turney@cs.cornell.EDU (Jenn Turney) (06/07/91)
Well, I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I need to express this opinion. All the recent hubbub in the group about Happy Rhodes has left me with absolutely no urge to purchase her music. I really dislike being forced towards particular music or musicians; I much prefer to discover them of my own volition or through my own tickled fancy. I like to think of myself as a quiet fanatic, just as enchanted by the artists I like as more vocal admirers, but not out to convert the world. I've introduced myself to Kate Bush, Jane Siberry, Suzanne Vega, 10,000 Maniacs (to name a few) through various encounters. My first for Suzanne Vega was hearing Knight Moves on the radio right after she'd performed in town; love at first sound and I've regretted not attending the concert ever since. Jane Siberry I found through this group -- a smattering of positive mentions prompted me to obtain one album; now I have them all. My first meeting with Kate was on being allowed the choice of music one evening at a friend's house. I hope I'll eventually be able to come across Happy by chance. I expect I'll be pleasantly surprised when I find out it's her. But at this point, despite my attempted avoidance of the verbiage posted about her in this group, the element of discovery has been removed and my curiosity has been stifled. jenn ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | turney@cs.cornell.edu | Dept of Computer Science | Cornell University | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | She winced at his response of such a gratuitous "Wow": it said little | | for his seizure of her meaning and even less for his lexicon. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
tlhouns@NS.PACBELL.COM (Lee Hounshell) (06/07/91)
In article <9106062148.AA02120@chimes.cs.cornell.edu> turney@cs.cornell.EDU (Jenn Turney) writes: >I hope I'll eventually be able to come across Happy by chance. I expect >I'll be pleasantly surprised when I find out it's her. But at this >point, despite my attempted avoidance of the verbiage posted about her in >this group, the element of discovery has been removed and my curiosity >has been stifled. Too bad. You're the only one who's losing out. The rest of us appreciate good music where ever we find it *however* we find it. I could care less if I find a new musician by listening to a recommendation from someone with similar musical tastes, or if it's by pure chance. It is the *music* I like. And I, for one, am very grateful to Vickie -n- company for turning me on to Happy. Jenn, I feel sorry for you. -Lee
nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) (06/08/91)
>From article <9106062148.AA02120@chimes.cs.cornell.edu>, by turney@cs.cornell.EDU (Jenn Turney): > Well, I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I need to express this > opinion. > > All the recent hubbub in the group about Happy Rhodes has left me with > absolutely no urge to purchase her music. I really dislike being forced Let 'em take their best shot. I guarantee you they'll get flamed back because at least four different people from all over the country have expressed this same sentiment to me. My advise at that time was to stay quiet for the time being since the Love-Hounds "charter" sanctions discussions of artists who are of interest to Kate fans. Clearly from the comments here Happy Rhodes qualifies. The key word is _discussion_. The Happy Rhodes posts here have at times come perilously close to proselytizing and sales pitches. The unsolicited reposting of four month old messages is a perfect example. > I really dislike being forced > towards particular music or musicians; I much prefer to discover them > of my own volition or through my own tickled fancy. I like to think of > myself as a quiet fanatic, just as enchanted by the artists I like as > more vocal admirers, but not out to convert the world. I've introduced > myself to Kate Bush, Jane Siberry, Suzanne Vega, 10,000 Maniacs (to name > a few) through various encounters. My first for Suzanne Vega was hearing I agree. And further, my tastes seem to vary enough from the Love- Hounds norm that I've had a fairly low success rate on things that have been highly touted here. I've had much better luck with things that have been mentioned only occasionally; Tanita Tikaram, Caterwaul, Fetchin' Bones and Innocence Mission, for example. In fact, Tanita Tikaram's latest album, _The Sweetkeeper_ was pretty much unmentioned here. Sure, I'd say it is perhaps her weakest effort, but I still enjoy it a lot more than the best I've heard from Jane Siberry. Unfortunately the talk about Happy here has gotten her filed as a Kate-wanna-be that can wait till later in my book. The lyrics I've read haven't convinced me otherwise and until Larry posed the question nobody was really touting her in a way that would have lead me to believe otherwise. Beyond that I'm always weary of single person efforts (even if they've got help) because they are very often too sparse for my taste. Single person efforts done on a shoestring budget send up a red flag. Of course there's always synths to help pad things out but I hate that even more. > I hope I'll eventually be able to come across Happy by chance. I expect > I'll be pleasantly surprised when I find out it's her. But at this > point, despite my attempted avoidance of the verbiage posted about her in > this group, the element of discovery has been removed and my curiosity > has been stifled. I agree. Then when that time comes we can either kick ourselves for not jumping on the bandwagon sooner or shake our heads and wonder what they ever saw in it, as we please. In the mean time I wonder if the Happy converts here might consider allowing the rest of us a bit of breathing room. I don't mind discussion of other artists but it's reached the point were persons asking Kate questions are being ignored. What is a Kate neophyte supposed to think when he asks a question and all he sees in response is Happy chatter? If you just want to discuss Happy perhaps it's time for a Happy Rhodes mailing list. If it's promotion you're after I'd say that the Love-Hounds market is saturated and it's time to move on to rec.music.misc. "Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell AT&T Network Systems att!cbnews!nrc nrc@cbnews.att.com
graham@UG.CS.DAL.CA (Michael Graham) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun7.184618.18148@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) writes: >In the mean time I wonder if the Happy converts here might consider >allowing the rest of us a bit of breathing room. I don't mind >discussion of other artists but it's reached the point were persons >asking Kate questions are being ignored. What is a Kate neophyte >supposed to think when he asks a question and all he sees in response >is Happy chatter? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!! Will someone please tell me what: "be running up that road be running up that hill be running up that building" means? I know what the song means, but what about this part of the chorus? This is the third time! I must side with the mal-contents(sp? - I need sleep badly). This hardly seems to be a newsgroup concerning Kate Bush anymore. Everyday it seems as if there are 3 or 4 "Happy on KXYZ!!!!!!", then there are the Happy lyrics, Happy interviews, endless postings of the Aural Gratification address + prices, etc, etc, ad nauseum. I wish this artist all the luck in the world, but I don't want to be daily informed of her luck in a Kate Bush newsgroup! The initial descriptions were fine, I wasn't/am not interested, but they were suitable for this group. What has ensued, however, has been VEEEERY tiresome. Anyway - back to my question - will someone PLEASE answer it???? - thanks chucking in two pennies, mike/michael - haven't decided -- Michael Graham | "Well she's not really my half sister...err... graham@ug.cs.dal.ca | more like 2/5ths" mgraham@ac.dal.ca | - Diane Keaton, Love and Death
jondr@sco.COM (Jon Drukman) (06/15/91)
No one yet knows why graham@UG.CS.DAL.CA (Michael Graham) said: >In article <1991Jun7.184618.18148@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) writes: >>What is a Kate neophyte >>supposed to think when he asks a question and all he sees in response >>is Happy chatter? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!! OK, Michael, consider the point made! >Will someone please tell me what: > > "be running up that road > be running up that hill > be running up that building" > >means? This isn't a definitive reading, by any stretch, but applying my tired and bruised English-major muscles to the text at hand, I am forced to conclude that it can only refer to the relative ease with which once difficult tasks can now be accomplished if the Deal With God was actually to take place. IN OTHER WORDS... If I only could, I'd make a deal with God, and I'd get him to swap our places, and then those things that seemed impossible, like running up a building, will now be easy. We know of the female character's emotional strength ("do you want to know that it doesn't hurt me" and "see how deep the bullet lies"), so presumably she wants to draw physical strength from the masculine, or maybe it's just a nifty way of saying "hard things will seem easy." How's that for a start? -- Jon Drukman (down by law) uunet!sco!jondr jondr@sco.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Always note the sequencer - this will never let us down.