Tim Rose - Saint or Sinner?

How about search and destroy the tim revolution>>>

Search: Tim Hardin, Tim Rose, Tim Buckley, Tim Burgess

Destroy: The Tim from James.......please...............

TIMMMEEEE!

destroy tim from james. yo, i'll be up for getting rid of that pompous twat.

search: tim taylor of course, synewave classix. BANG THE ACID. AFGHAN ACID. egyptian empire's the horn track

Tim Brooke-Taylor made acid house records?

Have you not heard his drill'n'bass version of 'Funky Gibbon' Duane? Tune!!

Jimi Henrix's "Hey Joe" follows the outline of Tim Rose's "Hey Joe." (rather than Dino Valenti's, Love's, the Byrds', the Leaves').

Another Thing That I Love About Journalism: In a Nazareth review that Chuck Eddy submitted electronically to the L.A. Weekly, he correctly identified Tim Rose as the author of "Morning Dew." Someone unknown at the Weekly changed "Tim Rose" to "Tim Hardin," without asking Chuck, and that's what went into print. The guy must have thought that there was only one possible Tim in music, and that "Rose" was therefore a mistake.

Well, Frank, speaking as someone whose job it (sometimes) is to change people's copy without asking them, no: he might actually have made the mistake honestly (for the same reason anyone gets things mixed up). I just announced on some nearby thread that Foghat were American: when Patrick (?was it Patrick?) said — Ha! Foghat are British, I thought he was making some weird joke. OK: so I went and looked it up before replying, and he was right and I was wrong. But if I'd been subbing someone's piece in a hurry and they'd written that Foghat were British, I might just have reached into my head for my false fact and changed the text w/o looking it up (in a huge hurry, let's say). Not because I believed it to be impossible that a band such as Foghat could ever be British, but because (for whatever reason) I was just wrongly convinced they were American. For years I thought York was in Kent, rather than Yorkshire. There was no attitude attached: it was just some strange association I made (I think to do with archbishops, which filed the fact on the wrong places).

(What you actually do with writers, is operate a system of trust and grief: [x] is likely to litter his copies with silly typos, so check everything, and rewrite his clumsiness as you please; [y] will yell at me if I change anything w/o asking, so ask, and don't change...: I personally wd not *dare* change Chuck's copy w/o asking.)

Another possible reason: putting silly mistakes into the copy of contributors you dislike. I have never done this, but I did once leave some ungrammatical nonsense in one of bell h**ks's essays to secretly punish her for being such a rubbish stylist in the first place.

And another reason to love Mark. Comin' from the A. Davis worshipping J. Jordan fetishizin' campus of Berkeley, always nice to see bad prose get the critical smackdown it deserves.

Ei oh!

Mark that has happened to me....i wrote a very very strong (I KNOW WHEN I"M WRITING CRAP)article, and then when it got published all of the drug references were taken out....new sentences were put in....

and then nothing! ignored!

and then looked at the thing a few weeks lately, the guy took all of my ideas and executed them badly!

what to do!

Doompatrol in my opinion yr best strategy is to act GOOD COP & BAD COP towards whoever works on yr work, before it gets published. Be firm when you complain, but also be reasonable, abt why they may be doing what they do: is it done for spite? Probably not. Are they hurried and underpaid? (Are they paid at all?) Have they just had to negotiate tiresome changes with some pompous other fool in the paper, half you talent twice your voice-volume? Etc. Acknolwedge their reasons are not all bad (and also spell things right and stuff), and you will be given leeway. Maybe.

Old Hollywood trick: insert for the censor something juicy to cut that you DON'T ACTUALLY WANT, and he will allow all the subtler stuff you do, as a trade-off.

Mark - It could be that the L.A. Weekly copy editor was correctly registering the social fact that all Tims are functionally equivalent and that responsibility for the acts of any particular Tim can be assigned to the Tims as a whole, so any Tim has to answer for all. This reminds me by analogy of the situation in many high schools (or whatever you call them in Britain), where the social landscape is to a large extent shaped by the conflict between the two major social groups: the Jacques and the Daartbags (cf. Wheatus's tragicomic "I'm a Teenage Daartbag," in which the two romantically infatuated protagonists are each undercover Daartbags in a Jacques-ruled social scene and are each therefore unaware [until the story's climax] that they share a common identity as Daartbags, hence unaware that they may each consummate the relationship by engaging in the "iron maiden" mating ritual). And note that over in the "Worldview" thread, Momus is completely right in understanding that all Jacques - whether Attali, Derrida, or whoever - have to answer for Noise: The Political Economy of Music. Just as we all know that Daartbag Wittgenstein and Daartbag Beethoven may both share in the kudos for Philosophical Investigations, Seventh Symphony, and so forth.

It is a simplification greatly to be desired, at all levels.

I realize that I may be getting slightly off topic with this next item, given that most scholars take "Walk Me Out In The Morning Dewey" to be about the librarian, not the philosopher. But this has yet to be proven decisively. So please indulge me.

I've long wondered whether many Jacques characteristics might not be due to Jean-envy. I was pondering this while typing my previous response, since it reminded me how often Jacques Derrida comes across as someone who secretly thinks of himself as a failed Jean Dewey - which might explain his fascination with the socially ambivalent Jean Jacques Rousseau, and his ongoing interest in Heidegger (you recall no doubt the famous DiMucci monograph on the kinship between the Jean and the Martin clans). A minor point, for sure, but one that we should not overlook.

In addition, we surely should not ignore the related phenomena of Hughie-envy and Louie-envy.

the ever-pynchonian mark s fails to mention Dewey Gland???