From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V5 #249 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Monday, July 29 2002 Volume 05 : Number 249 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards [PaulRabjohn@aol.com] Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards [Andrew Walkingshaw ] [idealcopy] My gidiness Andrew........ [Ari Britt ] Re: [idealcopy] My gidiness Andrew........ [Andrew Walkingshaw ] Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards ["Keith Astbury" ] Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards [Andrew Walkingshaw ] Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards [PaulRabjohn@aol.com] Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: [idealcopy] Bored of Canada C.D [RLynn9@aol.com] RE: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards... on punk ["Eric Klaver" ] RE: [idealcopy] used vinyl anorak ["Eric Klaver" ] Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards ["Keith Astbury" considering > that I wasn't *alive* in '77 this is a bit presumptuous of me to say, > that punk was really a conflation of two things: a general spirit of > disillusionment which manifested itself in both the "civil-disorder" > mohican/beer/spitting 'Pistols' punk, and the "intellectual" > punk (for want of a better phrase) of the post-punk bands, with a few > jokers in the pack playing to both crowds (noticably the > Clash) ////hard to summarise this really briefly , if you want to understand what happened in 76/77 go read "england's dreaming" by jon savage which probably sums it up better than anyone else has. i guess it did start as a unified thing then split into lots of sub-movements. but even if the pistols did inspire the moronic end of post-punk its totally wrong to see them as something brainless themselves , they were so much more than that. whereas "intellectual" is not an immediate adjective that springs to mind when describing the clash , much as i loved 'em at the time. think of it as a movement that acted as an inspiration for what came after in myriad ways. the post punk acts used it as a musical and (sorry) intellectual starting point but took it in all sorts of interesting directions . the current bunch of punks just see the cartoon image sadly. which isn't really very punk at all , but they don't seem to realise that. sadder really is that much the same comment applies to a lot of the recent NME-darlings who might look cooler but have about as much originality as a green day or rancid , and i find them equally tedious. p ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:27:32 +0100 From: Andrew Walkingshaw Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 04:51:37AM -0400, PaulRabjohn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated Mon, 29 Jul 2002 01:21:05 +0100, > andrew-wire@lexical.org.uk writes: > > > considering > > that I wasn't *alive* in '77 this is a bit presumptuous of me to say, > > that punk was really a conflation of two things: a general spirit of > > disillusionment which manifested itself in both the "civil-disorder" > > mohican/beer/spitting 'Pistols' punk, and the "intellectual" > > punk (for want of a better phrase) of the post-punk bands, with a few > > jokers in the pack playing to both crowds (noticably the > > Clash) > > guess it did start as a unified thing then split into lots of > sub-movements. but even if the pistols did inspire the moronic end > of post-punk its totally wrong to see them as something brainless > themselves , they were so much more than that. The thing about the Pistols: I have no doubt that John Lydon is an extremely savvy, clever individual; but any band which has both John Lydon and John "Sid Vicious" Ritchie in (yes, I know Glen Matlock was the original bassist) is going to be schizophrenic in this regard. John Lydon and Malcolm MacLaren knew the score: but did the rest, and how many of their fans were *really* in on the scam? > whereas > "intellectual" is not an immediate adjective that springs to mind > when describing the clash , much as i loved 'em at the time. Street-smart maybe: but the Clash were certainly more aware of the wider world than most of their peers, much more ambitious ("Sandinista!"), and (IMO) many of their lyrics still stand up ("London's Burning", both song and largely the album). Yeah, they weren't necessarily the best-educated band ever (though judging by their records at least one of them must have been some kind of auto-didact: they were certainly not just relying on brawn, but on brain too), but they weren't stupid either... What I was meaning by the Clash crossing over both fields is that the first album, in particular, was '77 punk par excelsis - but even soon after that, on (say) "(White Man In) Hammersmith Palais", they come up with something which, on its terms, is arguably more subtle than the vast majority of the other initially-pure-play-punk acts came up with at any point in their subsequent careers. > think > of it as a movement that acted as an inspiration for what came after > in myriad ways. the post punk acts used it as a musical and (sorry) > intellectual starting point but took it in all sorts of interesting > directions . Why are intellectual matters such a bad thing? It seems that, often, trying to *understand* things is seen as something that one must apologise for: from playground accusations of being a swot to adult whispers of being "pseudy" and "pretentious". Argh. Trying to think of a way to write this which isn't chronically arrogant. (I have some hangups about being seen as arrogant; it's useful armour for the insecure, which I am, but hey.) OK. I'm, objectively, not too bad at what I do academically: I seem to have successfully completed a degree in it, which (although it's not proof) is at least *some* evidence for this conclusion. However, it's in (a) physical science: now, for me this is the best way to try and gain understanding of the processes underpinning (at least some aspects of) the world we live in. However, socially being a scientist is a total disaster, and you see a lot of people going "well, I study physics, but *I'm not a physicist really*" - meaning, they don't want to be seen to conform to a stereotype placed on people who are trying to use their minds. I'm aware of apologising for this myself the whole time: Now, given I've been known to apologise in lieu of breathing, (I'm one of these people who starts by feeling vaguely guilty for existing and works on from there), reading anything deep into this would be deeply unsafe, but - just maybe, this isn't my problem, and I and my peers shouldn't feel guilty for trying to be useful in the best way we can. I'm skinny, pretty weak, and pretty badly co-ordinated: I'd be very bad at making things or doing things. The best way I think I can contribute is by thinking about a small subset of things, and seeing what I can do there. Anyway, that was pretty stream-of-consciousness stuff. The point I think I'm trying to get at is that, apologising for thinking about things seems to be pretty ingrained in society, though it could just be my iffy perception of it again, and I don't quite see why it should be. Um, is that a long enough aside on why I think "intellectual" was exactly the right word to use there, and you didn't need to apologise for using it? :) > the current bunch of punks just see the cartoon image > sadly. which isn't really very punk at all , but they don't seem to > realise that. > sadder really is that much the same comment applies to > a lot of the recent NME-darlings who might look cooler but have > about as much originality as a green day or rancid , and i find them > equally tedious. p Point taken: the thing is, even a band like the Strokes (good tunes, shame about the image - I'm susceptible to guilty pop thrills, hi Keith!) are in some way less pernicious than Blink-182, as they're making no effort to hijack a movement, they're just basically chancing their arm and trying to grab as much rock'n'roll excess for themselves as they can. In some ways, I'm a lot less offended by that *lack* of ambition: the Hives self-mythologise, but they're very aware of what they're doing and relying on people humouring them and playing along with the joke. Bizarrely, I think I can respect that. - - Andrew - -- "Dissect a trillion sighs away - well, you got this letter, Jagged pulse slicing my veins; I write to remember." - At the Drive-In, "One Armed Scissor" ('Relationship of Command') adw27@cam.ac.uk (academic) | http://www.lexical.org.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:59:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Ari Britt Subject: [idealcopy] Bored of Canada C.D Was it you Paul wanted........a copy of a Board of Canada C.D,seems the guy that was sent it by the guy I sent it to (he didn't like it either)has sent it back to the guy I sent it to so I can send it on to you when I get it. contact me if you dare so I can send it on to you.Ari ===== everything in moderation is good for you,including excess. Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:15:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Ari Britt Subject: [idealcopy] My gidiness Andrew........ ........you do go on a bit..........Ari ('though I agree that -and have always stated that,Really, I do believe that,Punk is an attitude,no appologies for that) ===== everything in moderation is good for you,including excess. Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:21:08 +0100 From: Andrew Walkingshaw Subject: Re: [idealcopy] My gidiness Andrew........ On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 03:15:28AM -0700, Ari Britt wrote: > ........you do go on a bit..........Ari > ('though I agree that -and have always stated > that,Really, I do believe that,Punk is an attitude,no > appologies for that) Yeah, I do. Um, sorry....? :) (I think the reason is that I care about things, and ideas, altogether too much. I need to learn to relax a bit more, I suspect. "All together now, idealcopyists, breath -in- ... and hold... and exhale.") - - Andrew - -- "I have crawled so far sideways; I recognise dim traces of creation." - - Manic Street Preachers, "Die in the Summertime" ('The Holy Bible') adw27@cam.ac.uk (academic) | http://www.lexical.org.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:12:02 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: SV: [idealcopy] new on the list > >>Anoraks - wasn't that an Echo & B thing and not Wire? Serious and angry > young men with Soviet art on the walls? But it's veeery long ago ...<< Nope, that was long raincoats. A very different concept!!! Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:09:42 +0000 From: "John Roberts" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] M25 This was repeated recently minus Drummond but with the addition of some rather bemused American KLF fans. See issue 29 (The Hell Issue) of The Idler: http://www.theidler.co.uk Cheers John Terrible named bands I've been in: The F*cking Pieces of Sh*t Tebbit Under Rubble >From: "Keith Astbury" >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: [idealcopy] M25 >Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:51:38 +0100 > > > i did like the concept of > > walking around the M25 in protest at the duffness of the Dome > >according to 45, Bill Drummond and a couple of mates drove round the M25 >for >25 hours to see where it went... > >Keith http://www.captive.co.uk/bocca/ _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:43:11 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards Andrew mused about punkness and intellectualism... What needs to be borne in mind is just how absolutely necessary punk was in 1976, where the UK music scene was completely, utterly devoid of excitement. I'd say the unified "punk scene" was pretty much over by the time it had filtered into the provinces, leaving mutant strains in different places (Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Coventry, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow....hey, even Blackpool). It became possible to make music outside the stranglehold previously held by major record labels. Punk as fashion (bondage kecks, mohicans etc) was redundant by 1978, though that hasn't stopped Blink 182 and Rancid. Of course America embraced johnny-come-lately UK punk bands that were seen as an utter joke (eg the Exploited) and the subsumation of what was effectively a 1981 punk image as the acceped US punk look (routed via skateboard chic) is what we have presented to us as "punk" today. Strokes/Hives etc are an attempt to restore some perceived post-punk "authenticity" to music that is no more original than the Cortinas or 999 were in 1977. Also, don't believe for a moment that the pistols were the "scam" that McLaren paints them as. Lydon was far too intelligent for that. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:49:10 +0100 From: "Keith Astbury" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards Andrew said... > > > I wasn't *alive* in '77 this is a bit presumptuous of me to say, > > > that punk was really a conflation of two things: a general spirit of > > > disillusionment which manifested itself in both the "civil-disorder" > > > mohican/beer/spitting 'Pistols' punk, and the "intellectual" > > > punk (for want of a better phrase) of the post-punk bands, with a few > > > jokers in the pack playing to both crowds (noticably the > > > Clash) Paul then replied.... > > guess it did start as a unified thing then split into lots of > > sub-movements. but even if the pistols did inspire the moronic end > > of post-punk its totally wrong to see them as something brainless > > themselves , they were so much more than that. Totally agreed with Pauls comments here. It *was* a unified 'movement' even if you might have liked different bands than someone else who liked 'punk'/new wave (I loved X Ray Spex, some folk hated them). It should be remembered that until the likes of Blondie, Boomtown Rats (bands who got lumped in with new wave, but who 'crossed-over') came along, saying you liked punk was a significant statement. I remember being shit scared the first time I wore a pair of drainies, because even just wearing them and being seen as a punk sympathasier was likely to get you beaten up! (Mohicans BTW came later. The original punk bands looked different at the time mainly cos they had short-ish hair, but if you look back at early photo's nowadays, they all looked rather normal!) But as to what 'punk' means. Does it really matter now? It meant something 25 yrs ago. Surely other than to describe an attitude it's a rather redundant term now? Radiohead aren't punk. Green Day - as you say - less so. And regardless of what the man on the street might say, surely anyone worth his salt would lump Wire and Joy Division in with punk. Wire were there at the time. Joy Division, like Magazine, came directly from it...(And Radiohead, a long way down the road, came from here...) > John Lydon and Malcolm MacLaren knew the score: but did the rest, and > how many of their fans were *really* in on the scam? You've been taking MacLaren's views as fact here Andrew. At the risk of looking a mug, I don't think the Pistols were any more of a scam than any other new band - until Rotten left and MacLaren took over...(They were little else then of course). > > "intellectual" is not an immediate adjective that springs to mind > > when describing the clash , much as i loved 'em at the time. Bandwagon-jumping pop whores springs to mind IMHO... > Street-smart maybe: but the Clash were certainly more aware of the wider > world than most of their peers, much more ambitious ("Sandinista!"), and > (IMO) many of their lyrics still stand up ("London's Burning", both song > and largely the album). I still think The Clash are the most over-rated group (EVER?). Ambitious is one word to describe a triple album. Self-indulgent would be my choice... Don't get me wrong. I *like* the Clash - honest - but let's look at their albums... The Clash - sounded dated by the following year. Some good songs, but what a weedy production. (compare with Bollocks? no comepetition) Give 'Em Enough Rope - Over-produced and under-written. London's Burning - the most over-rated album ever? Great opening couple of tracks and then we're quickly back to Clash-by-numbers songs. Not even the best Clash album, let alone the best album ever... Sandinista - Some great tracks, but way way too much fodder.... Combat Rock - at last. A Clash album where the fast forward button is not required. It's not a double or a triple. These facts are not unrelated. Strummer, Jones, etc finally demonstrate quality control. The one GREAT Clash LP IMO... The Clash story ends there for me. I've never heard Cut The Crap and other than for curiousity value, I never felt any desire too either. Jones went on to make few interesting-at-the-time B.A.D. LP's. Strummer replaced a toothless drunk in an over-rated pub band. I know who *I* reckon had the talent in that band.... I'll finish there. Play's just resumed after lunch and England need one Indian wicket to win the first test... Keith PS I do *like* The Clash! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:02:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Mr Grumpy Subject: [idealcopy] Bored of Canada C.D Do all of their cds sound like this? I am surprised anyone would buy more than one. BTW, I am not a fan of theirs. MG - --- Ari Britt wrote: > Was it you Paul wanted........a copy of a Board of > Canada C.D,seems the guy that was sent it by the guy > I > sent it to (he didn't like it either)has sent it > back > to the guy I sent it to so I can send it on to you > when I get it. > contact me if you dare so I can send it on to > you.Ari > > ===== > everything in moderation is good for you,including > excess. > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better > http://health.yahoo.com ===== /\/\/\ { . . } /\ -- -bollocks! (R)GWS Ltdhttp://www.fortunecity.com/uproar/mental/111/ Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:12:26 +0100 From: Andrew Walkingshaw Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 01:49:10PM +0100, Keith Astbury wrote: > Radiohead aren't punk. Green Day - as you say - less so. And regardless of > what the man on the street might say, surely anyone worth his salt would > lump Wire and Joy Division in with punk. Wire were there at the time. Joy > Division, like Magazine, came directly from it...(And Radiohead, a long way > down the road, came from here...) I don't think *anything* today can meaningfully be described as punk, at least in the '77 sense: and if anything is, I'd be looking to the Aphex Twin, Squarepusher et al, not guitar bands; but it's interesting to note that the bands now described as punk have in general drunk much less of the *spirit* of punk, as I see it, than those who are derided as being revival-of-prog. I found this, bizarrely, quite amusing. Music does seem to be a bit of a titanomachia: the old idols are thrown down and new ones erected in their place, continuously... > > John Lydon and Malcolm MacLaren knew the score: but did the rest, and > > how many of their fans were *really* in on the scam? > > You've been taking MacLaren's views as fact here Andrew. At the risk of > looking a mug, I don't think the Pistols were any more of a scam than any > other new band - until Rotten left and MacLaren took over... Possibly; I think I'm just insufficiently well-informed. I certainly don't believe Johnny Rotten when he sneered "We *mean* it, maaaaaaan..." - though the rest of the chorus is somewhat more prescient. The Pistols, from my position of not having been around at the time, seem totally unthreatening to me: in fact, they seem quite comic. I suspect this is very much an artefact of how much punk *did* change, though, so it's staggeringly easy for someone like me to take it for granted. I don't think I believe *any* person, band or otherwise, are (or ever were) entirely for real, whether they swear it on Bill Grundy's show, or (more recently) carve it into their forearms with razor-blades, sadly. My generation wear cynicism like a shield: it's our natural way of looking at, and defending ourselves, from the world. In the absence of commitment, we can pretend nothing matters... - - Andrew - -- "He lies on his side; is he trying to hide?" - - Wire, 'Outdoor Miner' ("Chairs Missing") adw27@cam.ac.uk (academic) | http://www.lexical.org.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:13:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Mr Grumpy Subject: [idealcopy] used vinyl anorak > >joe boxers 'Just Got Lucky'(was the US hit) / 'Boxer Beat' > >my daughters wedding 'Lawnchairs' Now is this the EMI ep version or the other label which escapes me right now? MG ===== /\/\/\ { . . } /\ -- -bollocks! (R)GWS Ltdhttp://www.fortunecity.com/uproar/mental/111/ Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:57:49 -0400 From: PaulRabjohn@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards > John Lydon and Malcolm MacLaren knew the score: but did the rest, and > how many of their fans were *really* in on the scam? ////as was said by others , don't believe the mclaren version where he takes the credit for everything after the event. the original pistols fans were a bunch of educated art school kids well capable of seeing things as they were (as were of course the bands management) , it only reached the masses later. > Street-smart maybe: but the Clash were certainly more aware of the wider > world than most of their peers, /////a lot of folks saw it as silly posturing even then (driving out to belfast by taxi for a quick photo shoot , getting done for shooting pigeons.....). they were nice guys and they looked fabulous , but i don't think much of it stood much analysis. not that i cared when i was 14 (first band i ever saw) but looking back they were great rock n rollers and not much else. much more ambitious ("Sandinista!"), and > (IMO) many of their lyrics still stand up ("London's Burning", both song and > largely the album). ////i gave up at londons calling (that's what you mean above i guess). i wasn't really into straight rock bands by then and that's all it seemed to be. i'm a bit more charitable now , but i've never gone and bought either of the above. > > Yeah, they weren't necessarily the best-educated band ever (though judging > by their records at least one of them must have been some kind of auto-didact: > they were certainly not just relying on brawn, but on brain too), but > they weren't stupid either... ////but there's a lot of ground between stupid and intellectual , and i think that's wherethey fell > > What I was meaning by the Clash crossing over both fields is that the first > album, in particular, was '77 punk par excelsis - but even soon after that, > on (say) "(White Man In) Hammersmith Palais", they come up with something > which, on its terms, is arguably more subtle than the vast majority of the > other initially-pure-play-punk acts came up with at any point in their > subsequent careers. //////good record , but a lot of left-field bands had moved a long way by 78/79 and were doing much more interesting stuff than the second and third clash albums. being better than the damned isn't much of an honour really..... > > > Why are intellectual matters such a bad thing? It seems that, often, > trying to *understand* things is seen as something that one must > apologise for: from playground accusations of being a swot to adult > whispers of being "pseudy" and "pretentious". /////just a little joke , forgive me. (snip) > Um, is that a long enough aside on why I think "intellectual" was > exactly the right word to use there, and you didn't need to apologise > for using it? :) ////well maybe it was :-)i think i heard tony wilson say something like "never apologise , never sue , never try to justify yourself" which i think is pretty good advice if you've got the confidence to carry it off............ > > > Point taken: the thing is, even a band like the Strokes (good tunes, shame > about the image - I'm susceptible to guilty pop thrills, hi Keith!) are > in some way less pernicious than Blink-182, as they're making no effort > to hijack a movement, they're just basically chancing their arm and > trying to grab as much rock'n'roll excess for themselves as they can. ////or is it just we give the benefit of the doubt more readily to bands that rip off stuff we actually like? > > In some ways, I'm a lot less offended by that *lack* of ambition: the Hives > self-mythologise, but they're very aware of what they're doing and relying > on people humouring them and playing along with the joke. Bizarrely, I think > I can respect that. > /////agree totally , like the ramones the joke is actually fun. whereas pretentiousness is never particularly impressive. p ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:01:39 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards > >>The Pistols, from my position of not having been around at the time, seem > totally unthreatening to me: in fact, they seem quite comic. I suspect this > is very much an artefact of how much punk *did* change, though, so it's > staggeringly easy for someone like me to take it for granted.<< I can't begin to describe the state of national indignation and apoplexy the tabloid press got itself into over punk. It was absolutely thrilling to feel a part of that, in that you understood - and 99.999% of the population didn't. It wasn't just a generational thing either. A vast majority of Britain's youth were violently opposed to punk too. Sure, if you're going to strip the Sex Pistols down into guitar tabs etc, with 25 yrs of hindsight, you get tuneful pub rock with moderately provocative lyrics. But to do that would be to miss the point. > >>I don't think I believe *any* person, band or otherwise, are (or ever > were) entirely for real, whether they swear it on Bill Grundy's show, > or (more recently) carve it into their forearms with razor-blades, > sadly. << I think it's wrong to see all artists as some kind of monomaniacs, living (and dying) purely for their art. Every piece of 'art' created by Bruce Gilbert (to use a relevant example) is "entirely for real". It's not the result of great suffering on Bruce's part though, just the articulation of his artistic vision. >>My generation wear cynicism like a shield: it's our natural way > of looking > at, and defending ourselves, from the world. In the absence of commitment, > we can pretend nothing matters...<< > > Or perhaps a defence mechanism against being caught out by the > rapidly-shifting, over-marketed trends of the day? Don't commit to liking > something unless it's been officially endorsed by your peer group? So much > bullshit is aimed at teenagers and twentysomethings that it must be almost > impossible to plot an individual course. Everything is the next big thing, > no matter how lame. > > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:11:31 EDT From: RLynn9@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Bored of Canada C.D In a message dated 7/29/02 8:03:17 AM Central Daylight Time, xj23@yahoo.com writes: << Do all of their cds sound like this? I am surprised anyone would buy more than one. BTW, I am not a fan of theirs. MG >> I think Boards of Canada are wonderful...i like mostly everything they have done...however, my only complaint (as with most electronica) is that i wish they would not feel the need to make such longs albums...8 good tracks with no fodder would be great... RL ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:08:49 -0400 From: "Eric Klaver" Subject: RE: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards... on punk These bands never really interested me; the punk/post-punk-era stuff I got into was through influence-chasing from other bands I liked (who I'd encountered via the mainstream: mainly REM and Radiohead, as I think I've mentioned here before - and thence through the Pixies etc to Joy Division, Wire, et al) - now these bands, either those in the present or those in the past, wouldn't be classed as punk at all by the mass media - quite the contrary in the case of Radiohead (more than once accused, not without some justification, of being the new prog). Hence, we have a situation where a clearly post-punk-influenced, politically-active band such as Radiohead - in many ways, *archetypally* punk in their attitudes - are seen as prog, whilst a retrogressive, past-fixated band such as Blink-182 *are* seen as 'punk'. ///////////////////////////////////// Some excellent points Andrew, and extremely well expressed. For me this only proves Mcluhan's dictum "the medium is the message". As soon as punk went pop it's message was subverted by the channels through which it was delivered. Punk, like any good religion, is a personal, immediate experience. Eric in Toronto ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:17:01 -0400 From: "Eric Klaver" Subject: RE: [idealcopy] anorak The Nylons are also from Canada. They do a coppela (sp?) pop (shudder). I didn't know, however, that ODW was also from Canada. I used to have that album (I think it was called Digital Cowboy). Eric in Toronto ///////////////////////// Our (not my) daughter's wedding were horrid quirky Nice New Wave, I think from Canada. Lawn Chairs was their "hit" IIRC. The Nylons I can't remember hearing, though I guess it's powerpop. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:17:06 -0400 From: "Eric Klaver" Subject: RE: [idealcopy] used vinyl anorak Not really. Maybe only because ODW was acronymed as well. They were more like Men without Hats in my estimation. Eric in Toronto ///////////////////////// you mean our daughter's wedding? i have vague memories there too, but fond ones. omd-ish springs to mind for some reason. good reason? - -paul c.d. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:20:07 +0100 From: "Keith Astbury" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards andrew... >Possibly; I think I'm just insufficiently well-informed. I certainly don't >>believe Johnny Rotten when he sneered "We *mean* it, maaaaaaan..." - though >>the rest of the chorus is somewhat more prescient. I don't think anyone thought Johnny was singing that line from the heart. (Did they?) I always took it - with that all the 'a's in 'maaaaan' - as sarcasm (People still talked like that!). It was a pisstake, not a message from the heart. > > >>The Pistols, from my position of not having been around at the time, seem > > totally unthreatening to me: in fact, they seem quite comic. And yet you like The Clash, who as Paul so rightly pointed out with their photo-shoot trip to Belfast, were laughable even then. I prefer The Damned to be honest. So they didn't write much in the way of social commentary - so what? They had more energy, spark, wit. Unfortunately, their cartoon qualities obscured some decent records in a lot of folks eyes, whereas people bought into what Paul rightly describes as the Clash's silly posturing lock, stock and South American barrel. Give me Damned Damned Damned before The Clash anyday, but then I love the Stooges, maaaaaannnn.... mark said... > It wasn't just a generational thing either. A vast majority of > Britain's youth were violently opposed to punk too. I wasn't joking when I mentioned the drainies. People would get beat up for less. > Sure, if you're going to strip the Sex Pistols down into guitar tabs etc, > with 25 yrs of hindsight, you get tuneful pub rock with moderately > provocative lyrics. But to do that would be to miss the point. Just a little! > >>My generation wear cynicism like a shield: And where do you think that came from??? Had there ever been a more cynical movement than punk? Not that I think that's a good thing. I'm still a cynical gitt, but I no longer take any pride from it. I doubt I'll ever hug a tree in this life, but a bit more positivity in the world surely wouldn't go amiss... > > at, and defending ourselves, from the world. In the absence of commitment, > > we can pretend nothing matters... Sounds more like laziness to me, young man. Get your haircut and get a bloody job ; ) Keith NP Iggy Pop - Power & Freedom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:27:39 -0400 From: "Eric Klaver" Subject: RE: [idealcopy] An Encounter with an Angel? Bill drew a thread for me: He waves the white stick of the blind man in front of him and his eyes are concealed behind dark glasses. After repeating his garbled messianic gibberish enough to make it hypnotic and hilarious, he stops walking and ascends the escalator as choral music blares, suggesting that he's rising to heaven. Maybe he eventually trusts and believes that its all in the art of stopping? "I've done this before Never for money Always for Love" Eggs Refuse to Clear Up Pope Mystery ////////////////////////////////////// Now that the pope and the pill-grims have left the city (leaving 4 inches of shit in the basement of a furniture department store next to the site of the mass) I can now talk freely without fear of being struck down. Struck down. I bought RNB1 last week and it is so good. Absolutely blows away anything I have heard in the past ten years (since the release of The First Letter). I have turned to thinking about the lyrics, esp. In the Art of Stopping. At first it I thought it might have something to do with the trust we exhibit when we cross an intersection. But then it dawned on me with all of the Catho-licks around. Myself being lapsed, thought of one of the favourite methods of Catho-lick birth control: withdrawal. That must be it. Eric in Toronto. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:42:46 +0100 From: Andrew Walkingshaw Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:01:39AM -0400, MarkBursa@aol.com wrote: > I can't begin to describe the state of national indignation and apoplexy the > tabloid press got itself into over punk. It was absolutely thrilling to feel > a part of that, in that you understood - and 99.999% of the population > didn't. It wasn't just a generational thing either. A vast majority of > Britain's youth were violently opposed to punk too. > > Sure, if you're going to strip the Sex Pistols down into guitar tabs etc, > with 25 yrs of hindsight, you get tuneful pub rock with moderately > provocative lyrics. But to do that would be to miss the point. Yeah; the thing is, I'm not quite sure it's possible to fully *get* the point without having lived through something as violently generation-gapping as that. The biggest band of my teenage years were Oasis, and I was just left cold by them: Blur I liked, basically because they were mouthy smartarses (which seems to be why a large number of people hate them too) who seemed to have some interesting ideas (although with hindsight a lot of other people seem to have had the ideas first, I still think Blur put a lot of them across pretty well: or to put it another way, I *really* like "This is a Low".) The problem with Oasis is they're so... inoffensive, so retro, that they don't have that kind of effect; they were just, well, Dadrock - rarely has a genre been more accurately named... > > >>I don't think I believe *any* person, band or otherwise, are (or ever > > were) entirely for real, whether they swear it on Bill Grundy's show, > > or (more recently) carve it into their forearms with razor-blades, > > sadly. << > > I think it's wrong to see all artists as some kind of monomaniacs, living > (and dying) purely for their art. Every piece of 'art' created by Bruce > Gilbert (to use a relevant example) is "entirely for real". I think I've put myself across badly here: what I mean is that whenever anyone projects total commitment to the cause in that kind of way, I mistrust them. I'm not meaning to denigrate the art produced by Bruce Gilbert, for example, I just have a great awareness of the power of hyperbole, and I see bands exploiting this shamelessly and am put on edge by it. Also, I don't like to see people suffering for their art: depression is a sufficiently evil thing that I couldn't wish it on anyone. > It's not the > result of great suffering on Bruce's part though, just the articulation of > his artistic vision. > This, I think, is much healthier. [cynicism] Mark wrote: > > Or perhaps a defence mechanism against being caught out by the > > rapidly-shifting, over-marketed trends of the day? Don't commit to liking > > something unless it's been officially endorsed by your peer group? > > So much bullshit is aimed at teenagers and twentysomethings that it must > > be almost impossible to plot an individual course. Even before that: just look in any primary school playground, look for the kids in the corners being left out, wanting to join in but being forced out... but they don't have the right accent, or haircut, or shoes, or (later) taste in music, or clothes, or sexuality, or religion, or skin colour, or or or... dare to be different? It's hard enough at times to dare to speak at all. Some of us, of course, such as myself, speak altogether too much; but sometimes I suspect I'm not saying very much at all, just making hollow noise. - - Andrew - -- "What else can I write? I don't have the right, Who else can I be? All apologies... " - Nirvana, "All Apologies" ('In Utero') adw27@cam.ac.uk (academic) | http://www.lexical.org.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:44:00 +0100 From: Andrew Walkingshaw Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 04:20:07PM +0100, Keith Astbury wrote: > > > at, and defending ourselves, from the world. In the absence of > commitment, > > > we can pretend nothing matters... > > Sounds more like laziness to me, young man. Get your haircut and get a > bloody job ; ) I have, and I have. - - Andrew (short-haired sysadmin from Edinburgh, at least till October) - -- "What else can I write? I don't have the right, Who else can I be? All apologies... " - Nirvana, "All Apologies" ('In Utero') adw27@cam.ac.uk (academic) | http://www.lexical.org.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:25:40 +0100 From: "Keith Astbury" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards > > > > In the absence of commitment, > > > > we can pretend nothing matters... > > Sounds more like laziness to me, young man. Get your haircut and get a > > bloody job ; ) > > I have, and I have. I'm pleased to hear it. A spell in the army wouldn't go amiss though ; ) Keith NP BRMC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:24:58 +0100 From: Andrew Walkingshaw Subject: Re: [idealcopy] Anorak Awards On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 05:25:40PM +0100, Keith Astbury wrote: > > > > > In the absence of commitment, > > > > > we can pretend nothing matters... > > > > Sounds more like laziness to me, young man. Get your haircut and get a > > > bloody job ; ) > > > > I have, and I have. > > I'm pleased to hear it. A spell in the army wouldn't go amiss though ; ) It's temporary. I go back to being a full-time student in October... (PhD in Mineral Sciences, still in Cambridge.) - - Andrew - -- "And I want you to notice when I'm not around; I wish I was special - you're so _very_ special..." - - Radiohead, "Creep" (edit) ('Creep' EP, 'Pablo Honey' (US ed.)) adw27@cam.ac.uk (academic) | http://www.lexical.org.uk ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V5 #249 *******************************