MyHeadlines - Dossier World News

Sources | Newsletters | Top Ten | Search | FAQ

My News

Dossiers

World News | Magazines

Sources:
Spiegel online \| International news

The Economist \| Print edition

Le Monde Diplomatique \| English edition

The New Yorker \| Articles

Time magazine \| World news

Newsweek \| World News

Al-Ahram Weekly

The New York Review of Books

Foreign Policy

Rolling Stone \| Features

Newsletter World News | Magazines

In Thailand, A Little Black Magic Is Politics as Usual
Time magazine | World news 20 03 2010

This Week at War: Is This the Week Mexico Lost the Drug War?
Foreign Policy 20 03 2010

Zakaria: Bibi Is Undermining Israel's Security
Newsweek | World News 20 03 2010

More...

Spiegel online | International news

Picture This: Egg-Static about Easter
19 03 2010

Homosexuality and the Srebrenica Massacre: Dutch Leader Calls US General's Gay Remarks 'Disgraceful'
19 03 2010 Former NATO Commander John J. Sheehan testified on Thursday that Holland's policy allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the country's military contributed to the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. The Dutch Defense Ministry said the comments were 'outrageous and unworthy of a soldier.'

Asteroid Early Warning System: German Satellite to Help Detect Threats to Earth
19 03 2010 With a new satellite project, Germany's space agency is hoping to create an early warning system for potential asteroid strikes against the Earth. An asteroid impact may have contributed to the death of the dinosaurs, and scientists would like to be able to predict the next Earth-bound collosus before it hits.

More...

The Economist | Print edition

The origins of selflessness: Fair play
19 03 2010 It is not so much that cheats don’t prosper, but that prosperity does not cheat FOR the evolutionarily minded, the existence of fairness is a puzzle. What biological advantage accrues to those who behave in a trusting and co-operative way with unrelated individuals? And when those encounters are one-off events with strangers it is even harder to explain why humans do not choose to behave selfishly. The standard answer is that people are born with an innate social psychology that is calibrated to the lives of their ancestors in the small-scale societies of the Palaeolithic. Fairness, in other words, is an evolutionary hangover from a time when most human relationships were with relatives with whom one shared a genetic interest and who it was generally, therefore, pointless to cheat. The problem with this idea is that the concept of fairness varies a lot, depending on which society it happens to come from—something that does not sit well with the idea that it is an evolved psychological tool. Another suggestion, then, is that fairness is a social construct that emerged recently in response to cultural changes such as the development of trade. It may also, some suggest, be bound up with the rise of organised religion. ...

Economics focus: It wasn't us
18 03 2010 Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke still do not believe monetary policy bears any blame for the crisis THE desire to rescue a damaged reputation is a powerful motivator. That is one conclusion to draw from a new 48-page paper written for the Brookings Institution by Alan Greenspan, the 83-year-old former chairman of America’s Federal Reserve. A man once hailed as the world’s outstanding central banker is now routinely blamed for the asset bubble and subsequent collapse. This is Mr Greenspan’s attempt to set the record straight. The crisis, he argues, stemmed from a “classic euphoric bubble” whose roots lay in the sharp global decline in nominal and real long-term interest rates in the early part of the 2000s, which fuelled an unsustainable boom in house prices. Thanks to this euphoria, banks misread the risks embedded in complex new financial instruments. Mr Greenspan reckons the best remedy is to improve the system’s capacity to absorb losses by raising banks’ capital and liquidity ratios and increasing collateral requirements for traded financial products. ...

Colombia's congressional election: All uribistas now
18 03 2010 But which one will succeed the president? ALTHOUGH he is barred by the constitution from seeking a third term in the presidential election in May, Alvaro Uribe’s influence over Colombia will remain great. As votes were slowly tallied in an election for a new Congress on March 14th, it became clear that parties which formed part of his centre-right coalition will retain a clear majority. Who will command these legislators is less so. The vote seemed to strengthen the claims of Juan Manuel Santos, a former defence minister who more than anyone else embodies the continuation of Mr Uribe’s “democratic security” policy. Mr Santos’s U Party (that’s U for Uribe) won 25% of the valid votes, and increased its representation in the 102-seat Senate to 28, from 20. ...

More...

Le Monde Diplomatique | English edition

Integration success story in the Indian Ocean
18 03 2010 Although Reunion may look like an island outgrowth of  Europe in the Indian Ocean, its regional integration  is a means to sustainable co-development In 2008 southwest Indian Ocean countries accounted for only 4.5% of Reunion's imports, but absorbed 20.5% of its exports. Capital exchanges were also limited. In 2005, 80% of so-called “foreign” investment came from metropolitan France and 96% of incoming aircraft passengers in 2006 were European passport holders.
Such poor regional integration is (...)-2010/03/ Open access, 2010/03 - Reunion

‘Yes we can'
18 03 2010 Reunion, in the southwest corner of the Indian Ocean, is a French Overseas Department with particular strengths. A rainbow population of 117,000 makes for a harmonious dialogue between cultures and religions. This, together with a well-established sugar industry, can help the island meet new challenges, including a modernised transport system, renewable energy and extending its regional influence After the Airbus A380 demonstration flight to Reunion in November 2009, one of the three daily (...)-2010/03/ Open access, 2010/03 - Reunion

Creole: lost in translation
18 03 2010 The debate about Creole as a language still fires up teachers and politicians In a recent survey (1), Reunionese parents were asked what languages they thought would be useful to their children for the future. Not surprisingly, French led the way (99%), followed by English (95%), but also Reunion Creole (85%). An overwhelming majority agreed that Creole is part of Reunion culture and should be taught in school. French and Creole are, to different degrees, the main languages of cultural (...)-2010/03/ Open access, 2010/03 - Reunion

More...

The New Yorker | Articles

David Remnick: Obama and Israel.
19 03 2010 For decades, mainstream Israeli politicians have taken pride in their fingertip feel for the subtleties of American life and politics. Israeli diplomats know the meeting halls of the Midwest almost as well as they do the breakfast room at the Regency Hotel. So it has been disturbing to see, during . . .

Andrea K. Scott: The sculpture of Jamie Isenstein, at the Kreps gallery.
15 03 2010 When is a sculpture more than a sculpture? When it’s a performance by Jamie Isenstein. Drop by the young artist’s show, at the Kreps gallery, and you might think, at first glance, that the bright patchwork blob on a pedestal—which sprouts one arm and . . .

Alex Ross: The orchestral Olympics at Carnegie Hall.
15 03 2010 In the space of thirty-one days, from the end of January to the beginning of March, Carnegie Hall held an unofficial orchestral Olympics, presenting thirteen concerts by symphonic ensembles from six states and three foreign countries. Night after night, moving trucks pulled up to Carnegie’s stage door . . .

More...

Time magazine | World news

In Thailand, A Little Black Magic Is Politics as Usual
20 03 2010 Last's weeks blood protests in Bangkok were a rare public revelation of a more covert aspect of the ongoing conflict between the country's political movements -- a war of the supernatural

Sochi: Russian Olympic Scandals, Short Funds, Strike
20 03 2010 The Sochi Winter Olympics are still four years away, but Russia is alreadyencountering a host of obstacles, including worker strikes and environmentalcomplaints

Afghanistan: Karzai's Brother Complicates Kandahar Plans
19 03 2010 Diplomats, analysts and local notables say the Kandahar governor, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is unlikely to be embraced by the population even if NATO clears out the Taliban

More...

Newsweek | World News

Afghan Cops: A $6 Billion Fiasco
20 03 2010 Six billion dollars later, the afghan national police can't begin to do their jobs right—never mind relieve American forces.

Zakaria: Bibi Is Undermining Israel's Security
20 03 2010 The Israeli Prime Minister says his nation's security is his top priority. Too bad he's undermining it.

Why Brazil Should Sanction Iran
20 03 2010 Allies who refuse to sanction Iran must themselves pay a price.

More...

Al-Ahram Weekly

Arab world's leading English-language publication (Cairo, Egypt)

The El-Baradei phenomenon
15 03 2010 The entrance of El-Baradei to the Egyptian political scene gives secular and liberal opposition parties a chance to regain ground from Islamists, writes Abdel-Moneim Said

Holding it together
15 03 2010 In south Sudan, Arab League chief Amr Moussa made a last ditch appeal for continued Sudanese unity, Dina Ezzat reports from Juba

No light ahead
15 03 2010 Israel's rightwing government is not pursuing peace but rather sabotaging it, writes Khaled Amayreh in the West Bank

More...

The New York Review of Books

Art and Traffic
20 03 2010

Richard Dorment

With the opening of an exhibition of nine important old master paintings from Dulwich Picture Gallery at the Frick Gallery this month, New Yorkers are at most a mere cab ride away from seeing major yet relatively little-known paintings by van Dyck and Poussin, Rembrandt, Murillo, Watteau, and Gainsborough. Even if you think you know these artists well, go anyway: these pictures rarely travel and many are atypical of the artist’s work. The Canaletto, for example, is not the usual view of Venice but one of a relatively small number of pictures painted during his English period. It shows the wooden arches of Old Walton Bridge over the Thames (c. 1754) on a thundery summer afternoon only moments before a cloudburst will drench the tiny figures animating the foreground. Similarly, most of us think of Peter Lely as a portrait painter; but in his early Nymphs by a Fountain (c. 1650), included here, his brush describes bare flesh so sensuously that you can see at once why Restoration wantons like Barbara Villiers or Louise de Keroualle wanted to be painted by him. And Bartolomé Esteban Murillo’s The Flower Girl—Spring (c. 1668–70) is neither portraiture nor still life nor genre painting, but a combination of all three. The little street girl is painted life-size and with the surface brilliance usually reserved for portraits of noblewomen. Presented to us without sentimentality, her appeal is to the eyes and not—as so often with Murillo’s urchins—to the heartstrings. What’s been sent to the Frick is only an amuse-bouche to encourage Americans to visit the historic collection at Dulwich the next time they are in London. As at the Frick, the collection isn’t huge and it is displayed in a building that’s human in scale, so getting to know the collections in depth is much easier than it is at lumbering giants like the Met or National Gallery. And as the present show demonstrates, a small exhibition can be every bit as lively and often more rewarding than a blockbuster. The pictures in this show were clearly chosen not only to resonate with the Frick’s holdings, but to supplement them. For instance, the Frick has two wonderful full-length Gainsboroughs, neither of which is as fresh or as intimate as Dulwich’s full-length double portrait of Elizabeth and Mary Linley—the Linely Sisters (1771–72). Believe it or not, there is no Poussin at the Frick and its only Watteau, The Portal at Valenciennes (1709–10), isn’t a fête galante like Les Plaisirs du bal (c 1717) from London. And although the Frick has eight van Dycks they are all portraits, whereas Dulwich has lent a magnificent early subject picture, Samson and Delilah (c 1618–20). The story of how the Dulwich collection came to be formed is almost as remarkable as the pictures in it. In 1790 the Polish King Stanislaw Augustus commissioned the French art dealer Noël Desenfans and his Swiss business partner Sir Francis Bourgeois to put together a collection of pictures he would purchase en bloc to form the nucleus of the National Collection of Poland. Five years later, their work was finished. But before they could deliver the pictures, international politics intervened to kill the sale. When the country formerly known as Poland was partitioned by Russia, Austria and Prussia, Stanislaw Augustus abdicated, leaving the art dealers with stock they couldn’t readily shift in a market already flooded with paintings displaced by the French Revolution. As a result, the collection not only remained more or less intact, but by selling several of the smaller works, they were able to make further important acquisitions. When Bourgeois died in 1811, he left his pictures to Dulwich College, nowadays among the most prestigious day schools for boys in London. He chose Dulwich because it already possessed a small (and distinctly doubtful) picture collection and also because of its location in a leafy village far from the polluted air of central London. To build his gallery, he named the architect Sir John Soane, who came up with a design so innovative that his building is studied by architects even today as a model of how to create ideal viewing conditions for displaying pictures, which are illuminated indirectly with natural light provided by skylights. Any visit to the gallery includes an obligatory peek into the lugubrious mausoleum opposite the entrance where Bourgeois and Desenfans lie side by side in eternal rest, proving that even if you can’t take your art collection with you, at least you don’t have to leave it too far behind.

Dulwich Picture Gallery

Dulwich Picture Gallery is England’s first purpose-built public art gallery and so well worth taking in that it attracted 140,000 visitors last year. Though only four miles from central London, anyone who lives North of the River Thames will tell you that getting there can be an adventure—and not in a good way. For Dulwich Village is in the vast no man’s land across the Thames known as South London. A glance at an A-Z street map shows that the underground system hardly extends into this part of the city. Though it can be reached either by car or by public transportation, your best bet is to take one of the trains to Dulwich Village that run frequently from Victoria station, with a fifteen minute walk to the gallery at the other end. It used to be possible to drive, but nowadays if you took your car you’d be letting yourself in for a nightmare experience. Even when motorists pay the hated congestion charge (which has now been raised from £8 to £10 by the new mayor, Boris Johnson), they still sit for hours in traffic queues caused by never ending road works—a situation exacerbated by the urgent need to replace the Victorian pipes that supply Londoners with their water. For months at a time, major roads are closed arbitrarily. And with no central office to coordinate the work, London’s traffic has descended into chaos. For example, it was recently announced that no fewer than five bridges over the Thames are to be closed to traffic, some for up to a year, which means that soon the whole of South London will be cut off from the rest of the city. It may be an exaggeration to say that these treasures of the Dulwich Picture Gallery will be more accessible to us on East 70th Street than they are when the pictures are hanging back home, but with a mayor as useless as Boris Johnson, you New Yorkers don’t know how lucky you are.

Girls! Girls! Girls!
20 03 2010

Tony Judt

Félix Vallotton

In 1992 I was chairman of the History Department at New York University—where I was also the only unmarried straight male under sixty. A combustible blend: prominently displayed on the board outside my office was the location and phone number of the university’s Sexual Harassment Center. History was a fast-feminizing profession, with a graduate community primed for signs of discrimination—or worse. Physical contact constituted a presumption of malevolent intention; a closed door was proof positive. Shortly after I took office, a second-year graduate student came by. A former professional ballerina interested in Eastern Europe, she had been encouraged to work with me. I was not teaching that semester, so could have advised her to return another time. Instead, I invited her in. After a closed-door discussion of Hungarian economic reforms, I suggested a course of independent study—beginning the following evening at a local restaurant. A few sessions later, in a fit of bravado, I invited her to the premiere of Oleanna—David Mamet’s lame dramatization of sexual harassment on a college campus. How to explain such self-destructive behavior? What delusional universe was mine, to suppose that I alone could pass untouched by the punitive prudery of the hour—that the bell of sexual correctness would not toll for me? I knew my Foucault as well as anyone and was familiar with Firestone, Millett, Brownmiller, Faludi, e tutte quante. To say that the girl had irresistible eyes and that my intentions were…unclear would avail me nothing. My excuse? Please Sir, I’m from the ’60s. The life of an early-’60s adolescent male was curiously confined. We still inhabited our parents’ moral universe. Dating was difficult—no one had cars; our homes were too small for privacy; contraception was available but only if you were willing to confront a disapproving pharmacist. There was a well-founded presumption of innocence and ignorance, for boys and girls alike. Most boys I knew attended single-sex schools and we rarely encountered women. A friend and I paid hard-earned money for Saturday morning dance classes at the Locarno Ballroom in Streatham; but when it came time for the annual social, the girls from Godolphin & Latymer School laughed at us all the same. We cut the experiment short. Even if you got a date, it was like courting your grandmother. Girls in those days came buttressed in an impenetrable Maginot Line of hooks, belts, girdles, nylons, roll-ons, suspenders, slips, and petticoats. Older boys assured me that these were mere erotic impedimenta, easily circumnavigated. I found them terrifying. And I was not alone, as any number of films and novels from that era can illustrate. Back then we all lived on Chesil Beach.

And then, to our surprise, we learned that we were part of the “sexual revolution.” Within a matter of months, a generation of young women abandoned a century of lingerie and adopted the miniskirt with (or without) tights. Few men of my acquaintance born later than 1952 have even heard of—much less encountered—most of the undergarments listed above. The French pop star Antoine sang optimistically of buying contraceptive pills in the Monoprix (approximately France’s K-Mart). At Cambridge, cool and worldly, I helped a friend arrange an abortion for his girl. Everyone was “playing with fire.” Or claiming to. My generation was obsessed with the distinction between theory and practice—I knew a man in California whose doctoral dissertation was devoted to “Theory and Practice in theory and in practice.” Sexually, we lived the contrast. In theory we prided ourselves on being the cutting edge. But in practice we were a conformist cohort: shaped more by our ’50s youth than our ’60s adolescence. A surprising number of us married young—often to our first serious girlfriend. And of that number, many have stayed married. Championing the inalienable right of everyone to do anything, we had scant occasion to do much ourselves. Our predecessors had grown up in the claustrophobic world of Lucky Jim and Look Back in Anger. Constrained by the limits they were taught to respect, they might try to seduce an office junior or a female student but were instinctively rule-bound: they did not expect to live out their fantasies. We, by contrast, had trouble distinguishing our fantasies from everyday life. The solipsism of the ’60s—“make love, not war,” “do your own thing,” “let it all hang out”—certainly destroyed taboos. But it also muffled the conscience: nothing was off-limits. In 1981, shortly after arriving at Oxford, I invited a student and her boyfriend to dinner. My wife and I lived in a country village and by the time the young couple arrived it was snowing hard. They would have to stay overnight. I casually pointed out the tiny guestroom with its double bed and wished them good night. Only much later did it occur to me to wonder whether the pair were sleeping together. When I delicately alluded to the matter a few days later, the young woman patted me on the shoulder: “Don’t worry Tony, we understood. You ’60s types!” Our successors—liberated from old-style constraints—have imposed new restrictions upon themselves. Since the 1970s, Americans assiduously avoid anything that might smack of harassment, even at the risk of forgoing promising friendships and the joys of flirtation. Like men of an earlier decade—though for very different reasons—they are preternaturally wary of missteps. I find this depressing. The Puritans had a sound theological basis for restricting their desires and those of others. But today’s conformists have no such story to tell.

Nevertheless, the anxieties of contemporary sexual relations offer occasional comic relief. When I was Humanities dean at NYU, a promising young professor was accused of improper advances by a graduate student in his department. He had apparently followed her into a supply closet and declared his feelings. Confronted, the professor confessed all, begging me not to tell his wife. My sympathies were divided: the young man had behaved foolishly, but there was no question of intimidation nor had he offered to trade grades for favors. All the same, he was censured. Indeed, his career was ruined—the department later denied him tenure because no women would take his courses. Meanwhile, his “victim” was offered the usual counseling. Some years later, I was called to the Office of the University Lawyer. Would I serve as a witness for the defense in a case against NYU being brought by that same young woman? Note, the lawyer warned me: “she” is really a “he” and is suing the university for failing to take seriously “her” needs as a transvestite. We shall fight the case but must not be thought insensitive. So I appeared in Manhattan Supreme Court to explain the complexities of academic harassment to a bemused jury of plumbers and housewives. The student’s lawyer pressed hard: “Were you not prejudiced against my client because of her transgendered identity preference?” “I don’t see how I could have been,” I replied. “I thought she was a woman—isn’t that what she wanted me to think?” The university won the case. On another occasion, a student complained that I “discriminated” against her because she did not offer sexual favors. When the department ombudswoman—a sensible lady of impeccable radical credentials—investigated, it emerged that the complainant resented not being invited to join my seminar: she assumed that women who took part must be getting (and offering) favorable treatment. I explained that it was because they were smarter. The young woman was flabbergasted: the only form of discrimination she could imagine was sexual. It had never occurred to her that I might just be an elitist.

This story is revealing. When discussing sexually explicit literature—Milan Kundera, to take an obvious case—with European students, I have always found them comfortable debating the topic. Conversely, young Americans of both sexes—usually so forthcoming—fall nervously silent: reluctant to engage the subject lest they transgress boundaries. Yet sex—or, to adopt the term of art, “gender”—is the first thing that comes to mind when they try to explain the behavior of adults in the real world. Here as in so many other arenas, we have taken the ’60s altogether too seriously. Sexuality (or gender) is just as distorting when we fixate upon it as when we deny it. Substituting gender (or “race” or “ethnicity” or “me”) for social class or income category could only have occurred to people for whom politics was a recreational avocation, a projection of self onto the world at large. Why should everything be about “me”? Are my fixations of significance to the Republic? Do my particular needs by definition speak to broader concerns? What on earth does it mean to say that “the personal is political”? If everything is “political,” then nothing is. I am reminded of Gertrude Stein’s Oxford lecture on contemporary literature. “What about the woman question?” someone asked. Stein’s reply should be emblazoned on every college notice board from Boston to Berkeley: “Not everything can be about everything.” The playful mantras of our adolescence have become a way of life for later generations. At least in the ’60s we knew, whatever we said, that sex was about…sex. All the same, what followed is our fault. We—the left, academics, teachers—have abandoned politics to those for whom actual power is far more interesting than its metaphorical implications. Political correctness, gender politics, and above all hypersensitivity to wounded sentiments (as though there were a right not to be offended): this will be our legacy.

Why should I not close my office door or take a student to a play? If I hesitate, have I not internalized the worst sort of communitarian self-censorship—anticipating my own guilt long before I am accused and setting a pusillanimous example for others? Yes: and if only for these reasons I see nothing wrong in my behavior. But were it not for the mandarin self-assurance of my Oxbridge years, I too might lack the courage of my convictions—though I readily concede that the volatile mix of intellectual arrogance and generational exceptionalism can ignite delusions of invulnerability. Indeed, it is just such a sense of boundless entitlement—taken to extremes—that helps explain Bill Clinton’s self-destructive transgressions or Tony Blair’s insistence that he was right to lie his way into a war whose necessity he alone could assess. But note that for all their brazen philandering and posturing, Clinton and Blair—no less than Bush, Gore, Brown, and so many others of my generation—are still married to their first serious date. I cannot claim as much—I was divorced in 1977 and again in 1986—but in other respects the curious ’60s blend of radical attitudes and domestic convention ensnared me too. So how did I elude the harassment police, who surely were on my tail as I surreptitiously dated my bright-eyed ballerina? Reader: I married her. —This post is part of a continuing series of memoirs by Tony Judt.

Slide Show: Houdon's Sensuous Sculpture
20 03 2010 In “The Best Faces of the Enlightenment,” from the April 8 issue of The New York Review, Willibald Sauerländer writes about a new exhibition of the work of Jean-Antoine Houdon, whom he calls “the last and probably greatest French sculptor of the eighteenth century.” In his works—a selection of which can be seen in this slide show—the “panegyric rhetoric of the baroque” and the “flounces and wigs of the rococo” give way to “an unadorned naturalism.” “Jean-Antoine Houdon: Sensuous Sculpture” was organized by the Liebieghaus in Frankfurt, Germany, and is on view at the Musée Fabre in Montpellier, France, until June 27. It includes nineteen works by Houdon (1741–1828); it also includes works by some of his most important contemporaries, including Jean-Baptiste Pigalle, Augustin Pajou, and Jean-Baptiste II Lemoyne.

—Michael Shae

More...

Foreign Policy

Published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

This Week at War: Is This the Week Mexico Lost the Drug War?
20 03 2010 What the four-stars are reading -- a weekly column from Small Wars Journal.

The Marriage Crisis That Wasn't
19 03 2010 Reading a new book about Egypt's overblown "marriage crisis" at the beginning of the 20th century suggests that similar fears today may also be ungrounded.

Lonely Planet Afghanistan
19 03 2010 A trek through the Wakhan corridor.

More...

Rolling Stone | Features

Rolling Stone Magazine comes to life online with music news, videos and photo galleries, the latest movie and music reviews, cover stories and online exclusives.

Review: Jimi Hendrix's "War Heroes"
19 03 2010 Days after Hendrix' death, Eddie Kramer, head engineer at Electric Ladyland Studios, was quoted as saying that there were two albums worth of studio cuts and a live Albert Hall gig that would be released soon. However, "associates" were quoted as saying that there were lots more Hendrix tapes that nobody would hear — "It wouldn't be fair to his memory to release them" was the way the rap went.Nevertheless, this is the fourth posthumous album to be released by Hendrix' label (not to...

Review: Jimi Hendrix's "Rainbow Bridge"
19 03 2010 Ahh, a surprise — more Hendrix in the studio. Of late a lot of inconcert Hendrix has surfaced; the full-side each on the Woodstock sets, the Isle of Wight performance on Columbia's Rock Festivals set, the in-concert movie of Hendrix at Berkeley, as well as an English in-concert film with an accompanying soundtrack LP.But Hendrix on stage and Hendrix in the studio are two animals of pretty divergent cellular structure. His later concerts involved a lot of extended instrumental...

Review: Jimi Hendrix's "Hendrix in the West"
19 03 2010 Scrape, Scrape. That sound you hear is Eddie Kramer, the proprietor of the late Jimi Hendrix's New York recording studio, Electric Ladyland, scraping the bottom of the Hendrix barrel for the second and possibly second-to-last posthumous album of the deceased genius' music, Hendrix In The West. But to talk about bottoms of barrels is meant in no way to deprecate this album or Kramer's work. Jimi Hendrix was to rock what Charlie Parker was to jazz—an energiser, a vitalizer, a musician who...

More...

Latest News
Login: Users | Administrators

© 2008 RISQ Consultancy | Disclaimer
Website by Maarten H.J.van den Berg | Powered by MyHeadlines © 2004 Mike Agar.

Page generation: 2.88 Seconds