Jenny Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Same here. She looks like an anorexic biker chick, but man, what a voice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Jane 61 Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 I haven't heard anything by her and I didn't want to because of her looks. But maybe I should take a listen, I do like finding new chicks that can really sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious_Peaches Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Jane, I think you'd love her voice and her songs. She looks like she smells like 3 day old puke, but the sister can saaaannnngggg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Jane 61 Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 I have read some on her and they said she was soulful and jazzy, so I am going with the thought she isn't popish like most of the stuff on the radio that is new. I like women who can rock, have soul and are just smooth sounding. From Etta to Janis to Heart to Joss Stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Making it easy for you, Jane: Rehab - Amy Winehouse You Know I'm No Good Back to Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 have some fun with this one.... Church and Winehouse together at last Is that really Charlotte Church? Cool. Winehouse is another of those new originals with a unique voice/sound. Brava! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Jane 61 Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Thanks Jenny and Joe, you right about the voice. Very unique and has that something. But the look, oh my!! She is skanky!! I thought the pics I saw were bad, but oh ewwww!! And I think she could be hot if she would tone it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Okay, I'm curious... do you usually use 'is' or 'are' with a band? Singular or plural? For example-- 'The Verve is reuniting' or 'The Verve are reuniting'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 I think it depends whether the band's name is a singular or plural... "The Verve is" "The Beatles are" etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious_Peaches Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 I would say "is" because a band is a singular unit. Quick, someone dork me! Wait, Farin's answer made sense...dork him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 or how about agree with me and congratulate me on my quick and logical reply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious_Peaches Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Nah, I like the dorking better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 yes, a serious reply wouldn't have worked with your avatar anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious_Peaches Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 I take Mr. T very seriously, thank you very kindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 I pity the fool who treats every band as a singular entity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 I think this is quite interesting. And I usually use 'are'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 I use 'is' because a band is a singular unit. Of course Beatles/Stones is plural, so that's 'are' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 or how about agree with me and congratulate me on my quick and logical reply? ^ Dork (Peachy made me do it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 Elton John is GREAT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 I use 'is' because a band is a singular unit. Of course Beatles/Stones is plural, so that's 'are' Dat make no sense to me. A group, by definition, is a group (of people), so should be considered as an "are" not an "is". The Killers are rubbish, but The Cure is splendid??? No, no, no. That is an affront to my sense of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 Okay, I'm curious... do you usually use 'is' or 'are' with a band? Singular or plural? For example-- 'The Verve is reuniting' or 'The Verve are reuniting'? In fact, Seeker's initial question demonstrates the point perfectly. If "The Verve" is considered as a singular item, how can it reunite? Reuniting involves the bringing back together of constituent parts. Therefore it is implicit, even when the band's name is a "singular", that it (the band) is actually "a group". Surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 Dat make no sense to me. A group, by definition, is a group (of people), so should be considered as an "are" not an "is". The Killers are rubbish, but The Cure is splendid??? No, no, no. That is an affront to my sense of order. group = singular! The Killers = each band member is one 'Killer' The Cure = ONE band I'd say "The members of the Verve are reuniting", or "The Verve is reuniting" btw... they ARE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 Dat make no sense to me. A group, by definition, is a group (of people), so should be considered as an "are" not an "is". The Killers are rubbish, but The Cure is splendid??? No, no, no. That is an affront to my sense of order. Yes. That's what I think too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 I can't get my head round the suggestion that the singularity/plurality of the actual band name should make a difference to whether one uses "is" or "are". If The Beatles had instead chosen to name themselves "The Beatle", would it be right to say "The Beatle is legendary"? No: it would surely be "The Beatle are legendary", (however "wrong" that may sound). Minor alteration to name, same four guys, same band. You wouldn't tolerate "The Beatles is still very popular", would you? No, because it is understood that The Beatles consisted of a group of people. Similarly, Led Zeppelin (which is a "singular") are highly influential, Coldplay are an abortion, U2 are overrated, Gold Blade are the dog's bollocks, etc. I'm right and I claim my £5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 The Beatle is legendary. So there! You should say 'This group are good', then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts