ravenlynne wrote:
> Kalmia wrote:
>
>> I remember my 'where' well for JFK, but Lennon.....can't say I recall.
>
> I was probably bouncing around my house waiting for my 5th birthday
> party the next day lol.

I was in kindergarten when JFK was shoot. I remember being puzzled why
the adults were so upset. To me Lennon was just another sad news story
- That says I'm not a big music fan.

Bryan wrote:
>
>> They stand out like Michelangelo in carving. *I remember a few of their
>> songs that were flops. *In comparison I have had plenty of albums by
>> other bands where only one song was good enough to recognize a decade
>> later.
>
> There were bands who put out whole albums that were without a weak
> song. One that comes to mind is Steely Dan's Can't Buy a Thrill.
> Then there's Yes: Fragile; Ian Dury: New Boots and Panties; Mott the
> Hoople: All the Young Dudes; David Bowie: both Ziggy and Diamond
> Dogs. My gosh, Diamond Dogs was a great record. The Velvet
> Underground's "banana record" was another. Both NY Dolls records
> worked (back to Thunders-Sylvain). Oh, and while I mentioned the VU,
> I should have called attention to Transformer. Many folks would call
> attention to Are You Experienced?, but IMO, the pick Hendrix album is
> Axis: Bold As Love. The Crosby, Stills and Nash album was good all
> the way through, which reminds me of Neil Young. Harvest, Everybody
> Knows This is Nowhere, After the Gold Rush, and then there's Stills
> and Young's stuff with Buffalo Springfield.

Still compare with the Beatles. To me their only album not like that is
The White Album, and when it was new I thought it was all hits. My
appreciation of that one declined over the years but not any of their
other ones.

I happen to like Bowie, Moot the Hoople and Yes more than average so I
tend to like almost all of their albums, but that makes me closer to a
fan than most folks. Vast numbers of people like the Beatles the way I
like Bowie.

On Dec 10, 9:30*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 1:06 AM, Bryan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 2:43 pm, Doug > *wrote:
> >> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >>> Poppycock. The Beatles are the exception. While their music may have
> >>> been rejected by the older generation at the time, it was later embraced
> >>> by people of all ages.
>
> >> It will take over a century before they can be compared to Beethoven,
> >> Mozart, Bach and Wagner. *Until then they are the most popular musicians
> >> of the last century almost without peer (showing my puzzlement over why
> >> anyone is impressed with Elvis).
>
> >>> I was first exposed to the Beatles in 1964, 46
> >>> years ago. Hardly a day goes by that I don't hear Beatle music played on
> >>> the radio or in malls and restaurants. I was a teen when they were in
> >>> their heyday.
>
> >> I was in elementary school for most of their time releasing new songs
> >> and doing concerts. *I remember that it was a common topic of
> >> conversation that someone had figured out the words to another line of
> >> the latest Beatles song. *It was almost invariably wrong. *This gave me
> >> a long term impression that rock songs aren't intended to have words.
> >> There are some bands and singers with good clear diction. *Some of the
> >> most popular, including the Rolling Stones and Beatles, have many songs
> >> that can only be understood by reading the written lyrics. *In many
> >> songs the actual phonetics in the recorded song are defintely not what
> >> is written.
>
> > I'm glad you mentioned the Stones because I'd say that more truly
> > great songs came from Jagger/Richards than Lennon/McCartney, but
> > whereas Lennon and McCartney were more coequal in the process, I think
> > that Keith was the bigger genius in the Stones' songwriting duo.
>
> >> In a way it was a part of the jazz singing tradition - The human voice
> >> as a musical instrument.
>
> > Jagger took Keith's vocal lines and transformed them into beautiful
> > music, and the vocals on Sticky Fingers were sublime. *In fact,
> > everything about that album other than the first song was stunning.
> > Brown Sugar was a nice pop song, but would have fit in much better on
> > the earlier, Beggar's Banquet. *Keith and Mick Taylor were magic
> > together on Sticky Fingers, and the fact that both Jagger and Richards
> > were less than hospitable to Taylor ended up breaking up the finest
> > guitar duo of all time (sorry Johnny Thunders and Sylvain Sylvain).
>
> >>> My son was born more than a decade after they broke up,
> >>> and he likes their music. *Unlike most other performers, the Beatles
> >>> have endured, and is the majority of the body of their work that has
> >>> survived, not just one or two hit singles.
>
> >> They stand out like Michelangelo in carving. *I remember a few of their
> >> songs that were flops. *In comparison I have had plenty of albums by
> >> other bands where only one song was good enough to recognize a decade
> >> later.
>
> > There were bands who put out whole albums that were without a weak
> > song. *One that comes to mind is Steely Dan's Can't Buy a Thrill.
> > Then there's Yes: Fragile; Ian Dury: New Boots and Panties; Mott the
> > Hoople: All the Young Dudes; *David Bowie: both Ziggy and Diamond
> > Dogs. *My gosh, Diamond Dogs was a great record. *The Velvet
> > Underground's "banana record" was another. *Both NY Dolls records
> > worked (back to Thunders-Sylvain). *Oh, and while I mentioned the VU,
> > I should have called attention to Transformer. *Many folks would call
> > attention to Are You Experienced?, but IMO, the pick Hendrix album is
> > Axis: Bold As Love. *The Crosby, Stills and Nash album was good all
> > the way through, which reminds m e of Neil Young. *Harvest, Everybody
> > Knows This is Nowhere, After the Gold Rush, and then there's Stills
> > and Young's stuff with Buffalo Springfield.
> > OK, I'll shut up now.
>
> Those are all post Beatles albums. I had to agree about the Beatles
> being the first group that produced albums on which there were multiple
> hit songs. Before they came along it was typical for groups to have one
> major hit on an album and the rest of the tracks were just cheap filler.

There were certainly exceptions. There was an album called One Dozen
Berrys, by Chuck Berry in the late 1950s.
I'd say the first Beatles album without a single weak song was Sgt.
Pepper. That was 1967, and a whole bunch of great LPs came out that
year. The Doors first two albums, Hendrix first two, Cream released
Disraeli Gears, the VU banana album. Interestingly, while the Stones
had the best group of singles, they had yet to put out an album with
absolutely nothing but great songs, and it wasn't until 1969 the Let
it Bleed was released.
>
> I don't know how much of that can be attributed to the group members and
> how much should be blamed on the record companies and their producers.
> There is no doubt that Lennon and MacCartney were a prolific song
> writers while other groups of the time were singing songs written by
> others and doing a lot of cover songs.

Record companies frowned on writing your own songs to such an extent
that the Rolling Stones used the pseudonym, Nanker-Phelge.

--Bryan

On 10 Dec 2010 03:23:24 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Thu 09 Dec 2010 07:50:13p, Mike told us...
>
>>
>> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> That was music?!?!? Those were political statements... if not
>>> for the politics of the time (and Ed Sullivan) it would be
>>> Beatles, who dat? I still can't tell the difference between the
>>> Beatles and the Monkees. None of those Brit groups individually
>>> had a memorable voice and their tunes/arrangements are simplistic
>>> trash. Folks bought into the newness of their threads and hair
>>> style is all, mostly the easily manipulated young peers... their
>>> tailor and hair stylist deserve the credit. But mostly you need
>>> to credit their promotor, the Beatles had no more real talent
>>> than what was shown on the Gong Show. Ed is correct, no death is
>>> more important.
>>>
>>>
>> Not true. Your death should be a ****ing 7 day holiday
>>
>
> I think it should be a full year of merriment.

....and drinking something better than crystal palace.

your pal,
blake

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
om...
> On 09/12/2010 6:29 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> I don't agree. I think people elevated Elvis to the status of GOD. He
>>> wasn't. He did the same thing many people did during the Korean War.
>>
>> You must be on something... Elvis wasn't born yet during the Korean
>> war.
>
> WTF? You think Jill is on something because Elvis was not yet born during
> the Korean War???
> Elvis was born in 1935. THe Korean War started in 1950. Go the math.

Yeah, he was definitely born before and served in the Korean war. He also
thinks Marines didn't serve on Navy ships during WWII, even though I have a
photo of my father as a private on one.

Jill

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 10 Dec 2010 05:05:18a, ravenlynne told us...
>
>
>> On 12/9/2010 10:09 AM, Kalmia wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I remember my 'where' well for JFK, but Lennon.....can't say I
>>> recall.
>>>
>> I was probably bouncing around my house waiting for my 5th
>> birthday party the next day lol.
>>
> I was in the lounge of my dorm watching the parade when JFK was shot.
> When Lennon was shot I had just flipped on my kitchen TV after arriving
> home from work and that was the first thing I saw.
>
>
People had televisions in their kitchens back then?

Jill wrote about Elvis:

> Yeah, he was definitely born before and served in the Korean war.

After this was thrown into question, did you even THINK to verify?

Bob

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> om...
>> On 09/12/2010 6:29 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't agree. I think people elevated Elvis to the status of GOD. He
>>>> wasn't. He did the same thing many people did during the Korean War.
>>>
>>> You must be on something... Elvis wasn't born yet during the Korean
>>> war.
>>
>> WTF? You think Jill is on something because Elvis was not yet born during
>> the Korean War???
>> Elvis was born in 1935. THe Korean War started in 1950. Go the math.
>
> Yeah, he was definitely born before and served in the Korean war. He also
> thinks Marines didn't serve on Navy ships during WWII, even though I have
> a photo of my father as a private on one.
>
> Jill

Do you need a new Googler, too? The Korean War ended in 1953. Elvis was
drafted in 1958.

On 12/10/2010 7:23 PM, Paco wrote:
>
> Do you need a new Googler, too? The Korean War ended in 1953. Elvis was
> drafted in 1958.

Depends on your point of view. We can say that the war is over but
nether side in the conflict is willing to admit that. This is fairly
typical of Koreans - they're pretty adamant folks. Technically, it's
still on. Sorry to muddy the waters.

In article . 14>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> On Fri 10 Dec 2010 05:05:18a, ravenlynne told us...
>
> > On 12/9/2010 10:09 AM, Kalmia wrote:
> >
> >> I remember my 'where' well for JFK, but Lennon.....can't say I
> >> recall.
> >
> > I was probably bouncing around my house waiting for my 5th
> > birthday party the next day lol.
>
> I was in the lounge of my dorm watching the parade when JFK was shot.
> When Lennon was shot I had just flipped on my kitchen TV after arriving
> home from work and that was the first thing I saw.

I was in second grade in (upstate) NY when JFK was shot. We'd been out
on the playground, and one of the other teachers pulled Mrs. Sullivan
aside to tell her. I also remember seeing Lee Harvey Oswald get shot on
live TV the following Sunday.

I'd gone to bed early in Dallas (interesting symmetry there) the night
Lennon was shot, and didn't hear about it until the following morning.
For someone who remembers seeing all of the Beatles' appearances on the
Ed Sullivan Show, it was a great shock and sadness. Twenty-one years
later, I remember the SO waking me up with the news that George Harrison
had died.

OB Food: Tonight's dinner is Cuban roast pork with bananas, black
beans, and rice on the side. Why not plantains, you may ask? Because
we didn't buy plantains two weeks ago so they could ripen properly. (We
are in Seattle, after all.)

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

In article >,
Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> You must be on something... Elvis wasn't born yet during the Korean
> war.

Earth to Sheldon... Elvis was born in 1935. The Korean War was from
1950-53, although some would argue that the war is still going on.
Elvis wasn't old enough to serve during much of the Korean War.

An aside: Anyone else notice how much Kim Jong-Il looks like Marty
Allen from the long-ago comedy team of Allen & Rossi? It's the bouffant
hairdo. Every time I see Kim Jong-Il on TV, I half expect him to say,
"Hello dere..."

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

On Dec 11, 11:41*am, Cindy Fuller >
wrote:
>
>
> OB Food: *Tonight's dinner is Cuban roast pork with bananas, black
> beans, and rice on the side. *Why not plantains, you may ask? *Because
> we didn't buy plantains two weeks ago so they could ripen properly. *(We
> are in Seattle, after all.)

Regarding plantains: http://www.rathergood.com/bananas
Some believe plantains to be a completely unacceptable substitute for
bananas.
>
> Cindy
>
--Bryan

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 10 Dec 2010 06:22:42p, L G told us...
>
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri 10 Dec 2010 05:05:18a, ravenlynne told us...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12/9/2010 10:09 AM, Kalmia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I remember my 'where' well for JFK, but Lennon.....can't say I
>>>>> recall.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I was probably bouncing around my house waiting for my 5th
>>>> birthday party the next day lol.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I was in the lounge of my dorm watching the parade when JFK was
>>> shot. When Lennon was shot I had just flipped on my kitchen TV
>>> after arriving home from work and that was the first thing I saw.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> People had televisions in their kitchens back then?
>>
>>
> People I knew did. I only had a small 9-inch set in the kitchen, but
> larger ones in the family room and bedroom.
>
>
I don't remember them being that small in 1980. They were big bucks in
those days!

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/10/2010 7:23 PM, Paco wrote:
>>
>> Do you need a new Googler, too? The Korean War ended in 1953. Elvis was
>> drafted in 1958.
>
> Depends on your point of view. We can say that the war is over but nether
> side in the conflict is willing to admit that. This is fairly typical of
> Koreans - they're pretty adamant folks. Technically, it's still on. Sorry
> to muddy the waters.

Didn't muddy the waters. You merely interjected information that is quite
irrelevant to the sub thread; not that this has ever happened in this group
before! ;-) While it is most likely true that the North and the South will
never have a great big group hug at the DMZ, history has recorded that the
major hostilities of the Korean War ended in 1953. Elvis Presley's service
in the U.S. Army, commencing in 1958, would have had a miniscule or
non-existent impact upon the conflict called the Korean War. (Wow! That
was verbose!) Besides the point is moot; Sheldon and Jill, having both been
corrected on their erroneous statements have ceased to participate, as some
are wont to do, after their statements have been proven false. Some people
just won't let facts cloud their beliefs.

On 12/11/2010 5:17 PM, Paco wrote:
>
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 12/10/2010 7:23 PM, Paco wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you need a new Googler, too? The Korean War ended in 1953. Elvis was
>>> drafted in 1958.
>>
>> Depends on your point of view. We can say that the war is over but
>> nether side in the conflict is willing to admit that. This is fairly
>> typical of Koreans - they're pretty adamant folks. Technically, it's
>> still on. Sorry to muddy the waters.
>
> Didn't muddy the waters. You merely interjected information that is
> quite irrelevant to the sub thread; not that this has ever happened in
> this group before! ;-) While it is most likely true that the North and
> the South will never have a great big group hug at the DMZ, history has
> recorded that the major hostilities of the Korean War ended in 1953.
> Elvis Presley's service in the U.S. Army, commencing in 1958, would have
> had a miniscule or non-existent impact upon the conflict called the
> Korean War. (Wow! That was verbose!) Besides the point is moot; Sheldon
> and Jill, having both been corrected on their erroneous statements have
> ceased to participate, as some are wont to do, after their statements
> have been proven false. Some people just won't let facts cloud their
> beliefs.
>

It was pretty irrelevant and trivial to boot but that's the kind of guy
I am. I always thought that the irrelevant is pretty much the coat rack
that Usenet denezens like to hang their arguments upon. Unfortunately,
you're probably a guy that likes to cut the crap so it must be admitted
that Elvis would have known that there was no shooting war going on
prior to his enlistment. It's also true that some folks just ain't into
history or music. :-)

Cindy Fuller wrote:
>
> OB Food: Tonight's dinner is Cuban roast pork with bananas, black
> beans, and rice on the side. Why not plantains, you may ask? Because
> we didn't buy plantains two weeks ago so they could ripen properly. (We
> are in Seattle, after all.)

We tried fried plantains this year. Very bland.

In article >,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> We tried fried plantains this year. Very bland.

If not fully ripened, plantains are indeed bland. Although they can
still be tasty when fried into chips (tostones) and served with various
dipping sauces. "Ripe" for a plantain is several stages beyond the
state where you would throw bananas out. This is when the skins have
gone mostly or completely black, and they are starting to go soft. You
still want to cook them (fried or baked), but they are quite sweet.

--
Julian Vrieslander

In article <cda126d0-0e0a-4ed0-ae2c-
>,
says...
>
> On Dec 8, 3:02*pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> > sf > wrote:
> > >John Lennon being shot didn't hold a candle to President Kennedy's
> > >assassination or 9-11. *
> >
> > Sez you.
> >
> > To me, Lennon being shot was completely senseless and came out of nowhere;
> > it was not just another atrocity in an ongoing, never-ending political
> > conflict like either Kennedy assasination or 9/11. *So there are respects
> > in which is was more impactful.
> >
> > (Yes, I remember where I was for all four events. *Oddly, I have
> > no memory of where I might have been when Martin Luther King was killed.)
> >
> > Steve
>
> Every murder is completely senseless. The only reason we "celebrate"
> his death is that he was well known. His death is no more greater or
> lesser than anyone else who is gunned down for no reason. We have a
> strange obsession with celebrating someone's death.

Before he died there was always a chance, a hope, that they would get
the band back together. After he died, it was no longer a world with a
potential Beatles in it. I think you had to grow up in the sixties to
understand.

"J. Clarke" > wrote
>
> FWIW, the Beatles' first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show was in
> February 1964, and was the highest rated (in the Nielsen sense, not the
> Ebert sense) television episode up to that time and still the 26th
> highest rated. This was _after_ "I Want to Hold Your Hand" hit the top
> of the charts, which happened on February 1. The show would not have
> drawn that many viewers if the Beatles were not already well known. To
> suggest that Ed Sullivan was responsible for their success (and the rest
> of the British Invasion) simply does not make sense.

I think Sullivan just made them bigger, faster. He had a wide ranging
audience so it was probably the first exposure to many over 30 at the time.