|
burning dog
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: 00:32:05, 01-07-2008 » |
|
I appreciate the social revolution of which punk was a part (and approve of it) love the energy of much punk, agree with many of the anti-authoritarian lyrics, love some of the art associated with it, can see why people enjoyed the sex n drugs n rock n roll aspect of it, etc etc.
. Anyone who thinks it was very revolutionary in reality is a bit of a romantic IMO. The sex and drugs really took off over here with Eel Pie Island, the Stones and the Who didn't it? 1963 was it? before my time anyway, it wasn't a bit late for me. I lived in a very multi-cultural area, I'm working class, was the right age but the best thing about punk IMO was the ragging of Pink Floyd etc and the promotion of reggae (but this always played down the non rasta stuff).... and I'm not the only one who thought that, maybe cos we were metropolitan or something, but most gave up on punk by Spring 78. ...after about the first week it was the usual middle class adolescent angst The mindless anti authortiarianism is part of pops problem - leads to Californinan type right-libertarianism IMO. The ska bands that came out of punk (in a way) were far more politically astute and spoke more for "the kids". So in essence punks, the second wave anyway- load of middle class wusses.  BTW There can be very inventive music on one chord. I dont get this euro fetish thing about more chords/modulation = more sophistication. I'm not disputing that most pop is poor- it would be -there's so much of it, and most of it fails and makes no money, something people tend to forget. Classical music as genre is a marketing niche, it's a part of the corporate capitalist system as well. It could be argued that the mixture of public subsidy and big business makes the finances of it a bit ugly. HMV sell acres of old stuff in the classical field + Golden pop Oldies. Maybe its the dance techno DIY stuff thats bringing them down financially as they are out of the loop, not sure about that. Anyway, the internet will kill the majors off if they are not careful. God knows why im raving on about pop I dont listen to THAT much of it, never have, I doubt if Ive heard an entire track by Amy Winehouse  Politics- most first time voters in 1979 voted for Mrs T Thanks Philidor anyway for your intersting posts I'm enjoying disagreeing with you Im a bit hot and cold about "Strange Fruit" Philidor not sure how much the subject matter influences my judgement. Now BH sinigng "Nice Work If you can get It" I love it! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01:05:06, 01-07-2008 by burning dog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #76 on: 01:06:28, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Play him Billie Holiday singing 'Strange Fruit.' It's a type of pop music but uses more than three chords. Tell him she used to break down after each performance. Watch his reaction. I can't believe he won't be moved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zsI am afraid he wouldn't listen after the first few words as he hates American accents too!! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:20:18, 01-07-2008 by A »
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #77 on: 10:21:44, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Many interesting thoughts there, dog. Anyone who thinks it was very revolutionary in reality is a bit of a romantic IMO. Yes indeed. Let's not forget the extent to which the Sex Pistols were a marketing creation by the über-cynical entrepreneur Malcolm McLaren - revolutionary, yes, but in the same sort of way as Margaret Thatcher and her political stormtroopers. There can be very inventive music on one chord. I dont get this euro fetish thing about more chords/modulation = more sophistication. You're right, and of course this isn't limited to pop music: think of Bolero, Stimmung, almost all "minimalist" music on the one hand (or nominally "pop" records like My Life in the Bush of Ghosts or Trout Mask Replica where simplicity/sophistication of harmony is hardly an issue at all), and a lot of the lazy but note-heavy comping that goes under the name of jazz on the other. most pop is poor- it would be -there's so much of it, and most of it fails and makes no money, something people tend to forget. That's a point I often bring up when talking to music students: you might as well ignore the strictures of pop music or any other defined "genre", and think and express yourself freely, no matter whether it looks like making a "successful career" for you, because if you do "change to court popularity" (Thatcher again!) you will almost certainly fail anyway. The relative freedom we have, even now, both as practitioners and listeners, to make musical choices for ourselves, isn't to be taken lightly and characterising whole areas of music as "good" or "bad" doesn't help in this regard. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #78 on: 10:28:28, 01-07-2008 » |
|
After over 20 years of being told when I played classical music to young people ( mostly in the 11-18 bracket) that it is awful, and comments like 'I've never been to a ballet but it's awful' ' I have never heard any Beethoven but it's horrid .. my dad says so' I now find a different angle on it all. My very learned musicologist husband can find no good whatsoever in any pop music from any age whatsoever. 'Bridge over troubled Water ' was brought on the problem this evening.. he couldn't hear the words, he didn't like the piano playing . The real problem is that he doesn't WANT to like any pop music. He doesn't want to listen to any......Is this not snobbery in its own way? I should never have mentioned pop... or should I say Queen, or Elton John etc to him. I never learn.  A It is just possible that he's not a 'snob' as such. He may just feel that when listening to a song accompanied by the pianoforte he hopes to listen to a performance a) where the piano is played with sensitivity and does not completely swamp the vocalist, and b) the vocalist (in not being so swamped) is able to deliver the lyrics in an intelligible and meaningful way. In Bridge over Troubled Water he may feel that these expectations (which are quite 'normal' for a musician) are unfulfilled, and that in consequence he just does not like what he hears. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #79 on: 10:34:10, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Anyone who thinks it was very revolutionary in reality is a bit of a romantic IMO. Yes indeed. Let's not forget the extent to which the Sex Pistols were a marketing creation by the über-cynical entrepreneur Malcolm McLaren - revolutionary, yes, but in the same sort of way as Margaret Thatcher and her political stormtroopers. The core of the group existed as The Strand before McLaren took them over. And that they soon distanced themselves for him, Lydon later taking McLaren to court. But more importantly, in terms of the cultural meaning of the Sex Pistols in their own time, this had much greater impact, and ruffled more feathers, than anything else since the 1960s, and certainly more so than anything going on in the classical, jazz or improv worlds at the same time (for all of which claims of 'revolutionary' ring very hollow). They did constitute a genuinely meaningful cultural sortie into the world of their time, in a way that even Public Image Limited, for all the apparently greater sophistication of their aesthetic, could not match. In terms of Thatcherite entrepeneurship, an equally strong case could be made for Stockhausen or Zappa. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #80 on: 10:54:28, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Let's not forget the extent to which the Sex Pistols were a marketing creation by the über-cynical entrepreneur Malcolm McLaren Yes, and although Ian's points are well taken let's not forget either that McLaren's partner at the time, a certain Miss Wetwood, had a hand in creating the punk 'look' -  I was at an art school at the height of punk (a rather trendy one in those days too) and the hegemony of that fashion was fairly oppressive. The shy, bespotted, hopelessly blinkered music students were sneered at by the radicals in the arts departments.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #81 on: 11:33:46, 01-07-2008 » |
|
I was at an art school at the height of punk (a rather trendy one in those days too) and the hegemony of that fashion was fairly oppressive. The shy, bespotted, hopelessly blinkered music students were sneered at by the radicals in the arts departments. Snobbery in the UK! I was quite startled, on actually hearing Anarchy in the UK when it was released, ie. after a pseudo-anti-marketing campaign which served as the model for so many rapaciously exploitative imitations in subsequent years, to find that musically there was nothing original or innovative about it at all. The more stripped-down music of the bands which came to the fore a little later was much more so. At a certain point I thought to myself (along no doubt with thousands of others) "this is so simple even I could do it", which is indeed how I first got into any kind of performing activity. (I have recordings to prove it!) I never really partook of the culture clash between punk and progressive rock (which was very much a live issue and source of much sneering from both sides at the time) because as far as I was concerned they served different functions, occupying different positions in the musical ecosystem so to speak. Failure to appreciate this is perhaps often the cue for "musical snobbery". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
burning dog
|
|
« Reply #82 on: 11:48:00, 01-07-2008 » |
|
I agree the Sex Pistols and the early punks were symptiomatic of a time of great change, which teenagers bore the brunt of first. It's the idea that is too often accepted today that is was an organised movement of some kind. Quite quickly other people projected that onto it. I'd say most of the London 76/77 punk fans had moved on after a couple of years. The cultural ramifications were immense but perhaps more accidental than realised and punk was co-opted - by frustrated hippies for one. There are lot of cliches about early punk that were not actually true. It wasn't doom laden miserable ,more a huge raspberry blowing, fashions among the crowd were fairly tame no mohicans at that time, more soft drinks were consumed than glue sniffed. The politics of the punk crowd was many and varied, anything but the status quo, loads of Clash fans were neo-nazi skinheads, though that was later. It was farily drug free at first too. If it was anarchist it was more in the working class tradition of looking after your own rather than idealised commune-ism
Punk, being pop, had much more everyday effect than jazz classical or improv though its influence can still be overstated. I worked with some younger working class people from Islington in the 80s and they prefered Phil Collins to Johnny Lydon. (some of them went to the same school as him)
Want to discuss something written out of history becase it was working class? The ska craze of the sixties in London and West Midlands.
I remember the way even the self styled "down wiv the kids" music press of the time were taken aback by the ska revival in 79, one review of a packed gig at the Hope and Anchor in the NME one week "these kids are popluar!!" was the gist of it - next week the Specials were in the top ten. Possibly the one "pop sensation" of my teenage and adult life that was mostly unmanufactured. The tabloids, who loved punk even when they proffessed to loathe it, didnt even have a box to tick the Specials in their nominated best newcomers of 79.
The real snobbery at my comprehensive mid 70s was the sneering at both the heavy rock crowd and the soul-reggae pop-crowd by the Pink Floyd/Yes/Genesis fans.
Mary must be pretty dismayed the way this thread has gone! Sorry
Cue mr improv for a description of the Bristol scene.
I'm totally London-centric
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:03:05, 01-07-2008 by burning dog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #83 on: 11:54:50, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Want to discuss something written out of history becase it was working class? The ska craze of the sixties Yes indeed. Although there was always some presence of ska/reggae in the commercial sector wasn't there? someone like Desmond Dekker for example. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #84 on: 12:06:22, 01-07-2008 » |
|
I never really partook of the culture clash between punk and progressive rock (which was very much a live issue and source of much sneering from both sides at the time) because as far as I was concerned they served different functions, occupying different positions in the musical ecosystem so to speak. Failure to appreciate this is perhaps often the cue for "musical snobbery".
Indeedy, RB and dog! This was a very real divide and I remember fisticuffs at one point, outside the music practice rooms. It didn't help that the prog-rock faction was peopled by the brightest and most articulate (and wealthier hence druggier too). McLaren and Westwood of course took their core ideas from the States, where bands such as the Ramones had already cottoned onto the raspberry-blowing idea. And the gradual putrification of glam rock visual style can be seen in bands like this -  ..only a stone's throw, and a bit of gel...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
burning dog
|
|
« Reply #85 on: 12:16:56, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Want to discuss something written out of history becase it was working class? The ska craze of the sixties Yes indeed. Although there was always some presence of ska/reggae in the commercial sector wasn't there? someone like Desmond Dekker for example. True but it I beleive it was little explored by the pop music press. Not that I read it then. I do remember the Israelites being a hit but it was regarded as exotica I think. In my neghbourhood you could hear quite a lot of Ska being played at parties when I was a child, along with Louis Jordan and Fats Domino by the Jamaican households, the whites and the younger blacks tended to prefer Motown along with their Ska. Jim Reeves was also popular with most of the mums and dads from all demograpics  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Philidor
|
|
« Reply #86 on: 12:26:13, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Anyone who thinks it was very revolutionary in reality is a bit of a romantic IMO. Fair enough, but people have short memories and forget that Britain c. 1970-85 was in a pre-revolutionary state. Particularly in the early 70s when the national miners' union won two big strikes, turned the lights off, brought down a government, and the right was so worried it started organising private armies. Thatcher was brought in to put a stop to it. Punk - British punk at least - can be seen as part of that collapse of capitalist civic order. Sure, there were some nasty right-wing libertarians buzzing about under the punk banner, but the right generally didn't like punk one bit, no siree. Thanks Philidor anyway for your intersting posts I'm enjoying disagreeing with you   It's great. Thank you. I'm doing justice to about 5% of the material posted on this thread. Im a bit hot and cold about "Strange Fruit" I can't really bear to listen to it. Not only did she break down after each performance but didn't she shoot-up too, or am I confusing her with Ella Fitzgerald? One or both were heroin addicts married to manager/wife beaters who stole their cash. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
burning dog
|
|
« Reply #87 on: 12:42:10, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Anyone who thinks it was very revolutionary in reality is a bit of a romantic IMO. Fair enough, but people have short memories and forget that Britain c. 1970-85 was in a pre-revolutionary state. Particularly in the early 70s when the national miners' union won two big strikes, turned the lights off, brought down a government, and the right was so worried it started organising private armies. Thatcher was brought in to put a stop to it. Punk - British punk at least - can be seen as part of that collapse of capitalist civic order. Sure, there were some nasty right-wing libertarians buzzing about under the punk banner, but the right generally didn't like punk one bit, no siree. I think you a generally right its just that I think early punk was more of a symptom than a proprsed cure. There were right libertain and right authortiaran views expressed along with all kinds of left, everything but the staus quo or the Status Quo for that matter Ella, she was married to Ray Brown at one time. I seem to remember reading she was busted for smoking pot but it was racially motivated. She had an absolutelty dreadful childhood and was a great example of how to overcome that IMO. I thought she was clean, of illegall drugs anyway. Norman Granz the record producer may have exploited her perhaps unwittingly but he also was bravely anti-segregationist. My dad could give you (and me) a day by day account of her life!! shame he's not on a creature of the internet. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
burning dog
|
|
« Reply #88 on: 12:48:03, 01-07-2008 » |
|
I never really partook of the culture clash between punk and progressive rock (which was very much a live issue and source of much sneering from both sides at the time) because as far as I was concerned they served different functions, occupying different positions in the musical ecosystem so to speak. Failure to appreciate this is perhaps often the cue for "musical snobbery".
Indeedy, RB and dog! This was a very real divide and I remember fisticuffs at one point, outside the music practice rooms. It didn't help that the prog-rock faction was peopled by the brightest and most articulate (and wealthier hence druggier too). McLaren and Westwood of course took their core ideas from the States, where bands such as the Ramones had already cottoned onto the raspberry-blowing idea. And the gradual putrification of glam rock visual style can be seen in bands like this - ..only a stone's throw, and a bit of gel... Someone I know wrote an article about howthe early pop punk bands resembled the early 70s glam and pop-rock bands. Poor old Adam Ant was Gary Glitter. Were Sham 69 Slade? I always think Oasis resembled Slade on a bad day rather than the Beatles but thats waay off topic |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #89 on: 12:54:53, 01-07-2008 » |
|
Someone I know wrote an article about howthe early pop punk bands resembled the early 70s glam and pop-rock bands. This is a very good account of the era...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
