CONNELLS Archives

August 1996

CONNELLS@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Sarah Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The Connells <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 Aug 1996 07:18:07 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
Not that you all don't think I'm completly insane by now anyway, but I've
come up with my favorite explanation of Friendly Time yet. At least, it's
my story and I'm sticking to it. While I was a the library I did a little
skimming and I discovered:  it's not that the reviews of the Connells have
been particularly good or bad (though most of them were basically good, and
some in Melody Maker about F&G were _glowing_), it's that there is a
curious _lack_ of reviews of the Connells in all the major music magazines.
They are largely ignored, especially since Ring. So, by putting the names
of prominent reviewers in their song, it's like, "Your name is in our song,
so now you _have_ to pay attention to us and review our album." Anyway,
this feels right to me because it is the simplest explanation (which tends
to be the closest to truth). I will shut up now.
 
pax,
Sarah

ATOM RSS1 RSS2