Serious vs. Serious

[duane@Sun.COM (Duane Day, I.R. - Applications Development)]

Richard Jennings writes:

>Duane Day assumes my ignorance (thanks, Duane):

>>>TfF a serious rock act? -- hmmmm.

>> At the risk of earning TfF a set of IED quotation marks, I'd suggest that
[...]
>> First impressions notwithstanding, I think you'll find that TfF is definitely
>> not Wham!.

Excuse me!  A lot of people's impression of TfF, based on the _Big Chair_ hits
and the photos, is exactly that they are just another Brit-pop duo, and I've
seen them lumped together with Wham! under that heading more times than I care
to think about.  Based on limited information, I can see how someone might
question that they are serious.  Based on a knowledge of their work, I find
it hard to understand how one could disagree with labeling them "serious",
although whether or not they are major league rock heavyweights is of course
a matter of personal opinion.  I guess it boils down to what constitutes a
"serious rock act".  No offense was meant by my assumption that Richard was
somewhat unfamiliar with the entire body of TfF's work.

>I do happen to possess both TfF albums and used to own a copy of 
>the _Scenes'_ video (before some b*st*rd broke into my house and
>stole it, that is...).  

OK, given that you know a lot more about them than just a passing acquaintance
with the hits, please let me know how, in your opinion, they fail to qualify
as "serious".   Perhaps it's their frivolous subject matter such as the pain
of childhood?

>My comment was meant to be read as my
>*opinion*, and it was contributed to the group only because I
>thought I knew enough of their stuff to have a valid one!  

Well, apparently you do know enough of their stuff to have a valid one.
Perhaps this would have been more obvious if you'd amplified your comment
a little.  "TfF a serious rock act? -- hmmmm" offers little evidence of
the now-apparent depth of your expertise on the subject, and is in fact
exactly the kind of remark often made by the uninformed.  How many casual
dismissals of Kate as a teen-sex-idol-pseudo-intellectual have we suffered
through, eh?

>Do we
>really have to explicitely mark all our opinions as such in this 
>group now? (perhaps we should have the opinions' equivalent of 
>smileys -- suggestions anyone??).

Well, since you've asked, I'd suggest that perhaps you back off on the
coffee or something.  My postings reflected my opinion, just as all of the 
postings on this newsgroup reflect the opinion of the authors (with the
possible exception of IED's and |>oug's, which are apparently to be read
as gospel.)  :-) *just kidding, guys* (-:

>> is that they were asked not to dwell on their more serious influences
>> such as Arthur Janov (the psychologist who came up with Primal Scream
>> therapy - also a major influence on John Lennon and others) so as not to

>This all smacks of rather tacky pretension to my eyes.

And again, you're entitled to that opinion.  But, please clarify - pretension
on the part of TfF, the hypothetical marketing types, or me?  If directed at
me, I think it's fair to point out that I used the phrase "my guess" before
the lines quoted.  I'm not guessing, however, about Janov being an influence;
they've cited him in many print interviews.  I don't believe they mention it
in the "Scenes" video, however; wonder why that is...

>> Now, where did I leave that asbestos jumpsuit? :-)

>Why, what were you planning to do with it? 8-)

Well, I expected to be roundly flamed for taking such a fluff group seriously.
It's happened before, and usually by people who have heard "Shout" and
"Everybody Wants..." on the radio and that's it.

>Greg (G.T.) Ward chips in:
>> However, their first album, "The Hurting", is brilliant 
>
>Ho hum.

Now *that* is obviously a statement of opinion.  Fair enough.  No metasmiley
required.