From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #45 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Wednesday, January 30 2002 Volume 02 : Number 045 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Wimp rock [Dan Sallitt ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:25:03 -0500 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: [loud-fans] Wimp rock > As to James Taylor: I think others have analyzed this better than I could, > but I agree he's one of those damned more for his influence or epitomic > status than his actual work. That is, you couldn't swing a dead mosquito > in the '70s without bumping into a "sensitive" singer-songwriter, most of > whome were every bit as bad as their reputations suggest (Dan Fogelberg, > stand up - good: now the artillery has a better view. And could somebody > move that tuba next to him? I don't want his blood running through my > instrument). > > Cat Stevens is another one tarred w/the lame-ass brush (and then later > w/the what-the-hey-let's-kill-Salman-Rushdie brush) who doesn't deserve it > at all. If my memory is correct, JT, Cat, et al. acquired their bad reputations during the 70s, when critics seemed to feel that the angry, rebellious, kick-ass True Nature of rock 'n' roll was threatened by incipient wimpiness and slickness. (Remember when Joni Mitchell's rep was almost as low as JT's?) Punk happened, and after enough time had passed rock became fragmented and diverse enough that wimp musicians got a piece of the critical pie like everyone else. But the old stigmas attached to some artists live on.... - Dan ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #45 ******************************