Astrology - What's your sign?

[WelfareQueen]

Astrology and taste in music:

Capricorn - These guys LOVE second-banana acts. Capricorns are the ones that put Blue Oyster Cult on the map and raised Aerosmith from opening act to headliner. It's almost a certainty that Capricorns are responsible for every household in America having a copy of Frampton Comes Alive

I can assure you, that's three artists I would never touch with a ten-foot tonearm. Ever.

Interesting list -- the entries that come closest to me would be Virgo and Aquarius - two signs that are completely absent in my chart. More accurate would be to take the Taurus one (also non-present) and turn it inside out to its opposite; I'm easily bored with the mundane and deliberately seek out the unusual. That leaves the three listed under Capricorn firmly behind.

An observation of my own about Taurus though: it seems to spawn an unusually high number of natural musicians. Stevie Wonder for instance. Jack Bruce. Steve Winwood. Billy Joel. Not to mention, Tchaikowsiy, Prokoviev, Mahler, Sullivan...

Very true about the Taurus folks. A lot of Aries people as well. Eric Clapton, Elton John, Bach, Aretha Franklin, Norah Jones.

 

[Pogo]

Astrology and taste in music:

Capricorn - These guys LOVE second-banana acts. Capricorns are the ones that put Blue Oyster Cult on the map and raised Aerosmith from opening act to headliner. It's almost a certainty that Capricorns are responsible for every household in America having a copy of Frampton Comes Alive

I can assure you, that's three artists I would never touch with a ten-foot tonearm. Ever.

Interesting list -- the entries that come closest to me would be Virgo and Aquarius - two signs that are completely absent in my chart. More accurate would be to take the Taurus one (also non-present) and turn it inside out to its opposite; I'm easily bored with the mundane and deliberately seek out the unusual. That leaves the three listed under Capricorn firmly behind.

An observation of my own about Taurus though: it seems to spawn an unusually high number of natural musicians. Stevie Wonder for instance. Jack Bruce. Steve Winwood. Billy Joel. Not to mention, Tchaikowsiy, Prokoviev, Mahler, Sullivan...

Very true about the Taurus folks. A lot of Aries people as well. Eric Clapton, Elton John, Bach, Aretha Franklin, Norah Jones.

And that's usually, I ween, because they're close enough to Taurus to have significant influence therefrom.

 

[Mr. H.]

Ha! Capricorns top the poll.

 

[Foxfyre]

Astrology and taste in music:

Capricorn - These guys LOVE second-banana acts. Capricorns are the ones that put Blue Oyster Cult on the map and raised Aerosmith from opening act to headliner. It's almost a certainty that Capricorns are responsible for every household in America having a copy of Frampton Comes Alive

I can assure you, that's three artists I would never touch with a ten-foot tonearm. Ever.

Interesting list -- the entries that come closest to me would be Virgo and Aquarius - two signs that are completely absent in my chart. More accurate would be to take the Taurus one (also non-present) and turn it inside out to its opposite; I'm easily bored with the mundane and deliberately seek out the unusual. That leaves the three listed under Capricorn firmly behind.

An observation of my own about Taurus though: it seems to spawn an unusually high number of natural musicians. Stevie Wonder for instance. Jack Bruce. Steve Winwood. Billy Joel. Not to mention, Tchaikowsiy, Prokoviev, Mahler, Sullivan...

But we Virgos can also claim a pretty impressive list of musicians:


Schumann, Clara (13 September 1819)
• Davis, Jimmie (11 September 1899)
• Acuff, Roy (15 September 1903)
• Young, Lester (27 August 1909)
• Monroe, Bill (13 September 1911)
• Cage, John (5 September 1912)
• Wells, Kitty (30 August 1919)
• Parker, Charlie (29 August 1920)
• Williams, Hank (17 September 1923)
• King, B.B. (16 September 1925)
• Coltrane, John (23 September 1926)
• Charles, Ray (23 September 1930)
• Jones, George (12 September 1931)
• Cline, Patsy (8 September 1932)
• Cohen, Leonard (21 September 1934)
• Phillips, John (30 August 1935)
• Holly, Buddy (7 September 1936)
• Redding, Otis (9 September 1941)
• Elliot, Cass (19 September 1941)
• Waters, Roger (6 September 1943)
• White, Barry (12 September 1944)
• Morrison, Van (31 August 1945)
• Simmons, Gene (25 August 1949)
• Springsteen, Bruce (23 September 1949)
• Hynde, Chrissie (7 September 1951)
• Costello, Elvis (25 August 1954)
• Estefan, Gloria (1 September 1957)
• Jackson, Michael (29 August 1958)
• Marsalis, Branford (26 August 1960)
• Yearwood, Trisha (19 September 1964)
• Twain, Shania (28 August 1965)
• Moby (11 September 1965)
• Connick, Harry Jr. (11 September 1967)
• Hill, Faith (21 September 1967)
• Black, Jack (28 August 1969)
• Thalia (26 August 1971)
• Studdard, Ruben (12 September 1978)
• Pink (8 September 1979)
• Knowles, Beyoncé (4 September 1981)
• Hudson, Jennifer (12 September 1981)
• Winehouse, Amy (14 September 1983)
• Lively, Blake (25 August 1987)
• Jonas, Nick (16 September 1992)
• Coleman, Zendaya (1 September 1996)

As well as Pachabel, Haydn, and Bernstein.

And Grandma Moses

 

[Pogo]

Pink? Really?

We could assemble lists of all the signs (and it's already been done) but I meant "natural" musicians, by which I mean those who seem to simply have an inborn musical sense far beyond that of us mere mortals, a character that seems innate.

Such people are not always Taurean of course. But the trait seems to be overrepresented there.

By the way Foxy, your list left out this guy:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alv7N6Ynm1Y"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alv7N6Ynm1Y[/ame]

(New thread on that here)

 

[Foxfyre]

Pink? Really?

We could assemble lists of all the signs (and it's already been done) but I meant "natural" musicians, by which I mean those who seem to simply have an inborn musical sense far beyond that of us mere mortals, a character that seems innate.

Such people are not always Taurean of course. But the trait seems to be overrepresented there.

By the way Foxy, your list left out this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alv7N6Ynm1Y

But. . . .but. . . .but. . . .I bet Taurus can't boast anything close to the musical stylings of Virgo John Cage :

youtube John cage - Bing Videos

 

[Darkwind]

 

[Pogo]

Pink? Really?

We could assemble lists of all the signs (and it's already been done) but I meant "natural" musicians, by which I mean those who seem to simply have an inborn musical sense far beyond that of us mere mortals, a character that seems innate.

Such people are not always Taurean of course. But the trait seems to be overrepresented there.

By the way Foxy, your list left out this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alv7N6Ynm1Y

But. . . .but. . . .but. . . .I bet Taurus can't boast anything close to the musical stylings of Virgo John Cage :

youtube John cage - Bing Videos

John Cage is awesome

My favorite piece of his is "4'33"" -- four minutes and 33 seconds of absolutely nothing, whatever giggling happens in the audience being the content. I saw it performed on toy piano.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4[/ame]

 

[Grandma]

As long as it isn't based on everyday things. Most classical music is escapist.

I'm gonna place a long, long, long distance call to good old Ludwig and see what he thinks about that!!

Peer Gynt, Swan Lake, The Marriage of Figaro, The Four Seasons...

 

[Grandma]

Astrology and taste in music:

Capricorn - These guys LOVE second-banana acts. Capricorns are the ones that put Blue Oyster Cult on the map and raised Aerosmith from opening act to headliner. It's almost a certainty that Capricorns are responsible for every household in America having a copy of Frampton Comes Alive

I can assure you, that's three artists I would never touch with a ten-foot tonearm. Ever.

Interesting list -- the entries that come closest to me would be Virgo and Aquarius - two signs that are completely absent in my chart. More accurate would be to take the Taurus one (also non-present) and turn it inside out to its opposite; I'm easily bored with the mundane and deliberately seek out the unusual. That leaves the three listed under Capricorn firmly behind.

An observation of my own about Taurus though: it seems to spawn an unusually high number of natural musicians. Stevie Wonder for instance. Jack Bruce. Steve Winwood. Billy Joel. Not to mention, Tchaikowsiy, Prokoviev, Mahler, Sullivan...

Well, it doesn't have to be those specific bands I mentioned, there are lots of artists that might be doomed to opening act status if not for a certain fanbase that promotes them.

Lots of musicians born in 1945, too.

 

[Grandma]

Pink? Really?

We could assemble lists of all the signs (and it's already been done) but I meant "natural" musicians, by which I mean those who seem to simply have an inborn musical sense far beyond that of us mere mortals, a character that seems innate.

Such people are not always Taurean of course. But the trait seems to be overrepresented there.

By the way Foxy, your list left out this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alv7N6Ynm1Y

But. . . .but. . . .but. . . .I bet Taurus can't boast anything close to the musical stylings of Virgo John Cage :

youtube John cage - Bing Videos

And let's not forget fellow Virgo Adam Ant!!

Oh, wait...

 

[Pogo]

Astrology and taste in music:

Capricorn - These guys LOVE second-banana acts. Capricorns are the ones that put Blue Oyster Cult on the map and raised Aerosmith from opening act to headliner. It's almost a certainty that Capricorns are responsible for every household in America having a copy of Frampton Comes Alive

I can assure you, that's three artists I would never touch with a ten-foot tonearm. Ever.

Interesting list -- the entries that come closest to me would be Virgo and Aquarius - two signs that are completely absent in my chart. More accurate would be to take the Taurus one (also non-present) and turn it inside out to its opposite; I'm easily bored with the mundane and deliberately seek out the unusual. That leaves the three listed under Capricorn firmly behind.

An observation of my own about Taurus though: it seems to spawn an unusually high number of natural musicians. Stevie Wonder for instance. Jack Bruce. Steve Winwood. Billy Joel. Not to mention, Tchaikowsiy, Prokoviev, Mahler, Sullivan...

Well, it doesn't have to be those specific bands I mentioned, there are lots of artists that might be doomed to opening act status if not for a certain fanbase that promotes them.

Lots of musicians born in 1945, too.

Well, I get that it's three bands in a very narrow genre which I'm not hot on anyway, but regardless of the genre I have to see talent, and I don't see any in these three at all, nor was I aware they were "opening acts", but then everybody who's successful was once an opening act, so that seems a wash.

If the point was maybe supporting an underdog that would be closer; for me I'm automatically repelled by big-splash success; it makes me suspicious and presents a hurdle they have to get over to convince me that they got there on any merit. Would that be closer to the idea?

I don't get the reference to 1945...?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I can assure you, that's three artists I would never touch with a ten-foot tonearm. Ever.

Interesting list -- the entries that come closest to me would be Virgo and Aquarius - two signs that are completely absent in my chart. More accurate would be to take the Taurus one (also non-present) and turn it inside out to its opposite; I'm easily bored with the mundane and deliberately seek out the unusual. That leaves the three listed under Capricorn firmly behind.

An observation of my own about Taurus though: it seems to spawn an unusually high number of natural musicians. Stevie Wonder for instance. Jack Bruce. Steve Winwood. Billy Joel. Not to mention, Tchaikowsiy, Prokoviev, Mahler, Sullivan...

Well, it doesn't have to be those specific bands I mentioned, there are lots of artists that might be doomed to opening act status if not for a certain fanbase that promotes them.

Lots of musicians born in 1945, too.

Well, I get that it's three bands in a very narrow genre which I'm not hot on anyway, but regardless of the genre I have to see talent, and I don't see any in these three at all, nor was I aware they were "opening acts", but then everybody who's successful was once an opening act, so that seems a wash.

If the point was maybe supporting an underdog that would be closer; for me I'm automatically repelled by big-splash success; it makes me suspicious and presents a hurdle they have to get over to convince me that they got there on any merit. Would that be closer to the idea?

I don't get the reference to 1945...?

Actually, you would think it would be 1946, what with all those hard-up soldiers coming home from the war to their loving wives and...

 

[Pogo]

Well, it doesn't have to be those specific bands I mentioned, there are lots of artists that might be doomed to opening act status if not for a certain fanbase that promotes them.

Lots of musicians born in 1945, too.

Well, I get that it's three bands in a very narrow genre which I'm not hot on anyway, but regardless of the genre I have to see talent, and I don't see any in these three at all, nor was I aware they were "opening acts", but then everybody who's successful was once an opening act, so that seems a wash.

If the point was maybe supporting an underdog that would be closer; for me I'm automatically repelled by big-splash success; it makes me suspicious and presents a hurdle they have to get over to convince me that they got there on any merit. Would that be closer to the idea?

I don't get the reference to 1945...?

Actually, you would think it would be 1946, what with all those hard-up soldiers coming home from the war to their loving wives and...

It would be and surely was, but that would make them just a little too young for the Sixties. Mostly.

True story: Eric Clapton (born 1945) was the result of a 16-year-old British girl getting knocked up by a Canadian soldier-musician named Edward Fryer. Yes, Eric Clapton is half Canadian, eh. (more here)

(/offtopic)

 

[Grandma]

I can assure you, that's three artists I would never touch with a ten-foot tonearm. Ever.

Interesting list -- the entries that come closest to me would be Virgo and Aquarius - two signs that are completely absent in my chart. More accurate would be to take the Taurus one (also non-present) and turn it inside out to its opposite; I'm easily bored with the mundane and deliberately seek out the unusual. That leaves the three listed under Capricorn firmly behind.

An observation of my own about Taurus though: it seems to spawn an unusually high number of natural musicians. Stevie Wonder for instance. Jack Bruce. Steve Winwood. Billy Joel. Not to mention, Tchaikowsiy, Prokoviev, Mahler, Sullivan...

Well, it doesn't have to be those specific bands I mentioned, there are lots of artists that might be doomed to opening act status if not for a certain fanbase that promotes them.

Lots of musicians born in 1945, too.

Well, I get that it's three bands in a very narrow genre which I'm not hot on anyway, but regardless of the genre I have to see talent, and I don't see any in these three at all, nor was I aware they were "opening acts", but then everybody who's successful was once an opening act, so that seems a wash.

If the point was maybe supporting an underdog that would be closer; for me I'm automatically repelled by big-splash success; it makes me suspicious and presents a hurdle they have to get over to convince me that they got there on any merit. Would that be closer to the idea?

I don't get the reference to 1945...?

Yeah, that's it, underdog bands, exactly.

The 1945 refers to your "An observation of my own about Taurus though: it seems to spawn an unusually high number of natural musicians" comment. Astrology deals in years as well as months.

 

[Dajjal]

Well, it doesn't have to be those specific bands I mentioned, there are lots of artists that might be doomed to opening act status if not for a certain fanbase that promotes them.

Lots of musicians born in 1945, too.

Well, I get that it's three bands in a very narrow genre which I'm not hot on anyway, but regardless of the genre I have to see talent, and I don't see any in these three at all, nor was I aware they were "opening acts", but then everybody who's successful was once an opening act, so that seems a wash.

If the point was maybe supporting an underdog that would be closer; for me I'm automatically repelled by big-splash success; it makes me suspicious and presents a hurdle they have to get over to convince me that they got there on any merit. Would that be closer to the idea?

I don't get the reference to 1945...?

Actually, you would think it would be 1946, what with all those hard-up soldiers coming home from the war to their loving wives and...

They must have got leave earlier than 1946 because that year there was a baby boom. I know because I was one of them.

 

[pacer]

The baby boom was in the 1950s, was it not?

 

[Dajjal]

The baby boom was in the 1950s, was it not?

Maybe, but 1946 was a boom year too.

 

[Pogo]

Well, it doesn't have to be those specific bands I mentioned, there are lots of artists that might be doomed to opening act status if not for a certain fanbase that promotes them.

Lots of musicians born in 1945, too.

Well, I get that it's three bands in a very narrow genre which I'm not hot on anyway, but regardless of the genre I have to see talent, and I don't see any in these three at all, nor was I aware they were "opening acts", but then everybody who's successful was once an opening act, so that seems a wash.

If the point was maybe supporting an underdog that would be closer; for me I'm automatically repelled by big-splash success; it makes me suspicious and presents a hurdle they have to get over to convince me that they got there on any merit. Would that be closer to the idea?

I don't get the reference to 1945...?

Yeah, that's it, underdog bands, exactly.

The 1945 refers to your "An observation of my own about Taurus though: it seems to spawn an unusually high number of natural musicians" comment. Astrology deals in years as well as months.

OK, I'm missing how "Taurus" translates to "1945"...

 

[Sarah G]

Tax day eclipse of the moon

Last month, we had our first full moon on Valentine's Day since the 1960s.

In mid-April, our full moon will fall on another significant, but much less romantic, day.

The April full moon comes on income tax day - when we have to pay Uncle Sam what we owe, or at least file income tax paperwork if we know what's good for us.

But to make the April 15 full moon more memorable, in a good way, something really cool will happen to the tax day full moon.

Early that morning, the moon will slip into Earth's shadow and remain there for over an hour. It's a total lunar eclipse, the first of two we can see this year. Unlike a solar eclipse, no viewing precautions are needed when looking at an eclipse of the moon.

But seeing the April 15 eclipse will be, ahem, somewhat "taxing." It starts at 2 a.m. on a Tuesday morning and lasts until dawn.

Eclipses of the moon happen when the shadow of Earth falls on the moon. This can happen only at full moon because that's the only time when the sun, Earth and moon are lined up in a straight line. But there isn't a lunar eclipse at every full moon. Most full moons miss Earth's shadow because the orbit of the moon around Earth and Earth's orbit around the sun don't lie in the same plane. They differ by a few degrees.

Backyard Universe: Tax day eclipse of the moon - fayobserver.com: Living