EEK! Sorry sorry sorry sorry

[Clay Tanner]

Perdita, if you "think" it is so, it is.

Perdita, you flater me.

Being in synch with you, even for a moment, is to touch beyond the stars, to delve into the premordial vaccuum where imagination has yet to become the proverbial gleam in the eye of the creator. Lie back. Relax. Spread wide and partake.

Ahh...

Perdie, my favorite, could you help me with your keen intellect and superiour knowledge of Shakespeare? Did he not originate the following line and if so, where? And if not, who?

"The truth is oft said in jest."

Thank you, my juicy, scholarly one.

 

[Guest]

CT: you go too far. I did not flatter you, but you flatter me. I only flatter fools and evil people, look up the definition (too many people think flattery is "a good thing", to quote one evil person).

But you ask to verify a quote so I respond. Offhand your phrase does not truly sound Shakespearean to me, though it might in some other combination of words, or in context. The only thing I could come up with is from the great Richard II (note: II, not III, unfortunately better known to Americans), Act I, scene 3. FYI (though I am uncertain that you care), Thomas Mowbray speaks it during the 'trial' between him and Bolingbroke who will end up taking the crown from R2, becoming a guilt-ridden Henry IV and begetting Henry V. These first scenes are the prelude to the histories and the War of the Roses between Lancaster and York. (The italics are mine.)

However God or fortune cast my lot,
There lives or dies, true to King Richard's throne,
A loyal, just and upright gentleman:
Never did captive with a freer heart
Cast off his chains of bondage and embrace
His golden uncontroll'd enfranchisement,
More than my dancing soul doth celebrate
This feast of battle with mine adversary.
Most mighty liege, and my companion peers,
Take from my mouth the wish of happy years:
As gentle and as jocund as to jest
Go I to fight: truth hath a quiet breast.

 

[Clay Tanner]

Richard II

Perdita,

Now all can see why I praise you so publicly. Appropriate "thanks" for your respectfully-intended illumination regarding my tease using the word "flattery". But, truly blatant thanks that powerfully uplifting and on point passage from Richard II.

And with that said, his immediate mission to not to inadvertently steal from the Bard now completed... he pushes away from the alure of the keyboard, ambles down the Persian rug strewn corridor, past the collection of guitars, and exits through the kitchen. Scratching his bald head, maybe it was Oscar Wilde and not Shakespeare. Or, maybe it was Samuel Clemens. Or, shit, maybe it was me afterall? Nah. Flashing back to the 60's with a contented smile...try(ing) to remember, the kind of September, when...

 

[Guest]

CT: just to save you some time, I'm certain it wasn't Wilde. Frankly, I don't think it's an especially notable quote, means fuck all to me.

regards, Perdita


edited to add p.s.:
I am not being modest when I say I do not have superior knowledge of Shakespeare. I merely love his texts and re-read him more than most people I know.

 

[Guest]

Re: Perdita, if you "think" it is so, it is.

Shakespeare? Did he not originate the following line and if so, where? And if not, who?

"The truth is oft said in jest."

Clay,

The actual quote is: "Many a true word is often spoken in jest." - Anonymous.

It's an old English proverb, but like many proverbs there is no record as to who first said it.

I hope this clears it up.

Tatelou

 

[Clay Tanner]

Gracias.

Perdita:

I believe you mean that...but I am not sure it means that.

Like the lawyers say: it speaks for itself.

Ciao, amiga con biblioteca.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Perdita, if you "think" it is so, it is.

 

[Guest]

Hey, Louloula, is it just me or are you exceptionally radiant today? Mwah!

Purditta

 

[MathGirl]

Sages

Originally posted by rhinoguy course it can't be noteable if it's not Shakespere or WIlde

Dear Nosey,
How about Willie Nelson and Kinky Friedman?
MG

 

[Guest]

Re: Sages

 

[Medieval-Man]

*is utterly lost at the musician and guitar talk,
is utterly lost on the Richard II and Shakespeare talk because though I have many of his works, I have yet to get to them in my huge pile.*

So yeah, How is everyone?

 

[Guest]

Hi, Medi. Always a joy to see you. So tell us what you do know, not what you don't, eh? Or tell us about h.school, or go to Lou's thread and agree to write a novel in a month.

your pal, Perdita

 

[MathGirl]

Re: Re: Sages

Originally posted by rhinoguy you're supposed to be ignoring me like svenskaflicka

I have not been officially informed of your presence on Svenska's ignore list. Pending aforementioned notification, you are on supervised probation.
MG
Ps. Should you qualify for ignoration, I may use the alternative of making you wish I was ignoring you. Yes, I suppose that is a threat.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

ignoration

That's a very interesting word. Useful, even. Carry on.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[raphy]

Damn, more guitar talk and I missed it....

On the subject of rock's history and the Brit/US connection:

Yes, the Brits took rock and roll back during the late 60s/early 70s. The Beatles injected some much-needed life into the genre after the suger-coated 50s and then folks like Sabbath and Zepplin turned it on its head, exposed its raw underbelly.

That said, the mantle went back to the US for the 80s and early 90s with the infusion of LA sleaze rock bands like Guns n Roses, Poison and Motley Crue. The 70s rock dinosaurs were bloated and fat, lazy and indulgent, and people wanted it to be fun again - And that's something the Brits have never been particularly good at.

But by 1995 rock and roll as we know it had died, swept away by Matchbox 20, The Goo Goo Dolls and solo so-called R 'n' B artists, trying to make billboard number 1s in an ever-shrinking industry. I swear, if you played TLC to Robert Johnson and told him it was supposed to be Rhythm 'n Blues, he'd laugh you out of the delta.

Country struggled on for a bit; Garth Brooks and Alan Jackon trying to carry the pseudo-rock banner under 'New Country', but whilst it had the fun, it didn't have the intensity, and Nirvana or Soundgarden's alternative/grunge had the intensity but none of the fun.

I still haven't found anything that compares.

Long live rock'n roll.

Raph, nostalgic now, dammit.

 

[Clay Tanner]

Rock is dead?

Raphy,

Pretty good analysis, buckeroo.

But, I will respectfully disagree with your conclusion regarding the death of Rock in '95.

Call it dormant. Say it is in a state of suspended animation after years of steady decline. Or, that it is flat on its back, without a detectible pulse, somewhere in a cold dark tomb, silently awaiting its resurection.

But, don't proclaim it to be dead, at least not yet. (At least not until after Mick Jagger and his pals are pushing up daisies.)

Rock still lives...albeit on life support.

 

[Icingsugar]

RnB has turned to muck without neither rythm nor blues. Soul has turned into hip hop-crammed, over produced fluff, sans the occational Badu release.

Rock has turned into the hideous hybrid called nu-metal, or gone garage and alternative. You want big rock shows, fun, explosions and spandex? Not there, baby.

In fact, there is some great rock music still being made, but it doesn't get the credit it deserves. (Black Rebel Motorcycle Club and Soundtrack Of Our Lives are churning in my headphones right now. Give it a spin, if that's your bag.)

But honestly, Jagger and his pals haven't been rock'n'roll for decades. Their fans just didn't notice.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Sages

 

[Guest]

But honestly, Jagger and his pals haven't been rock'n'roll for decades. Their fans just didn't notice.

Sugar, I haven't listened to any pop music in decades. The Stones bored me silly in the 80sand do still. Same with Dylan. I was never a special Beatles fan (they weren't r&r to me). Keith R. is but he's stuck or complacent; seems a happy bloke though. When I want a heart beat I listen to really old blues or 'old' country.

sticking with LvB & co.,

Perdita

 

[Guest]

music?

 

[raphy]

Unfortunately Clay, it belongs to a different era. Music, as with everything else, is part of the global pot-pourri known as 'Fashion Trends'. Like everything else that's thrown into this mix (clothing, lifestyle choices, financial ability), it is both influenced by and influences the ebb and flow of popular culture.

The boom of the 80s gave us rock music - People had more money than they knew what to do with, and they were having fun with it - Artists, producers *and* the audience. The sexual proclivity of the 60s and 70s was reaching it's height (Remember, AIDS is an 80s disease) and the leather-clad harley-riding mysogenistic rock 'n rollers reflected that.

Without that, (and the host of other cultural conditions), Rock music has no place in society. Why do you think Country never became popular outside of the US at all, except for a few select weirdos like me? Because outside of the US, people don't understand it. It doesn't make sense. Doesn't strike a chord in their hearts.

No, I don't think we'll ever see the cultural conditions that would allow Rock to re-emerge. But maybe that's not a bad thing - After all, we wouldn't wanna go backwards.

Besides, as they say.. Plus ca change, la plus ca meme chose..

Raph, philosophical.

 

[Icingsugar]

The boom of the 80s gave us rock music - People had more money than they knew what to do with, and they were having fun with it - Artists, producers *and* the audience. The sexual proclivity of the 60s and 70s was reaching it's height (Remember, AIDS is an 80s disease) and the leather-clad harley-riding mysogenistic rock 'n rollers reflected that.

Without that, (and the host of other cultural conditions), Rock music has no place in society. Why do you think Country never became popular outside of the US at all, except for a few select weirdos like me? Because outside of the US, people don't understand it. It doesn't make sense. Doesn't strike a chord in their hearts.

No, I don't think we'll ever see the cultural conditions that would allow Rock to re-emerge. But maybe that's not a bad thing - After all, we wouldn't wanna go backwards.

I have to disagree with you there. The 80's boom didn't give us rock. It gave us poodles in spandex playing something similar to rock, which I'd prefer to label Glam. (which is all fine and dandy too)

Maybe we have a different definition of what Rock Music is. To me, it's three guys in a garage, hammering away as if their life depended on it.

Rock to me is filthy, dirty, gritty music smelling of motor oil and mud. Sprung out of the darkest of blues, injected with 20 000 volts and gallons of Jack Daniels. Just like punk, it's a kind of protest music, although not always against society and The Man. By that definition, Soundgarden was more rock than Motley Crue could ever be.

But you're right. Every musical movement needs the right cultural conditions to grow in. Or rather, to grow out of. It's the contrast of what was before it that makes us remember when something revolutionary happens.

So as I see it, the condition couldn't be better for an onslaught of rock music than now, in this age when real, sincere music is sparse and commersialized fluff reigns.

Bring on the riffs.

 

[Clay Tanner]

Maybe I am wrong.

Perdita: In recalling the last CD I purchased it was Michael Buble's. (Guess that shows where my head is at as of late.) He is a talented kid from Canada with orchestrations that are a throwback to another age.

Raphy: Ok. I checked again. There is no detectible pulse in Rock this morning. Damn it. Somebody quick call the meatwagon before it starts to stink. Rock IS dead. Fuck.



Clay - thinks about ordering flowers, sad to have outlived it... wondering what is next? At least we have lived to witness Simon and Garfunkle having kissed and made up. Sounds of Silence waifs in the background.

 

[destinie21]

I know you guys are getting all deep on the rock and roll riff things and what music begets rebirths and all but I'd like to say Tina Turner can be discussed in any genre (only because she's a kick ass lady and I like her.) I don't know if her music is defined as true rock and roll but whatever. I also had a question on how you guys would describe the Ramones? aside from the previous comments I can only add that I haven't listened to popular music in years give me Nina Simone in House of the Rising Blues any day and maybe a Bit of Strange fruit with Lady singing the blues and some of Peggy Lee's Black coffee and I'm set.

 

[raphy]

Ice - I agree. We do have different definitions, but I see where you're coming from. Your Glam is my LA Sleaze Rock. Your Rock is my Heavy Metal. Same sides of a different coin though.

Mrs D - Tina's part of what I like to call 'stadium rock'. Slot her in your CD rack next to Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams. (Just my opinion, of course). Ramones are punk. Well, mostly. Like Fergal Sharkey before he pussied out and became Fergal Sharkey =)

I also agree with Ice about the conditions being 'right' .. Whether we'll see it though is another matter. Bubblegum pop music right now (Britney, Christina, etc) is echoing the early to mid 80s that we heard .. It's been often said that Christina Aguilera is the Debbie Gibson to Britney's Tiffany and if you listen to some of Britney's stuff, you can hear the evolution (revolution?) .. Rock grows from pelvic thrusts (look at The King) in the beat, and if you fire up Britney's 'Crazy' on the ol' mp3 player (my, haven't we come far from 45s) you'll hear a faux overdriven electric guitar solo in there to rival anything by Transvision Vamp.

Maybe it's time I started playing full time again.

Raph, who knows that if we don't make the future, others will make it for us.