Look Who It Is! - Helen Shapiro serenades the Beatles
GingerBelle Juliesse
Ready Steady Go show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEtdnex1M-A
I think I love this video so much because I often see the Beatles
singing *to* girls, but I haven't seen be sung to *by* a girl before.
Helen had such a deep, mature voice it's hard to believe she was just 17!
GingerBelle
Frank from Deeeetroit
wrote:
Was this a Lennon/McCartney song?
AllaBest
wrote:
You can see Paul to the left of the announcer as the video begins.
Dimitrios Paskoudniakis
"Frank from Deeeetroit" <dadur...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:e08c8714-bfd6-46c8...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No.
GingerBelle Juliesse
reasons I can't figure out. :( It would been even better if she was
singing to the Beatles with a song they wrote. ;) I wonder why Paul
declinded to participate? I know there's only three verses, but she
could have sung the bridge to him :)
GingerBelle
Edvado
Stephen X. Carter
wrote:
Amazing.
When Abbey Road had the open season in the summer of 1983, the
film/audio show started with a (small) range of folk other than The
Beatles. By far the most astounding one was Helen Shapiro - hearing her
song IN the Studio where it had been recorded, and THROUGH the same
studio monitors and from a (analogue) tape only once removed from the
master was, euphemism, rather good!
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
Tony
richforman
I had never heard the song before, found it pretty unexciting
(although this little performance with the Beatles was fun to watch).
Leslie Gore was way better imo! Also this seems to be a lipsynch so
it's even less interesting that way.
richforman
rwalker
I don't care that much for the particular song, but she did have an
incredible voice.
Stephen X. Carter
How did she manage to carry on singing (actually miming of course) when
John was making faces at her?
Wonderful stuff, thanks for the link.
brilton
>
> How did she manage to carry on singing (actually miming of course) when
> John was making faces at her?
>
> Wonderful stuff, thanks for the link.
>
I like the way her eyes widen in mock-shock when Ringo puts his head on
her shoulder like a lapdog.
The Nice Mean Man
Just a nice little Jewish GURL...
GingerBelle Juliesse
> On Jul 4, 6:07 am, GingerBelle Juliesse <GingerCa...@peoplepc.com>
> three or four times over the last few days. I'm not sure what it is -
> it could be her voice (which I like), or how she managed to pull it
> all off at 17 -- lipsynching those lyrics live to actual people,
> turning them around, and generally managing them like she's their
> kindergarten teacher.
>
> I guess I'm trying to figure out if she had preternatural poise or was
> happily oblivious to how corny the lyrics would seem in the next
> century... at least I know she wouldn't be starstruck by her former
> opening band (thanks to Tony's link).
>
>
I think it's a very sweet song but it's definitely Helen's delivery that
makes it so exciting to me. I can't understand why she never had any
hits in the USA? :(
GingerBelle
GingerBelle Juliesse
Eric Ramon
wrote:
I find it interesting that days later I can recall the song very well,
while I can't remember anything at all about the tune the New
Pornographers did in the Letterman clip. All I remember about the New
Pornographers is that they all looked nice and would probably give
Sarah MacLachlan a run for her money in terms of how tasteful their
home decor is.
But the Shapiro tune is memorable and is indicative of a difference
between music then and now (at least music now for some people). Back
then it was all about catchy and exciting. Now it's more about being
meaningful and that's a trap if I ever heard one! Shooting for
meaningful means there's an awful lot of pretension. On the other hand
shooting for catchy leads to a lot of sappy songs.
When I get back to another thread about modern music I'll point out
why the Black Eyed Peas are better than the New Pornographers or
Silversun Pickups. Not here, though.
abe slaney
> I find it interesting that days later I can recall the song very well,
> while I can't remember anything at all about the tune the New
> Pornographers did in the Letterman clip. All I remember about the New
> Pornographers is that they all looked nice and would probably give
> Sarah MacLachlan a run for her money in terms of how tasteful their
> home decor is.
That's just lame. Personally I find the NP song extremely "catchy" -
at least it was caught in my head for a week. This old song reminds me
of one of those gratingly bouncy Neil Sedaka numbers...early 60's
formula-pop - when you know where the chords and the melody are going
2 bars before it even gets there. btw, I also don't think the NPs are
known for their "nice looks", whatever you might mean by that.
>
> But the Shapiro tune is memorable and is indicative of a difference
> between music then and now (at least music now for some people). Back
> then it was all about catchy and exciting. Now it's more about being
> meaningful and that's a trap if I ever heard one! Shooting for
> meaningful means there's an awful lot of pretension. On the other hand
> shooting for catchy leads to a lot of sappy songs.
You tell me what the NP song "means" and we can discuss how
"meaningful" it is, since you are choosing to use this as a general
criticism of modern rock. Then maybe we can talk about "Strawberry
Fields Forever" vs. "Imagine", or "Across the Universe" vs. "Power to
the People". What do you mean "mean"?
> When I get back to another thread about modern music I'll point out
> why the Black Eyed Peas are better than the New Pornographers or
> Silversun Pickups. Not here, though.
Pray continue.
Eric Ramon
> Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I find it interesting that days later I can recall the song very well,
> > while I can't remember anything at all about the tune the New
> > Pornographers did in the Letterman clip. All I remember about the New
> > Pornographers is that they all looked nice and would probably give
> > Sarah MacLachlan a run for her money in terms of how tasteful their
> > home decor is.
>
> > But the Shapiro tune is memorable and is indicative of a difference
> > between music then and now (at least music now for some people). Back
> > then it was all about catchy and exciting. Now it's more about being
> > meaningful and that's a trap if I ever heard one!
>
>
> You're just another of these oldies-but-goodies types who rates all
> music in terms of its value as a Top 40 single. Immediate, one-listen
> catchiness is the beginning and the end -- well, as long as it's in a
> comfortably familiar style.
>
> > Shooting for
> > meaningful means there's an awful lot of pretension. On the other hand
> > shooting for catchy leads to a lot of sappy songs.
>
> > When I get back to another thread about modern music I'll point out
> > why the Black Eyed Peas are better than the New Pornographers or
> > Silversun Pickups. Not here, though.
>
> "catchy," sure. In sort of a beat-you-over-the-head-with-a-blunt-object
> way.
>
> I don't like the Silversun Pickups either, though. One of the most
> blatant ripoff bands I've ever heard. They even stole the *initials*,
> for heaven's sake.
>
> You're a relic from another time, Eric. Just live with it. Back in 1964.
ha! Thanks for the laugh. You realize you didn't choose to discuss my
point but instead went for the cheap insult. No, I guess you don't
realize that. At least Abe is willing to take it up. You continue to
be a caricature, which is good because it takes all kinds and we need
caricatures.
TheWalrusWasDanny
> If the Shapiro tune is so "memorable," Mr. 1964, how come she and her
> music are so forgotten today?
I think that's unfair. Just because somebody isn't massively famous
doesn't mean that the material isn't good..or in fact
memorable...something tells me your just having a pop at Eric (clash
of the Erics?) Guru. He's a nice guy, leave him alone.
Danny
Eric Ramon
> About the good ol' days, back when music aimed to be exciting. Etc.
would you like a handkerchief?
Eric Ramon
the short version: Catchy isn't always good. The fact that I can
remember the Shapiro and not remember the NPs doesn't mean the Shapiro
is better. It *is* more memorable, for me at least, but I'm not
running over to youtube to hear it again. In fact sometimes catchy can
be very annoying, whatever year it is, be it Mrs. Brown or The Heart
of Rock n Roll or Hey Soul Sister.
This indie rock just doesn't do anything for me. I prefer something
like I've Got a Feeling by the Peas because I think it's musically
clever, is a good dance tune and when it's over doesn't make me think
"did anything happen?"
TheWalrusWasDanny
>
> would you like a handkerchief?
I could do with a handkerchief..I've got it really bad at the
moment...not kidding...have recorded Don't Let me Down and Words of
Love tonight...(58 to go) could barely sing them..I hope I'll make it,
and I'm not being dramatic. The dark place is drifting in again..I
*have* to do something about it. Sorry to offload in cyberspace like
this. Pathetic isn't it?
Danny
Eric Ramon
> Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > If the Shapiro tune is so "memorable," Mr. 1964, how come she and her
> > > > > music are so forgotten today?
>
> > > > I think that's unfair. Just because somebody isn't massively famous
> > > > doesn't mean that the material isn't good..or in fact
> > > > memorable...something tells me your just having a pop at Eric (clash
> > > > of the Erics?) Guru. He's a nice guy, leave him alone.
>
> > > If you want to see "unfair," look at Eric's post that I criticized.
> > > About the good ol' days, back when music aimed to be exciting. Etc.
>
> > would you like a handkerchief?
>
>
> You're such a woeful anachronism that you even specially order suits
> made in a vintage style. And then you want us to take your complaints
> about contemporary music seriously.
that ain't woeful. That's style.
Eric Ramon
> Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I prefer something
> > like I've Got a Feeling by the Peas because I think it's musically
> > clever, is a good dance tune and when it's over doesn't make me think
> > "did anything happen?"
>
do you think the music of today is similar to that of the Beatles'
era? If not, what are the differences? Why are there differences?
Eric Ramon
> Eric Ramon, obliviously pressing onward:
> about is the belief that he can compare and debate vast areas of music
> with these sorts of bland generalities.
>
> My own view:
> I think music today has better lyrics than the Beatles'.
> I think music today has worse lyrics than the Beatles'.
> I think music today is better performed than the Beatles'.
> I think music today is worse performed than the Beatles'.
> I think music today is overproduced, compared with the Beatles'.
> I think music today is underproduced, compared with the Beatles'.
>
> ...zzz....
so,. in other words, you don't know
RichL
news:prose9-E9E60E....@news.eternal-september.org...
> Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I find it interesting that days later I can recall the song very well,
>> while I can't remember anything at all about the tune the New
>> Pornographers did in the Letterman clip. All I remember about the New
>> Pornographers is that they all looked nice and would probably give
>> Sarah MacLachlan a run for her money in terms of how tasteful their
>> home decor is.
>>
>> But the Shapiro tune is memorable and is indicative of a difference
>> between music then and now (at least music now for some people). Back
>> then it was all about catchy and exciting. Now it's more about being
>> meaningful and that's a trap if I ever heard one!
>
Jesus H. Christ, haven't you harped on this issue enough so that we all get
the point (to the extent there is one)? Holy shit, this is getting to be
just like the Yoko-bashers' constant recycling. Entirely predictable and
banal.
Eric Ramon
> through this. In-credible.
some would call this "irony".
Eric Ramon
> music and "indie rock."
>
> STILL trying to fake your way through this. THIS is why he gets nailed,
> Danny.
>
> Disregarding for the moment that the New Porns are more "pop" than
> "rock," why don't you tell us more about these universal qualities of
> "indie rock" which invariably turn you off, every blue moon when a song
> from this world gets dumped in your lap? Or maybe you can go into detail
> about how artists don't aim to be "exciting" anymore, like Helen Shapiro?
>
> You belong back in the rec.music.rock-pop-r+b newsgroups. Practically
> those entire populations are people who casually presume that all music
> must be judged by Top 40 singles criteria, that contemporary music can
> be dismissed with a few lazy generalities, are suspicious of any lyric
> which aims to have "meaning," etc.
learn to read, brainiac. Go re-read the thread. For someone who likes
to think of himself as smart....well, let me just say you jump to
conclusions and then once you get something in your head you don't
seem to be able to pivot.
Danny McEvoy
> STILL trying to fake your way through this. THIS is why he gets nailed,
> Danny.
Well...Eric likes the sixties stuff..which is cool...You like it
all...which is also cool..I'm just too bloody tired of it all to be
bothered to argue..I quite liked the Helen Shap song..but then I quite
like Lady Bloody gaga as well...at the moment *liking things* is
paling..I have other bothers on my mind..the only thing I can't stand
is Rap music..which to me sounds like the chants kids do in the play
ground..mainly black fellas (and Eminem) shouting about big arses and
shagging..(not that I care what colour they are btw - not the arses -
the blokes that perform)...Rap says *nothing to me about my life* (to
quote Morrisey)..
as I said there are currently worries asunder in my own mind which are
dragging me into some bizarre dark place, and believe me it's no
fun..sometimes I feel like running away....People let me down..or *get
me down*..sometimes I wish I was a sea anenome then I wouldn't have to
interact..I could just ejacluate into my environment in the hope that
some far off female might wish to employ my sperm in some way. A wank
fest that might wind up being postive.
Danny
Eric Ramon
> Eric Ramon:
>
>
>
> > > STILL trying to fake your way through this. THIS is why he gets nailed,
> > > Danny.
>
> > > Disregarding for the moment that the New Porns are more "pop" than
> > > "rock," why don't you tell us more about these universal qualities of
> > > "indie rock" which invariably turn you off, every blue moon when a song
> > > from this world gets dumped in your lap? Or maybe you can go into detail
> > > about how artists don't aim to be "exciting" anymore, like Helen Shapiro?
>
> > > You belong back in the rec.music.rock-pop-r+b newsgroups. Practically
> > > those entire populations are people who casually presume that all music
> > > must be judged by Top 40 singles criteria, that contemporary music can
> > > be dismissed with a few lazy generalities, are suspicious of any lyric
> > > which aims to have "meaning," etc.
>
> > learn to read, brainiac. Go re-read the thread. For someone who likes
> > to think of himself as smart....well, let me just say you jump to
> > conclusions and then once you get something in your head you don't
> > seem to be able to pivot.
>
> You're not equipped to discuss the subject, so quit faking it.
>
> It's just stunning, the lazy, prejudiced crud which RMBers persevere
> defending.
>
> Who would have guessed that me simply expressing my love for the New
> Pornographers would cause such a flood of old-fart defensiveness?
clueless
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I find it interesting that days later I can recall the song very well,
>> >> while I can't remember anything at all about the tune the New
>> >> Pornographers did in the Letterman clip. All I remember about the New
>> >> Pornographers is that they all looked nice and would probably give
>> >> Sarah MacLachlan a run for her money in terms of how tasteful their
>> >> home decor is.
>> >>
>> >> But the Shapiro tune is memorable and is indicative of a difference
>> >> between music then and now (at least music now for some people). Back
>> >> then it was all about catchy and exciting. Now it's more about being
>> >> meaningful and that's a trap if I ever heard one!
>> >
>> > A vacuous generalization worthy of the Nice Mean Man.
>>
>> Jesus H. Christ, haven't you harped on this issue enough so that we all
>> get
>> the point (to the extent there is one)? Holy shit, this is getting to be
>> just like the Yoko-bashers' constant recycling. Entirely predictable and
>> banal.
>
> express any sort of relevant opinion, but only to nag me "on principle."
> Because I dared to criticize someone sticking his neck out with
> ill-informed assertions.
<whoosh>
This issue has been flogged to death so many times that my expressing an
opinion on it would only perpetuate the needless and endless battles that
are fought over it. Think the YTs.
>
> Meanwhile, ongoing posts indicate that you all do NOT "get the point."
Meaning that you're whining because not everyone agrees with you. You've
gone from critiquing people who express views that come across as
all-encompassing, general truths to barking at people who are giving what,
clearly to the rest of us, are *THEIR OWN OPINIONS*. You simply can't
handle the fact that others have different frames of reference on this, and
you insist that your own standards for judging music be religiously adhered
to by everyone else.
I'm simply skeptical of *anyone* who claims to have the inside track on
TRUTH, whether the subject is music, Yoko Ono, or Islam. And, to put it
bluntly, your constant flogging of this issue comes across to me as
approaching the same intensity of nonsense as the anti-Yoko crowd and the
bigots. You simply can no longer *tolerate* people expressing a viewpoint
indicating preference for one style of music over another.
RichL
news:6c086757-0de1-4bc5...@k4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
That's putting it mildly! Certain key phrases trigger the Pavlovian
knee-jerk reflex, and once that happens, it's impossible to reason with the
guy any more.
RichL
> The Great Escalator <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Meaning that you're whining because not everyone agrees with you. You've
>> gone from critiquing people who express views that come across as
>> all-encompassing, general truths to barking at people who are giving
>> what,
>> clearly to the rest of us, are *THEIR OWN OPINIONS*. You simply can't
>> handle the fact that others have different frames of reference on this,
>> and
>> you insist that your own standards for judging music be religiously
>> adhered
>> to by everyone else.
>>
>> I'm simply skeptical of *anyone* who claims to have the inside track on
>> TRUTH, whether the subject is music, Yoko Ono, or Islam. And, to put it
>> bluntly, your constant flogging of this issue comes across to me as
>> approaching the same intensity of nonsense as the anti-Yoko crowd and the
>> bigots. You simply can no longer *tolerate* people expressing a
>> viewpoint
>> indicating preference for one style of music over another.
>
> all you like, for the sake of nurturing the hoary flock.
There he goes off to nutter land again, not only pretending his own
viewpoint is universal, meanwhile invoking imagined ulterior motives for
those who disagree.
<ironic dodge snipped>
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > learn to read, brainiac. Go re-read the thread. For someone who likes
>> > to think of himself as smart....well, let me just say you jump to
>> > conclusions and then once you get something in your head you don't
>> > seem to be able to pivot.
>>
>> That's putting it mildly! Certain key phrases trigger the Pavlovian
>> knee-jerk reflex, and once that happens, it's impossible to reason with
>> the
>> guy any more.
>
Q. E. D.
abe slaney
> "poisoned rose" <pro...@realitychex.com> wrote in message
>
> news:prose9-E9E60E....@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> >> I find it interesting that days later I can recall the song very well,
> >> while I can't remember anything at all about the tune the New
> >> Pornographers did in the Letterman clip. All I remember about the New
> >> Pornographers is that they all looked nice and would probably give
> >> Sarah MacLachlan a run for her money in terms of how tasteful their
> >> home decor is.
>
> >> But the Shapiro tune is memorable and is indicative of a difference
> >> between music then and now (at least music now for some people). Back
> >> then it was all about catchy and exciting. Now it's more about being
> >> meaningful and that's a trap if I ever heard one!
>
> > A vacuous generalization worthy of the Nice Mean Man.
>
> Jesus H. Christ, haven't you harped on this issue enough so that we all get
> the point (to the extent there is one)? Holy shit, this is getting to be
> just like the Yoko-bashers' constant recycling. Entirely predictable and
> banal.
Rich, I have to say that I don't know what you're objecting to.
GingerBelle posts a link to a very old clip of a long-forgotten pop
song. Eric R. invokes a comparison to another (modern) song from a
different thread that certain people have praised, disparaging the
newer song (not in musical terms, just in broad strokes of style or
dress or I don't even know what); poisoned rose counters that it's a
gross generalization not worthy of rebuttal; and now you're saying
that PR has harped on this particular issue? What issue? What's
predictable? What about that objection is banal?
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> There he goes off to nutter land again, not only pretending his own
>> viewpoint is universal, meanwhile invoking imagined ulterior motives for
>> those who disagree.
>>
>> <ironic dodge snipped>
>
> Lancelot. Just the usual Paste-o-Matic whinings. Does he really think
> he's fooling anyone?
>
> I am quite consistent in shooting down ill-informed, lazily reasoned,
> negative generalities. Yet somehow, you always manage to convince
> yourself that I'm the bad guy for doing so
Where's the "generality"? Eric expressed his own viewpoint and didn't try
to push his view as extending beyond that. Yet you whip out your
"generality" crusade anyways.
>
> I'll accept differing opinions from people who know what they're talking
> about, all day.
>
> Wouldn't it be something if you fossils ...
There you go again, attributing to me (since you're responding to me, I
presume I'm included in "you fossils") a viewpoint that I never expressed.
But I suppose it's more convenient for you to ride that superiority horse if
you pretend otherwise.
How soon you forget that I expressed admiration for the New Pornographers.
Unlike you, however, I didn't get my little nose out of joint when someone
else expressed a contrary opinion.
abe slaney
> Where's the "generality"? Eric expressed his own viewpoint and didn't try
> to push his view as extending beyond that. Yet you whip out your
> "generality" crusade anyways.
When somebody says "back then it was all about catchy and exciting"
and "now it's more about meaningful".. *that's* a generality.
Prove to me that it's a truth and I'll concede.
RichL
news:f3c790f4-bdb4-4d0b...@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
His constant harping on what he considers others' narrow musical views.
It's banal not in this specific instance if considered in isolation, but in
that the same complaint arises at least once every couple of weeks (and
that's being extremely conservative) from his quarters in one form or
another. It simply grows tiresome.
Remember too, I *like* New Pornographers, I'm simply not upset by someone
having a different view, even though I may not agree with the reasoning that
got that person to that point. In the end, I just believe that everyone has
their own musical tastes and I believe that, for most people, the evolution
of those tastes usually isn't *logical*, it's *visceral* and highly
subjective, and I can't see wasting a lot of time arguing about them.
Add to that PR's propensity to look down on those who approach things
differently than he does, and you might have an idea of where I'm coming
from.
RichL
In one sense it's a generality, but in the sense of something that he
presumed to be universally accepted, it's not. I thought it was clear that
it was his opinion and he didn't try to push it as something other than
that.
It's not a "truth", obviously, since I disagree with it. But as I said, I
figured it's his opinion.
Eric Ramon
Perhaps I didn't express my point well. There was a time when pop
music was all about listeners being able to pick up the melody
quickly, to be able to hum along, sing along. The songs were shorter
than now and had fewer moving parts. Verse, verse, chorus, verse,
instrumental, chorus, verse, out. Record execs looked for songs that
had hooks, that grabbed you right away in the first few seconds.
That doesn't happen as much now. Artists generally are looking for
something a little deeper. It's more likely now than 40 years ago that
a song will start with a 45 second vamp. Styles change.
I happened to note that a song under discussion, Look Who It Is, is
more memorable than another song we were discussing recently. Nowhere
did I say the Shapiro song was better or that the NP song was bad. I
was talking solely about being able to remember one of them and was
musing that it has something to do with changing styles.
I think I already explained this a bunch of posts back but thought you
might like another summary.
The uncalled for comment that the NPs look like yuppies to me was
probably not as funny as I thought. I can see how my including the
comment could confuse the issue but it has nothing to do with how good
they are. It's only a comment that they remind me of people I've met
at coffeehouses who rub me the wrong way...but who might be talented!
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > I am quite consistent in shooting down ill-informed, lazily reasoned,
>> > negative generalities. Yet somehow, you always manage to convince
>> > yourself that I'm the bad guy for doing so
>>
>> Where's the "generality"? Eric expressed his own viewpoint and didn't
>> try
>> to push his view as extending beyond that. Yet you whip out your
>> "generality" crusade anyways.
>
>
> Generalities: About indie rock being dismissible as a whole, as if it's
> all alike. Trying to talk about "music now" versus "music then," as the
> two are homogenous units of material which can be comprehensively
> described in bulk. Talk about how music used to be about "catchy and
> exciting," and now is more about being "meaningful."
Maybe we mean something different by "generalities". What I mean is
attempting to project one's own opinion as some far-reaching, objective
"truth". In that sense, I see more generalities from you than from him.
>
> Why do you pretend you don't know this?
>
>> How soon you forget that I expressed admiration for the New
>> Pornographers.
>> Unlike you, however, I didn't get my little nose out of joint when
>> someone
>> else expressed a contrary opinion.
>
> Right, you just get your nose out of joint when I criticizes someone
> else's overconfident overstep. Regardless of the topic.
You mean your judgementalism. Ok, yes, I do not accept your inherent
superiority over others in the group when it comes to discussing music.
Happy now?
Your use of "overconfident overstep" presumes your frame of reference is
superior. I don't accept that, it's simply a manifestation of a
"center-of-the-universe" syndrome. Your reaction to his mention of the
Black Eyed Peas is another illustration of this.
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> His constant harping on what he considers others' narrow musical views.
>> It's banal not in this specific instance if considered in isolation, but
>> in
>> that the same complaint arises at least once every couple of weeks (and
>> that's being extremely conservative) from his quarters in one form or
>> another. It simply grows tiresome.
>
> criticisms, but it's wrong for me to nag anyone else about the same?
If someone else expressed the same viewpoints OVER and OVER again,
responding in Pavlovian fashion every time one of his/her pet peeves were
tickled, I'd nag them equally. Someone who repeatedly pounces on the
anti-Islam set and the YTs for constantly doing this ought to understand my
point here.
In the case of the latter, the people in question have, in my view, nothing
useful to contribute to this newsgroup; consequently, I killfiled them. All
hope was lost.
You're not quite at that point yet.
Eric Ramon
> Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > music was all about listeners being able to pick up the melody
> > quickly, to be able to hum along, sing along. The songs were shorter
> > than now and had fewer moving parts. Verse, verse, chorus, verse,
> > instrumental, chorus, verse, out. Record execs looked for songs that
> > had hooks, that grabbed you right away in the first few seconds.
>
>
> > It's more likely now than 40 years ago that
> > a song will start with a 45 second vamp.
>
>
> > I happened to note that a song under discussion, Look Who It Is, is
> > did I say the Shapiro song was better or that the NP song was bad. I
> > was talking solely about being able to remember one of them
>
> pretty clear judgment of quality.
not at all. I don't much like the Shapiro song. It's one of those
stick in your head things that you'd like out.
RichL
> Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There was a time when pop
>> music was all about listeners being able to pick up the melody
>> quickly, to be able to hum along, sing along. The songs were shorter
>> than now and had fewer moving parts. Verse, verse, chorus, verse,
>> instrumental, chorus, verse, out. Record execs looked for songs that
>> had hooks, that grabbed you right away in the first few seconds.
>
>
>> a song will start with a 45 second vamp.
>
>
>> did I say the Shapiro song was better or that the NP song was bad. I
>> was talking solely about being able to remember one of them
>
> pretty clear judgment of quality.
It's a simple statement of his experience. I believe he means that one song
stayed in his head much longer than the other. No judgment involved.
I get all sorts of crappy songs stuck in my head for long periods of time.
It doesn't mean I *like* them.
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Could you explain more about why you're free to nag me about repeated
>> > criticisms, but it's wrong for me to nag anyone else about the same?
>>
>> If someone else expressed the same viewpoints OVER and OVER again,
>> responding in Pavlovian fashion every time one of his/her pet peeves were
>> tickled, I'd nag them equally.
>
> on making every quarrel YOUR quarrel?
>
> At least I write *different* arguments, rather than just pasting the
> same attacks while always avoiding thread-specific issues.
If you weren't constantly harping on essentially the *same* argument (which
boils down to "My musical experience is much broader than yours, your narrow
tastes aren't worthy of being expressed in my presence") I wouldn't have a
beef.
From Jeff expressing his adoration of solo George Harrison work to Robert's
love of *any* Beatles music to countless posters that you wish to categorize
as being "stuck in the 60s", it all amounts to the same thing: you
figuratively whipping out your dick and bragging about how much longer it is
than anyone else's.
If Robert loves ALL the Beatles' music, so what? Who cares if he doesn't
discriminate among the songs? Why make big issues about all these things?
I personally disagree with many of these viewpoints but I'm not *threatened*
by them; you act as though you are. You come across as though you consider
them character defects, which is really quite bizarre.
Donna
I've had this catchy song stuck in my head since yesterday. I even
found myself singing it aloud to others. And this continuing thread
isn't helping me one bit, you know.
Make it stop!! :[
RichL
news:4C37D6...@ix.netcom.com...
> I've had this catchy song stuck in my head since yesterday. I even
> found myself singing it aloud to others. And this continuing thread
> isn't helping me one bit, you know.
>
> Make it stop!! :[
Yeah, they're called 'earworms'. Some are good, some are awful.
I may not be able to get the one out of your head that's in there now, but I
may be able to replace it with another one:
Donna
LOL! Rich, I used to watch this show with my child and, yes, it got
stuck in my head more than once. Thanks for bringing back a sweet
memory.
RichL
Unfortunately my most vivid memory of shows I watched with my kids involves
Barney the Purple Dinosaur.
"I love you, you love me..."
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I may not be able to get the one out of your head that's in there now,
>> but I
>> may be able to replace it with another one:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_47KVJV8DU
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilKcXIFi-Rc
>
> Once I get that riff in my head, whatever used to be there is gonnnne.
>
> (Such a bummer that they only had one good album in them.)
I can see how that one would do it for some people.
My own cure for earworms...it may work for you or others who play musical
instruments...is to play whatever riff is stuck in there OVER and OVER until
I get tired of playing it. It's not 100% effective though, when Danny was
asking about the "Dig A Pony" riff, that one got stuck in my head, and
repetitively playing it didn't help.
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Could you explain more about why you're free to nag me about
>> >> > repeated
>> >> > criticisms, but it's wrong for me to nag anyone else about the same?
>> >>
>> >> If someone else expressed the same viewpoints OVER and OVER again,
>> >> responding in Pavlovian fashion every time one of his/her pet peeves
>> >> were
>> >> tickled, I'd nag them equally.
>> >
>> > You mean like how you do, every time I criticize anyone? How you insist
>> > on making every quarrel YOUR quarrel?
>> >
>> > At least I write *different* arguments, rather than just pasting the
>> > same attacks while always avoiding thread-specific issues.
>>
>> If you weren't constantly harping on essentially the *same* argument
>> (which
>> boils down to "My musical experience is much broader than yours, your
>> narrow
>> tastes aren't worthy of being expressed in my presence") I wouldn't have
>> a
>> beef.
>
> argument often boils down to "You are making vast denunciations of music
> which you've barely even heard"? I guess that fails to make me look like
> enough of a jerk?
It does, in some cases, but you'll rarely find me chiming in supporting the
other person in such cases. Nevertheless, I'd still submit that there is
rarely any constructive purpose served even in those cases; do you really
think you're going to get someone who's inclined that way to change?
>
>> From Jeff expressing his adoration of solo George Harrison work
>
> Oh, I can't even believe you're pulling this. Jeff's petulant objection
> to MY view was what caused that quarrel. And MY resulting objection was
> not about his preference for the music, but about his persistent
> scoffing at my opinion while having zero ability to explain his own
> contrasting view.
Well, we've been down this road recently, but let me reiterate: some people
simply *feel* music and come up short in terms of being able to explain it.
Again, it's not a character defect. I don't remember the details of what
started the argument, but as is often the case it wasn't long before it
degenerated into a mutual name-calling bash.
>
>> to Robert's
>> love of *any* Beatles music to countless posters that you wish to
>> categorize
>> as being "stuck in the 60s", it all amounts to the same thing: you
>> figuratively whipping out your dick and bragging about how much longer it
>> is
>> than anyone else's.
>
> Not really...it's about giving a wide range of music a fair shot. I'm
> promoting *music*, not myself.
Well, some people are inclined to give a wider range of music a fair shot,
but don't you think they'd be more inclined to do so with positive
encouragement rather than ridicule? Maybe my view is prejudiced by what
makes *me* tick, but it comes across to me that you get more pleasure out of
dealing with the "ignorant" in your usual fashion than you would by
convincing someone to listen to something they hadn't heard before. Maybe
if you just said your piece once and then let it go, I might feel otherwise.
>
>> If Robert loves ALL the Beatles' music, so what? Who cares if he doesn't
>> discriminate among the songs? Why make big issues about all these
>> things?
>> I personally disagree with many of these viewpoints but I'm not
>> *threatened*
>> by them; you act as though you are. You come across as though you
>> consider
>> them character defects, which is really quite bizarre.
>
> So why are you so incessantly "threatened" by my views?
I just think you need to lighten up on this. As I said above, I think you'd
be much more effective at actually *convincing* people that there's plenty
of music now that's worth listening to if you took a different approach.
And again I'll go back to the Fatts' analogy (for lack of a better term).
Are you threatened by Fatts? Don't you honestly think RMB would be a better
place without her bile? Isn't that why you "incessantly" comment on her
posts?
Unlike the case with Fatts, I really think you have a lot that's worthwhile
to contribute here, and that you'd be much more *effective* in doing so
without the bile.
Donna
>
> Unfortunately my most vivid memory of shows I watched with my kids involves
> Barney the Purple Dinosaur.
>
> "I love you, you love me..."
You had to remind me. :/
The only thing I liked about having that show on was that my little girl
would extend her arms and run into mine every time that song came on.
Every time.
But those kids on the show could really get on your nerves.
"Baaaaaaaarneeeeyyy!"
Remember this one?... "If all the rain drops were lemon drops and gum
drops, oh what a rain that would be. Standing outside with my mouth
open wide. Ah ah, ah ah ah, ah ah ah, ah ah...."
Incidentally, did you catch Barney's gig on Howard Stern?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZnM4qERdcc
RichL
abe slaney
> "Donna" <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > Make it stop!! :[
>
> Yeah, they're called 'earworms'. Some are good, some are awful.
>
> I may not be able to get the one out of your head that's in there now, but I
> may be able to replace it with another one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_47KVJV8DU
The scary part is that I *knew* what this link would be before I
clicked it...damn kids!! :)
The Nice Mean Man
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Could you explain more about why you're free to nag me about repeated
> > > criticisms, but it's wrong for me to nag anyone else about the same?
>
> > If someone else expressed the same viewpoints OVER and OVER again,
> > responding in Pavlovian fashion every time one of his/her pet peeves were
> > tickled, I'd nag them equally.
>
> on making every quarrel YOUR quarrel?
>
> At least I write *different* arguments, rather than just pasting the
> same attacks while always avoiding thread-specific issues.
>
> your pet peeve
No... You merely <snip> what you don't like to deal with. Would you
like me to post some examples?
The Nice Mean Man
The Nice Mean Man
> The Nice Mean Man <hitherand...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Could you explain more about why you're free to nag me about repeated
> > > > > criticisms, but it's wrong for me to nag anyone else about the same?
>
> > > > If someone else expressed the same viewpoints OVER and OVER again,
> > > > responding in Pavlovian fashion every time one of his/her pet peeves were
> > > > tickled, I'd nag them equally.
>
> > > You mean like how you do, every time I criticize anyone? How you insist
> > > on making every quarrel YOUR quarrel?
>
> > > At least I write *different* arguments, rather than just pasting the
> > > same attacks while always avoiding thread-specific issues.
>
> > > xxx,
> > > your pet peeve
>
> > No... You merely <snip> what you don't like to deal with. Would you
> > like me to post some examples?
>
<snip mass irrelevencies>
Know you like rap, too.... Talk about miserable.LOL...!! But at least
it's inspired with hatred.
> It's a pointless debate to me, because I'd dispute your fundamental
> assumption that the quality of music entirely depends on how much
> "celebrity chops" the band features.
Well, not EVERY gig that Hendrix played was a total mind-blowing
smashing success, I guess.... And that Jack Bruce guy.... I know he
had a couple of gigs where he didn't blow a few minds. And Pete
Townshend.dude... I guess that there were a few gigs where he didn't
slash his hand open while performing the greatest show on earth that
YOU'LL never see... And that Jerry Garcia dude... he pretty much
sucked there at the end. When he was drowning in his own fluids and
all. Just before he died, you know,... Yeah... a few gigs on that `95
tour. I guess you're right there.
Return to our debate NOW.
Now.
It's right where you left it when you ran away.
The Nice Mean Man
The Nice Mean Man
> Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There was a time when pop
> > music was all about listeners being able to pick up the melody
> > quickly, to be able to hum along, sing along. The songs were shorter
> > than now and had fewer moving parts. Verse, verse, chorus, verse,
> > instrumental, chorus, verse, out. Record execs looked for songs that
> > had hooks, that grabbed you right away in the first few seconds.
>
>
> > a song will start with a 45 second vamp.
>
>
> > did I say the Shapiro song was better or that the NP song was bad. I
> > was talking solely about being able to remember one of them
>
> pretty clear judgment of quality.
You can offer no middle-of-the-road opinion on this subject. You dig
'alternative music'. The kind of shit that only people sympathetic to
school shootings, childhood suicide and boy-loves-boy queerism can
understand. How then can you dig THIS?
You are an INSULT to The Beatles memory. YOU and your entire
generation.
The Nice Mean Man
The Nice Mean Man
> > > > And you know what else, shithead? YOU were the one who steered the
> > > > topic away. You wrote:
> > > > "Yes. But unlike YOUR one-dimensional generation, MY bands had
> > > > vocalist heroes... They also had drummer heroes, bass player heroes
> > > > and keyboard heroes. As well as the guitar greats. All you got is a
> > > > bunch of suicide-bound angst-motivated-who monopolize
> > > > the stage in front of their interchangeable band-mates. Screaming out
> > > > what they don¹t know how. Totally forgettable. Here todayŠ gone
> > > > tomorrow."
>
>
> > > But that was in response to your previous left turn at a right-turn
> > > only intersection. You said......
> > > "about kinks guitarist “The Nice Mean Man, who presumably includes
> > > Dave Davies in that set of '60s-generation guitar heroes which
> > > comprises the breadth of his musical knowledge”
> > > THAT'S why we're talking about modern music now.
>
>
> > No… THAT is why I’m talking about you steering the subject into areas
> > that you feel most comfortable with. Like I already said. Like you
> > already know. YOU just HAD to accentuate. And you did. And now, the
> > die is most assuredly cast..
>
>
> Nice try. Sorry, no. There is no mention of modern music in my comment.
>
I say again, what missing "musical knowledge" were you talking about
"him" not having, then?
Hey ROZE….. Don’t forget your CANE when you leave. LOL....!!!!
The Nice Mean Man
> The Nice Mean Man <hitherand...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > 'alternative music'. The kind of shit that only people sympathetic to
> > school shootings, childhood suicide and boy-loves-boy queerism can
> > understand.
>
> on, get real. Drop the act.
Ever get into 50s music much? I doubt that. How about the old time
blues or old time country music? The places that rock and roll came
from? Ever dig into those? Doubtful. Narrow minded little puke. Go
choke on your own cum-extract excrement if you want to. It only allows
me laugh all the more harder
Fattuchus
which I thought were interesting. I was wondering where everyone
was. Now I can see several people are here: arguing, as usual.
Fattuchus
> On Jul 9, 9:20 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Where's the "generality"? Eric expressed his own viewpoint and didn't try
> > to push his view as extending beyond that. Yet you whip out your
> > "generality" crusade anyways.
>
> When somebody says "back then it was all about catchy and exciting"
> and "now it's more about meaningful".. *that's* a generality.
> Prove to me that it's a truth and I'll concede.
If that remark is general, so what? Eric R. rendered an opinion, and
he's entitled to it.
Fattuchus
> "poisoned rose" <pro...@realitychex.com> wrote in message
>
> news:prose9-63DD6B....@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
> >> If Robert loves ALL the Beatles' music, so what? Who cares if he doesn't
> >> discriminate among the songs? Why make big issues about all these
> >> things?
> >> I personally disagree with many of these viewpoints but I'm not
> >> *threatened*
> >> by them; you act as though you are. You come across as though you
> >> consider
> >> them character defects, which is really quite bizarre.
>
> > So why are you so incessantly "threatened" by my views?
>
> I just think you need to lighten up on this. As I said above, I think you'd
> be much more effective at actually *convincing* people that there's plenty
> of music now that's worth listening to if you took a different approach.
>
> And again I'll go back to the Fatts' analogy (for lack of a better term).
> Are you threatened by Fatts? Don't you honestly think RMB would be a better
> place without her bile? Isn't that why you "incessantly" comment on her
> posts?
>
> Unlike the case with Fatts, I really think you have a lot that's worthwhile
> to contribute here, and that you'd be much more *effective* in doing so
> without the bile.-
Hey, you were doing fine until you brought me into this mess. I guess
I must haunt your dreams . . . . or is it nightmares?
abe slaney
Um, I was responding to Rich's question "where's the generality?" I
never said Eric wasn't entitled to his opinion.
topaz
> RichL wrote:
>
> > "poisoned rose" <pro...@realitychex.com> wrote in message
> >news:prose9-575E63....@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> - Show quoted text -
For me here is a song that sometimes cures an earworm and sometimes
becomes an ear worm. Either way it makes me do that little "seat
dancing" when I am driving my car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrwYb8WOkb0
I do like RichL's post of an earworm , adorable choice.
GingerBelle Juliesse
> On Jul 9, 12:38 pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I find it interesting that days later I can recall the song very well,
>> while I can't remember anything at all about the tune the New
>> Pornographers did in the Letterman clip. All I remember about the New
>> Pornographers is that they all looked nice and would probably give
>> Sarah MacLachlan a run for her money in terms of how tasteful their
>> home decor is.
>>
>
> That's just lame. Personally I find the NP song extremely "catchy" -
> at least it was caught in my head for a week. This old song reminds me
> of one of those gratingly bouncy Neil Sedaka numbers...early 60's
> formula-pop - when you know where the chords and the melody are going
> 2 bars before it even gets there. btw, I also don't think the NPs are
> known for their "nice looks", whatever you might mean by that.
>
>
>> But the Shapiro tune is memorable and is indicative of a difference
>> between music then and now (at least music now for some people). Back
>> then it was all about catchy and exciting. Now it's more about being
>> meaningful and that's a trap if I ever heard one! Shooting for
>> meaningful means there's an awful lot of pretension. On the other hand
>> shooting for catchy leads to a lot of sappy songs.
>>
>
> You tell me what the NP song "means" and we can discuss how
> "meaningful" it is, since you are choosing to use this as a general
> criticism of modern rock. Then maybe we can talk about "Strawberry
> Fields Forever" vs. "Imagine", or "Across the Universe" vs. "Power to
> the People". What do you mean "mean"?
>
>
>> When I get back to another thread about modern music I'll point out
>> why the Black Eyed Peas are better than the New Pornographers or
>> Silversun Pickups. Not here, though.
>>
>
> Pray continue.
>
Why all the hostile snobs in rmb? Poisoned Rose, Nil, you. Why? Just
let people like what they like without making them feel stupid about it.
GingerBelle
abe slaney
wrote:
I'm not the "hostile snob" who talked about the NP's home decor
instead of their music. Get a clue.
Eric Ramon
hey, are you calling me a hostile snob? That's awfully hostile of you.
Why would you take it personally? And, while you're at it, missing the
point? Why would you focus on the irrelevant "humor" instead of
dealing with the actual musical content? (that is, however archaic and
sappy some old music is, it's easier to remember than modern music, at
least on first listening). Do you love the NPs so much that my
impression of them is ultra-offensive to you and overrides any
discussion of stylistic differences between the music of 1963 and 2010?
GingerBelle Juliesse
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> I find it interesting that days later I can recall the song very well,
>>>> while I can't remember anything at all about the tune the New
>>>> Pornographers did in the Letterman clip. All I remember about the New
>>>> Pornographers is that they all looked nice and would probably give
>>>> Sarah MacLachlan a run for her money in terms of how tasteful their
>>>> home decor is.
>>>>
>>>> between music then and now (at least music now for some people). Back
>>>> then it was all about catchy and exciting. Now it's more about being
>>>> meaningful and that's a trap if I ever heard one!
>>>>
>>>
>> Jesus H. Christ, haven't you harped on this issue enough so that we all get
>> the point (to the extent there is one)? Holy shit, this is getting to be
>> just like the Yoko-bashers' constant recycling. Entirely predictable and
>> banal.
>>
>
> Jesus H. Christ, it's the Great Escalator once again. Jumping in not to
> express any sort of relevant opinion, but only to nag me "on principle."
> Because I dared to criticize someone sticking his neck out with
> ill-informed assertions.
>
> Meanwhile, ongoing posts indicate that you all do NOT "get the point."
>
It's not that we don't get your point, we just don't care.
GingerBelle
The Nice Mean Man
>
LOL....!!!!!
> You're incapable of discussion.
>
Try to look at it from my perspective, kid…. ANYONE who is younger
than me has nothing to teach me. And therefore nothing to say. Because
I have already been there FIRST. And I’ve been there higher than them,
too.
GingerBelle Juliesse
> On Jul 9, 5:32 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Jesus H. Christ, haven't you harped on this issue enough so that we all get
>> the point (to the extent there is one)? Holy shit, this is getting to be
>> just like the Yoko-bashers' constant recycling. Entirely predictable and
>> banal.
>>
>
> GingerBelle posts a link to a very old clip of a long-forgotten pop
> song.
It's about as old as the early Beatles, 1963. What's wrong with that?
Is Helen really forgotten in the UK? She was never well known in the US
to begin with.
> Eric R. invokes a comparison to another (modern) song from a
> different thread that certain people have praised, disparaging the
> newer song (not in musical terms, just in broad strokes of style or
> dress or I don't even know what);
So what? It's his opinion.
> poisoned rose counters that it's a
> gross generalization not worthy of rebuttal;
Which was very rude and unnecessary.
> and now you're saying
> that PR has harped on this particular issue? What issue? What's
> predictable? What about that objection is banal?
>
>
You've been in rmb for how long and you don't understand what RichL
means about PR's 'tude? I know what he means.
GingerBelle
GingerBelle Juliesse
He wasn't directing that remark at any particular posters in here. I
don't knew who the New Pornographers are and don't care.
GingerBelle