No Music History (was: Re:Open call for urban legends about Beatles)
The Unknown User
In article <7...@decabo.enet.dec.com> mikk...@thewav.enet.dec.com (snopes) writes:
> So what? When I was a lot younger, I thought the Carpenters wrote
> "Ticket To Ride" until I saw a clip of the Beatles' Shea Stadium concert
> on TV. It doesn't mean kids "don't know their musical history", it means
> that you know about what you listen to. Is "Loco-Motion" a Little Eva
> Song, a Grand Funk song, or a (little Austrlian girl whose name I can't
> recall) song? It just depends on when you grew up and what you listened
> to. It's amusing, but let's not imply that today's kids are deficient
> because they don't know what we do.
So what? I just think that people should know about the history of
things that they are interested in... [And the history of things they're
not interested in, such as world history!]
I'm not even saying they should know all of the links between
rock and roll and earlier forms of music, and waaaay back in time or
anything.. it would be nice.. But I don't know that either... (maybe I
should... if you say I should it's a valid point!)
And making it an even smaller "circle of knowledge" that people
'should' know about, is the particular bands they like and listen to a lot
and the history of their band... That seems to be the very minimum in my
book.
Now there are probably LOTS AND LOTS of things people can ask me
about bands that I like that I don't know, but I probably know the basic
facts about bands I listen to, and even about lots of bands I don't listen
to.
Remakes piss me off for a few reasons:
(1) Why can't the people be more creative and write their OWN
music? Nowadays people remake a song to get an easy hit. I think that
the reasoning was at least a -little- different in the past, in that it
was at least partially homage to the band whose song they're remaking. It
was also possibly for an easy hit, but since remakes (in rock) were being made
before rock (I'm including pop here) was as huge as it is today.
(2) People think the people who remake the song think their version
is the original... (worded that way since people often use songs authored by
other people for their own band) There are also probably many instances here
when I think that a remake is the original version.. I try to make it a point
to know when a song is a remake...
{Don't -EVEN- get me into sampling. I always hope someone sues the
pants off of an "artist" (I use that term lightly) who samples other people's
work... Like MC Hammer for "U Can't Touch This," who used part of "SuperFreak"
without permission... I think sampling is even scuzzier than remakes}
Don't think that I -never- like remakes. I often like remakes..
I mean the actual remade version of the song. But that's the problem..
I'm "gullible" that way.. If I like the original, I'll probably like the
remake.
Well, back to the main point.. I just think that people should know
more about music in general, their own favorite type of music, or at least
specifically the bands they like.
I guess e-mail replies would be appropriate because I'm replying
to a fairly old message.
--
/ Apple II(GS) Forever! unk...@ucscb.ucsc.edu \
\"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
Jim Dobbs
>In article <7...@decabo.enet.dec.com> mikk...@thewav.enet.dec.com (snopes) writes:
>> So what? When I was a lot younger, I thought the Carpenters wrote
>> "Ticket To Ride" until I saw a clip of the Beatles' Shea Stadium concert
>> on TV. It doesn't mean kids "don't know their musical history", it means
>> that you know about what you listen to. Is "Loco-Motion" a Little Eva
>> Song, a Grand Funk song, or a (little Austrlian girl whose name I can't
>> recall) song? It just depends on when you grew up and what you listened
>> to. It's amusing, but let's not imply that today's kids are deficient
>> because they don't know what we do.
> So what? I just think that people should know about the history of
>things that they are interested in... [And the history of things they're
>not interested in, such as world history!]
Agreed.
> I'm not even saying they should know all of the links between
>rock and roll and earlier forms of music, and waaaay back in time or
>anything.. it would be nice.. But I don't know that either... (maybe I
>should... if you say I should it's a valid point!)
I think so. See Below...
> And making it an even smaller "circle of knowledge" that people
>'should' know about, is the particular bands they like and listen to a lot
>and the history of their band... That seems to be the very minimum in my
>book.
An absolute minimum.
> Now there are probably LOTS AND LOTS of things people can ask me
>about bands that I like that I don't know, but I probably know the basic
>facts about bands I listen to, and even about lots of bands I don't listen
>to.
> Remakes piss me off for a few reasons:
> (1) Why can't the people be more creative and write their OWN
>music? Nowadays people remake a song to get an easy hit. I think that
>the reasoning was at least a -little- different in the past, in that it
>was at least partially homage to the band whose song they're remaking. It
>was also possibly for an easy hit, but since remakes (in rock) were being made
>before rock (I'm including pop here) was as huge as it is today.
Well, here's your music history lesson. Buddy Holly and the Crickets
were basically the first popular band to do almost all original music.
Non-students of music history grow up with the misapprehension that in
order to be a really GOOD musician you MUST ALSO be a good writer.
In fact, if not for Buddy Holly, the Beatles would probably have
released a lot of cover tunes before doing ANY originals. After all,
it was playing OTHER people's songs that made them popular in West
Germany in the FIRST place.
In reality, throughout ALL of music history, there has usually been a
dichotomy between composers and players. Irving Berlin, for example,
could hardly play a piano (he used only the black keys), did not read
nor write music notation, and had a terrible singing voice. Needless
to say, he was not much of a PERFORMER. He was, however, one of the
most successful songwriters in recent music history.
I think you are illustrating the refutation of your own point. A basic
entry-level music appreciation class would be a real eye-opener for you,
(and most people.) It certainly was for me. I still prefer the rock-n-
roll music I liked before I formally studied music, but now I can ALSO
appreciate/enjoy anything from Baroque to Viennese to Impressionistic to
Jazz to Blues to Western Swing to Rock and Roll to Metal to New Age to
Atonal Modern composition. It took more than one class to broaden me,
but I now know that I HAD NOTHING TO LOSE, and EVERYTHING TO GAIN by
studying music.
It really is like trying new foods. At first, you don't like this or
that dish, but soon you find something new that you just love. Also,
my tastes have changed with maturity (a nice way to say that I'm aging
at an alarming rate :-) ) in that some things I used to like, I no
longer care for, and some things I used to HATE are now among my
favorites. I really believe that a lot of 'revolutionary' rock music
exists primarily to scare the crap out of parents/teachers/all adults.
Needless to say, one outgrows this need, eventually.
> (2) People think the people who remake the song think their version
>is the original... (worded that way since people often use songs authored by
>other people for their own band) There are also probably many instances here
>when I think that a remake is the original version.. I try to make it a point
>to know when a song is a remake...
> {Don't -EVEN- get me into sampling. I always hope someone sues the
>pants off of an "artist" (I use that term lightly) who samples other people's
>work... Like MC Hammer for "U Can't Touch This," who used part of "SuperFreak"
>without permission... I think sampling is even scuzzier than remakes}
Agreed. The law always lags a ways behind new technology. It just has
to redefine sampling as digital recording and make it subject to all the
same laws that tape-recording is subject to. It has been possible to do
with tape most of what is now being done with samplers for a long time.
> Don't think that I -never- like remakes. I often like remakes..
>I mean the actual remade version of the song. But that's the problem..
>I'm "gullible" that way.. If I like the original, I'll probably like the
>remake.
Then that means you like the SONG. See if you can find out who WROTE
it. You might find out that THAT artist has an album out there. Or
that they often write for some singer or group. Then you can listen
to THEM.
> Well, back to the main point.. I just think that people should know
>more about music in general, their own favorite type of music, or at least
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again, agreed. Also, TRY NEW KINDS OF MUSIC ALL THE TIME!!!
I basically agree with what you are saying, but I think you should take
some of your own advice, too. [Shouldn't we all? :-)]
I know _I_ should. So I'm gonna go watch MTV for an hour now.
[Unless Milli Vanilli comes on....]
--
^ - James C. "Jim" Dobbs - jdo...@director.beckman.uiuc.edu
( O-O "The correct pluralization of 'smurf' is 'smurves.'"
> - James C. Dobbs
^ DISCLAIMER - Nobody ever agrees with anything I think.
James Preston
> {Don't -EVEN- get me into sampling. I always hope someone sues the
> pants off of an "artist" (I use that term lightly) who samples other people's
> work... Like MC Hammer for "U Can't Touch This," who used part of "SuperFreak"
> without permission... I think sampling is even scuzzier than remakes}
Well, in general, I totally agree with you about remakes and sampling.
I just have a small factual correction. MC Hammer did, in fact, give
co-writing credit to the composer of "SuperFreak". I had "always heard"
that, and it was "officially" confirmed the other day in a report I saw
about some white rapper who BLATANTLY and admittedly and unashamedly ripped
off the bass-line from a song by Queen and David Bowie whose name escapes
me at the moment. This jerk openly bragged about his rip-off, and made
a big deal about the fact that he added _ONE_ note to every other bar, as
if that made it a unique creation! If creativity in modern music isn't
dead already, then guys like this are burying it alive.
--James Preston
Bill Gribble
>In article <78...@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unk...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes:
I have to agree wholeheartedly. Do you know what it's like to hear one of
your favorite songs start on the radio - in this case, the Smiths'
'How soon is now' - and right when that neat guitar thing is supposed
to kick in some obnoxious rap drum-machine shit starts up?
Sorry to digress, but this really irks me.
*****************************************************************************
** Bill Gribble Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA **
** bgri...@jarthur.claremont.edu Never heard of it? You're stupid. **
*****************************************************************************
The Unknown User
>I just have a small factual correction. MC Hammer did, in fact, give
>co-writing credit to the composer of "SuperFreak".
"SuperFreak," does that mean he has the right to steal the beat/samples/
whatever? The truth is that the author of "SuperFreak" did NOT work on
"U Can't Touch This" and said somewhere a few months ago that he could
have sued the pants off of MC Hammer but chose not to (DAMN!).
Also, I think it stinks that Bruce Springsteen let 2 Live Crew
use the music from "Born in the USA" for "Banned in the USA". No matter
how much I HATE RAP, I still am "for" 2 Live Crew's right to say what
they want... [I will also say that they're disgusting and crude too but
(un)fortunately it's their right to be sick]
I kind of hoped that this unfair spazzing about 2 Live Crew might
somehow kill rap even though the spazzing is unconstitutional.. [Hey, I
can have DREAMS can't I? I still DREAM that Apple's gonna improve the GS,
a wonderful computer IMHO!]
> I had "always heard"
>that, and it was "officially" confirmed the other day in a report I saw
>about some white rapper who BLATANTLY and admittedly and unashamedly ripped
>off the bass-line from a song by Queen and David Bowie whose name escapes
>me at the moment. This jerk openly bragged about his rip-off, and made
>a big deal about the fact that he added _ONE_ note to every other bar, as
>if that made it a unique creation! If creativity in modern music isn't
>dead already, then guys like this are burying it alive.
Vanilla Ice.. just remembered it... he was on "MTV's Week in Rock"
or some other MTV show a day or two ago... It -DID- sound exactly the same
and you'd almost have to KNOW there was a difference unless you were
listening closely for some other reason.
Also, this is just curiosity on my part.. I am not a part of
the group that feels that whenever race is mentioned somewhere, it's
somehow a form of racism.. I just wondered why you said "..some white
rapper..".. I realize it's still very very odd to have white rappers.
I guess for some reason that just caught my eye(s).
snopes
In article <78...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, unk...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU
(The Unknown User) writes...
> So what? I just think that people should know about the history of
>things that they are interested in... [And the history of things they're
>not interested in, such as world history!]
>
They do. A lot of kids could probably tell you tremendous amounts of
information about the history New Kids On The Block or Motley Crue or
KISS or whatever, because those are the things they're interested in.
>
> Remakes piss me off for a few reasons:
> (1) Why can't the people be more creative and write their OWN music?
For the same reason that most actors don't write screenplays: acting and
writing are two separate talents. Just being a gifted singer or musician
doesn't necessarily mean you have a talent for writing great songs. What
did Elvis ever write?
> (2) People think the people who remake the song think their version
>is the original... (worded that way since people often use songs authored by
>other people for their own band) There are also probably many instances here
>when I think that a remake is the original version.. I try to make it a point
>to know when a song is a remake...
>
You know what people think about what other people think? That's quite a
talent you have there. What are they supposed to do, put "AS ORIGINALLY
RECORDED BY . . ." in big letters on every remake just in case people don't
know? Lots of remakes are far superior to the original versions, so what's
wrong with that?
> Don't think that I -never- like remakes. I often like remakes..
>I mean the actual remade version of the song. But that's the problem..
>I'm "gullible" that way.. If I like the original, I'll probably like the
>remake.
Ooh, tricked up by a slickster who used a song more than once, eh? I guess
they should consult you before doing any more remakes just to make sure
your feelings aren't hurt.
> Well, back to the main point.. I just think that people should know
>more about music in general, their own favorite type of music, or at least
>specifically the bands they like.
They already do.
- snopes
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| David P. Mikkelson, Inc. | "I'm gonna _have_ to read Bush's lips, |
| Senior Software Specialist | because Medicare won't pay for my hearing |
| Digital Equipment Corporation | aid any more." |
| Culver City, CA U.S.A. | |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Internet: mikke...@breaker.enet.dec.com |
| Dodgernet: mikkelson.ssd...@afsc-ssd.af.mil |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
James Preston
> "SuperFreak," does that mean he has the right to steal the beat/samples/
> whatever? The truth is that the author of "SuperFreak" did NOT work on
> "U Can't Touch This" and said somewhere a few months ago that he could
> have sued the pants off of MC Hammer but chose not to (DAMN!).
permission from the author, and that it therefore wasn't stealing. I did
not mean to imply that simply giving co-writing credit was sufficient; I
had assumed that the two went hand in hand.
> Also, I think it stinks that Bruce Springsteen let 2 Live Crew
> use the music from "Born in the USA" for "Banned in the USA".
Yup. And I still can't believe that Aerosmith not only gave permission,
but actually participated in the video of that total bastardization of
"Walk This Way". (Do I sound like a curmudgeon yet?)
> Vanilla Ice.. just remembered it... he was on "MTV's Week in Rock"
> or some other MTV show a day or two ago... It -DID- sound exactly the same
> and you'd almost have to KNOW there was a difference unless you were
> listening closely for some other reason.
This show played the ripoff, then they played the original. They sounded
exactly the same to me. Then the guy talked about this wonderful one note
he added, and then they played the original and the ripoff again. Knowing
about the new note and listening for it, I could hear the subtle difference.
My wife never did hear any difference. I know that if I were David Bowie
or a member of Queen, I would have been on the phone to my lawyer that
instant. (On the other hand, since the bass-line is, I think, exactly two
bars long, the thief might be legally safe.)
> Also, this is just curiosity on my part.. I am not a part of
> the group that feels that whenever race is mentioned somewhere, it's
> somehow a form of racism.. I just wondered why you said "..some white
> rapper..".. I realize it's still very very odd to have white rappers.
> I guess for some reason that just caught my eye(s).
Well, I didn't even think about it at the time, but I guess there were
two reasons: 1) I couldn't remember his name, and I always like to
include some kind of identifying feature; 2) The report started out by
hammering on his being white, on how unusual a white rapper is, asking
whether he found it hard to be accepted as a white guy doing a form of
music whose audience is predominantly black, etc. (I, too, am not part
of that group that cries racism at any mention of race. It just happens
to be a fact that he's white and in a predominantly black music category.)
--James Preston
Love ain't nothin' but sex misspelled.
[The discussion was about sampling in general and M.C. Hammer's "U Can't Touch
This" in particular.]
> about some white rapper who BLATANTLY and admittedly and unashamedly ripped
> off the bass-line from a song by Queen and David Bowie whose name escapes
> me at the moment. This jerk openly bragged about his rip-off, and made
> a big deal about the fact that he added _ONE_ note to every other bar, as
> if that made it a unique creation! If creativity in modern music isn't
> dead already, then guys like this are burying it alive.
That was on MTV Thursday night. The asshole's name is "Vanilla Ice,"
and he blatantly ripped off Queen's "Under Pressure" for his song "Ice, Ice
Baby." (Is it just me or are rap song titles getting stupider every day?)
What topped off the interview for me is when this arrogant shmuck was asked if
he would reimburse Queen/David Bowie (Who co-wrote the song) for using "their"
creation. He smirked and said the song was COMPLETELY HIS CREATION (bullshit)
and that they'd have to take him to court before he gave them a dime. I think
he deserves no less than to be sentenced to life in front of a firing squad.
Once again, standard appologies for injecting fact into this newsgroup.
Peace,
Patrick
ed...@av8or.enet.dec.com
In article <91...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>, bgri...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Gribble) writes...
>
>I have to agree wholeheartedly. Do you know what it's like to hear one of
> your favorite songs start on the radio - in this case, the Smiths'
> 'How soon is now' - and right when that neat guitar thing is supposed
> to kick in some obnoxious rap drum-machine shit starts up?
>
>Sorry to digress, but this really irks me.
>
>*****************************************************************************
>** Bill Gribble Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA **
>** bgri...@jarthur.claremont.edu Never heard of it? You're stupid. **
>*****************************************************************************
Then, on the other hand, there's the group that merged the music from "Whole
Lot of Love" with the words from "Heartbreak Hotel." Definitely cognative
dissonance in action...
(sig follows)
.
.
.
.
.
Ed E.
Gabe NEWELL
> I just have a small factual correction. MC Hammer did, in fact, give
> co-writing credit to the composer of "SuperFreak". I had "always heard"
> that, and it was "officially" confirmed the other day in a report I saw
> about some white rapper who BLATANTLY and admittedly and unashamedly ripped
> off the bass-line from a song by Queen and David Bowie whose name escapes
> me at the moment. This jerk openly bragged about his rip-off, and made
> a big deal about the fact that he added _ONE_ note to every other bar, as
> if that made it a unique creation! If creativity in modern music isn't
> dead already, then guys like this are burying it alive.
1) SuperFreak was written by Rick James, and he is in negotiation with MC
Hammer over his use of portions of SuperFreak, and has not ruled out
litigation (my data is about 6 weeks old). Vanilla Ice is the white
rapper you are thinking of, and the song is "Ice Ice Baby".
2) MARRS is currently in litigation with everybody over "Pump Up The
Volume". They were one of the original sampling bands, and certainly
the first to have a song be financially successful enough to attract the
attention of the people they were sampling. There is a huge amount of
on-going litigation and proposals for laws covering sampling. Undoubtedly
in the normal but ponderous legal process sampling will become main-stream
and people's intellectual and property rights will be respected.
3) As I am sure many people have pointed out to you already, the tone
of your arguments and appeals to aesthetic purity mirror almost exactly
the reaction of musical conservatives throughout history. You sound just
like the people in the 50's who howled against the electric guitar, who in
the early 80's protested punk, who asserted that rap would be a passing phase
for the fringe, and, undoubtedly, just like the people who complained when the
harpsichord was replaced by the piano. This isn't to imply that you are
wrong, just that you will be ignored.
4) REGARDLESS, I think this thread should be relocated somewhere else as
it has gone far afield of anything relevant to urban folklore.
Boyd Roberts
|
|I have to agree wholeheartedly. Do you know what it's like to hear one of
| your favorite songs start on the radio - in this case, the Smiths'
| 'How soon is now' - and right when that neat guitar thing is supposed
| to kick in some obnoxious rap drum-machine shit starts up?
|
|Sorry to digress, but this really irks me.
Yeah, I really hate that. I'm just getting ready for the wailing guitar --
and then I think `Oh no, it's that damn _sample_!!'. Arrgh!!
Boyd Roberts bo...@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au
``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
Gary Allen
>In article <4d7ed37...@apollo.HP.COM> gal...@apollo.HP.COM (Gary Allen) writes:
>>Just a stop on the road my man. Sooner or later, everyone listens to
>>the "golden oldies" and complains about the kids. You're only half
>>way there :-) Sorry, no kid of 16 cares about rockers who died before
>>they were born, or who now have grandchildren.
> Well, I am 15, and your over-generalizations are SO INACCURATE.
>Kids DO care about the older music. Although their favorite music may be, say
>The Who, or Led Zeppelin, or Jimi Hendrix, they DO respect those who inspired
>thier favorites.
I'm sure that you believe yourself to be an expert on kids - you being
one yourself and all, but trust me - it'll look much different when you're
on this side of the age line.
And trust me - few people your age have been around long enough to even
KNOW who inspired their favorites - let alone appreciate them. For instance,
I doubt most folks your age would even have a clue who Robert Johnson,
Charlie Parker, or Jango Rheinhart [sp?] were (No, I didn't either).
>>Nope. You simply do not underdstand kids. The past is NOT very important
>>to kids - that's just the way it is, and it's 100% normal. It is not
> No, YOU do not understand kids. You can not lump all teens into one
>group of uncaring, unthinking morons who don't care about the past. All my
>friends are teens (I wonder why) and about 80% of them care about the past.
Well, sorry, yes I can lump "kids" together. People progress through various
stages of development with age, not quite like clockwork, but nonetheless
predictably. Kids are born about the same age, eat solid food about the same
age, learn to walk about the same age, begin talking at about the same age,
get potty trained about the same age, are ready for school at about the same
age, reach puberty at about the same age, begin having an interest in the
opposite sex at about the same age, begin listening to music other than that
of their parents at about the same age, etc (and it doesn't stop when we hit
15, or 21, or 40). We're "exposed" to a great deal of info all the while which
we "absorb" at (leaving out geniuses and idiots) about the same rate. The amount
you've "absorbed" has a whole lot to do with the amount of time you've spent
doing it. Then, atop that, our priorities shift with our change of position.
Trust me, we've been observing human development and behaviour for millions
of years and it IS something we know a great deal about.
I never said that kids are "uncaring, unthinking morons." My 3-year old
son doesn't know a fraction of what my 20 year old daughter does, nor does he
have the same priorities. That doesn't make him an idiot. He has appropriate
knowledge and attitudes for someone who's 3, as the older one does for 20.
It IS generally the case that the priorities of kids in their mid-teens
are parochial and their knowledge limited. That's normal - if they acted like
grandparents, that'd be weird. There is an appropriate set of knowledge and
attitudes for a 15 year old (a certain scope if you will). Fortunately, most
of us have them when we're around 15.
>When you know everything, then you can start calling others ignorant. Until
>then, you've simply learned what YOU care about most and are disdaining the
>choices of others.
And I assume you do? It seems that you are calling teens ignorant.
Nope - just more than you. But that's only because (like your parents) I've
been learning longer. That's not an insult to you or your friends - that's
just the way the way it is. Trust me again, you'll know lots more in a few
more years, including (long dead) musicians that you've yet to hear of - let
alone appreciate.
Gary Allen
Apollo Computer
Chelmsford, MA
gal...@apollo.HP.COM
Michael Newton
|In some article za...@ddsw1.MCS.COM writes:
|>In article <4d7ed37...@apollo.HP.COM> gal...@apollo.HP.COM (Gary Allen) writes:
|>>You're only half way there :-) Sorry, no kid of 16 cares about rockers who
|>>died before they were born, or who now have grandchildren.
|> Well, I am 15, and your over-generalizations are SO INACCURATE.
|>Kids DO care about the older music. Although their favorite music may be, say
|>The Who, or Led Zeppelin, or Jimi Hendrix, they DO respect those who inspired
|>thier favorites.
|I'm sure that you believe yourself to be an expert on kids - you being
|one yourself and all, but trust me - it'll look much different when you're
|on this side of the age line.
whos a patronising old fart then? whos gunna trust someone who keeps
saying "trust me"? Not on your woebegone. Where is this "age line"?
Your statement that "no kid of 16 cares about rockers who died before
they were born, or who now have grandchildren" is just wrong, he points
this out. It is, as he says, an over-generalisation. No amount of
patronising statements of the bleeding obvious is going to change that.
"el viejo"
--
"Many wars results from aggression" The Guardian, Sat 25th August 1990
<kimba> aka Michael Newton
Ben Feen
>gal...@apollo.HP.COM (Gary Allen) writes:
>|In some article za...@ddsw1.MCS.COM writes:
>|>In article <4d7ed37...@apollo.HP.COM> gal...@apollo.HP.COM (Gary Allen) writes:
>|>>You're only half way there :-) Sorry, no kid of 16 cares about rockers who
>|>>died before they were born, or who now have grandchildren.
>|> Well, I am 15, and your over-generalizations are SO INACCURATE.
>|>Kids DO care about the older music. Although their favorite music may be, say
>|>The Who, or Led Zeppelin, or Jimi Hendrix, they DO respect those who inspired
>|>thier favorites.
>|I'm sure that you believe yourself to be an expert on kids - you being
>|one yourself and all, but trust me - it'll look much different when you're
>|on this side of the age line.
Reminds me of the story about Isaac Asimov. He was present at a seminar
being given on one of his own books, and the speaker was totally mangling
the symbolisms. He stood up and said "That's not what the author was
thinking!" The speaker said "How do you know?" He replied "Because _I'm_ the
author. In a flash of wit, the speaker said "How do you know what you were
thinking???"
--
wh...@ddsw1.MCS.COM | I don't know, who's at DDSW1? | wh...@ddsw1.MCS.COM!
I asked YOU who's at DDSW1! Ok, there's a guy at DDSW1, right? | Right!
Who? | Exactly! | What? | No, he's at lll-winken. | Where? | No, What! | I
don't know! | He's at gargoyle. | Who? | No, he's at DDSW1.MCS.COM!