Re: Force-feeding

[nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R Caldwell, Ii)]

>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