CONNELLS Archives

July 1998

CONNELLS@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
The Connells <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 13 Jul 1998 07:35:16 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
     There is *no* chance?  Have you read the hundreds of positive reviews
     of this album?

     Ring *should* have been THE album, and almost was.  Still Life *may*
     still be it.




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: glade
Author:  The Connells <[log in to unmask]> at internet
Date:    7/10/98 7:44 PM


im am still quite the opposite... i really, really dont like Ring, unlike most
of
the list members, and Still Life really disappoints me. i think that i was
expecting something a little heavier.. deeper.. WFAD was the total opposite of
Still Life and Ring. it was the first album that felt original since Fun & Games
and it totally satisfied me. the music was original and unlike anything thing
they have ever done... addind to the progression from one album to the next. i
had once haope that this would be THE album... but after listening to it for
this
short while there is no chance this album will go anywhere

Vanessa Page wrote:

> >(This is an example of why I'm not a big fan of most of WFAD--the whole
> album had this overall half-assed feel.  As if someone said, towards the
> end, "oh fuck it, let's just get this over with!"  I understand that a
> lot of folks on this list think WFAD is their best record yet, but
> personally, I don't dig it. I'm so glad they redeemed themselves with
> Still Life.)
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2