stevev@greylady.uoregon.EDU (Steve VanDevender) (06/10/91)
Ultimately what I find so disturbing about a certain recent thread of discussion is that at least a couple people, who claim to represent many more, are showing a seemingly one-sided lack of tolerance for fannish behavior. It's OK for people to gush about Kate Bush. It's OK for Ed Suranyi to post about when he heard Kate Bush on the radio. It's OK for IED to assert that Kate Bush is the greatest musician of the 20th century. It's OK for Ron Hill to post long Kate Bush interview transcripts. But it's not OK for someone who discovers that they really like Happy Rhodes to get a little overenthusiastic in their recommendations. It's not OK for Rhodes fans to talk about radio stations that would play her music. It's not OK for Happy Rhodes discussions to briefly occupy, oh, maybe one-third to one-half of the volume of Love-Hounds/rec.music.gaffa. It's not OK for Vickie to make what will probably be a one-time-only post of Happy Rhodes lyrics and an interview. So you may say that this is rec.music.gaffa and not rec.music.happy, but I thought it was clear that the group charter isn't exclusive. I suspect that the people who have been overzealous in their recommendations of Happy Rhodes will tone them down knowing that some people are put off by arguments that bludgeon instead of sway. I will join Ron Hill in saying that I don't mind people discussing other artists here, and would even encourage it, although I can't represent the side of the population that has no Happy Rhodes tapes.
vishal@m2.csc.ti.COM (Vishal Markandey) (06/10/91)
stevev@greylady.uoregon.EDU (Steve VanDevender) writes: >...to assert that Kate Bush is the greatest musician of the 20th >century. Well, she really is. Of all time, to be more precise. :) :) >I suspect that the people who have been overzealous in their >recommendations of Happy Rhodes will tone them down knowing that >some people are put off by arguments that bludgeon instead of >sway. It is all I ask for myself. - Vishal
cboyer@chatham.UUCP (Charles Boyer) (06/14/91)
>It's OK for people to gush about Kate Bush. It's OK for Ed Suranyi to >post about when he heard Kate Bush on the radio. It's OK for IED to >assert that Kate Bush is the greatest musician of the 20th century. >It's OK for Ron Hill to post long Kate Bush interview transcripts. Yes, that' very true. At the same time, some folks get a little over-obsessive, posting inanities like "KaTe is God" and other such stuff. No flames or insult intended by that, it's just a little *too* much in my opinion. Not that my opinion is terribly important... I can say, as an artist and as a fan, that artists definitely DO NOT appreciate people who over-obsess. In fact, it scares many of them deeply, and leaves images of Mark David Chapman dancing in their heads. Now then, I don't think that anyone here is anywhere near that level, but there are other forums where being a fan crosses through some grey zone demarking sanity and madness. The bottom line is that .gaffa is about Kate Bush, her music, et. al. It's entirely appropriate what goes on here. So, I agree with you that Ed Suranyi, etc. have a right to gush here. That's why *i'm* here, and I've learned a great deal about a musician whom I respect deeply and would like to work with one day. I've also been spurred on to listen to other bands, like Throwing Muses, that I might have otherwise overlooked. I would now like to hear Happy Rhodes, because there are those on this newgroup whose opinions I respect that recommend her highly. 'nuff said, sorry to waste so much bandwidth babbling. Charles
cboyer@chatham.UUCP (Charles Boyer) (06/14/91)
vishal@m2.csc.ti.COM (Vishal Markandey) writes: >>...to assert that Kate Bush is the greatest musician of the 20th >>century. > >Well, she really is. Of all time, to be more precise. I wonder what *she* would say in response to that. (Really, I do.) Charles