----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:07 PM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
> > >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. Punk (Here is the entrance for Chad) Just before you got here Travis, Chad was making virtually the same argument for punk that you make for Nirvana. As far as your interest in music goes, you have to understand that you likely don't have access to much of the music that existed pre-CD. The majority of those old analog recordings exist only on vinyl and you can't find them on Kazaa. I know, I've tried. Another problem is that there were more bands available in 1970 than frex 1990 because of the stranglehold the recording industry has on music these days. You couldn't even fill the really large record stores of the 70s with what is available today, there just isn't that much variety anymore. > > > > >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"? Angst and Hate > > > > >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... > Tell me what I listen to. It would be fun to see what your guesses are.<G> > > > > >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. Got any Blue Cheer? Amboy Dukes? MC5? I recommend them for people who like Metal. Of even more importance are: Deep Purple::::::Machine Head Led Zep::::: both 1 and 2 Montrose:::::::Montrose (very very important album) Hawkwind::::::::In Search Of Space Uriah Heep:::::::Demons And Wizards Blue Oyster Cult:::::::::Blue Oyster Cult Or even UFO, The Runaways, Ten Years After, Robin Trower, Status Quo, heck theres plenty of others. > > > > > 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. > You are just restating what Dan said, and acting as if it somehow refutes his statements. > > > 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. > I think you misunderstand. There is *no* new music. Everything that has come out over the last 15 - 20 years is just a rehash of what has been done before. Most of us old folks were there the first time and have no problem recognising it for what it is. In that period there have been plenty of great songs written and performed, but nothing that could be considered groundbreaking. IOW there has been no paradigm breaking bands in the last 20 years, but there were a lot of them in the previous 20 years and the 20 years before that. > > >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 Its not a matter of being of a scene and time, its a matter of transcending a scene and time. Lots of bands in the 60s and 70s did that and maybe U2 since then. The 90s and the 00s have been pretty dead in that regard. xponent If You Could See What I Have Seen Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
