Heartland

I think it's a little unfair to rate the likes of Anaconda on the released version. There are demos and live versions very readily available that show what that song is really capable of. A poor arrangement can really ruin a decent song, and in this case the energy does not come through - it plods, the instrumental break in the middle drags it out too long, and the overall feel is too laid-back.

Well, we could have a separate debate about what the best LIVE song is - if anyone can be bothered to set up a poll of likely candidates, my vote goes to Ribbons...

Black Horizon wrote:

mugabe wrote:Excluding the new stuff, I'd settle for "Something Fast" or "When you don't see me".

WTF? Those are classic songs!!!

I think the fundamental problem here is that all Sisters songs are now old enough to be considered 'classics.'

i second that- now

CorpPunk wrote:

Black Horizon wrote:

mugabe wrote:Excluding the new stuff, I'd settle for "Something Fast" or "When you don't see me".

WTF? Those are classic songs!!!

I think the fundamental problem here is that all Sisters songs are now old enough to be considered 'classics.'

Unless you're "new" to the Sisters.

Big Si wrote:

CorpPunk wrote:

Black Horizon wrote: WTF? Those are classic songs!!!

I think the fundamental problem here is that all Sisters songs are now old enough to be considered 'classics.'

Unless you're "new" to the Sisters.

Why, to what would you be referring? I now have concrete proof that I've been with the Sisters a long, long time...

CorpPunk wrote:

Big Si wrote:

CorpPunk wrote: I think the fundamental problem here is that all Sisters songs are now old enough to be considered 'classics.'

Unless you're "new" to the Sisters.

Why, to what would you be referring? I now have concrete proof that I've been with the Sisters a long, long time...

What a beautiful theory Emma
And so true

What a cute avatar, Angelchild!

_emma_ wrote:What a cute avatar, Angelchild!

Isn't he just? I found him off our office printer & since nobody claimed him I brought him home.I thought my fellow Heartlanders would find him cute too:D

got to be Valentine. It sucks especially live. Or GoD

khepri II wrote:One thing i've often wondered as well.

Not wanting to appear a racist pratt but if English isn't your first language, then just how much of "it" do you get?

I mean *digging another hole for self* is it just the melody, the way the lyrics are structured or what. How come there are so many German Sisters fans.



The only equivilent for me might be Rammstien (Sp? ) and that's just, well, an industrial sound to me

Having English as your first language does not infer a command of it superior to that of non-native speakers.

"There, there watching there dog bury's it's bone."

mugabe wrote:
Having English as your first language does not infer a command of it superior to that of non-native speakers.

I don't agree. Mother tongue compared to second language is in my opinion like one's real hand or leg compared to an aritificial limb. No matter how expensive, high-tech, modern and useful your artificial limb is, you will never feel it.

_emma_ wrote:

mugabe wrote:
Having English as your first language does not infer a command of it superior to that of non-native speakers.

I don't agree. Mother tongue compared to second language is in my opinion like one's real hand or leg compared to an aritificial limb. No matter how expensive, high-tech, modern and useful your artificial limb is, you will never feel it.

Why would that be? Because it was the first language you learned? Because you can only truly learn a language prior to the age of ten? What if your family is bilingual?

Besides, what you're saying is that any post by a brit on this forum, for instance, exhibits a greater comprehension if English than, let's say, the prose of Joseph Conrad.

I agree with Mugabe (HL's Mugabe, not the wanker to the north of me).

It's quite possible to have an excellent grasp of two (or more)languages. I have Serbian friends that couldn't speak english until they moved here in their teens and now speak perfect english and have degrees to prove it.

I think what _emma_ and Khepri II are on about is people who have a slim grasp of the english language and their understanding of Von's lyrics.

mugabe wrote:Why would that be? Because it was the first language you learned? Because you can only truly learn a language prior to the age of ten? What if your family is bilingual?

Besides, what you're saying is that any post by a brit on this forum, for instance, exhibits a greater comprehension if English than, let's say, the prose of Joseph Conrad.

I didn't mean learning the language, I meant acquiring it, and there's also a big difference between first language acquisition and second language acquisition. When I wrote "native speakers", I meant those for whom English is the very first language they acquired. This sort of acquisition involves being a part of the country, knowing all the children's tales, games and lullabys, funny senseless phrases spoken in primary schools, churches and popular TV stations to mention just a few.
Obviously, I agree that a well educated non-native-speaker's language is probably better than that of an uneducated native-speaker who hasn't even read the most important achievements of his own country's literature. But let's take two equally educated people, one of them born and brought up in a given country, the other brought up somewhere else. Well I'm afraid the latter will always be one step behind as far as feeling the language is concerned. And it's not even about the ability to communicate, because you may speak fluently and use sophisticated words, but when you have to choose, say, between "marvellous" and "splendid" (that's maybe not the best example but I can't think of a better one at the moment), which one would you choose and why? Now think of both above words in your mother tongue, and the choice seems much easier and natural, doesn't it?

hallucienate wrote:I think what _emma_ and Khepri II are on about is people who have a slim grasp of the english language and their understanding of Von's lyrics.

I think that's what we were on about at the begining, whereas what we're on about now has very little to do with the Sisters' worst song.

Language and the understanding of language when it's not your mother tongue is a very emotive subject. I had a meeting with a French national this morning. Is it perfectly acceptable for me to shove some extra plums in my gob and speak very slowly at a loud volume treating them as if they're deaf as well as stupid? Or do I keep to the rapid-fire machine-gun cockney mumble and watch them glaze over with incomprehension?

Anyway, worst TSOM song ever would be Dr Jeep. Covered by Bauhaus.

Cross-threading. Nice.

The only song I am consistently unable to listen to is 1959.

Furthermore, judging by the state of text on the internet these days, most native English speakers have a working knowledge of the language that is only slightly superior to a hunk of Camembert. But only if the cheese had never come into contact with verbal mankind. Sorry.

CorpPunk wrote:The only song I am consistently unable to listen to is 1959.

Furthermore, judging by the state of text on the internet these days, most native English speakers have a working knowledge of the language that is only slightly superior to a hunk of Camembert. But only if the cheese had never come into contact with verbal mankind. Sorry.

Camembert isn't exactly English though is it Corp

You need more of a good old blue veined stilton, as Milton once wrote

"For when as each thing bad thou hast entomb'd,
and last of all, thy greedy self consum'd,
Then long Eternity shall great our bliss
With a big ol' wedge of Stilton"

CorpPunk wrote:The only song I am consistently unable to listen to is 1959.

One of those "Classics" you first heard in 1988, yeah?

@Khepri: U b wikkid sharp, my freind.

@Big Si: Because I listened to a lot of Canadian radio when I was ten years old, it is very possible that I did in fact hear a Sisters song or two at the time. My having no memory of it is irrelevant. So shaddyupyoutheresnowfiend.

CorpPunk wrote: @Big Si: Because I listened to a lot of Canadian radio when I was ten years old, it is very possible that I did in fact hear a Sisters song or two at the time. My having no memory of it is irrelevant. So shaddyupyoutheresnowfiend.

Easy Tiger, ahm jist "pullin' ya plunger"

Big Si wrote:

CorpPunk wrote: @Big Si: Because I listened to a lot of Canadian radio when I was ten years old, it is very possible that I did in fact hear a Sisters song or two at the time. My having no memory of it is irrelevant. So shaddyupyoutheresnowfiend.

Easy Tiger, ahm jist "pullin' ya plunger"

Erm...no comment.

I have to confess I love Sisters music and everything else (lyrics, political ideas etc) comes after that.
By the way, I'm waiting for the question: How could anybody who have never played guitar love Sisters?

_emma_ wrote:I didn't mean learning the language, I meant acquiring it, and there's also a big difference between first language acquisition and second language acquisition. When I wrote "native speakers", I meant those for whom English is the very first language they acquired. This sort of acquisition involves being a part of the country, knowing all the children's tales, games and lullabys, funny senseless phrases spoken in primary schools, churches and popular TV stations to mention just a few.
Obviously, I agree that a well educated non-native-speaker's language is probably better than that of an uneducated native-speaker who hasn't even read the most important achievements of his own country's literature. But let's take two equally educated people, one of them born and brought up in a given country, the other brought up somewhere else. Well I'm afraid the latter will always be one step behind as far as feeling the language is concerned. And it's not even about the ability to communicate, because you may speak fluently and use sophisticated words, but when you have to choose, say, between "marvellous" and "splendid" (that's maybe not the best example but I can't think of a better one at the moment), which one would you choose and why? Now think of both above words in your mother tongue, and the choice seems much easier and natural, doesn't it?

You confuse the concepts of speaking a language and being part of a society with shared cultural norms.

Your example of splendid/marvellous also hints at the same mistake. I'm sure that there are parts of England where one or the other of these words is predominant or even exclusively used at the expense of the other. A foreigner who has spent the last twenty years in Liverpool, for instance, will experience less problems with the language than someone born and raised in, and just moving in from Hampstead, since he will be familiar with the vernacular.

All language is acquired, and mostly from people in your surroundings. Being brought up with it makes no difference. Do you instinctively know when to use "idiosyncratic" instead of "congenial", or did you just learn it?
You also seem to make the false assumption that all non-native English speakers construct sentences in their native language first and then translate them into English.