rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/30/84)
> There was an article in Billboard sometime around 1980 where the > difference between punk rock and wavopop was clearly outlined. > These (were) the punk rockers: > Sex Pistols, Ramones, DK (I think) > These (were) the wavopopers: > Devo, Blondie, B-52s, many others > Most likely, the wavopopers of today are the frequenters of MTV. I'm > not saying I don't like them, just drawing the barriers. Barriers? Are you suggesting net.music.punk clearly separated from net.music.wavopop?? :-) People who believe that "new music" can be cleanly divided into those two categories are only fooling themselves. Unfortunately, high-level record company execs (who have never heard a single piece of music in their lives---DOCUMENTED FACT!!---much like auto company execs who have never driven a subcompact) *love* to draw such barriers, because it helps sell records and define "market strategies". (Devo?? They go under "D" in the new "NEW WAVE" section. Dead Kennedys?? No, not behind Devo, they're punk, not new wave!!! Oh, put them in the heavy metal section, George!) Similar well-designed barriers include: Rock = for kids Jazz = intellectual, serious music Classical = serious, important music Popular = drivel by hucksters for mass consumption Punk = noisy violent abrasive noise New wave = OK to dance to, but weird (My girlfriend likes this sh*t, so I'll listen to it...); Rock = none of this new music garbage--pure, honest music from the gut, for real men... (and finally) Adult contemporary = music for people who have outgrown rock and now live in condos and make large purchases with credit cards (Of course, I'm leaving out the barriers that segregate(d) (?) music by race, but of course that's all changed now---*everybody* likes Michael Jackson.) It's always nice to know that we freedom-loving Americans are not sheep, and refuse to be cubbyholed into such limited categories... (IS A SIDEWAYS SMILE REALLY NECESSARY???) Is it any wonder that musical categories get names like post-punk and neo-classical?? These sound like "operative nomenclatures" used by large corporations until a "real" name can be thought up. -- "You are not SAM. You are not ISAM!!!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
cdelliot@uokvax.UUCP (05/08/84)
#R:pyuxn:-61000:uokvax:4000030:000:541 uokvax!cdelliot May 8 07:32:00 1984 I think you might be able to define a band as being punk or wavpop just by the name of the band. Bands with "offensive" (to some) and/or "tough" sounding names like SEX PISTOLS, DEAD KENNEDYS, RAMONES, etc. are classed as punk. Bands with "tech" names like DEVO and TALKING HEADS bring to mind wavpop. But who really cares how we categorize music anyway. To abuse a famous saying -- "Music (Beauty) is in the mind (eye) of the listener (beholder)". C. D. Elliott AT&T Technologies !ctvax!uokvax!cdelliot
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/17/84)
Please explain to me how the name "RAMONES" sounds tough and/or offensive or how TALKING HEADS sounds techie? =Ron
lee@rochester.UUCP (Lee Moore) (05/18/84)
I don't know about the Ramones but the name "Talking Heads" is jargon from the video broadcast industry. It refers to news programs (and the like) that only show people telling you what is happening rather than showing you. So, Talking Heads are something you want to avoid in your program. -- = lee@rochester rochester!lee =
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/21/84)
> I don't know about the Ramones but the name "Talking Heads" is jargon from > the video broadcast industry. It refers to news programs (and the like) that > only show people telling you what is happening rather than showing you. > So, Talking Heads are something you want to avoid in your program. More precisely it refers to interview programs (one-on-one) that just show one head or the other talking. David Byrne claims he had no knowledge of the video term when he named the band. -- Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr