> what you're up to just the same.
> > Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries, Eggman
> >>>> Outside of the song "Heaven", they'd be a lot better off singing
> >>>> in Spanish so I couldn't understand, and if I didn't already
> >>>> have so many Santana CDs.
> >>>> But some of their lyrics make me think of the Dana Carvey bit
> >>>> about the '80s balladeer who makes the song up as he goes along,
> >>>> sticking in whatever rhyme pops into his head, so that's good.
> >>> They also have some SRV influences, apparently. I like 'em quite
> >>> well. Dude can flat out play guitar, I'll tell you that.
> >> Do you like "Velvet Sky"?
> > Well, let's just give 'em a mulligan on that one, m'kay?
> I got one or two more they need mulligans on. And several more than are
> quite Santana-like (which isn't a bad thing except that we've already got
> Santana). Another thing they've got going against them is I've seen them
> hailed in at least two different places as the next great thing for
> blues-rock, and this album ain't meeting that standard. My original
> point was that many of their songs are much better without the lyrics.
> And "Heaven" is quite good. It'll be interesting to see what they come
> out with next.
I would think either 'Crazy Dream' or 'Nobody Else.' They're different
styles, but I think both have commercial possibilities. I also think
'Onda' does, but that's probably the most blatently Santana-sounding
song on the record, so I'm sure you'll dismiss it. But I'm not sure
the Santana thing is necessarily bad from a marketability perspective.
I think the song could get airplay on some progressive rock stations.
But it may be a little too progressive for mass market.
'Crazy Dream,' on the other hand, has HIT written all over it,
following up on 'Heaven.' 'Nobody Else' introduces a different sound,
which I think is very good but it may be too soon to go that road.
They might want to get more established first. 'Crazy Dream' seems to
me to be the most natural follow-up.