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
>