Yes, and "I'm Too Sexy" by Right Said Fred.
Need advice quick
- Heston
- God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
- Posts: 38371
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
- Location: North of Watford Junction
Re: Need advice quick
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board
- Heston
- God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
- Posts: 38371
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
- Location: North of Watford Junction
Re: Need advice quick
Not forgetting "Dance With the Devil" by Cozy Powell.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board
Re: Need advice quick
Could you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 8:08pmAgain, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.Kory wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 7:48pmI guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116721
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Need advice quick
I can send you an article that covers matters in a lot greater detail, but the very outline goes something like this. In the mid-60s, rock n roll lost the roll but gained a developing ideological framework and became rock. Rock n roll was consigned to being pop—fun, dance-y, for teenagers, unserious and unoriginal, explicitly meant to sell lots of records. Rock and rockism, however, borrowed a lot from folk, which was to be serious, for the young but not immature, to appeal to the mind, and, in a nod to modernism, an expression of the individual artist, especially his/her struggle against society. Rock was authentic and art; pop was inauthentic and commodity. But it was still fine if rock sold as many copies as pop—that actually was validation that it could appeal to so many serious people—as it was understood that success was on the artist's terms, not the audience's (that was for pop). The rock/pop division also tended to break in predictable demographic ways, given that the rules were devised by white males. So, rock was for men, pop was for women; rock was white people, pop was for black people. Rockism is pretty much dead now, tho it still ends up in modified form in punk and indie discourse. So anything that is overly derivative falls under pop because it's insufficiently original. It's why rockism sneers at cover versions—the musicians are just doing someone else's art. A band might "sound" like rock but would still be basically pop if it made no effort at originality, if its entire aim was to be crowd-pleasing and fun. It's pop if the musician identifies with the audience; it's rock if the musician demands a gap with the audience to assure authentic expression. There's a whole lot more and in much more nuance, but that's the gist of it.Kory wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 12:30pmCould you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 8:08pmAgain, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.Kory wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 7:48pmI guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
"Ain't no party like an S Club party!'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Need advice quick
Jeez, it makes me sound like a jerk. Could you send the article? It looks interesting.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 1:39pmI can send you an article that covers matters in a lot greater detail, but the very outline goes something like this. In the mid-60s, rock n roll lost the roll but gained a developing ideological framework and became rock. Rock n roll was consigned to being pop—fun, dance-y, for teenagers, unserious and unoriginal, explicitly meant to sell lots of records. Rock and rockism, however, borrowed a lot from folk, which was to be serious, for the young but not immature, to appeal to the mind, and, in a nod to modernism, an expression of the individual artist, especially his/her struggle against society. Rock was authentic and art; pop was inauthentic and commodity. But it was still fine if rock sold as many copies as pop—that actually was validation that it could appeal to so many serious people—as it was understood that success was on the artist's terms, not the audience's (that was for pop). The rock/pop division also tended to break in predictable demographic ways, given that the rules were devised by white males. So, rock was for men, pop was for women; rock was white people, pop was for black people. Rockism is pretty much dead now, tho it still ends up in modified form in punk and indie discourse. So anything that is overly derivative falls under pop because it's insufficiently original. It's why rockism sneers at cover versions—the musicians are just doing someone else's art. A band might "sound" like rock but would still be basically pop if it made no effort at originality, if its entire aim was to be crowd-pleasing and fun. It's pop if the musician identifies with the audience; it's rock if the musician demands a gap with the audience to assure authentic expression. There's a whole lot more and in much more nuance, but that's the gist of it.Kory wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 12:30pmCould you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 8:08pmAgain, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.Kory wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 7:48pmI guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116721
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Need advice quick
It's often employed in a jerkish manner by "real fans" and rock critics, but it's something most of us subscribe to in some manner, as much as punk and alternative fans are skeptical of mass entertainment on some level and privilege that individual artistry perspective. But it is ideology and it comes from a particular Western intellectual tradition that favours the individual over the group. Anyway, I'll pm you the link.Kory wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 2:01pmJeez, it makes me sound like a jerk. Could you send the article? It looks interesting.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 1:39pmI can send you an article that covers matters in a lot greater detail, but the very outline goes something like this. In the mid-60s, rock n roll lost the roll but gained a developing ideological framework and became rock. Rock n roll was consigned to being pop—fun, dance-y, for teenagers, unserious and unoriginal, explicitly meant to sell lots of records. Rock and rockism, however, borrowed a lot from folk, which was to be serious, for the young but not immature, to appeal to the mind, and, in a nod to modernism, an expression of the individual artist, especially his/her struggle against society. Rock was authentic and art; pop was inauthentic and commodity. But it was still fine if rock sold as many copies as pop—that actually was validation that it could appeal to so many serious people—as it was understood that success was on the artist's terms, not the audience's (that was for pop). The rock/pop division also tended to break in predictable demographic ways, given that the rules were devised by white males. So, rock was for men, pop was for women; rock was white people, pop was for black people. Rockism is pretty much dead now, tho it still ends up in modified form in punk and indie discourse. So anything that is overly derivative falls under pop because it's insufficiently original. It's why rockism sneers at cover versions—the musicians are just doing someone else's art. A band might "sound" like rock but would still be basically pop if it made no effort at originality, if its entire aim was to be crowd-pleasing and fun. It's pop if the musician identifies with the audience; it's rock if the musician demands a gap with the audience to assure authentic expression. There's a whole lot more and in much more nuance, but that's the gist of it.Kory wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 12:30pmCould you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 8:08pmAgain, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.Kory wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 7:48pmI guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
"Ain't no party like an S Club party!'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- 101Walterton
- The Best
- Posts: 21973
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
- Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific
Re: Need advice quick
Thanks that actually makes sense.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 1:39pmI can send you an article that covers matters in a lot greater detail, but the very outline goes something like this. In the mid-60s, rock n roll lost the roll but gained a developing ideological framework and became rock. Rock n roll was consigned to being pop—fun, dance-y, for teenagers, unserious and unoriginal, explicitly meant to sell lots of records. Rock and rockism, however, borrowed a lot from folk, which was to be serious, for the young but not immature, to appeal to the mind, and, in a nod to modernism, an expression of the individual artist, especially his/her struggle against society. Rock was authentic and art; pop was inauthentic and commodity. But it was still fine if rock sold as many copies as pop—that actually was validation that it could appeal to so many serious people—as it was understood that success was on the artist's terms, not the audience's (that was for pop). The rock/pop division also tended to break in predictable demographic ways, given that the rules were devised by white males. So, rock was for men, pop was for women; rock was white people, pop was for black people. Rockism is pretty much dead now, tho it still ends up in modified form in punk and indie discourse. So anything that is overly derivative falls under pop because it's insufficiently original. It's why rockism sneers at cover versions—the musicians are just doing someone else's art. A band might "sound" like rock but would still be basically pop if it made no effort at originality, if its entire aim was to be crowd-pleasing and fun. It's pop if the musician identifies with the audience; it's rock if the musician demands a gap with the audience to assure authentic expression. There's a whole lot more and in much more nuance, but that's the gist of it.Kory wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 12:30pmCould you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 8:08pmAgain, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.Kory wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 7:48pmI guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116721
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Need advice quick
It's all part of my work of ruining listening to music for young people!
"Ain't no party like an S Club party!'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- 101Walterton
- The Best
- Posts: 21973
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
- Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific
Re: Need advice quick
That is a whole other topic the disposable generation. Music only for a very short lifespan as it’s audience has the attention span of a goldfish. Kids can’t even buy an album they just download the tracks they have heard and like. I can think of quite a few albums I invested hard earn £4 buying and wasn’t that keen on to start with but could not afford to dismiss after 1 or 2 listens. After time I grew to love them.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 3:09pmIt's all part of my work of ruining listening to music for young people!
Wouldn’t happen now.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116721
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Need advice quick
The funny thing, tho, is that that ends up being closer to a pre-rock attitude. Rock privileges the album—it's supposedly more serious/mature and contains so much thought and expression that it needs more room. The single is the pop medium—three minutes and there you go, disposable, short-attention span and all that. Until Dylan and mid-period Beatles, rock n roll albums were largely compilations of singles, bundled up for convenience rather than artistry. So the return to privileging the single could be seen as pop overcoming rock's dominance after so many decades.101Walterton wrote: ↑03 Oct 2018, 3:45pmThat is a whole other topic the disposable generation. Music only for a very short lifespan as it’s audience has the attention span of a goldfish. Kids can’t even buy an album they just download the tracks they have heard and like. I can think of quite a few albums I invested hard earn £4 buying and wasn’t that keen on to start with but could not afford to dismiss after 1 or 2 listens. After time I grew to love them.
Wouldn’t happen now.
"Ain't no party like an S Club party!'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft