User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6811 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Straight from Scott Boras' mouth, so you know it's true.
Newest rumor: Max Scherzer juices.
Huh. I had no idea Scherzer had heterochromia.
Mostly serious answer: Since "nobody knew" and "nobody could have known" and "the cheaters fooled us all," we have no baseline from which to draw a comparison... right?
Fully serious answer: My best ignorant guess is that previous drug use has dropped, but that there's been a concurrent jump in drugs that weren't added to MLB's list and/or don't yet show up on current tests. Why would baseball be different from every other known sport?
Of course not, which is why I asked about suspicions, not facts.
We really don't know have firm data on usage rates of any other known sport, do we?
But I'd say a lot depends on how performance-aiding the drugs are viewed by the participants. In cycling, it seems, the competitors determined there was no way of competing without it. If baseball players viewed the use as less necessary to success (not an unreasonable conclusion, as it's more of a skill-based activity than cycling) than we should expect to see more of a dropoff once testing procedures were put in place (though other factors would also play a role, such as how effective the testing program was viewed by the participants).
Obviously, there are always going to be a certain percentage of guys who look to get an edge. But that number isn't fixed. I don't really see any reason to think that usage hasn't fallen somewhat since the policy was enacted.
Actually his view of Genesis is pretty much 100% right (although I do like Wind & Wuthering more than he does...)
XXZ is inclined to be skeptical
XXZ is YYX for fair reason
XXZ doesn’t name his source
XXZ is explosive
XXZ deserves tender care
XXZ is going on a witch hunt
XXZ throws names out there
XXZ has no rationale
XXZ correctly prognosticated
Clearly because he felt so disadvantaged that he resumed using in a desperate attempt to ressurrect a collapsed career.
It's my second favorite album, behind only Revolver. And "The Cinema Show" contains the most gorgeous melody I've ever heard.
I would guess the rate is down a lot - penalties have a deterrent effect over no penalties (what isn't true is that unfathomably enormous penalties have a deterrant effect beyond that of merely ginormous penalties). In 1998, an MLBer would've had to be pretty dumb to not use steroids. Now - the risk is higher, and the difficulty in obtaining suitable ones is higher (no more using Stanozolol), so the rate should go down. But whether it's 80% -> 20%, or 50% -> 1%, I have no idea.
My favorite Genesis song, which frankly isn't saying much, as I'm not much of a fan. But a very nice song.
(And yes, I'm mostly baiting you for fun, but I still find the Who in the bottom of classic/70s britrock. I'd consider Genesis far, far, far superior.)
The Who crashed mightily after Quadrophenia (1973), but up until that point they were, alongside the Stones, perhaps THE most impressive "triple threat" band in rock: classic singles group, classic album group, and arguably the greatest live rock group of all time. Certainly I've never heard a live album that's more gripping, amusing, entertaining, and endlessly relistenable than Live At Leeds. It isn't just great music, it's fun.
The funny thing is, I tend to think Who's Next is overrated. "Baba O'Riley" and "Won't Get Fooled Again" are unimpeachable, and "Bargain" and "Going Mobile" are also great fun, but I could take or leave the rest.
Also: anyone who hasn't heard The Who Sell Out is poorer in life for it.
EDIT: Finally, I'm obviously biased but I don't understand how someone could dislike the film The Kids Are Alright.
That is indicated by the word "classic" in my description, grandpa.
The interesting thing about Live At Leeds is that, although the non-Tommy parts of that show are absolutely superb (which is why the single-CD 14 track version is really all you need), the 1969 performances of the Tommy material are wildly superior. (A number of these shows were professionally recorded by the group and large segments have snuck out as bootlegs...DIME is your friend.) I think they just got tired of playing it all the time by February of 1970.
"Live at Leeds
Dead at Princeton"
he SWEARS he didn't do that on purpose
Whaaa??? They were easily my favorite Band. The Kinks were second. And Who's Next is an awesome album. Not a clunker on either side.
Funny thing. I never play old albums around the house so I don't know where this came from but when my son was in high school, we were talking about music and I asked him what his favorite band was and he said without hesitation "The Who.". One of those Kodak moments, I guess. That started a great conversation.
The Kinks behind the Who? BURN THE WITCH SO THE APOSTASY MAY CEASE WITH SCREAMS
Good band. Terribly recorded though, which hurts.
It's scary how many creases of my brain have been given over to the storage of useless information like "Grateful Dead concerts 1966-1974" and "Beach Boys recording session outtakes 1965-1967." I'm fully capable of stunning displays of pointless erudition at a moment's notice when it comes to music from that era...and I wasn't even born until late 1980.
bang on correct--I'm not much of a fan of the Dead (sorry), but The New Riders were their opening act and I enjoyed them very much
Random "Kinks" memory
there used to be free concerts on Friday afternoons in the plaza between the Twin Towers (old WTC)- the last act I saw in concert there (a week before 9/11) was Dave Davies
What I recall was that vocally he sounded a bit like his brother, and that he pretty much just played Kinks' songs
what does a Deadhead say when you take away his marijuana?
"Damn this music sucks"
For example, the 2/13/70 version of "Dark Star" (commercially released on Dick's Picks, Vol. 4 -- skip to 19:30, about a quarter of the way through of this file, to get to its beginning...unfortunately it's not on YouTube) is probably one of the two or three greatest pieces of improvisational rock music ever performed at any time or any place, period. Truly supernatural-level stuff where six people are simply responding to one another musically, and the result is absolutely haunting and triumphantly melodic.
Stuff like that is why I'll always be a Deadhead. Well that and the fact that they changed so rapidly that literally every single year of their live career from 1966 to 1977 or so offers a completely fresh look at their music.
Nah, it's not about the drugs. They really were authentically brilliant performers.
You have bad taste in music?
Yeah, nothing electrifies an audience like watching a bunch of 58 year olds cough and wheeze their way thru a slow tempo, 50 minute version of Not Fade Away.
Sorry man. Not my cop of tea. Rock on Babe!
But in their prime (1968-1973, let's say) they were well and truly one of the most impressive live rock groups on the face of the earth. Nobody was doing what they did -- they were a category of one in the rock world, with the closest analogue in terms of setlist organization and mutation/improvisation of song form being live jazz groups of the era. (Not surprisingly, they shared several bills during that era with Miles Davis and his band, and the Dead were one of only two rock acts that Davis ever voiced any respect for on a musical level, the other being Hendrix.) The only other live act whose shows are remotely as OCD-fascinating for me are King Crimson ca. 1972-1974.
Now I know you're on drugs.
I once was subjected to 25 minutes of guitar feedback from Robert Fripp at Jones Beach... it was fascinating in a slow mo car wreck kind of way... (don't get me wrong it was not nearly as bad as Lou Reed's metal machine music, something resembling a melody kind of floated in and out of the amps)
EDIT: Or "Cumberland Blues" for that matter. I mean, if you like bluegrass in any way, you'll love that.
Stage 1: Denial.
I don't like the Who or the Kinks. I guess one of us must be wrong (or possibly nude, if I understand your post).
Agreed. You're wrong (don't know and don't care if you're nude).
Of course he's wrong, he's a Phillies Phan. (I think, crosses fingers)
Oddly, I've only heard Petra Haden's cover. (and I'm not into acapella)
There are Kinks people and there are Dead people and ne'er the twain shall meet. Me, I'm a dedicated follower of Davies.
Hopefully you're closer to "I Can See for Miles" than you are to "5.15."
Anyway, two other things:
Here's Barry Manilow, following through on The Who Sell Out better than the Who ever did. No kidding.
And my SF law office used to be a gay bar, where the Dead played a few Sunday matinee shows in the late 60's. (I like their expansive jams, but hate their R&B covers)
RF Ichiro
SS Jeter
3B Youk
1B Tex
DH Hafner
LF Rivera
2B Nunez
CF Gardner
C Stewart
Nope! Teixeira out 8-10 weeks with a forearm strain.
Ichiro, Jeter, Youk, Hafner, Rolen, Rivera, Nunez, Gardner, Stewart. Although at some point you move Gardner up in the lineup, don't you?
I wonder what people would have said of the Beatles if they'd stuck around as a group to now. I'm too young to remember either group as more than recordings and old men, but my understanding is that the Who were changing the image of a rock and roll band in the zeitgeist, while the Beatles were more significant musically (surely even those that hate the Beatles can't argue they didn't have a significant impact). I imagine that the Beatles would have held up better, but still taken a hit.
My point is, the Who find themselves in a weird place. The Beatles had Harrison, a top 10-15 guitar player of all time. The Who had Townsend, who for all his skill was still at best a rhythm guitar player. Harrison was the better musician while Townsend was a better performer. This is really true across the board, Entwistle and McArtney, Ringo and Moon, Lennon and Daltrey. Seeing the performers age probably takes a lot more shine off than seeing the musicians.
I don't think they could have.
Take your three best friends from when you were 20, and imagine being locked in a room with them for ten years.
How well do you think you'd be getting along, at the end of that?
By contrast, the Rolling Stones have always taken LONG breaks away from each other, and that's probably THE biggest secret to their longevity as a group.
Personally, I love Nothing To Say, also. And Mr. Churchill Says, although that has novelty aspects I suppose. And She Bought A Hat Like Princess Marina.
Ray Davies was great at expressing the viewpoint of the working lower class at times. And Nothing To Say is a great expression of alienation between formerly loving generations.
The thing is - as a concept album it's hard to judge it except for the totality of the emotional aspects of the album. Arthur is a bit player trying to do right while avoiding being great. He just misses World War I, but his brother dies in it. He could gamble on escaping his station, but instead focuses on a few minor luxuries for his family (Driving), is envious of the rich, and then ends up losing most of what he values as his son is estranged and leaves England (Nothing To Say; Australia). Shangri-La might make more sense for our current sensibilities, but Nothing To Say and She Bought A Hat Like Princess Marina are indictments of that life. But since this is Ray Davies, generally affectionate indictments - especially since Arthur was Ray Davies' uncle.
Yes, but it's also about the nature of the arrangement. Their inputs were varied and changeable. Harrison had one of the most distinctive guitar songs in the business, but Lennon could play lead, too, and did (sometimes they both played lead). McCartney even played lead. And McCartney is a great bass guitarist but Lennon could play it, too (and maybe Harrison played it on occasion). And I believe Lennon and McCartney could play the drums, too.
You didn't have just one lead singer, one composer, one guy that did back up like with a lot of bands. And all of them wanted more cuts allocated to them on albums. Especially Harrison. They went from Lennon-McCartney or Lennon and McCartney composing all the songs on an album with maybe a couple of covers to Harrison demanding a composer presence (even Ringo a few times). I believe McCartney in particular balked at that. And the 4:4:2 split they came up with (with the occasional Ringo composition, but usually he had his one cover or Lennon and McCartney took turns writing a song for him) was just a stopgap measure that didn't satisfy Harrison for long.
Ray Davies was also a hell of a lyricist--funny, witty, pointed, poignant.
ALBUM #1 (1970):
Side One: “Instant Karma” (John), “Every Night” (Paul), “What Is Life” (George), “It Don’t Come Easy” (Ringo), “Working Class Hero” (John), “Awaiting on You All” (George), “Teddy Boy” (Paul);
Side Two: “Mother” (John), “Hot As Sun” (Paul), “Not Guilty” (George), “Maybe I’m Amazed” (Paul), “Remember” (John), “All Things Must Pass” (George), “Junk” (Paul)
Singles: “Instant Karma” b/w “Man We Was Lonely” (Paul)
“What Is Life” b/w “Hold On” (John)
“Maybe I’m Amazed” b/w “Wah Wah” (George)
ALBUM #2 (1971):
Side One: “Imagine” (John), “Dear Boy” (Paul), “I’d Have You Anytime” (George), “Another Day” (Paul), “Jealous Guy” (John). “Back Seat of My Car” (Paul);
Side Two: “Too Many People” (Paul), “Gimme Some Truth” (John), “Let It Down” (George), “Back Off Boogaloo” (Ringo), “Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey” (Paul), “How?” (John)
Singles: “Imagine” b/w “Monkberry Moon Delight” (Paul)
“Another Day” b/w “Crippled Inside” (John)
“Jealous Guy” b/w “Run of the Mill” (George)
“Back Off Boogaloo” b/w “Bip Bop” (Paul)
And so on. This guy keeps going (and going) through 2001. Things eventually thin out, but the takeaway is that the Beatles coulda held up for half that run without much trouble.
Thank you. That was exactly what was living in the back of my brain that was kind of trying to come out. The Who are an example of a band were each member really needed the others.
I don't know about that. I'd be interested in a poll of people who were teens to early 20s in the 60s were the question was "which of those two bands wrote your generation's seminal song." I don't doubt the Beatles would win, but I bet The Who cover the spread.
I don't know about that. I'd be interested in a poll of people who were teens to early 20s in the 60s were the question was "which of those two bands wrote your generation's seminal song." I don't doubt the Beatles would win, but I bet The Who cover the spread.
Could be, but in terms of what was that generation's most influential song, the songwriter combination of Louise Shropshire, Pete Seeger, and Guy Carawan would top both the Beatles and The Who put together. Do a bit of googling and you'll see what I mean.
Is this really a good measuring stick?
I know this bulletin will disappoint you, Andy, but there's simply no sense in which We Shall Overcome was more influential (*) on "that generation" than songs by the Beatles, the Who, and their influenced successors.
Not only that, but rock/alternative music has generated many songs which speak more poetically and convincingly (and maturely) to the very issues to which We Shall Overcome speaks than We Shall Overcome itself.
(*) It may have more directly influenced purely political stances and activities, but that's a small niche in the proper meaning of "influential," in much the same sense that protest rallies are a small niche in cultural and political life. Becoming the song du jour at the random protest ralliy does not influence make -- any more than something like "The People // United // Shall Never Be Defeated" is the most influential prose of recent times.
No disrespect, but of the hundred-odd mass meetings in the South I had the good fortune to participate in, I never once heard that song even mentioned, let alone sung. I'm sure it was a staple at Joan Baez concerts.
---------------------------------------------
Could be, but in terms of what was that generation's most influential song, the songwriter combination of Louise Shropshire, Pete Seeger, and Guy Carawan would top both the Beatles and The Who put together. Do a bit of googling and you'll see what I mean.
I know this bulletin will disappoint you, andy, but there's simply no sense in which We Shall Overcome was more influential (*) on "that generation" than songs by the Beatles, the Who, and their influenced successors.
(*) It may have more directly influenced purely political stances and activities, but that's a small niche in the proper meaning of "influential," in much the same sense that protest rallies are a small niche in cultural and political life.
All this shows is that you weren't there, and you don't have a clue as to how ignorant that comment is.**
Musical influence is another matter altogether, but I wasn't contesting that, and I certainly wasn't meaning to disparage either the Beatles' or The Who's influence within that realm. Nor am I trying to downplay the role that rock music in general had in loosening the cultural mores of their time, though for that I'd more likely want to credit Levi Strauss and the inventor of the birth control pill.
**Ask John Lewis or Nelson Mandela, or the countless millions of others whose "purely political stances and activities" brought the world kicking and streaming out of the 19th century, which of those songs had more influence on them.
Funny how that in spite of many hundreds of other "movement" songs that were used during that period, We Shall Overcome was the one that was always used to conclude the meetings. Funny how that even the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association adopted it, not to mention countless anti-colonial movements throughout the world. There was a universality to the lyrics and a beauty of the melody that resonated with movements everywhere, and it didn't hurt that the song had its origins as a gospel hymn.
Again, if you weren't "there", so to speak, you may not be able to understand this, and it's no knock against you. But ask anyone who was "there" and you'll get the same answer.
Yes, you can overemphasize the importance of a school song--or the Battle Hymn of the Republic, or Dixie--but it serves a purpose, no doubt.
But Blowing in the Wind, something that strikes more than a campfire solidarity purpose? Or the Beatles. You felt the psychic change taking place when they entered the public consciousness.
I meant to say 'rarely', but starting thinking about 'where do you see 'ne'er'' and forgot to swap 'em out. Anyway, I based that on a very small sample and am talking nonsense anyway.
I can enjoy hearing the Dead, but will never seek them out - they run counter to my usual preferences (short, polished, hooky stuff) if nothing else.
So, has anybody else hit the 'has my brain has run out of room for new music' wall? It always struck me as a silly concept, but I think I'm getting there - I'm slowly working through a file of a 1000 songs, a hundred from each of the last ten years, and keep finding myself thinking 'this seems like a song I would've had a more extreme reaction to at one point, but now feel like it's just another track to add to one pile or another'. Not disliking new stuff, but relative indifference. (I'm just short of 40.)
That happened to me in my early 40s, which is to say about a decade ago. Ouch.
Morty, the only way to answer that patronizing "campfire solidarity purpose" line is to say that when countless thousands of mass meetings of previously disenfranchised people ended with We Shall Overcome, the effect was far more powerful.
And to put it another way, no civil rights movement, and no jumpstart to Bob Dylan's career**. Blowing in the Wind, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul and Mary were all fine singers and influential in their own right (especially Dylan), but without the moral force of the movement behind them, they were essentially little more than transient campus and coffee house phenomena, at least until Dylan parlayed his fame and reinvented himself.
**Jumpstarted by his being invited to sing at the March on Washington. Prior to that, he was virtually unheard of outside a small group of folk song aficionados.
I think it's largely a matter of exposure. When you're in your teens and twenties, and even into your thirties, your entire environment is saturated with current music, but after that you have to make a much more conscious effort to keep up with it. And the truth is that when you start embracing music that was around before your own childhood, that's a whole separate bottomless pit to fall into, and there are only so many hours in the day to devote to music.
I don't know if it is because my brain has run out of room but I am definitely to the point where I no longer listen to much new music. Just put it down to me being an old fart but I find most new music boring and pretentious. Not that there wasn't plenty of boring and pretentious music back in the sixties and seventies, it's just that now it seems worse. I'm sure it is just more of that "things were better in the past" meme that pops up so frequently.
I wasn't there in slavery days, either -- so what?
Musical influence is another matter altogether, but I wasn't contesting that, and I certainly wasn't meaning to disparage either the Beatles' or The Who's influence within that realm.
You have a myopic vision of political and cultural life as revolving primarily around the barricades and "overcoming" and that influences your aesthetic judgments. We Shall Overcome is a mediocre piece of work, aimed at a limited audience and betraying a limited perspective. As noted above, other music is far more accomplished even at transmitting the ultimate message behind We Shall Overcome.
Shooty: I'd recommend both the Funky 16 Corners podcast (dude's a total crate-digger, and his mixes are always available for download) and Peter Guralnick's Sweet Soul Music - good book, with a GREAT discography.
Do you have any thoughts on the "What it is! Rare funk & soul grooves" four-disc compilation from 5 or 7 years ago? Have been playing it recently at get-togethers and it has gotten raves.
Ouch!
I really like the Sitting in the Park show on my local college station, WHPK. He's got a lot of old shows archived with playlists. The host is a sloppy DJ and an abominable interviewer, but he has excellent taste in soul music and digs up a lot of lost gems, especially from Midwestern groups. He also starts every week with "Southside Chicago" by Otis Brown, which I have become convinced is the greatest lazy song ever recorded. ("The Girl Can't Dance" by Bunker Hill with Link Wray and his Wraymen is the greatest non-lazy song ever recorded.)
Just added to my list of things to look out for. I cut my teeth on R&B & such (a heck of a lot more than I did on rock, which was in sort of a fallow place, or so it seemed to be at the time) as a kid listening to the radio in the early '70s, which of course translated into Top 40 tracks.
Of course it gets to the question of what "influential" means. What book was more influential, Madame Bovary or Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution?
It is harder though and I have to make an effort not just to listen to music from my youth. It is worthwhile though I would argue so long as you realize that the music of most times (even your youth) is only OK, but there are some great songs most any time period.
Regarding classic 60s songs, "For What its Worth" always feels to me like the perfect song for the era, but it is not the most influenctial (I would need more information by what we meant by that to argue for or against some songs). In terms of various generational songs I think the Stones and Who have more seminal (generational) songs that the Beatles, despite the Beatles being the greatest of all time.
Bob Dylan was invited to perform on The Ed Sullivan Show three months before the March on Washington.
We've probably never had a thread like that because it would likely draw just the two of us as participants, and would quickly be drowned out by interjections about other genres. But I could link you to several hundred forgotten and semi-forgotten gems any time you'd like, from the Lorraine Ellison to Linda Jones to the Knight Brothers to Baby Washington and so on. It's another one of those bottomless pits for anyone who has the time and a love of great music.
Yeah, but only about 14 million people watched him. There were almost 300,000 people at the March on Washington!!!
Bob Dylan was invited to perform on The Ed Sullivan Show three months before the March on Washington.
Didn't know that, but his MOW appearance introduced him to an entirely new audience that didn't necessarily watch the Ed Sullivan Show. I'm pretty sure that if Dylan could have picked one of those two venues to advance his career, he would've chosen the MOW in a blink. Nationwide saturation live coverage by all three networks was only part of it, but to give you an idea of the magnitude of that event, there were more TV cameras running that day than there were for JFK's inauguration.
EDIT: Yes, Sugar Bear, Dylan's exposure at the MOW was limited only to those actually at the event. Just like only 250,000 people ever saw Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, which couldn't possibly have been as influential as "I Want To Hold Your Hand".
Did he actually perform on Sullivan? My impression is that when the network forbade him to play "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues," he walked.
Which means it's accessible to all of us, and you didn't really have to be there -- right?
*youtubes*
Yep, there's Bob Dylan performing ....
I've always loved to dance up-tempo so I couldn't be happier at the popularity of electronic dance music. Don't miss the boat on the Electro-swing genre, tell me this ain't catchy as hell.
How many people do you think watched the speech live on TV?
I was 3 weeks away from turning 4, so I'm going to venture out on a limb & say I skipped it. (Earliest TV memory I'm positive of is being irritated about 3 months later when Saturday morning cartoons weren't shown because of JFK's assassination the previous day. The outrage!)
That's a bit like Thomas Boswell's "Who is Oscar Charleston?" comment, and it only shows you must have slept through your history classes. I suspect the only cure for you is retroactive reincarnation.
--------------------------------------------------
Andy may be right or wrong about WSO, but his "you had to be there" argument isn't very compelling.
I'm afraid you did "have to be there" to truly understand the impact not only of We Shall Overcome, but of the entire role of music in keeping hope alive in days when white supremacy was as embedded in the DNA of this country as salt is in Doritos.
That said, if you weren't "there", you can at least get a partial understanding by hunting down video footage of actual mass meetings. Not clips of Bob Dylan or Joan Baez singing at Carnegie Hall, but documentary footage that's in first rate compilations such as the DVD release of King: From Montgomery to Memphis.
Or you can perhaps begin to understand what that music meant by talking to a good cross-section of people who were there, mostly black, and mostly well along in years by now. You still won't have experienced first hand knowledge, but at least it will stop you from making the sort of moronic comments that Sugar Bear and Morty were making above. There's nothing quite as stupid as proudly displayed ignorance, but those two are competing for the gold medal.
And BTW this isn't about any sort of "one-upmanship", which I'm sure has entered your mind. Any veteran who's seen combat will tell you that reading about warfare can only take you so far, and no man can ever really know what giving birth to a child is like. Everyone has had first hand exposure to experiences that most people haven't, and many of those experiences can only be conveyed imperfectly. This just happens to be one of them.
I didn't really get into music until college and I'm pretty non-nostalgic, so that's not it for me, so much. If I had to guess, it's partly a long tail issue (the things I gravitate toward tend toward semi-obscurity, for whatever reason, and the further fragmentation of pop culture means I've more ground to cover (though you could say that all this means is that i use different tools now to curate my exposure process - going from radio and record stores to blogs and such)). And I still appreciate on an 'analytical level' new stuff (like, when I first heard Kendrick Lamar, I was like 'oh, there's something here') - but not emotional (I didn't buy his album or singles). The last new song I really embraced, deeply, was Aimee Mann's Labrador (which is tremendous), but she's hardly a new artist. Last album I fell in love with from an artist that was new to me was Monae's Archandroid and that was a few years ago. (Though I did subsequently have a "must buy a bunch of parliament albums" bit since then, but it's not like I didn't know what they were about already.)
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm dead inside? (Not really.)
***
I'll check out the Funky 16 Corners podcast (thanks!) - big gap in how much I like and how much I know of that material.
On my to get list, but somehow I never do.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main