rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/12/85)
> The B-52's "music" is excellent to dance to. If that's all music means to > you, then your point is taken. But some people like to listen to music as an > end in itself. In other words, sometimes I like to go to my room, close the > door, crank the stereo, and just listen. In those situations, I can't stand > the B-52's. If you listen closely, you'll see how little there is in their > music. It's still fun to dance to, but if I want to just listen, there's > another world of rock music that is intrinsicly interesting enough to pay full > attention to. Tastes differ here, but when I want to just listen, I'll turn > on Yes, King Crimson, old Genesis, Gentle Giant, Peter Gabriel, Talking Heads, > ... I just couldn't let this go by without responding. In a world where there are huge numbers of people (a whole newsgroup full, in fact :-( ) who can sit on their asses and say: "This rock n' roll music (the label applied to Yes, King Crimson, old Genesis, Gentle Giant, Peter Gabriel, Talking Heads, etc) is excellent for immature teenagers. But some people like to listen to music as an end in itself, and there's another world of music interesting enough to pay full attention to instead of listening to the aforementioned trivialities", in a world where this gets said by all too many, I'd venture that you are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Yes, the B-52's music is silly. So is Zappa's. Yes, it's simple and minimal. So is Reich's. Yes, it's quirky and often childish. So is Talking Heads' (not forgetting that they WERE an influence on Byrne, who reciprocated by influencing them). I can still sit and listen to "Dance This Mess Around" or "Party Out of Bounds" or even "Strobe Light" just for the sake of listening (though it's sure to get a crowd dancing). With huge numbers of people pigheaded enough to stick a label on everything that don't understand and call it all trivial garbage, should lovers of the music that's been labelled "garbage" cultivate their own "underclass" and call it "dance music"? Just as you might make claims about Yes to a classical music listener ("But they're creative and serious! Not trivial noise!"), that which is labelled "dance music" can make such claims of viability to you (AND to them). Since you might be offended by putdowns toward an entire class of music that you like, would you feel justified in making such putdowns regarding another entire class of music. It would seem that you've never listened to the B-52's just to listen to them, based on the label their music has been given. Not to say that there isn't music that isn't purely trivial nonsense. Just saying that just because it's been given a label that IMPLIES "trivial nonsense" doesn't necessarily make it so. -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr