Re: Swan Song

[nrc@cbema.att.com]

The quoted post didn't show up on our system for some reason...

> Vickie here.
  ...
> Richard, you said:
> 
> > Unfortunately the talk about Happy here has gotten her filed as a
> > Kate-wanna-be... 
> 
> I'm *ASTONISHED* you would say such a thing without hearing even one
> note of her music. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you
> heard the music and still believed that she's a Kate-wanna-be, fair
> enough, but that wouldn't happen because Happy's music is absolutely
> nothing like Kate's.

First of all, I guess I don't mean the same thing by "wanna-be" as
some (or perhaps most) people do.  I don't mean someone who imitates
someone else, I mean someone who aspires to be comparable to someone 
else even if they may not be capable of doing so.

Second, you seem to have missed the context of my comments completely.  
I was discussing the impressions that I had gathered from the discussion 
of Happy to that point and how my own past experiences combined with 
those impressions had not moved me to place a higher priority on trying
Happy's music.  As Larry Spence pointed out, up until that time there 
had been very little real discussion of the notable qualities of 
Happy's music beyond the assursions that "if you like Kate you like
it."  

If you're going to be astonished, you should be astonished that the
early Happy converts did such a poor job of representing her as an
artist in her own right.  The insistance of some that Love-Hounds is
_the_ place to discuss Happy didn't help either.  It's not my fault
if they made her sound like some sort of low-cal Kate substitute to
tide us over until we come off of our new Kate diet.

> > The lyrics I've read haven't convinced me otherwise...
> 
> Again, I'm astonished at this remark. Which lyrics are you talking about?
> Was it the line "Only mother knows that I'm the other half of the
> psychopath" in the song "Rainkeeper"? Well, I'll let you in on a secret.
> That song was written *before* _Hounds of Love_ was released. No rip-off

Again, by "wanna-be" I don't mean to imply anything about plagiarism 
or even a similarity in style.  I am saying that the impression given
was that she aspires to write lyrics comparable in quality to Kate's 
and in general my perception is that she hasn't.  It is you that set 
this virtually unachievable expectation for her, not I.  That doesn't 
mean that some of her lyrics aren't good (although some of them seem 
to me a bit overwrought).  

> there. Most of Kate's lyrics are based on or inspired by books, films and
> stories told to her by other people. Kate said that very few of her songs
> are purely autobiographical, though each song has touches of her personality.
> 
> Happy's lyrics are nearly all autobiographical in some way. Very much so.

Yes I picked that up and it's another red flag for me.  My tastes lean
toward artists who tell stories and express ideas beyond their own 
experience.  That doesn't mean that autobiographical or personal songs 
can't be superb but I have stopped listening to more than one artist who 
labored their point a bit too long. 

> As far as "synth-padding" goes, here it comes again:
> You haven't heard the songs. There is no padding or filler on her albums.

And again, I never claimed to be judging the music.  I was talking about 
my fears of what it might be given what I knew and what was being said.  

Of course, crunchy frog doesn't have artificial additives or
preservatives of any kind.  That doesn't make me want to try it.  
Interestingly enough, one lurking reviewer dropped me a line 
declaring my remark about synths to be "dead on".

> Maybe you won't like it. No problem. I just think it's too bad that you're
> jumping to all these conclusions without hearing any at all.

Sorry, but sad truth is that everyone has to arrive at some conclusion 
in order to decide whether or not to try a new artist; is it worth
trying or not?  If you were listening you heard me say, "Probably so,
but there's no big hurry" and give some pretty good reasons why I was 
in no big hurry.  

> If you don't like it, that will be a viewpoint new to this newsgroup,
> and your reasons for not liking it will be interesting to hear. 

One lurking reviewer has said that he didn't like _Warpaint_  because 
it was synth heavy and the melodies were too weak.  He offered to give
me the CD but someone else to took him up on the offer first.  I'm
sure you'll hear from me about it eventually.   
  
> At this point Love-Hounds are the only people who are in a
> position to champion her on an international level. 

Actually there are plenty of people on rec.music.misc who are just as
interested in new and talented artists as Love-Hounds.  If Happy 
is indeed a great artist in her own right an interest in Kate Bush should 
not be a prerequisite for championing Happy.  I'm surprised that you
don't seem to have mentioned her over there at all lately.

> She's NOT just another good singer. She's got the
> same sort of magic and spirit that Kate has (though Kate *IS* God and always
> will be!) and since Katefans do generally have open ears, minds and hearts,
> many will feel that magic. It's only right that she be recommended to other
> Kate Bush fans and it's only right that we be the ones to discover and
> appreciate her before everyone else catches on.

That's a very clever way to put it.  You assert that the magic _is_ there 
and that if we don't feel it it's our own fault.  I'd say that's a matter
of opinion and from what I've seen not everyone agrees.

Maybe I was wrong.  Maybe Happy Rhodes isn't a Kate-wanna-be, maybe she's
a Kate-you-want-her-to-be.  You would probably be doing her a favor not to 
saddle her with such high expectations.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbema!nrc
                                          nrc@cbema.att.com