That Funeral March makes a jolly persistent earworm, I must say.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On 20/09/2022 06:17, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> That Funeral March makes a jolly persistent earworm, I must say.
>

And you're a long time dead, so be grateful.

john

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 06:17:10 +0100, Sid Nuncius
<nuncius@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>That Funeral March makes a jolly persistent earworm, I must say.

I dunno: from where I was standing, the Minute Guns made a pretty good
cure for persistent earwax.

Nick

Nick Odell <nick@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 06:17:10 +0100, Sid Nuncius
> <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That Funeral March makes a jolly persistent earworm, I must say.
>
> I dunno: from where I was standing, the Minute Guns made a pretty good
> cure for persistent earwax.
>
> Nick
>

Is that why they didn’t use full-size ones?

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Nick Odell wrote:

>I dunno: from where I was standing, the Minute Guns made a pretty good
>cure for persistent earwax.

How was the whole experience?

I spent the day watching the TV coverage, and they did seem to
have done things pretty well. Some of the crowds looked a bit
dense to get a good view, but some onlookers seemed happy only to
see it through their phones anyway.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 06:17:10 +0100, Sid Nuncius
<nuncius@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>That Funeral March makes a jolly persistent earworm, I must say.

Just to add..

My earworm left over from the Funeral March was something similar but
totally different.

(AIAOU in wondering at the time whether for one of the melodic
changes, they might have snuck this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQmmM_qwG4k
into the mix?)

Nick

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:27:51 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk>
wrote:

>Nick Odell wrote:
>
>>I dunno: from where I was standing, the Minute Guns made a pretty good
>>cure for persistent earwax.
>
>How was the whole experience?
>
>I spent the day watching the TV coverage, and they did seem to
>have done things pretty well. Some of the crowds looked a bit
>dense to get a good view, but some onlookers seemed happy only to
>see it through their phones anyway.
>
Victoria Coach Station was among the many Central London facilities
that were closed for the day so I arrived very early in the morning
to the pop-up coach station at Hillingdon then took the tube to Baker
Street. It was still excruciatingly early when I started scoping out
Hyde Park for good place to wait. I had wanted to find a spot near the
southern perimeter road - preferably opposite my favourite London
concert venue - but I quickly worked out that wouldn't work out for
me. Why? Because there was only one way in and out of that area as far
as I could see: all the other routes were blocked off by security
people and they were checking who went in - presumably to weed out any
dissenters who might have wanted to cause a disturbance. (As far as I
could see, they weeded out most of them pretty successfully.) But the
clincher to my argument to change my plan was the probable nine-hour
wait in the location without a Portaloo.

So I ended up with the masses in wide open spaces north of the
Serpentine, near the bandstand - and the minute guns. I say masses but
that came later. At this time there were probably a couple of thousand
police, stewards and volunteers at work but I may have been one of
only a hundred or so visitors in the so-called Hyde Park Screening
Site. So called because of the giant viewing screens around the
boundary. By eleven o'clock the area was packed full. Not
standing-up-shoulder-to-shoulder full but nowhere-left-to-spread
your-groundsheet full at least. But the big screens did mean that the
funeral service was relayed to us.

Special moments? There were two in particular. The first came as the
congregation in the Abbey rose from their seats at the start of the
service. Simultaneously and without any guidance or prompting, every
person in the park silently did the same. We were not an audience: we
were collectively sharing in our very personal moments and the
emotional experience was so powerful that it is probably the thing I
will remember when I have forgotten the rest. The other came right at
the end. You had to be there to know how cold it was in the park early
in the morning, how grey and dull it was through the day but, after
the service and as the coffin was borne down the steps towards the gun
carriage..

....the Sun came out and the whole area was bathed in warmth and light.

There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
preferably not discussed at all.

Nick

On 21/09/2022 17:12, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:27:51 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Nick Odell wrote:
>>
>>> I dunno: from where I was standing, the Minute Guns made a pretty good
>>> cure for persistent earwax.
>>
>> How was the whole experience?
>>
>> I spent the day watching the TV coverage, and they did seem to
>> have done things pretty well. Some of the crowds looked a bit
>> dense to get a good view, but some onlookers seemed happy only to
>> see it through their phones anyway.
>>
> Victoria Coach Station was among the many Central London facilities
> that were closed for the day so I arrived very early in the morning
> to the pop-up coach station at Hillingdon then took the tube to Baker
> Street. It was still excruciatingly early when I started scoping out
> Hyde Park for good place to wait. I had wanted to find a spot near the
> southern perimeter road - preferably opposite my favourite London
> concert venue - but I quickly worked out that wouldn't work out for
> me. Why? Because there was only one way in and out of that area as far
> as I could see: all the other routes were blocked off by security
> people and they were checking who went in - presumably to weed out any
> dissenters who might have wanted to cause a disturbance. (As far as I
> could see, they weeded out most of them pretty successfully.) But the
> clincher to my argument to change my plan was the probable nine-hour
> wait in the location without a Portaloo.
>
> So I ended up with the masses in wide open spaces north of the
> Serpentine, near the bandstand - and the minute guns. I say masses but
> that came later. At this time there were probably a couple of thousand
> police, stewards and volunteers at work but I may have been one of
> only a hundred or so visitors in the so-called Hyde Park Screening
> Site. So called because of the giant viewing screens around the
> boundary. By eleven o'clock the area was packed full. Not
> standing-up-shoulder-to-shoulder full but nowhere-left-to-spread
> your-groundsheet full at least. But the big screens did mean that the
> funeral service was relayed to us.
>
> Special moments? There were two in particular. The first came as the
> congregation in the Abbey rose from their seats at the start of the
> service. Simultaneously and without any guidance or prompting, every
> person in the park silently did the same. We were not an audience: we
> were collectively sharing in our very personal moments and the
> emotional experience was so powerful that it is probably the thing I
> will remember when I have forgotten the rest.

{{{hugs}}}

The other came right at
> the end. You had to be there to know how cold it was in the park early
> in the morning, how grey and dull it was through the day but, after
> the service and as the coffin was borne down the steps towards the gun
> carriage..
>
> ...the Sun came out and the whole area was bathed in warmth and light.

{{{more}}}

Thanks for sharing. We were on a beach in Liguria....

On 21/09/2022 17:12, Nick Odell wrote:
>
> (AIAOU in wondering at the time whether for one of the melodic
> changes, they might have snuck this...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQmmM_qwG4k
> into the mix?)
>
Great song. Did I ever tell you about the time we met Robert Plant in 2006 ?

We went to Fuerzabruta at the Roundhouse having enjoyed the company's De
La Guarda. We knew a bit what to expect, but what we hadn't realised was
that we'd booked for the first night, so we're mixing in this big open
space with the likes of Jonathan Miller, Helen Mirren, Eddie Izzard &
Ewan McGregor.

After the show we were hanging around having a drink star-spotting and
this guy about our age but with long curly hair was signing autographs
and he looked fairly familiar, so on our way out we asked the papparazzi
if they knew who he was. This young snapper said he didn't know but that
Robert Plant was on the guest list, so as the curly haired guy came out
behind us, the photographer shouted "Robert, over here" and he looked
and smiled so that confirmed it.

As we were all walking up to Chalk Farm tube with him about 50 yds
behind, Rachel (BrratSki's Partner) and NortyDorter went back and asked
if they could have a photograph, which he smilingly acceded to. ND's
very diverse class at Chestnut Grove in Sarf Lunnon
were well impressed as apparently Led Zeppelin are back in favour with
certain elements of yoof today. "Respec' Miss man"...

On 21/09/2022 17:12, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:27:51 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Nick Odell wrote:
>>
<snip perfectly wonderful account>

> Nick

I was in a small hotel in Funchal, sunshine and thunderstorms outside.
Together with a friend I'd met at my goddaughter's wedding that weekend
we watched all of it on my tablet, both of us increasingly moved. The
music was sensational - particularly the Croft and Purcell responses at
the beginning and the glorious MacMillan anthem near the end - and the
trumpets, and the look on Charles's face as God Save the King was sung
(my friend stood up for that, she is very punctilious. So I did too,
feeling very slightly odd). But what really pushed me over was the sight
of the naval ratings pulling (and braking) the gun-carriage, so strong
and beautiful and serious. And such stamina! Actually stamina was the
word for all of them, especially the splendid heralds who marched at
Windsor too. And that extraordinarily constant beat of the drums, like a
heartbeat. And the pipes!

And then we had to get our taxi to the airport so missed the last bit of
the service at Windsor (I saw on catchup the removal of the jewels and
the breaking of the staff on Tuesday morning). We were so glad we'd
watched as much as we could. The world changes.

Kate B

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 18:24:44 +0100, BrritSki
<rtilburyTAKEAWAY@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 21/09/2022 17:12, Nick Odell wrote:
>>
>> (AIAOU in wondering at the time whether for one of the melodic
>> changes, they might have snuck this...
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQmmM_qwG4k
>> into the mix?)
>>
>Great song. Did I ever tell you about the time we met Robert Plant in 2006 ?
>
>We went to Fuerzabruta at the Roundhouse having enjoyed the company's De
>La Guarda. We knew a bit what to expect, but what we hadn't realised was
>that we'd booked for the first night, so we're mixing in this big open
>space with the likes of Jonathan Miller, Helen Mirren, Eddie Izzard &
>Ewan McGregor.
>
We went to Fuerza Bruta in Buenos Aires, years ago when I was agile
and nimble enough to cope with the audience avoidance bits. Great show
but no celebs there that I know of.

>After the show we were hanging around having a drink star-spotting and
>this guy about our age but with long curly hair was signing autographs
>and he looked fairly familiar, so on our way out we asked the papparazzi
>if they knew who he was. This young snapper said he didn't know but that
>Robert Plant was on the guest list, so as the curly haired guy came out
>behind us, the photographer shouted "Robert, over here" and he looked
>and smiled so that confirmed it.
>
>As we were all walking up to Chalk Farm tube with him about 50 yds
>behind, Rachel (BrratSki's Partner) and NortyDorter went back and asked
>if they could have a photograph, which he smilingly acceded to. ND's
>very diverse class at Chestnut Grove in Sarf Lunnon
>were well impressed as apparently Led Zeppelin are back in favour with
>certain elements of yoof today. "Respec' Miss man"...

I've been a fan of Led Zepp since the old days. I've always been into
folk music of sorts and what drew me to them was the way they were
reworking English and Welsh traditional music. I think Robert Plant
has just got better and better - have you seen him in this pairing
which I think is sensational.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVpv1e1YoXQ

They even have a new(ish) album around. (Checks: well, it's only a
year old anyway.)

Nick

On 21/09/2022 20:48, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 18:24:44 +0100, BrritSki
> <rtilburyTAKEAWAY@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21/09/2022 17:12, Nick Odell wrote:
>>>
>>> (AIAOU in wondering at the time whether for one of the melodic
>>> changes, they might have snuck this...
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQmmM_qwG4k
>>> into the mix?)
>>>
>> Great song. Did I ever tell you about the time we met Robert Plant in 2006 ?

<snip excellent Robert Plant story>

> I've been a fan of Led Zepp since the old days. I've always been into
> folk music of sorts and what drew me to them was the way they were
> reworking English and Welsh traditional music. I think Robert Plant
> has just got better and better - have you seen him in this pairing
> which I think is sensational.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVpv1e1YoXQ
>
> They even have a new(ish) album around. (Checks: well, it's only a
> year old anyway.)

<languid wave> to all that. I saw Led Zeppelin at Earls Court in the
mid-70s and will never forget it. (And not just because the ringing in
my ears went on for days.)

The Plant/Krauss album Raising Sand is fantastic, I think, including
this wonderful cover of Killing The Blues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwg2sdRdahM

The new one is good (i.e. their second album certainly isn't rubbish),
but it doesn't do as much for me.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On 21/09/2022 18:24, BrritSki wrote:

> Did I ever tell you about the time we met Robert Plant in 2006 ?

Back in 1977 my father went out to a meeting one evening in what I now
know is the vicinity of Robert Plant's home. When he got home he told us
that after the meeting he and a colleague had adjourned to a local
hostelry for further discussion and had spent the remainder of the
evening in the company of half of Led Zeppelin. I'm not sure whether I
was more surprised that he had heard of Led Zeppelin or had spent an
evening in a pub with two rock stars (and been aware of it).

--
Ric

>
> There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
> the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
> preferably not discussed at all.
>
> Nick

Why was that a low point Nick? Madge would have loved it, and the
archbish spoke well.
Steve

On 23/09/2022 09:12, steve hague wrote:
>
>>
>> There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
>> the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
>> preferably not discussed at all.
>>
>> Nick
>
> Why was that a low point Nick? Madge would have loved it, and the
> archbish spoke well.

The archbish did speak well - especially the bit about those who just
cling onto power being forgotten. It takes some bottle to stand in front
of all those world leaders and give it to them with both barrels the way
he did. I was impressed.

I thought both readings were pretty poor, tbh. Baroness Scotland tried
to give it gravitas but just sounded ponderous, IMO, and the PM got much
of the sense all wrong, epitomised by the last lines she read from John
14:9. She said "He that hath *seen* me hath seen the Father," but
surely the whole sense of that passage is "He that hath seen *me* hath
seen the Father." IMBAM, but I thought her emphases were often just
wrong, losing the real sense of much of what she was reading.

OTOH, I did think it was pleasing that both readings were by women.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 19:09:10 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>The archbish did speak well - especially the bit about those who just
>cling onto power being forgotten. It takes some bottle to stand in front
>of all those world leaders and give it to them with both barrels the way
>he did. I was impressed.

I don't know about the leaders of other parts of the world, who may not
have been able to see him while he spoke. The BBC commentators seemed eager
to point out that his glance to his right while speaking those words, was
directly towards Boris Johnson.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

steve hague <stevehague82@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
>> the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
>> preferably not discussed at all.
>>
>> Nick
>
> Why was that a low point Nick? Madge would have loved it, and the
> archbish spoke well.
> Steve
>
Justin? Oh yes, I agree, succinct and brief.

Is this a good moment to say my ex was (and presumably still is if the
occasion should arise) on first-name terms with the ABofC? He was Dean of
Liverpool Cathedral where ex spent the better part of 30 years as a tenor
in the choir.

lff

--
Linda ff

On 23/09/2022 19:09, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 23/09/2022 09:12, steve hague wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
>>> the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
>>> preferably not discussed at all.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>
>> Why was that a low point Nick? Madge would have loved it, and the
>> archbish spoke well.
>
> The archbish did speak well - especially the bit about those who just
> cling onto power being forgotten. It takes some bottle to stand in front
> of all those world leaders and give it to them with both barrels the way
> he did.  I was impressed.
>
> I thought both readings were pretty poor, tbh.  Baroness Scotland tried
> to give it gravitas but just sounded ponderous, IMO, and the PM got much
> of the sense all wrong, epitomised by the last lines she read from John
> 14:9.  She said "He that hath *seen* me hath seen the Father," but
> surely the whole sense of that passage is "He that hath seen *me* hath
> seen the Father."  IMBAM, but I thought her emphases were often just
> wrong, losing the real sense of much of what she was reading.
>
> OTOH, I did think it was pleasing that both readings were by women.
>
But stap me vitals, why did they have to readeth from the KJV, which
hath not much that is comprehensible to they who speaketh mordernish
English? The tongue it was burdened in waseth archaic even when the
scribes that waxed faithful and in obeisence declared it the Word of the
Lord had it printed.
Steve

On 24/09/2022 11:12, steve hague wrote:
> On 23/09/2022 19:09, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 23/09/2022 09:12, steve hague wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
>>>> the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
>>>> preferably not discussed at all.
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>
>>> Why was that a low point Nick? Madge would have loved it, and the
>>> archbish spoke well.
>>
>> The archbish did speak well - especially the bit about those who just
>> cling onto power being forgotten. It takes some bottle to stand in
>> front of all those world leaders and give it to them with both barrels
>> the way he did.  I was impressed.
>>
>> I thought both readings were pretty poor, tbh.  Baroness Scotland
>> tried to give it gravitas but just sounded ponderous, IMO, and the PM
>> got much of the sense all wrong, epitomised by the last lines she read
>> from John 14:9.  She said "He that hath *seen* me hath seen the
>> Father," but surely the whole sense of that passage is "He that hath
>> seen *me* hath seen the Father."  IMBAM, but I thought her emphases
>> were often just wrong, losing the real sense of much of what she was
>> reading.
>>
>> OTOH, I did think it was pleasing that both readings were by women.
>>
> But stap me vitals, why did they have to readeth from the KJV, which
> hath not much that is comprehensible to they who speaketh mordernish
> English? The tongue it was burdened in waseth archaic even when the
> scribes that waxed faithful and in obeisence declared it the Word of the
> Lord had it printed.
> Steve
>

I expect she stipulated it, and probably for the same reason that my
husband (a year younger than the Queen) also stipulated the KJV and the
Book of Common Prayer for his funeral: they grew up hearing, speaking,
and singing the words - which are beautiful, resonant, and embedded in
English language and literature. They had been taught what the words
meant and had in the course of their long lives read and thought about
the words, using other translations as well as the old familiar one (and
in the case of my husband, rather vocal about the literary shortcomings
of the more demotic translations). Though Ralph was more of a tribal
Anglican and did not have the deep faith that apparently the Queen had,
I am sure they both felt that the old familiar words were the most
comforting, the most beautiful, and also the most moving.

The KJV was composed to be read aloud, and it *is* possible, just as
with Shakespeare, to make the words make sense. I just wish that those
who were pronouncing those words had taken the trouble to work out how
to say them properly.

--
Kate B

On 24/09/2022 11:29, Kate B wrote:
> On 24/09/2022 11:12, steve hague wrote:
>> On 23/09/2022 19:09, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2022 09:12, steve hague wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
>>>>> the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
>>>>> preferably not discussed at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> Why was that a low point Nick? Madge would have loved it, and the
>>>> archbish spoke well.
>>>
>>> The archbish did speak well - especially the bit about those who just
>>> cling onto power being forgotten. It takes some bottle to stand in
>>> front of all those world leaders and give it to them with both
>>> barrels the way he did.  I was impressed.
>>>
>>> I thought both readings were pretty poor, tbh.  Baroness Scotland
>>> tried to give it gravitas but just sounded ponderous, IMO, and the PM
>>> got much of the sense all wrong, epitomised by the last lines she
>>> read from John 14:9.  She said "He that hath *seen* me hath seen the
>>> Father," but surely the whole sense of that passage is "He that hath
>>> seen *me* hath seen the Father."  IMBAM, but I thought her emphases
>>> were often just wrong, losing the real sense of much of what she was
>>> reading.
>>>
>>> OTOH, I did think it was pleasing that both readings were by women.
>>>
>> But stap me vitals, why did they have to readeth from the KJV, which
>> hath not much that is comprehensible to they who speaketh mordernish
>> English? The tongue it was burdened in waseth archaic even when the
>> scribes that waxed faithful and in obeisence declared it the Word of
>> the Lord had it printed.
>> Steve
>>
>
> I expect she stipulated it, and probably for the same reason that my
> husband (a year younger than the Queen) also stipulated the KJV and the
> Book of Common Prayer for his funeral: they grew up hearing, speaking,
> and singing the words - which are beautiful, resonant, and embedded in
> English language and literature. They had been taught what the words
> meant and had in the course of their long lives read and thought about
> the words, using other translations as well as the old familiar one (and
> in the case of my husband, rather vocal about the literary shortcomings
> of the more demotic translations). Though Ralph was more of a tribal
> Anglican and did not have the deep faith that apparently the Queen had,
> I am sure they both felt that the old familiar words were the most
> comforting, the most beautiful, and also the most moving.

<LW>
>
> The KJV was composed to be read aloud, and it *is* possible, just as
> with Shakespeare, to make the words make sense. I just wish that those
> who were pronouncing those words had taken the trouble to work out how
> to say them properly.
>
>

On 24/09/2022 16:14, BrritSki wrote:
> On 24/09/2022 11:29, Kate B wrote:
>> On 24/09/2022 11:12, steve hague wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2022 19:09, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>> On 23/09/2022 09:12, steve hague wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
>>>>>> the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
>>>>>> preferably not discussed at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>
>>>>> Why was that a low point Nick? Madge would have loved it, and the
>>>>> archbish spoke well.
>>>>
>>>> The archbish did speak well - especially the bit about those who
>>>> just cling onto power being forgotten. It takes some bottle to stand
>>>> in front of all those world leaders and give it to them with both
>>>> barrels the way he did.  I was impressed.
>>>>
>>>> I thought both readings were pretty poor, tbh.  Baroness Scotland
>>>> tried to give it gravitas but just sounded ponderous, IMO, and the
>>>> PM got much of the sense all wrong, epitomised by the last lines she
>>>> read from John 14:9.  She said "He that hath *seen* me hath seen the
>>>> Father," but surely the whole sense of that passage is "He that hath
>>>> seen *me* hath seen the Father."  IMBAM, but I thought her emphases
>>>> were often just wrong, losing the real sense of much of what she was
>>>> reading.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, I did think it was pleasing that both readings were by women.
>>>>
>>> But stap me vitals, why did they have to readeth from the KJV, which
>>> hath not much that is comprehensible to they who speaketh mordernish
>>> English? The tongue it was burdened in waseth archaic even when the
>>> scribes that waxed faithful and in obeisence declared it the Word of
>>> the Lord had it printed.
>>
>> I expect she stipulated it, and probably for the same reason that my
>> husband (a year younger than the Queen) also stipulated the KJV and
>> the Book of Common Prayer for his funeral: they grew up hearing,
>> speaking, and singing the words - which are beautiful, resonant, and
>> embedded in English language and literature. They had been taught what
>> the words meant and had in the course of their long lives read and
>> thought about the words, using other translations as well as the old
>> familiar one (and in the case of my husband, rather vocal about the
>> literary shortcomings of the more demotic translations). Though Ralph
>> was more of a tribal Anglican and did not have the deep faith that
>> apparently the Queen had, I am sure they both felt that the old
>> familiar words were the most comforting, the most beautiful, and also
>> the most moving.
>
> <LW>
>>
>> The KJV was composed to be read aloud, and it *is* possible, just as
>> with Shakespeare, to make the words make sense. I just wish that those
>> who were pronouncing those words had taken the trouble to work out how
>> to say them properly.

And a <languid wave> from me, too. Perfectly put, Kate.

I completely accept that many people find a more modern translation far
better for everyday worship and study, but personally, as someone who
has a slightly shaky non-belief, the poetry, mystery and transcendence
of the Authorised Version which I was brought up on resonates and speaks
to me in a way that other versions don't.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:20:06 +0100, Sid Nuncius
<nuncius@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On 24/09/2022 16:14, BrritSki wrote:
>> On 24/09/2022 11:29, Kate B wrote:
>>> On 24/09/2022 11:12, steve hague wrote:
>>>> On 23/09/2022 19:09, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>>> On 23/09/2022 09:12, steve hague wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
>>>>>>> the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
>>>>>>> preferably not discussed at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why was that a low point Nick? Madge would have loved it, and the
>>>>>> archbish spoke well.
>>>>>
>>>>> The archbish did speak well - especially the bit about those who
>>>>> just cling onto power being forgotten. It takes some bottle to stand
>>>>> in front of all those world leaders and give it to them with both
>>>>> barrels the way he did.  I was impressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought both readings were pretty poor, tbh.  Baroness Scotland
>>>>> tried to give it gravitas but just sounded ponderous, IMO, and the
>>>>> PM got much of the sense all wrong, epitomised by the last lines she
>>>>> read from John 14:9.  She said "He that hath *seen* me hath seen the
>>>>> Father," but surely the whole sense of that passage is "He that hath
>>>>> seen *me* hath seen the Father."  IMBAM, but I thought her emphases
>>>>> were often just wrong, losing the real sense of much of what she was
>>>>> reading.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, I did think it was pleasing that both readings were by women.
>>>>>
>>>> But stap me vitals, why did they have to readeth from the KJV, which
>>>> hath not much that is comprehensible to they who speaketh mordernish
>>>> English? The tongue it was burdened in waseth archaic even when the
>>>> scribes that waxed faithful and in obeisence declared it the Word of
>>>> the Lord had it printed.
>>>
>>> I expect she stipulated it, and probably for the same reason that my
>>> husband (a year younger than the Queen) also stipulated the KJV and
>>> the Book of Common Prayer for his funeral: they grew up hearing,
>>> speaking, and singing the words - which are beautiful, resonant, and
>>> embedded in English language and literature. They had been taught what
>>> the words meant and had in the course of their long lives read and
>>> thought about the words, using other translations as well as the old
>>> familiar one (and in the case of my husband, rather vocal about the
>>> literary shortcomings of the more demotic translations). Though Ralph
>>> was more of a tribal Anglican and did not have the deep faith that
>>> apparently the Queen had, I am sure they both felt that the old
>>> familiar words were the most comforting, the most beautiful, and also
>>> the most moving.
>>
>> <LW>
>>>
>>> The KJV was composed to be read aloud, and it *is* possible, just as
>>> with Shakespeare, to make the words make sense. I just wish that those
>>> who were pronouncing those words had taken the trouble to work out how
>>> to say them properly.
>
>And a <languid wave> from me, too. Perfectly put, Kate.

May I add my languidity with yours and Brritski's? Or does that just
sound too filthy?

Nick
<snip>

On 24/09/2022 20:04, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:20:06 +0100, Sid Nuncius
> <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24/09/2022 16:14, BrritSki wrote:
>>> On 24/09/2022 11:29, Kate B wrote:
>>>> On 24/09/2022 11:12, steve hague wrote:
>>>>> On 23/09/2022 19:09, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/09/2022 09:12, steve hague wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was one stand-out low point: the reading of the Gospel during
>>>>>>>> the service. But that should be discussed at another time or
>>>>>>>> preferably not discussed at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why was that a low point Nick? Madge would have loved it, and the
>>>>>>> archbish spoke well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The archbish did speak well - especially the bit about those who
>>>>>> just cling onto power being forgotten. It takes some bottle to stand
>>>>>> in front of all those world leaders and give it to them with both
>>>>>> barrels the way he did.  I was impressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought both readings were pretty poor, tbh.  Baroness Scotland
>>>>>> tried to give it gravitas but just sounded ponderous, IMO, and the
>>>>>> PM got much of the sense all wrong, epitomised by the last lines she
>>>>>> read from John 14:9.  She said "He that hath *seen* me hath seen the
>>>>>> Father," but surely the whole sense of that passage is "He that hath
>>>>>> seen *me* hath seen the Father."  IMBAM, but I thought her emphases
>>>>>> were often just wrong, losing the real sense of much of what she was
>>>>>> reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH, I did think it was pleasing that both readings were by women.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But stap me vitals, why did they have to readeth from the KJV, which
>>>>> hath not much that is comprehensible to they who speaketh mordernish
>>>>> English? The tongue it was burdened in waseth archaic even when the
>>>>> scribes that waxed faithful and in obeisence declared it the Word of
>>>>> the Lord had it printed.
>>>>
>>>> I expect she stipulated it, and probably for the same reason that my
>>>> husband (a year younger than the Queen) also stipulated the KJV and
>>>> the Book of Common Prayer for his funeral: they grew up hearing,
>>>> speaking, and singing the words - which are beautiful, resonant, and
>>>> embedded in English language and literature. They had been taught what
>>>> the words meant and had in the course of their long lives read and
>>>> thought about the words, using other translations as well as the old
>>>> familiar one (and in the case of my husband, rather vocal about the
>>>> literary shortcomings of the more demotic translations). Though Ralph
>>>> was more of a tribal Anglican and did not have the deep faith that
>>>> apparently the Queen had, I am sure they both felt that the old
>>>> familiar words were the most comforting, the most beautiful, and also
>>>> the most moving.
>>>
>>> <LW>
>>>>
>>>> The KJV was composed to be read aloud, and it *is* possible, just as
>>>> with Shakespeare, to make the words make sense. I just wish that those
>>>> who were pronouncing those words had taken the trouble to work out how
>>>> to say them properly.
>>
>> And a <languid wave> from me, too. Perfectly put, Kate.
>
> May I add my languidity with yours and Brritski's? Or does that just
> sound too filthy?
>
We'll get a bigger bed....

>>
>> <LW>
>>>
>>> The KJV was composed to be read aloud, and it *is* possible, just as
>>> with Shakespeare, to make the words make sense. I just wish that
>>> those who were pronouncing those words had taken the trouble to work
>>> out how to say them properly.
>
> And a <languid wave> from me, too.  Perfectly put, Kate.
>
> I completely accept that many people find a more modern translation far
> better for everyday worship and study, but personally, as someone who
> has a slightly shaky non-belief, the poetry, mystery and transcendence
> of the Authorised Version which I was brought up on resonates and speaks
> to me in a way that other versions don't.
>
There's the difference. I wasn't brought up with the KJV, or indeed any
other version, I didn't have a bible until I was 37, and it was the NASB
translation. Maybe not so poetic as the KJV, but a good deal easier to
understand.

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 08:56:33 +0100, steve hague
<stevehague82@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>>
>>> <LW>
>>>>
>>>> The KJV was composed to be read aloud, and it *is* possible, just as
>>>> with Shakespeare, to make the words make sense. I just wish that
>>>> those who were pronouncing those words had taken the trouble to work
>>>> out how to say them properly.
>>
>> And a <languid wave> from me, too.  Perfectly put, Kate.
>>
>> I completely accept that many people find a more modern translation far
>> better for everyday worship and study, but personally, as someone who
>> has a slightly shaky non-belief, the poetry, mystery and transcendence
>> of the Authorised Version which I was brought up on resonates and speaks
>> to me in a way that other versions don't.
>>
>There's the difference. I wasn't brought up with the KJV, or indeed any
>other version, I didn't have a bible until I was 37, and it was the NASB
>translation. Maybe not so poetic as the KJV, but a good deal easier to
>understand.

In much the same way as I will read several different newspapers to
get the full sense of a news story, I find that reading from several
different translations of the Bible may sometimes really draw out the
meaning within. I'm not so much talking about paraphrase versions -
yes, I do have a copy of Good News, Australia and I suppose it's a
fair dinkum bash at blabbing the gossies - but translations from the
original manuscripts which will have been freshly made at different
times throughout the ages. Not only do I find that the language
changes subtly over the years but the history and philosophy of the
times affect the way those translators chose their words. Modern
translations are no more immune from this effect than ancient ones.

I suppose all this stuff is available on-line nowadays for those who
want to make comparisons but I much prefer leafing through pages in
actual volumes. Besides I'm not sure how on-line services would cope
with the many internal cross-references you often find in different
editions.

Nick