From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V7 #222 Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. alloy-digest Tuesday, October 29 2002 Volume 07 : Number 222 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP ["Paulo" ] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP ["Paulo" ] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP ["Paulo" ] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP [Robin Thurlow ] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP [PRAEst76 ] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP [PRAEst76 ] Alloy: ROCK x POP ["Paulo" ] Alloy: PUNK x POP ["Paulo" ] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP [Gryphon987@aol.com] Re: Alloy: PUNK x POP [Robin Thurlow ] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP ["Sally" ] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP [Gryphon987@aol.com] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP [PRAEst76 ] Alloy: OASIS x POP ["Paulo" ] Alloy: OASIS x POP ["Paulo" ] Re: Alloy: OASIS x POP [PRAEst76 ] Alloy: SOFT CELL ["Paulo" ] Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP [Jon Drukman ] Re: Alloy: SOFT CELL [Jon Drukman ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:10:05 -0200 From: "Paulo" Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:17 AM Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP > And besides, U2 is pop, too. It is just that guitars have such deep feelings > as opposed to keyboards? um....hmmm... > Laura Beth There is a distinction between pop and rock. U2 may have some pop tracks, but they are a rock band (with credibility). Keyboard based music can be rock too, but we can't say that Hot Sauce, SBMWS, Submarines, Key To Her Ferrari or Budapest By Blimp are rock pieces. They are examples of 80's pop. In fact they are so original sounding that they don't fall into any proper label. The problem is the degree of destruction brought by the music press since late 70's punk which says that rock is "attitude" and not "art". It is "street music" and as such should be kept simple, crude, raw and agressive.... all the rest in the pop world is rubbish music which aims on commercial success to make lots of money. Generally POP music is not taken seriously, no matter how good the musicians are. I have read many stupid things about pop artists, just because they are pop! Maybe if Thomas spat and vomit in his audience the press would have given him much more credit. Punk Thomas. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:13:56 -0200 From: "Paulo" Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP I agree about the marketing and promotion stuff, but this clever act by McLaren keeps doing its destructive effects on the music scene to this day. Before punk, artists who made high quality music got credibility (Marvin Gaye, Genesis, King Crimson, Yes. Elton John, etc...). After it, the music press became quite cynical concerning good music... It has become difficult to good musicians to break that wall of cynicism and get their work unknowledge as "serious or lasting"... on the other hand, the "rock atittude thing" gained credibility: if you went on stage eating bats, drugged, showing your sex, or spitting on the audience, you would sell albums, become popular, get good reviews, etc... I think there was a great exception concerning this rock "spirit" : it was The Smiths who were able to write very very beautiful songs without the need of projection this "rebelious macho rock image". - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Drukman" To: Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:38 PM Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP > the sex pistols are celebrated because of what they brought to the music > scene, rather than the music itself. > it was a clever bit of marketing and promotion by malcolm mclaren, > really. see "the great rock and roll swindle", and the other one that i've > forgotten the name of now. actually quite fascinating stuff. it's a great > story, and a great story ABOUT music, rather than great music. if that > makes sense. > -jsd- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:13:03 -0200 From: "Paulo" Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:17 AM Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP > Oasis gets credibility from the press? As a big fan of Oasis, I know that they do not get any credibility in the US. In the UK (from what I can tell, all I have are publications) they had good 2 albums, since then the critics have abandoned ship, and the only reason they seem to get press is because of the train wreck that is their personal lives and their mass of fans that eat it up. That is part of what I was calling "the atittude thing". If they can't sell records anymore based just on their songs, then they need another way to be visible and keep their name in the media, so they won't be forgotten. As you said Laura fans should ignore this kind of thing, but it seems they can't. And they are not so few. Not few at all as Thomas'. I had noticed a downfall on their crdibility as rockers, but I don't know why because they didn't break any rules of the "rock stars book" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 05:45:15 -0800 (PST) From: Robin Thurlow Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP Paulo wrote: :: Maybe if Thomas spat and vomit in his audience the press would have given him much more credit. Punk Thomas. :: Now there's some pleasant imagery for a Monday morning. Must wash eyeballs now... Paulo, I like your comment about the Smiths. But their lyric style is very goth (or proto-goth?) and goth fans are an extremely loyal bunch. "Pop" audiences are notoriously fickle. Thomas has a lot of goth to him but it isn't readily apparent in the way his work was publicised. You have to get in closely to feel its presence. ~robin Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:00:22 +0000 From: PRAEst76 Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP Robin sed: > :: Maybe if Thomas spat and vomit in his audience the press would have given > him much more credit. Punk Thomas. :: Actually I think in this day and age if he wanted credit and success he'd need to make explicit in yer face videos with dancing girls pumping their crotches into the camera. He'd probably also have to date a skinny teenage model and beat her to a pulp every now and then to keep the press interested. Nice guys finish last. TMDR isn't bad enough to be popular. > Now there's some pleasant imagery for a Monday morning. Must wash > eyeballs now... Paulo, I like your comment about the Smiths. But their > lyric style is very goth (or proto-goth?) and goth fans are an > extremely loyal bunch. "Pop" audiences are notoriously fickle. Thomas > has a lot of goth to him but it isn't readily apparent in the way his > work was publicised. You have to get in closely to feel its presence. Never thought of TMDR as goth but I know many goths that listen to his stuff. That said I've always been dissapointed that Thomas never progressed beyond Astronaunts & Heretics. The path his music was taking over the years was interesting. A great maturity was coming along as the gimmicks etc made way for a more poetic style... then silence for ten years. Gate was interesting but I don't class it really as a proper Thomas Dolby album. Does Thomas have any interest in making new music at all these days? Even for his own amusement? He's bound to get the urge every now and again. - -- PRAEst76 http://www.cancellation.freeserve.co.uk/praest76/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:52:39 +0000 From: PRAEst76 Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP Paulo sed: > I agree about the marketing and promotion stuff, but this clever act by > McLaren keeps doing its destructive effects on the music scene to this day. > Before punk, artists who made high quality music got credibility (Marvin > Gaye, Genesis, King Crimson, Yes. Elton John, etc...). There was plenty of pre-punk crap too. Do you remember Disco? Punk at the time was a refreshing blast of air. > After it, the music > press became quite cynical concerning good music... It has become difficult > to good musicians to break that wall of cynicism and get their work > unknowledge as "serious or lasting"... That's not just music. That's mankind in general. Look at the movie business. If anything it's worse than the music business. And books... just because something is a besseller doesn't mean it's a good book. It just means it sells a lot. And it's IMMENSLY hard for new authors to break though. > on the other hand, the "rock atittude > thing" gained credibility: if you went on stage eating bats, drugged, > showing your sex, or spitting on the audience, you would sell albums, become > popular, get good reviews, etc... Well you wouldn't necessarily get good reviews. What you got was attention and because the attewntion span of the populace is so low in the modern world grabbing it is everything. People want something 'in-yer-face' that reaches them through their self-imposed shells. Subtle doesn't work unless people pay attention and that doesn't happen very often. Back to the case in point the reason Thomas Dolby isn't more well respected is because he hasn't been noticed by the great and the good beyond the few breakthru quirky hits. Also the fact that he's done next to nothing in the past ten years doesn't help. However popularity doesn't matter, or shouldn't matter to an artist. Many many great artists go on doing their thing when there is almost no-one paying attention. It's what differentiates them from 'celebrities' which is what most modern 'artists' actually are. - -- PRAEst76 http://www.cancellation.freeserve.co.uk/praest76/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:55:12 -0200 From: "Paulo" Subject: Alloy: ROCK x POP - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Thurlow" To: Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 11:45 AM Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP Paulo, I like your comment about the Smiths. But their lyric style is very goth (or proto-goth?) and goth fans are an extremely loyal bunch. "Pop" audiences are notoriously fickle. Thomas has a lot of goth to him but it isn't readily apparent in the way his work was publicised. You have to get in closely to feel its presence. > ~robin I agree, but lyrics apart what I hate in the music business/market is the way that people missed many great Thomas melodies only because they were supposed to be POP, while worshipping bands or artists that shouldn't deserve. People remembers SBMWS but missed precious personal gems like The Flat Earth or Astronauts And Heretics albums. Thomas annoyance is fair. Mainly because it wasn't his fault... he strived to record better and better albums while he was getting less and less exposure. Whose fault is it then? Lack of comercial exposure? EMI's? The Public ? I think the so called "music critics" held a great deal of responsability. Hey Robin... Sorry about the morning imagery!! I couldn't resist!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:00:31 -0200 From: "Paulo" Subject: Alloy: PUNK x POP - ----- Original Message ----- From: "PRAEst76" To: "Paulo" Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP > There was plenty of pre-punk crap too. Do you remember Disco? Punk at > the time was a refreshing blast of air. There was crap before punk too, but it was aknowledged as crap. I don't think punk was a refreshing blast of air at all, I think this is just what it was said to be and this is what the press wants us to believe it was. I think punk did put crap as the norm of the day. After punk the values were inverted: what was good became ridiculous and what was crap is now OK. With punk the music standards were lowed to unbelievable proportions and this effect persists to this day. Many good musicians were damaged by this "new order". As Jon Drukman said, it was a clever act of marketing and promotion by malcolm maclaren. Irrelevant music dressed in relevant junky clothes with safety pins... but just image, nothing more. Not a real musical revolution. But you can find a real one in Dolby's grooves. Not only Dolby but Kate Bush, Prefab Sprout, Sade, Swing Out Sister, Pet Shop Boys and countless others which unfairly also went downhill (Sade apart). > That's not just music. That's mankind in general. Look at the movie > business. If anything it's worse than the music business. And books... > just because something is a besseller doesn't mean it's a good book. It > just means it sells a lot. And it's IMMENSLY hard for new authors to > break though. I agree. I was just reffering to music, but as you said everything went downhill (mankind standards mainly). And it seems to get worse. In each decade the poverty, violence and ignorance is bigger than in the previous one. > Back to the case in point the reason Thomas Dolby isn't more well > respected is because he hasn't been noticed by the great and the good > beyond the few breakthru quirky hits. Also the fact that he's done next > to nothing in the past ten years doesn't help. However popularity > doesn't matter, or shouldn't matter to an artist. Many many great > artists go on doing their thing when there is almost no-one paying > attention. It's what differentiates them from 'celebrities' which is > what most modern 'artists' actually are. Yes, I think so. It is a light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks to the internet. This would not have been possible in previous decades. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:09:21 EST From: Gryphon987@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP In a message dated 10/28/02 7:29:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jason66@ig.com.br writes: > I had noticed a downfall on their crdibility as rockers, but I don't know > why because they didn't break any rules of the "rock stars book" > That is pretty easy -- too much hype over their third album. There was no way in hell they were going to live up to expectations. Not to mention, the fact that their personal lives ended up overshadowing their music. Something Noel predicted after the first album. Laura Beth ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:35:29 -0800 (PST) From: Robin Thurlow Subject: Re: Alloy: PUNK x POP For more information about Sex Pistols and punk's place in music/social history, I highly recommend the film The Filth and the Fury: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005LKL4/qid=1035818597/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_8/104-5663704-1481526?v=glance&n=507846 (please forgive the wrapped text - just do a search on amazon for filth & the fury if the link doesn't work) I know it isn't something i have in common with a lot of folk here on Thomas' list, but I love Johnny Rotten. It's the kind of love where the other person keeps challenging you to defend everything you say and do... maybe throwing cold water in your face just to be sure you're awake, ice cubes and all, everytime he gets a chance.. but it's love all the same. Besides, he personally stood up for our own Beth Meyer in her time of need at a US punk show! xx ~Robin Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:07:38 -0800 From: "Sally" Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP As someone who used to be a mad keen Oasis fan, two things put me off: a drop in the quality of their music and the inability to go kidding myself about Liam. He's violent, aggressive, he has a bad bad problem with drinking and drugs, and I got tired of watching him throw his talent away and behaving like an idiot. That's not to say that I have to like everyone whose music I buy, but as an Oasis fan, I got tired of defending the inexcusable. I know why he behaves the way he does, I just think that like Noel, he should try to put the past behind him and recognise that in the present he's a very fortunate person who could do a lot more if he was smashed a lot less. Sally ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:19:46 EST From: Gryphon987@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP In a message dated 10/28/02 1:07:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, sally.allan@btinternet.com writes: > As someone who used to be a mad keen Oasis fan, two things put me off: a > drop in the quality of their music and the inability to go kidding myself > about Liam. He's violent, aggressive, he has a bad bad problem with > drinking > and drugs, and I got tired of watching him throw his talent away and > behaving like an idiot. That's not to say that I have to like everyone > whose > music I buy, but as an Oasis fan, I got tired of defending the inexcusable. > I know why he behaves the way he does, I just think that like Noel, he > should try to put the past behind him and recognise that in the present > he's > a very fortunate person who could do a lot more if he was smashed a lot > less. > > Sally > With the new album, you can hear a definite improvement in Liam's voice. I don't think he will ever change, but the new music proves that he hasn't completely pissed away his talent and is more sober during recording sessions, as big brother Noel has stated. Laura Beth ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:28:37 +0000 From: PRAEst76 Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP Sally sed: > As someone who used to be a mad keen Oasis fan, two things put me off: a > drop in the quality of their music and the inability to go kidding myself > about Liam. He's violent, aggressive, he has a bad bad problem with drinking > and drugs, and I got tired of watching him throw his talent away and > behaving like an idiot. I'm not a big fan of Oasis and don't know much about them, but I never saw any Talent. the guy had one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard. From the start I always though I'd find any future solo output by Noel a lot more appetising. - -- PRAEst76 http://www.cancellation.freeserve.co.uk/praest76/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:31:10 -0200 From: "Paulo" Subject: Alloy: OASIS x POP As a fan, your thoughts are totally coherent Sally. But unfortunately his behaviour is part of the rock and roll stance... ...the rock and roll circus... (the sex, drugs and rock and roll mentality). He is acting accordingly. That's why I said he didn't break any rules from the "rock book" (as opposed to The Smiths who broke them a decade earlier). - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sally" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:07 AM Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP > As someone who used to be a mad keen Oasis fan, two things put me off: a > drop in the quality of their music and the inability to go kidding myself > about Liam. He's violent, aggressive, he has a bad bad problem with drinking > and drugs, and I got tired of watching him throw his talent away and > behaving like an idiot. That's not to say that I have to like everyone whose > music I buy, but as an Oasis fan, I got tired of defending the inexcusable. > I know why he behaves the way he does, I just think that like Noel, he > should try to put the past behind him and recognise that in the present he's > a very fortunate person who could do a lot more if he was smashed a lot > less. > Sally ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:23:34 -0200 From: "Paulo" Subject: Alloy: OASIS x POP I think the most annoying thing about Oasis was their pretentiousness. I've read in music magazines in the mid to late 90's (so many times) they saying they were the most this, the most that, they were so good, they were the best band around, etc... God that's too pretentious. If they really think they were so great, then they should improve their listening habits. But of course that kind of talk was just part of the rock and roll circus. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "PRAEst76" To: "Sally" Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP > Sally sed: > > As someone who used to be a mad keen Oasis fan, two things put me off: a > > drop in the quality of their music and the inability to go kidding myself > > about Liam. He's violent, aggressive, he has a bad bad problem with drinking > > and drugs, and I got tired of watching him throw his talent away and > > behaving like an idiot. > I'm not a big fan of Oasis and don't know much about them, but I never > saw any Talent. the guy had one of the most annoying voices I've ever > heard. From the start I always though I'd find any future solo output by > Noel a lot more appetising. > > -- > PRAEst76 > http://www.cancellation.freeserve.co.uk/praest76/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:44:02 +0000 From: PRAEst76 Subject: Re: Alloy: OASIS x POP Paulo sed: > I think the most annoying thing about Oasis was their pretentiousness. > I've read in music magazines in the mid to late 90's (so many times) they > saying they were the > most this, the most that, they were so good, they were the best band around, > etc... I belive they said they were bigger than The Beatles? Who said they were bigger than Jesus. Which in turn means Oasis said they were bigger than bigger than jesus. Of course I think they were being ironic. Personally I don't read interviews etc with bands. They usually tend to put me off the artist in particular. > God that's too pretentious. > If they really think they were so great, then they should improve their > listening habits. A great many people belive that if you listen to others you don't leave yourself enough time to speak. So to speak you need to shut your ears. This is mainly true in politics but also in the celebrity circus. > But of course that kind of talk was just part of the rock and roll circus. Social masturbation. - -- PRAEst76 http://www.cancellation.freeserve.co.uk/praest76/ np: Delerium - Mecca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:15:37 -0200 From: "Paulo" Subject: Alloy: SOFT CELL I don't know if you like Soft Cell. They were linked with Thomas only because they both were part of the techno-pop scene. They also had their she blinded me with science only one hit: Tainted Love (just one year before Thomas blinded us all). As you may know the duo has made a come back after 17 years apart. I bought their new album CRUELTY WITHOUT BEAUTY... very interesting, very modern sounding but with plain soft cell trademark sound. The songs are all electronic (as they were in the past), very depressive and dark and not as near as melodic as the last Pet Shop Boys album RELEASE. The interesting thing is that all the reviews I read are celebrating the duo as the forerunners of modern techno, and all this fuzz around them gave them much credibility to the newer generations. Here in Brazil they were subject of an entire newspaper page with word like avant-garde, futurism, techno visionaries, etc.... In fact, I think they deserve it. If we listen to their electronic disco track from 1981 (Memorabilia) realeased 21 years ago, we may think that it was recorded yesterday... Now Thomas should follow the example of his fellow contemporary musicians and MAKE A COME-BACK TOO!!!! PS: Thomas appeared last weak in the brazilian TV (Multishow Channel - 42) in a very brief interview in the middle of SBMWS video clip. It was a program about 80's music and that portion was about techno-pop. Also on the program were: The Buggles - Video Killed The Radio Star Soft Cell - Tainted Love obviously Human League - dont know the song The Art Of Noise - Close To The Edit Swing Out Sister - Breakout Obviously ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:18:32 -0800 From: Jon Drukman Subject: Re: Alloy: ROCK x POP At 11:55 AM 10/28/2002 -0200, Paulo wrote: >Whose fault is it then? Lack of comercial exposure? EMI's? The Public ? >I think the so called "music critics" held a great deal of responsability. nah, critics don't have nearly the impact you think. it's all down to marketing, or lack thereof. the problem is thomas was marketed as a novelty act basically, with SBMWS being "weird" and "out there." "hyperactive" did ok business because it was sort of in the same vein, but do you think the general public was prepared to accept "the flat earth" or "screen kiss" from this man? it's too bad, but when have real originals ever had an easy time of it? - -jsd- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:20:40 -0800 From: Jon Drukman Subject: Re: Alloy: SOFT CELL At 11:15 PM 10/28/2002 -0200, Paulo wrote: >I don't know if you like Soft Cell. love 'em. >As you may know the duo has made a come back after 17 years apart. I bought >their new album CRUELTY WITHOUT BEAUTY... very interesting, very modern >sounding but with plain soft cell trademark sound. The songs are all >electronic (as they were in the past), very depressive and dark and not as >near as melodic as the last Pet Shop Boys album RELEASE. wow, i will definitely check it out. >The interesting thing is that all the reviews I read are celebrating the duo >as the forerunners of modern techno, and all this fuzz around them gave >them much credibility to the newer generations. Here in Brazil they were >subject of an entire newspaper page with word like avant-garde, futurism, >techno visionaries, etc.... In fact, I think they deserve it. If we listen >to their electronic disco track from 1981 (Memorabilia) realeased 21 years >ago, we may think that it was recorded yesterday... yep, i agree. my favorite sc track is "sex dwarf" though. >Now Thomas should follow the example of his fellow contemporary musicians >and MAKE A COME-BACK TOO!!!! that would be nice! >The Buggles - Video Killed The Radio Star >Soft Cell - Tainted Love obviously >Human League - dont know the song >The Art Of Noise - Close To The Edit >Swing Out Sister - Breakout Obviously all good stuff. our satellite tv system has digital music channels and i've switched to the "new wave" channel in honor of this conversation. last two songs played while i wrote this - "walking in LA" by missing persons and "here comes the rain again" by eurythmics. btw if you love synthpop as much as i do, check out my band. www.basskittens.com - -jsd- ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V7 #222 ***************************