The other day, I recieved a very nice surprise in my e-mail. It came from Anders Lindgren, who plays viola in the Swedenburg String Quartet. I posted about him in Trolling the Underground because he played with Max Roach. This is the first and only time that a musician about whom I've posted has looked me up and written me about it. With his permission, I reprint his note here:

Thank you for your amusing and entertaining site. I was positively
surprised to find our live recording from a Munich on the Web, sounding so
well...
I might add that it was a lucky break for us, the Swedenborg Quartet,
to tour with the great Max Roach ... Always a bebop fan, I just couldn't
believe it when we got this gig: 17 concerts in 7 different countries
in three weeks. Everything from clubs in Nickelstein, Austria, or Bonn,
Germany, to Philharmonie Berlin (live on German television) and
Cyclodrome Madrid (8000 + people). I can't think of any other jazz musician
that kept himself so up-to-date and dynamic and it was sheer joy to work
with him ( and a source of personal pride for me, as well ...).

Thanks again for the kind words, Anders! I hope we'll see you here now and again. I'm sure that your comments would add some flavor to future Trolling the Underground posts!

Now, where's my e-mail from Jeff Beck?

As some of you may be aware, I have been called out as a hypocrite by one who evidently sees himself as my eternal nemesis. I have also been called a welcher on my Trolling the Underground contest. It's nothing new, Mark creates arguments wherever he can, then whines that people are perverting the meaning of his words. He tends to do that same thing himself, though. Here's an example. Here's another. And another. Want another?

Of course, you all know this, if you blog around the circle a bit. Picking a fight, then claiming to be the wronged party, then slandering the other person on his blog is, as Cheezy recently said, his "modus operandi". The instinct is to ignore it, as I have done many times. The high road has nice scenery. This time, though, he has degenerated into telling outright lies about me, and I would be weak to not call him out on it. Here are facts.

To start with, in a kerfuffle over at Archer's where I politely disagreed with him about Rudy Giuliani, he posted this comment:

" I seem to remember you telling me it was sxilly (sic) to take umbrage at ridiculous comparisdans (sic) of Katrina to the Holocvaust (sic) but you applauded when I said Coulter's asinine remarks about the Holocaust soured me on her for good.

At least I'm just voiucing my opinion. You're a hypocrite."

Well, I never actually defended her use of the word "holocaust". Proof has been asked for, so here is the exchange in its' entirety.

It started with this post of Mark's:

August 29, 2006
HOLOCAUST, Defined
HOLOCAUST

Definition from the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, volume 2 from Macmillan Publishing HOLOCAUST (Heb., sho'ah). The word "holocaust" is derived from the Greek holokauston, which originally meant a sacrifice totally burned by fire; it was used in the translation of I Samuel 7:9, "a burnt offering to God." In the course of time it came to. be used to describe slaughter on a general or large scale, and, especially, various forms of the destruction of masses of human beings. In the 1950s the term came to be applied primarily to the destruction of the Jews of Europe under the Nazi regime, and it is also employed in describing the annihilation of other groups of people in World War II. The mass extermination of Jews has become the archetype of GENOCIDE, and the terms sho'ah and "holocaust" have become linked to the attempt by the Nazi German state to destroy European Jewry during World War II.
The use of the Hebrew word sho'ah to denote the destruction of Jews in Europe during the war appeared for the first time in the booklet Sho'at Yehudei Polin (The Holocaust of the Jews of Poland), published by the United Aid Committee for the Jews of Poland, in Jerusalem in 1940. The booklet contains reports and articles on the persecution of Jews in eastern Europe from the beginning of the war, written or verbally reported by eyewitnesses, among them several leaders of Polish Jewry. Up to the spring of 1942, however, the term was rarely used. The Hebrew term that was first used, spontaneously, was hurban (lit., "destruction"), similar in meaning to "catastrophe," with its historical Jewish meaning deriving from the destruction of the Temple. It was only when leaders of the Zionist movement and writers and thinkers in Palestine began to express themselves on the destruction of European Jewry that the Hebrew term sho'ah became widely used. It was still far from being in general use, even after the November 1942 declaration of the Jewish Agency that a sho'ah was taking place. One of the first to use the term in the historical perspective was the Jerusalem historian BenZion Dinur (Dinaburg), who, in the spring of 1942, stated that the Holocaust was a "catastrophe" that symbolized the unique situation of the Jewish people among the nations of the world.

Okay? Not just any tragedy brought about as the result of a natural disaster. As devastating as Katrina was, and the aftermath remains, IT AIN'T NO HOLOCAUST. Get a grip.

Apologies to my dear friend Karen, but I'm sure she will understand.

Notice that Mark points out a history of the word that ENDS with the capitalized definition.

To which Koz replied:

"So the term 'holocaust' for many people just means 'the deaths of many by the hands of few,' or something like that. To them, the Holocaust was just one holocaust, if you get my meaning."

I answered Koz:

Not just to "them", actually. My dictionary makes it clear that there are two uses of the word, with one of them being capitalized (and therefore specific) and the other not so (thereby being general). Therefore, it is possible to use the word "holocaust" without necessarily meaning "The Holocaust". I know, she has already gone on record as saying that she did. I'm just saying.

The "she" was Panthergirl, and I think that statement shows that I wasn't referring to her in my defense of other uses of the word. Mark wrote this:

And I'm just saying I'm done discussing this. Take a hint.

In other words, you're not saying something I like, so stop posting. This from a person who frequently avers that people can disagree with him without him getting angry. He then sent me this e-mail (posted here with his permission):

Joe - Your dictionary gives two meanings, as do many now, BECAUSE the word has been co-opted and misapplied by so many.  That IS MY POINT.  I really don't care if any dictionary gives two meanings.  What I posted points out the original derivation of the word.
 
I won't belabor it, but what I and Paula said and what Seawitch said goes straigt to the heart of the matter.  Jeff is right, it is ignorance on PG's part.  If she chooses to remain ignorant, so be it.   
 
<home address edited out because the point was made. Assuming that I'm stupid and insulting me just might backfire on you!>

And I lost yours and I still have that dead show to send yoiu, as I promised and have slacked on!!!
 
Best, and thanks, 
 
Mark  

I replied:

Sorry. This etymology goes back to middle English.

Meaning, of course, that since the word itself is centuries older than the current capitalized meaning which is only ONE of the definitions in the dictionary, it follows that people who use it to mean a big fire instead of the attempted extermination of Jews is not necessarily misusing it out of ignorance. Mark replied:

Sorry, Joe  -  You didn't read all of it - ME from Latin from GREEK!!!  Go look at it again.  Hey, listen, I really don't want to get into an argument about this too, okay?
 
I stated my opinion, you yours, I respect yours but I'm not changing mine and let's have a nice evening!
 
;o)>

Okay, so it's even OLDER than that, so how can the non-capitalized meaning be the result of people misusing the word? Mark claims that the people who use it without referring to "THE Holocaust" have co-opted the word away from the Jews, but how could that be when the "Jewish" definition is so much more recent? It seems that the word was co-opted, alright, but that happened in the 1950s. I replied:

I'm not stating an opinion. Both the dictionary and YOUR POST show that the word existed prior to it's modern, capitalized use. Acknowledging this fact does nothing to denigrate what happened in Europe. It's in the first indented paragraph of your post.
 
Honestly, you take issue with the strangest things sometimes.

Mark replied:

Okay, Joe, I said I was done.  I'm trying to be nice but this is pissing me off.   I never stated it did NOT exist prior to WWII.  Now, if you don't mind, I would like this to be over.  If you don't like what I post, don't read it.

Now I'm getting tweaked for two reasons. First, I'm being berated for stating something that Mark had in his original post. He is arguing both sides of an issue and telling me that I'm wrong. Secondly, it was Mark that initiated the e-mail, then tells me to lay off it. I'm sorry, but no one initiates an argument in my e-mail and then orders me not to defend my position. If you can't handle facts, don't e-mail me, pussy. My last reply was:

You didn't say it on the post, Mark, you said it in the email you wrote to me about what I put in the post. When you said that the dictionary's other definition was a result of misuse of the term, you implied that the capitalized meaning came first. I have no idea why you're getting pissed. I haven't said anything that denigrates anyone or their history, and I haven't stated any opinions. I even stated that I wasn't taking Panthergirl's side. If it makes you feel better, though, I won't read your posts anymore.

After that, I never logged on to his blog again until today, when I went to get some links for this post. That's when I saw him slamming me behind my back.

OOOH, I'm So Scared!
 
You know I love all this blogdrama bullshit, like this crapola being slung by a blogger over at Archer's:
"I'm done with you, pal."

Promises, promises. At least I'm able to stay away from your blog entirely, as I've been doing. You, noticing that, have been posting on mine under the name "Heather".

You've twisted my argument on "holocaust" as well. Are you man enough to let everyone see that exchange? I'd be happy to post it, without your address, of course. If I'm the hypocrite you claim I am, you should have no objection to my providing the details to the people you've insulted me in front of. Or do you think it would threaten your pussy game of always being the victim?
Apologies go to Archer, even though I didn't bring this here.

Well, I've been having a grand old time hanging and camping with O'Tim this past week, which is why I've been seen only "lurking" about when I have the time and inclination. We've seen some magnificent views this week, which I'll expound on later. The point for the moment, however, is that I had a great vacation doing the opposite of what I usually like to do.

Normally, as I posted, I like to go and attend a special event, like a series of Grateful Dead shows (which was most of my vacations between 1984 and 1995) or the New Orleans Jazz fest. I like camping, but usually it was an adjunct to a Dead show or some other event. This was just driving around and camping, though. And it was magnificent.

I'm now convinced that New Mexico is a land of boundless beauty, something I knew but didn't actually realize, if you know what I mean. I owe a lot to O'Tim (who is a truly great guy, a friend I'm sure I'll have for a long, long time) for showing me how much time I was wasting staying in the city when something fantastic awaits me just a few hours away. No more "cement man". Life is too damn short.

Anyway, it seems that you were mostly ahead of me in this realization, as quiet, peaceful destinations graabbed a full 38% of the poll votes. Only 15% of us like the "major event" vacation. 38% of the voters chose "other" but didn't explain it much. No one considers visiting relatives to be a vacation, which is probably why family vacations are such a cruddy memory for yours truly.

New poll in the sidebar! See you this week.

Well, another poll has come and gone. The results this time were:

• Chicken - 20%
• Egg - 50%
• Some wacky chicken/egg combo thing : 30%

These results conclusively prove that 30% of those polled are very silly. As for the rest, it seems that there are two ways of looking at it (not counting Paula's refreshingly original take). First, as Miss Cellania pointed out, eggs were nothing new by the time that chickens came around, unless we're talking Old Testament Creationism here, which I am not. Thus, eggs came first. I have always felt, however, that it was a given that the question pertained only to CHICKEN eggs. Otherwise, the answer is obvious and the question itself of no importance.

If only chicken eggs count, then the wicket is a bit stickier. I do have my own answer, which the lovely and talented Lucy (who hails from a country where this week's Trolling the Underground answer was very popular and influential) anticipated. In fact, she hit the nail right on the head. Way to anticipate genius, Lucy!!!

We'll start with two basic and justifiable assumptions. First, we'll assume that chickens came about through evolution, not the hocus-pocus named two paragraphs above. Second, we will assume that any egg-laying animal lays eggs that match it's own species, not another. Ducks don't lay chicken, owl, or platypus eggs, for example.

You see, in the evolutionary process, A species that was not a chicken eventually became a chicken. This occurred through a slow, methodical series of mutations over millions of years. At one point, there was something that was not quite a chicken (although it probably tasted like a chicken). This not quite a chicken layed a not quite a chicken egg (what other kind of egg would it lay?) and the final mutation occurred within, spawning the first actual chicken. That chicken was the first to lay an actual chicken egg. Thus, the chicken had to come first.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

I thank all of you for helping to advance the causes of both Biology and Philosophy. How often do you get to kill THOSE two particular birds with one stone?

There's a new poll posted to your right. Don't forget to support your vote in the comments!

I was raised by a "Hee-Haw" fiend. Dad never missed it, and this being in the old days, before the tradition of having a television in every room, he took control of the TV whenever he wanted it. It was usually my que to leave the room.

I heard it, though, and not only because Dad was half deaf (WWII will to that to you), but because I was half listening. I didn't care much about the country music that was playing - I was a prisoner to Kenny Rogers and Tom T. Hall whenever I was in Dad's car - but the bluegrass always caught my ear. I dug that pickin' and grinnin', even though I wouldn't have admitted it to Dad even under threat of insidious torture.

There's just something about bluegrass that forces the toe to tap, and it also feeds the head of a virtuosity freak such as myself. Bluegrass requires technical excellence. Poor musicians can play bluegrass, but not for long. It soon becomes obvious when someone hasn't got what it takes.

Even though their act broke up in 1969, Flatt and Scruggs are still among the most famous bluegrass acts ever, for two reasons. First, they had a long, illustrious career together, starting in Bill Monroe's band before forming their own band , the Foggy Mountain Boys, for a 21 year run. Second, they did the "Beverly Hillbillies" theme song, "The Ballad of Jed Clampett".

Now, that show was IMMENSELY popular. It was the "Seinfeld" of the '60s, so to speak. Forty years later, just about anyone in America can identify that song, and most can sing a bit of it.

Once again, radio helps the hapless bootlegger. This week's selections come from an old radio show the Foggy Mountain Boys were doing on WSM radio in Nashville, Tennessee. It was a half hour of bluegrass pickin' and biscuit ads, and some of them were recorded for posterity. I happen to have one recorded in June of 1953.

Despite its' age and the fact that the disc came from a higher generation tape, it still sounds a lot better than many of the audience tapes from the '70s and '80s. I'm presenting two songs today, simply because they were so short. You didn't do long instrumental jams on the radio in those days. You saved those for the Grand Ole Opry, where people wouldn't get bored and wander off. Three minutes, however, was pushing it on the radio.

Here's The Foggy Mountain Boys playing "Earl's Breakdown"

Here they are playing "Get in Line, Brother"

The Foggy Mountain Boys featuring Ed Norton (front right).

Next week: This blues and jazz man from the south shocked his British fans when they finally saw his picture.

See how many of these you can get without Googling.........

1. What was Hoss's real name? (The character's name, not the actor's) (Eric - Raging Lunatic)
2. Who was Peter Gunn's gal? (Edie Hart - Raging Lunatic)
3. Who was the first actor to start on TV and go to movie stardom? (Steve McQueen, star of the TV series "Wanted: Dead or Alive")
4. What Star Trek device was the result of budgetary constraints? (Transporter - that special effect was cheaper than shooting endlesss shuttle scenes- Fez Monkey)
5. Where did the idea for "Sanford and Son" come from?  (Steptoe and Son- Fez)
6. What is the longest running evening drama in TV history?  (Gunsmoke- Jeff)
7. What successful show had three successful spin-offs starring supporting characters? (The Mary Tyler Moore Show- Paula)
8. What TV show was inspired by a series of cartoons in New Yorker Magazine? (The Addams Family - Jeff)
9. What show featured a black man in a lead role for the first time? (I Spy - Miss Cellania)
10. What show did Mel Brooks create and then leave almost immediately? (Get Smart - Fez)
11. What was the name of Tonto's horse? (Scout - jollykay)
12. What was Lucy Ricardo's maiden name? (MacGillicuddy - Jeff)
13. What actor played a western hero in the 50's and starred in a science fiction show in the 60's? (Guy Williams - jollykay gets 1/2 credit for knowing the shows)

Winner gets kudos.

Well, it looks like we're willing to be Amish when it comes to entertainment, but not when it comes to work. Television won the poll (28%) as the item we would most likely be willing to do without, followed by vibrators (22%). These were followed by air conditioners and microvaves (tied at 17%). No way is anyone willing to complicate life by doing without the laundry machines (and I have a couple batches going as I write) or stove. Oddly enough, only a few people were willing to do without the DVD player that would be utterly worthlesss without the TV that most people would be willing to do without. For me, it is the DVD player that makes the TV indispensible, and I live in a desert and need my AC,  so I chose the microwave. I use it every day to heat the water for my tea, but without it I would just heat the water on the stove, so I could easily live without it.

This weeks poll is possibly the oldest on record, and the problem has never been solved. Let's do the world a favor and solve it at last, shall we? Please take a moment to explain your vote in the poll's comments. It's to your right and down a little.

I've long been of the opinion that "alternative" rock stopped being "alternative" the moment it was packaged up and marketed as "alternative". It then became another branch of mainstream music, fed to the masses on the radio and given a section of the record store floor, just like "rock", "rap", R&B", and "country". The music really didn't take that many chances, but deviated from the top 40 a little and gave people who wanted to seem like seekers and intellectuals a way of feigning such without the toil of intellectual seeking. "Oh, THAT stuff's dumb. I'm alternative!"

I've found that if you want a real alternative to the mainstream, you have to go outside of the mainstream to find it. That means avoiding the major radio stations, and tuning in to college stations. It means taking a chance on something at the record store because you like the cover or because you've read something about the band. It also means hanging out with like-minded people, and listening to their records. The last method is how I got turned on to King Crimson.

King Crimson will is a band you never heard on "alternative" stations, because they have always been too much so, which is what led me to my conclusions about the "genre" that has been created. If they have a genre, it would be "progressive rock" but they are about the only band in that genre to continue progressing their sound past the early eighties. But then, as guitarist Robert Fripp has said, KC isn't so much a band as "a way of doing things".

Since it's inception in 1969, King Crimson has gone through six completely different incarnations, with Fripp as the only common thread. The band stay together until Fripp feels that the musical statement that it made is done, and he dissolves it. The hiatus period has lasted as long as 11 years. Then, when he is in the mood to play music that only a King Crimson can play, he assembles a new King Crimson to play it, and the cycle goes on. The various former mambers have gone on to perform in bands such as ELP, Bad Company, Foriegner, and UK, among others. Some have solo careers. The diverse personnel contributed to a diversity in sound over the years. In fact if you took an early album, "Islands", the mid-seventies "Red" and 1982's "Beat" and played them all to someone who didn't know them, that person would very possibly never suspect that it was ALL King Crimson.

It's actually a surprise that KC isn't on any lists banning electric trading of unofficial stuff. Few bands have so vociferously protected their rights as artists, and they aren't always very concerned with niceties. Anyone caught smoking during a concert will be shown the door, and if Fripp sees a flash go off, he stops playing immediately and announces that he will not continue until the camera is surrendered. He has stated, however, that he realizes that most tapers are not looking to profit off of him, but instead do it for the love of the music. Seeing that, he has made a LOT of professional recordings of live shows available, and even makes boxed sets of more recent tours in their entirety. Since reputable Bit Torrent sites don't allow torrents of officially available music, I guess Fripp doesn't feel threatened by them.

What I share this week is a stunning soundboard recording of the most recent lineup performing at the State Central Concert Hall in Moscow on June 12, 2003. Soundboards of this band are few and far between, which makes me wonder if this one might not be available officially by now. Ah well, it was fair game when I got it, anyway!

This song is called "The ConstruKction of Light" and features Fripp and Adrian Belew on guitars, Pat Mastelotto on drums, and Trey Gunn on Warr guitar. Adrian sings. This is the sixth King Crimson.

You can listen to it here.

I've read that there is a seventh King Crimson in the works, with Trey Gunn doing his own thing while Crim veteran Tony Levin returns to the fold. I hope it's true.

Next week: During their 21 year career, this act known for their breakdowns did a song that almost everyone in America has heard.