Re: books, music & movies (largely off topic)
<orangeclouds <at> juno.com>
2003-02-04 14:25:57 GMT
well, for me, being as i have a regular joe job. i think people should
work. i mean make a commitment to their work. surely if you do work and
you are connected, you can make a new album in 2 years. but jane HAS been
working. i was happy to get the city cd. b/c that has been her work over
the last few years. i loved the "a day in the life" b/c it showed a
snippit into her life, she is working. not just couching it with chips.
i'm happy to know that, why this is important, i don't know. but working
is good. producing is good, being productive is good. i want to know that
the people i admire are being productive contributing forces in the
universe. we need those good creative people putting their stuff out
there for us regular joe job folks.
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 00:49:14 -0500 Michael Williams
<cyberry <at> earthlink.net> writes:
> the recent posts about kate bush (a long time fave of mine, starting
> with "Never for Ever".....), combined with the recent history of
> this quiescent list, made me wonder about time between releases.
> more specifically - what's a good time period (from a fan's
> perspective) for an artist to wait between releases? is it different
> for music than for books and movies?
> would two years between stephen king books be too long?
> would two years between jane siberry albums be too short?!
> would two years between star trek: insurrection and star trek:
> nemesis seem just about right?
> just wondering. what do you think? and how do fans make this
> determination anyway? is it based on "i've gotten about all i can
> out of your previous stuff, so it's time for something new"? or "you