Aye, Gary, I wuz right, didn I tell you that them was a loada ladymen, like, and couldn't play fer toffee?
I mean, they crack-on like they was proper fellas but you only had to look, like, at the shorts and you could see that they 'ad some proper tackle doon there. Wossat. Ah, yeah, s'pose yer right, 'adn't thoughta that, like; aye, yer reet, bonnie lad, they would have, wooden they? My mistake. But even so, the supporters, they was ladymen to a man, they was,
all that make-up an' fake tits an' what not. 'Snothin' gets my goat like a ladyman, Gary; did it never 'appen t'you? You know, you got yer arm round this gorgeous bird, 'avin a few drinks after the match, you been 'avin' a reet good snog and you slip yer hand into the penalty area an' fuck me there's meat an two potatoes? Never 'appen to you?
Can't say it did, Al, can't say it did.
But was this in Brazil, Rio?
Nay, lad, it were in Rusty's gay bar, in N'cassul, like.
'Slike that most Fridays. An' Satdays.
You should gi' it a go, like, Gary, they sell crisps.
You should gi' it a go, like, Gary, they sell crisps.
But that bloke, that cunt, wossisname, ishmael - what sort of a fuckin' name is that anyroad, is he a fuckin' foreigner? - that bloke as is writing this, he says we gorra play this record, like, for the defeated nation of Ladyman, might bring 'em some comfort, like, after bein' handed their arses by the Super Race. Fair's fair, lessfaceit, Gaz, they 'ad some good points, them Jerries. An' he says it's one a his favourite quartets, whatever one a them is; is it like a, you know, a threesome, only better, with more cocks, not that I'm a big fan a cocks or owt, an' he says that even though it were turned into a national anthem it's a sublime imagining, what can, like, move us all. He says this here is a movement from the Kaiser or Emperor quartet, by some Herman called Haydn. Is that like in Haydn Seek, do you think, Gary? Only we play that, down Rusty's, of a Friday, hide'n'seek each other marbles, like; reet bonny, somea them lads, I mean lassies.
23 comments:
What's Portuguese for Schadenfreude?
verge//
Ah yes, the Keiserlied. The panzers are encircling the Maracana as we speak.
Shearer and Haydn? I propose Savage and Schubert. I was listening to / watching Jacqueline Du Pre with Barenboim and Zukerman on Youtube- all beautiful and brilliant and young. My God, what a loss she was.
Isn't it great, youtube? I go to the odd concert but would never consider adding to my purchased music collection, which has been under the stairs for years, now, anyway. And I don't care about musicians making money or not, let them do it for the love, amateur, like the rest of us.
A nurse is paid for her shift, not for every breath a saved patient takes. Everytime someone whistles Yesterday, Paul McCartney and his publishers would like to charge them. It is one of the scandals of the age, ever-extended copyright and so-called intellectual property rights. Greedy fucking bastards.
It is a lesson learned anew everytime someone has their decades old stuff taken down from youtube.
Picking up on your remarks re McCartney Mr I; PM wrote that bit of music. It's as much his property as if he bought a house and rented out the rooms. On the basis of your reasoning as implied in your comment, it appears that anyone should be able to live there rent-free once PM had paid off the mortgage.
However, no-one is forced to live in that house and no broadcaster or performer has to use "Yesterday". Moreover, I don't think (and, presumably, nor do you) that PM is looking to extend his rights to cover casual whistling of his works.
Meanwhile, a nurse has no property in her patients: she's paid to take care of them and is paid for her time in doing so. In the same way PM is paid for his time when he performs on stage.
PM doesn't own, nor does he claim to own, the audience. His rewards for appearing in front of an audience come through the sale of tickets at the box office not the Performing Right Society.
I'd agree with you that PM and his publishers look greedy but there'll always be an argument over the length and extent of copyright. OTOH it seems to me that you're more greedy than PM. He just wants to be paid for the fruit of his labour: you want something for nothing.
I'm not greedy at all, mr umbungo, anything here comes free of charge, From Me - and everyone else - To You.
If you believe that creativity is anything other than the brief, distilled capture of everyone and everwhen and that it can be owned in perpetuity by its conduit then you are better off immersed in the cheese-paring, nit-picking hair-splittings of the law, than in art or in Life.
Soounds, mr mongoose, like a simple love song, that happened to you.
Well Mr I, you freely offer this site for reading and comment and thanks for that. Nevertheless, if you wished, you could charge for providing the site. As it happens you don't charge but, if you did, and I was able somehow to avoid the charge and read it nevertheless, I'd be guilty of theft.
As it happens "creativity" is not universally gifted. I didn't write the McCartney songbook and nor did you. Although I appreciate that, in some sense, all the products of creativity are derivative, neither you nor I are capable of replicating PM's work.
PM is lucky, of course, but his talent is his own. He is entitled to exploit it in any legal way he sees fit. Moreover, however unsatisfactory copyright law might be, nobody is justified in simply expropriating the benefits created by PM's talent. Such expropriation is particularly egregious under the pretext that what PM has achieved "really" belongs to all of us because he is a passive conduit of some mystical universal creativity.
Paul McCartney is a talentless cock. The one with the talent got shot.
Anybody who gives him money for his dire warbling wants their head looking into.
RE the copyright thing. A wide dispersal of music on sites like YT allows people to 'try before they buy'. I have very often heard a track on YT and then bought it. I doubt I would have done if I had not heard it first. These 'artistes' really are greedy. Those like McCartney are millionaires, hundreds of times over, mostly just for being in the right place at the right time, and yet still want more, still think they are being hard done to.
I'd have that prick working for minimum wage in a smelly factory. See how he likes that for a job. If I make a chair, and sell it, I don't expect to get paid for next 100 years, every time someone sits in it.
Vincent
You would never get to the stage,mr umbungo, of being guilty of theft because I could never charge for entry; the place, you see, would not exist without you. Just as the Lennon-McCartney song book would not exist without me. Those two rather unpleasant Scousers only wrote the songs down, it was I, we, everyman who, by listening, made them what they have become. And no matter how hard the lawyers try they will eventually and rightly become common property, back in the melting pot. It cannot be otherwise.
I don't deny that your legalistic support of copyright, is accurately expressed, but it is wrong, an Eviltude.
And I agree that the assertion of a mystical universal creativity, as you reprise my point, is, at first glance, fanciful but I would invite you to think about it a little further, particularly with consideration of the rewards given, today, to those fortunate enough to be its instrument. The labourer is worth his hire, for sure. Just not endlessly.
Whence cometh the Blues but from the psalms of King David yet Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones paid nought to the Bible, much less to the poor black singers still alive whilst Plant and Page ripped them off.
The field songs of rural England, the Copper Family songbook, the archives of Cecil Sharpe House enriched Fairport Convention, Steeleye Span; Carthy, Thompson, Prior, John Martyn, Joan Baez especially and countless others, to whom did they all pay royalties?
Now, you may argue that the Fabsters drew not on these local traditions and that their sources were Transatlantic, but whatever the locale their beneficiaries are obliged. Indeed, late in the day, Sir Paul confesses that Little Richard taught him everything he knows - and he did - yet he pays him nothing for inspiration, nor Buddy Holly or Jerry Lee Lewis... it is as though the well spring from which they and their muses drew - The Everlys Tenneseean Celtic HillBilly; Little Richard's Gospel Church testifying and Buddy Holly's silvery Tex-Mex rockabilly were not actually just re-packaged People's music, folk music, not actually part of a wide oral tradition, lamentation, celebration, lust and infidelity, but that these common, eternal themes, once repackaged in a seven-inch single became copyrightable, we own this sequence of three-chords and a relative mninorable.
This is a phenomenon of our greedy times,this; this is as bad as the Enclosures Acts, the privatisation of the common by the greedy. We differ, here, mr umbungo, there and everywhere
He is, mr vincent, a passing gifted musician. His bass lines and vocal harmonies on the pre-Sgt Pepper records are glorious, I think, the songs themselves charming, magically captivating. Pepper, of course with its gross, overblown, bombastic, druggy doggerel destroyed rock'n'roll for ever, inviting copycat double and triple concept albums of unspeakable, pretentious banality.
I must say I cared for nothing any of them released after that. And I thought that Fab Macca's - and MediaMinster's - treatment of his second wife was contemptible, a reprise of Brian and Diana - both of them a bit dodgy, both with a kangaroo loose in the top paddock - but such an abuse of power, of media influence, by one.
"I have very often heard a track on YT and then bought it. I doubt I would have done if I had not heard it first. These 'artistes' really are greedy."
That's so true, me and mr mongoose have deplored the fact that cultural icon, spokesman of a generation, finger on the pulser and literary giant, Bob Dylan, deploys packs of lawyers to remove his stuff from YT, lest it be studied and compared, freely. Man's a cunt, no matter how many roads he walks down.
I have a soft spot for Dylan. Now he really is talented. Same old greed as Macca though.
I loathe PM. Try as I might, I can find no talent in HIS work. He's a collaborator, a hanger-on, kind of like the kid who plays the triangle in the school orchestra, just Christmas tinsel, superfluous. He did it with Lennon, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Johnny Cash, et very many al.
FFS Mull of Kintyre!!! Vanilla Sky!!! Bleuughhhh!!!
How much of a cock is McCartney? His wife only had one leg and she still ran off.
Vincent
I am steeped in Dylan, up until a couple of albums back, when I just decided that a multi millionaire, hobnobbing with Obama and co had nothing to say to me, not that I wanted to hear, much less buy.
That's right, about Mull of Kintyre and so on but those early Lennon Mac songs, Eight days a Week, Baby's in Black, Saw Her Standing There, I'm a Loser, they were and are amazing, if you haven't heard them for awhile, give 'em a spin, revived forty-five, disinterred thirty-three-and-a-third.
Mr Umbongo: whats your position on Google; scanning all books and works of art? Royalty free.
I was forced to endure Dylan in my yoof - otherwise it would have been difficult to get one's leg over (16 year olds, mutually consenting, at the time, so I think that make me a historic paedo). Frankly Dylan was anti-viagra as far as I was concerned, the whiney git. Obvious, even in my callow youth, that he was a phony, only after the money.
PS went out with a jewish girl at the time of the 6-day war. That really turned her on.
Mr Mike: contrary to what I assume Mr I believes, I'm not a lawyer but, if the works copied are not in the public domain or Google doesn't have the permission of the copyright holder, then in general terms Google is not entitled to copy them and make them available free to all and sundry.
Just teasing, mr umbongo.
I think that google claims some sort of vague pro bono-ism attaches to its efforts to copy everything and does, in fact, work closely with and has the approval of the great libraries of the world and has invented the most fantaastical page-turning machines in order to rapidly - in the blink of an eye, almost - digitise the most fragile and ancient manuscripts. If only they'd just pay their taxes with as much diligence as they protect Fab Macca's royalties, eh?
No thoughts, I see, yet, on the cultural and anthropological Enclosures Acts of Tin Pan Alley et al.
I understand Prince is another who ensures none of his songs are allowed on youtube. Since his gripe seems to be (Or seemed to have been) with the record company earning a bigger percentage off his art than he did hence the slave symbology…one would have thought that said record company would be shafted proportionately..and that would be ok in his book.
MP, rolling stones et al…it’s business. It’s a business model that’s followed to get them into the market. They’re on a percentage of sales and ready to sue for encroachment on their territory.
If an artist is more concerned with receiving royalties from his work he’s a businessman
Hoodwinking I call it.
Yes, the Stones are at least and at last open about that, Jagger, anyway, calling it all a large commercial operation; Keef, one of musical history's most blatant and successful larcenists, clings, like the decrepit junky he is, to his self-image as an old itinerant Bluesman. Dunno which of these two monsters is the worst, both of them, probably.
It was Lester Bangs who wrote something to the effect of You can't be in rock'n'roll AND have a recording contract, it's not like it's a fucking business.
Marvellous written Geordie, Mr Ishmael. Hilarious. Moving, even =)
It's James Bolam I hear, mt bhs, in When the Boat Comes In; sometimes, he's loud and clear, sometimes, as has happened with stanislav, his voice canna be heard, man, just canna be heard at all.
Post a Comment