smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Stewart Mason <flamingo@theworld.com> |
| Subject | Re: The Rosenbergs |
| Date | Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:15:46 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
At 10:25 PM 1/30/2003 +0000, MTN HIGH wrote:
>LOL>
>
>So...is that why you couldn't narrow down your Top 20 list to a Top 20 and
>sent 100+ or so instead??
>
>All worthy of support, I presume? All sporting more than just the "basic
>moves"? All were included because of their ability to shun the mediocre and
>revive the scene?
>
>OK. If you say so!
Wow! Even for you, this is an impressive instance of avoiding the gist of
the discussion!
However, I think you're confused. I sent in a quite concise list of, you
guessed it, 20 top albums of 2002. (Augmented, admittedly, with 5
also-rans, 6 debuts that I thought showed promise and 15 albums I liked
well-enough by Artists I Tend To Like -- that's still a whopping 46 albums,
or less than half of your "100+ or so." Are you sure you're not thinking
of David Bash?)
On the other hand, hey, for shits and giggles, let's review that there top 20:
1. Consonant
2. Motorpsycho
3. Sonic Youth
4. Cordelia's Dad
5. Wilco
6. The Flaming Lips
7. Death By Chocolate
8. The Bevis Frond
9. Of Montreal
10. The Negro Problem
11. Badly Drawn Boy
12. The Apples In Stereo
13. The Lucky Bishops
14. Brendan Benson
15. Tender Trap
16. OK Go
17. Major Stars
18. Scenic
19. Tom Waits
20. The Walkmen
Let's see, I count exactly four bands there that would fall into the Pop
Stalinist definition of power pop, and I would bet that three of those
would be dismissed by the "If it's not IPO, it's crap" hard-liners. Bands
that shun the mediocre? You betcha. Bands sporting more than just the
basic moves? Oh heavens, yes. Bands worthy of support? Mais oui.
Power pop? Probably not.
S
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.