|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 22, 2019 11:11:02 GMT -5
My middle son had Toto's Africa played for him umpteen hundred times before he went to Benin. To say he loathes that song is a gross understatement. And now Weezer has done a cover (note-for-note, which are the worst kind) of the song, so a whole new generation gets to listen to it over and over again. My older daughter loves it and makes me keep it on the radio when we're in the car, even though I tell her I didn't like it the first time and it hasn't gotten any more palatable in the ensuing 35 years. To what end, one wonders.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 12:33:41 GMT -5
My middle son had Toto's Africa played for him umpteen hundred times before he went to Benin. To say he loathes that song is a gross understatement. And now Weezer has done a cover (note-for-note, which are the worst kind) of the song, so a whole new generation gets to listen to it over and over again. My older daughter loves it and makes me keep it on the radio when we're in the car, even though I tell her I didn't like it the first time and it hasn't gotten any more palatable in the ensuing 35 years. Both the Toto and Weezer versions are in rotation on the radio station that plays at work, and one co-worker belts it out every time it comes on the damn radio. I despised the song before, now, I can't express how much I have come to dread the opening notes of that song. -M
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jan 22, 2019 13:11:41 GMT -5
I understand that feeling of nostalgia for things of a certain era, though, even things you never really liked much. Nostalgia trumps taste for me too usually. There's a Hall And Oates song that takes me straight back to hearing it in a shop, I Can't Go For That, and before that another, Rich Girl, coming out of a transistor radio on the steps of a big old house in the summer with one of the tenants many pigeons cooing in their wood and mesh cages (I was cleaning the cages for them while he was away). Contexts having nothing to do with the songs really, they just happened to show up previously unheard as punctuation. I can't say I'm any great Hall And Oates fan. Also a song by a group called The Bus Boys called Minimum Wage when I had a weekend job at a supermarket. I did become a fan of theirs though and still have the first two LPs. No particular feeling about Toto, though I do sort of remember Roseanna being played at a roller skating rink, so I guess one good memory there. I do like Lost In Love by Air Supply, more the original version, the remake they did shortly after the initial version was very clean and slicker, maybe some would appreciate the original lower fi one in a cheaper Australian studio perhaps? I don't know the story behind the second version that is now the standard, perhaps they went to Miami or something for it. I tend to like Australian recordings even if they are technically less sophisticated or glossy or whatever. There's an immediacy... Easybeats, pre 1967 Bee Gees, AC/DC, Ted Mulry, The Angels, Divinyls, Midnight Oil, and the earliest Air Supply and INXS. Stuff out of Vancouver Canada studios also has a 'sound' to me which is better than all the studio polish and tech (earliest Heart, Chilliwack, Doug & The Slugs, Powder Blues Band, 54-40, Grapes Of Wrath, all Vancouver).
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 22, 2019 19:40:40 GMT -5
I like lots of silly love songs, including Air Supply's two big hits, 'All Out of Love' and 'Lost in Love' - but not, I'm sorry to say, McCartney's 'Silly Love Songs'. I say "sorry", because I am a fan of the artist, both as a solo act and with the Beatles, and I even kind of agree with the sentiment expressed. But it's a terrible song, to my ears. It almost sounds like he's trying to prove the opposite point, that they're really unbearable in their saccharine sappiness. I quite agree with you on Silly Love Songs. The lyrics are fine for the point he’s trying to make but it’s awful to listen too. But McCartney as a solo act is always hit and miss for me. Honestly though all solo acts outside of a song or two from each respectively don’t vibe with me. They were all better as a total sum to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 20:13:55 GMT -5
I really dig Toto's Dune movie soundtrack.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 23, 2019 5:53:58 GMT -5
I really dig Toto's Dune movie soundtrack. One of my favourite soundtracks ever. I’ve been listening to that cassette regularly since 1985!
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jan 23, 2019 13:03:37 GMT -5
When did the English-speaking world decide that two complementary words are interchangeable? In the last few years I've seen it more and more often - people write "ancestor" when they mean "descendant", or "benefactor" when they mean "beneficiary". I try not to be a grammar nazi, but words should mean what they mean, not the opposite!
There, I said it. I feel better now.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 23, 2019 14:39:15 GMT -5
When did the English-speaking world decide that two complementary words are interchangeable? In the last few years I've seen it more and more often - people write "ancestor" when they mean "descendant", or "benefactor" when they mean "beneficiary". I try not to be a grammar nazi, but words should mean what they mean, not the opposite! There, I said it. I feel better now. My favorites are "inflammable" and "flammable." The former used to mean capable of bursting into flame (as in to inflame), but because people thought it meant the opposite, someone invented the word "flammable" to put on gasoline trucks. So that morons would stop driving into them, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 23, 2019 22:05:22 GMT -5
Since we’ve been on the subject of music; the devil played better than Johnny.
There I said it.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 24, 2019 1:56:14 GMT -5
When did the English-speaking world decide that two complementary words are interchangeable? In the last few years I've seen it more and more often - people write "ancestor" when they mean "descendant", or "benefactor" when they mean "beneficiary". I try not to be a grammar nazi, but words should mean what they mean, not the opposite! There, I said it. I feel better now. My favorites are "inflammable" and "flammable." The former used to mean capable of bursting into flame (as in to inflame), but because people thought it meant the opposite, someone invented the word "flammable" to put on gasoline trucks. So that morons would stop driving into them, I guess.
A, so that's how that came about. I always wondered, but assumed that they had somehow evolved in parallel, without ever taking the time to look it up.
To Rob's point - I think that kind of slip, annoying though it be, is understandable and actually gives some insight into how language and humans mind work and have developed over the millennia. Perhaps this idea has become outmoded by later work in the field, but there was once some research that seemed to indicate that in some very ancient languages, many adjectives were formed by adding a diminishing or amplifying modifier onto a root word - so, for example, the words for big and small or hot and cold (I'm just making these up) would be built from a root+modifier structure with only the modifier distinguishing between the two opposites.
Freud thought that this was why in dream symbolism, certain images might sometimes indicate their opposites, depending on the context, and that many dreams could not be understood without this interpretative insight. Regardless of what we think of Freud's work today, this particular insight was based on solid research in the field of linguistics as it existed in his day, as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jan 24, 2019 2:40:10 GMT -5
Since we’ve been on the subject of music; the devil played better than Johnny. There I said it. Is that even a controversial opinion? Seems to me that that's been the prevailing opinion ever since that song was released.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 24, 2019 10:40:43 GMT -5
Since we’ve been on the subject of music; the devil played better than Johnny. There I said it. Is that even a controversial opinion? Seems to me that that's been the prevailing opinion ever since that song was released. I agree that that's the prevailing opinion. I have, however, talked to a few people who play the fiddle who say that Johnny's part was technically much harder. I don't know the ins and outs of the instrument well at all. But while the Devil's sounds better, Johnny's is harder and more complex to play...and the Devil cheated by bringing in an entire band of demons.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jan 24, 2019 12:28:32 GMT -5
I might need a bit of help on this one then... inflame vs. enflame. This could be a British vs. U.S. English situation, I'm not sure, but I won't throw in the film Slade In Flame or anything. Do both versions of this language have inflame and enflame? I have come across enflame in English newspapers, magazines and books. Could they be the ones who developed a problem with inflammable meaning prone to being set alight and started flammable? It does seem logical that 'in' would denote 'not', as inviolate versus violate. Usually I side with the states, such as in dropping the needless 'u' from words, but generally I've had to keep two databases in my head for writing to British/Canadian/Commonwealth readers and for the U.S. English is one messy language, certainly compared to what I know of some others, except French, I seem fairly allergic to how it works in many ways. www.dictionary.com/browse/enflame
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 24, 2019 12:50:18 GMT -5
I’ve never been good at apologizing for liking sappy love songs. There I said it. Alexia will play songs by Air Supply. "And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know..." - Paul McCartney , Silly Love Songs
I like Air Supply sometimes too! There's something tasty in every kind of junk from an omnivore point of view. I am an unapologetic fan of late 70s/early 80s soft rock, including country crossover. My favorite Air Supply songs were their least typical, like "Making Love Out of Nothing At All" which was basically a Meat Loaf track (by Jim Steinman and everything) except for the lead vocal, and "Sweet Dreams" which has a strong Alan Parsons Project prog-pop vibe. Toto's "Africa" is one of the top ten songs of the 80s. Just a perfectly put together pop song, so I am not sorry to see it making a comeback last year, even if it may get overexposed. If anyone wants to inflict similar delights upon their eardrums here is my Top 100 songs of the 80s playlist, with 100 tracks from 100 artists, ten for each year in the decade. Except that it has 101 tracks, for some reason that I will have to figure out later.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 24, 2019 12:51:46 GMT -5
I might need a bit of help on this one then... inflame vs. enflame. This could be a British vs. U.S. English situation, I'm not sure, but I won't throw in the film Slade In Flame or anything. Do both versions of this language have inflame and enflame? I have come across enflame in English newspapers, magazines and books. Could they be the ones who developed a problem with inflammable meaning prone to being set alight and started flammable? It does seem logical that 'in' would denote 'not', as inviolate versus violate. Usually I side with the states, such as in dropping the needless 'u' from words, but generally I've had to keep two databases in my head for writing to British/Canadian/Commonwealth readers and for the U.S. English is one messy language, certainly compared to what I know of some others, except French, I seem fairly allergic to how it works in many ways. www.dictionary.com/browse/enflameWebster's has it as a less common version of inflame. I'm assuming it's less common in the U.S. I'm not sure I've seen enflame used here. And if I have it's darn seldom.
|
|