|
|
Post by bowiglou on Apr 9, 2007 17:06:25 GMT -5
hey skvor..hows it going?!!....yeah, I'll try to minimize my hiatus...but geez Skvor with teaching 6 classes and working simultaneously on 5-7 projects I am totally overwhelmed!!..but this is what is termed a 'good problem'!!....and thanks for your nice comments...
PEW, I know you have some well-justified comments but when I post something it is always my personal opinion and when it comes to music, unless it is something that can be duly documented (e.g., date of Beatles first showing on Ed Sullivan show!!..which as a 7 year old was an eye-opener), I know I make 'bowiglouisms' and probably cross-reference/cross-classify genres/taxonomies, and with that make errors of classification..............but I generally don't have the gumption to reference a text (though Skvor's reference to "please kill me' is wonderful, and I thought London Dreaming was relatively authoritative) but rather just offer my unbridled opinion....hence, I tend to spend minimum time justifying an list or opinion...........rather I just put it out there, good or bad!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Apr 9, 2007 17:13:45 GMT -5
It goes well Bow!
Ok, yeah, you might be a little busy........
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Apr 9, 2007 19:15:19 GMT -5
hey skvor..hows it going?!!....yeah, I'll try to minimize my hiatus...but geez Skvor with teaching 6 classes and working simultaneously on 5-7 projects I am totally overwhelmed!!..but this is what is termed a 'good problem'!!....and thanks for your nice comments... PEW, I know you have some well-justified comments but when I post something it is always my personal opinion and when it comes to music, unless it is something that can be duly documented (e.g., date of Beatles first showing on Ed Sullivan show!!..which as a 7 year old was an eye-opener), I know I make 'bowiglouisms' and probably cross-reference/cross-classify genres/taxonomies, and with that make errors of classification..............but I generally don't have the gumption to reference a text (though Skvor's reference to "please kill me' is wonderful, and I thought London Dreaming was relatively authoritative) but rather just offer my unbridled opinion....hence, I tend to spend minimum time justifying an list or opinion...........rather I just put it out there, good or bad!!!!! Bow, I can certainly appreciate that. But I imagine that if you are like me then your opinion evolves with the more knowledge you gain. And when it comes to genre identification it often involves a little bit more than just opinion. There are demarcation points that define these genres. I mean I could say that it is my opinion that a gorrilla is an amphibian, but there is an accepted standard in science that would say that that opinon is wrong. This same kind of standard applies to music. Here, I'll cut and paste the first half of my blog for you, which describes the difference between New Wave Rock and Punk Rock and explains why these two kinds of music need different names: In late 1976 Seymour Stein, then the head of Sire Records, coined the term "New Wave Rock" to describe some of his newly signed bands who frequently played the club CBGB. Scenesters, Rockists and Journalists (Charles Shaar Murray specifically) quickly picked up on this term and it was applied to bands like Television, The Talking Heads, Blondie, Pere Ubu, The Cars, Devo, etc. Stein compared the music of these bands to the films of the French New Wave movement of the 1960s. Like those autuer film makers, his new recording artists were from the first generation that had grown up as critical consumers of the medium they worked within: in this case, Rock music. But this could also be said about the Punk Rock bands of that same period. So Stein and others felt it was important to differentiate New Wave Rock bands from the less-commercially viable Punk Rock bands that were part of the same CBGB scene.
The differences between the New Wave Rock bands and the Punk Rock bands were not that distinguishable to the typical mainstream consumer, but to those who knew the scene the two brands of Rock had major differences. The most obvious one is that the true spirit that spawned Punk was one of dangerous and destructive desperation. It rose from the urban underbelly of industrialized American wastelands in cities like Detroit and Cleveland and New York and Chicago and was an expression of the nihilistic ethos that came from a life sentence of economic stagnation that reality had shackled these Iggy Pops and Stiv Bators and Dee Dee Ramones and Richard Hells to.
New Wave Rock, on the other hand, tended more toward experimentation, lyrical abstraction and more polished production. It was also associated with musicians who were college educated and/or had backgrounds in the arts. So simply put, New Wave Rock came from an artsy, more intellectual (academcially speaking) background, whereas Punk Rock came from a more destructive (often associated with a street level or junkie) reality.blog.myspace.com/paulewagemann |
|
|
|
Post by KooL on Apr 9, 2007 19:27:00 GMT -5
Hey PEW, can you make the font a little bigger and bolder? I can't find my glasses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Apr 9, 2007 19:30:55 GMT -5
hey skvor..hows it going?!!....yeah, I'll try to minimize my hiatus...but geez Skvor with teaching 6 classes and working simultaneously on 5-7 projects I am totally overwhelmed!!..but this is what is termed a 'good problem'!!....and thanks for your nice comments... PEW, I know you have some well-justified comments but when I post something it is always my personal opinion and when it comes to music, unless it is something that can be duly documented (e.g., date of Beatles first showing on Ed Sullivan show!!..which as a 7 year old was an eye-opener), I know I make 'bowiglouisms' and probably cross-reference/cross-classify genres/taxonomies, and with that make errors of classification..............but I generally don't have the gumption to reference a text (though Skvor's reference to "please kill me' is wonderful, and I thought London Dreaming was relatively authoritative) but rather just offer my unbridled opinion....hence, I tend to spend minimum time justifying an list or opinion...........rather I just put it out there, good or bad!!!!! Bow, I can certainly appreciate that. But I imagine that if you are like me then your opinion evolves with the more knowledge you gain. And when it comes to genre identification it often involves a little bit more than just opinion. There are demarcation points that define these genres. I mean I could say that it is my opinion that a gorrilla is an amphibian, but there is an accepted standard in science that would say that that opinon is wrong. This same kind of standard applies to music. Here, I'll cut and paste the first half of my blog for you, which describes the difference between New Wave Rock and Punk Rock and explains why these two kinds of music need different names: In late 1976 Seymour Stein, then the head of Sire Records, coined the term "New Wave Rock" to describe some of his newly signed bands who frequently played the club CBGB. Scenesters, Rockists and Journalists (Charles Shaar Murray specifically) quickly picked up on this term and it was applied to bands like Television, The Talking Heads, Blondie, Pere Ubu, The Cars, Devo, etc. Stein compared the music of these bands to the films of the French New Wave movement of the 1960s. Like those autuer film makers, his new recording artists were from the first generation that had grown up as critical consumers of the medium they worked within: in this case, Rock music. But this could also be said about the Punk Rock bands of that same period. So Stein and others felt it was important to differentiate New Wave Rock bands from the less-commercially viable Punk Rock bands that were part of the same CBGB scene.
The differences between the New Wave Rock bands and the Punk Rock bands were not that distinguishable to the typical mainstream consumer, but to those who knew the scene the two brands of Rock had major differences. The most obvious one is that the true spirit that spawned Punk was one of dangerous and destructive desperation. It rose from the urban underbelly of industrialized American wastelands in cities like Detroit and Cleveland and New York and Chicago and was an expression of the nihilistic ethos that came from a life sentence of economic stagnation that reality had shackled these Iggy Pops and Stiv Bators and Dee Dee Ramones and Richard Hells to.
New Wave Rock, on the other hand, tended more toward experimentation, lyrical abstraction and more polished production. It was also associated with musicians who were college educated and/or had backgrounds in the arts. So simply put, New Wave Rock came from an artsy, more intellectual (academcially speaking) background, whereas Punk Rock came from a more destructive (often associated with a street level or junkie) reality.blog.myspace.com/paulewagemannI didn't read any this. |
|
|
|
Post by KooL on Apr 9, 2007 19:37:48 GMT -5
I read the first five words, and realized he's already posted that bullshit at least 5 times already. "Such and such coined the term 'New Wave Rock'... blah blah blah".
He actually edited it twice to make it as large as he could, without it looking too obvious he's pimping his blog again... which he is of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Apr 9, 2007 20:27:55 GMT -5
PEW..yes I do recall that delineation between 'new wave' and 'punk' being one of (1) different stances in nihilism (2) different socioeconomic roots (including education) and (3) range of experimental musical orientation ....and PEW, being a methodologis/statisician/empiricist, I do indeed share your view in regards to the import of classification and demarcation.
That being said, sometimes, at least in music, I find it problematic/specious reasoning that leads to these various taxonomies, that may or may not be readily distinguishable..and though yes, to some extent I could see how bands such as the Cars, Devo, Wall of Voodoo, Split Enz, etc could be clustered as New Wave as opposed to the more amphetamine-ferocity driven bursts of the Pistols, Clash, etc, why I tend to cluster all of those bands under one rubric is this sense of severing ties with what had to be done in music, and in a creative sense, distilling and incorporating their influences (whether it be the Faces, Stooges, MC5, NY Dolls, Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who, and nuggetts-era garage bands, and yes, even the doors!!) into a rather current context..............so PEW, when I saw the Fleshtones open up for REM at a club in West LA right when Radio Free Europe was hitting the "new wave" charts, they both had as punky of an attitude as any LA punk band that had been around up that time...so though it may seem contrary, I clustered REM, at that time, with X, who I saw multiple times playing in their Hollywood backyard for some of the most racous shows I ever experienced.....this being that in their own way they assimilated the spirit of punk, that being regardless of musical orientation, education, and other lurking variables, they shared this common thread of simplicity and breaking the barriers of the audience/pop star shield.......
PEW, I was around the LA punk era, and especially where I lived (Huntington Beach) hardcore was huge.........and yes, I definitely found Black Flag, Fear, Circle Jerks, the Bags, etc all very different from Talking Heads or Magazine or Joy Division...but to me, they all shared the common denominator of being wholly different from what was accepted convention.....and I'm not saying being popular is tantamount to "accepted convention"..hell, a group of four from Liverpool were hugely popular but post 1965 I defy anyone back then to predict what their next release would sound like!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Apr 9, 2007 20:44:47 GMT -5
PEW..yes I do recall that delineation between 'new wave' and 'punk' being one of (1) different stances in nihilism (2) different socioeconomic roots (including education) and (3) range of experimental musical orientation ....and PEW, being a methodologis/statisician/empiricist, I do indeed share your view in regards to the import of classification and demarcation. ...but to me, they all shared the common denominator of being wholly different from what was accepted convention..... It looks like we both agree that New Wave and Punk were largely different from what was the accepted convention of the time. And it seems you also recognize how punk and new wave were different (In your acknowledgement of the three points you make in the post above). For me, I think these three points (and others) are enough to create a border between what is Punk and what is New Wave, whereas you dont. But I just want to state my final argument to you as to why these two need to be seperated and that is that I think lumping bands like Blondie or the Police or The Talking Heads in with punk really lessens the importance and impact of the truly punk bands like The Germs or Fear or the Dead Boys. If you were part of the LA scene in the late 70s then you should know how intense these punk bands were. And you should know that even being dressed like a punk could get you beat up by the cops or harrassed by rednecks. So these folks were willing to put it all on the line for their beliefs adn where their beliefs on their sleeve. Whereas if you walked down the street dressed like Davd Byrne or Michael Stipe you wouldnt get a second look. Now, I'm not saying it was all about the fashion--what I'm saying is that there is such vastness of degrees of being "different from what was the accepted convention" that they need to be recognized on different levels... |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Apr 9, 2007 21:01:51 GMT -5
You are aware, PEW, that Richard Hell was a founding member of Television, yes? Also, again, there was nothing in that bold fonted nightmare that persuades me against my argument that "New Wave" is still nothing more than marketing bullshit from a pointed headed advertising geek to make money off of teenagers.
The "new wave thing to do"? You want some crackers with that cheese? Come on, man, that is just ridiculous even for you.
I am concerned that your shit stirring is causing good friends of mine like Ryosuke, whom I have posted with on a regular basis for years now, to go somewhere else. Please knock it down a couple of notches because it's fun talking to these people.
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Apr 9, 2007 21:28:56 GMT -5
You are aware, PEW, that Richard Hell was a founding member of Television, yes? Thank you for stating the obvious skvor. I mean, why do you think I put photos of him and Tom Verlaine at the top of my blog article? Do I really need to explain it to you? *Pauses for affect* Well ofcourse I do, dont I? If any two people represent the difference between Punk and New Wave it is these two and in many ways each of their struggles to define Televsion is a microcosm of this entire issue. Verlaine was calculated in that he was out to bend the boundaries of song-writing especially when it came to the role of the guitar. Hell was a man who was into confrontation, whether it be personal on social. The fact that these two friends since being teens could not con-exist in the same band perfectly illustrates that Punk and New Wave Rock are too different to be lumped into the same catagory. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Apr 9, 2007 21:45:54 GMT -5
No and I am now not speaking to you on these forums ever again for making yet another reference to your blog. I am emailing Strat and I am encouraging Ryosuke, Ken, and all of the other posters to do the same to have you removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Apr 10, 2007 6:29:43 GMT -5
ROTFLMAO!
This is rediculas!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Apr 10, 2007 6:51:47 GMT -5
Oh yes. You've gotta laugh at those native English speakers who are worse at the language than we are, eh maarts?  |
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Apr 10, 2007 7:06:49 GMT -5
Wie, ik? ;D
(whistles "Ich weiss nicht was soll es bedeuten...")
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Apr 10, 2007 7:51:02 GMT -5
ROTFLMAO! This is rediculas! Hey! I resemble that! |
|
