-
you're cute when you're angry...insecurity's always adorable...
but, i gotta run...playtime's over...have fun
-
How about its better then a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
-
Moderator Warning!
Enough member bashing for one thread. Please stick to the topic.
And no more calling members "goose-stepping neo nazi fuktard" either.
-
OK...back...shouldda stayed gone...and yeah, I'll knock it off.
BUT, how hard is it to see I was not calling anyone a nazi anything. I was asked how I knew he didn't like Hitler...so I responded that I assumed he wasn't a nazi whatever...and he gets all huffy like I called him a name. So, unless he took offense in my assumption that he ain't a Hitler fan boy, I can't for the life of me figure out why he would be upset.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody
you're cute when you're angry...insecurity's always adorable...
but, i gotta run...playtime's over...have fun
Notwithstanding the moderator warning, I found this to be laugh out loud funny.
-
Well...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Notwithstanding the moderator warning, I found this to be laugh out loud funny.
...now that you've both wet yourselves...any response to my question Stone? I mean something on-topic...you know the subject of the thread...Get a chance to digest my on-topic response to MGH contextually?
jimHJJ(...is that at all possible for you?...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...now that you've both wet yourselves...any response to my question Stone? I mean something on-topic...you know the subject of the thread...Get a chance to digest my on-topic response to MGH contextually?
jimHJJ(...is that at all possible for you?...)
I've read the whole thread, a couple times over. So what's your point? You asked some pretty general questions about the credentials of the authors of the list. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. If they're familiar with the albums, and what transpired after it musically, I don't care if it's John Peel or your illegitimate neice down the block, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and the more it's based on fact, the stronger the opinion is.
And yes it's possible, smart ass. What's your problem?
-
LOL. You all cant stop but i for one understand.
-
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I've read the whole thread, a couple times over. So what's your point? You asked some pretty general questions about the credentials of the authors of the list. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. If they're familiar with the albums, and what transpired after it musically, I don't care if it's John Peel or your illegitimate neice down the block, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and the more it's based on fact, the stronger the opinion is.
And yes it's possible, smart ass. What's your problem?
...didja' see that...it was the point...like in 98.6...Jumpin' butterballs it's as thick as pea soup around here... Given no system of quasi-objective measurement, the panel subjectively based it's choices on opinion...opinion of the album...opinion of the group...opinion of what they hath wrought and left in their wake...
I was told by MGH, quite pointedly, that a like or a dislike or the resultant O-friggin-PINION based on such didn't count...and obviously it's simply because myself and a few others, have opinions that run counter to the neo-hipster mindset...
It was self-indulgent cr@p then and lo these many years after the fact, it's still self-indulgent cr@p, quite to the consternation of the myopic, nothing-exists-past-the-Hudson-New Yorker-centric, leather-clad, Soho, TriBeCa, nouveau East Village DUMBO set...you wouldn't find it on my list...in fact there are many of their inclusions you wouldn't find...and as I said initially, the non-existence of some of their offspring would not affect the musical firmament one single iota.
jimHJJ(...a New Yorker who doesn't say "BAAA"...)
-
Well, hasn't this become an interesting thread. But I thought it was supposed to be about the influence of these records. What I see was callous dismissal of a particular rec, substantiated only by individual dislike. I'm still waiting for anything resembling a reasonable idea why this rec shouldn't be considered influential.
There's a difference between not liking an artist & understanding that they were influential. I'm not much of a fan of the Doors, but I understand their influence. I could live just as well never hearing a note of their music for the rest of my life, but since avoiding their music can be difficult if one spends any time interacting in our society, I try to listen with a different mindset when I do hear them. If they were responsible for influencing someone whose work I prefer (and they were), then maybe it's worth it to spend a moment listening with that in mind, and perhaps finding a way to understand it...instead of the typical dread that accompanies having to listen to 'Light My Fire' or 'L.A. Woman' for the millionth time.
I wanted to avoid being defensive, if possible, but I listed four artists in whose work I hear a definite VU influence, especially the first record. R.E.M., Sonic Youth, Roxy Music, Jonathan Richman. All but Richman have achieved varying, but reasonable, levels of success. In the case of R.E.M., they were one of the most popular bands of the 1990s. They covered a couple of songs from this record, which speaks to influence, I would think. Sonic Youth, whether or not you like their music (and I mostly do not), were indisputably the foremost example of the bridging of rock music and the avant-garde during the 1980s, which led to their own reasonble success in the 1990s wielding a tremendous amount of influence themselves (perhaps most notably in areas other than actual song structures) on bands like...Nirvana.
Yet you're denying the influence of this record, Resident Loser.
Raging at the authors of the piece, who may indeed be know-nothings, doesn't make sense when the facts do not support yr argument.
But that's not the first occurrence of that in this thread. Let's see...gee...I made a mistake. I thought you were referring to Bowie, but I misread, and the charge about hanging around Warhol, the clever attempt at irony relative to the now-cliche '15 minutes' crack...is actually more laughable when applied to Reed. I won't cheapen his accolades from various entities by listing any; it may well be that you think as little of them as you do about the writers of the piece. But, before I respond to individual points (which I notice you didn't bother with much, interestingly enough, which is disappointing), let's dismiss this nonsensical notion, okay? Lou Reed dumped Andy Warhol in 1967, and gained almost no fame from the Velvet Underground. What did gain him fame was a song written years later, after a period where he confronted his lack of success by briefly giving up on music, and even moved back to his parent's house.
I like the ranting about how the piece is an opinion piece. Well, of course it is. It happens to carry some weight so far as I'm concerned, but like I said I don't really care, because the points they're making with those titles seem kinda obvious. Not to others, obviously. But, I realize, it can be frustrating when the facts don't exactly support a blustery argument that speaks to personal preference instead of influence.
Speaking of which, I'd argue against the placement of Sgt. Pepper as high as it is on that list at this point. Why? Because at this point in time, it seems to me, the explosion of art-rock & concept albums has been settled for quite awhile. It's not the dynamic force in music that it was in the decade or two past the release of Sgt. Pepper. There's a Beatles album that belongs in that slot, but not Pepper. Meet The Beatles. Now there's a rec that caused 73 million people to tune into the Ed Sullivan Show one night.
I would hazard a guess that there has been no other event that led to the formation of more rock bands. To be fair, most of 'em were teenagers who spent maybe a year banging away in a garage, only to eventually fizzle. But it was a shot in the arm for companies that manufacture instruments and equipment, which, I would suggest, allowed those companies to pursue advancements & improvements more aggressively than they might have if not for the increased cash flow that I presume came through their accounts in 1964.
That's an assumption I'm making without any facts or documentation, but I believe it's based in common sense. I do think that Jim Marshall still comes up with a brilliant way to build and market a guitar amplifier, but maybe it's not in as much demand if not for the effect the Beatles had on society at the time. That record rejuvenated pop music, which had been unfocused as a whole dating back to Elvis' induction into the Armed Forces. The Beatles pioneered stadium tours, which led to the development of gear designed for use in such venues...which of course didn't really exist when the Beatles forced the issue. But it took the industry a couple, or perhaps a few, years to catch up to the need. The need existed because all of a sudden there was an act capable of filling stadiums. And their rise to popularity was based on Meet The Beatles, which of course wasn't even a proper album, and the singles that were released from it.
The quip about how only a small number of people heard the first VU record...but all of them went out & formed bands...well, it's a funny thing, but you don't hear many people talk about how they went out & formed bands in the wake of Meet The Beatles. I suggest this based on anecdotal evidence, and some reading I've done about the guitar industry. I would think an argument for the Beatles having inspired people to form bands is pretty rock-solid, though if someone wishes to challenge this, have fun. But while there is plenty of evidence regarding what people did with their own music after having heard Sgt. Pepper, I have never seen it suggested that anyone went & formed a band after the orgasmic experience of hearing that exalted rec. Have you?
I realize that many will accept that there can be nothing that will ever happen in music that will eclipse this accomplishment, and that's understandable given the insistence of many that little good has come out of music since The Last Waltz or thereabouts. I say the fallout from Sgt. Pepper has long settled, and it's worth it to take a second to think outside the box & ask if it remains as influential as it once was. I really don't think it is. I'll admit I harbor a small bias with regards to its influence due to the original planned release date for the SMiLE record, which I think is a much better record, and which undoubtedly had an effect on Paul McCartney, who heard what Brian Wilson was up to when he attended one of the sessions (which leaves us to ponder how much the then-incomplete Pepper sounded like at that point, and would have otherwise sounded like...my money's on McCartney choosing to work towards crafting Pepper into something more along the lines of what SMiLE would've been...the concept was his, after all, so I've always wondered how fully developed it was when he heard the SMiLE tracks). For four decades Pepper has gotten the nod of the Rolling Stone-approved view of the rock music canon, and regardless of what I think of either record, or any record, that's that. But it is slipping; I do remember a 'greatest recs' poll from just a few years ago, and Sgt. Pepper was actually displaced from the top slot...by Revolver.
I say it's about time people get over Sgt. Pepper. I don't want to turn this into a debate over where it belongs on that list, just wanted to mention this, which I found interesting. Most influential? My opinion is, no way. Certainly not deserving of top 10 status anymore. An argument for another day: in my book not only would Meet The Beatles top Pepper on the issue of most influential, but the White Album & Abbey Road as well. And since bands now seem to think filming themselves in the process of making a record is such a good idea, you could make a strong case for Let It Be as well.
Oh, blasphemy. Pepper's the biggest, bestest, most influential, purdiest, most b*tchin', most mostest rec of all time.
Wait, you didn't say that. Sorry, I was confused for a second. I thought I was in a Dark Side Of The Moon thread for a minute there.
-
Now, I have a question. Swish suggested that if not for the VU, there would be no...well, he threw a few names out. The reply?
>And this would somehow be bad?
Now, that's fine and all, because of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Swish challenged you on Bowie, but I'm more curious about applying that line of thinking to Roxy Music. The idea that had Roxy Music not existed, that this would not have been such a bad thing, is something I'm curious about. Mind you, I've sure crossed paths with folks who were not fans...but they never made that sort of suggestion. If you could live without records like For Your Pleasure, Siren, and Avalon, hey, great for you. I'm a bit stumped on the idea that pop music never having a Brian Eno around would have...um...not have been such a bad thing. Mind you, I don't listen to many of his records. But, heck, are you aware of what this guy has done? I'll do here what I was unwilling to do in my last post with regard to Lou Reed (though I will say that I suspect that the various entities that have honored his work don't think any more of you than you think of them).
Eno's played with Robert Fripp, Genesis (on The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, no less), Camel, the Neville Brothers, Peter Gabriel, and Paul Simon; he's produced (and, in some cases, also played with) Devo, U2, the Talking Heads, Toto, and Johnny Cash. Now, that's omitting the names of artists I am taking the liberty of assuming you might be just as happy had they never existed (such as Bowie). But, uh, that looks like a formidable resume to me.
No Roxy Music, no Brian Eno. Yet you question whether it would have been such a bad thing if records like the inital VU rec hadn't been there to inspire such people. I'm not much of a U2 fan, so a dismissal of the artistic heights others seem to think they achieved in their performer/producer relationship with the original keyboard player for Roxy Music won't provoke me. But I must say I find this to be a curious position.
Thoughts?
-
J, you've almost outdone yourself with the last two posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
Now, I have a question. Swish suggested that if not for the VU, there would be no...well, he threw a few names out. The reply?
>And this would somehow be bad?
Now, that's fine and all, because of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Swish challenged you on Bowie, but I'm more curious about applying that line of thinking to Roxy Music. The idea that had Roxy Music not existed, that this would not have been such a bad thing, is something I'm curious about. Mind you, I've sure crossed paths with folks who were not fans...but they never made that sort of suggestion. If you could live without records like For Your Pleasure, Siren, and Avalon, hey, great for you. I'm a bit stumped on the idea that pop music never having a Brian Eno around would have...um...not have been such a bad thing. Mind you, I don't listen to many of his records. But, heck, are you aware of what this guy has done? I'll do here what I was unwilling to do in my last post with regard to Lou Reed (though I will say that I suspect that the various entities that have honored his work don't think any more of you than you think of them).
Eno's played with Robert Fripp, Genesis (on The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, no less), Camel, the Neville Brothers, Peter Gabriel, and Paul Simon; he's produced (and, in some cases, also played with) Devo, U2, the Talking Heads, Toto, and Johnny Cash. Now, that's omitting the names of artists I am taking the liberty of assuming you might be just as happy had they never existed (such as Bowie). But, uh, that looks like a formidable resume to me.
No Roxy Music, no Brian Eno. Yet you question whether it would have been such a bad thing if records like the inital VU rec hadn't been there to inspire such people. I'm not much of a U2 fan, so a dismissal of the artistic heights others seem to think they achieved in their performer/producer relationship with the original keyboard player for Roxy Music won't provoke me. But I must say I find this to be a curious position.
Thoughts?
You're a regular rock historian, although we don't always share the same tastes, and you know that to be true. With that said, I have to say that I'm quite pleased that this thread has created so much energy on this board, the likes of which we have seen since Bernd''s "What is Spinning". (Ha! Sorry for that dig Bernd, you certainly could not have imagined your basically mundane post would have the most traffic of any post ever on this board, and I've been here for at least 7 or 8 years as best I can remember).
Anyway, I will try to stick to my promise of post one per week for 50 consecutive weeks, come h<a>ell or high water, and I hope that future posts create some noise that will come somewhere close to this.
Swish - enjoying my Rocky Patel 1990 Vintage and a very nice Fuller's Vintage Ale.
-
Next issue at hand...
>...you may wanna' start from scratch and take some notes...
Sounds like good advice. Especially consideing the source.
>my remarks about transvestites and Warhol was in response to Swish's "poser" comments re: Lou Reed not Bowie...
Addressed & dealt with.
>And as you may or may not recall, my initial response was not a lamentation over losing a few of the mentioned "bands"...
Who's the one who needs to be taking notes here? Kindly reference post #2 in the thread, your initial response.
http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...755#post151755
Come again?
>Second have you seen the list or read the accompanying articles?
Yes, last weekend. Curious why you'd think I didn't read them.
>Who are the panel of seven numbnuts who compiled said list for the Observer or the Guardian or whatever? What are their credentials?
Who cares? They're paid for their opinions, and why that bothers you so much I'm not sure I understand. Why don't you get a job writing for a paper if you don't like their opinions? Or start yr own?
>What metric or criteria did they use in compiling the list?
Wow, this is a startling level of discomfort I'm sensing here, though I won't bother re-listing all of yr questions. What's the difference? This is a consensus of opinion in an entertainment section of a UK newspaper, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you don't support their conclusions, fine. But it'd be nice if you could do so in a way that speaks to more than yr own personal likes & dislikes.
>Was it the based on records in question? Of the groups or movements (bowel not excluded) they inspired? Did they like the spawn as opposed to the included albums?
Did YOU read the piece?
>Did they include stuff they felt would be PC to include?
So what if they did? They still have Sgt. Pepper at #2, as well as Marvin Gaye, Pet Sounds Elvis, & Dylan all in the top 10. Those don't exactly strike me as 'PC' in a list compiled according to influence.
>Why would their opinions be any more or less reliable or valuable than mine or N.Absentia's or Daisy Duck's for that matter?
Because the publishers of a newspaper place a monetary value on them? If they published a piece saying that the earth is flat, that the U.S. weren't involved in WWII, that David Bowie died in 1979, and that there were never a band called the Beatles, then, regardless of truth or accuracy, there would still be that monetary value, which of course is not the answer you wanted. But it's the one you seem to require. What's not required is for you to care about their opinions.
>Posted on the web?
I take it you understand the difference between 'posted on the web' and a daily newspaper?
>Re: Europe '72...should have specified technical achievement and sound quality...The 'Stones "Got Live If You Want It" and The Who's "Live At Leeds" sound like cr@p in comparison to the wizardry worked by Alembic on the Dead's album.
Tell it to someone who cares about 'technical achievement and sound quality.' I care about music, and musical performance. The performance on Live At Leeds outshines the one on Europe to my ears, but then I'm not a big fan of either record. The Stones rec is horrible, but if it were a great performance, I'd care a bit less about the crappy sound. But then two of the songs are studio tracks. As for 'wizardry,' that's something I happen to think rock music works better without.
But it's interesting that you bring up the Grateful Dead, because, so far as I can see, they're the key to the worst flaw that I can see in this list. Speaks to the idea of PC having something to do with...er...influencing their choices. No Grateful Dead albums. Considering the popularity of the jam band genre, I think a Dead album deserves to be on that list. One of the two I consider listenable would've been a good thing, and more deserving than, say, Primal Scream.
But then this is a very British list. I guess it helps if you understand that in the UK, the music audience is very different than here. There are a lot fewer folks there perpetually hung up on classic rock, listening to the same records over & over for 30 or 40 years, grumbling that there is no good music anymore. That said, I think their explanation for no Rolling Stones records is extremely weak. I could quibble that if they're only going to pick a couple of jazz records, that they picked the wrong Miles rec (B*tches Brew makes more sense to me, even though I think less of it than you seem to think of the VU), and there's a Coltrane rec (or even Ornette Coleman) or two that warrant inclusion more than Head Hunters. Completely ignoring jam bands is inexcusable, though I suppose they may not be that big over there, I don't really know. However, I think it would've been a lot more PC had they included a rec like Uncle Tupelo's No Depression, given its influence on the alt-country genre, yet ignored the Dead/Phish axis. But I do think that roots music & Americana just isn't the force over there it was in the past.
>With regard to Lenny Bruce...I only know what I remember from contemporary news covereage...he used bad languge and OD'd...some intellectual...
Then I suppose we shouldn't regard Burroughs, Bukowski, or Dylan Thomas as 'intellectuals,' either, should we? This is probably a waste of time, but you might want to take a gander at a Dustin Hoffman movie from 1974. Unless you enjoy issuing statements that suggest ignorance.
>and IMHO Howard Stern is a waste of space...
I thought the Lenny Bruce reference was a safe one, that it'd be understood, but I also thought I'd never again see the point being missed this many times in a thread on this board. Like what you've had to say about the VU, this does not address the issue of influence. I guess I shouldn't have bothered.
This is truly strange. I never thought the concept of influence was so difficult to understand. Or so easy to mangle into posts that seem to be inexplicably written from the point of view that a piece on what I think the rest of us realize is about cause-and-effect, as a 'greatest' list.
-
Hey, my fun meter is pegged.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swish
Anyway, I will try to stick to my promise of post one per week for 50 consecutive weeks, come h<a>ell or high water, and I hope that future posts create some noise that will come somewhere close to this.
Swish - enjoying my Rocky Patel 1990 Vintage and a very nice Fuller's Vintage Ale.
May as well, its not like you're wasting bandwidth or anything...
Oh and I picked up a copy of VU's greatest hits...it came with 14 other songs
:D
I crack me up.
-
>Given no system of quasi-objective measurement, the panel subjectively based it's choices on opinion...opinion of the album...opinion of the group...opinion of what they hath wrought and left in their wake...
So, then, it's only an opinion that the recs listed influenced the artists referenced in the context of not existing without the presence of the influencing rec...which means that it's debatable that Bowie, Roxy, et al wouldn't have existed if not for the influence of the VU rec, because you're now saying this is only an opinion.
Yet, when you ask why it would be a bad thing if something didn't exist, on the basis that what influenced it is...pretentious, or whatever, you're then validating the very opinion you're railing against.
How does that work?
Either they were influenced by the record, or they weren't. Either you can explain to us why you don't think they were, why the stated opinions of the writers are wrong in suggesting that record A influenced artist B, or you can't. Either you can try to find another way of saying you think there is no good music these days, or you can conveniently ignore that 'the current crop' has always endured criticism from those who choose to see no worth in what they do, relative to what has been done before.
You might be right about the writers' opinions being ridiculous, though. Who in their right mind would suggest that the Clash was an influence on Rancid?
>I was told by MGH, quite pointedly, that a like or a dislike or the resultant O-friggin-PINION based on such didn't count...
Please explain what it counts for in a discussion of influence, as opposed to...sigh...a discussion of whether or not the artists in question, or the recs they made, are any good or not.
Hey, I don't like the Spice Girls. Does that count for anything if that's all I choose to post about, when what's relevant to the thread is that their presence paved the way for a new flavor of teenaged pop tarts like Britney Spears?
>and obviously it's simply because myself and a few others, have opinions that run counter to the neo-hipster mindset...
What does the "neo-hipster mindset" (whatever that is) have to do with acknowledging or denying influence?
>It was self-indulgent cr@p then and lo these many years after the fact, it's still self-indulgent cr@p
Influence. The piece, and the thread, are about influence.
>quite to the consternation of the myopic, nothing-exists-past-the-Hudson-New Yorker-centric, leather-clad, Soho, TriBeCa, nouveau East Village DUMBO set...
Sounds like you've got issues. One is that I don't think you've actually had much contact with the 'nouveau East Village' types. They are the last people in the world who give a damn about the Velvet Underground (if they even know who that is, provided someone they approve of might've dropped the name)...or, seemingly, more than anything beyond style & fashion. Been to Pianos lately? The bars with velvet ropes on Avenue A? The Mexican dive on Jay St. that has live jazz on Thursdays? Or the Sex-&-the-City-style trendy bar around the corner from it? Oh, those clothing boutiques on West Broadway, the ones chockful of models & Eurotrash, they're so in touch with that 'Velvet Underground And Nico' sort of musical-dissonance sensibility. As is Nobu, of course. Any other neighborhoods you want to share yr inaccurate perceptions of?
It's not like the Knitting Factory didn't all but give up on the avant-skronk-jazz they booked almost exclusively for years, in favor of rock bands...for, oh, the 10 years since they moved to TriBeCa.
Oh, and you left out NoLiTa...which, like DUMBO, didn't exist in 1967, by the way. What did exist during the existence of the Velvet Underground was a fair ambivalence of the local rock audience towards their performances. Outside of the residencies at the Electric Circus & Max's, they had long periods where they didn't even play in NYC. They preferred Boston, where their gigs were reportedly more successful, and where they felt more appreciated.
But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant, now.
>you wouldn't find it on my list...
No kidding!
Would you care to tell us why? You've already told us that you don't like the record, but...well, at some point perhaps you'll grasp the point. Since the list is based on influence & not popularity or anyone's favorites, then at least tell us why you feel the VU rec didn't influence Bowie, or Roxy, or R.E.M., or Jonathan Richman, or Sonic Youth, or the Feelies, or Television...
>in fact there are many of their inclusions you wouldn't find...and as I said initially, the non-existence of some of their offspring would not affect the musical firmament one single iota.
Sure, if you live in an imaginary world where music that you don't like simply doesn't exist. To the rest of us, a band that bridged prog and glam rock, predated punk, New Wave and the New Romantics, and unleashed a figure who produced the records of the most popular band in the world over the past 25 years onto the musical landscape, managed to affect the 'musical firmament,' whether you see it or not.
In the world I live in, there's plenty of music I don't like. It's bad enough that it exists, and may have influenced something else that I don't like. Or, perhaps it influenced something I did like, which makes the issue of influence potentially worth investigating. To avoid that issue by merely railing against the content seems not only foolish, but bizarre.
-
Kinda like influencing me to unsubscribe.
-
Whatever. We'll keep a light on for ya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokhead
Kinda like influencing me to unsubscribe.
Swish
-
"First the gamblin'...
...then the cheatin' and the bottles of rye...gotta' have it... hafta' have it or die..." Let Me Go Devil 1953...
Perhaps a peppering of lyrics that permeate the songs of Hank Williams...30s 40s 50s
Tony Bennet's Boulevard Of Broken Dreams...written 1934...
Parts of Gershwin's Porgy And Bess...1935
Sinatra's One For My Baby...1943
Frankie And Johnny...1925
Blues In The Night...1941
Fever...1958
Stagger Lee...recorded in '59 by Lloyd Price...although the story's roots pre-date it by 60 years or so...
But of course, none of these count as "socially relevant" because the tales they tell are not induced by society, they simply describe personal failings or love lost or a combination of both and then some...
I mean, none of it quite as compelling as some moron jonesing for some of Bayer's finest product...I can see how the story of some skagged-out dimwit or hooker would be much more influential...no, no, no...pop music never showed the underbelly of society 'til this disk plopped on the scene...
Some were done with class and style...There are comics who keep it clean while making people laugh and those who work blue...Do you really need the Randy Whorehole appropriation-style "art" to support the weak material? Apparently...I'd venture a guess many copies were bought more for the "artwork" a la Brillo boxes, Campbells soup cans and iconic serigraphs than for (you'll excuse the term) musical content...
As Phil Ochs observed, "..I'm sure it wouldnt interest anybody, outside of a small circle of friends..." I mean who really cares about some alky or a misbegotten love life?...only those who can identify with it...Kristofferson's Sunday Morning Coming Down certainly strikes a chord...Lord knows I remember mornings when my hair hurt and my teeth vibrated...Does society care about my (or anyone else's) shortcomings? hardly...it ain't socially relevant...go kill yerself fer all I care...OD on Tabasco and Ajax...
Now, if we go to the blues and folk and Guthrie and Seeger and Billy Holiday's Strange Fruit or Dylan...now we're talkin' relevant...and even Dylan alludes to being no frontman for a cause in Scorcese's film...he'd a been happy doing bubblegum if it brought him a measure of fame...
Who really cares about the one-trick ponies? Or the unisex gender-benders(how mid-60s was that anyway)...or the punk rejection of progressive rock...lookie me!!! I can play three chords and make a violin beg for mercy...
And who cares about a producer?...Like Johnny Cash had no career prior to?...Devo's cool...they know the joke and let everyone know they know it and want everyone to know they know it and share in it...luv those spudboys... Thumbs up for Talking Heads and David Byrne Stop Making Sense is a definite fave...Paul Simon? With a few notable exceptions...Still boring after all these years...and David Bowie owes more to the R&B revues, Little Richard, Monty Rock lll, gold-lame' Elvis and James Brown than to the Chenille Subway...
I have a copy of the 1850 English translation of Fernando Sor's Method For The Spanish Guitar...In it he cites 12 maxims, one of which cautions players "never to make any ostentation of difficuly" in playing...since he died in 1839, it would seem the poseur has been around for quite some time and still crawls out of the woodwork from time to time...sometimes in groups...
jimHJJ(...just some more thoughts...)
-
Lessee...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
>Given no system of quasi-objective measurement, the panel subjectively based it's choices on opinion...opinion of the album...opinion of the group...opinion of what they hath wrought and left in their wake...
So, then, it's only an opinion that the recs listed influenced the artists referenced in the context of not existing without the presence of the influencing rec...which means that it's debatable that Bowie, Roxy, et al wouldn't have existed if not for the influence of the VU rec, because you're now saying this is only an opinion.
Yet, when you ask why it would be a bad thing if something didn't exist, on the basis that what influenced it is...pretentious, or whatever, you're then validating the very opinion you're railing against.
How does that work?
How simple can I make it? It's difficult for me to think quite that elemental...
Who cares about LR/VU?
Who cares about those who idolized or cloned/emulated/cookie-cuttered some facet of LR/VU?
Without the whole lot of 'em, the world and music would still roll on...of all the included recs (that I am familiar with) loss of the inspiration that may have been provided by VU and those inspired by them are probably the least significant...Most influential?
jimHJJ(...not a clue, but that one isn't even close...in my opinion...)
-
So...anyone here want to argue that the VU were derivative?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
How simple can I make it? It's difficult for me to think quite that elemental...
Who cares about LR/VU?
Who cares about those who idolized or cloned/emulated/cookie-cuttered some facet of LR/VU?
Without the whole lot of 'em, the world and music would still roll on...of all the included recs (that I am familiar with) loss of the inspiration that may have been provided by VU and those inspired by them are probably the least significant...Most influential?
jimHJJ(...not a clue, but that one isn't even close...in my opinion...)
Please stop -- for your own good.
-
That's rich...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Please stop -- for your own good.
...I wonder how many participants were even alive or at least of the age of reason when the record they so strenuously support was released...World of difference between first-hand exposure and simply delving through the back issues of Rolling Stone or Tiger Beat...or forming their psuedo-intellectual positions filtered through any of the writings of self-proclaimed, cooler-than-thou, opinionated miscreants who have held or hold court and opine on the earth-shaking topic of rock/pop...
jimHJJ(...for my good?...chuckle, chortle...ZZzzzz...)
-
Gee, for a guy who was all high & mighty about someone else making a mistake in reading the thread, you seem to have difficulty with English yrself. Referring to my first post in this thread:
>how many examples can you name that could be considered rock? There were bands prior to 1967 singing about scoring drugs on the street? S&M? On a major label? Must be a reason the VU gets the credit for being the outfit that pioneered these as being viable topics for rock music lyrics.
I mean, it's nice & all to have some knowledge of the exceptions to the rule, but since you know a few (ya missed Lucille Bogan & Mississippi Sheiks, tho), then you know that they make great argument fodder, but represent a fraction likely somewhere along the lines of 1/100 of 1 percent of recorded popular music, folk music, jass, and even blues prior to 1967.
In other words, this does not support yr point.
>Some were done with class and style...
Either you can discern influence, or you can't. And if you choose to deny influence, I don't think it's too much to ask that you assemble an idea or two that doesn't stand on its own as an incoherent shambles masquerading as a rant against the present.
>I mean who really cares about some alky or a misbegotten love life?...only those who can identify with it...
Nice dodge. I'm not playing along.
>Who really cares about the one-trick ponies? Or the unisex gender-benders(how mid-60s was that anyway)...or the punk rejection of progressive rock...lookie me!!! I can play three chords and make a violin beg for mercy...
A daily newspaper in the UK who chose to publish a piece on 50 records their writers deem influential, and some on this board who found the article interesting, if flawed, at the very least.
Who really cares about people who seem to care enough about music to post about on a message board, yet asks ridiculous questions like this? Anyone you like who has made a record was dismissed by somebody who wondered who the hell would care about such things. It's amazing how many choose to follow into those unwise, short-sighted, closed-minded footsteps.
>And who cares about a producer?...Like Johnny Cash had no career prior to?...
No, he had no career prior to Sam Phillips, and neither did Elvis. I think Frank Sinatra benefited from producers, and Billie Holiday didn't leave Columbia for nothin'...then there was this guy named George Martin...anything else?
>Devo's cool...they know the joke and let everyone know they know it and want everyone to know they know it and share in it...luv those spudboys... Thumbs up for Talking Heads and David Byrne Stop Making Sense is a definite fave...Paul Simon? With a few notable exceptions...Still boring after all these years...and David Bowie owes more to the R&B revues, Little Richard, Monty Rock lll, gold-lame' Elvis and James Brown than to the Chenille Subway...
Like I said, it's not like Eno ever did anything. Like you said, the musical firmament would've been the same.
But my remark was sarcastic.
>it would seem the poseur has been around for quite some time
If you have a point, perhaps you could share it with us. If you ever come up with any evidence of John Cale denigrating musicianship, I'd love to see it.
>Who cares about LR/VU?
>Who cares about those who idolized or cloned/emulated/cookie-cuttered some facet of LR/VU?
Wrong question. The answer, though, is the people who have claimed influence from the VU (including the names you mentioned), and their audiences. The right question is, did the VU actually influence these people?
As I said, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, unless you are willing to dismiss the overwhelming anecdotal evidence, the answer to the question is yes.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone could attempt to construct such an argument. It's just that I'm growing tired of waiting for something resembling this argument to be provided.
>Without the whole lot of 'em, the world and music would still roll on...of all the included recs (that I am familiar with) loss of the inspiration that may have been provided by VU and those inspired by them are probably the least significant...
This stuff could be scary if this philosophy were applied to other topics. As it is, you've mixed & drunk yr own koolaid. You may dismiss that which you don't like on the basis that you don't like it. Denying its existence reveals a disconnect with reality.
It's entertaining, though.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...I wonder how many participants were even alive or at least of the age of reason when the record they so strenuously support was released...World of difference between first-hand exposure and simply delving through the back issues of Rolling Stone or Tiger Beat.
Utterly irrelevant. The Velvets had an approach to rock music that has proven to be hugely influential in the broad scheme of rock history, eventually leading to the Big Bang of punk/new wave, the biggest stylistic shock in pop music since Beatlemania (and there hasn't been a bigger shock since.) You don't have to be an original purchaser of the Velvets debut to comprehend that.
|