From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:20:55 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:34 PM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
> I beg to differ sir. Innovative is indeed the operative word. From the > structure of the music to the ultimate presentation of it. No other band at > this time (or before this time) channeled so much hate and angst through > such a simplistic and beautiful medium.
Bullshit! You've missed out on tons of music over the past decades if you believe this.
I think not, my ever challenging patron. In fact, I'm so absorbed in music that your statement has little validity. But in the interests of having some fun (it's always fun when you join in), allow me to clarify what I said. Many bands and artists had presented their hate and angst and whatever else they wanted to express, long before Nirvana was ever conceived. However it was NEVER, and I repeat NEVER channeled through such a simplistic and beautiful medium. The key words here are simple and catchy. And I challenge you to prove me wrong.
The only thing that made Nirvana different was that it became popular with them, but they didn't in any way invent it or even popularise it or even do it better than it had been done before.
Just to make sure we're on the same page here, what are you referring to exactly with "it"?
Nirvana was just another band who became popular because kids refuse to listen to music that is decades old.
Nirvana is classified as "just another band who became popular because kids refuse
to listen to music that is decades old", because some adults refuse to listen to music that is not decades old. Tit for tat...
I'm sure you have listened to skads of classic rock stations, but what you wouldn't get from listening to them is the other 90% of music that was not so popular but still was played on contemporaneous radio.
Actually I don't listen to the radio at all. Instead I dig into my rather extensive and ever growing music collection. You might say that I'm beside myself with B-sides.
> And I fail to understand the > comparisons to Neil Young, the Ramones and Ziggy (did you mean Iggy?) Pop. > Other than the fact that no band is 100% original, and must be influenced > from somewhere along the line by someone, I simply do not see your point. > Note however that being influenced does not mean imitating another band or > artist. Styles are reworked and made ones own. As is the case with any and > all bands, with little or no exceptions. >
You are making Dan's point for him.
I don't think so. But I'd sincerely like to know how you came to that conclusion.
> > > > >Then compare that to the innovation of the Beatles, Jimi, the Dead, > >Santana, Zepplin, the Who, Zimmy the elder, Yes and the Stones. Granted > >much of that sounds like chiche now, but it wasn't then. > > Some of those bands/artists listed are right on the mark so to speak. But it > still doesn't downplay Nirvana in the least. > > > > >At their best, > >the Beatles showed more innovation from album to album than Nirvana did in > >its whole career. > > > >Dan M. > > > > Fair enough. Especially considering the time-frame. But yet again, I must > say that it doesn't downplay Nirvana in the least. >
Who's songs stand a better chance of being remembered or even known 100 years from now?
You come from a position I have seen countless times. Some would call it nostalgia. Some would brand it ignorance. I say it is simply a failure to fundamentally come to terms with "new" music. I have the same problem, not with music, but with the small generational gap between people my age and a few years younger. And it has been my experience that it is a bit of a deterrent with "older" people and "newer" music. Just a thought.
There's plenty of bands that sell a ton of albums for a few years and then fade into complete obscurity. Nirvana is likely to be one of those because their music will not have lasting relevance in that they are a product of a "scene" and a "time". 1990 Seattle ~
xponent Mersey Beat Maru rob
Haha!!!! I challenge you to name a band or artist that isn't a product in some way, of a scene or for that matter, of a time.
-Travis "oh Robert..." Edmunds
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
