(1028). Approaching brunch. (1322)
15. Moosh corner
14. Coronation Street weighs in
13. Conscientious objection
To my mind, it depends on the reason. In my rugby days, the coach wanted us to hate the opposition for the duration of the game, then have a drink with them after. In early military days, to my mind it didn’t much matter where I was deployed … not so now I’ve lived in some of those countries, made friends.
Some countries I’ve not lived in, have no intention of, don’t like their lifestyle, their savagery. Then we get to those we don’t mind so much but they want us dead or raped … sadly, they’ve cast their vote, their behaviour now determines our response.
12. From the recent Monkeywerx comments thread … IYE
11. The Animals
Occasionally, the leftwing Quora can be useful, for example:
“The Animals were always an uneasy alliance. Looks like Alan Price had his eyes on a solo career from the get-go. Chas Chandler told a story that, the morning Price received his first royalties for ‘House of the Rising Sun’, he immediately went to the management and resigned! Two days before an American tour! Eric Burdon and Chas became two the two pillars of the rest of the band and it wasn’t long before Burdon was fronting The New Animals and Chas came back home to start a very nice career in band management … Jimi Hendrix and Slade… you may have heard of them.”
All right … common thing back then … if you had more than one drawcard, then there’d be ambition and tension. But what about a unipolar band, such as CCR, Dire Straits, Ian Dury, Mink de Ville, it goes on? In that case, it seems to be that eventually the band would rebel, mutiny, e.g. CCR.
And it was particularly the case if the main man or gal (Bangles) dominated and the rest of the band, each who could play very well in him/herself, often from former bands, found themselves playing excellent second fiddle.
Then you had the purist leader of the band, supposedly only in it for the creativity, provided there was enough money to pay the bills and some more. Mark Knopfler claimed that later in the band’s era.
What’s been left out of the equation so far is the listeners, the ones paying the money for the albums and concerts in those days. What about those poor sods, the fans? Most latch onto some phase of the band … for me, it was early Talking Heads, not that later World at War type stage act with dancers … they lost me then, particularly when it became acrimonious.
Then there are those not having a bar of a genre, whilst I’m sure there must be some good examples in each, except maybe post year 2000. Classical? Renaissance man? Blues? Jazz? Which jazz?
As far as the bands go it is just human nature. The difference here it is out in the open and highly visible. The lead always things the band is them. The others can be replaced. There are very few who don’t think this and those are where all the members play their part. Even then people want more, recognition, money, credit, power….
As far as the chemtrails go, surely it can’t be that difficult to find out where the funding is coming from. We know who flies the planes, or can find out, who pays them and follow the money. I suspect it might be better to prosecute them for poisoning people. Once they start going behind bars the will soon stop.
We need to get more agressive in our responses.
……
JH: Right, lead the way, m’lud … we’re right behind you!