Gaffaweb >
Love & Anger >
1991-20 >
[ Date Index |
Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
From: stern@chem.nwu.edu (Charlotte Stern)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 06:16:55 -0800
Subject: Ebb and Flow and Confluence---reply to Jenn Turney
To: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu
Cc: stern@chem.nwu.edu
(apologies if this has already appeared) Jenn Turney posts a provocative note regarding what she terms "force-feeding." "Well, I'm sure I'll get flamed for this," she warns. Well, Jenn, this is not a flame, but rather an alternative view point for you to consider. In fact, I was just on the phone with Vickie this morning and she commented to me how with the supersaturation of gaffa with Happy Rhodes- related posts it was surprising that more voices didn't surface echoing both your sentiments and other reasons that we should apply the foot to the heartbrake on happy. --- Skid --- "I really dislike being forced towards particular music or musicians; I much prefer to discover them of my own volition..." 100%. I have, over the few years that my interest in modern-age music has flourished, drifted in and under the influence of many artists who I, like yourself, discovered on my own, either through the radio, or purely by chance, or by some set of references that all pointed toward that one artist or group. Needless to say, this climaxed at Kate. I have been soaked in her brilliance for a while now, but even this interest is slowly waning (though it will never entirely pass) to make room for other things. Richard's point recently that there is a "musical correctness" at play in gaffa almost misses the point. After all, in a topic-driven newsgroup, so narrowly focused as ours, how can there *not* exist a hidden agenda of sorts, a directed influence forming a common thread amongst the active participants and the many-fold more who just listen now and then? The way I see it, this is all part-and-parcel of interactive stuff, with little or no moderation. People write whatever they feel like writing. If I like it, I agree. If I don't like it, I am free to dismiss it; or respond with a counter; or just plain stop reading the group. There is a natural flow and ebb here of people and subject matters. The common bond is Kate. If a topic is Kate-inspired, however indirectly, it appears for your perusal. Hot topics mean there is something of an overwelming interest in that one thing. If lots of people write about it, then clearly it must be close, in some way, to the focus of the group, Kate. Hence, there is little doubt with the preponderance of Happy Rhodes mentions of late, that many Kate fans now share another, complimentary common interest --- strongly. Perhaps this topic will slowly melt away. I'm sure that when Kate's tour passes through Wichita Falls, we'll hear a host of exclamatory commentary from the folks over there. The convention received big billing because lots of people were interested in it. The whole thread about where did you discover Kate, took up lots of space. Personally I got tired of it after a while, and just started automatically deleting notes about that. This is the last paragraph. I promise. It will be about the philosophy of notes files or digests or news groups. My attitude is laissez-faire. Let the whimsy of the clientele dictate the content. Further, there is significance in any large-scale, identifiable trends. If Jane Siberry yields 4 notes a month, that could be used as a rough indicator as to how the group, as an entity, reflects on Jane. If Happy Rhodes is mentioned for 6 months straight by every other posting, some common bond between Kate and Happy must surely exist. I love discovering art naively, innocently. But I also love hearing about things that I would possibly never hear about otherwise... it simply accelerates the process. When I first began reading gaffa, I would skip *every* posting related to *any* artists other Kate. I was purely interested in finding out about her. Now, I have a list of music that I actively seek, much of which originates from reviews or comments seen in these very pages. I merely make a note of it. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say it took at least a year of hearing Vickie refer to Happy Rhodes (and Kirsty MacColl who I love now, and Jane Siberry who I don't love as much, and Christine Lavin who I love, and Dead Can Dance who I value, and so on) before I acted on the recommendation. What we have here is a system in which many voices are heard. When there is a confluence of voices and opinion, people take notice --- if they want to. That is the beauty of this system. It is *this*, in my mind, that brings us together. -mjm (mike mendelson)