Week 6: 50 Albums that Changed Music

[3-LockBox]

3LB said: it smacks of someone lauding their own personal collection.

Well, of course. True, but kinda obvious. It's possible a music writer would write a piece about 'important' or 'best' or 'influential' albums while looking towards records they DON'T own, but kind of unlikely.

Well, I would hope that a writer (or group of writers) would try to have a broader veiw of such a list than just their own personal tastes (of course, you can't twist their arm, and they did get paid where as we, well...) It isn't the "50 albums that changed music for me" list, but the writer certainly seems to concentrate of his/herself. A "50 albums that changed music for 3LB" list is going to be vastly different from yours, just as your list will vary drastically to someone else, so on and so forth, you get the picture. But this rag is making a pretty bold comment by stating that this list is the "50 albums...". Its their rag and they have a right to their opinion. Certainly, Patti Smith was influencial on someone, I've heard other female artists say as much. For me, its the "that changed music" part that I question. The term "changed music" implies a lasting, indelible and obvious mark was left on the face of music. The Village People can lay more claim to that than a third of this articles picks.

Myself, I'd like to think I could come up with a similar list that was more comprehensive, and objective, but then again, that'd prolly be impossible, and boring. (don't worry, I'm not even going to try) I think that in the coming months, this weeks installment is gonna seem way more intelligent compared to what's coming down the pike.

[Resident Loser]

...Maurice either...it's that other guy...you know the other joker...Hey Troy, welcome to the club!

Seems as though MGH has a problem with folks dismissing his personal faves, eh? Well, whadya' expect from a card-carrying Manhattanite...

Even if I scratch my head real hard, the only PS song I can come up with is her "collaboration" with Springsteen on Because The Night...

Like the old ad used to say "...When you say Bud, you've said it all..." I concur with Troy's BFD on this one...

As an aside, if you eliminate Sinatra and Davis from the list, it leaves you pretty much with rock/pop in it's broadest sense...so, if the compilers have stated re: The Velvet Bathrobe and Necco Wafer

"...has since become arguably the most influential rock album of all time..."

...and they go on to place it in the number one spot, why is it not a fair estimation that there is a specific pecking order and that the Horsey offering from P(m)S is indeed their choice of sixth-most influential album?

jimHJJ(..."neigh" say I...BTW given the choices, I also think the list is about 40 or so albums too long...)

[MindGoneHaywire]

Troy...

>Jeepers J, you gotta not take this so seriously.

Like I've got anything better to do. Why'd you think I haven't emailed you back, anyway?

>I just don't buy Johnny Thunder being considered a "guitar rock star"

Well, that's not what I said. I stand by "punk rock star." If you disagree, you'll have to back that up with something.

>Taking solos like a SRV would be booed off the stage at a real punk show.

Maybe you can let us all know what a 'real' punk rock show is, then. I've seen plenty of jamming at what I always thought were, but you're now letting us know weren't, punk rock shows. Geez, I thought you might've actually heard Marquee Moon. That song & Another World from the first Voidoids album are both 10 minutes long, or longer. There are long songs on Patti Smith records, also. Thunders traded off extended solos with Walter Lure regularly. And most punk rock bands did have guitar solos, the Ramones were an exception. Is the smoke you're blowing at least capable of intoxication? Don't Bogart that red herring.

Remember, Johnny Thunders was the guy whose band Sid Vicious worked with after the Sex Pistols broke up. Are you now going to tell us that wasn't real punk, either?

>All the punk shows I went to back in the day were excuses for brawls and lurid public drunkeness.

Brad's right, that was a California thing. In these parts it was usually, if not always, about the music. We all know about riots at Black Flag shows. Ever hear of that happening at CBGB's?

>Perhaps it's calmed down in the interveneing years, but then that kinda goes against what the whole punk thing was originally about, don't it?

You're apparently more of an authority than I ever realized. But I don't know what you're talking about.

>Rock music is 90% teenage music.

This coming from the guy who's into Zappa, XTC, Wall Of Voodoo, and prog. I think this hasn't been true for about 4 decades now.

>Anytime rock tries to move beyond that, that music is roundly shouted down by the cogniscenti rock press as being "pretentious" when the reality is that precious stuff like Patti and Television were just as pretentious in thier own way.

Go back to the week 1 thread & see what I replied to you about artsy-fartsy/pretentious. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, or not worth listening to. I like plenty of stuff that I'd agree is considered pretentious. It can be annoying, for sure, but it's not the end-all and be-all kiss of death. Patti Smith's obsession with poetry, love of Mapplethorpe & his ideas, and fixation on the mistresses of artists she admired aren't what I like about her music, but it wouldn't exist in the form it does if not for those things, so I accept that it's artsy-fartsy.

I also accept that she was something of a female Iggy on stage, she didn't break her neck mid-performance in 1978 skipping rope, ya know. She was also known to have diddled herself while onstage. If you're going to bring Wendy O. into this, you're going to have to accept that she was a female GG Allin to Patti's Iggy.

>Wow, Jim Carroll. That's the only male you could come up with?

Oh, brother. One, it was off the top of my head, two, I tend not to point to names I'm not huge fans of if I'm talking about influence in these terms, three, it is easier to focus on the 'women in rock' thing you're so eager to dismiss. Okay. REM? Sonic Youth? There are three males in X, too. Talking Heads, perhaps? Violent Femmes? Beck?

>My major gripe was that Patti is given far too much importance being placed 6th. But it sounds like you woulda seen it as BS too.

Yeah, something like that.

>Frankly, she doesn't deserve this much typing!

She does when the discussion involves the stuff you're typing.


3lock...

>this rag is making a pretty bold comment by stating that this list is the "50 albums...".

Maybe, but the article is titled 50 albums that changed music, not THE 50...

>Its their rag and they have a right to their opinion.

It's a Sunday newspaper, and it is an opinion piece in an arts section.

>For me, its the "that changed music" part that I question. The term "changed music" implies a lasting, indelible and obvious mark was left on the face of music. The Village People can lay more claim to that than a third of this articles picks.

I'd disagree with that. It's not 'sold a lot of records' or 'captured the mass imagination.' The Village People may have advanced gay disco music, but it already existed and their impact was felt through singles, not albums--and to this day it's pretty clear that a lot of people don't even get that their songs are gay anthems.

>I don't think anyone said it sucked.

I think Brad was referring to the use of the term 'Meh.' I took it to mean something similar.

>did this album change music? I don't think so. This album wasn't exactly innovative or different to my ears.

In 1975? Really? Perhaps you could name a few albums you'd heard to that point that make this sound neither innovative nor different. The closest similarity would be to 2 of the 4 VU albums, so far as I can tell; Leonard Cohen didn't have a lot in the way of her version of Gloria, I don't think, and musically I hear a world of difference between her & other singer-songwriters such as Dylan (for whom I feel a direct comparison with Patti Smith is osmething of an insult, frankly).


mastercylinder...

>Agreed.
Didn't change music

If she, along with Joni Mitchell, wasn't the prime influence on 'women in rock,' please tell me who was.


genius...

>Seems as though MGH has a problem with folks dismissing his personal faves, eh?

This record is not a personal fave of mine, and, outside of 'Birdland,' I haven't listened to it in years. I have a problem with people denying influence because it's not one of THEIR personal faves.

>Even if I scratch my head real hard, the only PS song I can come up with is her "collaboration" with Springsteen on Because The Night...

What honesty. Provides us with a strong frame of reference for yr credibility in discussing the influence of the record.

>I concur with Troy's BFD on this one...

Then by all means please tell us who influenced the artists I listed: the Pretenders, X, Suzanne Vega, Alanis Morrissette, Liz Phair, the Liliths, hell, how about Sinead O'Connor or maybe even Sheryl Crow...PJ Harvey? And please, if you could keep it to some artists you can point to who were influential on these people, rather than telling us how this listing consists of worthless nonentities who never did anything, that'd be real swell.

>why is it not a fair estimation that there is a specific pecking order and that the Horsey offering from P(m)S is indeed their choice of sixth-most influential album?

I seem to remember seeing this point mentioned before, and agreeing with it. To a point. Either you feel the record was influential, or not, as a "BFD" would indicate not. I'd never call this the 6th most influential record of all time, but I'm not taking the numerical order as seriously as you apparently are. And I did notice the word 'arguably' in yr own quote.

>"neigh" say I

Fair enough. Outside of the profound "BFD," perhaps you could let us know why.

[Resident Loser]

genius...

>Seems as though MGH has a problem with folks dismissing his personal faves, eh?

This record is not a personal fave of mine, and, outside of 'Birdland,' I haven't listened to it in years. I have a problem with people denying influence because it's not one of THEIR personal faves.

>Even if I scratch my head real hard, the only PS song I can come up with is her "collaboration" with Springsteen on Because The Night...

What honesty. Provides us with a strong frame of reference for yr credibility in discussing the influence of the record.

>I concur with Troy's BFD on this one...

Then by all means please tell us who influenced the artists I listed: the Pretenders, X, Suzanne Vega, Alanis Morrissette, Liz Phair, the Liliths, hell, how about Sinead O'Connor or maybe even Sheryl Crow...PJ Harvey? And please, if you could keep it to some artists you can point to who were influential on these people, rather than telling us how this listing consists of worthless nonentities who never did anything, that'd be real swell.

>why is it not a fair estimation that there is a specific pecking order and that the Horsey offering from P(m)S is indeed their choice of sixth-most influential album?

I seem to remember seeing this point mentioned before, and agreeing with it. To a point. Either you feel the record was influential, or not, as a "BFD" would indicate not. I'd never call this the 6th most influential record of all time, but I'm not taking the numerical order as seriously as you apparently are. And I did notice the word 'arguably' in yr own quote.

>"neigh" say I

Fair enough. Outside of the profound "BFD," perhaps you could let us know why.

...and pretty much still have none...It was your vague reference to 'the other guy" and "other joker" in your response to Troy that caught my attention...

Duh? Neigh...Horsey...cheez Louise...

Other than the Springsteen ref, she leaves no particular musical memories...I barely recall Radner's SNL spoof...

jimHJJ(...like I said, about 40 or so albums too long...)

[3-LockBox]

The Village People may have advanced gay disco music, but it already existed and their impact was felt through singles, not albums--and to this day it's pretty clear that a lot of people don't even get that their songs are gay anthems.

Wait...the Village People were gay?

BTW: your statement is the same argument I made that you're now refuting, i.e. the music already existed. Joni Mitchell? Sure, I get how she 'changed music' as far as women being given credence as serious rock artists (writer/performer) are concerned. But as far as women of serious RnR substance; I can think of Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, and Stevie Nicks (but of course I know Nicks can't count cuz she made too damn much money). But speaking of Nicks, do you think she needed Patti Smith to exist in order to branch out as a solo artist? I think Nicks woulda happened as a solo artist on her own. The Pretenders woulda happened on their own, but maybe they woulda sounded different.


meh... A term of indifference. Smith definately had a major influence on some artists. But I don't agree that she changed music.

"their impact was felt through singles-not albums"
I thought we came to the conclusion weeks ago that it didn't matter whether we're talking albums or records anyway. Besides, isn't it redundant to say 'gay disco'?

[nobody]

Actually the idea that punk mellowed later is really oppsite of the truth. Punk started out really diverse and inclusive. It didn't get regimented until later days. Admittidly, there was a lot of the violent stuff around though. I was young and angry around 80-83/4...good times with all that stuff. But there was so much more.

And, ya know, it doesn't have to be all prog vs. punk anyway. Pat Smear of the Germs was a huge Yes fan after all. And if you want endless jamming, check out the all instrumetal Black Flag Process of Weeding Out album...nothing but ten minute jam sessions.

And, if you want a single great musician, I'll nominate George Hurley of the Minutemen as a drummer that could play with ANYBODY. Check him out sometime...we're not talking straight up 4/4 rocking hard either. He was powerful, but could play a lot of intricate rythms and was much more than just a backbeat to the band.

[BradH]

If more people knew exactly what is involved in playing even three chords properly, we wouldn't waste much time with this nonsense because someone has a mistaken impression about something...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I've heard some musicians say some incredibly stupid things. I'm sure you have too.

And, ya know, it doesn't have to be all prog vs. punk anyway.

That was mostly a British thing that got picked up over here as the hip thing to say. In the U.K. it was all wrapped up in class hatred and socialist politics. Liking Hawkwind might've been okay with Lydon because they were from the communes of Portobello Rd. but the decadent, high end artsiness of Roxy Music was right out. But the lion's share of that was posturing anyway. Looking aggressive and angry was the goal much like looking cool/heavy/groovy was in the 60's. A diary for an XTC roadie in the early days has quotes like "Great show. Colin looked very aggressive", etc. It was mostly image and they knew it. In London the whole thing got very codified. When the Stranglers started out they were criticized because they were older, took acid and used synthesizers. Speed was in, downers were out. Every spiteful mention of Pink Floyd included a sneer at downers. How could these old hippies make society better if they were crawling into their headphones, etc. But the Stranglers had the last laugh because eventually acid came in and so did synthesizers in a big way. Ironically, Roxy Music became the godfathers after all. (Imo, the synth pop movement killed the whole thing in '82.) Oh and everyone got older. Surprise! So, a lot of this posturing was very superficial surface noise that looked hip in the clubs. What was not superficial was the hatred of prog in some quarters. Look how often they mentioned the dreaded Polytech student who blighted the earth with his introspection. How dare they be introspective? It's true that a lot of prog bands lived on the British college circuit in the early 70's thanks to the network of social directors at the time. But that just made it the underground alternative of its day. If college students wanted to listen to stoned out, introspective and, at times, quite beautiful music, then I don't see that as any more illegitimate than the formula the punks lived by in London which went like this: 1)stay on the dole. 2)spend the money to look outrageous so that 3) you're guaranteed not to get hired because you had to prove you applied for a job if you wanted to 4) stay on the dole. That's a looooong way from CBGB's, folks. But, again, this London social club-going process turned out some fantastic music at the time. And there was plenty of rebellion within the ranks against the strict Sex Pistols view of the world. Don't forget, The Police were in those clubs. And I'll put The Jam's Sound Affects in my all time top 10 list of lp's of any genre, anytime.

[MindGoneHaywire]

The main problem with Troy's attempts to define punk is that it wasn't around very long before the sorts of generalizations he's putting forth sounded kinda foolish. Between Detroit, NYC, London, and L.A., it became too broad within 3 years to be able to apply any particular generalization accurately.

The other problem is that he's just plain wrong, because relatively long-form guitar lead work was commonplace among bands like Television, and the Heartbreakers, as I've mentioned, did plenty of jamming as well. To say that such stuff at 'real' punk shows would've inspired booing is simply uninformed, and I'd love to see the argument that says that either of those bands, both of which were co-founded by Richard Hell, were somehow not 'real' punk. Since Thunders' posing, outfits, and 'rock star' attitude were apparently so antithetical to what some people think this was supposed to be all about, I have to wonder why Sid Vicious chose to have him in his band.

[SlumpBuster]

Since Thunders' posing, outfits, and 'rock star' attitude were apparently so antithetical to what some people think this was supposed to be all about, I have to wonder why Sid Vicious chose to have him in his band.

Agreed, except for the Sid Vicious part. He's not really a paragon of good judgment.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Of course, but keep in mind that he did some good things musically. Like lifting the part from the Jam's In The City to create the riff for Holidays In The Sun, doing a great vocal on the Eddie Cochrane covers, an interesting take on My Way, and...working with Thunders.

Violently attacking Patti Smith's brother, apparently without provocation, was not a particularly bright or laudable move. But the point is that prior to the aspect of punk that was anti-rock star becoming a talking point for people who thought it was defined by that far more than it ever actually was, plenty of punk bands were not defined by this at all. The last show the Patti Smith Group played was for something like 75,000 people in Italy, and in their last year or two the Ramones played for audiences of similar sizes in South America. If guys like Thunders who weren't shy about soloing somehow weren't real punk, then why, and why would Sid have wanted to work with him?

[Dusty Chalk]

I hope it's obvious that what I stated was a generality, in explanation of Jay's general aphorism. Just as Jay's statement was an overgenerality, so was mine.

Hey, Troy, you're a Bill Nelson fan, where does he fit in?

[MindGoneHaywire]

That's fine, Dusty. But I didn't refuse to remember anything.

If more people knew exactly what is involved in playing even three chords properly, we wouldn't waste much time with this nonsense because someone has a mistaken impression about something; and if others knew the slightest detail about the musical qualifications of people they seem to think possessed none, then nobody would care about how seriously I take any of this, either.

[Troy]

I wasn't gonna post in this thread because I just don't give a damn about Patti Smith. But I just can't control myself.

J, I never said she didn't have influence on other artists. (tho I think Talking Heads, Beck or REM are a REAL stretch, but I don't wish to belabor the point).

The BFD is in reference to my opinion that the artists she influenced were small potatoes. I think most Lillith faire artists were inspired by Baez, Joni Mitchell and even Stevie Nicks as much as Patti.

I see punk as more of an attitude than a specific musical type. Again, maybe it's a CA thing, but punk was WAY ugly out here.

I'll be the first to admit that much of Zappa, XTC, Wall Of Voodoo, and prog (ohh, LOTS of prog) is teenage music. Rock music is music for kids. The best rock music is made by people under the age of 25 or 30. It's a youth culture item. That's why most people our age don't pay much attention to music. I'll be the first to admit my own arrested development . . . will you? It's the kiss of death and a slide down the slippery slope into pretension if you take rock too seriously.

Dusty, Bill Nelson was not punk. He was a glam/progrock holdover from the early 70s who made some genre defining new wave albums in the late 70s and then drifted into ambient music thru the 80s.

[BradH]

I see punk as more of an attitude than a specific musical type. Again, maybe it's a CA thing, but punk was WAY ugly out here.

So what? It was third gen by the time it hit L.A. Why does that have to define punk? Did you honestly think that's what was happening at CBGB's? More importantly, does it sound that way to you?

I'll be the first to admit that much of Zappa, XTC, Wall Of Voodoo, and prog (ohh, LOTS of prog) is teenage music.

Yeah, I'll give ya Zappa's lyrics but the best rock music has been done for the college age crowd over the decades so there was always a level of seriousness there. All that hip underground cool sh!t is what college age kids wanted to hear no matter what era. That's where the innovation has come from for 40 years. And you can throw XTC, Wall Of Voodoo and prog in that mix, too. That's bullsh!t about it being teenage music, sorry. Maybe in the 50's and early 60's but a pattern developed in the late 60's. These bands hit the college audience in their prime and then eventually work their way down to the high schools where the big money lies. I watched everybody from Zeppelin to R.E.M. do that.

It's the kiss of death and a slide down the slippery slope into pretension if you take rock too seriously.

If it weren't for a certain amount of pretention there wouldn't be any rock 'n' roll. Art may not be real but it doesn't have to be shallow.

[Troy]

Brad re:CBGB's. Was Television really punk? Blondie? Talking Heads? I personally just don't see it. Those bands were just not GG Allin, Sex Pistols, Plasmatics enough. What you and J see as punk I just see as rock crossing into New Wave.

"The Tide is High" and "For Artists Only" are so NOT punk it's ridiculous.

WRT Teenage vs College age music. You are splitting hairs. Buddy of mine's daughter is starting college this week. She's 17, almost 18. Smack in the middle of being a teenager. For me college age IS teenage even tho it may extend ito one's 20s. It's the same thing.

If you went to a Zappa concert back in his 70s heyday, or Wall of Voodoo, or XTC etc, you'd find an audience filled with college aged people and younger. When I go to concerts today I am generally the oldest coot by a considerable margin.

You and J can bluster all you want about rock NOT being a pure youth market (or middle-aged boomers trying desperately to hang on to their youth) item, but I don't see how you can really realistically argue the point. With only a few exceptions, rock has always been made by kids, for kids. And generally, those exceptions are pretty embarrassing . . .

Patti and Television were pretentious as hell because they took themselves VERY seriously. Nice to hear that pretention is not relegated only to prog, tho Brad, I'd expect that from you. Others tho, I'm not so sure. I just never understood how the rock press could call Yes pretentious and not call Patti or Lou Reed pretentious. Maybe it's a different KIND of pretentiousness . . .

[3-LockBox]

Patti and Television were pretentious as hell because they took themselves VERY seriously. Nice to hear that pretention is not relegated only to prog, tho Brad, I'd expect that from you. Others tho, I'm not so sure. I just never understood how the rock press could call Yes pretentious and not call Patti or Lou Reed pretentious. Maybe it's a different KIND of pretentiousness . . .

Yeah, if only Jon Anderson woulda smeared sh!t all over himself, he be a poet laureate of rock as well.

Gee, I thought punk was born of an aversion to glam rock and disco...Sex Pistols - now thats what I think of when I hear the term punk, not so much Television, Patti Smith, or Lou Reed, but I do see the connection. Punk acts were good for a few laughs. Most punk rock, for me anyway, was a sort of novelty, whether its the mohawks and safety pins in the face brand of punk, or The Rocky Horror Picture Show brand of performance art punk. But how is it that an act like The Sex Pistols was given so much credence over so much prog - at least The Monkeys learned how to play their instruments.

[Dusty Chalk]

It's the kiss of death and a slide down the slippery slope into pretension if you take rock too seriously.

So you hate:

Pink Floyd/Roger Waters
Yes (have you ever read Jon Anderson's lyrics?)
Flower Kings
Porcupine Tree (maybe not so much)
Spock's Beard
early Rush
all goth (goths aren't even allowed to crack a smile, except for Voltaire)

...?

(I'm not expecting you to like all these things, but my point is that I suspect you do like some extremely pretentious things. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

I disagree that pretension is a bad thing. Some of my favourite music is pretentious as L. Doesn't in itself make it good -- it has to have other qualities -- and doesn't mean I can't occasionally laugh at it, but my favourite musical moments come out of melodrama, which is inherently linked to pretension, and taking one's self very seriously.

In fact, one of the things I love so much about classic rock is a certain oblivion (probably engendred by drugs and naïveté) to things that were later perceived as pretentious.

And don't get me wrong -- I love good music with a sense of humour as well (have you seen that Can performance of Can-Can?), but it's not a requirement. Not by a long shot.

[Dusty Chalk]

If more people knew exactly what is involved in playing even three chords properly, we wouldn't waste much time with this nonsense because someone has a mistaken impression about something; and if others knew the slightest detail about the musical qualifications of people they seem to think possessed none, then nobody would care about how seriously I take any of this, either.

So anyone who can play is talented? I think you're overstating your terms. I agree it's hard to play (I've tried), but there still needs to be a differentiation between more talented and less talented musicians.

Let's look at cooking -- there are people who can't cook, and there are people who can. The "people who can" range from "I'm only eating it to be polite" to "master chef", right? A master chef would die trying to be a fast order grill jockey, because he doesn't have the stamina, patience, etc., but that doesn't make the fast order grill jockey comparable to a master chef.

And my point was not that they possessed no talent, but that they marketed their image as being young punks with little or no musical training, specifically so that their audience could relate, and could say, "I could do that".

[MindGoneHaywire]

No offense intended. My references were based on previous postings.

>I concur with Troy's BFD on this one...

>"neigh" say I...

>I had no opinion...
...and pretty much still have none...

People with 'no opinion' by definition do not concur with those of others, and they abstain from votes. People with no musical memories of the rec in question merely appear foolish offering 'neigh' when they can present no evidence to back up their 'neigh's. I do not say this to be hostile, and I'm much more interested in the why of yr 'neigh' than I am in the backpeddle of the denial of a stated position. Given no knowledge of the subject in question, which you have acknowledged, there must be a reason why you offered anything at all, and it speaks directly to my references to you in this thread on the basis of the other one.

I mean, come on. Be a devil's advocate; surely you're up to the task. Tell us about a couple of people I already mentioned, like Joni Mitchell or Laura Nyro, or a couple I didn't, like the Runaways or Janis Ian, to make the point that Horses wasn't influential. You'd be wrong, but I'm used to that, and at least it'd add something to the discussion beyond inexplicably stating you have no opinion on a subject you just offered one on.

[Resident Loser]

No offense intended. My references were based on previous postings.

>I concur with Troy's BFD on this one...

>"neigh" say I...

>I had no opinion...
...and pretty much still have none...

People with 'no opinion' by definition do not concur with those of others, and they abstain from votes. People with no musical memories of the rec in question merely appear foolish offering 'neigh' when they can present no evidence to back up their 'neigh's. I do not say this to be hostile, and I'm much more interested in the why of yr 'neigh' than I am in the backpeddle of the denial of a stated position. Given no knowledge of the subject in question, which you have acknowledged, there must be a reason why you offered anything at all, and it speaks directly to my references to you in this thread on the basis of the other one.

I mean, come on. Be a devil's advocate; surely you're up to the task. Tell us about a couple of people I already mentioned, like Joni Mitchell or Laura Nyro, or a couple I didn't, like the Runaways or Janis Ian, to make the point that Horses wasn't influential. You'd be wrong, but I'm used to that, and at least it'd add something to the discussion beyond inexplicably stating you have no opinion on a subject you just offered one on.

...we'll go bass-ackwards on this one...I do have an opinion on the subject, but I have no opinion on this album in particular...it's not backpedaling nor any sort of dichotomy...

I may be mistaken, but weren't Mitchell and Ian folkies who went off in other directions...I fail to see any relevance to PS at all...but then again, who cares...

Pardon my pun...Horses...neigh...ha-ha...Spelling it correctly N-A-Y would be indicative of an easily misconstrued and distinct negative re: the album itself, something I thought I had avoided by the joke...Imagine my surprise...

And again, my participation in this particular thread was a direct result in your oblique reference to my contributions to the first thread of the series...remember? when you compared Troy to the other jo...oh, never mind...

As stated earlier I don't give a r@t$ @$$ about the album in question, it's inclusion in this "list" renders said list more suspect as time goes by...and it's not because of the album, it's the inclusion of anything Patti Smith in toto...

You chose to compare Troy's sentiments to my "thread one" comments; that is why his name was mentioned...given the comments from 3-LB and MC, I could have easily supported their positions (and do FWIW) on PS and all those(?) supposedly influenced(?) by her, with a hearty BFD...

jimHJJ(...and for the record, I heartily concur with Troy's statements re: pretentiousness...)

[MindGoneHaywire]

I don't have enough time to respond properly right this moment but I did just want to get across that the point I was making about Troy liking XTC, Zappa, etc. was that the examples I listed (sans Zappa's more juvenile lyrics, of course) were not what I would consider to be teenage music.

More to follow.

Okay...

Brad...

>I've heard some musicians say some incredibly stupid things. I'm sure you have too.

Never.

>Liking Hawkwind might've been okay with Lydon because they were from the communes of Portobello Rd. but the decadent, high end artsiness of Roxy Music was right out.

Ever read the book "The Boy Looked At Johnny"? It was written by two younguns who were writing for Melody Maker or NME around 1976. They slammed everything. Hippies, New Wave, Glam, commerical Rock, and every punk band they could name. The Beatles, Stones, Who, et al. It was obvious that some of it was tongue-in-cheek, but it was difficult to tell how much it was a matter of putting down hipsters, and how much it was that they genuinely did not like rock music. The only artists that they praised at all were X-Ray Spex's Poly Styrene, and Roxy Music, whose first two albums they praised as containing the only worthwhile rock music ever recorded, or something to that effect. Years later, of course, they admitted that their point of view was manufactured to no small extent by amphetamine abuse.

>When the Stranglers started out they were criticized because they were older, took acid and used synthesizers.

I wonder if going with A&M Records after the incident with the Sex Pistols made them enemies among the contingent of know-nothings who might've considered them to be traitors to the scene, or something like that.

>Roxy Music became the godfathers after all. (Imo, the synth pop movement killed the whole thing in '82.

The demise of Joy Division probably plays a role here, especially given the prominence of New Order in that synth movement, even if they weren't as poppy as, say, Human League.

>If college students wanted to listen to stoned out, introspective and, at times, quite beautiful music, then I don't see that as any more illegitimate than the formula the punks lived by in London

I don't disagree. It ain't my thing, but live & let live. I've long been as tired of gratuitous prog-bashing as I've always been by the nonsensical suggestions that none of those punk losers could play their instruments. That said, once ya start getting into Topographic Oceans territory, my tolerance level for the rhetoric in this oh-so-meaningful conflict shrinks to the point where I'd be willing to say GG Allin was a more accomplished instrumentalist than Keith Emerson just to piss someone off while letting them know exactly what side of the fence I'm on.

>stay on the dole. That's a looooong way from CBGB's

In the context of this discussion, absolutely. But I'm not sure how many people on this board know that CB's is closing at the end of September. The homeless advocacy organization that owns the building has had conflicts with CB's for years, and while they didn't refuse to grant a new lease, they insisted on a rent figure that was apparently well beyond what the market would bear, or that CB's could reasonably afford. In other words, get out. So for the next month there'll be a series of farewell gigs, while everyone will wax philosophically about the NYC punk scene, which I personally have heard enough about at this point in time...and they'll all go on about how friggin' great the place was/is. Like it's not a disgusting sh!thole, in spite of a great PA, and one of the least comfortable venues in the city. It lived off a legendary 3 year run for more than 25 years...I might've played there as many times as I actually paid money to go see a r'n'r band. Well, good for Las Vegas. I wonder if all the merchandise will make its way into suburban shopping malls, as happened around here, to be worn by teenagers who don't even know what the place is.

>by 1981 it was worse in L.A. than it had been anywhere. In retrospect, that shouldn't have surprised anyone because L.A. is a town where image can become reality fairly rapidly.

Well, Southern California did have issues with police brutality, and some might trace that back a long ways...I've seen it suggested that allegedly violent police officers might've been kids who grew up in families where frustrated parents who'd been driven from the Dust Bowl may have tended to abuse their children as a means of alleviating their frustrations over their poverty situations. I don't know how much validity could be assigned to this, but regardless of cause, there were tensions between police & So Cal adolescent punk rockers at the time. That just wasn't the case here, or any other places that I've heard about, and Troy's take on a punk rock show doesn't sound like anything I'd want to be at.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Troy...

>I think Talking Heads, Beck or REM are a REAL stretch

With the Heads, forget about the polyrhythmic world music influence & listen to '77, then come back & say that. Beck's lyrics are straight out of Van Dyke Parks, except his music is better, or at least more accessible; if you miss the connection between that sort of poetry combined with Beck's more traditional rock and pop, and the way poetry and rock were combined on Horses, then you need a new pair of glasses for that avatar you've got there. As for REM, they alluded to Patti's influence on them for years in interviews, and they brought her in to sing on one of their records.

>The BFD is in reference to my opinion that the artists she influenced were small potatoes.

Go back & read the thread from week 1. It's irrelevant to the discussion. Either the record was influential, or it wasn't. That dealt with, what's small potatoes to you doesn't mean the rec didn't necessarily 'change music.' Given its influence on the whole 90s 'women in rock' thing, I can't see how you could dismiss that whole movement. Are you arguing it wasn't a significant musical movement? In Troy-land, Alanis Morrissette didn't make a musical dent? I don't like her music or give a rat's butt myself, but to deny the impact is simply asinine. If you listen to Gloria & then tell me Morrissette's breakthrough wasn't Patti Smith version 2.0, yer bonkers.

>I think most Lillith faire artists were inspired by Baez, Joni Mitchell and even Stevie Nicks as much as Patti.

Somebody else might characterize that comment as arguable; I say it's dubious. However, I won't argue the point, and I dragged as many pre-Horses female performers into this thread as anyone else. But, point one: the Lilith Fair stuff had just a tad more attitude, if not anger, than anything you could reasonably point to as being the product of listening to those three. People like Lisa Loeb may not have exactly been channeling a Lenny Kaye guitar-rock sensibility, but I think that's way more of a presence there than the sort of stuff that was a comfortable fit for instrumentalists like Jaco Pastorius and Pat Metheny. Baez was usually far more social/political than personal, and Stevie Nicks is far more reknown for songs she sang that she didn't write, let alone how relatively pop she was.

>I see punk as more of an attitude than a specific musical type.

Who's saying it has to be a specific type? Blondie & Television, the Exploited and Suicidal Tendencies. The attitudes are as disparate as the musical types. By 1979, there was the NYC sensibility, the London sensibility, AND the L.A. sensibility. But I've always felt that seeing it as something that should be considered attitude-first was a result of not really understanding the music. Which isn't surprising, considering that the way it was presented, you're supposed to believe it's all about the Sex Pistols & their attitude, instead of considering the sorts of things that Patti & Television did. Wrong wrong wrong. Sorry, as heavily as attitude weighed into it, it was musical attitude; the music aspect came first. That sounds as arrogant a pronouncement as everything you've been saying about 'true punk' and a 'real punk show,' but I can say with some confidence that if not for the attitude, the music would've still existed, but without the music, the attitude wouldn't have counted for much at all. It's not like it's all one & not the other, but not all of it had attitude, but all of it was music, made by people who took the time to learn instruments and create.

>I'll be the first to admit that much of Zappa, XTC, Wall Of Voodoo, and prog (ohh, LOTS of prog) is teenage music.

I don't see why anyone would put you in a position to admit that, my point was that a lot of the stuff these people put out is not the sort of adolescent stuff that we tend to view 'rock' as when we identify it as something best done by young'uns. I agree with the idea that rock is a young man's game, but it doesn't always stand up to scrutiny. The NYC punk stuff is a prime example of what I'm getting at.

>The best rock music is made by people under the age of 25 or 30.

I used to agree with that more than I do now; it's still basically true as far as the energy goes, but I think we're entering an age where maturity isn't an artistic death knell for people making rock music past that age. Also, I think a person in their late 20s in 1975 was probably closer in terms of certain personal and societal sensibilities to a 40-year-old today, than a person in their late 20s now. Again, Robert Quine was 35 when the first Voidoids record came out, Debbie Harry over 30 as well on the debut Blondie platter. I realize you're not the type to consider Richard Hell or NYC punk in general representative of 'the best rock music' in any way, shape, or form, but then those are some mighty fine rocks you've got in yr cranium.

>That's why most people our age don't pay much attention to music.

Disagree. What we music geeks never really realized is that most people never really paid much attention to music, period, for a long time. When I started college I was struck by some research we did to try to figure out what acts would be a good bet to book for concerts on campus. Most people just didn't care. Music was something they listened to in their cars, when a guy's in a bar trying to pick up a chick...when you grow up listening to music on a regular basis, actively buying records, caring about this stuff, you take it for granted, since enough media attention is paid to it, that everyone feels the same. But it wasn't true then, and probably long before that, and the point is that this is nothing new.

>I'll be the first to admit my own arrested development . . . will you?

I'm the one writing the longest posts, aren't I?

>It's the kiss of death and a slide down the slippery slope into pretension if you take rock too seriously.

Then I fail to see how I could be any more pretentious. But it's not rock I take seriously, it's any & all of the genres of music I listen to. What can I say. It's in my blood, I was playing instruments since I could crawl, and I find music far more worthy an area to take seriously than just about anything else beyond basic human needs. People have been telling me I take music too seriously for a long time. And while I'm sure it'll happen at some point, I've long found it telling that nobody who's ever expressed that to me was an instrumentalist themselves. At least to my knowledge.

[MindGoneHaywire]

3lock...

>Wait...the Village People were gay?

Nah, just ahead of their time. T.A.T.U., anyone? Seriously, if anyone believes that the folks making hand signs at Yankee games when the groundskeepers are doing their thing after the 5th inning all know that the Village People were playing for, shall we say, the other team, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for ya. It's just an odd spectacle to witness when you see whole families, young children included, doing these dances.

>BTW: your statement is the same argument I made that you're now refuting, i.e. the music already existed.

No way. Joni Mitchell? A few similarities, way more differences. If you can point me to a Joni Mitchell record that in any way evokes Piss Factory or Gloria, I'd LOVE to hear it.

>Joni Mitchell? Sure, I get how she 'changed music' as far as women being given credence as serious rock artists (writer/performer) are concerned.

She was also considered to be a far more formidable instrumentalist than someone like, say, Joan Baez.

>as far as women of serious RnR substance; I can think of Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, and Stevie Nicks

Grace Slick & Stevie Nicks fit more the role of attractive female fronting rock and roll band, which is not to say they weren't taken seriously or shouldn't have been, but Patti Smith is another matter entirely. Janis Joplin was arguably as much a blues artist as a rock one, but that aside, she wasn't a singer-songwriter. I won't denigrate the accomplishments of these three by suggesting they're not worthwhile on the basis that their main contributions were vocals, but it's for this reason that Joni Mitchell & Patti Smith are examined differently.

>But speaking of Nicks, do you think she needed Patti Smith to exist in order to branch out as a solo artist?

No, but she was a rock star. Who wrote one song for herself that achieved significant success that I know of, and got some mileage out of a Tom Petty song, too, IIRC. But Patti Smith's legacy didn't hurt Suzanne Vega or Sinead O'Connor, did it? Do you think that they owe anything to Stevie Nicks?

>The Pretenders woulda happened on their own, but maybe they woulda sounded different.

Keep in mind that Chrissie Hynde was living in the UK & was a rock critic when punk broke--and she formed that band. That speaks to a spirit that I think Patti Smith can be reasonably viewed as having pioneered.

>meh... A term of indifference.

If you say so, I didn't read it that way & apparently Brad didn't either, but, hey, whatever. No biggie.

>Smith definately had a major influence on some artists. But I don't agree that she changed music.

That's probably closer to a contradiction than you realized. At least the way I read it.

>I thought we came to the conclusion weeks ago that it didn't matter whether we're talking albums or records anyway.

In a discussion of an artist who didn't record albums. Come on, now. This isn't one-size-fits-all. The Village People recorded albums, Robert Johnson didn't. In the context of this discussion, I gather you're not looking to deny the difference?

>Besides, isn't it redundant to say 'gay disco'?
>Besides, isn't it redundant to say 'gay disco'?

No, but it's gay if...wait a minute...

[3-LockBox]

Me said: >BTW: your statement is the same argument I made that you're now refuting, i.e. the music already existed<

No way. Joni Mitchell? A few similarities, way more differences. If you can point me to a Joni Mitchell record that in any way evokes Piss Factory or Gloria, I'd LOVE to hear it.

What I meant by, "it already existed", I was referring to The Doors, VU, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop et el. not so much Mitchell.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Troy...

>re:CBGB's. Was Television really punk? Blondie? Talking Heads? I personally just don't see it.

If you're going to spout about this stuff, you should read Please Kill Me. It'd put some things in perspective for you. The term was coined to characterize the music these bands (not the Talking Heads as much) were making in 1975. Or, you could go to Wikipedia or someplace like that & do a quick read on Punk Magazine, Legs McNeil, John Holmstrom...the two arguably most important figures in the book are Patti Smith and Richard Hell.

>Those bands were just not GG Allin, Sex Pistols, Plasmatics enough.

This is like asking if Louis Armstrong should really be considered jazz--because his work just isn't "Monk" enough, or Gillespie-ish, or something. It's like saying that Black Sabbath can't be heavy metal because it doesn't sound enough like Slayer. Try again.

>What you and J see as punk I just see as rock crossing into New Wave.

That's a neat trick, considering that there was a "punk" scene 2-3 years before anyone was using the term "New Wave." Bands like the Dictators & the Ramones had records out well ahead of Devo, the Talking Heads, the Cars, or any of the rest of them.

>"The Tide is High" and "For Artists Only" are so NOT punk it's ridiculous.

Which is like saying "Eleanor Rigby" is so NOT a rock and roll record. Blondie wasn't considered punk for very long, but that doesn't mean they didn't come out of that scene. I know you're old enough to remember this stuff. They went from X Offender & Rip Her To Shreds, then managed to be considered New Wave by throwing disco into the mix by 1979. Bob Dylan wasn't folk anymore by 1965, either, but that doesn't erase that the folk scene is where he initially emerged from, or that his earlier work could be and is considered to be folk. Capiche?

>You and J can bluster all you want about rock NOT being a pure youth market

I didn't say anything about the market. My point was about the age of the musicians in question that I mentioned in this thread, and the topics they chose for lyrical content. And outside of the Ramones and Dictators, the NYC punk scene in the mid- to late-70s revolved around relatively sophisticated music that's not immune to the accusation of being pretentious, but was far from greasy kid's stuff that the music industry thought was going to move singles that teenyboppers would flock to the mall to buy. Unless you think that songs like 'I Fell Into The Arms of Venus de Milo' or 'Love Comes In Spurts' were somehow about the 'youth market.' Of course, you've uttered nuttier musings.

>With only a few exceptions, rock has always been made by kids, for kids. And generally, those exceptions are pretty embarrassing . . .

One, as I said before, things have changed a lot, and it's less that way now than ever before. What's made by kids for kids is now a LOT less 'rock' and a LOT more other pop genres. Meanwhile, the prime examples of these exceptions, so far as I can tell, are punk and prog. Not being a prog fan doesn't mean I characterize it all as something that should be considered embarrassing (Topographic Oceans/Tormato-style musical crazyglue notwithstanding). You're so into making a point here that you're exposing yr flanks to yr nemesis...logic. It'll get you every time.

>Patti and Television were pretentious as hell because they took themselves VERY seriously.

You're not going to get me to disagree, but I'm not sure what good this does you. It's funny, I've seen so many documentaries about rock music in the 70s, they all talk about how punk rock was a reaction to pretentious prog rock. They leave out the arty, pretentious origins of Patti & Television, yes. But that doesn't mean they were necessarily anywhere near as pretentious as bloated rock operas & egomaniacal attempts to create the perfect artistic statement in the guise of a concept album. But just because you want to pounce on the hipster press/media being somewhat disingenuous doesn't mean that the general point that punk was a reaction to pretentious rock music, especially prog, doesn't ring true to a significant extent. It's like viewing punk as that stuff that you didn't have to know how to play well to actually do. Instead of viewing it as music that didn't necessarily emphasize playing ability. Boy, what a few self-important writers with agendas can do to murder nuance...

>I just never understood how the rock press could call Yes pretentious and not call Patti or Lou Reed pretentious. Maybe it's a different KIND of pretentiousness . . .

Ya think? But Lester Bangs wasn't afraid to call Reed on some of his BS. Neither was Reed, actually, he wasn't afraid to talk about how crappy he thought his most successful record at the time (Sally Can't Dance) was. But he was one of the only ones getting press. Brad & Dusty once complained about prog getting all the negative press? Granted, but punk got almost NO press. Well, there was Creem & Trouser Press, but I've met the only guy who actually ever read those rags, and he still drools uncontrollably; Jann Wenner had no use for punk rock, and, outside of an occasional Random Note or review thrown as a bone to someone like Charles M. Young, he made sure to keep his pals like the Eagles, Jackson Browne, & Boz Scaggs on his covers, while those outside the commercial mainstream need not have applied (it wasn't like he wanted to actually give the Sex Pistols a cover, but remember, he spiked a Public Enemy cover some 15 years ago in favor of a Hunter Thompson piece that was appropos of nothing in particular that week). And prog never had the President of the U.S. actually complaining to record company execs to steer clear, either. All in all, that's a hollow charge, though, to be honest, only if you apply it to those times & not the mountains of gush issued in the years since about how great punk was & how awful everything else was, especially prog. I'll call a spade a spade, pal, but you've got to realize how silly it sounds to say that you don't think Television is punk because they weren't GG Allin enuff.


Mastercylinder...

>Didn't change music

I know I said this wasn't worth it, but I've just got to ask...Troy, as we all know, is...uhh...I think the word is eccentric, or at least that's the nice way of saying he's got some bats in his friggin' belfry. So, when he puts his brand of relatively ignorant poopy out there, rolling with it is at least never dull, so far as verbal gymnastics & argument porn.

What's yr excuse?