Posts by compound complex

63

why did they have to butcher the kingdom melodies?

by purrpurr in

its not like there was anything wrong with them was there?

i used to love the old ones.

these new ones feel like the equivalent of a deflated balloon.. does anyone have the answer?.

compound complex

Blondie:

I enjoyed reading your experience about playing the piano at the KH and how much the friends appreciated it. Recorded music simply doesn't cut it:

I never understood why taped music was deemed better rather than a live accompanist that could adjust the music to the abilities of the singers. One overly righteous family had a daughter getting married and tried over and over to walk down the aisle to the tapes...could not adjust it so they asked me to play the piano that was left unused in the corner of the KH. I played my arrangements of the KH songs before and after the event and many people thanked me.

It was so different back then, as attested by the '85 WT quotation you put up. We rocked at the KH and at assemblies where I played; sometimes I was questioned (then counseled) on my exuberant playing: 'Are you playing just the notes on the page?' 'Ah, yes, Brother By-the-Rules, just the notes on the page!'

Well, the brothers and sisters liked it, as they enjoyed your playing, too.

Thanks for sharing!

CC

63

why did they have to butcher the kingdom melodies?

by purrpurr in

its not like there was anything wrong with them was there?

i used to love the old ones.

these new ones feel like the equivalent of a deflated balloon.. does anyone have the answer?.

compound complex

Blondie referred elsewhere to the songbook containing 4-part harmony. That was the little pink one, which I worked on at Bethel, late '60s. It was perfect in all respects, IMHO. Then came the brown book, where the songs were written in pianistic style. A totally different approach, though the tunes remained virtually intact.

Those songs were vigorous, melodic, some very heartfelt. As a composer and musician, I liked both books, yet the former was preferable with its bare-bones format, which could more readily be improvised upon. Perfectly suited for delineating between the 4 voices. The latter was not so good for singing to. Again, IMHO.

I will not comment on the new version . . .

CC

6

the org like Dr Evil - out of touch

by Magnum in

i keep getting an image of dr. evil in my head whenever i think of jws and their website.

the more i find out about them and the org promoting it, the more i think of dr. evil when he came out of his 30-year freeze; he was way behind times.

after being thawed out, he demanded one million dollars from the un like that was a lot of money, and he was laughed at because he was so out of touch.

compound complex

It's in full swing here, Magnum. Some of the oldtimers are feeling out of touch and unable to keep up.

CC

29

JW internal warfare threatens the Tract campaign

by Quarterback in

i overheard this argument re the new tract campaign.

one elder told a publisher, to hide the tract in the mailbox if the home owner wasn't home.

the publisher was used to folding the tip of the tract, and just left a tip showing.

compound complex

The KM in 2000 states, " to not make the tract invisible to passersby's".

Though the point made may be partially correct (excepting 'not . . . invisible'), the above is definitely not a direct quotation from the KM; it is by no means copied/pasted. The WT publications would not contain so many errors in a single sentence.

CC

My guess: "[. . .] not to make the tract visible to passersby."

78

Why do JWs have this* on their FB pages now?

by Kudra in

.

compound complex

Kudra and Aude:

Oh, and the two dots for the "ellipsis" annoys me.

Saw another FB "advertisement," but very poorly done. It shows a hand holding a tablet (is that the correct term?), the new logo, and JW-type imagery.

The word Lifes should be Life's.

CC

27

The spelling fairy says: It's 'atheist', not 'athiest'

by Apognophos in

jw
friends

atheists are people who are "a-" (without) "theism" (a belief in god).

they are not "athiests"; they are not "athier" than everyone else, nor is "athy" a word.. .

this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's a mistake i see every day on here and i thought it might be nice to have a topic we can bump just to periodically remind people of the proper spelling, especially since they are sometimes referring to their very own beliefs.

compound complex

27

The spelling fairy says: It's 'atheist', not 'athiest'

by Apognophos in

jw
friends

atheists are people who are "a-" (without) "theism" (a belief in god).

they are not "athiests"; they are not "athier" than everyone else, nor is "athy" a word.. .

this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's a mistake i see every day on here and i thought it might be nice to have a topic we can bump just to periodically remind people of the proper spelling, especially since they are sometimes referring to their very own beliefs.

compound complex

Thanks, stillin:

I try to be subtle. Thanks for seeing and correcting the joke, Island Man!

Best.

CoCo

27

The spelling fairy says: It's 'atheist', not 'athiest'

by Apognophos in

jw
friends

atheists are people who are "a-" (without) "theism" (a belief in god).

they are not "athiests"; they are not "athier" than everyone else, nor is "athy" a word.. .

this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's a mistake i see every day on here and i thought it might be nice to have a topic we can bump just to periodically remind people of the proper spelling, especially since they are sometimes referring to their very own beliefs.