The Mighty Musical Observations Thread

[Dr. Medulla]

You mean The Cars were not punk? Stupid categorisations.

The Cars were definitely New Wave. Even with the blurring in the US regarding punk and New Wave, there was never any doubt what side of the line the Cars were on. Archetypal New Wave, really.

You mean New Wave isn't Punk?

There's certainly blurring in places, but, no, I think there are meaningful differences. New Wave was shaped by the industry to be commercial in ways that punk wasn't, but, more so, it mattered whether a band wanted to pursue commercial success. It's that relationship to the conventional pursuit of a mass audience that marks the distinction.

So The Clash are Punk/New Wave/Post Punk/Rock n Roll?

Of course I'm teasing as I don't think any of these distinctions are helpful. Are the Sex Pistols punk? To me they are just a great Rock n Roll band with attitude. Just like the New York Dolls before them. Attitude and a certain swagger but then the same can be said for the Stones.

The Cars are a great pop band. Really strong melodies that are sugar coated. Those blurred lines are weird in as much as they seem to define image as much as musicality and era.

The distinctions only matter based on the question asked—that is, what are you trying to determine. So depending on what you want to know or understand, tight distinctions might matter or maybe a wider net is better. A band can be just plain fun but it can also be deadly serious politics, but it depends on what angle you take with your questions. The problem or danger comes when we think there's just one question that matters, one angle, and that all the others are irrelevant or illegitimate.

[Marky Dread]

The Cars were definitely New Wave. Even with the blurring in the US regarding punk and New Wave, there was never any doubt what side of the line the Cars were on. Archetypal New Wave, really.

You mean New Wave isn't Punk?

There's certainly blurring in places, but, no, I think there are meaningful differences. New Wave was shaped by the industry to be commercial in ways that punk wasn't, but, more so, it mattered whether a band wanted to pursue commercial success. It's that relationship to the conventional pursuit of a mass audience that marks the distinction.

So The Clash are Punk/New Wave/Post Punk/Rock n Roll?

Of course I'm teasing as I don't think any of these distinctions are helpful. Are the Sex Pistols punk? To me they are just a great Rock n Roll band with attitude. Just like the New York Dolls before them. Attitude and a certain swagger but then the same can be said for the Stones.

The Cars are a great pop band. Really strong melodies that are sugar coated. Those blurred lines are weird in as much as they seem to define image as much as musicality and era.

The distinctions only matter based on the question asked—that is, what are you trying to determine. So depending on what you want to know or understand, tight distinctions might matter or maybe a wider net is better. A band can be just plain fun but it can also be deadly serious politics, but it depends on what angle you take with your questions. The problem or danger comes when we think there's just one question that matters, one angle, and that all the others are irrelevant or illegitimate.

I don't doubt any of the above. But it's tricky when you don't set out to be defined at all as in the case with the Sex Pistols. Once the press label you then you are stuck with that tag. Any band that now sounds remotely like you just lazily gets lumped in.

[Dr. Medulla]

You mean New Wave isn't Punk?

There's certainly blurring in places, but, no, I think there are meaningful differences. New Wave was shaped by the industry to be commercial in ways that punk wasn't, but, more so, it mattered whether a band wanted to pursue commercial success. It's that relationship to the conventional pursuit of a mass audience that marks the distinction.

So The Clash are Punk/New Wave/Post Punk/Rock n Roll?

Of course I'm teasing as I don't think any of these distinctions are helpful. Are the Sex Pistols punk? To me they are just a great Rock n Roll band with attitude. Just like the New York Dolls before them. Attitude and a certain swagger but then the same can be said for the Stones.

The Cars are a great pop band. Really strong melodies that are sugar coated. Those blurred lines are weird in as much as they seem to define image as much as musicality and era.

The distinctions only matter based on the question asked—that is, what are you trying to determine. So depending on what you want to know or understand, tight distinctions might matter or maybe a wider net is better. A band can be just plain fun but it can also be deadly serious politics, but it depends on what angle you take with your questions. The problem or danger comes when we think there's just one question that matters, one angle, and that all the others are irrelevant or illegitimate.

I don't doubt any of the above. But it's tricky when you don't set out to be defined at all as in the case with the Sex Pistols. Once the press label you then you are stuck with that tag. Any band that now sounds remotely like you just lazily gets lumped in.

Sure but no one ever gets to control the narrative as much as they'd like. Some are hindered by it, some are aided. As long we choose to keep the conversation going, narratives can change. The danger is in stopping the conversation, freezing things where they are.

[Marky Dread]

There's certainly blurring in places, but, no, I think there are meaningful differences. New Wave was shaped by the industry to be commercial in ways that punk wasn't, but, more so, it mattered whether a band wanted to pursue commercial success. It's that relationship to the conventional pursuit of a mass audience that marks the distinction.

So The Clash are Punk/New Wave/Post Punk/Rock n Roll?

Of course I'm teasing as I don't think any of these distinctions are helpful. Are the Sex Pistols punk? To me they are just a great Rock n Roll band with attitude. Just like the New York Dolls before them. Attitude and a certain swagger but then the same can be said for the Stones.

The Cars are a great pop band. Really strong melodies that are sugar coated. Those blurred lines are weird in as much as they seem to define image as much as musicality and era.

The distinctions only matter based on the question asked—that is, what are you trying to determine. So depending on what you want to know or understand, tight distinctions might matter or maybe a wider net is better. A band can be just plain fun but it can also be deadly serious politics, but it depends on what angle you take with your questions. The problem or danger comes when we think there's just one question that matters, one angle, and that all the others are irrelevant or illegitimate.

I don't doubt any of the above. But it's tricky when you don't set out to be defined at all as in the case with the Sex Pistols. Once the press label you then you are stuck with that tag. Any band that now sounds remotely like you just lazily gets lumped in.

Sure but no one ever gets to control the narrative as much as they'd like. Some are hindered by it, some are aided. As long we choose to keep the conversation going, narratives can change. The danger is in stopping the conversation, freezing things where they are.

Definitely agree. I don't care what people class the Sex Pistols as musically as I have my own view. But I do think it's a bit sad for those that follow in the wake of these bands that get labelled. Like all the bands in the wake of Nirvana being labelled as Grunge. It's all so lazy.

[Dr. Medulla]

I don't care what people class the Sex Pistols as musically as I have my own view. But I do think it's a bit sad for those that follow in the wake of these bands that get labelled. Like all the bands in the wake of Nirvana being labelled as Grunge. It's all so lazy.

Depends on the context, I'd say. The more casual the conversation, the more relaxed it can be. Sometimes you need precision to have a proper critical conversation, establishing definitions and all that. But a casual chat about what Nirvana helped spark, I'm okay with a more expansive use of the word grunge. I roll my eyes when people refer to liberal as left, for example, but if the conversation isn't terribly intense, I'm not going to halt things and demand some kind of retraction. If it's something more detailed about ideology, then I would stop and argue about terminology.

[Marky Dread]

I don't care what people class the Sex Pistols as musically as I have my own view. But I do think it's a bit sad for those that follow in the wake of these bands that get labelled. Like all the bands in the wake of Nirvana being labelled as Grunge. It's all so lazy.

Depends on the context, I'd say. The more casual the conversation, the more relaxed it can be. Sometimes you need precision to have a proper critical conversation, establishing definitions and all that. But a casual chat about what Nirvana helped spark, I'm okay with a more expansive use of the word grunge. I roll my eyes when people refer to liberal as left, for example, but if the conversation isn't terribly intense, I'm not going to halt things and demand some kind of retraction. If it's something more detailed about ideology, then I would stop and argue about terminology.

I guess my only consideration has been my own ears and personal taste. But when conversing with friends regarding what music I like and what bands I think are important then I would never go by category only by individuality.

[Dr. Medulla]

I don't care what people class the Sex Pistols as musically as I have my own view. But I do think it's a bit sad for those that follow in the wake of these bands that get labelled. Like all the bands in the wake of Nirvana being labelled as Grunge. It's all so lazy.

Depends on the context, I'd say. The more casual the conversation, the more relaxed it can be. Sometimes you need precision to have a proper critical conversation, establishing definitions and all that. But a casual chat about what Nirvana helped spark, I'm okay with a more expansive use of the word grunge. I roll my eyes when people refer to liberal as left, for example, but if the conversation isn't terribly intense, I'm not going to halt things and demand some kind of retraction. If it's something more detailed about ideology, then I would stop and argue about terminology.

I guess my only consideration has been my own ears and personal taste. But when conversing with friends regarding what music I like and what bands I think are important then I would never go by category only by individuality.

My choices, like everyone else's, will always be personal and somewhat idiosyncratic. But I don't think it's a bad thing for people to know I really like shoegaze as a genre and that if they come across a shoegaze band they can recommend it to me based on that. Maybe I end up liking the band, maybe not. But the category has some value as a first step. I think as long as we appreciate these categories as tools that we can use productively rather than as weapons, it's all good.

[Marky Dread]

I don't care what people class the Sex Pistols as musically as I have my own view. But I do think it's a bit sad for those that follow in the wake of these bands that get labelled. Like all the bands in the wake of Nirvana being labelled as Grunge. It's all so lazy.

Depends on the context, I'd say. The more casual the conversation, the more relaxed it can be. Sometimes you need precision to have a proper critical conversation, establishing definitions and all that. But a casual chat about what Nirvana helped spark, I'm okay with a more expansive use of the word grunge. I roll my eyes when people refer to liberal as left, for example, but if the conversation isn't terribly intense, I'm not going to halt things and demand some kind of retraction. If it's something more detailed about ideology, then I would stop and argue about terminology.

I guess my only consideration has been my own ears and personal taste. But when conversing with friends regarding what music I like and what bands I think are important then I would never go by category only by individuality.

My choices, like everyone else's, will always be personal and somewhat idiosyncratic. But I don't think it's a bad thing for people to know I really like shoegaze as a genre and that if they come across a shoegaze band they can recommend it to me based on that. Maybe I end up liking the band, maybe not. But the category has some value as a first step. I think as long as we appreciate these categories as tools that we can use productively rather than as weapons, it's all good.

Yeah that makes sense from an introductory perspective. The trouble with calling something Punk is there is a lot of rubbish to wade through. Like any genre really. Bands that just make poor copy without any individuality or real spark.

[Dr. Medulla]

I don't care what people class the Sex Pistols as musically as I have my own view. But I do think it's a bit sad for those that follow in the wake of these bands that get labelled. Like all the bands in the wake of Nirvana being labelled as Grunge. It's all so lazy.

Depends on the context, I'd say. The more casual the conversation, the more relaxed it can be. Sometimes you need precision to have a proper critical conversation, establishing definitions and all that. But a casual chat about what Nirvana helped spark, I'm okay with a more expansive use of the word grunge. I roll my eyes when people refer to liberal as left, for example, but if the conversation isn't terribly intense, I'm not going to halt things and demand some kind of retraction. If it's something more detailed about ideology, then I would stop and argue about terminology.

I guess my only consideration has been my own ears and personal taste. But when conversing with friends regarding what music I like and what bands I think are important then I would never go by category only by individuality.

My choices, like everyone else's, will always be personal and somewhat idiosyncratic. But I don't think it's a bad thing for people to know I really like shoegaze as a genre and that if they come across a shoegaze band they can recommend it to me based on that. Maybe I end up liking the band, maybe not. But the category has some value as a first step. I think as long as we appreciate these categories as tools that we can use productively rather than as weapons, it's all good.

Yeah that makes sense from an introductory perspective. The trouble with calling something Punk is there is a lot of rubbish to wade through. Like any genre really. Bands that just make poor copy without any individuality or real spark.

Oh god, yes. I've told my punk class that, honestly, I don't listen to all that much punk anymore. It just doesn't generate all that much interest anymore. It did it's job and pushed me to be more adventurous and curious in seeking out music, and I've mostly moved on. Sticking with Punk™ misses the whole point.

[Marky Dread]

Depends on the context, I'd say. The more casual the conversation, the more relaxed it can be. Sometimes you need precision to have a proper critical conversation, establishing definitions and all that. But a casual chat about what Nirvana helped spark, I'm okay with a more expansive use of the word grunge. I roll my eyes when people refer to liberal as left, for example, but if the conversation isn't terribly intense, I'm not going to halt things and demand some kind of retraction. If it's something more detailed about ideology, then I would stop and argue about terminology.

I guess my only consideration has been my own ears and personal taste. But when conversing with friends regarding what music I like and what bands I think are important then I would never go by category only by individuality.

My choices, like everyone else's, will always be personal and somewhat idiosyncratic. But I don't think it's a bad thing for people to know I really like shoegaze as a genre and that if they come across a shoegaze band they can recommend it to me based on that. Maybe I end up liking the band, maybe not. But the category has some value as a first step. I think as long as we appreciate these categories as tools that we can use productively rather than as weapons, it's all good.

Yeah that makes sense from an introductory perspective. The trouble with calling something Punk is there is a lot of rubbish to wade through. Like any genre really. Bands that just make poor copy without any individuality or real spark.

Oh god, yes. I've told my punk class that, honestly, I don't listen to all that much punk anymore. It just doesn't generate all that much interest anymore. It did it's job and pushed me to be more adventurous and curious in seeking out music, and I've mostly moved on. Sticking with Punk™ misses the whole point.

Exactly that. I remember being at school and we had a discussion regards music we were listening to. Some kids says to the teacher "oh don't bother asking him (me) he only likes punk stuff". So I stood up and asked this kid who he liked and he said "Pink Floyd" I then wiped the floor with him with my knowledge of Pink Floyd. Don't ever judge a book...

[Dr. Medulla]

I guess my only consideration has been my own ears and personal taste. But when conversing with friends regarding what music I like and what bands I think are important then I would never go by category only by individuality.

My choices, like everyone else's, will always be personal and somewhat idiosyncratic. But I don't think it's a bad thing for people to know I really like shoegaze as a genre and that if they come across a shoegaze band they can recommend it to me based on that. Maybe I end up liking the band, maybe not. But the category has some value as a first step. I think as long as we appreciate these categories as tools that we can use productively rather than as weapons, it's all good.

Yeah that makes sense from an introductory perspective. The trouble with calling something Punk is there is a lot of rubbish to wade through. Like any genre really. Bands that just make poor copy without any individuality or real spark.

Oh god, yes. I've told my punk class that, honestly, I don't listen to all that much punk anymore. It just doesn't generate all that much interest anymore. It did it's job and pushed me to be more adventurous and curious in seeking out music, and I've mostly moved on. Sticking with Punk™ misses the whole point.

Exactly that. I remember being at school and we had a discussion regards music we were listening to. Some kids says to the teacher "oh don't bother asking him (me) he only likes punk stuff". So I stood up and asked this kid who he liked and he said "Pink Floyd" I then wiped the floor with him with my knowledge of Pink Floyd. Don't ever judge a book...

In principle:
In actuality:

[Marky Dread]

My choices, like everyone else's, will always be personal and somewhat idiosyncratic. But I don't think it's a bad thing for people to know I really like shoegaze as a genre and that if they come across a shoegaze band they can recommend it to me based on that. Maybe I end up liking the band, maybe not. But the category has some value as a first step. I think as long as we appreciate these categories as tools that we can use productively rather than as weapons, it's all good.

Yeah that makes sense from an introductory perspective. The trouble with calling something Punk is there is a lot of rubbish to wade through. Like any genre really. Bands that just make poor copy without any individuality or real spark.

Oh god, yes. I've told my punk class that, honestly, I don't listen to all that much punk anymore. It just doesn't generate all that much interest anymore. It did it's job and pushed me to be more adventurous and curious in seeking out music, and I've mostly moved on. Sticking with Punk™ misses the whole point.

Exactly that. I remember being at school and we had a discussion regards music we were listening to. Some kids says to the teacher "oh don't bother asking him (me) he only likes punk stuff". So I stood up and asked this kid who he liked and he said "Pink Floyd" I then wiped the floor with him with my knowledge of Pink Floyd. Don't ever judge a book...

In principle:
In actuality:

I would read and listen to all kinds of music. I would never say I dislike something without knowing anything about it first.

[Dr. Medulla]

Yeah that makes sense from an introductory perspective. The trouble with calling something Punk is there is a lot of rubbish to wade through. Like any genre really. Bands that just make poor copy without any individuality or real spark.

Oh god, yes. I've told my punk class that, honestly, I don't listen to all that much punk anymore. It just doesn't generate all that much interest anymore. It did it's job and pushed me to be more adventurous and curious in seeking out music, and I've mostly moved on. Sticking with Punk™ misses the whole point.

Exactly that. I remember being at school and we had a discussion regards music we were listening to. Some kids says to the teacher "oh don't bother asking him (me) he only likes punk stuff". So I stood up and asked this kid who he liked and he said "Pink Floyd" I then wiped the floor with him with my knowledge of Pink Floyd. Don't ever judge a book...

In principle:
In actuality:

I would read and listen to all kinds of music. I would never say I dislike something without knowing anything about it first.

I should like Pink Floyd based on my tastes—or at least find it tolerable—but aside from a few songs, nope, no appeal.

[WestwayKid]

Kimmelwick's post sent me down the Cars rabbit hole today... which is a good thing. They're one of those bands I somehow forget about, but then listen to and realize they have a lot of really great tracks. I remember being in a bar in Boston maybe 15 years ago - quite drunk - and they were blasting the Cars (hometown heroes?) at an ear shattering volume. It was awesome.

Seriously, though, the Cars were a cool band. They had a cool (if decidedly weird) image, with a knack for catchy (and decidedly weird) pop. Early on, they also had definite snarl to their sound that they eventually smoothed over (not a bad thing). That they were able to get back together for one more album (even without Ben Orr) was awesome. Their 2011 "comeback" disc was better than solid, a decent coda to their career.

I'll forgive that fact that some of the members got back together with Todd (say it in your best Beavis voice) RUND-gren as the New Cars.

[Dr. Medulla]

Kimmelwick's post sent me down the Cars rabbit hole today... which is a good thing. They're one of those bands I somehow forget about, but then listen to and realize they have a lot of really great tracks. I remember being in a bar in Boston maybe 15 years ago - quite drunk - and they were blasting the Cars (hometown heroes?) at an ear shattering volume. It was awesome.

Seriously, though, the Cars were a cool band. They had a cool (if decidedly weird) image, with a knack for catchy (and decidedly weird) pop. Early on, they also had definite snarl to their sound that they eventually smoothed over (not a bad thing). That they were able to get back together for one more album (even without Ben Orr) was awesome. Their 2011 "comeback" disc was better than solid, a decent coda to their career.

I'll forgive that fact that some of the members got back together with Todd (say it in your best Beavis voice) RUND-gren as the New Cars.

Agreed about the comeback record. It was so much better than anyone should expect.

The one big weak spot was that as a live act they kinda sucked. I remember paying big big money for a bootleg, one of those live records sent to radio stations to pretend to broadcast a concert. The series was called Supergroups in Concert. Anyway, I had to have this, both as a completist and its relative rarity. And it sucked. Holy Hannah, it sucked. Just totally flat. I played it a few times and eventually sold it. When file sharing came in, I dl'd a copy and, yup, it still sucks.