smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Michael Bennett <mrhonorama@ameritech.net> |
| Subject | Re: Big Star - In Space |
| Date | Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:17:00 -0700 (PDT) |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Craig --
I think within your post, you explain why the branding
issue has some validity -- when you use the example of
The Byrds, for example, you are talking about a band's
progression, which can take them many places.
Ideally, a band can navigate new territory like The
Fall -- as the late John Peel eloquently put it, The
Fall are always different and always the same.
But that's not quite the case here, for all of the
reasons you note.
On that note, I'm intrigued by the upcoming dB's disc
-- based on their new tunes, Stamey and Holsapple
haven't made any effort to go back to the old sound --
each has penned material consistent with their recent
work. But their current material sounds more like a
logical progression from the old dB's, in contrast to
a lot of Chilton's solo work.
Aside - to reiterate, I like some Chilton's solo
stuff. I think Greg hit the nail on the head -- there
are a lot of times he seems indifferent or not
engaged.
Mike Bennett
--- Craig Leve <CraigL@ori.org> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I haven't heard the new one myself (except one track
> the Jon Auer one
> that sounds like Chris Bell). Typically I think less
> of the branding
> issue you raise - that is, bands can really slip
> around stylistically if
> that's their perogative - and if I'm a fan, I'll
> likely follow. I mean
> if one followed this logic, I guess you'd end up
> carping about the
> various incarnations of the Byrds for departing from
> the brand, or
> bemoan anything after the first few Beatles albums
> for the betrayal of
> the brand sound. Maybe these aren't perfect examples
> but I guess it's
> all in what you think defines the 'brand'.
>
> Still, without really knowing (or maybe feeling I
> can't get worked up
> about this issue much) - it seems a bit odd to
> decide after 30 years to
> resurrect a band moniker with one of the band's
> architects long dead and
> then create an album that seems less about that
> band's legacy and more
> about what you (Alex Chilton) like to be doing these
> days. No offense to
> Chilton's artistic decisions, but why not just make
> it a Chilton album
> if that's what you're gonna do? It's Chilton's
> moniker to work with, I
> suppose but I think he owes Chris Bell's memory more
> than sullying the
> Big Star legacy if he's not interested in pursuing
> that sound any more.
> And he's seemed perfectly comfortable with
> distancing himself from Big
> Star as productive unit in the last 20+ years, so
> what was the appeal in
> this project for Chilton? I don't expect logic, but
> just trying to make
> a little...pop star sense of this.
>
> Or maybe Stringfellow/Auer couldn't be to Chilton
> what Sahanaja is to
> Wilson?
>
> Best,
>
> Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: audities-owner@smoe.org
> [mailto:audities-owner@smoe.org] On Behalf
> Of Michael Bennett
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:36 AM
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Re: Big Star - In Space
>
> Both make valid points. But I do think that fans
> have
> a right to carp a bit if a record branded Big Star
> strays from what made Big Star Big Star. I don't
> think it's an indictment of Big Star fans to have
> that expectation. If
> you're going to call it Big Star, then you accept
> the brand name
> benefits and must accept the backlash consequences.
>
> Just my opinion...
>
> Mike Bennett
>
> NP: The 88 - Over and Over
>
>
>
Chicago Pop Show Report on Yahoo Groups: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/chicagopopshowreport/?yguid=162827291
Music reviews: http://www.fufkin.com
My Space blog: http://blog.myspace.com/mrhonorama
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.