bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,164
It's the description/definition. Think about it for a moment.
I must be thick in that case.
It's the description/definition. Think about it for a moment.
I'm glad to see people discussing Elton John here.
Too often, older musicians seem to be ignored by the mainstream media (e.g. finding it hard to get their songs played on the radio), and I've not seen anything about him in the press for ages for some reason, so good to know he's not forgotten about... maybe one day he'll get the press coverage he deserves?
In seriousness, I was too young for the "credible" days of Elton John, so only knew the "celebrity" days (when he was better known for outfits and spats than for any new music that he was recording), but heard him interviewed on Danny Baker's radio show a couple of years ago and found it very refreshing, an insight into the creative talent that was there before he started spending more time on tabloid front pages than in the charts.
I'm sure that that level of fame would muck up most people, in fairness, but I think a lot of people of my generation grew up knowing the theatrical costumes and the Diana stuff and didn't realise what a talent he had. Maybe contrast with Bowie, who remained relatively aloof?
Don't feel sorry for me, feel sorry for people who can't appreciate words. Look at this way. If you went to see a play and you couldn't hear what the actors were saying would you still enjoy it because the scenery and costumes were great?
'Scuse me while I kiss this guy (Purple Haze)
Your opinion is also an opinion of what you mistakenly identify as an opinion. An opinion is not a definition which I gave. Your opinion is simply a mis-judged opinion.
Is that opiniated enough?
Now I'm confused!the next First Lady of the United States, Bill Clinton
With Elton John, when he does eventually pass on then everyone will play the same song over and over again in his 'memory'.
for the princely sum of £10 each !! (for those of you who didn't experience the 70's you could have a good night out on that then)
With cider in the students union at 10p a pint back then I could be drunk for a week on £10.
However opinionated your opinion, it is important, in my opinion, to remember that it is only an opinion - in my opinion. The definition of opinion stays the same, no matter what your opinion, and is not affected by your opinion. Now, identifying an opinion is easy - in my opinion. However, in your opinion, it might not be see easy to identify an opinion - though the measure of how opinionated your argument is remains to be seen. If I'm wrong, which I may be, certainly in your opinion, perhaps not in your opinion, then it could be hard to discern whether I'm wrong in your opinion, in my opinion, or indeed in both of our opinions. However, there would have to be some opinionated person who, in my opinion, would express their opinion, which would be that my opinion about the identification of opinions is wrong. However, that does not help to discern whether or not my opinion of their opinion on my opinion, or even their opinion of my opinion of their opinion on my opinion, is correct, and, whether or not it is, in either my opinion or their opinion or your opinion or all our opinions, which are the most opinionated. Therefore, from this discussion, whether this matches your opinion, my opinion, both of our opinions, or neither of our opinions, we can conclude - fairly solidly, in my opinion - that an opinion is an opinion. Got all that?
That's more of an opinion than a fact.The whole point - which virtually everyone misses and, indeed, you've fallen into that category - is that a song is a story or poem set to music.
Wow. Wouldn't be allowed to do that now. If it isn't health and safety, it's the band's being far more professional.Somehow don't think it will be "i'm still standing"[emoji38]
On a different note (sorry i'll get my coat) he played a gig at Preston Guild Hall in the 70's and me and a few friends got to be roadies for a day, for the princely sum of £10 each !! (for those of you who didn't experience the 70's you could have a good night out on that then)
When the concert started all us "volunteer" roadies were told to disappear to the lighting gantries if we wanted to see the gig as only his trusted crew were allowed near him ! Cracking concert though.
And there was me hoping it would be David and Victoria Beckham. What I mean by 'it' I could not possibly divulge, even to myself. I blame Cecil Parkinson myself!
As for the matter in hand, I did a search, and found the story to be one of those boring tabloid stories that, if it came out, most people wouldn't even bother to read or take any notice of. I was expecting something much worse!
I guess what makes this 'newsworthy' is the fact that there is an injunction against reporting it, rather than the actual story itself.
That's more of an opinion than a fact.
Nope, it's a fact.
Chicane's Saltwater is a classic, uplifting masterpiece that will never get 'old', but I bet not many non-Gaelic speakers know what the words mean. Yes, you could look it up, but then the same principle applies if you can't hear the lyrics of a particular song properly too.
Very often, the reputation of a firm can be enough to get a decent result, or at least demonstrate to others that they aren't to be messed with. An old friend once happened to mention he'd received a high court writ issued on behalf of Rolex, due to allegations that he'd been selling replicas of their watches. Rolex were requesting damages and an injunction against him. He said he'd shown it to his solicitor who told him it wasn't serious and not to worry. I asked which firm was acting for Rolex, and he said Clifford Chance. I pointed out that it was the largest, most prestigious firm in the country at the time, and suggested he'd better get a second opinion. He duly did this, and was told it was indeed very serious.......Carter-Ruck.....the firm is very good at what it does.....
You're not Sir Humphrey Appleby by any chance?
I guess if anyone gets a super injunction, can you simply travel aboard and tell a foreign journalist, in the hope they will report it, making the injunction less viable in terms of continuing to apply?
Is it against the injunction to speak of it aboard?
If that is the case, how did this get out further. Did someone not involved the newspaper side get to hear of it.You can tell people that you are subject to an injunction, but you can't tell them who has taken the injunction out against you. If you were to report it outside the jurisdiction of the court you could still be considered in contempt of court when you return to the jurisdiction of the court.
You cannot tell people that you are subject to a super-injunction. If you were to report it outside the jurisdiction of the court you could still be considered in contempt of court when you return to the jurisdiction of the court.
If that is the case, how did this get out further. Did someone not involved the newspaper side get to hear of it.
I wonder can someone who brings a super injunction tell someone else? If they did, what would that do to the super injunction if it went further.
I wonder of there will now be an investigation into how the super injunction got breeched, assuming it did. At the very least, they would need to find out if it got breeched. Surely.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
It's the description/definition. Think about it for a moment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, to quote the late Sir Thomas Beecham, "The English don't really appreciate music, they just like the noise it makes".
Don't feel sorry for me, feel sorry for people who can't appreciate words. Look at this way. If you went to see a play and you couldn't hear what the actors were saying would you still enjoy it because the scenery and costumes were great?
I don't have a narrow definition. Scat singing - a development of jazz - is not in the same category because it doesn't use words.
OK. I thought it was a super injunction, the way people were going on.Wasn't this a bog standard injunction rather than a super injunction, so news that it exists isn't an issue?
Clearly not. Hehe.So Beethoven's 5th, Tchaikovsky's 1892, Bruch's Violin Cocerto etc. are not worthy of appreciation because they have no words?
I'm really unclear what you are trying to say here, and we are surely way off topic from this discussion of the musician Elton John, but I have to presume that you didn't read the Court's decision in the matter you are thinking of, here. The relevant statement is in paragraph 63:OK. I thought it was a super injunction, the way people were going on.
There will be an interim injunction restraining the defendant from publishing the proposed article until trial or further order.
Ok, what's your view on eRa - Ameno?But the words - in whatever language that the song is set in - mean something and that's the point. Otherwise why go to the trouble of all the coupling and rhyming, scanning and setting? Why not just sing gobbledygook like Karl Jenkins' "Adiamus".
Ok, what's your view on eRa - Ameno?
(which isn't a song I'd come across until today, and immediately thought of this thread!)
I do like the OP's timing with this topic.
Let's have a thread for someone who's currently not in the English media for anything other than their music and charity work.
Purely coincidental timing, or a thread designed to get the forum in legal hot water discussing something that must not be discussed.
Purely coincidental timing, or a thread designed to get the forum in legal hot water discussing something that must not be discussed.
How is it that I, and many others, can enjoy a song in a foreign language without understanding a single word?
Rammstein!
Can't understand a word Till Lindermann says yet the music is awesome and the shows they put on are spectacular.
Either I didn't or I did but then forgot that bit. Not sure which.I'm really unclear what you are trying to say here, and we are surely way off topic from this discussion of the musician Elton John, but I have to presume that you didn't read the Court's decision in the matter you are thinking of, here. The relevant statement is in paragraph 63: