Joni Mitchell in '65-'66 on the CBC

July 24, 2006 7:44 PM

Joanie Anderson, singer/songwriter (YouTube)
posted by persona non grata (64 comments total)

Oh, wow. "Favourite Colour" is a bit... Well, gosh, she was so young, and don't our first artistic attempts make us wince later on?

But, damn. Wasn't she beautiful?
posted by Savannah at 7:49 PM on July 24, 2006

...oh, I've always loved "Urge For Going", and never understood why it wasn't on an album. (I had to learn of it from a Mary Black cover, I think I remember.)
posted by Savannah at 8:00 PM on July 24, 2006

Yes she was, Savannah, and she only got better. She's one of the best IMHO.
posted by persona non grata at 8:12 PM on July 24, 2006

What is the point of this, png? I mean, we all know what youtube is. We can all go there and punch in our favorite artist's names, no? How is this any different from me FPP'ing this? (I mean, I really like his music!)

Can you please tell us what other bands you like so we can head this trend off at the pass? Dead? Check. Mitchell? Check. Who's next? We can save you the trouble and do the work ourselves.
posted by dobbs at 8:19 PM on July 24, 2006

Sorry for offending you, dobbs. I will try to do better in the future.
posted by persona non grata at 8:25 PM on July 24, 2006

Wow, Almost didn't check out this post, didn't know who that was. glad I looked. Thanks persona non grata.

Didn't know she was born Roberta Joan Anderson.

Such a pure voice. Her special voice. Gee, Favourite Colour and the 1965 songs were corny. The audience sitting on the floor too. She was so young! 22 in 1965 but something old soul about her then, even at that age, something aloof and quietly melancholic.

Strange stage set up with all the guys staring at her on the sidelines. A year later, her Blue on Blue is already avant garde and poetic, she came into her own. The host, Oscar Brand, looks like he was in love with her. aww.

Her first paid performance was in 1962, at 19.

That weird looking guy in the Urge For Going vid looked psycho and a bizarre backgrop to her floating voice. I had no idea Night in the City was 1966. wow. She found her signature style so early.
posted by nickyskye at 8:27 PM on July 24, 2006

thank you for this. i have a friend in Birmingham, England who will be yelping for joy when he wakes up to this in the morning...
posted by Jikido at 8:27 PM on July 24, 2006

What is the point of this, png?

these are rarely seen videos of a performer before she got well-known, not something you've seen on mtv a hundred times

interestingly enough, it also seems to be a good way of discovering frothing idiots, but i'm sure png didn't realize that

Well, gosh, she was so young, and don't our first artistic attempts make us wince later on?

it is pretty twee, but ... the guitar playing and the singing is already there ... i also watched urge for going and i got the impression that a couple of those guys were playing real close attention to her fingers
posted by pyramid termite at 8:35 PM on July 24, 2006

PS, Pay that meany no mind persona non grata. What is your problem dobbs? Why are you coming to this thread to shit on it?

New things are posted to YouTube all the time and it's wonderful when discoveries are made, like these ancient videos. I never would have found these and I adore Joni Mitchell. There's ton's of stuff in YouTube that's impossible to find or simply not know is there.

Your saying why point at a YouTube video and bring it to a thread for a discussion is like saying why bring a book, a movie, a webpage to anyone's attention? All they have to do is go to Google, go to the Library, movies, whatever and enjoy it in silence, alone. Go throw your hissy fit elsewhere.

The point is bringing discoveries of all kinds to MetaFilter and enjoying discussion, sharing, dialogue, mutual enjoyment. Great FPP png.
posted by nickyskye at 8:45 PM on July 24, 2006

youtube shit is tiresome
posted by xmutex at 8:45 PM on July 24, 2006

Yeah, but at least the '65 clips are in sync.
posted by persona non grata at 8:49 PM on July 24, 2006

I'm with dobbs, this post is lazy and weak.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:11 PM on July 24, 2006

Checklist:
- pictures of famous people when they are young: A-okay
- video of same: weak-ass bullshit

I get the feeling that, 14 years ago, you fuckers would have been sitting around in USENET bitching about those lazy, weak "world wide web" links. Christ.
posted by cortex at 9:20 PM on July 24, 2006

cortex, Good point.

YouTube is not tiresome and this FPP was just fine, concise. (dobbs not only just made a weak FPP, had to ask for admin help for botching it but he didn't even know what the subject of the video clips he posted were!)
posted by nickyskye at 9:25 PM on July 24, 2006

What a bizzare song. "Some are black as sightless night, some are white as [something]". "We mix up all these colors and get my favorite color, love?"

Crazy.
posted by delmoi at 9:26 PM on July 24, 2006

delmoi, Yeah, that was weird. Didn't much like the 1965 lyrics but it was interesting to see the history of her songs. Black as sightlessness, white as eiderdown. LOL I got a good cringe out of that. Much better in 1966, amazing what can happen in a year.
posted by nickyskye at 9:43 PM on July 24, 2006

cortex, I'm not complaining about vids of Joni Mitchell. I'm complaining that the results of a youtube search are now an acceptable FPP.
posted by dobbs at 9:45 PM on July 24, 2006

I thought she sang "sightlessness," not sightless night. The second word was "eiderdown"--an interesting choice. It was twee, but it's clear that her talent for composing interesting conceits that span entire songs was already in place; even if this one was unsuccessful and couched in vague terms, the structure was still there.
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 9:51 PM on July 24, 2006

Whoops, forgot to preview. Also, hear my whoa--does that wikipedia link say she started smoking at the age of nine?
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 9:58 PM on July 24, 2006

Powerful Religious Baby, Dang, You're right. 9. Yikes.

dobbs, What is your problem with using a search engine? YouTube, Google or whatever? What the hell does it matter what search engine one uses to find something? And who's to say png used a search engine? Not that it matters. I've found YouTube videos on blogs of all kinds.

Why don't you take your gripe up on MeTa and get your negative mindset raked over the coals there?
posted by nickyskye at 10:05 PM on July 24, 2006

cortex, I'm not complaining about vids of Joni Mitchell. I'm complaining that the results of a youtube search are now an acceptable FPP.

Yes, but if you do not object to the thing which was yielded by the search string, complaing about the fact that it was found by searching is bordering on insane.

As much as I admire the notion of posts which link only to sites found by typing in urls at random, I reckon that those represent an exceedingly small allotment of Mefi's posting history. The rest were posted by folks who used a variety of crutches—blogs, indexes, emails, even search engines—to locate the pages in question.

If you're angry at YouTube for making an old Joni Mitchell video easily available to someone with the notion of looking for it, you need to examine your motivations.
posted by cortex at 10:35 PM on July 24, 2006

Wow. Just lost the last couple of hours. The Joni vids led to Tom Waits and now it's late.
posted by eperker at 11:12 PM on July 24, 2006

typing in urls at random

Thanks for the bellylaugh.
posted by nickyskye at 11:55 PM on July 24, 2006

Generally, youtubefilter blows, but I love Joni Mitchell and old Canadian TV, and the combination is great.
posted by pracowity at 12:23 AM on July 25, 2006

Fantastic. While I don't wish to gloss over her music, my Lord, Ms. Mitchell is one spectacularly pretty lady.

And, yeah - dobbs, bitching about this post when you just posted two videos of Kate Moss in a wind tunnel is a bit rich (not that I didn't enjoy those videos too).

Also, hear my whoa--does that wikipedia link say she started smoking at the age of nine?

That's not unusual for those times, if my dad, aunts and uncles are anything to go by.
posted by jack_mo at 2:51 AM on July 25, 2006

Thanks, that was remarkable. (My first thought at the end of "Favorite Colour": "Oh no... 'my favorite color, love'... [stick finger down throat]." My second, as the camera panned the audience: "My, look at all those white people!")

So, dobbs, let me get this straight: if png had had nine separate links, to the actual videos, that would have been OK, but linking to a page from which we can get to them all (and where we can see what we're getting), that's vile and unworthy of MeFi? Whatever.
posted by languagehat at 6:57 AM on July 25, 2006

Hah, look at the host's face when she sings (in "Me and My Uncle") "It bein' summer, I took off my shirt." Tee hee! Boobies!
posted by UKnowForKids at 7:35 AM on July 25, 2006

"YouTube is not tiresome"

But it is. Nyah.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:55 AM on July 25, 2006

cortex, you're willfully missing dobbs' point. He's hating on the post because of it's terribly lame construction. png made this post by searching for joni cbc on YouTube, and linking to the results, with nothing contextualizing it -- no simple sentence or two of explanation, or links to such. Lame

Would it be okay if I made this google search and then made an FPP like:

Best of the Web Today? (Google)

Shit would fly, and my example of a terrible FPP doesn't just link to search results! A more analogous one would be:

Best of the Web (Google)

And that is shit.
posted by blasdelf at 8:39 AM on July 25, 2006

I'm in love with Joanie Anderson.
posted by wsg at 8:49 AM on July 25, 2006

No, I'm not willfully missing his point. I'm disagreeing with it. I don't buy the conflation of the results of the search with the fact that we're looking at what happens to be a search results interface.

If the results of the search are cool and interesting—which a lot of folks in this thread seem to believe—then it is good content and a good link.

I don't think posts should as a rule consists of search results pages, but I don't think complaining about an instance here or there makes any fucking sense when the content presented in that form is good.

The YouTube search in this case produces an intentionally specific collection of content that was interesting to people. To reiterate someone else's question: would a collection of individual links to the videos brought up by the search somehow made that content better? If so, why? If not, why the smacktalk?
posted by cortex at 9:17 AM on July 25, 2006

png made this post by searching for joni cbc on YouTube, and linking to the results, with nothing contextualizing it -- no simple sentence or two of explanation, or links to such.

So the post would have been okay if it had included two sentences of context? Somehow I think that even then someone would have had a problem with it being a youtube link. Point is, youtube is such a big deal now that stuff from it is hard to ignore.

Should mefi be a youtube-free zone? If so, what else should be disallowed? New York Times links? Games links? Fark-like links? Snark? Where does the slicing and dicing end?
posted by blucevalo at 9:19 AM on July 25, 2006

(Or, to put it another way: if one searches for things and posts every single search result page they come across, that's lazy bullshit. If one search for things and every once and a while is really taken by the results of some specific search and posts that, it's another thing entirely. Selective presentation of information is good; freaking out about the fact that a search results page is involved independent of the content presented thereby is not so good.)
posted by cortex at 9:20 AM on July 25, 2006

cortex, Nicely said.

But it is. Nyah.

From YouTube videos posted in MF recently: the sculptor Calder's circus, Japanese animation from the 1930's and 40's, interviews with recently deceased rockstars who changed history, amazing videos about remote control airplane tricks, incredible gymnasts, landing on the moon broadcast, silly science experiments and wonderful music...guess I -and others- get a lot of fun, education and enjoyment out of YouTube videos and you don't. Nyah.
posted by nickyskye at 9:44 AM on July 25, 2006

UKnowForKids, Oscar's eyebrows! LOL!
posted by nickyskye at 9:47 AM on July 25, 2006

cortex, I hardly freaked out. Nor was I "frothing", as pyramid stated. Nor did I call anyone in the thread an "idiot" or any other name.

I find posting links to search results ridiculous if only for the reason that they're dynamic and will change over time. Perhaps there won't be that many more vids added to youtube which meet the search criteria and do not match the OP's intention, but it is possible, and becomes more likely for other posts if FPPing solely to search results is deemed okay. I really don't think that's that hard to understand and that pointing it out makes me a "meanie" who is shitting in the thread (unlike pyramid and nicky who intentionally went to other threads and posted off topic bullshit there (and cross posted here)).

In addition, Nicky, your remark that I didn't know the subject of my own FPP is a odd considering I linked to his web site and his name's in both my links and fashion was one of my tags before you appeared to "help me out". I said I didn't understand the video (ie, its purpose; why he's using the technique at a fashion show); nor do I care as they're nice to watch without that knowledge. And your implication that I'm inept at posting because there was an error in that post is a little childish considering I've made 118 other FPPs without issue, don't you think.

And, just to be thorough, I have no problem with context-less FPPs or single-link posts and make them all the time myself. I just don't make them to search results pages or pages with dynamic content (unless the dc is the purpose of the page). Carry on.
posted by dobbs at 10:50 AM on July 25, 2006

cortex, I hardly freaked out.

Fair enough. Hyperbole on my part. Your first comment in the thread is unnecessarily assholish, though—as reasonable an argument as the dynamic nature of a search page might be, my gut says that there won't be a major influx of new Joni Mitchell / CBC footage any time soon, so it doesn't really apply to this instance. Distaste for the possible ramifications of an idea shouldn't be an excuse to act poorly to people benignly exploring that idea.

So point taken; I think at this point I hear and mostly agree with what you're saying, but I disagree with the applicability to this actual thread and think you came on too strong with your initial comment. I apologize for being so stubborn on my end of it.
posted by cortex at 10:59 AM on July 25, 2006

unlike pyramid and nicky who intentionally went to other threads and posted off topic bullshit there

your comments on this thread have ALL been off-topic bullshit ... take it to meta next time

my post in your thread was much more restrained than what you've done here - a complete derail
posted by pyramid termite at 11:31 AM on July 25, 2006

Jesus, it's the internet people--wear a helmet. You have every right to link to youtube of your favorite artists. I've done it. But I don't expect some little halo to descend and protect me from people who have different tastes.

Having said that, Joni Mitchell is an over-rated twat that inspired a few decades of female singer-songwriters who thought that being neurotic was a sufficient replacement for having actual talent.
posted by bardic at 11:50 AM on July 25, 2006

Bardic, sometime I'll have to hear your podcast on how Miles Davis was another self-important elevator operator manqué who paved the way for smooth jazz.

Great post. I'm a Joni fanatic, and these videos are incredibly rare. Or were until now.
posted by digaman at 12:17 PM on July 25, 2006

Why would I say that about Miles? Miles was incredibly talented until the cocaine took over.

Thinking that Joni Mitchell and Miles Davis are even remotely close to being on the same esthetic plane? Now that's some fucked up shit right there.

Come to think of it--I've never youtubed for Miles.
posted by bardic at 12:22 PM on July 25, 2006

It's OK bardic. I'm sure all those heavyweight jazz dudes who recorded with or wrote for Joni -- Charles Mingus, Wayne Shorter, Jaco Pastorius, Herbie Hancock, Pat Matheny, and Larry Carlton among them -- were in it for the chance at some face-time with Joni's neurotic twat. But to each his own.
posted by digaman at 12:28 PM on July 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

But to each his own.

Exactly.
posted by bardic at 12:33 PM on July 25, 2006

Nice retort digaman! Well said!

bardic, Miles was an innovator but, if you're going to criticize a musician for their private life, he was a violent bastard as well as a hard druggie.

dobbs, You are a funny bird. Today I find you added yourself to my MeFi contacts, saying dobbs (met sweetheart).

Neither "met" nor "sweetheart" is true. Guess you did that to be aggravating as well. Or you're doing some kind of stalking thing, lol. It's a little worrisome.

nicky who intentionally went to other threads and posted off topic bullshit there.

Not true.

I find posting links to search results ridiculous if only for the reason that they're dynamic and will change over time.

Oh pulease, so you came to this thread as a sort of archival policeman trying to maintain the integrity of links for posterity? What a crock! LOL

The entire web is in flux. Links can 404 for any number of reasons, sites disappear. So you are saying there should be nposting links as FPPs to any site which may change??! Really, you need to confer with Matt about that.

You came here with ill will, derailing, saying nothing constructive, nor related and your back-pedalling or attempts at covering it up is making no sense.

In addition, Nicky, your remark that I didn't know the subject of my own FPP is a odd considering I linked to his web site and his name's in both my links and fashion was one of my tags before you appeared to "help me out". I said I didn't understand the video (ie, its purpose; why he's using the technique at a fashion show);

Also untrue. When I posted supportive information about your 2 links, all that was on the front page were the four letters, asdf. As tellurian noted. No tags. No info. Nothing about the designer, the model, where the links came from, nothing.

You came to this thread as a total derail, just spewing negativity. All this should have been in MetaTalk.
posted by nickyskye at 3:15 PM on July 25, 2006

The entire web is in flux. Links can 404 for any number of reasons, sites disappear. So you are saying there should be nposting links as FPPs to any site which may change??! Really, you need to confer with Matt about that.

That's overstating it a bit. The varying fragility of different links is a known issue:

- geocities-type pages die quick deaths
- embarassing flickr photos get deleted or made private
- links to the front page of blogs and news sites are useless after the relevant Top Story is replaced
- links to funny/wacky search engine results expire rapidly

And so on. The fundamental concern dobbs raised is valid, even if this is not (in my opinion) a very good example of it.

Yes, any webpage could disappear, and the older parts of the mefi archives certainly bear that out in 404s and redirects. But being mindful of anything more fragile than baseline is a good thing; that's why we see coral/google caches of geocities sites, imageshack mirrors of flickr faux pas, links to blog/news permalinks, etc. Insofar as that's the principle dobbs seems to have been arguing, you're being a bit absurd.
posted by cortex at 3:29 PM on July 25, 2006

cortex, dobbs changed his story. First his heap of negativity.

1. What is the point of this, png?

2. I mean, we all know what youtube is. We can all go there and punch in our favorite artist's names, no?

3. How is this any different from me FPP'ing this? (I mean, I really like his music!) (link to Google "why?elephant eyelash")

4. Can you please tell us what other bands you like so we can head this trend off at the pass? Dead? Check. Mitchell? Check. Who's next?

5.We can save you the trouble and do the work ourselves.

Then, when those points were shot down he came up with the search results can change reason.

If that is, in fact, his sincere concern, rather than just finding an excuse to be negative in this thread, it's for MetaTalk.

If Matt has a qualm about posting FPPs because a link may be "fragile" then let it be stated. Again, that's a MetaTalk issue.

Let dobbs link to you as "met", "sweetheart" then, lol. I don't want the contact. You can have him, LOL
posted by nickyskye at 4:41 PM on July 25, 2006

nickyskye, I spent a fair amount of time earlier in thread arguing with dobbs about the very comment you're disecting for me. I'm very much aware of what he said, and how, and I've stated my feelings on the subject.

That you are inordinately weirded out by his use of the contact system does not make the underlying argument any less valid. Nor does his initial negativity—pretending that his later clarified objection is somehow without merit just because he acted like a jackhole initially makes no sense unless you're nursing a grudge.
posted by cortex at 5:40 PM on July 25, 2006

links to the front page of blogs and news sites are useless after the relevant Top Story is replaced

Yup, which is why every instance I've seen of such a thing ends up having its link changed by the admins to a permalink. Can't be done with search results pages, however.

When I posted supportive information about your 2 links, all that was on the front page were the four letters, asdf.

Obviously this is untrue as my own post inside the thread predates yours by 8 mins and the problem was already fixed and my tags were added. If the prob still existed when you posted your comment then how come tellurian's remark 12 minutes earlier comments on the asdf not being there?

Links can 404 for any number of reasons

Yeah, they can, but unless youtube goes under, this link will never 404, which is part of my point. If I upload vids of nonsense to youtube and tag them joni cbc those are what will be seen by future people who click the link, which I assume is not what the OP intended. This is why we don't make FPPs solely of search results pages.

when those points were shot down he came up with the search results can change reason.

Huh? In my first paragraph of my first post in the thread I wrote:

"How is this any different from me FPP'ing this?" and link this to a search results page at Google.

Admittedly, my initial post is snarky (I've emailed persona non grata an apology), but I made my point with the first post (I thought) and only posted followups in response for clarification.

Let dobbs link to you as "met", "sweetheart"

That was my way of saying "no hard feelings". Guess it backfired. ;)
posted by dobbs at 5:42 PM on July 25, 2006

That you are inordinately weirded out by his use of the contact system does not make the underlying argument any less valid.

cortex, Listed in contacts ok, "Met" and "sweetheart", No thanks. Yup, weirded out by that in light of his unfriendly posts here.

Matt has not said anything about not posting YouTube links or search result links. Until he does, it doesn't appear to me to be a valid argument in this thread.

You and dobbs can take the argument to MetaTalk if you like. That's where it belongs.

dobbs, Glad you emailed png an apology.

Let dobbs link to you as "met", "sweetheart"

That was my way of saying "no hard feelings". Guess it backfired. ;)

I don't buy that for a second. I like my "no hard feelings" straight up, honest and direct. No "met", "sweetheart" deceitful bs. No thanks. I prefer authentic friendship.

Obviously this is untrue as my own post inside the thread predates yours by 8 mins and the problem was already fixed and my tags were added.

That is not true. When I pressed send there was no inside information. And tellurian's comment is proof of that. Other comments in that thread expressing how you flubbed that post after dissing png's post here were deleted by the admin to clean up the mess.

Yet again, all this belongs in MeTa, not here.
posted by nickyskye at 6:10 PM on July 25, 2006

dobbs doing exactly what he accused png of doing: in dobb's FPP, under "my fave so far is Little Things that Jiggle: Richard Feynman and Atomic Physics". The Google video linked to by dobbs is a search result under the heading "feynman".
posted by nickyskye at 9:49 PM on July 25, 2006

You seem to be having trouble deciding whether all of this belongs in MeTa.
posted by cortex at 10:15 PM on July 25, 2006

"Grow up!" I cried
And as the smoke was clearing he said
"Give me one good reason why"

posted by pyramid termite at 10:39 PM on July 25, 2006

cortex, You're right.

I knew that dobbs' "fragile link because of search engine results" stuff was insincere. So there wasn't a genuine argument to take to MeTa because he himself had done exactly what png had done.

I felt the need to expose his bs. In this thread. All that derailing dobbs did here was for nothing. No sincere 'concerns'. He was just spewing negativity.

Tried to enjoy some peaceful Joni Mitchell music and some pleasant conversation and then had to put up with obnoxious derailing. For nothing. and now I've aggravated you, who I like. I'm sorry for that.
posted by nickyskye at 11:21 PM on July 25, 2006

I disagree with your sureness about dobbs' motives and sincerity, which is why I find your line of argument aggravating. I like you, I like dobbs, and I think people are human and act catty even when they have good intentions.

His first comment was pretty heavy on the snark, which sucks, but it feels like you've been assuming the worst of him regarding everything that's been said or done since then, and I think that's uncharitable and unreasonable. It's shouldn't be one-strike-you're-out around here. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt and let evens be stevens, neh?
posted by cortex at 6:24 AM on July 26, 2006

Well said, cortex. I too like both of you... and you're hurting me with this senseless quarrel! Stop it at once!
posted by languagehat at 6:42 AM on July 26, 2006

*breaks out case of hefeweizen, puts on "The Hissing of Summer Lawns*
posted by cortex at 6:50 AM on July 26, 2006

cortex and LH, I appreciate your comments. I really do. However, I'm sorry, but I can't not point out that the link Nicky's "exposed" is not a link to search results. It contains the unique video id in the url.

I don't mind being called an idiot or an asshole. I've been both. But in this instance, I'm drawing the line a hypocrite.

I'm also bowing out of the thread completely. If someone wants to call me out to MeTa or get a "ruling" on FPPing search results, go right ahead. I regret not taking the issue there in the first place and am prepared to take my deserved lumps for my rude initial post.

Nicky, you got anything else to accuse me of, you're welcome to email me as I won't see it if you post it here.
posted by dobbs at 7:07 AM on July 26, 2006

Nicky's "exposed" is not a link to search results. It contains the unique video id in the url.

Not true. Look at the FPP and click on link referred to, it's just like png's link here in that it's a Google video search result for "feynman" and says so right in the search box, plain as day. Here is the url:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7242731842501839980&q=feynman&pl=true

I think this disagreement has been rational and civil. Making peace out of discomfort with disagreement, rather than for honesty's sake, means, in my experience, that there is no authentic resolution.
posted by nickyskye at 10:23 AM on July 26, 2006

Oh well, we tried, cortex. Hand me another hefeweizen, would you?
posted by languagehat at 10:25 AM on July 26, 2006

Only if you pass the hummus.
posted by cortex at 12:15 PM on July 26, 2006

Since it's potluck, may I offer you both a Stella Artois and some crudités? And, what the hell, one for dobbs too, if he'd like to join the party.
posted by nickyskye at 2:09 PM on July 26, 2006

*downs Stella, eyes "crudites" warily*

And as a pedantic clarification, there is a difference between the feynmann link and the joni link. dobbs is correct in saying that the form links to a specific video ID—that said ID is presented on a results page of sorts is immaterial. You can rewrite his url thus:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7242731842501839980

And it leads to precisely the same place: the video with that lengthy numeric id. That Google allows the on-page query box to be filled by an additional argument embedded in the url alters that fact not one bit.

The joni mitchell link, however, specifies no specific file; it calls up the nine YouTube files which contain the words "joni" and "cbc" in the tags, titles, and/or description. Should someone either revise the description of the existing files or add new content matching that search criteria, the material content of the linked page will change.

The links are absolutely not congruent.

And now, another beer.
posted by cortex at 3:32 PM on July 26, 2006

cortex, Thanks for the excellent education about the difference. I really appreciate that. :)

So the wiser thing to do for this FPP would have been to put the individual links up for each video? Like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhLnaroLH04&search=joni%20cbc

ah ha, or better yet, clipping the end for each video link?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhLnaroLH04

Well, there's some Brie and cracked pepper crackers too. Mmm, ice cold Stella! Delish! Have another. Cheers and thanks again.




posted by nickyskye at 11:28 PM on July 26, 2006

I should have waited to post on the front page but I was drunk at the time and so not so patient; I thought the videos worthwhile and fascinating. But I should have waited 24 hours and included these links:

Joni in 67-69

Joni in 69-71 -- up until my favourite record, "Blue"

It could have been a much better FPP but I was drunk and wanted to share rare stuff. Joni is so lovely! dobbs was kind enough to send me an email and I was only half-drunk when I replied. My posts in the future wiol be bolstered.

Thanks for the spririted defense, folks, and I will learn to grow a thicker skin.
posted by persona non grata at 6:10 PM on July 30, 2006