From: owner-sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org (sheryl-crew-digest) To: sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org Subject: sheryl-crew-digest V4 #114 Reply-To: sheryl-crew@smoe.org Sender: owner-sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk sheryl-crew-digest Tuesday, April 24 2001 Volume 04 : Number 114 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... ["Michael Worrell" ] Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... ["Mike Sarzo" Subject: [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... Previously, on sheryl-crew-digest: MsCreation12283@aol.com wrote: >I think we all have been extremely judgemental lately. Between Kid Rock and now Gwyneth Paltrow, we have scrutinized Sheryl's friends and possible boyfriends a little too >much. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that but we should also respect Sheryl's opinion...if she thinks Kid and Gwen and anyone else is cool...she has the >right to live her life the way she chooses. Talking about rumors and her friends (etc) is fine and we do not have to like them or agree but I don't think we should post negetive >things about her "associations" on a list, she most likely doesn't but could possibly read. Hrrm. People have a right to their opinions. If I want to say that Paltrow's voice is suited for a movie about karaoke and nothing else, well, that is my opinion, and my right. If I were to say that in my opinion, having her on this fourth studio album would be a mistake, I would be totally within my rights. Same for this Rock fellow. In my opinion, it would be a bad move for her to incorporate his 'work' into her catalog. I don't care for anything in his act---and his presence on a fourth album will be the thing that prevents me from purchasing that album. It is, "extremely judgmental" for you to sit here and chastise us for expressing our opinions. At some level, we who pay for her albums are the ones who have a right to gripe about what we perceive in our own ways as an 'issue'. Would you take the same viewpoint if she announced that she'd be working with Marshall Mathers, or would you be posting some long-winded tirade against him? Somehow, I think the latter case would apply. XMystery79@aol.com wrote: >We don't know KR or even Gwenyth as people- We know what we see. In the case of the first, a low-class trash type who needs a shower, a shave, a haircut, and probably a good beating. In Paltrow's case, we see a supposedly vain and arrogant actress of middling talent who for some reason was able to get a song recorded and on the radio. No less an intelligence than Camille Paglia sees fit to heap scorn upon Miss Paltrow, so there's got to be something there. (Props to Huey Lewis, though---long time no hear) Christina Clark (bean@accglobal.net) wrote: >don't buy Sheryl's new album and stop coming to the forum, because you're not a >fan. Amusing. I'm not slavishly devoted to the worship of everything someone does. Been taking a course in Stalinist rhetoric? People have the right to make an honest appraisal of someone's work. Not all Jefferson Airplane aficionados like everything the group ever did---does that make them any less a fan? I doubt it---and you'd get the hide stripped off of you for suggesting that they weren't. Drifter (jakovlevski@home.com) wrote: >Maybe we should change too. And why? Just because she jumps off a proverbial cliff by potentially including this yokel on an album doesn't mean I am by any means committed to following her with a beatific smile on my face. No way, no sir. Definitely not awaiting any album that includes Gwyneth Paltrow, Stevie Nicks, or Kid Rock---bury that one in the vaults along with the first one, Michael "You think you know what I'm doing, so obviously you don't."---Aeon Flux ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:18:48 -0400 From: "Mike Sarzo" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... From: "Michael Worrell" MsCreation12283@aol.com wrote: Hrrm. People have a right to their opinions. If I want to say that Paltrow's voice is suited for a movie about karaoke and nothing else, well, that is my opinion, and my right. And if I want to say that I'd look forward to an album with Stevie Nicks joining Sheryl, but I wouldn't want her to collaborate with Kid Rock, that too is my right. If I were to say, in my opinion, that I feel an album with just Sheryl and without any other artists would be boring, that too is my right. The differences with Stevie Nicks and the others you've mentioned are: 1) she's an *established* singer who can and has been called a legend, 2) she's obviously specifically talented as a singer (I haven't heard Ms. Paltrow's voice so I can't comment, but I consider Kid Rock a no-talent hack), and 3) the two of them have already collaborated on several songs, so that in itself has created interest in seeing such a collaboration continue. >Maybe we should change too. Definitely not awaiting any album that includes Gwyneth Paltrow, Stevie Nicks, or Kid Rock---bury that one in the vaults along with the first one. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:03:21 -0400 From: "Michael Worrell" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... Previously, on sheryl-crew: Mike Sarzo (sarzom@hotmail.com) wrote: >And if I want to say that I'd look forward to an album with Stevie Nicks >joining Sheryl, but I wouldn't want her to collaborate with Kid Rock, that >too is my right. Indeed. I'm not going to question that. >If I were to say, in my opinion, that I feel an album with just Sheryl and >without any other artists would be boring, that too is my right. Once again, indeed you are correct in that you are within your rights to say that. I would disagree with you on that particular point, but since I doubt either of us is losing any sleep over the other's position, no harm done. It's not going to hurt my feelings or my sensibilities, so no great loss to me. >The differences with Stevie Nicks and the others you've mentioned are: 1) >she's an *established* singer who can and has been called a legend, 2) she's >obviously specifically talented as a singer (I haven't heard Ms. Paltrow's >voice so I can't comment, but I consider Kid Rock a no-talent hack), and 3) >the two of them have already collaborated on several songs, so that in >itself has created interest in seeing such a collaboration continue. Stevie Nicks is truly an "established" singer. I'll grant that in an instant. Her career's been successful probably longer than I've been alive---Fleetwood Mac ain't the name it is for nothing. I would go on to say that in a Sheryl Crow-Stevie Nicks collaboration, all the benefit goes to Crow in the manner of "marrying up", so to speak. It's rather nice of someone like Stevie Nicks to reach down and agree to work with an artist of lesser stature. In my case, however, Nicks & Crow just doesn't generate any interest. I am not a Stevie Nicks fan, so there's nothing attractive about the concept on my end. You know, "If it makes you happy...", but that doesn't mean that I will be buying an album that carries the two of them in great amount. If I had my say-so, I'd prefer a return to the sound of her first two commercial releases, but that ain't where she's going, soo... To be honest, Gwyneth Paltrow's voice is not that of a professional musician. This is, of course, obvious---she's a professional actress. She may very well have talent in this area, and perhaps even training. I don't know. But this one song of hers with Huey Lewis is more Huey than her. If she chooses to make a go at a musical career, well, great. Have at it. I won't buy the albums, but hey, if she's willing to take the risk, let her do so. Kid Rock, on the other hand, enh. It's the 'marrying up' thing again, except that Sheryl Crow's reaching a lot farther down in my opinion than Stevie Nicks did. He just seems to come across like a guy I could find down at the county jail or out on a road-cleaning detail. Anyways, Michael "You think you know what I'm doing, so obviously you don't."---Aeon Flux ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:33:09 -0400 From: "Mike Sarzo" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... Stevie Nicks is truly an "established" singer. I'll grant that in an instant. Her career's been successful probably longer than I've been alive---Fleetwood Mac ain't the name it is for nothing. I would go on to say that in a Sheryl Crow-Stevie Nicks collaboration, all the benefit goes to Crow in the manner of "marrying up", so to speak. It's rather nice of someone like Stevie Nicks to reach down and agree to work with an artist of lesser stature. Now, now! I think we're past the point of thinking that Sheryl doesn't have the stature Stevie Nicks has. Nicks' career had been on a downward spiral from about 1985 until about 1995, so she's basically been living off "legend" status for a while. After hearing the new album, I think that might change; however, that change would have to go against the trend of teen pop queens and boy bands with their meaningless bubble gum pop. In short, I think Sheryl has more than enough stature to say she's an established star in her own right, and I think she's pretty damn close to where you seem to put Nicks, even though you also say you're not a fan of hers. If I had my say-so, I'd prefer a return to the sound of her first two commercial releases, but that ain't where she's going, soo... I'll be honest. There's a point when you as an artist should try to grow and try something else. I think Sheryl's reached that point because people are starting to talk about a "Sheryl sound," even with the Stevie Nicks songs she produced. That doesn't mean Kid Rock. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Mike _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:56:52 GMT+01:00 From: r.stewart@talk21.com Subject: [sheryl-crew] enough already! isnt someone supposed to moderate this FAN list, and i put fan is bold for a reason people need to learn to keep their opinions to themselves when it hurts other people. if you cant do that, try growing some maturity rick p.s sheryl was in the daily express in the Uk again today - -------------------- talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:32:59 +0200 From: "Gaston PEETERS" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... - ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Worrell To: Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 2:49 PM Subject: [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... > Previously, on sheryl-crew-digest: > > MsCreation12283@aol.com wrote: > > >I think we all have been extremely judgemental lately. Between Kid Rock > and now Gwyneth Paltrow, we have scrutinized Sheryl's friends and possible > boyfriends a little too >much. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion > and I respect that but we should also respect Sheryl's opinion...if she > thinks Kid and Gwen and anyone else is cool...she has the >right to live her > life the way she chooses. Talking about rumors and her friends (etc) is fine > and we do not have to like them or agree but I don't think we should post > negetive >things about her "associations" on a list, she most likely doesn't > but could possibly read. > > Hrrm. People have a right to their opinions. If I want to say that Paltrow's > voice is suited for a movie about karaoke and nothing else, well, that is my > opinion, and my right. If I were to say that in my opinion, having her on > this fourth studio album would be a mistake, I would be totally within my > rights. Absolutely,it is your right,only......until we actually hear the music how are we to know ? Same for this Rock fellow. In my opinion, it would be a bad move for > her to incorporate his 'work' into her catalog. I don't care for anything in > his act---and his presence on a fourth album will be the thing that prevents > me from purchasing that album. Even if he just does something inconsequential like say background vocals? I think we are overestimating the importance of both Paltrow's and Rock's contribution. Chances are we won't even notice them. > It is, "extremely judgmental" for you to sit here and chastise us for > expressing our opinions. At some level, we who pay for her albums are the > ones who have a right to gripe about what we perceive in our own ways as an > 'issue'. Would you take the same viewpoint if she announced that she'd be > working with Marshall Mathers, or would you be posting some long-winded > tirade against him? Somehow, I think the latter case would apply. Maybe it would be better to review the album when it's released! > XMystery79@aol.com wrote: > > >We don't know KR or even Gwenyth as people- > > We know what we see. In the case of the first, a low-class trash type who > needs a shower, a shave, a haircut, and probably a good beating. I have a beard and long hair. Does that qualify me for a beating? In > Paltrow's case, we see a supposedly vain and arrogant actress of middling > talent who for some reason was able to get a song recorded and on the radio. > No less an intelligence than Camille Paglia sees fit to heap scorn upon Miss > Paltrow, so there's got to be something there. (Props to Huey Lewis, > though---long time no hear) I don't know about her singing but Paltrow is a good actress. That you don't like her as a person has got nothing to do with her artistic abilities. > Christina Clark (bean@accglobal.net) wrote: > > >don't buy Sheryl's new album and stop coming to the forum, because you're > not a > >fan. > > Amusing. I'm not slavishly devoted to the worship of everything someone > does. Been taking a course in Stalinist rhetoric? People have the right to > make an honest appraisal of someone's work. Not all Jefferson Airplane > aficionados like everything the group ever did---does that make them any > less a fan? I doubt it---and you'd get the hide stripped off of you for > suggesting that they weren't. People have a right to make an honest appraisel of someone's work after they have heard it. > Drifter (jakovlevski@home.com) wrote: > > >Maybe we should change too. > > And why? Just because she jumps off a proverbial cliff by potentially > including this yokel on an album doesn't mean I am by any means committed to > following her with a beatific smile on my face. No way, no sir. > > Definitely not awaiting any album that includes Gwyneth Paltrow, Stevie > Nicks, or Kid Rock---bury that one in the vaults along with the first one, > Michael So Stevie Nicks is a non-talent also?????????What about Keith Richards? > "You think you know what I'm doing, so obviously you don't."---Aeon flux Gaston ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:12:29 EDT From: Mauseee@aol.com Subject: [sheryl-crew] IMAX and Sheryl I heard from a friend today that there is an IMAX movie here in NYC with Sheryl featured in it. Just wondering if anyone else had heard this? I heard it has a bunch of rockers in it...Sheryl is just one of the many others. My friend said it lasts about an hour and a half. I might try to catch it this weekend. The title of it is called, "All Access" and it is playing at the theater on 69th and Broadway. Let me know if any of you go see it. Michelle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:12:31 -0400 From: "Michael Worrell" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... Previously, on sheryl-crew: Fiona (feebee4_98@yahoo.com) wrote: >Well, I didn't take offense, but others may have. I know it is your >constitutional right and all to have an opinion, but maybe this way if >expressing it wasn't sooo constructive. You will probably get flamed for this. > I just wanted to say, like, Woah, okay - so don't buy the album. > >no hard feelings? > >Fee True. I believe it was Don Imus who was complaining this morning about overly-sensitive people. Admittedly, he's no authority on tact, but anymore, there's always someone indignant about something. It happens. Don't buy the album? Depending upon when it comes out, that choice might already be made for me. Graduate school is _expensive_. Ugh. Debt for the rest of my 20s and probably into my 30s. Great. But yes, I probably won't---at the same time, until the album's contents are officially announced, I can still gripe in the hopes of a return to TNMC & SC's styles. ^_^ Never any hard feelings. At any rate. Michael "You think you know what I'm doing, so obviously you don't."---Aeon Flux ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:33:39 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fiona?= Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: No Offense but... I think the thing with Stevie Nick's stature is that pretty much EVERYONE has heard of her. She was huge when people being huge was huge, if you get what I mean. Nowadays, there's a million and one famous people so the quality has dropped, I reckon. To be famous all you have to do is smile cutely in a camera - - the talent seems to be inconsequential, so that's why Stevie's a legend. When they were Fleetwood Mac, they really were rock and rollers, and it was them and people like them, ie Rolling Stones, who Sheryl says she thought of when she thought of being famous. So, in amongst a sea of "bubblegum pop", Sheryl gets kind of obliterated, she doesn't have that same legend status. I think that's what was meant. I mean, there's no way she's as huge as they were, but that's not to say she shouldn't be, she certainly deserves it and she has the talent, but these days it's really not possible. Sheryl took the right route, and that was collaborating with talented people who improve her own musical achievements and not being a promotions dream. She's way cooler for this, I feel. Respect to Sheryl, and to anyone who understood what I was trying to say... Fee ===== Irony. A wonderful weapon. But sometimes an iron is even better. Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie ------------------------------ End of sheryl-crew-digest V4 #114 *********************************