Talking Heads — And She Was
Album: Little CreaturesAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 2475
Length: 3:37
Plays (last 30 days): 0
share
tweet
And she was lying in the grass
And she could hear the highway breathing
And she could see a nearby factory
She's making sure she is not dreaming
See the lights of a neighbor's house
Now, she's starting to rise
Take a minute to concentrate
And she opens up her eyes
The world was moving, she was right there with it, and she was
The world was moving, she was floating above it, and she was
And she was
And she was drifting through the backyard
And she was taking off her dress
And she was moving very slowly
Rising up above the Earth
Moving into the universe, and she's
Drifting this way and that
Not touching the ground at all, and she's
Up above the yard
The world was moving, she was right there with it, and she was
The world was moving, she was floating above it, and she was
She was glad about it, no doubt about it
She isn't sure about what she's done
No time to think about what to tell them
No time to think about what she's done
And she was, hey-hey, hey-hey, hey
And she was looking at herself
And things were looking like a movie
She had a pleasant elevation
She's moving out in all directions
The world was moving, she was right there with it, and she was
The world was moving, she was floating above it, and she was, hey, hey
Joining the world of missing persons, and she was, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey
Missing enough to feel alright, and she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she could hear the highway breathing
And she could see a nearby factory
She's making sure she is not dreaming
See the lights of a neighbor's house
Now, she's starting to rise
Take a minute to concentrate
And she opens up her eyes
The world was moving, she was right there with it, and she was
The world was moving, she was floating above it, and she was
And she was
And she was drifting through the backyard
And she was taking off her dress
And she was moving very slowly
Rising up above the Earth
Moving into the universe, and she's
Drifting this way and that
Not touching the ground at all, and she's
Up above the yard
The world was moving, she was right there with it, and she was
The world was moving, she was floating above it, and she was
She was glad about it, no doubt about it
She isn't sure about what she's done
No time to think about what to tell them
No time to think about what she's done
And she was, hey-hey, hey-hey, hey
And she was looking at herself
And things were looking like a movie
She had a pleasant elevation
She's moving out in all directions
The world was moving, she was right there with it, and she was
The world was moving, she was floating above it, and she was, hey, hey
Joining the world of missing persons, and she was, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey
Missing enough to feel alright, and she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
And she was
Comments (144)add comment
A few hours ago David Byrne and now Talking Heads. Every dag one or both of them really is too much. Please skip them a few days!
fredphoesh wrote:
Something sadly admirable about this post. Suggest the poster change their handle to "donquixote".
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Something sadly admirable about this post. Suggest the poster change their handle to "donquixote".
Laptopdog wrote:
And just who exactly is in charge of the blacklisting? You?
He now has this option, just play his favorites. Everyone can be happy except me since I dislike when everyone upvotes comments smacking down bad comments. Then we have to read the bad comment over and over again at the top.
Bill, you could fix this by providing a third option, editor's choices. You don't need to rate every comment, just provide a view that brings the interesting ones to the top. Call it simply "Choice".
And just who exactly is in charge of the blacklisting? You?
He now has this option, just play his favorites. Everyone can be happy except me since I dislike when everyone upvotes comments smacking down bad comments. Then we have to read the bad comment over and over again at the top.
Bill, you could fix this by providing a third option, editor's choices. You don't need to rate every comment, just provide a view that brings the interesting ones to the top. Call it simply "Choice".
fredphoesh wrote:
Are you OK with the thumbs up/thumbs down as a rating system for comments?
Currently you've got 1 thumbs up and 16 thumbs down.
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Are you OK with the thumbs up/thumbs down as a rating system for comments?
Currently you've got 1 thumbs up and 16 thumbs down.
Today is a day we should remember. Years ago i rated this one with an 8. This is a song i absolutely love! I never get bored of it. It makes me smile an gives me good vibrations. So today i gave it a 9. What will happen in, let's say 5 years?
CamLwalk wrote:
I can see that, 100%. Maybe a once known long forgotten bit of stuff but yep.
I heard a Byrne solo show where he introduced this song as being about a girl he knew in Baltimore. She would drop acid and lay in a field outside of the local YooHoo bottling plant staring at the clouds.
I can see that, 100%. Maybe a once known long forgotten bit of stuff but yep.
Get yer dance on..!!
Pure love.
Great song from my favourite Talking Heads album.
ExpatLarry wrote:
Quite literally!
I like this song a lot. Always have. Very uplifting.
Quite literally!
maboleth wrote:
And just who exactly is in charge of the blacklisting? You?
It would be nice if we could have some sort of permanent PSD for blacklisted bands.
That way my ears would be spared from Byrne, Yorke and other 'interesting' singers.
And just who exactly is in charge of the blacklisting? You?
garylawrence wrote:
I agree!! And, in FLAC, it is outstanding on a great system!
I bought this album when it was released. I had very little knowledge of Talking Heads at the time. I think it's great. This is a very punchy song and will make even a crap HiFi system sound good.
I agree!! And, in FLAC, it is outstanding on a great system!
Ok_Sobriquet wrote:
If Bill changes the labels for the rating system will I have to change my ratings as well?
For me the labels are slapdash and terrible. I see a huge difference between a 7 and a 4, but the labels from 1 to 10 don’t have any range except at the edges.
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
<Big Snip>
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
If Bill changes the labels for the rating system will I have to change my ratings as well?
For me the labels are slapdash and terrible. I see a huge difference between a 7 and a 4, but the labels from 1 to 10 don’t have any range except at the edges.
GODLIKE!!!
I bought this album when it was released. I had very little knowledge of Talking Heads at the time. I think it's great. This is a very punchy song and will make even a crap HiFi system sound good.
I like this song a lot. Always have. Very uplifting.
fredphoesh wrote:
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
<Big Snip>
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
If Bill changes the labels for the rating system will I have to change my ratings as well?
fredphoesh wrote:
No; nobody else.
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
No; nobody else.
Drink some Sleepy Time tea and relax. Maybe go for a walk and forget about the rating system/
What is it about 1 to 10 that you don't understand? It is universal to creatures with 10 digits on their hands.
The embellishments are cute, but ultimately meaningless on a SCALE of 1 to 10.
In the past, I would have ignored this, kind of pure BS: but I am sick of everyone getting offended or otherwise railed up about linguistic expression.
My vote is to leave it alone. It works....don't mess with it.
fredphoesh wrote:
The embellishments are cute, but ultimately meaningless on a SCALE of 1 to 10.
In the past, I would have ignored this, kind of pure BS: but I am sick of everyone getting offended or otherwise railed up about linguistic expression.
My vote is to leave it alone. It works....don't mess with it.
fredphoesh wrote:
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
fredphoesh wrote:
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Waking up, cracking your knuckles, and then getting on the RP song comments to complain about the rating system with a 6 paragraph rant. Having a normal one.
dwhayslett wrote:
3 people share my sense of humor, I suppose.
Make that 4.
3 people share my sense of humor, I suppose.
ace-marc wrote:
Oh, no need to be so formal. You can call me Mal.
Antagonism again, What a surprise.
Get help Mr. Malice.
Get help Mr. Malice.
Oh, no need to be so formal. You can call me Mal.
jahgirl8 wrote:
3 people share my sense of humor, I suppose.
Great non explanatory less than "marginal" post. How the hell'd ya get three votes!?!
3 people share my sense of humor, I suppose.
fredphoesh wrote:
Oh look, A troll under a bridge!
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
.........................
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
.........................
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Oh look, A troll under a bridge!
fredphoesh wrote:
Yeah, there obviously wasn't too much thought put into it.
It could be much better - and clearly a popular feature we like to use.
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Yeah, there obviously wasn't too much thought put into it.
It could be much better - and clearly a popular feature we like to use.
dwhayslett wrote:
I'd rate this post "2 - Marginal".
Antagonism again, What a surprise.
Get help Mr. Malice.
I'd rate this post "2 - Marginal".
Antagonism again, What a surprise.
Get help Mr. Malice.
fredphoesh wrote:
"Puerile and annoying" - sort of like the rambling diatribe which you posted - verbatim - in the comments for two different songs.
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic....
...So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
...So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
"Puerile and annoying" - sort of like the rambling diatribe which you posted - verbatim - in the comments for two different songs.
rpfan wrote:
There's actually 39 morons at this time, fwiw.
Who is the moron who rated this a "1"?!? I think he/she is on an LSD trip.
There's actually 39 morons at this time, fwiw.
dwhayslett wrote:
I'd rate this post "2 - Marginal".
Great non explanatory less than "marginal" post. How the hell'd ya get three votes!?!
I'd rate this post "2 - Marginal".
Great non explanatory less than "marginal" post. How the hell'd ya get three votes!?!
maboleth wrote:
How difficult is it to press a button to move on to the next track? Only discovered RP in December but not felt the need to PSD as I'm being educated with new and old music
It would be nice if we could have some sort of permanent PSD for blacklisted bands.
That way my ears would be spared from Byrne, Yorke and other 'interesting' singers.
That way my ears would be spared from Byrne, Yorke and other 'interesting' singers.
How difficult is it to press a button to move on to the next track? Only discovered RP in December but not felt the need to PSD as I'm being educated with new and old music
It would be nice if we could have some sort of permanent PSD for blacklisted bands.
That way my ears would be spared from Byrne, Yorke and other 'interesting' singers.
That way my ears would be spared from Byrne, Yorke and other 'interesting' singers.
Growing up, I heard so much of the Talking Heads singles that I'm burned out on most of them.
I respect David Byrne's talent (and was entertaining seeing him on Broadway on Saturday, even!), but if I don't ever hear this particular track (or "Days Gone By") again, I'm cool with that.
I respect David Byrne's talent (and was entertaining seeing him on Broadway on Saturday, even!), but if I don't ever hear this particular track (or "Days Gone By") again, I'm cool with that.
Played this a lot when I was a DJ at my college radio station (WMSE). 3:00 - 6:00 a.m. shift! Great Memories!
Noni163 wrote:
Best name for the band ever.
Did they have others? Perhaps so as they released 'The name of this band is Talking Heads' fredphoesh wrote:
I'd rate this post "2 - Marginal".
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived?
I'd rate this post "2 - Marginal".
fredphoesh wrote:
Kind of a weird place to make this comment. Has nothing to do with the song (which I gave an 8 for reasons that to your point, probably had nothing to do with the words "Most Excellent" being by that number).
But maybe pay less attention to the rating system for a moment and investigate the forum (https://radioparadise.com/community/forum), since it looks like you're trying to have a conversation about the overall site? Good luck.
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
---- wall of text removed ----
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
---- wall of text removed ----
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Kind of a weird place to make this comment. Has nothing to do with the song (which I gave an 8 for reasons that to your point, probably had nothing to do with the words "Most Excellent" being by that number).
But maybe pay less attention to the rating system for a moment and investigate the forum (https://radioparadise.com/community/forum), since it looks like you're trying to have a conversation about the overall site? Good luck.
fredphoesh wrote:
Dude! Get a life!
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Dude! Get a life!
fredphoesh wrote:
please stop whining.
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
please stop whining.
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Best name for the band ever.
We got to see David Byrne last year in concert in Italy; he was fantastic. One of the best shows I've been to. Did a lot of the old Talking Heads stuff as well as other. If you get a chance to see him, grab it.
Talking Heads - the only band that forces me to PSD!
Ahhhh, listening to Led Zeppelin now :)
Ahhhh, listening to Led Zeppelin now :)
Ah yes...1985-86....in a hard working cover band in Dallas...this was a second set song, popular at the time. I played rhythm guitar & doubled on keys and shared lead vocals with our lead guitar player. This was one of mine, and surprisingly a bit challenging. All those high pitched hey-hey-hey's and hey-hey-hey hey-hey-HEY's. The crowd loved it and would sing along, jump-dancing around the floor. Good tune but it was more fun in the later sets when we'd do Life During Wartime and a crowd favotite Psycho Killer.
SeriousLee wrote:
it's even turning my coffee cold this morning
Talk about a mood killer.
it's even turning my coffee cold this morning
Talk about a mood killer.
Rediscovering the beauty of Talking Heads. Thank you Bill !
enough of the heads.
No Eno = No Talking Heads.
Quite simply the most dreadful TH offering EVER
Quite simply the most dreadful TH offering EVER
Yep.... I don't think that is the Talking Heads. Same issue. I've been noticing that lately.
My screen is showing Talking Heads, rather than Broken Bells and, strangely enough, I find most of the comments apt.
fredriley wrote:
RP's repeat/chronic plays of Byrne et al is among the potholes I do my best to avoid when they crop up, in deference to everything of value I'm been exposed to here.
And "Teletubby" is a terrific nickname for him. Well played, Fred.
The opening shout of "HEY!" is handy as it's immediately recognisable as David "Teletubby" Byrne and enables an immediate hit of the PSD button.
RP's repeat/chronic plays of Byrne et al is among the potholes I do my best to avoid when they crop up, in deference to everything of value I'm been exposed to here.
And "Teletubby" is a terrific nickname for him. Well played, Fred.
jagdriver wrote:
Bigger than Incense and Peppermints?
Relax, I&P was my very first 45.
Quite possibly the biggest POS ever.
Bigger than Incense and Peppermints?
Relax, I&P was my very first 45.
Quite possibly the biggest POS ever.
fredriley wrote:
Despite that, Dave speaks very highly of you.
The opening shout of "HEY!" is handy as it's immediately recognisable as David "Teletubby" Byrne and enables an immediate hit of the PSD button.
Despite that, Dave speaks very highly of you.
fredriley wrote:
We need a PSD button for your comment.
The opening shout of "HEY!" is handy as it's immediately recognisable as David "Teletubby" Byrne and enables an immediate hit of the PSD button.
We need a PSD button for your comment.
Bouncy!
The opening shout of "HEY!" is handy as it's immediately recognisable as David "Teletubby" Byrne and enables an immediate hit of the PSD button.
kcar wrote:
ROSSinDETROIT wrote:
Grammarcop wrote:
Agreed. Little Creatures = Combat Rock.
Yeah, this is jump-the-shark stuff. Talking Heads without Brian Eno producing just isn't as good as TH with his input.
totally agree with the three of you. But they jumped the shark for me on the previous album. Eno required. Gimme some "Born Under Punches"Least favorite Heads album. This is simplistic, slick and superficial.
Play more Fear of Music.
Play more Fear of Music.
Grammarcop wrote:
Agreed. Little Creatures = Combat Rock.
Yeah, this is jump-the-shark stuff. Talking Heads without Brian Eno producing just isn't as good as TH with his input.
what a FUN and CHARMING song, eh Stingray?
Oh Bill - pleeeeease do not do this to ús!
Great song and a great album ... cd .. whatever
NIGHTMARE!
Radio Paradise is on a roll today baby!!!!! 
this song never fails to bring a smile to my face...
kcar wrote:
Can't disagree more. Love the song and the album. Love bands when they play it hard....oh no that's a line from Rebel Rebel.
Love bands when they evolve and grow and experiment. TH went from the minimalist quirky cool band when I first discovered TH '77 on the Max's Kansas City Jukebox to a band with a more layered and complex sound.
Can't stop moving my feet the this tune.
ROSSinDETROIT wrote:
Grammarcop wrote:
Agreed. Little Creatures = Combat Rock.
Yeah, this is jump-the-shark stuff. Talking Heads without Brian Eno producing just isn't as good as TH with his input.
Least favorite Heads album. This is simplistic, slick and superficial.
Play more Fear of Music.
Play more Fear of Music.
Grammarcop wrote:
Agreed. Little Creatures = Combat Rock.
Yeah, this is jump-the-shark stuff. Talking Heads without Brian Eno producing just isn't as good as TH with his input.
Can't disagree more. Love the song and the album. Love bands when they play it hard....oh no that's a line from Rebel Rebel.
Love bands when they evolve and grow and experiment. TH went from the minimalist quirky cool band when I first discovered TH '77 on the Max's Kansas City Jukebox to a band with a more layered and complex sound.
Can't stop moving my feet the this tune.
CamLwalk wrote:
I heard him say that too. Wish I hadn't. Ruined the song for me. It was more interesting when it wasn't a literal description of a drug trip.
I heard a Byrne solo show where he introduced this song as being about a girl he knew in Baltimore. She would drop acid and lay in a field outside of the local YooHoo bottling plant staring at the clouds.
I heard him say that too. Wish I hadn't. Ruined the song for me. It was more interesting when it wasn't a literal description of a drug trip.
ROSSinDETROIT wrote:
Grammarcop wrote:
Agreed. Little Creatures = Combat Rock.
Yeah, this is jump-the-shark stuff. Talking Heads without Brian Eno producing just isn't as good as TH with his input.
Least favorite Heads album. This is simplistic, slick and superficial.
Play more Fear of Music.
Play more Fear of Music.
Grammarcop wrote:
Agreed. Little Creatures = Combat Rock.
Yeah, this is jump-the-shark stuff. Talking Heads without Brian Eno producing just isn't as good as TH with his input.
I loved this song when it came out, and still do!
CamLwalk wrote:
Indeed: https://rateyourmusic.com/list/djlanda/the_100_worst_album_covers_ever
And this has some other ‘gems’ as well: https://www.stevecarter.com/albumcovers.htm
(Some are NSFW and some are Not Safe For Your Sanity as well.)
There are worse album covers.
Indeed: https://rateyourmusic.com/list/djlanda/the_100_worst_album_covers_ever
And this has some other ‘gems’ as well: https://www.stevecarter.com/albumcovers.htm
(Some are NSFW and some are Not Safe For Your Sanity as well.)
Yes she WAS! Miss you.
Here's a 1000x1000 pixel version of the cover...almost big enough. Back in the days when people used to get albums and pore over every word as they listened to the album, shrinkwrap on the floor, vinyl on the turntable... this cover was a treasure. Lots of little things to absorb...
On_The_Beach wrote:
OMG, my eyes, my eyes! I think this one takes the prize.
I apologize to everyone for starting this! ; )
That mullet is epic!
OMG, my eyes, my eyes! I think this one takes the prize.
I apologize to everyone for starting this! ; )
That mullet is epic!
vandal wrote:
OMG, my eyes, my eyes! I think this one takes the prize.
I apologize to everyone for starting this! ; )
Try this: (see horrific album "art" below)
OMG, my eyes, my eyes! I think this one takes the prize.
I apologize to everyone for starting this! ; )
ROSSinDETROIT wrote:
Agreed. Little Creatures = Combat Rock.
Least favorite Heads album. This is simplistic, slick and superficial.
Play more Fear of Music.
Play more Fear of Music.
Agreed. Little Creatures = Combat Rock.
There are worse album covers.
TobyRush wrote:
It was done by outside artist Howard Finster, who also did R.E.M.'s Reckoning. I thought he was a pretty interesting character, and I think the album cover is fascinating when you know a little more about the artist... (in fact, Rolling Stone gave it Best Album Cover of the Year for 1985.)
Besides, the worst album cover goes to Billy Joel's River of Dreams...
I can't see what Stipe saw in it, but whatever, thanks for the info. That brings to mind the character in the film Junebug - the fictional gospel-inspired artist.
It was done by outside artist Howard Finster, who also did R.E.M.'s Reckoning. I thought he was a pretty interesting character, and I think the album cover is fascinating when you know a little more about the artist... (in fact, Rolling Stone gave it Best Album Cover of the Year for 1985.)
Besides, the worst album cover goes to Billy Joel's River of Dreams...
I can't see what Stipe saw in it, but whatever, thanks for the info. That brings to mind the character in the film Junebug - the fictional gospel-inspired artist.
I heard a Byrne solo show where he introduced this song as being about a girl he knew in Baltimore. She would drop acid and lay in a field outside of the local YooHoo bottling plant staring at the clouds.
Love that brief power guitar surge at the end!
TobyRush wrote:
Best album cover?! Yeesh. With all due respect to the Rev, I still say the cover blows.
I'm with you on River of Dreams, though
. . .
Also in the running . . . 
It was done by outside artist Howard Finster, who also did R.E.M.'s Reckoning. I thought he was a pretty interesting character, and I think the album cover is fascinating when you know a little more about the artist... (in fact, Rolling Stone gave it Best Album Cover of the Year for 1985.)
Besides, the worst album cover goes to Billy Joel's River of Dreams...
Besides, the worst album cover goes to Billy Joel's River of Dreams...
Best album cover?! Yeesh. With all due respect to the Rev, I still say the cover blows.
I'm with you on River of Dreams, though
. . . Also in the running . . . On_The_Beach wrote:
By legendary folk artist The Rev. Howard Finster.
See also:
edit: Hey, Toby
The song's OK, but this has to be one of the worst album covers ever.
By legendary folk artist The Rev. Howard Finster.
See also:
edit: Hey, Toby
On_The_Beach wrote:
It was done by outside artist Howard Finster, who also did R.E.M.'s Reckoning. I thought he was a pretty interesting character, and I think the album cover is fascinating when you know a little more about the artist... (in fact, Rolling Stone gave it Best Album Cover of the Year for 1985.)
Besides, the worst album cover goes to Billy Joel's River of Dreams...
The song's OK, but this has to be one of the worst album covers ever.
It was done by outside artist Howard Finster, who also did R.E.M.'s Reckoning. I thought he was a pretty interesting character, and I think the album cover is fascinating when you know a little more about the artist... (in fact, Rolling Stone gave it Best Album Cover of the Year for 1985.)
Besides, the worst album cover goes to Billy Joel's River of Dreams...
mega sucko barfo 
The song's OK, but this has to be one of the worst album covers ever.
I always kind of liked this TH album. I had just about given up on them at this point, but this album has many songs I like. Cover art is pretty loco :-)
everytime I hear how bad the 80's sucked for music - I bring up this song as an arguement that it wasn't totally bad.
Of course all most of us ever heard was mainstream radiowasteland - no RadioRaradise80's. . . . .
Of course all most of us ever heard was mainstream radiowasteland - no RadioRaradise80's. . . . .
Talking Heads remind me always of this brilliant movie with Nick Nolte !!!!
I really hate this song. It's like cool hipster posers singing what is really a child's song. Plus it's played to death.
Least favorite Heads album. This is simplistic, slick and superficial.
Play more Fear of Music.
Play more Fear of Music.
Bubble Gum, MTV CRAP! They have sooo much better material to choose from. Please play more NAKED. Brillant,classic CD. Mr Jones rocks.
More Talking Heads? Nooooooo.
Sure, its no 77. Still a lot of fun, though.
I've always liked this, too. Playful and clever. Certainly doesn't have the bite of the earlier material, but it works in its own friendly way.
Guess I'm in the minority on this one. This has always been my favorite Talking Heads song as well as one of my favorite 'radio songs' from the 80's. Always dug it and always will.
Hey hey hey hey hey hey! Hey hey hey hey hey hey!!
Ditto too much Byrne/TH. Any cupie dolls still available?
what was i saying about too much Byrne yesterday afternoon? exactly!
Barman wrote:
Now Bill, honestly: too much TH in here. 
Too much of the weak, post-peak, mass market TH anyway (like this track); plenty of better stuff from their prime remains unexplored on RP. Perhaps that will change over time. Not that this track is bad or unlistenable; it just sounds lazy to me, based on the previous high standards this band had established for themselves.
Perhaps 'bored' would be a better word than 'lazy.' They sound bored, and as a result it comes across as boring. Or maybe Eno was a much bigger part of the group than anyone realized at the time. The quality took an almost immediate nosedive after Eno stopped working with the band, and god knows Byrne's post-TH work has been almost universally insufferable.
I was big fan and I'm glad TH experienced some commercial success and made some money before the end; they deserved it. But a track like this one, inoffensive as it is, really holds no interest for me now, and never did.
Talking Heads were too heady for their own good 
dea1018 wrote:
The last six months have really resorted to alot of top ten. MAKE IT STOP.
Alot of top ten from quite a while ago.....yes. Maybe you need to find another listener-supported venue that suits your taste according to your ratings.
The last six months have really resorted to alot of top ten. MAKE IT STOP.
MsfStl wrote: Hey! Jeez, I hate it when people stereotype LSD trips, I mean not all LSD trips result in ratings of 1, matter of fact I like this song, I gonna give it a cookie and a goldfish, so there!
This song is in fact about a friend of Byrne's who laid on the grass and did some acid.
Now Bill, honestly: too much TH in here.
One of the most positive and accesible TH songs. No wonder it's a classic. Very cheerful and engaging.
Oh come on, it's a classic!
boring, think this song is boring...
This song reminds me of Ankhara99. I have no idea why. It just does.
This song kinda makes me want to run outside and start dancing in the street...
She may have been, but I am not!
Farquwaar wrote:
Bring on the Hater!! First to say Rp plays to much heads wins a cupie doll!!!!
Damn, I came to this page to post that very thing. You beat me to the punch.
Bring on the Hater!! First to say Rp plays to much heads wins a cupie doll!!!!
blake wrote:
Byrne explained the song at a June performance in Minneapolis: he had a friend who used to do a lot of LSD in a field near a factory. Well...at least that's what he said!
Not only that, it was a Yoo-Hoo factory. ;)
One of their best songs. Great video too.
FUN SONGRepetitive is the word that comes to mind .... like a bad repeat of the '80's ....
Must fight urge to dance around my cubicle!! But the music is just too strong, I cannot resist! Pardon me, I must chair dance now.
....here comes that great guitar riff near the end.... 
yeehaw!!
yeehaw!!
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
A bit bluntly worded, but I agree.