Radio Paradise is a great eclectic online radio, probably the best one I've found. It's pretty hard to match it for variety; it looks like they'll play nearly anything, which means it can be uneven, but I think it's more or less interesting most of the time, and there usually isn't anything particularly offensive. It goes without saying that it can be uneven, simply because with a range this huge, there's bound to be quite a few average numbers. But it's more satisfying than classic rock stations that play the same things over and over again..

The ratings of other listeners are, as always, very interesting to take note of. I don't know what exactly it is I feel when I read comments mocking things close to my heart. This is only compounded by the fact that I think I am like most of those people, and that if I hadn't listened to (in this example) "Franklin's Tower" in those naive and innocent days, I might like them mock it and accuse it of stringing random words together..thereby not opening my mind to the subtle talents of Robert Hunter. There have been numerous instances where I've listened to something and said "Right, that's just trash" (maybe not so emphatically, but suffice to say I didn't care for it), and moved on. Funnily enough, reading a fan's comments was a strange experience, because I know that on a few occasions it led me to believe that the people who liked it must be really out there. It's quite probable then that there are many things which I am passing up on, more due to a lack of proper taste than anything else.

It's always good to be reminded of the need for self-assessment, isn't it!?

Edit: Now I have proof that I am no good. There was a cover of Tom Wait's "Jockey Full Of Bourbon" (which I haven't heard in a good year or two), and for the first few seconds, I was telling myself "Wow, what deliberately obscure lyrics!", thinking that the artist must be one of those people who (as Robert Hunter was accused of) strings random images together. I was sheepish to discover it was a Waits song I was dismissing (I rate Rain Dogs as one of my favourite albums; you'd think I'd remember all the songs, no?). So, it seems safe to say that if they did in fact play Waits' original version, I'd have the same reaction, and make a mental note not to pay attention to this wannabe-Dylan (or somesuch invalid comparison), thereby shutting off something that's actually really good.

The wannabe-Dylan comment didn't just come out of thin air, I think one of the things that originally flashed through my head when hearding "Jockey" was "Whoah, this person sounds like they're really trying to be Dylan". I didn't think there was anything bad about the lyrics, just that they were trying too hard to be poetic. Naturally, when I heard Waits' original a few years ago, no such thought popped into my head; sad, ain't it? But this leads me to pose a question: can something be good if it's made by someone, but not good if it's made by someone else? As in, because artist Y is essentially imitating artist X, the merit of Y's work is diminised, but if Y did the same thing, it would be hailed a masterpiece? It's always confusing when dealing with inspiration and originality.

I really don't like this tendency to dismiss anyone I haven't read about, especially newer groups, this is just a really bad knee-jerk reaction I have to cure myself of! Perhaps I should leave the radio on the whole day till it's all I can think about? (Actually, I'd probably never get bored, knowing the funky playlists these guys have..)

It seems somewhat fitting that I saw VH1 do their take on the worst #1 songs ever (in my defense, I was quite bored, and in absolutely no mood for anything cerebral). Initially I took it as just time-pass, but midway I was outright angry, because it seemed clear to me that most of the people trashing these songs from the past were probably in no position to make the statements they did, and the things they were saying were just so elitist and condescending that I just wanted to...ahh, deep breaths, I know. Yes, it was just meant to be entertainment, and I shouldn't take it all so seriously, but the "lesson" (is it really? This whole thing seems rather facetious actually) is that I should be a bit more careful pronouncing judgements (even if they are never proclaimed to the world, or just to this blog).

I was also reading comments about Peter Gabriel's "Sledgehammer" on RP, and someone said they were sick of Peter Gabriel and music like his, such as Rod Stewart. I have a funny lecturer who once insisted that "We are all ignorant", and ya know he might be on to something there. I suppose most people will be familiar with Gabriel as just the person who did "Sledgehammer" (and maaybe "Digging In The Dirt", which was also pretty popular), and think of him as a schlocky pop artist not worth their time. When, of course, there is a much larger story to Gabriel's career, with early Genesis and his own artsy solo albums that most people aren't familiar with. And Rod Stewart had his glory days too you know! Unfortunately, most things are not simple, but ironically it's dreadfully easy to form an inaccurate view of someone or something, without grasping the bigger picture.

I think my edits are invariably more interesting (to me) than my original posts.