Smog - 'Ex-Con'

[Tom Ewing]

SMOG - 'Ex-Con'

Understatement. That's what British bands don't do any more*. That and
synthesisers. "Ex-Con" isn't British, and has both, and reminds me of
the Magnetic Fields: a gritty non-singer's voice over electro-tinted
backing. Lovely. There should be a lot more music like this single
and less like "Julius Caesar", the only other Smog record I've heard
and the sort of album that appeals to people who haven't yet grasped
that acoustic instruments are about the most banal way possible to
render sorrow. But assuming not all Smog records are like that, I want
to hear more - where should I start? Mr.Smog, incidentally, seems to
be quite the lyricist.

*We have irony now instead. Hooray.

Cheers,
Tom.
(I warmly embrace replies, but take out the spamblock first.)

[Rick Tunnicliffe]

In article <3447926...@nntp.netcruiser>, Tom Ewing
<eb...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes

>SMOG - 'Ex-Con'
>
>Understatement. That's what British bands don't do any more*. That and
>synthesisers. "Ex-Con" isn't British, and has both, and reminds me of
>the Magnetic Fields: a gritty non-singer's voice over electro-tinted
>backing. Lovely. There should be a lot more music like this single
>and less like "Julius Caesar", the only other Smog record I've heard
>and the sort of album that appeals to people who haven't yet grasped
>that acoustic instruments are about the most banal way possible to
>render sorrow. But assuming not all Smog records are like that, I want
>to hear more - where should I start?

The only Smog record I actually own is 'Wild Love', and it's brill.
Incredibly varied stuff, bit folky in places, a few cello drones,
occasional oompah noises, one conventional-ish rock song (Sleepy Joe),
one perfect piece of melancholy pop (Bathysphere) and one of the
scariest, most overblown pop songs about pop music ever made (Prince
Alone In The Studio). Buy it now. I take it you wouldn't recommend
Julius Caeser then?

>Mr.Smog, incidentally, seems to
>be quite the lyricist.

Though reportedly "a bit wierd" live.

>
>*We have irony now instead. Hooray.

I know. Marvellous innit?

--
Rick Tunnicliffe
Give me what I want, and all I can think about is losing it.

[Tom Ewing]

On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 17:45:52 +0100, Rick Tunnicliffe
<ri...@tunnicliffe.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>The only Smog record I actually own is 'Wild Love', and it's brill.
>Incredibly varied stuff, bit folky in places, a few cello drones,
>occasional oompah noises, one conventional-ish rock song (Sleepy Joe),
>one perfect piece of melancholy pop (Bathysphere) and one of the
>scariest, most overblown pop songs about pop music ever made (Prince
>Alone In The Studio). Buy it now. I take it you wouldn't recommend
>Julius Caeser then?

Well, I didn't like it, but whether or not you'd take that as a
non-recommendation rather depends...

[Michael Daddino]

Tom Ewing wrote:
>
> SMOG - 'Ex-Con'
>
> Understatement. That's what British bands don't do any more*. That and
> synthesisers.

[snip]

> *We have irony now instead. Hooray.

<gross generalization>
Huh? Whadda ya mean British bands have irony *now* ? You Brits *always*
had irony! :) This is the land that gave rock & roll Mick Jagger, Ray
Davies, Pete Townshend, David Bowie, Wire, Nick Lowe, Elvis Costello,
Mark E. Smith, The Pet Shop Boys and Morrissey! This is probably one of
the reasons why some Americans (not me!) hate British music -- it often
lacks the nauseatingly obvious authenticity and sincerity of the most
self-consciously "American" music like, say, Bruce Springsteen or
contemporary country & western acts.
</gross generalization>

-- Mike Daddino

[Tom Ewing]

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:27:05 -0400, Michael Daddino <mra...@ibm.net>
wrote:

>> *We have irony now instead. Hooray.
>
><gross generalization>
>Huh? Whadda ya mean British bands have irony *now* ? You Brits *always*
>had irony! :) This is the land that gave rock & roll Mick Jagger, Ray
>Davies, Pete Townshend, David Bowie, Wire, Nick Lowe, Elvis Costello,
>Mark E. Smith, The Pet Shop Boys and Morrissey!

Most of whom were deadly serious :)

>This is probably one of
>the reasons why some Americans (not me!) hate British music -- it often
>lacks the nauseatingly obvious authenticity and sincerity of the most
>self-consciously "American" music like, say, Bruce Springsteen or
>contemporary country & western acts.
></gross generalization>

(Yr caveat is noted)

Anyway, that was then and this is now. British popular culture now is
drenched in irony, larded with it to the extent that absolutely
everything is 'post-modern' and 'self-reflexive' and the authenticity
and sincerity which you rightly despise in Springsteen have
(apparently) utterly vanished. Which is only true in a sense, since
what's also happening over here now is the establishment of a sort of
consensus culture: being eccentric, and standing out from the crowd
has been a part of British culture since the 17th century pretty much,
and it motivated almost all the people you mention. Now what counts is
agreement, common sense, fitting in - events are relatively
unimportant compared to the *scale* on which they occur. So we have
labour's 180-seat majority, Oasis' biggest-ever album sales, the
astonishing scale of the grief surrounding Diana's death. And these
big consensus events are the only ones that escape the irony plague -
indeed, are protected from it to an extraordinary degree (witness the
censorship of satirical magazine Private Eye after Diana died).

To stick to music, and the release of the Oasis album. I can't think
of a single UK magazine or music paper which gave 'Be Here Now' a bad
review - most gave it top marks, and NME received several angry
letters when it gave it a mere eight out of ten. Contrast this with
'What's The Story', which got a far rockier reception. The difference
now isn't that 'BHN' is a far better album, it's that the idea of
Britain as 'one nation' is fashionable right now and pulling together
behind the release of a record by national treasures Oasis is one way
of going with the Blairite buzz. But how to treat those things which
don't enjoy such already vast popularity, when enthusing about them
unconditionally might risk fracturing this hazy, pleasant feeling of
community? Three ways: one is to treat them ironically, of course. As
long as we all agree on the big things, our differences on the smaller
things can be buttered over with a wink and a knowing smile. The
second way is of course to ignore them completely.

The final way is to bring authenticity and sincerity in again by the
back door. The music and style press this year have partially turned
away from hedonism as they turned away in the late 80s from modernism:
the feted records this year have been by people like Spiritualized,
the Verve, Radiohead. Never mind the quality, feel the pain: all three
records, whatever you may think of the musical approaches taken, are
deeply, unrelentingly serious, sincere, authentic. Not in itself a bad
thing, but vaguely irksome in a culture otherwise so giggly and
media-obsessed.

Sincerity and authenticity, of course, are Oasis' big trump cards too:
it's well nigh impossible to imagine liking Oasis 'ironically', and
their whole mythology is based on the Brother's own personal blokiness
and authenticity as much as it is on the straight-ahead classicism of
their sound and the intensity of Liam's voice. This is a bit strange
when you think about it, since in every other way Oasis are
absolutely, prototypically postmodern - their music, titles, imagery
and lyrics a catalogue of reference-play that John Oswald would blush
at.

So that's where we are right now, I think. Irony culture, consensus
culture, common sense culture, realism culture. (To take a trivial
example) Zoe Ball on the front of the Melody Maker, where ten years
ago we had the Young Gods: does it have to be like that? Come on, be
*realistic*, it's what people *want*, and in any case, it's ironic.
(To take a less trivial example) Labour governments selling Hawk jets
to Indonesia: does it have to be like that? Come on, be realistic,
it's what business wants, and in any case, don't be boring, let's talk
about Zoe Ball instead. OK then.

Cheers,
Tom.
89.CORNERSHOP - '6AM Jullander Shere'

[Gert Wilden]

--------------1DC96718AAB784D1E38BC575
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nobody's really sure to whom this reply replies...

> . Weirdos, I reckon. I never write letters over reviews. Now,
> whether or not Damon Albarn looks like the boy on the cover of War, that I
> write in about.
>

Ha! Why write? This one's a definite Yes.

> >The difference
> >now isn't that 'BHN' is a far better album, it's that the idea of
> >Britain as 'one nation' is fashionable right now and pulling together
> >behind the release of a record by national treasures Oasis is one way
> >of going with the Blairite buzz.

> there might just be, funnily enough, critics out there who actually liked the
>
> album. It got decent reviews overseas as well. It's going a bit far, in my
> opinion, to equate an album doing well critically with a trend towards
> 'one nation' and [basic overreaction towards insignificant events in order
> to feel community.?]sorry, don't follow.
>

I agree with the first. I agree completely. BHN was about more than the songs,
more than whether or not 'critics actually liked the album.' That issue is even
a little misleading, because if any record shouldn't be listened to in a vacuum,
it's BHN. I mean, Be Here Now- it's indelibly linked to its moment. And that
moment, to me, is Noel Gallagher toasting New Labour Tony Blair at 10 Downing.
You can understate or overstate the claim all you want, but its defintiely
there. Well put, Tom is it?

> >Sincerity and authenticity, of course, are Oasis' big trump cards too:
> >it's well nigh impossible to imagine liking Oasis 'ironically'
>

I personally feel like Oasis have become more and more like 80s U2 in this sense
as they become more like U2 was in the Eighties- 'the biggest band in the
world.' Does that follow?

> I dunnae on that one either. I know plenty of wankers who go about liking
> them 'ironically', which I can only assume is the same way I like things
> like Hanson. I've never understood the intire 'ironic like' term
> completely, because there are instances where it seems it means 'liked for
> humourous aspects' and other times where it appears to mean something dry
> and completely unhumourous.

>
> >their whole mythology is based on the Brother's own personal blokiness
> >and authenticity as much as it is on the straight-ahead classicism of
> >their sound and the intensity of Liam's voice. This is a bit strange
> >when you think about it, since in every other way Oasis are
> >absolutely, prototypically postmodern - their music, titles, imagery
> >and lyrics a catalogue of reference-play that John Oswald would blush
> >at.
>

I am not sure what 'prototypically postmodern' is. The 'earnestness and
sincerity' of their music, the _seriousness_ of their reference-play, doesn't
seem to me postmodern at all. At best, a parody of postmodernism, (again) like
U2. Noel didn't put 100 guitar tracks on BHN out of playfulness, or to make a
statement. Probably just like them, I suppose. But you're right, there is some
tension, or (must we say it) irony in their mythology.Anyway, I read this
newsgroup fairly regularly, but i rarely if ever write. I thought this was
particularly interesting, though.

Sound as ever,

--------------1DC96718AAB784D1E38BC575
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
Nobody's really sure to whom this reply replies...
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>. Weirdos, I reckon. I never write letters over reviews.
Now,
<BR>whether or not Damon Albarn looks like the boy on the cover of War,
that I
<BR>write in about.
<BR>&nbsp;</BLOCKQUOTE>
Ha! Why write?&nbsp; This one's a definite Yes.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>>The difference
<BR>>now isn't that 'BHN' is a far better album, it's that the idea of
<BR>>Britain as 'one nation' is fashionable right now and pulling together
<BR>>behind the release of a record by national treasures Oasis is one
way
<BR>>of going with the Blairite buzz.</BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;there might just be, funnily enough, critics
out there who actually liked the
<BR>album. It got decent reviews overseas as well. It's going a bit far,
in my
<BR>opinion, to equate an album doing well critically with a trend towards
<BR>'one nation' and [basic overreaction towards insignificant events in
order
<BR>to feel community.?]sorry, don't follow.
<BR>&nbsp;</BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with the first.&nbsp; I agree completely.&nbsp; BHN <I>was</I>
about more than the songs, more than whether or not 'critics actually liked
the album.'&nbsp; That issue is even a little misleading, because if any
record shouldn't be listened to in a vacuum, it's BHN.&nbsp; I mean, <I>Be
Here Now</I>- it's indelibly linked to its moment.&nbsp; And that moment,
to me, is Noel Gallagher toasting New Labour Tony Blair at 10 Downing.&nbsp;
You can understate or overstate the claim all you want, but its defintiely
there.&nbsp; Well put, Tom is it?
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>>Sincerity and authenticity, of course, are Oasis'
big trump cards too:
<BR>>it's well nigh impossible to imagine liking Oasis 'ironically'
<BR>&nbsp;</BLOCKQUOTE>
I personally feel like Oasis have become more and more like 80s U2 in this
sense as they become more like U2 was in the Eighties- 'the biggest band
in the world.'&nbsp; Does that follow?
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>I dunnae on that one either. I know plenty of wankers
who go about liking
<BR>them 'ironically', which I can only assume is the same way I like things
<BR>like Hanson. I've never understood the intire 'ironic like' term
<BR>completely, because there are instances where it seems it means 'liked
for
<BR>humourous aspects' and other times where it appears to mean something
dry
<BR>and completely unhumourous.

<P>>their whole mythology is based on the Brother's own personal blokiness
<BR>>and authenticity as much as it is on the straight-ahead classicism
of
<BR>>their sound and the intensity of Liam's voice. This is a bit strange
<BR>>when you think about it, since in every other way Oasis are
<BR>>absolutely, prototypically postmodern - their music, titles, imagery
<BR>>and lyrics a catalogue of reference-play that John Oswald would blush
<BR>>at.
<BR>&nbsp;</BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not sure what 'prototypically postmodern' is.&nbsp; The 'earnestness
and sincerity' of their music, the _seriousness_ of their reference-play,
doesn't seem to me postmodern at all.&nbsp; At best, a parody of postmodernism,
(again) like U2.&nbsp; Noel didn't put 100 guitar tracks on BHN out of
playfulness, or to make a statement.&nbsp; Probably just like them, I suppose.&nbsp;
But you're right, there is some tension, or (must we say it) irony in their
mythology.Anyway, I read this newsgroup fairly regularly, but i rarely
if ever write.&nbsp;&nbsp; I thought this was particularly interesting,
though.

<P>Sound as ever,
<BR>&nbsp;</HTML>

--------------1DC96718AAB784D1E38BC575--

[Armenia]

> But! I still feel that Tom's post put together a bit of an
> overstatement. Be Here Now is about the moment, but I have a seriously
> hard time believing that it got good reviews simply because it's about
> decadence, which is in vogue. Why? Cos magazines in countries that aren't
> Britain and aren't in the fashion Tom spoke of gave it equally good -- if
> not better, in some cases -- reviews. So how does that fit into the theory
> that the main push behind Oasis is the idea of 'one Britain' nationalism?
> I think that if it didn't follow that critics really did, by and large,
> mean what they were saying, then it wouldn't have been as well received
> rather everywhere.

Well, who knows? BHN didn't get good reviews 'simply bc it's about decadence,' but
surely there was an element of quasi-nationalism in the whole event. That's my
basic point. Yours about other countries is well taken, but it's still an open
question. Indeed, it might be an easier argument to make that Rolling Stone's
generous review of BHN had a great deal to do with the fact that it's quite
fashionable to be Anglophilic here in the States. Now, I'll be the innocent one and
pretend that those political things _never_ influence a record's standing, and you
can be the cynical one and say that it happens all the time. I would rather believe
you than me. (that's an odd one!) I'm not saying anything about the 'actual'
merits of BHN or Oasis or One Britain or New Labour or whatever, let me add.

> ...and some might say (hur hur, etc) that a parody of postmodern culture
> is the ultimate in being postmodern. Don't laugh, I've heard people do it,
> and go into long dissertations about it. I mean, I personally believe
> Oasis do what they do because they enjoy it and they are having fun. But
> there are a lot of people who think there's a whole lot more behind 'em,
> ultimate in irony sort of thing.
>

I've heard it too. For a lot of reasons I don't agree, but I'll have to save that
for some other time. I'm going to see Supreme Court Justices now. Don't ask

> Keep writing, you seem to know what you're on about.

Of course I do, that's why I rarely write! Actually, thanks

sound as ever,

[Michael Daddino]

Tom Ewing wrote:

>>Huh? Whadda ya mean British bands have irony *now* ? You Brits *always*
>>had irony! :) This is the land that gave rock & roll Mick Jagger, Ray
>>Davies, Pete Townshend, David Bowie, Wire, Nick Lowe, Elvis Costello,
>>Mark E. Smith, The Pet Shop Boys and Morrissey!

>Most of whom were deadly serious :)

Hmm...hard to tell whether you're being ironic or not. :) (Or should I
say "ironic" ?) The above-mentioned artists weren't all "wink and
knowing smile" ironists, but then again, most of them had at least a bit
of the comedian in them at some point in their careers.

>[Snipped: long but interesting discussion Britain, irony, etc.]

Like Lulu, I'm afraid I have nothing to add here. Oh sure, I wanted to
follow this up by writing something bright and illuminating about ironic
detachment, but it's much easier to recommend Christopher Lasch's *The
Culture of Narcissism*, especially since you work in a bookstore and
all.

As for Bruce, don't get me wrong. I like him. Emphasis on the word
*like*. I liked him better when he was trashier, when there was a bit of
the Dylanesque trickster-charlatan still in him.

> To stick to music, and the release of the Oasis album. I can't think
> of a single UK magazine or music paper which gave 'Be Here Now' a bad
> review - most gave it top marks, and NME received several angry
> letters when it gave it a mere eight out of ten. Contrast this with

> 'What's The Story', which got a far rockier reception. The difference

> now isn't that 'BHN' is a far better album, it's that the idea of
> Britain as 'one nation' is fashionable right now and pulling together
> behind the release of a record by national treasures Oasis is one way
> of going with the Blairite buzz.

Contrast and compare *Rolling Stone*: I don't think I've ever seen the
magazine give a five-star review to an album that wasn't a reissue. To
RS, the only consensus that matters is the one that says the sixties
still rool.

> The final way is to bring authenticity and sincerity in again by the
> back door. The music and style press this year have partially turned
> away from hedonism as they turned away in the late 80s from modernism:
> the feted records this year have been by people like Spiritualized,
> the Verve, Radiohead. Never mind the quality, feel the pain: all three
> records, whatever you may think of the musical approaches taken, are
> deeply, unrelentingly serious, sincere, authentic. Not in itself a bad
> thing, but vaguely irksome in a culture otherwise so giggly and
> media-obsessed.

I'm not entirely clear why you find it irksome. Let me make a stab at
it: you're bothered by the fact that the press praises records that
feature a kind of seriousness the press can never hope to attain.

> Sincerity and authenticity, of course, are Oasis' big trump cards too:

> it's well nigh impossible to imagine liking Oasis 'ironically', and

> their whole mythology is based on the Brother's own personal blokiness
> and authenticity as much as it is on the straight-ahead classicism of
> their sound and the intensity of Liam's voice.

I can't take Oasis' blokiness at face value, possibly because I see it
so laced with contempt, a contempt I see not only in their public image,
but in the sheer laziness of their music. I mean, can someone *really*
insert in a song such an astonishingly lazy rhyme as "rain" and "pain"
in complete sincerity? I will be the first to admit that my own contempt
for the band is probably getting in the way of any objective observation
about their sincerity. I'll also admit that I've probably just made the
lazy equation of "insincere=bad", so what the hell do I know? Grrr....

-- Mike Daddino

[Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett]

Tom Ewing wrote:
>
> Zoe Ball on the front of the Melody Maker, where ten years
> ago we had the Young Gods: does it have to be like that?

I'd guess not, being a huge Young Gods fan. However, who is
Zoe Ball anyway?

--
O-O-O- Founder of the alt.music.alternative Court of Star Chamber O-O-O-
O-O- Minister of Obscure Musics, Britpop/Isolationist Division, DNRC O-O
Ned Raggett n...@kuci.org nrag...@uci.edu
Listowner for the Oasis, Suede, Sparks and T. Rex lists -- ask for info!
"To the centre of the city where all roads meet, waiting for you
To the depths of the ocean where all hopes sank, searching for you
Moving through the silence without motion, waiting for you..."
-- Joy Division, "Shadowplay," _Unknown Pleasures_
O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- http://kuci.org/~nraggett/ O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-

[Mathilde]

> There's also the sense that Oasis are somehow a 'people's band' and
> any criticism, however mild or even positive, is artsy-farsty and
> intellectualising things and generally uncalled-for and unwanted.
> Which is the impression I get from some of the hysterical
> letters/postings/etc. I've seen about them. Grounded or not, I don't
> know.

This was one thing I appreciated about Damon's comments back in '96, that the
whole Britpop thing had degenerated into a conservative and anti-intellectual and
exclusivist mess. I don't think anyone would argue that that's not what's
happened.

> But the critical reaction is also linked with the hysteria surrounding
> the release, which is a very 1997 thing - according to the NME this
> week, three of the five fastest selling albums ever in Britain came
> out this year.

Anticipating your point below somewhat, I get the feeling that the press (or is
it the public?) desperately wants 1997 to be another 1995--another year of
seminal, important, expansive ideas in popular music. What's really happening is
another 1985--I really fear that another 'Live Aid' era is upon us. ARRGGHH!!!
Think about Elton John, or Princess Di up on the Live Forever screen along with
the deified 'icons,' or Richard Ashcroft's hero rock, or what have you. Just as
the eighties seemed like one big struggle to absorb punk & Bowie & everything, we
might be in for a long period of adjusting to the new rules laid down in pop.

> My problem isn;t with the terms or even with the people who like
> things for these reasons so much as it's with the way in which
> ironic/kitschy liking is used critically, more often than not to
> 'fence off' the *really* 'worthy' stuff which must be taken seriously.
> Back to the Beatles again: 60s girl groups are trashy/kitsch/ironic,
> whereas the Beatles are Art. Etc. This is all getting a bit off the
> point, which I've lost. Onwards.
>

Just curious--where would ABBA fit in here? I think that's one group that gives
real problems to that kitsch/Art distinction, a distinction that's more lazy than
helpful.

I'm enjoying this chat....

>

[Tom Ewing]

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:22:36 -0700, "J. Mcglinchey"
<joe...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Tom Ewing wrote:
>
>This patronizing (and subtly racist) perspective is one which many critics
>here in America tend to adopt.

Yeah, I thought that - I didn't want to be so explicit about it
because I don't know the American critscene as well as the English
one.

> They say that black music (in America) is
>music that tends to be "felt", whereas music based hugely on European
>influences tends to be "thought" (and therefore suggesting that black
>people who formed such music as blues and jazz lived in a state of
>mindless primitivism, unaware of their music from any technical
>standpoint whatsoever, incapable of thought--utter hogwash). It pops up
>all the time; typically, you'll see how the blues is "warm", "emotional"
>and "experienced through nature" whereas as something like prog is "cold"
>and "technical", more for the brain than the heart, more "Wagner than
>Little Richard". Allen Moore addresses this subject (calling it the
>"mouldy fig attitude") in his book ROCK: THE PRIMARY TEXT.

And of course we could mention 'natural rhythm', or how musicologists
along with other aestheticians adopted the terms 'highbrow' and
'lowbrow', originally developed by eugenics pioneers to describe
racial characteristics, or the double standard that it the critical
attitude to hip-hop: outrageous levels of misogyny are permissible in
rap because it's 'cultural', whereas the Prodigy are jumped on as soon
as they start using similar terms. It's also sad how racially divided
most people's record collections are - obviously I wouldn't suggest
that any alternative fans select their music along racist lines, but
the majority of them (certainly in the UK) have incredibly little
'black music' in their collections, probably because of the ways the
music has been presented to them (as you've been discussing).

>I like ABBA because of their music, a lot of which I like ("S.O.S.",
>"Dancing Queen", etc.), some of which I think is too goofy for even me to
>appreciate. I am totally divorced from liking them just because they are
>from the disco era and wore bell-bottoms and represent something
>"so-unhip-it's-hip", something "deliciously gaudy".

Great, exactly my views - it seems I did grossly misrepresent you :)
Sorry about that.

>I feel, however, from
>my experiences with most people who I've talked to, that most people like
>them for the latter reason; they say to themselves: ABBA=kitsch=cool!

This is probably true. :)

Cheers,
Tom.
71.OMNI TRIO - "Renegade Snares"

[Tom Ewing]

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:35:34 -0400, Mathilde <wdm...@is8.nyu.edu>
wrote:

>
>
>> There's also the sense that Oasis are somehow a 'people's band' and
>> any criticism, however mild or even positive, is artsy-farsty and
>> intellectualising things and generally uncalled-for and unwanted.
>> Which is the impression I get from some of the hysterical
>> letters/postings/etc. I've seen about them. Grounded or not, I don't
>> know.
>
>This was one thing I appreciated about Damon's comments back in '96, that the
>whole Britpop thing had degenerated into a conservative and anti-intellectual and
>exclusivist mess. I don't think anyone would argue that that's not what's
>happened.

Yes, but the chirpy cockernee stylings of Blur are very much to blame
for that as well. Even if 'Girls And Boys' and 'Parklife' were meant
as critiques, they came over as celebrations, and Britpop was
conservative right from the bloody start. Not that pop music should be
intellectual - some fantastic pop has had quasi-theoretical
underpinnings, but most hasn't. And I also don't think the British
public or even the NME-reading public are anti=intellectual except
when it comes to Oasis. The whole reception of Oasis is also tied up
with class, of course, and how Oasis are seen as (and maybe see
themselves as) an authentic voice of the working class, a
categorisation which invariably leads to this sort of patronising
lowering of intellectual expectations.

The working class/middle class (or art school) split in British rock
and pop music fulfils a vaguely similar critical function as the
racial split does in American pop. Working class pop/rock, like black
American music, is written about as being passionate/ emotional/
unpretentious/ raw/ authentic/ physical, whereas art school pop/rock,
is cerebral / intellectual / modernist / ironic etc. etc. The latter
is something one thinks about, whereas the former is somehow
instinctive, unmediated, and forms the soundtrack to other activites -
dancing, shagging, getting drunk, and so on. All this is mostly
bollocks, of course, but it does go some way towards accounting for
why, when Noel G announces that his record is "the usual pub rock
bollocks", the criterati slap him on the back and cry oh yes,
fantastic, voice of the people, etc :).

>> But the critical reaction is also linked with the hysteria surrounding
>> the release, which is a very 1997 thing - according to the NME this
>> week, three of the five fastest selling albums ever in Britain came
>> out this year.
>
>Anticipating your point below somewhat, I get the feeling that the press (or is
>it the public?) desperately wants 1997 to be another 1995--another year of
>seminal, important, expansive ideas in popular music.

I wouldn't myself characterise 1995 as this - 1995 was hugely
important from a music industry p.o.v. as it was the year in which
British indie music went overground definitively, but in order to do
this, the music had to divest itself of all the modernist ideas and
ideals which had sustained it in the wilderness period of the 1980s.
But I thought it was pretty idea-free.

> What's really happening is
>another 1985--I really fear that another 'Live Aid' era is upon us. ARRGGHH!!!
>Think about Elton John, or Princess Di up on the Live Forever screen along with
>the deified 'icons,' or Richard Ashcroft's hero rock, or what have you. Just as
>the eighties seemed like one big struggle to absorb punk & Bowie & everything, we
>might be in for a long period of adjusting to the new rules laid down in pop.

I think what's happened is that we've adjusted to them all too
quickly. Our music business is, as Lulu rightly points out, booming,
and that's partly because it's learned to recuperate new trends much
more quickly and easily than once it did. I would draw a parallel with
the 80, though, in that the last commercially big Britpop explosion
was in 80-81, when a lot of post-punk bands started to crossover, and
this process reached its peak in 1982, when resolutely uncommercial
bands from The Associates to Orange Juice were having big top ten hits
(I've got a great article by Paul Morley from this period where he's
rhapsodising about the heer amount of good, surprising music in the
charts). Then in 1983 - which is about where we are now - the smaller
names dropped away, the newer bands in the 'new' style got more and
more boring (from, say, the Human League to Howard Jones), and the big
names - u2, for instance - became part of the musical establishment.

>Just curious--where would ABBA fit in here? I think that's one group that gives
>real problems to that kitsch/Art distinction, a distinction that's more lazy than
>helpful.

I think Abba also illuminates it - a lot of people do just naturally
assume that they're kitsch and that people who like them are liking
them to make some sort of 'point'. The usually cool Joe McGlinchey
recently dropped Abba into a list of names that crop up in Top 100
Polls which render him unable to take them seriously because of the
consideration of novelty records (sorry if I've grossly misrepresented
you Joe, as I don't have the exact posts to hand). My personal opinion
is that Abba recorded a lot of marvellous, stunning music and a whole
lot of complete shit too. The complete shit prevents me from endorsing
them as an amazing band, but that's true of almost any band, and
doesn't make 'Dancing Queen' any less earthshaking.

>I'm enjoying this chat....

Yeah, me too.

Cheers,
Tom.
79.CHUMBAWAMBA - 'Someone's Always Telling You How To Behave'

[Tom Ewing]

On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:09:22 -0700,
bitchyspice@remove*this.geocities.com (Lulu Amies) wrote:

>they aren't keen on te abum. That's their business. The people who don't
>like Oasis should stop buying the fucking albums. I see so many people who
>go, 'Oh, Oasis are shite, and I'll prove it by buying to all of their
>albums and singles'. Do you know how hard it was to get a copy of their
>new album because of wankers like this?

I have to say I find this slightly hard to believe. I mean yes, I
insisted on sitting through the whole record because I wanted to gauge
the exact degree of my dislike for it, and get some idea of the
reasons*, but never once would it have occurred to me to buy a record
I didn;t think I was going to like. The idea that Oasis'
multi-everything sales are 50% due to people who just want something
to complain about tickles me greatly, but I don't believe it for one
second.

*And also because someone had said 'Even YOU must like 'Stand By Me'
and so I thought I'd better hear it.

> If all you wanna do is bitch, get
>a computer, link it up to the net, and whine here. Don't bother reality. I
>mean, who the fuck cares whether someone likes Oasis or not? You'd think
>we were debating Nazism or summit with those letters.

No, that's the Prodigy.

>>In mine too, just about. But the unanimity of the positive reviews
>>surprised me, and I don't think the two records are *so* different. Of
>>course my interpretation is only part of the story: reading the NME
>>and MM after their lukewarm reviews of WTSMG I got a strong impression
>>of a large part of the readership that felt almost betrayed (!), and a
>>general overcompensation following that, culminating in the positivity
>>surrounding 'BHN'.
>
>In a way, this might well be true in some of these magazines, NME and MM,
>as always, being the usual suspects. Still, in reading the reviews, while
>they did give 8/10 to the album, they weren't all glowy posititve happy
>joy joy let's put on wishbone and rejoice about life. Indeed, they did
>rail on some flaws (what they were I cannot say -- I didn't buy it, I just
>sat on the floor of Tower and read it).

Yes, actualy, you're right in the NME's case at least, where the
attitude was very much 'Oh God, look, it's Oasis, you know what this
sounds like and you'll buy the thing anyway. It's OK.' and I do
remember reading the review and seeing an 8 at the bottom and thinking
that they were bottling out slightly, since the simians who read the
NME - me fully included - only ever look at the mark.

>You must remember, however, that one of these mags is calling Urban Hymns
>album of the year right now...What really do you expect?

Well, I'd fully expected that, for a start.

>A VERY generous seven. It'd have gotten a staunch 5 from me, if that much.
>And you might well be right on that one...that being said, I do believe it
>was NME that's just given the new one by Sleeper 3/10 after going all ape
>shit over them in a few past issues this month.

Oh, they like Louise Wener is all, she says things, though I heard her
on Radio Four and it was just embarassing - she's only 'articulate'
when put up next to your average pop star, after all, and even then
she's only seen as such because she says the odd 'controversial'
thing. Her politics as far as I can see are standard issue student
union barstool libertarianism.

>>Incidentally, I was trying to be pretty distanced from my own dislike
>>of Oasis' music, treating the phenomenon rather than trying to
>>criticise the record or the band. And I'm sure critics did like the
>>record: if I'd been a reviews editor I'd have given the job of
>>covering 'BHN' to a big Oasis fan, because I'd have known that the
>>record was going to be massive and that letting people review it who
>>had serious qualms about the band wouldn't do sales any good.
>
>No, I think if you are a music editor (obviously, they don't always follow
>this dictum...), you don't give it to someone who sits staunchly on either
>side. You shouldn't give it to someone who always hates the groop, nor
>should you give it to the biggest fan on staff, cos neither review will be
>very good or particularly honest.

Yes, but why do you think Oasis' fans want to read honest or
well-written reviews: as far as I can see they just want hyperbole.
The ultimate wretched BHN review was Sky's (one of the worst magazines
on Earth anyway, incidentally) - it put "You must read this before you
buy it!" on the corner, as if it was going to be some sort of dire
warning, and inside there was not a *shred* of negative criticism, not
even an attempt at analysis or context or how the record worked as a
whole, just a series of track-by-track gushings and witterings over
the awful artwork.

>>But in this country the phenomenon of Oasis does seem to be part of a
>>wider thing.
>
>Agreed, but so are most things. We're a very exagerrated bunch of people
>these days.

Well, this was kinda my whole point, expressed less succinctly.

>...which might well be blamed by a rising music market. We're doing quite
>the opposite of America, whose music market is dying a slow, painful
>death. Total flatline. On the other hand, the UK is skyrocketing. I don't
>know if this alone is an indicator of any sort of cultural hysteria.
>Incidentally, what were the three albums? I already know Oasis...

Prodigy and the Verve, you'll be 'pleased' to know.

>Yeah, I've lost a bit of the point as well, but that's a very keen point
>you just made. You know I agree with you here.

Yeah, it's my old hobby-horse but I'll ride it until I get drummed out
of here on my arse like poor old Geir.

>Oh, I've given up thinking on that one. I'd have loved it, but it appears
>they are hard to find, and exceedingly expensive if you do find them. I
>used to have a keen radio clock that had a tape deck in it, so that
>instead of radio, it would start up a tape of your choice. That was top.

That's what I want to a T, but I can't find one.

Cheers,
Tom.
77.SUEDE - 'The Drowners'

[Tom Ewing]

On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 20:16:15 -0700, Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett
<ned.deat...@kuci.org> wrote:

>Tom Ewing wrote:
>>
>> Zoe Ball on the front of the Melody Maker, where ten years
>> ago we had the Young Gods: does it have to be like that?
>
>I'd guess not, being a huge Young Gods fan. However, who is
>Zoe Ball anyway?

Childrens' TV presenter turned Breakfast Show hostess: famous for
being famous as much as anything else.

Cheers,
Tom.
76.THE FATIMA MANSIONS - 'Evil Man'

[Tom Ewing]

On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:38:54 -0400, Michael Daddino <mra...@ibm.net>
wrote:

>Like Lulu, I'm afraid I have nothing to add here. Oh sure, I wanted to

>follow this up by writing something bright and illuminating about ironic
>detachment, but it's much easier to recommend Christopher Lasch's *The
>Culture of Narcissism*, especially since you work in a bookstore and
>all.

I'll look out for it. It's used bookstore, unfortunately, which means
I can't go out and find it right now, but it's not as if I haven't got
a hundred things to read anyway.

>Contrast and compare *Rolling Stone*: I don't think I've ever seen the
>magazine give a five-star review to an album that wasn't a reissue. To
>RS, the only consensus that matters is the one that says the sixties
>still rool.

I can honestly say that until reading this I thought RS operated on a
1-4 stars system. Well, you learn something new every day.

>I'm not entirely clear why you find it irksome. Let me make a stab at
>it: you're bothered by the fact that the press praises records that
>feature a kind of seriousness the press can never hope to attain.

No, I think that the seriousness attributed to these records is out of
proportion to the levels of insight and profundity they may actually
contain. I think that it's unspeakably rare for a record to be
insightful and profound in the quasi-literary way records like 'OK
Computer' are meant to be. I also reckon that seriousness is where you
find it anyhow, and that the heightened praise given to these records
is invariably at the expense of other superb discs that don't wear
their soul on their sleeve to such an extent (or at all). And finally,
this kind of sincerity and seriousness are about the very last things
I look for in music anyhow.

>> Sincerity and authenticity, of course, are Oasis' big trump cards too:
>> it's well nigh impossible to imagine liking Oasis 'ironically', and
>> their whole mythology is based on the Brother's own personal blokiness
>> and authenticity as much as it is on the straight-ahead classicism of
>> their sound and the intensity of Liam's voice.
>
>I can't take Oasis' blokiness at face value, possibly because I see it
>so laced with contempt, a contempt I see not only in their public image,
>but in the sheer laziness of their music. I mean, can someone *really*
>insert in a song such an astonishingly lazy rhyme as "rain" and "pain"
>in complete sincerity? I will be the first to admit that my own contempt
>for the band is probably getting in the way of any objective observation
>about their sincerity. I'll also admit that I've probably just made the
>lazy equation of "insincere=bad", so what the hell do I know? Grrr....

Yeah, lazy equation and one that's usually wrong, and in fact I think
Oasis are sincere *and* contemptuous, but I still agree with most of
what you've said so I'll quibble no more.

I had a read of the alt.music.oasis newsgroup, by the way, and I
thought that most of what I've been saying was present - loadsa
laddish bonhomie, plenty of sub-Gallagher one-liners (which are
in-turn sub-Lennon one-liners anyway, which were in turn
sub-Milligan...you get the idea), bullish anti-intellectualism, zero
musical content, fervent Oasismania.

Cheers,
Tom.
75.PAVEMENT - 'Trigger Cut'

[fountainhead]

In article <3450942b...@nntp.netcruiser>,
eb...@NOSPAM.netcomuk.co.uk (Tom Ewing) wrote:

>Yes, actualy, you're right in the NME's case at least, where the
>attitude was very much 'Oh God, look, it's Oasis, you know what
>this sounds like and you'll buy the thing anyway. It's OK.' and
>I do remember reading the review and seeing an 8 at the bottom
>and thinking that they were bottling out slightly, since the
>simians who read the NME - me fully included - only ever look at
>the mark.

It was a fairly well done review actually. The guy talked about
how he put on the album and started listening to it - same old
Oasis etc etc. However, just as he was contenplating every
reviewers dream, ie. giving it a 2, he noticed, half way through
'All Around the World', that every single hair on his body was
standing on end - so he had to rewind, start again, and hear what
everybody else is hearing.

I'd love to hate Oasis. I'd love to write them off as low-grade
retro-shytsters like OCS, Cast et al. I'd love to look down from
my pile of Beatles records on the lifeless masses as they drink
their lager and sing along. I'd love to be able to sit here
writing that Definitely Maybe was a pretty good effort but it's
been rubbish ever since.

I can't.

The combination of the songs and the voice just have an
unexplainable effect on a lot of people, of which I am one. It's
not cool to like Oasis, for me they should be lost in the shadows
of Radiohead, Supergrass and Spiritualised. My views are
refining a little, I now accept that there are only about five
decent tracks of WTSMG, and that DLBiA is the worst number 1
since Mr Blobby, but I still love the group - and it's not by
choice.

fountainhead.

--
"Puffing and globbering they drugged theyselves rampling or dancing
with wild abdomen, stubbing in wild postumes amongst themselves"

founta...@earthling.net - www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/2228

[J. Mcglinchey]

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Tom Ewing wrote:

> The working class/middle class (or art school) split in British rock
> and pop music fulfils a vaguely similar critical function as the
> racial split does in American pop. Working class pop/rock, like black
> American music, is written about as being passionate/ emotional/
> unpretentious/ raw/ authentic/ physical, whereas art school pop/rock,
> is cerebral / intellectual / modernist / ironic etc. etc. The latter
> is something one thinks about, whereas the former is somehow
> instinctive, unmediated, and forms the soundtrack to other activites -
> dancing, shagging, getting drunk, and so on. All this is mostly
> bollocks, of course, but it does go some way towards accounting for

This patronizing (and subtly racist) perspective is one which many critics
here in America tend to adopt. They say that black music (in America) is

music that tends to be "felt", whereas music based hugely on European
influences tends to be "thought" (and therefore suggesting that black
people who formed such music as blues and jazz lived in a state of
mindless primitivism, unaware of their music from any technical
standpoint whatsoever, incapable of thought--utter hogwash). It pops up
all the time; typically, you'll see how the blues is "warm", "emotional"
and "experienced through nature" whereas as something like prog is "cold"
and "technical", more for the brain than the heart, more "Wagner than
Little Richard". Allen Moore addresses this subject (calling it the
"mouldy fig attitude") in his book ROCK: THE PRIMARY TEXT.

> >Just curious--where would ABBA fit in here? I think that's one group that gives

> >real problems to that kitsch/Art distinction, a distinction that's more lazy than
> >helpful.
>
> I think Abba also illuminates it - a lot of people do just naturally
> assume that they're kitsch and that people who like them are liking
> them to make some sort of 'point'. The usually cool Joe McGlinchey
> recently dropped Abba into a list of names that crop up in Top 100
> Polls which render him unable to take them seriously because of the
> consideration of novelty records (sorry if I've grossly misrepresented
> you Joe, as I don't have the exact posts to hand). My personal opinion
> is that Abba recorded a lot of marvellous, stunning music and a whole
> lot of complete shit too. The complete shit prevents me from endorsing

I like ABBA because of their music, a lot of which I like ("S.O.S.",

"Dancing Queen", etc.), some of which I think is too goofy for even me to
appreciate. I am totally divorced from liking them just because they are
from the disco era and wore bell-bottoms and represent something

"so-unhip-it's-hip", something "deliciously gaudy". I feel, however, from

my experiences with most people who I've talked to, that most people like

them for the latter reason; they say to themselves: ABBA=kitsch=cool! And
I'm against including a band in a Top 100 list (philosophically; in
reality, I don't care *THAT* much--I don't take such lists very seriously
anyway) for that sole reason.

Joe M.
U of Washington
NP: A d r i a n B e l e w, _I n n e r R e v o l u t i o n_ (1992)

[Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett]

Tom Ewing wrote:
>
> Yes, but why do you think Oasis' fans want to read honest or
> well-written reviews: as far as I can see they just want hyperbole.

Eh? That would be sad from where I sit. Hell, my own review of the
album for the mailing list, such as it was, was essentially a
'yes, but,' in that I do love it but can see why even Noel is getting
tired of the basic approach -- however, it still wins me over in
the nicest way. In short, we don't *all* want hyperbole -- how
gauche. ;-)

[Lulu Amies]

In article <345128da...@news.demon.co.uk>,
miq...@NOSPAMthepentagon.com (Karim Adab) wrote:

>Still it got one of their star-buy accolades - which, interestingly
>enough, was not afforded to OK Computer. Hehehe.....

No?! I'm about to faint. Are you completely sure? 100% sure? This might be
the only magazine in all of existance who didn't give a
'recommended'/'star buy'/'buy this, fuckers' type thing to it.

>>Oh, they like Louise Wener is all, she says things, though I heard her
>>on Radio Four and it was just embarassing -

>What the hell was she doing on Radio 4?

Probably talking about how she 'appreciates' porn, and how she hates
Tories and Labour and all other political parties and being generally
obnoxious.

>Don't worry Tom, if Noel is to be believed you won't have to endure
>them at all for another 3 years.

Except, of course, for the singles, tabloid press, concert reviews,
magazines asking where their new album is...

>That's another thing - The Verve; talk about frigging overnight
>success!!

Only in the US, they're quite well known otherwise. But I will give you
that one: the US MTV has suddenly gone all British anyhow. Fucking
Chumbawamba, Bittersweet Symphony, Radiohead every five minutes...I even
saw a news item about Spiritualized the other day. Absobloodylutely
amazing. Too bad they seem to like to pick things for heavy rotation that
are destined to be:
A) considered overrated this time next year.
B) one-hit wonders Stateside (the Verve, Blur, Chumbawamba, probably the Prodge)

I'd be surprised if anything else besides their 'big singles' from those
four make it to heavy rotation. MOR, for instance, a much better
song/video than Song 2 is now stuck only on M2. It's even gone from 120
Minutes. If the Prodge do Smack My Bitch Up, that'll never make on US MTV
(remember, they even make bands change lines like 'Don't believe in
Jesus'). MTV keeps trying to go get the next big thing, and right now I
guess they're picking Britrock/Britpop. The problem is, this ain't going
to revive the US market any more than 'electronica' and the Prodge did.
And that's my sermon for the day. Leave donations by the door.

>**La-La vs Sporty Spice - the battle for #1 cultural icon commences......**

Mud wrestling going to be involved?

Cheers,
Lulu

--
I used to like Bittersweet Symphony's video, as well, until MTV showed it 18 times (and yes, I did count) in one day.

[Lulu Amies]

In article <3450983f...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@NOSPAM.netcomuk.co.uk
wrote:

>I had a read of the alt.music.oasis newsgroup, by the way, and I
>thought that most of what I've been saying was present - loadsa
>laddish bonhomie, plenty of sub-Gallagher one-liners (which are
>in-turn sub-Lennon one-liners anyway, which were in turn
>sub-Milligan...you get the idea), bullish anti-intellectualism, zero
>musical content, fervent Oasismania.

Oh, you've forgotten the 'FUCK YOU JEWBOY!' posts (Crispo!), and Damon Albarn.

Cheers,
Lulu

--
Visit the Spice Rack: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
(E! says that it's the #4 site on the net)

[Lulu Amies]

In article <62q9j8$eag...@leeds.ac.uk>, founta...@earthling.net
(fountainhead) wrote:

>The combination of the songs and the voice just have an
>unexplainable effect on a lot of people, of which I am one.

The voice, the voice. I tend to like the tracks that everyone else seems
to hate, though. I can't believe how many Oasis fans despise Headshrinker,
Bring it on Down...They all seem to be sitting around singing Wonderwall,
which I all but hate -- the album version, at least. I feel like I'm
missing something in the Oasis Fan Kingdom.

>I now accept that there are only about five
>decent tracks of WTSMG, and that DLBiA is the worst number 1
>since Mr Blobby

DLBiA was number one?!?! Where the hell was I when this happened? Stay off
the drugs, kiddies. Look what it does to you: I distinctly remember Mr
Blobby, and 2 Become 1, and the goddamned Smurfs (they were number one at
some point, weren't they?), but I can't remember this happening. It's
tourture.

Cheers,
Lulu

--
"50% of Oasis's appeal is the looks of the lead singer". - Simon LeBon (!!)

[Walrus4080]

> obviously I wouldn't suggest
>that any alternative fans select their music along racist lines, but
>the majority of them (certainly in the UK) have incredibly little
>'black music' in their collections, probably because of the ways the
>music has been presented to them (as you've been discussing).

How about intellectual american students embracing alterna-rap like Tribe
Called Quest and De La Soul because they are compeled to enjoy the "lobrow,"
yet dismissing real black pop music like Master P, Puff Daddy, And Lil'Kim?
What is so offensive about Puff Daddy's blatant sampling and flashy clothing?
I think undercurrents of this social phenomenon are rooted in problems of
identity, but I am unable (or not learned enough) to conceptualize any solid
connection between the two. I think the images themselves show some of the
point: Puff Daddy in Gucci suits ("...and mess up your pretty little costume"
--Chile Palmer *Get Shorty*), or De La Soul in casual student-like fashion.

The differences between oasis's image and blur's image are almost analogous to
the above situation. Noel and Liam have, finally, given in to Rolex and
Versace, while Damon sports a Mickey Mouse t-shirt. I'm sure this situation
suggests more than the size of their respective bankrolls. Can someone help
me develop this thought?

Alan

[J. Mcglinchey]

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, fernando wrote:

> which music's impact is judged. Meaning, that technical proficiency is not
> present in most listener's mind, a more visceral aspect is. Then, the
> 'black' music you mention above is actually smarter because it *maximizes*
> the impact to the listener.

You bring up several good points, fernando. I would say that blues and
jazz are very powerful (or at least potentially powerful) forms of music
when done well, but I wouldn't be willing to say that they are *always*
better at maximizing a visceral impact (and here you'd have to define what
you mean by that) to the listener than any other form of music (for
example, ever hear "The Rite of Spring"? probably one of the most
technical pieces of the 20th century, and still knocks the wind out of
you), or that they always even *do* maximize a visceral impact. And,
while we're at it, jazz music (and I would assume the blues has its share
as well) cranks out as many virtuosos and technically proficient musicians
as any other (*way* more than rock and roll).

> I wonder, how do the critics then place the banality find in the hair rock
> bands of the 80s, as one instance of white intelligence?

Hair rock bands in the 80s didn't really indulge in any musical European
influences (in my last post, I simply said "European influences", which
was misleading--I was talking specifically of musical European influence)
that I am aware of. Most of the ones I can think of (Poison, Warrant,
Winger) were American. One of 'em (Poison?) covered "Your Mama Can't
Dance, and Your Daddy Don't Rock and Roll", an Elvis tune. There was
Whitesnake, a British band made up of ex-Deep Purple members, who were
pretty much copping-off of Led Zeppelin's heavy electric style (which in
turn was mostly a take on American blues musicians) and never indulged in
Led's more acoustic, English-folk (European) based style. There was
occasional things like Yngwee J. Malmsteen's Rising Force, and Steve Vai's
"Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"-type stuff, which seem on the surface
to have a European influence. However, the latter is clearly meant to be
satirical and not serious. The former might have been meant to be more
serious, but I think people perceived YJM (rightly, IMO) to be more or
less merely technical flash and Paganini-speed riffs, and from what I
have heard in his work there is little balance or subtlety (in all
fairness, I have seen opinions to the contrary); too many, then, it
probably came off as a "comic book"-style effect played by a one-trick
pony (after getting past Yngwee's guitar, there doesn't seem to be much
about the Rising Force to hold one's attention).

> would the punk and post-punk movement be in that middle ground as well? it
> is hardly intellectual, for the most part, or it was not meant to be, it is
> European white music...

See above. Punk (to me) does not seem to be based on any European
*musical* influence (again, I apologize for merely saying "European
influence" last post). In fact, I don't know *what* exactly punk was
based on. :) From my perception, and I admit my naivety on the
subject, the closest musical form I would say that it approximates
is early American rock and roll. Its the resurfacing of "an old myth in
new trappings"; that is, I see punk as sort of the reincarnation of the
1950s (birth of rock and roll period) sensibility-- the raw aggression,
direct opposition to the Establishment stuff, etc.--intensified,
and brought back in the 1970s and situated in a new context (working class
Britain), and due to that cultural and temporal context, minus the good
cheer and innocence that marked popular music in the 50s. That's why I
believe critics (and most of the major popular ones were growing up in
1950s America) were probably drawn to it so much. In short, my take on it
is: it's true that punk was originally situated in a European context, but
I don't see it *musically* as being based on any traditionally
European-rooted music at all. If I'm wrong, I happily welcome
'enlightenment'. :)

Joe M.
U of Washington

NP: R o b e r t F r i p p & T h e L e a g u e o f C r a f t y
G u i t a r i s t s, _I n t e r g a l a c t i c B o o g i e
E x p r e s s_ (1991; released 1995)

[Tom Ewing]

On 25 Oct 1997 07:51:27 GMT, walru...@aol.com (Walrus4080) wrote:

>> obviously I wouldn't suggest
>>that any alternative fans select their music along racist lines, but
>>the majority of them (certainly in the UK) have incredibly little
>>'black music' in their collections, probably because of the ways the
>>music has been presented to them (as you've been discussing).
>
>How about intellectual american students embracing alterna-rap like Tribe
> Called Quest and De La Soul because they are compeled to enjoy the "lobrow,"
> yet dismissing real black pop music like Master P, Puff Daddy, And Lil'Kim?
> What is so offensive about Puff Daddy's blatant sampling and flashy clothing?

Conspicuous consumption always sits ill with the alternative nation,
which may have more to do with its discomfort with black pop than is
first apparent, since in soul and disco and hip-hop there has always
been a tradition of upward mobility, the romance of sophistication in
both a musical and societal sense (think of the soft-focus romanticism
of Philly soul ballads, or of Chic's masterpiece 'Good Times', which
is invariably rationalised as being sarcastic by rock critics). I
can't think of a similar tradition in rock, certainly not in
alternative rock.

As for the sampling - I have to say that Puffy doesn't do it very well
("urban karaoke" is an apt description of his stuff) but others do
(Missy Elliot, for example. The Fugees at their best.) and there have
been plenty of predicably outraged yelps from alternative fans, many
of whom probably have a copy of (say) "Bitter Sweet Symphony" or
Elastica's first album clutched close to their hearts. I don't think
it's a plagiarism question, I do think it's the blatancy of the theft
and the flashiness of the resultant records that set hackles rising.

>The differences between oasis's image and blur's image are almost analogous to
> the above situation. Noel and Liam have, finally, given in to Rolex and
> Versace, while Damon sports a Mickey Mouse t-shirt. I'm sure this situation
> suggests more than the size of their respective bankrolls. Can someone help
> me develop this thought?

Now this really is interesting, since perhaps the bragging and
attitude which Oasis inherited from the Roses and took to much greater
heights *do* represent the establishment of a parallel upward mobility
tradition: Thatcher's legacy reinterpreted by Blair and justified by
Noel through populism and sensitive power ballads. I'm not sure.
(though I am sure about poor confused Damon with his toning down of
the flashboy 'British image', and his newfound avowal of Pavement, and
the rekindling of his intellectual flame - he's not trying to conquer
America, it's Britain's rockcrit cognoscenti he needs the approval
of.)

Cheers,
Tom.
69.SAINT ETIENNE - 'Avenue'

[Tom Ewing]

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:33:04 -0700, ferd...@radixtek.com (fernando)
wrote:

>I wonder, how do the critics then place the banality find in the hair rock
>bands of the 80s, as one instance of white intelligence?

Um. If I was going to try to rationalise/justify hairmetal, posing
here as the sort of rockcrit who would want to, I'd probably point to
the banal but heartfelt lyrics and talk about blue-collar,
working-class experience and 'salf-of-the-earth', no-bullshit
songwriting and so on, all the kind of things people use to talk about
Oasis in fact. To explain the hair itself, who knows? I could invoke
ABC and the Human League (and Pulp for that matter) and talk about how
their glamorous image was in revolt against their mundane origins, but
I don't know too much about the background of hair metal bands - the
West Coast strain always looked to me like America's very own New
Romanticism.

>would the punk and post-punk movement be in that middle ground as well? it
>is hardly intellectual, for the most part, or it was not meant to be, it is
>European white music...

Hardly intellectual? Well, that depends on who you're talking to. If
you're talking to Greil Marcus, the roots of punk are deeply
intellectual, inasmuch as Mal MacLaren fancied himself as being one.
If you're talking to Stuart Home, then it's a) meaningless to talk
about genres as being intellectual or otherwise nd b) Marcus is
talking out of his arse.

And plenty of post-punk music was fiercely intellectual, or at least
wanted to look it - Gang Of Four, for example. Scitti Politti to an
absurd extent (even taking their name from a Gramsci book).

>I do find that, generally, Europeans tend to be more phylosophical about
>life (and hence, music), than the people in the US, in some general
>fashion. However, this transcends color, and it is more geolocation
>related. Just an impression.

The notional divide in philosophy - and I'm no expert, this may be
complete nonsense - puts the UK and US on one side and Europe on the
other, for the most part. I was talking about this in the pub this
afternoon, in fact, and we remarked how odd it was that the three
philosophy graduates there had been force-fed Kant and had barely
touched on Hegel.*

*Don't worry, folks, we also talked about the Teletubbies.

Cheers,
Tom.
68.EC8OR - 'Spex Is A Fat Bitch'

[Tom Ewing]

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:57:35 -0400, pink pink pink pink moon
<wdm...@is8.nyu.edu> wrote:

>> Not that pop music should be
>> intellectual - some fantastic pop has had quasi-theoretical
>> underpinnings, but most hasn't.
>

>And Thank God.

Here, incidentaly, we have more received wisdom - that intellectualism
is totally out of place in pop. Why do you think this?

>> I wouldn't myself characterise 1995 as this - 1995 was hugely
>> important from a music industry p.o.v. as it was the year in which
>> British indie music went overground definitively, but in order to do
>> this, the music had to divest itself of all the modernist ideas and
>> ideals which had sustained it in the wilderness period of the 1980s.
>> But I thought it was pretty idea-free.
>

>I personally felt like there were a lot of ideas in 94-95. Maybe I have a harder time
>separating the music industry's big year from the music itself. I will say that one
>cannot disregard the fact that the industry gives ideas real currency. An idea
>without a following is not the entire story, and an idea with a following is not
>negligible. Unless you to play the riual game of Who came up with it first? or
>whatever. Which is fun and all...

I sort of agree. The thing is that once you've made the initial effort
and got into indie music, especially in a place as small as Britain,
it really doesn't make much difference whether something is nationally
big or not - from my perspective, MBV then were as 'big' - i.e.
everyone I knew was familiar with them and had listened to them - as
the Verve are now. The only difference comes when you walk into the
newsagents :).

But I'd still say that it wasn't a case of the industry picking up on
good ideas and marketing them and making them less good. What happened
was that the music dumbed down and started looking blatantly to the
past, and then the industry took note. So I have to ask, what ideas
are these anyhow?

(1994, when I think about it, was a lot more interesting a year than
1995, though better records came out in '95).

>This is obviously a much more considered analysis than what I was giving. But just
>because we are incorporating new ideas quickly doesn't necessarily make for a healthy
>scene. Maybe what i meant to say was that since the underground has gone overground
>so dramatically, we've lost some built in (underground) mechanisms for developing and
>fostering new ideas. A supernova, with a vast empty core left behind.

This is actually pretty much what I'm saying too.:)

> And I would
>like to see thatPaul Morley article you're talking about. Unfortunately
>(fortunately?) I missed out on a great deal of early Eighties music trends.

Well, once my favourite singles of the 90s sigs run their monolithic
course, I fully intend to start on an even vaster list for the 80s :).
As for the Morley article, I doubt I'd get permission to use it but
quotes from it may run when I finally get my fanzine out. Failing that
I'll type in some of it here maybe.

Cheers,
Tom.
67.OPUS 3 - 'It's A Fine Day'

[Tom Ewing]

On 24 Oct 1997 20:30:12 GMT, gree...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Mark Bartlam)
wrote:

>Tom Ewing (eb...@NOSPAM.netcomuk.co.uk) posted the following:

>I think part of this has to do with expectations - people somehow expect
>black Americans to be less well educated, and hence their misogyny is
>often apologised for as a symptom of this lack of education.

And of course one need only look at the Tory party to see how
refreshingly un-misogynist the highly educated are.

>: It's also sad how racially divided
>: most people's record collections are - obviously I wouldn't suggest

>: that any alternative fans select their music along racist lines, but
>: the majority of them (certainly in the UK) have incredibly little
>: 'black music' in their collections, probably because of the ways the
>: music has been presented to them (as you've been discussing).
>

>So, do you lay blame for this "lack" of 'black music' in people's
>collections on the music press? This is a whole grey area, because if
>you're not careful you can lay yourself open to accusations of racism
>(political correctness gone mad), but I think it *is* the case that the
>British music press are prone to tokenism. Witness the way Public Enemy
>and the Wu-Tang Clan have been "adopted" by the UK music press. How many
>black artists have been featured on the cover of MM or NME?

The British music press play a double game. On the one hand they
present themselves as the sole bastion and guardian of the innovative
and exciting in British music, but on the other hand, when someone
pulls them up on the lack of black faces on the cover, they plead that
the music is somehow outside their remit. Fine if their remit is to
cover white guitar music, but if they're honest enough to admit that
they should also drop the 'innovation' rhetoric.

Of course, sometimes they get it right, and in a big way - if you get
the chance to read the NME from about 82 to 86, you'll find amazingly
impressive coverage of soul, reggae, and the burgeoning hip-hop scene.
There was a lot of coverage given to hip-hop when I started reading in
'89, though as another poster said it was mostly the D.A.I.S.Y. Age
groups, and they didnt often appear on the covers. The Melody Maker,
meanwhile, or more accurately Simon Reynolds, wrote about
ardkore/jungle when nobody else would even in the dance media, and is
directly responsible for me being the first kid on my block to get
into it :)

Besides, when I talked about "the presentation" of the music, I wasn't
referring to its prominence in the papers so much as its coverage - in
the soul and hip-hop press as well as the weeklies - as a determinedly
separate entity. There's a lot of elitism and mistrust of outsiders
within black music, of course, and while MM may feature a hip-hop
group on the front once ever six months, when was the last time Muzik,
say, put a rock band on their cover?

>Hey, ABBA are cool. The first record I ever bought was an ABBA single,
>when I was about 6. I still have a soft spot for them even now.

Well, the first record I ever bought was by Howard Jones, and I'll
leave that particular revival to Geir.

>+-------------------=[ mark bartlam ]=-----------------------+
>[mark.b...@green.ox.ac.uk|http://users.ox.ac.uk/~gree0155/]
> through my eyes i'm sinful, sly, i can't stop stealing
> i will pay the price of being a thief when i stop breathing

This sig reminds me that Jockey Slut (I think) put the Primals on
their front cover. Good for them.

Cheers,
Tom,
70.NEW ORDER - 'Regret'

[Tom Ewing]

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 23:30:14 GMT, miq...@NOSPAMthepentagon.com (Karim
Adab) wrote:

>On the day Fri, 24 Oct 1997 13:12:42 GMT, eb...@NOSPAM.netcomuk.co.uk
>(Tom Ewing)yielded the following after their daily medication
>
>I actually have that issue somewhere, I think.
>The reviewer - dunno who it was - began by saying how much he'd like
>to give it a good panning, then divulged into how Noel can still write
>a catchy tune and how it was a better album that WTSMG. He ended on a
>relatively positive note - and certainly didn't lose his nerve as much
>as the MM reviewer. This guy, I remember, went on and on about how
>boring and stodgy half the album was, ended with a good deal of praise
>(ass-kissing, whatever) for Noel and Liam's respective talents and
>basically said that they should be put to much better use than this
>pub rock bollocks (tm). It wasn't a very positive review on the whole,
>save the last paragraph, and even that was more appreciation of the
>musicians rather than the music.

>Still it got one of their star-buy accolades - which, interestingly
>enough, was not afforded to OK Computer. Hehehe.....

Maybe I read the MM one and not the NME one, since this sort of thing
sounds more like what irritated me (giving the record what amounted to
a lukewarm review and then sticking a placatory star or 8/10 or
whatever next to it)

>>Oh, they like Louise Wener is all, she says things, though I heard her
>>on Radio Four and it was just embarassing -
>

>What the hell was she doing on Radio 4?

Woman's Hour, I believe, being patronised by the presenter.

>>Yes, but why do you think Oasis' fans want to read honest or
>>well-written reviews: as far as I can see they just want hyperbole.
>

>Ahem.

See my reply to Ned's thing.

>What do you expect?
>I found the universal acceptance of BHN to be a "great" record rather
>sinister actually, think of it this way : the journos were allowed one
>or two listens to the album, under the glare of Creation records
>people. One or two listens to a song does not tell you how well it
>will fare 50th time round, and I'm the first to admit that Oasis songs
>almost always sound best the first time. Bang, they hit you, no subtle
>melodic hooks to become accustomed to; Noel on the whole writes
>instant pop songs not "growers". The journalists weren't allowed,
>AFAIK (and I have first hand proof of this....), any personal/office
>copies of the album. Nothing left Creation HQ after the reviews.
>The charm worked, the music peeps thought "wow, what a lovely set of
>songs" without realising that several of them would become rather
>annoying after the nth listen.

If true - and the fact that promo copies have turned up after all at
my record shop makes me doubt it slightly - this is indeed a good
point and fairly cunning of Creation.

Cheers,
66.NICK CAVE AND THE BAD SEEDS - 'The Ship Song'

[fernando]

In article
<Pine.A41.3.96a.97102...@dante34.u.washington.edu>, "J.
Mcglinchey" <joe...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

<+>On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, fernando wrote:
<+>
<+>> which music's impact is judged. Meaning, that technical proficiency is not
<+>> present in most listener's mind, a more visceral aspect is. Then, the
<+>> 'black' music you mention above is actually smarter because it *maximizes*
<+>> the impact to the listener.
<+>
<+>You bring up several good points, fernando. I would say that blues and
<+>jazz are very powerful (or at least potentially powerful) forms of music
<+>when done well, but I wouldn't be willing to say that they are *always*...

Sorry, but at no time I meant to imply an always... I think that
absolutisms are a waste of time (cf. Geir and melody) and lazy at best.
Also, I was implying good examples of the genre, as opposed to all of the
music found in it.

<+>And,
<+>while we're at it, jazz music (and I would assume the blues has its share
<+>as well) cranks out as many virtuosos and technically proficient musicians
<+>as any other (*way* more than rock and roll).

This has been my impression as well... most technically inclined people
I know are bound to love jazz more than the prog stuff (or European
influenced). I am trying to get started with jazz, because I feel, or
percieve, it as being technically wonderful without compromising the
visceral component.

fernando

:: Modify email on reply to have the spanish for FERDINAND ::
-*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*-
Doves circuit the sky, in the room where I woke, I heard them fly, like a
rush of blood, into the endless blue... reflected light, trembles on the
wall, where Hannah lies ____________________ Dialogue :: And Also The Trees
-*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*- -*-

[This Is My Own]

Tom Ewing wrote:

> On 25 Oct 1997 07:51:27 GMT, walru...@aol.com (Walrus4080) wrote:

--> obviously I wouldn't suggest that any alternative fans select their
--> music along racist lines, but the majority of them (certainly in the
--> UK) have incredibly little 'black music' in their collections,
--> probably because of the ways the music has been presented to them
--> (as you've been discussing).

The same is true in the States. It's like "white is white and black is
black and never the twain shall meet" - except in 1996 when Rage Against
the Machine, 311, Fun Lovin' Criminals, Beck, Butthole Surfers,
Bloodhound Gang, and Cake all had major "alternative"/rap (or at least
talking over the music in rhythm - same thing really) crossover hits.
Still, they were all "white music," and "black music" is separated from
that. Strange, though - I thought the music was just sound waves, not
colors?

--> How about intellectual american students embracing alterna-rap like
--> Tribe Called Quest and De La Soul because they are compeled to enjoy
--> the "lobrow," yet dismissing real black pop music

"Real black pop music?" Is this going to turn into another banal "What
is real music" or "What is black music" or "What is pop music" flamewar?
If so, I'd like to kindly request that I not participate.

--> like Master P, Puff Daddy, And Lil'Kim? What is so offensive about
--> Puff Daddy's blatant sampling and flashy clothing?

It's the punk DIY-credibility thing. Sampled music is considered "fake."
It makes me think Wu-Tang Clan should be more popular in the
"alternative" community than Beck is. (BTW, I happen to like Wu-Tang,
and Beck's new single "Deadweight" is IMO horrendous.)

> Conspicuous consumption always sits ill with the alternative nation,

MTV canceled Alternative Nation a long time ago! Where have you been? ;)

> As for the sampling - I have to say that Puffy doesn't do it very well
> ("urban karaoke" is an apt description of his stuff)

I don't think it's the sampling. I think it's more like Puffy rapping to
an ever-so-slightly different rhythm than the one sampled in the
background. As rhythm is basically everything in rap (especially for a
solo artist), his music comes out as "bad."

--
Lewis Bateman mhm 15x11 lbat...@hotmail.com H
The King of Carp

----------------------------------------------------------
| The writer of this message may not be held responsible |
| for anything whatsoever. It's all Aaron Henne's fault. |
----------------------------------------------------------

[Lulu Cocker]

In article <34526a61...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@NOSPAM.netcomuk.co.uk
wrote:

>Here, incidentaly, we have more received wisdom - that intellectualism
>is totally out of place in pop. Why do you think this?

Well, I, for one, do not think this. It most certainly isn't, as there are
plenty of pop songs that are quite intelligent and still good. The problem
is, the majority of people who try to be witty and intelligent in pop are,
in fact, complete idiots and a bit in the way of posuers, which makes it
seem that intellectualism in pop is a failure. Indeed, it isn't. It's just
that certain people would do better to stop trying to be brilliant and
start trying to make decent music.

Cheers,
Lulu

--
Though, obviously, not every song should be intelligent, etc etc disclaimer here.

[Lulu Cocker]

In article <19971025075...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
walru...@aol.com (Walrus4080) wrote:

['black music/white music' in American vs. Oasis and Blur bit snipped,
good points on all parts everyone]

Intriguingly enough, SPIN magazine had a piece on the exact same subject:
Oasis being equated with hip hop stars. Very weird, as I read it just
about the same day this subject started up. Here's the article, if anyone
cares (it's majorly short):

Why Oasis are more hip hop than Britpop by Zev Borow (top writer, incidentally)

What do the hip hop nation and the self proclaimed biggest rock band in
the world have in common? If you said platinum records, NWA samples and a
penchant for superfluous helicopters, you'd be right. But those are just a
few of the similarities between the two. Check it:
Old School Fasion: With their Kangols, windbreakers, Fred Perry shirts
that recall early 80s Izods and two piece Adidas track suits, the
Gallagher boys could pass for Beat Street extras. [photo of Liam in said
hat and jacket]
Pro Sports Team Obsession: Oasis devote themselves to the Manchester
city football club with a passion that matches, if not surpasses, any love
Ice Cube ever felt for the LA Raiders. And, like Puffy Combs, they've got
the logoed gear to prove it. [photo of Noely and Liam in appropriate Manc
gear]
Video Vision: The video for Oasis's single, D'You Know What I Mean?
(basically a laddish translation of the hip hop colloquialism, Y'know I'm
sayin'?) features a swarm of helicopters, just like nearly every Hype
Williams production (see Mary J. Blige's Everything). [photo of
helicopters over the boys]
Posses/Rivalries: Oasis have taken to rolling with an entourage
(including Johnny Depp, Kate Moss, and several burly guitar
techs/bodyguards) that would impress Suge Knight. This provides menacing
backup for the band's very public fueds with fellow Britpoppers Blur, and
more recently, the shoegazing outfit Hurricane #1. [photo of Liam and
Damon going at it at footy]
Suspect Boasts: In his book, The Science of Rap, KRS-One instructed
would be rappers to "feel free to speak highly of yourself". The Gallagher
brothers understand: when asked if he thought Oasis were more important to
the youth of today than God, Noel responded, "Without a shadow of a doubt
that is true". [photo of Noel holding up tonnes of cash]
Drugs/Scrapes With the Law: When it comes to outspoken public support
of illegal narcotics, Oasis are the Cypress Hill of the UK. Noel recently
told the British press he thinks the British Parliament are a "bunch of
hypocrites" for keeping marijuana illegal. Liam, always more direct, was
arrested for possesion of cocaine, twice. [photo of Liam and Patsy boozing
it]

Just made me laugh. It's all true, you know. Oasis are British Puff Daddy
and the Family.

Cheers,
Lulu

--
Other than that, Spin this month was total wank, like normal.

[Lulu Cocker]

In article <345264f4...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@NOSPAM.netcomuk.co.uk
wrote:

>As for the sampling - I have to say that Puffy doesn't do it very well
>("urban karaoke" is an apt description of his stuff)

*laughs* Nice one...

>but others do
>(Missy Elliot, for example. The Fugees at their best.) and there have
>been plenty of predicably outraged yelps from alternative fans, many
>of whom probably have a copy of (say) "Bitter Sweet Symphony" or
>Elastica's first album clutched close to their hearts. I don't think
>it's a plagiarism question, I do think it's the blatancy of the theft
>and the flashiness of the resultant records that set hackles rising.

Yes, but if you notice, the rappers tend to be quite careful in giving
credit, it seems, whereas the rockers tend to not be arsed about whether
or not they credit a sample (see: the Verve losing all royalties because
they didn't feel need to ask permission to use the Stone's song). The
Verve did a VERY blatant theft, equal to the majority of Puff Daddy's
work. I love pointing that out to people. It really pisses the anti-rap
crew off.

>(though I am sure about poor confused Damon with his toning down of
>the flashboy 'British image', and his newfound avowal of Pavement, and
>the rekindling of his intellectual flame - he's not trying to conquer
>America, it's Britain's rockcrit cognoscenti he needs the approval
>of.)

Then he's gone about it all wrong, hasn't he? It's the wrong bit of the
decade to be Low-Fi Damon Albarn. This part of the decade is all about
rock stars being rock stars. To quote the gist of a recent Elle article,
it's about Tony and Noel drinking heartily at Number 10, it's about Jarvis
buying a mansion and letting all his friends live there, it's about It
Girls being famous for being famous, it's about watching Wishbone. He'd do
far better to start acting like the flashboy again (though, obviously,
he'd best not return to that style of music, as he was well flogging a
dead horse by the time of The Great Escape). His attitude is all wrong to
fit in with this part of the decade. He's sooo 1993.

Cheers,
Lulu

--
Alex James is the one that still fits in with the rest of rock, innit?

[Persinthia]

In article <3452BE...@spam.sucks.sucks.sucks>,
lbat...@spam.sucks.sucks.sucks says...

>The same is true in the States. It's like "white is white and black is
>black and never the twain shall meet" - except in 1996 when Rage Against
>the Machine, 311, Fun Lovin' Criminals, Beck, Butthole Surfers,
>Bloodhound Gang, and Cake all had major "alternative"/rap (or at least
>talking over the music in rhythm - same thing really) crossover hits.

It's kind of sad, isnt' it? Just shows that once again, the UK is still ahead
of the times. Artists like Massive Attack, Prodigy, Jamaroqui (sp?), most
drum n bass artists, etc, have black and white musicians working together.
What did the USA have? Hootie and the friggin Blowfish (also there is a band
out of Los Angeles called The Negro Problem with black and white members).
I'd like to see more artists in the US get over the white/black thing and
work together more often. It's about the music, not who's making it. The US
mindset is that white people don't understand hip-hop, yet Jeru The Damaja
pointed out in an interview w/ Source magazine, that he tours countries like
Sweden and Norway and the people there understand hip-hop more so than most
blacks in the US. There's a whole wide world out there and people of all
cultures are embracing hip-hop, funk, etc and are working *together*. It's
nice to see artists like Pete Rock, Guru and others expand and work with
people like DJ Krush out of Japan.

>It's the punk DIY-credibility thing. Sampled music is considered "fake."
>It makes me think Wu-Tang Clan should be more popular in the
>"alternative" community than Beck is. (BTW, I happen to like Wu-Tang,
>and Beck's new single "Deadweight" is IMO horrendous.)

Haven't heard the new Beck, but I really liked 'Wu-Tang Forever'. The RZA is
working with artists like Bjork and I hear that he has his sights on some of
the UK drum n bass artists. It'd be nice to see the US embrace jungle/drum n
bass as a legitimate style for the 90's.

>I don't think it's the sampling. I think it's more like Puffy rapping to
>an ever-so-slightly different rhythm than the one sampled in the
>background. As rhythm is basically everything in rap (especially for a
>solo artist), his music comes out as "bad."

His videos come out as even worse :)

--
In My CD Changer/Stereo:

Cosmic Intervention - Help Your Satori Mind
Source Direct - Capital D/Enemy Lines
U-Ziq - My Little Beautiful

Quote:

"I have a feeling there is something wonderful under
those jeans that's waiting to come out"
Jack Horner - "Boogie Nights"

[This Is My Own]

Persinthia wrote:

> In article <3452BE...@spam.sucks.sucks.sucks>,
> lbat...@spam.sucks.sucks.sucks says...

--> The same is true in the States. It's like "white is white and black
--> is black and never the twain shall meet" - except in 1996 when Rage
--> Against the Machine, 311, Fun Lovin' Criminals, Beck, Butthole
--> Surfers, Bloodhound Gang, and Cake all had major "alternative"/rap
--> (or at least talking over the music in rhythm - same thing really)
--> crossover hits.

> It's kind of sad, isnt' it? Just shows that once again, the UK is
> still ahead of the times. Artists like Massive Attack, Prodigy,
> Jamaroqui (sp?),

Jamiroquai. A victim of the "if a million monkeys banged on a million
keyboards for about five minutes, they will come up with the perfect
band name" mentality. Notice that each letter in "Jamiroquai" alternates
between the right- and left-hand side of the keyboard.

> most drum n bass artists, etc, have black and white musicians working
> together.

Not to mention the (English) Beat, the Specials, and the rest of the
late 70s two-tone ska bands (before the Mighty Mighty Bosstones even
existed, much less began to deteriorate with songs like Royal Oil).

> What did the USA have? Hootie and the friggin Blowfish (also there is
> a band out of Los Angeles called The Negro Problem with black and
> white members). I'd like to see more artists in the US get over the
> white/black thing and work together more often.

Well, we already have the Snoop Doggy Dogg/Rage Against The Machine
collaboration, and the video that was in heavy rotation all summer with
Blackstreet, Ol' Dirty Bastard, Slash, and Fishbone (too late to vote
for the worst song of the year)? So our country is making progress -
next, maybe we'll come up with something worth listening to.

> It's about the music, not who's making it. The US mindset is that
> white people don't understand hip-hop,

Many white people do ~like~ hip-hop. Saying we don't ~understand~ it
reminds me a little too much of every "alternative" band's fear of
"selling out."

The way I "understand" it, hip-hop is about (a) just listening to the
music and enjoying it, and/or (b) the lyrical meaning of the songs
themselves, which is usually made clearer than in "alternative" music
(Glycerine, anyone?).

> yet Jeru The Damaja pointed out in an interview w/ Source magazine,
> that he tours countries like Sweden and Norway and the people there
> understand hip-hop more so than most blacks in the US.

Try telling that to the one (as far as I know) a.m.a regular from that
part of the world.

> There's a whole wide world out there and people of all cultures are
> embracing hip-hop, funk, etc and are working *together*. It's nice to
> see artists like Pete Rock, Guru and others expand and work with
> people like DJ Krush out of Japan.

And making more interesting music than, say, Snoop/RATM.

--> It's the punk DIY-credibility thing. Sampled music is considered
--> "fake." It makes me think Wu-Tang Clan should be more popular in the
--> "alternative" community than Beck is. (BTW, I happen to like Wu-
--> Tang, and Beck's new single "Deadweight" is IMO horrendous.)

> Haven't heard the new Beck, but I really liked 'Wu-Tang Forever'. The
> RZA is working with artists like Bjork and I hear that he has his
> sights on some of the UK drum n bass artists.

Now ~that~ sounds like something I'd like to hear.

> It'd be nice to see the US embrace jungle/drum n bass as a legitimate
> style for the 90's.

It'd be nicer to see the US admit that American "alternative" music is
dying, and not churn out any more bands like Third Eye Blind.

--> I don't think it's the sampling. I think it's more like Puffy
--> rapping to an ever-so-slightly different rhythm than the one sampled
--> in the background. As rhythm is basically everything in rap
--> (especially for a solo artist), his music comes out as "bad."

> His videos come out as even worse :)

Yes, but how many good rap videos do you see? For that matter, how many
good ~videos~ do you see? In the past several months, I've noticed Cibo
Matto, Reel Big Fish, Radiohead (who now have 2 videos that end in a car
being set on fire), and Foo Fighters (who need a new single, fast) -
that's about it. Most videos are nothing but ridiculous cliches.

[Tom Ewing]

On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:56:56 -0700,
bitchyspice@remove*this.geocities.com (Lulu Cocker) wrote:

>In article <345264f4...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@NOSPAM.netcomuk.co.uk
>wrote:
>
>>As for the sampling - I have to say that Puffy doesn't do it very well
>>("urban karaoke" is an apt description of his stuff)
>
>*laughs* Nice one...

Not mine, though :(.

>Yes, but if you notice, the rappers tend to be quite careful in giving
>credit, it seems, whereas the rockers tend to not be arsed about whether
>or not they credit a sample (see: the Verve losing all royalties because
>they didn't feel need to ask permission to use the Stone's song). The
>Verve did a VERY blatant theft, equal to the majority of Puff Daddy's
>work. I love pointing that out to people. It really pisses the anti-rap
>crew off.

Yeah, of course. Although Ashcroft is claiming that it wasn't the
melody he sampled, but the string bed underneath, or something like
that. Still, it's obviously something they should do more, if the
majority of 'Urban Hymns' is anything to go by.

>Then he's gone about it all wrong, hasn't he? It's the wrong bit of the
>decade to be Low-Fi Damon Albarn. This part of the decade is all about
>rock stars being rock stars. To quote the gist of a recent Elle article,
>it's about Tony and Noel drinking heartily at Number 10

Yeah, very rock star :)

>, it's about Jarvis
>buying a mansion and letting all his friends live there, it's about It
>Girls being famous for being famous, it's about watching Wishbone.

What, O It Girl of alt.music.oasis, is Wishbone?

Anyhow, this kind of thing may go down well with Elle, but I think
Damon's more concerned with being taken seriously musically again
after The Great Escape. Still you're right that he's going the wrong
way about it.

> He'd do
>far better to start acting like the flashboy again (though, obviously,
>he'd best not return to that style of music, as he was well flogging a
>dead horse by the time of The Great Escape). His attitude is all wrong to
>fit in with this part of the decade. He's sooo 1993.

Haw haw. Yeah. And according to someone who was chatting w/ Steve
Malkmus, Pavement don't even like his new stuff anyway. Anyway, the
bar in Iceland was a start, I suppose. Damon ought to be thinking
about what's going to be the in thing to do in '99, by which point
this whole nonsense should have - not died down, but become very
uncool.

Cheers,
Tom.
61.THE SUNDAYS - 'Goodbye'

[Tom Ewing]

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 02:51:50 -0500, This Is My Own
<lbat...@spam.sucks.sucks.sucks> wrote:

>> most drum n bass artists, etc, have black and white musicians working
>> together.

This is true enough, Persi, but even in d'n'b/jungle lots of
interesting race issues crop up, especially when you start asking
about the origins of the sound. There are at least three different
versions (mixes?) of the jungle origin story, each of which is
slianted to emphasise certain issues of race and musicality.

i) Jungle as a music mostly derived from ragga, reggae, hip-hop and
the London sound system scene, i.e. mostly black dance music. This was
the received wisdom during 1994.
ii) Jungle as a music with hip-hop roots, but also with its roots
heavily in techno, particularly Detroit techno. 4 Hero (whose new EP
is well worth hearing) propagated this version, Gerald is held up as
evidence for it. This keeps the 'black' roots of the music intact, but
emphasises musicality and 'intelligence' over the more blatantly
physical instincts of ragga (despite the fact that lots of ragga is
really exciting musically) This version became current in c.1995.
iii) Jungle as an evolution from the rave/hardcore sound. This was the
way it was first presented by journalists like Simon Reynolds, and was
the accepted version among 'outsiders' in about 1993. This has jungle
evolve from the largely white hardcore scene, and that may be the
reason why jungle's spokesmen* now totally de-emphasise this aspect.

The 'truth' seems to me to be that jungle was a mutation of the
hardcore sound, transformed by people with a background in hip-hop and
sound systems. The techno influence was a later thing, I think.

*have you read 'State Of Bass', the first history of d'n'b, Persi?
Dreadfully written, but some fascinating information which makes the
evolution of the scene in 94-95 make perfect, and depressing, sense.

>Not to mention the (English) Beat, the Specials, and the rest of the
>late 70s two-tone ska bands (before the Mighty Mighty Bosstones even
>existed, much less began to deteriorate with songs like Royal Oil).

Yeah, but 2-Tone was a bit of a one-off. Mostly in the 80s and 90s,
segregation has been the name of the game not among the musicians, but
certainly when it comes to what the individual fan chooses to listen
to. Jamiroquai is white, but his taste is limited completely to 'black
music', if his recent list of favourite records is anything to go by.
For example.

>> white members). I'd like to see more artists in the US get over the
>> white/black thing and work together more often.
>
>Well, we already have the Snoop Doggy Dogg/Rage Against The Machine
>collaboration, and the video that was in heavy rotation all summer with
>Blackstreet, Ol' Dirty Bastard, Slash, and Fishbone (too late to vote
>for the worst song of the year)? So our country is making progress -
>next, maybe we'll come up with something worth listening to.

Well this is precisely the problem with current white/black music
cross-overs, and that is that they're usually one-offs and they seem
always to follow the model of the 'jam', where what white guys
contribute is a few 'licks' of their 'gee-tar' and the result sounds
always like bad funk-metal, or hip-hop-metal, or whatever. Given that
the white music traditions that soul and black dance have taken most
from are actually the most enervated, *most* 'white' kinds of music -
hippy psychedelia, new romantic synth-pop - this is a bit odd.

>> It's about the music, not who's making it. The US mindset is that
>> white people don't understand hip-hop,
>
>Many white people do ~like~ hip-hop. Saying we don't ~understand~ it
>reminds me a little too much of every "alternative" band's fear of
>"selling out."

Yeah, good call. The notion that hip-hop has to be 'understood' in a
certain way is dodgy. It's like, if you listen to Burning Spear with
no understanding of Rastafarianism (as I do, pretty much) you may not
pick up a lot of the nuances, but the spirituality of the music comes
across just fine, thankyou.

>The way I "understand" it, hip-hop is about (a) just listening to the
>music and enjoying it, and/or (b) the lyrical meaning of the songs
>themselves, which is usually made clearer than in "alternative" music
>(Glycerine, anyone?).

Except the current hip-hop trend, exemplified by the WuTang and
related productions, is towards incomprehensibility, emphasising
'flow' over meaning to some extent, which occasionally produces
thrilling effects but is more often just irritating.

>> It'd be nice to see the US embrace jungle/drum n bass as a legitimate
>> style for the 90's.

Well, there is some US jungle - Jamie Myerson for example - which is
of course totally not accepted by the American d'n'b cognoscenti
(though in your case I can see why - his soundtrack jungle, which I
rather enjoy as pop, is altogether too weak to be taken very seriously
as drum n'bass.)

>It'd be nicer to see the US admit that American "alternative" music is
>dying, and not churn out any more bands like Third Eye Blind.

Well, alternative as Tom Trauth understands alternative is dying, and
that's a good thing, but the US underground scene seems - from what
little I pick up of it - to be as vibrant and interesting as it ever
was, if you look in the right places. Whereas Britain's underground
scene is in bad trouble right now, though things will improve given
time.

>Yes, but how many good rap videos do you see?

Missy Elliot's was the last good video I saw. But then I don't watch
MTV or anything.

Cheers,
Tom.
60.NRG - 'I Need Your Loving'

[Karim Adab]

On the day Fri, 24 Oct 1997 23:22:53 -0700,
bitchyspice@remove*this.geocities.com (Lulu Amies)yielded the

following after their daily medication

>In article <62q9j8$eag...@leeds.ac.uk>, founta...@earthling.net

>(fountainhead) wrote:
>
>>The combination of the songs and the voice just have an
>>unexplainable effect on a lot of people, of which I am one.
>
>The voice, the voice. I tend to like the tracks that everyone else seems
>to hate, though. I can't believe how many Oasis fans despise Headshrinker,

I quite like that.......

>Bring it on Down...

But not this, really. The second weakest track from Definitely Maybe
(the worst being Shakermaker).

>They all seem to be sitting around singing Wonderwall,
>which I all but hate -- the album version, at least. I feel like I'm
>missing something in the Oasis Fan Kingdom.

It's interesting - there's even "elitism" (as such) amoungst Oasis
fans :). I would offer the opinion that Wonderwall was a much worse
song for me *before* it was released, as was DLBiA which I never liked
to begin with anyway. Singles put the songs in a different context - I
don't think I'd have appreciated DYKWIM very much were it not for its
constant airplay and it being forced down my throat.
I don't much like the album version of Wonderwall either, for the
record.

>DLBiA was number one?!?! Where the hell was I when this happened?

What d'you think was less deserved then - a no2 for Wonderwall or 1
for DLBiA? I'd vouch that Wonderwall had a far greater impact.

Karim

**Laa-Laa vs Sporty Spice - the battle for #1 cultural icon commences......**

//Kicking, squealing Gucci little piggy//

U_n_d_e_r__n_e_o_n__l_o_n_e_l_i_n_e_s_S__
M_o_t_o_r_c_y_c_l_e__E_m_p_t_i_n_e_s_S

ka...@nospamzaki.demon.co.uk, probably the only Birmingham City
supporter on Usenet
(Remove <<nospam>> to mail me.)

[Michael Daddino]

Tom Ewing wrote:

> >I do find that, generally, Europeans tend to be more phylosophical about
> >life (and hence, music), than the people in the US, in some general
> >fashion. However, this transcends color, and it is more geolocation
> >related. Just an impression.
>
> The notional divide in philosophy - and I'm no expert, this may be
> complete nonsense - puts the UK and US on one side and Europe on the
> other, for the most part. I was talking about this in the pub this
> afternoon, in fact, and we remarked how odd it was that the three
> philosophy graduates there had been force-fed Kant and had barely
> touched on Hegel.*

I'm with Tom here. Seems to me that Americans and Brits are generally
seen as too pragmatic to be genuinely refelective and self-reflective.
As for the Hegel and Kant divide, it doesn't entirely suprise me.
Speaking from my own education, Hegel is seen to be too recent, too
"modern", and too uncomfortably close to totalitarianism to fit neatly
into the "Plato-Kant canon."

> *Don't worry, folks, we also talked about the Teletubbies.

Auugh! First Zoe Ball, now this! Another British TV reference I had to
look up. Sounds terrifying, worse than Barney, and after looking over
several fan websites, I still don't quite understand what the hell the
show's about. Then again, maybe nobody knows.

[Walrus4080]

Mark:
>>Oasis tune, and I realise that yes, this is a well written song and it is
>>affecting me on a gut level. Same with The Verve, there's *something*
>>there, something indefinable, that connects with me. Bastards.
>
>I have to say I'm glad I don't suffer from this sort of thing -
>although given my love for Primal Scream's 'Rocks' and 'Jailbird',
>very possibly I do :). But not with Oasis, sorry.
>
>Cheers,
>Tom.
>63.THE JAMMS - 'It's Grim Up North'

I'm glad you mentioned this. A point often ignored on the newsgroups is that
a person may like different music for different reasons. I don't listen to or
like Oasis for all the same reasons that I like John Carter or The Ronnettes
or Jan and Dean or Telivision or Burning Spear, and I don't even know if I
could explain all my reason's for liking any of these bands. I think my love
for Oasis has something to do with a teenage fixation on The Sex Pistols, Led
Zeppelin, The Beatles, and The Rolling Stones (in that order). I started the
retro thing as an alternative to listening to late 80's cheese metal, before I
new much about how to find different sounding modern music. I guess you can
understand why Oasis wowed me, they are a scary post-modern amalgamation of
everything I listened to as a kid. Intellectually I don't mind them, in fact
I find them quite funny, and at one time their attitude was refreshing, but
now...

Alan
(who also likes 'Jailbird' and 'Rocks')

[Michael Daddino]

J. Mcglinchey wrote:

> I like ABBA because of their music, a lot of which I like ("S.O.S.",
> "Dancing Queen", etc.), some of which I think is too goofy for even me to
> appreciate. I am totally divorced from liking them just because they are
> from the disco era and wore bell-bottoms and represent something
> "so-unhip-it's-hip", something "deliciously gaudy". I feel, however, from
> my experiences with most people who I've talked to, that most people like
> them for the latter reason; they say to themselves: ABBA=kitsch=cool!

The opposite has been my experience. I've met an inordinate number of
ABBAphiles in my time, people for whom ABBA represents something far
more the latest convolution of hipster irony. They're the ones who buy
the imports, all the post-ABBA solo records, every single unecessary
repackaging of their greatest hits, and yes, the box sets. In short,
they help support the cottage-industry that ABBA music has become.

Of course, this *may* have something to do with the fact that all of my
ABBAphile friends are, like myself, gay, though heaven knows just how.
It also hardly contradicts what you're saying -- that many people buy
ABBA or Osmonds CDs so they have something to play when they want to
"feel '70's".

-- Mike Daddino

[Michael Daddino]

Tom Ewing wrote:

> And of course we could mention 'natural rhythm', or how musicologists
> along with other aestheticians adopted the terms 'highbrow' and
> 'lowbrow', originally developed by eugenics pioneers to describe
> racial characteristics,

Whoa! Is that really true?

> or the double standard that it the critical
> attitude to hip-hop: outrageous levels of misogyny are permissible in
> rap because it's 'cultural', whereas the Prodigy are jumped on as soon
> as they start using similar terms.

I'd add that sometimes rock critics are quite willing to stomach some of
harcore punk's or metal's more politically incorrect lyrics as well, all
the while thumbing their noses at, say, the Eagles' tamer but more smug
sexism. Rap, metal and punk are expressions of a politically powerless
working class, and hence beyond reproach, whereas the Eagles are just a
bunch of coked-out Marin County ex-hippies. Of course, I'm
oversimplifying, but see *Rock and Rap Confidential* to see how much. Or
you can spare yourself the pain and not bother. Your call.

> It's also sad how racially divided

> most people's record collections are - obviously I wouldn't suggest
> that any alternative fans select their music along racist lines, but
> the majority of them (certainly in the UK) have incredibly little
> 'black music' in their collections, probably because of the ways the
> music has been presented to them (as you've been discussing).

I'll never forget the first article I ever read about Big Black. Goading
rap-loving rock critic John Leland, Steve Albini said something like
"The only reason white people listen to black music is out of liberal
guilt." (This really bothered me until I realized: "Wait a minute! Frat
boys and skinheads are often nakedly racist yet LOVE rap or reggae or
whatever! So of course it's not always true! Boy, am I relieved!") This
rather extreme view illustrates one of many reasons alt.rock fans don't
bother with black music. Buying something out of white guilt is, um,
inauthentic.

-- Mike

[Persinthia]

In article <34530fc0...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@NOSPAM.netcomuk.co.uk
says...

>*have you read 'State Of Bass', the first history of d'n'b, Persi?
>Dreadfully written, but some fascinating information which makes the
>evolution of the scene in 94-95 make perfect, and depressing, sense.

I read a review of it in this month's Mixmag and am going to look for it. My
personal view of jungle, judging from alot of the earlier material I have
heard, is that it is definitely most derivitive of the ragga, hip-hop
culture (Ganja Kru, Aphrodite, etc). While artists like the No-U-Turn posse,
Source Direct, Photek, etc take their cue from a more hardcore/rave scene.

>Well this is precisely the problem with current white/black music
>cross-overs, and that is that they're usually one-offs and they seem
>always to follow the model of the 'jam', where what white guys
>contribute is a few 'licks' of their 'gee-tar' and the result sounds
>always like bad funk-metal, or hip-hop-metal, or whatever.

Yeah....it also reeks of $$$. I just don't buy Snoop Dogg actually *wanting*
to work with Marilyn Manson becuase he respects their style. It's all about
money. Sometimes it's profitale, sometimes not (the dreaded Public
Enemy/Anthrax tour years ago that flopped and left many bewildered). At least
Perry Farrell gave it his best shot and for the most part, it worked. It was
nice to see the first Lolla featuring artists like Jane's and Ice-T side by
side. Of course, it all went downhill from there. What I was originally
talking about was artists like Massive Attack, Tricky, Jamiroquai, etc that
don't focus on the black/white working together thing, but instead focus on
the music itself. You don't really see much of that in the US. The acception
being the RZA, who seems genuinely intersted in working with artists from
other races and cultures.

>>> It's about the music, not who's making it. The US mindset is that
>>> white people don't understand hip-hop,
>>
>>Many white people do ~like~ hip-hop. Saying we don't ~understand~ it
>>reminds me a little too much of every "alternative" band's fear of
>>"selling out."
>
>Yeah, good call. The notion that hip-hop has to be 'understood' in a
>certain way is dodgy. It's like, if you listen to Burning Spear with
>no understanding of Rastafarianism (as I do, pretty much) you may not
>pick up a lot of the nuances, but the spirituality of the music comes
>across just fine, thankyou.

OK, what I meant to say is the the general black US mindset is that whites do
not understand hip-hop or the ghetto. Alot of blacks I know that listen to
hip-hop *won't* listen to it made from a white artist. They take it as an
invasion of *their* music. I personally don't believe you have to understand
a certain genre of music to enjoy it, but in a racist nation like the US, it
goes over that way.

>>> It'd be nice to see the US embrace jungle/drum n bass as a legitimate
>>> style for the 90's.
>
>Well, there is some US jungle - Jamie Myerson for example - which is
>of course totally not accepted by the American d'n'b cognoscenti

None of it is. Period. Artists like Soulslinger, etc don't even really have
much of a following. The word 'jungle' or 'drum n bass' brings dazed looks to
people's eyes in the US, except for the underground followers of the scene. I
hope that Goldie's opening slot on the Jane's reunion tour will open some
eyes (it certainly didn't do much when he toured with Bjork in 1995....most
people in the audience looked pretty bored during Goldie's set). Jungle is an
unknown genre in the US

>>Yes, but how many good rap videos do you see?
>
>Missy Elliot's was the last good video I saw. But then I don't watch
>MTV or anything.

I liked those Fresh Prince and Jazzy Jeff videos in the late 80's, Those were
fun. Everything these days seems to incorporate the Puff Daddy fish eye lens
technique.

--
In My CD Changer/Stereo:

Cure - Wild Mood Swings
Witchman - Heavy Mental EP
Can - Tago Mago

[Alyosha]

Walrus4080 wrote:

> December Boy
> >-how
> >else could Richard Hell get across? Well, nevermind.
>
> or Tommy Verlaine?
>
> Alan
> (Chilton Fan?)

Oh, how could I not be? Actually, I have had the joy of introducing
some new friends to I Am The Cosmos, so I'm kind of a Chris Bell fan
right now. And I jut moved into the East Village, so I've really been
into the Verlaine/Hell/etc/etc scene lately.

[Alyosha]

Michael Daddino wrote:

> Tom Ewing wrote:
>
>
> > The notional divide in philosophy - and I'm no expert, this may be
> > complete nonsense - puts the UK and US on one side and Europe on the
> > other, for the most part. I was talking about this in the pub this
> > afternoon, in fact, and we remarked how odd it was that the three
> > philosophy graduates there had been force-fed Kant and had barely
> > touched on Hegel.*

> I'm with Tom here. Seems to me that Americans and Brits are generally
> seen as too pragmatic to be genuinely refelective and self-reflective.
> As for the Hegel and Kant divide, it doesn't entirely suprise me.
> Speaking from my own education, Hegel is seen to be too recent, too
> "modern", and too uncomfortably close to totalitarianism to fit neatly
> into the "Plato-Kant canon."

I dunno where to start. Especially since this isn't
alt.music.alternativeandamateurphilosophy. The most interesting point here to
me is how the philosophy grads barely touched Hegel. If I were to speculate,
it wouldn't be because Americans and Brits are less reflective, it's because
Hegel heralds a way of thinking that seriously undercuts many of our 'national
philosophical beliefs.' We really have these things in America--anyone reading
the Declaration of Independence or even the Bill of Rights knows about 'natural
rights,' given by God, that have always been there, and that we just have to
discover. Radical Hegelianism rejects all of that in favor a historicist view
of the world, which is at odds with not only "natural rights" and all, but
"British empiricism," because its a _postmodern_ (not modern, although we may
mean the same thing) outlook. And culturally, we're generally quite modernist,
but that of course is eroding day by day.
I think this has bearing on the music we listen to. Europeans have culturally
embraced postmodernism. Americans especially hold on to modernist outlooks.
Europeans have Jacques Brel, Neu, Gert Wilden and Serge Gainsbourg, and we have
The Blues. And its less because they're 'more intellectual,' and more because
we _think_ about different things. I wonder if anyone else has anything to
say about this, or have I gone somewhere that people should never ever go to.
I'll try harder next time.
OASIS RULE!
YOUR A FAG!
>=)

> > *Don't worry, folks, we also talked about the Teletubbies.
>
> Auugh! First Zoe Ball, now this! Another British TV reference I had to
> look up. Sounds terrifying, worse than Barney, and after looking over
> several fan websites, I still don't quite understand what the hell the
> show's about. Then again, maybe nobody knows.

Yeah, no clue here either.

[Hot Burrito #1]

fernando wrote:

> In article <345267f0...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@NOSPAM.netcomuk.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> +<On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:33:04 -0700, ferd...@radixtek.com (fernando)
> +<wrote:
> +<
> +<>I wonder, how do the critics then place the banality find in the hair rock
> +<>bands of the 80s, as one instance of white intelligence?
> +<
> +<Um. If I was going to try to rationalise/justify hairmetal, posing
> +<here as the sort of rockcrit who would want to, I'd probably point to
> +<the banal but heartfelt lyrics and talk about blue-collar,
> +<working-class experience and 'salf-of-the-earth', no-bullshit
> +<songwriting and so on, all the kind of things people use to talk about
> +<Oasis in fact. To explain the hair itself, who knows? I could invoke
> +<ABC and the Human League (and Pulp for that matter) and talk about how
> +<their glamorous image was in revolt against their mundane origins, but
> +<I don't know too much about the background of hair metal bands - the
> +<West Coast strain always looked to me like America's very own New
> +<Romanticism.
>
> Wow. To me, hair metal is typified by lyrics about women and party...
> not the Bruce Springsteen type of lyrics about blue-collar and childhood
> stuff.

Yeah, but one could push for an underlying connection between the (sometimes even
exhilerating) songs about women and party, and find a (not very exhilarating at
all) blue-collar defense of working-class cred etc. etc. Those bands usually push
the issue themselves as they get older and run out of parties and girls to write
about. Very unseemly self-reflection. Bon Jovi had an album called 'New
Jersey', didn't they? They are lots of examples in hair metal that I couldn't
stomach going into. One could also tell the Oasis story, but I prefer to stay out
of that one. At any rate, hair metal shoots the hell out of 'white intelligence',
doesn't it?

> +<
> +<Hardly intellectual? Well, that depends on who you're talking to. If
> +<you're talking to Greil Marcus, the roots of punk are deeply
> +<intellectual, inasmuch as Mal MacLaren fancied himself as being one.
> +<If you're talking to Stuart Home, then it's a) meaningless to talk
> +<about genres as being intellectual or otherwise nd b) Marcus is
> +<talking out of his arse.
> +<
> +<And plenty of post-punk music was fiercely intellectual, or at least
> +<wanted to look it - Gang Of Four, for example. Scitti Politti to an
> +<absurd extent (even taking their name from a Gramsci book).
>
> I know that there are good amount of intellectual bands in post punk...
> even withing some punk (Pink Flag, perhaps), so I was generalizing on what
> I percieved to be the majority of bands. Re: Marcus... some of the roots of
> punk may have an element of intellectualism, but once it became a bandwagon
> for bands to jump in, it was hardly that.
>

I have to say I found most punk bands to be incipiently, if not overtly, political
and intellectual. Maybe it's just been my perspective. As a movement, though,
punk was seriously intellectual, I would say.

[Tom Ewing]

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:46:36 -0500, Michael Daddino <mra...@ibm.net>
wrote:

>Tom Ewing wrote:
>
>> And of course we could mention 'natural rhythm', or how musicologists
>> along with other aestheticians adopted the terms 'highbrow' and
>> 'lowbrow', originally developed by eugenics pioneers to describe
>> racial characteristics,
>
>Whoa! Is that really true?

It is according to some article I read in an academic pop music book
(can't remember which except it wasn't the recent and mostly useless
'Sexing The Groove'). Should I ever track it down again I'll try to
quote it. The article then went on a lot about Yngwie Malmsteen, who
it was claimed makes a mockery of such divides. You learn something
new every day.

>> or the double standard that it the critical
>> attitude to hip-hop: outrageous levels of misogyny are permissible in
>> rap because it's 'cultural', whereas the Prodigy are jumped on as soon
>> as they start using similar terms.
>
>I'd add that sometimes rock critics are quite willing to stomach some of
>harcore punk's or metal's more politically incorrect lyrics as well, all
>the while thumbing their noses at, say, the Eagles' tamer but more smug
>sexism. Rap, metal and punk are expressions of a politically powerless
>working class, and hence beyond reproach, whereas the Eagles are just a
>bunch of coked-out Marin County ex-hippies.

Yeah, for all that their audience was probably as working-class as any
of the other genres mentioned. I do find it rather annoying when music
critics focus so obsessively on the background of the people making
the music without asking questions about how it actually gets
consumed.

>I'll never forget the first article I ever read about Big Black. Goading
>rap-loving rock critic John Leland, Steve Albini said something like
>"The only reason white people listen to black music is out of liberal
>guilt." (This really bothered me until I realized: "Wait a minute! Frat
>boys and skinheads are often nakedly racist yet LOVE rap or reggae or
>whatever! So of course it's not always true! Boy, am I relieved!") This
>rather extreme view illustrates one of many reasons alt.rock fans don't
>bother with black music. Buying something out of white guilt is, um,
>inauthentic.

Heh. Maybe. Actually, there's no reason not to ask the question
directly. Why *don't* people here buy much black music (those that
don't, obviously). Mind you, the regulars of a.m.a. are pretty
unrepresentative of altrock as a whole.

Cheers,
Tom.
52.ALEC EMPIRE - 'The Peak'

[Tom Ewing]

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 10:07:14 -0500, Michael Daddino <mra...@ibm.net>
wrote:

>Auugh! First Zoe Ball, now this! Another British TV reference I had to

>look up. Sounds terrifying, worse than Barney, and after looking over
>several fan websites, I still don't quite understand what the hell the
>show's about. Then again, maybe nobody knows.

Well, the fan websites are at a disadvantage because the BBC has
slapped draconian orders on them whereby they can't show what the
programme is about (or that was the case last time I looked it up).
It's an innovative pre-school programme which is actually very good,
but has predictably been embraced by the sort of silly arses who spend
their evenings talking about children's TV, i.e. me and my friends.

Cheers,
Tom.

[Tom Ewing]

On 27 Oct 1997 12:26:15 GMT, gree...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Mark Bartlam)
wrote:

>: Here, incidentaly, we have more received wisdom - that intellectualism
>: is totally out of place in pop. Why do you think this?
>

>I enjoy intellectualism in pop myself, but isn't it the case that it goes
>straight over the heads of the majority of people? Maybe that's the point,
>but surely most of the music-buying public don't buy pop music for it's
>intellectual value.

Sure, this is true, but it's no reason why people should react so
harshly to the idea of an intellectual pop. The music-buying public
don't actually care about theoretical innovation in pop either, since
they will flock out to buy innovative and complex songs by the Beatles
but also to buy crude trash like 'Barbie Girl' (Incidentally, I know
jack shit about theory so I am relying in that sentence on that
wonderful source 'received wisdom'). But it doesnt make theoretical
innovation a bad thing. And intellectualism or theoretical innovation
being good doesn't make the crude trash bad either, etc. etc.

> The Pet Shop Boys, for example, sell well because they
>write a good tune, not because they've mastered the art of irony.

Which they haven't anyway - off the top of my head I can't think of a
PSB song which is 'ironic', even in the desperately loose Alanis sense
of the word. Someone called them 'ironic' early on as a polite way of
saying 'sneery' and it probably just stuck :)

>I can't wait for the release of the version of "Perfect Day" now playing
>on the BBC - the British record-buying sheep will flock out to buy it
>without realising it's actually a paen to heroin.

Well, it isn't in this version, is it?Or only in that it's basking in
the reflected glory of Trainspotting and hoping that some of that
films cred will - quite irrationally - rub off on the BBC. Reed wrote
the song with deliberate ambiguity, so he shouldnt complain when its
more innocuous meaning becomes the 'real' one.

Cheers,
Tom.
51.THE HIGH LLAMAS - 'Checking In, Checking Out'

[J. Mcglinchey]

On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Tom Ewing wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:46:36 -0500, Michael Daddino <mra...@ibm.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Tom Ewing wrote:
> >
> >> And of course we could mention 'natural rhythm', or how musicologists
> >> along with other aestheticians adopted the terms 'highbrow' and
> >> 'lowbrow', originally developed by eugenics pioneers to describe
> >> racial characteristics,
> >
> >Whoa! Is that really true?

I wouldn't doubt it. Here's another one: ever heard the word "mongoloid"?
Generally referred to mean someone stupid. From my understanding, the
actual reference dates back to psychologists in the early 1900s, as a
means of describing the mentally retarded, because the shape of their eyes
were similar to that of Mongols/Asians. Two recommended books on the
eugenics movement of the early 1900s are THE MISMEASURE OF MAN by Stephen
Jay Gould and MINDS MADE FEEBLE (I think the author's name is J. David
Crew?). If you're not already aware of it, American psychologists,
especially the big pioneers in intelligence testing, were a great
influence on Nazi ideologies of racial supremecy.

> It is according to some article I read in an academic pop music book
> (can't remember which except it wasn't the recent and mostly useless
> 'Sexing The Groove'). Should I ever track it down again I'll try to
> quote it. The article then went on a lot about Yngwie Malmsteen, who
> it was claimed makes a mockery of such divides. You learn something
> new every day.

I think it might be called "high culture" and "low culture" today
(when I have to make a distinction, that's what I call it, for lack of a
better term and that's how I generally see it called). An insightful
discussion of those terms and their synthesis in rock music can be found
in ROCK ERAS: 1954-1984 by Jim Curtis.

> Heh. Maybe. Actually, there's no reason not to ask the question
> directly. Why *don't* people here buy much black music (those that
> don't, obviously). Mind you, the regulars of a.m.a. are pretty
> unrepresentative of altrock as a whole.

Primarily jazz represents most black musicians in my current record
collection: Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Alice Coltrane, McCoy
Tyner, Cannonball Adderley, Art Blakey, Bud Powell, Charles Mingus, "The
Quintet", Herbie Hancock, Hank Mobley, The Mahavishnu Orchestra (had
several black members)/John McLaughlin solo, Weather Report (ditto),
Return to Forever

Also (not jazz):
Prince, Public Enemy, Traffic, James Brown, Howlin' Wolf, Robert Johnson,
Peter Gabriel and a smattering of world music, albums with black session
musicians like Nathan East or David Sancious, etc. (too many to name)...I
would also have the original "U.T.F.O." album if it was released...

I want but don't have yet: A Tribe Called Quest, The Manhattans, Run
D.M.C.'s early stuff, the Sugarhill Gang compilation....

Joe M.
U of Washington
NP: H a n k M o b l e y, _S o u l S t a t i o n_ (1960)