From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V2 #371 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Sunday, December 10 2000 Volume 02 : Number 371 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] The Write Place [RockinRonD@aol.com] [RS] When You We're Born ["edward dupas" ] [RS] RRon Hurts [Loracevoll@aol.com] [RS] singer-songwriters and McPape [Michael Devlin ] [RS] Hugh review/Richard preview. [Rongrittz@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:52:41 EST From: RockinRonD@aol.com Subject: [RS] The Write Place In a message dated 12/10/2000 4:59:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, Vanessa reacts: << Well, at the very least, he's (Hugh) supposed to not be wrong about the most basic facts of the CD, like who wrote what. I think many listers felt that his cavalier attitude towards getting the facts straight underscored a rather casual review of the CD. >> Excellent point Vanessa, and well articulated. Jeff also makes a good point about the need to REALLY listen to a new album for a length of time before offering an opinion. Sadly, reviewers aren't afforded that luxury. When a new CD is released, it is an imperative at magazines, newspapers, etc. to publish a review as soon or as timely as possible, a procedure that is in keeping with the basic tenets of journalism --the news now, kind of thing. I don't always agree that this makes sense when reviewing a record, but it's the way things are for the most part. Hugh leads a hectic life to say the least and he shoulders a great deal of responsibility editing the folk segment of About.Com. I'm not here to come off as his apologist -- he's a professional and hardly needs defending. It's just that sometimes writers screw up precisely because there wasn't enough time to listen, to write, to adequately form an opinion and, occasionally, check facts thoroughly. Every time I read one of my own published reviews I see things I might have said differently, and wish I could provide an addendum or even rewrite. I'd bet my Martin guitar that Hugh would have loved another chance to write that SNP review. Why do I feel like a Journalism 101 teacher? ReportinRon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:17:44 -0500 From: "edward dupas" Subject: [RS] When You We're Born Do we know the sex of the lost child in Abeulita? If not, does anyone make any assumptions as to whether the child is male of female based on the lyrics? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:20:51 EST From: Loracevoll@aol.com Subject: [RS] RRon Hurts > From: RockinRonD@aol.com > Subject: [RS] Under Cover of Darkness, Darkness > > Just to clarify, I have no quarrel with Richard's choice of cover songs, > just that I don't feel he covers them all that well, though there are > certainly exceptions. Personally, I don't think "Love Hurts" is all that > great a song to begin with so Ron, Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you're WRONG!!! "Love Hurts" in it's many incarnations (yea, even the Nazareth cover) is a moving song. It's so simple and yet so true. Think back to that first girl who put your heart in the trash compactor of Love. .........Carol, who KNOWS this is one of the best crying in your beer songs ever but will NEVER get to hear Richard do it, because she lives down here in the electile dysfunction state where no one tours often EXCEPT political windbags.... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:44:41 -0500 From: Michael Devlin Subject: [RS] singer-songwriters and McPape Let's not hold our breath waiting for commercial enterprises to report anything that the masses have not already been sold. We are our own best source of info. To that point I have been posting this to some of the lists of singer-songwriter fans. - --------------- Hello Folks, It is getting to be that list time of year. I would like to offer one with a slightly different twist. This is a last minute shopping help list and also very true to the purpose of the Music Matters Review to shine a little light on music that is excellent but does not get nearly the attention it deserves. So here is the idea! I would like folks to send short lists of artists, special CDs and compilations along with urls where people can purchase them. These artists and works you recommend should reflect discoveries you have made that you would like to share with other people. Please concentrate on material that is not universally known stuff you won9t find anywhere in the record store at the mall. If at all possible the urls should refer to the artist9s own web page (this way the artists will get to keep more of the money you may spend as opposed to buying from a corporate retailer). Suggestions do not have to be for a particular CD recommending an artist or collection is fine. CDs do not have to be from this year. Please keep the list reasonably short, no more than about 10 or so. You don9t have to post them all at once drop in an idea when you get it. You can post your suggestions at the message area of the Music Matters Review. http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/musicmattersclub Thanks and happy holidays to all! - -- Mike Devlin Editor Music Matters Review P.O. Box 425 Smithtown, NY 11787 http://www.mmreview.com thefolks@mmreview.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:19:53 -0500 From: Tom Neff Subject: [RS] Re: Hugh's review Hugh's review was fair and well-written. Any reviewer has to call it as she/he sees it and not lose sleep over some etiquette breach as a "fellow folkie." It's not as though Richard's work is above thoughtful criticism. If you look over the body of Hugh's reviews you will see that he almost never discusses covers as a separate category. He seems to accept that when a performing songwriter records a cover, it means they admire the songwriting and think it fits into the tone and message of the album, and that the recorded result should be judged integrally with the album, not singled out as exceptions. Nor was he "wrong about basic facts," unless you count using the other (and possibly more common, although it seems quite interchangeable) spelling of "Wisteria." He just seldom discusses authorship, including in this case. Certainly nothing in Hugh's review rises to the indignity of "Well, my favorite Dar song has got to be 'Family'..." :) And we should be wary of the mindset that suggests any review not concluding "This is ___'s best album ever!" is a hose job. Personally, I think SNP is a good, solid effort with a bunch of classic songs, but with a darker mood than REUNION HILL. Opening the latter with an exquisitely magisterial "Next Best Western" makes it my choice for coolest RS album ever. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:53:42 EST From: Rongrittz@aol.com Subject: [RS] Hugh review/Richard preview. >> Hugh's review was fair and well-written. Any reviewer has to call it as she/he sees it and not lose sleep over some etiquette breach as a "fellow folkie." It's not as though Richard's work is above thoughtful criticism. << No, and I think we've been just as critical of some of Richard's work on this very list. But I have to admit that I found it difficult to accept Hugh's criticism of "Somewhere Near Paterson" when I found his own "Rocket Science" to be light-years below the standard he himself set with HIS first three albums. You know, a classic case of the pot calling the kettle, well, pot. >> Nor was he "wrong about basic facts," unless you count using the other (and possibly more common, although it seems quite interchangeable) spelling of "Wisteria." << He also spelled "Fleur-de-Lis" incorrectly and calls one of Richard's songs "Summer BREEZE, Cotton Dress" and certainly DOES seem to imply that RS wrote "My Love Will Follow You" and "Calling the Moon," although not in so many words. It's simply to Vanessa's point -- I'd have had less of a problem with the review if he'd paid attention to details. Also, and this isn't an indictment of the review, necessarily, but in re-reading it, I noticed this in his discussion of "Transit": >> Like much of Shindell's best work, this is a theological tale -- a nun trying to get a busload of children to a concert is getting her prayers answered. << A busload of CHILDREN? TO A PRISON FILLED WITH CRACK DEALERS AND MURDERERS? Yikes . . . are we listening to the same song? Finally, to give Hugh his do (an unfortunate rhyme, but bear with me), he calls Richard's CD "formulaic." Which made me stop and think a bit. HAS Richard become formulaic? Do we sense that as a potential problem? I mean, here we've had another "no surprises" collection of character pieces, strong musicianship, Larry's deft (if often less-than-sublte) production, etc. Where does Richard go from here? I mean -- don't get me wrong -- I love almost everything Richard does. He's easily my favorite artist of all time. And I've never been a huge fan of artists changing their style just for the sake of changing. I've made no secret of the fact that the Dar Williams who spoke to me with "The Honesty Room" just doesn't speak to me with "The Green World." And I understand Joni Mitchell's oft-repeated comment that no one said to Van Gogh, "Hey, man, paint 'Starry Night' again." But I tend to like an artist's style more than the artist him/herself. In a nutshell, I'm a fan of music, not musicians. And when a musician stops making the type of music I like, I often tend to stop liking the musician and move on to someone who DOES make the type of music I like. When Nanci Griffith stopped making the edgy folkabilly music of the period from "Last of the True Believers" through "Storms," and turned to a series of producers who sent her right into Bland Land, I stopped liking Nanci Griffith, and have not listened to her since. Same thing with John Denver after "Windsong." Same thing with Dan Fogelberg after "The Innocent Age." There's a flip side, too, and that's when an artist makes what seems to be the EXACT same CD over and over. James Taylor. John Gorka. Indigo Girls. Cheryl Wheeler. Melissa Etheridge. I'm not sure I like that either. So, I'm not saying that Richard should keep making "Somewhere Near Paterson" over and over for the rest of his career, but where do we think he should go with his next CD, or rather, the one that will follow the Live CD we've been advised is being recorded in the spring? Different producer? Different style? Thoughts? RG ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V2 #371 ***********************************