Lia Ices — Daphne
Album: Grown UnknownAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 1233
Length: 5:17
Plays (last 30 days): 2
share
tweet
Daphne in the wood, you'll become the wood
Fire in his eye has gone and fueled your flight so high
Over the river rocks, the wind will carry thee
Call on nature now, for she'll keep you safe
From your own beauty
A heavy numbness seizes her into bark
Feet so swift to root, arm to branch and hair to leaf
Woman to tree
A heavy numbness seizes her into bark
Feet so swift to root, arm to branch and hair to leaf
Woman to tree
And in the end it's the difference of the spirit and the matter
It's the difference of the lover and the flyer
Don't it make you want to cry?
It's nothing less, nothing less between the worldly
And the one self
All this breathing and the truth that's in your last breath
Don't it make you want to cry?
So fly, fly and we'll wear you like a leaf crown
Fly cause your truth is in the solid ground
Fly
Yeah, fly, fly and we'll wear you like a leaf crown
Fly cause your truth is in the solid ground
Fly
Fire in his eye has gone and fueled your flight so high
Over the river rocks, the wind will carry thee
Call on nature now, for she'll keep you safe
From your own beauty
A heavy numbness seizes her into bark
Feet so swift to root, arm to branch and hair to leaf
Woman to tree
A heavy numbness seizes her into bark
Feet so swift to root, arm to branch and hair to leaf
Woman to tree
And in the end it's the difference of the spirit and the matter
It's the difference of the lover and the flyer
Don't it make you want to cry?
It's nothing less, nothing less between the worldly
And the one self
All this breathing and the truth that's in your last breath
Don't it make you want to cry?
So fly, fly and we'll wear you like a leaf crown
Fly cause your truth is in the solid ground
Fly
Yeah, fly, fly and we'll wear you like a leaf crown
Fly cause your truth is in the solid ground
Fly
Comments (47)add comment
Starting at 7 but I might move it to 8. Nice.
Honestly one of the best songs I recently heard. It is pure perfection.
Wikipedia sez the male vocalist in this duet is Bon Iver
LizK wrote:
Phrased just fine, Liz! Pretty sure the point was understood!! ✌️
She has a wonderful edge, movins from one note and up the scale nicely. I do wish I could phrase this musically.
Phrased just fine, Liz! Pretty sure the point was understood!! ✌️
gmichaelt wrote:
Attractiveness is detectable from a distance -- possibly with good reason --, and detectable in fractions of a second. Acquired attributes, loosely defined? Hmmm. Do the math.
It could be argued that any standard of 'beauty' is a function of the outcomes of matings in a sexually-dimorphic species (i.e. attractiveness is not entirely a function of the observed, but is also a function of the observer -- who only experiences a particular range of possible instances of the observed). In the final analysis, meant to include brains and talents, human beings ultimately breed for 'marriageability'. Again, do the math.
This has become a mind-numbing phrase: "do the math". In the context of the present discussion, where's the math? You repeat this twice, but whatever merit may attach to your attempt at an analysis, you repeat this phrase as if doubling down makes your case twice as true (do the math: 2X > 1X, generally a true statement, IFF the basic argument holds). It could be argued..., but I'm not convinced that you have made a reasoned point. Where and when did "do the math" become such a stock phrase that transcends "math"?
Attractiveness is detectable from a distance -- possibly with good reason --, and detectable in fractions of a second. Acquired attributes, loosely defined? Hmmm. Do the math.
It could be argued that any standard of 'beauty' is a function of the outcomes of matings in a sexually-dimorphic species (i.e. attractiveness is not entirely a function of the observed, but is also a function of the observer -- who only experiences a particular range of possible instances of the observed). In the final analysis, meant to include brains and talents, human beings ultimately breed for 'marriageability'. Again, do the math.
This has become a mind-numbing phrase: "do the math". In the context of the present discussion, where's the math? You repeat this twice, but whatever merit may attach to your attempt at an analysis, you repeat this phrase as if doubling down makes your case twice as true (do the math: 2X > 1X, generally a true statement, IFF the basic argument holds). It could be argued..., but I'm not convinced that you have made a reasoned point. Where and when did "do the math" become such a stock phrase that transcends "math"?
daveinnj wrote:
Dave, if you haven't already, check out Netflix....if you weren't aware, RP began as a fundraising effort for Paradise CA. Was dubbed "the campfire wildfire". Children's campfire got out of control....burned the entire town down. Quite a movie/documentary.
I love you Radio Paradise.
Dave, if you haven't already, check out Netflix....if you weren't aware, RP began as a fundraising effort for Paradise CA. Was dubbed "the campfire wildfire". Children's campfire got out of control....burned the entire town down. Quite a movie/documentary.
rhlrstn wrote:
Attractiveness is detectable from a distance -- possibly with good reason --, and detectable in fractions of a second. Acquired attributes, loosely defined? Hmmm. Do the math.
It could be argued that any standard of 'beauty' is a function of the outcomes of matings in a sexually-dimorphic species (i.e. attractiveness is not entirely a function of the observed, but is also a function of the observer -- who only experiences a particular range of possible instances of the observed). In the final analysis, meant to include brains and talents, human beings ultimately breed for 'marriageability'. Again, do the math.
I want to be taken seriously as a human being with brains and talents other than innate characteristics I was fortunate enough to be born with.
Attractiveness is detectable from a distance -- possibly with good reason --, and detectable in fractions of a second. Acquired attributes, loosely defined? Hmmm. Do the math.
It could be argued that any standard of 'beauty' is a function of the outcomes of matings in a sexually-dimorphic species (i.e. attractiveness is not entirely a function of the observed, but is also a function of the observer -- who only experiences a particular range of possible instances of the observed). In the final analysis, meant to include brains and talents, human beings ultimately breed for 'marriageability'. Again, do the math.
rhlrstn wrote:
Lady here, speaking up. Personally, I don't want folks commenting on my looks as a means of praise or scorn. I want to be taken seriously as a human being with brains and talents other than innate characteristics I was fortunate enough to be born with.
Sort of like when I refer to some lady as being beautiful that doesn't just mean I think she's hot. Sometimes that coexists with the beauty inside and sometimes not. And often the most beautiful people are not what society has deemed to be physically attractive. And another reason why I've been staying away from mass-media as much as possible....I get to decide what I like, not some mega-corporation. Which is why I tune into RP for my music (no ads!)- so Long Live RP and no ads!! And beauty too!!
Lady here, speaking up. Personally, I don't want folks commenting on my looks as a means of praise or scorn. I want to be taken seriously as a human being with brains and talents other than innate characteristics I was fortunate enough to be born with.
Sort of like when I refer to some lady as being beautiful that doesn't just mean I think she's hot. Sometimes that coexists with the beauty inside and sometimes not. And often the most beautiful people are not what society has deemed to be physically attractive. And another reason why I've been staying away from mass-media as much as possible....I get to decide what I like, not some mega-corporation. Which is why I tune into RP for my music (no ads!)- so Long Live RP and no ads!! And beauty too!!
rdo wrote:
If someone were to say "I don't like this song because a woman is singing it" then that would be considered sexist, the defintion being that what is objected to is the gender of the singer and not the song itself. I have not seen one comment of this type on RP.
If someone says that a singer is not attractive, then this is not sexist, not by anyone's definition that I know of. Calling someone ugly might very well be rude, and it is subjective, but if we are required to call all humans beautiful then this is the kind of thought policing George Orwell warned about. BTW, I don't recall anyone calling any females unattractive here but we have frequent funny comments about how people like Jagger look.
If we call attention to a woman's beauty then we are paying the highest compliment of all. It is not sexism. Women are just a hell of a lot more attractive than men in my hetero-biased opinion. Ladies, speak up!
Lady here, speaking up. Personally, I don't want folks commenting on my looks as a means of praise or scorn. I want to be taken seriously as a human being with brains and talents other than innate characteristics I was fortunate enough to be born with.
If someone were to say "I don't like this song because a woman is singing it" then that would be considered sexist, the defintion being that what is objected to is the gender of the singer and not the song itself. I have not seen one comment of this type on RP.
If someone says that a singer is not attractive, then this is not sexist, not by anyone's definition that I know of. Calling someone ugly might very well be rude, and it is subjective, but if we are required to call all humans beautiful then this is the kind of thought policing George Orwell warned about. BTW, I don't recall anyone calling any females unattractive here but we have frequent funny comments about how people like Jagger look.
If we call attention to a woman's beauty then we are paying the highest compliment of all. It is not sexism. Women are just a hell of a lot more attractive than men in my hetero-biased opinion. Ladies, speak up!
Lady here, speaking up. Personally, I don't want folks commenting on my looks as a means of praise or scorn. I want to be taken seriously as a human being with brains and talents other than innate characteristics I was fortunate enough to be born with.
This is a moving song! Wow! Lovely. Kind of makes me want to share it with a special someone.
Thanks for playing it 🙏
was the last comment really 2 years ago?
I'll pipe in to say that this is still a very pretty song and a very original composition.
I'll pipe in to say that this is still a very pretty song and a very original composition.
Very much on the Dolores O'Riordan side of voice, but the similarity is no burden at all.
Love this!
This is a complete surprise. Wonderful.
In the realm of the highly original and satisfying.
From an 8 to a 9
The lyrics echo deep...thanks Bill...and best to the artist.
Pretty cool. Totally get what others are saying about it being hard to quantify how much I like it on first listen.
Accidentally jotted down
Ahh ! melody for your
Heavenly chemistry.
She has a wonderful edge, movins from one note and up the scale nicely. I do wish I could phrase this musically.
Annoying voices, RP awful this Friday. Signing off.
scrubbrush wrote:
the jury is in:
I like it a lot. especially the second half, where the drums kick in.
i agree with below comments RE: too many comments on the looks of female artists. A good song is a good song. and a good song is in the ear of the beholder. folks who feel compelled to comment on looks are saying more about their own insecurities than the artist's art.
This song is interesting... still trying to decide if i like it a little or a lot
the jury is in:
I like it a lot. especially the second half, where the drums kick in.
i agree with below comments RE: too many comments on the looks of female artists. A good song is a good song. and a good song is in the ear of the beholder. folks who feel compelled to comment on looks are saying more about their own insecurities than the artist's art.
easmann wrote:
fredriley wrote:
There is, sadly, a lot of conscious and unconscious sexism on this board. A female friend, after looking at the comments boards, remarked to me that to her they felt very male, with an over-emphasis, for female artists, on their looks. I've only rarely seen comments on the looks of males. A male artist (eg Mick Jagger) can be a complete face-ache, but a female artist has to have a base level of good looks. Ho-hum.
Maybe it's because I've spent much of my life with strong women, but I've never had any problems differentiating the voices of female artists unless they are fairly bland and generic, but that would also apply to many male artists.
fredriley: Took me a long time to respond to this. Truth is, I did not know how to add anything positive to the, er, discussion that ensued. Thanks for the comment. This MIT Technical Review article recently came out which I think is relevant. The data points they found in Wikipedia were more subtle than the frequently blatant ones here. I'm donning my flame retardant gear now:
Computational Linguistics Reveals How Wikipedia Articles Are Biased Against Women
I find a lot of the comments about female artists perplexing. The only way I can make sense of them is that they reveal more about the person making the comments than about the artist. The comments tend to fall into two camps:
1. "This artist sounds just like this other (female) artist".
2. "This artist (who sounds unique, e.g., Bjork) sounds awful."
I find no basis for these assertions other than that these listeners cannot tell one female artist from another, that is unless the artist sounds obviously unique, in which case the commenter does not like the sound.
It's annoying. It adds nothing of value to a discussion of the artist or their work. That a person cannot tell one artist from another is not the fault of the artists.
These artists do not sound alike, and in fact, have nothing in common except their gender and their profession.
1. "This artist sounds just like this other (female) artist".
2. "This artist (who sounds unique, e.g., Bjork) sounds awful."
I find no basis for these assertions other than that these listeners cannot tell one female artist from another, that is unless the artist sounds obviously unique, in which case the commenter does not like the sound.
It's annoying. It adds nothing of value to a discussion of the artist or their work. That a person cannot tell one artist from another is not the fault of the artists.
These artists do not sound alike, and in fact, have nothing in common except their gender and their profession.
fredriley wrote:
There is, sadly, a lot of conscious and unconscious sexism on this board. A female friend, after looking at the comments boards, remarked to me that to her they felt very male, with an over-emphasis, for female artists, on their looks. I've only rarely seen comments on the looks of males. A male artist (eg Mick Jagger) can be a complete face-ache, but a female artist has to have a base level of good looks. Ho-hum. Maybe it's because I've spent much of my life with strong women, but I've never had any problems differentiating the voices of female artists unless they are fairly bland and generic, but that would also apply to many male artists.
fredriley: Took me a long time to respond to this. Truth is, I did not know how to add anything positive to the, er, discussion that ensued. Thanks for the comment. This MIT Technical Review article recently came out which I think is relevant. The data points they found in Wikipedia were more subtle than the frequently blatant ones here. I'm donning my flame retardant gear now:
Computational Linguistics Reveals How Wikipedia Articles Are Biased Against Women
zepher wrote:
I think Kerouac said beauty is an everlasting truth.
Radio paradise plays artists that I would have never found on my own..... It nice to hear a feminine point of view rather than my usual itunes dude-mix.
I believe the gist of that quote is from Shaw: "The mathematician is fascinated with the marvelous beauty of the forms he constructs, and in their beauty he finds everlasting truth."
Whereas Kerouac is credited with saying "The beauty of things must be that they end."
Anyhow, this is a cool tune.
I think Kerouac said beauty is an everlasting truth.
Radio paradise plays artists that I would have never found on my own..... It nice to hear a feminine point of view rather than my usual itunes dude-mix.
I believe the gist of that quote is from Shaw: "The mathematician is fascinated with the marvelous beauty of the forms he constructs, and in their beauty he finds everlasting truth."
Whereas Kerouac is credited with saying "The beauty of things must be that they end."
Anyhow, this is a cool tune.
zepher wrote:
I think Kerouac said beauty is an everlasting truth.
Radio paradise plays artists that I would have never found on my own..... It nice to hear a feminine point of view rather than my usual itunes dude-mix.
I am sure it doesn't hurt her career that she happens to be blazin' hot!
I think Kerouac said beauty is an everlasting truth.
Radio paradise plays artists that I would have never found on my own..... It nice to hear a feminine point of view rather than my usual itunes dude-mix.
I am sure it doesn't hurt her career that she happens to be blazin' hot!
daveinnj wrote:
love this song!
I love you Radio Paradise.
I think Kerouac said beauty is an everlasting truth.
Radio paradise plays artists that I would have never found on my own..... It nice to hear a feminine point of view rather than my usual itunes dude-mix.
This song is interesting... still trying to decide if i like it a little or a lot
Down the gender rathole we go.
fredriley wrote:
There is, sadly, a lot of conscious and unconscious sexism on this board. A female friend, after looking at the comments boards, remarked to me that to her they felt very male, with an over-emphasis, for female artists, on their looks. I've only rarely seen comments on the looks of males. A male artist (eg Mick Jagger) can be a complete face-ache, but a female artist has to have a base level of good looks. Ho-hum.
Maybe it's because I've spent much of my life with strong women, but I've never had any problems differentiating the voices of female artists unless they are fairly bland and generic, but that would also apply to many male artists.
If someone were to say "I don't like this song because a woman is singing it" then that would be considered sexist, the defintion being that what is objected to is the gender of the singer and not the song itself. I have not seen one comment of this type on RP.
If someone says that a singer is not attractive, then this is not sexist, not by anyone's definition that I know of. Calling someone ugly might very well be rude, and it is subjective, but if we are required to call all humans beautiful then this is the kind of thought policing George Orwell warned about. BTW, I don't recall anyone calling any females unattractive here but we have frequent funny comments about how people like Jagger look.
If we call attention to a woman's beauty then we are paying the highest compliment of all. It is not sexism. Women are just a hell of a lot more attractive than men in my hetero-biased opinion. Ladies, speak up!
There is, sadly, a lot of conscious and unconscious sexism on this board. A female friend, after looking at the comments boards, remarked to me that to her they felt very male, with an over-emphasis, for female artists, on their looks. I've only rarely seen comments on the looks of males. A male artist (eg Mick Jagger) can be a complete face-ache, but a female artist has to have a base level of good looks. Ho-hum. Maybe it's because I've spent much of my life with strong women, but I've never had any problems differentiating the voices of female artists unless they are fairly bland and generic, but that would also apply to many male artists.
If someone were to say "I don't like this song because a woman is singing it" then that would be considered sexist, the defintion being that what is objected to is the gender of the singer and not the song itself. I have not seen one comment of this type on RP.
If someone says that a singer is not attractive, then this is not sexist, not by anyone's definition that I know of. Calling someone ugly might very well be rude, and it is subjective, but if we are required to call all humans beautiful then this is the kind of thought policing George Orwell warned about. BTW, I don't recall anyone calling any females unattractive here but we have frequent funny comments about how people like Jagger look.
If we call attention to a woman's beauty then we are paying the highest compliment of all. It is not sexism. Women are just a hell of a lot more attractive than men in my hetero-biased opinion. Ladies, speak up!
easmann wrote:
In the end you are the one who is annoyed and that is telling.
I find a lot of the comments about female artists perplexing. The only way I can make sense of them is that they reveal more about the persons making the comments than about the artists. The comments tend to fall into two camps:
1. "This artist sounds just like this other (female) artist".
2. "This artist (who sounds unique, e.g., Bjork) sounds awful."
I find no basis for these assertions other than that these listeners cannot tell one female artist from another, that is unless the artist sounds obviously unique, in which case the commenter does not like the sound.
It's annoying. It adds nothing of value to a discussion of the artist or their work. That a person cannot tell one artist from another is not the fault of the artists.
These artists do not sound alike, and in fact, have nothing in common except their gender and their profession.
1. "This artist sounds just like this other (female) artist".
2. "This artist (who sounds unique, e.g., Bjork) sounds awful."
I find no basis for these assertions other than that these listeners cannot tell one female artist from another, that is unless the artist sounds obviously unique, in which case the commenter does not like the sound.
It's annoying. It adds nothing of value to a discussion of the artist or their work. That a person cannot tell one artist from another is not the fault of the artists.
These artists do not sound alike, and in fact, have nothing in common except their gender and their profession.
In the end you are the one who is annoyed and that is telling.
easmann wrote:
There is, sadly, a lot of conscious and unconscious sexism on this board. A female friend, after looking at the comments boards, remarked to me that to her they felt very male, with an over-emphasis, for female artists, on their looks. I've only rarely seen comments on the looks of males. A male artist (eg Mick Jagger) can be a complete face-ache, but a female artist has to have a base level of good looks. Ho-hum.
Maybe it's because I've spent much of my life with strong women, but I've never had any problems differentiating the voices of female artists unless they are fairly bland and generic, but that would also apply to many male artists.
I find a lot of the comments about female artists perplexing. The only way I can make sense of them is that they reveal more about the person making the comments than about the artist. The comments tend to fall into two camps:
1. "This artist sounds just like this other (female) artist".
2. "This artist (who sounds unique, e.g., Bjork) sounds awful."
I find no basis for these assertions other than that these listeners cannot tell one female artist from another, that is unless the artist sounds obviously unique, in which case the commenter does not like the sound.
It's annoying. It adds nothing of value to a discussion of the artist or their work. That a person cannot tell one artist from another is not the fault of the artists.
These artists do not sound alike, and in fact, have nothing in common except their gender and their profession.
1. "This artist sounds just like this other (female) artist".
2. "This artist (who sounds unique, e.g., Bjork) sounds awful."
I find no basis for these assertions other than that these listeners cannot tell one female artist from another, that is unless the artist sounds obviously unique, in which case the commenter does not like the sound.
It's annoying. It adds nothing of value to a discussion of the artist or their work. That a person cannot tell one artist from another is not the fault of the artists.
These artists do not sound alike, and in fact, have nothing in common except their gender and their profession.
There is, sadly, a lot of conscious and unconscious sexism on this board. A female friend, after looking at the comments boards, remarked to me that to her they felt very male, with an over-emphasis, for female artists, on their looks. I've only rarely seen comments on the looks of males. A male artist (eg Mick Jagger) can be a complete face-ache, but a female artist has to have a base level of good looks. Ho-hum. Maybe it's because I've spent much of my life with strong women, but I've never had any problems differentiating the voices of female artists unless they are fairly bland and generic, but that would also apply to many male artists.
I prefer First Aid Kit. Maybe if she took that flower out of her mouth...
Just a little too much overwrought saccharine. Nice but at some point past 2 minutes, it's gone on long enough...
NeuroGeek wrote:
They play a lot of tracks from female artists that (to my ear) are very similar.
If one reads through the comments of songs performed by female singers, it is clear that many people here (not you, mind you) seem to think that the majority of female singers sound the same. Perhaps it's not that these singers sound alike as much as it is that some people are not really listening or just don't like the sound of a woman's singing voice. This song sounds pretty distinctive to me - not necessarily fantastic, but not commonplace either.
They play a lot of tracks from female artists that (to my ear) are very similar.
If one reads through the comments of songs performed by female singers, it is clear that many people here (not you, mind you) seem to think that the majority of female singers sound the same. Perhaps it's not that these singers sound alike as much as it is that some people are not really listening or just don't like the sound of a woman's singing voice. This song sounds pretty distinctive to me - not necessarily fantastic, but not commonplace either.
hansk wrote:
How do you know it isn't Rebecca with the predilection? BTW, I tend to agree with him/her most of the time!
Yes, Bill definitely has a predilection for pretty, young female singers. Fortunately most of them, like Lia Kessel, also have good voices.
How do you know it isn't Rebecca with the predilection? BTW, I tend to agree with him/her most of the time!
NeuroGeek wrote:
They play a lot of tracks from female artists that (to my ear) are very similar.
Yes, Bill definitely has a predilection for pretty, young female singers. Fortunately most of them, like Lia Kessel, also have good voices.
They play a lot of tracks from female artists that (to my ear) are very similar.
Yes, Bill definitely has a predilection for pretty, young female singers. Fortunately most of them, like Lia Kessel, also have good voices.
ScottN wrote:
They play a lot of tracks from female artists that (to my ear) are very similar.
Webfoot wrote:
Hmmm. I want to like it more than I actually do. 5
Same here? Makes me wonder why this is even on RP? They play a lot of tracks from female artists that (to my ear) are very similar.
Webfoot wrote:
Hmmm. I want to like it more than I actually do. 5
Same here? Makes me wonder why this is even on RP? I like it..........her voice reminds me of Agnes Obel a bit.
I like this.
Hmmm. I want to like it more than I actually do. 5
Not a comfortable place to be, methinks.
Right on the fence for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yeah, the prove that beauty is the very best vehicle for success. Look at the bird!