|
|
Posted by Hammerer on 02/18/06 23:29
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:45pil5F7csh9U1@individual.net...
>
> Hammerer wrote:
>
> > "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:45hsiqF6nmvfU1@individual.net...
> >
> >>Hammerer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>news:45cm4jF63hfeU2@individual.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jack Sprat wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:09:52 +0000, anthonyberet
> >>>>><nospam@me.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>It was a slow video of a large recording studio, and
> >>>>>>an orchestra. Anyway, anyone know which artiste it
> >>>>>>could have been? It had a traditional orchestral backing,
> >>>>>>with a very deadpan male vocal. - In fact the lyrics were
> >>>>>>pretty much spoken. Anyway, any other ideas?
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>Could be the David Bowie/Bing Crosby duo??
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Nope that has Bowie and Bing in the video.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>He could have a point there, anthonyberet. Despite the fact
> >>>that there's two of them in the video; they sing rather than
> >>>speak the words; there's hardly any deadpan-ness in the
> >>>performances (though some would argue); there's no visual
> >>>sign of a recording studio or orchestra; and the song they're
> >>>singing isn't 'White Christmas'.
> >
>
> >>>Apart from those small differences, Jack could have hit
> >>>the nail on the head.
> >
>
> >>>>- Wasn't their effort The Little Drummer Boy anyway?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>It certainly wasn't 'White Christmas'. This thread has been
> >>>most insane. Very refreshing. Jack Sprat and D. Kirkpatrick
> >>>should de-lurk more. Yes.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Incidentally, there were about 1183 versions of White Christmas
> >>on that site that Petersen recommended. That is more than 542
> >>which is what you said.
> >>
> >
> > You're not wrong there, anthonyberet. It's considerably more
> > than I said. It's . . . . well, hundreds more, at least. It just goes
> > to show, doesn't it?
> >
>
> >>In fact, in my opinion 1183 versions is thousands,
> >>
> >
> > As you know, I respect your opinion, anthonyberet, even when I
> > don't. 1183, if I'm not mistaken (and, unlike the 'White Christmas'
> > versions fiasco, I'm not) is *1* thousand, and spare change. Hundreds,
> > in other words. So, in a way, despite my shite attempt at researching
> > the versions, I'm still up on the deal, if you think about it.
> >
>
> Think about this for a moment - if you had 10% of your legs cut
> off, you would still describe the remainder as your 'legs', not your
> 'leg and a bit', or similar.
>
Depends where the hypothetical amputation takes place. If the 10% is taken
off one leg - say, the foot to halfway up the shin - then it's all "the
glass isn't half-full, it's half-empty", isn't it? Though I get the
impression that if I hobbled into the Karaoke Bar that night and announced
"Hi folks! I've got two legs!", everyone would say "No you haven't! You've
got a leg and a bit, or similar!". Majority rule, anthonyberet.
>
> Anyway it was actually 1813 versions, so I bet you feel pretty stupid now!
>
Of course! But also kinda smug, as it's still hundreds, and not thousands.
Heh!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|