Re: Syd Barret has died...
Message ID: 389672
Posted By: timransom@rogers.com
Posted On: 2006-07-11 16:30:00
Subject: Re: Syd Barret has died...
Recs: 6
<< But I think there actually WAS a ton of good music being made in the 80's. The problem was that a new "movement" was maturing but it was being completely ignored by the US music business.>>
Oh, definitely. The whole undercurrent of punk and new wave was fine, but it wasn't anywhere near the radio. I can't recall ever hearing the Buzzcocks, Magazine, PIL, Jah Wobble, Bauhaus, Killing Joke, etc etc on the radio.
And there was the 80s blues renaissance, including Stevie Ray Vaughn, one of my favorite guitar players.
So yes, there was actually a lot of very good music made in the 80s. Unfortunately, from the perspective local radio, only the worst dreck ever got played.
Also, I hate the f*ck out of MTV, which I will always associate with the 80s.
<< Maybe your friends didn't get as emotionally attached to Nirvana, but none the less, Nirvana was at least as important to an entire generation of rock bands as Pink-Floyd was in the 70's. And as far as the industry goes, Nirvana was a lot more important.>>
I have been playing in bands continuously since I was 17 years old, which was in 1983, so I'd like to imagine I have a legitimate perspective on that, which is simply this: Nirvana's alleged 'importance' is a fallacy. Some yupster invented the term "grunge", put a bunch of bands with completely disparate sounds under that umbrella, and pretended it was new.
The fact that Nevermind broke so large was symptomatic of what was already happening in the clubs. Plus, it was marketed to death.
I'll tell you this much: Pink Floyd outsells Nirvana now, more people listen to it, and more people will continue to listen to it more often than Nirvana, who are saddled with the dubious honor of having spawned the worst spate of copycat bands ever, with the exception of Pearl Jam, who are to blame for Creed.
I prefer Jane's Addiction to either of them. They broke before Nirvana, and were frankly freakier and more interesting.
Dark Side of the Moon spent over 20 years in the top 100 of the Billboard charts, an act I guarantee Nirvana will not be topping.
Just finished a solid year and a half of helping a friend run an open stage jam once a week. Probably played Floyd a jillion times, with both young and old. Nirvana? Not once, although I can play Smells Like Teen Spirit, what with the chords being simply the Fisher Price version of Godzilla by Blue Oyster Cult and the one note guitar solo.
Anyhow, I suppose Nirvana's importance is a subjective topic, so what the heck. If you do look at the empirical data, however, I'm afraid that your assertion that Nirvana were more important to the industry than Floyd doesn't hold water.
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user
"timransom@rogers.com" under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: timransom@rogers.com
Posted On: 2006-07-11 16:30:00
Subject: Re: Syd Barret has died...
Recs: 6
<< But I think there actually WAS a ton of good music being made in the 80's. The problem was that a new "movement" was maturing but it was being completely ignored by the US music business.>>
Oh, definitely. The whole undercurrent of punk and new wave was fine, but it wasn't anywhere near the radio. I can't recall ever hearing the Buzzcocks, Magazine, PIL, Jah Wobble, Bauhaus, Killing Joke, etc etc on the radio.
And there was the 80s blues renaissance, including Stevie Ray Vaughn, one of my favorite guitar players.
So yes, there was actually a lot of very good music made in the 80s. Unfortunately, from the perspective local radio, only the worst dreck ever got played.
Also, I hate the f*ck out of MTV, which I will always associate with the 80s.
<< Maybe your friends didn't get as emotionally attached to Nirvana, but none the less, Nirvana was at least as important to an entire generation of rock bands as Pink-Floyd was in the 70's. And as far as the industry goes, Nirvana was a lot more important.>>
I have been playing in bands continuously since I was 17 years old, which was in 1983, so I'd like to imagine I have a legitimate perspective on that, which is simply this: Nirvana's alleged 'importance' is a fallacy. Some yupster invented the term "grunge", put a bunch of bands with completely disparate sounds under that umbrella, and pretended it was new.
The fact that Nevermind broke so large was symptomatic of what was already happening in the clubs. Plus, it was marketed to death.
I'll tell you this much: Pink Floyd outsells Nirvana now, more people listen to it, and more people will continue to listen to it more often than Nirvana, who are saddled with the dubious honor of having spawned the worst spate of copycat bands ever, with the exception of Pearl Jam, who are to blame for Creed.
I prefer Jane's Addiction to either of them. They broke before Nirvana, and were frankly freakier and more interesting.
Dark Side of the Moon spent over 20 years in the top 100 of the Billboard charts, an act I guarantee Nirvana will not be topping.
Just finished a solid year and a half of helping a friend run an open stage jam once a week. Probably played Floyd a jillion times, with both young and old. Nirvana? Not once, although I can play Smells Like Teen Spirit, what with the chords being simply the Fisher Price version of Godzilla by Blue Oyster Cult and the one note guitar solo.
Anyhow, I suppose Nirvana's importance is a subjective topic, so what the heck. If you do look at the empirical data, however, I'm afraid that your assertion that Nirvana were more important to the industry than Floyd doesn't hold water.
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user
"timransom@rogers.com" under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------