worst comeback ever? John Lennon?
really real
music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without the
Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon ( 1980.)
Word says
"Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute,
wasn't Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop
ever to come from a Beatle, including Paul?
Included in their Best Comebacks page are Elvis Presley (68,)Tom Jones,
John Travolta, the Bee Gees, The Eagles, and Duran Duran.
abby then
"really real" <reall...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:C0mUi.146581$1y4.23400@pd7urf2no...
What about that time Pat Boone had a comeback as a leather-clad crooner?
fatt...@yahoo.com
> Word magazine always seems a journalist cut above the other English
> music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
> worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without the
> Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon ( 1980.)
>
> Word says
>
> "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute,
> wasn't Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop
> ever to come from a Beatle, including Paul?
Er, no. I liked Double Fantasy (at least John's bits). It is my
understanding it had mixed reviews at the time, and was selling
decently even though it may not have been destined to be #1 (until
John died).
DF has some very good music on it.
Many reviewers had John "typecast" as the rebel, the sarcastic one,
the angry young man, etc. What's wrong if he makes an album where he
sounds happy and sings about his family? Did he have to sound
miserable in EVERY song?
Sheeeesssssshhhhh.
crazytimes
The Bee Gees coming back with Saturday Night Fever?... Is that what
they mean... It's not like they went away and came back... My radar
did not detect a comeback in the 90s or 00s...
Duran Duran hardly merits on their comeback... Some 80s phenomenae
need to be restricted in their shelf life... Eagles have successful
tours, but how successful is there new music?... John Travolta is an
actor...
The Velvet Underground made happy the people that saw them play on
their European (only) Tour of their comeback... It seemed like a non-
event because they didn't play in the US... I didn't personally like
what I heard from the live album, though...
Lennon had some great singles getting lots of airplay from Double
Bubble... I really enjoyed hearing 'Starting Over', 'Woman', and
Watching The Wheels' on the radio at the time... Of Yoko's songs on
the LP, I found 'Kiss, Kiss, Kiss' and 'I'm Your Angel' tolerable...
I liked all the Lennon songs...
The Kiss without make-up tour wasn't really a comeback, it was a strip
show... The audience was horrified at the results...
rwalker
snip
>
> Word says
>
> "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute, wasn't
> Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop ever to
> come from a Beatle, including Paul?
>
snip
Just shows that for every claim that Lennon has been made into a saint,
there is someone else out there beating his corpse.
Barrabas
> Word magazine always seems a journalist cut above the other English
> music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
> worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without the
> Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon ( 1980.)
>
> Word says
>
> "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute,
> wasn't Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop
> ever to come from a Beatle, including Paul?
No. I predicted a whole new career for John Lennon, the tentative New
Wave thing going on was a factor. In the last interview or near the
last, they talk a lot about the B52s, basically doing what Yoko Ono had
been doing with the vocals.
Me
Never mind the fact that the Yoke was on half the album. If we'd had 6
more songs along the lines of what we got with Double Fantasy, it
would have been one of John's best, if not the best.
This fucktard from Word is probably some 22 year old nitwit on his
first job who lives in his parents' basement and listens to Dirty Old
Bastard outtakes all day to get his jollies.
rfor...@msn.com
Nah, he's right, DF was pretty lame, or at least very tame. I don't
hate it and it's not actively unpleasant to hear (I'm only talking
about the John tracks, we'll just leave the others aside) but it's
really not very exciting either. "I'm Losing You" is pretty good but
the rest are bland. Best of John's albums? No way, it wouldn't
compare to the visceral impact of Imagine or Plastic Ono Band; out of
the rest it might have indeed been the best but IMO that wouldn't be
saying that much.
richforman
rfor...@msn.com
> In the last interview or near the
> last, they talk a lot about the B52s, basically doing what Yoko
> Ono had been doing with the vocals.
>
I always thought that was stretching it. The B52 et al sang that way
with irony and humor (Rock Lobster I guess would be the main track
we're talking about here), they were trying to be funny and silly and
succeeding, with Yoko that was just the way she sang, she didn't have
a choice, and she was (laughably) serious.
richforman
Allen Richardson
> Word says
>
> "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute, wasn't
> Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop ever to
> come from a Beatle, including Paul?
I viewed it at the time, and still do, as a major comeback for John. It can
reasonably be argued that "(Just Like) Starting Over" was John's best song
as a solo artist. (I've never cared too much for "Imagine".) "Starting Over"
is John returning to good old fashioned r & r and away from esoteric stuff
like "Mind Games" or "No. 9 Dream". He was getting back to r & r roots,
which were his roots, and which is the area IMO he is best at. Other songs
such as "Watching the Wheels" and "Woman" are also very high up there among
his solo songs.
Maybe there is some slop on that album, but the above 3 songs alone make it
so that the guy who called it one of the "worst comebacks ever" is totally
discredited. I agree with the sentiment that he is probably some
20-year-old, and he is probably rebelling against what his dad liked.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 26, 9:33 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Word magazine always seems a journalist cut above the other English
> > music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
> > worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without the
> > Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon ( 1980.)
>
> > Word says
>
> > "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute,
> > wasn't Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop
> > ever to come from a Beatle, including Paul?
>
> > Included in their Best Comebacks page are Elvis Presley (68,)Tom Jones,
> > John Travolta, the Bee Gees, The Eagles, and Duran Duran.
>
> Never mind the fact that the Yoke was on half the album. If we'd had 6
> more songs along the lines of what we got with Double Fantasy, it
> would have been one of John's best, if not the best.
Good point. IMO some of JOhn's songs from Milk and Honey were quite
good and just need some "polishing." If John had finished up 4 or 5
songs from Milk and Honey, added them to Double Fanstasy and had
released a John Lennon Double Fantasy album, it would have been
terrific.
>
> This fucktard from Word is probably some 22 year old nitwit on his
> first job who lives in his parents' basement and listens to Dirty Old
> Bastard outtakes all day to get his jollies.
LOL.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 26, 12:36 pm, Me <BabaOhRea...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 9:33 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Never mind the fact that the Yoke was on half the album. If we'd
> > had 6 more songs along the lines of what we got with Double
> > Fantasy, it
> > would have been one of John's best, if not the best.
>
> > This fucktard from Word is probably some 22 year old nitwit on his
> > first job who lives in his parents' basement and listens to Dirty > Old Bastard outtakes all day to get his jollies.
>
> Nah, he's right, DF was pretty lame, or at least very tame.
IMO there is a difference between tame and lame. Tame can be OK. Not
every Lennon album has to be angry, wild, fll of angst, etc. If every
album John did was full of goodness, sweetness and goo, I would agree,
but Double Fantasy was a change of pace for John, and a nice one at
that.
fatt...@yahoo.com
ROTFLMAO!
Me
Oh, ok. If you say that he's right then it must be so.
uly...@mscomm.com
daft. I hate the fact he allowed Yoko's music on the album, but most
of John's songs were awfully good. Beautiful Boy was excellent. Had he
omitted Yoko's crap and included the songs he had intended for Milk
and Honey, it would have been his best solo album. Not his most
brilliant (that would POB), but his most accessible album.
He could have included Steppin' Out and Nobody Told Me and it would
have been a solidly good album.
I always thought Steppin' Out sounds exactly like a McCartney song.
John would recoil from that opinion, but I think its true. especially
the lyrics.
fatt...@yahoo.com
I agree with much of what you say. BTW I just checked the comments at
www.amazon.com and many people there liked Double Fantasy.
I don't understand how anyone could claim that this was a bad comeback
album much less one of the worst of all times.
really real
>
> I don't understand how anyone could claim that this was a bad comeback
> album much less one of the worst of all times.
>
Yeah, I agree. Double Fantasy sounded like a good comeback album, with a
big, accessible sound that Lennon's earlier stuff lacked. I forgive the
Yoko songs - that was just John's baggage. I also forgive the
shlockiness of the songs which I don't like as much as John's earlier
punchy songs. But I know good comeback album when I hear one.
really real
> The Bee Gees coming back with Saturday Night Fever?... Is that what
> they mean... It's not like they went away and came back... My radar
> did not detect a comeback in the 90s or 00s...
I seem to remember the Bee Gees fading away before they went disco.
> Eagles have successful
> tours, but how successful is there new music?.
I liked the song I heard from their new album, but seeing as they
wallmarted the damn album, that's all irrelevant now.
>
> The Velvet Underground made happy the people that saw them play on
> their European (only) Tour of their comeback... It seemed like a non-
> event because they didn't play in the US... I didn't personally like
> what I heard from the live album, though...
They seemed to play without the chemistry - and that can cast a shadow
over everything that came before.
>
>
> The Kiss without make-up tour wasn't really a comeback, it was a strip
> show... The audience was horrified at the results...
But hasn't Gene Simmons found an afterlife for himself on tv somewhere?
marcus
was like during those three weeks of listening before John killed.
Understandably, the murder colored everyone's perception of the
music. However, IIRC, I loved the album, particularly "Starting Over"
and "Woman"...the latter in particular. "Beautiful Boy" was a treat
because of the melody, and also the sound of children at play...which
for 1980 was seamless...part of the music...not just a sound effect.
John's voice was great.
I only remember one criticism, and that was from a friend who was
disappointed that "Starting Over" sounded like early 50s Rock. He was
looking for something in the prog rock direction.
I used to write the date of buying an album, especially Beatles or the
solo works, on the inside of album covers. On "Double Fantasy", I
wrote next to the date, "The Magic Is Back".
BlackMonk
"Me" <BabaOh...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193416615.9...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 9:33 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Word magazine always seems a journalist cut above the other English
>> music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
>> worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without the
>> Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon ( 1980.)
>>
>> Word says
>>
>> "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute,
>> wasn't Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop
>> ever to come from a Beatle, including Paul?
>>
>> Included in their Best Comebacks page are Elvis Presley (68,)Tom Jones,
>> John Travolta, the Bee Gees, The Eagles, and Duran Duran.
>
> Never mind the fact that the Yoke was on half the album. If we'd had 6
> more songs along the lines of what we got with Double Fantasy, it
> would have been one of John's best, if not the best.
>
John's songs were mediocre on the album. Yoko's songs were mediocre. If
you'd had six more John songs, you'd just have a mediocre album where he
couldn't put half the blame on someone else.
The most interesting thing about the album was the dialogue format.
BlackMonk
<uly...@mscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1193423016.5...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone who thinks Double Fantasy was a lousy comeback for John is
> daft.
Anyone who thinks it wasn't is deaf.
BlackMonk
"poisoned rose" <captainv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:lOsUi.60779$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Some personal picks for favorite comebacks: John Lennon, VU,
The VU comeback was more a case of "wow, they're actually playing together
again" than it was them doing anything new that interested me.
the
> Buzzcocks, Patti Smith, the Go-Betweens, XTC,
What are you thinking of? My impression of them is that they had a
successful period, then went under the radar and released sporadic albums.
Mission of Burma, Tom
> Verlaine,
His new albums or the 92 Television reunion?
>Television,
Both, I guess.
>Bob Dylan ("Time Out of Mind"),
Agreed. That album was an artistic high point of his career.
Neil Young
> ("Freedom"), Marianne Faithfull,
Broken English might be at the top of my list. The Sir Douglas Quintet did a
nice comeback album around the time, too.
Moby ("Play"), King Crimson (at
> least twice), the Soft Boys, Paul Simon ("Graceland"), Throwing
> Muses, the Wrens, Brian Wilson,
The 88 album? I could see that, though not anything else he's done since,
except Smile and maybe his new song cycle if he ever records it.
I'd put Mary Weiss up there, but I know you disagree. I still think you're
wrong about her being retro, though. If she'd really been interested in
going for an oldies audience, she could easily have done an album of sixties
covers and filled it with names more recognizable to an oldies audience than
the Reigning Sound or Billy Miller and Miriam Linna. Live, I'd say her set
is maybe a quarter Shangri Las songs, and of the four shows she's done, she
only played her biggest hit once. (Almost no old material by other artists,
either, though someone said she did a Rascals song at her last show.)
So since I'm saying things you'll disagree with, I'd put Lydia Lunch there
for her album a couple of years ago, since it was probably her first full
length album of music in over a decade, and maybe Marc Bolan for Dandy In
The Underworld.
O'Leary III
> You're rarely so repellent as when you're howling with rabid,
> overeager laughter at people insulting Ono.
I have a repellent.
O'Leary III
> I used to write the date of buying an album, especially Beatles or the
> solo works, on the inside of album covers. On "Double Fantasy", I
> wrote next to the date, "The Magic Is Back".
Didn't they also say that about the Mets?
Jeff
> Word magazine always seems a journalist cut above the other English
> music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
> worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without the
> Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon ( 1980.)
>
> Word says
>
> "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute,
> wasn't Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop
> ever to come from a Beatle, including Paul?
>
> Included in their Best Comebacks page are Elvis Presley (68,)Tom Jones,
> John Travolta, the Bee Gees, The Eagles, and Duran Duran.
IMO, the best comeback was Elvis Presley. I love his later music more
than his early music. Lennon was just a little better than
average..his entire career.
Jeff
> "really real" <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:C0mUi.146581$1y4.23400@pd7urf2no...
>
> > Word magazine always seems a journalist cut above the other English
> > music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
> > worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without
> > the Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon (
> > 1980.)
>
> > Word says
>
> > "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute,
> > wasn't Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop
> > ever to come from a Beatle, including Paul?
>
> > Included in their Best Comebacks page are Elvis Presley (68,)Tom
> > Jones, John Travolta, the Bee Gees, The Eagles, and Duran Duran.
>
That was me. I really fooled ya.
Jeff
Dang, there is a version of "I'm steppin out" from the lost Lennon
tapes radio serious I would love to own. I have it on CD...but the
sound quality..of the CD doesn't nearly match the LP Version.IF anyone
here..has the LP version..I would be more than happy to pay you for
the full version. Thanks.
Jeff
> really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Word magazine always seems a journalist cut above the other English
> > music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
> > worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without the
> > Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon ( 1980.)
>
> as disastrous as many other people say. OK, so Lou Reed was
> determined to speak-sing the songs with their past melodies
> crippled, but that's nothing new -- if that's your beef, then you
> need to throw out everything he has done for the past 20 years (or
> longer).
>
> At the very least, it was nice to hear more fully realized versions
> of "We're Gonna Have a Real Good Time Together," "Guess I'm Falling
> in Love" and "Hey Mr. Rain."
>
> I just looked up the AllMusic review of the live reunion album --
> there's an odd disconnect between the enthusiastic review and the
> two-star rating. This isn't the first time I've noticed that the
> site's ratings aren't necessarily determined by the reviewer.
>
> What other names were on the worst-comeback list? Britney? Did Sly
> Stone or Shuggie Otis make it? Elastica? Big Star? Living Colour?
> Simon & Garfunkel? The Police? Any of the later CSNY incarnations?
> Just trying to think of those names to toss out....
>
> I saw Emitt Rhodes' "comeback" show in Hollywood during the '90s,
> and if that qualifies, this might rank among the worst comebacks too.
What? His voice was terrible after the last 35 years..or the band was
bad or? Just curious, PR. Thanks.
>
> Some personal picks for favorite comebacks: John Lennon, VU, the
> Buzzcocks, Patti Smith, the Go-Betweens, XTC, Mission of Burma, Tom
> Verlaine, Television, Bob Dylan ("Time Out of Mind"), Neil Young
> ("Freedom"), Marianne Faithfull, Moby ("Play"), King Crimson (at
> least twice), the Soft Boys, Paul Simon ("Graceland"), Throwing
> Muses, the Wrens, Brian Wilson, Tom Waits, the Clean (more than
> once), Ornette Coleman ("Sound Grammar"), Wire (twice), Roy Orbison,
> Captain Beefheart ("Shiny Beast"), Roxy Music (reunion tour, rather
> than on record) and Pere Ubu ("The Tenement Year"). Does Pink Floyd
> rebounding from the loss of Syd Barrett count?
>
> I haven't heard the new Meat Puppets album yet, but it sure is
> wonderful to know the Kirkwood brothers are together again. Ditto
> for the return of Roky Erickson. I haven't heard this year's Buffalo
> Tom/Stooges/Dinosaur Jr. comeback discs in full yet -- can't
> pronounce a verdict. Sounds like the reunited Raspberries shows have
> been surprisingly good, but I missed the local date. :(
>
> I wish this decade's "comebacks" of Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel had
> met my hopes.
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > Buzzcocks, Patti Smith, the Go-Betweens, XTC,
>>
>> What are you thinking of? My impression of them is that they had a
>> successful period, then went under the radar and released sporadic
>> albums.
>
> I was referring to Apple Venus Vol. 1 (after seven years without an
> album).
Don't they usually go for long periods between albums? I could be wrong, but
I don't think Apple Venus was received as a return to form or an advance
over their previous work, so it was business as usual for them.
Would you consider the albums Sean Lennon and Ray Davies released last year
as comebacks?
>
>> I'd put Mary Weiss up there, but I know you disagree. I still think
>> you're
>> wrong about her being retro, though. If she'd really been interested in
>> going for an oldies audience, she could easily have done an album of
>> sixties
>> covers
>
>> So since I'm saying things you'll disagree with, I'd put Lydia Lunch
>> there
>> for her album a couple of years ago, since it was probably her first full
>> length album of music in over a decade, and maybe Marc Bolan for Dandy In
>> The Underworld.
>
> Mary Weiss, Lydia Lunch and T. Rex endorsements? You are ever full
> of surprises, Tom. ;)
You too. I'd have never guessed you liked those artists on your list.
But at least I didn't include Margo Guryan's recent song as a comeback. Ok,
I do like it, but it's just one song.
I could have included Son House, though. I might include the new Kevin
Ayers, but I haven't heard it yet.
Let's see. You'd probably find The Monks a predictable choice, but they were
pretty much the same thing as the VU, a legendary underground group from the
sixties getting together to recreate their old material. The main difference
being that I was there for an early Monks reunion show. How about Vashti
Bunyan? Gene Pitney duetting with Marc Almond?
Jeff
> I bought "Double Fantasy" on 11/19/80. I often try to remember what it
> was like during those three weeks of listening before John killed.
> Understandably, the murder colored everyone's perception of the
> music. However, IIRC, I loved the album, particularly "Starting Over"
> and "Woman"...the latter in particular. "Beautiful Boy" was a treat
> because of the melody, and also the sound of children at play...which
> for 1980 was seamless...part of the music...not just a sound effect.
> John's voice was great.
>
> I only remember one criticism, and that was from a friend who was
> disappointed that "Starting Over" sounded like early 50s Rock. He was
> looking for something in the prog rock direction.
I was looking for something that was as good..and Inventive as
"Strawberry Fields"..and I know John was very capable of writing un-
predictable songs..so of course at first..I was disappointed at all of
his albums..but he recorded what he recorded of course..and that's all
we'll ever have of him. Maybe John as well as Paul..just weren't at
all interested..in matching their Beatles success? My feeling is that
they just didn't care anymore. George wrote some decent materal..as
well as lousy stuff as well..but George at times..sounded like he was
trying harder..unlike Lennon. That's not to say John didn't record a
few good songs that were pretty good.
marcus
Wow, I'm surprised you remembered that!!!
That's exactly where that phrase came from.
I can't remember why...I think the team had just been sold to new
owners...but in the Fall of 1980, after the regular baseball season
was over, the Mets started this campaign for the following baseball
season with "The Mets...The Magic Is Back".
The phrase stuck in my head, and I wrote it down that night on the
inside of the DF album...signifying that at long last, after five
years...John Lennon was back. He was all over the place...interviews,
print and radio...new album...prospective tour.
That's one component left out of this discussion about whether DF was
a bad comeback album. I don't think anyone was expecting "Pepper" or
"Imagine"...we were glad the guy was back and singing. I know that I
viewed "Double Fantasy' as a stepping stone album, based on John's
interviews all ready talking about the next album, which he said would
come out in less than six months, and a possible tour built around the
two albums.
I had no reason to doubt him, but then that dark side of humanity,
currently residing at Attica, stepped in.
O'Leary III
> That's one component left out of this discussion about whether DF was
> a bad comeback album. I don't think anyone was expecting "Pepper" or
> "Imagine"...we were glad the guy was back and singing. I know that I
> viewed "Double Fantasy' as a stepping stone album, based on John's
> interviews all ready talking about the next album, which he said would
> come out in less than six months, and a possible tour built around the
> two albums.
It was very exciting. And it was in tune and very punchy. It was very
state of the art 1980.
marcus
Yes, and I think that is often forgotten when looking back at the
album.
It was fresh, and whatever one may think of Yoko's contributions, the
contrasting dialogue songs did complement one another...it's hard to
imagine DF without Yoko, in that respect.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Yes . . . but I think John would have played baseball with more talent
and determination than the Mets did last Sept. John had it; the Mets
didn't. And to my knowledge the Mets can't sing or write music.
Dale Houstman
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Many reviewers had John "typecast" as the rebel, the sarcastic one,
> the angry young man, etc. What's wrong if he makes an album where he
> sounds happy and sings about his family?
Precisely nothing. There are plenty of happy songs that work very well.
But that isn't really the reason many (including myself to some degree)
don't find DF to be any great shakes. I'm glad John was happy (or at
least pretending to be happy), but I think lyrically and musically this
album is rather blah; full of verbal cliches, and some quite tepid
musical settings. Apart from "I'm losing You" I think the album traffics
in some half-baked (and - to my ears - somewhat forced) evocations of
domestic bliss. John didn't have to be miserable all the time (although
- to be perfectly honest - he seemed to almost always derive his
greatest inspiration from exactly those sort of so-called "negative"
feelings, anger, fear, depression, insecurity. He seemed to have lost
his connection to his lyrical and musical eccentricity, and to have not
quite replaced it with any new connection to his supposedly contented
state. So - for me - it isn't the "domestic bliss" that is the problem,
but that that bliss doesn't quite seem real, and thus what many see as
an uninspired album. One only has to compare his "happiness" music with
similar exercises by The Beach Boys and - yes - Paul to hear a
comparative lack of the "effervescence" and "pop" that true happiness
often creates. The record comes off as John trying way too hard to
convince the listener (and possibly himslf) that everything is just
great in LennonLand. I didn't buy it then, and the album sounds less
interesting with every passing year.
dmh
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > Your post-quoting is confusing here but, if you're asking about XTC,
>> > I was referring to Apple Venus Vol. 1 (after seven years without an
>> > album).
>>
>> Don't they usually go for long periods between albums?
>
> than three years. (And that was the gap between Nonsuch and the
> preceding album.)
>
I see your point, but three years between albums is still a large gap.(and
two years before that, if you count the Dukes of Stratosphear) It's not like
John Lennon releasing an album every year, then stopping for five years.
>> I could be wrong, but
>> I don't think Apple Venus was received as a return to form or an advance
>> over their previous work, so it was business as usual for them.
>
> I'd certainly say it was regarded as a return to form,
I wouldn't. Nonesuch, Oranges and Lemons, and Skylarking were all
well-received. It's not like the T. Rex album I mentioned, which was a
fairly strong record that came after a long artistic decline. Great singles,
but even I wouldn't recommend the albums after Slider.
and being an
> "advance" is not a requirement. I just glanced at the Web, and it
> finished #33 in 1999's Pazz & Jop poll. Scanning through other
> archived P&J polls, I see the only other XTC albums to finish in the
> top 40 were English Settlement (#30), Skylarking (#9) and Oranges &
> Lemons (#21).
In other words, it did worse than two of the three previous albums. Not much
of a return to form.
>
> Do you even care about this issue, or are you just reaching for a
> way to be contrary?
>
I could ask you the same thing.
>> Would you consider the albums Sean Lennon and Ray Davies released last
>> year
>> as comebacks?
>
> Ray Davies, sure. Sean, not really. Not enough career to "come back"
> to. Yeah, come to think of it, you can add Davies to my previous
> list if you like. Hadn't thought of his solo album for some reason,
> though I did rule out including the Kinks' returns to the charts
> after their "classic" era.
Why? In commercial terms, at least, it was impressive, and many, if not most
Kinks fans will rate at least one of the Arista albums highly, though
there's no consensus as to which one it is.
>
>> > Mary Weiss, Lydia Lunch and T. Rex endorsements? You are ever full
>> > of surprises, Tom. ;)
>>
>> You too. I'd have never guessed you liked those artists on your list.
>
> Weak, Tom. I don't dogmatically tout the same handful of artists
> over and over like you do, and I don't know why you can't simply
> acknowledge this rather than turning petulant.
Having favorite artists is dogmatic?
>
>> But at least I didn't include Margo Guryan's recent song as a comeback.
>
> Huh, I wasn't aware of this. I just found the song on the Web. Yeah,
> not bad. I wouldn't consider one song much of a "comeback," though.
>
> Is that only available on iTunes? No physical product?
I think there's a CD single with the song, the video clip and an older song.
>
>> How about Vashti Bunyan?
>
> She doesn't quite grab me, but I can certainly see someone else
> citing her as a favorite comeback.
Gong? I liked the 25th Birthday Party album a lot.
Chef Goyardee
> You're rarely so repellent as when you're howling with rabid,
> overeager laughter at people insulting Ono.
Oh, I can imagine much more repellant visions involving Gay Snyder.
Can you believe someone actually impregnated that simple-minded cow?
Dude must have really hit the JD hard that night.
Allen Richardson
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:4722BF5A...@skypoint.com...
he seemed to almost always derive his
> eccentricity, and to have not quite replaced it with any new connection to
> his supposedly contented state. So - for me - it isn't the "domestic
> bliss" that is the problem, but that that bliss doesn't quite seem real,
> and thus what many see as an uninspired album.
His roots were r&r. He got back to his roots with Starting Over. To me, at
the time the album came out, and still, I was elated that it had a GREAT
song like Starting Over. But I can see if you don't like r&r that would
color your perception of the album. That's cool too. But let's be clear, you
cannot love r&r and dislike this album. The song Starting over, alone, would
make it worth the price of admission, plus there are at least 3 other
outstanding songs on the album. With a true love and appreciation of r&r and
John's history, one should have been elated that this new album of his had a
song like that on it.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Many reviewers had John "typecast" as the rebel, the sarcastic one,
> > the angry young man, etc. What's wrong if he makes an album where he
> > sounds happy and sings about his family?
>
> Precisely nothing. There are plenty of happy songs that work very well.
> But that isn't really the reason many (including myself to some degree)
> don't find DF to be any great shakes. I'm glad John was happy (or at
> least pretending to be happy), but I think lyrically and musically this
> album is rather blah;
I see your point. But my point is if this album came from another
artist who had been writing "silly love songs" for 5 or 10 years, I
would agree. But for John DF represented a change of pace, and it was
refreshing to my ears.
full of verbal cliches, and some quite tepid
> musical settings. Apart from "I'm losing You" I think the album traffics
> in some half-baked (and - to my ears - somewhat forced) evocations of
> domestic bliss.
Perhaps parts were forced, but to me the songs still sounded nice.
John didn't have to be miserable all the time (although
> - to be perfectly honest - he seemed to almost always derive his
> greatest inspiration from exactly those sort of so-called "negative"
> feelings, anger, fear, depression, insecurity. He seemed to have lost
> his connection to his lyrical and musical eccentricity,
I agree with you there. Yes, I often enjoyed John's work when he was
miserable, sad to say. But again, DF was a nice change.
and to have not
> quite replaced it with any new connection to his supposedly contented
> state. So - for me - it isn't the "domestic bliss" that is the problem,
> but that that bliss doesn't quite seem real, and thus what many see as
> an uninspired album. One only has to compare his "happiness" music with
> similar exercises by The Beach Boys and - yes - Paul to hear a
> comparative lack of the "effervescence" and "pop" that true happiness
> often creates. The record comes off as John trying way too hard to
> convince the listener (and possibly himslf) that everything is just
> great in LennonLand.
Interesting point.
I didn't buy it then, and the album sounds less
> interesting with every passing year.
>
> dmh
I still like it.
fatt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <d...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
IIRC Starting Over was nominated for a Grammy. I forget now but I
think John was nominated for Best Male Vocal. I think DF was also
nominated for a Grammy.
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Your post-quoting is confusing here but, if you're asking about XTC,
>> >> > I was referring to Apple Venus Vol. 1 (after seven years without an
>> >> > album).
>> >>
>> >> Don't they usually go for long periods between albums?
>> >
>> > Prior to the gap between Nonsuch and AV1, they never went longer
>> > than three years. (And that was the gap between Nonsuch and the
>> > preceding album.)
>>
>> I see your point, but three years between albums is still a large
>> gap.(and
>> two years before that, if you count the Dukes of Stratosphear) It's not
>> like
>> John Lennon releasing an album every year, then stopping for five years.
>
> comeback. Coming after seven years of silence and crippling label
> problems. As if a seven-year break between albums is not
> exponentially more rare than a three-year break. What-ever.
>
In hindsight, it wasn't their only seven year break. Their last album was
also seven years ago. Will their next one also be a comeback?
>> > I'd certainly say it was regarded as a return to form,
>>
>> I wouldn't.
>
> Based on what, exactly?
>
>> Nonesuch, Oranges and Lemons, and Skylarking were all
>> well-received.
>
> Based on what, exactly?
Reviews of the albums at the time.
http://chalkhills.org/articles/Nonsvch.html#p921001 collects several reviews
of the album. Several rate it highly. There's only one strongly negative
review, and even in that one, the reviewer mentions that "A good friend and
even bigger XTC fan" considers the album "as good as Mummer or The Big
Express."
The average customer review on Amazon gives it 4 stars. Out of 45, there are
22 5 star reviews.
My impression was that Nonsuch was NOT too
> well received, and drew plenty of complaints of the "too Steely
> Dan-slick" variety. I even have known *XTC fans* who dislike it.
>
>> It's not like the T. Rex album I mentioned, which was a
>> fairly strong record that came after a long artistic decline.
>
> Yes, I wish had $10,000 for every time I've heard someone endorse
> Dandy in the Underworld.
>
You haven't heard many people endorse Dandy in the Underworld, so therefore
is isn't a stronger album than the previous ones? That's like saying
"Stairway to Heaven" isn't a popular song because none of your friends like
it. Just about any overview of Bolan's career will point to Dandy as being
better than the albums preceeding it. There's a strong consensus among T.
Rex fans that it was exactly what I described.
But since you haven't heard it endorsed, that's all that matters.
If you google it, you'll find many people consider it a comeback album. Many
people also consider Apple Venus a comeback album. I'm not one of them. Why
do you take that personally? You seem to have a lot emotionally invested in
proving me wrong.
>> > Scanning through other
>> > archived P&J polls, I see the only other XTC albums to finish in the
>> > top 40 were English Settlement (#30), Skylarking (#9) and Oranges &
>> > Lemons (#21).
>>
>> In other words, it did worse than two of the three previous albums. Not
>> much
>> of a return to form.
>
> You can't be serious with this ridiculous niggling.
There it is. When you've been shown to be wrong, you repeat your favorite
whines.
>
>> > Do you even care about this issue, or are you just reaching for a
>> > way to be contrary?
>>
>> I could ask you the same thing.
>
> I posted my favorite "comebacks." Obviously, they were a serious
> contribution to the thread. You're the one steering the topic back
> to your own obsessive hangups.
Having favorite artists is not just dogmatic, it's a hang-up?
>
>> >> Hadn't thought of his solo album for some reason,
>> > though I did rule out including the Kinks' returns to the charts
>> > after their "classic" era.
>>
>> Why? In commercial terms, at least, it was impressive, and many, if not
>> most
>> Kinks fans will rate at least one of the Arista albums highly, though
>> there's no consensus as to which one it is.
>
> Why? Because I was listing my own favorite comebacks, and I don't
> enjoy the Arista albums. Real hard concept to understand, eh?
Wow, you can't even answer a simple question without being a jerk.
>
>> > Weak, Tom. I don't dogmatically tout the same handful of artists
>> > over and over like you do, and I don't know why you can't simply
>> > acknowledge this rather than turning petulant.
>>
>> Having favorite artists is dogmatic?
>
> No, but continually, obsessively trying to steer dialogue with me
> back to those same four or five sore points is.
The subject is comebacks. Those artists did do things I consider comebacks.
It was relevant.
>
>> > Is that only available on iTunes? No physical product?
>>
>> I think there's a CD single with the song, the video clip and an older
>> song.
>
> The older song is "Yes I Am," if iTunes is any indication.
That sounds right. Not a bad song, either, but then, I am obsessive and
dogmatic about Margo. It's part of the "Watergate trilogy" on the demos
album, so I'm guessing coupling it with "16 Words" wasn't an accident.
BlackMonk
"Allen Richardson" <alrc...@sweetwater.net> wrote in message
news:4722d569$0$26419$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:4722BF5A...@skypoint.com...
> he seemed to almost always derive his
>> He seemed to have lost his connection to his lyrical and musical
>> eccentricity, and to have not quite replaced it with any new connection
>> to his supposedly contented state. So - for me - it isn't the "domestic
>> bliss" that is the problem, but that that bliss doesn't quite seem real,
>> and thus what many see as an uninspired album.
>
> His roots were r&r. He got back to his roots with Starting Over. To me, at
> the time the album came out, and still, I was elated that it had a GREAT
> song like Starting Over. But I can see if you don't like r&r that would
> color your perception of the album. That's cool too. But let's be clear,
> you cannot love r&r and dislike this album.
Yeah, you can, and very easily. Only two of John's songs have any real ties
to his roots in 50s rock and roll, and saying "Starting Over" stands up to
Elvis or "Dear Yoko" stands up to Buddy Holly is a real stretch. And those
are two of my favorite John songs on the album.
marcus
I loved John, but I bet he couldn't explain the infield fly rule.
marcus
Must disagree with you Dale...to me in November 1980, and now almost
November 2007, John sounded like someone who had gone through
turbulence, and found peace. He seemed genuinely happy, and his
interviews of the same time, though not entirely lacking with an
occasional over all bitterness about non-domestic issues, revealed
that same peace-of-mind attitude.
As I mentioned before, most of his fans were just glad he was there,
and had returned. No, DF wasn't his greatest solo effort, but to my
mind it was much better than the mish-mash of "Walls and Bridges".
I think the best way I can sum up the happiness of many of his fans'
at his return despite the lack of greatness in DF is this....I am a
big fan of the original Star Trek TV series. They went off the air in
1968. About ten years later, the first Star Trek movie with the
original cast came out. The movie plot was weak...but who cared...it
was them...it was simply enjoyable to see Spock and Kirk and Bones
interact again. I knew that the collaboration was just a foot in the
door, how-do-you-do, and that other Star Trek movies, with more meat
to them would come along. And the next movie, "The Wrath of Khan",
was wonderful.
That's the same way I felt about Lennon's return. Just happy to be
there...he will make other albums now that his feet are wet again.
Unfortunately, John wasn't given the chance to make his "Wrath of
Khan".
really real
>
> There it is. When you've been shown to be wrong, you repeat your favorite
> whines.
>
You know, Monk, there is really no point to criticizing poisoned rose's
personality defects. Any time poisoned rose is criticized, he just
responds back with a counter criticism, as if he is a computer program
on auto-respond. This leads to some very fractious threads, though
poisoned rose's contributions always disappear seven days later, like
some mysterious computer program on auto-delete.
Poisoned rose has a vast music collection and has strong feelings about
the music he likes. He hates it when people disagree with his taste. My
advice is to ignore his personality defects and just accept the musical
knowledge he can bring to a newsgroup.
I have given up responding to him completely, but others need not do so.
Just respond to his facts, and not his immaturity.
abby also
"Jeff" <yourimag...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1193445938.3...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Man you looked old!
t...@aerovons.com
cannot love r&r and dislike this album. "
"Oh yes you can!" said Little Nicola.
TH
TAR
I think you've just hit your all-time personal low. How do you live
with yourself.
Mr.Fire
weeks and I didn't feel compelled to buy it.When he got shot , I
wished I had bought it before he was gone.
On Oct 26, 8:43 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 8:33 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Word magazine always seems a journalist cut above the other English
> > music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
> > worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without the
> > Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon ( 1980.)
>
> > Word says
>
> > "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute,
> > wasn't Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop
> > ever to come from a Beatle, including Paul?
>
> > Included in their Best Comebacks page are Elvis Presley (68,)Tom Jones,
> > John Travolta, the Bee Gees, The Eagles, and Duran Duran.
>
> IMO, the best comeback was Elvis Presley. I love his later music more
> than his early music. Lennon was just a little better than
> average..his entire career.
Allen Richardson
<t...@aerovons.com> wrote in message
news:1193503180.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
You are right. I regretted that sentence as soon as I posted. I guess my
point is better stated as: if one truly likes rock n roll and likes John and
the Beatles and was aware of John's history, one should have been elated
that John made an album, the top song on which was a good old fashioned,
original, rock n roller, like Starting Over. That, alone, and especially
with the other 3 or 4 great songs on it make it a worthy album. To me there
are a lot of songs on it that I wouldn't want to listen to more than once.
But very few albums are like the Beatles albums, virtually every song on
which was excellent. So if you have the expectation that an album can only
be great if a large number of songs on it are great, then it's
understandable one would not love this album
But if you look at it as John reaffiring a direction back to his roots, and
therefore hinting that maybe this was the direction he wanted to focus on in
the future, the album was a cause for excitement for lovers of that old
fashioned r & r aspect of John. He'd been out of circulation for a few years
and, given his unpredictability, no one knew what direction this one would
take.
marcus
wrote:
Yes, that's it..."Double Fantasy" was like getting a letter from an
old friend you hadn't heard from in a long time...just letting you
know that he was still around, and back in your life again.
That's why John Lennon's murder was a triple tragedy for me. The
killing of someone I loved and admired, the killing of a father and
husband, and the killing of both the past and the future.
Ferd Farkel
> "really real" <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:C0mUi.146581$1y4.23400@pd7urf2no...
>
> > Word magazine always seems a journalist cut above the other English
> > music mags, and their latest issue has an interesting page listing the
> > worst comebacks ever. But among the obvious ones, like Kiss Without
> > the Make-Up, or the Velvet Underground reunion, is John Lennon (
> > 1980.)
>
> > Word says
>
> > "Putting the whole Mark Chapman business to ones die for a minute,
> > wasn't Double Fantasy just the worst bit of sugar packed domestic slop
> > ever to come from a Beatle, including Paul?
>
> > Included in their Best Comebacks page are Elvis Presley (68,)Tom
> > Jones, John Travolta, the Bee Gees, The Eagles, and Duran Duran.
>
You're kidding, aren't you? Pat's cover of "Smoke on the Water"
was 20 year overdue icing on the cake.
Sean Carroll
> Er, no. I liked Double Fantasy (at least John's bits).
John's bits were on the cover of Two Virgins, not Double Fantasy.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
House [putting an alleged alien tracking device on the table]: The
results came back. The lab cannot identify the metal. They said ... it
might not even be terrestrial.
[pause]
Chase: Really?
House: No, you idiot! It's titanium.
Sean Carroll
> It can
> reasonably be argued that "(Just Like) Starting Over" was John's best song
> as a solo artist. (I've never cared too much for "Imagine".)
I've never really thought about which solo John song I like best before.
Hunh.
'Starting Over' and 'Imagine' are both great, but I think I'm gonna have
to go with 'Cold Turkey'. Not as meaningful, in the long run, but it's
one of his hardest rockers and I enjoy listening to it even more than
the others. Not his 'best', maybe, so much as 'my favourite', I guess.
Sorry for hijacking the thread to go off on a tangent. At least I'm
still on-topic.
really real
>
> 'Starting Over' and 'Imagine' are both great, but I think I'm gonna have
> to go with 'Cold Turkey'. Not as meaningful, in the long run, but it's
> one of his hardest rockers and I enjoy listening to it even more than
> the others. Not his 'best', maybe, so much as 'my favourite', I guess.
I like the quirky stuff - like Oh Yoko, or Crippled Inside
Jealous Guy might be his highpoint - very simple but very intense.
Rod Stewart did a fine cover version of Jealous Guy
Sean Carroll
> That's why John Lennon's murder was a triple tragedy for me. The
> killing of someone I loved and admired, the killing of a father and
> husband, and the killing of both the past and the future.
That would actually be a quintuple tragedy, wouldn't it?
1 someone you loved and admired
2 a father
3 a husband
4 the past
5 the future
O'Leary III
> I loved John, but I bet he couldn't explain the infield fly rule.
I liked your first explanation better.
Chef Goyardee
> I think you've just hit your all-time personal low.
How so?
>How do you live with yourself.
Was that a question or a statement?
fatt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <t...@aerovons.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193503180.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "But let's be clear, you
> > cannot love r&r and dislike this album. "
>
> > "Oh yes you can!" said Little Nicola.
>
> > TH
>
> You are right. I regretted that sentence as soon as I posted. I guess my
> point is better stated as: if one truly likes rock n roll and likes John and
> the Beatles and was aware of John's history, one should have been elated
> that John made an album, the top song on which was a good old fashioned,
> original, rock n roller, like Starting Over. That, alone, and especially
> with the other 3 or 4 great songs on it make it a worthy album.
SNIP
I was trying to say the same thing, but I think you worded it better.
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > I really can't believe you're disputing the album's eligibility as a
>> > comeback. Coming after seven years of silence and crippling label
>> > problems. As if a seven-year break between albums is not
>> > exponentially more rare than a three-year break. What-ever.
>>
>> In hindsight, it wasn't their only seven year break. Their last album was
>> also seven years ago. Will their next one also be a comeback?
>
> altogether now. Would you like to continue arguing that seven-year
> breaks between albums are nothing unusual for signed artists?
> Really? Seriously?
>
They're not unheard of, especially if the artist has been around for a
while.
> I cannot believe you are still attempting to dispute this. Would you
> care to turn this into a debate which isn't 100% trivial, drop the
> ridiculous, maniacal niggling over whether the album meets the
> definition of a "comeback" and instead simply debate whether the
> album is GOOD?
>
When was that the subject?
>> >> Nonesuch, Oranges and Lemons, and Skylarking were all
>> >> well-received.
>> >
>> > Based on what, exactly?
>>
>> Reviews of the albums at the time.
>> http://chalkhills.org/articles/Nonsvch.html#p921001 collects several
>> reviews
>> of the album. Several rate it highly. There's only one strongly negative
>> review, and even in that one, the reviewer mentions that "A good friend
>> and
>> even bigger XTC fan" considers the album "as good as Mummer or The Big
>> Express."
>
> There are also a lot of reviews of mere "measured praise" on that
> page, and few if any raves. And the first English review on the page
> calls Nonsuch "the [XTC album] no-one remembers."
>
There are several raves. Did you read the whole page?
> I didn't even know this until just now, but Robert Christgau gave
> Nonsuch a "bomb." Yikes.
>
> http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=XTC
>
One bad review doesn't disprove my point.
> Here are the Chalkhills site's collected reviews of AV1, which you
> omitted from your preceding argument.
Because they're irrelevant. We're talking about how Nonesuch was received
when it came out. You may have noticed that once an artist is established,
it's very common to praise any new work by that artist as better than his
recent material. Look at ,most of the positive reviews McCartney or the
Rolling Stones have gotten over the last several decades. The best way to
judge how Nonesuch was received at the time it was released is to look at
reviews of it from that time.
I don't have enough interest
> in this issue to read through all of them, but I couldn't find even
> ONE "strongly negative" review in the portion I scanned.
So what? I never said it was received poorly.
> But if you really want to gnaw on this, Amazon doesn't even support
> your position. Because once again, you omitted the documented
> response to AV1 for comparison.
Again, I'm talking about how Nonesuch was received. I NEVER said Apple Venus
had gotten bad reviews.
>
>> If you google it, you'll find many people consider it a comeback album.
>> Many
>> people also consider Apple Venus a comeback album. I'm not one of them.
>> Why
>> do you take that personally? You seem to have a lot emotionally invested
>> in
>> proving me wrong.
>
> This is a ridiculous issue. Would you like to debate whether the
> album is good, and drop your typically fanatical niggling over a
> silly, peripheral issue? Is Mary Weiss' album good or bad? Aw, who
> cares? Let's argue for 200 posts whether it's "nostalgic" or not.
Yet, you're the one who brought up that it was "retro." If it's unimportant,
why did you bring it up?
Is
> Apple Venus good or bad? Aw, who cares. Let's argue for 200 posts
> whether it meets the definition of a "comeback" or not.
Read the subject heading of this thread. If you're not interested in whether
or not something is a comeback, why do you post on the subject?
>> >> >> Hadn't thought of his solo album for some reason,
>> >> > though I did rule out including the Kinks' returns to the charts
>> >> > after their "classic" era.
>> >>
>> >> Why? In commercial terms, at least, it was impressive, and many, if
>> >> not
>> >> most
>> >> Kinks fans will rate at least one of the Arista albums highly, though
>> >> there's no consensus as to which one it is.
>> >
>> > Why? Because I was listing my own favorite comebacks, and I don't
>> > enjoy the Arista albums. Real hard concept to understand, eh?
>>
>> Wow, you can't even answer a simple question without being a jerk.
>
> It was a stupid objection, Tom
It wasn't an objection. It was a question.
. "How can you say you don't like some
> albums, given that other people like them?"
I never said that, or anything like that.
You seem to have
> significant problems perceiving the difference between someone
> presenting a personal opinion and presenting an overall decree.
>
You seem to believe all of your opinions are decrees, given the passion you
invest in "proving" that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
Oddly, that's the only passion you ever show.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Yes, and he sounded happy and he was looking forward to the future.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Er, no. I liked Double Fantasy (at least John's bits).
>
> John's bits were on the cover of Two Virgins, not Double Fantasy.
>
> --
>
> House [putting an alleged alien tracking device on the table]: The
> results came back. The lab cannot identify the metal. They said ... it
> might not even be terrestrial.
>
> [pause]
>
> Chase: Really?
>
> House: No, you idiot! It's titanium.
Hee hee. Those were some bits.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Speaking of "quirky" do you like Meat City? I thought that was a
quirky rocker.
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, it would be. Especially because the band is seemingly dead
>> > altogether now. Would you like to continue arguing that seven-year
>> > breaks between albums are nothing unusual for signed artists?
>> > Really? Seriously?
>>
>> They're not unheard of, especially if the artist has been around for a
>> while.
>
>
Look at The Rolling Stones, or George Harrison, for instance. Bob Dylan
regularly takes 4 or 5 years between albums. Julian Lennon seems to be doing
an album a decade. I've already mentioned Kevin Ayers and Ray Davies.
Speaking of Ayers, Robert Wyatt has probably gone for seven years without
releasing an album at least once.
So, no, seven year gaps aren't unusual.
>> > I cannot believe you are still attempting to dispute this. Would you
>> > care to turn this into a debate which isn't 100% trivial, drop the
>> > ridiculous, maniacal niggling over whether the album meets the
>> > definition of a "comeback" and instead simply debate whether the
>> > album is GOOD?
>>
>> When was that the subject?
>
> After I said the album was one of my favorite comebacks, and this
> offended you so much.
>
Offended? Give it up. I disagreed with you. That's all.
>> > There are also a lot of reviews of mere "measured praise" on that
>> > page, and few if any raves. And the first English review on the page
>> > calls Nonsuch "the [XTC album] no-one remembers."
>>
>> There are several raves. Did you read the whole page?
>
> Of course not. Because I don't care.
>
Then you admit that your opinion is unformed. Fine. Whenever I read your
posts, I'll keep that in mind. You don't always know what you're talking
about.
>> > I didn't even know this until just now, but Robert Christgau gave
>> > Nonsuch a "bomb." Yikes.
>> >
>> > http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=XTC
>>
>> One bad review doesn't disprove my point.
>
> Neither does "several raves."
No, the rave don't disprove my point. They prove it.
>
>> > Here are the Chalkhills site's collected reviews of AV1, which you
>> > omitted from your preceding argument.
>>
>> Because they're irrelevant. We're talking about how Nonesuch was received
>> when it came out.
>
> No, we're not. We're talking about you objecting to me calling AV1 a
> personal favorite comeback.
Get over yourself. We're talking about whether it was a comeback at all. To
refute the claim that it was a comeback artistically, I said that Nonesuch
wasn't poorly received when it was released. You claimed it was. Whether
Apple Venus was reviewed well or not has no bearing on how Nonesuch was
received.
>
>> > Is Mary Weiss' album good or bad? Aw, who
>> > cares? Let's argue for 200 posts whether it's "nostalgic" or not.
>>
>> Yet, you're the one who brought up that it was "retro." If it's
>> unimportant,
>> why did you bring it up?
>
> Because that was a primary reason why I didn't think the album was
> "good."
Then it was relevant.
>
> Incidentally, I heard the entire album since the last time you
> obsessively harped on this issue, and the listening did nothing but
> confirm my impression based on previously heard portions.
So? I've heard the entire album several times and seen her live, and the
listening did nothing but confirm my impression that you're mistaken.
>
>> You seem to have
>> > significant problems perceiving the difference between someone
>> > presenting a personal opinion and presenting an overall decree.
>>
>> You seem to believe all of your opinions are decrees, given the passion
>> you
>> invest in "proving" that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
>
> Uh, no. I simply said AV1 was one of my own favorite comebacks. And
> you'd like to haggle about whether I hold this opinion for 200
> posts, in your usual insanely anal-retentive fashion.
Why would I tell you that you didn't hold an opinion that you claim to hold?
I never said you didn't think it was a comeback. I said that I didn't think
it was a comeback.
You're not very good with the English language, are you? Maybe you should
take an ESL class somewhere.
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Yes, it would be. Especially because the band is seemingly dead
>> >> > altogether now. Would you like to continue arguing that seven-year
>> >> > breaks between albums are nothing unusual for signed artists?
>> >> > Really? Seriously?
>> >>
>> >> They're not unheard of, especially if the artist has been around for a
>> >> while.
>> >
>> > You are grasping at straws, and you know it.
>>
>> Look at The Rolling Stones, or George Harrison, for instance. Bob Dylan
>> regularly takes 4 or 5 years between albums. Julian Lennon seems to be
>> doing
>> an album a decade. I've already mentioned Kevin Ayers and Ray Davies.
>> Speaking of Ayers, Robert Wyatt has probably gone for seven years without
>> releasing an album at least once.
>>
>> So, no, seven year gaps aren't unusual.
>
>
Wow, you've effectively refuted my use of facts with your brilliant sarcasm.
>> So? I've heard the entire album several times and seen her live, and the
>> listening did nothing but confirm my impression that you're mistaken.
>
> Did the other 60 year olds in the audience also enjoy the show? I
> bet it evoked a lot of fond memories for them.
It's really odd that you'd criticize her for being "retro," given that you
entered this thread by praising a group from the sixties reuniting to
recreate their old sound and to play their old material almost exclusively,
two things that Weiss doesn't do.
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Wow, you've effectively refuted my use of facts with your brilliant
>> sarcasm.
>
>> Look at The Rolling Stones, or George Harrison, for instance. Bob Dylan
>> regularly takes 4 or 5 years between albums. Julian Lennon seems to be
>> doing
>> an album a decade. I've already mentioned Kevin Ayers and Ray Davies.
>> Speaking of Ayers, Robert Wyatt has probably gone for seven years without
>> releasing an album at least once.
> Oh, and could you pull that "factual" argument again where you
> dismiss the novelty of seven-year gaps between albums by citing
> bands which go three or four years? The logic of that reasoning
> remains an utter delight.
>
Your math skills are as poor as your English skills.
How about Joe Strummer? Or John Lydon?
>> It's really odd that you'd criticize her for being "retro," given that
>> you
>> entered this thread by praising a group from the sixties reuniting to
>> recreate their old sound and to play their old material almost
>> exclusively,
>> two things that Weiss doesn't do.
>
> I'm sorry, Tom...
Yes, you are.
Now explain why a group recreating their old sound and playing old material
almost exclusively isn't retro.
It's not enough for you to simply say you don't like Mary Weiss' new album.
You're so insecure that you feel you need to justify your opinion with an
illusionary principle so you can argue that no one should like it. Odd how
that principle doesn't apply when you do like something.
rwalker
"really real" <reall...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:VSIUi.151076$Da.94917@pd7urf1no...
snip
> I have given up responding to him completely, but others need not do so.
> Just respond to his facts, and not his immaturity.
Despite PR's sometimes interesting posts, I finally gave up and kill-filed
him. Too much unpleasantness for the little bit of reward.
really real
> You're so insecure that you feel you need to justify your opinion
Jesus F C, Monk - why do you insist on going on and on with a guy on
auto-respond. I have to click on all your posts and poisoned rose's
posts just to see if anyone new is going to be on topic.
Why criticize poisoned rose. There is absolutely nothing you can say to
him that will get through to him, and nothing you can say that will make
him let you have the last word. Would you argue with an echo machine?
Please stop this silliness
fatt...@yahoo.com
> Allen Richardson wrote:
> > It can
> > reasonably be argued that "(Just Like) Starting Over" was John's best song
> > as a solo artist. (I've never cared too much for "Imagine".)
>
> I've never really thought about which solo John song I like best before.
> Hunh.
>
> 'Starting Over' and 'Imagine' are both great, but I think I'm gonna have
> to go with 'Cold Turkey'. Not as meaningful, in the long run, but it's
> one of his hardest rockers and I enjoy listening to it even more than
> the others. Not his 'best', maybe, so much as 'my favourite', I guess.
>
> Sorry for hijacking the thread to go off on a tangent. At least I'm
> still on-topic.
>
> --
> --Sean
I happen to like Cold Turkey too . . . Have you heard the live version
during the One to One Concert? I think it is much better than the
recorded one.
Blackpooljimmy
> On Oct 27, 3:22 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Allen Richardson wrote:
> > > It can
> > > reasonably be argued that "(Just Like) Starting Over" was John's best song
> > > as a solo artist. (I've never cared too much for "Imagine".)
>
> > I've never really thought about which solo John song I like best before.
> > Hunh.
>
> > 'Starting Over' and 'Imagine' are both great, but I think I'm gonna have
> > to go with 'Cold Turkey'. Not as meaningful, in the long run, but it's
> > one of his hardest rockers and I enjoy listening to it even more than
> > the others. Not his 'best', maybe, so much as 'my favourite', I guess.
>
> > Sorry for hijacking the thread to go off on a tangent. At least I'm
> > still on-topic.
>
> > --
> > --Sean
>
> I happen to like Cold Turkey too
but I would prefer my giblets warm
fatt...@yahoo.com
LOL!
UsurperTom
> it was simply enjoyable to see Spock and Kirk and Bones interact again.
It would have been even more enjoyable if John and Paul and George had
interacted again at that time.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Absolutely.
Dale Houstman
Allen Richardson wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:4722BF5A...@skypoint.com... he seemed to almost always
> derive his
>
>> He seemed to have lost his connection to his lyrical and musical
>> eccentricity, and to have not quite replaced it with any new
>> connection to his supposedly contented state. So - for me - it
>> isn't the "domestic bliss" that is the problem, but that that bliss
>> doesn't quite seem real, and thus what many see as an uninspired
>> album.
>
>
> His roots were r&r. He got back to his roots with Starting Over.
To my ears it sounds (except on "I'm Losing Her")more like he'd tapped
into solid MOR country. As for "getting back to his roots" - John NEVER
left them: all his albums contain the basic r&r songs. It's just that
they are better on other albums.
> To me, at the time the album came out, and still, I was elated that
> it had a GREAT song like Starting Over. But I can see if you don't
> like r&r...
An assumption that - I'm afraid - won't hold water...
> that would color your perception of the album. That's cool too. But
> let's be clear, you cannot love r&r and dislike this album.
I love r&r...I "dislike" (rather I am "disappointed with") this album.
Guess that scuttles your theory...
> The song Starting over, alone, would make it worth the price of
> admission, plus there are at least 3 other outstanding songs on the
> album. With a true love and appreciation of r&r and John's history,
> one should have been elated that this new album of his had a song
> like that on it.
>
>
"Should" is as vast as "if only"...It's r&r for sure, which - at any
rate is difficult to avoid for a rock and roll performer - but it's not
a particularly exiting example of that genre. The lyrics are constructed
of a series of cliches, the music is a bit tepid, and - again to my mind
- the emotional content of the album seems artificial: I am not
convinced of John's optimism.
dmh
dmh
Dale Houstman
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 26, 11:32 pm, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>>fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Many reviewers had John "typecast" as the rebel, the sarcastic one,
>>>the angry young man, etc. What's wrong if he makes an album where he
>>>sounds happy and sings about his family?
>>
>>Precisely nothing. There are plenty of happy songs that work very well.
>>But that isn't really the reason many (including myself to some degree)
>>don't find DF to be any great shakes. I'm glad John was happy (or at
>>least pretending to be happy), but I think lyrically and musically this
>>album is rather blah;
>
>
>
> I see your point. But my point is if this album came from another
> artist who had been writing "silly love songs" for 5 or 10 years, I
> would agree. But for John DF represented a change of pace, and it was
> refreshing to my ears.
All to the good. To my ears, despite its "change of pace," the album is
mainly disappointing. I've nothing against joy or optimism - after all
one of the main attractons of the Beatles was their overt and boundless
"joie de vivre". On DF, I think the "joy" sounds depressed.
>
> full of verbal cliches, and some quite tepid
>
>>musical settings. Apart from "I'm losing You" I think the album traffics
>>in some half-baked (and - to my ears - somewhat forced) evocations of
>>domestic bliss.
>
>
> Perhaps parts were forced, but to me the songs still sounded nice.
"Nice"? Not exactly what I'm looking for in a major musical artist.
John: "How do you like my new album?" Me: "It's nice." John would
probably punch me!
>
>
>
> John didn't have to be miserable all the time (although
>
>>- to be perfectly honest - he seemed to almost always derive his
>>greatest inspiration from exactly those sort of so-called "negative"
>>feelings, anger, fear, depression, insecurity. He seemed to have lost
>>his connection to his lyrical and musical eccentricity,
>
>
>
> I agree with you there. Yes, I often enjoyed John's work when he was
> miserable, sad to say. But again, DF was a nice change.
I'm glad you liked it: I was glad to hear him after all that time too.
But I think that enthusiasm has faded with the interveing years.
>
>
>
>
> and to have not
>
>>quite replaced it with any new connection to his supposedly contented
>>state. So - for me - it isn't the "domestic bliss" that is the problem,
>>but that that bliss doesn't quite seem real, and thus what many see as
>>an uninspired album. One only has to compare his "happiness" music with
>>similar exercises by The Beach Boys and - yes - Paul to hear a
>>comparative lack of the "effervescence" and "pop" that true happiness
>>often creates. The record comes off as John trying way too hard to
>>convince the listener (and possibly himslf) that everything is just
>>great in LennonLand.
>
>
>
>
> Interesting point.
>
>
>
>
> I didn't buy it then, and the album sounds less
>
>>interesting with every passing year.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
>
> I still like it.
Drinks all around!
dmh
Dale Houstman
marcus wrote:
> On Oct 27, 12:32 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>>fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Many reviewers had John "typecast" as the rebel, the sarcastic one,
>>>the angry young man, etc. What's wrong if he makes an album where he
>>>sounds happy and sings about his family?
>>
>>Precisely nothing. There are plenty of happy songs that work very well.
>>But that isn't really the reason many (including myself to some degree)
>>don't find DF to be any great shakes. I'm glad John was happy (or at
>>least pretending to be happy), but I think lyrically and musically this
>>album is rather blah; full of verbal cliches, and some quite tepid
>>musical settings. Apart from "I'm losing You" I think the album traffics
>>in some half-baked (and - to my ears - somewhat forced) evocations of
>>domestic bliss. John didn't have to be miserable all the time (although
>>- to be perfectly honest - he seemed to almost always derive his
>>greatest inspiration from exactly those sort of so-called "negative"
>>feelings, anger, fear, depression, insecurity. He seemed to have lost
>>his connection to his lyrical and musical eccentricity, and to have not
>>quite replaced it with any new connection to his supposedly contented
>>state. So - for me - it isn't the "domestic bliss" that is the problem,
>>but that that bliss doesn't quite seem real, and thus what many see as
>>an uninspired album. One only has to compare his "happiness" music with
>>similar exercises by The Beach Boys and - yes - Paul to hear a
>>comparative lack of the "effervescence" and "pop" that true happiness
>>often creates. The record comes off as John trying way too hard to
>>convince the listener (and possibly himslf) that everything is just
>>great in LennonLand. I didn't buy it then, and the album sounds less
>>interesting with every passing year.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> Must disagree with you Dale...to me in November 1980, and now almost
> November 2007, John sounded like someone who had gone through
> turbulence, and found peace. He seemed genuinely happy, and his
> interviews of the same time, though not entirely lacking with an
> occasional over all bitterness about non-domestic issues, revealed
> that same peace-of-mind attitude.
Fine. I think the "joy" on the album sounds depressed. The record - more
and more - strikes me as an exercise in artificial mood, in trying to
convince himself (as well as us) that he is happy as a fat cat in the
sun. Yet the album - for all its lyrical leaping about for domestic
rah-rah - isn't really all that much fun to listen to - and that's
putting aside the inferior presence of Yoko's pastiches and melodrama.
But...one man's bicycle is another man's turnip...
dmh
>
> As I mentioned before, most of his fans were just glad he was there,
> and had returned. No, DF wasn't his greatest solo effort, but to my
> mind it was much better than the mish-mash of "Walls and Bridges".
A vastly superior album, full of real energy, some good dreamy work, and
even some fun.
>
> I think the best way I can sum up the happiness of many of his fans'
> at his return despite the lack of greatness in DF is this....I am a
> big fan of the original Star Trek TV series. They went off the air in
> 1968. About ten years later, the first Star Trek movie with the
> original cast came out. The movie plot was weak...but who cared...it
> was them...it was simply enjoyable to see Spock and Kirk and Bones
> interact again.
Who's arguing that the mere presence of John that year wasn't a thrill?
No one I know of, and certainly not myself: I liked the fact that the
album existed. But if your only critical point about the album is that
its mere existence (proving John was at least alive if not entirely
well) was a good thing...that says nothing about the album's validity as
a musical object. Any "frisson" of delight that accompanied the album's
mere reality has long ago faded: the album is now just another artistic
creation to be listened to as itself. It is this that disappoints, not
the fact that it came to exist when - after all - we were learning to do
with John. This chunk of music is not what will be remembered about
John, and even you admit it's somewhat inferior. And that's the point
after all.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Sean Carroll wrote:
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Er, no. I liked Double Fantasy (at least John's bits).
>
>
> John's bits were on the cover of Two Virgins, not Double Fantasy.
>
Did you like them?
dmh
fatt...@yahoo.com
SNIP
I like Walls and Bridges a lot too.
Some people might call it a "mish-mash" but to me, it is varied and
that is good.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> Sean Carroll wrote:
> > fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> Er, no. I liked Double Fantasy (at least John's bits).
>
> > John's bits were on the cover of Two Virgins, not Double Fantasy.
>
> Did you like them?
>
> dmh
Of course. What's not to like? :-)
John took honesty to a whole new level.
Blackpooljimmy
Should have lied on that cover.
fatt...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
In what way?
I liked what I saw . . . . on the left side. Too bad John didn't have
a big inviting smile.
Of course posing naked was a bit foolish and something that John later
regretted.
Blackpooljimmy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Me..I'm not much for sausage pics or cow utters.
fatt...@yahoo.com
LOL!
Personally, I think photos, sculptures, drawings and/or paintings of
the nude form can be very beautiful. It depends on the physique and
it depends on how it is done.
Blackpooljimmy
>
> - Show quoted text -
exactly my point
Sean Carroll
> Did you like them?
I make it a point never to put a number on the quality of a specific set
of genitals. Everybody's got one.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
Patient: What is that? What are you taking?
House: Painkillers.
Patient: Oh, for your leg.
House: No, 'cause they're yummy! Want one?
I Love George's Big Brown Eyes
Imagine Yoko wearing a tiara and a tutu dancing with a magic wand
while singing "You're My Angel" just for YOU. You know you want
to. . .
ILGBBE
Sean Carroll
> Of course posing naked was a bit foolish and something that John later
> regretted.
When did he say he regretted it?
Blackpooljimmy
>
> - Show quoted text -
skip breakfast
fatt...@yahoo.com
> fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Of course posing naked was a bit foolish and something that John later
> > regretted.
>
> When did he say he regretted it?
>
> --
>
> Patient: What is that? What are you taking?
>
> House: Painkillers.
>
> Patient: Oh, for your leg.
>
> House: No, 'cause they're yummy! Want one?
Fair question.
Personally I don't know of any Lennon direct interview. But this was
reported in Fred Seaman's book. Fred reported that John would
sometimes send Fred to Beatles conventions or similar type things and
ask him to buy up very Two Virgins LP he could find because John did
not want them in circulation.