kenny weir

Never mind ...

I did not mean to denigrate any of the artists I mentioned, including Buckley. But I am bemused by the number of people I know who are besotted with him yet have never bothered to check out his dad. And have no intention of doing so. If I was a Jeff fan I'd go mad - stark raving bonkers - if I was prevented in some way from checking out such an obvious link. They still enjoy his music I'm sure, but ... checking out dad might even enhance that pleasure. It's like walking along a beach and looking at rocks. The likes of us who post here are always always gonna flip those rocks over to see what's under 'em. For us that's often where the REAL interesting stuff is, and we can't help ourselves anyhow.

Hey hey hey - Helen rocks!

I suspect you're right. But at the same time, I wouldn't put too little emphasis on such a catalyst-like role. For me the peak of the Byrd's came on a handful of tracks on Untitled. On that album White was the stellar talent, and Battin and Parsons the journeymen. But it was McGuinn that made it the Byrds. I'm trying to think of other outfits that had a similar dynamic. Eddie Condon fits, I reckon.

Ha ha - that'd be me. Fair enuf. I dislike Nirvana and am indifferent to Young, so am no expert or nuthin'. Just making a point.

Ken, I know Clark was a troubled soul and had, IIRC, a fear of flying. But I've never heard/read about a booze problem. Can you provide any links - I'm interested. I think his A&M album (often called White Light) is a classic, and I'll soon pick up the new reissue of the Gosdin Bros album, too. I saw a London gig by that Hillman/McGuinn/Clark lineup, but memories of it are extremely hazy. I was prolly eight miles high - and drunk - at the time.

Geez. It's just my opinion, as I made clear - TWICE. Isn't that what these sorts of forums are for?

The curious in me might even buy this, but I agree with Clem - the Gram cult thing is pretty daft. I like both studio albums, but I know a bunch of people - and work with a few - who think he's the bees knees. Yet the those folks have never listened to, say, Merle Haggard - a far superior artist (IMO) with a much, much deeper oevre. And his Capitol sides even have Burton and Hardin, like Gram's LPs IMHO it's the Rolling Stones influence. The same folkses who think Gram is so fucking cool also think Robert Johnson is ultra cool, but have never checked out Charley Patton. FWIW, I reckon the best Burrito album is the third - when Gram had split. A genuine country rock sound. Sweertheart Of The Rodeo? Blech! And overall, I'm a Gene Clark fan through and through. It's a truism of pop culture good and bad: Because succeeding generations are always coming along, it's possible to keep of schilling the same old stuff over and over. Nothin' wrong with that, per se. But let's not pretend it's all cutting edge. And checking out the roots can even enhance the pleasure of listening to contemporary stars. How many Stringbean fans have ever chekced out Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger or Gary US Bonds? Merle Haggard > Gram Parsons Neil Young > Nirvana Led Zeppling > Wolfmother Frank Sinatra/ Dean Martin/etc > Bubble Boy AC/DC > Jet Tim Buckley > Jeff Buckley GD > Phish And on and on. Truth is, Gram was a follower not a leader. And if it wasn't for the Kieth Richards connection he'd be very obscure indeed.

From today's Sydney Morning Herald: - a good summation: Chokers and jokers just as bad Greg Growden | October 8, 2007 MONDAY MAUL What was worse? New Zealand choking again or Australia ending their worst World Cup campaign? Neck and neck. But after one of the most demoralising days in the history of trans-Tasman rugby, the All Blacks still win the atrocity award. Australia will get over their early World Cup departure. New Zealand won't. In Australia, rugby union is a side dish. It isn't in New Zealand. Rugby is the country's heart and soul, its identity. The All Blacks' brand is No.1. The land of the long white cloud is now the land of the long black cloud. New Zealand is in mourning. The ramifications of a nation strangling itself for the fifth World Cup tournament in a row will be immense. There will be sackings, reprisals and, with it, undoubtedly the end of Robbie Deans being in line for the Wallabies coaching job next season. Graham Henry, like all the other failed New Zealand World Cup coaches, will be the scapegoat, and Deans appears his inevitable replacement. Nonetheless, the Wallabies cannot hide behind the All Blacks' disaster in an attempt to avoid the flak, because they also deserve a backhander after their least impressive World Cup campaign. The Wallabies would have been forgiven had they survived another week and disappeared at semi-final stage. No one expected them to go any further than a meaningless third-fourth play-off. But to bow out at quarter-final time against a pedestrian England team is unacceptable and a complete embarrassment for Australian rugby. No wonder anyone wearing green and gold in Marseilles on Saturday night was the subject of endless taunts, forcing them to hide in their hotels before anyone realised they supported a team that huffs and puffs but can't even blow down a cardboard box. And try to ignore all the spin during the next few weeks from those involved in Australian rugby, who in trying to protect their positions keep pushing supposed positives from this cup. The fact is, this is the Wallabies' biggest World Cup failure. Australia also left the tournament at quarter-final time in 1995, but the England team that knocked them out in Cape Town 12 years ago was an appreciably better line-up than the one they faced on Saturday. This England team were rated no chance by their media and their supporters, because they apparently lacked the width, speed and nous of the Australian game. Instead, England didn't even have to play smart to beat Australia. They preferred the most basic of forward smash 'em and bash 'em football. They relied primarily on the most lopsided scrum battles to overcome an opposition of supposed superstars, but who were instead shown up to be overpaid bumblers. In the lead-up, the Australian forwards talked tough, even going on about how they wanted to be the best pack in the world, but when it mattered they were wimps. They were exposed for what they are - a second-rate scrummaging unit. More worrying was that their breakdown play also fell apart under pressure. There was a lack of organisation around the tackle area, with the ball often sitting unattended at the back. As for the departing Wallabies coach John Connolly, his two years in the job were often, to use one of his favourite terms, "one step forward, two steps back". There was some progress under Connolly, but nowhere near as much as he and others at the Australian Rugby Union would have liked. Problems within the team - including members of the coaching staff struggling to gain the respect of several key players - were exacerbated by sometimes erratic managerial direction, including trying to place the blame elsewhere. However, Connolly will be treated far better than his New Zealand counterparts. As All Blacks breakaway Jerry Collins said a few days ago: "It's a long way to swim home." He wasn't kidding.

Wow - wasn't that a whole lotta fun? In both the Aussie and NZ cases, I think you could say that to a fairly large degree they were outcoached rather than outplayed. Blimey. In the Aussie case, there was a lot of smugness and arrogance, in the press and elsewhere, with the ARU CEO John O'Neill boasting in the leadup that all Aussies hate England and that the Wallabies would do 'em like a dinner. Through all that sort of stuff, there was always a sense that the Wallaby preening and claims of vast improvement were pretty brittle. So it proved. Ha ha. In the Kiwis' case, as I think I say above, they peaked too early. Perhaps you simply can't sustain that level of intensity so far out. As well: The burden of of expectation is greater for the Kiwis than all save the Springboks. While I'm sure France, England etc face huge demands from fans, at least they have other football teams, other codes. Not so in NZ and SA. Bring out the firing squad! I suspect it was only the dire fate of the Wallabies and the All Blacks that toughened up the Boks, otherwise they may have suffered the same fate against Fiji, who played real well. All they need is some more consistancy - and less ball fumbling - and they'll be right up there. Well done France and England - despite all the trash talk (Aussies) and ominous reputations (NZ), the southerners simply weren't good enough. Or weren't allowed to be.

In this day and age, I doubt "nude photographs of women" actually constitutes porn anyhow.

Now CEO of the Fairfax media empire, Kirk once captained the All Blacks ... this from his Melbourne Age newspaper a few days back. ************ The Age, Edition 1 TUE 02 OCT 2007, Page 8\ 'Home nations' pay price of weak becoming strong By: David Kirk With the world cup pool matches over, results suggest that rugby has been turned on its head. THE world of rugby will never be the same again. A seismic shift has occurred. The pool matches of the sixth Rugby World Cup are over and I, for one, am gobsmacked. It is not that hard in hindsight to rationalise what has happened but before the tournament I had no idea what was happening to the relative playing strength of nations. I didn't know that Argentina was simply stronger, better organised and mentally tougher than any of the British nations. I didn't know that Tonga had the discipline and tactical nous to get within five points of South Africa and be a genuine chance of making the quarter-finals. Or that Fiji was about to return from 20 years in the World Cup wilderness. After making the quarter-finals in 1987, it hasn't looked like doing it again until it emphatically ousted Wales this year. For every new rugby power rising, an old power has sunk. To sum it up Anglo-Saxons and Celts have given way to Polynesians and Latins. The pupil has become the master and there is no going back. It is not a matter of Argentina, Tonga and Fiji being lucky - having once-in-a-generation great teams at the right time. No, real and lasting changes have occurred and will remain. The future looks bleak for the once mighty "Home Nations". The root cause of this re-ordering of world rugby is the professionalisation and globalisation of the game. None of the leading players of Argentina, Tonga and Fiji play rugby regularly in their own countries. Instead they ply their trade as professionals in the great rugby competitions of the world in Europe and Australasia. It is clear that what protected the British nations and kept them in the top flight of world rugby had more to do with the handicaps visited on the emerging nations - lack of funding, coaching and strong regional competitions - than anything else. The market for rugby talent has done its job. The world's best players, from wherever they hail, have found their way to the world's best competitions and the world's best coaches. The lack of funding for Pacific island and South American rugby development has become irrelevant. The sponsors and national unions in Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the Continent are paying for the development of their players now. There couldn't be a more delicious irony. Minor nations, sorely neglected by an International Rugby Board dominated by the traditional Home Nation powers, have turfed two (and nearly three) out of the knock-out stages of the World Cup. Law changes have also contributed to the rise of the new powers. With the ball in play more and a premium on aggressive defence and physical power at the tackle and in the backs, the explosive athleticism of the Pacific island nations becomes all the more effective. The discipline and organisation engendered by professional coaching has done the rest. The Wallabies were little tested. All the top players played well, but the lack of depth was clear. Berrick Barnes is a fine young player, but Stephen Larkham's return is crucial if the team is to go all the way. Their quarter-final opponent, England, has been mostly rubbish. In four pool matches the All Blacks hardly broke a sweat and we know nothing more about their prospects of winning the sixth Rugby World Cup than we knew before the tournament began. The All Blacks are technically ahead of the rest of the world and their speed and fitness are only approached by the Wallabies and Springboks. They have more depth of talent than any other team. But we knew all this a month ago. First they must get past a desperate France, but I can't see them having too much trouble. The French will throw everything at it but the psychological mountain is too high for them to climb. It is sad for them as hosts and sad for the tournament but the French are going out in Cardiff. The Springboks will beat Fiji because they have genuine class whereas Wales does not. The Springboks are getting better and better and loom as genuine contenders for the cup. Argentina is set for its first semi-final. Scotland is earnest but ordinary. So long as Argentina sticks to the game plan and approach it has employed so successfully thus far, it should win well. David Kirk was captain of the 1987 World Cup-winning All Blacks and is chief executive officer of Fairfax.

Ahhh, we'll see - nothing would surprise me and you may be right. I hope not, but I was saying a year ago that the all Blacks were playing far too well that far before the World Cup it self. Man, this weekend is going to be great. I'm going to watch every game: AUS - ENG NZL - FRA RSA - FJI ARG - SCO My tips in bold. Actually, the NZ-France game is probably the hardest to tip, followed by Argentina-Scotland.

Yep, amazing watching that. Oh boy - teh Cup's gonna get hot now.

It's a massacre - Geelong by 50 halfway through the second quarter.

I doubt it. He woulda been 13 then. Plus, IIRC, the Bickershaw was only his second or third live rock "experience". It's surprising, actually, coz I usually find those Brit mags like Uncut, Q and so on pretty sharp when it comes to details. Must be the anorak factor.

Oh dear ... I've just been reading a colleague's September issue of the Brit mag Uncut - I'm too mean to buy it myself, but I usually enjoy a quick breeze through it. Anyways, in it is a photo/essay sort of job on England's 1972 Bickershaw Festival, with great pics of the Dead, Kinks, Beefheart, Donovan etc. In one of the captions, the author (Mick Middles), who attended the fest as 15-year-old in only his third ever rock gig, says: "My memories of the Grateful Dead - who played, I recall, for about four hours - remain teasingly sketchy. I had never seen twin drumming before, and Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann's trance-like rhythms induced bolts of alarming "freak-outs" on both sides of the stage." Teasingly sketchy? I'll say. How could it be otherwise when YOU WERE SEEING DOUBLE AS WELL? LOL. He talks about smoking a joint handed to him by a Hell's Angel, but I suspect there may have been something in his liquid refreshments - whatever they were - as well. (There is a photo adjacent that caption showing the one-drummer, 1972 lineup. The pics seem to come from the same source as found in the bookjlet to Steppin' Out With ....)

What do you mean by the statement I have placed in bold? I don't understand what you mean by "fall away". I was referring to the other finalists, but I got it wrong. In the preliminary finals, Geelong beat Collingwood and Port beat the Kangaroos. The Hawks beat the Adelaide Crows in the first week and were then eliminated by the Kangaroos in the second week. WEEK 1 Port Adelaide 1.3 2.7 6.9 9.14 68 West Coast Eagles 2.3 3.6 7.10 9.11 65 Hawthorn 4.3 8.7 10.10 15.15 105 Adelaide 7.4 10.7 12.12 15.12 102 Collingwood 6.5 8.9 13.12 18.17 125 Sydney Swans 1.4 7.5 9.8 13.9 87 Geelong 3.5 10.10 16.16 23.18 156 Kangaroos 3.0 4.1 6.1 8.2 50 WEEK 2 West Coast Eagles 0.4 5.5 8.9 10.12 72 Collingwood 1.5 4.8 7.11 10.12 72 Kangaroos 3.3 5.5 9.7 14.9 93 Hawthorn 2.1 4.3 6.8 8.12 60 WEEK 3 Geelong 4.4 7.6 9.13 13.14 92 Collingwood 2.5 6.7 9.8 13.9 87 Port Adelaide 6.0 9.3 17.10 20.13 133 Kangaroos 3.2 3.7 4.10 5.16 46 WEEK 4 Geelong v Port Adelaide

Geeez, enough with the preliminaries already!

GA - 3AW should be fine. The TV rights reverted from Channels 9 and 10 this year to Channels 7 and 10 in a tedious process of power plays and so on. In any case, 10 ends up doing the Grand Final again. I'm surprised you can't find a live telecast somewhere. I'm sure the game is telecast in the US. Myself, I'll be working on our paper's Grand Final coverage and have only a modicum of interest in the outcome. The Cats are favourites and have been the form team all season; Port Adelaide surprised just about everyone - including themselves - by making it. I expect all of Melbourne will be hoping for an overdue Victorian win. It wasn't so long ago that the AFL was the VFL. The Hawks and Kangaroos, the last pair to fall away, weren't in the same class. Myself, I'll be cheering on Melbourne Storm against Manly in the following night's National Rugby League Grand Final in Sydney. On TV, mind you, though I did see Storm win their preliminary final against the Eels live last Sunday.

Thanks - I enjoyed reading that. I read just about all Kerouac's stuff a long time ago. I doubt I could do so again. But as that piece points out, the influence is huge - so that many of the books and, more particularly in my case, magazine articles etc we read are direct descendents. I've always been a little bemused by Kerouac's bitterness towards the whole hippie/counter culture thing. There's plenty to be cynical about in those scenes, of course, but his antagonism often seemed tinged with sour grapes or something. But that piece puts On The Road et al in a specific time and place that, indeed, does make any connection seem pretty spurious. Apart from one person - Cassady. Nevertheless, keeping those shaky ties alive, the Dead site has a recent story about a 50th birthday party for OTR attended by Bob Weir, Dennis McNally and other dignitaries ... http://www.dead.net/features/dead-world-ro...jack-and-ratdog

I thought it was a good read, as far as it went. Not for a minute did I think it told the whole story or anything like it.

Wallabies AND Wales didn't look all that impressive. Canada shoulda done better against Fiji. They just didn't have the confidence to make another, final pass through the backs, ignoring the overlap and certain tries at least a couple of times. I didn't see Ireland/Georgia, but reports seems to back up my comments about the prowess of at least a few of the minnows.

I plead guilty to the charge, for my defence paying 25 $ for a game that we pretty sure know the result before the game is played ain't my cup of tea. Van - my comments weren't directed at you, brother. I'm relaxed about it all - the real action's a few weeks away. But as I say above, I've been pleasantly surpised by the spirited nature of the supposedly one-sided games I've seen so far. I also expect the TV coverage here in Australia - and no doubt NZ - is far superior to most other places. Here we've got all games on pay and Aussies on free to air as well.

Haven't seen England yet, but on face value the scoreline against the US was none too flattering. I've already heard and read a lot of whining about lopsided contests and scorelines ... obviously coming from people who haven't actually watched the games. I have - and can only say to the likes of Georgia, the US, Canada - bravo! Yes, some of the scores look bad but they don't tell the whole story. In the matches I've seen, it's not so much that the minnows are unable to match it with the stronger sides but that THEY ARE UNABLE TO DO SO FOR THE FULL 80 MINUTES. So with Canada against Wales and Georgia against Argentina, the contests, defence and brutal committment was amazing for most of the first half. after that, they - no surprise - ran out of puff. So in that sense at least, it seems the gap is closing. Whether it will get close to closing completely is another matter ...