FDW said... http://www.ulapoetryandfiction.blogspot.com/New piece by Andrew Lovatt, editor of Deaddrunkdublin.com up, at ULA P&F Blog. with an added feature of a link to original music by the authur posted on the Main web site.2/15/2008 09:19:00 AM
Otherwise: Paul McCarthy or Elvis Presleyit's really hard to care which.
Elvis for sure.
mccartney for sure. ringo starr sings now, and he's gawd-awful. i can't stand the guy from nickelback, either.
So the Times published its piece about the CIA and the Paris Review. And what do you know? The New York Times reported on it first in . . . wait for it . . . 1977! Way to break that story, King! And that when it was revealed . . . Plimpton was angry as hell with Peter Matthieson! And . . . wait for it . . . lots of writers were infuriated! Finally, Matthieson only used the Paris Review as a cover for his boy spy activities. Yes, it was never funded or controlled by the CIA. Oh, well. Fun delusion while it lasted, King.
The Times broke a story about CIA, Paris Review what ever in '77.But the ULA and King busted their cherry in '06 and '07 via Cummings and the later the Loonvilles. So what's yo mama?
Worst singer is any singer in a band period. If they think that doing the same thing after 40+ years is innovative or new, they are wrong. No music is more safe and sanitized then the conservative band format. Bands even make sex drugs and rock and roll dull!
???But Matthiessen's recent revelation was that he DID receive money from the CIA to found Paris Review.What were these "spy" activities Matthiessen was engaged in?Why was the start-up of Paris Review so similar to what happened with Encounter magazine?Why was there such an outcry by intellectuals over THAT revelation, but not over the Paris Review one?Could it simply be that that one occurred overseas? That literary intellectuals are much tamer here?As regards George Plimpton being "shocked; shocked!" over the revelations-- this ignores his own background-- very similar to Matthiessen's in many ways. Circa 1950, the CIA were looked at the good guys-- heirs of the OSS which had fought fascism in Europe. The CIA consisted of the New England "WASP Brotherhood" if you will-- amateur liberal adventurers from monied backgrounds, many with a fondness of poetry. Plimpton fits that profile perfectly.To think Matthiessen wouldn't have told him what was happening is absurd. There was a reason that Matthiessen recruited George Plimpton to begin with.Let's keep in mind also that George Plimpton's OWN FATHER, Francis T.P. Plimpton, was very high up in American government during the Cold War, involved in the discussions and happenings during such things as the Cuban Missile Crisis.Are we to believe that his own son was an imbecile who knew nothing of what his closest relatives and friends were doing?Why are you so afraid of the truth?All you're saying is that Richard Cummings was correct, and that James Linville may owe Cummings an apology.
Re: topic.Elvis Presley had an excellent voice when he wanted to use it.Listen to his own version of "Yesterday" and compare it to the original. Presley's was far better, with more emotion.Even in Presley's dying days he could transcend the songs-- listen to his live version of "Unchained Melody" peformed at one of his last concerts. He accompanies himself on piano, and goes beyond every other version.(I was expecting, oh, Bono, or Sting, or Rod Stewart, or a host of others.)
If fifty years from now, people are saying that Bono is the king of rock and roll and using his face as an icon for phony rebellion, then maybe he'll be as overrated as Elvis.
??? Unlike the Beatles-- or Bono-- no one is using Elvis as an icon for rebellion. Most people know he sold out very quickly. If anything the widespread scorn shown for him indicates that in some ways he's underrated-- except among the masses who buy Weekly World News and get married in Vegas.Presley was one of the few rock stars (Jackie Wilson another) who could actually sing-- Elvis's initial ambition was to be a gospel singer. What made him unique was that he synthesized in his person all the various streams of American roots music-- country, rhythmn and blues, and gospel, but also Tin Pan Alley and what passed for "pop" music in that time, through modeling himself in part after stars like Dean Martin. Elvis's popularity opened the door for all the roots artists of his time and for everyone who followed. It's difficult to overstate his importance. (Bono himself acknowledges it.)I've used Elvis as a model for the hyper-talent that the print underground needs to crash open the door of culture.An irony-- rock n roll started out as a music of the masses. It was scorned in the universities, who preferred such things as their version of folk music. Only later, through the acceptance of singers like Bob Dylan, did rock gain acceptance from the elites.Elvis, in other words, has come full circle; popular among the people if not the new generation of intellectuals who don't understand this culture's history.
Maybe, but he's still overrated.
Post a Comment