I must say, it does look like Gall's blog will be one of the better ones. He's opinionated alright, but his position is learned and so he commands respect. For now at least, one can never tell until 18 months down the line and all the character flaws, egoism and tragedy boils to the surface.
^ True. There is not enough diversity. Not enough - coffee drinkers in navy wash n' wear raincoats and Walkover FBI shoes!
I have high hopes that John will introduce aspects of dance: maybe Fred and Ginger, the Gold Diggers, Gene Kelly, African kids, Perkins and Mangano. The older I get, the more I love to watch dance sequences. I remember being knocked out by my first viewing of 'A Day At The Races'.
Blucher wrote:
^ True. There is not enough diversity. Not enough - coffee drinkers in navy wash n' wear raincoats and Walkover FBI shoes!
/\ A style I do genuinely admire.
My life probably dictates my style (which I think is as entirely it should be) - The frayed cuff and the out-of-focus smile ...
Blucher wrote:
He is also right, really, about 'Humph'. Tedious, bourgeois, chummy, Anglo jazz.
A really fine quiz master though, along with his lovely assistant Samantha.
LOL! I agree, whole-heartedly. I almost always look rumpled. There was a moment, however, last summer, when, wearing Loro Piana wool and cashmere, Makers blue micro-gingham, off-white chinos and caramel-coloured chukka boots, I looked almost... different...
As for Anglo-jazz, you can't deny the modern splendour of Dick Morrissey.
I think, quite quickly, this will turn out to be the best blog. John has a keen eye for detail, nuance and measured responses. How can it fail to be interesting?
Blucher wrote:
He is also right, really, about 'Humph'. Tedious, bourgeois, chummy, Anglo jazz. Like Melly and Mulligan.
Un-bourgeois enough to turn down a bauble from your 'queen'. I can never entirely dislike a man who says 'no' to a knighthood or a CBE.
^Good point. There's plenty who sell out when a K is dangled in front of them.
sonofstan wrote:
Blucher wrote:
He is also right, really, about 'Humph'. Tedious, bourgeois, chummy, Anglo jazz. Like Melly and Mulligan.
Un-bourgeois enough to turn down a bauble from your 'queen'. I can never entirely dislike a man who says 'no' to a knighthood or a CBE.
Our 'queen'? Be so good as to explain yourself.
Blucher wrote:
I think, quite quickly, this will turn out to be the best blog. John has a keen eye for detail, nuance and measured responses. How can it fail to be interesting?
I do agree that he's perfectly placed to do just that - Not as far out there as the wonderful Jason Jules, not as insular as so many others. Plus he strikes me as a man of disciplined thought.
From day one I've been saying that for my generation & location he's been the one.
I think it fair to say that Jason has been an inspiration for John and his friends: going back into the 80s, I think. But, yes, Jason follows his impulses, wherever they lead him. I see Jason and John as having something very much in common, though, and that is, like John Simons, they are 'something more than Ivy'. I've learned how to appreciate fine clothes, whatever their origins, by sniffing around and handling, examining labels etc. I've also learned to appreciate other things, via JG, that are just as valuable as the little store of knowledge I've acquired about cut, colour, fabric, texture etc.
It's that 'Bigger Picture' thing, isn't it? That thing I love in others but totally lack myself.
I'm a Rutist !
(But happy)
It's about strolling up a different boulevard in the dappled sunlight, because your instincts tell you there's something valuable at the other end. Fascinating to see a progression from Style Council and Little Anthony to Freddie Hubbard to Hoagy Carmichael. Receptive, you see.
Probably THE most important quality. I'm very open to new things, but very rarely personally stray beyond my first Loves / Passions: Ivy & Modern Jazz. I've never progressed in any way or been a part of anything bigger than my own clique. Had I been a Mod/Modernist I might have turned out differently... Who knows?
How introspective I'm being today...
Back on topic - We do need more QUALITY bloggers out there if this online medium is ever to be redeemed. People with knowledge & passion. Like JG !
You two met yet ? You should !
Just re-reading, I'm not sure I agree that Andy Warhol completely lacked cynicism. John, I know, despises it. I would see it in this sense, though: When at university, pressure of time forced me to write an essay on Ralph Ellison's 'Invisible Man', without reading the novel through. But I got exactly the same grade as for work I'd sweated over. You see?
Jimmy wrote:
Probably THE most important quality. I'm very open to new things, but very rarely personally stray beyond my first Loves / Passions: Ivy & Modern Jazz. I've never progresed in any way or been a part of anything bigger than my own clique. Had I been a Mod/Modernist I might have turned out differently... Who knows?
How introspective I'm being today...
Back on topic - We do need more QUALITY bloggers out there if this online medium is ever to be redeemed. People with knowledge & passion. Like JG !
You two met yet ? You should !
We haven't - but we keep meaning to.
I'd say that Warhol was wonderfully cynical. Very knowing. He fully understood what he was doing and what the framework was that he was doing it in. I doubt he ever put more effort in that he judged a thing deserved. In my book - to his credit.
Blucher wrote:
Jimmy wrote:
Probably THE most important quality. I'm very open to new things, but very rarely personally stray beyond my first Loves / Passions: Ivy & Modern Jazz. I've never progresed in any way or been a part of anything bigger than my own clique. Had I been a Mod/Modernist I might have turned out differently... Who knows?
How introspective I'm being today...
Back on topic - We do need more QUALITY bloggers out there if this online medium is ever to be redeemed. People with knowledge & passion. Like JG !
You two met yet ? You should !We haven't - but we keep meaning to.
It would be a meeting of minds I suspect. Always a good thing.
Jimmy wrote:
I'd say that Warhol was wonderfully cynical. Very knowing. He fully understood what he was doing and what the framework was that he was doing it in. I doubt he ever put more effort in that he judged a thing deserved. In my book - to his credit.
Flashback to my old headmaster, or 'Bodger' in the slang of the gulag I attended:
"I didn't ask if you thought your work was 'good enough', I asked if you thought your work was good."
Bump. I'm determined to keep people focussed on this.
On Jimmy's secondary-school memories?
Jimmy wrote:
I'd say that Warhol was wonderfully cynical. Very knowing. He fully understood what he was doing and what the framework was that he was doing it in. I doubt he ever put more effort in that he judged a thing deserved. In my book - to his credit.
Fascinating character Warhol. I'm reading his diaries at the moment. He sweated and worried a lot over the quality of the work he produced and routinely re-did or changed, e.g. portraits, if the client wasn't satisfied. Also concerned about his ranking among other C20 US artists, though most of all he seems to have been concerned about the prices his work fetched.
Sal wrote:
Jimmy wrote:
I'd say that Warhol was wonderfully cynical. Very knowing. He fully understood what he was doing and what the framework was that he was doing it in. I doubt he ever put more effort in that he judged a thing deserved. In my book - to his credit.
Fascinating character Warhol. I'm reading his diaries at the moment. He sweated and worried a lot over the quality of the work he produced and routinely re-did or changed, e.g. portraits, if the client wasn't satisfied. Also concerned about his ranking among other C20 US artists, though most of all he seems to have been concerned about the prices his work fetched.
Always happy to stand corrected... Even though knowing this spoils him a little in my eyes now ! ![]()