Sgt_Markoff

"My friends heed these words, for I pass this way but once!" --Harold Hill Wise words above; and in the preceding Hep-post as well. What's wrong with getting a little carried away? Why is passion frowned upon so much these days? How much trouble can one cause anyway... when we're all safely hiding behind monitors and keyboards? As long as the party is kept polite, what's the harm? Now, as for shooting sprees: I have said often over the past five years or so that it seems like its getting to be once every three months in the USA. I stand by that remark.

that's the window jamb she's leanin on...good call tho

Al Mulock. Canadian-Born star who appeared in both of Sergio Leone's biggest hits. Suspected drug habit; committed suicide on set during filming. Look at that face!

Louis Jean Heydt Tall blonde actor. You remember him from 'They Made Me a Criminal' and 'They Were Expendable'

Surprised it hasn't made a comeback with today's vampire-obsessed populace. Or maybe it has, who knows.

This is what I 100% believe, can be gotten away from.

Radio Dismuke from the Netherlands is another "wax and 78s" only streaming station. Primarily stuff from 20s and 30s. Free. Great listening.

Function and form --always--over style, as far as I'm concerned. Basing judgments on style is anathema. "Ornament is crime" --Adolf Loos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime

Well said, Jazz Man. Remember the controversy over "Fusion" and "Third Stream"? Or the furor over Dylan going electric? If something helps an artist springboard his own genuine creative contribution, great. But I don't agree with enabling cheapness and theft. In the digital age, this is a colossal problem; since everything is lifted so easily.

Another one! DJs who use sampling technology to incorporate classic Motown tunes into their beat-tracks ...and take credit for melodies they never invented! Just this year I heard that no-talent Beyonce covering a great song by soul artist, Thelma Houston. Sure, royalties get paid on the back-end but how many fools in the audience are now deceived by who actually originated those lyrics? Where's the justice in that? "Down and Out in Beverly Hills" can steal a storyline from Jean Renoir; and who's gonna know the difference? Someone probably thought it was "okay" because it "just sorta felt right to them".

Another point-of-difference might be these ridiculous videos of supposed 'music prodigies' on Youtube or whatever. How many times have I been in a bar and some 20-something fool tries to convince me there's some 11-yr old out in Des Moines, Iowa who is the "world's next greatest musician" because in the interval of seven months, he taught himself how to mimic the drum track, beat-for-beat, to a song by Metallica. Playing his home drum set in his garage. I blithely inform them (to their dismay) "Sorry, but that's 'monkey-see, monkey-do'. AKA, "piddling around"". What happens when you let this nonsense get out of hand? All this hokey, fuzzy, cultural relativism? Foucault and Derrida, Lacan, Kristeva, deLeuze, DeMan? Someday you'll find prose novels in bookstores maybe categorized as "paranormal" vs "mortal"... or "wizards" vs "shapeshifters". "BDSM" vs "Vanilla". Or some other inanity. (Maybe it will even be forbidden to draw any other genre-lines because people-who-identify-as-shapeshifter will feel their rights are infringed upon and they'll get their lobbyist group to advocate for them). Of course, there might not even be any bookstores at some point with the way things are headed. But this is partly why firm genre-lines need to be fixed and unflinching. Draw boundaries somewhere, and hold to them for the sake of order and clarity. Stop worrying about hurt feelings come Grammy Night.

Picasso. Well one thing's for sure, you can't base an argument on what this-or-that artist happened to mutter out of the side-of-his-mouth, some morning as he was making his coffee. Instead of this kind of thing, here's typical 'light reading' plucked from my home bookshelf. (I often enjoy books devoted to exactly these kinds of questions). https://tinyurl.com/ycrqmtsb https://tinyurl.com/y8wtvps2 Would you estimate that these thinkers take as casual or offhand an attitude to the subject of genre, the way Pablo Picasso seems to have done? As I recall, Picasso is the same wag who made that hideous comment about "stealing-from-other-artists"; (which has famously become a mandate for plagiarists ever since). Maybe he should have had more coffee that morning. Maybe he should stop contradicting himself. On the other hand, would he still be an Artiste' if he did so? With regard to music --or anything else--yes I do feel there are plenty of formal ideas worth-knowing-about. Not to the point where they constraint us or hamper us; but they're important if one is setting out on a career in music or maybe if one is considering the purchase of a fine instrument, or what-have-you. There's many good reasons to not take a 'loosey-goosey' or diletantte's approach to a discipline. Think of it this way: we don't let teenagers design skyscrapers and we don't let busboys from Denny's perform root canals on our mouth. Professionalism matters. Picasso was a trained, schooled, professional artist before he went off experimenting on his own. Sure, we can hand a toddler a plastic kazoo and when he produces a couple of feeble notes we can humor him with some parental applause --just to make him feel good-- but who's kidding who? He's not playing a Strauss waltz on it.

Hmm my bad, I'm remiss in not examining closely enough, the metal labels laminated on the hoods and trunks of all these splendid machines lining my street when I must stroll past them. l'm usually averting my eyes in disgust. Okay so their replacements today look exactly like the rodent pictured above (this is the model I see most of, believe me) but its now called something else. My goof. But 'millions of sales' is no argument for bad taste; look at the Beidermeier Era in Germany, 1819 - 1845. A whole generation-and-a-half of an entire country, which specialized in chintzy decorative doilies, placemats, and kitchen wallpapers. My point is, we can be in a cultural trough and not know it until its over.

Lots and lots and lots? So today we enjoy an era of fabulous cars? Someday the Ford Probe and the Chevy Voyager--seen on American streets in hordes--will be classic? To me, these vehicles look like..rodents.

'Panic in the Streets', a noir?!

A world without genre-definitions! Shag-rugs, black-light velvet Elvis, seashores paintings in hotel rooms, lava-lamps, pet-rocks, day-glo footwear; skateboard with glowing neon lights, chia pets, pinkie-rings...

Its the fault of my background and my training. And my career. Analysis and dissection are how I earn my daily bread so I'm not used to relaxing. I'm not a lawyer, nope--but if you've ever had to stand up before an audience --and face the prospect of humiliation-- for not preparing your case correctly, you wind up with a horror of flawed reasoning. Unsound arguments to me, are as wince-worthy as listening to men tear up the street with jackhammers.

Another reason for maintaining clear ideas on what a genre is: snow-jobs. Someone always comes along --exactly like Quentin Tarantino did--claiming to have invented something new; when clearly he has only copied and bastardized. And then a whole generation of stooges grows up not knowing what the original format was for the films he distorted. If you don't think that's doing a disservice to the generations of talented and earnest individuals who worked for the classic-era studios? The people who forged the genre in the first place? Mighty poor moral stance, that's all I would say. Or else: what happens when a modern-day prodco kicks off a cheap remake or a reboot or a re-imagining of a classic story and --same thing--tries to sell tickets based on phony claims. "You've never seen this before!" "We turn crime fiction on its head!" etc etc etc. What then? Would you say its 'better'? 'Better' because its easier? 'Better' rather than do the measly amount of effort it requires to preserve understanding and skill? Better for whom, I ask. People who simply want to lazily sit back and not use their brains? Maybe, but its not better for the artists themselves. Or what about situations like Akira Kurosawa taking a plot from Dashiell Hammett; and then Sergio Leone taking from Akira Kurosawa; then John Sturges taking a plot from Sergio Leone. This kind of borrowing is not exactly 'evil' but it is important when (seven decades later) everyone is trying to figure out exactly 'who did exactly what'. Who was the pioneer and who was the copycat? Knowing just what a genre-product entails in the making, makes it clear who to ||laud --and who to diss --when some "johnny-come-lately" sashays along and pads their own ego by hawking their own wares. When you know what a genre is, you know whether someone actually did any work or not. It's important. You have to have certain precepts established just to determine what it is you're even looking at. It's not just about movies or books; these principles govern artistic practice extending back through all art industries (Greek, Roman, etc) save perhaps for neolithic. Compared to all this, insisting on subjectivity is something very like petulance or childishness. Just sayin'; I don't think much of it. I have a passion for fairness!

If it changed the course of genre publishing since WWII, it's a lot more than just me saying so. Eh, what you're doing here once again is bringing in a subjective spin on things. "This is more interesting to me," etc etc. 'Deliberately mixing genres' --a move usually provoked by desperation--is a different trend anyway. You couldn't have it at the beginning of these industries; its only possible now that publishing and movie-making are both staggering along and no one is competent or prolific anymore. The principle is that you can't set a course or forge ahead by following 'accidents' and 'flukes'. You don't set out to emulate incompetence and plagiarism and make that your aegis.

Well, I've advanced an excellent reason (in another thread) why it is important to keep genre boundaries firm and distinct; and why we should care about it. The reason is that if you do not do this, then "Grub-Street"-style authors (hacks) will crank out cheap, mediocre products from one genre --make them resemble the hallmarks of a neighboring genre --and demean both genres at the same time when doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grub_Street It lessens quality all around (for both the writing and filming of these stories), when you do not keep the bar high for each genre internally to itself. The horrible trend of "space oaters" and "alien gunslingers" (early in the SF genre) prompted the betterment of science-fiction; once it was realized and once it was halted.

Well, I took my info from IMCDB, that's all I can say about it...someone should get on to them about this...makes sense though...

p.s. what 'History Guy'? His academic chops are what, exactly, to earn such a sweeping title?

Wrong war

Yup. I know the story well. It's fascinating. And I can name several other ones similar--from other actors we all know well. The war turned lives upside down. Whether it is 100% factually true or not? I can't say. But if the other ones I know about are; why not this one?

I know that Rains flick! It's a really good one. Rains is intense as a leading man. There was nothing sweeter than seeing him stroll quietly across the room with salt/pepper hair; still looking superb though--and in glorious color, in David Lean's "Arabia". After all those years of seeing him in b&w; I misted up.