Munged Message

[stern@chem.nwu.edu (Charlotte Stern)]

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, this message now comes to
you in a de-psychedelicized form.  Please bear with me if you took the
trouble to descramble it yourself, or if your display is more intelligent
than most.  Apologies.
---------------------------------

Yes, indeed, Richard has struck an important, perhaps easily overlooked
point.  Technically, Kate is quite a vocal master.  It doesn't surprises me 
that Sinead was unable to reproduce the Kate part in DGU accurately.
First, it is an *amazing* part musically.  Fantastic.  Second, Kate
does an *amazing* job... but like many genius artists, it is nearly
impossible to tell because she is just *that* good --- she makes it sound 
almost trivial; so natural as to be no big deal... UNTIL you hear someone
else, in this case someone you consider fairly talented, try to 
replicate it.  BANG.   WOMP.  SMAT.  There it is, as clear as the big
sky... Kate is inimitable.  Period.  This is why Happy is so awesome.
She *really* approaches an uncanny Kate likeness.  Of course she
stands well enough on her own; but it's that initial slap in the face
that really got me.  I love playing Happy Rhodes to people who are oblivious
to her existence (most people in the world) and they, quite accurately,
saying "Is this Kate?"  I love it.  Almost as good is playing Happy
to people who ask "who's that" and you say "Happy Rhodes" and they say
"oh" like they feel dumb for not knowing!  Of course they spirit the
same reaction to the likes of Jane Siberry or most other artists I tend
to listen to these days.  But it's almost like an inside joke that there
is *no way* they could have heard of Happy Rhodes.  Hurrrumph.  That
will change before long.

-mjm (mike mendelson)

PS  Vickie says the full, unabridged, annotated Happy lyrics
will be available to all the next time she finds a free phone.
Also, she a ton of other stuff just waiting to be conveyed to all.
Oh boy!!!!