Re: Suspended In Goats

[nstar!bluemoon!bsbbs!cynthia@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Cynthia Rosas)]

kyrlidis@athena.mit.EDU (Angelos Kyrlidis) writes:

> Well I personally think my point was to do subtle humour targeted at
> 'CHARACTER' of the artists involved in my original post. I had no intention
> to say that this artist is good and this artist sucks. I think this is where
> Richard's post went sour. He essentially selected two artists favored by 
> many in this group (with whom he clashes with every now and then (Hi Vickie))
> and made humour aimed at the abilities of these artists. I didn't particularly
> laugh at the Happy Rhodes joke, because anybody who has given Happy a listen
> distinguishes her from Kate. 
 
It's your prerogative to find it funny or not, but I think his
comments on Happy as well as others were in keeping with the
spirit of the thing.  In fact, only the Love-Hounds who have
been reading since last spring would even get the reference,
it really was a rather nice "in" joke, I thought.  AT any
rate, I did not find his jokes out of the realm of the rest.
All the comments have been based on assumptions about artists'
reputations, various perceptions people have about them ,etc.
While there are many who like Happy alot, there seem to be
about as many who either don't, or simply can take her or
leave her.

This seems to happen with a lot of artists.  Many people like
Phil, but just as many don't. (Collins).  Even if one does not
think so, it's still a widely held perception that he has
"sold-out" or diminished in musical stature in the past few
years.  While I like some of his stuff, I think it's humorous
to needle about that, as one of the entries in this thread
did.   It's a joke.

> [Kate vs Happy aside]
> Saying that Happy is a Kate wanna-be is as silly
> as saying that Kate is a Happy-wannabe. They are SO DIFFERENT there is no point
> in comparing them. Kate feeds the mind and can be emotional (there we go again)
> but Happy feeds the soul and talks to the heart. Happy's songs have an element
> of tragedy in the way it was defined by Aristotle. The listener can feel what
> is going on, laugh/cry, and at the end feel the 'catharsis'. 
> [end of aside]
 
Yes, well, that's how she strikes you.  But the perception of
Happy as a Kate wannabe was discussed at length earlier this
year, and therefore, is fuel for folly.  It isn't even
necessarily so that Richard _believes_ Happy to be any kind of
wannabe in order to write the joke that he did.
You could have just as easily, and logically have written it,
being a fan.

> Jeff writes (to Cynthia):
> >You seem to have been too busy raving (you *are* Love-Hounds occassionally-
> >friendly neighborhood raving bitch, aren't you?) to actually read Steve's
> >post.
> >
> >He did not say that Richard was wrong to rag on either Jane Siberry or Happy
> >Rhodes.  He merely said that it seemed as if Richard was not making that
> >post to be witty but rather to annoy specific people--get their goats, as
> >Steve put it.
> I agree. 100%.
 
If people want to be annoyed, that's their business.  Since
when is Love-Hounds so pristine anyways?

> Loosen up guys'n'girls, THIS IS ONLY A NEWSGROUP!
 
I'm the first one to agree, it ain't so very serious.  That's
why some people get so annoyed I think, they take it MUCH to
too much to heart.

----
Cynthia Rosas <cynthia@bsbbs.UUCP> <{n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!cynthia>
The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)