Tell Me :
Talk
i vote for every third tuesday of the month we take a moment to reach out to another member and tell him/her that he/she isn't really as big of a stupid fukkin idiot as everyone thinks. too often?
I've diarized you for a warm embrace next month as we've missed the opportunity for November, according to your calendar.
I prefer a weekly bitch slap...it's bracing and clears the head.
Mick and Keith aren't members of the board, they're members of the RS band. I wouldn't mind if they called me names, when they were talking to eachother - as long as I didn't know about it.
Getting upset over some name calling must be a northern hemisphere thing yea..gee the amount of times i've been called different things by iorrian's and this person Doxa has been one of them.And anyway why would anyone get upset after been called something from people ya don't even know ..who cares
--------------
ColonialstoneNZ
--------------
+1 Erik.
And Doxa, Ive just received word from the one and only Marski; GET BACK IN LINE!
All justified.
Well I would be much happier if: Hey BILL AND MICK T. GET BACK IN LINE.
Put your arm around the person next to you, even if you don't like them. Then we can all go out for milk and cookies. Buses are waiting outside. (apologies to Andy Kaufman).
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-27 15:05 by His Majesty.
Look buddy, we don't work for free. I'm been bustin' my hump on this one for weeks, Christmas is around the corner, and nary a whisper of a pay cheque any time soon.
Something's got to give...or something.
so who says you have to go around the corner? it's not like it's inevitable. before you get to the corner, just hop into the tavern instead. i can't believe i have to explain these things.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Hey DOXA
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: November 22, 2012 00:18
Doxa
- Dont go !
I always had the feeling that I was the bad behaving, Keith loving hothead, - sometimes I love Keith too much. I know.
but I love good arguments, fights and heated debates - come on, that's what keeps this board fun, - let's not take these things too personally, besides - you once tried to keep me calm, when I felt insulted. - I'd be dissapointed not to see you here, so stick around - we need more Finns here, besides - you always have interestings things to say and everyone knows that youre a true fan - so stick around - even when I disagree, come on - I love to see you around. So dont go. Dont go. Come on, dont let the bastards grind you down...cool it, calm down and come back.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-22 00:19 by seitan.
- Dont go !
I always had the feeling that I was the bad behaving, Keith loving hothead, - sometimes I love Keith too much. I know.
but I love good arguments, fights and heated debates - come on, that's what keeps this board fun, - let's not take these things too personally, besides - you once tried to keep me calm, when I felt insulted. - I'd be dissapointed not to see you here, so stick around - we need more Finns here, besides - you always have interestings things to say and everyone knows that youre a true fan - so stick around - even when I disagree, come on - I love to see you around. So dont go. Dont go. Come on, dont let the bastards grind you down...cool it, calm down and come back.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-22 00:19 by seitan.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
peoplewitheyes
()
Date: November 22, 2012 02:13
i agree, i enjoy your intelligent (occasioally over-)analysis!
dont be going!
dont be going!
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: November 25, 2012 16:44
Doxa, you are the main reference to a post that I somewhat delayed wrote on “One More Shot”. However, too little of the resulting possible post was related to the song itself. I abstained from posting it. Now I found reason to post it here with the hope to inspire you to make an answer if you want to. (The two last and added paragraphs are directly addressed to Doxa.)
My first listenings to «One More Shot» were rather sceptical. However, that initial mood has changed.
In a way, as a memory of first hearings I still think that few if any Stones songs have had that much of cliches , that is, the band’s own cliches. But after some hearings, and that is really the proof of the pudding, one senses (anyway I did and I read about the similiar reception from many other posters), that the band is able to give life and vitality to the cliches. And as I gradually am learning to know the song, the strong impression of cliches has started to give way to the experience of the song itself. In some way, we have got a glimpse into the factory of making Stones songs. One can sense the origin in the workaround of many other songs’ elements, but now turned round, twisted, drawn and stretched. Then initial clichés such worked on are thrown into another dimension, and the impression of those clichés are replaced by the specificity of a new song. As an answer to an obvious objection: The difference from the past is that then we had not heard those songs, the elements of which enter into a new song. However, more and more over time, we have been exposed to those original songs before.
In the past and up to the present, since those years when the band was a primary band in defining what rock was to be, they have to a certain extent followed two so to speak stategies. One has been to, more or less like a sponge, to absorb music trends of the moment and recreate those impulses as their own music within and as variation to what in the preceding defining years had developed into a Rolling Stones trade mark music. Among fans that to some extent divide between those not allowing the band to deviate too much from their trademark, and those who have treasured development even if the level has some times been lower than during the defining years, the latter fans have naturally been accepting this strategy.
Another strategy, not necessarily deliberate, has been to seek back to a kind of modernized version of their own earlier music as a starting point for a new development out from there, The before mentionned latter part of the fans have not met that strategy with much enthousiasm. They have rather interpreted it in a certain scheme, My designation for those fans in this context is «Las Vegas era»-theorists (as you know, Doxa.). Strangely enough, also fans of the former category, in their own disappointments of their expectations, have taken that epithet to their hearts even if they do not share the same attitude. Because they demand great songs that do not imply change of what they regard as essentials, but change is what they for a long time already have had. Then relatively good output from the alleged Las Vegas period has been met with comparative hostility from fans of both camps. I acknowledge that rather good Stones music from this period could have been (even) better had the band received interest for the new output from the masses of for a short time returned to fanship-buyers in connection with their tours, instead of these fans craving the warhorses from their authentic fan days in their past. Shorter periods of passivity might have come about as well with real interest shown towards new material. Besides, a better cooperative spirit between Jagger and Richard could have contributed to better music, too.
With the seemingly not preconceived inspiration to celebrate the band’s 50 years existence and a more spontaneous reborn ambition, the band on this occation seems to have chosen a tactic of less is good. Where «Doom and Gloom» emerges then as music both of today and with a certain family resemblance with «Street Fighting Man», «One More Shot» on the surface emerges at first directly as a retro Rolling Stones rock song. (“Street Fighting Man” itself providing one of the outspring elements.) However, in the same manner and at same time as cliches are vitalized, seeming retro music, in my outlook of it anyhow, does not end up as retro music. Instead a version of the second strategy comes to effect. It is one where the Stones choose as a new and redefining starting point and as working model, some parts of their own transition from the string of singles that they had in the late ‘60s and the first ‘70s AND their ‘68-72 albums. As that would be more than demanding. I hasten to add that this is said as to type and style of music, not as an assertion of a special level of quality. If this holds true, which only a new album can verify or falsify, this strategy might now provide for not necessarily their best output ever, but possibly all the same a late comparative peak of their career. All which after all would not be bad.
Of the songs I hold «Doom And Gloom» to be the important one. My reception of «One More Shot» is to some degree influenced by the first song. For an oldfashioned single release, to me it would have been obvious that «Doom and Gloom» is the A-side and «One More Shot» the B-side, very good as such.
The post completed (with only a few additions to the original withheld post), I have to say, Doxa, among the outlook that you provide, you are the one that make “Las Vegas era” something more than a label. As an intellectual, you have formulated it as a theory. Of course, theories aspire to catch aspects of truth. However, truth is not given. In my perspective: We don’t reconstruct the truth, we construct the truth, or maybe rather truths on a subject matter as this. That does not mean that any interpretation can meet more or (sometimes) less given empirical details. As such, it is most stimulating, and I have to say sometimes enraging, to read your exposition of that theory. As a reader and writer only now and then of IORR, I am utterly opposed to that theory. Because I am a holder of the judgement and view that a multi peak perspective on the band’s career is the relevant one. I value output that the band has had, following both strategies that I have described. The important thing to say to you, Doxa, I love to read points of view that constitute a theoretical approach built in them. That has to me applied to politics in the past, that applies to music and soccer now. Your trade mark as IORR-poster is that you are a Rolling Stones theorist. That does not mean without a temper, like the rest of us. And I know that theorists might explode, subjected to impulses others than other people react on, and that may seem trifling to them.
I do think you have a mission here, Doxa, that you yourself have liked to have. A mission that you possibly will miss, unless you can better use spare time on other kinds of activity or other media. In that case I think that to almost all posters you will not lose respect in going back on your word to quit. However, feel free to do as you most wish.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-25 19:18 by Witness.
My first listenings to «One More Shot» were rather sceptical. However, that initial mood has changed.
In a way, as a memory of first hearings I still think that few if any Stones songs have had that much of cliches , that is, the band’s own cliches. But after some hearings, and that is really the proof of the pudding, one senses (anyway I did and I read about the similiar reception from many other posters), that the band is able to give life and vitality to the cliches. And as I gradually am learning to know the song, the strong impression of cliches has started to give way to the experience of the song itself. In some way, we have got a glimpse into the factory of making Stones songs. One can sense the origin in the workaround of many other songs’ elements, but now turned round, twisted, drawn and stretched. Then initial clichés such worked on are thrown into another dimension, and the impression of those clichés are replaced by the specificity of a new song. As an answer to an obvious objection: The difference from the past is that then we had not heard those songs, the elements of which enter into a new song. However, more and more over time, we have been exposed to those original songs before.
In the past and up to the present, since those years when the band was a primary band in defining what rock was to be, they have to a certain extent followed two so to speak stategies. One has been to, more or less like a sponge, to absorb music trends of the moment and recreate those impulses as their own music within and as variation to what in the preceding defining years had developed into a Rolling Stones trade mark music. Among fans that to some extent divide between those not allowing the band to deviate too much from their trademark, and those who have treasured development even if the level has some times been lower than during the defining years, the latter fans have naturally been accepting this strategy.
Another strategy, not necessarily deliberate, has been to seek back to a kind of modernized version of their own earlier music as a starting point for a new development out from there, The before mentionned latter part of the fans have not met that strategy with much enthousiasm. They have rather interpreted it in a certain scheme, My designation for those fans in this context is «Las Vegas era»-theorists (as you know, Doxa.). Strangely enough, also fans of the former category, in their own disappointments of their expectations, have taken that epithet to their hearts even if they do not share the same attitude. Because they demand great songs that do not imply change of what they regard as essentials, but change is what they for a long time already have had. Then relatively good output from the alleged Las Vegas period has been met with comparative hostility from fans of both camps. I acknowledge that rather good Stones music from this period could have been (even) better had the band received interest for the new output from the masses of for a short time returned to fanship-buyers in connection with their tours, instead of these fans craving the warhorses from their authentic fan days in their past. Shorter periods of passivity might have come about as well with real interest shown towards new material. Besides, a better cooperative spirit between Jagger and Richard could have contributed to better music, too.
With the seemingly not preconceived inspiration to celebrate the band’s 50 years existence and a more spontaneous reborn ambition, the band on this occation seems to have chosen a tactic of less is good. Where «Doom and Gloom» emerges then as music both of today and with a certain family resemblance with «Street Fighting Man», «One More Shot» on the surface emerges at first directly as a retro Rolling Stones rock song. (“Street Fighting Man” itself providing one of the outspring elements.) However, in the same manner and at same time as cliches are vitalized, seeming retro music, in my outlook of it anyhow, does not end up as retro music. Instead a version of the second strategy comes to effect. It is one where the Stones choose as a new and redefining starting point and as working model, some parts of their own transition from the string of singles that they had in the late ‘60s and the first ‘70s AND their ‘68-72 albums. As that would be more than demanding. I hasten to add that this is said as to type and style of music, not as an assertion of a special level of quality. If this holds true, which only a new album can verify or falsify, this strategy might now provide for not necessarily their best output ever, but possibly all the same a late comparative peak of their career. All which after all would not be bad.
Of the songs I hold «Doom And Gloom» to be the important one. My reception of «One More Shot» is to some degree influenced by the first song. For an oldfashioned single release, to me it would have been obvious that «Doom and Gloom» is the A-side and «One More Shot» the B-side, very good as such.
The post completed (with only a few additions to the original withheld post), I have to say, Doxa, among the outlook that you provide, you are the one that make “Las Vegas era” something more than a label. As an intellectual, you have formulated it as a theory. Of course, theories aspire to catch aspects of truth. However, truth is not given. In my perspective: We don’t reconstruct the truth, we construct the truth, or maybe rather truths on a subject matter as this. That does not mean that any interpretation can meet more or (sometimes) less given empirical details. As such, it is most stimulating, and I have to say sometimes enraging, to read your exposition of that theory. As a reader and writer only now and then of IORR, I am utterly opposed to that theory. Because I am a holder of the judgement and view that a multi peak perspective on the band’s career is the relevant one. I value output that the band has had, following both strategies that I have described. The important thing to say to you, Doxa, I love to read points of view that constitute a theoretical approach built in them. That has to me applied to politics in the past, that applies to music and soccer now. Your trade mark as IORR-poster is that you are a Rolling Stones theorist. That does not mean without a temper, like the rest of us. And I know that theorists might explode, subjected to impulses others than other people react on, and that may seem trifling to them.
I do think you have a mission here, Doxa, that you yourself have liked to have. A mission that you possibly will miss, unless you can better use spare time on other kinds of activity or other media. In that case I think that to almost all posters you will not lose respect in going back on your word to quit. However, feel free to do as you most wish.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-25 19:18 by Witness.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 25, 2012 17:42
Doxa should feel free to leave if he doesn't feel he is interested in contributing anymore, I think everyone would agree with that.
I have enjoyed his posts and I do feel we would miss his contributions around here.
With that said, I would certainly hope that he's not leaving because one poster called him a name...given what we've all called mick and or keith from time to time, I don't think any of us have the right to be thin-skinned.
We could probably all be a little nicer to one another more often, but we shouldn't let 'heated' moment of discussion with one person, miscolour our perceptions of everyone else.
I have enjoyed his posts and I do feel we would miss his contributions around here.
With that said, I would certainly hope that he's not leaving because one poster called him a name...given what we've all called mick and or keith from time to time, I don't think any of us have the right to be thin-skinned.
We could probably all be a little nicer to one another more often, but we shouldn't let 'heated' moment of discussion with one person, miscolour our perceptions of everyone else.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: November 25, 2012 17:54
Quote
treaclefingers
We could probably all be a little nicer to one another more often
i vote for every third tuesday of the month we take a moment to reach out to another member and tell him/her that he/she isn't really as big of a stupid fukkin idiot as everyone thinks. too often?
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: November 25, 2012 18:01
Has Doxa stropped off?
Hey Doxa... come back FFS...
Hey Doxa... come back FFS...
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 25, 2012 18:23
Quote
StonesTodQuote
treaclefingers
We could probably all be a little nicer to one another more often
i vote for every third tuesday of the month we take a moment to reach out to another member and tell him/her that he/she isn't really as big of a stupid fukkin idiot as everyone thinks. too often?
I've diarized you for a warm embrace next month as we've missed the opportunity for November, according to your calendar.
I prefer a weekly bitch slap...it's bracing and clears the head.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: November 25, 2012 18:43
Nobody is "reaching out" to me.
I'm English.
You can stuff that.
I'm English.
You can stuff that.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: November 25, 2012 18:55
Quote
treaclefingers
With that said, I would certainly hope that he's not leaving because one poster called him a name...given what we've all called mick and or keith from time to time, I don't think any of us have the right to be thin-skinned.
Mick and Keith aren't members of the board, they're members of the RS band. I wouldn't mind if they called me names, when they were talking to eachother - as long as I didn't know about it.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: November 25, 2012 19:08
Quote
treaclefingers
Doxa should feel free to leave if he doesn't feel he is interested in contributing anymore, I think everyone would agree with that.
I have enjoyed his posts and I do feel we would miss his contributions around here.
With that said, I would certainly hope that he's not leaving because one poster called him a name...given what we've all called mick and or keith from time to time, I don't think any of us have the right to be thin-skinned.
We could probably all be a little nicer to one another more often, but we shouldn't let 'heated' moment of discussion with one person, miscolour our perceptions of everyone else.
Getting upset over some name calling must be a northern hemisphere thing yea..gee the amount of times i've been called different things by iorrian's and this person Doxa has been one of them.And anyway why would anyone get upset after been called something from people ya don't even know ..who cares
--------------
ColonialstoneNZ
--------------
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: November 25, 2012 19:27
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
treaclefingers
With that said, I would certainly hope that he's not leaving because one poster called him a name...given what we've all called mick and or keith from time to time, I don't think any of us have the right to be thin-skinned.
Mick and Keith aren't members of the board, they're members of the RS band. I wouldn't mind if they called me names, when they were talking to eachother - as long as I didn't know about it.
+1 Erik.
And Doxa, Ive just received word from the one and only Marski; GET BACK IN LINE!
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: November 25, 2012 19:31
Quote
colonial
..gee the amount of times i've been called different things by iorrian's...
All justified.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
jamesjagger
()
Date: November 25, 2012 19:38
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
treaclefingers
With that said, I would certainly hope that he's not leaving because one poster called him a name...given what we've all called mick and or keith from time to time, I don't think any of us have the right to be thin-skinned.
Mick and Keith aren't members of the board, they're members of the RS band. I wouldn't mind if they called me names, when they were talking to eachother - as long as I didn't know about it.
+1 Erik.
And Doxa, Ive just received word from the one and only Marski; GET BACK IN LINE!
Well I would be much happier if: Hey BILL AND MICK T. GET BACK IN LINE.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
Amused
()
Date: November 25, 2012 21:07
yeah, Doxa has always been one of the best (if not the best) posters around!
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 25, 2012 21:18
Quote
StonesTodQuote
treaclefingers
We could probably all be a little nicer to one another more often
i vote for every third tuesday of the month we take a moment to reach out to another member and tell him/her that he/she isn't really as big of a stupid fukkin idiot as everyone thinks. too often?
Put your arm around the person next to you, even if you don't like them. Then we can all go out for milk and cookies. Buses are waiting outside. (apologies to Andy Kaufman).
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 27, 2012 01:11
Doxa I demand that you get yer arse back in here and comment on Taylor - stones onstage!
Stop being a fanny fluff and get posting! We need you man!!!
Stop being a fanny fluff and get posting! We need you man!!!
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: November 27, 2012 14:50
Doxa, That was His Majesty speaking. I know, you're not used to monarchs giving you orders but this is serious - you gotta get back in line.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 27, 2012 14:59
He came back today! Check the Taylor/Rambler-thread. Good to have you back, man!
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 27, 2012 15:03
Quote
DandelionPowderman
He came back today! Check the Taylor/Rambler-thread. Good to have you back, man!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-27 15:05 by His Majesty.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: November 28, 2012 00:25
-
__________________________
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-28 00:25 by NICOS.
__________________________
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-28 00:25 by NICOS.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 7, 2012 00:16
Doxa, where are you? Iorr is a summer Island, we need summer Doxas!
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: December 7, 2012 00:39
Though we have disagreed at times, I am very, very glad to have you back, Doxa!
~"Love is Strong"~
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: December 7, 2012 13:42
And Happy Independence Day Finland! (yesterday)
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
tomcat2006
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:02
Doxa, I very much enjoy your excellent insights and hope you don't leave us!
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:08
you folks aren't very convincing, obviously. let's get some professional grovelers in here....
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:15
Quote
StonesTod
you folks aren't very convincing, obviously. let's get some professional grovelers in here....
Look buddy, we don't work for free. I'm been bustin' my hump on this one for weeks, Christmas is around the corner, and nary a whisper of a pay cheque any time soon.
Something's got to give...or something.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:23
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
StonesTod
you folks aren't very convincing, obviously. let's get some professional grovelers in here....
Look buddy, we don't work for free. I'm been bustin' my hump on this one for weeks, Christmas is around the corner, and nary a whisper of a pay cheque any time soon.
Something's got to give...or something.
so who says you have to go around the corner? it's not like it's inevitable. before you get to the corner, just hop into the tavern instead. i can't believe i have to explain these things.
Re: Hey DOXA
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: December 7, 2012 17:30
I don't know anything about Doxa "leaving", but anyone who feels the need to make some kind of bold official exit should instead just take this forum (and every other forum) less seriously, have a break, cool down and come back -- or not come back -- entirely to his or her choice.
Saying GOODBYE I'M OUTTA HERE and leave with a bigger bang (pun intended) and then come back and post with the frenzy of a dope addict is just embarrassing. Not saying you did that, Doxa, just saying I've seen that a couple of times in other places.
Saying GOODBYE I'M OUTTA HERE and leave with a bigger bang (pun intended) and then come back and post with the frenzy of a dope addict is just embarrassing. Not saying you did that, Doxa, just saying I've seen that a couple of times in other places.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Broesel2404 , Doxa , filoca , hockenheim95 , jp.M , NeddieFlanders , stonesurvive , terukun , Testify
Guests:
1393
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10