No Subject

[nntpusr@festival.ed.ac.uk]

Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Path: castle.ed.ac.uk!rjc
From: rjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Subject: Re: You called, Ken?
References: <CMM-RU.1.3.746776609.vickie@pilot.njin.net>
Message-ID: <CCnFno.4IG@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Dragon: Puff
Sender: news@festival.ed.ac.uk (remote news read deamon)
Reply-To: rjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Organization: University of Edinburgh
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 00:21:23 GMT
Lines: 30

In article <CMM-RU.1.3.746776609.vickie@pilot.njin.net> vickie@pilot.njin.net (WretchAwry) writes:

>K R Brownfield (Hi Ken!) writes:

>> What comes immediately to my mind is that female vocalists seem to
>> be much more popular than male vocalists. 

>In which alternate universe? (Besides gaffa & Ecto, I mean)

I don't know about more `popular', but they certainly seem to be more
visible.  Or at least that's my (and my record collection's) impression. 
There's a big list of femal singer/song writers and _relatively_ few
male ones (look at the recent lists in r.m.m for instance and try and
come up with equivalent list of men).  Most of the men who would fit
this mold have come out of bands (eg Gabriel, Sylvian, Fish, Waters).  I
think this reflects what the A&R people look for when signing young
artists -- individual girls but boys in groups of 4 or 5. 

As to whether male singers gettreated as varients on each other as in
the Kate/Tori comparisons, certainly Fish was always said to be just a
Gabriel clone (something of a strain I always thought, unless there are
some Gabriel things where he has a strong scottish accent :-). There was
a recent thread in r.m.m over how much Bowie owed to Iggy Pop.
Describing music is so hard that people go to extreme lengths to find a
point of reference.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<