|
Subject: Mercury: Rachel Unthank came a close second From: Colin Randall Date: 14 Sep 08 - 02:26 PM I claim no credit for this knowledge. It comes from a posting - by someone I assume to be a Mudcatter - at my site Salut! Live. I cannot even, for bizarre reasons concerning internet access (I live in the UAE), give a precise link to the posting concerned. But the story goes that Rachel Unthank and the Wimterset came such a close second to Elbow that some, but not a majority, of the judging panel thought this should have been made public. It just has. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: GUEST,James. Yorkshire. Date: 14 Sep 08 - 04:45 PM I have to say that Racehel and her crew are really not very good, a sesperate attemmpt to make folk music part of the gerenal music scene and failed, misserably. Bye, Bye, James. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Sep 08 - 05:24 PM Che? |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Folkiedave Date: 14 Sep 08 - 05:43 PM Barmy James. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Tootler Date: 14 Sep 08 - 06:47 PM I have to say that Racehel and her crew are really not very good, a sesperate attemmpt to make folk music part of the gerenal music scene and failed, misserably. There is always one miserable b****r and as usual it's a guest. Also a truly literate posting. Bye, Bye, And good riddance |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 14 Sep 08 - 08:43 PM "I have to say that Racehel and her crew are really not very good, a sesperate attemmpt to make folk music part of the gerenal music scene and failed, misserably." First beer of the day and already this moron is spewing. I'm sure that was just some crank posting that has either an ax to grind or no taste whatsoever. It is one thing to not care for someones music, but to make a ridiculous statement like that is ludicrous. I don't know the group, but to make a claim that they were on some sort of mission is idiotic. They are just making music, and I feel it is some of the most exciting music I've heard in years. I am eagerly looking forward to their appearance here in the U.S. I have played their CD and their talent is obvious. You folks in the UK are lucky to have them, and I look forward to hearing much more ftom them in the future!! |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Sep 08 - 03:07 AM What is this about? |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Colin Randall Date: 15 Sep 08 - 03:51 AM Richard Should have added that coming "a close second" refers to the Mercury music awards. Wrongly assumed people were talking of little else! |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:12 AM Thank U! |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:20 AM I've had a Google and see no relevant controversy. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Colin Randall Date: 15 Sep 08 - 04:30 AM Richard: ....that's because no one knew, until someone whose information seems well sourced posted a message on a piece I had written at Salut! Live about the outcome of the Mercury finals. I had predicted that as the novelty folk finalist, Rachel Unthank's band hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The informant says it was actually a very close run thing. Guest James: .... you are as entitled as anyone else to your opinion, but where did you learn to spell? |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Folkiedave Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:00 AM James - I agree with Colin that you are entitled to your opinion. I wonder if you can explain how all these other people across a broad spectrum of music lovers have got it so wrong and you have got it so right? Assuming I have interpreted what you said correctly. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: GUEST,Golightly Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:52 AM Sorry, I'm another "miserable b****r and as usual it's a guest" who's not keen on Rachel Unthank and the Winterset. I don't think for one minute that "other people across a broad spectrum of music lovers have got it so wrong", but neither do I accept that we dissenters from the RUTW manifesto have to explain ourselves. I'll have a go, though. I find Rachel and Becky weak and unenjoyable as singers and it's irritating to have women in their mid-30s marketed as if they were innocent young girls. Out of curiosity, does anyone know where we can read more about the judges' extraordinary decision to reveal who came second? I haven't found anything by Googling and it would be interesting to know what the judges actually said. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:56 AM Gosh, someone who still beleives in innocent young girls... |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:01 AM Getting tetchy now - I've spent a while (Ishouldbe working) looking for the bit n the site that ells the actual story. Give Us a Flaming CLue how to find it, or paste the whole post up here! |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: The Borchester Echo Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:08 AM women in their mid 30s Is this supposed to be some kind of age discrimination? If so, it's highly irrelevant in the context of serious musicians as opposed to wannabe popstars. It is, furthermore, entirely untrue. Rachel might be pushing 30 by now but Becky is still, I think, up at university and is in her early 20s. I speak not as a fan especially (I infinitely preferred the original band line-up and don't much like The Bairns). But I find such trivialising sexist and ageist claptrap beneath contempt. (btw didn't Norma Waterson in her nomination year lose out to a boy band by one vote?) |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Proogle Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:13 AM As a None gues i have to come in and say i agree with the Guests that i find Rachel and her band not all that good. I do like my folk music and i am definitley not someone who has only just made it into the scene so i do have my faves. But this...after Warwick folk festival is definitley somthing that should be leading the flag ship into the general music scene. I agree that everyone is free to their own opinion and i am not telling anyone that they should think a certain way. 2nd...to a band no one has heard of... |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: The Borchester Echo Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:19 AM You're missing the point, anyway. The Mercury Music Prize is not a vote for "best band" in whosoever's opinion. It is an industry prize for "best recording" within a specified period of time for which the record company has to pay to enter. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: DaveM Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:36 AM No, Norma Waterson lost out to "Different Class" by Pulp. Not a boyband then, but the album that has actually stood the test of time (which can't be said for every winner of the Mercury). The RUTW album seems to me to be an album that has captured the critics imagination far more than it has the general publics - it has got great reviews and accolades like the mercury nomination but it never appears in 'top ten' bestseller lists, and their live gigs haven't had a surge of interest of the scale Seth Lakeman achieved. I don't think many people were actually talking about their nomination when it was still a pressing issue - not that they begrudge the band for getting what was a probably well earned nomination, just that its all not very...interesting. "...someone whose information seems well sourced posted a message on a piece I had written at Salut! Live about the outcome of the Mercury finals." Anyway, well done to Adrian for leaking the story and getting people talking about it... |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: The Borchester Echo Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:39 AM Pulp. Not a boyband Blackadder: Do you know what irony is, Baldrick? Baldrick: Er . . . yes. It'd like silvery and goldy . . . |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: GUEST,Golightly Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:39 AM "I find such trivialising sexist and ageist claptrap beneath contempt" Oddly enough, Diane, I agree entirely. That's why I find it annoying that these women are regularly referred to as young lasses, an image they seem to embrace. I'd much rather see women succeed as real women. The claptrap is in the hype, not in my intolerance of it. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:46 AM Like Proogle, I find this band a bit disappointing. Their reputation led me to expect a bit more. But I am suprised Proogle has not heard of Elbow. They've been around for years, and in contrast with Rachel & Co, they have been a bit underrated till now. Their present success is long overdue. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Colin Randall Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:52 AM DaveM Adrian is not my source. I have had virtually no contact with him since I interviewed Rachel a few months ago. Richard In hope of relieving you of all tetchiness, I simply felt that people interested in the Mercury awards - which must include quite a few Mudcatters - would perhaps like to know more of the judges' deliberations. There is no controversy as such, to my knowledge - someone has to come first, second and so on - except that someone else didn't want us to know. But I was rather pleased that a piddling little site like mine was able to shed a little light on things. The info came from someone who had read my own comments on the awards, and I am satisfied after further exchanges with him that he is a reliable source. My original post was the equivalent of a one-line gag: you either find it interesting that a band much liked by many Mudcatters, much disliked by others, apparently got very close to winning, or you don't. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Sep 08 - 08:31 AM Colin - tell me where/how to find it on your flipping site! |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Colin Randall Date: 15 Sep 08 - 08:44 AM Richard http://salutlive.com Didn't the links above work? Mind, if you were in the UAE - as I am - you'd have problems as they don't seem to like Typepad for some reason no one has yet explained to me. I can see my own sites only on my Blackberry or at work, where access is pretty comprehensive. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Phil Edwards Date: 15 Sep 08 - 09:16 AM Richard - try this link. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Proogle Date: 15 Sep 08 - 09:21 AM Peter K - I am not much of a none folkie...i do listen to other music but to tell you the truth my music collection is limited to folk folk and more folk!1 |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Folkiedave Date: 15 Sep 08 - 09:24 AM The Mercury is about as open as the BBC awards. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Sep 08 - 02:37 PM Thank you Pip. Yes, I could find the site, but I had spent maybe a quarter of an hour looking for the relevant blog and was getting nowhere and I thought "F%^&*() me, if he wants me to read it why doesn't he tell me where it is!" |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Colin Randall Date: 15 Sep 08 - 03:27 PM That's a bit Rich*** ....... you begged for a link that was already there (11th in a thread of, at last count, 29), I tried to point the way and now you whinge about not being able to find it until someone else repeats the same link. Even if my site isn't the slickest thing in cyberspace, it does has a perfectly simple search tool. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Colin Randall Date: 15 Sep 08 - 03:29 PM ...it does have a perfectly simple search tool... Guest James is rubbing off on me |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Tootler Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:55 PM With regard to my earlier posting and the couple of replies it generated, I have no problems with "I don't like her..." bit, that's a matter of personal taste. it was the snide remark that followed and which guest, James, Yorkshire tried to link to it that irritated me. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 Sep 08 - 06:46 AM Well, no, Colin. I thought I had made it clear. Your original link takes me to what I assume is the front page of the site. There is an article about Irish music of no present relevance. On the left is a list of highlights - several apparently about the Unthank, some of which I looked at and found no mention of the story nor comment from a reader about the story. My queries as to how to navigate from the front page to the relevant story got no answer. Pip's link took me straight to the relevant story. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: GUEST Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:01 AM "Pip's link took me straight to the relevant story." ....and as I said three or four posts ago, so does the 11th post (also from me) in the thread. I do have a little local difficulty - the apparent blocking of Typepad-hosted sites to most or many UAE users, myself included when at home - and that is not, of course, your problem. But since I am currently in the office, where internet access is pretty open, I just clicked on that link and it took me directly to the relevant story too |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: GUEST,Colin Randall Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:02 AM ...and now it's stopped recognising me as a member! That was obviously from me |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: black walnut Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:28 AM FYI - there is also another thread - titled: "Rachel Unthank & The Winterset". I'm glad we're going to get to hear them here in Canada - Toronto - on September 23, at Hugh's Room! ~b.w. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: the lemonade lady Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:39 AM I think it's a shame that there is a competition at all. Singing and making music is a pleasant experience, why is it a competition between some and others? What is the point? S |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: The Borchester Echo Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:47 AM The Mercury isn't "a competition between some and others". It is, as I said yesterday, an industry award for a recording. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Backwoodsman Date: 17 Sep 08 - 02:46 AM "That's why I find it annoying that these women are regularly referred to as young lasses, an image they seem to embrace." How I wish someone would refer to me as a young lad. And WTF's age got to do with anything anyway. It matters not a fig - it's TALENT that's the issue. And they have it. IMHO. "Guest James: .... you are as entitled as anyone else to your opinion, but where did you learn to spell?" Clearly he didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: Georgiansilver Date: 17 Sep 08 - 05:08 AM When I saw these young lasses performing (By the way... they are young to me and I am sure to many of the gripers on this thread) I enjoyed what I heard but some of the people I was with did not. Once again it is all a matter of taste. I would suggest.... that....." These young lasses" have a talent or they would not even get a mention on here.... I would also suggest that there are many women of a certain age that would love to be referred to as young lasses.... so cut the sour grapes and let them enjoy their image... however YOU perceive it. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: glueman Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:24 AM Elbow and the Winterset, both very good acts though I have to agree competitions are absurd. Nice music, Rachel pretty lady, what's not to like? |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: black walnut Date: 23 Sep 08 - 04:56 PM TONIGHT....Toronto....Belinda's Facebook says she's unwell. Yikes! ~b.w. |
|
Subject: RE: Rachel Unthank came second From: greg stephens Date: 23 Sep 08 - 05:13 PM Whenever I look at my Myspace site, for the last few weeks I would think,, I see an ad for Rachel Unthank. Does that happen for everybody looking at Myspace? Surely not. Is it just because my site has "folk" as a keyword? Does she pay Myspace for that ad to appear by all the folk sites? Interesting. Wonder how much that costs?Anybody know about this sort of thing? |
| Share Thread: |
