mlode.com...
>
>
> On the day of the show I had checked in with Alan and he confirmed that
> everything seemed on to him still. I told Peter this and then we met in
the
> parking area of the venue, near the artist entrance. He had already heard
the
> news that Howe wouldn't go for it. I don't think it was Howe who told him
> directly, I am inclined to believe that it was Rabin. I sat next to Banks
during
> much of the show. It was kind of sad, even during Awaken, which is the
peak
> performance of Awaken according to Jon.
>
I'm sure gmelin will be gloating for a while. It seems Bob was right.
THAT BASTARD!!!!!!!
--
Michael E.J. Smith
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and
in the darkness bind them
In honour of Bill Gates
Nigel Bamber
<idea...@yahoo.com> writes
>> | > WTF are "browning points"?
>> |
>> | geez - what country are you from???
>>
>> The US
>> bonus points. extra credit. it
>> | wins the daily double. the kick is good - extra point. it gets an
>> | extra skee-ball ticket. it makes it to the showcase showdown. do you
>> | speak my language now?
LOL - nice descriptions
>>
>> No, because your language appears to be gibberish. Do you perhaps mean
>> "brownie points"?
>
>nope.
>
>somebody help me out here... where I come from the phrase is "browning
>points." I've heard people say "brownie points" but usually only in
>the context of some kind of bakery promotion where they were
>unsuccessfully trying to be funny by using it as a double meaning.
>Have I (and practically everybody I know) been saying it wrong, or is
>it some kind of Girl Scout / Brownie points system from which this
>originates? I've heard a few people say "brownie points" in the same
>context that I say "browning points" but I always assumed they were
>just saying it wrong. Kinda like I always say NU-KLEE-AR instead of
>NUKE-YA-LUR for "nuclear."
In the UK we use 'brownie points' to mean the same thing as you do with
'browning points' and as you allude to, I've always assumed that it
comes from the 'Brownies'.
>
>I can't find a definition online, and I've found references of it
>being used both ways.
>
>-ideapower
Nigel Bamber
Rob Allen
> For Bob Gmelin, from a google search.
>
>"Nic Caciappo" <nic...@mlode.com> wrote in message
>news:3C5F831B...@mlode.com...
>>
>>
>> On the day of the show I had checked in with Alan and he confirmed that
>> everything seemed on to him still. I told Peter this and then we met in
>the
>> parking area of the venue, near the artist entrance. He had already heard
>the
>> news that Howe wouldn't go for it. I don't think it was Howe who told him
>> directly, I am inclined to believe that it was Rabin. I sat next to Banks
>during
>> much of the show. It was kind of sad, even during Awaken, which is the
>peak
>> performance of Awaken according to Jon.
>>
> I'm sure gmelin will be gloating for a while. It seems Bob was right.
>THAT BASTARD!!!!!!!
I have no idea how that post proves that gmelin was right.
Rob Allen
NP: Vanessa Carlton, _Be Not Nobody_
JT
You are right, I for one have not apologized enough. I'm sorry about that. ;)
and I do agree with what you say above. :)
Jim "amy means never having to say your sorry" Thomas
JT
Is this the exception that makes it a rule? If it's not, then I'm really sorry.
Jim
Stephen Bruun
news:01c1fbd8$3fbf64a0$5ef8fc9e@computer...
> I'm wrong, but when was the last time before right now that you saw
> *anyone* here do it? Theus? Chris? Tim? Sullivan? Henry? Quick to
> point out error in others, quicker to deny it in ourselves. We're just a
> whole bunch of black-kettle-calling pots.
Well - in mid-2000 I said that Yes couldn't POSSIBLY be foolish enough to
issue a retail version of the "House of Blues" show, after exhausting their
fan base with the imix release (identical except it had MORE TRACKS). Then
they went and dunnit. Then, as I had promised to do, I admitted my
mistake - in a new thread, rather than buried in an old one. More recently,
I admitted that I had misremembered some information about the promised
publicity campaign for "Magnification," an album that I have never seen
advertised or promoted anywhere in any form except here at AMY, at
yesworld.com, and display cards in the "Yes" section at record stores.
You've kindly omitted my name from your li'l rogues gallery, but you said
"anyone".....and by phrasing it in the form of a question, an answer seemed
a propos.....
--
To reply, remove YOUR OWN EYES
Chris Jemmett
"Steven Sullivan" <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:7RwE8.3539$hi5....@grover.nit.gwu.edu...
gmelin's nemesis: Facts.
Chris Jemmett
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
| Sorry Bob, it seems that someone hid all your Clue pills and Humor pills
> | some time ago.
> | I'm sorry that happened and I apologize for that person's cruelty.
> Chris proves my point perfectly.
Not in the slightest. I can't help you with the humor thing but here is a
clue.
IWAJ, as was, I believe, ideapower's "relish this" comment... oh, without
the humor pill, that still won't help you. Sorry, I apologize.
Chris Jemmett
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> Rob Allen <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in article
> <20020515095035...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
> |
> | >Hardly worth it, if it's just
> | >fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
> | >going on and on.
> |
> | er...yeah...and there's a name for that...gmelin.
>
> I suggest you check the status of the digital music thread, and note who
> was the only person willing to let the issue drop.
My guess is that anyone who read the whole thread would suspect that you
were so willing to let it drop because you were getting your ass kicked.
Chris Jemmett
"Rob Allen" <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in message
news:20020515095035...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> Chris may be the only candidate in that group...
I hope you're wrong about that... I think you are... well, I hope you are.
>but then again, he's a guy who
> does "Dear John" posts,
I only did one.
>so I wouldn't put anything past him.
ya just never know what kind of wacky stuff I might pull. One day I even up
and nominated *the* True Yesfan.
Tim Martin
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> ideapower <idea...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <a8523581.02051...@posting.google.com>...
> | relish this now, because you won't hear it often...
> | i was wrong. sorry.
>
> Theus <mejs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <CLiE8.11684$t2.14...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> | Surely it is not the first time?
>
> Chris Jemmett <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in article
> <ue35jta...@corp.supernews.com>...
> | Why will we not hear it often? Are you leaving us already?
>
> Is it any wonder so many people here are reluctant to apologize or admit
just
> fuel for more flames. So instead of admitting error, people just keep
> going on and on.
>
> I'm wrong, but when was the last time before right now that you saw
> *anyone* here do it? Theus? Chris? Tim? Sullivan? Henry? Quick to
> point out error in others, quicker to deny it in ourselves. We're just a
> whole bunch of black-kettle-calling pots.
Why do you make assertions that are so easily shot down, Bob? And then why
do you continue to persist in them?
TM
gmelin
Theus <mejs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<ELyE8.13494$w04.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
| "Nic Caciappo" <nic...@mlode.com> wrote in message
| news:3C5F831B...@mlode.com...
| >
| >
| > On the day of the show I had checked in with Alan and he confirmed that
| > everything seemed on to him still. I told Peter this and then we met in
| the
| > parking area of the venue, near the artist entrance. He had already
heard
| the
| > news that Howe wouldn't go for it. I don't think it was Howe who told
him
| > directly, I am inclined to believe that it was Rabin. I sat next to
Banks
| during
| > much of the show. It was kind of sad, even during Awaken, which is the
| peak
| > performance of Awaken according to Jon.
| >
| I'm sure gmelin will be gloating for a while. It seems Bob was
right.
| THAT BASTARD!!!!!!!
Nothing to gloat about. Facts are facts.
gmelin
Chris Jemmett <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in article
<ue6733r...@corp.supernews.com>...
| My guess is that anyone who read the whole thread would suspect that you
| were so willing to let it drop because you were getting your ass kicked.
As always, you guess wrong. I realized I wasn't going to convince Theus
and Tim of anything, as their minds were made up from the start, and
stopped trying. Theus, however, seems to recognize that I am in fact
open-minded enough to consider the views of others, even if he can't, and
he continues to try to drag out the issue.
gmelin
lot of nerves. I guess Tim was right when he recently said, "the truth
hurts."
Theus
prove me wrong. You failed to do that, so naturally I would never admitted
to something I believed was untrue.
--
Michael E.J. Smith
Theus
>
>
> Chris Jemmett <ccjemmett@.idirect.com> wrote in article
> <ue6733r...@corp.supernews.com>...
> | My guess is that anyone who read the whole thread would suspect that you
> | were so willing to let it drop because you were getting your ass kicked.
>
> As always, you guess wrong. I realized I wasn't going to convince Theus
> and Tim of anything, as their minds were made up from the start, and
> stopped trying. Theus, however, seems to recognize that I am in fact
> open-minded enough to consider the views of others, even if he can't, and
> he continues to try to drag out the issue.
>
opposing viewpoint. It means to give it equal consideration. It means
seeing all sides. I have done that and my analysis would lead me to believe
that my original perspective was right. Digital technology is only as good
or bad as the person who uses it. You should never mistake someone
disagreeing with you as being closed minded, as that would say more about
your perspective than it would mine.
--
Michael E.J. Smith
Rob Allen
>
>My goodness! From the nasty responses to this, I'd say I've hit an awful
>lot of nerves. I guess Tim was right when he recently said, "the truth
>hurts."
hmm, that sounds more like a personal problem, to me.
Rob Allen
Rob Allen
>
>"Rob Allen" <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in message
>news:20020515095035...@mb-mq.aol.com...
>
>> Chris may be the only candidate in that group...
>
>I hope you're wrong about that... I think you are... well, I hope you are.
>
>>but then again, he's a guy who
>> does "Dear John" posts,
>
>I only did one.
I stand corrected. Please accept my apology.
>
>>so I wouldn't put anything past him.
>
>ya just never know what kind of wacky stuff I might pull. One day I even up
>and nominated *the* True Yesfan.
yer a crazy bastard.
Rob Allen
gmelin
Rob Allen <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in article
<20020516075302...@mb-cu.aol.com>...
Maybe you shouldn't be talking about your personal problems in a public
forum, then.
Rob Allen
>
>
>Rob Allen <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in article
><20020516075302...@mb-cu.aol.com>...
>| "gmelin" gme...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote:
>| >
>| >My goodness! From the nasty responses to this, I'd say I've hit an
>awful
>| >lot of nerves. I guess Tim was right when he recently said, "the truth
>| >hurts."
>|
>| hmm, that sounds more like a personal problem, to me.
>
>Maybe you shouldn't be talking about your personal problems in a public
>forum, then.
I don't remember ever doing that, gmelin...and the truth doesn't hurt where I
come from.
Rob Allen
gmelin
Rob Allen <rob...@aol.compromisa> wrote in article
<20020516113031...@mb-ba.aol.com>...
| I don't remember ever doing that, gmelin...and the truth doesn't hurt
where I
| come from.
What you don't know can't hurt you.