zorndeslammes
Streetcorner Musician
RICKSON BY ARMBAR!!1!!!!1!
Posts: 74
|
Post by zorndeslammes on Jun 11, 2006 16:11:36 GMT -5
The media has pushed anything that they think might catch on fervently. I can think of a assload of mediocre indie acts that have been pushed as the "saviours of rock" in the last 7-8 years. Tons and tons and tons of them. There's a new one on the cover of RS, Spin, or NME virtually every 6 months. I think the whole concept of rock needing a saviour is totally ridiculous these days; there is, hasn't, nor will be any such thing ever. Rock isn't dead, nor is it on life support, merely because new records are pushed out with regularity. What it is, however, is no longer the lead musical impetus in societal change and behaviour. Hip hop replaced it a long time ago, and there is no hope of reversal.
Hip hop is not a trend. It has a history that can be traced back 30 years, if not longer. I think the idea that the suburban youth will once again ascribe to rock music as their chief vehicle for self expression is quaint at best, and bordering on quasi-racist at worst. It will not happen in the US. Its definitely occurring, if not fully complete, really, across much of the globe.
People like fresh and their tastes have changed dramatically in the last 7-8 years. 8 years ago, acts like the Backstreet Boys ruled pop radio. Now they're occasional staples of soft hits/AOR type stations, while pop music has moved on. There are artists like Madonna who keep their ears to the ground to copy new, up and coming trends in the musical landscape, but most acts don't, their song selection ends up lacking, and their fame and sales potential dip along with it. The pop artist that quickly comes and goes in a 2-3 year period is nothing new to mass media, and hasn't been for over 50 years. Its silly to think of it any differently now or pretend it never happened before.
Back to the creativity in rock music. Really, I do think there's a significant issue there. Almost all the bands that are pushed as saviours are simply new versions of acts that are 20, 30, 40 years old at this stage, and while there may be a nostalgia interest (what's old often becomes new again in fashion and design), it never lasts that long. You certainly can't say the same about hip hop and its continuous movement forwards unless you want to expose yourself as being utterly uninformed.
|
|
|
|
Post by limitdeditionlayla on Jun 13, 2006 0:57:43 GMT -5
This man is cooler than you:  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 13, 2006 1:10:46 GMT -5
If he takes off the scarf, I'll think it over.
|
|
|
|
Post by limitdeditionlayla on Jun 13, 2006 1:24:39 GMT -5
The scarf is probably holding his big, inflated head in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jun 13, 2006 8:30:49 GMT -5
he was certainly cooler than all of us back when that photo was taken. now he's sort of fat and out of tune. sad really. John Taylor's still cool though.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Jun 13, 2006 15:57:39 GMT -5
Eighties pop really wasn't that bad ... nowhere near as bad as what's been played on the radio for the last seven or eight years. If Lennon had lived ... all signs are that he would've continued to make increasingly boring MOR rock. The Beatles would have done a "hell freezes over tour" around 1987 or so, and made an album that would've been met with raves from the MSM critics but really wouldn't have been that good. The Beatles legacy would have been diminished, and everyone would acknowledge today that Townshend was greater than Lennon, and that the Who were the best British band of the sixties. The Beatles would make another record, then break up again, with all four going into actual retirement. Michael Jackson, tragically gunned down following his landmark Off the Wall album would be remembered as a giant of American soul and dance music. A cult emerges around MJ, and the theory that he was killed by a white conspiracy intent on keeping a black man from becoming the dominant figure in pop music galvanizes this new movement. MJ becomes a martyr on a par with Malcolm X, and a symbol of black power. As a result, race relations in the US rapidly detoriate and there is widespread rioting throughout major US cities in the middle eighties. Yep, things would have been a lot different if Michael Jackson had been murdered in 1980 instead of John Lennon. thank you for that pithy synopsis Ken 'oliver stone' holzman |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 13, 2006 16:08:11 GMT -5
Any time, my sun-baked SoCal friend. ;D
For some reason, I was just chatting about Lennon's death with a girl here in the office. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Lennon's assassination was the best career move he could have made. It instantly amplified the impact of his solo works (think about how much more poignant Double Fantasy became literally over night!), and ensured that the legend of the Beatles, made up of those four individuals, could not be tarnished (though the others sure did try with that "threetles" crap on the Anthology sets). No matter what else they did, the original Beatles output became untouchable after Lennone's death.
If John hadn't been killed, I think a reunion would have been inevitable within the eighties, and I'm confident that it would have been, at best, only mildly artistically successful. Let's not forget that the best moments on Paul's, George's and Ringo's records after 1980 are almost always in some way related to looking back at their time together in the sixties ("When We Was Fab"), dealing with John's death ("Here Today") or trying to recapture what Lennon brought to his partnership with Macca (pretty much all of Flowers in the Dirt). Take away John's death, and we're left with three happy middle-aged guys writing songs about how they love their wives, "god," and their lives in general. In other words, shite for artistic inspiration.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Jun 13, 2006 16:08:27 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]fond memories from the 80s:[/glow]
Magazine/Howard Devoto
Elvis Costello and seeing him about 5 times live
Talking Heads and seeing them multiple times
Saw David Bowie 4 times during Serious Moonlight Tour and twice during Glass Spider tour
Squeeze
10,000 Maniacs
Seeing REM in a small club in West LA circa 1983
Seeing the Clash at the hollywood palladium circa 1982 and the Smiths at the same venue 1985
Two fantastic relationships (and other more moribund ones!!)
Start of first major career trajectory
Seeing X multiple times, and at the same venue saw Iggy Pop, Lloyd Cole and the Commotions, Pete Shelly, the Church, the dBs and Lets Active, Graham Parker, etc
[glow=red,2,300]Not so fond memories from the 80s:[/glow]
on hindsight a bit too much imbiding in ancilllary and expensive substances..a very 80s thing to do for us children of the 60s!!!
Bands that at first were tuneful and fun such as Haircut 100 or Flock of Seagulls or Men at Work or Thompson Twins but pretty much proved to be utterly disposable
Some really bad dates
Big-hair metal bands
Multi-colored wetsuits and same with surfboards
Downslide to first major career circa 1988
Dance places that primarily emphasized madonna, prince, duran duran, etc..............felt completely out of place
Mullets..gawd, even I had one!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Jun 13, 2006 16:14:35 GMT -5
Any time, my sun-baked SoCal friend. ;D For some reason, I was just chatting about Lennon's death with a girl here in the office. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Lennon's assassination was the best career move he could have made. It instantly amplified the impact of his solo works (think about how much more poignant Double Fantasy became literally over night!), and ensured that the legend of the Beatles, made up of those four individuals, could not be tarnished (though the others sure did try with that "threetles" crap on the Anthology sets). No matter what else they did, the original Beatles output became untouchable after Lennone's death. If John hadn't been killed, I think a reunion would have been inevitable within the eighties, and I'm confident that it would have been, at best, only mildly artistically successful. Let's not forget that the best moments on Paul's, George's and Ringo's records after 1980 are almost always in some way related to looking back at their time together in the sixties ("When We Was Fab"), dealing with John's death ("Here Today") or trying to recapture what Lennon brought to his partnership with Macca (pretty much all of Flowers in the Dirt). Take away John's death, and we're left with three happy middle-aged guys writing songs about how they love their wives, "god," and their lives in general. In other words, shite for artistic inspiration. I beg to differ...I don't think the Beatles would have re-unionized................true, a la the Police or Talking heads they may have done a one-off at some gala such as the rock and roll hall of fame but I really don't think they would have had the sustaining interest to literally plop themselves in a studio and manufacture product.................from my perspective, and I still remember clearly the day the Beatles (or Paul or John depending on who you believe) called it quits..............and though it was sad, Mac had his debut right at that time and the other Beatles, initially, were very productive..............so I just don't think they would have perceived there would be any artistic merit in having a reunion........akin to the Jam....once it was quits it was quits....The Beatles surely didn't need $$$...and they can/could avail themselves of the best studio musicians money can buy.............. Ken, I just don't see it.... |
|
|
|
Post by luke on Jun 14, 2006 9:42:17 GMT -5
You think a living Lennon would have tarnished some legacies...just imagine how fucked the grunge legacy would be if Cobain had lived.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 14, 2006 11:05:17 GMT -5
I think if Cobain had lived, nothing would have changed. He would have divorced Courtney, broke up Nirvana, and then started an indie rock folk band that would have released records on Kill Rock Stars or K. He also may have just quit music all together and wound up being a roadie for the Melvins.
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Jun 14, 2006 12:06:08 GMT -5
I agree. There was no turning back at that point. Nirvana was on the verge of break-up, he'd have divorced Courtney and she probably wouldn't have sold as many records until Corgan came along for her. He'd have made a solo album that would have gotten the same "meh" reactions from the mainstream as Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, STP, and AIC did in the second half of the decade. The Foo Fighers would be unchanged. We'd have seen some "dream collaborations" with Frank Black and the Melvins that would've been disappointing (how could they not be?)
The biggest change would be that Nirvana, and by default, "the Seattle scene" wouldn't have gone down as some infallible monster. We may have seen a few less bands copping the sound, and if anything, the Spice Girls and Limp Bizkit may have come around a year earlier.
These days, he'd be getting a 6.2 on Pitchfork with a new "back to roots" album following some electronic influenced stuff he'd done, and he still wouldn't be as good as Stephen Malkmus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 14, 2006 12:10:36 GMT -5
I hate to admit it, but I could definitely see that scenario playing out, Luke. I'd like to think that Kurt's talent would've given us at least a couple of memorable post-Nirvana projects, but given the extent of his issues, I really doubt it. In Utero and Unplugged were really the sound a man completely coming off his bearings. I think that the best case scenario might have been for Kurt to have completely lost it and become the Brian Wilson of grunge -- the genius whose muse sent him over the edge and who never fully came back.
But his kid would have been a lot better off with him around. So regardless of whatever effect it would have had on the wider world, he shouldn't have killed himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jun 14, 2006 12:47:27 GMT -5
Not so fond memories from the 80s:
on hindsight a bit too much imbiding in ancilllary and expensive substances..a very 80s thing to do for us children of the 60s!!!
When cocaine was honestly considered totally innocuous....
And honestly it still should be, except that the HUGE profits that can be made (along with the psychosis the shit ALWAYS causes) made the people who deal the shit paranoid (understandably, considering the sums of $$$) to the point of carting bigger and better guns around with them.
In the 90s, there was no such thing like a 'friendly' dealer who you actually could even hang around with, because cocaine profits came into the equation in far too big a way (overrated bullshit that it was)...the shit became too big and became a big ugly 'business', whereas in the 80s so many did a little dealing just to be able to themselves get high for free.
And everyone else got to 'ride' along....
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Jun 14, 2006 18:00:23 GMT -5
Not so fond memories from the 80s:
on hindsight a bit too much imbiding in ancilllary and expensive substances..a very 80s thing to do for us children of the 60s!!!
When cocaine was honestly considered totally innocuous.... And honestly it still should be, except that the HUGE profits that can be made (along with the psychosis the shit ALWAYS causes) made the people who deal the shit paranoid (understandably, considering the sums of $$$) to the point of carting bigger and better guns around with them. In the 90s, there was no such thing like a 'friendly' dealer who you actually could even hang around with, because cocaine profits came into the equation in far too big a way (overrated bullshit that it was)...the shit became too big and became a big ugly 'business', whereas in the 80s so many did a little dealing just to be able to themselves get high for free. And everyone else got to 'ride' along.... gotta concur with all that RN.....especially the psychosis bit!!..and that wonderful rubbery/waxy machination of the chin that was oh-so attractive!!! |
|
