Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 73 of 73
  1. #51
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    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.
    Last edited by MindGoneHaywire; 08-30-2006 at 10:15 PM.

    I don't like others.

  2. #52
    Forum Regular audiobill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Solsbury Hill
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    Ouzo was the first thing I ever got really drunk on. Damn....that was a long time ago.
    Cool.

  3. #53
    Close 'n Play« user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    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 . . .

  4. #54
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    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.

    I don't like others.

  5. #55
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    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...

    I don't like others.

  6. #56
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    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?

    I don't like others.

  7. #57
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Well, let's see...

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    ...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...)
    Last edited by Resident Loser; 08-31-2006 at 06:04 AM.
    Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

    "Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

    "The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe

    If you repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it to be the truth...

  8. #58
    Suspended 3-LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hey! Over here!
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    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.

  9. #59
    Crackhead Extraordinaire Dusty Chalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    below the noise floor
    Posts
    3,636
    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    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".
    Eschew fascism.
    Truth Will Out.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevef22
    you guys are crackheads.
    I remain,
    Peter aka Dusty Chalk

  10. #60
    Crackhead Extraordinaire Dusty Chalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    below the noise floor
    Posts
    3,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    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 na´vetÚ) 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.
    Eschew fascism.
    Truth Will Out.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevef22
    you guys are crackheads.
    I remain,
    Peter aka Dusty Chalk

  11. #61
    Suspended 3-LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hey! Over here!
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    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.

  12. #62
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643
    Jay...

    >Ever read the book "The Boy Looked At Johnny"?

    Missed that one. The point about Lydon and Roxy was regarding that stupid t-shirt McLaren sold. It's like that line in South Pacific: I know what you're against but what are you for? Most of those British punk bands hated each other anyway.

    > Re: Stranglers: 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.

    Oh hell, they could've thrown a rock and hit a reason to be angry. The Police were too old, The Jam didn't dress like real punks, on and on.

    >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.

    I just didn't like any of that British synth stuff. A few decent bands were still going in '82 like Gang Of Four, Killing Joke or XTC but it seemed like the whole thing was dying with bands either breaking up or releasing weak albums like the Jam's The Gift. Great time for ska, though.

    > 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.

    As a bass player I couldn't tell that much difference in difficulty. If you can play 20 minutes of XTC you can damn well play 20 minutes of Yes. At least I could. Years later I read somewhere that punk/new wave placed the bass in a more prominent role. Compared to traditional rock that's true but after all that prog I hardly noticed.

    >Re: CBGB's: 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.

    No, to sell a t-shirt I think you actually have to kill somebody like Manson or Che did.

    > Re: SoCal: 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.

    Academic wankery. Translation: "We're peace loving Californians. It's those damned Okies causing all the trouble." But I can top that. There was a study indicating the soccer riots in England were triggered by p1ss pheremones caused by the lack of toilet facilities. Uh-huh. Yeah. Root cause.

    Troy...

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

    That's because they take artistic chances that older folks don't. (That also applies to other areas of life.)

    > 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.

    What the hell do you think they were calling Television and Blondie and Talking Heads? They had to call it something. What were they supposed to say? "We can't call this punk because in a few years punks will wear mohawks and safety pins." Not.

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

    "The Tide Is High" was just radio fodder. That's what Blondie wanted to sell so they're irrelevant at that point, imo. But "For Artists Only" isn't that different compared to the Heads in '75. This whole punk/post-punk distinction is bs. The so called post-punk bands like Talking Heads and XTC were not post-punk, they were there at the beginning, doing their own thing. It's the music industry that caught up to them after the bottom fell out of the disco market. The press and record companies needed a friendly label other than punk so "new wave" was born. Yeah, Television didn't sound like the Dead Kennedys but so what? If somebody thinks Black Sabbath defines rock then they're not going to call Rubber Soul rock are they? And how often have we heard similar arguements? "The Beatles didn't rock enough", etc.

    >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.

    No, it's not the same thing and here's why. There's a long tradition of kids going to college and tapping into a new world of music. Maybe it happens the first year, maybe the second. The critical thing they're looking for is something other than the concerns of high school.

    >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.

    But the 70's covered ten years. In the early 70's, the high school kids (mostly males) were into, say, Alice Cooper. It was the college crowd that were into Zeppelin, Yes, Tull, Zappa etc. Sure there were a few exceptions like you and me but not enough kids to fill a venue much less sustain a career. By the mid to late 70's that all changed as those bands tapped into the high school market. Then you had all those punk and new-wave or whatever the hell you want to call them bands. Those were pumped out by college radio stations and only made inroads into the high schools with the advent of MTV in the early 80's. I saw R.E.M. in '84 with college students years before the high schoolers picked up on Document in '87. U2 went through the same thing. There are tons of examples but if you just look at the ones I've mentioned off the top of my head - Zep, Yes, Tull, Zappa, R.E.M., U2 - there's a distinct lack of "crusing for hamburgers with my girlfriend" or "getting high before gym class" element in all this. That's what Aerosmith and Van Halen were for, distinctly marketed for high schoolers. So there is a difference regardless of the fact that you can enter college at 17.

    >When I go to concerts today I am generally the oldest coot by a considerable margin.

    You shoulda seen Yes w/ Wakeman in '04. You could just feel the Geritol.

    >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 . . .

    Frankly, I see a lot of cynicism in that statement. It's not a pure youth market if older people are buying it. Hell, I've seen middle aged advertising execs listen to Midnight Oil in the 90's. It's awfully presumptious of you to claim they're "trying desparately to hang on to their youth". My guess is deforestation in North Australia or water rights for indigenous tribes wasn't a big topic of conversation in their high school smoking allies.

    >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 . . .

    BINGO, my man. It's a different kind of pretention. It's art deco replacing art nouveau. It happened in classical, it happened in jazz.
    Last edited by BradH; 08-31-2006 at 03:37 PM.

  13. #63
    Close 'n Play« user Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Highway 6, between Tonopah and Ely
    Posts
    2,318
    Wow.

    Dusty-
    Not a fan of Waters solo. The longer Pink Floyd went on the more obnoxiously self important they became. The Wall is a trainwreck AFAIC.

    Flower Kings sure sound great musically, but lyrically they are unintentionally hilarious, especially when they get serious. Not even the slightest trace of irony. Ditto Yes. So much of what Jon Anderson wrote lyrically was silly at best and stridently preachy at worst (Don't Kill the Whale)

    I always picked out a streak of humor in Spocks Beard similar to the one in the band SB copied; Ambrosia (but maybe that's just me).

    I've never been a big fan of Goth. It makes me roll my eyes involuntarily.

    Still, I get your point. I like a lot of music that many people would call pretentious. I think what you are missing is that I never said pretention is a bad thing in and of itself. I don't care if music is pretentious or not. Just be fair and call it pretentious, even if it's in your pet genre. (royal you)

    Why did you ask me about Bill Nelson? What's the connection?

    MGH-
    Jeez man, you trying to drown me in a sea of words?

    Clearly your view of what punk is is much broader than mine. I see similar arguments constanly about progrock on prog based boards. Everyone's idea of what fits in a genre is different. Talking Heads was not punk to me. Perhaps really early Blondie was, but not the Blondie that most people are familiar with.

    Elanor Rigby is most definitely NOT a rock and roll song. Chamber pop. Perhaps if the arrangement used guitar bass and drums it would be a rock and roll song, but not the origianl orchestral version.

    Only a teenager (or someone with the mentality of one) would enjoy a song called "Love Comes in Spurts." Most people would grow out of it by the age of 25 tho. No one over the age of 25 ever got a Guns and Roses tattoo. Teenagers obssess about bands and songs. By the time they get older tho, they obsess about other, "more important" things like paying the rent and putting their own teenagers thru college.

    It's a common conceit that as people get older they suddenly believe that older people like them can perfom at a young person's level. From one old geezer to another, sorry to disillusion you, buddy. 40 should be mandatory live performance retirement for rock stars. Listen and create as long as you can, but live performance? Hang it up before you break a hip.

    Yes, Bangs called out Reed for sure. Just like you to mention the only real exception. Lester was one drop in a veritable ocean of press that didn't call it like it was.

    Whatever Patti's preceived (by you) influence on REM or the Talking Heads was, it was small in comparison to other influences on these bands. So small that the comparison is incosequential. I'll give you the influence on girly poet-rock and some Lilith Faire junk as being right on the mark, but that's about it.

    And why the hell can't I say BFD becuase I PERSONALLY think the genre she spawned is unimportant in the scheme of rock history? (Cuz we all know how many people are going to be listening to their Alannis M albums in 10 years, right?)

  14. #64
    Suspended 3-LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hey! Over here!
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    And why the hell can't I say BFD becuase I PERSONALLY think the genre she spawned is unimportant in the scheme of rock history? (Cuz we all know how many people are going to be listening to their Alannis M albums in 10 years, right?)
    Alanis Morrisette doesn't count because her first main influences were Tiffany and Debbie Gibson, not Patti Smith. She's as prefab as The Monkeys or The Sex Pistols.

  15. #65
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    I has been said...

    ...punk was born as the antithesis of progressive, yet for all of it's railing against the machine (so to speak), it isn't so different...

    After being subjected to the Court Of The Crimson King for the umpteenth time, the first person, group or whatever who picked up a guitar, banged out the three chords and commited it to vinyl was the real deal...everything after it was pretense and product...

    It was either POd rank amatuers who could barely finger first position chords or accomplished musicians applying reductionist theory towards an end...If the first, it's legit...if the second, it's contrivance and posturing, pure and simple...

    jimHJJ(...and so say I...)

    P.S. And punk isn't alone...
    Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

    "Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

    "The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe

    If you repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it to be the truth...

  16. #66
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643
    Yes, that was pure and simple.

  17. #67
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    Yeah...the likes of the Minutemen, Black Flag, the Cramps, Husker Du, X, and the Misfits, reduced to 'contrivance and posturing.' Who knew?

    I don't like others.

  18. #68
    Crackhead Extraordinaire Dusty Chalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    below the noise floor
    Posts
    3,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    I think what you are missing is that I never said pretention is a bad thing in and of itself. I don't care if music is pretentious or not. Just be fair and call it pretentious, even if it's in your pet genre. (royal you)
    Okay, yeah, I missed that. That "slippery slope" comment made me think you thought it was a negative thing. BTW, I agree completely -- I am fully on board with telling people that much of what I listen to is pretentious and takes itself very (sometimes too) seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy
    Why did you ask me about Bill Nelson? What's the connection?
    I just thought he might qualify as a "punk rock guitar god" because of his new wave era. There are quite a few people who think very highly of his guitar work, including his Quit Dreaming.../Vistamix era stuff (including me).
    Eschew fascism.
    Truth Will Out.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevef22
    you guys are crackheads.
    I remain,
    Peter aka Dusty Chalk

  19. #69
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    3lock...

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

    There are plenty of similarities, but what Patti Smith did was fairly unique in spite of these inspirations, enough so where the praise for this record, in that regard at least, is understandable, even if somewhat overblown. The sensibilities of poetry and aggressive rock hadn't been put together as she did by that time.

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

    In a thread about Patti Smith, I'm not sure why this incredibly overwrought remark is necessary. It's sorta like saying, if David Brenner had done Andrew Dice Clay's nursery rhymes, he could've been Mr. Television.

    >Gee, I thought punk was born of an aversion to glam rock and disco...

    Not accurate. The New York Dolls were considered glam rock, and Blondie had no problem crossing over to disco, did they? There are elements of this, but this perception of how the stuff started (as opposed to what it was or is, considering how difficult it is to define, as we see from Troy) doesn't jibe with what I hear or have seen. Besides, punk was born well before disco was more than a blip on the radar. I think it was more of an aversion to something like ELP than to 'Do The Hustle.'

    >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

    Well, that's what I'm talking about. I wouldn't say thinking of the Sex Pistols is incorrect, but omitting Television & Patti Smith sure is. That kind of widens what the music actually encompasses, especially since the idea of no talent being required comes more from the Sex Pistols than anyone else.

    >Punk acts were good for a few laughs.

    The Ramones had a sense of humor, but the other NYC bands were mostly quite serious. Where are the laughs on Horses?

    >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.

    Exactly my point. I could make a similar statement about just about any major genre of rock music, and it'd seem just as inaccurate & even insulting to anyone else who's a fan who sees these sentiments that relate to maybe 1/4 or less of the genre being applied to the whole thing. Sort of like, 'Most heavy metal to me is a novelty, whether it's the hair band brand of metal, or the cool artwork on the album cover brand of heavy metal. That leaves out a lot, wouldn't you say?

    >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.

    Credence? Where? Yeah, I remember that avalanche of tour support they got, all the television appearances & guest shots, the massive amounts of records they sold. No. I remember the smirks on the faces of newscasters who covered the fact that this mohawk-wearing, fight-starting, safety-pin-in-cheek-pierced, disgusting punk act had hit America's shores, though. Which of course followed all that attention the NYC scene had inspired in the previous two years.

    Prog sold boatloads of records. So if you want to complain that hipster critics didn't like it as much, take some solace in the fact that the bands actually sold records & were able to tour in far larger venues than any punk band played in these parts for, with the exception of the Clash, 20 years. Meanwhile, again, Rolling Stone may not have cared for prog, but they weren't fans of punk, either. Critics didn't spend as much ink on punk as it may seem now, given the nostalgia that grew for the stuff, but it's not like they stopped writing about other commercial rock, including prog, either. All the credence you're talking about couldn't help sell a record, Jimmy Carter did reportedly send a very specific message to the record industry, and the scene collapsed pretty quickly. The popularity of the Clash was the only manifestation of anyone caring about the stuff until Nirvana & Green Day. Meanwhile, name a prog act from the same time frame who toured in the 70s, 80s, or 90s who had to play in venues the size of CBGB's?

    Meanwhile, the Monkees weren't allowed to play their instruments on their first two or three records, and Davy Jones did not learn how to play an instrument for quite some time after that. Look at the footage. He shakes a mean maraca, though.


    Dusty...

    >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.

    Yes, it takes talent to play. No, you're assigning absolutes I didn't say anything about. I said nothing about no differentiation between evaluating talent levels. What I was referring to was the idea that this type of music required no talent, period, which is something some people seemed, and seem, to believe. That's the overreaction, not my position. And it's not based on knowing anything about what they're talking about, but an out-of-context sentiment expressed in interviews by people who have ultimately been quite misunderstood for 30 years now. Anyone who listens to Robert Quine's guitar playing knows that you can't do that without talent; but all they remember is that the music was characterized as not requiring talent. Those sentiments were expressed by people whose meaning was that they were interested in proving that one didn't need to be extremely or prodigiously talented to play rock music. At the time a lot of rock music had become quite complicated. That doesn't mean it takes no talent to play three chords anymore than it does that one can't differentiate between levels of talent. It's pretty obvious that Johnny Ramone wouldn't have been able to do what Yngwie Malmsteen did, but nobody ever considers that the opposite is probably true as well.

    >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".

    Yeah, except the Patti Smith Group & the other NYC bands weren't that young, some of them actually did have musical training, and, like I've said, they didn't, with the exception of the Ramones, talk about how they couldn't really play, and how cool that was. And I don't know of the Ramones doing that until after the British people started doing that, either. It was around for awhile before anyone started reveling in how they couldn't play, which isn't true anyway. And Patti Smith & almost all of the other NYC acts were never about celebrating their lack of talent. The stuff on that rec, Television, Richard Hell et al is not stuff where anyone was likely thinking, hey, this is great, simple three-chord rock and roll, anyone could do this, I can do this...

    >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.

    I agree, except for my own favorite stuff not really being melodramatic. Some, but very little, it's something I think is rarely done well. But, I agree with the overall point & I don't believe I've ever said otherwise. Generally, I will say, I prefer short songs. And I think it's a lot easier to get away with 'pretense,' as the term is used in a derisive fashion, in shorter bursts, than longer ones. But then this is pop music we're talking about, and, generally, I do think that the best ideas are the ones that aren't overblown or too repetitive or too lengthy to fit well within the context of pop music. Which is not to say there aren't plenty of exceptions I like, but they are the exception & not the rule.


    Troy...

    >Clearly your view of what punk is is much broader than mine.

    Well, I base it on including the stuff that was called punk rock before any of the stuff you mention existed. The best yardsticks that I can see include looking at what was covered by the aptly-titled Punk Magazine, which you say isn't punk, and the book Please Kill Me, ditto. I have my own views on what I consider punk rock & what I consider not punk rock, but if I wasn't sure, I think going on what the people wrote who were there at the time & came up with the term thought it was, rather than the guy who says none of that matters because it isn't GG Allin enuf. No offense...

    >Elanor Rigby is most definitely NOT a rock and roll song.

    I didn't say it was. But it was a rock and roll RECORD--Revolver. It had the structure of a rock and roll song, not a symphony, in terms of parts. The difference is the instrumentation. But let's say it was chamber pop. Revolver wasn't a chamber pop record, and Eleanor Rigby wasn't a single. It was sold in the rock/pop section of the record store, not in with the chamber music.

    >Only a teenager (or someone with the mentality of one) would enjoy a song called "Love Comes in Spurts." Most people would grow out of it by the age of 25 tho.

    Interesting. You're familiar with the lyrics, then? I don't know, most teenagers who enjoy abstract poetry are a mighty thin majority, in my experience. You are definitely the first person I've ever seen characterize that song as being juvenile in any way, shape, or form. Something tells me you aren't actually familiar with it.

    >Teenagers obssess about bands and songs. By the time they get older tho, they obsess about other, "more important" things like paying the rent and putting their own teenagers thru college.

    Yet they still manage to fill the sold-out arenas where dinosaur rock bands do reunion tours.

    >40 should be mandatory live performance retirement for rock stars. Listen and create as long as you can, but live performance? Hang it up before you break a hip.

    Couldn't disagree more. The live performance isn't the problem, I see no issue with nostalgia. It's when they continue to try to create that causes the problem. For one thing, the live performance compensates them probably more than they ever were from the sales of their records decades ago ever did. For another, if a 'rock star' manages to keep a fruitful career going, it's usually because they shift gears away from 'rock star' music. They do singer-songwriter, they do roots, they do country, they do reggae. They don't, with few exceptions of any note or success, try to make the same record they did when they were in their teens or 20s, or something like it.

    >Yes, Bangs called out Reed for sure. Just like you to mention the only real exception. Lester was one drop in a veritable ocean of press that didn't call it like it was.

    Ocean of press? Come on, you've got to be kidding. If it actually had been an ocean of press, then that it's one of the few exceptions would actually mean something. Get a hold of some old RS back issues from the mid/late 70s & you tell me how much coverage there is on this stuff. It was way weighted towards California rock, then other commercial strains like Stones/Who supergroups & yes, prog, and very little in the way of punk. Like I said, a Random Note here, a review there, that was about it. And don't think their choice to not cover the stuff much wasn't a factor in so few of these bands being signed--and quite a few (Ramones, Richard Hell, Dead Boys, and, yes, Talking Heads) that were had so few choices that they ended up with Sire, which was a nonentity as far as being a commercial force and was significantly hampered by being aligned with ABC as their distributor. The Ramones, like the VU and of course many other non-punk examples prior, found out what can happen when yr label can't get yr product into the stores.

    >Whatever Patti's preceived (by you) influence on REM or the Talking Heads was, it was small in comparison to other influences on these bands.

    Yeah. I held a gun to the heads of REM & told them to talk up the Patti Smith influence because I felt it more than they did. Are you kidding?

    >And why the hell can't I say BFD becuase I PERSONALLY think the genre she spawned is unimportant in the scheme of rock history?

    Then express that opinion in its context, not as a retread of the week 1 thread where it wasn't the influence, or lack thereof, that was discussed, only the merits of those were influenced. Does that seem unreasonable?

    I don't like others.

  20. #70
    Crackhead Extraordinaire Dusty Chalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    below the noise floor
    Posts
    3,636
    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    It's pretty obvious that Johnny Ramone wouldn't have been able to do what Yngwie Malmsteen did, but nobody ever considers that the opposite is probably true as well.
    That's because it probably isn't.
    Eschew fascism.
    Truth Will Out.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevef22
    you guys are crackheads.
    I remain,
    Peter aka Dusty Chalk

  21. #71
    Suspended 3-LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hey! Over here!
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    Credence? Where? Yeah, I remember that avalanche of tour support they got, all the television appearances & guest shots, the massive amounts of records they sold. No. I remember the smirks on the faces of newscasters who covered the fact that this mohawk-wearing, fight-starting, safety-pin-in-cheek-pierced, disgusting punk act had hit America's shores, though. Which of course followed all that attention the NYC scene had inspired in the previous two years.

    I was referring more to the revisionism that's gone on over the last ten years or so. When punk first began hitting the national consciousness, the media treated it as the novelty that it was.

    Let's face it, music is a novelty anyway. There are some very talented people who get out on that stage, then there are those who rely on theatrics to make up for a lack of either playing or writing ability; and then there are those who rely antics to make up for a general lack of talent. That smearing sh!t comment was more or less about Iggy Pop than Smith or anyone else. I'm not saying that this is limited to punk. Heavy Metal is certainly just as guilty of over the top theatrics and antics (Alice Cooper, Kiss, Motely Crue, etc, etc.). Prog too, I guess (I've never seen a prog act). And, if in the course of the next decade, some critics starts heaping unwarrented praise and importance on the heavy metal scene, I'll debunk that as well. But you're right, if print media decides to place prog on that pedestal, I'll prolly let it ride.

  22. #72
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    What album was this thread about anyway?

  23. #73
    Suspended 3-LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hey! Over here!
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    What album was this thread about anyway?
    The Beatles - Pet Sounds

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •