smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: The Rosenbergs |
| Date | Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:30:12 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain (3.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I agree with Stewart's statement to a point -- endless cheerleading will
bring down any 'scene'. However, I don't agree with his assessment that the
power pop scene is in bad shape. This is because I'm not sure if it befits
the genre to confine it to being a 'scene', which has the connotation of
being ephermeral, something that will fade away.
I think that power pop is much more well established now, where it's more on
par with other movements that have revivalist aspects. It's kind of like
garage rock. The first true garage rock wave came along with DMZ/The Lyres,
Chesterfield Kings, Fuzztones, et. al in the late '70s/early '80s. And
while this didn't immediately result in an onslaught of garage bands, it
laid the groundwork for a scene which has blossomed into something with
lasting power. In any given year over the last decade or so, there have
been oodles of garage rock records released. Some years the crop is just
O.K., other years it's awesome. And in certain years, more people seem to
making those records -- we're in such a period now.
What aided that permanence, was the establishment of labels like Get Hip and
Bomp and Estrus and Norton, etc., who cultivated a market for such music.
Not only are their labels who always put out such music, but by sustaining
that market, other players can get into the game. I think that Not Lame and
Jam and others are fulfilling the same role in power pop. By my rigid
definition of power pop, 2002 was not as exceptional as other years I've
been on the list. But it's not like in 2 years no one will be making power
pop records. Really, once the genre has this foundation, which will mean
new talents will be drawn to it, there will be more great records -- some
years will be better than others.
Mike Bennett
Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
>From: Popdude@aol.com
>Reply-To: audities@smoe.org
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Subject: Re: The Rosenbergs
>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:19:03 EST
>
>Stewart Mason wrote:
>
><<Ay-yi-yi-yi indeed, since your argument appears to be "Even if you think
>the Rosenbergs suck [which, incidentally, I didn't; I quite liked them],
>you
>should support them, because they're One Of Us." On the other hand, some
>of
>us think that supporting mediocre bands just because they've got the basic
>moves down is one of the things that got "the power pop scene" in such bad
>shape.>>
>
>DING-DING-DING-DING! Give that man a prize. Stewart, you are 110%
>correct.
>
>
>And by the way, it's all YOUR fault Myracle Brah hasn't hit it big...if you
>would just support them a LITTLE bit, they would be bigger than the
>freaking
>Beatles, by golly! C'mon...what kind of an Auditeer are you, anyway?
>
>I'm kidding, of course.
>
>Also, it personally doesn't matter one whit to me that the Rosenbergs
>didn't/don't have the "classic '70s style power pop sound." They just
>didn't
>kill me. Fountains of Wayne does. OK Go is cool, too. Oh, well...
>
>Bill Holmes wrote:
>
><<I'd much rather hear someone state that they were disappointed in Band X
>once or twice than hear someone crow about Band Y's genius a hundred times
>like the first ninety-nine huzzahs suddenly vanished from our collective
>consciousness. Congratulations, groupie. We all love certain bands. Get
>that
>damned lampshade off your head and party like an adult. :)>>
>
>Exhibit A as to Why I Love Bill Holmes.....
>
>John B.
>np: Gail George demos----wow!
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.