Zappa

[Rich Engle]

I've had terrible luck maintaining a consistent connection to the Internet this year, what with crashes, moving around, and such...terrible! But, vacation time is over for some of my less admiring--in addition to my new music projects, I scored a swanky consulting gig involving building a Kyte-enabled website for a real character of a client. I'm going Apple, baby.

I bring this up because as much as I love all things online, there's a certain perspective to be had from not being there. Online communities and such reflect how truly dynamic life is, how technology is...change, change, change. Change becomes, as they say, the only real constant.

That being said, it's amazingly dull to watch someone like El Perigo not evolve--not one bit. I guess he would call that tireless dedication to the true virtues (he sells himslf as a noble truth-battler). His talk about music is incredibly non-evolved, and stale, and not even that of a good hobbyist listener--and the musicians that hang around O-world always react the same way. Oh, some articulate it better than others, but the basic reaction is the same--one that comes from the core of anyone passionate about and active in music. It's a tongue-tied, sputtering thing..."Doh!...Ack! Ack Ack Ack!." They just inherently know he's full of shit. Why-oh-why he is not content to enjoy what he enjoys (and his extensive knowledge of it) just makes players go beserk. And, while I can think of several reasons for that reaction, one remains in the foreground: we have seen it when trying to work with other musicians. Yeah, it's bad enough to read a pahtzer like Linz act like he's more than a well-informed hobbyist-listener (sorry, I reject air conducting as musical craft, sure, you can learn some useful principles, just like you can work on your stage moves by playing Guitar Hero, but an air conductor does not a musician make). I'm not a musical elitist--meaning, I am not so foolish as to say that one must have a reasonable mastery of an instrument in order to intelligently discuss music. No. No more so than one has to be a novelist in order to understand novel-writing. To appreciate the craft. To appreciate the purpose, the effect. That someone did that.

For the most part, the really, really great players, the innovators, the legacy guys, almost to a man (occasionally there are artists that are dicks but brilliant in spite of themselves) don't go this route. They enroll, they nurture, they affirm. Certainly, they are hesitant to make sweeping pronouncements about what in the end is merely choice of style. Zappa said it very simply... "Music is BIG." Oh yeah.

What is this "superior" thing he goes on about? I'll tell you what it feels like to most experienced players (and listeners, for that matter): the musical version of eugenics. How do you force-feed the Romantic movement to someone that loves, resonates to music, but finds it foreign? You don't attack their fucking value system, their sense of life. THAT is anti-life, if anything ever were. You educate, you expose...you bring in the the bright, cleansing sunlight.

Musicians are going to reject any attempt at being pilloried, templated into a style. Why? For one, it's just facist. I have trouble with authority figures in the first place, and that kind of shit just isn't going to fly. Too many notes? Too few? Which ones should I leave out, or add?

Hey, if we get lucky when we write songs, we come close to hitting the universal vibe. It's a dream, that's why we do the journey--if just once we could perform a piece that aligns the vibrations, you know? That everyone recognizes. I think getting close is good enough. I'm certainly not going to stop working a bunch of musical veins because of one man who likes his meat cooked and seasoned a certain way. How dare he? He has no right.

It is true that the Romantic period (in music, in general) was one of the most productive ones ever. Oh, the heights of glory. But we can't just stand idle in that--we have to incorporate, innovate, move on. It destroys the spark to force an artist into a format. They tend to misbehave and revolt under that kind of stuff. It is stifling to innovation, which must exist unrestricted.

When you are a listener, you first get the big payoff--you look around, and you find music that seems it was made just for you! This is a wonderful, comforting thing. On the other hand, some people only are comfortable by being challenged, being made uncomfortable--this is the avante garde. You don't have to sacrifice one for the other. And you certainly don't try to outlaw one or the other.

You don't push listening or writing boundaries by locking yourself into a damn school. Perigo is trying to make a logical argument, saying that this snapshot, style, period in music is the apex. Great, to be told that there is no higher. That we have to write within a style manual. I'd rather take my chances, embrace that form/period (along with all the others I find that makes sense to me), and find my own voice. That's harder work, so I know it is better work. What he proposes is actually easier.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of all of the people voicing opposition to Lindsay, you know that only you and Jordan Zimmerman even attended the event.

Heh.

Here we go again on that accuracy thing...

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

I repeat, this is all very nice, but isn't there already a thread for those who want to explore the depths of their contempt or charity for Mr. Perigo?

As for Frank Zappa, does he have any music that will move me as does:

or even:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy05SYG9-LQ

?

[Rich Engle]

Ted,

See, that's where it starts. No need for compare. So, Rush, and ABBA move your more. Guns forward! The point is that music, unbridled, allows for all the subtle distinctions of pallette...it's a smorgasboard when it is left alone.

What are we supposed to do with "better?" Was ist "better?" It takes away from the artists. Why waste time figuring out if Geddy Lee is a "better" bassist than Mike Rutherford (Genesis)? Why worry about the bloodlines (those two are clear). Not "better," just, yay, mo different!

The beauty of it, really, is that each person, as they evolve, has a unique reaction to the art that comes before them, and they will, if they work, put a distinct, individual mark upon the work. It will be uniquely "them," and that is interesting to hear. It is new stuff, a new spin, a new set of variations. You know: great artists don't borrow, they steal.

That's my point. Where someone like LP (aka Linzio, The Creature, et al) tries to introduce that kind of thing (music as sports, competition, stringent criteria), music just rolls over it. Music is BIG. Bigger than he is.

Imagine if some confused individual like Linz got it his way--that all art was created within the confines of his aesthetic. Imagine being a content maker, and the first thing you had to deal with was to work within those restrictions. You have, by proxy, been put into a place where you violate yourself, your own choices. I believe that goes against anything Objectivism has ever taught me--my first reaction is to revolt. My options have been taken from me.

Fortunately, this is (currently) not possible, so I can do as I wish, unrestricted from such uninformed opinions. If I don't connect, if it's not good, if I fuck up, it's on me. That, I can handle.

Better to have, than to not have. Art moderates itself. Not much, but the cream rises. It finds its community.

I'll never get this standardization thing. Objectivism is very, very guilty of doing this, and it makes them sound like a bunch of fucking Nazis when it's trumpeted. What's the difference between doing that kind of thing and, say, Hitler officiating Wagner's work? Wagner's fine, but if I was in a world governed by the aesthetic choices of others, vs. my own choice (volition), well... I'd end up listnening to the effing Ring Cycle again, when I want the Chili Peppers, had they not been, er...eliminated due to failure to fit the house menu.

Uh uh. Nope. That is the main thing about rock and roll. Rock and roll is about stirring the soup, and keeping the channels for innovation clear. Sometimes it works, other times not so much. Sometimes it gets more universal.

LPerigo has some great talents, aesthetics. It is a burden for me to feel sad for what he does. Ultimately, it seems to me a self-esteem issue--that explains most of the behavior. Maybe that accounts for his deep hatred of Nathaniel. I don't like psychologizing, but this one seems clear. NB pointed out this behavior years ago.

Oh, and Ted, if you like the feel of ABBA, I'd imagine that, if you haven't, look at Ambrosia. Lord, they did some brilliant work.

rde

May I see your papers, please?

Edited February 2, 2009 by Rich Engle

[kiaer.ts]

Thanks, Rich, but I am not looking for permission to enjoy myself, nor am I promoting ABBA. I am asking if Zappa, rather than having songs of technical skill, has songs that evoke strong emotional responses. I happen to love lots of RUSH's technical stuff, as well as I Can See Clearly Now, and Son of a Preacher Man. Does Zappa have any tiddly wink music, or is it all music for musicians?

See here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

Just to address a point you keep repeating. I disagree with you. Zappa was not simply a musician's musician. He had his more technical moments, but he sold far, far too many records for that.

I'll try to get you some more tuneful stuff later, but other than that, I honestly have no idea what you would consider tiddlywink music within the context of Zappa's sound.

btw - There is another pop musician from the 60's who is famous for being as demanding a perfectionist in rehearsals as Zappa was: James Taylor.

Rich,

Great to see you. I miss you.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Maestro-

No need to miss me, I always remain! Email me privately. I'm working on something where I might want to ask you about some expertise you have in the area of web stuff that you talked to me about sometime ago....

Hmm...tiddlywinkin' and Zappo...well, the sound of Ruth Underwood's vibes.

It was just a term of endearment she created for a certain body of music. Stuff she heard. Stuff that made her happy.

78 records, likely. I know the sound she talks of. Sort've post Dixieland/early swing recordings, maybe. Funny, happy sounding stuff.

That's the other thing I didn't get to...this whole thing about melody, where it stands. If there is no melody, it's not music, and all. That's hokum. You know, the one example...what was it, Row Row Row Your Boat or whatever...I fergit. See, that's a melody that came AFTER traditional I IV V harmony, so it sprung FROM it. Look at the evolution of music. First was percussion, men beating sticks in rhythm. Then, the voice evolved (the physical capacity to even do more than grunt). Then, instruments were made...strung things and such. That is the basic priority, the hierarchy. No...melody exists independently of chords. Melody is melody. It is the long line, it is the phrasing, the tone. It is primal, second only to rhythm.

The proof here is simple (our beloved evidence). The capacity to generate melody existed long before the instruments to generate harmony existed. The singing voice. The voice is unique is that it is the only instrument that is built right into the human body. The rest, we play. So, voice, and rhythm together, rhythms likely being first.

I can only imagine Og the Caveman first attempting improv. Yikes...no sense of scale, anything.

That's the other thing that is annoying in these convos...MSK knows....We work in Aeolian mode, you know? It's a great thing, the tempered scale... On the other hand, IT'S NOT THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. Other systems sound foreign to us. Indian music has many notes between our whole and semitones. Get used to hearing all of it, if you wish to explore global music.

Two ears, one mouth. That's the quotient.

So, we can hear rhythm only compositions. But, rhythm instruments create tones, regardless...sometimes, use of that fact has been mastered. Other times, only the primal beat.

Rhythm based music is still music. That remains, no matter how you try to take it apart. You feel it. Tones, manipulating/creating melodies, this only enhanced things. But the deep body rhythm is what its always about, really.

The thrumming.

r

Edited February 2, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Barbara Branden]

Michael:

"I have seen people of two bents when thinking about the death of others:

"1. Those who lament the death of any human life, and

2. Those who rejoice in the death of humans who are not like them.

"These are not black and white positions, but instead emotional starting points. So you get a mix more often than not, but if you pay attention, you can discern which part is more fundamental in any one individual. People constantly gives themselves away.

"The attitude a person has toward a prisoner executed under capital punishment is a good example. A person of the first bent might agree with the justice of it and endorse that particular punishment in that particular case, but he would treat it as an unpleasant form of payment enforced to keep the rules of society in place, especially the ones covering heinous crimes. Underneath he would feel a tinge of sadness and the execution of the prisoner would not be a good day for him. A person of the second bent would have a party and engage in a lot of mocking. The more contained will not make a big issue out of it, but if pressed for an opinion, they will say things like, 'Good. Now there is one less piece of shit walking the earth.'"

Excellent observation, Michael. I'm not certain, however, that very young people -- say, under twenty -- who seem to rejoice in the death of those they consider evil, can be judged as negatively as we would judge adults in this regard. Death seems to have little reality to the young; and usually, as they mature and perhaps encounter death, their reaction alters and becomes more like those you describe as "those who lament the death of any human life."

Barbara

[kiaer.ts]

Twenty Small Cigars

Chunga's Revenge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCO3eQ4OnNE

Nice, again. The first reminds me of Miles Davis and

Traffic, the second of Hendrix and Jefferson Airplane. Still no Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, tho.

Certainly not a person whose passing one would find entertaining.

[Rich Engle]

Ah, Barbara...ever astute.

Sure, what you say there. I guess I look fondly back on the days where I had the luxury of taking mortality so lightly.

The folly of youth, and all...

I was talking to my dad a while back (he's in his eighties). He is a vet of the Pacific theater, the S.S. LLoyd. For years, he went to the reunions...I don't know how it all came together, but I think I was asking him what was the hardest about getting old, and he said it was losing people around you. I think on the Lloyd it's down to like 3 guys now. Depressing.

Rand's sense of life surely didn't allow for celebrating death at all, maybe even scoundrels. If they did misdeeds, that was unfortunate. But I have never found a way to properly celebrate death...it always turns on you one way or another.

I wish bad people would just go away, but I never wish death on them. Well, not too often these days, anyhow...

r

[Rich Engle]

"I see the technical skill, and can imagine that Zappa might have been a demanding performer. But those are meta issues. What is of primary interest in music (as opposed to for musicians) is the emotional impact of music. What song of Zappa's will make me feel the same thrill as Hey Jude or Les Preludes?"

Here, referring to the video, what we see is what I'd call Zappa coming to the music (repeat that), with an air of great respect, humility. He is playing simply, with love. Not "statistical density" (a coined Zappa term). Just being in the moment. So, it's a lot about context here...to see him doing this, if you know his work, it's beautiful.

The answer is that no FZ song will make you feel precisely the same way. But, he loves them in the same way you do. I am sure he loved both pieces you mentioned. It's more about context at that point...seeing the whole picture, the player, approaching something in a certain way. That was one of the few very loving, gentle things he did. Normally, he attacked music more sharply. His solos tended to explore. True improv.

[kiaer.ts]

The person who murdered my boyfriend in a car jacking is in jail, his mother turned him in. I never think of him, and don't wish him dead, but it wouldn't bother me, and if he were sentenced to death, I could kill him myself. I celebrated at the time when Saddam and Zarqawi were killed, and never think of them now. I find pissing on a candle a morbid form of self enslavement, and find the celebration of victimhood in the way we commemorate the 9-11 attacks - but will not rebuild the towers - obscene. I find nothing wrong with momentary joy at the death of a killer. I even remember that being relevant in an ethics class I took - the professor thought it odd we would feel satisfaction at the death of a killer. But celebrating the anniversary seems odd.

I hope we can get back to Zappa.

[kiaer.ts]

"I see the technical skill, and can imagine that Zappa might have been a demanding performer. But those are meta issues. What is of primary interest in music (as opposed to for musicians) is the emotional impact of music. What song of Zappa's will make me feel the same thrill as Hey Jude or Les Preludes?"

Here, referring to the video, what we see is what I'd call Zappa coming to the music (repeat that), with an air of great respect, humility. He is playing simply, with love. Not "statistical density" (a coined Zappa term). Just being in the moment. So, it's a lot about context here...to see him doing this, if you know his work, it's beautiful.

The answer is that no FZ song will make you feel precisely the same way. But, he loves them in the same way you do. I am sure he loved both pieces you mentioned. It's more about context at that point...seeing the whole picture, the player, approaching something in a certain way. That was one of the few very loving, gentle things he did. Normally, he attacked music more sharply. His solos tended to explore. True improv.

Which pieces, specifically? Oh, you mean the udes?

[Barbara Branden]

Rich: "I was asking him what was the hardest about getting old, and he said it was losing people around you."

Rich, I once was talking with a woman well into her nineties, and she was commenting on the death of her last childhood friend,. She said, very sadly, "Now, there is no one left with whom I share memories of my youth." I am very fortunate in that I still have a number of friends whom I've known since childhood, but their ranks are thinning and those that remain are very precious to me; we have regular reunions, which are an enormous source of pleasure for us all. It is especially childhood friends that give one a sense of the continuity of one's life -- that who we were at 5 years old, at 15, at 21 and 41 and 79, is, at core, who we still are.

I'd be interested to know if others who read this share my conviction of this continuity of one's basic identity. (Michael, if readers want to comment, perhaps this should be a separate thread.)

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

What about those who rejoice when their enemies and tormentors are overthrown and fall down? Do you find anything wrong with that?

I still celebrate the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day. Every August 6 I light a jahrzeit candle (a seven day candle for commemorating the death of someone close or special, usually a relative). The candle burns until August 9 and then I pee on it and put it out. I cherish those two days dearly. I will never forget nor will I ever forgive what happened on Dec 7, 1941. Never. Not while I live.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

Do you define yourself primarily in terms of your enemies and those you hate, and their ideas - or in terms of what you aspire to, and what and whom you love and their ideas, etc.?

I recommend the latter.

Bill P

[Rich Engle]

It doesn't matter...I wish I could be more specific, Ted, but I'm on the wire just doing this. Let's just say that I have seen Zappa in his gentler moments, and they were rare, beautiful. Usually, he was a frontiersman...boldly soloing where no soloist went before.

I only got to see him 3 times, but they were lucky ones.

There's a thing about him, real important to me, and it is his view of soloing on the guitar. I think he was the one that really used the term (maybe he created it, dunno)...spontaneous compositions. Compositions within the piece played. He was working the interior. This was a beautiful thing to watch, everytime he picked up the instrument. It was so unique, so informed. I mean, you look at someone like Zappa, who was writing these incredibly complex pieces for rock ensemble, orchestral shit, and then to build in a point for himself where he soloed. It was like watching thought give birth. The way he thought. It was rough, dirty....inaccurate. At one point, he hadn't really played at all for years because he was so busy doing the other stuff, he had to get his guitar chops together. I saw that tour. There was this moment of purity, it was so beautiful...he was composing on the spot. I can barely remember it accurately much more than describe it. It felt...innocent. Free.

[wjbiii]

On a lark, I came over here from SOLO to see if any of that mess is reverberating here. And the very first thing I laid eyes on is this:

To start with, one of Perigo's harshest critics is a musician, a guy named Billy Beck. For as much as I enjoyed his comments (and he is a hoot), I found two items totally off-key. The first is that he treats Zappa as an object of worship.

That's when I had to register and login.

There is not one word of that emphasized line that is true. None of it.

If facts matter to you any more than they matter to Perigo, you will face, admit, and endorse the truth.

And then, here is something that might help you hold your keel:

Do not ever judge me by anyone else you know or ever knew. You have made a very clumsy blunder over style, Kelly. You have mistaken the natural amplitude with which I do everything in my whole life -- "on 10": turned all the way up -- for what you're calling "worship", a word which too many Objectivists and Objectivist-inclined have used so blithely for so long that it is nearly always a dead-giveaway for sheer pot-brained lingo with no serious conceptual content.

It should be stopped altogether, and you should definitely stop taking my name in vain over it.

I would appreciate it if you made clear that you understand.

Thank you, sir.

Ps. -- "They tried to compensate for this with sheer volume,..."

You're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Billy Beck

[Rich Engle]

He had a point, Billy. You're doing Zappa covers. What does your own music sound like? Maybe you should display that!

There are a lot of people that get stuck in the hero worship, and it is easy to understand. But Hell, there's a lot of people doing that so well, including his own son.

I mean, if you're into Frank, surely you compose. Maybe they got you wrong or something.

Seriously...you come over here and give MSK a scolding, and he was defending some of the very principles that most musicians I ever met defend. Relax, dude. It's different over here.

I think you are both fighting the same battle. In Perigo's world, cats like you wouldn't even be allowed to exist.

[wjbiii]

Thanks, Rich, but I am not looking for permission to enjoy myself, nor am I promoting ABBA. I am asking if Zappa, rather than having songs of technical skill, has songs that evoke strong emotional responses. I happen to love lots of RUSH's technical stuff, as well as I Can See Clearly Now, and Son of a Preacher Man. Does Zappa have any tiddly wink music, or is it all music for musicians?

Why the dichotomy?

Try

describing and then playing on the marimba a part of "St. Alphonso's Pancake Breakfast" (this is the "Rollo Interior"), from "Apostrophe", 1974. You can hear the entire original piece, including Ruth''s work in context,

. It ends abruptly when it runs into "Father Oblivion" with signature terror-tempo FZ guitar lick. (Pick it up on the very next beat,

.)

How 'bout the first (and only, I think) calliope solo in rock history? "Fifty-Fifty".

I really don't see how anyone can tell you what you're going to like, Ted, but I'll dig around for you if you want.

[wjbiii]

Let me point something out about Rich's observation here:

There's a thing about him, real important to me, and it is his view of soloing on the guitar. I think he was the one that really used the term (maybe he created it, dunno)...spontaneous compositions. Compositions within the piece played.

This is a function of virtuosity.

In popular conscience, Frank is one of the most sadly neglected guitarists of all time.

[wjbiii]

He had a point, Billy. You're doing Zappa covers.

If that's his point, it's still bullshit. Look: this band is a hobby. I'm a stage-lighting director: I work on rock tours (thirty-two years, this year). At any moment, I might have to take off around the world, and when I'm lucky, it goes for weeks and months. That alone makes it hard. (We were going to try to get together for a rehearsal today: my last chance before I leave for Tokyo on Tuesday. We couldn't work it out.) The other guitarist is a local cat with enormous talent and skill who never had the nerve to run down his passion as a matter of exclusively making his living. {shrug} That is what it is. The drummer works at what used to be called a home for juvenile delinquents. These days, people in that line are usually referred to as some variant of social workers, but Alan isn't. He works at a private facility with the worst violent sexual deviants, and -- in addition to being the hardest working man I ever knew (he's my best friend) -- he is very good at it. The bass player is one of the most blindingly talented people I ever knew, who got his ass burned off by attorneys, agents, and managers in a record deal in the mid-80's. He quit playing his bass, and without a degree or anything at all but his own brain, walked right in off the street and into a serious technical gig at the National Nanolithography Laboratory at Cornell.

All these guys have families. (I don't.)

Try to understand: we're just four guys who like to play who've found a joint in our neighborhood where we can play this stuff and people don't throw rocks at us. To us, that's a good day.

There is no "worship" or any of the rest of it involved, and we are not dedicated pros, nor do we make that pretense.

What does your own music sound like?

I'm pretty sure that I'm the only one who writes and records. It's generally very blues-rooted.

I mean, if you're into Frank, surely you compose. Maybe they got you wrong or something.

Try to understand: I don't have time to do it justice.

Seriously...you come over here and give MSK a scolding,...

You fuckin'-aye bet. What I protested was important to me because it's not true. Now, it's an easy thing to manage: don't fight me over it. I'm right.

I think you are both fighting the same battle. In Perigo's world, cats like you wouldn't even be allowed to exist.

That's a separate point.

[Rich Engle]

All reasonable, all understood. And, that's the coolness here...you get to do that.

Sounds like a great music project.

Hang around.

r

My songwriting partner just dropped dead one hour ago. Swell...

[Brant Gaede]

Hi, Billy. Enjoy your trip to Toyko. I know of a first-class sound man if you ever need one at one of those concerts. I don't know if he'd be available but I'd check him out for you. Emergency ad hoc. My first-cousin. He works for a TV station in Orlando.

--Brant

Edited February 2, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[wjbiii]

What does your own music sound like? Maybe you should display that!

I've only ever posted this stuff at my blog. These links go to what I called the Aural Sketchpad series of recordings from about four to five years ago. What you will hear here are some results of desktop recording experiments: I piled up a bunch of gear for running sounds to hard disk multi-track recording. This was about wringing it out to see what I could do. This was new to me. All my previous recording experience had been with four-track tape and mics in the room: no direct-inputs or anything. That meant loud amplifiers and all the rest of it it. This stuff happened at high-gain but low volume, and there was lots of fooling around with digitally processed guitar sounds. It's a very different thing from running a fifty-watt Marshall wide-open.

Along with the technical aspects, it was literally a sketchpad: a series of recordings spiked on disk for prospective future workup. I gave each bit a jot-title more or less just to be able to find it again in history. The whole pile is mostly just two guitars, with an occasional bass part, as well.

"Reasonable Intimations (3:48 -- two guitars, bass)

"Shooter Girl" (1:50 -- two guitars, bass)

"SatCruise" (2:11 -- two guitars)

"Stairway To Nowhere" -- Led Zeppelin fans will probably not recognize this. Two guitars.

There are all kinds of defects all over this stuff, both in production and performance. They go to the ways they were done, which was usually in a blind panic to get them stuck down for later work. Believe me: anyone here can carp if they want to, but nobody will do a better job than me.

I don't usually link this stuff around. I'm showing you something very personal, that has the added debilities of not being produced or laid down very well. It might, however, give an insight.

The guitars:

A cheap-ass Mexican Fender Stratocaster of indeterminate vintage and no photograph.

1995 Gibson SG Special, modified with Seymour Duncan Phat Cat single-coil pickups.

1977 Gibson Les Paul Custom, stock.

1962 Gibson ES-355, stock, with no Varitone, no stereo output (the preferred features-set) and PAF Humbucker pickups.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Of all of the people voicing opposition to Lindsay, you know that only you and Jordan Zimmerman even attended the event.

Heh.

Here we go again on that accuracy thing...

Michael

Fair enough in this case, Michael. Sometimes I should measure before I type. There may have been a few more here who publicly had something to say about this, Judith maybe?. The amount of threads I would have to cover to verify that would be staggering. I also have no way of knowing who voiced their opposition in private. I also know that Robert Bidinotto was vehemently against Lindsay's inclusion. There are also many reasons why people people may be unable to attend events.

Suffice it to say, I disagree with the statement that Chris (who I like very much) made. I think there were a fair amount of people at TAS who would have enjoyed Lindsay's presentations and made him feel welcome.

I will also make an observation about the Objectivist movement that I find puzzling to say the least. Why is it that many Objectivists can't attend a social or intellectual function where there are people in attendance or lecturing that they don't like or even that they find morally lacking in some way? In many cases, if you feel that way, you should attend to make sure you have as much information as you can gather so that you can make a more accurate determination of your estimate of the person, or much more importantly, they may have something to say that is of value. One of the things I have admired very much about TAS over the years is that they have a commitment to having a diverse array of speakers.

Jim