Delete This Account Posted October 23, 2013 Author Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) So let me get this straight. If a band does not display swagger, rebellion and angst they're not rock and roll?? I knew you were going to come back with the whole R&R is an attitude more than a style of music. It's first and foremost the music, And that's why in my opinion punk sucks is that all they have is the anger and angst because they sure can't play their instruments all that well. There are tons of bands out there that play R&R music that have zero anger and or angst. What is rock and roll? It's a music that was formed in the 40's and 50's. It's the collision of blues, jazz, country with a little gospel thrown in. It's heavy on the back beat and it music generally played with drums, guitars, keyboards and vocals and maybe even a flute, saxophone or violin thrown in. What it has become today is impossible to identify because it has changed so much over the years. From blues rock, to jazz rock to fusion rock, to prog rock, to heavy rock, to punk rock. The attitude is just a gimmick in my mind. Something born out the the rebellion of the 60's and expanded upon by the punk rock scene that arose in London and NY. I think any rock and roller who cut their chops in the 60's and 70's that is still going strong today would laugh their ass of at you referring to rock and roll and more of an attitude than it is about the music, the attitude is not a gimmick. the attitude is a heart-on-the-sleeve desperation for every new rebel-without-a-clue generation that comes forward. whether it's BB King's hopeless sentiment in The Thrill is Gone, to Elvis somehow shaking the foundations with what was an innocent swivel hip, to Johnny Cash taking out a billboard in Nashville, in which he posed with a finger in the air in a sharp indictment of Music Row. this "gimmick" you speak of has been around for quite some time. and it's roots aren't based in London, though the underground scene in Britain did help further the cause. and yet, were all of these "punk" bands posers? c'mon. they rose up with a voice out of the Brixton riots with an anti-Thatcher message. quit trying to put words in my mouth. did Devo have a swagger? not exactly. but their message was as plain as that of the New York Dolls. Cash's version of Hurt was just as devestatingly poignant as Trent Reznor's. Liz Phair's muted "Exile in Guyville" release had just as much ooomph as the raucous Rolling Stones "Exile on Main Street." and quit trying to lump popular and contemporary music in with rock and roll. your argument fails completely in its premise. and let me go further in knocking down your point of rock and roll being unidenfiable today. untrue. it's quite apparent that you only choose that to be the case because it's so difficult to keep up. punk rock sucks? Daltrey was a punk rocker when he sang: "I hope I die before I get old." The Replacements were no more punk than the Clash were. Or the Pixies. Or Elvis Costello for that matter. but it's convenient to throw around labels and lump it all in one neat pile of crap to further your argument, but it's quite clear that your points lack nuance and distinction. rock and roll is a contrarian art form, which gives itself a youthful nobility, naive, sure, but wrenching and valid when it's at its best. jw as for NoSaint's contention that the hall of fame is adding too many artists at too fast a pace, there's a simple answer to it: yes. but this is a for-profit driven, disney-fied tourist trap. what other choice does it have? which leads me back to a point i made earlier in regards to this shill palace. a rock and roll hall of fame's best site should be some garage, or Sun Studio, or CBGBs and/or perhaps some back alley in London. Edited October 23, 2013 by john wawrow
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 the attitude is not a gimmick. the attitude is a heart-on-the-sleeve desperation for every new rebel-without-a-clue generation that comes forward. whether it's BB King's hopeless sentiment in The Thrill is Gone, to Elvis somehow shaking the foundations with what was an innocent swivel hip, to Johnny Cash taking out a billboard in Nashville, in which he posed with a finger in the air in a sharp indictment of Music Row. this "gimmick" you speak of has been around for quite some time. and it's roots aren't based in London, though the underground scene in Britain did help further the cause. and yet, were all of these "punk" bands posers? c'mon. they rose up with a voice out of the Brixton riots with an anti-Thatcher message. quit trying to put words in my mouth. did Devo have a swagger? not exactly. but their message was as plain as that of the New York Dolls. Cash's version of Hurt was just as devestatingly poignant as Trent Reznor's. Liz Phair's muted "Exile in Guyville" release had just as much ooomph as the raucous Rolling Stones "Exile on Main Street." and quit trying to lump popular and contemporary music in with rock and roll. your argument fails completely in its premise. and let me go further in knocking down your point of rock and roll being unidenfiable today. untrue. it's quite apparent that you only choose that to be the case because it's so difficult to keep up. punk rock sucks? Daltrey was a punk rocker when he sang: "I hope I die before I get old." The Replacements were no more punk than the Clash were. Or the Pixies. Or Elvis Costello for that matter. but it's convenient to throw around labels and lump it all in one neat pile of crap to further your argument, but it's quite clear that your points lack nuance and distinction. rock and roll is a contrarian art form, which gives itself a youthful nobility, naive, sure, but wrenching and valid when it's at its best. jw as for NoSaint's contention that the hall of fame is adding too many artists at too fast a pace, there's a simple answer to it: yes. but this is a for-profit driven, disney-fied tourist trap. what other choice does it have? which leads me back to a point i made earlier in regards to this shill palace. a rock and roll hall of fame's best site should be some garage, or Sun Studio, or CBGBs and/or perhaps some back alley in London. Let's just agree to this. The music you like is not the music I like and I assume that a lot of the music I like is not the music you like. Yours is rebellious and angst ridden mine, for the most part, is not. For me to say that rock and roll is not angst ridden anymore is wrong and for you to say that if it's not angst ridden it's not true rock and roll (I think that's what your saying) is wrong as well. You have a much narrower definition of what is rock and roll than mine. There is still a lot of rock and roll being played by 60 and 70 year old millionaires who shaped the genre who wouldn't know, or remember, angst if you hit them over the head with it. Now do have to leave you with this. When you say the best thing your got out of the RRHOF was a t-shirt that said "If it's too loud you're too old" I have to ask you. What are you 16??
Delete This Account Posted October 25, 2013 Author Posted October 25, 2013 Let's just agree to this. The music you like is not the music I like and I assume that a lot of the music I like is not the music you like. Yours is rebellious and angst ridden mine, for the most part, is not. For me to say that rock and roll is not angst ridden anymore is wrong and for you to say that if it's not angst ridden it's not true rock and roll (I think that's what your saying) is wrong as well. You have a much narrower definition of what is rock and roll than mine. There is still a lot of rock and roll being played by 60 and 70 year old millionaires who shaped the genre who wouldn't know, or remember, angst if you hit them over the head with it. Now do have to leave you with this. When you say the best thing your got out of the RRHOF was a t-shirt that said "If it's too loud you're too old" I have to ask you. What are you 16?? wrong again. i've never suggested all rock and roll music is angst-ridden. i've raised numerous examples as to why that's not the case. Devo wasn't angst-ridden. Elvis Presley's songs weren't exactly angst-ridden. but you're right there when suggesting i have a narrower distinction of rock and roll, and for good reason. i don't lump in all "contemporary music" as being rock and roll. it's not. and that's why i take great issue with the shill palace in Cleveland, which is the initial point of this thread and why i would prefer the replacements to not be part of it because it's an empty tribute. jw
Gugny Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 (edited) On a somewhat related note, I saw (on Facebook) that Jane's Addiction will be getting a star on the Walk of Fame. Perry Farrell informed everyone that he, Navarro, Steve Perkins and Chris Chaney (new bassist) will be on hand to accept the honor. Man ... you should see some of the comments (including mine) ripping the schit out of them for not having Eric Avery (original bassist) there. For those who may not know, this isn't a Pete Best or John Rutsey deal. Jane's Addiction made their mark on Alternative Rock with three albums. Jane's Addiction (Live), Nothing Shocking and Ritual de lo Habitual; all of which Avery played bass for. Jane's has recorded two studio albums with Chaney, neither of which made any mark on any genre of music. I like both albums and I am a HUGE JA fan, but I can admit ... they weren't moving the earth with these recordings. There is a $30,000 sponsorship fee associated with those stupid stars. Kinda like the $25,000 table to be at the ceremony for the Shill Palace. My message to Perry Farrell (doubtful that he read it, but you never know) - Unless Eric Avery was asked to attend and decided that he did not want to, if Jane's Addiction accepts that star without him I will consider you all to be sell-outs. I'd expect that kind of behavior from Navarro. But not Farrell and/or Perkins. Sad day as a Jane's fan. Edited October 25, 2013 by Gugny
Delete This Account Posted October 26, 2013 Author Posted October 26, 2013 (edited) On a somewhat related note, I saw (on Facebook) that Jane's Addiction will be getting a star on the Walk of Fame. Perry Farrell informed everyone that he, Navarro, Steve Perkins and Chris Chaney (new bassist) will be on hand to accept the honor. Man ... you should see some of the comments (including mine) ripping the schit out of them for not having Eric Avery (original bassist) there. For those who may not know, this isn't a Pete Best or John Rutsey deal. Jane's Addiction made their mark on Alternative Rock with three albums. Jane's Addiction (Live), Nothing Shocking and Ritual de lo Habitual; all of which Avery played bass for. Jane's has recorded two studio albums with Chaney, neither of which made any mark on any genre of music. I like both albums and I am a HUGE JA fan, but I can admit ... they weren't moving the earth with these recordings. There is a $30,000 sponsorship fee associated with those stupid stars. Kinda like the $25,000 table to be at the ceremony for the Shill Palace. My message to Perry Farrell (doubtful that he read it, but you never know) - Unless Eric Avery was asked to attend and decided that he did not want to, if Jane's Addiction accepts that star without him I will consider you all to be sell-outs. I'd expect that kind of behavior from Navarro. But not Farrell and/or Perkins. Sad day as a Jane's fan. but they should accept this as an honor! good god, sir, how can you be a fan and question this grand distinction! the chance to be walked upon and have cigarette butts discarded upon your star should be regarded as the height of recognition! rush would never turn down such a privilege! i agree. this is pure bs. for a band that contributed to revolutionizing music when it needed a big fat kick in the ass, this is a low point for a group that seems to be willing to stoop to green day status. my sympathies. the only argument i have here is that you hedged your point by referring to this as "a somewhat related note." there's no somewhat to it . this is the point i've been making. jw Edited October 26, 2013 by john wawrow
Chef Jim Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 wrong again. i've never suggested all rock and roll music is angst-ridden. i've raised numerous examples as to why that's not the case. Devo wasn't angst-ridden. Elvis Presley's songs weren't exactly angst-ridden. but you're right there when suggesting i have a narrower distinction of rock and roll, and for good reason. i don't lump in all "contemporary music" as being rock and roll. it's not. and that's why i take great issue with the shill palace in Cleveland, which is the initial point of this thread and why i would prefer the replacements to not be part of it because it's an empty tribute. jw Well there probably is not need to continue with this. I've made my point and you've made yours not matter how elitist, snobbish, condescending or dismissive it may be. But I will go back to my first point that if the Replacements snub the Hall they will come across as elitist, snobbish, condescending and dismissive. Hey, waaaaaiiiiiit a minute. I think you're on to something.
Philly McButterpants Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Alex starts at 4:45. He sums up the band's attitude about the RRHOF. I would have A LOT more respect for JW' s opinion if he were railing against Madonna or some disco bands being in the RRHOF. His consistent use of Rush as his poster child for the voter's transgressions simply shows that Chef Jim is spot on.
Delete This Account Posted October 26, 2013 Author Posted October 26, 2013 Alex starts at 4:45. He sums up the band's attitude about the RRHOF. I would have A LOT more respect for JW' s opinion if he were railing against Madonna or some disco bands being in the RRHOF. His consistent use of Rush as his poster child for the voter's transgressions simply shows that Chef Jim is spot on. funny, i've never said i hated rush. grew up on rush. my first concert was rush. the high school band i was the lead singer for played rush. i use rush as an example for several reasons. first, because i moved on from rush. second, because any reference to them in a negative light prompts responses such as these. as for Madonna, she did plenty for popular music in her formative days. i have plenty of respect for what she was able to accomplish. nothing wrong with madonna. now, as to whether she also belongs in the rock and roll hall of fame ahead of many others is very much debatable. was she a "rocker." quite unlikely. thing is, does rush deserve to be in the rock and roll hall of fame ahead of others. again, that's a debatable point. side with jim all you want. but to discount the points i made simply because my use of a band that you treasure makes it difficult doesn't entirely make your case, either. are the replacements more of a rock and roll band than rush? i'd have to say, yes. jw Well there probably is not need to continue with this. I've made my point and you've made yours not matter how elitist, snobbish, condescending or dismissive it may be. But I will go back to my first point that if the Replacements snub the Hall they will come across as elitist, snobbish, condescending and dismissive. Hey, waaaaaiiiiiit a minute. I think you're on to something. yes, you in some ways have essentially summed up my point as to what rock and roll is about. it's naively snobbish, elitist among its fans, and especially condescending and dismissive in its finger in the air demonstrations. thanks. jw
Philly McButterpants Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) Madonna doesn't deserve to be in the hall simply because she is a singer; not a composer; not an artist. The fact that you can defend a poser such as Madonna ... well, that speaks for itself.You also state that you only use Rush as your "poster boy" because it elicits response such as mine. Great I won't sully this thread with any more responses... But...Rush represents a genre of music that is directly traceable to the Beatles psychedelic phase. King Crimson, Yes, ELP, and Genesis (to a lesser degree Pink Floyd) were the direct descendents of one of the most important evolutions in music history. Granted, Rush was the second generation of that movement to progressive rock BUT they survived, and thrived. All of the other pioneers of prog collapsed, contracted, swapped members ad hominem.Rush survived, thrived and adapted. For 5 decades. If you're gonna have a "Hall of Fame," doesn't it make sense to have the.most successful, long-lived example of a partcular and popular genre represented in said Hall?There are a TON of one-two-three-and-four bands in the RRHOF. I moved on from bands that didn't challenge me intellectually. Doesn't mean it's not Rock n roll ( and doesn't mean it's not a guilty pleasure to listen to the Nerves). But I moved on too... Edited October 28, 2013 by Fatty McButterpants
linksfiend Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZhTYs0utVk
Gugny Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 but they should accept this as an honor! good god, sir, how can you be a fan and question this grand distinction! the chance to be walked upon and have cigarette butts discarded upon your star should be regarded as the height of recognition! rush would never turn down such a privilege! i agree. this is pure bs. for a band that contributed to revolutionizing music when it needed a big fat kick in the ass, this is a low point for a group that seems to be willing to stoop to green day status. my sympathies. the only argument i have here is that you hedged your point by referring to this as "a somewhat related note." there's no somewhat to it . this is the point i've been making. jw So it seems that Perry Farrell is quite interactive on Facebook. Last night, he was saying how excited he was about the Walk of Fame ceremonies happening today. So, just for schits and giggles, I posted a comment. I told him that unless Eric Avery was the one who chose to not participate, that the other members of the band were sellouts. He ignored it, but was responding to others saying how great he was. So I asked him, in another comment, to please address the Avery issue. I reminded him how he likes to sing, write and talk about love and honor, etc., and that if he didn't invite Avery that he owes his fan base an explanation. That got his attention. He simply responded, "Just know that he (Eric) was invited ..." So I feel better about that. But I still think accepting this $25K honor goes against what they supposedly believed in. Meh.
Recommended Posts