Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

40th anniversary CD of Piper at the Gates of Dawn

bouncer_the_dog said:
This was intended to be a fluff thread about Syd barret and as usual turns into a combined attack on the OP and whinge about the state of the world today!
Well, how often did Syd's songs stay on topic?
 
Cheesypoof said:
a classic example of abusive trolling on urban that was an unmitigated attack on one person, ie me,
Nobody has attacked you.

They've just pointed out that what you wrote was a load of cock, you then started with your usual pretentious whining. :)
 
bouncer_the_dog said:
This was intended to be a fluff thread about Syd barret and as usual turns into a combined attack on the OP and whinge about the state of the world today!


where's the combined attack? Donna merely asked a question, cheesy went off one one, i asked asked a question, then she went into a rant about our apparent abusive trolling.

Seems to me the shit all came from one source.
 
I must admit to a probably morbid fascination with Syd Barrett, but Im not alone. The music, at its best, is visionary. More beautiful now than it ever appeared 20 years ago. It's gained something with time, or maybe the times have shifted so far away from Barrett's mystic whismy, his psychedelic wind in the willowsnjes, that it appears very special; orr maybe, they are actually very close to them, negatively, in some sort of black and white inversion of the cultural dialetic everyone misses that kind of fragile seriousness.

Astronomie Domine and Chapter 24 etc are the sort of art that leaves you asking these, very stupid questions, because to listen to the Barrett Floyd at their ecstatic best is like being at that point in an acid trip where just about everything dissolves. And its very very beautiful. But as soon as you start to feel its "very beautiful" something resembling you starts to remerge and coalsce - that recognises it and yourself recognising it and with it comes the fear that you'll 'never come back. " You'll be stuck in this strange place thats very beautiful and yet totally alien. And where theres no one to reach you. Poor Sid, you feel, got somehow stuck there - where no one could pull him back.

I don't know about anyone else, but that thought fills me with terror ( that it could have been me ) and pity (that it wasn't, it happened to someone else.) I can't think of many other modern stories that evoke Aristotles definition of tragedy so closely and so poignantly.
 
if6were9 said:
I must admit to a probably morbid fascination with Syd Barrett, but Im not alone. The music, at its best, is visionary. More beautiful now than it ever appeared 20 years ago. It's gained something with time, or maybe the times have shifted so far away from Barrett's mystic whismy, his psychedelic wind in the willowsnjes, that it appears very special; orr maybe, they are actually very close to them, negatively, in some sort of black and white inversion of the cultural dialetic everyone misses that kind of fragile seriousness.

Astronomie Domine and Chapter 24 etc are the sort of art that leaves you asking these, very stupid questions, because to listen to the Barrett Floyd at their ecstatic best is like being at that point in an acid trip where just about everything dissolves. And its very very beautiful. But as soon as you start to feel its "very beautiful" something resembling you starts to remerge and coalsce - that recognises it and yourself recognising it and with it comes the fear that you'll 'never come back. " You'll be stuck in this strange place thats very beautiful and yet totally alien. And where theres no one to reach you. Poor Sid, you feel, got somehow stuck there - where no one could pull him back.

I don't know about anyone else, but that thought fills me with terror ( that it could have been me ) and pity (that it wasn't, it happened to someone else.) I can't think of many other modern stories that evoke Aristotles definition of tragedy so closely and so poignantly.

Help! Help!
 
Donna Ferentes said:
I suspect I first listened to Piper At The Gates of Dawn before the OP had learned to read (she still appears not to have learned to write) and I certainly read The Wind In The Willows before she was born.

The fact that Barrett had read Grahame's work doesn't mean it "reads like" it at all. These are very different concepts.

Saying exaggerated and over-excited things for effect is a habit I loathe but it is one that is regrettably far too common among people employed in contemporary journalism, notably when they write about popular music. I started writing for money at about the time the OP entered secondary school: I didn't view that as a cause or an opportunity to write incoherent nonsense.

Here is a classic piece of Donna posting. Firstly he establishes that he is older than the hills and knows everything, being very very wise. Then he picks up on somantic detail (I am waiting now for this very sentence to be dismantled in a later post). Then he bemoans the fact that the world has steadily gone wrong and that if only everyone thought and did things in exactley the same way as he does everything would be OK.
 
bouncer_the_dog said:
Here is a classic piece of Donna posting. Firstly he establishes that he is older than the hills and knows everything, being very very wise. Then he picks up on semantic detail (I am waiting now for this very sentence to be dismantled in a later post). Then he bemoans the fact that the world has steadily gone wrong and that if only everyone thought and did things in exactly the same way as he does everything would be OK.
Thank you.

I do think standards are better than the absence thereof.
 
Dubversion said:
where's the combined attack? Donna merely asked a question, cheesy went off one one, i asked asked a question, then she went into a rant about our apparent abusive trolling.

Seems to me the shit all came from one source.

You are the uber troll, I know it, you know it, the world knows it!
 
bouncer_the_dog said:
What are you standards for 'fun' ? Does it have to be correctly spelt too?
No. But people do have to try, rather than spouting meretricious and pretentious trash and then being upset when somebody asks them to justify it. Which isn't about fun, it's about people on the make.

But I have a medical appointment.
 
bouncer_the_dog said:
You are the uber troll, I know it, you know it, the world knows it!


not at all. I saw you throw an astonishing hissyfit once just because i appeared on your thread - i believe you DEMANDED i leave it :D - when you had to concede in the end that my contributions were serious and non-trolling.

I don't troll. I do however feel comfortable disagreeing. That's not the same thing.

Seems to me cheesy feels like she and she alone should be able to post whatever nonsense she wants with nobody allowed to criticise, enquire or puncture her ego. Why is that, do you think?
 
bouncer_the_dog said:
What are you standards for 'fun' ? Does it have to be correctly spelt too?

Read the thread again. Donna asked Cheesy a completely harmless and reasonable question. Cheesy failed - as ever -to answer it. Does this make it Donna's fault in some way? :D
 
I think cheesypoof should set up a blog or just start less threads.
The trouble with the former, I suspect, is that there might not be as many readers but who knows it could be a cult.
 
I think it's more that every Cheesy post can be split into:

Prince - fan of, genius, been to gig
Pete Doherty - fan of, genius, been to gig
Syd Barrett - fan of, genius, dead

ad nauseum. It just gets a little tiring that it's the same old stuff repackaged on an almost weekly basis in what seems to be an attempt to show off the use of adjectives, superlatives and hyperbole.
 
g force said:
I think it's more that every Cheesy post can be split into:

Prince - fan of, genius, been to gig
Pete Doherty - fan of, genius, been to gig
Syd Barrett - fan of, genius, dead
You forgot "mememememe, I'm soooooo special and different, you just don't understand"
 
Dubversion said:
Read the thread again. Donna asked Cheesy a completely harmless and reasonable question. Cheesy failed - as ever -to answer it. Does this make it Donna's fault in some way? :D

Thats one interpretation. The other is Donna came on and asked an annoyingly sober boring question and you jumped in as you saw another opportunity to Cheesey bash.

That thread ages ago is probably not worth bringing up again. Although I got a few PMs patting me on the back for calling you a troll back then.
 
To be fair I hate it when anyone in music posts "you obviously don't get it" when someone diagrees. The responses to Cheesy's threads are IMO more a sympton of frustration that it's the same old stuff being posted over and over.
 
/me plays "Piper" on the office PC :cool:

What a coincidence as I was looking for "See Emily Play" the other day. :)

It was fairly formative for me - though not as much as "Dark Side" - as even I was too young at 7 years old to have been part of the scene. (and my suburban parents were seriously square).
 
bouncer_the_dog said:
That thread ages ago is probably not worth bringing up again. Although I got a few PMs patting me on the back for calling you a troll back then.


You're supposed to call them "PMs of support" Bouncer :rolleyes: :)
 
bouncer_the_dog said:
That thread ages ago is probably not worth bringing up again. Although I got a few PMs patting me on the back for calling you a troll back then.


Entirely pointless/needless. Well done you must be so proud.
 
g force said:
The responses to Cheesy's threads are IMO more a sympton of frustration that it's the same old stuff being posted over and over.
It's becuase she seemingly thinks she should be allowed to post up endless pretentious drivel without anyone picking her up on it. Her arrogance at times is breathtaking.

All we have on here is the words on a screen, if you post shit, expect it to be thrown back at you.
 
Back
Top Bottom