Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5g!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hogpc!drux3!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!grunwald
From: grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Do you feel like I do?, or am I over - (nf)
Message-ID: <4236@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Nov-83 20:33:02 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4236
Posted: Wed Nov 30 20:33:02 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Dec-83 08:01:37 EST
Lines: 34

#R:mgweed:-490600:uiuccsb:7600055:000:1393
uiuccsb!grunwald    Nov 30 21:23:00 1983

Paul McCartney certainly has a vested interest in saying "what's wrong with
that" when talking about soft pop love songs.

  That's all he has been able to put out for the last few years, and before that
(when he belonged to the beatles), the only good songs he wrote were
asorbed osmoticaly from Lennon.

  There is something about the stupor inducing soft rock which is infuriating 
to me. Groups like "Air Supply" and "Hall and Oates" whine on and on about
their torrid little relationships.

  That's fine, but why can't they do it in some original manner? One could be
polite and call their music "consistent", or one could be blunt and call it
"repititous, uninspiring and being done for the bucks."

  These groups seem to be following the road taken by "Boston" and "The Cars,"
that of plagarizing their own work.

  One need only compare the efforts of these pap-producing wind bags to the
music put out by people such as Peter Gabriel, Joe Jackson, David Bowie,
and so on. They manage to write love songs (if one must have them), but they
do so with a sense of individuality and flair that really separates them from
the pabilum producing hordes.

  But then, flaming about music has to be the lowest form of flaming ever
invented, so I'll shut up now.

Dirk "boy did that feel good" Grunwald
Crooning across the Great Grasslands of Illinois,
University of Illinois
uiucdcs!grunwald