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