corporate rock whores

Colonel Panic wrote:Some of you kids weren't even born yet when Sonic Youth came on the scene, so you really aren't in much of a position to argue about how influential they were or weren't.

This is a statement of incredible douchebag proportions.



Even though I think you're 14 years old, and this is a picture of your uncle. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, say that it really is you, and say that you look about 35 in this picture. This means that you were nine years old when Sonic Youth came on the scene?

You would have been 12 years old when Bad Moon Rising was released, and 13 when EVOL came out. Were you a mega-hip 13 year old? You went and saw them with both Richard Edson and Bob Bert? Tell us, who do you prefer?

Either way, you were probably not born, or (if I've made a mistake and you're actually older than 14, or 35) in the cradle when Iggy and the Stooges came out. Yet you can probably go back and listen to their records and make a judgement of how influential they were on other bands. No? How about the Beatles? Any opinions on how influential they were? Too fucking bad.

Any "kid" can go pick up Gang of Four's "Entertainment", realise it was released in 1979 and has had an influence on a great many of the bands that exist now, either directly or indirectly. Age has nothing to do with it, and it certainly doesn't disqualify them from having a position to argue or an opinion on it.

I'm just trying to make you realise what an ageist cunt you sound like there. A pseudo-adultist attitude coming from a guy who uses emoticons as his avatar is really just a little too much to bear.

i wonder how many cups of coffee were sold as a result of this thread

I'm older than 35. I appreciate the compliment though.

And the first time I heard SY was around the time EVOL came out, which was what? 1985 or 1986? I was in high school then.

Colonel Panic wrote:I'm older than 35. I appreciate the compliment though.

And the first time I heard SY was around the time EVOL came out, which was what? 1985 or 1986? I was in high school then.

You're aging well. So, I was off by three years then? Anyway, still doesn't change the crux of my argument.

Anyway, going back through my record collection and listening to music from different years is quite different from participating in the culture of buying and listening to current music, and noticing trends coming and going within their chronological context.

When you first hear a band that sounds so surprisingly different from anything else out there, and then over a span of years you hear more and more bands playing in a similar style as their influence grows, you can't help recognizing how important a band they are.

To take an example from my childhood, everybody tells me how influential the Beatles were. I would never deny that they were extremely important to modern pop music. But because I wasn't around in the early 1960s when the "British Invasion" hit, I don't think I have the same appreciation as my parents do for the impact they had. Some people of my age group might tell you that the Beatles weren't all that important, that their influence is extremely hyperbolized. If you ask anyone of my parents' generation, I doubt you'll find many people who agree with that statement, because they were there, watching the new music evolve as it happened.

thanks for the clip Flaneur.

haven't heard the last few SY albums but i did grab Psychic Hearts on a whim years ago. looking forward to the new solo album as well. anyone else?

this whole thing has to be a joke. i'd put money on it if i had any.

Colonel Panic wrote:Anyway, going back through my record collection and listening to music from different years is quite different from participating in the culture of buying and listening to current music, and noticing trends coming and going within their chronological context.

When you first hear a band that sounds so surprisingly different from anything else out there, and then over a span of years you hear more and more bands playing in a similar style as their influence grows, you can't help recognizing how important a band they are.

To take an example from my childhood, everybody tells me how influential the Beatles were. I would never deny that they were extremely important to modern pop music. But because I wasn't around in the early 1960s when the "British Invasion" hit, I don't think I have the same appreciation as my parents do for the impact they had. Some people of my age group might tell you that the Beatles weren't all that important, that their influence is extremely hyperbolized. If you ask anyone of my parents' generation, I doubt you'll find many people who agree with that statement, because they were there, watching the new music evolve as it happened.

Now you're trying to redefine and post-rationalise what you originally said.

Obviously there's a difference between actually experiencing something firsthand and experiencing it vicariously through a book, documentary, etc. So, with the example of the Beatles, even though Beatlemania was well documented, you probably had to be there to truly understand how overwhelming it really was. Same think with the birth of punk - actually watching it happen as opposed to going back and reading firsthand experiences is going to be different. Here you're talking about the contemporary impact a band/music/book/whatever. However, you said:

Colonel Panic wrote:Some of you kids weren't even born yet when Sonic Youth came on the scene, so you really aren't in much of a position to argue about how influential they were or weren't.

But really, a band's influence is often not felt right away, it sometimes takes years and years before they achieve any sort of influence or enjoy some sort of retroactive success. (For example, one might argue that the music of Nick Drake is at it's peak of influence right now some 23 years after his death. Or that the sound of Joy Division is at it's most influential now.)

In fact, I would even argue that "kids" who come after us are in a better position to judge the influence of bands because they are able to view just the influence without getting their subjective emotions confused by having witnessed the initial impact.

The other thing though, is that listening to recorded music is always a firsthand experience. Any "kid" who puts on "Evol" for the first time today and listens to it is going to hear the same thing that you heard back in 1986. He might have a slightly different chronological interpretation of it "this was groundbreaking" as opposed to "this is groundbreaking" (substitute "groundbreaking" for the word of your choice: "shit", "pretty good", "moderately interesting", "radical", whatever.) But if he/she has half a brain, then they'll easily be able to see the influence Sonic Youth has had on a number of modern artists, just as you can go back and see how the Swell Maps, Glenn Branca, or the No Wave aesthetic influenced Sonic Youth.

...and they're fully entitled to argue about it as well.

I am talking about experiencing post-punk indie rock prior to the popularity of Sonic Youth, and then hearing the difference in the newer stuff that came along afterward.

Without any proper chronological reference points. someone who hasn't had that experience cannot gain as much of an appreciation for the influence they made. Comparing the release dates in the records' liner notes and drawing inferences just ain't the same.

I'm not redefining or "post-rationalizing" anything. My point remains the same as it was before.

The Swell Maps and No-wave bands were a bit before my time. Glenn Branca was nerdy music-school stuff which I didn't start getting into until after I'd already known about Sonic Youth. The first Lydia Lunch record I bought was 13.13, on the recommendation of my gothy girlfriend in about 1985. A friend turned me on to Glenn Branca back in like 1987 or so.

Anyway, maybe those groups were more ground-breaking and original, but Sonic Youth brought that "noise rock" aesthetic of harmony/dissonance out of the underground clubs and art school crowd to a much wider audience. For that reason, they are described as extremely influential. It's like Elvis taking the sound of the African American rhythm & blues "race labels" and turning it out to a white audience. Elvis was very influential on other white artists like Carl Perkins and Jerry Lee Lewis, who in turn formed a whole new movement in music.

My initial post on this topic was a response to this post:

zom-zom wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:
They are probably the most influential band of the past thirty years.

Oh, please stop now.

Now I admit, I don't know zom-zom's actual age, but I'm betting he's a good few years younger than I am, if he doesn't recgnize the influence of Sonic Youth on the post punk rock scene.

I'm 48.

Too much over-intellectualizing of rock bands is hilarious.

Still, this band, they do nothing for me. Never did.