The '50s Traditional Pop HoF (long post)

[Bruce]

I have very little time available to me for computer access, and that
time has to be divided among reading and responding to posts in this
NG, reading and responding to email, writing and editing Wikipedia
articles, writing Amazon reviews, and other things. So the amount of
time I've had to spend on posts related to the 1950s Traditional Pop
HoF in this group has just been too much. I intended to post this
Saturday, but it became obvious that I did not have enough time to do
so, and so I had to wait till now.

There have been a large number of mistakes made here and I do not
exclude myself from blame. For one, when I suggested that Scarlotti
write up a set of tentative rules and I'd look them over and approve or
suggest changes, I should have planned to read his rules more
carefully. I read them, thought they looked OK, issued a Call for
Nominations, and then realized I was not sure about some points. Then
when I asked Scarlotti for clarification and did not get a response
quickly enough, I submitted my set of nominations, ASSUMING the rules
were as I understood them, while Scarlotti came up with a change in
rules that made my nomination list something I should have changed.

I had basically assumed the rules provided that:
(A) each participant nominate a list of 50 recordings, which
constituted both nominations and votes for the songs listed. The 25
songs with the most votes would be inducted.

I later realized that an alternative reading would be that:
(B) each participant nominate a list of 50 recordings as initial
nominations; after some discussion each participant would cast votes
for 50 of the songs listed as nominees. The 25 songs with the most
votes would be inducted.

While I preferred (B), I believed that the language of the rules more
closely prescribed (A) so I asked Scarlotti for clarification, while
preparing my own list on the assumption that rule (A) was in force.
After I prepared my list, and after I'd given up on getting a response
from Scarlotti, instead of clarifying whether (A) or (B) was meant, he
put forth the slightly different rule:
(C) each participant nominate a list of 50 recordings as initial
nominations; after some discussion each participant would cast votes
for _25_ of the songs listed as nominees. The 25 songs with the most
votes would be inducted.

It seems that Fred, in fact, construed the rule still differently:
(D) Those participants who wish to do so nominate a list of 50
recordings as initial nominations; after some discussion each
participant (including those who did not nominate any) would cast votes
for _25_ of the songs listed as nominees. The 25 songs with the most
votes would be inducted.

It is clear that these rules are all different, and we never should
have had a call for nominations while there was any disagreement as to
which rule was in force.

The second disagreement seems to involve the question of qualifying
recordings. Scarlotti proposed that I have the right, as coordinator,
to designate songs as not qualifying. I accepted this, assuming that
there might be some lists like Grossberg's that would be totally beyond
the pale, others that would be totally legitimate, and perhaps some
with one or two songs that didn't belong, so it would be easily to
exclude those while accepting the list with a couple of deletions. I
never anticipated anything like Bill Bugge's list, where all the songs
technically qualified even though they clearly could not be considered
serious proposals; still less did I expect to see something like
JustaFingerPicker's, which would have involved going through the list
carefully deciding whether each one qualified. And when JaFP posted his
list, I decided I didn't have time to do that, so I said that I'd let
the voters eliminate the inappropriate ones, and only if one got
through the voting process woild I use the power vested in me. Even
that decision, which did not invalidate anything from his list, caused
him to go into attack mode. I ended up being insulted by him, though I
was clearly acting within the powers granted to me in the rules.

It should be mentioned that I never wanted to be coordinator, but took
that role purely because in conjunction with Scarlotti's rules it gave
me the machinery to make certain that only legitimately Traditional Pop
recordings be considered. I don't really want to be forced to take time
aggregating nominations and counting votes, and only took the
coordinatorship to be able to filter the lists. I'm very happy for
others to do the time-consuming work.

At one point I had planned to simply take the three lists (mine,
Scarlotti's, and JaFP's) and simple declare all songs that were on all
three lists as inducted, even though this would not have made 25. This
would have been within the spirit of the rules, but I decided that we'd
had too many unilateral rules-changes already, so I gave up that idea.

I think at this point there are only two things I can do:

(1) Withdraw my Call for Nominations, and suggest that no nominating or
voting be done until a set of rules has beed AGREED TO.

(2) As my last official act, resigning as coordinator. I will not
accept that role if it is offered back to me unless there is some
consensus, not just Scarlotti's feeling I'm the one, and I certainly do
not want to be doing all this hard work to be rewarded by insults from
one of the small number of people whe wish to participate.

[Sav...@aol.com]

Bruce wrote:

> I think at this point there are only two things I can do:
>
> (1) Withdraw my Call for Nominations, and suggest that no nominating
or
> voting be done until a set of rules has beed AGREED TO.
>
> (2) As my last official act, resigning as coordinator. I will not
> accept that role if it is offered back to me unless there is some
> consensus, not just Scarlotti's feeling I'm the one, and I certainly
do
> not want to be doing all this hard work to be rewarded by insults
from
> one of the small number of people whe wish to participate.

# 2 is clearly the best choice.

This is Scarlotti's farce, and you were just his pigeon to take the
heat off of himself. If anybody criticized this sham of a hall of fame,
he could just point to you and say, "I didn't make that decicion, the
coordinator, Bruce, made it" (with the powers I alone bestowed upon
him).

I suggest that instead of creating this preposterous alternate hall of
fame that you guys concentrate on campaigning for some traditional pop
songs getting inducted into the recognized official hall of fame for
the newsgroup.

[justafin...@hotmail.com]

> (2) As my last official act, resigning as coordinator. I will not
> accept that role if it is offered back to me unless there is some
> consensus, not just Scarlotti's feeling I'm the one, and I certainly
do
> not want to be doing all this hard work to be rewarded by insults
from
> one of the small number of people whe wish to participate.

If it somehow eases your mind to use me as Whipping Boy, feel free.
>From Post One, I don't feel I ever responded to anyone with any less
civility than I had been shown, commencing literally within hours of
the time I submitted my nominations, down to and including being
personally and publically blamed by you for the apparent failure of
this endeavor.

[Scar...@searchhawkmail.com]

The Hall stands.

Since no less a musical authority than Trollberg had seen fit to
designate this Hall as my "farce" (and as the second member to join it)
I shall assume Bruce's position as officiator.

I shall be posted ammended Guidelines in a separate thread, however,
the four sets of nominations received to date will remain effective.

The period for posting nominations shall be extended till midnight,
March 31 (exactly one month from today).

I sincerely hope that the setbacks currently experienced by the Hall
will not discourage anyone from participating. It's a new institution
and, like all new institutions, is bound to have a few initial wrinkles
to iron out.

Now let's keep the nominations coming (Steve, Theo, Sharx, others???).

Best,
Michael

[Cathy D]

In article <1109618270....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Bruce <brg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think at this point there are only two things I can do:
>
> (1) Withdraw my Call for Nominations, and suggest that no nominating or
> voting be done until a set of rules has beed AGREED TO.

The first thing you should do is define exactly what you mean by
"Traditional Pop" music as it seems everyone nominating songs has a
different idea of what constitutes "Traditional Pop."

Cathy :)

--
-------------------------------------------------
e-mail address: cathyd at empire1.net
Naturally the 'at' should be changed! :) The number also needs to be spelled
out. :)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Scar...@searchhawkmail.com]

Cathy, I'm taking the liberty to answer your question to Bruce, since
he's resigned and I'm resolved to keep this Hall going.

Traditional Pop refers to the style of mainstream music popular just
prior to the rock 'n' roll era. Examples are Frank Sinatra, Doris Day,
Perry Come, Nat Cole, Tony Bennett, Patti Page, Frankie Laine, Johnnie
Ray, Kay Starr, Eddie Fisher, et al.

However (as per the amended guidelines), I'm willing to make quite a
few allowances for music that crosses over into more than one
genre/style.

Straight rock and roll songs wouldn't qualify (ex: HOUND DOG). But
ONLY YOU, which is as much Pop as it is Rock, would qualify. (Please
note that HOUND DOG is a favorite of mine and appears on my 100 Best
Songs per year lists.)

Since we're both Jim Reeves fans, I'll cite some of his music as
examples: I COULD CRY, RED-EYED AND ROWDY and similar songs are
straight country and wouldn't qualify, but songs like FOUR WALLS and
HE'LL HAVE TO GO, which have a more Pop-oriented feel to them, would.
(Please note that I like all of Reeves' songs.)

Ideally, I'd like this Hall to focus more on the pre-rock songs (which
tend to get slighted here); but I'm aware that many of the members of
this group prefer the music (including the Pop music) of the r'n'r era,
and I'm more than willing to accept nominations and votes for rock era
Pop (many of which were nominated by Justafingerpicker and Effie).

As I've noted elsewhere, I see this Hall as being a separate wing of
the existing one. Together they would represent a broader spectrum of
the music of the decade than the existing one alone does. I plan on
discounting songs that are already in the existing Hall, as I consider
them to be already inducted.

That's about as well as I can explain it.

Anyway, I've always felt our tastes are (give or take) roughly similar
-- and I'd love to have you participate in this Hall. Also, this is
only the nomination phase. Any songs that I think are too r'n'r
(non-Trad Pop) won't be included in the final list which we'll all be
voting from. (We'll be voting on the accepted nominations, so there
should be no question as to what is or isn't eligible come voting
time.)

My email is mmpen...@aol.com Feel free to vote there, or to post
your nominations here.

Best,
Michael

[Sav...@aol.com]

Scar...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
> Cathy, I'm taking the liberty to answer your question to Bruce, since
> he's resigned and I'm resolved to keep this Hall going.

> As I've noted elsewhere, I see this Hall as being a separate wing of
> the existing one.

You don't have the right to declare this without AT LEAST Bob's
consent, and perhaps even a vote by the entire group.

[Scar...@searchhawkmail.com]

Trollberg: You don't have the right to declare this without AT LEAST

Bob's
consent, and perhaps even a vote by the entire group.

Scarlotti: I didn't "declare" it. I said "I see this Hall as." And as
that *is* how I see it, I see nothing wrong stating my personal,
subjective, totally-independent-of-Bob opinion.

[Cathy D]

In article <1109660286.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:

> Cathy, I'm taking the liberty to answer your question to Bruce, since
> he's resigned and I'm resolved to keep this Hall going.
>
> Traditional Pop refers to the style of mainstream music popular just
> prior to the rock 'n' roll era. Examples are Frank Sinatra, Doris Day,
> Perry Come, Nat Cole, Tony Bennett, Patti Page, Frankie Laine, Johnnie
> Ray, Kay Starr, Eddie Fisher, et al.
>
> However (as per the amended guidelines), I'm willing to make quite a
> few allowances for music that crosses over into more than one
> genre/style.

You're calling this the "'50's Traditional Pop HoF" and yet you are
allowing ANY 1950's pop song. If you are going to do that then you need
to change the name. As I see it, there is a difference between
"traditional" pop and pop done by other '50's artists and I think you
are going to wind up having problems with people disagreeing over which
songs are "pop" songs, and with you having the final say it's hardly
going to seem unbiased. But it's your show!

I'm with Bruce Grossberg. I think you'd be far better off participating
in Bob's HoF.

[Scar...@searchhawkmail.com]

Cathy, I have participated in Bob's HoF. I've posted my votes and
emailed them to Bob.

Does he count them? I've no idea (as has stated that he has to know
the legal names of all voters -- unless he feels he knows them well
enough to accept their pseudonym).

Does it matter if he counts them? I doubt it. After all, only ONE
Traditional Pop song has ever made it into his Hall.

As far as the "Traditional Pop" name goes, I've posted several threads
trying to get a concensus on what this style of music should be called
-- to no avail. IMO it's too diverse in terms of style and genre to be
limited to a single genre-defining name. I think everyone here knows
that I'm referring to "Standards," "Tin Pan Alley" songs, "Music of
Your Life" songs, "Great American Songbook" songs, "Middle of the Road"
songs, "Post WWII"/"Pre-Rock Era" songs, etc.

I don't believe that there will be much disagreement over what
constitutes "traditional pop" among the members of this group (trolls
aside). The trouble comes from people dropping the "traditional" from
the definition. "Traditional" insofar as the Hall is concerned mean
"Pre-Rock" -- or more specific "Pre-Rock Style."

As far as the first half of the decade goes, they are the songs that
charted (with a small number of exceptions). As to the latter half,
it's popular songs that follow in the style of the popular songs from
the first half of the decade. WHO'S SORRY NOW by Connie Francis, THE
BIG HURT by Toni Fisher, LOVING YOU by Elvis, BEYOND THE SEA by Bobby
Darin, MY PRAYER by The Platters, APRIL LOVE by Pat Boone, etc. are in
the Traditional Pop style. They may have some Rock/R&B elements, but
they're still Traditional Pop records.

Basically, if a song is more
Rock/R&B/Country/Doo-Wop/Jazz/Soul/Whatever than Trad Pop, it's not
eligible.

If in doubt, just refer to the Golden Rule -- ask yourself: Would Mitch
Miller like it?

[Sav...@aol.com]

Scarlo...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
> Cathy, I have participated in Bob's HoF. I've posted my votes and
> emailed them to Bob.
>
> Does he count them? I've no idea (as has stated that he has to know
> the legal names of all voters -- unless he feels he knows them well
> enough to accept their pseudonym).
>
> Does it matter if he counts them? I doubt it. After all, only ONE
> Traditional Pop song has ever made it into his Hall.

The following inductees in Bob's HOF would qualify as traditional pop,
even by your standards:

YEAR ONE INDUCTEES:
I Only Have Eyes For You - The Flamingos

YEAR TWO INDUCTEES:
Blueberry Hill - Fats Domino

YEAR THREE INDUCTEES:
The Great Pretender - The Platters
Mona Lisa - Nat King Cole
Only You (And You Alone) - The Platters
Since I Don't Have You - The Skyliners
You Send Me - Sam Cooke

YEAR FOUR INDUCTEES:
Mack the Knife - Bobby Darin
Smoke Gets In Your Eyes - The Platters

GREAT PRE-1950s SINGLES

YEAR TWO INDUCTEES:
Get Your Kicks On Route 66 - The King Cole Trio

YEAR THREE INDUCTEES:
If I Didn't Care - The Ink Spots
Straighten Up and Fly Right - The King Cole Trio

[Scar...@searchhawkmail.com]

Sav...@aol.com wrote:

> The following inductees in Bob's HOF would qualify as traditional
pop,
> even by your standards:

Wrong. Most would qualify for admission into the Hall, but MONA LISA
is the only real TRADITIONAL pop song in the batch. Like I said, I'm
willing to make great allowances as to eligibility.

> GREAT PRE-1950s SINGLES
(I was only referring to the 50s Hall.)

[Bruce]

Cathy D wrote:

>The first thing you should do is define exactly what you mean by
>"Traditional Pop" music as it seems everyone nominating songs has a
>different idea of what constitutes "Traditional Pop."

To which Scarlotti answered:

>Traditional Pop refers to the style of mainstream music popular just
>prior to the rock 'n' roll era. Examples are Frank Sinatra, Doris
Day,
>Perry Come, Nat Cole, Tony Bennett, Patti Page, Frankie Laine, Johnnie

>Ray, Kay Starr, Eddie Fisher, et al.

I think Scarlotti's response shows that at least between him and me,
Cathy's comment that everyone nominating songs had a different idea of
Trad Pop is wrong. My definition and Scarlotti's seem to be pretty
close to identical, though his examples (which include "Only You" ---
though he doesn't say which version) seem to imply he draws the line
more broadly than I do. (I'd accept, as I said in an earlier post,
"Only You" in the Hilltoppers' version, but not The Platters' version.)

[Bruce]

Grossberg wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> I think at this point there are only two things I can do:

>> (1) Withdraw my Call for Nominations, and suggest that no nominating

>>or voting be done until a set of rules has beed AGREED TO.

>> (2) As my last official act, resigning as coordinator. I will not
>> accept that role if it is offered back to me unless there is some
>> consensus, not just Scarlotti's feeling I'm the one, and I certainly

>> do not want to be doing all this hard work to be rewarded by insults

>> from one of the small number of people whe wish to participate.

># 2 is clearly the best choice.

I had meant to indicate that I was doing BOTH.

>This is Scarlotti's farce, and you were just his pigeon to take the
>heat off of himself. If anybody criticized this sham of a hall of
fame,
>he could just point to you and say, "I didn't make that decicion, the
>coordinator, Bruce, made it" (with the powers I alone bestowed upon
>him).

Nonsense! _I_ proposed this HoF, not Scarlotti!

>I suggest that instead of creating this preposterous alternate hall of

>fame that you guys concentrate on campaigning for some traditional pop

>songs getting inducted into the recognized official hall of fame for
>the newsgroup.

Not likely. When, after 3 years, only ONE Trad Pop song was inducted
into that "recognized official hall of fame for the newsgroup," while
all sorts of stuff that doesn't meet the criteria for a Pop HoF but
does suit the tastes of the R&B/R&R fans in the group get in, it is
clear that Traditional Pop songs have as much chance of making a
substantial showing in that HoF as a Republican has of being nominated
as the Democratic candidate for President (or vice versa). The nature
of the electorate guarantees that.

[Bruce]

Scarlotti wrote:

>I shall be posted ammended Guidelines in a separate thread, however,
>the four sets of nominations received to date will remain effective.

I hope that I will be allowed a chance to change some of my
nominations.

My original nominations had been made on the basis of the rules as I
understood them to be at the time. Under the rules as you have revised
them, I want to nominate a slightly different list.

[Sav...@aol.com]

You can always start your own country.....why don't you start a
Traditional Pop dsicussion group on Yahoo...and develop your own
electorate.

Until then, the majority will decide what belongs in the hall of fame,
and if their choices are not what you want to see, that's too fucking
bad.

[Tregembo]

<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in

>
> You can always start your own country.....why don't you start a
> Traditional Pop dsicussion group on Yahoo...and develop your own
> electorate.
>
> Until then, the majority will decide what belongs in the hall of fame,
> and if their choices are not what you want to see, that's too fucking
> bad.

Finally.

Why wasn't this the second post of this thread?!

Ray Arthur

[Cathy D]

In article <1109773923....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Bruce <brg...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Pretty close" is not identical and only proves to show that even you
and Scarlotti don't always agree on what constitutes a "traditonal
pop."

Scarlotti defines it above as pre-rock 'n' roll-- that being so how can
you accept songs by rock 'n' roll artists?

You should either change the name or not accept songs by artists who
became popular after the start of the rock 'n' roll era.

[Cathy D]

In article <1109752372.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote:

> As far as the "Traditional Pop" name goes, I've posted several threads
> trying to get a concensus on what this style of music should be called
> -- to no avail. IMO it's too diverse in terms of style and genre to be
> limited to a single genre-defining name. I think everyone here knows
> that I'm referring to "Standards," "Tin Pan Alley" songs, "Music of
> Your Life" songs, "Great American Songbook" songs, "Middle of the Road"
> songs, "Post WWII"/"Pre-Rock Era" songs, etc.
>
> I don't believe that there will be much disagreement over what
> constitutes "traditional pop" among the members of this group (trolls
> aside). The trouble comes from people dropping the "traditional" from
> the definition. "Traditional" insofar as the Hall is concerned mean
> "Pre-Rock" -- or more specific "Pre-Rock Style."

As I said before--it's your show, but if you want a "Traditional Pop"
HoF then you should limit nimination to "Traditional Pop" artists. I.E.
artists whose careers started before 1950 (or 1951, or 1952 or whatever
date you feel is appropriate), who are backed by orch, who major hits
appeared on Billboard's Pop chart. etc. Otherwise you are going to
wind up with people disagreeing over what is or is not a "traditional
pop" song, and since you are the one who will ultimately make the final
decision--accusations of bias.

[Bruce]

Cathy wrote:

>"Pretty close" is not identical and only proves to show that even you
>and Scarlotti don't always agree on what constitutes a "traditonal
>pop."

>Scarlotti defines it above as pre-rock 'n' roll-- that being so how
can
>you accept songs by rock 'n' roll artists?

No, what Scarlotti wrote was "the STYLE of music popular just prior to
the ronk'n'roll era." In other words, if a R'n'R singer does something
in a style which is basically the same as pre-R'n'R music, it's
acceptable, both to me and to Scarlotti. Yes, our definitions are not
_identical_, but I imagine that either one of us would be willing to
accept the decision of the other as to the acceptability of a specific
song. We might differ on an occasional song, but I am sure that jazz
aficionados might differ on whether a particular song is jazz or not,
and I KNOW that there have been much more vicious disagreements among
the R&R fans on this group as to whether particular songs constitute
R&R.

You are just trying to drive a wedge between us, where it just doesn't
make sense.

[Bruce]

Oops, somehow "rock'n'roll" became "ronk'n'roll" there. You know what I
mean!

[JayePMorganSucks---KimWildeRocks]

Scar...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
> Cathy, I have participated in Bob's HoF. I've posted my votes and
> emailed them to Bob.
>
> Does he count them? I've no idea (as has stated that he has to know
> the legal names of all voters -- unless he feels he knows them well
> enough to accept their pseudonym).
>
> Does it matter if he counts them? I doubt it. After all, only ONE
> Traditional Pop song has ever made it into his Hall.
>
> As far as the "Traditional Pop" name goes, I've posted several
threads
> trying to get a concensus on what this style of music should be
called
> -- to no avail. IMO it's too diverse in terms of style and genre to
be
> limited to a single genre-defining name. I think everyone here knows
> that I'm referring to "Standards," "Tin Pan Alley" songs, "Music of
> Your Life" songs, "Great American Songbook" songs, "Middle of the
Road"
> songs, "Post WWII"/"Pre-Rock Era" songs, etc.

How about we just call it "Unbelievably Horrible Music"?

>
> I don't believe that there will be much disagreement over what
> constitutes "traditional pop" among the members of this group (trolls
> aside). The trouble comes from people dropping the "traditional"
from
> the definition. "Traditional" insofar as the Hall is concerned mean
> "Pre-Rock" -- or more specific "Pre-Rock Style."
>
> As far as the first half of the decade goes, they are the songs that
> charted (with a small number of exceptions). As to the latter half,
> it's popular songs that follow in the style of the popular songs from
> the first half of the decade. WHO'S SORRY NOW by Connie Francis, THE
> BIG HURT by Toni Fisher, LOVING YOU by Elvis, BEYOND THE SEA by Bobby
> Darin, MY PRAYER by The Platters, APRIL LOVE by Pat Boone, etc. are
in
> the Traditional Pop style. They may have some Rock/R&B elements, but
> they're still Traditional Pop records.

The Connie Francis, Elvis and Platters songs are rock 'n' roll.

The Bobby Darin song is pop.

The Pat Boone song is an unbeliebably horrible one.

The Toni Fisher one? HORRIBLE, but noteworthy becuase it's the first
use of electronic phasing, preceding synthesizers and the Human League
by 20 years.

>
> Basically, if a song is more
> Rock/R&B/Country/Doo-Wop/Jazz/Soul/Whatever than Trad Pop, it's not
> eligible.
>
> If in doubt, just refer to the Golden Rule -- ask yourself: Would
Mitch
> Miller like it?

Mitch Miller sucks. Who cares what he likes?

[Cathy D]

In article <1109780568....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Bruce <brg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not at all. Scarlotti keeps using the word "Traditional." Which to me
says there is a difference between "Traditional" Pop music (and
artists) and other Pop music (and artists). I do feel there is a
difference between artists like Connie Francis and Doris Day. To me,
Doris Day would be a legitimate "Traditional" Pop artist while Connie
Francis would fall under the simpler title of "Pop" artist.

I'm done with this. But I'll be curious to see just what songs
Scarlotti finds accceptable for your HoF.

[Cathy D]

In article <1109780568....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Bruce <brg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not at all. Scarlotti keeps using the word "Traditional." Which to me

says there is a difference between "Traditional" Pop music (and
artists) and other Pop music (and artists). I do feel there is a
difference between artists like Connie Francis and Doris Day. To me,
Doris Day would be a legitimate "Traditional" Pop artist while Connie
Francis would fall under the simpler title of "Pop" artist.

I'm done with this. But I'll be curious to see just what songs
Scarlotti finds accceptable for your HoF.

Cathy :)

[Bruce]

Cathy D wrote:

> ...I do feel there is a difference between artists like Connie

Francis and Doris
> Day. To me, Doris Day would be a legitimate "Traditional" Pop artist
while
> Connie Francis would fall under the simpler title of "Pop" artist.

I don't know. Connie's recordings of "Who's Sorry Now" or "Among My
Souvenirs" are firmly in the Traditional Pop genre, both because the
songs are old ones and because her style is not significantly different
from the Doris Day/Patti Page style. "Stupid Cupid," OTOH, moves away,
and "V-A-C-A-T-I-O-N" is even more Rock than Pop in my estimation.

[JayePMorganSucks---KimWildeRocks]

Connie Francis has a lot more talent than Patti Page. But her
V-A-C-A-T-I-O-N song SUCKS. The great song with that title is (don't
call me fag boy, Dorsal!) by the Go-Go's!