Grandstanding, Vaingloryious and Puffed Up Former Musicians

[Judgemental]

I have studying certain former musicians and their pious pleadings concerning hunting and badger culls.

They don't convince me in the slightest.

Generally speaking they come from modest backgrounds and it suits their on going self promotion, bearing in mind they are has-been's in their professional field, in order to auger favour with the general public.

They have no genuine interest in foxes, deer or badgers.

Their sole interest is one of personal grandstanding and a vainglorious over statement of their inflated opinion of their own FAILING self importance.

 

[hackneylass2]

I suspect you have been studying, for one, Mr May.

Whilst I don't think he has an in-depth knowledge of some of the causes he supports, I will say this. What does it matter that he (and other musicians you cite) come from 'modest backgrounds'? Lots of avid hunters come from 'modest backgrounds' wouldn't you say? Or do you not want such riff-raff cluttering up your field?
Do you really think that Mr May is a 'has-been in his professional field' ? Really you have no clue! Apart from the vast royalties he recieves from the Queen decades. his collaborations with a vast amount of musicians will also add to the pot. Production and arrangement are another income stream, add to that interviews, written articles, talks......... Is he really a has-been? Maybe to those who only look at the charts and know absolutely zilch about the music industry and how it works.

I suggest you take some time out to study basic grammar before having a go at people who have had a far more productive and lucrative career than most. You may then come across as slightly more credible.

 

[ribbons]

I don't care for Brian May's activities into animal causes, but my reasons are purely selfish.
I adored queen, I still think even without Freddie they have very lucrative careers and he certainly doesnt need animal rights issues to put himself into the light.
He genuinely believes what he campaigns for and I respect that whilst disagreeing with him on most of his issues. What bugs me is I don't want to see and hear it from him, I want to see and hear him as the brilliant musician he is. Totally selfish, I know.
As for his background, he, like the rest of the band are incredibly well educated, all with degrees in some very complex subjects.

Of course, this is all supposing judgemental was referring to Brian May.

 

[spacefaer]

OP I think you meant augur, not auger, and actually should have put "curry".

Brian May believes as strongly in his views as pro-hunting people believe in theirs. I respect his right to believe in them, but he does himself and his followers no favours in the way he expresses them. It doesn't matter where he came from, he has been sufficiently successful in his professional career, and his public profile is such that he is listened to by the urban media, and his opinions broadcast.

If the pro hunting fraternity had someone as famous as him, I am sure we would be delighted to let them spread the gospel on our behalf, whatever background they had.

If he chooses to be a hypocrite regarding deer culling/badger culling/fox hunting issues, it merely serves to weaken his argument and he starts to slide off his moral high ground.

 

[Bede]

I think he is Dr May. He is an astrophysicist, among other things. But that, and belonging to a cool band, shouldn't add any weight to his opinions on animal rights

 

[marmalade76]

Agree with Ribbons. Queen l

 

[Dave the dog]

once a musician always a musician, and i'm sure he went to grammar school, everyone is entitled to air an opinion right or wrong and fame is something that you just can't get rid of. A bit like baldness, or halitosis. or persistent B O, you can mask it but it's still there after all those years.

 

[Judgemental]

Until today. I was not going to bother with this thread, that was until I viewed the most ridiculous Labour Welsh MP lambaste the leader of The House of Commons, Chris Grayling MP this afternoon on the subject of the Hunting Act 2004 and the pending possibility of repeal. As Mr Grayling pointed out, the MP would do well to talk to a few Welsh farmers about lambs and foxes!

I did not have Dr May in mind when I started this thread. No, Sir Paul McCartney was uppermost in my mind.

Let us go to BBC News of Wednesday, 2 June, 2004, 12:32 GMT 13:32 UK

(All drug taking is a criminal offence)

Sir Paul reveals Beatles drug use

Sir Paul McCartney
Sir Paul said his drug intake was "never excessive"

Former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney has revealed he once tried heroin at the height of the legendary band's success.

"I didn't realise I'd taken it - I was just handed something and smoked it," he told Uncut magazine, adding: "It didn't do anything for me."

The musician said he also took cocaine "for about a year" but was "never completely crazy" about the drug.

In an interview published in this month's Uncut, Sir Paul admitted drugs "informed" much of the Beatles' music.

He said the song Got To Get You Into My Life was "about pot - although everyone missed it at the time", and Day Tripper was "about acid".




I was never crazy with cocaine, especially when you start getting those terrible come-downs


Sir Paul McCartney

He added it was "pretty obvious" that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was inspired by LSD, and other songs made "subtle hints" about narcotics.

But the singer said it was "easy to overestimate" the influence of drugs on the Beatles' material.

"Just about everyone was doing them in one form or another. We were no different," he said.

"But the writing was too important for us to mess it up by getting off our heads all the time."

'Pills'

Sir Paul said he felt "lucky" he had not taken to heroin as he "wouldn't have fancied heading down that road".

He added the "terrible come-downs" had eventually persuaded him to stop using cocaine.

According to the singer, The Beatles started experimenting early in their career - "right back to the Hamburg days when there were all these pills going around".



The Beatles
Sir Paul said drugs like pot and LSD "informed" the Beatles' music

But he said his own intake was "never excessive". "I suppose I learned from an early age to do things in moderation," he said.

Sir Paul also revealed that he and fellow Beatle John Lennon had dabbled with another addictive substance during their schooldays - tea.

"We'd stuff some Twining Tea in a pipe, smoke that and write songs."

McCartney's drug use made headlines in January 1980 when he arrived at Tokyo's Narita Airport for an eleven-date tour with his band Wings.

Deported

The singer was arrested after customs officials discovered half a pound (225g) of marijuana in his luggage.

He spent 10 nights in a Japanese prison before being released and deported.

Sir Paul now admits "it was the daftest thing I've done in my entire life".



Wings
McCartney (right) was arrested in 1980 while touring with Wings

"I was out in New York and I had all this really good grass," he said. "We were about to fly to Japan and I knew I wouldn't be able to get anything to smoke over there.

"This stuff was too good to flush down the toilet, so I thought I'd take it with me."

He said it was "not too wonderful" being held in a Japanese jail, but he kept his spirits up by organising "sing-songs" with his fellow prisoners.

"I don't actually smoke the stuff these days," he told Uncut. "It's something I've kind of grown out of."

But he said he was flattered when he was recently invited by a group of Los Angeles teenagers to share their marijuana.

"To me, it's a huge compliment that a bunch of kids think I might be up to smoke a bit of dope with them."

So McCartney a known drug user has the cheek to lecture hunting folk on what they should and should not be doing.

Why has he not reported all the people he knows who have taken and take and have possession of illegal drugs. Even 20 or 30 years on they could still be arrested.

I would like to see any of these pious antis justify McCartney's conduct.

 

[Dave the dog]

We all make Mistakes, love my horse.

 

[skint1]

Genuine question from an on the fence townie-why dont more people take up drag hunting? It looks like amazing fun for everyone, everyone keeps their jobs, no foxes get hurt and the sabs and antis wouldn't have a word to say to you. It must surely be safer too because you can plan your route.

 

[Dave the dog]

They drag in Ireland for the crack. Everyone joins in, on foot too.

 

[hackneylass2]

I must say I found draghunting a lot more exciting with less standing about. That said, my hunting was mostly restricted to riding green youngsters for a producer who thought that hunting was a good part of a youngster's education. The standing around bits were probably a lot more hairy than the actual terrain! When I dragged, I rode my own horse and we had tremendous fun, it also seemed a little less formal.

Regarding Mr McCartney, IMO anyone who does drugs of any kind is a fool. I would say that at that time, drug use was heavilly ingrained in music culture, and to some extent, it still is, only now it is more underground than it was in the 60s and 70s. My guess is that if the law wants to really crack down on historic and present drug use, our prisons would be chock full of musos! (and politicians, councillors, doctors, lawyers, brickies, carers and in fact a lot more people than you would largely expect. How McCartney's exploits relate to the hunting debate is beyone me really.

I would say that he has a right to his own opinion, the same as petty crooks, adulterers, bullies and the like. However you see it, McCartney is in the same mould as May, he is not and never will be a former musician and has achieved incredible things careerwise, be him a 'stoner' or not!

 

[Judgemental]

Regarding Mr McCartney, IMO anyone who does drugs of any kind is a fool. I would say that at that time, drug use was heavilly ingrained in music culture, and to some extent, it still is, only now it is more underground than it was in the 60s and 70s. My guess is that if the law wants to really crack down on historic and present drug use, our prisons would be chock full of musos! (and politicians, councillors, doctors, lawyers, brickies, carers and in fact a lot more people than you would largely expect. How McCartney's exploits relate to the hunting debate is beyone me really.

I would say that he has a right to his own opinion, the same as petty crooks, adulterers, bullies and the like. However you see it, McCartney is in the same mould as May, he is not and never will be a former musician and has achieved incredible things careerwise, be him a 'stoner' or not!

It is very simple, Hunting has been made a criminal offence.

Being in possession of, peddling and taking any illegal drug is a criminal offence and McCartney has certainly by his own admission, been a participant and what is worse, has failed to stop or discourage young people from drug taking.

People in glass houses........

 

[fburton]

Regarding Mr McCartney, IMO anyone who does drugs of any kind is a fool.

Absolutely! Nowadays I try to keep my alcohol consumption to the bare minimum.

 

[Fellewell]

Well that explains The Frog Chorus, though I don't suppose psychoactive toad would have scanned properly.

 

[Dave the dog]

I suppose that when an aged pop star reminisces about all the substances he's tried and all the places he's been busted and how it ruined his life, in the public domain, then, we can take it as a confession of a simple honest human being who has helped with famine relief, homelessness, promoted peace and love, provided wonderful entertainment to millions and inspired thousands of young and old musicians to write and sing their hearts out regardless. I raise my glass. To vindictively pursue these people is unchristian in essence and extreme in fact. Character defamation and irrelevances are the argumentative tools of the weak.
I wonder, Has anyone hunted in drag?

 

[Fellewell]

And another thing; blackbirds don't sing in the dead of night, it was probably a nightjar.

 

[Judgemental]

To vindictively pursue these people is unchristian in essence and extreme in fact. Character defamation and irrelevances are the argumentative tools of the weak.

Dave the dog, you are so correct. For over ten years, decent law abiding Hunting folk have been pursued, libelled and slandered by anti hunting thugs, various musicians and the misinformed. Many of whom have criminal records - records LOL. Why because of the Hunting Act 2004.

 

[Dave the dog]

Thank you, The hunting act in it's present form, or indeed any form is dubious as it seeks to interfere with perceived freedom as does any law banning an activity previously deemed harmless in law. But you exaggerate again, not all hunting folk are decent and law abiding, some of them are bankers, some of them are gangsters, the majority I'm sure are as you say. Equally, the anti's are not all thugs and musicians, or, indeed misinformed. Some really do care about our country side in their own way just as you do in yours and their voices must be heard that is how our Democracy works. The more contentious a matter is the longer it takes to find a solution, gay rights for example will drone on and on but at the end of the day everyone will settle and be happy, hopefully not gay. It's too easy to let your passions overwhelm your sensibilities and descend into thuggery expressed as vandalism or abuse.

 

[Dave the dog]

Possibly more likely a Norwegian wouldn't

 

[Judgemental]

But you exaggerate again, not all hunting folk are decent and law abiding, some of them are bankers, some of them are gangsters,

Gangsters, Gangsters! You have made my day Dave the Dog, I have been chuckling about that all morning.

I can well imagine some of the hunting ladies with whom I am acquainted, being quite excited about the notion of going hunting with gangsters.

They are normally very fit - working out in East London Gyms, dressed in immaculate suiting's, camel coats and hand made shoes. Driving a Jaq or two. Then there are the Gangster's trophy wives, do they hunt too?

Wow this is new and a first.

I dare say a few players on this forum will read your post and the topic of Hunting Gangsters, may grace a conversation or two around a few dining room tables, with endless speculation as to their identity.

Keep it up, best comment I have seen for ages.

 

[Dave the dog]

Many a true word spoken in jest, glad i put a smile on your dial. and yes I expect there are a few molls out there that indulge in blood sports, who wouldn't when your old man has a face like a bull dog chewing a wasp.

 

[marmalade76]

And I thought my husband was the only person who calls a face a dial.

 

[Alec Swan]

And another thing; blackbirds don't sing in the dead of night, …….. .

In fact, and as strange as it may sound, they often do!

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

……... To vindictively pursue these people is unchristian in essence and extreme in fact. Character defamation and irrelevances are the argumentative tools of the weak.
…….. ?

I agree with you and I'd add that both a Knight of the realm and a musician with a doctorate are entitled to their opinions, even if they are misinformed and reliant upon the advice which they are given. My argument is that why such credence should be given and air time handed over to those who fail to speak with any level of experience or knowledge of the subject in hand, remains a mystery.

Answer me this, if you will, if we consider the problems of our National Health Service (as an example), who's opinion would you give precedence to, a Consultant who's involved on a daily basis and upon whom the handed down decisions impact, or the considerations of an MP who may next month be shifted over as the Minister of Defence, or Transport? I consider that there are parallels of argument.

How can it be that those who live their lives in a structured and ordered fashion, are lectured upon their levels of morality, by those such as musicians who are hardly to be considered as virtuous? I know nothing of the music industry and so I leave its machinations to those who do. It wouldn't do any harm were those musicians who seem to know more than I do about the life that I, and countless people before me, have lived, and actually 'listened' to balanced reason, rather than relying upon doctorates and knighthoods to promote their puerile, simplistic and wholly inaccurate points.

Alec.

 

[{51248}]

Answer me this, if you will, if we consider the problems of our National Health Service (as an example), who's opinion would you give precedence to, a Consultant who's involved on a daily basis and upon whom the handed down decisions impact, or the considerations of an MP who may next month be shifted over as the Minister of Defence, or Transport? .

I depends what the question is.

If it's a case of where to apply a scalpel, then the consultant.

If it's a question of how to get money from the Treasury and feed it into the NHS, then the minister.

 

[Alec Swan]

pakkasham, I apologise, and that wasn't the reasoning behind the question. What I should have asked is; would 'we' and in general, value the view of a Government Minister who's actions are impacting heavily on a profession upon whom we're totally reliant and is generally made up of caring professionals, as to the well being of the health service in general, or would we consider the views, primarily, of those who speak with experience and deal with the results of ministerial edicts? I know where my preferred advice would come from!

Alec.

 

[Dave the dog]

Mine would come from a nurse. he/she would have to deal with the results of populist politics and the often absence of the consultant and the limited staff and equipment and the constant performance assessment whilst working too long hours trying to maintain patient care in spite of the experts and middle meddle management that demand her/his attention. The NHS is the result of socialist ideals ie free medical care for all at source and has been plagued since it's huge successes in the 50's 60's and 70's by right wing politics. There is no comparison that can be drawn between Hunting and the NHS. As to the opinions of musicians of some fame. The news industry would not survive if it only asked the opinions of an anonymous busker he just wouldn't be glamorous no matter how big his smile was. and another thing, how many famous people actually go hunting? not many i'll bet. fame comes at a price. Ather conan doyle was a well known huntsman, drug addict and writer of crap poetry, the victorians seemed to think all that was ok, my how things have changed.

 

[hackneylass2]

The trouble is, quite a lot of musicians who 'make it' buy a pile in the country and are far removed from reality (indeed they are far removed from reality wherever they choose to live). BUT, not all musicians 'can hardly be considered to be virtuous' Alec. Maybe the headline grabbers, but there are many who are, and need to be, very exacting about their art and live lives far removed from the sex n drugs n rock n roll lifestyle so beloved of the press. Credence and airtime are given over to 'the famous' because nowadays, weather we like it or not, the media is dumbing down and sadly a lot of people have gained a rather sheeplike mentality. Doctorates and knighthoods, weather earned through study or bestowed without one word of a dissertation being written, should have no standing on weather the recipient is knowlegeable in a totally different field. I have known several old 'prog rockers' that hunted, shot and fished, and equally several that did not. Fame, however gained, goes to peoples' heads in the majority of cases, its human nature, and not a nice side of it.

 

[Dave the dog]

Well said Hackneylass2. We ought to be grateful that musicians and poets spot light human nature, dark and light. And should not blame them if their passions spill out side of their chosen medium. Many such comments are made with humor and grace regardless of background or fame. Some of course are not. Such is human nature.