Where the Kids Come to Mouth Off

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Hank, your arguments have skipped over inane and gone straight to ridiculous. You know and I know it.

this is fucking eerie. The reviewing Partner i work with wrote basically the same thing on a draft of my memorandum in support of a SJ motion last week. Flower, you're not Senior Partner Robert Semple, are you?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Forwarding Address

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Forwarding Address

I did not know pp had a little blond kid. Cute.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
the things I'm never deleting from my TiVo are . . .

You are my SP, except I hated hated hated the Scott Tenorman episode of South Park, FWIW.

Space Ghost -- "Hey Retardos"
SeaLab -- Vacation/"Chopper Dave, I say again, we have Uh-oh"
SeaLab -- Stimutacs/"It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain"
SeaLab -- Oblivion/"I smell potty tentacle"
Conan -- Triumph goes to Bon Jovi in Jersey
Conan -- Triumph goes to the Star Wars premiere
SNL -- Affleck 2000 ("Do not pee in my mother's bush"/Frett's Film Review/Fanatic/Who Wants to Marry an 11,000aire)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
This is a remarkable statement, even from you.

I really dislike horns.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Actually, he did not limit it to "punkish rock." His statement said "bands." You cannot even read a "punkish rock" limitation into his statement since it was made in the context of describing the Rolling Stones, who are not "punkish" rock. They are much more based in R&B, and to argue that no R&B-based band has ever used horns effectively is, as I noted before, remarkable even for Sebastian.

As usual, I was overbroad (but its hardly my least credible statement on these boards).

1. Steely Dan is lousy lounge music. Yeh, I understand how good they were musically and that its "cool" heavy drug music. Its still sucks (except Black Friday, which I like).

2. The Stones had some punkish moments, but since they always retained a blues base, they could not techincally be considered anything approaching punk by purists. that said, punk purists, or for that matter, purists of any kind, tend to have shit for brains and make up arbitrary definitions which suit them. If the Stones never existed, punk probably wouldn't have existed. Every punk singer I've ever seen has stolen a bit from Jagger's playbook.

3. I prefer bands with a stripped down sound. I think horns add a fat layer of sound which crowds out the interplay between drums, guitar, bass and piano/keyboard. The only way I can explain my derision for horns would be to offer some of my favorite bands - The Allmans, Stones, Dead (not the later cheesy keyboard laden dreck - I prefer the early heavy psychedelic jams), Hendrix, Jane's (they've used horns to goodd effect sometimes - My Cat's Name is Maceo), Zeppelin, Floyd (some horns - never used well), Velvets, Who (except Quadrophenia), Neil Young, and yes... old AC/DC. I don't list all the punk stuff I like because there are many one trick ponies in the list, but suffice it to say, none use horns. My only horn exceptions are Little Feat and Traffic. Can't explain why, but horns just work for them. Probably because Lowell George and Steve Winwood (in his Traffic days) were two of the most underrated musical geniuses of our time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

We need to get this guy to our boards. Watch out Not Me:

aba journal article

• And Posner admits to occasionally reading Underneath Their Robes, a gossip site authored by an anonymous associate. The site focuses on the federal judiciary.
  
  "I have a theory that the author is not a she, but a he," Posner says. "The thing is exaggeratedly feminine and constantly drawing attention to her gender."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
2. The Stones had some punkish moments, but since they always retained a blues base, they could not techincally be considered anything approaching punk by purists.

You're buying into Flower's BS definition.

The early Stones were a bass, drum kit, 2 guitars and a few chord changes. How is this different from say the Pistols? 1 the stones played the chords more accurately and 2 the Pistols chord changes were quicker. Punk was a return to basics, not w/o some evolution but they didn't create something new. Only God works from whole cloth, man must work with what came before.

There are lots of bands and music types that benefit from keyboards and horns. Other than the Attactions I can think of a band that regularly uses them to good effect in straight rock. I love early Roxy Music and they had a friggin bassoon, but they were not straight rock.

Kids starting a rock band would be well advised to tell their friend who plays sax that he can't be in the band. Sorry.

[Replaced_Texan]

Something I don't like:

Being asked at around four thirty yesterday afternoon if I could attend an 8:00 meeting this morning, agreeing to go because they really would be lost otherwise, hauling my ass out of bed early for the fifth morning in a row, only to find that the meeting was cancelled somewhere around 7:30 last night.

Something I like:

My tickets to the Texans. I sat for part of the game with a friend who has midfield tickets on the first level and then moved over to my seats which are lower down and in the corner of an end zone. My seats were better, though I pay half as much for my seats as my friend does for his. You feel like you're practically on the field in my seats, and you get a really good feel for the game. Yeah, I don't get as much detail when action is on the other side of the field, but damn I've seen some good football very up close.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
This ranks among the stupidest things you've ever said. Let me guess -- you have a gas grill, also.

I'll go it one further... Quadrophenia sucked. And Tommy was an aberration - the sole rock opera in history to be actually listenable. And it would have sounded better had Townsend removed the horns. The last cut on Tommy would have been miles heavier and "punkish" had Townsend bagged the cheap horn filler and used more guitar tracks instead. Would've given the tune way more crunch.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You're buying into Flower's BS definition.

The early Stones were a bass, drum kit, 2 guitars and a few chord changes. How is this different from say the Pistols? 1 the stones played the chords more accurately and 2 the Pistols chord changes were quicker. Punk was a return to basics, not w/o some evolution but they didn't create something new. Only God works from whole cloth, man must work with what came before.

There are lots of bands and music types that benefit from keyboards and horns. Other than the Attactions I can think of a band that regularly uses them to good effect in straight rock. I love early Roxy Music and they had a friggin bassoon, but they were not straight rock.

Kids starting a rock band would be well advised to tell their friend who plays sax that he can't be in the band. Sorry.

The White Stripes piss off a lot of punk purist friends of mine because they grab blues, country, bloated Zeppelin hooks and all sorts of decadent music and throw it all in the blender. But they're still punks of a sort. Of course, those conversations usually don't even get off the ground because the purists decry the Stripes as sellouts, thus ending dicsussion (placing their collective fingers in ears and humming). You can't argue with purists.

The sax is atrocious. I actually would have preferred the Stones played the first heavy part of CYHMK longer and shortened the sax solo and added more guitar (Mick Taylor was fucking goooood). The sax has always driven my from Springsteen as well. It screams "bar band". Not many producers can properly use the horns like the old blues producers (think Wilson Pickett's singles).

There really is no definition of punk from a musical perspective. Its more an attitude thing, which is annoying. I love the Libertines and see little difference between their rambling last record and many of the sloppy cuts on Exile. I don't know why one is punk and one is not. I guess the Hives are punk, but some of their stuff sounds more like 80s New Wave. The only definition of punkl seems to be a bastardized quote "punks" took from Lou Reed. Reed famously said that the velvets fined anyone in the band who played anything that sounded like blues. And some punk kid took that quote and ran with it, and now we have the definition that what is blues is not punk. It is really silly, but so are all semantic debates (which kind of means most debates are pintless, and they are...). But I guess if we didn't bicker over pointless definitions we'd have nothing to talk about. In the end, like David Gilmour said, "Its all just pop music."

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You're buying into Flower's BS definition.

The early Stones were a bass, drum kit, 2 guitars and a few chord changes. How is this different from say the Pistols? 1 the stones played the chords more accurately and 2 the Pistols chord changes were quicker. Punk was a return to basics, not w/o some evolution but they didn't create something new. Only God works from whole cloth, man must work with what came before.

There are lots of bands and music types that benefit from keyboards and horns. Other than the Attactions I can think of a band that regularly uses them to good effect in straight rock. I love early Roxy Music and they had a friggin bassoon, but they were not straight rock.

Kids starting a rock band would be well advised to tell their friend who plays sax that he can't be in the band. Sorry.

Here is what the argument has now become, in its latest pathetic, withered, tortured recharacterization:

1. Rock is a music that is defined as bands that have drums, bass, two guitars, and maybe a keyboard.

2. Rock bands, as defined in 1 above, sound best only when the above instruments are present, and the addition of a horn section is just a distraction.

3. Bands that use horn sections to good effect are not rock bands, as defined in 1 above, and therefore using them as examples of bands who use horns to good effect is irrelevant.

I am not even going to address the "Rolling Stones are punk rock because, like the Pistols, they have a guitar, bass and drums" argument. It pains me to see what Hank does to logic. It is almost cruel.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In the end, like David Gilmour said, "Its all just pop music."

No. No it is not.

[Fugee]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Steely Dan is lousy lounge music. Yeh, I understand how good they were musically....

The second sentence doesn't go with the first. I'm getting the urge to go out and buy "Aja" and so should Sebby. I can't imagine why I don't already have it.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In the end, like David Gilmour said, "Its all just pop music."

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
No. No it is not.

Hot funk, cool punk, even if it's old junk, etc.

Anyhoo, Sebby, everyone will agree that I am mostly correct when I say that your sweeping generalizations are one of the many reasons we all love you.