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] 5 6 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Who was more important?  (Read 22035 times)

holger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #45 on: December 25, 2005, 09:45:11 am »

telefunky wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 21:53

Curve Dominant wrote: 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 are obviously not old enough to remember the 80's if you are under the impression that Depeche Mode and New Order were "mainstream 80's pop bands".  They were played on only a few stations in even fewer cities, and the kids in school that liked those kinds of bands were very much on the cutting edge.  I think this is a general misunderstanding of 80's music that is prevalent in 20 somethings today.  Mainstream in the 80's was Phil Collins, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Prince, Asia, Men at Work, Huey Lewis, J. Geils, etc.

hi telefunky,
what you said might be right for the u.s., but both bands mentioned were very popular in europe in the 80`s. i saw depeche mode in 85 playing a sold out 8000 venue.
for the original question: when more important means more influencal: minutemen.
Logged

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #46 on: December 25, 2005, 04:16:14 pm »

I can assure you that fact that you've even heard of somebody means they were really mainstream. Being "anti-establishment" or "authentic" is a popular posture but it has only very rarely been anything other than a show-biz pose.

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #47 on: December 25, 2005, 05:40:23 pm »

To me, all music is important. It is up to how each of us accept it, favor it or not..what determines importance in our own minds.
This said, these days so much music is out there and if you like the familar canons of popular music, you will simply hear another watered down repeat of something you heard years ago.

... unique music does not make it "better or worse". One persons Warhol is another persons Picasso. One not more important that the other, just accepted by different people different ways.

I also firmly believe if the Floyd were not well produced and well distributed, you may not have ever heard of them.

Not much of Pink Floyds music is really hard to perform or groundbreaking..but the productions themselves were. Many very high talented people working as a team. Likewise with the Stones.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #48 on: December 25, 2005, 06:22:57 pm »

art is not a sport

despite what the music biz believes, there is no gold or platinum winner

i am NOT competing with the other musicians out there, quite the opposite, one person's success makes another's more likely

it's just that this idea has been corrupted by the middlemen, who see it only as competition for the punters' lunchtime sandwich dollar
Logged

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #49 on: December 25, 2005, 07:18:00 pm »

To quote my first wife, an exceptionally talented sculptor, music is NOT art no matter how hard the backstage-pass/groupie seeking pop music reviewers try to spin it! I think it's a lot more like sports than like art because it's all about individual and team performance.

The only thing anybody can expect to get paid for is entertainment value. That depends on communication, accessibility and having something to say that people find engaging.

Jonas as

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #50 on: December 25, 2005, 08:47:56 pm »

Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 01:18

To quote my first wife, an exceptionally talented sculptor, music is NOT art no matter how hard the backstage-pass/groupie seeking pop music reviewers try to spin it!


I hold your opinions in very high regard, Bob, I've learnt incredibly much from you.
But please excuse me this one time:

What you are saying in the above quote, is pure Bullshit.

Sorry. Embarassed
Logged

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #51 on: December 25, 2005, 10:19:42 pm »


bob o wrote:

"The only thing anybody can expect to get paid for is entertainment value."

you amaze me with your cynicism

did your first wife make sculptures only in order to get paid?

and while we're not on your forum in the marsh pit, i'll say this too:

MUSIC IS FREE!
Logged

Gone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 431
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #52 on: December 25, 2005, 11:10:41 pm »

rnicklaus wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 16:54

When you claim Minutemen records are "widely available" where is that?

It is much easier to go out and find 20th Century Masters on Wang Chung (not that I would want to) than a Minutemen album.



Locally, I've seen Minutemen albums in Tower, Virgin, and any number of independently owned or small chain stores. Some of the larger selection Best Buys may have too. My point being they are stil in print.

Yes, it's easy to find (IMO - lame) 20th Cen masters, but, as I tried to suggest in my post, greatest hits are a different animal than proper albums. I don't think you could find any proper Wang Chung albums in any store, I haven't seen one in years. I believe most of them are out of print ("Huang Chung" for instance). Once you're "in-print" only via greatest hits, well, that's a sad thing in my opinion.
Logged

rnicklaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #53 on: December 26, 2005, 03:03:00 pm »

Nick Eipers wrote on Sun, 25 December 2005 20:10

rnicklaus wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 16:54

When you claim Minutemen records are "widely available" where is that?

It is much easier to go out and find 20th Century Masters on Wang Chung (not that I would want to) than a Minutemen album.



Locally, I've seen Minutemen albums in Tower, Virgin, and any number of independently owned or small chain stores. Some of the larger selection Best Buys may have too. My point being they are stil in print.

Yes, it's easy to find (IMO - lame) 20th Cen masters, but, as I tried to suggest in my post, greatest hits are a different animal than proper albums. I don't think you could find any proper Wang Chung albums in any store, I haven't seen one in years. I believe most of them are out of print ("Huang Chung" for instance). Once you're "in-print" only via greatest hits, well, that's a sad thing in my opinion.



To some it may be a matter of which one brings the greatest annuity in terms of income.  If retail (that doesn't like to stock catalog anymore) would rather take a 70K outlay of the 20th century masters of Wang Chung or a 3K spread of a Minutemen CD, is it up to outsiders to decide which is better?
Logged
R.N.

Kenny Gioia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2006, 01:56:43 pm »

Why does music have to be important?

I think if you asked Wang Chung if they were actually "trying" to make important music that they would say an emphatic "NO".

Nothing disgusts me more than an Artist or Band who believes that they are important.

The world seems all the more happy to prove them wrong.    see: Oasis.

Peace.
Logged

Kenny Gioia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #55 on: January 01, 2006, 02:00:57 pm »

maxim wrote on Sun, 25 December 2005 22:19



and while we're not on your forum in the marsh pit, i'll say this too:

MUSIC IS FREE!



You're an ass.

Your music is free because it is worthless.

Some of us were blessed with talent.

Soorry.
Logged

electrical

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 674
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #56 on: January 01, 2006, 02:21:50 pm »

Kenny Gioia wrote on Sun, 01 January 2006 14:00

maxim wrote on Sun, 25 December 2005 22:19



and while we're not on your forum in the marsh pit, i'll say this too:

MUSIC IS FREE!



You're an ass.

Your music is free because it is worthless.

Some of us were blessed with talent.

Soorry.

Hey! This is the second time someone has been a dick on this forum! Congratulations Kenny Gioia, You're our second dick!

Happy New Year, dick!
Logged
best,

steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
www.electrical.com

electrical

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 674
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #57 on: January 01, 2006, 02:24:54 pm »

Kenny Gioia wrote on Sun, 01 January 2006 13:56


Nothing disgusts me more than an Artist or Band who believes that they are important.

Nothing disgusts me more than the postmodern notion that it's cool to be insubstantial, and better yet to be trivial.
Logged
best,

steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
www.electrical.com

Slipperman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #58 on: January 01, 2006, 02:32:59 pm »

Quote:


Hey! This is the second time someone has been a dick on this forum! Congratulations Kenny Gioia, You're our second dick!

Happy New Year, dick!


Whoooooeeeeee!!!!!

LMFBO.

Just when I thought this was gonna turn into a repeat of the Massenburg snoozefest.

Happy New Year Jayne!!!

Richard III


Logged
I refuse to be part of any club that would have me as a member. - G. Marx

Tidewater

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3816
Re: Who was more important?
« Reply #59 on: January 01, 2006, 03:09:14 pm »

I'd break into song, if I wouldn't violate copyrights!

Let me get clearance!


M
Logged
Time Magazine's 2007 Man of the Year
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13   Go Up