IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!
MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVES/WEEKLY ROCK POLL POST
Return to Gasx3/Poll Post Board Homepage
Name: Keno
E-Mail:
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Let me clear this up better....
Date: Thursday, December 31, 2020
Time: 4:44:38 AM
Remote Address: 8.41.160.9
Message ID: 320807
Parent ID: 320806
Thread ID: 320802
In all of what you just wrote here and in all of what I wrote on this too, we are pretty much saying the same things in different ways while disagreeing yet agreeing with each other at the same time, but just in different ways, which for you and me isn't anything new. I recall many moons ago, and I do mean many moons ago - it was from back wen this place was still Gasland - and I may have noted this one email I had gotten in here to you at the time (can't recall if I did or didn't), but a lurker wrote me and noted to me that when the two of us get into debating a point at Gasland, the 2 of us get into some of the most interesting debates and arguments while often not being too far apart on what we are debating, yet making it seen like we are are far apart. I would say that's exactly what we got here. The main thing is.... I'm looking at the term "lead guitar" only here, while you're looking at the term "lead riff". But in reality, there isn't such a thing, even if a riff could at times sound like a lead and is a lead. Yes, riffs and leads often get confused while some songs actually do have 2 lead guitar parts to them. For an example here I'll go with the Stones song "The Next Time" (and this will blow away what I just stated about "lead" riffs, too, since I even like to debate my self sometimes). Brian Jones is always credited on this song as the lead guitar player - but is he? Well no question, he is playing the song's riff on here over and over while Keith plays the rhythm guitar for most of the song. Brian's riff does sound like a lead, no question, but is it a true lead guitar - or just a repeated riff that he's playing that sounds like a lead? In a way it's both, since Keith is again play rhythm to it, yet it's also a guitar riff, so yes, a lead guitar riff indeed. But what about the part of the song where Keith clearly takes over and plays the lead guitar part? That's never noted anywhere as a "lead guitar" part - but instead noted as a "guitar solo"! So what's the difference between a lead guitar part, a guitar riff, and a guitar solo? Can all 3 be leads? Yes, they can, but just not at the very same time. Plus on that song, while everybody notes Keith's "guitar solo" as just that, but how can it be a solo if Brian - at the very same time - is still playing that lead same "lead riff"? So is it not 2 lead guitars paying at the same time? Or can you not have two leads playing at once (tell a band like Lynyrd Skynyrd you can't, they often had 3 leads playing at the same time!), and if that's the case here, then Keith's playing there isn't a true guitar solo at all.... right? So the only thing I'm getting at here is, on this Beatles song we are debating, since George is also credited with playing that same riff as John is playing, is it still a lead at that time? No, it's not, but again, yes, it is. But the man who wrote the lead guitar part to this song and who played it more on the record was John, not George, even if George played the part some, too. But Lennon was the main lead guitar player there, not George. Now, knowing you well enough after so many years (and I mean this will all respect), you will still totally disagree with me here on this - even if we are actually real close to agreeing on this.... I think. So that reminds me of that old email that was written to me years ago about the 2 of us. Damn, too bad we live so far away from each other, since if we could only debate in a local pub, it for sure would be an interesting debate to be a part of without the internet getting in the way of things. In fact, with that in mind and with the internet out of the way, most of any debates we two would have in a bar, in the end, I believe would finish up with us agreeing with each other while never admitting it.... If you get my drift, and you do, even if you wouldn't admit to it.
One last thing, on something you actually noted very early on in your reply, yet I'm only getting to it last here.... Is what you stated about Wiki and their rules, since I used to partake there a lot in editing pages. In regard to what you noted here: "I've got to admit to not knowing how wiki compile their pages, but I would imagine that they operate on the basis of information coming from the most verifiable sources as is possible."
Ah yes, you and 99% of those who only read the site but never edit - and that's another 99% of the lurkers (or readers) there, they think that! They expect that! Yet it's the furthest from the truth! But at the same time, it also depends on what you are reading about, too, since the site covers everything, and some of the info there is the truth. For example, if you are reading about a local community - one would think everything noted there is 100% true, and for some places it is, but not for all. I know for the small community that I live in, most that is written about the town is so off base and incorrect. If I ever again decide to edit anything at Wiki, it would be on what is written there about Crestone - and knowing the locals here and their feelings towards me, they wouldn't object to anything I corrected there. Unlike how a few Stones fans online feel about me, in my hometown I'm well loved, and I actually a few years back was asked to edit the Crestone page by the then mayor on Wiki, since it's so lacking and some stuff is flat out wrong on there. But that was right after the Stones BS took place and at that point I was done with being a Wiki editor, regardless of what needed to be edited.
But let me get back to what you wrote about "I would imagine that they operate on the basis of information coming from the most verifiable sources as is possible.". Well, that is the furthest from the truth when it comes to the info up there on the Stones! The problem, is these same 2 or 3 assholes who think they are in charge of the Stones info up there (nobody is actually in charge, but these fools do control the pages it seems thanks to being true bullies who in reality are nothing but spammers). Yes, nobody is a true top editor there - and if you don't know this - anybody - and I mean anybody, including yourself - can join up there and become an editor - it takes nothing at all to become one, as long as you don't mind working as a volunteer - and you can handle the fact that if you are a new editor, depending on the page you're editing, you will be treated like dirt there by those who think they are in control of things (and by using the bully platform, in a way they are). While you can reedit anything these bullies take down, they can - and will - just take it down again - and they will - over and over again. Yep they will take down the work you just did on what you were trying to correct.
The biggest problem with these 2 or 3 fan editors in regard to the Stones pages, is that they are what we Stones fans would call "Keith freaks". You just can't say anything negative about Keith Richards there, or claim that he is being credited for playing a guitar part that say everybody deep down knows Mick Taylor played. You can't talk a lot there about the early to mid 1970s, back when Keith was a vegetable thanks to his H problems and how MT took over most of the guitar playing in the band at that tine, and like BJ before him, Taylor was never credited for his work by the Glimmers. None of that true talk is allowed here. MT himself could correct things wrong there - with proof - and these 2 or 3 Keith freaks won't allow it to stand! Now yes, Wiki does have it to where if a dispute on info is on-going, they have main editors - outside of whatever is being disputed, who will come in and decide what should stay up, and even the Keith freaks can't change that info at that point.... but, it almost never comes to that, since nobody hangs on to get to that point (at least not on the Stones pages, as these assholes are extremely rude and no sane person wants to deal with them more than once or twice at the most). Believe me, I tried, and even stubborn me gave up, since again, they aren't worth fighting with.... Let's say, you edit there, and it can be a lot of work to do (and often is), only to see 2 or 3 hours of work that the corrections you just fixed, took to do, for no pay mind you - and you publish it up there and then it can be removed by one of these assholes - in less than 30 seconds! Believe me, I know this firsthand! That is why so much info at the Wiki Stones pages are wrong and been wrong for years now.... and will never be corrected, since these spammers are in total control of the place. No, my old friend James is right, they aren't worth it. Plus yes, that's why whenever I talk about Wiki here, I usually note that the joint as being run by morons. While that may be only true about the Stones pages - and not true at all about -say - the Beatles pages, since I've never edited any Beatle pages that I can think of there. If I did call any of the Beatle editors at Wiki "morons" (did I?), I take it back. Only the editors of the Stones pages for sure are, and I also stand by the fact that many other - non Stones pages at Wiki are totally giving out wrong info - since I see that on my home town's pages, and seen it on other pages, too. But that don't mean those pages can't be change with any problems. It just depends on who the editors are on any given page or subject. I noticed a major mistake there at a page for the old Alice Cooper band a few years back, which I corrected, and I didn't come across any objections at all, and my corrections still stand on that page to this day. So most likely, it's just those bad apples at the Stones pages who stand in the way of truth. So be it, but the bottom line is - don't waste your time believing anything you read on Wiki - since a lot of it is incorrect - especially on the Stones pages!
Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.
Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!
© 1998 - 2022 by Keno Internet Services, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.