Re: What is it with this group?!?

[tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu]

     Ok, ok, ok already!  I get the idea!  Jeeesh!  Well, I definitely 
suggest that someone change the description of this newsgroup.  I'm surely
not the first and certainly won't be the last to make this mistake as long 
as that description remains.  Like I already said, when I saw "Kate Bush
and other alternative music", it was only logical to assume that Kate Bush
was merely an example used rather than the sole basis of the group.  This 
should immediately be reworded to avoid any future problems.  I didn't
intend on sparking any matches with that posting; I just wanted things
cleared up.

    Oh, and btw...

In article <9109011929.AA02470@lewhoosh.umd.edu>, jeffy@lewhoosh.umd.EDU (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes:
>
>>   For example, what's everyone's impressions of the new Siouxsie and the
>>Banshees tape "Superstition"?  I thought it was very good, but it seemed
>>to have a bit of a pop beat to it.
>
>Um, didn't most of _Peep Show_ have a pop beat to it?

    You have to listen to both albums to be able to notice.  _Peepshow_
definitely has a more haunting mood to it(with, maybe, the exception of
"Peek-a-boo", but even that doesn't really have a pop beat).  The only
songs on _Superstition_ that I thought even barely resembled most of the
songs on _Peepshow_ was "Drifter" and "The Ghost In You". Believe me,
there's absolutely nothing like "Rawhead and Bloodybones" on _Superstition_. 
:)  But don't get me wrong.  There's nothing wrong with this; it's just 
quite a style change compared to _Peepshow_.

>>Also, has anyone heard ANYTHING about the new U2 album coming out soon?  
>
>What's alternative about U2?  There's more likely to be discussion of the
>new album (and I've seen a few mentions of _Achtung, Baby_) in alt.rock-n-roll.

    You know, if I would have mentioned U2 being alternative anytime before
_The Joshua Tree_ was released, I don't think anyone would have given it a
second thought.  They may not be as alternative as other groups, but they
definitely are not just hard rock.  There just aren't any hard rock groups
that can write and perform songs as well as U2 does.  I don't understand
why, but too many people think that if an alternative band suddenly becomes
popular, they're suddenly not alternative any more.  Popularity does
not mean that a band's style has to change; it just means there are more
people who are appreciating it.  For example, if Kate Bush suddenly had a Top
10 single in the US and become very popular, would you no longer consider
her to be alternative?  Think about it...