[wombat]

Bjork. awesome.

I think it's time for a Gun Club revival. Or at least I can give a copy to my cool Southern friend.

Oh! Guilty pleasure : BowWowWow.

[chachaheels]

Bjork was about 15 years old when she recorded that with the Sugarcubes...I've got a copy of it in Icelandic, something M. ChaCha dug up for a mixed CD he made up for me a while ago, too. (You can actually hear what has to be the sound of a turntable and needle on my recording...I kinda miss that!)

The other night I dreamt that I was making out with Roger Daltry but I kept calling him Pete. Hmmm...

I know I've had this dream before! It's telling. PinkPoodle, sorry if it looked like I was casting aspersions on TheWho: I just don't think I was ready for them when I was younger, and I've never quite figured out why. I completely understand why they've become so popular again, though; and even tho' the politics are wrong I still think Pete's one attractive looking man. Especially in a great suit.

[duplessix]

The other night I dreamt that I was making out with Roger Daltry but I kept calling him Pete. Hmmm...

I LOVE 80's music. Right now I'm listening to a homemade cd with Alphaville, Laura Branigan, George Michael, and lots of other goodies. Probably my fave. 80's song is "Birthday" by the Sugarcubes. Oh, and "Lucky Number" by Lene Lovich. And "West End Girls"!!!

[sassygrrl]

Heard Joe Jackson at a restaurant last night, and thought of this thread....
So loved him. And I love this thread!!

Sugarhill Gang was one of the first records I bought...

[pinkpoodle]

Okay, yeah, I guess he had nice eyes.

The Who is one of my favorite bands of all time, and I loves me some John Entwistle. R.I.P.

[chachaheels]

"Wha?" I liked the way Pete Townsend looked. He had that dark hair and grey blue eyes look that's very attractive. He later opened his right winged mouth, however (or, I've since come to appreciate that his politics turn me right off) and I've never even thought of him since.

Anyway, I wasn't much of Who fan, but it was one of their multitude of farewell tours, I had a new boyfriend I was really having a great time with (and he got his hands on some tickets), and Joe Jackson was opening. I didn't want to miss Joe.

[pinkpoodle]

"I went to see the Who only because I thought Pete Townsend was gorgeous" Wha?! Explain.

[chachaheels]

I was remembering how many dorm rooms had both the Sex Pistols and Bee Gees. They were both popular! at the same TIME!

Kinda throws the competition for "voice of our generation" outta whack, now, doesn't it.

That's so true! But look what that says about the 70's, though; and living in that time. Someone could own and love both types of music. Something about that era produced both expressions--and both expressions could be embraced even if they seemed so disparate. Maybe it's not "the voice of the generation" (so simplistic and a little too self-assured), but the phenomenon sure does speak about the time very well.

[wombat]

Nope. Nothing against him, just didn't explore it. There was so much going on.

But really, there is always more to know. That's why I think it's weird when people get defensive about not knowing about certain music. Or, about knowing it.

There's always more. Share.

One time one of my roommates was playing some noodly sixties blues jammy thing (that was actually kind of bearable, though!) and when I asked her who it was, she said The Rolling Stones! With great contempt .. and yet it wasn't an obvious track -- or even one of their more obsure ones, like the Performance soundtrack, that I had. There weren't even any vocals on it.

SOOOOO?? Share and share alike without the attitude.

Just one of the things that makes me glad I haven't had roommates for a number of years.

I was remembering how many dorm rooms had both the Sex Pistols and Bee Gees. They were both popular! at the same TIME!

Kinda throws the competition for "voice of our generation" outta whack, now, doesn't it.

[chachaheels]

Linton Kwesi...jesus! You've been busy!

It really is funny you're finding all this stuff...

(ps were you a Joe Jackson fan? Here's a secret: I went to see the Who only because I thought Pete Townsend was gorgeous, so the show would be tolerable: but mostly it was because Joe Jackson was opening for them).

[wombat]

psst!... Universe! 80s heads!

Get on to PiL -- I found the metal box last night! OMG!
Linton Kwesi Johnson Forces of Victory
and
The Gun Club Fire of Love

Plus my Sugarhill Gang, Kurtis Blow, and Kraftwerk, of course.

Afrikaa Bambaata about Kraftwerk: I couldn't believe they were white!

???

[chachaheels]

What, the coincidental happenstances of synchronicity? I love when that happens. And look at you, just in time for a party!
Now when you play it for your guests, it will mean something "extra" for you, that perhaps someone else will have experienced as well.

(I never made that connection between that bee gees tune and marving gaye...hmm...)

[wombat]

It's funny you mentioned Saturday Night Fever, chacha, cause I was thinking about it just yesterday!! I'd found it when I was cleaning my house for a party. I was thinking there "You Should Be Dancing" song with its eerie subtlety (can't spell anymore!) is so similar to Marvin Gaye's "Keep on Dancin'" and got the extreme urge to listen to it.

But -- as the okayers know, stuff like that has been happening to me a lot lately.

[chachaheels]

I have been watching the SuperNova people for a while now, but honestly it's because I'm getting addicted to the mocking disbelief I feel when I tune in. I've thought about it and thought about it and it's really clear that these 3 "musicians" have questionable ability as performers and songwriters--and they really have not articulated themselves well about what kind of band they want to be. Their original music is--well, there's a lot of words for it, but really it's all (and I'm being kind) forgettable. Some of it was offensive in the extreme (that first song that they made Dilana perform with the strippers? Where do I start with the sexism and racism of the lyrics, teamed with Gilby's big posturing on gyrating women, ironically foisted on the female performer they claim to want in their band?); the rest...well, I've forgotten them all since there wasn't anything compelling or even non-cliche about the lyrics, and the music itself was devoid of all hooks...and none of it sounds definitive--it could be anybody playing that music, it's so generic. So: what do these guys want to sound like? What do they want to look like? Who do they see as their audience? None of these questions have been answered, and next week is the end of the whole competition. And the big "show" is a little concert in a venue that seats about 1600 people, and they seem to have to keep adding attractions to the tour to sell the tickets...

So: with that kind of ambiguity and apparent insecurity, they've been putting people down or praising people based purely on personal bias, and I hated the way they'd criticise one person for doing something then turn around and absolutely laud another for doing the exact same thing. Like, last night they told Storm they couldn't ignore that she'd been in the bottom 3 "so many times" (actually, that was her second time in the bottom 3) so they had to let her go...and yet Dilana had been in the bottom 3 exactly the same number of times and lately she's been performing very poorly, and admittedly cannot write lyrics or music!

At that point, M. ChaCha declared, "Tommy Lee's high." He did it dispassionately, cause he himself has a history as a rawk musician and former longhaired guitarist/drummer/vocalist...he just looked up from something he was reading, squinted at the TV, and said it; then he went back to what he was doing.

Then, they all started to beg Storm so that they could play on her track when she recorded "WTF is Ladylike"! First Dave, then Tommy Lee, and then Jason...wait a minute! If all you guys want to play and record with her cause she's such a great performer, a seasoned professional, and a great songwriter...why isn't she winning this ham contest? I thought you were looking for someone to do this with! I thought that was the whole point of the show! If you all want to play with her and you like her sound and you're all gung ho about it, but you know its not the sound you want for SuperNova, why was she selected to be in the contest at all? Ambivalence everywhere you look. But in the meantime, Verizon's giving them all a nice big paycheque for getting folks to use their pricey text messaging services; all they've got to do is a limited tour and release one CD and they're not putting a lot of effort into producing that well, and they're done. Where is the artistry in that?

And that's when I noticed that they were all, every last one of those grandfathers, high. On national TV. And they clearly weren't aware of what they were doing or saying anymore.

I was doing laundry in a laundromat last week and the guy who owns the laundromat brought out some magazines for me to read while I was waiting...one was a GQ from early in the summer featuring a fashion spread with Tommy Lee. I had to look at it--first of all, the spread was called "Rock and Roll Seersucker", so how could I not? and it was accompanied by a bit of an interview with him. In it, he said he was looking forward to SuperNova's contest, and he stated that they were looking for a guy who was cool, not trying too hard, and a really good musician...with his own following and lots of girlies. Something about that statement made me realise he, at least, would only consider a male lead--and now watching the show I feel sure they'd never intended to select anyone but a man to front their band. So why make the "big show" about Dilana, and lead her on? Why then build up the disastrous editing they've been giving her, to make her look like a self-centred, self-obsessed musical incompetent? Psycho Killer indeed. I get this really strong vibe that they think the "kind of rock they do just doesn't have room for a woman" (unless she's a stripper from a burlesque joint that they've paid to grind around the lead singer). Which, finally, leads me to the conclusion that they're all dinosaurs in various stages of mental decline, but all, still, lost somewhere in what they think was their great youth.

How I do go on, no?

[wombat]

I don't think you're ageist (((chacha))).

I wondered about the basis of your dinosaur comment, not ageism but perhaps the musical backgrounds of the guys. The way they're being on Rockstar Supernova makes me question them. In my opinion, they could actually be meaner. But it should be on the basis of them trying to make the singers be gutsy and bring a unique thing. So far, I think Dilana is the only one who has a real self and they're nuts if they don't take her. I started out with a good attitude towards them, but if they're seriously sitting there praising those *boring!!* guys -- just cause they're guys I guess?

Cause Toby acts like he's just one step above "moron." Maybe he's actually smart and it's just his shamblind fake humility and the way he stares off into space -- but reeeeallllly.

[chachaheels]

I really only think context is important in the way that it makes a unique kind of experience for the people involved, that's all. Like, I remember the big deal around Saturday Night Fever, and the huge album sales, and the fact that absolutely everyone was playing the music from that movie everywhere you went. I remember that it influenced people's appearance, and that the film also skewed people's point of view about certain things--whether negatively or positively, no matter: everyone had something to say about those issues and everyone commented. I remember that at the time because I was just coming into my teens and it was everywhere around me, in the same way that a similar big cultural phenomenon would be experienced now. Someone who is 13 now who pulls out that old soundtrack and hears it for the first time (cause a lot of it is being played again now, and people are starting to cover the songs again, in pop) isn't going to have that same experience at all--not the "People Are Talking About" stuff, not the ubiquitousness of the images or the music, or the way it affected the way people spoke or looked. Though they may love or hate the music and experience it for themselves entirely differently, all they really are experiencing is the music, out of its time context, since they'll never be able to "get" alot of its immediate, historical references anyway--cause they were not there. But they can certainly bring their own lens of experience to it now, and it's an entirely different experience from one I've ever had or will have with the same music, again.

As for older performers and relevance...I'm reminded of people like Tom Waits, who said he started to dress and talk and listen to the music of "old people" when he was a teenager, cause he liked it all and he wanted to be like them..."old people". He found what was relevant in what he was adopting and experiencing, and transcended it by making it into something that he could express alone, part of his own acute and clear artistic vision. He's been recording and touring for over 25 years now: and he's always relevant and influential and artistically powerful. And there are all kinds of artists just like him--older than he is and younger than he is too. I don't think the same thing can be said of others whose careers are just constant rehashings of old stuff, or trading on a glorified reputation that isn't sustained (and I do include those boys in the whole SuperNova group in that category...they can't seem to articulate what they're about, what they want to do next, but they're in for the very well paying ride; and they're coasting on some of their last goodwill cause they just can't understand what some of the people they've invited to work with them have come to offer...and they can be plain old mean about it. These are "dinosaurs" in the real sense: not really interested in evolving, just in capitalizing on their own pasts without having to make it relevant to what's taking place now).

If this is the stuff that sounds hostile or contemptuous or ageist, well, sorry if it offends, but it wasn't my intention to be any of those things with my expression here, just reflective of my own thoughts and opinions.

[wombat]

well, it's ambiguous issue.

Sometimes I agree with chacha about the context being important and sometimes I think the artist transcends context and the people that make it through the entertainment business complex and still have something to *say* are going to last forever independent of context.

That's the whole "does the artist inform society or does society inform the artist" debate which will never be solved.

and my peeving about people who, essentially, feel defensive in the "know about music" competition so they have to say, essentially, well, you're OLD anyway.

Nothing against you, though, ap, as far as I know. Did you make some "before my time" comment somewhere in scroll-down land? If you like Motorhead, you must be cool

[chachaheels]

Whoa--what? Where did that come from? No one is accusing anyone of being agist or incapable of appreciating something because it happened before they were born. I think Wombat's making the OPPOSITE point. All I meant to point out is that the experiences are different, but no less valid.

Nevermind.

[auralpoison]

Okay. Waaaaay too much hostility/drama for me & I'm not a retarded nine year old or particularly age-ist. *AP backs cautiously away with hands held up in supplication.* I hear... some other thread... calling me.

[chachaheels]

I get what you're saying, Wombat, but there is something to be said for the experience of music as a cultural phenomenon, especially if you've been around at the time when a tune or a performer made an impact. It does have a kind of "communal perspective change" effect that is a little different from digging up a musician from an earlier time and listening to that performer now. There's no reason the artist and the art's significance wouldn't be felt even now, but if it were experienced "in the context of its time", then it would be experienced differently.

It's just an entirely, unreproduceable aspect of the music; but no matter. Us listening to older music now produces something similar, especially if that music "catches on" again in a time far out of its origin. There's no way Hendrix would have known what his work would have done to guitar players who are learning and playing now; but there's no way the guitarists who are experiencing him now could have experienced what he brought about and how he affected the world around him back when he was alive, and big. The context in which Hendrix was alive and creative won't ever come again: though he can be part of the individual modern musician's context and interpretation on a far more removed and limited scale.

And then, by extension, because of the type of cultural experience we've lived through, we now experience the "new" and "up and coming" musicians very differently from the way their peers experience them. We can listen to Franz Ferdinand and the like, and love them--but they're signifying something completely different to us in the here and now than they do to people who are in their peer group--those twentysomethings you were writing about. We just bring a whole bunch of other experience and knowledge the young ones won't have to the music, both individually and as a group of people who all lived in the context of our culture at a particular time together, and for a particular length of time.