Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
Can confirm. I went to the local Grammar in Canterbury (I was born on New Years Day) but my brother, birthday 31 August, didn’t get in. However within a couple of years it was clear that he deserved a place at my school far more than some of the absolute tools who fluked the 11+ and became my classmates.
Ach. There was another great drummer and another absolute gent.
Indeed. His books are worth reading as well.
Charlie is getting plaudits for playing a steady beat for 60 years.
Neil completely reinvented his whole technique half way through his career.
Nah Charlie was a great drummer and brought the jazz sensibility to his rock and roll playing. Much like Ginger. Neil was undoubtedly in a class of his own but it is not an either/or situation. They were both great.
Great drumming is seriously underrated. Just look at John Bonham, another remarkable drummer who turned banging a stick into a true art form.
Ah, I knew you were a man of taste! Bonzo (not to be confused with a certain politician) was probably the greatest rock drummer of all time. Like Charlie he was heavily influenced by jazz.
The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.
Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men
Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.
I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?
Mainly Muslims
Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.
Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't
I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.
But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist
Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources
British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.
I waited until after my grandmother died to announce I wasn't having an arranged marriage.
In her defence she wasn't bigoted, she was fine with interracial/interfaith marriages for other people just not for her only grandchild.
I'd class that as fairly bigoted and I say that as someone who's own grandmother was the same. She disowned the uncle who married a Jewish lady and pretended not to have those grandchildren until the day she died. To what end people are like this I have no idea. There was a good write up in The Times last week on this with from a male Muslim perspective. I'd love to read about it from a Muslim female perspective because it must be pretty awful for them to marry White/Black/Hindu.
The most controversial thing that has happened in our family since then is a cousin who got divorced and has since married a white guy. Her mum wasn't convinced about either decisions but has since been very much won over by them.
My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.
Hmmm. Colour me sceptical. Often talk of this. Never happens.
And to be honest arguably the reason it doesn't happen is that Labour would soon drift from where leftwing unions want it to be and they know it.
No, it's a interesting result though. Reportedly she's just a couple of % ahead of Turner and Coyne, but enough to win. Coyne was a veteran of internal feuding (from the centre) with McCluskey, Turner (who I voted for) was the orthodox left-winger, backed by the mainstream left, while Sharon has the backing of the SWP and Socialist Party, varieties of Trotskyists, without being especially interested in party politics - she's the "break up the cosy leadership consensus" candidate. I suspect we'll see a bit of posturing but interest in Labour politics will take a back seat as she wrestles with her rivals on the NEC. A bit of feminism may have helped her, too - I suspect quite a few members are bored with balding men squabbling interminably.
If she is sympathetic in return to the SWP and the Socialist Party she has no business being anywhere near the NEC of the Labour Party.
Your tacit support for a Union Super Baron, planning to take HM's opposition into some Trotskyist wilderness, bankruptcy and hence electoral oblivion is odd for someone who wants to see the back of Johnson.
She might as well hand her members' subscriptions directly over to Johnson's re-election fund, most of them probably vote for him anyway.
The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.
Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men
Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.
I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?
Mainly Muslims
Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.
Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't
I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.
But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist
Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources
British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.
I waited until after my grandmother died to announce I wasn't having an arranged marriage.
In her defence she wasn't bigoted, she was fine with interracial/interfaith marriages for other people just not for her only grandchild.
The beautiful British-Libyan Muslim girl I fancied when I was younger (and she me - our chemistry was fantastic) made it clear the only way anything could ever happen was if I converted to Islam. I think her family was a big part of that but I think she agreed with it at some level too.
I was clear I wasn't prepared to do that, and so that was the end of that.
Drakeford is closer to Corbyn than SKS (with the possible exception of Europe).
Given Wales is the only part of the UK that voted for Corbyn in either 2017 or 2019 hardly a surprise, Labour did not need to change from Corbynism to win Wales, it does need to change from Corbynism to win England and Scotland however
It’s not Corbynism, Brownism or Blairism that is suppressing the Labour vote in Scotland. It is British nationalism.
Labour totals in 1997, 2001 and 2005 in Scotland under Unionist Blair 45.6%, 43.9% and 39.5%. Unionist Brown Labour total in 2010 in Scotland 42%.
Labour totals in Scotland in 2017 and 2019 under Corbyn just 27.1% and 18.6%
What happened under Miliband in 2015?
Even Miliband still got more than Corbyn did in 2019 but Miliband was also left of Blair and Brown
Far right Tory advises Scottish Labour to move right. Err… I’m sure they are agog at your insight and wisdom.
So you are now taking the racist line that anyone not born in Scotland but who lives in Scotland and pays taxes in Scotland should have no vote in Scotland? Nothing but blood and soil nationalism of the BNP school
Agreed completely. And now we can watch the "Tomorrow Belongs to Us" Scottish nationalists try to misdirect the discourse by talking about percentages, or by saying that Brexit is nasty too. But calling people who live in Scotland other than "Scots" on ethnic grounds is racist and I couldn't care less about percentages or Brexit because they are irrelevant to that. I've heard it all: that what applies to Scotland shouldn't apply to Shetland, that "Scottish oil" is greener than green, and - this one from anti-Sturgeonite separatists - that it was the "English" Supreme Court that was at fault for putting Craig Murray in jail because it didn't grant him leave to appeal and thereby it allowed the Scottish court's decision to stand (sic). Perhaps they think "England" will be honour-bound to bail an independent Scotland out when it goes bankrupt too. They think we're so stupid that we don't realise they will think up any old specious crap to cover their chauvinism and racism when it's expedient to do so. "You're only saying that because you're English" and "Scotland is treated like an English colony" are deeply-embedded "thoughts" in the heads of Scottish nationalists, including some who actually support staying in the Union.
Of course it is racism. Depending on how the cookie crumbles in the next few years, one wonders whether the solution might not be to boot Scotland out of the Union with a size-11 hobnailed boot, the way South Africa was once ejected from the Commonwealth. Yes there was ethnic supremacism in Australia too, but so what? That's no defence. One would feel for the majority of Scots who favour staying in the Union, but it was never the case that a majority of the South African population supported white supremacy either. Unfortunately such criticism wasn't so common of the government of newly independent Latvia, which disenfranchised a large part of its population for ethnic reasons and was welcomed in to the EU with open arms.
An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
Being able to repeat a simple pattern for 3 minutes without a mistake is a sign of timeless talent? How do we know he didn't record it once and loop it?
Is it a bad time to ask who it was who called them white boys playing black music badly?
It is worth pointing out that - sad as it may be as a reflection of the US - if it weren't for those English white boys then no one in the US outside of the black communities would have been listening to that black music.
I think both led zeppelin and the doors were doing a more authentic version of it.
Zeppelin not for me but I like The Doors a lot.
I like them all. I'd say that from c.'65 the Stones weren't really trying to reproduce an authentic version of black music but make something of their own that was (at times heavily) influenced by it. From Beggar's Banquet through to Exile on Main Street I think represents the acme of white boy rock and roll. I kinda of always think Exile is the big one but been going through a Sticky Fingers phase, some cracking atmospheric songs.
That was a terrific run of albums. I also liked their taut disco poppy reinvention a few years later with Some Girls. And then the 2 after that were very good, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You. If you add in some of the earlier stuff - which I do - that's a lot of great music.
But without getting too soapy they transcended all of that for me. It wasn't just about the music, I was MAD about them in every way and it lasted from age 15 to about 40, which is a long time for that sort of intense fandom. So this is one of those RIPs of a stranger that I'm genuinely feeling something about.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
Yes, that's essentially my view.
However, I don't think it's consistent to select on music, sport and artistic aptitude and not academic. And we already accept that with 18 year olds going into university.
So I don't mind if some schools do it, provided they give second chances and multiple entry opportunities.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
Yes. Everyone attends their very good and BIG local school and things are optimized in there. That's my vision. Take the heat out of all this. Kids just go to school.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
I don't think there's a 100% right answer at all. I just tend to think that a system unofficially based on the ability to buy a house in the right area can't be the best one.
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
Don't they still have no speed limits on some motorways in Germany? I think the Greens want to abolish it.
An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
Being able to repeat a simple pattern for 3 minutes without a mistake is a sign of timeless talent? How do we know he didn't record it once and loop it?
Is it a bad time to ask who it was who called them white boys playing black music badly?
It is worth pointing out that - sad as it may be as a reflection of the US - if it weren't for those English white boys then no one in the US outside of the black communities would have been listening to that black music.
I think both led zeppelin and the doors were doing a more authentic version of it.
Zeppelin not for me but I like The Doors a lot.
Not saying that led zeppelin were good, but how much of their stuff was inspired plagiarism of the likes of Robert Johnson, blind Willie Johnson, h. Wolf etc
I've never taken a dive into the authentic black blues. Only got into the 'cultural appropriation' iterations. Most of the proponents of it were aware of the debt, I think. Blind Willie Mactell by Dylan for example. That's monumental imo.
She told me an anecdote about the 1950s/60s that shocked me.
She was an academic earning very good money not just for a woman but for a man of that era.
So in her mid 20s she decided to apply for a mortgage.
Bank manager told her that he would only approve a mortgage if a male blood relative under the age of 35 (or a husband) applied with her.
Both her brothers earned considerably less than her but she couldn’t get the mortgage until they signed on.
Fortunately one of them did and she got the mortgage. But she would have been utterly screwed on the mortgage if she had no brothers.
Seems utterly bizarre to us.
That was still in place into the 1970s in some financial institutions, and women would need essentially a male guarantor.
I've always linked the date to the ending of practices (eg the Marriage Bar, though in the UK that was much earlier in most professions) which prevented women from having secure careers for the time of the mortgage - so it needed a lot more to go than just attitudes in Building Societies.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
But arguing against the 11-plus as the selection method is just an argument of detail, not principle.
Agreed completely. And now we can watch the "Tomorrow Belongs to Us" Scottish nationalists try to misdirect the discourse by talking about percentages, or by saying that Brexit is nasty too. But calling people who live in Scotland other than "Scots" on ethnic grounds is racist and I couldn't care less about percentages or Brexit because they are irrelevant to that. I've heard it all: that what applies to Scotland shouldn't apply to Shetland, that "Scottish oil" is greener than green, and - this one from anti-Sturgeonite separatists - that it was the "English" Supreme Court that was at fault for putting Craig Murray in jail because it didn't grant him leave to appeal and thereby it allowed the Scottish court's decision to stand (sic). Perhaps they think "England" will be honour-bound to bail an independent Scotland out when it goes bankrupt too. They think we're so stupid that we don't realise they will think up any old specious crap to cover their chauvinism and racism when it's expedient to do so. "You're only saying that because you're English" and "Scotland is treated like an English colony" are deeply-embedded "thoughts" in the heads of Scottish nationalists, including some who actually support staying in the Union.
Of course it is racism. Depending on how the cookie crumbles in the next few years, one wonders whether the solution might not be to boot Scotland out of the Union with a size-11 hobnailed boot, the way South Africa was once ejected from the Commonwealth. Yes there was ethnic supremacism in Australia too, but so what? That's no defence. One would feel for the majority of Scots who favour staying in the Union, but it was never the case that a majority of the South African population supported white supremacy either. Unfortunately such criticism wasn't so common of the government of newly independent Latvia, which disenfranchised a large part of its population for ethnic reasons and was welcomed in to the EU with open arms.
You’ve gone back how many threads to get astride an all too familiar hobby horse? Perfectly normal.
An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:
"'Get Off of My Cloud'
From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)
Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."
Being able to repeat a simple pattern for 3 minutes without a mistake is a sign of timeless talent? How do we know he didn't record it once and loop it?
Is it a bad time to ask who it was who called them white boys playing black music badly?
It is worth pointing out that - sad as it may be as a reflection of the US - if it weren't for those English white boys then no one in the US outside of the black communities would have been listening to that black music.
I think both led zeppelin and the doors were doing a more authentic version of it.
Zeppelin not for me but I like The Doors a lot.
I like them all. I'd say that from c.'65 the Stones weren't really trying to reproduce an authentic version of black music but make something of their own that was (at times heavily) influenced by it. From Beggar's Banquet through to Exile on Main Street I think represents the acme of white boy rock and roll. I kinda of always think Exile is the big one but been going through a Sticky Fingers phase, some cracking atmospheric songs.
That was a terrific run of albums. I also liked their taut disco poppy reinvention a few years later with Some Girls. And then the 2 after that were very good, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You. If you add in some of the earlier stuff - which I do - that's a lot of great music.
But without getting too soapy they transcended all of that for me. It wasn't just about the music, I was MAD about them in every way and it lasted from age 15 to about 40, which is a long time for that sort of intense fandom. So this is one of those RIPs of a stranger that I'm genuinely feeling something about.
With me it was about 15 to 35ish, right down to getting a (fairly crappy) Stones mouth tattoo in a seamy, dockside Aberdeen tattoo parlour when I was 18.
That’s all good to great music. I have a soft spot for their ‘reggae’ album, Black and Blue; when I was a penurious adolescent buying an album was quite an investment, and the local head shop Happy Trails did a line in second hand records with aforementioned at a knockdown price. Back then you listened to what you had rather than whatever you fancied, and B&B was the go-to late night listening during that wistful bittersweet period when you wondered if you’d ever fall in love with a real life woman rather than have crushes on girls you were too scared to talk to.
But yeah, for me it was an identity thing, not prog, punk, new wave, heavy metal, new romantic etc, but THE STONES!
Comments
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZBQW2gE0Ew
Your tacit support for a Union Super Baron, planning to take HM's opposition into some Trotskyist wilderness, bankruptcy and hence electoral oblivion is odd for someone who wants to see the back of Johnson.
She might as well hand her members' subscriptions directly over to Johnson's re-election fund, most of them probably vote for him anyway.
Press conference from the White House live
Biden has requested contingency plans if he has to extend from 31st August
And repeated again by his spokesperson
Lots of fudge in this conference
I suspect the thought of pictures of desperate people being held back as US troops fly away must haunt the White House
I was clear I wasn't prepared to do that, and so that was the end of that.
Of course it is racism. Depending on how the cookie crumbles in the next few years, one wonders whether the solution might not be to boot Scotland out of the Union with a size-11 hobnailed boot, the way South Africa was once ejected from the Commonwealth. Yes there was ethnic supremacism in Australia too, but so what? That's no defence. One would feel for the majority of Scots who favour staying in the Union, but it was never the case that a majority of the South African population supported white supremacy either. Unfortunately such criticism wasn't so common of the government of newly independent Latvia, which disenfranchised a large part of its population for ethnic reasons and was welcomed in to the EU with open arms.
But without getting too soapy they transcended all of that for me. It wasn't just about the music, I was MAD about them in every way and it lasted from age 15 to about 40, which is a long time for that sort of intense fandom. So this is one of those RIPs of a stranger that I'm genuinely feeling something about.
However, I don't think it's consistent to select on music, sport and artistic aptitude and not academic. And we already accept that with 18 year olds going into university.
So I don't mind if some schools do it, provided they give second chances and multiple entry opportunities.
I've always linked the date to the ending of practices (eg the Marriage Bar, though in the UK that was much earlier in most professions) which prevented women from having secure careers for the time of the mortgage - so it needed a lot more to go than just attitudes in Building Societies.
Perfectly normal.
That’s all good to great music. I have a soft spot for their ‘reggae’ album, Black and Blue; when I was a penurious adolescent buying an album was quite an investment, and the local head shop Happy Trails did a line in second hand records with aforementioned at a knockdown price. Back then you listened to what you had rather than whatever you fancied, and B&B was the go-to late night listening during that wistful bittersweet period when you wondered if you’d ever fall in love with a real life woman rather than have crushes on girls you were too scared to talk to.
But yeah, for me it was an identity thing, not prog, punk, new wave, heavy metal, new romantic etc, but THE STONES!