MikeWNY

I'm a native and have always been here other than during college, etc. She didn't live there too long as the relationship she was in ended. It is a neat place to live being between the falls, Ontario, and Buffalo.

Hi Sue, I'm in Rochester--just so you know there is another "local" here on the site now and then. My sister once lived on Grand Island and she was quite afraid of the bridge(s) for several months at least! Mike

Who cares what an irrelevant cabal associated with the HOF decides, anyways? I guarantee few music fans care or even know who is or isn't in the HOF. Halls of Fame are always political unless there is some objective criteria used. Grudges and intrigue rule. "Official" committees of the current time do not truly decide who created or did something of lasting importance or value.

I was on some website the other day that was poking fun at a 1981 video of an ABC News report on the increasing popularity of rap. I'm sure you can find it through Google. The funniest part of it is where the reporter states, listing this genre's many qualities, that "you" don't even miss the fact there is no melody. Really, you don't?! Who is "you"? I would barely consider it music although the news report does allude to it being "street" poetry or something. It's hard to believe that younger people today think that stuff is edgy or new when Hugh Downs thought it was great in 1981. I'm not sure what some suburban kids think they are rebelling against with it. Eventually, many seem to grow out of it.

"Some brilliance, somewhere, was going to be expressed, and now it won't..." It would seem to me that great artists create brilliant works because of his or her love for the craft. ("Well I know it sounds funny But I'm not in it for the money, no...") Think of the many writers, playwrights, composers, etc. that made very little money off of their masterpieces. Even artists today may write some of their best music at a point at which they don't necessarily expect riches from it. To say that it died only because Napster or other services arrived on the scene in the late 90's seems something of a tortured argument. The more unpleasant possibility is that the Top 40 is the Top 40 because that is what a certain demographic wants or, at least, accepts. Music's prior shifts in taste (or simply industry promotion and output) were not likely "natural" either. There is always a segment that appreciates good music though and that music may be rediscovered in the future. Anyways, I think the explanation is more complicated than what Gene said. Obviously, those silly music game ("reality") shows don't help. I find it impossible to suffer through most of what is blasted through television or radio currently, but I have always been a bit different! That's my devil's advocacy for today.

Birdy, yes but it started raining steadily and it had to be cut a bit short. Despite living relatively close, I had only been to the Canadian side a few times previously.

Thanks all. The birthday was great--spent the morning at Niagara Falls.

Yes, it is very "80s" starting with the moves. That I could also imagine EC doing something similar in musical style was why I thought of it.

I love this performance of I Can Dream About You on the Letterman Show. Hartman puts much more of an R&B interpretation into this than the track version had although I like that rendition as well.

I was looking for some "Record Store Day" info online earlier and came across a station that had played Brand New Year on 4/18. http://wfmu.org/playlists/shows/55303 With the vinyl release today, maybe the song will receive a bit more attention.

Also, as someone who wasn't really aware of the Raspberries or EC when the reunion concerts were taking place, I think I would have been disappointed there wasn't more EC solo material in them. Perhaps that will be rectified someday.

I never experienced 1974 to begin with and I'm thinking I didn't miss too much. Most (or at least many) bands seem to experience strife and I don't see how she can write that the Raspberries have developed an embarrassing reputation because of it. These argumemts are just "inside baseball" for most people. Despite the ongoing drama, I think most of us are more interested in what might be ahead of us in 2014 than a rescreening of 1974's Creature from the Black Lagoon.

I was thinking of catching it this year especially since the first U.S. date is only a half-hour away from me--although I don't particularly care for the venue.

Admittedly, somebody can be knowledgeable and not necessarily working in the industry but it is difficult to be impressed by this magazine which seems more intent on selling false hope to would-be songwriters. As for Hal (or Evan), even the use of snark was clumsy in his review. When done adroitly, an element of snark can be entertaining but this was ignorant snark. I don't think his stale "magazine" reviews are going to outlive him, by the way!

The title of this thread may have been too harsh towards the other "critic"...but it's just that kind of night. One mediocre review is hardly a big deal and it means that even the critical types are noticing. The majority are positive and it isn't possible to please everyone. Remember, there are many people out there (who have never heard of the Raspberries, for example) just waiting to be impressed and energized by something from the "melody tank." (We know the critical reviewer is a closet Madonna and JT fan anyways.)