What the hell is wrong with Jeff Beck?

[michael saulnier]

I just don't get it.

 

What does it take to be a great guitar player?

 

We say we want players with great technical skills, who are able to imbue powerful emotion into their music, who are innovative, who don't "play it safe"...

 

Well that describes Jeff Beck.

 

I've had his latest cd in regular rotation in my car. The more I listen, the more I believe this is the most interesting and ground breaking thing he's ever done.

 

I know many people prefer the "vintage" Beck playing blues based material... I like and respect this stuff, but several others were playing this material at the same time...

 

Others, (including me), liked his "jazz fusion" era... Blow by Blow and Wired were almost "hits", and his playing certainly was innovative at that time... Of that style of music, Jeff Beck with the Jan Hammer Group Live! was and is one of the high water marks of that genre.

 

Now, he's embarked on a kinda "techno" thing... But to me, his use of this genre is the opposite of what I generally "don't like" about mainstream techno.

 

Unlike most "techno", his style is heavily guitar laden. It's awesome sounding. He's playing parts that don't rely extensively on the pentatonic blues based soloing of his past, and I get a great "feel" from his music. It's got cool technical gimmicks, it's got interesting "vocal" elements.

 

Unlike most techno... Jeff's stuff is really "musical".

 

THEN HOW COME THERE'S NO OUTLET FOR HIS MUSIC.

 

If I wasn't a guitar player and didn't read the trades... I would never even know he was still alive let alone has a new album...

 

... Last year, when he came on tour, I went to my local ticketmaster outlet to get my seats for the show... The manager waited on me. He was in his late 30's early 40's and he commented: "The kids who work for me don't even know who Jeff is... The only Beck they know is the pop guy!

 

As Chip might say... Aaaaarrrrggggghhhhh!

 

guitplayer

 

 

 

This message has been edited by guitplayer on 04-21-2001 at 04:24 PM

[Scott from MA]

Originally posted by guitplayer:

We say we want players with great technical skills, who are able to imbue powerful emotion into their music

 

The answer is simple for me... I've never heard a Beck song that conveyed ANY emotion to me. That's not to say that he doesn't put emotion in his playing, just that he doesn't relate to me personally.

 

Playing with emotion is the easy part... making someone else feel it too is more difficult.

[michael saulnier]

Scott,

 

I appreciate you don't get the feelings that Jeff is going for... it's personal and great minds can and will disagree...

 

Have you listened to Jeff's new cd You had it coming?

 

Can you tell us who DOES move you?

 

guitplayer

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, I'm with Scott - except for the Yardbirds era and a few other scattered exceptions. Yes, there were other people doing the "same type of stuff" during that era, but one of the cool things about a "technically limited" genre is that if you put 10 guitar players in a room and tell them to play the same very simple song, they are still going to sound very different and some of them are going to still come up with amazing parts while others will bore you to tears.

 

What Beck did on "Over, Under, Sideways, Down" is totally awesome IMO. And his solo on "Too Much Monkey Business" on the Yardbirds BBC compilation... I've heard lots of people do that song, and even play something close to the same notes, but none with the fire that he did.

 

Haven't heard Beck's new album but I'm sure I will at some point. I imagine there'll be a few songs off it that I'll really dig and the rest will be a yawner to me. That's how most of his stuff strikes me.

 

--Lee

[Beagle1]

My favorite Beck stuff comes from his fusion era (i.e. Blow by Blow through There and Back). Haven't heard Beck's new one yet but I wasn't too thrilled with his last release, 'Who Else?' ...except for the song 'Brush with the Blues.' IMHO that one ranks among his best ever.

[fantasticsound]

When I became aware of Jeff Beck, I found Wired and listened. I wasn't really impressed with it. But his work with Rod Stewart, on all those classic mid '70's tunes is fantastic. My favorite is I Was Only Joking. The guitar is simple, sweet, and very emotional. It starts out almost bland, then works up to a peak, switches to distorted tones and reaches higher. Great cut.

 

People Get Ready, with Rod from the mid '80's is great, too.

 

I think it's an Andy Summers thing. (My own observation.) Andy has a unique style, that teamed with Sting's ability to write catchy melodies, defined the Police. Without Sting, Andy comes off pretty boring. (I'll be glad to listen to any recent cuts in his defense, but, the first solo album wasn't even worth the cutout price I paid for it.) Jeff comes across like that to me, most of the time. He's a born sideman, stylistically, IMO.

 

Neil

[D. Gauss]

well...jeff beck. that's a tough one. he's one of the best guitarists ever put on this planet, yet unfortunately that's all he is-- a guitarist, not a songwriter. the guy is such a great player yet has more shitty albums than i have unmatching pairs of socks (see also roy buchanan). he's easily bored, moody, and sometimes could care less about his career. he says, "i'd rather play with my many motorcars." the rod sweart stuff was decent...beck ,bogert, and appice was such a horrible band, his 80's records are terrible (that tony hymas guy writes the worst shit), and wired and blow by blow could be cut down into one decent record.

there's such an uproar about his last 2 records and the techno thing. the purists, hate them, yet he's making mucho money off those records as they are being played not on the radio in playlists, but as background music everywhere. listen to howard stern, watch a sports highlight show, jeff beck techno stuff is everywhere.

personally, like any beck record, i find maybe one or two tunes that have something amzing on them but the rest is very crappy. having said all that, the guy is fucking amazing. the mirco-tonal stuff he plays with the slide and the whammy bar is next to impossible to do, yet is fluid and effortless for him. if you see him do the beatles "day in a life" live, your jaw will drop. good song plus good player equals enjoyment! so of the big yardbirds three.. clap-tone, beck, and page , beck is far and away the best player, yet the least listenable on record. such bad material. page, what can you say? sloppy, sloppy sloppy yet creative as hell (not counting the out and out ripping off of the blues cats), he wrote great tunes and played great parts. and the uninspiring eric clap-tone? well that's another thread isn't it.....

 

-d. gauss

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

What does it take to be a great guitar player?

 

Guitplayer, talk about a loaded question. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Here's my attempt to answer it.

 

In aesthetics, we refer to the capacity to discern the aesthetic features of works of art as 'taste'. Whether we agree with those who argue that aesthetic judgement depends on an inner 'sense' akin to the moral sentiments, or we follow Kant (and subsequent philosophers and cognitive psychologists) who argue that aesthetic discrimination is an emergent property of our everyday cognitive capacities, our starting point in dealing with aesthetic appreciation must be the personal experience of a peculiar emotion. We must ask: Is taste universal and can it be measured?

 

How does an artist elicit an emotional response? Do we examine the structural basis of the work - its unity, balance, harmony - or is it more important to focus on non-formal features such as innovation, tone colour, intensity, feel and so forth? Kant would instruct us that no aesthetic judgement that only addresses the "temporal" form of a work of art can be anything other than sensuous, private, personal. So should we adopt Kants 'disinterested' aesthetic attitude when appraising a work of art, dispensing with its private, strictly emotional associations.

 

It's a compellingly brilliant piece of sheer logic, but ultimately I think Kant fails to persuade. The problem is that those of us who accept Kant' hypothesis have to account for the wide variety of individual taste - not just cross culturally, but across the street! Kant seeks to deny that individual taste can be described as purely subjective, neither valid nor invalid, right or wrong. This would seem to critics trapped in the post-structuralist environment (i.e. all of us) as a faintly ridiculous claim.

 

BUT...(for those who have stuck with me this far)... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

OTOH, is it not equally ridiculous for serious-minded people to deny that for example: Manhattan's city sewers are less beautiful than the Grand Canyon, Rembrandt is a better painter than I am, Dark Side of the Moon is a greater work of art than SpiceWorld (the SpiceGirls' movie). And so on...

 

But of course, you see immediately the problem we face. If we accept that aesthetic judgment is purely a matter of personal taste whilst at the same time agreeing that we can arrive at a consensus in some matters of aesthetics, then how do we unravel this paradox?

 

We could, I suppose cop out and follow Hegel and Schopenhauer in their fanciful metaphysics identifying art with "higher", objective "truth", but an empiricist finds this as unacceptable as most other metaphysical claims - in any case, it doesn't solve our dilemma.

 

Getting more concrete for a moment... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

As Enlightenment philosopher Hume said (and as guitplayer wisely pointed out over in the Clapton thread) "We choose our favourite author as we do our friend, from a conformity of humour and disposition" As an example of this, we can all testify that our tastes changed as we grew older - whether we like it or not it would seem. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

I think that aesthetic disagreement amongst "equally competent and sensitive judges" cannot be dismissed lightly. Ultimately, perhaps to have good taste is nothing more than to admire art which embodies properties perceived through prior aesthetic experience. Individual experience is one critical factor which differs for each of us, no matter how empathetic we may feel. What makes you like guitar players I don't and vice versa is the private ability of each person to discern and account for our experience of aesthetic characteristics that pertain to us.

 

 

The short version is: what makes a great guitar player is different for you and me and everyone else on the planet. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Ian

 

 

This message has been edited by Ian Stewart Cairns on 04-21-2001 at 08:30 PM

[michael saulnier]

Ian,

 

That was a well written comment. Just one question.

 

Do YOU like Jeff's new cd?

 

guitplayer

[Lee Flier]

Uh.... OK Ian. Whatever you say. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

How about, there are certain obvious parameters that fairly objectively define the limits of what can and can't be "good taste" (e.g. the sewer vs. the Grand Canyon) but anything that falls within those rather wide limits is fair game for agreement or disagreement?

 

But whatever. I think d. gauss is right on the money about Beck, at least as far as my aesthetic is concerned. If you look down my list of fave guitarists, they are all great songwriters and/or producers. So, coming up with guitar parts that serve great songs and painting "sonic landscapes" with layered guitar parts is more my thing than trying to write songs that show off guitar chops. Probably that's why I like Jeff Beck sometimes (like when he works as a "sideman" for somebody else who writes good songs) and not other times (most of his solo stuff).

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-22-2001 at 01:44 AM

[michael saulnier]

For everyone else...

 

Ummmm... no one has admitted to hearing his new cd in its entirety.

 

How about a response from someone who has?

 

guitplayer

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by guitplayer:

Ian,

 

That was a well written comment. Just one question.

 

Do YOU like Jeff's new cd?

 

No.

 

Ian

[fantasticsound]

I totally agree with your last post Lee Flier.

 

That's why I like Joe Walsh (Even though his solo albums haven't amounted to much on the charts) and Paul Simon, Paul McCartney, Sting (In the Police and Blue Turtles years, mostly.)and Eddie Van Halen (mostly from 5150 backwards). These guys, at the times mentioned for some, seem equally at home playing or writing tunes, and understand that showing off on their instrument has a time and place. One of the masters of this is Geddy Lee. He once stated in an interview that as producer he needs to be keenly aware of playing more restrained to support the song, first.

 

Neil (Oh, haven't heard the new Jeff Beck, lol)

[Skip_dup1]

Hope nobody minds if I put in my thoughts-

Someone handed me a video of Jeff B`s 1999 show in Tokyo last year. It was most of the songs on Who Else? and some classic stuff. I hadn`t heard a thing about him in years, and I was blown away. I liked some of the songs a lot more than others, but he was consistently creative. I was hard put to find even one spot of the same old pentatonic-based stuff that so many players rely on. Lots of great guitarists can`t write a decent song-dare I mention Steve Vai? to that extent, Beck as as much a casualty of the Backstreet Boys syndrome as any other instrumental musician. Does he deserve better? absolutely, just like Allan Holdsworth, Pat Metheny and a host of others. Haven`t heard the new one, by the way. I read a really positive review in the newspaper.

[D. Gauss]

<

How about a response from someone who has?>>

 

yep i've heard it, i own it. btw, it only clocks in at 30 minutes! rip-off...the track with him "trading licks" with a sampled bird is an absolute low. the rollin' and tumbling remake is not my cup of tea. i kinda like the first tune..the one in 10/4 time or whatever. you know for the last album he had steve "toto totally blows" lukather as the original producer and then fired him. i'd be curious to hear some of those tracks. but luke says that beck made him erase them.....

just remember that beck turned down the chance to be a rolling stone in 1975! (there are bootlegs of him playing "hot stuff" with keef and the boys)

 

-d. gauss

[Scott from MA]

Originally posted by guitplayer:

Have you listened to Jeff's new cd You had it coming?

 

Can you tell us who DOES move you?

 

 

No, I haven't heard anything from Beck in years. To be honest, I wasn't even aware that he was still putting stuff out. I'd be interested in hearing what he's doing now, since you say it's totally different.

 

As far as what does move me... I'm more impressed by the total package than just the guitar playing. As I've mentioned a few times, I relate to a lot of Bob Mould songs on a very personal level. Jeff Buckley also hits home with me, more for his powerful vocals and the overall mood of the songs than his guitar work. Ben Harper does some slide stuff that can give me the chills.

 

I saw Gatemouth Brown a few years ago, and was completely blown away by him. It doesn't seem to come across so well on tape, but seeing him live can really knock you out. I also saw BB King, and was floored by his infallible control over the guitar. He may be a minimalist, but he's precise.

 

Really there's not a lot of musicians for whom I can say that everything they do is gold. Once in a while, everything comes together just right and a song will make a big impression on me. A lot of people come to mind... Owsley, HUM, Nick Drake, Jane's Addiction, fIREHOSE, Dinosaur Jr., Radiohead. None of the "best-of-the-best" guitarists, but they've all found a way to relate directly to me. That's the kind of music I like.

[Jimmy James]

Ok, here's an informed opinion. I have Jeff Beck's entire discography except for I believe "Crazy Legs." "You Had It Coming" and "Who Else?," his last two releases took some time to grow on me. But grow it did. I saw him on the "Who Else?" tour with Jennifer Batten and he was amazing. It gave me hope for the future of rock guitar and sent me home to break out "There and Back" and resume practising my ass off. There are still things to be said and feelings that can be expressed through a Strat and a bi-amp set up and Jeff showed me that. We all just have to dig. It's there!

 

In my opinion Jeff Beck is the last true virtuoso of the classic rock guitar era. Even if he leaves you cold you have to admit that he's the only guitarist from that era who continued to evolve as an artist. He is the guitar player that everyone wanted Clapton to be interms of continuing to push the possibilites of what the guitar could express.

 

He's magic. The new stuff has great mirco tonal bends and lots of vocal like expression, but I'll always go back to "Jeff Beck Live With The Jan Hammer Group. Sly and the Family Stone meets The Mahavishnu Orchestra.

 

------------------

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/144/oscar_jordan.html

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by guitplayer:

THEN HOW COME THERE'S NO OUTLET FOR HIS MUSIC.

 

 

Because the exorbitantly high paid record company execs are too much the dullard to realize and understand how actual TALENT can be marketed.

 

Things keep blindsiding the industry: rap, the Seattle thing, etc. If the people running the industry had their act together, this wouldn't happen. They'd know what's going on in every town in the U.S., they would have scouting reports just like the NBA - nothing would escape them.

 

AS PROOF OF THIS:

 

Witness Carlo's Santana's recent success. Yeah, he had pop musicians accompany him. HOWEVER - what was really being marketed was Santan's "guitar heroism". I now regularly get kids coming into guitar lessons that say things of genuflection towards Santana, remarks like "well, he's the best isn't he?", etc. I hate to say it, but his talent works in a retail sense similar to Britney's chest: it doesn't have to be the music itself that is being marketed. All you have to do is have a self-evident sound: Santana's ethnic saturated soloing is a fairly blunt hammer in that respect, just as Britney's breasts are.. uhm... two pointed hammers?

 

UHm. What were we discussing?

 

Oh yeah. Uhm, so anyhow, look at Dave Matthews: people come into guitar lessons wanting me to show them "some Dave". Just "Dave". Dave Letterman? Dave my room mate? No, Dave Matthews, who is the closest thing effectively to a cross between Jerry Garcia and Jimi Hendrix to Gen-X as there can be. His market appeal is in that he actually has ability on guitar.

 

Jeff Beck could be pushed just the same way: the elder statesman guitar hero. But it would seem the labels don't understand how to push talent unless it happens as a side effect.

 

Beck could readily be niche marketed like Clapton is to a specific age group. Or cross marketed the way Santana has been. Or many ways. It makes me mad when the self-appointed pragmatic horns of "The Real World" say things like "well, it's got to sound "commercial" to sell" - when there's so many obvious indications that TALENT *can* sell and be marketed successfully. It doesn't HAVE to be musical dribble, and the returns on actual talent is probably going to be longer lasting and more profitable over the long haul (how many records has Matthews put out now? U-2? Sting?) than generic fly by night acts.

 

The labels complain of the built in costs of running a depreciating business that has to support 20 acts to get one successful one - maybe if they actually tried to recruit something they had actual *musical* faith in, instead of shotgun-splatter marketing gimmickry, that wouldn't be the case.

 

 

As Chip might say... Aaaaarrrrggggghhhhh!

 

AHHRrrghghhhhhhhh!

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[gtrmac]

Although I will admit a bias, since I've always liked Jeff Beck's playing, I love the last two albums he did. He is proof that you can continue to break new ground as long as you live. He's pushed the boundaries of guitar playing for as long as he's been around. I've seen him live twice this year and was knocked out by the live show as well. I guess there are two things about him which really hit me, originality and a lack of complacency. He has a totally unique style and technique and he has mastered the techniques that he uses. He has never stood still but has continued to search for new settings for his playing. It seems to me that too many guitarists stop evolving after they become famous. They stick to the formula for whatever reasons. Doesn't seem to be the case with Beck, he always surprises me.

[art]

I saw Jeff Beck a couple of months ago in San Francisco. I have never seen anyone so in tune with their instrument. His playing seemed so effortless. It was so expressive and emotionally intense. A very moving experience for me.

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

The labels complain of the built in costs of running a depreciating business that has to support 20 acts to get one successful one - maybe if they actually tried to recruit something they had actual *musical* faith in, instead of shotgun-splatter marketing gimmickry, that wouldn't be the case.

 

The more intractable problem facing wannabe cause celebre pop stars is that the business does indeed appear to have musical faith in their teenage recruits. The tag-line of many A&R people I have had the misfortune to intermittently inhale next to is if it wasnt good, it wouldnt sell. Now we can attempt to dismiss this out of hand, but in truth, this is neither wise nor easy.

 

As my earlier post argued, aesthetic discrimination is very much in the ear of the beholder. If the taste of the mass market is best served by the current pop fad of the day (and whos to say it isnt certainly Ive never been asked) then who am I to argue? In the same way that I dont look down upon those who eat MacDonalds (in spite of being an ethical vegetarian and campaigner for the environment), it is not for me to turn my nose up at the lowest common denominator music, the mass market taste which accords with the record companies demographic models.

 

People are genuinely moved by lots of the music some of us call pap music. This should be obvious to all musicians but it often isnt. The composers of these three minute divertissements are usually seasoned pro songwriters, people who take their work very seriously. Who dares to elevate the music of a guitar stylist such as Jeff Beck to a higher plane? If so, what is the justification? Here again, the problem of how to arrive at a consensus in matters of taste raises its ugly head.

 

As I think may be obvious to those who have followed the Clapton thread, I am not dedicated to the proposition that All musics are created equal. I do not agree that there is nothing we can do but accept that people have a low level of taste and expectation and that the industry should pander to them exclusively. Nor do I think the record companies are exactly blameless. But remember they are solely about making money and cutting deals. Their priorities are quite different to the priorities of artists. And why shouldnt they be? Still, ours is a desperate, cutthroat business in which there are more casualties than an accident and emergency ward at 11pm on a Saturday night.

 

In the Seventies, major labels used to like to hold a vanity artist or two on its books. An act which perhaps made them little money, but which garnered them some goodwill amongst the dilettantes. Jeff Beck was probably one of those artists. What label is Beck on currently?

 

Beck wont ever be a big hit in the way Clapton or Santana have been for much the same reasons I will never be a big hit (aleatoric plainchant anyone?) his aesthetic does not coincide with that of the mainstream audience. Clapton is successful because his music sounds so generic, and crucially, it is unchallenging. Again it is not for me to pour scorn millions of people love his music. His amassed ranks of (now largely geriatric) followers built over the course of his protracted career will testify to that. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

You want a bottom line? Claptons music is a safe bet, Becks isnt.

 

Ian

[michael saulnier]

Originally posted by Ian Stewart Cairns:

You want a bottom line? Claptons music is a safe bet, Becks isnt.

 

Ian

 

Ian. Thanks for joining this board. I find your posts to be a little like heading for a familiar destination in a car, but taking a "round about" way to get there. In many cases the journey brings interesting new surprises along the way along with the subtle uncertainty of not knowing "exactly" where you are.

 

And then, you find yourself safely at your destination... better for the experience of the journey.

 

My bottom Line: Jeff Beck rocks me, inspires me, and frustrates me.

 

Thank God.

 

guitplayer

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by guitplayer:

Ian. Thanks for joining this board. I find your posts to be a little like heading for a familiar destination in a car, but taking a "round about" way to get there. In many cases the journey brings interesting new surprises along the way along with the subtle uncertainty of not knowing "exactly" where you are.

 

And then, you find yourself safely at your destination... better for the experience of the journey.

 

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/redface.gif Golly, thanks guitplayer. I don't know what to say. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/redface.gif

(I'd like to thank my agent, my manager, my director, my producer...) http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

My bottom Line: Jeff Beck rocks me, inspires me, and frustrates me.

 

This pretty much sums up my response to Beck too. Although I don't much like his new record, I am just grateful that he is still creating music.

 

Ian

 

 

This message has been edited by Ian Stewart Cairns on 04-24-2001 at 01:32 PM

[Lee Flier]

Ian wrote:

 

Clapton is successful because his music sounds so generic, and crucially, it is unchallenging. Again it is not for me to pour scorn

 

But you do it anyway, in this very sentence, and in the one afterward where you refer to Clapton's fans as "mostly geriatric".

 

Hey people, we all have opinions and make judgements, including scornful ones. Deal with it. We all need to make judgements in order to make decisions and make sense of the world. I don't care Ian, that you're making a scornful judgement of Clapton or his audience. You're totally entitled to have an opinion and state it strongly. Just don't try to call it something else or pretend you aren't making judgements, especially not after you've just made a big speech about how we shouldn't pass judgement. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-24-2001 at 02:42 PM

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Ian wrote:

 

Clapton is successful because his music sounds so generic, and crucially, it is unchallenging. Again it is not for me to pour scorn

 

But you do it anyway, in this very sentence, and in the one afterward where you refer to Clapton's fans as "mostly geriatric".

 

Clapton's music is generic sounding to my ears. If you disagree then fine. That is my whole point. It is not for me to pour scorn on the people who like his music or their reasons for liking it - my opinion of his music is quite a separate issue. It is the taste of others I do not pour scorn upon, I have my opinions which you will notice I am quite happy to express. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Also, didn't you notice the big smiley next to the "geriatric" quote? Or were you too intent on making your point that you forgot to read carefully?

 

Lee Flier, are you following me around this forum trying to disagree with everything I say? Sure seems like it to me. Trying to prove a point to yourself are you? Trying to show me just how smart you are?

 

I think it is high time the Flier flew off to some other destination on this forum. Go and lose arguments to someone else for a while.

 

Ian

[Lee Flier]

Ummm... no Ian, I don't follow you around trying to disagree with you. It just so happens that I don't, very often, agree with you. Sorry. I could say the same thing about you, but I don't take it personally. We obviously just look at the world in two very different ways.

 

At least we both like Spinal Tap. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-24-2001 at 02:35 PM

[Scott from MA]

Originally posted by Ian Stewart Cairns:

[bI think it is high time the Flier flew off to some other destination [/b]

 

Ohhhh... that's real witty. Did you stay up late thinking of that one?

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Ummm... no Ian, I don't follow you around trying to disagree with you. It just so happens that I don't, very often, agree with you. Sorry. I could say the same thing about you, but I don't take it personally. We obviously just look at the world in two very different ways.

 

At least we both like Spinal Tap. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif{/b]

 

Actually Lee, I greatly admire your tenacity. We may have more in common than you think (for example I like almost all of the players on your all-time favourite list more than I like the so-called "technical players") It's just that I find that every time I post I am dogged by an attempted rebuttal by guess who... Lee Flier. I guess I just don't have your energy.

 

I take back my snide remarks. They were unecessary and rude.

 

Truce?

 

O.K. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Ian

 

 

 

This message has been edited by Ian Stewart Cairns on 04-24-2001 at 02:54 PM

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by Scott from MA:

Ohhhh... that's real witty. Did you stay up late thinking of that one?

 

Scott,

 

God, don't you think I have better things to do with my time. I can afford to allot approx. 40 minutes per day to reading and posting to this forum. As with all I post here, it is spur of the moment - a once only offer. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Sorry if that dissapoints. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/tongue.gif

 

Ian