sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:39:58 -0800 (PST), Nancy2

>> I can't believe the media hype - they're collectively acting like
>> Lennon was the Second Coming.

>Slow news day.

It's the 30th anniversary of Lennon's assasination.

Those outside of New York City may not realized what a traumatic
event it was. Not until 9/11 did anything eclipse it, in terms
of emotional impact on the general public. So a major anniversary
is a fairly big deal.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:

> It's the 30th anniversary of Lennon's assasination.
>
> Those outside of New York City may not realized what a traumatic
> event it was. Not until 9/11 did anything eclipse it, in terms
> of emotional impact on the general public. So a major anniversary
> is a fairly big deal.
>
> Steve

ohpahleese.... <insert eye roll>

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:32:20 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:39:58 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
>
> >> I can't believe the media hype - they're collectively acting like
> >> Lennon was the Second Coming.
>
> >Slow news day.
>
> It's the 30th anniversary of Lennon's assasination.
>
> Those outside of New York City may not realized what a traumatic
> event it was. Not until 9/11 did anything eclipse it, in terms
> of emotional impact on the general public. So a major anniversary
> is a fairly big deal.
>
So what you're saying is New Yorkers are the ultra sensitive type.


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:32:20 +0000 (UTC), (Steve

>> It's the 30th anniversary of Lennon's assasination.

>> Those outside of New York City may not realized what a traumatic
>> event it was. Not until 9/11 did anything eclipse it, in terms
>> of emotional impact on the general public. So a major anniversary
>> is a fairly big deal.

>So what you're saying is New Yorkers are the ultra sensitive type.

In this case, yes. It takes a pretty extreme event to outrage them,
and this qualified.


Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> sf > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:39:58 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
>
>>> I can't believe the media hype - they're collectively acting like
>>> Lennon was the Second Coming.
>
>>Slow news day.
>
> It's the 30th anniversary of Lennon's assasination.
>
> Those outside of New York City may not realized what a traumatic
> event it was. Not until 9/11 did anything eclipse it, in terms
> of emotional impact on the general public. So a major anniversary
> is a fairly big deal.
>
> Steve


I remember where I was when Lennon was shot, just as I remember when JFK was
shot. Not comparing the two at all, mind you, but some anniversaries do
bring back memories.

Jill

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 22:17:47 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:32:20 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
>
> >> It's the 30th anniversary of Lennon's assasination.
>
> >> Those outside of New York City may not realized what a traumatic
> >> event it was. Not until 9/11 did anything eclipse it, in terms
> >> of emotional impact on the general public. So a major anniversary
> >> is a fairly big deal.
>
> >So what you're saying is New Yorkers are the ultra sensitive type.
>
> In this case, yes. It takes a pretty extreme event to outrage them,
> and this qualified.
>
John Lennon being shot didn't hold a candle to President Kennedy's
assassination or 9-11. Sure people were shocked at the time, but
there's no compelling reason for chest beating 30 years later.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

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

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.

Chemo the Clown wrote:

> 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.

Along that same line- Have you ever noticed how people often improve in
death too?

On Dec 8, 3:10*pm, Goomba > wrote:
> Chemo the Clown wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Along that same line- Have you ever noticed how people often improve in
> death too?

Yeah...suddenly all the awful stuff they did doesn't seem so bad. Not
that John was awful.
Heck, we even bring to light the anniversaries of the likes of John
Wayne Gasey!

On Dec 8, 3:06*pm, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
> 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.

I agree with you- all murder is senseless. But...you must admit, the
Beatles were a big influence on many people. Like Jimi Hendrix, it
would be interesting to see what they would be doing now musically.

On Dec 8, 3:14*pm, merryb > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 3:06*pm, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree with you- all murder is senseless. But...you must admit, the
> Beatles were a big influence on many people. Like Jimi Hendrix, it
> would be interesting to see what they would be doing now musically.

along the same line...there were people who they didn't influence.

On Dec 8, 5:46*pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > sf > wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:39:58 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
>
> >>> I can't believe the media hype - they're collectively acting like
> >>> Lennon was the Second Coming.
>
> >>Slow news day.
>
> > It's the 30th anniversary of Lennon's assasination.
>
> > Those outside of New York City may not realized what a traumatic
> > event it was. *Not until 9/11 did anything eclipse it, in terms
> > of emotional impact on the general public. *So a major anniversary
> > is a fairly big deal.
>
> > Steve
>
> I remember where I was when Lennon was shot, just as I remember when JFK was
> shot. *Not comparing the two at all, mind you, but some anniversaries do
> bring back memories.
>
> Jill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Dec 8, 5:46*pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > sf > wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:39:58 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
>
> >>> I can't believe the media hype - they're collectively acting like
> >>> Lennon was the Second Coming.
>
> >>Slow news day.
>
> > It's the 30th anniversary of Lennon's assasination.
>
> > Those outside of New York City may not realized what a traumatic
> > event it was. *Not until 9/11 did anything eclipse it, in terms
> > of emotional impact on the general public. *So a major anniversary
> > is a fairly big deal.
>
> > Steve
>
> I remember where I was when Lennon was shot, just as I remember when JFK was
> shot. *Not comparing the two at all, mind you, but some anniversaries do
> bring back memories.
>
> Jill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Me too. What's to compare? These are our memories. e.

On Dec 8, 3:28*pm, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 3:14*pm, merryb > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 3:06*pm, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > I agree with you- all murder is senseless. But...you must admit, the
> > Beatles were a big influence on many people. Like Jimi Hendrix, it
> > would be interesting to see what they would be doing now musically.
>
> along the same line...there were people who they didn't influence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

True...

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

There are killings just as senseless every day, yet they don't get the media
attention. You may not care about them, but the victims families certainly
do. Lennon was just another guy that happened to write songs. He is no more
or no less important than the guy that takes our trash, collects the bridge
tolls or delivers the mail.

Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>There are killings just as senseless every day, yet they don't get the media
>attention. You may not care about them, but the victims families certainly
>do. Lennon was just another guy that happened to write songs. He is no more
>or no less important than the guy that takes our trash, collects the bridge
>tolls or delivers the mail.

If you believe all humans are equally important, then yes.

If by "important" you mean "influential", then no.

Steve

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> Chemo the Clown wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Along that same line- Have you ever noticed how people often improve in
> death too?
>
Like Elvis? His fans conveniently forget he was an overweight drug addict
at the time of his death. They flock to Graceland twice a year, on his
birthday and the anniversary of his death, from all over the world.

Jill

On Dec 8, 5:46*pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > sf > wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:39:58 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
>
> >>> I can't believe the media hype - they're collectively acting like
> >>> Lennon was the Second Coming.
>
> >>Slow news day.
>
> > It's the 30th anniversary of Lennon's assasination.
>
> > Those outside of New York City may not realized what a traumatic
> > event it was. *Not until 9/11 did anything eclipse it, in terms
> > of emotional impact on the general public. *So a major anniversary
> > is a fairly big deal.
>
> > Steve
>
> I remember where I was when Lennon was shot, just as I remember when JFK was
> shot. *Not comparing the two at all, mind you, but some anniversaries do
> bring back memories.
>
> Jill

I remember my 'where' well for JFK, but Lennon.....can't say I recall.

Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
. 190.14:

> ad
> nauseum

Sorry, but I have to interject. It's "ad nauseam", not "ad nauseum",
regional pronunciation notwithstanding.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ad+nauseam

From the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary.

--

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag
and carrying a cross.

Sinclair Lewis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnrYMafCzeE

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:20:26 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>
>"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
>> Chemo the Clown wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Along that same line- Have you ever noticed how people often improve in
>> death too?
>>
>Like Elvis? His fans conveniently forget he was an overweight drug addict
>at the time of his death. They flock to Graceland twice a year, on his
>birthday and the anniversary of his death, from all over the world.

They are not honoring Elvis the man, they are honoring his
achievements prior to his personal failures... Elvis was one of the
few greats who gave back. Lennon could never fill Elvis' shoes, there
is no comparison.... Lennon would have been a draft dodger.

I'm always amazed at how many after their death elevate a spouse to
sainthood, especially those they divorced... even a new spouse can
never compete.

Bwrrryan > wrote:
>
>I both love and hate the Beatles.

You are related to Obama...

On 09/12/2010 10:02 AM, Bryan wrote:

>> John Lennon contributed little to nothing (did the Beatles ever do a
>> USO tour), l
>
> Would the US Govt even have let a band that was associated with the
> anti-war movement do USO? That's a stupid argument.

The Beatles were particularly involved with the anti war movement. That
didn't really start up until after the Beatles had stopped touring. they
gave up on concerts in 1966 because they became unmanageable. I don't
know why anyone would expect a major British rock band to make an
appearance for US troops in a war zone. Look at the types of performers
they had appearing at Vietnam era USO shows. There were no performers of
the stature of the Beatles appearing.




>> The Beatles copied many of the great artists.http://www.theshirelles.com/story.html

As if rock music was the bastion of originality. Most rock music is
based on simple three chord progressions, just like country and blues.
Occasionally the switch to a simple four chord progression with a
relative minor, a variation of the old C Am F G, sometimes with the Am
and C switched, or the whole progression transposed to another key. The
case of My Sweet Lord and He's So Fine was a crock.


> To argue that because Lennon/McCartney, LIKE EVERYONE DOES, stood on
> the shoulders of giants does nothing to diminish their extraordinary
> songwriting.

They did write a lot of songs, both for themselves and for others. When
I took up guitar again it was thanks to the Beatles Complete song book.
It had close to a hundred good songs, all familiar and I was able to
improve my sight reading by goign through and learning all the songs in
the keys of C and Am, then adding those that were written in keys using
more and more sharps and flats.

However.... I am boycotting the Beatles because of Paul McCartney. He
and is idiot (now ex) wife made too many appearances about the seal hunt
and tried to organize a boycott of Canadian seafood products to protest
the seal hunt. She was ignorant and snotty and he was henpecked into it
but using his celebrity. I don't personally care about seals. They
compete with us for fish and they are nasty creatures. All they have
going for them is that the pups look so damned cute. If they were as
ugly as lobsters people would have little problem dropping them live
into boiling water.

On 09/12/2010 10:09 AM, Kalmia wrote:

>
> I remember my 'where' well for JFK, but Lennon.....can't say I recall.

I remember it clearly. It was Monday Night at the Ranch, our weekly
guitar jam at a friend's place. We were just leaving. It was a cold
night and snowing lightly. I was warming up the car and cleaning off the
windshield when one of the guys came over and told me he had just heard
it on the radio.

On 09/12/2010 6:02 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
> Not misinformed, maybe you just have your priorities in a different
> place. Who is more important in your life, a song writer or the guy that
> takes your garbage away? Who will you long for the most when they are gone?

The garbage man will be easily replaced. There have been lots of
musicians and song writers who we remember and enjoy long after they
died. I confess that I don't even know who picks up my garbage.

On 09/12/2010 11:28 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> The premise is obviously much too profound for your very limited
> intellect, bwrrrryan.... entertainers are, have always been, and
> always will be the most easily replaceable. Entertainers like Lennon
> are remembered by those whose minds were most maleable in the era when
> they became popularized and nothing more. The Beatles became popular
> for their appearance, not their appearances... they were as talentless
> as you... if only you weren't so ugly. LOL

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. 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. 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.

On Dec 9, 10:38*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 09/12/2010 10:02 AM, Bryan wrote:
>
> >> John Lennon contributed little to nothing (did the Beatles ever do a
> >> USO tour), l
>
> > Would the US Govt even have let a band that was associated with the
> > anti-war movement do USO? *That's a stupid argument.
>
> The Beatles were particularly involved with the anti war movement. That
> didn't really start up until after the Beatles had stopped touring. they
> gave up on concerts in 1966 because they became unmanageable. I don't
> know why anyone would expect a major British rock band to make an
> appearance for US troops in a war zone. Look at the types of performers
> they had appearing at Vietnam era USO shows. There were no performers of
> the stature of the Beatles appearing.
>
> >> The Beatles copied many of the great artists.http://www.theshirelles.com/story.html
>
> As if rock music was the bastion of originality. Most rock music is
> based on simple three chord progressions, just like country and blues.
> Occasionally the switch to a simple four chord progression with a
> relative minor, a variation of the old C Am F G, sometimes with the Am
> and C switched, or the whole progression transposed to another key. *The
> case of My Sweet Lord and He's So Fine was a crock.

And Back in the USSR was obviously a parody, which is fair use.
>
> > To argue that because Lennon/McCartney, LIKE EVERYONE DOES, stood on
> > the shoulders of giants does nothing to diminish their extraordinary
> > songwriting.
>
> They did write a lot of songs, both for themselves and for others. When
> I took up guitar again it was thanks to the Beatles Complete song book.
> It had close to a hundred good songs, all familiar and I was able to
> improve my sight reading by goign through and learning all the songs in
> the keys of C and Am, then adding those that were written in keys using
> more and more sharps and flats.
>
> However.... I am boycotting the Beatles because of Paul McCartney. He
> and is idiot (now ex) wife made too many appearances about the seal hunt
> and tried to organize a boycott of Canadian seafood products to protest
> the seal hunt. *She was ignorant and snotty and he was henpecked into it
> but using his celebrity. *I don't personally care about seals. They
> compete with us for fish and they are nasty creatures. All they have
> going for them is that the pups look so damned cute. If they were as
> ugly as lobsters people would have little problem dropping them live
> into boiling water.

I dislike McCartney too. The first thing I thought when I heard that
Lennon got killed was, "I wish it'd been Paul instead." I've never
felt otherwise.

--Bryan

On Dec 9, 10:57*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 09/12/2010 11:28 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>
>
> > The premise is obviously much too profound for your very limited
> > intellect, bwrrrryan.... entertainers are, have always been, and
> > always will be the most easily replaceable. *Entertainers like Lennon
> > are remembered by those whose minds were most maleable in the era when
> > they became popularized and nothing more. *The Beatles became popular
> > for their appearance, not their appearances... they were as talentless
> > as you... if only you weren't so ugly. LOL
>
> 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. 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. 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.

But if Sheldon didn't say completely idiotic things, he wouldn't be
Sheldon.

--Bryan

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:55:19 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> 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.

well, you are known for your exquisite taste.

blake

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.

In a way it was a part of the jazz singing tradition - The human voice
as a musical instrument.

> 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.

Brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> They are not honoring Elvis the man, they are honoring his
> achievements prior to his personal failures... Elvis was one of the
> few greats who gave back. Lennon could never fill Elvis' shoes, there
> is no comparison.... Lennon would have been a draft dodger.
>


That's all that matters to you, huh?

Elvis was a redneck, obese, druggie but he DID go into the service,
in German occupation forces, a very easy gig.

You don't like the Beatles because they were English and you
are such a xenophobe.

gloria p

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:20:26 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
>>> Chemo the Clown wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Along that same line- Have you ever noticed how people often improve in
>>> death too?
>>>
>>Like Elvis? His fans conveniently forget he was an overweight drug addict
>>at the time of his death. They flock to Graceland twice a year, on his
>>birthday and the anniversary of his death, from all over the world.
>
> They are not honoring Elvis the man, they are honoring his
> achievements prior to his personal failures... Elvis was one of the
> few greats who gave back. Lennon could never fill Elvis' shoes, there
> is no comparison.... Lennon would have been a draft dodger.
>
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.
Nothing heroic, having gone to Germany to meet a teenage soon-to-be-wife.
Elvis was not "all that". Draft dodgers? I wish more people had protested
Vietnam. It was a non-starter that got all too many people killed.

Jill

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 18:16:44 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>
>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
>news
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:20:26 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Chemo the Clown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Along that same line- Have you ever noticed how people often improve in
>>>> death too?
>>>>
>>>Like Elvis? His fans conveniently forget he was an overweight drug addict
>>>at the time of his death. They flock to Graceland twice a year, on his
>>>birthday and the anniversary of his death, from all over the world.
>>
>> They are not honoring Elvis the man, they are honoring his
>> achievements prior to his personal failures... Elvis was one of the
>> few greats who gave back. Lennon could never fill Elvis' shoes, there
>> is no comparison.... Lennon would have been a draft dodger.
>>
>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.

On Dec 9, 8:42*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 09/12/2010 10:09 AM, Kalmia wrote:
>
>
>
> > I remember my 'where' well for JFK, but Lennon.....can't say I recall.
>
> I remember it clearly. It was Monday Night at the Ranch, our weekly
> guitar jam at a friend's place. We were just leaving. It was a cold
> night and snowing lightly. I was warming up the car and cleaning off the
> windshield when one of the guys came over and told me he had just heard
> it on the radio.

Sounds like a Hallmark moment.

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.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 18:16:44 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
>>news
>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:20:26 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Chemo the Clown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Along that same line- Have you ever noticed how people often improve
>>>>> in
>>>>> death too?
>>>>>
>>>>Like Elvis? His fans conveniently forget he was an overweight drug
>>>>addict
>>>>at the time of his death. They flock to Graceland twice a year, on his
>>>>birthday and the anniversary of his death, from all over the world.
>>>
>>> They are not honoring Elvis the man, they are honoring his
>>> achievements prior to his personal failures... Elvis was one of the
>>> few greats who gave back. Lennon could never fill Elvis' shoes, there
>>> is no comparison.... Lennon would have been a draft dodger.
>>>
>>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.

You need a new Googler.

On Dec 9, 2:43*pm, Doug Freyburger > 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 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.
OK, I'll shut up now.

--Bryan

Dave 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.


The Korean War armistice took place in 1953. Elvis wasn't conscripted until
1958. He served in the Army for two years, most of which was with an armored
division in Germany.

So Jill is on something for believing that Elvis took part in the Korean
War, and Pussy is batshit demented for believing that Elvis wasn't born
until after the Korean War was over.

There's a droll comparison to be made: Elvis left the service the same year
that Pussy joined! Although Elvis served only two years, he left with the
rank of sergeant, a paygrade of E-5. Pussy served twice as many years, but
never managed to reach E-4.

Bob

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.
--
Currently reading: It's finals and WoW Cataclysm is out, I'll probably
never read again.

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.

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.