Re: Moments of Pleasure - first impressions

[chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams)]

In article <9306241740.AA10272@dlsun87.us.oracle.com>  Drukman writes:
>Chris Williams splutters:
>>   I disagree. You heard a very low-fi sample of a song by an artist
>>renouned for the texture and layering of her work. You did not truely
>>hear the song, and neither did I.
>
>get lost, chris... if the guy had said "it was brilliant" you wouldn't
>be saying "hold off until you hear the CD version."  your biases are
>all too obvious.  what if I were to say, "i haven't even heard the 8
>bit sample over a phone but i still think it's a great song just
>because it's kate?"  you'd say "an eminently sensible position" and
>i'd have to go puke.

   Nope. My reaction to hearing the song over the phone _was_
goosebumps, true. But neither you, I or anyone else has heard the
only a telephone quality sample has really heard the song. You,
of all people know enough about the *technical* aspects of music
to admit that.

>>>It's my comments on that song.  If you don't like what I'm posting,
>>>stop reading it.
>
>>    And how long have you been posting, that I should avoid reading your
>>infrequent posts? 
>
>what does duration of love-hounds membership have to do with anything?
>you are not "more entitled" to post due to age or anything like that.
>wake up and smell the anarchy, williams.

   This was apparently his *first* post, dismissing a new Kate song
out of hand. As far as your beloved "anarchy" goes, his right to post
an inane opinion is the same as mine. Look it up.

>>    Neither is inherently better, but if you first heard Kate when
>>_The Kick Inside_ was released, loving her unique blend of naivete
>>and worldliness, your approach to her "simpler" piano-based songs
>>might be different.
>
>this is presumptuous arrogance, plain and simple.  i heard The Great
>One's records in a very eccentric order (and, no, The Dreaming was NOT
>my first KT LP) and i formed my own opinions.  i take the songs as
>they come, one at a time.

   I don't believe it is arrogent to point out the obvious differences
between the early and later Kate, any more than to point out the
differences between the earlier and later work of *any* artist.
My point is that those of us who discovered Kate earlier were had 
our musical horizons broadened as Kate's broadened. Knowing and
loving _The Kick Inside_, _Lionheart_ and _Never for Ever_ didn't
prepare anyone for the shock of the single of _Sat In Your Lap_.
It was one of the things that led me into exploring a lot of other
music. People who discovered Kate as an "alternative artist" come
to her music with a different set of preconceptions. They expect
her to continue in the same vein ("How can you tell if a band is
'alternative?' Easy, they sound like all the other 'alternative'
bands.") and tend to dismiss her earlier works and her newer work
that recalls her earlier style.

>>    Re the validity of my opinion, I'll not bore gaffa with my history,
>
>well that's a relief.  but wait!  what's this?....

   How's your record doing Jon? I haven't heard a report on it's
chart progress in, oh, *days*.

>until you accept that all opinions are equally valid, i will continue
>to attack you in public.  so get used to it, pink boy.

   "Why pay for one of them fancy-schmancy doctors to do your operation?
Bob here was sick once, sure he's a plumber, but all opinions are
equally valid, so I'm sure he could fix you up." Right.


                          Chris Williams of
                             Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                               chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (his)
                                 vickie@njin.rutgers.edu      (hers)
                                   katefans@chinet.chinet.com (ours)