So if S&F (king of the royal we**) doesn’t particularly care for the iPod, maybe he’d go for this? ;-)

(Found via Musical Assumptions which had a link (or lonk as I typed first. Hmmm.) to another fun page.)

Of course you’d have to be at that concert hall. Not terribly portable. Which is what iPod is about. I think. (And yeah, it was a while ago, too. So you might have to time travel.)

And yes, S&F is right; I just don’t get too upset if someone else dislikes the iPod. I don’t get upset about a lot, actually. Life is too short.

I was on vacation this past weekend. Normally that’s when the iPod gets pulled out, since I do like to listen to music on the road. But, alas, my iPod was left out in the cold, as our son played his the entire time. We went from Queen to Copland to Smashing Pumpkins to a bit of Sondheim. From Simon & Garfunkel to Johnny Cash to Dylan. No Glass this time, though. Unusual for Jameson, really. (And I find Glass to be good travelin’ music.)

Anyway, I had downloaded some music for the trip (Swingle Singers, Loudon Wainwright III, Will Stratton, Sinéad O’Connor, Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova) just to check them out. Guess I’ll have to actually take the time to listen at home, eh? And yeah, no classical music listed there. I did download some Holmboe, though, along with Anonymous 4 (although those were actually hymns and various tunes), but I didn’t think the other passengers would care for those downloads. And I’m nice about not inflicting my stuff on others. (Or maybe I fear being ridiculed.)

**Oops! I’ve been kindly corrected. Not a “royal we” (RW) but an “editorial we” (EW). What would I do without all of you intelligent folk out there? (Now why don’t you all start making reeds for me too, eh?;-)

2 Comments

  1. “So if S&F (king of the royal we)….”

    That’s “editorial we”, NOT “royal we”.

    They’re not the same, you know.

    ACD

  2. Nope. I didn’t know that. Thanks for the edumacation. :-)