R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Total Members Voted: 0


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Who was more important?  (Read 20041 times)

pipelineaudio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2005, 08:05:13 pm »

Lets see, wuss-ass pop40 cover band vs. wuss-ass artsy fartsy band who I accidentally boight since a record clerk stuck it in the punk bin because he didnt know where to put it

great

How bout Madonna vs Dayglo Abortions instead?

Or U2 vs. Crass ?

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2005, 08:51:36 pm »

I'm gonna go on a limb and say.............neither.

Rolling Eyes

Both are disposable to me.
Logged
 "I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"

Curve Dominant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 774
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2005, 09:11:16 pm »

electrical wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 22:57

I'll use Wang Chung and the Minutemen as exemplars of their respective idioms.


What is it with you and Wang Chung? You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with this band.

I noticed you never use bands like Duran Duran or Depeche Mode or New Order as your examples. Out of all the mainstream 80's pop bands, you have to use a 1-hit wonder like Wang Chung to completely skew your test example with.

Although, I did kinda dig their theme song for "To Live And Die In L.A."

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2005, 10:03:00 pm »

I think I see where your goin' here. I guess I'll answer like this..

The underground scene tends to swell up in local music scenes and this can be the healthiest way to start a new "sound" or a new "attitude" that can grow into a national thing. That's what I see as important from a $$$$ stand point. Also, Ideas and messages that would not other wise surface can come up this way and change how kids think about things.. having to "pass the test" with a local fan base can be a good way to filter out the poser's of the world too..

Having said all that, from a musical standpoint, I didn't get some of these "ground swells" that took the country/world by storm. This is coming from a guy though, who likes old school soul and R&B and rock music that sounds like someone in the band,knows something,,anything, about music.. When we were putting together 8 and 10 member horn bands and mixing rock and funk together back in the early 90's, we were overwhelmed by rock bands that sounded like the band I was in in 7th grade.We couldn't play for fucking FREE,{and frankly, the band was killer!!} So, for me, the 90's "grunge" thing was a real drag from a musical standpoint. It was just fucking empty. Period. Also, I found it interesting and sad that all these kid's who had a warm place to live and plenty to eat seemed to take on this "poor me" shit. It was all so fucking dark and just shitty from a musical stand point.. YUK!!!


Now, having said that, this is what is so great about the power of music. It is a youth thing and it gives these kids a way to vent and feel part of something and that is mostly a good thing,even when you take into account all the dead people who took to many drugs .. It's a mixed bag for sure. It drives the culture forward for better and for worse..

I think bands like YES and The Moody Blues did way more to drive MUSIC forward. The "what's hip this week" thing is a different story all together.

So my answer will have be on the subject of music and in that case, I don't see how either band has even a passing importance. At least, not for me..

Again,, the great thing about all this is that there are thousands of people who disagree with me. There by making it possible for everyone to have music they really dig in their CD player,or their turn table, or like me, old recordings from the 50's of Latin shit pouring from my Sony 1/4 track machine. ;-} It's fucking great man, there is so much great stuff out there for everyone..

Ivan...............................
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2005, 10:10:12 pm »

Seeing how two of the members of Wang Chung went on to do other great things, this should be an easy one.

Both Vera Wang AND Connie Chung had huge success outside of the band.



Logged
R.N.

danmohr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2005, 11:09:07 pm »

TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 00:15

electrical wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 00:09

Plush wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:04

Absurd choices in your poll.
Please try to be less cryptic.

thankyasomuch,

Hudsonek

I think they are pretty good examples of their idioms. Are you unfamiliar with Wang Chung? They were at least as popular as Quarterflash, and orders of magnitude more popular than the Minutemen.



True during the years they existed - but completely untrue now - I'd say Minutemen have a heckuva lot more fans than the WC do.  




I think that's the point although one could observe even today that *far* more people would recognize the music of Wang Chung upon hearing it than would recognize the music of The Minutemen.

pipelineaudio wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 01:05

Lets see, wuss-ass pop40 cover band vs. wuss-ass artsy fartsy band who I accidentally boight since a record clerk stuck it in the punk bin because he didnt know where to put it


Yes, other your completely baseless characterization of The Minutemen, the band whose combination of aesthetic and work ethic can pretty much obliterate all but a handful of bands (Fugazi, Silkworm, etc.).  You got it, smart guy.

Dan
Logged

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2005, 11:45:46 pm »

Artistically, it's the Minutemen and the underground scene.

From a purely influential impact perspective, you have to go with Wang Chung.

In the long term, I think that the mainstream music has a longer lasting, more important impact as it affects a greater number of people in a larger variety of ways.

Then again, you ever see the Big Star poster that shows the family tree of bands who give them credit as being a huge influence? It's rather strange to see how much modern music wouldn't exist as we know it if this relatively unknown band from the early 70's hadn't done their thing...
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

MB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2005, 12:25:29 am »

pipelineaudio wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 02:05



How bout Madonna vs Dayglo Abortions instead?




Like a Virgin versus Dogfarts.

It's a wash.
Logged

pipelineaudio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2005, 12:52:22 am »

Quote:

Yes, other your completely baseless characterization of The Minutemen, the band whose combination of aesthetic and work ethic can pretty much obliterate all but a handful of bands

Fugazi,

You got it, smart guy.

Dan


Oh puhleeze the Led Zepplin of punk rock and dingy emo weenieness

I love minor threat, but fugazi

blech

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2005, 01:24:08 am »



I saw the Minutemen in Israel back in 1991, they were a blast.


Wang Chung couldn't hold a candle to Quarterflash, that girl could really blow a horn.  Smile
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2005, 01:48:59 am »

electrical wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 17:57

 mainstream music of the 1980s or underground music of the 1980s.


Underground music, until grunge made punk pop and poserly ...

Rock died with MTV, it's spirit got drunk and played out of tune.

Pop since video is mostly commerical fodder, egotism, visuals.

Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

pg666

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2005, 09:19:08 am »

Quote:

Then again, you ever see the Big Star poster that shows the family tree of bands who give them credit as being a huge influence? It's rather strange to see how much modern music wouldn't exist as we know it if this relatively unknown band from the early 70's hadn't done their thing...


i think that's exactly the point. who goes out and starts a band after hearing "everybody wang chung tonight"? (besides maybe a few geeks back in 1985..)

i think that's a good indicator of 'importance'; ie. if the music continues to inspire people to get involved in music long after it was made.
Logged

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2005, 01:13:54 pm »

rnicklaus wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 19:10

Seeing how two of the members of Wang Chung went on to do other great things, this should be an easy one.

Both Vera Wang AND Connie Chung had huge success outside of the band.


I just snotted myself on that one.
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

brandondrury

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 703
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2005, 02:45:30 pm »

"Don't Let Go" made it to number 36, while "Dance Hall Days" reached number 16

the number two hit "Everybody Have Fun Tonight" and the Top Ten "Let's Go!"


This was copy and pasted from here: http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/wang_chung/bio.jhtml

I think a big part of this discussion is age.  I was just learning how to cuss when this band had their first hit.  I've not been exposed to the Minutemen so I can't speak for them.

These days I'm working 80 hours a week, I have huge bags underneath my eyes, and I pretty much feel like shit.  If just happened to drunk off my ass at the local college bar, I'd rather hear Wang Chung.  It may not be intelligent, but it's certainly fun.

Then again, when I hear modern music that intellectually devoid, I become furious.  It just depends on where you are in life when you hear crap.

Brandon

micguy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2005, 05:06:10 pm »

I'd vote for U2 - popular and critical success, and they do what they want to, not what people tell them to. Wang Chung and the Ninutemen have pieces of the puzzle, but neither had the whole puzzle.

I know, unfair, but that's my answer.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13   Go Up