No Subject

[usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov]

To: ames!rec-music-gaffa
Path: lll-winken!das!ed
From: ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: Rolling Stone reviews, Sinead, and Kate
Message-ID: <50549@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 1 Mar 90 20:42:18 GMT
References: <9002282240.AA26871@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> <52833@bbn.COM>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: ed@das.UUCP (Edward Suranyi)
Organization: Dept. of Applied Science, UC Davis at LLNL
Lines: 24


In article <52833@bbn.COM> Liz Bonesteel <eboneste@BBN.COM> writes:
>
>Speaking more of Rolling Stone, I heard a rumor they trashed HOL when
>it came out.  Can anyone confirm this?

When _HoL_ came out, _Rolling Stone_ wasn't giving stars in its 
reviews.  (They had stopped for some reason a few months earlier,
and they just started again about a year ago.)  So it's hard
to tell what they really thought.  The review was kind of
non-committal.  I remember they thought it was sort of 
childish, in some undefined way.

Ever since then, though, Kate has been used as an example of a great
alternative artist, when others are compared to her.  Does
this mean a change of heart on the part of _RS_?  We'll
never know for sure as long as they don't review _TSW_, but
everyone I've heard who is connected to _RS_ has nothing
but good things to say about the album.  (The mention in the
year-end issue, the article in the Feb. 8 issue, and Anthony
DeCurtis's words on "All Things Considered".)

Ed
ed@das.llnl.gov