not logged in
| re: Jim Steinman on MTV Cribs | |
Posted by:  |
TommyCool 04:33 pm UTC 06/12/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Jim Steinman on MTV Cribs - pidunk 09:45 am UTC 06/12/07 |
| SO MANY LETTERS, SO LITTLE SENSE > > > > Wouldnt that be great ??!!! > > Hell, NO !!!! > > Why, thou may ask ? > > Well, here's a little something i was just thinking of > > this afternoon while listening to Formation Of The Pack > > (oh what brilliant song it is) > > Where's the magic and mystery in Rock N Roll today??? > > There is alot of hyperbole built into every kind of > interest group, and one that has inappropriately entered > this hall of logic is that there should be mystery in Rock > and Roll? There was no mystery in Rock and Roll, just a > beat. Rock and Roll is a sound, different from all other > sounds that ever came before it. In the nineteen fifties, > the youth were listening to music that had two different > types of rhythms to it, the big bands with their slow > moving and dance inspiring numbers, slow pop of standard > ballads, and that was it, in terms of popular music. > Classical has been classical. Then in the fifties, two > formations of beat culture formed, one the purists and one > the rebels, and nobody knew which was which. The purists > would be a small group of poet/percussionist pre-jazz > creators of what was called Beatnik music. The rebels > would be those pre-rock creators of rhythm and blues, > rockabilly, the beat as the backbone to the > instrumentation, to the arrangements, guiding the tempo, > emphasizing the drama, in what became known as Rock and > Roll. The difference between Beatniks and Rock and Rollers > were as wide as today Jazz is from Rock and Roll. Beatnik > Jazz, and Dixieland Jazz, plus other Jazz forms are those > music forms which take a seed of feeling and flows down > the river of a consciousness and eminates the sounds of > it, so they both use some of the same terminology, > grooving, in the groove, which is in the place of the flow > of that art. In the early sixties one part of Jazz that > was popular was that which started as a vocal tune of the > old style, and then grew itself into a free-flowing set of > vocalizations which were solo-worthy called Scat. Mel > Torme, Ella Fitzerald, these are the names that were most > on peoples' minds when thinking of Scat artists. But what > Jazz lacks in the bulk of it, due to its very nature, is > order. There is no order, and there is no enforcement of > structure in the regimental beats of rock and roll. But > rock and roll is totally different, in that it lets > someone move and sway to their own feelings. In Jazz, the > artists' feelings stir the pot, in Rock and Roll, the > artists' inspiration spurs the feelings of their audience. > So there is no mystery about rock and roll, just a set of > beats that moves its audience. If you want to add a > mysterious culture to rock and roll, then you are > circumventing the music altogether and creating a > sub-culture which has nothing to do with it. > > > > > > > > >Gone > > !! Totally dead and forgotten... Who killed it ? INTERNET > > !! Yes, i am myself a randomly user of it and probably had > > a different lifestyle if it wasnt there. But look.... just > > google away and you wil find everything you want to know > > about your fave artist. > > No, that is an illusion and a fallacy. We can find only > those things that have not been sufficiently controlled by > the disseminators, or the hosts, or the bots, or the > writers of the web. Then, of those things we can only find > those things that have been written thus far, or uploaded > thus far. Someone who uses the net as extensively as > myself knows the limitations that the internet brings > along with its expansion. I don't have to go to as many > libraries or physical archives as I would have had to if I > was doing my research pre-internet, and I find that there > are physical archives that have treasure troves of worth > beyond what is available on the internet. Further, there > is an element of control on the internet. If someone is > well enough connected they can keep things about them > suppressed, or things that they want suppressed, > suppressed. You think there's limitless resources on the > internet, but there is just a greater sea of resources > than without it. Along with the freedom to post on the > internet so too there is the freedom to defraud on the > internet, and so discernment in our modern society has > become more important than it has ever been in generations > before ours. > > I can find sources which discuss history of my family. On > the internet at various times I could go back and trace > this one's line, or that one's marriage, and how this got > mixed with that, and how this got separated from the > other. I can see the history of my family, only to the > extent that someone allows the history of my family to be > seen. There are those politically positioning themselves > by using one set of propaganda against the advent of > another form of propaganda, against the standard and > recognized forms of historical understandings; and then > there are those who post their stories based on the things > they have heard, but had no particular interest in enough > to look into. Proliferations of untruths are often > masquerading as authoritative. The exercise of knowing the > difference lies in looking into the areas claimed and > finding the proper stream of events, logics and the > histories, which when found on the internet, is found with > difficulty. > > The illusion of information sometimes undermines actual > information. > > > >Everybody knows everything about > > everbody. > > > No, you do not know everything about anybody. You find the > wealth of selected tidbits of everyone that then gives > work to imaginations to form whole structures upon but are > doomed to be different than either everything, or anything > accurate. And many of the tidbits are themselves products > of the processed cheese of misgivings. > > >Not Jimmy, no..... > > Always mr. mystery, mr. mystique, mr. unreachable. > > No, he is not always that. Some people like him to be a > mystery, and so he has created a mystery, and some people > like him to be obscure and so he has created of himself a > stream of obscurity, but he is none of the above. Private, > yes, but in a normal sense, not in an abnormal sense, > given his own will of it. He both likes the background and > the limelight, depending upon how diffused or balanced the > limelight is, and he has chosen to place himself in > diffused limelights, as opposed to blinding swells of > spotlights. > > > >I > > praise him for that. Seven hails to mr. Steinman !! > > Not being aware of situations, you could not know what to > praise him for or not to praise him for. Until you see > what lies in the limelights, or in the world of media > disseminations, media distractions, and media fallacies, > you cannot know what to laud a person for, in or out of > it. There is no substitution for either sympathy, empathy, > or remote respect of someones' individual life. But to > judge someone for the lack of information about them, and > giving them full credit for that, is absurd. > > > > We all have 1000 questions we want to ask him, > > Where are they, where I myself have called upon you to > post questions you would ask Jim? Unreplied. You have no > questions for him that you really want to have answered. > If you have questions for him, ask him questions. Don't > just say you have questions. Don't bullshit that line. > > > >including > > myself. > > Good, ask them. > > > >Just read the board and you get loads of > > interesting questions and wouldnt we all like Jim to > > respond to them. > > If Jim sees you reject his representatives, why should he > put himself out there? I don't see any particularly > interesting questions about Jim. People here are > interested in the music, not about Jim himself. He somehow > has developed here a value that has unreal dimensions, and > that is not appropriate when dealing person-to-person. If > Jim saw really worthy questions to answer, he may answer > them without going through me. But in the meantime, > whether you particularly enjoy it or not, I'm it to the > extent he isn't. > > > >Hell, yeah ! But then.... what if Jim > > would answer all our desirable questions ? Where's the > > mystique ? Where's the fantasy ? > > Mystique and fantasy are destroyers in the context where > they destroy realities. There are those fantasies which > inspire, and those fantasies which destroy. The kind of > fantasy you demand is destructive to reality, and the idea > that this fantasy would be desirable over reality is > insanity. > > > > > >What if there is nothing > > left to dream about ? > > Rock and roll dreams come through...there is always > something magic, there is always something new. > > > > >Jim gets it, oh yes. > > > How do you know Jim gets what? How do you even know he > knows how to put bread into a toaster? Well, he does, but > how do you know it? > > > >He knows the > > true meaning and essence of Rock N Roll. THE MYSTERY. THE > > FANTASY. And he is the ultimate king of it ! Seven hails > > to JIM STEINMAN !!! > > You are bullshitting rocks, not listening to rock. > > > > > > Sorry if i bored you all to death with this... But just > > had to get it of my chest, heheh. > > When you have finished getting this off of your chest, try > to put some smarts into your head. > > > > > > > And yes, i am crazy.... crazy about jim's songs that is. > > > > As I've said. You abandon Jim for something that is not of > this world. When you do, really do see this, you will see > that doing so cuts you off from yourself. Not just about > Jim, but about everything. > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jim Steinman on MTV Cribs - pidunk 09:45 am UTC 06/12/07 |
| Next: | re: Jim Steinman on MTV Cribs - Markus 05:06 pm UTC 06/12/07 |
| Thread: |
|