>> I always found King Crimson to a bit "heady" and a >little >> "pretentious". >> It is "heady" only to cranial lightweights. >> RAT > > Roman, I'm thinking of making my own ornament of " Thick As A > Brick", or "Teacher," or "Living in The Past" All by Jerthro Tull .And > dedicating it to you. > Any ideas anyone? JT is fine. Just no The Huh, please. RT
> > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "gary digman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 2:02 PM > Subject: Re: sketches of spain lute > > >>>> I am not a big jazz fan, but Strayhorn's "Daydream" is as >great a > piece of >>>> music as anything classical. >>>> And having "The Who???" in the same paragraph is >preposterous. >>>> The only R&R entity that ever could stand up to classical >and be > judjed >>>> (favorably) on classical terms was KingCrimson's >LIZARD. >>>> RT >>> >>> I always found King Crimson to a bit "heady" and a little >>> "pretentious". >> It is "heady" only to cranial lightweights. >> RT >> >> >> ________________ >> http://polyhymnion.org >> >> >>> Rock musicians, with too much knowledge, can be a dangerous >>> combination. >>> Unless you happen to be a heady, pretentious, self infatuated, imaginary >>> composer. In which case one would be attracted to this kind of blues >>> butchery, and classify it as good classical music. >>> Michael Thames >>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "gary digman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 6:39 AM >>> Subject: Re: sketches of spain lute >>> >>> >>>>> Dear Jim; >>>>> >>>>> I do. I need jazz. I don't need the Who. That's just me. However, I >>>>> don't need every expression of jazz that's put out. I'm not going to > try >>> to >>>>> tell you that you should need jazz or that you should need the jazz I > >>> like. >>>>> There's something for everybody. I don't know why we seem to find it >>>>> necessary to belittle each other's tastes in order to promote our own. >>> The >>>>> whole argument seems to come down to the idea that what I like is good >>> and >>>>> what I don't like is bad in some objective sense. So far no one has >>> managed >>>>> to articulate what objectively makes the Who good and Charlie Parker >>>> I am not a big jazz fan, but Strayhorn's "Daydream" is as great a piece > of >>>> music as anything classical. >>>> And having "The Who???" in the same paragraph is preposterous. >>>> The only R&R entity that ever could stand up to classical and be judjed >>>> (favorably) on classical terms was KingCrimson's LIZARD. >>>> RT >>>> >>>> -- >>>> http://polyhymnion.org/torban >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To get on or off this list see list information at >>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
