sleepkid wrote: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 would even go so far as to say that with the immediacy of the internet and all the corporate cocksucking that goes into promoting a band via huge "independent" media outlets, that a band's influence can be felt immediately. It's kind of like when Nirvana hit and there were a trillion grunge bands, now the Arcade Fire gets a TIME cover and there's every college rock kid doing the indie pop thing. There's no "trickling down" anymore of music being passed through certain channels and eventually ending up in a more mainstream subconcious...it seems to hit right away or not at all.

I would also bet my two cents that music fans do a lot more reading about music than ever before, since we're in the age of blogging and such...so to say you can't get a somewhat fair estimation of band's influence or intrigue (not saying that you'll agree) in the greater whole is somewhat moronic. It may not resonate, but the opinions (and sometimes excellent documenting) are there.

Steve V. wrote:
I would even go so far as to say that with the immediacy of the internet and all the corporate cocksucking that goes into promoting a band via huge "independent" media outlets, that a band's influence can be felt immediately. It's kind of like when Nirvana hit and there were a trillion grunge bands, now the Arcade Fire gets a TIME cover and there's every college rock kid doing the indie pop thing. There's no "trickling down" anymore of music being passed through certain channels and eventually ending up in a more mainstream subconcious...it seems to hit right away or not at all.

I would also bet my two cents that music fans do a lot more reading about music than ever before, since we're in the age of blogging and such...so to say you can't get a somewhat fair estimation of band's influence or intrigue (not saying that you'll agree) in the greater whole is somewhat moronic. It may not resonate, but the opinions (and sometimes excellent documenting) are there.

You're confusing the same ideas that Colonel Panic was.

You're talking about a band's impact. Which can, of course, be gauged almost immediately. I was talking about a band's influence, will Arcade Music's approach to music have an effect on the way bands play music 15-20 years from now? Impossible to say.

We may just be quibbling semantics here.

A real quick example using bands that we probably don't really listen to so we can have a little bit of objectivity when judging them.

Def Leppard: This band had a huge "impact" - massive airplay, tours, everything. You couldn't go anywhere without hearing "Pour Some Sugar On Me" in the late 80's. Stupid song made me want to kill people. Will they be an influential band in the future? Probably not. They're kind of lost in the mix with all the other quasi heavy metal hair bands of the time period, they were perhaps just one of the more successful.

Guns-N-Roses: A band with a very large impact, and probably an influence as well. You could make an argument that G-N-R kind of set up the blue print for what "hard rock" bands are doing today.

Now, I really don't want to argue about those two examples, because really, I couldn't give a fuck. I'm just trying to show you what I mean by "impact" versus "influence".

You're saying I confused "impact" and "influence"?

Colonel Panic wrote:You're saying I confused "impact" and "influence"?

I'm not saying you confused the words themselves, but when I pointed out that someone can gauge the influence of something several years after the fact, you talked about witnessing something actually happening. (For example, you were in High School when "EVOL" came out, you remember the buzz about Sonic Youth when they were still "coming onto the scene", etc.)

I just started using "impact" and "influence" to distinguish the two separate things we were discussing.

Just to provide one more example, someone in this thread mentioned Shakespeare.

Shakespeare's worldwide "impact" during his lifetime was relatively minor. Apart from London, and a few translations made of his work, no one really knew of him. Literacy was relatively low, so even when his plays made it into print, they had to be performed for people for them to understand them. However, his "influence" is still felt now hundreds of years later.

Steve V. totally had it right when he pointed out that a band now can gain worldwide attention and recognition through the web, however, he kept using the word "influence" to describe what I would call "impact" or "exposure" or some other word.

I just feel that perhaps you, Colonel Panic, when you wrote:

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.

and Steve V. when he wrote:

Steve V. wrote:I would even go so far as to say that with the immediacy of the internet and all the corporate cocksucking that goes into promoting a band via huge "independent" media outlets, that a band's influence can be felt immediately.

are both misappropriating the term "influence".

However, like I said before, we may just be arguing over semantics now. This whole conversation is getting fairly stupid, so please feel free to not reply.

After reading through all 24 pages on this thread, I am tired and cranky and feeling like a fool for reading all 24 pages. That is all.

I don't understand how people can get upset about SY alining themselves to corporate america. Didn't they do that 10 or 15 years ago?

So why should they behave differently now?

I'm not saying it's a good thing at all. But it's no surprise it.

scott wrote:

unarmedman wrote:It's about time for an Arrested Development movie.

I challenge you to a game of horseshoes. A game of horseshoes!!!!!

there are 7 acknowledged wonders of the world. you are about to witness the 8th!

SPACE AIN'T MAN'S FINAL FRONTIER!
man's final frontier is the SOUL!
gotta find something more powerful than any human being,
something felt, but never seen.
you would be surprised
at what resides
in yo' insides.

(horns and scratching commence)

vital album of my childhood.

dig your hands in the dirt! children play with earth!

In Praise of Selling Out


"Corporations want the credibility that comes with the music they're co-opting, so an artist doesn't have to tidy up to win their patronage."


That's a pretty huge and oversimplified assumption.

I may have made a mistake burying this article at the bottom of this exhausted thread. But I think it's good fodder for conversation.

Just read that in the Reader over coffee on Saturday morning. I was actually going to post it in a new thread.

That Miles Raymer really knows how to turn a phrase, doesn't he?

"excitement of the club-casual crowd and the hum of corporate synergy"

"the beneficiaries of corporate largesse"

"Sonic Youth -- the gold standard for indie-rock incorruptibility"

"older listeners -- folks more likely to hold on to their old-timey indie ideals"

What an dicktard. I say we all write scathing letters to the Reader editors, without making any mention of EA or the forums, of course.