timw@umcp-cs.UUCP (01/23/84)
I guess you really haven't heard all of the music these days.
There is (was) a band who destroyed all of the images of 'top ten'
radio and who were not conformists. They refused to be conformists,
and even when they started to become popular, just more than a cult
following, they decided they were TOO popular and broke up. Not many
bands would do this, unless they felt like they would change the way
they sound. The hardcore scene was built around this band, yet not many
people heard of Minor Threat. They were it. Ask anybody who saw them.
Don't get me wrong. I like Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream, and I am
a big fan of Eno's. But they don't begin to match the intensity of what
Minor Threat. And I have seen a lot of hardcore bands come and go.
You would have to see them to believe them. Sorry Bill, but you
made yourself sound like a fool. And just think, you didn't
even try that hard !
--
-- Everything you know is wrong ! --
Tim Wicinski
University of Maryland
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!timw
CSNet: timw@umcp-cs ARPA: timw.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relaytwiss@stolaf.UUCP (01/25/84)
Tim Wicinski recently told Bill Gulley that he made a fool of himself and that everything he knew was wrong. Hmmmmm..... First of all, Bill was questioning why certain "good" bands did not make it on the "Top Ten" and why other bands alter their sounds inorder to make it. He also asks if this implies anything about the overall quality in pop music. To which Mr. Wicinski replies: he knows of a band (oops I forgot the name) that was great and that when they started to get popular, they broke up. Well now, if we both put on our thinking caps, Tim, we can see that your example merely underscores Bill's sentiments. I'm not familliar with the band in question so I'll take your word for it that it was indeed good. The fact that they got scared of conforming to certain pop standards should indicate to us thinking cap wearers that "good" musicians avoid pop music (implying, of course, that pop music is bad). Now I don't think that either Bill or I hate all pop music; far from it. But we do question a lot of pop music's precepts. Did you read Bill's article or did you just skim it and fly off the handle. Bill at least was trying to raise some questions for us all to think about, but Tim responds with insults and name-calling. Is this really necessary?? The philosophy of aesthetics is indeed a complex and highly subjective topic, but (if we are still wearing our thinking caps) we should at least be able to express ourselves rationally. Tom Twiss ..!ihnp4!stolaf!twiss
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (02/15/84)
(These are my personal views on why "good bands" don't make the top40.
Not too many flames, please, or you're likely to burn down the whole MIT
EE/CS department.)
I have listened to top40 for at least 16 consecutive years of my life,
starting with WABC in New York and eventually branching out into FM
circa 1976. I am not ashamed of this: I have been ridiculed in person,
by phone and by electronic mail for this. I happen to enjoy top40
because it is the kind of music that can lift your spirits after a hard
day, or make you smile and remember good times in the past when you hear
a golden oldie.
Anyway, on to the main point. I'd like to define a "good band" (for the
purposes of this newsgroup) as a band which puts out music which is
highly acclaimed by this newsgroup. Some examples of this (that I have
seen on this newsgroup) are the pre-90125 Yes, the Stones, Genesis
and before Peter Gabriel left. Conversely, some "no good bands" are the
current Yes, Duran Duran, Genesis led by Phil Collins, Asia, Loverboy,
... the list is endless.
Pop music is, by definition, music which is popular. The popularity of
music (not the quality, mind you) is determined by the rate and volume
at which it is purchased, the rate and volume at which it is played on
the air, and the frequency with which the artists do concerts and how
much their concerts gross. The "good bands" tend not to do well in
these categories, whereas the "no good bands" do. You might ask, why?
The "good bands" generally put out a certain brand of music which is
independent of the time and current style of other bands. However, the
"no good bands" put out music which sounds generally the same as the
music which the popular bands are putting out.
I do not mean by this article to bad-mouth bands which do not put music
out on the top40 consistently, neither am I praising those who do. I am
merely trying to explain why "good bands" don't make the top40 a lot,
yet that takes nothing away from their quality. The key point here is
that top40 ratings are a measure of popularity, not a measure of
quality. The true measure of the quality of a band must be ultimately
determined by those individuals who repeatedly purchase the albums and
see the concerts of their respective "favorite" bands.
--
--greg
{decvax!genrad, eagle!mit-vax, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds (UUCP)
Gds@XX (ARPA)