We welcome your feedback.|
JOHN COMMENTS ON EVERYTHING
What's up? I heard a buzzing emanating from the letters Column over the last couple weeks so I thought I'd chime in.
1.) The Beatles - I love the band but I really had no use for them after Rubber Soul. The innocence of their early material is what helped sell the band.MACK'S FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER
2.) This one goes out to Phil. If you'd look up in the sky once in a while instead of burying your nose in a trash pile looking for snakes maybe you might be the next person to see a U. F. O. (LOL) (Re: "Phil F. Rebukes Nolan's UFO Theory", last issue. Holey Moley!! THAT'S the "Phil Frank" who's been writing me??? I didn't think it was the same guy! Heck, I'll fill in his last name from now on--no more "Phil F"...LOL! Phil, BUDDY, where have you been??---Nolan)
3.) This one's for you, Nolan. Why are we in Iraq. (Re: "Iraq Revisited", PCR 183---N) Simple, it's a matter of Geography. Iraq and Afghanistan have opressed the peoples of their countries for years. Terrorism begins to grow and fester, spilling out into the rest of the world. Who sits right in between these two oppressed nations. Oh gee, it's Iran. They are growing, becoming more powerful. They also have screwed with us as well. You know; The Embassy, The Prisoners, Our dead soldiers displayed for us to see on television after a botched rescue attempt. Iran is moving into the nuclear age and could prove to be a real problem in the not-to-distant future. By controlling those "oppressed countries" on either side puts us in a good position to answer any call Iran might make.
(Further bolstering what I said, which is our stated reasons for being over there now are lies---this is all about strategic initiatives. Positioning. Imperialism. Looking back, it's all obvious now. So, what, we couldn't handle the truth? And in what context does 9/11 belong now?---N)
4.) Iraq's illustrious leader; where is he??????????? We either offed him in that first attack or he opened a Stargate and got out of Dodge. Remember, that area of the world is highly mystical. Who knows what's under the sand out there.
5.) WMD'S- Where are they. Who knows. What he didn't use on his own people he probably took through the Stargate with him.
Anyway, keep up the good work guys. I look forward to reading the PCR every week. Have a good one. C-Ya!!!
John Lewis, The Creature From Clearwater
P. S. Where's the 1910 Fruit Gum Company when you need them. (LOL) Long live Snoopy and The Royal Guardsmen.
Terence,PHIL FRANK REBUKES NOLAN'S IRAQ OP-ED
You and I could go back and forth on these issues forever, no
problem, I have the time and the fact is I debate the issues because
it's fun, not because I have any serious issues with you. (Re: the "Top Ten Albums of the '60s" debate which has raged here for the past 3 issues---N)
I did enjoy repackaging your aggressive style and throwing it back at you.
Your absolutely right, Bob Dylan did tell John Lennon that Beatles
music didn't have anything to say.... in 1965 (or thereabout) and John
agreed and took the message to heart. Subsequent Beatles albums did
offer more lyrical substance. Personally, I don't think every song has
to have some deep significant message to be of value. Sometimes the
music is great at face value regardless of what the message may be.
Even Paul with his 'moon in June' stuff. The Beatles constantly
reinvented their sound and messages. Sometimes just for fun (Octopus's
Garden) other times because they had something to say. How many bands
can do that successfully? Most groups are too terrified to change the
formula that brought them any success. It seems obvious the band wasn't
too afraid to have fun with the music. They didn't take themselves as
serious as the rest of us did.
I NEVER SAID THAT THE BEATLES INVENTED EVERY SOUND OF THE '60s. What I
did say was that had it not been for the Beatles the other bands would
not have been an issue. The chances of Hendrix or Crimson being
accepted in 1963 or 1964 would have been near impossible had it not
been for the groundwork laid down by the Beatles. Thats simply the
fact. The Beatles were so popular in the states that anything or
anybody that had a british accent was an instant hit, thus the British
Invation. Bands got airplay by virtue of being English and having long
hair. The Beatles offered such a new sound and made so much money that
most any bands with the Mersy beat were likely to be given a recording
contract. Capitol records blew it so badly not signing the Beatles
sooner (before VEE JAY) that no record company was ever gonna let that
happen again! Thus thousands of other bands followed the Beatles
success almost instantly. Hendrix a guy from Seattle had been around
for some time before he was 'discovered' in England by Mickey Dolenze
of the Monkees and brought to the states. It still took a while for his
acceptance to arrive.
The Beatles did borrow from others, who doesn't? Do you think just
maybe others borrowed from the Beatles? As far as I know, thats the
way all music (art) works. If the Floyd sessions down the hall gave
John an idea and he ran with it and had success as the Beatles, then
Roger Waters should have thanked him for paving the way for Pink
Floyd's future successes as well. I do agree Pink Floyd was the master
of the "Inner Space" sound. Their one of my top five all time favorite
As for the Fab Four having so much success. That seems to be
what you really have an issue with. Maybe you think they were given too
much. I know this, when the Beatles arrived, the world stopped and
took notice. Everthing was the Beatles at that time, school lunch
boxes, Beatles wigs, Saturday morning cartoons, Beatle boots, etc, etc.
I've never seen anything like it since. They were only together for 7
years as a known band. During that brief period they dramatically
influenced what was to become the identity of the 1960's, the music the
fashions and the arts and to some degree the politics of the times. As
a side issue, could care less about their individual efforts, it was as
a band that they mattered.
One of the benefits many of us received, being a fan of the
"British Invasion" was in developing an interest in what inspired the
British sound. Most all the bands (to include Lonnie Donnigan and his
Skiffle Band) would mention various American blues or country artist.
That's why many of us wanted to know more about the history of our own
music, blues or any other. Personally I like Stevie Ray a lot more than
Tampa Red, the point is, it was the Beatles and even Elvis that
provided the interest in this old music for most of us. They deserve
all the accolades they ever received.
As to the commercial success of a band being a sell-out. Again I don't
agree entirely. It seems that when a band (Metallica) gets a dose of
commercial success with a new CD, the band somehow looses many of
their original fans. When Enter Sandman came out, I thought it was a
killer tune but many of the bands fans felt betrayed because the band
had the gall to want more success and change their sound a bit on their
latest release. As long as the band remains poor and plays in small
venues thats fine but let them evolve and grow and... "holy crap, those
miserable bastards are selling out"!!! Some people only like bands who
remain in their cult phase and then have the integrity to fade away
honorably. Better yet, they should die like a rock stars are supposed
to...that is... plane wreck, drug overdose or gunshot. All of these
choices are better than being accepted by millions, "My God I'm not a
fringe individualist anymore, screw that band"
One more thing Terence, what the hell does a song lasting for more
than five minutes or not having and extended guitar solo have to do
with anything? If you mean do the Beatles songs go on and on aimlessly
like an Allman Bros tune then you got me there, I wasn't aware that the
longer the song and more mindless the guitar the better the band was.
If your referring to commercial play how come all those Mudhoney and
Pixies tunes you like (that were under five minutes) didn't get more
Some of us do our homework, sport.
I think your nocturnal lifestyle has somewhat limited you to a world view
that is missing something. (Re: "Iraq Revisited", PCR #183---N) You don't see the light !!! Actually, the confusion
about the world (Iraq) and what we are up against can be simply understood by
walking in their shoes. Picture this: You live in a world of extreme discipline.
Suddenly with the aid an education and satellite TV you are bathed in a world
of free thought and to your view, extreme decadence. You acknowledge it is
fast-paced and exciting so you see it is extremely dangerous to your way of
life. It has to be stopped!! After all, we are God's (Allah's) chosen people. We must
secure our morality from the evil empire weighing heavily down upon our just
necks. The lives of a few for the lives of many? Of course! The future of a
great nation, THE nation of La. Unquestionably!
So who's right and who's wrong? If the landslide of evil education and the
decadence of western society threatens all you hold dear, especially your very
salvation and that of your children ANY means must be employed to stop it!
Now imagine our government looking for a way to hold back the tide of
such an all out war against what our president aptly name, our "freedom"
Politically correct to the end. We then must use ANY means to repel this serious
threat. They mean to destroy all we hold dear and important!! Should we lie?
YES!! Should we paint ideas in ours and others nations minds what these devils
look and think like? Unquestionably!! (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?) This is
the real reason all this junk is happening. As far as who's right, who's wrong,
are there WMD'S, did we get all the bad guys, etc. These aren't the real
points anyway. This is about OUR way of life. And about THEIR way of life. And now
the OPINIONS have it. Which way is the right way?
Ummm.....OK. Hard to tell when you're kidding or not Phil! The point I was trying to make originally was simply the weak, inconclusive evidence supporting the war and subseqent occupation of Iraq. I know why they hate us, my god it's obvious. Are they out to destroy us, so we must destroy them first? Well, that's not how we've done things in the past, Phil,
we're usually attacked first. And we were. Just not by whom we're at war with right now. That's my problem. ---Nolan
To send an email to Letters to the Editor write to: Crazedfanboy1@aol.com. Any emails sent to this address will be assumed intended for publication unless you specifically instruct me not to. I can and do respond privately, if that is your preference. Frequently, it's both ways.---Nolan