smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | <tinyvolcano@wavecable.com> |
| Subject | Re: All Things Must Pass (or else they'll create intestinal |
| Date | Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:46:20 -0700 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (3.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Well,
I would say that you potentially answered my question with
part of what you have said here (even if you are aware of
this or not).
But, I would say that "New Wave"-collectively was for the
most part - a unique and new sound that rivaled the
Beatles .
Collectively that is.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:50:28 -0400
"Stewart Mason" <craigtorso@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John L. Micek"
><jlmicek@comcast.net>
>> When you're a teenager or in your early young adulthood,
>>you just
>> feel *everything* more intensely -- because it's new and
>>because
>> it's exciting and because you just don't have anything
>>to compare it
>> to. Obviously, that feeling diminishes some as you get
>>older (but
>> not when it comes to falling in love -- that rush
>>remains the same
>> no matter what) for a lot of stuff, music included.
>>That's because
>> you're able to draw lines between records and realize
>>that this band
>> was influenced by this band, who were obviously
>>influenced by this
>> band. You start to appreciate music along a continuum,
>>rather than
>> have those "Holy Shit!!!!" moments you had when you were
>>a kid.
>> I feel the same way about hearing U2 and R.E.M. for the
>>first time.
>> Those records, because they were the first ones I heard
>>during my
>> musical coming of age ("Under A Blood Red Sky," and
>>"Reckoning"
>> respectively) remain more vital and intense for me
>>because they were
>> the first. They were the ones that inspired me to become
>>addicted to
>> Pop music and to start playing and writing my own music.
>>It's pretty
>> safe to say I probably would never been in bands or made
>>records
>> without having heard them.
>> But I wouldn't be so vain to say that everything that
>>came after
>> them was inferior or were pale imitations. And that's
>>the essence of
>> the argument that's being made in other posts, and it's
>>the one I
>> object to heartily.
>
> There's another music list I'm on, where I believe I'm
>about 5 to 10 years younger than most of the other
>regulars (38 at the end of June), and I once wrote a
>moderately long post about the importance of 1984 in my
>own personal musical growth. Basically, the gist of it
>was that it was kind of a sea change year for me because
>a lot of the bands I had really liked in the few years
>prior to this all released terrible albums that year: U2,
>the Human League, Duran Duran, Icehouse, Adam Ant, Aztec
>Camera (although to be fair, I've grown to like about
>half of KNIFE, but it was a bitter disappointment at the
>time), several others. And there was at least one person
>who at first had genuinely thought that I was writing
>some kind of deadpan parody of those sort of people who
>had gotten terribly disenchanted with rock after the
>'60s, until he realized that I wasn't kidding and I
>really did like all those bands when I was 13 and 14, and
>still like them now. The idea that there were people who
>had strong teenage associations with bands he had
>disparaged at the time simply had never occurred to him.
>
> And John nails it perfectly: whether folks mean for it
>to be there or not, there is a strong stench of
>generational vanity to the claim that SGT. PEPPER and PET
>SOUNDS are the alpha and omega of rock and roll. It's one
>thing to say that they are your own personal
>cornerstones, but there was an argument made that,
>indeed, everything that came after was, implicitly,
>inferior and imitative. Which...no. That's not for you
>to say.
>
> S
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.