(no subject)

[primroseburrows]

Okay, I'll admit that Ashley MacIsaac is very, very good at what he does. But "almost single-handedly brought fiddle playing back into popularity in Canada"?

What about Natalie MacMaster?

Canadians? Whaddya think? jlm1779? Cause, like, Natalie's everywhere. What does Rolling Bloody Stone know, anyway?

*stepdances*

Comments

[cirakaite.livejournal.com]

Isn't Ashley MacIsaac a lot more *cough* historic than Natalie? No doubt that she's more popular now (with good reason!), but I remember my mum had one of his cds more than a decade ago, and even then he was well known.

Geekout comment, ignore if you wish *g*

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

According to Ashley's discography, his first album was released in 1992 (wow, he was only 17!). Nat's first was in 1993, although she had a self-produced release in 1989 (at 16--what do they feed these kids!?).

Ashley's 28, Nat's 30. They're contemporaries. It might be that Ashley caught on earlier than Natalie did, though. His music is more eclectic, with all the rock-and-roll stuff he does.

I'll give that they've both contributed. I think Nat's brought the genre even further, though, without compromising her roots, which I really do think Ashley's done. I don't judge him for that; it's just that I like the more traditional fiddlers. And, I'm not dumping on Ashley at all. I was just wondering where Rolling stone got its info.

My crush on Natalie has nothing whatsoever to do with my reasoning. Really. *whistles innocently*

Re: Geekout comment, ignore if you wish *g*

[cirakaite.livejournal.com]

Am obviously totally confused *g* Probably because I've never listened to one of Ashley's songs in memory, just Natalie. Even though I heard of Ashley long before I'd ever heard of Natalie.

And dude. The Rankins rock ;)

Re: Geekout comment, ignore if you wish *g*

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

They so do.