• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

fao bollocks

Started by goldust40,

122 posts in this topic

tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
Obviously I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole to make my point, but you still aren't making much of a case for them being a worthwhile as a band. I understand the cultural shift they spearheaded, but that doesn't make them A GOOD BAND. I don't care about their clothes or their ethos, I want to enjoy listening to the music, which I don't. I am not going to sit there with my headphones on and say to myself "wow, these songs suck, but they still kick [embarrassing lack of self control] because they were the death-knell for 70s pretentious classic rock". They may have been the first, and they obviously shook things up, that doesn't make their songs more listenable.

Okay, gotcha. I knew you were baiting all us old guys, but I thought you were genuinely disputing their significance in the history of rock. Of course, I still disagree with you because I genuinely like the Pistols' music (and many of the punk and post-punk bands from the 1977-1980 era) and would've had no problem sticking "Never Mind the Bollocks" in my Desert Island 5, but personal taste is personal taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goldust40

goldust40

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well, I love Zep, but basically that appraisal is spot-on!

I too love Zep, and Yes, and Pink Floyd, and many of the other leading practicioners of "pomp rock" (except ELP, whom I loathe), but the mid-70s had become a real creative dead-end and a wake-up call was desperately needed.

 

I was there, and I remember thinking how crappe pop and rock music generally was in 1975. Glam was gone by then, and all that there was were Roxy, Bowie and Lou Reed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
october

october

Posted
Posted
Obviously I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole to make my point, but you still aren't making much of a case for them being a worthwhile as a band. I understand the cultural shift they spearheaded, but that doesn't make them A GOOD BAND. I don't care about their clothes or their ethos, I want to enjoy listening to the music, which I don't. I am not going to sit there with my headphones on and say to myself "wow, these songs suck, but they still kick [embarrassing lack of self control] because they were the death-knell for 70s pretentious classic rock". They may have been the first, and they obviously shook things up, that doesn't make their songs more listenable.

Okay, gotcha. I knew you were baiting all us old guys, but I thought you were genuinely disputing their significance in the history of rock. Of course, I still disagree with you because I genuinely like the Pistols' music (and many of the punk and post-punk bands from the 1977-1980 era) and would've had no problem sticking "Never Mind the Bollocks" in my Desert Island 5, but personal taste is personal taste.

 

I am not denying their cultural significance, just their actual musical value. I think The Rolling Stones are vastly overrated as well, but I am not going to say they aren't one of the biggest bands in history. Maybe it just irks me on a personal level that The Sex Pistols take more of the credit for being the quintessential punk band than they actuall deserve, when most of that credit stems from the fact that they dressed like , swore and spat. Like I said before, I don't consider "attitude" to be one of a band's more important attributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
october

october

Posted
Posted
Here is a link to a underground music zine I help produce which might be a good place to start if you are interested.

 

http://www.jadedinchicago.com/

Cool, I'll check it out! thumbsup2.gif

 

The actual zine has a lot more information than what is reflected on the site, but it's not a bad place to start. Also try:

 

http://interpunk.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
I was there, and I remember thinking how crappe pop and rock music generally was in 1975. Glam was gone by then, and all that there was were Roxy, Bowie and Lou Reed.

thumbsup2.gif Hope you'll be at SD this year, sounds like we could discuss music into the wee hours! The thing that really struck me at the time was how bands seemed to be competing to produce the fewest songs on an album, with Yes probably being the worst culprits, but Rush with "2112" filling an entire LP side and of course Led Zeppelin filling an entire side of Song Remains the Same with "Dazed and Confused".

 

Interesting you mention Roxy Music. The one person who always gets overlooked in all of this is Brian Eno, post Roxy. I first heard "Baby's on Fire" in 1980 or so, and was floored to learn it had been produced back in 1973. The guy was so far ahead of everyone else, and of course was incredibly influential on Bowie too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
I am not denying their cultural significance, just their actual musical value. I think The Rolling Stones are vastly overrated as well, but I am not going to say they aren't one of the biggest bands in history. Maybe it just irks me on a personal level that The Sex Pistols take more of the credit for being the quintessential punk band than they actuall deserve, when most of that credit stems from the fact that they dressed like , swore and spat. Like I said before, I don't consider "attitude" to be one of a band's more important attributes.

Fair point, but history is unfair that way. He who break big into the public's eye first gets the lion's share of the credit, even if he wasn't the true innovator. As far as rock music goes, the trend you're talking about starts with Elvis, whose biggest attribute was being white and good looking (and I say that as someone who genuinly likes his music).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
october

october

Posted
Posted

Fair point, but history is unfair that way. He who break big into the public's eye first gets the lion's share of the credit, even if he wasn't the true innovator. As far as rock music goes, the trend you're talking about starts with Elvis, whose biggest attribute was being white and good looking (and I say that as someone who genuinly likes his music).

 

True, and that unfortunate phenomenon isn't limited to music either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
flink

flink

Posted
Posted
I was there, and I remember thinking how crappe pop and rock music generally was in 1975. Glam was gone by then, and all that there was were Roxy, Bowie and Lou Reed.

thumbsup2.gif Hope you'll be at SD this year, sounds like we could discuss music into the wee hours! The thing that really struck me at the time was how bands seemed to be competing to produce the fewest songs on an album, with Yes probably being the worst culprits, but Rush with "2112" filling an entire LP side and of course Led Zeppelin filling an entire side of Song Remains the Same with "Dazed and Confused".

 

Interesting you mention Roxy Music. The one person who always gets overlooked in all of this is Brian Eno, post Roxy. I first heard "Baby's on Fire" in 1980 or so, and was floored to learn it had been produced back in 1973. The guy was so far ahead of everyone else, and of course was incredibly influential on Bowie too.

 

Pardon...Did you mean Brian Ferry. I love Roxy Music, particularly the song Avalon.

 

Never mind, I was wrong. Which is no surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flaming_Telepath

Flaming_Telepath

Posted
Posted
I was there, and I remember thinking how crappe pop and rock music generally was in 1975. Glam was gone by then, and all that there was were Roxy, Bowie and Lou Reed.

thumbsup2.gif Hope you'll be at SD this year, sounds like we could discuss music into the wee hours! The thing that really struck me at the time was how bands seemed to be competing to produce the fewest songs on an album, with Yes probably being the worst culprits, but Rush with "2112" filling an entire LP side and of course Led Zeppelin filling an entire side of Song Remains the Same with "Dazed and Confused".

 

Interesting you mention Roxy Music. The one person who always gets overlooked in all of this is Brian Eno, post Roxy. I first heard "Baby's on Fire" in 1980 or so, and was floored to learn it had been produced back in 1973. The guy was so far ahead of everyone else, and of course was incredibly influential on Bowie too.

 

Pardon...Did you mean Brian Ferry. I love Roxy Music, particularly the song Avalon.

 

Nope. Brian Eno, the keyboard player.

 

And Avalon sucked. That was waaaay past their heyday. poke2.gif

 

'In Every Dream Home' is probably their best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
flink

flink

Posted
Posted
I was wrong. Spank me. poke2.gif

 

Jeez, you're easy!

 

Which should have been followed by a tongue.gif or a insane.gif or a poke2.gif, obviously.

 

sorry.gif

 

Oh. Sorry 893whatthe.gifthumbsup2.gif893applaud-thumb.gifsign-funnypost.gif

 

I forgot. One needs to be adept at gremlin blitzing here.

 

Carry on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sal

Sal

Posted
Posted
jungle drum n' bass is where it's at, fellas

 

My arse.

 

Your arse is where it's at?

 

Well, certainly moreso than 'jungle drum n' bass'..... yeahok.gif

 

At least it plays better tunes....

 

damn, i don't recall craaping over your choice in music. governor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing