Discussion:
Irwin Stambler, 92, music encyclopaedist (seminal "Encyc/Pop-Rock-Soul")
Add Reply
That Derek
2017-02-17 16:55:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/arts/music/irwin-stambler-dead-creator-of-rock-encyclopedia.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fobituaries&action=click&contentCollection=obituaries&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Music

Irwin Stambler, 92, Reference Book Writer With Songs in His Heart, Dies

By RICHARD SANDOMIR
FEB. 17, 2017

Irwin Stambler, who was trained as an aeronautics engineer but whose deep love for music inspired him to write “The Encyclopedia of Pop, Rock and Soul” — a major feat of research before the internet made it easier to find out more about Bo Diddley or the Beach Boys — died on Feb. 10 in Los Angeles. He was 92.

His son Lyndon that said the cause was complications of sepsis.

Mr. Stambler’s encyclopedia, published by St. Martin’s Press in 1974, covered a wide swath of music history, from Acid Rock to the Zombies, in an easy-to-read style.

His entry about the singer Marianne Faithfull, for example, called her the “daughter of a baroness and blessed with the face of an angel (some observers said a fallen angel),” and added that she was “well educated in convent schools, but the sheltered atmosphere of those years probably contributed to her desire to kick over the traces.”

Mr. Stambler’s book was not the first of its kind. It was preceded by “Lillian Roxon’s Rock Encyclopedia,” published by Grosset & Dunlap in 1969. But it was published nearly a decade before one from a more traditional authority on rock: Rolling Stone magazine.
Continue reading the main story

Holly George-Warren, who edited the second and third editions of “The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll,” said in an email, “I remember the Stambler book as being a valuable resource and a tool for fact-checking the entries in our own book.”

Mr. Stambler toggled regularly between science and music throughout his career. He worked as an engineer into the 1950s — designing aircraft parts, among other assignments — but then shifted full time into writing about aerospace and technology, as well as music and sports. He wrote for magazines like Space Aeronautics. He wrote newsletters. And he wrote dozens of books on subjects as diverse as the space program, drag racing, minibikes, the fastest humans, the X-15 rocket-powered aircraft, the pitcher Catfish Hunter and the basketball star Bill Walton.

By 1969, he had already written two music encyclopedias: one on popular music and a second on country, with Grelun Landon, a music industry executive.

In an unpublished memoir, Mr. Stambler said that he had wanted to write the rock encyclopedia in the 1960s but that his publisher resisted in favor of a somewhat tamer subject. So he wrote “Encyclopedia of Popular Music” (1965) instead, insisting, however, that he be able to sprinkle in some biographical entries on rock pioneers like Elvis Presley and Bill Haley. Haley actually did not end up in the book, but Presley did, as did rock ’n’ rollers like Fats Domino and the Everly Brothers.

Andy Leach, the senior director of library and archives at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, said that Mr. Stambler’s popular music encyclopedia was groundbreaking “because popular music wasn’t being taken seriously by most scholars or serious writers at the time.” The subsequent rock encyclopedia, he added, has become a “standard reference.”

Irwin Stambler was born in Brooklyn on Nov. 20, 1924. His father, Sidney, owned a jewelry and silver fabrication company, and his mother, the former Bessie Levine, taught piano. He attended New York University, his time there broken up by two years of Army service during World War II, after which he returned and received bachelor’s and master’s degrees in aeronautical engineering.

Music was always a passion. He preferred not to play classical piano, as his mother did, but he wrote pop songs with a partner, Morton Weinberg, with titles like “Strawberry Sky,” “Fade Out” and “Indigo Blue.” He built up a collection of close to 8,000 records and CDs.

“Music was always on at home,” Lyndon Stambler said. “Dad played guitar, and I made a harp in high school. He loved all music.

“Before my sister-in-law married my brother, one of the first images she saw of my dad was of him lying on his bed, wearing headphones and listening to Led Zeppelin. When she saw that, she knew everything was going to be O.K.”

In addition to Lyndon, Mr. Stambler is survived by his wife, the former Constance Lebowitz; another son, Barrett; two daughters, Amy Sprague Champeau and Alice Seidman; nine grandchildren; and eight great-grandchildren.

While Mr. Stambler was researching his pop music encyclopedia, he scheduled an interview with the songwriter Jimmy Van Heusen in Palm Springs, Calif., during time off from an aerospace meeting nearby. Mr. Van Heusen, who wrote the music for “Call Me Irresponsible” and other standards, kept filling Mr. Stambler’s glass with expensive whiskey while they talked.

“To this day, I can’t recall how I got back to my car,” Mr. Stambler wrote in his memoir. “All I know is that I woke up the next morning in bed with a miserable hangover but with a notebook filled with more than enough for a good encyclopedia entry.”
Bryan Styble
2017-02-17 19:42:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I was delighted to see the late Lillian Roxon's terrific "Encyclopedia of Rock" cited as getting the ball rolling on all this; the brilliant Australian critic died young--of asthma!--but her tome remains quite relevant, even though the author sadly missed most of the '70s and all of the ensuing decades during which rock cemented its place as the dominant popular music genre.

(Unrepentant Dylanologists can find a tribute to Roxon buried deep within The Neverending Paragraph of "Like A Rolling Tombstone", my prematurely-published 2009 obituary of The Rock Rasputin at www.RadioactiveDylan.blogspot.com*.)

BRYAN STYBLEFlorida
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
* But even terminal-case Dylanologists will still be confused by my e-book's baroque full title--not to mention The Neverending Paragraph!--if they don't FIRST review its FAQs, also available there. But don't waste the screen-time** if you don't already happen to share Roxon's (and my***) minority opinion that The Ragamuffin Minstrel Boy ranks as the greatest recording artist ever, or, in Roxon's lead from her terrific Encyclopedia, is simply "The [artistic] moment of truth."
** This e-book was carefully designed to be read on ONLY on sizable screens; it will NOT make sense and is all but illegible on smartphone or other small screens--much less in a hard-copy printout, which, among other things, ruins the impact of The Neverending Paragraph.
*** And, apparently, also that of the Literature Committee in Stockholm.
marcus
2017-02-17 20:16:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bryan Styble
I was delighted to see the late Lillian Roxon's terrific "Encyclopedia of Rock" cited as getting the ball rolling on all this; the brilliant Australian critic died young--of asthma!--but her tome remains quite relevant, even though the author sadly missed most of the '70s and all of the ensuing decades during which rock cemented its place as the dominant popular music genre.
(Unrepentant Dylanologists can find a tribute to Roxon buried deep within The Neverending Paragraph of "Like A Rolling Tombstone", my prematurely-published 2009 obituary of The Rock Rasputin at www.RadioactiveDylan.blogspot.com*.)
BRYAN STYBLEFlorida
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
* But even terminal-case Dylanologists will still be confused by my e-book's baroque full title--not to mention The Neverending Paragraph!--if they don't FIRST review its FAQs, also available there. But don't waste the screen-time** if you don't already happen to share Roxon's (and my***) minority opinion that The Ragamuffin Minstrel Boy ranks as the greatest recording artist ever, or, in Roxon's lead from her terrific Encyclopedia, is simply "The [artistic] moment of truth."
** This e-book was carefully designed to be read on ONLY on sizable screens; it will NOT make sense and is all but illegible on smartphone or other small screens--much less in a hard-copy printout, which, among other things, ruins the impact of The Neverending Paragraph.
*** And, apparently, also that of the Literature Committee in Stockholm.
She was a pioneer in her field. And very generous with her time.

http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=15842716


Marc

********************************************************************

https://www.amazon.com/Until-Birds-Chirp-Reflections-Sixties/dp/1532939035/
Bryan Styble
2017-02-17 20:55:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Marc Cantone paid tribute to the late Lillian Roxon:

She was a pioneer in her field. And very generous with her time.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh, so you interviewed her, eh? That's certainly a journalistic coup, given her young death!

Though I stumbled onto to her brilliant writing quite early on in the '70s, I've yet to ever see a photograph of her!

So please tell me Marc: what did she look like? That is, was she slight or stout, and tall, short, or of average female height? And blonde, brunette or redhead? And how thick was her Australian accent? (If I recall correctly, Roxanne was of Polish-Jewish--and Holocaust-survivor--stock, with her family moving Down Under early in her life. (Kindly correct any facts which I might have out of whack here...)

STYBLE/Florida
marcus
2017-02-17 21:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marcus
She was a pioneer in her field. And very generous with her time.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Oh, so you interviewed her, eh? That's certainly a journalistic coup, given her young death!
Though I stumbled onto to her brilliant writing quite early on in the '70s, I've yet to ever see a photograph of her!
So please tell me Marc: what did she look like? That is, was she slight or stout, and tall, short, or of average female height? And blonde, brunette or redhead? And how thick was her Australian accent? (If I recall correctly, Roxanne was of Polish-Jewish--and Holocaust-survivor--stock, with her family moving Down Under early in her life. (Kindly correct any facts which I might have out of whack here...)
STYBLE/Florida
Bryan, sorry to tell you this, but you have it all wrong. Please see the link I posted in my last post, which is posted again here:

http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=15842716

I never met Lillian. She and I exchanged letters in 1972 in which she advised me about writing about Rock, and The Beatles specifically. I saved her letters, which were typed on very unique stationery and posted them on my website. She was a class act, and I was so surprised, at age 21, that she wrote back to me each time I wrote to her. Her letters were full of advice, often funny, and very gossipy.

The only photo I've ever seen of her is on the inside of the dust jacket of the Rock Encyclopedia, which I bought when it was published in 1969. FWIW, I thought she was attractive. I was shocked when she died about a year after my last correspondence with her.

Marc

*******************************************************

https://www.amazon.com/Until-Birds-Chirp-Reflections-Sixties/dp/1532939035/
t***@iwvisp.com
2017-02-17 21:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marcus
She was a pioneer in her field. And very generous with her time.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Oh, so you interviewed her, eh? That's certainly a journalistic coup, given her young death!
Though I stumbled onto to her brilliant writing quite early on in the '70s, I've yet to ever see a photograph of her!
So please tell me Marc: what did she look like? That is, was she slight or stout, and tall, short, or of average female height? And blonde, brunette or redhead? And how thick was her Australian accent? (If I recall correctly, Roxanne was of Polish-Jewish--and Holocaust-survivor--stock, with her family moving Down Under early in her life. (Kindly correct any facts which I might have out of whack here...)
STYBLE/Florida
Your interrogation aside, if you go to Google Images and type in her name there are scores of photos.

Ray Arthur
Bryan Styble
2017-02-18 00:18:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yikes! Auto-incorrect has struck yet again, substituting "Roxanne" for my typed Roxon, which I suppose might be useful if you're writing about Cyrano, but no good at all if you're dredging the history of rock criticism...

Oh, and to Sir Arthur: thanks for the referral, but as ignorant of so many of the ins and outs of the internet that I am, it so happens I AM familiar with Google Images...but am CONSTANTLY flummoxed by Google's flat-out inexplicable reluctance to label the photographs summoned! That is, whenever you search, say, "Lillian Roxon", you will indeed probably get a shot or two of her, but they'll be UNCAPTIONED, and mixed in with those will be scores if not hundreds of seemingly-random* images.

I first noticed this ENORMOUS flaw in the always-ballyhooed internet when searching my own name on Google Images, only to find a couple photos of myself amid scads of unrelated and unconnected-to-Styble shots, including one of a similar-looking television personality (Scott St. James, who by utter coincidence I knew early in my showbiz career back in St. Louis and then later out in Los Angeles). And right next to those was another guy--and a onetime criminal offender, inasmuch as this photo was a mugshot!--with the same given name and surname as I happened to be given at birth, as well as guys who anyone not familiar with me personally might honestly mistake for being me in another time and place.

Why on earth Google doesn't correct this GAPING INADEQUACY is beyond me, obviously...and ranks as perhaps the SECOND-most perplexing thing to me about cyberspace: right behind why Google neglects to include a field for when a YouTube video clip was recorded, if known. That "published on" data refers to when the user uploaded it--a THOROUGHLY useless piece of data--and NOT when it was recorded. This is PARTICULARLY maddening when watching some MSNBC or FNC clip, only to realize when listening to the pundit banter that it was recorded in February 2016, not 2017, or even years earlier.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
____________________________________________________________________________________________
* Yeah, I fully realize they're not in fact random per se. Still, I defy ANYONE, no matter how cyber-savvy, to explicate why each one shows up, invariably without any hint as to their connection to the searched-for phrase.
Anglo Saxon
2017-02-17 22:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Am I on your killfile list? If not, I have a question about Dylan that has
been in my mind for 40 years and never saw an answer. Perhaps you'd know.
Anglo-Saxon
David Carson
2017-02-18 00:33:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:19:55 -0000 (UTC), Anglo Saxon
Post by Anglo Saxon
Am I on your killfile list?
Get ready for a 100-word explanation of how he doesn't know what a
killfile is or how to use one, and furthermore that even if he did, he
wouldn't do it.
Anglo Saxon
2017-02-18 01:17:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Carson
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:19:55 -0000 (UTC), Anglo Saxon
Post by Anglo Saxon
Am I on your killfile list?
Get ready for a 100-word explanation of how he doesn't know what a
killfile is or how to use one, and furthermore that even if he did, he
wouldn't do it.
lol Too true...
Bryan Styble
2017-02-18 02:07:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The often-estimable David Carson continued his occasional campaign to (apparently) shame Bryan Styble away from continuing to post to alt-obits:

Get ready for a 100-word explanation of how he doesn't know what a killfile is or how to use one, and furthermore that even if he did, he wouldn't do it.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sir Carson: well, I thank you for indeed saving little ol' verbose me a hundred words of typing--though barely a minute in time, at my still-rapid typing pace of 70 wpm--when you astutely anticipated how I might respond to Anglo-Saxon's sincere inquiry. (Actually, not that all astute, inasmuch as I had stated as much hereinbefore one of the previous times this has come up.)

But the larger question raised by your posting is why you are so bothered by my prose. Look, I get it: you don't like the way I write, and probably wouldn't like me personally if you happened to know me. Fine. (Although I am puzzled by your continuing hostility; why not just ignore my postings if you find my thinking so darned toxic? All this might make sense, had I in the past attacked your postings, but--correct me if I'm wrong--I don't think I've ever responded to any of your often-enlightening postings with anything but praise or appreciation, no? And since I've NEVER been one to make my opinion of someone dependent on what they think of me, I shan't start criticizing you now, no matter how much you might castigate me; the internet has way too much such bile, and I refuse to contribute to it...and beside, my mother prudently insisted I always endeavor to be polite.

Still, it seems that you (and a few others herein) find it incredulous that anyone like me might have difficulty with the internet, as if navigating complex protocols where a single character out of whack leaves you high and dry is something that any moron might master.

And yeah, I realize there are loads of moronic types who seem to have mastered internet posting, identify-obscuring and all the other tricks that keep us rare types who (honestly) identify ourselves and locales from knowing ANYTHING about who is engaging us online. (I recognize them as morons through their semi-literate text, which typically demonstrate near total-disdain for correct capitalization, spelling, punctuation and grammar and intact syntax, all of which serve to obscure their intended meaning and thus resulting in scalp-tugging confusion among those of us to who labor to figure out what they meant.)

And with all the articles out there about how us oldsters--I'm pushing 63--are perplexed by the internet, I would think you might not (incorrectly) presume I'm merely bluffing (for some unfathomable reason) about my cyber-incompetence. Sure wish I was so equipped, but no, I really DON'T know what a "killfile" is, although as I've previously explained, I can sure imagine what it's used for simply by its name. (Never MIND that many internet terms coined by early software engineers are simply MISNOMERS, such as "dot", which of course is in fact a "point", as in decimal.)

But all you seem to care about, Mr. Carson, is that every posting of mine be succinct, else I'm subject to your lampooning. And granted, I've been occasionally (and accurately) described as someone who seldom phrases anything in 50 words when 500 would do. But while somewhat-widely published and thus pretty confident I can write clearly, I admit to not being as smart as most of those writers I read, and thus I can only envy their gift for concise analysis. We lesser wordsmiths, well, we do the best we can.

Which clearly is not nearly good enough for you and my numerous other critics herein. Sorry. REALLY. Were I more intelligent than my sadly-average smarts, perhaps I could accommodate you and, instead of repeatedly ridiculing me, you'd occasionally respond, "Hey, thanks for posting that!"...for while I might not be that bright, I am proud of the corpus of knowledge I've diligently acquired and retained thus far and believe, however naively, that I can usefully contribute that to this newsgroup.

But no, I ain't on your good side and I don't suppose I'll ever be, so I'm not awaiting you treating me with something other than dismissal. But until illness or death silences me--which could of course happen any moment, as you or others may indeed be hoping--I intend to continue posting hereto, in too-wordy a fashion for y'all, no doubt, but that's all I can do.

I suppose I could hire some 20something techie to school me on all the terms like "troll" which seem to be differently-defined by many of the various sorts who so promiscuously employ them, as well as on to how to do certain cyber-things ya'll consider easy (like downloading apps to a smartphone, or uploading photos from my camera to my computer), but I'm not sure that wouldn't still be a waste of money. For I may know a lot of calculus and quantum mechanics, but (seemingly-to-you) simple computer protocols are mostly still all Greek to me, even sometimes after they've supposedly been explained, although again, you seem to think I've been fibbing about all this all along for some bizarre reason.

I hope your winter has been proceeding well.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
Sarah Ehrett
2017-02-18 03:43:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:07:30 -0800 (PST), Bryan Styble
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

President Trump's review of Charles Krauthammer's book - "Book Sucks"

Short and simple.
Post by Bryan Styble
Get ready for a 100-word explanation of how he doesn't know what a killfile is or how to use one, and furthermore that even if he did, he wouldn't do it.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sir Carson: well, I thank you for indeed saving little ol' verbose me a hundred words of typing--though barely a minute in time, at my still-rapid typing pace of 70 wpm--when you astutely anticipated how I might respond to Anglo-Saxon's sincere inquiry. (Actually, not that all astute, inasmuch as I had stated as much hereinbefore one of the previous times this has come up.)
But the larger question raised by your posting is why you are so bothered by my prose. Look, I get it: you don't like the way I write, and probably wouldn't like me personally if you happened to know me. Fine. (Although I am puzzled by your continuing hostility; why not just ignore my postings if you find my thinking so darned toxic? All this might make sense, had I in the past attacked your postings, but--correct me if I'm wrong--I don't think I've ever responded to any of your often-enlightening postings with anything but praise or appreciation, no? And since I've NEVER been one to make my opinion of someone dependent on what they think of me, I shan't start criticizing you now, no matter how much you might castigate me; the internet has way too much such bile, and I refuse to contribute to it...and beside, my mother prudently insisted I always endeavor to be polite.
Still, it seems that you (and a few others herein) find it incredulous that anyone like me might have difficulty with the internet, as if navigating complex protocols where a single character out of whack leaves you high and dry is something that any moron might master.
And yeah, I realize there are loads of moronic types who seem to have mastered internet posting, identify-obscuring and all the other tricks that keep us rare types who (honestly) identify ourselves and locales from knowing ANYTHING about who is engaging us online. (I recognize them as morons through their semi-literate text, which typically demonstrate near total-disdain for correct capitalization, spelling, punctuation and grammar and intact syntax, all of which serve to obscure their intended meaning and thus resulting in scalp-tugging confusion among those of us to who labor to figure out what they meant.)
And with all the articles out there about how us oldsters--I'm pushing 63--are perplexed by the internet, I would think you might not (incorrectly) presume I'm merely bluffing (for some unfathomable reason) about my cyber-incompetence. Sure wish I was so equipped, but no, I really DON'T know what a "killfile" is, although as I've previously explained, I can sure imagine what it's used for simply by its name. (Never MIND that many internet terms coined by early software engineers are simply MISNOMERS, such as "dot", which of course is in fact a "point", as in decimal.)
But all you seem to care about, Mr. Carson, is that every posting of mine be succinct, else I'm subject to your lampooning. And granted, I've been occasionally (and accurately) described as someone who seldom phrases anything in 50 words when 500 would do. But while somewhat-widely published and thus pretty confident I can write clearly, I admit to not being as smart as most of those writers I read, and thus I can only envy their gift for concise analysis. We lesser wordsmiths, well, we do the best we can.
Which clearly is not nearly good enough for you and my numerous other critics herein. Sorry. REALLY. Were I more intelligent than my sadly-average smarts, perhaps I could accommodate you and, instead of repeatedly ridiculing me, you'd occasionally respond, "Hey, thanks for posting that!"...for while I might not be that bright, I am proud of the corpus of knowledge I've diligently acquired and retained thus far and believe, however naively, that I can usefully contribute that to this newsgroup.
But no, I ain't on your good side and I don't suppose I'll ever be, so I'm not awaiting you treating me with something other than dismissal. But until illness or death silences me--which could of course happen any moment, as you or others may indeed be hoping--I intend to continue posting hereto, in too-wordy a fashion for y'all, no doubt, but that's all I can do.
I suppose I could hire some 20something techie to school me on all the terms like "troll" which seem to be differently-defined by many of the various sorts who so promiscuously employ them, as well as on to how to do certain cyber-things ya'll consider easy (like downloading apps to a smartphone, or uploading photos from my camera to my computer), but I'm not sure that wouldn't still be a waste of money. For I may know a lot of calculus and quantum mechanics, but (seemingly-to-you) simple computer protocols are mostly still all Greek to me, even sometimes after they've supposedly been explained, although again, you seem to think I've been fibbing about all this all along for some bizarre reason.
I hope your winter has been proceeding well.
BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
Bryan Styble
2017-02-18 04:20:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yeah, Sarah, I realize you're among those who resent the wordiness of my mini-essays, and for that I apologize to you as well, especially since you've been pretty darned kind to me over the years.

But I'm afraid the President's succinct summation of Krauthammer's book is one I can't endorse; my absolute avoidance of coarse language is something my late galpal Marci Fulton hugely appreciated during our decade together, and I shan't dishonor her by abandoning that policy merely because she can't hear me any longer. Besides, I think Presidents ought to honor the office by keeping their word selection scrupulously squeaky-clean, although my home-state hero Truman certainly never lived up to that, obviously.

Anyway, my hunch is Trump is wrong in that evaluation; though I've not seen his latest book yet, I have read loads of Krauthammer over the years for many reasons, one of which is he's about the only Washington-based pundit who covers the fascinating world of international chess. Trump's characterization of him during the campaign--I believe the then-candidate called him a "lightweight", or was that how he dismissed the equally-erudite George Will?--suggested to me that maybe he doesn't understand all of the sophisticated points that Krauthammer typically makes. I know that I sometimes have to read Krauthammer columns a second time--at least--to fully absorb whatever perspective he's elucidating...simply because he uses lots of big words. (As does that uber pseudo-intellectual and profoundly-inept broadcaster Dennis Prager, who sometimes even uses them correctly!)

In any case, Sarah, I hope you and your husband are weathering this latest State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations winter warmly.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
Sarah Ehrett
2017-02-18 05:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 20:20:46 -0800 (PST), Bryan Styble
Yeah, Sarah, I realize you're among those who resent the wordiness of my mini-essays, and for that I apologize to you as well, especially >since you've been pretty darned kind to me over the years.
Resent is a strong word and not how I feel at all. I'm in the 'keep
it simple' camp. Rarely imo are 500 words necessary when 15 would
do. That's all. I don't like having to read a small book to get to
your point. Fair enough? You and I are good. :)

Charles Krauthammer's book.
https://www.amazon.com/Things-That-Matter-Passions-Pastimes/dp/0385349173/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487394837&sr=1-1&keywords=charles+krauthammer+things+that+matter

I have flipped through the book but haven't bought it, yet. I like
Krauthammer and appreciate his commentary and writings. That is not
to say I always agree with his point of view.

Wintering well here in RI. Not too much snow and it is supposed to
be in the high 40's and low 50's the next few days.

Now I'd better practice what I preach, cheers.
David Carson
2017-02-18 06:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:07:30 -0800 (PST), Bryan Styble
Post by Bryan Styble
I don't think I've ever responded to any of your often-enlightening postings with anything but praise or appreciation, no?
Not that I can remember. But, see my next comment.
Post by Bryan Styble
But all you seem to care about, Mr. Carson, is that every posting of mine be succinct, else I'm subject to your lampooning.
As far as I'm concerned, spending 500 words to write what could be written
in 50 is a giant "screw you all, I'm too lazy to edit myself" to people
trying to read you. I don't want to over-dramatize and say that I consider
it hostile or aggressive, but I definitely consider it to be not nice.
Nice, polite people edit themselves.
Post by Bryan Styble
perhaps I could accommodate you and, instead of repeatedly ridiculing me, you'd occasionally respond, "Hey, thanks for posting that!"
Bryan, I have responded neutrally and positively to *many* of your posts.
You have never ... and I repeat, NEVER ... replied in any way, shape, or
form any of the times when I have done so. Not once. At all. Ever. It's
like you don't see those. You only acknowledge my replies when I write
something critical of you.
Bryan Styble
2017-02-18 08:49:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
David Carson disputed a couple of Bryan Styble's premises:

As far as I'm concerned, spending 500 words to write what could be written in 50 is a giant "s---- you all, I'm too lazy to edit myself" to people trying to read you. I don't want to over-dramatize and say that I consider it hostile or aggressive, but I definitely consider it to be not nice. Nice, polite people edit themselves.
...
Bryan, I have responded neutrally and positively to MANY of your posts. You have never...and I repeat, NEVER..replied in any way, shape or form any of the times when I have done so. Not once. At all. Ever. It's like you don't see those. You only acknowledge my replies when I write something critical of you.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Second things first:

Well, David, I clearly owe you an enormous apology; I had no idea I've been practicing a blatant double-standard by only replying to your critiques while ignoring your bouquets, which of course isn't merely inconsistent, but also downright inexcusable. Now, what you report is NOT my recollection, but I don't doubt you a whit--I just don't recall this.

And this might be the reason: though I'm blessed with a powerful memory for historical names and the like, most internet poster names--mainly because of the rampant employment of often non-sensical aliases--pretty much go in one eye and out the other when I'm reading newsgroup or comments-section postings. That is, I'm conditioned to VASTLY better retain things if I know both the (real, or at least commonly-used) name of the poster as well as where he's posting from; without that tandem data, my mind almost never files it in long-term memory.

Now of course, David, you use your real name, and I seem to recall you even once informed me that you also, like me, don't conceal the locale from which you post, but I've completely forgotten wherever that was, alas.

But it turns out my memories of your postings are less sharp than some other posters for a reason that is zero fault of your own--your quite common name of David Carson. Unfortunately for you, someone with an unusual name--like Sarah Ehrett, for instance--sticks in my memory better than a common name like yours.

But again, none of this EXCUSES my inconsistent treatment of you, but merely (possibly) EXPLAINS it.

Now for the editing question:

You may doubt me on this, but I hope not, because it's true: I PAINSTAKINGLY edit EVERYTHING I post, mostly for misspellings, shoddy grammar, incorrect punctuation, fractured syntax and of course semantic redundancies, that last one often being rather tricky to pull off.

Now, I'm not claiming I catch every weakness in my prose, much less every typo--though AutoIncorrect inserts a few I am NOT responsible for--but I am very considerate of all potential readers by adhering to that old saw you probably heard as many times in high school and college as I did: "There's only three rules in writing: clarity, clarity and clarity."

Now, you seem to define editing as invariably paring down, whereas in fact the editing process often involves AUGMENTING the text substantially to clarify what the writer intended. And yeah, OF COURSE 490 words saying the precisely same thing as 500 words is superior writing...but things CAN'T always be pared down. As Einstein famously stated, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Some ideas, uh, simply are too complex to express succinctly. Successfully arguing, say, that Hitler's policies were more pernicious or ruthless than Stalin's or Mao's is not a case that can be made in 50 or even 500 words; such mega-questions require at minimum a book-length treatment.

You may have noticed that my mini-essays do what all essays, brief or otherwise, are supposed to do: advance some point through argument. Herein, just as on my old commercial news talk broadcasts, I endeavor to avoid statement of the obvious--again, being considerate of my potential readers by not telling them something they likely already know. And if you're going to try to make the case for not-so-obvious points-of-view, well, then that's often going to require a lot of verbiage.

As for this posting, I spent about 20 minutes merely roughing it out, and by now upwards of another 40 or even 45 minutes editing it*. But admittedly NOT paring it down, at least much. And yes, anyone who can say everything I have above and can do so in even a handful of fewer words is, almost by definition, a better writer than me. But while I always aim for it, I've never claimed to be an elegant writer; that's always the readers' call, anyway.

But I'm proud that I ALWAYS strive to remember that total strangers are trying to sort out what I'm writing, and they never have the benefit I always enjoyed on the radio, i.e., hearing my tone of voice. Is that not the sort of thoughtful consideration for readers of which you alleged my postings are bereft, David?

Again, so sorry I failed to respond to your various positive critiques; I appreciate that hugely, and shall try to find some such examples in the archives, assuming I can successfully access them, always a hefty assumption for little ol' cyber-inept me, admittedly.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
__________________________________________________________________
* Way past midnight on a Friday night when I'd much rather be banging on my (near-silent, electronic) drums!
David Carson
2017-02-19 15:17:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 00:49:35 -0800 (PST), Bryan Styble
Post by Bryan Styble
But again, none of this EXCUSES my inconsistent treatment of you, but merely (possibly) EXPLAINS it.
Fair enough.
Post by Bryan Styble
As far as I'm concerned, spending 500 words to write what could be written
in 50 is a giant "screw you all, I'm too lazy to edit myself" to people
trying to read you.
You may doubt me on this, but I hope not, because it's true: I PAINSTAKINGLY edit EVERYTHING I post, mostly for misspellings, shoddy grammar, incorrect punctuation, fractured syntax and of course semantic redundancies, that last one often being rather tricky to pull off.
This is editing, but it isn't what I meant by editing yourself. Editing is
fixing mistakes. By editing yourself, I meant choosing which 50 words to
leave in and which 450 words to take out. It's choosing which of your
thoughts the reader might actually want to read and which ones are just
you talking to yourself.
Post by Bryan Styble
Now, you seem to define editing as invariably paring down, whereas in fact the editing process often involves AUGMENTING the text substantially to clarify what the writer intended.
I dispute that it "often" requires it. When it comes to explaining
oneself, throwing more words at the problem is rarely the best approach.

Your idea of clear writing reminds me of our politicians' idea of public
policy. They see what they believe to be a flaw in the way the free market
works, so they pass a 2700-page law none of them read that encompasses 17
percent of the GDP. While that law may arguably solve the problem it was
meant to, it creates seven new ones and makes the situation an order of
magnitude worse. "The problem," some of them will say, "is that we didn't
go far enough!"

David Carson
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com
Sarah Ehrett
2017-02-19 19:45:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 00:49:35 -0800 (PST), Bryan Styble
Post by Bryan Styble
Now, you seem to define editing as invariably paring down, whereas in fact the editing process often involves AUGMENTING the text substantially to clarify what the writer intended.
May I ?

" David, I remember historical names but have trouble with those used
on Usenet. My memories of your postings are less sharp than some
other posters because I don't retain the more common names. Sarah
Ehrett's unusual name I recognize. Sorry I haven't recognized some of
your postings. It was never intentional on my part and I shall strive
to do better in the future. "

Done.

Short. Concise. And all anyone other than close friends of yours
would really ever want to read.

Cheers.
Post by Bryan Styble
And this might be the reason: though I'm blessed with a powerful memory for historical names and the like, most internet poster names--mainly because of the rampant employment of often non-sensical aliases--pretty much go in one eye and out the other when I'm reading newsgroup or comments-section postings. That is, I'm conditioned to VASTLY better retain things if I know both the (real, or at least commonly-used) name of the poster as well as where he's posting from; without that tandem data, my mind almost never files it in long-term memory.
Now of course, David, you use your real name, and I seem to recall you even once informed me that you also, like me, don't conceal the locale from which you post, but I've completely forgotten wherever that was, alas.
But it turns out my memories of your postings are less sharp than some other posters for a reason that is zero fault of your own--your quite common name of David Carson. Unfortunately for you, someone with an unusual name--like Sarah Ehrett, for instance--sticks in my memory better than a common name like yours.
A Friend
2017-02-18 03:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Carson
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:19:55 -0000 (UTC), Anglo Saxon
Post by Anglo Saxon
Am I on your killfile list?
Get ready for a 100-word explanation
My text editor says it was 850.
Bryan Styble
2017-02-18 02:43:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Anglo-Saxon inquired of Bryan Styble:

Am I on your killfile list? If not, I have a question about Dylan that has been in my mind for 40 years and never saw an answer. Perhaps you'd know. [signed] Anglo-Saxon
_______________________________________________________________________________________

A thousand apologies, Sir -Saxon!

First off, I want to thank you for the kind words you wrote elsewhere about me in another thread earlier in the week; it's rare to see positivity accentuated online, at least in response to my admittedly-idiosyncratic postings, so that was welcome indeed.

Secondly, David Carson was correct: I don't have a killfile (and probably would botch using it if I did), and anyway am philosophically opposed to what I gather they are used for, for the same reason that I'm an absolutist when it comes to free speech.

I DID see a comment of yours about Dylan a year or two ago, but it appeared during a week when I was inordinately busy, and when I finally got around to responding, I couldn't find your posting! (Yes, I realize that one can search newsgroups, but darned near every time I've attempted that, I'm come up short in some fashion...although I bet Mr. Carson thinks I'm fibbing about that, too.)

As for my being a Dylan expert, while I'm certainly a Dylanologist, when it comes to things like lyric-quoting or album-track recitation, there are loads of hardcore Dylan partisans--mostly fellow oddballs, admittedly--who know his songs far better than I do. Same goes for the oft-cited biographical details ever since Duluth.

But the upside is that I kinda sorta got to personally know The Great Inscrutable One over my couple dozen encounters with the recording artist 1975-1998. Plus, as the publisher/editor of Zimmerman Blues, I met virtually all the most devoted Dylan people across America and Europe during the '70s, plus I witnessed him perform or rehearse about 140 times in 31 states and two Canadian provinces 1974-2016. So all in all, I thus may be able to provide you some info you couldn't get elsewhere. So feel free to ask, and I'll give you my best answers (and do so confidentially at ***@hotmail.com, if you like).

Again, thanks for your supportive words; I sometimes get the impression my polite postings are universally-despised online, and it's a kick to see that's not true, at least in one case.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-19 16:38:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Some book covers:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1282&bih=857&q=irwin+stambler+books&oq=irwin+stambler+books&gs_l=img.3...1227.4401.0.4544.21.11.0.10.10.0.159.1097.6j4.10.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.15.1102.0..0j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1j0i24k1.MGYMnTfBqhU


WRITINGS:
JUVENILE; ALL PUBLISHED BY PUTNAM, EXCEPT AS INDICATED

Space Ship: Story of the X-15, 1961.
Wonders of Underwater Exploration, 1962.
Breath of Life: Story of Our Atmosphere, 1963.
Build the Unknown, Norton, 1963.
Project Gemini, 1964.
Project Mariner, 1964.
Supersonic Transport, 1965.
Orbiting Stations, 1965.
Worlds of Sound, Norton, 1966.
Automobiles of the Future, 1966.
Guide to Model Car Racing, Norton, 1967.
Great Moments in Auto Racing, Four Winds, 1967.
Weather Instruments, 1968.
Ocean Liners of the Air, 1969.

Guitar Years: Pop Music from Country and Western to Hard Rock, Doubleday, 1970.
Project Viking: Space Conquest beyond the Moon, 1970.
Great Moments in Stock Car Racing, 1971.
(With G. Landon) Golden Guitars: The Story of Country Music, Four Winds, 1971.
Revolution in Light: Lasers and Holography, Doubleday, 1972.
Unusual Automobiles of Today and Tomorrow, 1972.
Automobile Engines of Today and Tomorrow, Grosset, 1972.
Shorelines of America, Grosset, 1972.
Speed Kings: World's Fastest Humans, 1973.
Supercars and the Men Who Drive Them, 1975.
New Automobiles of the Future, 1976.
Bill Walton: Super Center, 1976.
Catfish Hunter: The Three Million Dollar Arm, 1976.
Here Come the Funny Cars, 1976.
Minibikes and Small Cycles, 1977.
Top Fuelers: Drag Racing Royalty, 1978.
Racing the Sprint Cars, 1979.

Dream Machines: Vans and Pickups, 1980.


ADULT; ALL PUBLISHED BY ST. MARTIN'S, EXCEPT AS INDICATED

The Battle for Inner Space: Underseas Warfare and Weapons, 1962.
Encyclopedia of Popular Music, 1965.

(With Landon) Encyclopedia of Folk, Country, and Western Music, 1974.
The World of Microelectronics, Norton, 1969.
(With Landon) Encyclopedia of Pop, Rock and Soul, 1974, published with supplement, 1977.

Off-Roading: Racing and Riding, Putnam, 1984.

(Co-author with Grelun Landon) Country Music: The Encyclopedia, 1997.



Lenona.

Loading...