Tucker Cawley <[log in to unmask]> corrected:
 
>
>In a message dated 96-08-26 12:02:15 EDT, [log in to unmask] (Sarah Andrews)
>writes:
>
><< My boyfriend has a theory about Friendly Time. At least some of the names
> he recognizes as music reviewers from various magazines (not that I can
> remember them off the top of my head) - I don't know if the rest are
> though. So it's sort of like, thanks to the reviewers who've always stood
> by them, even if commercial success is varying, and sort of a playful
> kissing up to them, like, give our album a good review this time too. >>
>
>Actually, I think it's the opposite.  Believe it or not, the Connells don't
>get a lot of glowing reviews, and I think Friendly Time, despite the title
>and cheery melody, is a kind of f-you to those reviewers who have burned them
>in the past.  Maybe not, but I get that feeling.  Either way, I like the
>song.  It just takes a few listens.
>
My bad! I had it backwards. But my main point (and I do have one) still
stands: Friendly Time is a _goofy_ song. Any attempt to take it too
seriously will end up like my 'alternate' reading of Abba's Dancing Queen
("The tragic story of a young girl who equates dancing with love, thus
dooming herself to a lifetime of shallow lonliness...") - it won't work.
 
pax,
Sarah