The Music Box

[Chris Koziarz]

By the way, googling is cheating.

Maybe a misunderstanding crept between us, because by saying the above you seem to imply that I "cheated" by using google to find the answer to your question. So let's try to clarify. Cheating is defined as applying dishonest techniques to raise someone's mark. E.g. pupils in school "cheat" by copying the classwork from a forbidden book under the desk and presenting the text of the work as their own.

If we agree on the above definition, then by extrapolation, I would be a "cheater" if I used google to find out the song you've been after but boasted that I knew the answer myself, that the answer came from my memory bank rather than from a google search engine. In such case, I should have been classified as "cheater" to you and people herein. And even I could have been cheater to myself, if I wanted to boost my ego by thinking "I know how to use google so I have better memory than all those people who don't use it". But I didn't act nor did I think like that (although I could): the deceiving aspect of the cheating process (emphasised) was missing from my acting. I acted honestly (without cheating) saying I did use google to find out the answer because I had no clue about the possible answer (i.e. my memory banks were completely empty on the subject and I was sure about it). In old days, if I wanted to make an effort to find an answer myself (rather than waiting for others to find it for me), I would have to search through my bookshelf or go to a library to find the relevant book. Today I can use google. The same in principle for me. The difference is only the media (electronic over inet) and time (much faster).

BTW, google found a wrong song for me (although the correct author), so I did the right thing by not bragging about what I have found and subsequently waiting for other answers. Thanks for correcting google on my behalf.

 

[Vince Evert]

Maybe a misunderstanding crept between us, because by saying the above you seem to imply that I "cheated" by using google to find the answer to your question. So let's try to clarify. Cheating is defined as applying dishonest techniques to raise someone's mark. E.g. pupils in school "cheat" by copying the classwork from a forbidden book under the desk and presenting the text of the work as their own.

If we agree on the above definition, then by extrapolation, I would be a "cheater" if I used google to find out the song you've been after but boasted that I knew the answer myself, that the answer came from my memory bank rather than from a google search engine. In such case, I should have been classified as "cheater" to you and people herein. And even I could have been cheater to myself, if I wanted to boost my ego by thinking "I know how to use google so I have better memory than all those people who don't use it". But I didn't act nor did I think like that (although I could): the deceiving aspect of the cheating process (emphasised) was missing from my acting. I acted honestly (without cheating) saying I did use google to find out the answer because I had no clue about the possible answer (i.e. my memory banks were completely empty on the subject and I was sure about it). In old days, if I wanted to make an effort to find an answer myself (rather than waiting for others to find it for me), I would have to search through my bookshelf or go to a library to find the relevant book. Today I can use google. The same in principle for me. The difference is only the media (electronic over inet) and time (much faster).

BTW, google found a wrong song for me (although the correct author), so I did the right thing by not bragging about what I have found and subsequently waiting for other answers. Thanks for correcting google on my behalf.

Hey take it easy...

Her post wasn't just aimed at you, my friend. It was also to myself and other members even though she highlighted your post.

 

[Vince Evert]

It is indeed, Peter Sarstedt.

The song is "Where do you go to, my lovely?"

The verse where the word "racehorse" was found in was:

"Your name is found in high places.
You know the Aga Khan
He bought you a race-horse for Christmas
& you kept it just for fun, for a laugh, a-ha-ha-ha"

Then there's another verse before it goes onto the chorus because this song isn't verse, chorus, verse, chorus like some.

This is it for you to listen to.

Thank you Horsa. Another one i have not heard in a long time. I read a long time ago that the song was about italian goddess Sophia Loren but do not agree with that.

Let's now go to songfacts website (always a fun website to check or read up on facts regarding popular tunes, albums and musicians) in order to find out who the song is really about:

• This song is about a young girl born in poverty in Naples, Italy, who grows up to become a member of the jet-set. Who is this woman Sarstedt was singing about? It's clearly a composite, as no one person fits the description, but the singer had taken up with a Danish dental student named Anita Atke, whom he later married. She may not have worn bespoke outfits by Balmain, but she probably owned some Rolling Stones records.
  
  Sarstedt said the song was about "a generic European girl," but cited Atke as an influence.
• Peter Sarstedt's elder brother Richard had already had a #1 hit in UK, "Well I Ask You" in 1961, when he sang under the name Eden Kane. When Peter Sarstedt reached #1 seven years later, it made them the first brothers to have solo #1s in Britain. In 1976 a third Sarstedt brother, Robin, reached #3 in the UK with his version of Hoagy Carmichael's "My Resistance Is Low," enabling the Sarstedt clan to become the only three brothers in British chart history to rack up separate solo hits.
• Among the personalities this song references is Zizi Jeanmarie, who was a French ballerina who in the 1950s was reckoned to be the best dancer of her generation. It also refers to Aga Khan, a wealthy Islamic leader who married the English fashion model Sarah Croker-Poole in 1969. The names of Marlene Dietrich, Picasso, Sachel Distel and The Rolling Stones are also mentioned.
• This 5-minute song was not originally intended to be a single. Peter comments in 1000 UK #1 Hits by Jon Kutner and Spencer Leigh: "I wanted to write a long, extended piece because I was working in folk clubs and universities, and Al Stewart had something that was half an hour long and Bob Dylan's 'Sad Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands' took a whole side of an album. 'Where Do You Go To My Lovely' was my first attempt at writing something longer than my normal 3 minutes. It was amazingly easy to write, but I knew what I wanted to say. I wanted to say something about this particular person, although it wasn't about anyone specific."
  
  Initially, his record company were not interested in releasing this as a single: Peter Sarstedt comments in the same publication "They said it has no drums, it is too long and there are only three instruments." The label relented and the song topped the UK charts for 6 weeks.
• This won the 1969 Ivor Novello Award for Best Song, together with David Bowie's "Space Oddity."
• 
  
  
• The glamorous international star Sophia Loren, who was bought up in the back streets of Naples, seemed a likely inspiration for this song, but Sarstedt said she wasn't, although "she's in the song in spirit."

https://www.songfacts.com/facts/peter-sarstedt/where-do-you-go-to-my-lovely

 

[Horsa]

Maybe a misunderstanding crept between us, because by saying the above you seem to imply that I "cheated" by using google to find the answer to your question. So let's try to clarify. Cheating is defined as applying dishonest techniques to raise someone's mark. E.g. pupils in school "cheat" by copying the classwork from a forbidden book under the desk and presenting the text of the work as their own.

If we agree on the above definition, then by extrapolation, I would be a "cheater" if I used google to find out the song you've been after but boasted that I knew the answer myself, that the answer came from my memory bank rather than from a google search engine. In such case, I should have been classified as "cheater" to you and people herein. And even I could have been cheater to myself, if I wanted to boost my ego by thinking "I know how to use google so I have better memory than all those people who don't use it". But I didn't act nor did I think like that (although I could): the deceiving aspect of the cheating process (emphasised) was missing from my acting. I acted honestly (without cheating) saying I did use google to find out the answer because I had no clue about the possible answer (i.e. my memory banks were completely empty on the subject and I was sure about it). In old days, if I wanted to make an effort to find an answer myself (rather than waiting for others to find it for me), I would have to search through my bookshelf or go to a library to find the relevant book. Today I can use google. The same in principle for me. The difference is only the media (electronic over inet) and time (much faster).

BTW, google found a wrong song for me (although the correct author), so I did the right thing by not bragging about what I have found and subsequently waiting for other answers. Thanks for correcting google on my behalf.

I know what cheating is. Thank you very much. There is more than 1 definition of cheating. Not playing by the rules of the game is also cheating. We were having fun. I wouldn't have had a problem with you admitting cheating if you hadn't been so smug & patronising & took over. If you didn't mean to come across like that I'm sorry. Haha! Google isn't infallible. In that case my taking offense to what you thought of the song was also unjust though we didn't know that at the time. You're welcome.

 

[Horsa]

@Horsa, you are taking "simple" as an offense in music (and art in general), when absolutely it is not. It is quite common to have masterpieces that are astoundingly simple. But it takes a true artist to get that. For example. my favorite (or one of my favorite) line in English poetry is this one by Coleridge:

"Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.”

(BTW, Iron Maiden recorded one of the all time classics of heavy metal based on this poem.)

It is amazingly simple, but I think it is pure genius. Probably it is not a coincidence that the same guy also composed extremely intricate poems, but still... that is extremely simple.

The same is valid to music. Take Blues, for example. There are a lot of Blues songs that are extremely simple, and yet I find them fantastic (music has the interpretation dimension to it, but still). On the other hand, complexity is not a synonym of quality. There are a lot of jazz pieces which are extremely complex but I actually think that they are some good pieces of sh... Of course that are a lot of cases were complexity and artistic quality go hand in hand, and the result if absolutely fantastic, but this is not a "must have" condition.

So, "simple" alone is not even a judgment of quality, let alone a condescending one. It is just an observation (or at the very least an honest opinion).

O.K. Mrzz. I get that. I just found what Chris said patronising. He appeared to imply that everything he liked was complex while everything I liked was simple which wasn't the truth. For me a simple song would be 1 with no rhyme or story to it or the same words over again like "When the Saints come marching in!". You like the rime of the ancient Mariner then. I don't think that's the simplest poem I can think of. I'd say that was The lamb by William Blake.

I know. A lot of Blues songs are sung to the 12-bar blues guitar music & start with "I woke up this morning & I got the blues.".

 

[Horsa]

Your "unless" clause is true in this case.

It's not how it seemed.

 

[Horsa]

Hey take it easy...

Her post wasn't just aimed at you, my friend. It was also to myself and other members even though she highlighted your post.

My post was aimed at Chris, Vince. There was a reason for it though. I thought he was picking on me although he didn't name-call so I retaliated. He appeared to be taking over, slagging off my music & being patronising to everyone & dictate what they should do. I was trying to have fun & wanted others to have fun too & didn't want a constant slanging match. I know others don't want a constant slanging match either. I'm very sorry for my part in the slanging match.

You were also correct in the fact that the phrase "googling is cheating" was a rule to everyone to keep things fair as well as fun.

 

[Horsa]

Thank you Horsa. Another one i have not heard in a long time. I read a long time ago that the song was about italian goddess Sophia Loren but do not agree with that.

Let's now go to songfacts website (always a fun website to check or read up on facts regarding popular tunes, albums and musicians) in order to find out who the song is really about:

• This song is about a young girl born in poverty in Naples, Italy, who grows up to become a member of the jet-set. Who is this woman Sarstedt was singing about? It's clearly a composite, as no one person fits the description, but the singer had taken up with a Danish dental student named Anita Atke, whom he later married. She may not have worn bespoke outfits by Balmain, but she probably owned some Rolling Stones records.
  
  Sarstedt said the song was about "a generic European girl," but cited Atke as an influence.
• Peter Sarstedt's elder brother Richard had already had a #1 hit in UK, "Well I Ask You" in 1961, when he sang under the name Eden Kane. When Peter Sarstedt reached #1 seven years later, it made them the first brothers to have solo #1s in Britain. In 1976 a third Sarstedt brother, Robin, reached #3 in the UK with his version of Hoagy Carmichael's "My Resistance Is Low," enabling the Sarstedt clan to become the only three brothers in British chart history to rack up separate solo hits.
• Among the personalities this song references is Zizi Jeanmarie, who was a French ballerina who in the 1950s was reckoned to be the best dancer of her generation. It also refers to Aga Khan, a wealthy Islamic leader who married the English fashion model Sarah Croker-Poole in 1969. The names of Marlene Dietrich, Picasso, Sachel Distel and The Rolling Stones are also mentioned.
• This 5-minute song was not originally intended to be a single. Peter comments in 1000 UK #1 Hits by Jon Kutner and Spencer Leigh: "I wanted to write a long, extended piece because I was working in folk clubs and universities, and Al Stewart had something that was half an hour long and Bob Dylan's 'Sad Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands' took a whole side of an album. 'Where Do You Go To My Lovely' was my first attempt at writing something longer than my normal 3 minutes. It was amazingly easy to write, but I knew what I wanted to say. I wanted to say something about this particular person, although it wasn't about anyone specific."
  
  Initially, his record company were not interested in releasing this as a single: Peter Sarstedt comments in the same publication "They said it has no drums, it is too long and there are only three instruments." The label relented and the song topped the UK charts for 6 weeks.
• This won the 1969 Ivor Novello Award for Best Song, together with David Bowie's "Space Oddity."
• 
  
  
• The glamorous international star Sophia Loren, who was bought up in the back streets of Naples, seemed a likely inspiration for this song, but Sarstedt said she wasn't, although "she's in the song in spirit."

https://www.songfacts.com/facts/peter-sarstedt/where-do-you-go-to-my-lovely

You're welcome. Thank you very much for the extra information.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Hey take it easy...

Her post wasn't just aimed at you, my friend. It was also to myself and other members even though she highlighted your post.

Thanks, & no worries: I always take everything easy. In particular, while chatting online, I always concentrate on exchanging information, not emotions. If I made a mistake & used emotionally loaded words, it was unintentional & I again apologise.
If the information I supply is not understood as intended I may attempt to clarify it (as I tried above) but at times it's impossible to clarify because the recipient's perception is different, or unwelcome because the recipient does not like said information. And both appear to be the case herein. I don't take it personally but just practically: in case of persistent misunderstanding among the discussants, the general rule is to stop the discussion. Accordingly, this is my last post on this thread.
I repeat my preamble: no worries: I'm indeed taking it easy. It just does not make sense for me to participate here. "Have fun" without me.

 

[Vince Evert]

Thanks, & no worries: I always take everything easy. In particular, while chatting online, I always concentrate on exchanging information, not emotions. If I made a mistake & used emotionally loaded words, it was unintentional & I again apologise.
If the information I supply is not understood as intended I may attempt to clarify it (as I tried above) but at times it's impossible to clarify because the recipient's perception is different, or unwelcome because the recipient does not like said information. And both appear to be the case herein. I don't take it personally but just practically: in case of persistent misunderstanding among the discussants, the general rule is to stop the discussion. Accordingly, this is my last post on this thread.
I repeat my preamble: no worries: I'm indeed taking it easy. It just does not make sense for me to participate here. "Have fun" without me.

Now look. I'm not exactly an active member here so it follows then, i cannot pass judgment on what has gone wrong or who started what, etc.
But couldn't you just ignore her and her you ? I'm aware that some messageboards have a Foe feature which when in use, blocks out the posts written by the member you wish not to view their posts. Perhaps the admin team should introduce it.

 

[Horsa]

Now look. I'm not exactly an active member here so it follows then, i cannot pass judgment on what has gone wrong or who started what, etc.
But couldn't you just ignore her and her you ? I'm aware that some messageboards have a Foe feature which when in use, blocks out the posts written by the member you wish not to view their posts. Perhaps the admin team should introduce it.

I have no problem with that & I have no problem with Chris most of the time. It's just that sometimes he appears to just single me out for no reason or he gets arrogant & patronising without realising & wonders why people think he's being arrogant & patronising & he doesn't think about what people will say, think or feel if he says this or that & he appears to purposefully mis-read what I have to say. I'm very sorry that you've been a witness to this slanging match when you just want to enjoy yourself.

 

[Vince Evert]

I have no problem with that & I have no problem with Chris most of the time. It's just that sometimes he appears to just single me out for no reason or he gets arrogant & patronising without realising & wonders why people think he's being arrogant & patronising & he doesn't think about what people will say, think or feel if he says this or that & he appears to purposefully mis-read what I have to say. I'm very sorry that you've been a witness to this slanging match when you just want to enjoy yourself.

No problem. Would it help if perhaps this forum had a 'Foe' feature as i have seen on other messageboards?

ON another subject. Have a look at the Nadal 2003 USO video i just posted.
I'm no NADAL fan but was really impressed to see some of the match and the way he was able to adapt his game to cement at such a young age.

 

[Horsa]

Thanks, & no worries: I always take everything easy. In particular, while chatting online, I always concentrate on exchanging information, not emotions. If I made a mistake & used emotionally loaded words, it was unintentional & I again apologise.
If the information I supply is not understood as intended I may attempt to clarify it (as I tried above) but at times it's impossible to clarify because the recipient's perception is different, or unwelcome because the recipient does not like said information. And both appear to be the case herein. I don't take it personally but just practically: in case of persistent misunderstanding among the discussants, the general rule is to stop the discussion. Accordingly, this is my last post on this thread.
I repeat my preamble: no worries: I'm indeed taking it easy. It just does not make sense for me to participate here. "Have fun" without me.

If you considered how what you said would make other people feel you wouldn't have as many misunderstandings. That's why what you say sometimes comes across as aggressive.

I understood what you had to say but had a problem with how you said it. You made it sound as though you were superior to everyone else in places & you sounded patronising. You made it sound as though your opinion was the truth & better than everyone else's & purposefully mis-read a few things I said as well as trying to dictate what everyone should do. I know you purposefully misunderstood what I said because I'm an extremely grandiloquent & articulate lady & you're very far from being stupid so the only reason for you mis-reading what I say is because you wanted to mis-read what I said. You're welcome here like everyone else. You can have fun here too.

 

[Horsa]

No problem. Would it help if perhaps this forum had a 'Foe' feature as i have seen on other messageboards?

ON another subject. Have a look at the Nadal 2003 USO video i just posted.
I'm no NADAL fan but was really impressed to see some of the match and the way he was able to adapt his game to cement at such a young age.

We can put each other on ignore but we normally get on well & have fun & interesting questions except when he gets in this mood.

O.K. We can change subject. I'd rather change to a more appropriate subject for this thread that you will enjoy. Is it true what I heard about the song below inspiring the Beatles?

 

[Vince Evert]

British wise yes it did along with Cliff and the Shadows 'Move it'

 

[Horsa]

British wise yes it did along with Cliff and the Shadows 'Move it'

Thank you very much. I like that Cliff song but it's not my favourite Cliff song.

 

[Vince Evert]

i like this latin beat rendition that opens his television show. It's cool.

 

[Horsa]

i like this latin beat rendition that opens his television show. It's cool.

I agree.

 

[Vince Evert]

Good version of a Bobby Darin tune by Deano and Nancy...

 

[Vince Evert]

Here's my favorite Cliff song which happened to be written by Neil Diamond. It came out as a B side single in 1965.
lol i been considering emailing PETER at 5aa radio and suggest for him to do a radio theme on songs written by, but never recorded by NEIL DIAMOND.