Jim R

The Green Lantern Hot Stove League Colleen Camp

That's what I was thinking as well, but the version I know is the one from The Latin Side of..., and it ain't this one. Dan's messing with us again! I'm aware of this - still it sounds a lot like Vince! Maybe this is a possibility - but Tom Jobim is only on a few tracks, and there are no vibes here ...

That's what I was thinking as well, but the version I know is the one from The Latin Side of..., and it ain't this one. Dan's messing with us again! If it's not Hank, then it's got to be one of the two I mentioned. (I think) (I think I think Therefore I think I exist) MG I was trying to protect Dan's secret when I posted, but for those who are ready to have a look... Track 18 source ssshhh...

Interesting article, but several times it's talking about "kissing dogs". That's not really what we're talking about. It's dogs kissing us, not vice-versa. I very rarely put my mouth on any part of a dog. Kissing a dog on the snout may seem like a show of affection to us, but I suspect it would only confuse the dog. Anyway, the subject is humans being on the receiving end, and in general I'd say that involves the hands, the cheeks, the forehead... not the mouth (and I'm not saying there's no reason to consider what germs may be deposited on the body parts I mentioned, it's just that they're less likely to affect you in those places than they would if they went into your mouth... and mouth-to-mouth kissing between a dog and a human is a lot less common, I'd say). Actually, Jim, both the title of the poll and the second choice mentions "kissing dogs", and the act of kissing them back (snout or elsewhere) was meant to be implied in the first choice. Okay, I see that now. For some reason, I rarely look at the title of the poll (just the thread title and the poll options... maybe I don't notice the poll title as much because of the dark letters against the purple background). Anyway, in my experience, people who are willing to get face-to-face with dogs are a lot more likely to just receive, and not give.

Betty Davis Laura Mars Marty Feldman

Interesting article, but several times it's talking about "kissing dogs". That's not really what we're talking about. It's dogs kissing us, not vice-versa. I very rarely put my mouth on any part of a dog. Kissing a dog on the snout may seem like a show of affection to us, but I suspect it would only confuse the dog. Anyway, the subject is humans being on the receiving end, and in general I'd say that involves the hands, the cheeks, the forehead... not the mouth (and I'm not saying there's no reason to consider what germs may be deposited on the body parts I mentioned, it's just that they're less likely to affect you in those places than they would if they went into your mouth... and mouth-to-mouth kissing between a dog and a human is a lot less common, I'd say).

Durium, look through this thread again. It was Michael Fitzgerald that alerted us to a number of discs with hidden material in the Verve Elite series.

Back in the 70's, one of my brothers had a German Shepherd that had a nostril fetish. If you were lying down- especially if you were on your back, that dog would get its tongue up inside your nose and really give you a good clean-out (if you could hold still long enough ). I've never really had a problem with dogs (especially big dogs, which I feel more comfortable around) licking my face a bit, as long as they stay away from my mouth. My other brother currently has a Border Terrier, and that little bastard is constantly trying to get his tongue in people's mouths. Can't take your eyes off him for even a second if he's on your lap. My German Shepherd isn't that affectionate, but she'll give kisses occasionally (mostly to collect whatever saltiness she can get from my forehead when I'm out working in the yard ).

Actually, the first DVD collection had four episodes per disc; I bought a couple of them. The new "ultimate" collection is probably the best reissue overall. For a while the Twilight Zone switched to an hour-long format. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of----the old DVD's probably had only two of the hour-long episodes per disc. Personally, I think the show was not as good, generally, in the one-hour format; lacked the tightness and punch of the half-hours. To be fair, I heard that changing the show to an hour was the bright idea of one or more of the network suits. This is confusing. From what I've been able to dig up online, it looks to me like the latest DVD series is called "The Definitive Edition". Season 1 (1959) is packaged as 6 DVD's, including all 36 episodes (6 episodes per disc). I'm assuming they're packaged chronologically (not randomly, nor by theme). Is that correct? If those were 30-minute shows, that's 3 hours per disc, not including special features. Can anybody confirm this? Do some see this package concept as a ripoff? (I haven't bought that many DVD sets thus far, so I'm a rookie). I've found searching for info kind of confusing and tedious, so I figured somebody who owns it can clear all of this up. Thanks in advance. Edit: I see billyboy posted something new while I was composing my post. The info in that link is limited, but that price looks pretty fair ($300 for the whole shebang, instead of $100 per season for the individual Definitive boxes).

The Adventurers The Ambushers The Avengers

Fletcher Reede Fletcher Christian Fletch

Jon Lovitz Sir Laurence Olivier Olive Hoover

Well, hell...it wouldn't be very easy to match us up by size. Right, so I figured most of us are closest to the size of NBA guards, would not be very likely to have played as much forward or center (the question remains... anybody here over 6' 8"? ) and thus I would have though that most of our test results would have matched us with guards due to the answer we gave to question #1. But it appears that this test is screwed up.

Was out shoppin' today, and found (and bought) new CD releases of "Crusaders 1" and "The 2nd Crusade". I'm not sure I've ever seen either of these on CD before, and these were the albums that began the run Jim S. mentioned above. I don't understand why it took so long. Also, I'm wondering just how freshly-released these babies are, becuase I just tried to Google the covers, and came up blank (found images for the LP's, but not the CD's). This has got me going again (nostalgia )- now I'm kicking myself for not picking up "Southern Comfort", "Chain Reaction", "Scratch", etc, when I've stumbled onto them in recent years. Oh well, I should still be able to track these down... Oh- one weird thing. The last track ("Do You Remember When") on "The 2nd Crusade" cuts off abruptly near the end, rather than fading out as it should have (I think). If they had to cut it off to fit the whole album onto one CD, they could have at least faded it.

Remington Steele Gillette, Mic Shavers, Charlie

Wesley Snipes Wes Cowan Elyse Luray

What I'm not getting here is how we're ending up with so many big guys (Yao, Duncan, Webber, etc). Do that many of you really like to play down low? Anybody here over 6' 8"? (just a cutoff point I selected based on experience... I've known a couple of 6' 8" guys, but never anybody taller than that). Btw, I'm only about 6' 1", and I know Shane Battier is much bigger than that, so obviously this test doesn't match us up perfectly. Anyway, I've never played any position other than guard in my adult life (duh).

Well stated, Jim. Maybe my view of where we are in terms of terminology and labeling was slightly different from yours, allowing me to feel as though we still at least had some basis for using certain terms and expecting people (most people) to have a general idea of what we're referring to. I guess I felt like it was still worth talking about (just observing, not with the intent to try to "make things right"), but I think you've convinced me that it's probably hopeless and unnecessary. From generation to generation, I wonder what percentage of music fans tries to be aware and educated about music history, and what percentage either doesn't care or simply believes whatever they read/hear. My sense is that younger people these days are less interested in this than we were (say, in the 60's to early 70's), even though we had a pretty significant melting pot (across many genres) already happening even then (and I know the melting goes back much, much further, but generally I'd venture to say that the lines were less and less blurry before our generation came along). I've been impressed by what I've heard by Lisa Ono. She doesn't stike me as someone who's going to reach any lofty heights in terms of reputation or legacy, but she has a good (not tremendous or highly distinctive, but solid) voice, and taste. I really haven't heard a whole lot of her work, primarily because for years, her CD's were priced two or three times higher than everyone else's (never saw anything by her for less than $25 until relatively recently).

Still curious, although it's diminishing...

What they were was a pop band that incorporated a Brazillian "flavor" into an "Americanized" product. Nothing more. Or less. I'm pretty sure we had established that... Again, my intent here is not to host a Brasil '66 slamfest. I don't go around slamming Brasil '66 in my private life (nor Astrud Gilberto, nor Edie Gorme, nor John Pizzarelli... well, maybe John Pizzarelli). Everything's relative, and as I've already pointed out, my previous comments about Brasil '66 had more to do with who they weren't than who they were. "Like it or not"? Um, I've stated numerous times in this thread that I don't object to musical evolution, new ideas, etc (note that way back in post #5, I said: I'm not objecting to the non-traditional music-making in this case.., which in essence is the same thing I've stated several different ways). It seems like you're focusing on the things we agree about, as though we disagree. Your first post here was a question to me, which I answered in post #5. You didn't respond, to express agreement or disagreement, which left me wondering. Anyway, how 'bout if we both read this over again and see if there's anything left to talk about? (or better yet, argue about ).

Well, I have, but that's neither here nor there. The point for me is that it is the nature of pop to "mainstream" differnt cultures, and that inevitably changes the "flavor" of the world in which we live. "Historical Musical Knowledge" is cetainly important for scholars and "serious musicians and fans". To the rest of the world, it's not a particularly relevant and/or ongoing concern, and I don't know that it really should be. It's nice when it is, but life goes on, if you know what I mean. Well, yeah. People are going to salt their watermelon, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. Dude, go back and find my comment about how I'm fully admitting that my bitching is idealistic (and I may be combining comments here). I know that the evolution of culture is a mack truck, and I'm a half-asleep jaywalker. I'm just saying what I need to say, observing what I perceive to be some stupidity in labeling and marketing. And again I say, cool, great, more power to them (not very enthusiastically, in this particular case, but that may just be me). I don't have a problem with the musical evolution itself- it's absolutely inevitable. Dilute the sources. Yes. Go ahead and do it. But don't pretend to be (or assume that you are) something you're not, especially when you don't seem to know what that something is all about. In other words, I'll forgive you for lacking "Historical Musical Knowledge" and just playing your music, but I won't forgive you for bullshitting (unintentional or not). Seems fair to me (idealistically speaking).

Fair enough in principle, I guess, although you'll have to show me where I dismissed Brasil '66 as inconsequential fluff (maybe I was a bit harsh, but the intent was to point out that they were first and foremost a commercial band, and didn't and don't represent "Bossa Nova", except to people who don't know any better). Also, one thing I meant to say in that last hot air-fest was that I think I have more of a problem with Brasil '66's commercialism by contrast to what came before (I actually don't hate Brasil '66, I'm just trying to be real about who and what they really were, for those who might not have understood). So, if you're going to pretend like you know your history and suggest that you represent the return of Bossa Nova by virtue of the fact that you're strongly influenced by Brasil '66... that's kind of like saying you represent the return of big band music by virtue of the fact that you're strongly influenced by the Brian Setzer Orchestra (probably not the best analogy, but I think it'll suffice for our purposes).

I didn't see (or hear) any evidence that Brasil '66 wasn't the primary influence for the bossa element (such as it is, which ain't much, imo). Brasil '66 was (and is) popular. It stands to reason that if they stand behind the info on their site, then I'm not sure how I'm over-simplifying it. In this case, I'm not sure. Didn't brazilian music break through (albeit largely in other watered-down incarnations) well before Brasil '66 became popular? I'm no Brasil '66 scholar, so I'll just hang that one out there. Fwiw, I've never come across a Brasil '66 fan (in person or on the web) that showed much (if any) appreciation for the more pure/authentic/non-commercial forms of brazilian music that set the table for Brasil '66. I hear you. My bitching here (although I've no doubt digressed from it at times) is not about somebody doing something new (and I don't even hear enough of a brazilian influence here to suggest that they're watering down or otherwise damaging the "original")- I'm frustrated by mis-labeling (that ignores historic musical developments and truths) and the kind of hype that may forever blind people to understanding the way music really evolved, and who was important and who wasn't. There may be more about this that bothers me, but that's the gist of it. Like I said above, more power to these musicians if they're creating sincerely, developing a following, and putting food on the table. I gots no problems with that, nor what young people are into (I'm not saying they should be listening to Joao Gilberto necessarily, but it would be cool if somebody at least told them who he was and is, and did so accurately). Never said they should try to replicate it, Jim. And I see no evidence that anybody is giving any props to any brazilian artists other than Sergio Mendes; and I DO see evidence that they somehow feel that they represent the "return of Bossa Nova", which is completely absurd (even if they were playing Bossa Nova, they wouldn't represent "the return", dig?). Maybe I'm putting too much weight on the essays on their site, but hey... it's their site, so they're responsible for what's written there. Again, I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm Shane Battier, but I was a little generous to myself. So... did anybody else find this one odd?... there's 10 sec left and you have the ball, you: pass the ball to your teammate (pg usually) screen for your teammate (big men usually) come off a screen and a jumper or 3 create your own shot If you have the ball, how are you gonna screen?

It's happened to me plenty of times. Ce'st la Vie la vie. I'm sure it's happened to everybody plenty of times. I used to recommend looking over your shoulder (checking to see if anybody nipped you) before leaving the thread after posting, but... eventually I realized it wasn't worth it.