29 Oct 10 - 08:36 AM (#3018420) Subject: Keith Richards on the box From: mikesamwild Wasn't that a great interview and programme on BBC last night. The book should be worth buying. As a war baby and child of the 50s and early 60s what struck me was how that scene arose out of a reaction to drabness, an identification with poor black America and the opportunity to British kids to mess about a bit at art college! Without British skiffle, trad and modern jazz and folk and blues I don't know whether R&B would have progressed to Rock and Roll as it became . Oh and some drugs apparently. |
29 Oct 10 - 08:59 AM (#3018434) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,johnmc I thought the clip showing him being interviewed as a young man for his reaction to Brian Jones death showed the humanity of the man. |
29 Oct 10 - 09:04 AM (#3018440) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: mikesamwild I thought it was a great interview and he obviously trusted his co writer and the interviewer. A great collaboration. I'm please he kept his marbles, what a constitution and an upbringing that left him able to cope with fame and falling out of his tree!. |
29 Oct 10 - 09:09 AM (#3018445) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse ...but, as I've suggested here, why not let Americans be Americans and practice/perform from England's own fine cultural heritage - thereby helping keep our world nice and multicultural? |
29 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM (#3018463) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: mikesamwild Well some white Americans did carry on the British tradition, that's why Cecil Sharp went out to collect. Do you mean Americans are only white? and were all whites British (or English as you imply)? Anyway stop trying to hijack the thread. This was atribute to Keef |
29 Oct 10 - 09:53 AM (#3018475) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: fat B****rd I thoroughly enjoyed the interview. Keef comes over as a decent human being with a broad world view and a respect for others. I shall be buying the book very soon. |
29 Oct 10 - 10:00 AM (#3018485) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Nicholas Waller I quite liked his art-college-student conception of silence being for a musician like an artist's empty canvas or a writer's blank page, the thing you draw on or scribble on or in his case make a noise on (and playing with it and using it without, he said, obliterating it). |
29 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM (#3018612) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Yes indeed, I've often wondered.... When you're one of the most talented original artists in the owrld, who has produced the most memorable music of your generation...music which has been played and sung and danced to and given pleasure to every class of humanity in every country in the world..... Why won't you accept the restrictions placed on you by some mediocrity who performs unmemorable songs to three mates - all of whom can't wait to get up themselves and bore their mates shitless? it really puzzles me. |
29 Oct 10 - 01:06 PM (#3018636) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Early in the last century, English tended to be over-confident to the point where other cultures had to be conquered and converted; it's gone from one extreme to the other, and Keith Richards is but one example. If you love our world being multicultural, then you appreciate other cultures AND perform/practice your own (more on this via link above). |
29 Oct 10 - 01:13 PM (#3018643) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: The Sandman was there something about mick jagger having a small willy? |
29 Oct 10 - 01:40 PM (#3018673) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,johnmc Could Alan explain his comment - it is lost on me, I'm afraid. |
29 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM (#3018700) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Suegorgeous Yeh, I didn't understand what Alan meant either. I also liked the bit about silence, giving it equal weight and validity to sound. Well, there wouldn't BE any sound without it! |
29 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM (#3018705) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,michaelr Al was responding sarcastically to WAV's post. |
29 Oct 10 - 02:35 PM (#3018723) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Yes . I was being sarcastic, which isn't nice. However I've just read through a thread with people slagging off Leadbelly and Robert jOHNSON. And I really do think its a bit of a bugger. Keith Richard.... well he's a bit special. His music is all over the world, but his artistic message transcends even that. When he was younger, the world's greatest photgraphers and film makers all captured his physical beauty, and every young musician aspires to that sort of grace. He comes from a working class English family with no advantages that our class and education system can confer on one. His techniques have their origins in recordings which had an honourable place in folk music and English folk clubs in the 1960's - the Sam Charters compendium of the blues and the chess albums reissues. The late Peter Bellamy used to sing some of Keith's songs. Keith is worthy of a measure of respect. Its a bit like that Harry Enfield character - I think what you really meant was ..... No he bloody didn't. |
29 Oct 10 - 05:11 PM (#3018859) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse I agree when Keith mentioned, light-heartedly, peaking, in terms of culture, as a boy soprano. |
30 Oct 10 - 12:19 AM (#3019108) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,toftwoodtoft and all on five strings what a genius |
30 Oct 10 - 03:59 AM (#3019141) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Mavis Enderby Link to the programme here on iPlayer (I think UK only though): Culture Show |
30 Oct 10 - 04:55 AM (#3019158) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Monique Indeed! It says "Not available in your area" (France) but you can listen to and download this interview |
30 Oct 10 - 09:09 AM (#3019227) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST i noticed, on the film that, like Alan , the TV announcer at the time of the drugs bust called him Keith Richard without the 's' (I think he meant Sir Cliffe actually, now he would have been a real wild man)
|
30 Oct 10 - 11:09 AM (#3019269) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Suegorgeous You mean Cliff, of course.... |
30 Oct 10 - 01:14 PM (#3019354) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Tattie Bogle I've often puzzled over the name: he WAS RICHARD without an s in the earlier days, was this a mistake or did he get fed up with people calling him the (commoner) RICHARDS all the time? He is credited as RICHARD on the 2 LPs in our collection (1964 and 66) |
30 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM (#3019373) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse GUEST,toftwoodtoft - PM Date: 30 Oct 10 - 12:19 AM "and all on five strings what a genius"...the English cittern has 5 times 2 courses of strings, traditionally plucked with a feather plectrum. |
30 Oct 10 - 03:03 PM (#3019429) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Tug the Cox TB, Wiki tells all. In 1963 Richards dropped the "s" from his surname and began using the professional name "Keith Richard", because Rolling Stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham felt it "looked more pop".[17] (He used the s-less version as his pen name and stage name until the late 1970s.) |
30 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM (#3019590) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Desert Dancer Also on National Public Radio: The Rolling Stones' Keith Richards Looks Back At 'Life'. ~ Becky in Long Beach |
31 Oct 10 - 10:30 AM (#3019966) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST Does anyone know who the posh british balding angular-faced commentator is - who contributes a lot to the programme but doesn't seem to be attributed? |
31 Oct 10 - 10:46 AM (#3019981) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: bubblyrat I thoroughly enjoyed the programme,and thought that he seemed quite lucid compared to some previous interviews. I agree that he has indeed been an important and influential figure in his chosen field,and I admire him for that,but I hardly think that he could be called a "genius " !! |
31 Oct 10 - 10:55 AM (#3019985) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: EBarnacle Breaking news: there was an article indicating doubts that he would be redoing his role as Jack Sparrow's dad in Pirates of the Caribbean 4. |
31 Oct 10 - 11:30 AM (#3020005) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,Alan Whittle 'I hardly think that he could be called a "genius " !! ' Maybe not, but what he has achieved is more crediatble in my eyes that many people who are called a genius. I heard Ann Widdecombe described as 'a bit of a genius' just recently. Fleming, Brunel, Frank Whittle (no relation), Mozart, Einstein, Shakespeare.... I suppose we can all agree on the obvious ones. But you don't get far down the list before it becomes debatable. I met a jazz trumpeter last month who didn't reckon much of Bix Beiderbecke. |
31 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM (#3020018) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Johnny J The most talented musician in the band was Brian Jones although, admittedly, not much of a songwriter. However, he took even less care of himself than Keef and couldn't last. Also, Iain Stewart contributed much but was always hidden away from the limelight as Oldham reckoned he didn't look the part. |
31 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM (#3020051) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,Woodsie Long after Oldham they still kept Stewart in the dark! |
31 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM (#3020062) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Just a quote for you WAV "Citterns were very popular throughout Europe. The English Cittern, having four courses, a bizarre but useful tuning, and often a built-in hook for wall hanging, had a low reputation, due to its popularity in taverns, barber shops and houses of ill repute. It is normally strummed with a crow quill, and it produces a rich, banjo-like sound which is ideal for accompanying vulgar ballads. Like the guitar, it has a limited published repertoire of simple fantasies. The French commonly used a five course instrument, and the Italians a six course, both of which attained honourable places at court." OOps Stu |
31 Oct 10 - 01:47 PM (#3020102) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse "OOps" (Stu) you didn't give the source; but, e.g., in the BBC series "Tales from the Green Valley" a period-instrument expert came on with several, including a 5 times 2 course English cittern. Either way, don't you think it a shame that English who are good at another culture tend to get so much more reward than those who are good at their own? |
31 Oct 10 - 01:59 PM (#3020111) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Desert Dancer Rolling Stone (magazine) article |
31 Oct 10 - 02:34 PM (#3020141) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST Suegorgeous I gave Cliff an 'e' because he is a Sir. ye olde Cliffe , |
31 Oct 10 - 02:44 PM (#3020148) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,Alan Whittle 'Either way, don't you think it a shame that English who are good at another culture tend to get so much more reward than those who are good at their own?' No. I believe the Rolling Stones and indeed, the whole of the English R and B revival was uniquely British - as was the trad jazz boom, just prior to it. Listen to American r and b and American trad jazz side by side with the English stuff - it is qualitavely very different stuff. Not inferior - not superior - just different. Just as English heavy metal is very different.And English reggae is nowt like the Jamaican stuff. Its cos we are a different country. A different culture. We are a distinct and unique voice - even without a cittern, a finger in the ear, or a song from Cecil Sharp house. Unmistakable. As the late John Peel put it - 'people used to tell me that Eric Clapton was a inferior version of BB KIng, and that BB King was 'the real stuff'. Its rubbish. Eric has his own voice, it's English, and I much prefer it.' |
31 Oct 10 - 03:27 PM (#3020190) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Ah well WAV, as an Englishman I am happy to absorb, enjoy and reproduce other cultures. I play a cittern, and a ukulele, and sing Geordie songs with a bizarre accent (not alone there cobber), and violin and guitar and mouth organ and I feel free so to do. I am delighted to spend my energies in music art and literature of all kinds. I value the American accent(s) and spellings as my own. Much good literature comes from the USA Do I think that performers of English folk music are under-rewarded? Some - but that's true of all human endeavour. There are equally underpaid wannabees in all of the Arts, hence 'Don't give up the day job.' Congratulations by the way on moderating some of your more extreme pronouncements, I appreciate it Stu |
31 Oct 10 - 03:48 PM (#3020207) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Stu and Alan: if you listen to the interview, Keith himself has no such delusion about the fact that he was copying aspects of American culture, partly in rebellion; all his heroes were (mainly African) American musicians, and he still thinks copying their styles was a good thing - although, as I said above, he light-heartedly mentioned being a boy soprano as his cultural peak. |
31 Oct 10 - 04:41 PM (#3020245) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,Alan Whittle No delusions involved. He uses American music, but not even as a basis, he is English - so what he delivers is really as English as fish and chips. there are dead giveaways 1) the music is high camp - more kenneth williams than muddy waters 2) that salacious gleam in the eyes of the stones isn't the jaded knowingness of a worker in the sex industry 3)can you imagine buddy guy having a sitar on one of his records? 4) 'schooled with a strap right across my back' - no one who has been so schooled writes an upbeat song about it and so on ad mauseam. Get your finger out your lughole and listen - its all there. english, high camp, sexually ambiguous - its noel coward/ with a patina of chuck berry. Project for tonight: compare the artistic message of Play with Fire or 19th Nervous breakdown with Coward's Poor Little Rich Girl. |
31 Oct 10 - 05:40 PM (#3020282) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Forgive me, Alan, but I'm afraid it's you who is muddying the waters. And, speaking of waters, the Rolling Stones did, at least once, have a go at folk (if not English folk, perhaps because of the rebellious streak that, I think, we do agree on): I'm quite sure it was The Chieftains' "Water from the Well" where I saw that. |
31 Oct 10 - 06:09 PM (#3020305) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Well I'd have no problem seeing the Stones output as folk. But English folk, on account of them being English. its not really worth arguing about. I see them as quintessentially English, you don't. I suppose your compass points in a different direction. We're both writers and take what we need from the folk process. Writing songs that sounded like say Mike Waterson writes songs would be for me betrayal of my roots. It would confront the way my parents and grandparents sang. I can see and I respect the skill involved in what the Watersons do, but its not for me. As for writers 'in the folk tradition' getting less financial rewards. I can't really see it. It seems to me the big wheels on the folkscene get access to all sorts of artistic opportunities, which are denied to writers who are far more passionately committed to writing for the English sensibility. Don't lets argue about it. this was a nice little tribute thread to Keef. None of us who like contemporary folk would dream of hi-jacking a thread about Martin Carthy, or Sam Larner. |
31 Oct 10 - 06:26 PM (#3020314) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: The Sandman they a recorded a cyril tawney song with marianne faithful, sally fre and easy, however heres another version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2tUvD0IjQY |
31 Oct 10 - 07:15 PM (#3020346) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Just by the way WAV have a listen to some wonderful English blues on Al Whittles website. Stu |
31 Oct 10 - 07:34 PM (#3020361) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,Alan Whittle That's nice of you to say Stu. I'd be the first to admit that I'm nowt special as a musician. But I have tried with my playing, and I think that gives you an insight into whats worth respecting. And I think Keith is pretty special - he has that vision thing, which marks out the Jansch's, the McTells, the Carthy's; from the 'tries hard' blokes like myself. |
31 Oct 10 - 07:46 PM (#3020370) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Spot on Al with the Keith comment. However, don't undersell yourself as a wonderful entertainer and good wordsmith. For WAV look here Stu |
31 Oct 10 - 08:41 PM (#3020391) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,biff someone give us a link that an american computer can access? |
31 Oct 10 - 09:24 PM (#3020412) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,Alan Whittle http://www.bigalwhittle.co.uk/ |
01 Nov 10 - 06:04 AM (#3020585) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: fat B****rd I think Mick and Keith's 'Factory Girl' is pretty damn "folky" and 'Lady Jane' is not exactly Rock'n'roll, is it?. I'm with Al this is a Keef tribute fred. |
02 Nov 10 - 11:31 AM (#3021632) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Loving our world being multicultural, I admire those who are good at their own culture. |
02 Nov 10 - 12:06 PM (#3021667) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: mandotim You need to understand that for Walkaboutsverse, every thread is about Walkaboutsverse. |
02 Nov 10 - 02:32 PM (#3021826) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST Was the ghost writer (Old Etonian) a son of the actor ? Fox. he looked like The Jackal but was quite good on the programme.
|
02 Nov 10 - 07:11 PM (#3022081) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Loving MY country being multicultural I am delighted to see the results of the intermingling of cultures. I admire anyone who works to develop their musical skill: I don't give a toss about their accent or where the are born. Sadly there are some (not many) people who believe that culture should be kept in a pretty tin box sealed with blue ribbon. Stu |
03 Nov 10 - 07:17 AM (#3022389) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse As I said in a brief talk, about this time last year, as part of the BBC/Sage Gateshead Free Thinking Festival, "If you are not American, don't Americanise, for the love of our world being multicultural" - quickly stressing the difference between being anti-American and anti-Americanisation, of course. And this year, by the way, at 3.30 on Saturday at the Sage, my brief talk will be: "Cut Capitalism." |
03 Nov 10 - 07:36 AM (#3022399) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: alanabit I agree Stu. The mind boggles to think how many English folk songs would have been lost for ever had not Irish folk singers kept them alive. As for blues and rhythm and blues music, it is worth pointing out that until British blues bands started touring the US in the sixties, Muddy Waters and BB King were both virtually unknown in their own land. Indeed, their popularity, which had only ever existed in a small market, had already long since waned. They both generously acknowledged this in many interviews. The musicians, who revolutionised pop music in the sixties, could only possibly have done so by mixing US and British influences. In some ways, with their swagger and attitude, the Stones are the ultimate American band. However, only spiteful middle class English boys could have written "Play With Fire", "Mother's Little Helper" or "Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown" - let alone the casual vulgarity of "Brown Sugar" or "Honky Tonk Women". If you just hear the bass and drums at a distance, the Stones sound distinctly British, yet they are the template for the ultimate American bands like Aerosmith and Guns and Roses et al. The Stones mixed up what they knew and passed it on. That is what happens in a living culture. |
03 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM (#3022719) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: The Sandman the problem with the Rolling Stones[imo] is that jick, magger.the rest of them were genuinely into the music, but jick was into himself |
03 Nov 10 - 03:15 PM (#3022735) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: alanabit He is narcisstic for sure. On the other hand, in the time he has been with the Stones, he has become a reasonable pianist, a fair rhythm guitarist and nifty harmonica player. That does not suggest to me that he is indifferent to music. |
03 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM (#3022933) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Lonesome EJ Imagine! Jagger having an ego! Next you'll tell me Dylan has one too! |
03 Nov 10 - 07:51 PM (#3022998) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r What do you see as the difference between being anti-American and anti-Americanization WAV. Just interested because it seems to cause you some confusion... Stu |
03 Nov 10 - 09:30 PM (#3023061) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Jack Campin The mind boggles to think how many English folk songs would have been lost for ever had not Irish folk singers kept them alive. My mind would boggle if there was even one song in that category. Name one? |
04 Nov 10 - 06:22 AM (#3023212) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse For you Stu: the main difference between being anti-American and anti-Americanisation is, as I've said, a love of our world being multicultural. |
04 Nov 10 - 09:52 AM (#3023350) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: alanabit The mind boggles to think how many English folk songs would have been lost for ever had not Irish folk singers kept them alive. My mind would boggle if there was even one song in that category. Name one? Shall we start with The Wild Rover, which was collected in Norfolk? It is a shame we do not have Malcolm Douglas here, who I am sure could have reeled off a list from memory! |
04 Nov 10 - 10:14 AM (#3023365) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Jack Campin Why would it have been lost? The Irish posters got it from a Walter Pardon recording which is still available. All the Irish popularization did was turn it into a drunken cliche. |
04 Nov 10 - 10:14 AM (#3023366) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Jack Campin For "posters" read "popsters". |
04 Nov 10 - 02:17 PM (#3023551) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Desert Dancer Liz Phair's lengthy review/summary of Keith Richards' book in the New York Times: click. ~ Becky in Tucson |
04 Nov 10 - 02:36 PM (#3023567) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Jack the Sailor I Love Keith's playing. It think he probably the best writer and player of Blues/Pop guitar riffs ever. Though Jimmy Page gives him serious competition in that field. I used to think Keef was a genius, until I saw Muddy Waters in concert. Keith obviously picked up his skill by using Muddy and perhaps Buddy Guy, Chuck Berry and some others as templates. I don't call that genius. I do call it damn good musicianship. |
04 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM (#3023648) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Just a bit of a non sequitur in your 'explanation' WAV. It doesnt't make sense. no change there then Stu PS I had thought that your jingoism had taken a back seat. Sorry it's not so. |
04 Nov 10 - 06:09 PM (#3023771) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Stu: further to the above, then: if, e.g., more and more people around the world choose to present their verses in a pop or rock style, rather than traditionally, our world will become less and less multicultural. And loving our world being multicultural is surely not "jingoism". |
04 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM (#3023805) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: mandotim WAV; you seem to assume in all these discussions that there is a single, defineable 'rock or pop style' in music. I guess this is because your ear is insufficiently discriminating to discern the difference between (say) Ray Davis and Lynyrd Skynyrd, or between Pink Floyd and Aerosmith. This may also be because you don't listen to much rock or pop music. To those who know, there are similarities, but also clearly identifiable differences. These differences are often the result of cultural influences. It is an undeniable fact that all cultures are influenced by other cultures to a greater or lesser extent, and bemoaning this fact doesn't (and cannot) change it. Cultural influencing is a reflection of the human urge to learn, grow and develop, and it is utterly impossible to stand in the way of this basic impulse. What I'm saying, WAV, is; get over yourself, stop whining about cultural mingling and learn to appreciate the wonders of learning from the glorious mix of influences that make up the world. Don't bang on about your bloody travels though; you've made it absolutely clear (ad nauseam) in your previous posts that you didn't learn a single thing from any of the cultures you observed (but didn't participate in.) |
04 Nov 10 - 07:47 PM (#3023846) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r 'and colloquially to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others' is a fair contextual definition from your own sources. If we had frozen our development 2000 years or so ago we'd be speaking latin. There is nothing any more traditional about your tea-parties with the vicar with buxom serving wenches serving mead while minstrels play citterns than in listening to my (Bradford) grandson rapping or the band in the pub playing rock and roll. Loving the zoo being multicultural while you walk around smiling at the antics of inferior cultures seems to me to describe a world that isn't mine. I'm with Mandotim - I see more value in 'learning from the glorious mix of influences that make up the world.; Nice phrase Tim Stu |
06 Nov 10 - 03:45 PM (#3025363) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Listening to Keith in this interview, and members of the Beatles in others, the musicians who inspired them were all Americans - as I say, they, rather, were not kidding anyone about the fact that they were copying aspects of American culture (according to them, it was, and is, a cool thing to do); and the Beatles were so pop, they even tried talking in American accents. |
06 Nov 10 - 04:14 PM (#3025386) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: mandotim Hi again WAV. Are you familiar with Liverpudlian history, particularly the development of the distinctive accent? I think you'll find that the blues singers of the Mississippi Delta were in fact scousers to a man. If you study the linguistics of Liverpool, you will hear the words 'this, that, them and those' prounced as 'dis, dat, dem and dose'. This was largely as a result of poor adenoidal care in the Liverpool hospitals, but it appears to have travelled the Atlantic and become embedded in the accents of the older blues singers; for instance, you would never hear a proper bluesman saying 'that' when he meant 'dat'. As for the Beatles, I was a teenager at the time (you were an infant) and I never heard the Beatles affect any accent than Scouse (apart from Paul, who would occasionally try to talk posh to impress Jane Asher). |
06 Nov 10 - 06:49 PM (#3025516) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r WAV how would you describe your own accent? I would not recognize it as anything that emanates from the northern hemisphere. But I don't mind your attempts at an English accent any more than I mind Maurice Chevalier or Marlene Deitrich. My grandchildren speak variously Yorks, Irish, Oxford, Lancashire other members of my family speak Notts, Canadian, Norfolk, Devon, Scots. We get together, and talk and sing... What is your problem? Stu |
06 Nov 10 - 07:29 PM (#3025560) Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,biff thanks alan for your link, I checked it out. I was asking for a link to the Keith interview that could be accessed by an american computer. |