-
Posts
5,971 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Everything posted by duaneiac
-
What do you mean it's hard to find. Why, it's sitting right over there, not 3 feet away from me! Seriously, I did not know this disc was out of print. Then I looked on the back and saw it is from 2000, so that is a generation ago now. The music on the disc is very good and comes from an annual radio special that NPR (the American public radio service) broadcasts, which is just a solid hour of various jazz pianists playing their versions of holiday music. I would have thought it would be fairly easy to keep it in print even if NPR only sold it on their website (or offered as a "pledge drive" premium). Perhaps the contracts they signed with the performers only allowed for use on a CD for a limited amount of years. Now playing:
-
-
Mike Nesmith Sings Claude Thornhill
duaneiac replied to Teasing the Korean's topic in Recommendations
I guess my opinion is "slightly disappointed, but neutral overall". I really liked their album from last year in which they basically did a similar thing -- each member created some original tracks, new material was written for the band by contemporary songwriters and a couple of old Davy Jones vocals were dusted off and properly outfitted. Maybe my hopes were too high for this Christmas album, but it did not meet my expectations. Perhaps next year I will feel differently about it. But not about Peter Tork's godawful version of "Angels We Have Heard On High". That was just painful to hear. -
Apparently Willie Mays was an Ella Fitzgerald fan (or vice versa)
-
Mike Nesmith Sings Claude Thornhill
duaneiac replied to Teasing the Korean's topic in Recommendations
Yeah it's a new album that came out this year. Michael Nesmith only appears on two tracks. Davy Jones appears on two tracks. His vocal tracks were recorded back in 1991 and I guess they fleshed out arrangements around those. Peter Tork sounds positively awful on his one track. The balance of the album is Micky Dolenz singing a variety of new Christmas material written by the likes of Andy Partridge, Rivers Cuomo, Alex Chilton, etc. No two members of the Monkees appear on any one single track together here. I'm a big Monkees fan, but my initial reaction to this album is not positive. -
Here's a couple of proposed compromises that involve just slightly tweaking the lyrics Proposal #1, which could be the more lucrative option, depending on who exactly is willing to pony up for this prime real estate each Christmas: " The neighbors might think - Baby, it's bad out there Say, what's in this drink, That's Absolut Vodka, Yes Absolut, the vodka for people who know nothing about vodka. Absolutely nothing. Proposal #2, simply change the subject of the conversation: " The neighbors might think - Baby, it's bad out there Say, what's in this -- OH MY GOD! There's a spider!!!!!! Proposal #3, change the subject of the sentence with a slight variation as well: Version A: " The neighbors might think - Baby, it's bad out there Say, what's in this soup? Is It fennel? I bet it's fennel! Version B (a more female empowering option): " The neighbors might think - Baby, it's bad out there Say, what's in this soup? Is It fennel? I bet it's fennel! Wyatt, you know how much I hate fennel you goddamn sonofabitch!
-
-
Glad you enjoyed it. I actually like this one better than the Rhoda Scott Christmas CD I have. With just a week left, it's time to start playing some of my old favorites: The last one is a fun trawl through the musical underbelly of Christmas, but it does have this lovely song. If you've been stressed out by gift shopping or finishing your Christmas cards or cookie baking, take a few moments to relax and listen to this. If you're lucky enough to be near one you love, invite them to slow dance.
-
Sorry. Basically I was jus' goin' fer sum ol' time sarcasm there. Didn't mean to be tossin' out no logical fallacies. What I would imply is that succeeding in banning this song, in whatever capacity, will only embolden other groups with an agenda of their own to launch future campaigns to ban music/art/books/movies they are offended by. There are people out there for whom "being offended" is their main social activity and the world of social media gives them both much to be offended about and a platform on which they can vent about how offended they are. Some one had mentioned Blazing Saddles a few pages back and how it could not get made in today's environment. I watched it again last month for the first time in maybe 6 years and it is still LOL funny. But I agree -- no way in hell could that movie get made today. No major studio or producer would be willing to bankroll it. If just a few select pages of that script were leaked to the press, with all those white characters so liberally (if you'll pardon the expression) using the N-word, it would stir up such an instant media-friendly controversy. And then the production company is just left trying to play defense about the movie and that's never a good position to be in so they would just drop the whole project. No way it could get made today. At all. And this would be a sadder world indeed if Blazing Saddles had never been made. Oh and there are songs about slavery, a pedophile and promoting genocide that I really do totally love. They were all written by Randy Newman. They are called "Sail Away", "In Germany Before The War", and "Political Science". I'm guessing there have been some people offended by each of those songs, people who then tried to ban each of them just as there were people who wanted to ban "Short People" (the song, not the actual people, who are fine IMO -- well, most of 'em) back the in the 1970's. I think what I have a big problem with this is your apparent contention that "songs like this—innocent as they may be" can still be tried, convicted and sentenced to Siberia (where Baby, it is, well you know . . . ) even though they may be perfectly totally innocent. Just the perception of being "guilty" in some listeners' minds is enough to damn the song to permanent solitary confinement. That just does not sit well with me at all.
-
But nothing, repeat nothing will "make it all better" for sexual assault victims. Even banning this song and destroying every single recording of it ever made will not make them "better". Do we have to aim for the lowest possible common denominator in art so that no one anywhere can ever possibly be offended or upset? Must all songs now only be about ice cream and daisies and puppy dogs? No wait --,hold on. The lactose intolerant are demanding that all dairy product references be removed from songs. And a mob of hay fever sufferers are up in arms that any inhuman pollen producing demon should be glorified in song. And there is a little boy in Sioux City, Iowa who was once bitten by a puppy and is deathly afraid of them, so we can't risk upsetting him. Therefore, all future songs will have no words at all -- not even titles! No one can get upset by that. Mah-na, Mah-na. Da-dee-duh-dee-dee
-
-
Something about this song, and this performance in particular, just seems to feel so right on a cold mid-December night --
-
Wow. I've got just so many different thoughts on this topic. For the record, I do like the song. My favortie version is the Johnny Mercer & Margaret Whiting one. I think it really needs to be heard sung by singers "of that era". Singers of that era sang like the adults they were, whereas today, any singer younger than Tony Bennett or Willie Nelson is still trying to pretend that they are twenty-somethings. Mercer & Whiting gave a performance that sounds like the flirtatious bantering that went on all the time in the movies between two adults. (The musical equivalent, if you will, of the Bogey and Bacall "You know how to whistle, don't you?" scene.) And the thing which strikes me about the female part, certainly in Ms. Whiting's case and in Ms. Carter's as well, is that the female is no dewy eyed teen; she is a woman who has been around and has heard all the lines before, so she is able to counter each attempted advance the male makes. The song struck me as a flirtatious contest among equals. Garth Brooks & Trisha Yearwood have recorded it together, so if the couple singing it is actually married would that make it more or less offensive? Next, how do you "ban" a song, especially one which has been recorded by hundreds of different performers? Will the police be showing up to go through my CD collection to confiscate any which have the banned tune in question? Will I have to tear that page out of my copy of The Complete Lyrics of Frank Loesser? Is art always meant to make us comfortable? Some one mentioned the Dire Straits song, "Money For Nothing" and its use of the word "faggot". I can understand that the use of that word was not Mark Knopfler's choice, it was the word choice of the character Mark Knopfler was writing about in that song. One might argue that it was Mr. Knopfler's ultimate decision to use the word, but a writer's dedication must always be to be true to his creation. If that is the word that character would use in that situation, so be it. Not all songs have to be about lovable people and situations (see The Collected Works of Randy Newman). I imagine a lot of people have heard that song and never even knew that word was in there. Now you wanna talk about creepy and offensive songs, let's talk about "The Girl From Ipanema", which right off let's change that to "Young Empowered Woman From a Location She Chooses Not To Disclose", thank you very much. There is the offensiveness of the standards by which she is considered desirable: "tall and tan and young and lovely". There are billions of us around the world who are short and/or pale and/or old and/or average looking under the best of circumstances and who should rightly be offended, nay outraged by that discriminatory depiction of socially acceptable beauty. And then there is the creepiness of the singing stalker bemoaning the fact that "she looks straight ahead, not at me". Oh believe me, buddy, if she is every bit as fine as you claim, she's seen you. She's learned to be fully aware of her surroundings and she has peripheral vision, so she has see you there "each day" (creepiness factor = 545) as she walks to the sea. If she wanted you to know she's seen you she would have by now, so give it up you old lech.