[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I don't look at the charts looking for new bands. Since I work in the
> > business, I am forced to be aware of the all the charts.
>
>
> ***Oh poor baby...."forced to be aware"...how can ANYONE not be aware?
>
hmmmmmmmmmm (yawnnnnn).
>
> I was using the
> > charts to make my point at the vapid state of rock and roll and the
> > music industry in general.
>
> ***And this is NEW? The charts have sucked since the 60s if you ask me!
> Sure there was some cool stuff in the late 70s /early 80s, but the VAST
> majority of the stuff never charted.
>
Yes this may be true. But wouldn't you say the state of rock and roll is
particularly horrible at the moment? I know I'm pointing out the obvious
observation. I was originally trying to make the correllation between
this current state of rock and roll and how that relates to the ecomonic
boom of the late 90's. And trying to speculate that the recession that
Bush will be ushering in will hopefully spawn something more inspiring.
I was hoping to discuss the future of rock and roll. I suppose I wasn't
clear enough. I'll admit I'm not the greatest communicator via email...
>
> I love finding obscure 60's stuff and I
> > would be nowhere if I had never listened to the mainstream stuff like
> > The Who, The Creation, Small Faces, Kinks, Action, The Pretty Things,
> > Jam, etc. Though I've gotta say that from a purely musical perspective
> > and my own personal opinion, most obscure music is obscure for good
> > reason. A lot of it is utter rubbish. Most of them couldn't write a
> > decent song to save their lives.
>
>
> OK, you just gave yourself away there.... dig a little deeper rather
> than hide
> behind the tried-and-true "it didn't chart for a reason" excuse.
>
How did I give myself away? I didn't actually say that only stuff that
charted was any good. In fact, The Who rarely charted, Creation never
charted, and some of the Kinks' best work and Ray Davies' most inspired
songs never charted. I meant that a lot of the obscure stuff I've been
exposed to had no song quality whatsoever. But I'll take your advice to
dig a bit deeper and see where that leads me. Suggestions?
> >
> > Yes, any music that you haven't heard could be called NEW music. However
> >
> >
> > if you limit what you listen to to 60's stuff (not that I'm saying YOU
> > do), how can we expect good music to be produced again. With that type
> > of mentality, none of those obscure 60's bands would have been able to
> > make a record to begin with. They were doing what was current to them
> > because their audience wanted to hear something current and not
> > something that was over thirty years old. Wouldn't it be nice if you
> > turned on MTV or the radio and actually saw/heard something of value?
> > Something that was of the same artistic merit such as that which was
> > produced in the 60's? Wouldn't it be nice if the two bands you
> > mentioned, Embrooks and Conquerors were able to force the general public
> >
> >
> > to raise the bar of what is considered good and worthy? The music
> > industry puts out crap because we let them. The industry doesn't sign
> > new bands of any worth because we, the buying public, don't seem to
> > care.
> >
>
> ***I USED to care about that about twenty years ago. It's NEVER gonna
> happen
> in a cool way (witness the recent swing and ska revival revival) and
> would you
> REALLY want it to? I don't give a flying fuck WHO the record companies
> sign,
> or WHO the general public is willing to care about. I really don't.
> It will always be about the grassroots thing, and the independent labels
>
> putting out cool
> stuff for the people that know. Is Oasis REALLY where you think it's at
>
> man?
> 'Cos that's as fucking close as it will EVER get to mainstream
> acceptance.
>
Actually I don't think Oasis is where it's at. But I would rather turn
on the television and see Liam Gallagher's mug and wandering eye than
Fred Durst from Limp Biskett.
>
> > For the record, I've no idea who Skrewdriver were nor do I care. The
> > purpose of my post was not to begin a discourse on the value of
> > Radiohead. I fully understand that this is "modslist" and that Radiohead
> >
> >
> > has nothing to do with mod. I was just using them as an example of a
> > band who are a good alternative to the crap we're currently being fed
> > like Korn, Limp Biskett, Boy bands, Hip Hop/Rap, etc. I've got a broad
> > taste in music and it doesn't always revolve around what is termed as
> > Mod. I definitely have no interest in any groups that would call
> > themselves Mod when they're merely a regurgitation of what someone
> > already did thirty years before them and did it a lot better. All I was
> > trying to do was to spark an intelligent spirited debate but just as
> > expected, I was shot down.
>
>
> ***So someone not agreeing with you is "being shot down"? You just
> explained yourself
> away there. You are not interested in 60s music (other than the
> obvious namedrops)
> or bands that sound 60s. What the hell is your interest in "mod" then,
> other than to latch onto some name to hang your indie hat. If you want
> to be so current...
> then go be current....it's not so difficult to do, is it?
>
No disagreement wasn't what shot me down. It was the fact that my point
was completely missed. Of course I'm interested in 60s music. What do
you know about me and my record collection? I don't think it's
necessarily a bad thing to have a bit more in my record collection than
all 60's stuff though the majority of it is 60's stuff. I was trying to
say that I relate to the current stuff that takes inspiration from what
came before but is able to put a new flavor to it, rather than doing the
same exact formula over and over and over again (see also -Oasis). And I
don't have an "indie hat".
> >
> > Let's get back to the typical modslist forum and all that is "mod"
> > approved:
> >
> > How did everyone interpret the ending to "Quadrophenia"?
> >
> > a) Did Jimmy jump off and toss the scooter off the cliff just before it
> > went over as a symbol of his denouncing his affiliation with Mod
> >
> > or
> >
> > b) Did he go off the cliff with the scooter thus committing suicide?
> >
>
>
> ***Well this is your fallback defense isn't it? Obvious and boring.
> Just like you.
>
> Dan
Actually it was a serious question that had a cheeky lede. The actual
question was not meant to be cheeky or my fallback defensive. If I was
that obvious and that boring, why did you take the time to meticulously
rip into every point of my post? Do you need to assert your utmost
authority at every turn and go for the jugular at the slightest hint of
someone's lesser thought out points? Not everyone has had your twenty or
so years of exposure to music and involvement in the mod scene. Why not
turn people on more to the things you're listening to and have
experienced? There must be more that you're listening to than just the
two groups you mentioned before.
-chris
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
