| |
Main
Date: 04 Nov 2006 20:01:55
From: slot
Subject: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
By The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Saxophonist Kenny G has more to brag about than his
world-class saxophone-playing. He's the best golfer among music-makers,
according to Golf Digest's ranking of the "Top 100 in Music."
The Grammy winner and Seattle native beats out country stars Vince
Gill, ty Roe and Steve Azar, and No Doubt drummer Adrian Young, who
round out the top 5. The list also includes Bob Dylan (No. 63), Snoop
Dogg (No. 44) and fellow sax player Branford salis (No. 29).
The list was published will be published Tuesday on the magazine's Web
site and in its December issue, on newsstands next week.
The ranking is based on handicaps, some official, some not-so-official.
Kenny G's handicap is a plus-0.6, meaning his average score is better
than par.
He tells the magazine he needs improvement.
"With the sax, I learned technique well enough so that it feels like
part of my body and I just express myself," he said. "That's where I
want to get in golf."
Gill, a scratch golfer (0 handicap), said, "musicians and golfers
understand each other."
"We know what it takes to have to perform," he said. "We know there is
a lot of alone time."
Rocker Alice Cooper, 11th on the list with a 5.3 handicap, said playing
golf helped him kick his drug habit.
"Golf is the crack of sports," he told the magazine. "Once I took it
seriously, I loved it. It absolutely saved my life."
Other stars on the Golf Digest rankings include Justin Timberlake (No.
15), Englebert Humperdinck (23), Celine Dion (62) and Pink (100).
Copyright =A9 2006 The Seattle Times Company
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 09:28:33
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Nov 6, 4:27 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> zumafan wrote:
>
> > My man Neil Young clocks in at #72 with an 18.6 index. Rock on Neil!
> > (and don't bother posting about how "technically inproficient" he is as
> > a singer and guitarist, cuz I don't care).
> Isn't he the guy who said it's better to hit worm-burners than to hit
> high fades?
> Or something like that.
>
> Then there was the song where he sang about "4 Down in Ohio."
(with apologies to csny)
Worm burners and mishit high fades
Where the fuck did my tee shot go?
Just lipped out another three footer
Four down in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it
Lay up or go for the green?
Can't afford another mistaaaaaake
My opponent's on in two shots
Skipped it over the lake
Should I hit a 3 iron or hybrid
When my ball's buried under the raaaaa-aake?
(Guitar solo - dah-dah-dah
dahdadadadadaaaaaaaa....dahdaladaladadaaaaaaaaaa
deeedle-lee dee dee dum dumble deedle dum
dah dah deedle ohhh)
Scotch whisky and big fat stogies
Where the fuck did my lighter go?
Just lipped out another three footer
Four down in Ohio
sorry......
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 09:39:41
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Just when I thought Kenny G. couldn't be any faggier...
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 16:20:49
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Peter Grey wrote:
>
> Why do you guys waste time responding to Slot? For him, the argument and
> "debate" are the ends, not the means. You're never going to change his mind
> and you're never going to "win" these arguments. Just ignore Slot, don't
> buy KennyG records, and get on with your life.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
That is wonderful advice, Peter. Take control of your life. Make the
decisions that are important to you. Leave the rest alone. And stop
whining about things you can't control.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 16:17:39
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
George Hibbard wrote:
> Bobby: I am not passing on Kenny's technical skill or even on the "quality
> of that kind of music." I am reporting the enjoyment I had and that a ton
> of other people had listening to him. As I say, enjoying something that
> much that is of such low quality (?) makes me a redneck.
>
> I used to tell my pupils that when they played a classical piece or any
> piece for that matter, if they DID NOT PLAY IT CLEARLY AND EXUBERANTLY OR
> SWEETLY OR WHATEVERLY enough for EVERYONE in their audience TO ENJOY the
> piece, they did not succeed, no matter how technically perfect or "great"
> the piece or how well executed. It is not the slavish obedience to the
> printed notes or the literal obedience that counts: it is what is
> communicated, and in truth, 40 different renditions of the same piece by the
> same pianist, and 40 different renditions by 40 different pianists, are ALL
> DIFFERENT, and who is to judge the "best." That was an issue I faced as an
> adjudicator, and I always gave preference to the performer with the clear
> and meaningful message over the one with all the notes, the facility, and
> the "correctness" who lacked something compelling to say.
>
> And I just checked, enjoying is no longer mortal sin. I even GREATLY
> enjoyed listening to Horowitz and Rubenstein when they were in advanced
> years missing lots of notes: more than words can say!
>
> The object of the average man's listening or being talked at is HIS
> ENJOYMENT. And just like there are no pop quizzes about the perfection of
> your understanding of theology [or whether your religion was "the right one]
> for admission when you meet St. Peter , there are no requirements for your
> enjoyment whether you think it is 'good music' by a standard beyond your
> ken.
>
> I enjoyed KG greatly: redneck, I guess. And he came across like he LOVED
> GIVING ENJOYMENT.
>
>
George, that was beautiful. Thank you so much for sharing.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 15:44:59
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
k & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> My
> point was that Louis Armstrong was a man and musician, but he is also a
> cultural and musical icon. I'm sure that G wouldn't think about how Pat
> would react. I agree that Pat's reaction was a bit over the top, but I
> totally understand his position--as would anyone who knows the position
> Armstrong holds in the musical pantheon.
What many people like you and Metheny forget is that Armstrong was
first and foremost an entertainer. I think Louis would have been happy
to record with Kenny G if he were alive to be invited.
> Whether you react violently
> (as Pat did) or shrug your shoulders and say "well, that's
> America--anything for the buck" which would be more my reaction--it
> remains manifestly disrespectful.
What was disrespectful was Pat publicly taking Kenny to task for a
three minute recording.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:35:52
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
slot wrote:
> k & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>
>> My
>> point was that Louis Armstrong was a man and musician, but he is also a
>> cultural and musical icon. I'm sure that G wouldn't think about how Pat
>> would react. I agree that Pat's reaction was a bit over the top, but I
>> totally understand his position--as would anyone who knows the position
>> Armstrong holds in the musical pantheon.
>
> What many people like you and Metheny forget is that Armstrong was
> first and foremost an entertainer. I think Louis would have been happy
> to record with Kenny G if he were alive to be invited.
>
>
>
>
>> Whether you react violently
>> (as Pat did) or shrug your shoulders and say "well, that's
>> America--anything for the buck" which would be more my reaction--it
>> remains manifestly disrespectful.
>
>
> What was disrespectful was Pat publicly taking Kenny to task for a
> three minute recording.
>
Well, we disagree. Sorry.
Steve
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 15:36:47
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> Kenny I'm sure is a nice, hamishe
> boy. I'm sure his mother is proud of him. He hasn't come around
> denigrating our taste, calling us jealous.
Exactly.
But look at the abuse regularly hurled his way by so-called "real"
musicians. They should be ashamed.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:34:52
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
slot wrote:
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>> Kenny I'm sure is a nice, hamishe
>> boy. I'm sure his mother is proud of him. He hasn't come around
>> denigrating our taste, calling us jealous.
>
> Exactly.
>
> But look at the abuse regularly hurled his way by so-called "real"
> musicians. They should be ashamed.
>
Nah. Having a negative opinion is a sacred right, Mrs. G.
Steve
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 00:05:30
From: Max Leggett
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 6 Nov 2006 15:36:47 -0800, "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>But look at the abuse regularly hurled his way by so-called "real"
>musicians. They should be ashamed.
>
No they shouldn't. They're real musicians, after all.
--------------------------------------
Without music, life is a mistayke.
Friedrich "Spelling R Us" Nietzsche
--------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 15:34:09
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> slot wrote:
> > Indeed. Metheny's a great guitarist but he ought to keep his mouth
> > shut. He should have just said that he didn't like the G-man's version
> > of Wonderful World and left it at that, instead of making preposterous
> > claims about "defiling" art.
>
> No he shouldn't. Explaining why it angered him so much would be self
> evident to many of us, it is true; but obviously not everyone.
> Not liking something is not precisely the same thing as objecting to
> someones' painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
>
> Steve
Painting a moustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa is not quite the same
as painting a moustache on THE Mona Lisa.
Where is Pat Methreny to take the rappers to task for sampling?
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 15:31:32
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2006 02:53:11 -0800, "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Kenny G is NOT an avante garde player,
> >
> >Thank god for that.
> >
> >
> >
> >> He's not well regarded as
> >> a player
> >
> >Depends on who you talk to. 75 million records sold worldwide say he's
> >more well regarded than most.
>
> More regarded by whom? The generally clueless, who will buy
> anything?
>
> Talk to professional musicians and see what they say...not about
> popularity, but ability.
> bk
Professional musicians will pay respect where it is due. Pay no mind
to the nay sayers. Those criticzing KG are small-minded people
carrying chips the size of boulders on their shoulders.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 01:22:34
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
In rec.sport.golf slot <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote:
: Bobby Knight wrote:
: > Talk to professional musicians and see what they say...not about
: > popularity, but ability.
:
: Professional musicians will pay respect where it is due.
There has been a professional musician in this thread trying
to set you straight, but apparently you're not quick enough
on the uptake to get it.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 00:04:40
From: Max Leggett
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 6 Nov 2006 15:31:32 -0800, "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
>Professional musicians will pay respect where it is due. Pay no mind
>to the nay sayers. Those criticzing KG are small-minded people
>carrying chips the size of boulders on their shoulders.
>
As opposed to wanky little wannabees like you.
--------------------------------------
Without music, life is a mistayke.
Friedrich "Spelling R Us" Nietzsche
--------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 15:27:25
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2006 23:57:35 -0800, "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
> >> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > World class, baby.
> >>
> >> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
> >> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
> >
> >Geez, talk about stereotypes. If that's _all_ he did his career would
> >have been over before it started. Give the guy some credit for knowing
> >how to play, how to ket his music, and how to service his fans. If
> >half the whiny jazz musicians complainig about Kenny's success could do
> >the same, jazz would have a little more life in it than the rat
> >carcass rotting under the dumpster.
>
> keting and servicing isn't making music. His abilities are what
> are in question. Jazzers, on the whole, don't complain about the pop
> successes of George Benson, Chuck Mangione, or even Stan Getz's bossa
> nova releases.
The hell they don't.
keting and servicing are part of what make a successful musician.
The jazzers that whine about KG are guys that don't want to get their
hands "dirty" with business.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 13:27:44
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
zumafan wrote:
>
> My man Neil Young clocks in at #72 with an 18.6 index. Rock on Neil!
> (and don't bother posting about how "technically inproficient" he is as
> a singer and guitarist, cuz I don't care).
Isn't he the guy who said it's better to hit worm-burners than to hit
high fades?
Or something like that.
Then there was the song where he sang about "4 Down in Ohio."
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:18:40
From:
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlo...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> S McFarlane wrote:
> > Keith will never be considered a gifted guitarist by anyone that is remotely
> > qualified to chime in on the subject.
> I'm just absolutely astonished by these reks. Richards is one of the
> top 5 guitarists in history, and few have created as memorable or
> lasting riffs. Rolling Stone (oh, go ahead and tell me why they suck so
> bad now, too), had him #2 or #3 in their all time guitarist list a few
> years back. Yeah, I know, who cares? All of that.
>
> But when I hear someone - not just McFarlane - trash Keith, it just
> makes me realize that this planet may not be worth saving.
Wrong quote, S. McFarlane wasn't trashing him, and neither was I (Steve
H.) really, but I did use him as an example of someone with lower skill
BY HIS VERY OWN ADMISSION but has popular success and record sales.
Actually, this is very interesting because it's just like the current
political heat. But I'll drop it after this because the people who
respond emotionally only see the subjective part which can't be argued.
What I'm trying to say is your own personal feelings have nothing to do
with someone else's skill, and musical ability (objective and can be
measured) is different than musical enjoyment (subjective).
I personally think Bitch and Sticky Fingers in general is one of the
most ass-kickin rock and roll records of all time. However, I'm not
addressing my own feelings on it because the discussion started about
chops, which KR has very little. But amazing chops are not (always)
required to make a great enjoyable rock record. BTW, Rolling Stone
lists are readers polls which are personal feelings and popularity
contests.
If you haven't seen it, I recommend checking out the Stones' movie Rock
and Roll circus. The reason it wasn't released for 30 years is because
they had a lot of problems getting a good performance of their set,
particularly "Sympathy" where the other groups (the Who, Taj Mahal...)
just blew through their songs in one shot. I think Mick in particular
was embarassed by it (at least back then).
Back to golf, it's theoretically possible, that a non-golfer/movie
fanatic might say that Bill Murray or Rodney Dangerfield are great
golfers because they don't care about superior performance. I know you
think this sounds ridiculous, but it's nearly the same as saying
Richards is one of the top five players in the world. And it is not
"trashing" at all to say he isn't.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:37:50
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
slot wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kenny G is NOT an avante garde player,
>
> Thank god for that.
>
>
>
> > He's not well regarded as
> > a player
>
> Depends on who you talk to. 75 million records sold worldwide say he's
> more well regarded than most.
Agree. I'm one of the throngs. I simply put his CD in and enjoy.
Ignorance is bliss but having a tin ear helps too. I still cannot tune
my guitar without the aid of a tuning device. I can tell when it's out
of tune but tuning it by ear....fuggetaboutit.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162841870.737433.270780@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Agree. I'm one of the throngs. I simply put his CD in and enjoy.
> Ignorance is bliss but having a tin ear helps too. I still cannot tune
> my guitar without the aid of a tuning device. I can tell when it's out
> of tune but tuning it by ear....fuggetaboutit.
>
> -Greg
>
Reminds me: Kenny's playing too sharp is quite intentional, thank you.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 23:17:13
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
In rec.sport.golf George Hibbard <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
: Reminds me: Kenny's playing too sharp is quite intentional, thank you.
You think he *intends* to sound like fingernails on a chalkboard?
Man, if so, that's the most brilliant mass ripoff since Lou
Reed released Metal Machine Music (which is more listenable
than Kenny G's catalog, btw).
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 17:26:21
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:39:23 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>Reminds me: Kenny's playing too sharp is quite intentional, thank you.
>
WHAT?
--
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 21:59:54
From: Laurence Payne
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:39:23 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>Reminds me: Kenny's playing too sharp is quite intentional, thank you.
Really? How odd. Some opera singers do this too, in an attempt to
cut through. It's not a good ides.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 07:28:22
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom > wrote in message
news:c1cvk2ha8ocvklc426ioca20p0la309jq5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:39:23 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>>Reminds me: Kenny's playing too sharp is quite intentional, thank you.
>
> Really? How odd. Some opera singers do this too, in an attempt to
> cut through. It's not a good ides.
I would say that depends on your taste: some like it hot, some mild...
Maybe the cutting through is for expressive emphasis, intensity....?
Overdoing it would be too much, but the very nature of it IS subjective. So
"art" is subjective. And personal. One man's meat is another's poison, and
all those kinds of platitudes work here.
As I mentioned, there is no pop quiz for entry....
The word "enjoyment" is : "en" -- tending toward (?): "joy" (speaks for
itself), and "ment" - a resulting state or product. Joy is THE ESSENCE OF
THE SUBJECTIVE EXPRESSION of the experience of divine filiation. Pretty
important concept, IMO.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 23:34:49
From: Jos Geluk
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Laurence Payne schreef:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:39:23 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>> Reminds me: Kenny's playing too sharp is quite intentional, thank you.
>
> Really? How odd. Some opera singers do this too, in an attempt to
> cut through. It's not a good ides.
Some Dancehall toasters do it too, I have noticed. And for the same
reason, I would guess. It's part of the style, like saxophones are
almost invariably played out of tune.
Jos.
--
Ardis Park Music
www.ardispark.nl
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 22:02:53
From: Max Leggett
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:59:54 +0000, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom > wrote:
>>cut through. It's not a good ides.
Tell that to Caesar.
--------------------------------------
Without music, life is a mistayke.
Friedrich "Spelling R Us" Nietzsche
--------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:24:58
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> Keith will never be considered a gifted guitarist by anyone that is remotely
> qualified to chime in on the subject.
I'm just absolutely astonished by these reks. Richards is one of the
top 5 guitarists in history, and few have created as memorable or
lasting riffs. Rolling Stone (oh, go ahead and tell me why they suck so
bad now, too), had him #2 or #3 in their all time guitarist list a few
years back. Yeah, I know, who cares? All of that.
But when I hear someone - not just McFarlane - trash Keith, it just
makes me realize that this planet may not be worth saving.
Oh, shot 89 today.
Ed
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 12:39:21
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
"EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1162841098.372581.168850@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Keith will never be considered a gifted guitarist by anyone that is
>>> remotely
>> qualified to chime in on the subject.
>
>
> I'm just absolutely astonished by these reks. Richards is one of the
> top 5 guitarists in history, and few have created as memorable or
> lasting riffs. Rolling Stone (oh, go ahead and tell me why they suck so
> bad now, too), had him #2 or #3 in their all time guitarist list a few
> years back. Yeah, I know, who cares? All of that.
>
> But when I hear someone - not just McFarlane - trash Keith, it just
> makes me realize that this planet may not be worth saving.
>
I don't think you read my post very closely, if at all. I never trashed
Richards. I never said Richards wasn't a talented guitarist. What I meant
to say is that the most qualified opinions (i.e. very skillful guitarists)
would not say that he is gifted technically.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:00:49
From: Andy Eng
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
slot wrote:
<snip >
> Rocker Alice Cooper, 11th on the list with a 5.3 handicap, said playing
> golf helped him kick his drug habit.
>
> "Golf is the crack of sports," he told the magazine. "Once I took it
> seriously, I loved it. It absolutely saved my life."
<snip >
> Other stars on the Golf Digest rankings include Justin Timberlake (No.
> 15), Englebert Humperdinck (23), Celine Dion (62) and Pink (100).
Celine & Alice I'm cool with.
That Mick Fleetwood & Stephen Stills were highlighted was also nice...
I'll have to pass on the jazz and many of the others...
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:06:12
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Nov 4, 11:01 pm, "slot" <jazzji...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
>
> Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
> By The Associated Press
>
> LOS ANGELES - Saxophonist Kenny G has more to brag about than his
> world-class saxophone-playing. He's the best golfer among music-makers,
> according to Golf Digest's ranking of the "Top 100 in Music."
>
My man Neil Young clocks in at #72 with an 18.6 index. Rock on Neil!
(and don't bother posting about how "technically inproficient" he is as
a singer and guitarist, cuz I don't care).
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:29:55
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 6 Nov 2006 08:06:12 -0800, "zumafan" <mgeorg@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>On Nov 4, 11:01 pm, "slot" <jazzji...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
>>
>> Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
>> By The Associated Press
>>
>> LOS ANGELES - Saxophonist Kenny G has more to brag about than his
>> world-class saxophone-playing. He's the best golfer among music-makers,
>> according to Golf Digest's ranking of the "Top 100 in Music."
>>
>
>My man Neil Young clocks in at #72 with an 18.6 index. Rock on Neil!
>(and don't bother posting about how "technically inproficient" he is as
>a singer and guitarist, cuz I don't care).
There's no comparison.
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 15:17:46
From: DanL
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
"The ranking is based on handicaps, some official, some not-so-official.
Kenny G's handicap is a plus-0.6, meaning his average score is better
than par."
Someone should tell the writer that handicaps are not based on par and are
not "average scores".
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:10:37
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> slot wrote:
> > Indeed. Metheny's a great guitarist but he ought to keep his mouth
> > shut. He should have just said that he didn't like the G-man's version
> > of Wonderful World and left it at that, instead of making preposterous
> > claims about "defiling" art.
>
> No he shouldn't. Explaining why it angered him so much would be self
> evident to many of us, it is true; but obviously not everyone.
> Not liking something is not precisely the same thing as objecting to
> someones' painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
Actually, and this is the point, is it is more like painting a
mustache on
a COPY of a Mona Lisa. It's like someone making a golf course
which copies (badly) various famous golf holes from around
the world. It's like someone making a computer game where one
can "play" golf on various famous courses. Basically the guy plays
music in a manner which Metheny doesn't like. Feherty says
Fuyrk's swing looks like a man trying to kill a snake in a phone
booth. I don't think that's a compliment, but I suspect
Dave doesn't think that Jim "defiles" golf either.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 15:34:19
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>>slot wrote:
>>
>>>Indeed. Metheny's a great guitarist but he ought to keep his mouth
>>>shut. He should have just said that he didn't like the G-man's version
>>>of Wonderful World and left it at that, instead of making preposterous
>>>claims about "defiling" art.
>>
>> No he shouldn't. Explaining why it angered him so much would be self
>>evident to many of us, it is true; but obviously not everyone.
>> Not liking something is not precisely the same thing as objecting to
>>someones' painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
>
>
>
> Actually, and this is the point, is it is more like painting a
> mustache on
> a COPY of a Mona Lisa.
Eh, that reduces it to a childish prank, which I doubt was G's intent.
I doubt that many think that defiles the memory of Leonardo.
Music is not a visual art, and my analogy was far from perfect. My
point was that Louis Armstrong was a man and musician, but he is also a
cultural and musical icon. I'm sure that G wouldn't think about how Pat
would react. I agree that Pat's reaction was a bit over the top, but I
totally understand his position--as would anyone who knows the position
Armstrong holds in the musical pantheon. Whether you react violently
(as Pat did) or shrug your shoulders and say "well, that's
America--anything for the buck" which would be more my reaction--it
remains manifestly disrespectful. I'm guessing G saw it as loving
tribute. If he honestly believed that it would be received that way,
he's not a very st man.
Steve
--
k & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 13:58:09
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
slot wrote:
> Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
>
> Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
> By The Associated Press
>
Only because Dino is gone (sniff!!)
Steve
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 02:53:11
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>
> Kenny G is NOT an avante garde player,
Thank god for that.
> He's not well regarded as
> a player
Depends on who you talk to. 75 million records sold worldwide say he's
more well regarded than most.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:08:33
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 6 Nov 2006 02:53:11 -0800, "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>
>>
>> Kenny G is NOT an avante garde player,
>
>Thank god for that.
>
>
>
>> He's not well regarded as
>> a player
>
>Depends on who you talk to. 75 million records sold worldwide say he's
>more well regarded than most.
More regarded by whom? The generally clueless, who will buy
anything?
Talk to professional musicians and see what they say...not about
popularity, but ability.
bk
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 01:44:17
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:08:33 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
> More regarded by whom? The generally clueless, who will buy
>anything?
I like to be snobbish about my tastes as well - most of use do.
> Talk to professional musicians and see what they say...not about
>popularity, but ability.
There are lots of artists well regarded by their peers who I don't
care for - For instance, Art Tatum. In a matter of taste, are they
right and me wrong? Or is the guy who prefers his steak well done
right and me wrong?
Just because we seem to agree about Kenny G doesn't make those who
like him wrong.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:25:45
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 02:53:11 -0800, slot wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> He's not well regarded as a player
>
> Depends on who you talk to. 75 million records sold worldwide say he's
> more well regarded than most.
That 75 million people have questionable musical taste does not make KG
good. At least with golf the lowest score wins. No points for style,
presentation, bribes, etc.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:57:08
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about equalizing
match play.
USGA Handicap System Manual, Section 17-1 found at
http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/.
<montmach@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162817197.347901.315660@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>Why does that sound ridiculous? Let's take it to the extreme. Let's say
> the #1, 2, 3 and 4 handicap holes were holes 15, 16, 17, and 18.<
Since there's an odd/even distribution between the nines the scenario
you desribe is ridiculous, too. I believe the handicapping at my home
course is ridiculous because it doesn't reflect the true difficulty of
four holes in particular.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 02:50:49
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 06:15:25 -0500, "Jackson" <hackman55@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You must consider the source (Metheny) to get the correct view on this
> >situation. This guy is a whacko and really should keep his comments to
> >himself. Music is subjective unlike golf.
>
> Music is subjective? Only to those who listen without any knowledge of
> it.
>
> Do you know what intonation is? Are you aware of chordal
> progression, and what happens if you don't play jazz within that
> structure? Have you a concept of time, and tempo?
>
> Before you make statements like that, you need to check around with
> some real musicians.
>
> All of those things are objective, and KG doesn't pass muster for any
> of them.
Bullshit.
Kenny G's got all that down pat. He couldn't be the international
superstar that he is if he didn't.
> Metheny may not appeal to you, but he damned sure knows what
> music is, and is correct about Kenny G.
Yes, Metheny knows what music is. So does Kenny. So what? Metheny is
still an ass and KG still outsells PG at the record store and the box
office.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:05:34
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 6 Nov 2006 02:50:49 -0800, "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> All of those things are objective, and KG doesn't pass muster for any
>> of them.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>Kenny G's got all that down pat. He couldn't be the international
>superstar that he is if he didn't.
>
Really? That's so naive that it doesn't deserve an answer.
You don't know shit about music. Period.
BK
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 02:46:38
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Indeed. Metheny's a great guitarist but he ought to keep his mouth
shut. He should have just said that he didn't like the G-man's version
of Wonderful World and left it at that, instead of making preposterous
claims about "defiling" art.
Jackson wrote:
> You must consider the source (Metheny) to get the correct view on this
> situation. This guy is a whacko and really should keep his comments to
> himself. Music is subjective unlike golf.
> <strat68@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162713189.864462.310330@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > muk wrote:
> >> >Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
> >> >By The Associated Press
> >>
> >>
> >> This is what Pat Metheny has to say about Kenny G's music. I tend to
> >> agree:
> >>
> >> "(in reference to Kenny G's overdubbing of Louis Armstrong's "What a
> >> Wonderful World") 'When Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for
> >> him to defile the music of the man (Louis Armstrong) who is probably
> >> the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his
> >> lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out,
> >> fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis' tracks (even one of
> >> his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined
> >> possible'"
> >
> > Yawn... we've been through this before. Golf skill was the gist of
> > this article and we know she don't lie. Big deal so Kenny G is the
> > "Keith Richards" of jazz. He made a few riffs that makes some average
> > joe's happy and sold lots of records. Don't like??, point your stylus
> > elsewhere.
> >
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 14:13:37
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
slot wrote:
> Indeed. Metheny's a great guitarist but he ought to keep his mouth
> shut. He should have just said that he didn't like the G-man's version
> of Wonderful World and left it at that, instead of making preposterous
> claims about "defiling" art.
No he shouldn't. Explaining why it angered him so much would be self
evident to many of us, it is true; but obviously not everyone.
Not liking something is not precisely the same thing as objecting to
someones' painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
Steve
>
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 23:58:45
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Max Leggett wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:36:15 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote:
> >> Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
> >>
> >>> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>> > World class, baby.
> >>>
> >>> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
> >>> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
> >>
> >> Sounds good on elevators though! ;^)
> >
> >It sounds just as disgusting on elevators as anywhere else.
> >
>
> Yes, but it's disgusting in a peculiarly world class way. His fans are
> ditto, less the class.
>
>
My goodness but you're looking rather green. And Christmas is still 7
weeks away.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:48:14
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
In my former life I was a classically trained pianist and teacher (6 years
post graduate work included), and I also adjudicated piano competitions held
at the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore, Md. on behalf of the Md. State
MusicTeachers Association. I never had any interest in popular music at
all, not my taste. I guess it makes me a redneck to admit that I
thoroughly enjoyed a live KG concert about 8 years ago in the same
auditorium where I waxed ecstatic over a performance of the Brahms 2nd Piano
Concerto shortly afterward, and near another spot where I also greatly
enjoyed a jazz concert a year later. I have never in my life heard such
INCREDIBLE APPLAUSE AND SCREAMING WITH DELIGHT as I did at that KG concert!
Amazing. Lots of rednecks there with me, I guess.
When I was watching one of the pro-am segments of a tournament a couple
years ago I saw this beautiful pro-quality swing executed by someone I
didn't recognize, so I wondered who was the new kid on the block. It turned
out to be none other than the amateur KG himself. I was impressed.
But what does that count for? Apparently his commercial success is
meaningless and his wonderful swing an illusion (do other people enjoy his
music, and is his full time job something other than honing his golf GAME
into precision --those parts called precise direction and distance control,
chipping, putting, etc.).
Knock Knock, Who's There?
Envy and his siblings. Now you didn't need to ask that because we infuse
our posts with denigration.
Perhaps when we redo the real world with our version of a perfect world we
should eliminate "feel good music." That doesn't qualify as MUSIC.
CLASSICS ONLY ALLOWED. And the art galleries should only exhibit works
where the artist has been dead for a minimum of 100 years and we have had
time to decide if our "liking it" is worthy of us as perfect people.
-----------
"slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1162799925.088384.223630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Max Leggett wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:36:15 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
>> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote:
>> >> Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> > World class, baby.
>> >>>
>> >>> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
>> >>> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds good on elevators though! ;^)
>> >
>> >It sounds just as disgusting on elevators as anywhere else.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, but it's disgusting in a peculiarly world class way. His fans are
>> ditto, less the class.
>>
>>
>
> My goodness but you're looking rather green. And Christmas is still 7
> weeks away.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 14:21:00
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
George Hibbard wrote:
> In my former life I was a classically trained pianist and teacher (6 years
> post graduate work included), and I also adjudicated piano competitions held
> at the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore, Md. on behalf of the Md. State
> MusicTeachers Association. I never had any interest in popular music at
> all, not my taste. I guess it makes me a redneck to admit that I
> thoroughly enjoyed a live KG concert about 8 years ago in the same
> auditorium where I waxed ecstatic over a performance of the Brahms 2nd Piano
> Concerto shortly afterward, and near another spot where I also greatly
> enjoyed a jazz concert a year later. I have never in my life heard such
> INCREDIBLE APPLAUSE AND SCREAMING WITH DELIGHT as I did at that KG concert!
> Amazing. Lots of rednecks there with me, I guess.
>
> When I was watching one of the pro-am segments of a tournament a couple
> years ago I saw this beautiful pro-quality swing executed by someone I
> didn't recognize, so I wondered who was the new kid on the block. It turned
> out to be none other than the amateur KG himself. I was impressed.
>
> But what does that count for? Apparently his commercial success is
> meaningless and his wonderful swing an illusion (do other people enjoy his
> music, and is his full time job something other than honing his golf GAME
> into precision --those parts called precise direction and distance control,
> chipping, putting, etc.).
>
> Knock Knock, Who's There?
>
> Envy and his siblings. Now you didn't need to ask that because we infuse
> our posts with denigration.
>
> Perhaps when we redo the real world with our version of a perfect world we
> should eliminate "feel good music." That doesn't qualify as MUSIC.
> CLASSICS ONLY ALLOWED. And the art galleries should only exhibit works
> where the artist has been dead for a minimum of 100 years and we have had
> time to decide if our "liking it" is worthy of us as perfect people.
It's not really Kenny G I object to. In fact, the dental society has
threatened to expel me for not being a golfer.
It's really Slot I object to. He's not here to inform, nor to inspire,
nor to impart knowledge. He's here to poke his finger in the eye of
musicians who don't share his opinion.
I think the strong reaction to Slot should be looked at in that
context. I know that's how I feel. Kenny I'm sure is a nice, hamishe
boy. I'm sure his mother is proud of him. He hasn't come around
denigrating our taste, calling us jealous. I'm guessing his sidemen and
women don't have to sling around under pseudonyms denying they work for
him. They probably have other gigs where they do music Slot would hate.
I do agree that recording over a Louis Armstrong cut was beyond the
pale, even a piece of pap like "Wonderful World". But that wouldn't
incite me to physical violence because...I respect the Constitution of
the United States!!!
Steve
>
> -----------
>
>
>
>
> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162799925.088384.223630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Max Leggett wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:36:15 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
>>> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> World class, baby.
>>>>>> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
>>>>>> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
>>>>> Sounds good on elevators though! ;^)
>>>> It sounds just as disgusting on elevators as anywhere else.
>>>>
>>> Yes, but it's disgusting in a peculiarly world class way. His fans are
>>> ditto, less the class.
>>>
>>>
>> My goodness but you're looking rather green. And Christmas is still 7
>> weeks away.
>>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 17:35:05
From: Peter Grey
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:gxH3h.3233orthy of us as perfect people.
> It's not really Kenny G I object to. In fact, the dental society has
> threatened to expel me for not being a golfer.
> It's really Slot I object to. He's not here to inform, nor to inspire,
> nor to impart knowledge. He's here to poke his finger in the eye of
> musicians who don't share his opinion.
I long ago kill-filed Slot, so I'm coming into this discussion without
knowing exactly what it is he did to instigate this thread (Apparently, I
currently have too much time on my hands because I've actually read some of
these posts). However, I have to ask with the best of intentions...
Why do you guys waste time responding to Slot? For him, the argument and
"debate" are the ends, not the means. You're never going to change his mind
and you're never going to "win" these arguments. Just ignore Slot, don't
buy KennyG records, and get on with your life.
Regards,
Peter
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 20:01:05
From: Paul
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 11/6/06 12:35 PM, in article
dnK3h.3625$ig4.1121@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Peter Grey"
<pgrey@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>
> "Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:gxH3h.3233orthy of us as perfect people.
>
>> It's not really Kenny G I object to. In fact, the dental society has
>> threatened to expel me for not being a golfer.
>> It's really Slot I object to. He's not here to inform, nor to inspire,
>> nor to impart knowledge. He's here to poke his finger in the eye of
>> musicians who don't share his opinion.
>
> I long ago kill-filed Slot, so I'm coming into this discussion without
> knowing exactly what it is he did to instigate this thread (Apparently, I
> currently have too much time on my hands because I've actually read some of
> these posts). However, I have to ask with the best of intentions...
>
> Why do you guys waste time responding to Slot? For him, the argument and
> "debate" are the ends, not the means. You're never going to change his mind
> and you're never going to "win" these arguments. Just ignore Slot, don't
> buy KennyG records, and get on with your life.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>
Peter
As you are getting on with your life, if you feel nevertheless that you must
contribute to one of his threads, don't forget to remove the crossposting,
since that is slot's main strategy in keeping these threads going. It seems
that people posting with Google dont always understand this. You can always
post the same message to each NG if you feel you need to "warn" everbody.
Paul K.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 19:37:21
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Peter Grey wrote:
> "Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:gxH3h.3233orthy of us as perfect people.
>
>
>>It's not really Kenny G I object to. In fact, the dental society has
>>threatened to expel me for not being a golfer.
>>It's really Slot I object to. He's not here to inform, nor to inspire,
>>nor to impart knowledge. He's here to poke his finger in the eye of
>>musicians who don't share his opinion.
>
>
> I long ago kill-filed Slot, so I'm coming into this discussion without
> knowing exactly what it is he did to instigate this thread (Apparently, I
> currently have too much time on my hands because I've actually read some of
> these posts). However, I have to ask with the best of intentions...
>
> Why do you guys waste time responding to Slot? For him, the argument and
> "debate" are the ends, not the means. You're never going to change his mind
> and you're never going to "win" these arguments. Just ignore Slot, don't
> buy KennyG records, and get on with your life.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>
You're absolutely right. I'll try to be good.
Steve
--
k & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:59:07
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:35:05 GMT, "Peter Grey" <pgrey@earthlink.net >
wrote:
<clip >
>Why do you guys waste time responding to Slot? For him, the argument and
>"debate" are the ends, not the means. You're never going to change his mind
>and you're never going to "win" these arguments. Just ignore Slot, don't
>buy KennyG records, and get on with your life.
>
>Regards,
>
>Peter
>
Frankly, he crossposted to rec.sport.golf, where I don't have him
killfiled....and I didn't even recognize his name from
rec.music.bluenote, where he Is KF'd. You're right about him and KG
though. Slot's deeply in love, and probably lust :-)
bk
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:18:53
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:48:14 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>In my former life I was a classically trained pianist and teacher (6 years
>post graduate work included), and I also adjudicated piano competitions held
>at the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore, Md. on behalf of the Md. State
>MusicTeachers Association. I never had any interest in popular music at
>all, not my taste. I guess it makes me a redneck to admit that I
>thoroughly enjoyed a live KG concert about 8 years ago in the same
>auditorium where I waxed ecstatic over a performance of the Brahms 2nd Piano
>Concerto shortly afterward, and near another spot where I also greatly
>enjoyed a jazz concert a year later. I have never in my life heard such
>INCREDIBLE APPLAUSE AND SCREAMING WITH DELIGHT as I did at that KG concert!
>Amazing. Lots of rednecks there with me, I guess.
>
No one ever called KG fans rednecks. Where did you get that?
>When I was watching one of the pro-am segments of a tournament a couple
>years ago I saw this beautiful pro-quality swing executed by someone I
>didn't recognize, so I wondered who was the new kid on the block. It turned
>out to be none other than the amateur KG himself. I was impressed.
>
He's a hell of a golfer. That is not the question.
>But what does that count for? Apparently his commercial success is
>meaningless and his wonderful swing an illusion (do other people enjoy his
>music, and is his full time job something other than honing his golf GAME
>into precision --those parts called precise direction and distance control,
>chipping, putting, etc.).
>
>Knock Knock, Who's There?
In your case, George, someone that admittedly doesn't follow, or
understand music other than the classics.
>
>Envy and his siblings. Now you didn't need to ask that because we infuse
>our posts with denigration.
>
Or with opinion, based on background, knowledge and experience in the
subject. He's a good golfer, and that is where your opinion might be
worthwhile.
>Perhaps when we redo the real world with our version of a perfect world we
>should eliminate "feel good music." That doesn't qualify as MUSIC.
>CLASSICS ONLY ALLOWED. And the art galleries should only exhibit works
>where the artist has been dead for a minimum of 100 years and we have had
>time to decide if our "liking it" is worthy of us as perfect people.
>
You just don't get it. Feel good music is great, but even that should
be done musically. No art should be eliminated. The posit here is
not about KG's sales, but his musicianship. Since you admittedly
don't understand the medium, nor the question, you missed a good
opportunity to eschew the keyboard.
Great swing video.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:38:23
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Bobby: I am not passing on Kenny's technical skill or even on the "quality
of that kind of music." I am reporting the enjoyment I had and that a ton
of other people had listening to him. As I say, enjoying something that
much that is of such low quality (?) makes me a redneck.
I used to tell my pupils that when they played a classical piece or any
piece for that matter, if they DID NOT PLAY IT CLEARLY AND EXUBERANTLY OR
SWEETLY OR WHATEVERLY enough for EVERYONE in their audience TO ENJOY the
piece, they did not succeed, no matter how technically perfect or "great"
the piece or how well executed. It is not the slavish obedience to the
printed notes or the literal obedience that counts: it is what is
communicated, and in truth, 40 different renditions of the same piece by the
same pianist, and 40 different renditions by 40 different pianists, are ALL
DIFFERENT, and who is to judge the "best." That was an issue I faced as an
adjudicator, and I always gave preference to the performer with the clear
and meaningful message over the one with all the notes, the facility, and
the "correctness" who lacked something compelling to say.
And I just checked, enjoying is no longer mortal sin. I even GREATLY
enjoyed listening to Horowitz and Rubenstein when they were in advanced
years missing lots of notes: more than words can say!
The object of the average man's listening or being talked at is HIS
ENJOYMENT. And just like there are no pop quizzes about the perfection of
your understanding of theology [or whether your religion was "the right one]
for admission when you meet St. Peter , there are no requirements for your
enjoyment whether you think it is 'good music' by a standard beyond your
ken.
I enjoyed KG greatly: redneck, I guess. And he came across like he LOVED
GIVING ENJOYMENT.
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:sgguk2p1vcdc9d4mjkh2uhlhm6p3abiaiv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:48:14 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>>In my former life I was a classically trained pianist and teacher (6 years
>>post graduate work included), and I also adjudicated piano competitions
>>held
>>at the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore, Md. on behalf of the Md. State
>>MusicTeachers Association. I never had any interest in popular music at
>>all, not my taste. I guess it makes me a redneck to admit that I
>>thoroughly enjoyed a live KG concert about 8 years ago in the same
>>auditorium where I waxed ecstatic over a performance of the Brahms 2nd
>>Piano
>>Concerto shortly afterward, and near another spot where I also greatly
>>enjoyed a jazz concert a year later. I have never in my life heard such
>>INCREDIBLE APPLAUSE AND SCREAMING WITH DELIGHT as I did at that KG
>>concert!
>>Amazing. Lots of rednecks there with me, I guess.
>>
> No one ever called KG fans rednecks. Where did you get that?
>>When I was watching one of the pro-am segments of a tournament a couple
>>years ago I saw this beautiful pro-quality swing executed by someone I
>>didn't recognize, so I wondered who was the new kid on the block. It
>>turned
>>out to be none other than the amateur KG himself. I was impressed.
>>
> He's a hell of a golfer. That is not the question.
>>But what does that count for? Apparently his commercial success is
>>meaningless and his wonderful swing an illusion (do other people enjoy his
>>music, and is his full time job something other than honing his golf GAME
>>into precision --those parts called precise direction and distance
>>control,
>>chipping, putting, etc.).
>>
>>Knock Knock, Who's There?
>
> In your case, George, someone that admittedly doesn't follow, or
> understand music other than the classics.
>>
>>Envy and his siblings. Now you didn't need to ask that because we infuse
>>our posts with denigration.
>>
> Or with opinion, based on background, knowledge and experience in the
> subject. He's a good golfer, and that is where your opinion might be
> worthwhile.
>
>>Perhaps when we redo the real world with our version of a perfect world we
>>should eliminate "feel good music." That doesn't qualify as MUSIC.
>>CLASSICS ONLY ALLOWED. And the art galleries should only exhibit works
>>where the artist has been dead for a minimum of 100 years and we have had
>>time to decide if our "liking it" is worthy of us as perfect people.
>>
> You just don't get it. Feel good music is great, but even that should
> be done musically. No art should be eliminated. The posit here is
> not about KG's sales, but his musicianship. Since you admittedly
> don't understand the medium, nor the question, you missed a good
> opportunity to eschew the keyboard.
>
> Great swing video.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:57:09
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:38:23 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>Bobby: I am not passing on Kenny's technical skill or even on the "quality
>of that kind of music." I am reporting the enjoyment I had and that a ton
>of other people had listening to him. As I say, enjoying something that
>much that is of such low quality (?) makes me a redneck.
>
Nothing wrong with that. I would say that quality of music is
something very subjective, but the quality of a musician's skills is
not. It doesn't make you a redneck to enjoy any music. That title
only pertains to NASCAR enthusiasts :-)
(I'm kidding, I'm kidding)
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 23:57:35
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > World class, baby.
>
> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
Geez, talk about stereotypes. If that's _all_ he did his career would
have been over before it started. Give the guy some credit for knowing
how to play, how to ket his music, and how to service his fans. If
half the whiny jazz musicians complainig about Kenny's success could do
the same, jazz would have a little more life in it than the rat
carcass rotting under the dumpster.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:02:46
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 5 Nov 2006 23:57:35 -0800, "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
>> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > World class, baby.
>>
>> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
>> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
>
>Geez, talk about stereotypes. If that's _all_ he did his career would
>have been over before it started. Give the guy some credit for knowing
>how to play, how to ket his music, and how to service his fans. If
>half the whiny jazz musicians complainig about Kenny's success could do
>the same, jazz would have a little more life in it than the rat
>carcass rotting under the dumpster.
keting and servicing isn't making music. His abilities are what
are in question. Jazzers, on the whole, don't complain about the pop
successes of George Benson, Chuck Mangione, or even Stan Getz's bossa
nova releases. They could play. Just don't call KG a jazz anything.
BK
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 23:53:22
From:
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
S McFarlane wrote:
>
> Keith will never be considered a gifted guitarist by anyone that is remotely
> qualified to chime in on the subject. So he sucks as a guitarist. Can you
> really say that he sucks as an artist?
If you mean recording artist/performer, I thought that was exactly what
I was saying. Remember, I do like the stones. A couple years back in
Guitar Player mag they asked Richards what was his formula for success,
and his reply was: "two fingers, a cigarette and an asshole." So even
he knows, which of course adds to the mojo and makes him cooler than
KG.
The analogy was in jazz circles KG, (borrowing from you) isn't a gifted
horn player by anyone remotely qualified, etc... as Richards isn't in
blues or rock circles. That's all, it doesn't mean that either can't
come out with a sucessful tune. The technical requirements for pop
success aren't all that high (recall "Don't Worry, Be Happy).
> KG does not suck because of technical incompetence. He sucks because his
> stuff is music to fill root canals by. There is no music in his music. That
> would be equally true if he were gifted technically, which for all I know he
> is.
Don't agree there, that's a subjective view, what a good song is,
flavor of chocolate vs. vanilla etc. I think the technical part it's a
little more complex than that. (it may be why he went pop).
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 20:28:36
From:
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
muk wrote:
> >
> >Yawn... we've been through this before. Golf skill was the gist of
> >this article and we know she don't lie. Big deal so Kenny G is the
> >"Keith Richards" of jazz. He made a few riffs that makes some average
> >joe's happy and sold lots of records. Don't like??, point your stylus
> >elsewhere.
>
> I posted a comment on his music; lets face it, if he wasn't a
> "musician", he would be just another +0.6 hcp that no one has ever
> heard of.
Of course he'd come up in *this* article- it was on celeb musicians who
play golf.
> Enjoy your Kenny G Holiday album.
Not in my house. Usually Vince Guaraldi during the holidays until the
guests arrive. My tastes disagree with the rest of the extended
family. Ugh, the dreaded Elvis "Blue Christmas" stuff.
I agree with Methany's assement, but you don't need to be a jazz guru
to figure out
KG is all hype. I find it more interesting to discuss the validity of
his "plus" handicap or the other's handicaps. OTOH, bashing him for a
nationwide last place is a bit harsh because it could happen to many a
honest scratch club golfers. (I know you didn't say that part).
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:48:29
From:
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2006 23:53:09 -0800, strat68@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >muk wrote:
> >> >Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
> >> >By The Associated Press
> >>
> >>
> >> This is what Pat Metheny has to say about Kenny G's music. I tend to
> >> agree:
> >>
> >> "(in reference to Kenny G's overdubbing of Louis Armstrong's "What a
> >> Wonderful World") 'When Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for
> >> him to defile the music of the man (Louis Armstrong) who is probably
> >> the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his
> >> lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out,
> >> fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis' tracks (even one of
> >> his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined
> >> possible'"
> >
> >Yawn... we've been through this before. Golf skill was the gist of
> >this article and we know she don't lie. Big deal so Kenny G is the
> >"Keith Richards" of jazz. He made a few riffs that makes some average
> >joe's happy and sold lots of records. Don't like??, point your stylus
> >elsewhere.
> There's more golf content in this thread than
> most.
Point taken, the political stuff is really pathetic lately, and it is
really arrogant as non-US participants have to suffer this crap.
Anyhow, this KG/PM thing was beaten to death here more than once. It
*was* interesting the first time.
FTR, I thought similar of KG before I ever heard of Methany's comments.
Not the technical detail that Methany backed his reks up with, just
the feeling of hype and commercial success without greatness. Not at
all unlike ol' Keith. Also FTR, I like the Stones alot, but still
think it a perfect analogy.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 06:27:12
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
<strat68@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162784909.683595.272960@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> FTR, I thought similar of KG before I ever heard of Methany's comments.
> Not the technical detail that Methany backed his reks up with, just
> the feeling of hype and commercial success without greatness. Not at
> all unlike ol' Keith. Also FTR, I like the Stones alot, but still
> think it a perfect analogy.
I don't like the analogy at all.
For me (and, of course, I'm only speaking for myself), music is the ultimate
artistic expression. This is because art is all about it's ability to evoke
emotional responses in humans that have little or nothing to do with the
media used to produce the magic. There is something exceptional about the
medium of music that allows it to evoke responses in us that transcend our
ability to describe it. In fact, that is the point.
I couldn't possibly convey to you the experience I had listening to 'So
What?' for the first time. I could try, and if you had experienced
something similiar, maybe you'd understand. But the point is, I can't
really convey my experience with that any better than I can describe what it
felt like seeing my first-born child screaming bloody murder in the hospital
on her 0th birthday. Both of those 'media' were hard-wired into my makeup
in such a way that I could never really doing anything with it with words
that would get past superficial. Music is in some ways a better
communicator than language itself.
The point of music as an art form is not technical excellence. Technical
excellence is great, but only if it is used to do excellently what music is
supposed to do. Unfortunately, some of the technically gifted have a bad
tendency of forgetting what exactly that is, and the artistic merit of a
musician becomes boiled down to their ability to perform intricate circus
tricks that only an insider would understand. Some musicians can jump
through all the hoops of fire, and fellow musicians are so awed by it that
they fail to notice that the technical fireworks are part of a funeral
dirge. Other musicians are so bad at those tricks that they are only
vaguely aware that they even exist, but nevertheless excel at doing what
music is supposed to do. IMnotsoHO, Keith Richards is one of them. Rock
music is full of those types.
Keith will never be considered a gifted guitarist by anyone that is remotely
qualified to chime in on the subject. So he sucks as a guitarist. Can you
really say that he sucks as an artist? I suck at the guitar. I can play
'Honky Tonk Woman', given 30 minutes and some tabs. I cannot do what Keith
Richards did with those ridiculously simple riffs of his. I've heard some
really gifted guitar players who will never do anything as evocative as
that. Hell, I've heard really gifted guitarists who can't play 'Honky Tonk
Woman' 1/2 as well as Keith Richards, if you accept my criteria for success
(of course, they didn't have Charlie to lay down the tracks for them, did
they?).
KG does not suck because of technical incompetence. He sucks because his
stuff is music to fill root canals by. There is no music in his music. That
would be equally true if he were gifted technically, which for all I know he
is.
On the other hand, Miles Davis was not an exceptional musician because he
could navigate complicated harmonic relationships on the fly. He was
exceptional because he could blow our minds with a half-note well-played.
Keith Richards didn't do much root canal fillin' music as far as I can tell.
As obligatory (?) golf content, I'll speculate that he could have been a +2
handicapper if it hadn't been for heroin, and maybe Whiskey (though that
hasn't stopped many a golfer). That lithe framework has beyond-scratch
written all over it. Plus he's English. They have it in their blood, if
only by way of conquest. What good golf ever came out of Seattle? They're
just not built for it out there. They should stick to their lattes and
leave the constant rain and dreary weather sports to those more acclimated
to it.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:06:16
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> In rec.sport.golf annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> :
> : slot wrote:
> :> The ranking is based on handicaps, some official, some not-so-official.
> :> Kenny G's handicap is a plus-0.6, meaning his average score is better
> :> than par.
> :>
> :> He tells the magazine he needs improvement.
> :
> : He may be a +0.6 on the golf course, but he's a 36 as a jazz musician.
>
> You don't even need to qualify this with "jazz." Dude can't
> play in tune. Even I can play soprano sax better than him.
>
Sure, you're just not interested in performing, world travel, money or
fame.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 01:24:05
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
In rec.sport.golf slot <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > In rec.sport.golf annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : slot wrote:
: > :> The ranking is based on handicaps, some official, some not-so-official.
: > :> Kenny G's handicap is a plus-0.6, meaning his average score is better
: > :> than par.
: > :>
: > :> He tells the magazine he needs improvement.
: > :
: > : He may be a +0.6 on the golf course, but he's a 36 as a jazz musician.
: >
: > You don't even need to qualify this with "jazz." Dude can't
: > play in tune. Even I can play soprano sax better than him.
:
: Sure, you're just not interested in performing, world travel, money or
: fame.
Not by being the one hack willing to suck enough cock to make
those other things happen. Damn straight.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:04:37
From: slot
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
> World class Saxaphonist ?????
>
+ Billboard Magazine's "Jazz Artist of The Decade" ('80s)
+ top instrumentalist in Playboy, Downbeat, and Rolling Stone
Magazine's Readers Polls
+ Grammy Award in 1993 for "Forever In Love"
+ American Music Award for Favorite Adult Contemporary Artist in 1994
+ R.I.A.A. (Recording Industry Association of America) list of the 25
Top Selling Artists of All Time
+ eight albums have sold more than 36 million copies worldwide to date.
World class, baby.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 04:38:26
From: muk
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 5 Nov 2006 17:04:37 -0800, "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > :
>
>Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
>> World class Saxaphonist ?????
>>
>
>
>+ Billboard Magazine's "Jazz Artist of The Decade" ('80s)
>
>+ top instrumentalist in Playboy, Downbeat, and Rolling Stone
>Magazine's Readers Polls
>
>+ Grammy Award in 1993 for "Forever In Love"
>
>+ American Music Award for Favorite Adult Contemporary Artist in 1994
>
>+ R.I.A.A. (Recording Industry Association of America) list of the 25
>Top Selling Artists of All Time
>
>+ eight albums have sold more than 36 million copies worldwide to date.
>
>
>
>World class, baby.
Milli Vanilli's stats don't look too bad either !
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 20:04:14
From: Matt 'Ocho' Aamold
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
"slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> World class, baby.
Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 05:08:02
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > World class, baby.
>
> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
Sounds good on elevators though! ;^)
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:52:13
From: Random Excess
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 05:08:02 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>
>
>Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
>
>> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > World class, baby.
>>
>> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
>> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
>
>Sounds good on elevators though! ;^)
>
Kenny G walks into an elevator and says, "Man, this place is
Happening!"
TP
"What, me worry? I'm voting for Kinky!"
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 14:36:15
From: David J. Littleboy
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote:
> Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
>
>> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > World class, baby.
>>
>> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
>> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
>
> Sounds good on elevators though! ;^)
It sounds just as disgusting on elevators as anywhere else.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 05:45:43
From: Max Leggett
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:36:15 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com > wrote:
>"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote:
>> Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
>>
>>> "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1162775077.429592.110420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> > World class, baby.
>>>
>>> Eh...holding notes, running up and down a harmonic scale and playing
>>> irritatingly sharp all the time a musician does not make.
>>
>> Sounds good on elevators though! ;^)
>
>It sounds just as disgusting on elevators as anywhere else.
>
Yes, but it's disgusting in a peculiarly world class way. His fans are
ditto, less the class.
--------------------------------------
Without music, life is a mistayke.
Friedrich "Spelling R Us" Nietzsche
--------------------------------------
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:42:29
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 5 Nov 2006 17:04:37 -0800, "slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>Matt 'Ocho' Aamold wrote:
>> World class Saxaphonist ?????
>>
>
>
>+ Billboard Magazine's "Jazz Artist of The Decade" ('80s)
>
>+ top instrumentalist in Playboy, Downbeat, and Rolling Stone
>Magazine's Readers Polls
>
>+ Grammy Award in 1993 for "Forever In Love"
>
>+ American Music Award for Favorite Adult Contemporary Artist in 1994
>
>+ R.I.A.A. (Recording Industry Association of America) list of the 25
>Top Selling Artists of All Time
>
>+ eight albums have sold more than 36 million copies worldwide to date.
>
>
>
>World class, baby.
Only in sales of schlock music
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:03:14
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Sparky wrote:
> On 5-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In rec.sport.golf annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> > :
> > : slot wrote:
> > :> The ranking is based on handicaps, some official, some not-so-official.
> > :> Kenny G's handicap is a plus-0.6, meaning his average score is better
> > :> than par.
> > :>
> > :> He tells the magazine he needs improvement.
> > :
> > : He may be a +0.6 on the golf course, but he's a 36 as a jazz musician.
> >
> > You don't even need to qualify this with "jazz." Dude can't
> > play in tune. Even I can play soprano sax better than him.
>
> And I'm willing to bet I can wax him in golf...
He's a hack....see below from last year:
KENNY GORELICK CHOPS IT ON NATIONWIDE TOUR,
BUT KENNY G SHOWS HIS CHOPS ON 'DUETS ALBUM'
The Starter has always been an "agate man," scanning the scores -
the agate type - from around the world looking for the most
interesting of tidbits.
This week, you have to go to the very bottom of the Nationwide Tour
list to find an amateur named Kenny Gorelick, who shot 82-83-165 to
finish dead last in the k Christopher Charity Classic.
But it's a good thing Gorelick has a regular job to fall back on -
he's much better known as Kenny G, the No. 1 selling instrumental
recording artist of all time.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 10:00:49
From: Matt 'Ocho' Aamold
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
World class Saxaphonist ?????
"slot" <jazzjitsu@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1162699315.144926.284080@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>LOS ANGELES - Saxophonist Kenny G has more to brag about than his
> world-class saxophone-playing. He's the best golfer among music-makers,
>according to Golf Digest's ranking of the "Top 100 in Music."
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 07:46:20
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> Metheny was dead on, except why on earth would he not have imagined KG
> doing something so stupid? I'm glad for him that he can play golf,
> but as a musician, he's awful. Popular, but awful.
I wonder which golfer(s) would be voted the Best Musician?
There seem to be a number of musician golfers here on RSG so I wonder
if the trend continues nationwide. And then you've got the greats like
John Daly, Peter Jacobsen, and k Lye.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:11:39
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
: I wonder which golfer(s) would be voted the Best Musician?
I guess Don Cherry is no longer under consideration.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 07:42:19
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
slot wrote:
> The ranking is based on handicaps, some official, some not-so-official.
> Kenny G's handicap is a plus-0.6, meaning his average score is better
> than par.
>
> He tells the magazine he needs improvement.
He may be a +0.6 on the golf course, but he's a 36 as a jazz musician.
Kenny G is to jazz what Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan are to golf.
People pay to see them play, but most people know they suck.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:10:53
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
In rec.sport.golf annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: slot wrote:
: > The ranking is based on handicaps, some official, some not-so-official.
: > Kenny G's handicap is a plus-0.6, meaning his average score is better
: > than par.
: >
: > He tells the magazine he needs improvement.
:
: He may be a +0.6 on the golf course, but he's a 36 as a jazz musician.
You don't even need to qualify this with "jazz." Dude can't
play in tune. Even I can play soprano sax better than him.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:59:17
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 5-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> In rec.sport.golf annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> :
> : slot wrote:
> :> The ranking is based on handicaps, some official, some not-so-official.
> :> Kenny G's handicap is a plus-0.6, meaning his average score is better
> :> than par.
> :>
> :> He tells the magazine he needs improvement.
> :
> : He may be a +0.6 on the golf course, but he's a 36 as a jazz musician.
>
> You don't even need to qualify this with "jazz." Dude can't
> play in tune. Even I can play soprano sax better than him.
And I'm willing to bet I can wax him in golf...
me
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 04:50:28
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 06:15:25 -0500, "Jackson" <hackman55@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You must consider the source (Metheny) to get the correct view on this
> >situation. This guy is a whacko and really should keep his comments to
> >himself. Music is subjective unlike golf.
>
> Music is subjective? Only to those who listen without any knowledge of
> it.
>
> Do you know what intonation is? Are you aware of chordal
> progression, and what happens if you don't play jazz within that
> structure? Have you a concept of time, and tempo?
Do you really think Miles Davis followed structured music progression?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 07:51:24
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 5 Nov 2006 04:50:28 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 06:15:25 -0500, "Jackson" <hackman55@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You must consider the source (Metheny) to get the correct view on this
>> >situation. This guy is a whacko and really should keep his comments to
>> >himself. Music is subjective unlike golf.
>>
>> Music is subjective? Only to those who listen without any knowledge of
>> it.
>>
>> Do you know what intonation is? Are you aware of chordal
>> progression, and what happens if you don't play jazz within that
>> structure? Have you a concept of time, and tempo?
>
>Do you really think Miles Davis followed structured music progression?
Of course he did, even when he ventured outside he was still
restrained, neveractually what is free-form. If you had said Eric
Dolphy, Albert Ayers, or Archie Shepp there would be an agreement.
This genre is really a mixed bag too. You can have so many concepts
of what is "free". Anyway, there has been a free-form movement for
years, but that's not KG's bag.
Kenny G is NOT an avante garde player, and is playing what is called
"inside" to jazz musicians, which is staying within chord changes, and
steady rhythms. Then there are the other standards like intonation
and just plain taste (which IS subjective). He's not well regarded as
a player, but is as a moneymaker.
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 23:53:09
From:
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
muk wrote:
> >Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
> >By The Associated Press
>
>
> This is what Pat Metheny has to say about Kenny G's music. I tend to
> agree:
>
> "(in reference to Kenny G's overdubbing of Louis Armstrong's "What a
> Wonderful World") 'When Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for
> him to defile the music of the man (Louis Armstrong) who is probably
> the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his
> lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out,
> fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis' tracks (even one of
> his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined
> possible'"
Yawn... we've been through this before. Golf skill was the gist of
this article and we know she don't lie. Big deal so Kenny G is the
"Keith Richards" of jazz. He made a few riffs that makes some average
joe's happy and sold lots of records. Don't like??, point your stylus
elsewhere.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 15:43:28
From: muk
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
>
>Yawn... we've been through this before. Golf skill was the gist of
>this article and we know she don't lie. Big deal so Kenny G is the
>"Keith Richards" of jazz. He made a few riffs that makes some average
>joe's happy and sold lots of records. Don't like??, point your stylus
>elsewhere.
I posted a comment on his music; lets face it, if he wasn't a
"musician", he would be just another +0.6 hcp that no one has ever
heard of.
Enjoy your Kenny G Holiday album.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 06:25:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On 4 Nov 2006 23:53:09 -0800, strat68@gmail.com wrote:
>
>muk wrote:
>> >Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
>> >By The Associated Press
>>
>>
>> This is what Pat Metheny has to say about Kenny G's music. I tend to
>> agree:
>>
>> "(in reference to Kenny G's overdubbing of Louis Armstrong's "What a
>> Wonderful World") 'When Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for
>> him to defile the music of the man (Louis Armstrong) who is probably
>> the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his
>> lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out,
>> fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis' tracks (even one of
>> his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined
>> possible'"
>
>Yawn... we've been through this before. Golf skill was the gist of
>this article and we know she don't lie. Big deal so Kenny G is the
>"Keith Richards" of jazz. He made a few riffs that makes some average
>joe's happy and sold lots of records. Don't like??, point your stylus
>elsewhere.
Yawn. Who's she? There's more golf content in this thread than
most.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 06:15:25
From: Jackson
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
You must consider the source (Metheny) to get the correct view on this
situation. This guy is a whacko and really should keep his comments to
himself. Music is subjective unlike golf.
<strat68@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162713189.864462.310330@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> muk wrote:
>> >Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
>> >By The Associated Press
>>
>>
>> This is what Pat Metheny has to say about Kenny G's music. I tend to
>> agree:
>>
>> "(in reference to Kenny G's overdubbing of Louis Armstrong's "What a
>> Wonderful World") 'When Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for
>> him to defile the music of the man (Louis Armstrong) who is probably
>> the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his
>> lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out,
>> fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis' tracks (even one of
>> his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined
>> possible'"
>
> Yawn... we've been through this before. Golf skill was the gist of
> this article and we know she don't lie. Big deal so Kenny G is the
> "Keith Richards" of jazz. He made a few riffs that makes some average
> joe's happy and sold lots of records. Don't like??, point your stylus
> elsewhere.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 06:31:48
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 06:15:25 -0500, "Jackson" <hackman55@comcast.net >
wrote:
>You must consider the source (Metheny) to get the correct view on this
>situation. This guy is a whacko and really should keep his comments to
>himself. Music is subjective unlike golf.
Music is subjective? Only to those who listen without any knowledge of
it.
Do you know what intonation is? Are you aware of chordal
progression, and what happens if you don't play jazz within that
structure? Have you a concept of time, and tempo?
Before you make statements like that, you need to check around with
some real musicians.
All of those things are objective, and KG doesn't pass muster for any
of them. Metheny may not appeal to you, but he damned sure knows what
music is, and is correct about Kenny G.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 02:05:53
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 06:31:48 -0600, Bobby Knight wrote:
> All of those things are objective, and KG doesn't pass muster for any of
> them. Metheny may not appeal to you, but he damned sure knows what
> music is, and is correct about Kenny G.
I remember reading somewhere that KG was scratch, and I immediately
thought, "vanity handicap." Why would his golf be any different from his
music?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:41:23
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:t66tk2d8nqeqli8g0hq2tn97be4k49ltrf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:55:37 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>>> The Governmentment owes you that.
>>
>>Bullshit.
>
> WTC7 sustained damage from the collapse of the two towers, caught fire
> and collapsed. It's as simple as that. No one died and it was not a
> crime scene therefore the rubble was hauled away without an
> investigation.
>
> Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
Jack, wishing won't make it go away.
Incidentally death is not the only prerequisite
for a crime scene. What about insurance fraud?
Alan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:36:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:41:23 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
>Jack, wishing won't make it go away.
>
>Incidentally death is not the only prerequisite
>for a crime scene. What about insurance fraud?
>
> Alan
If there was even the slightest indication that insurance fraud
involved, I'm sure that the insurance company would have jumped on it
in a minute.
Here's the portion of the definitive article on the WTC7 collapse in
Popular Mechanics.
"To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy
theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS (PM) assembled a team of nine researchers
and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70
professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine,
including aviation, engineering and the military."
"CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7
collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that
it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled
demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this
one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report,
which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its
collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) researchers now support
the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling
debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we
found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face
of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face
to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25
percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also
discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and
its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe
structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the
exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests
the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process
in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates
strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the
fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just
before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after
the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping
east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal
collapse.
According to NIST, there was one priy reason for the building's
failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were
carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area
for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if
you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder
notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the
entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under
investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were
designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With
columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would
likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other
faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no
firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire
was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run
emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly
small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large
tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current
working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel
[to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the
fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the
building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the
chain-reaction collapse."
Only a complete idiot would disregard this in favor of an explanation
that has absolutely nothing to back it up. If the conspiracy
theorists had any evidence to back up their claims, it would be
different. However they have nothing, zero, nada. That's why they're
idiots.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 17:58:25
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:reouk21vruvtdrml634v9j7qptpqi49i2i@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:41:23 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
> <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Jack, wishing won't make it go away.
>>
>>Incidentally death is not the only prerequisite
>>for a crime scene. What about insurance fraud?
>>
>> Alan
>
> If there was even the slightest indication that insurance fraud
> involved, I'm sure that the insurance company would have jumped on it
> in a minute.
>
>
> Here's the portion of the definitive article on the WTC7 collapse in
> Popular Mechanics.
>
>
> "To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy
> theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS (PM) assembled a team of nine researchers
> and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70
> professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine,
> including aviation, engineering and the military."
>
>
> "CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7
> collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that
> it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled
> demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this
> one."
>
> FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report,
> which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its
> collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, National
> Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) researchers now support
> the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling
> debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we
> found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face
> of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face
> to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25
> percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also
> discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and
> its southwest corner.
>
> NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe
> structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the
> exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests
> the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process
> in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates
> strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the
> fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just
> before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after
> the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping
> east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal
> collapse.
>
> According to NIST, there was one priy reason for the building's
> failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were
> carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area
> for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if
> you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder
> notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the
> entire section comes down."
>
> There are two other possible contributing factors still under
> investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were
> designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With
> columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would
> likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other
> faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
>
> Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no
> firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire
> was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run
> emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly
> small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large
> tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current
> working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel
> [to the fire] for a long period of time."
>
> WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the
> fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the
> building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the
> chain-reaction collapse."
>
>
>
> Only a complete idiot would disregard this in favor of an explanation
> that has absolutely nothing to back it up. If the conspiracy
> theorists had any evidence to back up their claims, it would be
> different. However they have nothing, zero, nada. That's why they're
> idiots.
Jack, Is that the best you can do. Popular Mechanics.
Spare us that for Chrissake. You also misrepresent
NIST's position which can be found on the recent faq
regarding 9-11 published on their website. They are
due to publish a further report on WTC7 in 2007 and,
contrary to what you believe, they are considering the
controlled demolition hypothesis. Hypothesis note, not
conspiracy theory. They assign a low probability to the
fire hypothesis BTW. In other words they haven't a clue
what brought down this building and neither have you.
Have you heard of Occam's razor. This suggests that
usually the simplest explanation is the correct one.
Facts again: WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it was two
blocks from WTC1&2, it was separated from them by
other buildings which did not collapse and it fell in just
over six seconds which is free-fall speed. Buildings are
brought down like that all the time by controlled
demolition but never by fire. Occam says hello, Jack.
Alan
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 14:05:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:58:25 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
> it was two
>blocks from
Wrong WTC7 was one block away from the North Tower.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building_7_highlighted%29.jpg
And the building between WTC1 and WTC7 was 6 stories high.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 14:01:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:58:25 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
>Jack, Is that the best you can do. Popular Mechanics.
>Spare us that for Chrissake. You also misrepresent
>NIST's position which can be found on the recent faq
>regarding 9-11 published on their website. They are
>due to publish a further report on WTC7 in 2007 and,
>contrary to what you believe, they are considering the
>controlled demolition hypothesis. Hypothesis note, not
>conspiracy theory. They assign a low probability to the
>fire hypothesis BTW. In other words they haven't a clue
>what brought down this building and neither have you.
Here is the current report on WTC7 from NIST from August 2006..
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the
47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after
the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition
hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to
hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004
progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST
investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time
through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC
towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC
towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse
resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time,
including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to
WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling
and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a
contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is
anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in
the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17,
as well as Appendix L), as follows:
*
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below
floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural
damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a
large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
*
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to
the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to
redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below
the east penthouse; and
*
Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal
progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of
floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than
the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the
entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be
developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST
also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have
played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no
evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to
determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could
have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
I think the relevant quote is "NIST has found no evidence of a blast
or controlled demolition event"
I say again, only freaking idiot could believe that the WTC7 collapse
was the result of explosive charges.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 20:30:21
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:ob1vk29j98224a6sbggg397fiaipjpmctg@4ax.com...
> This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be
> developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST
> also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have
> played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no
> evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to
> determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could
> have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
>
>
> I think the relevant quote is "NIST has found no evidence of a blast
> or controlled demolition event"
>
I think the relevant quote is, "NIST also is considering
whether hypothetical blast events could have played a
role in initiating the collapse". It's there in black and white
Jack. NIST is considering a controlled demolition scenario.
> I say again, only freaking idiot could believe that the WTC7 collapse
> was the result of explosive charges.
The building fell at free-fall speed. Only a freaking idiot
could believe that the WTC7 collapse was not the result
of explosive charges.
When you're in a hole stop digging. Just slink away with
your tail between your legs. Even Larry is st enough
to do that.
Alan.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 20:13:39
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:30:21 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
>When you're in a hole stop digging. Just slink away with
>your tail between your legs. Even Larry is st enough
>to do that.
>
>Alan.
End of discussion.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:38:37
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:55:37 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>>> The Governmentment owes you that.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> WTC7 sustained damage from the collapse of the two towers, caught fire
> and collapsed. It's as simple as that. No one died and it was not a
> crime scene therefore the rubble was hauled away without an
> investigation.
Thank you. These conspiracy theorists are off to the races.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:40:32
From: Rob Davis
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 06:15:25 -0500, "Jackson" <hackman55@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>You must consider the source (Metheny) to get the correct view on this
>>situation. This guy is a whacko and really should keep his comments to
>>himself. Music is subjective unlike golf.
>
>
> Music is subjective? Only to those who listen without any knowledge of
> it.
>
> Do you know what intonation is? Are you aware of chordal
> progression, and what happens if you don't play jazz within that
> structure? Have you a concept of time, and tempo?
>
I know what all of those things are and have played guitar for almost 40
years in a variety of styles. I have enjoyed music that has thrown all
of those things out the window ... although not usually at the same time
8^). And I would have to agree that music as a whole is a very
subjective thing to judge ... you *might* have an argument on something
like classical or traditional jazz specifically, but not "music" as a whole.
Rob
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 06:33:48
From: muk
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
>Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
>By The Associated Press
This is what Pat Metheny has to say about Kenny G's music. I tend to
agree:
“(in reference to Kenny G’s overdubbing of Louis Armstrong’s “What a
Wonderful World") ‘When Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for
him to defile the music of the man (Louis Armstrong) who is probably
the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his
lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out,
fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis’ tracks (even one of
his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined
possible’”
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 06:23:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Golf Digest: No. 1 musical golfer
|
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 06:33:48 GMT, muk <mukhp@NOSPAMhotmail.com > wrote:
>
>>Magazine ranks Kenny G as No. 1 musical golfer
>>By The Associated Press
>
>
>This is what Pat Metheny has to say about Kenny G's music. I tend to
>agree:
>
>“(in reference to Kenny G’s overdubbing of Louis Armstrong’s “What a
>Wonderful World") ‘When Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for
>him to defile the music of the man (Louis Armstrong) who is probably
>the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his
>lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out,
>fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis’ tracks (even one of
>his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined
>possible’”
Metheny was dead on, except why on earth would he not have imagined KG
doing something so stupid? I'm glad for him that he can play golf,
but as a musician, he's awful. Popular, but awful.
___,
\o
|
|
