DISQUS

Viscount,

On this thread, re: Pete Townshend, http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/02/28/pete-tow...

Tom proves my point, unless my latest post has again been removed.

This is serious business. Unles there is libel or defamation, or someone is threatening another, info online shd be left- good, bad, or indifferent. This is part of free discourse, and what the Internet is all about. Yes, it leads to porno and spam, but it also leads to occasional wisdom. To act as censor is shameful.

Tom,

A visionary, by definition, is a soloist. To require a second party means that there is no singular vision. That the Lennon-McCartney duo wrote together dispels the claim.

Also, visionaries have a transformative effect in their work. There is the Einsteinian universe, The Dalian POV in painting, etc. There is no Lennonian whatever.

Steverino is correct, that their post-Beatles stuff proves that neither man, alone, was anything but an average songwriter. Another knock against viisionary. And frankly, Wingsm despite mediocrity, was far better than any Lennon projects. That atrocious last album was execrable. Ringo did better in a caveman suit.

As for the hagiography about the Beatles. If you lop off the last thirty years of crap, the Stones match the Beatles for classics, and were more diverse. The Who was more diverse, and in terms of musicality and lyrics, Led Zeppelin was king of Classic Rock. The Beatles were pop.

Not a one of the Beatles could match a Jimmy Page or Pete Townshend's musicality.

Viscount, a lyricist relies on the music for emotion, whereas a poet's words have to do all the work. This is why song lyrics are larded with cliches. Even a Jim Morrison, prob the best lyricist of the rock era, was a lousy poet.

Viscount. This is the real world. Books that have been considered classics are removed for refs re: sex, race, religion, etc. and it's Leftists. Ask teachers.

'Hate speech' is often the cover for the sotto voce fascism. The Left is every bit as intolerant as the right, and in the arts that's only amplified.

PC is a sick dogma, every bit as destructive as Right Wing Christian BS.

And boycotts of things are merely de facto bannings, because they often force others to ban things.

Paul was the better lyricist, but a lousy poet.

But visionary? Uh, Einstein, Picasso, Lennon....something's amiss, Skipper.

Well, you can agree w the quote, but it's still biased.

That said, you are correct re: the Blair thing. Don't know if you're an Am or Brit, but in the USA I tire of the bastardization of words in general, and esp. politics.

Libs and Cons are no longer what they really are. A true conservative, as example, wd support abortion rights straight down the line, and not give a damn about gays and who sleeps w whom. Yet the people who obsess over sex the most in this country are not Libs but Cons. They are therefore Right Wingers and extremists, not the reverse.

But so-called Liberals are as bad. In the last two decades 90% of the calls for banned books have come from the Left. Yes, there are nuts who still want all sexual refs removed from books, but when a work w a racist term, or a term about gays or any ethnic group- save Christians, comes up, it's always a so-called Liberal behind it.

The same bastardization has taken place w Feminists- who no longer are concerned with the overall plight of women, but have painted themselves into a corner w a narrow Lesbian agenda. Libertatians in the US are a joke. They are not true Libertarians, but shills for corporations and deregulation, whereas any true Libertarian acknowledges that Corporate power is an even bigger threat to the individual's liberty than the government is.

It's insane, but people have been so narcotized by Ipods, DVDs, cable TV, MP3s, etc., that nothing really moves them. An election is stolen, a war that is not just is launched, the gov'y tries to usurp a husband's right to carry out his wife's final wishes, and on and on, and people just accep the crap, because they gotta watch American Idol or Desperate Housewives.

Sad.

Also, the site is less a conservative site than a Fundy Christian site, and there's really a diff.

B Tween: 'John Stuart Mills once said “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative”

1st off, it's Mill, not Mills. 2nd- libs and cons are generally not positions arrived at via cogitation, but by predisposition, so intellect has little to do with it. Just as smart men do not necessarily prefer redheads to blonds or brunets.

When it comes to such temperamental things, people usually feel somthing, then rationalize it intellectually.

Mill's quote is as biased as those he tries to lampoon.

This is why democracy is antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge. The best have to be employed in whatever field.

Not too oddly. Left Wing PC has much in common w its ideological opposite, as proven with this nonsense.

Esoth: Bingo!

John, Sean's not exactly known for his intellect.

The Encomium album really was not good. The Rasta version of Zep was at least funny.

Tony, try living in Texas, and you'll see much more than that.

Claire- allone has to do is act retarded, be defiled or indignant, and Oscar comes acallin'.

Oliver over 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Ralph: Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas.

I'd disagree w Chinatown- Polanski's done much better. That was a bit overrated. In '74 The Conversation was the Best Picture.

Kit Stoltz mentions a Tokyo Story from Babel.

It's been years since there was actually a nominee as good as the actual film Tokyo Story, by Yasujiro Ozu.

THAT is as perfect a film as ever made.

Oh, good. I was wondering if I was posting wrongly, cuz of the italics.

It will get worse, then better. Human nature shows that bottoms must be scraped b4 ascent starts.

Jennifer Hudson wins an Oscar? C'mon, it's a joke, just as a 6 year old being nominated in the suporting actress category.

Then again, idiots in Washington think a career poetaster like Donald Hall shd be Poet Laureate. Art's so hip, now.

Holy Cow, it's still going? I wonder how many readers it gets?

City For Conquest was my dad's fave film. Perhaps JC never got babes as hot as Bogey, but Bogey couldn't sing and dance and Bogey was always Bogey- JC had greater range. JC could have done all of Bogey's roles, but Bogey in White Heat? More like Lukewarm Tan. C'mon!

Taxi Driver's great, but De Niro really had to stretch for KOC, and so did Scorsese. After Hours is also a great film, and comedy.

With great films it's always arguable, but getting out of one's comfort zone, testing oneself, and still kicking ass is a bonus. In that sense, TD's not much a strecth as KOC is.

It's why Another Woman is a greater Woody Allen film than Annie Hall.

No, do the right thing and give to the best film- which prob even is not one of the five nominated- lest there will be future Scorseses.

As for QT- Jackie Brown's by far his best film- the only one with real characterizations.

Marty will deserve his career Oscar- but call it that- not his 3rd rate crap. Marty needs to get lean and mean, and make some low budget films that will reawaken his energy level- lest we see more Aviators!

BTW- his best film was prob King Of Comedy, although he has 5 or 6 really great films.

Sorry, but Jimmy Cagney could kick Bogey's ass from here to eternity.

And he did in Angels W Dirty Faces

I know that last tv series was supposed to answer that q- but I never watched it. After all, after the first show, was any of the rest necessary?