[Iain Churches[_2_]]

I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Does anyone have experience with this kind
of setup?

First thoughts are that with PPP in triode
mode one could probably achieve a DF of 10.

Regards to all
Iain

[John Byrns]

In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

This doesn't seem like a big deal if you are specifying the output
transformer. Is the questioner asking what to do with an existing
amplifier that doesn't include an output transformer with a 2.5 Ohm
secondary configuration option?

Does anyone have experience with this kind
of setup?

No, sorry.

First thoughts are that with PPP in triode
mode one could probably achieve a DF of 10.

I don't understand what SE vs. PP vs. PPP has to do with the DF?
Assuming you are talking about ZNFB amplifiers, I always thought the DF
was determined by the plate resistance of the tubes being used along
with the turns ratio of the output transformer? All other things being
equal I wouldn't think PPP would provide a DF any different than plain
old PP, or even SE for that matter.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 19, 8:59*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article i,
*"Iain Churches" wrote:

I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

This doesn't seem like a big deal if you are specifying the output
transformer. *Is the questioner asking what to do with an existing
amplifier that doesn't include an output transformer with a 2.5 Ohm
secondary configuration option?

Does anyone have experience with this kind
of setup?

No, sorry.

First thoughts are that with PPP in triode
mode one could probably achieve a DF of 10.

I don't understand what SE vs. PP vs. PPP has to do with the DF? *
Assuming you are talking about ZNFB amplifiers, I always thought the DF
was determined by the plate resistance of the tubes being used along
with the turns ratio of the output transformer? *All other things being
equal I wouldn't think PPP would provide a DF any different than plain
old PP, or even SE for that matter.

Well, you might not find a transformer with precisely the PPP primary
ratio to match whatever you would have used for PP. Some of us might
even sacrifice some of the greater power to up the primary to plate
multiple for greater silence. I have a Velleman K4000 PPP amp which
was built for the power, and it is just as well that it has 18W in
Class A, because it is a Jekyll and Hyde affair, very sweet until you
attach (very) insensitive speakers and turn up the wick on a 100W of
PPP power, when it suddenly becomes an anti-social rock'n'roller's
amp.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Phil Allison]

"Iain Cherchus Congenital Criminal Charlatan & Arsehole "


I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Does anyone have experience with this kind
of setup?


** Lotsa old Fender guitar amps had 2 ohm nominal output impedance - to
suit 4 x 8 ohms speakers in parallel.

Nothing needed but an OT with a secondary winding made to suit 2 ohms.

Used to be common domestic stereo amps once, seeing

0 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 ohm labelled terminals.





........ Phil

[West]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...


I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Does anyone have experience with this kind
of setup?

First thoughts are that with PPP in triode
mode one could probably achieve a DF of 10.

Regards to all
Iain


My dearest Iain,

Declaring a speaker 2.5 ohms is both sophomoric and incomplete. In order for
us to help you properly, you need to produce an impedance curve for us at,
oh let's say, 20Hz to 20kHz. Then tell us how many drivers do you have in
the speaker system. Looking forward to your results.

(original) Cordially,
west

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Iain wrote
I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Does anyone have experience with this kind
of setup?


** Lotsa old Fender guitar amps had 2 ohm nominal output impedance - to
suit 4 x 8 ohms speakers in parallel.

Yes. We have such a a guitar amp in the workshop at
the moment. It has very low damping and rolls off at
80Hz and so does not really meet the hi-fi amp criteria.
But it certainly has the great Fender sound.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 8:59 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Well, you might not find a transformer with precisely the PPP primary
ratio to match whatever you would have used for PP. Some of us might
even sacrifice some of the greater power to up the primary to plate
multiple for greater silence.

Indeed:-)
I have built some PPP amps before, and the primary Z was
half that of the PP version.

I have a Velleman K4000 PPP amp which
was built for the power, and it is just as well that it has 18W in
Class A, because it is a Jekyll and Hyde affair, very sweet until you
attach (very) insensitive speakers and turn up the wick on a 100W of
PPP power, when it suddenly becomes an anti-social rock'n'roller's
amp.

So it's not too late for me to be an anti-social rock'n'roller then?
Come to think of it, most of the good ones are about my age:-)

Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

--
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
...


The options are to use a 4 ohm output and accept a gross mismatch,
which may be OK provided the amplifier is not run at full output
continuously in hi-fi service, but will provide limited performance,
or to use a different OPT, or to use a matching transformer or
autoformer in between.

None of the above are acceptable. The OPT would need to
have an additional 2 Ohm output.

Conventional opt's have a tapped 16/8/4 secondary which means only
half the secondary is used for 4 ohm applications in the first place.
Using a four winding series/parallelable output is an aid, of course,
but a purpose designed 2 ohm output is highly preferable.

OK Bret. That's what I had in mind - series/parallel
windings with a 2.5Ohms option. Thanks for the
confirmation. But are there any other considerations?

Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

This doesn't seem like a big deal if you are specifying the output
transformer. Is the questioner asking what to do with an existing
amplifier that doesn't include an output transformer with a 2.5 Ohm
secondary configuration option?

No. I would specify an OPT with windings in series and parallel
to give the additional 2.5 Ohms option.

Does anyone have experience with this kind
of setup?

No, sorry.

First thoughts are that with PPP in triode
mode one could probably achieve a DF of 10.

I don't understand what SE vs. PP vs. PPP has to do with the DF?
Assuming you are talking about ZNFB amplifiers, I always thought the DF
was determined by the plate resistance of the tubes being used along
with the turns ratio of the output transformer? All other things being
equal I wouldn't think PPP would provide a DF any different than plain
old PP, or even SE for that matter.

It will be an amp with 15dB NFB running PPP in triode mode
(I have a working prototype) The PPP OPT has a primary
of half the impedance of PP.

Best regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"West" wrote in message
news:2vmEj.3450$bN3.1502@trnddc03...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...


I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Does anyone have experience with this kind
of setup?

First thoughts are that with PPP in triode
mode one could probably achieve a DF of 10.

Declaring a speaker 2.5 ohms is both sophomoric and incomplete.
us to help you properly, you need to produce an impedance curve for us at,
oh let's say, 20Hz to 20kHz. Then tell us how many drivers do you have in
the speaker system. Looking forward to your results.

You may assume nominal impedance of 2.5 Ohms and
compliance with IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5.


(original) Cordially,
West

Probably not. Duke Ellington used the term
"Cordially" in letters written from the 1950s
onwards. I have such a letter which he wrote
to me in 1965 I liked the term so much that I
started to use it soon after I had met the great
man.

Cordially,
Iain

[Ian Iveson]

Iain Churches wrote:

I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Does anyone have experience with this kind
of setup?

First thoughts are that with PPP in triode
mode one could probably achieve a DF of 10.

Regards to all
Iain

A low turns ratio is one factor important for wide open-loop
bandwidth. Parallel output valves, in one form or another,
using an ungapped OPT to give the high primary inductance
necessary for good bass extension, is one way of maintaining
high fidelity with low impedance speakers. You might be on
the right track. A circlotron would be another candidate.

I've been struggling to isolate the turns ratio in the
formulae for calculating the ratio between the higher and
lower -3dB points given in Menno van der Veen's book "Modern
High End Amplifiers". I could be wrong.

Ian

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote
"Iain Churches" wrote:

I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Well, you might not find a transformer with precisely the PPP primary
ratio to match whatever you would have used for PP. Some of us might
even sacrifice some of the greater power to up the primary to plate
multiple for greater silence.

Indeed:-)
I have built some PPP amps before, and the primary Z was
half that of the PP version.

You've got me there. PPP ? What's the extra P for ?

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote
"Iain Churches" wrote:

I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Well, you might not find a transformer with precisely the PPP primary
ratio to match whatever you would have used for PP. Some of us might
even sacrifice some of the greater power to up the primary to plate
multiple for greater silence.

Indeed:-)
I have built some PPP amps before, and the primary Z was
half that of the PP version.

You've got me there. PPP ? What's the extra P for ?

"Parallel"?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 20, 8:11*am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

I have a Velleman K4000 PPP amp which
was built for the power, and it is just as well that it has 18W in
Class A, because it is a Jekyll and Hyde affair, very sweet until you
attach (very) insensitive speakers and turn up the wick on a 100W of
PPP power, when it suddenly becomes an anti-social rock'n'roller's
amp.

So it's not too late for me to be an anti-social rock'n'roller then?
Come to think of it, most of the good ones are about my age:-)

Regards
Iain

You have too much hair, Iain. You coulda been a rocker when Rod
Stewart didn't need to spend two hours backcombing before he went out
into public. Now the norm is for rockers who are very light on top.
Sorry to cast iced water on your dream, man, but it is too late for
you: you just have too much hair.

Anyway, rock'n'roll's loss is the gain of decent music.

Andre "Esau" Jute
Why do you think I'm into classical music?

PS: Anyone here who even remembers when Elton John had hair?

[John Byrns]

In article
,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

ed 16/8/4 secondary which means only
half the secondary is used for 4 ohm applications in the first place.
Using a four winding series/parallelable output is an aid, of course,
but a purpose designed 2 ohm output is highly preferable.

OK Bret. That's what I had in mind - series/parallel
windings with a 2.5Ohms option. Thanks for the
confirmation. But are there any other considerations?


One consideration with 2 ohm outputs is that the lower voltage,
higher current needed for a given power means more copper is needed,
or I2R losses will be higher.

Are you sure about that Bret? I don't see why more copper would be
required to maintain the same I2R loss with a lower load than with a
higher load?

Consider as a simple example a transformer with two secondary sections,
each section having enough turns to provide a 2 Ohm impedance. The two
sections can be connected in parallel to feed a 2 Ohm load, or in series
to feed an 8 Ohm load. The two sections connected in parallel will have
one quarter of the resistance of the same two sections connected in
parallel. The current when driving the 2 Ohm load is twice what it is
driving the 8 Ohm load, so the I2R loss is the same in both cases. The
same argument can be be expanded to a wider range of impedances by
considering more secondary sections.

Please explain where this argument fails?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Phil Allison]

"John Byrns"

One consideration with 2 ohm outputs is that the lower voltage,
higher current needed for a given power means more copper is needed,
or I2R losses will be higher.

Are you sure about that Bret? I don't see why more copper would be
required to maintain the same I2R loss with a lower load than with a
higher load?

Consider as a simple example a transformer with two secondary sections,
each section having enough turns to provide a 2 Ohm impedance. The two
sections can be connected in parallel to feed a 2 Ohm load, or in series
to feed an 8 Ohm load. The two sections connected in parallel will have
one quarter of the resistance of the same two sections connected in
parallel. The current when driving the 2 Ohm load is twice what it is
driving the 8 Ohm load, so the I2R loss is the same in both cases. The
same argument can be be expanded to a wider range of impedances by
considering more secondary sections.

Please explain where this argument fails?


** Of course it is solid.

The secondary winding on a OT can be wound for just about any impedance load
with NO change in the volume or weight of copper used.

Note how mains transformers of the same VA rating and physical size come
with a large variety of secondary voltage and current ratings.

A simple fact that has escaped the notice of the numerous congenital menata
defectives around here.



........ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Bret Ludwig"


Even for solid state amps, the question does remain, why would one
particularly want to design a 2.5 ohm speaker?


** Because the same person was selling SS amplifiers that were able to
comfortably drive a 2.5 ohms load.

Its a chicken and egg kinda situation.

See:

http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au/produ...ers/apogee.php




........ Phil

[Patrick Turner]

Phil Allison wrote:

"John Byrns"

One consideration with 2 ohm outputs is that the lower voltage,
higher current needed for a given power means more copper is needed,
or I2R losses will be higher.

Are you sure about that Bret? I don't see why more copper would be
required to maintain the same I2R loss with a lower load than with a
higher load?

Consider as a simple example a transformer with two secondary sections,
each section having enough turns to provide a 2 Ohm impedance. The two
sections can be connected in parallel to feed a 2 Ohm load, or in series
to feed an 8 Ohm load. The two sections connected in parallel will have
one quarter of the resistance of the same two sections connected in
parallel. The current when driving the 2 Ohm load is twice what it is
driving the 8 Ohm load, so the I2R loss is the same in both cases. The
same argument can be be expanded to a wider range of impedances by
considering more secondary sections.

Please explain where this argument fails?


** Of course it is solid.

The secondary winding on a OT can be wound for just about any impedance load
with NO change in the volume or weight of copper used.

Note how mains transformers of the same VA rating and physical size come
with a large variety of secondary voltage and current ratings.

Yes, your'e right.

A simple fact that has escaped the notice of the numerous congenital menata
defectives around here.

An OPT rated for 50 watts to suit an SS group of output devices is the
same
size as one for as group of tubes making 50 watts..

There are few free lunches in electronics.

Patrick Turner.



....... Phil

[Patrick Turner]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Bret Ludwig"

Even for solid state amps, the question does remain, why would one
particularly want to design a 2.5 ohm speaker?

** Because the same person was selling SS amplifiers that were able to
comfortably drive a 2.5 ohms load.

Its a chicken and egg kinda situation.

See:

http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au/produ...ers/apogee.php

Rick sells amps ...

http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au/produ...iers/index.php

I don't know which ones are MOST happy with 2.5 ohms.
Minimum amps he does recommend on the speaker page start at about
$1,500.
Rick might explain all when you buy one of his pairs of Apogee speakers
at aud $7,400,
and you find you still have 10 grand available for add ons.

Patrick Turner.

....... Phil

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message


ed 16/8/4 secondary which means only
half the secondary is used for 4 ohm applications in
the first place. Using a four winding
series/parallelable output is an aid, of course, but a
purpose designed 2 ohm output is highly preferable.

OK Bret. That's what I had in mind - series/parallel
windings with a 2.5Ohms option. Thanks for the
confirmation. But are there any other considerations?

Use of a separate tertiary for NFB is highly desireable in such an
amp to avoid a lot of ad-hockery and to float or ground the output as
desired.

Or just scale the RC network.

One consideration with 2 ohm outputs is that the lower
voltage, higher current needed for a given power means
more copper is needed, or I2R losses will be higher.

Common sense. But there will be fewer turns on the secondary, so the copper
content could remain the same.

Also the turns ratio for a given reflected load will be more
extreme, yes.

Namely fewer turns on the secondary.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message


ed 16/8/4 secondary which means only
half the secondary is used for 4 ohm applications in
the first place. Using a four winding
series/parallelable output is an aid, of course, but a
purpose designed 2 ohm output is highly preferable.

OK Bret. That's what I had in mind - series/parallel
windings with a 2.5Ohms option. Thanks for the
confirmation. But are there any other considerations?

Use of a separate tertiary for NFB is highly desireable in such an
amp to avoid a lot of ad-hockery and to float or ground the output as
desired.

Or just scale the RC network.

What exactly does "scaling the RC network" have to do with using a
separate tertiary for NFB?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message


ed 16/8/4 secondary which means only
half the secondary is used for 4 ohm applications in
the first place. Using a four winding
series/parallelable output is an aid, of course, but a
purpose designed 2 ohm output is highly preferable.

OK Bret. That's what I had in mind - series/parallel
windings with a 2.5Ohms option. Thanks for the
confirmation. But are there any other considerations?

Use of a separate tertiary for NFB is highly desireable
in such an amp to avoid a lot of ad-hockery and to
float or ground the output as desired.

Or just scale the RC network.

What exactly does "scaling the RC network" have to do
with using a separate tertiary for NFB?

It means that you may not have to mess with the tertiary, just change some
parts values.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message


ed 16/8/4 secondary which means only
half the secondary is used for 4 ohm applications in
the first place. Using a four winding
series/parallelable output is an aid, of course, but a
purpose designed 2 ohm output is highly preferable.

OK Bret. That's what I had in mind - series/parallel
windings with a 2.5Ohms option. Thanks for the
confirmation. But are there any other considerations?

Use of a separate tertiary for NFB is highly desireable
in such an amp to avoid a lot of ad-hockery and to
float or ground the output as desired.

Or just scale the RC network.

What exactly does "scaling the RC network" have to do
with using a separate tertiary for NFB?

It means that you may not have to mess with the tertiary, just change some
parts values.

You obviously don't understand how a tertiary feedback winding operates
and what its effects are, you have completely missed the point as usual.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 8:11 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

I have a Velleman K4000 PPP amp which
was built for the power, and it is just as well that it has 18W in
Class A, because it is a Jekyll and Hyde affair, very sweet until you
attach (very) insensitive speakers and turn up the wick on a 100W of
PPP power, when it suddenly becomes an anti-social rock'n'roller's
amp.

So it's not too late for me to be an anti-social rock'n'roller then?
Come to think of it, most of the good ones are about my age:-)

Regards
Iain

You have too much hair, Iain. You coulda been a rocker when Rod
Stewart didn't need to spend two hours backcombing before he went out
into public. Now the norm is for rockers who are very light on top.
Sorry to cast iced water on your dream, man, but it is too late for
you: you just have too much hair.

I think you are right. Rock'n'roll, however exciting, should be a
phase through which one passes on the musical journey. The
thought of getting locked into a "three-chord time warp" is not
one that I particularly relish:-)


Perhaps I reached my peak as a rock'n'roller in 1972. I
tagged along when my girlfriend Jane, a cellist, was invited
to a Glam Rock garden party given by Gary Glitter in
wildest Sussex.


Iain

PS: Anyone here who even remembers when Elton John had hair?

Is that within living memory? :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
...

Even for solid state amps, the question does remain, why
would one particularly want to design a 2.5 ohm speaker?
Or is this some kind of exotic dipole or a motor or
shaker load?

Hi Bret.

I would be interested to try to drive something like the
following with a tube amp.


http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au/produ...ers/apogee.php

http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au/produ...rs/jupiter.php


Start out with a ton of money and time to waste.

Add a pathological fear of appropriate technology for the purpose.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
...

Even for solid state amps, the question does remain, why would one
particularly want to design a 2.5 ohm speaker? Or is this some kind of
exotic dipole or a motor or shaker load?

Hi Bret.

I would be interested to try to drive something like the following
with a tube amp.


http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au/produ...ers/apogee.php

http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au/produ...rs/jupiter.php


Best regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote
"Iain Churches" wrote:

I have been asked about using a tube amp with
low impedance speakers (2.5 Ohms)

Well, you might not find a transformer with precisely the PPP primary
ratio to match whatever you would have used for PP. Some of us might
even sacrifice some of the greater power to up the primary to plate
multiple for greater silence.

Indeed:-)
I have built some PPP amps before, and the primary Z was
half that of the PP version.

You've got me there. PPP ? What's the extra P for ?

Parallel. Two parallel pairs per channel.

Iain

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Iain Churches wrote:

I think you are right. Rock'n'roll, however exciting, should be a
phase through which one passes on the musical journey. The
thought of getting locked into a "three-chord time warp" is not
one that I particularly relish:-)


Then despite the physical evidence of my advanced years I must be living
in a time warp because I still love Rock n' Roll. Like any genre, it has
is share of crap, but it is by no means all limited to three chords.


Perhaps I reached my peak as a rock'n'roller in 1972. I
tagged along when my girlfriend Jane, a cellist, was invited
to a Glam Rock garden party given by Gary Glitter in
wildest Sussex.

If you include GG in R&R then you have to include The Who, Yes, AC/DC,
LEd Zed, etc, etc etc.


And that was about the time I started doing R&R demos for local bands
(actually the first was probably in '67) and continued right through to
the 90s. Some were cover bands but the majority were entirely original
material and very good some of it was too.

PS: Anyone here who even remembers when Elton John had hair?

Is that within living memory? :-)


Only just. Remember when he had those dreadful plugs of hair transplanted?

Cheers

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 8:11 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

I have a Velleman K4000 PPP amp which
was built for the power, and it is just as well that it has 18W in
Class A, because it is a Jekyll and Hyde affair, very sweet until you
attach (very) insensitive speakers and turn up the wick on a 100W of
PPP power, when it suddenly becomes an anti-social rock'n'roller's
amp.

So it's not too late for me to be an anti-social rock'n'roller then?
Come to think of it, most of the good ones are about my age:-)

Regards
Iain

You have too much hair, Iain. You coulda been a rocker when Rod
Stewart didn't need to spend two hours backcombing before he went out
into public. Now the norm is for rockers who are very light on top.
Sorry to cast iced water on your dream, man, but it is too late for
you: you just have too much hair.

I think you are right. Rock'n'roll, however exciting, should be a
phase through which one passes on the musical journey. The
thought of getting locked into a "three-chord time warp" is not
one that I particularly relish:-)

Perhaps I reached my peak as a rock'n'roller in 1972. I
tagged along when my girlfriend Jane, a cellist, was invited
to a Glam Rock garden party given by Gary Glitter in
wildest Sussex.

Iain

PS: Anyone here who even remembers when Elton John had hair?

Is that within living memory? :-)

I never really liked much rock and roll.

I was about 29 when I bought a few rock albums, mainly from peer group
pressure.
But I also bought classicals and folk musics in the same week.

Just about all pop starts were people I saw as being paid far too much
to be a right idiot on stage,
and to scream like a tom cat having its balls cut out, and all about
matters of "lerve"
and idiotic emotional situations I avoided.
They did not perform useful work.

Sure I remember what lerve was, kind of a mix of lust and peurile
infatutation,
propelled by the idiocy of youthful perceptions, and it ain't love, and
pop stars never
sang about that. Their divorce rates and fornication rates proved to me
their message could not be anything
except concoction of complete BS.

I thought girls who flopped helplessly when they saw the Beatles had
exactly no brain.

If pop stars had had their dicks and ****s removed, there
would have been no rock and roll.
That would have been fine as far as I was concerned.
But maybe some unexplored genre of "depression music" sort of like
something Liszt might have composed,
but with a drumbeat in it....

So while a whole generation seemed hooked on pop and went to rock
concerts
and spent a heap and ruined their ears, and had zero to show for it all,
I calmly went about work and study, and if girls didn't wanna **** or
talk about something interesting
I went home early from parties, which in fact much kraperama music was
played,
and it suited the people who bull****ted on all night.

The Disco scene, empty as it was, seemed more about dancing, and
I did like that for about 5 years after becoming unmarried; you could
just go to a place and ask
shielas to dance, not have to say too much more, and maybe a few would
****.
Very few could talk about something interesting.
But very often my diary I kept for the late 70s and early 90s shows
I'd go into a disco on a Sat night, Juliana's was a beauty, I'd take a
long hard look around, and if there
wasn't any female suitable for a relationship, ****ing, and perhaps
marriage, I'd just come home.
This was the case often, one could go out and there wasn't anyone worth
spending any time with in a crowd
of 50 people. But some nights wer good, and you'd get dances with 10
different shielas, and
maybe a ****.
Plenty there who were ugly, sluts, married, chain smokers, alcoholics,
drug addicts and all manner of dysfunctionals.
After awhile, you'd get to know the regulars and the scene hangers.
I'd hate to be 30 again. Being 20 could be worse.

At 36 I gave all that up because nobody who wanted real love went to
bars it seemed.
I didn't miss the music I wasn't listening to.
And at 34, my ears caved in to tinnitus from the music and building I
was doing,
and for 3 years I avoided all noise, and when out wore ear plugs.
The ears improved after several years, and have not got worse, but my
tolerance for rock and roll
was only because of the pathway it made to other activities.
A very shaky flaky pathway at that.

I knew pop music was demon alright; it had absolutely no message to
benefit anyone.

After I stopped the nightclubbing I concentrated on push bike racing.
That crowd was far healthier than the people i'd met in bars,
but their main problem was an absense of emotional expression; the
really fast riders seemed pretty
limited people, and all they could do was ride fast.
You'd arrive at a venue for the week's race,
line up and away you'd go, and when its over they all dissapeared home
as fast as possible.
The cycle club was 97% men, and the very few sheilas who rode were all
way too young
or married, and it took several months before I got to know anyone.
But the Disco nightclub scene wasn't much better for socials. The music
was the focus
and the catalyst for socials because it filled in while people couldn't
think of what to say or do about people around them.


Pop music wasn't the pathway to romance, and nor was any other sort of
music I found,
unless one was musically inclined and performed, and one reason why pop
stars perform like idiots is that girls
**** 'em if they do.
So they'd get ****s without romance or love. Pop star dysfunction is
endemic, they suicide
or do drugs, or when they turn 64, they marry one legged shielas who try
to get money
out of them after being horrible wives.
Romance is of course some sort of con job, if you ask me, so when I hear
some count
screaming about it, I turn the radio to another station, or remove
myself from premises.
In the Pankcake parlor I'd stand on a chair and remove wires from the
back of speakers
to get a peaceful chess game.

But I had enough girls, without reliance and expense on music or the
ability to dance.

Very few shielas have any real idea about real music.

But they all know about ****in munny.

Patrick Turner.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:

I think you are right. Rock'n'roll, however exciting, should be a
phase through which one passes on the musical journey. The
thought of getting locked into a "three-chord time warp" is not
one that I particularly relish:-)


Then despite the physical evidence of my advanced years I must be living
in a time warp because I still love Rock n' Roll. Like any genre,

Oh so do I:-) But not to the exclusision of all others.

Perhaps I reached my peak as a rock'n'roller in 1972. I
tagged along when my girlfriend Jane, a cellist, was invited
to a Glam Rock garden party given by Gary Glitter in
wildest Sussex.

If you include GG in R&R then you have to include The Who, Yes, AC/DC, LEd
Zed, etc, etc etc.

Yes of course.


And that was about the time I started doing R&R demos for local bands
(actually the first was probably in '67) and continued right through to
the 90s. Some were cover bands but the majority were entirely original
material and very good some of it was too.

It is amazing how durable the music, (and also the musicians) have
proved to be. I know from talking to young musicians that there
is a great deal of interest in what was happening in the 60s and
70s.

I am glad I was there.

Cheers
Iain