Well, what ever turns you on doggie, if it make you feel good, do it, its your right.Originally Posted by Dogman_Tony
| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
Well, what ever turns you on doggie, if it make you feel good, do it, its your right.
Why should the word simplicity be a negaitive to you?
The Beatles music was simple, effective and brilliant.
Just because it wasn't as complex as Beethoven, didn't mean
it was bad.
Paul never learned to read music and was not the best musician by
a stretch. Overall, he was the best Beatle in terms of musicianship. Lennon
was the driving force and inspiration.
So, before you go off on one, I never said that they were bad musicians, but
none were proficient, or none excelled at any one discipline. They were great as a unit and as a team and they were natural, as opposed to natural AND trained.
A lot of their tracks were melodic and musically quite basic. Nothing extraordinary or complex at all. Hey, it worked and it doesn't make
them bad musicians.
As for Jackson. I never claimed he could play instruments or that
he was a proficient musician, so that's a separate discussion.
I was strictly talking about the Beatles and their skills and proficiency
as musicians.
BTW, if any of the gang were to be labelled MUSIC geniuses, it wasn't any
of the 4 lads. Martin was the closest of the five to musically being gifted.
So, just because I don't believe that the 4 guys were musically "astute" and
geniuses, doesn't mean I am ignorant of the facts.
I have studied music to a very god level and qualified too, all at the piano.
So, no, I am not ignorant. Just to reiterate, NONE of the four
lads could read music!
Last edited by walshb; 07-10-2009 at 11:01 AM.
Simplicity isn't a negative, it is simply in this case totally inaccurate. There was nothing simple about the music they were writing.
Take, for instance, two of their earliest big hits: Please Please Me and I Want to Hold Your Hand. The basic structure of the songs is simple, but the background changes are what made them so incredibly unlike anything anyone had ever heard.
Please Please Me - after "Last night I said these words to my girl" there is a 6 note riff that is WAY outside standard changes. During the chorus, the "Come on"s prior to "please please me" are all secondary root movements. NEVER before had that been done in popular music. It was far too complicated for most pop acts, and the Beatles did it without even knowing what it was. why does such a short, fluffy song still get people to perk up their ears? It is still almost completely unique......
I Want to Hold Your Hand - First, the intro. Never been anything close to it before in pop/rock. Then after the first line ("Oh yeah I tell you something") there is another 5 note riff that was so totally inventotive, so completely unlike anything anyone had ever done before, it was truly groundbreaking. the middle eight falls from the primary runs to a jazz-based minor run - who had ever done that before? Nobody. This is simplicity?
As far as "going off", nowhere did I do that. When I suggest someone is ignorant of something, that is not a rifle shot, it is simply stating the obvious. You clearly don't know much of anything about musical structure or musicianship. Not a shot, just the obvious.
And whether or not someone can rad music has nothing to do with how good a player they are. What they can do with the instrument in their hands is what matters. Like Lennon once said, "I am an artist. If you give me a fucking tuba I'll get you something out of it."
Last edited by TKO11; 07-10-2009 at 11:08 AM.
And again you're off!
BTW, who said whether or not someone could read music had anything
to do with being a good player?
See. you always jump in without actually reading.
None could read music, all were musicaly talented.
None were extraordinary or great at any one
instrument. None.
Lennon was a decent guitarist, as was Paul. Ringo was a decent drummer, hey,
it's fucking drumming. Paul could manage the piano, but in no way
was he proficient. See, it may have to do with you being
over sensitive to what you perceive as a Beatle criticism.
I must just have higher standard musically than you.
Guitarist? I think of Hendrix, drummer I think of Roger Taylor,
pianist, I think of a Glenn Gould or even a masterful Liberace.
Never do I think of a Beatle when the word great musician comes up
Or Jackson for that matter
Last edited by walshb; 07-10-2009 at 11:16 AM.
TDKO11,
DeBarge works for me.
I agree with most of your post. It's that last paragraph that bugs me.
"As far as his recreational activities, we live in a land where someone is not guilty until proven otherwise. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is most likely a duck, but in a situation where it is "he said she said" it isn't inappropriate to be on either side of the fence. Luckily, I do not believe in the modern religion of celebrity, so whether or not he groped kids doesn't mean a damn thing to me, and never would have unless my kids would have been in his presence - which wasn't something that was ever going to happen anyway. So why does anyone give a shit?"
Here's why...
We live in a land in which you can walk from anything if you have the bucks, a land plagued by a broken justice system that's functionally prejudiced against the weak and the poor, a land wherein the concept of "presumed innocent" is a joke to anyone from the middle class on down. Having said that, I've lived a good portion of my life in the third world and I know it doesn't get better elsewhere. That doesn't mean we should be content with the status quo.
The notion that because Jackson didn't grope your kids, he can do what he wants...Hey, if that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel. But my detestation of Jackson has nothing to do with the cult of clelebrity. Anyone whose family has been touched by pedophilia knows how pernicious a sickness it is, and IMO when a pedophile like Jackson is lionized, cannonized, and exonerated by the media, that just enables the sickness to spread more easily victim to victim. Once again, pedophilia is not molestation. Whether Jackson interfered with the children he slept with, I'll leave to your imagination, should you choose to exercise it, but he WAS a pedophile and I have very little that he was a molester. The only way that celebrity plays into this at all would be as a means of educating the public about pedophilia, but sad to say this element of Jackson's life is being whitewashed. As far as your statement that in a case of he said, she said, it's inappropriate to be either side of the fence, let me just say that the majority of molestation cases are exactly that, he said, she said, and that many people with considerably less money that Jackson have been convicted of molestation on far less evidence (I mean, far, far less evidence) than was available to the prosecution in the Jackson case. Check out the transcripts of his trial and compare it to a few successful prosecutions if you won't believe me. The thing with celebrity prosecutions, it's very easy to bring charges against a celebrity, but very difficult to convict them. Witness the fact that it took two whacks to nail Phil Spector for a murder that, if a less famous perp had been tried for the crime, would have taken the jury a couple of hours tops to convict.
If you don't feel strongly enough about pedophilia to get off the fence in this or any instance that doesn't touch your life, that's fine. We each define what makes a good citizen for ourselves. But to dismiss those who do get off the fence out of hand as being victims of the cult of celebrity does them a disservice. If your attitude really is, "screw it if it doesn't affect my life" about a crime like molestation, there's very little I can say other than, Have a nice day.
"As far as his recreational activities, we live in a land where someone is not guilty until proven otherwise. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is most likely a duck, but in a situation where it is "he said she said" it isn't inappropriate to be on either side of the fence. Luckily, I do not believe in the modern religion of celebrity, so whether or not he groped kids doesn't mean a damn thing to me, and never would have unless my kids would have been in his presence - which wasn't something that was ever going to happen anyway. So why does anyone give a shit?"
Here's why...
We live in a land in which you can walk from anything if you have the bucks, a land plagued by a broken justice system that's functionally prejudiced against the weak and the poor, a land wherein the concept of "presumed innocent" is a joke to anyone from the middle class on down. Having said that, I've lived a good portion of my life in the third world and I know it doesn't get better elsewhere. That doesn't mean we should be content with the status quo.
The notion that because Jackson didn't grope your kids, he can do what he wants...Hey, if that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel. But my detestation of Jackson has nothing to do with the cult of clelebrity. Anyone whose family has been touched by pedophilia knows how pernicious a sickness it is, and IMO when a pedophile like Jackson is lionized, cannonized, and exonerated by the media, that just enables the sickness to spread more easily victim to victim. Once again, pedophilia is not molestation. Whether Jackson interfered with the children he slept with, I'll leave to your imagination, should you choose to exercise it, but he WAS a pedophile and I have very little that he was a molester. The only way that celebrity plays into this at all would be as a means of educating the public about pedophilia, but sad to say this element of Jackson's life is being whitewashed. As far as your statement that in a case of he said, she said, it's inappropriate to be either side of the fence, let me just say that the majority of molestation cases are exactly that, he said, she said, and that many people with considerably less money that Jackson have been convicted of molestation on far less evidence (I mean, far, far less evidence) than was available to the prosecution in the Jackson case. Check out the transcripts of his trial and compare it to a few successful prosecutions if you won't believe me. The thing with celebrity prosecutions, it's very easy to bring charges against a celebrity, but very difficult to convict them. Witness the fact that it took two whacks to nail Phil Spector for a murder that, if a less famous perp had been tried for the crime, would have taken the jury a couple of hours tops to convict.
If you don't feel strongly enough about pedophilia to get off the fence in this or any instance that doesn't touch your life, that's fine. We each define what makes a good citizen for ourselves. But to dismiss those who do get off the fence out of hand as being victims of the cult of celebrity does them a disservice. If your attitude really is, "screw it if it doesn't affect my life" about a crime like molestation, there's very little I can say other than, Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]
A friggen men!
Dogman - I appreciate your passion, but you miss my point. I am not saying that I couldn't care less about molestaters or pedophiles getting what they deserve. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. What I am saying is that I am far, far more concerned about molesters and pedophiles that live near me than one that live(d) 3000 miles away. The only reason for me to give a rat's ass about that aspect of his life when it is so far from mine is "the cult of celebrity". Does that mean I don't want the people whose lives he has damaged to fight for their rights and see he gets his just reward? Not in the slightest - I always would prefer to see the guilty punished and the innocent freed. But whether I get up in arms about it or not won't affect him, them or the world to the slightest degree. I elect to spend my emotional and intellectual energies elsewhere - in places that I can actually affect something. To spend it on Michael Jackson would be an exercize in futility.
Does this somehow define me as a person or challenge the sanctity of society? If so, I should be far more careful with this awesome power that my indifference to Michael Jackson has.
Walsh - if being able to read music is a non-issue for their ability, why did you even bring it up in the first place? You have more misdirection than a traffic circle in Cairo.
Why are you here?
For the crack!
And to get a rise out of you, worked well on both counts!
I've always thought that you and crack had a relationship. Now I know for sure.
TDKO11, cool. You're probably right about the futility of all action, yet nonetheless it feels right for me to speak out here and elsewhere. A relative of mine in is a pedophile (he says "Was a peophile," but I ain't buying it). Thus it's an issue that hits home a bit deeper for me than most--I've had to apologize for his behavior to people whose lives have suffered from his actions. That's not the easiest thing. You asked why anyone gave a shit and I attempted to explain why. I think you underestimate the power of words--they can make an impact on the culture if aimed in the right direction. I've been doing it for a while and have seen some results.
JPL_6 -- I've been around for a decade. You have a problem?
No problem.
Last edited by JLP 6; 07-10-2009 at 01:47 PM.
I always wondered about his nose. I thought he had enough money to get the best plastic surgeon available. Why the pointy botch job. Then I saw pictures inside neverland ranch and it hit me. He was actually trying to look like peter pan. You be the judge.
What's with the lipstick and (permanent) eyeliner?
I'm not positive of this, but leaks from the coroners office said he had short stubbly hair. Is this a wig?
I believe it's a wig (so I've read in a few places), my friend Philly, but remember the leaks were ALL DENIED by the L.A. coroner's office shortly after the British tabloids started printing that Jackson was completely bald (he wasn't), that his face collapsed and he was missing part of his nose, that only pills were found in his stomach, etc.
I don't like Jackson, but what The Sun and others published was nonsense, and rather a nasty thing to do. But the L.A. Coroner's office got wind of it and publicly denied all the heinous descriptions of Jackson's condition.
Hi walshb,
I agree with you that the man had a helluva varied dance repertoire, if only he would have shown it more.
I very much enjoyed the "Off the Wall" album (with "Dont Stop Till You Get Enough" and "Rock with You") when it was released and I was in college, and thought that he, yet again, had demonstrated what a fine, and often original, dancer he was. Just as he had done previously right back to the J5 days.
And I'd agree the "Thriller" video was creative and the dancing and production on it were excellent. But Billie Jean was an example of the kind of moves he repeated for all the OTHER songs on the Thriller album, and re-used through the "Bad" album and everything since. Mind you, if he does a brief moonwalk at a concert, that's what his fans want to see, but if he were moonwalking in every video or live performance of every song, it would get tiresome, even stupid. And that's what I found with his kicking and spinning--tiresome, overused, and making him actually look like a limited dancer rather than the gifted dancer I believe he was.
I also found irritating his making up words that he sang, like "jum-MO".
And I would add that The Beatles' "Ask Me Why" (<- click to hear this song) was perhaps their earliest masterpiece. It came out extremely early in their recording career, being the B-side (B-SIDE!) to their second record release, the "Please Please Me" single in late 1962. It has all of the components that I would come to love about this little band from Liverpool: ear-catching chord movements (in this case, the prominent use of major7 and augmented chords) strummed behind a strong melodic lead-vocal (by Lennon here), backed by those gorgeous "Beatle" harmonies, and with Ringo playing only what is required to support his band-mates. As someone mentioned in a Beatles forum I visit: "This was the tune that introduced augmented chords to mid-tempo rock 'n roll. Up until it came out, you only heard them in slow ballads ('Make It Easy On Yourself' for example)."
BTW: Last week I heard on the radio someone ask some so-called music expert what MJ had contributed to music, and that "expert" actually gave as an example MJ's "TEE Hee!" The expert said: "No one had ever heard that lick before!" No joke!
Last edited by BoxofDaylight; 07-10-2009 at 11:25 PM.
"Plastic surgeons"?
Looks to me like he found an old guitar pick laying around somewhere and jammed it above his upper lip.
Jokes aside, with all of the elective surgeries, weird behavior, and sexual offenses attributed to him, my bet would be that Michael Jackson was an extremely unhappy individual for much of his life. I kind of wonder if there weren't an element of suicide to be found in the last actions he took. PeteLeo.
I think his unhappiness is over exaggerated. From 'off the Wall' on, he could have dated any girl on the planet like a normal testoterone filled youth. He chose to hang with liz taylor. I don't want to believe he was a child molester, but 50 or so lawsuits makes you believe he was up to something. The man had his own amusment park. He had 3 kids and was planning a world wide tour. Who doesn't have some sort of ache or pain and has trouble falling asleep. He turned to drugs and fired anyone who told him the truth. I think he was a sympathy junkie. I wasn't all broken up over his death because He did it to himself. If he wanted to go out, he had all types of disguises to blend in so i don't buy into that he had no privacy BS. I think people are upset because they wanted another Thriller album from him. He was 50 years old, his best days were behind him. i feel bad for the kids. neverland is over, the real world sucks, get used to it. Me and my kids will never stay in a 100k a month castle, how sad could he have been?
Michael Jackson butter statue churns debate in Iowa
WASHINGTON (AFP) — When officials announced that a butter sculpture of Michael Jackson would feature at next month's Iowa state fair, they churned up such a fierce debate that they're now trying to, well, moonwalk their way out of it.
"We've had a lot of feedback, mostly negative" since an announcement on the fair's website a week ago that the traditional butter statue of a cow would "share the spotlight this year with a salute to the late Michael Jackson," the fair's general manager Gary Slater told AFP.
"Butter sculptor Sarah Pratt... plans to honor Jackson's extensive contributions to the music and dance industries through a butter sculpture of the pop icon," said the announcement posted on June 30, five days after Jackson died suddenly in Los Angeles.
The reaction was immediate, and people were obviously whipped up, said Slater.
So the following day, state fair officials posted another statement stressing that this year's butter sculptures would celebrate the 40th anniversary of astronaut Neil Armstrong becoming the first man to walk on the moon on July 20, 1969.
Jackson would be featured, the statement said, because he was "the first pop-star to perfect and popularize choreographed moonwalking."
"Because we were already doing a celebration of the 40-year anniversary of the moon landing, and since Mr Jackson died, the moonwalk would coincide," Slater said, not too convincingly.
"It's a stretch, I guess, with the lunar landing," he acknowledged.
But the reactions continued to pour in, and Slater said organizers decided to put it to a vote.
Starting Thursday, those whose blood is curdling over the idea and those who think Jackson should feature in the refrigerated room in Iowa alongside an astronaut, an American flag, "a buttery rendition of the surface of the moon" and this year's featured cow, a Jersey, can vote online at iowastatefair.org.
Results will be announced July 17, around four weeks before the fair opens in mid-August.
The tradition of having a butter sculpture of a cow at the Iowa state fair goes back to at least 1910.
I vote they should all have their heads examined
Walshie, how would you assess this guy's dancing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x81iip6psks
When you do what he did to his own body, including bleaching his skin and twenty or thirty facial reconstructions, you have some quite severe self-image issues. I'm not jumping on the "racism caused him to hate himself" bandwagon, but it's worth looking into. Actually, I believe he might have been a candidate for the "Big" operation. PeteLeo.
The more I think about it, the more I believe you're right , he was unhappy. But my point is he created his own unhappiness. Its not like life gave him a bag of lemons. He kept telling people how bad his childhood was and how rough he had it. In the grand scheme of things, his childhood wasn't so bad.
He did have a problem with self loathing though I think. Why all the skin bleaching and facial reconstruction. He hated being black so much he didn't even provide part of his kids DNA.
So King gives Jackson a ten count? But no count for Gatti and Alexis???
Favorite video of all time.
Thank you Bill.
I need new shorts now.
Hawk
No, King had the bell tolled for all three together...
Posting Permissions
| News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia | Links | Home |
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks