Avril Lavigne on Ashlee Simpson

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:41:17 +0000, Laurence Payne
<l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 01:29:17 +1100, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Like many pop artists these days, they know their name on a songwriting
>>credit brings in as much cash as singing the song.
>>Everyone does it, and very few add more than a couple of words. The
>>songwriters go along with it because they know half of a lot, is better than
>>all of nothing.
>
>Nothing new about that. The old-time bandleaders often demanded
>writing credit in return for performances and particularly broadcasts.

Otis Blackwell gave up 50% of the song credit to have Elvis cut his
tunes...

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <feiqr053slmtddpau4164fgb8qie68nqsn@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> Otis Blackwell gave up 50% of the song credit to have Elvis cut his
> tunes...

That was probably a very smart business decision. If he recorded them
himself, he wouldn't have sold anywhere near half the number of
records that Elvis did. It wasn't the songs that were big selling
hits, it was the combination of Elvis and the song that made it so.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

For a pop star? You're thinking she's a disgrace to the memory of Keith
Moon, Johnny Lyndon, and Bob Dylan?

Odd argument though. Consider that nobody loves real saints while they
are alive. We love them when they're dead, so that we can see, in our
admiration of them, a reflection of what we think of ourselves, without
having to put up with the constant comparisons to what they're doing as
opposed to what we're doing.

So if Martin Luther King Jr. made us feel ashamed by proclaiming that he
would not respond to violence with violence, would we accuse him of
trying to be "more appealling to his fans?" When a conservative
Republican proclaims that he admires Martin Luther King Jr., we know
that his ideals have been safely calcified.


johns33040@yahoo.com wrote:
> I just think Avril's social
> skills leaves something lacking for a pop star. And I say that even
> though she presents some talent.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>For a pop star? You're thinking she's a disgrace to the memory of Keith
>Moon, Johnny Lyndon, and Bob Dylan?

I think manufactured popstars are a disgrace to everybody.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

BLCKOUT420 wrote:
>>For a pop star? You're thinking she's a disgrace to the memory of Keith
>>Moon, Johnny Lyndon, and Bob Dylan?
>
>
> I think manufactured popstars are a disgrace to everybody.

Another sad commentary on the current state of affairs:

http/www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/13/dick.clark.replacement/index.html

Regis to host 'New Year's Rockin' Eve'

(CNN) -- Talk show host Regis Philbin will stand in as host of "Dick
Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve 2005," replacing the long-time producer
who is recovering from a stroke.

** As previously announced, recording star Ashlee Simpson will host West
Coast portions of the show.


BLECH!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:325u9oF3hdngcU1@individual.net
> BLCKOUT420 wrote:
>>> For a pop star? You're thinking she's a disgrace to the memory of
>>> Keith Moon, Johnny Lyndon, and Bob Dylan?
>>
>>
>> I think manufactured popstars are a disgrace to everybody.
>
> Another sad commentary on the current state of affairs:
>
> http/www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/13/dick.clark.replacement/index.html
>
> Regis to host 'New Year's Rockin' Eve'
>
> (CNN) -- Talk show host Regis Philbin will stand in as host of "Dick
> Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve 2005," replacing the long-time producer
> who is recovering from a stroke.
>
> ** As previously announced, recording star Ashlee Simpson will host
> West Coast portions of the show.

Remind me about how Dick Clark himself would be a manufactured popstar.

I mean right now he's been around so long he's part of the woodwork, but in
the beginning he was just a radio announcer who got shoved in front of this
mic in a TV studio that was trying to put together this afterschool music
show for teens.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> Remind me about how Dick Clark himself would be a manufactured popstar.
>
> I mean right now he's been around so long he's part of the woodwork, but in
> the beginning he was just a radio announcer who got shoved in front of this
> mic in a TV studio that was trying to put together this afterschool music
> show for teens.

Dick Clark was never a popstar. He is an announcer, and a very good one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

He was more than an announcer. He also promoted music.

"I was making a killing, racing around trying to get all the money I
could. My tentacles went in every direction. I didn't want to let an
opportunity go by."

--Dick Clark, reflections on the recording industry during the late 1950s

I was a child when he first appeared on the air, but I could see even
then that he saw music as a bauble or trinket to be marketted to
impressionable kids.

I don't suppose that alters the fact that he might have had some
technical skill at being a host.

It would be unfair to allow Dick Clark to go down in history as a good
announcer, rather than as an astute but callow promoter. One of Roger
McGuinn's "they're all waiting there/ to sell plasticware".

And actually, as for "astute"-- he utterly missed the significance of
the Beatles. You might say everybody else did too, but, in fact, Ed
Sullivan didn't. Clark also thought MTV would die a quick death.

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
>> Remind me about how Dick Clark himself would be a manufactured popstar.
>>
>> I mean right now he's been around so long he's part of the woodwork,
>> but in the beginning he was just a radio announcer who got shoved in
>> front of this mic in a TV studio that was trying to put together this
>> afterschool music show for teens.
>
>
> Dick Clark was never a popstar. He is an announcer, and a very good one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> He was more than an announcer. He also promoted music.

Agreed.


> And actually, as for "astute"-- he utterly missed the significance of
> the Beatles. You might say everybody else did too, but, in fact, Ed
> Sullivan didn't.

I doubt that Sullivan could have foreseen the significance either.

> Clark also thought MTV would die a quick death.

Sadly he was mistaken. MTV should have died a quick death...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well, my point is that Sullivan heard about them, saw their fans waiting
for them at the airport in London, looked into them, and decided that
they were important enough to bring over to North America for their
debut on network television (Jack Paar had shown a tape previously, not
in prime time).

Dick Clark was too busy promoting Fabian and Frankie Avalon at the time
to notice. He never did have either the Beatles or Elvis.

I've never actually heard an authoritative explanation of why. Maybe
they wouldn't agree to lip synch.

Joe Sensor wrote:

>
> I doubt that Sullivan could have foreseen the significance either.
>
>> Clark also thought MTV would die a quick death.
>
>
> Sadly he was mistaken. MTV should have died a quick death...

 

[Brian]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <325u9oF3hdngcU1@individual.net>, Joe Sensor
<crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote:

> ** As previously announced, recording star Ashlee Simpson will host West
> Coast portions of the show.

I'm not sure which is worse, that she was *anyone's* pick to host this
thing, or that they're calling her a "recording star"...

For cripes sake, she's a completely talentless trollop who's struggling
(at best) to ride her nearly-as-talentless sister's coattails to
celebrity. And the sheeple of America are buying into it.

Sickening when you really think about it... it's so painfully obvious
that her record company is footing the bill to someone to let her
"host" the show.

Sigh...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Brian wrote:

> For cripes sake, she's a completely talentless trollop who's struggling
> (at best) to ride her nearly-as-talentless sister's coattails to
> celebrity. And the sheeple of America are buying into it.

Sounds a lot like politics in America, don't it? As usual, money trumps
all else. And the masses don't even know they are being bought. And sold.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
>
> Sounds a lot like politics in America, don't it? As usual, money trumps
> all else. And the masses don't even know they are being bought. And sold.

Hell, it's life in America in hundreds of arena's. More
power to her.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:35:10 -0600, Joe Sensor <crabcakes@emagic.net>
wrote:

>Sounds a lot like politics in America, don't it? As usual, money trumps
>all else. And the masses don't even know they are being bought. And sold. <snip>

The proof's now living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue along with his
neocon toadies.

dB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 13 Dec 2004 09:49:05 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <feiqr053slmtddpau4164fgb8qie68nqsn@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> Otis Blackwell gave up 50% of the song credit to have Elvis cut his
>> tunes...
>
>That was probably a very smart business decision.

It was standard practice when Col. Parker mangaged Elvis... they took
the publishing for Elvis Presley music and demanded half writers'
credit, or something like that.

If he recorded them
>himself, he wouldn't have sold anywhere near half the number of
>records that Elvis did. It wasn't the songs that were big selling
>hits, it was the combination of Elvis and the song that made it so.

Otis would probably have done OK regardless, he was a great writer...
he also wrote Breathless and Great Balls Of Fire for Jerry Lee Lewis.

Al

 

[Brian]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> >Sounds a lot like politics in America, don't it? As usual, money trumps
> >all else. And the masses don't even know they are being bought. And sold.

> The proof's now living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue along with his
> neocon toadies.

Not that I am a Bush supporter in any way, but Kerry is no better. Both
major parties are driven by special interests (or, more specifically,
special interest dollars) and don't care one iota (not even one!) for
you or me or any other common schlep.

Had Kerry won the election you could easily replace the above with "the
proof's now living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue along with his radical
leftwing toadies" and the point would be *exactly* the same. The
problems with the system, with the country, extend much deeper than a
simple black-or-white, left vs. right, religious vs. secular umbrella
argument could ever hope to show.

Unfortunately no one these days seems to realize that, they're too busy
buying into the "we're absolutely right, they're absolutely wrong"
dogma of their (ill-)chosen side.

Brian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:47:41 -0500, Brian <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> WRONG!
>
> You may continue to think that way, but history has proven you wrong
> time and time again. The very concept that one party is absolute 'good'
> and the other 'evil' is inherently flawed; neither party is 100%
> responsible for the problems we face, nor is either party providing a
> 100% solution. How you can think otherwise I don't know, as there is
> nothing to indicate this is the case - the current GOP is certainly
> heading on a disasterous course, no doubt, but the Democrats who
> preceded them weren't walking in the rose garden, either.
>

Indeed.

The most feared words in US English ought to be "Broad Bipatisan
Support."

It's what "No Child", "War in Iraq", "PATRIOT" and a host of other
infrigements on individual liberty and States rights all have in common:

Broad Bipartisan Support.

I'm not entirely convinced that a complete moratorium on legislation
would be a Bad Thing. Have there been any new crimes invented in all of
human history?

I'd bet that "Theft", "Assault", "Fraud", and "Murder" cover most
contingencies.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:52:06 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles
Krug"@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:47:41 -0500, Brian <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> WRONG!
>>
>> You may continue to think that way, but history has proven you wrong
>> time and time again. The very concept that one party is absolute 'good'
>> and the other 'evil' is inherently flawed; neither party is 100%
>> responsible for the problems we face, nor is either party providing a
>> 100% solution. How you can think otherwise I don't know, as there is
>> nothing to indicate this is the case - the current GOP is certainly
>> heading on a disasterous course, no doubt, but the Democrats who
>> preceded them weren't walking in the rose garden, either.
>>
>
>Indeed.
>
>The most feared words in US English ought to be "Broad Bipatisan
>Support."
>
>It's what "No Child", "War in Iraq", "PATRIOT" and a host of other
>infrigements on individual liberty and States rights all have in common:
>
>Broad Bipartisan Support.
>
>I'm not entirely convinced that a complete moratorium on legislation
>would be a Bad Thing. Have there been any new crimes invented in all of
>human history?
>
>I'd bet that "Theft", "Assault", "Fraud", and "Murder" cover most
>contingencies.

Don't forget "corruption".

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hge4s0ttol37f47qm192f6fo3rp31s4mfl@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:52:06 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles
> Krug"@aol.com> wrote:
> >I'd bet that "Theft", "Assault", "Fraud", and "Murder" cover most
> >contingencies.
>
> Don't forget "corruption".

That's just theft and fraud. Actually fraud is just a type of theft anyway,
and murder is just an extreme form of assault.
It all boils down to two types of crime in the end, personal and property.
It's the minor detail that keeps changing.

TonyP.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play-on" <playon@ATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:a4ter0p376lonk2vb6lh6fdi6l8pl4r745@4ax.com...
> I don't know how many teens you know but Avril doesn't seem that out
> of line to me. She also displays a lot more talent than Ashlee
> Simpson IMO.

Yeah, but ten times zero is..... zero.

TonyP.