Television #3 Vs. Van Halen #73 Vs. Indie Music Cred Conditioning

kthxbye!

I've always had a visceral hatred of Van Halen, dating back to being an alienated teen, just as alienated from most of my peers as I was from whatever else I was supposed to be alienated from.

The more important general point is: I think it's very limiting to insist that listeners must continue to truly love most what they loved as adolescents.

(And I'm not an indie rock guy defending my honor since most of what I listen to is not indie rock or even indie I think.)

http://www.lotruk.com/imagelibrary/images/rotk/rotk-1-2401-theoden.jpg

Good point. I will admit that I am riding on the assumption that most ILM posters have both eclectic and esoteric music tastes (a pretty safe assumption, if you look at the breadth covered regularly) and did not start out this way, so my point was more along the lines of suggesting that it is via music crit conditioning and want for "cred" that we tend to post more obscure pieces of music above more mainstream pieces (even ones we once loved) on these types of "Top 100" lists. I guess it has to do with maturing, time passing, tastes changing, etc., too, but I think my point still has some weight.

Sure, these days I much prefer a fine red wine to the 40s I used to down in high school, but I'd still have to put Crazy Horse above Merlot on a "Top 100 Liquors" list....

And this thread is not meant to suggest I have a problem with the Pitchfork list itself. I was trying to raise something else, just using it to get there. The list was fine.

Why is it that MM establishes indie cred? Because how the fuck do you know anything about it or its relationship to the 70s if you were a pre-teen at the time? You don't. You learned about it much later, in The Wire.

Okay, first of all I think that response was unwarranted. I was under the impression that you'd take the comment for what it was, which was a joke about the kind of responses you were likely to get asking about this subject. I don't think anybody here thinks of me as a person with a jockstrap on his head, whatever the fuck that means.

I think your argument is pretty predictable re indie cred conditioning, and I agree with this statement in your original post:

It's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to come, but it's a tepid argument that Television similarly dominated the niche, short-lived genre (if you can even call it that) of post-punk (even though it's a popular music critic thesis).

I said Van Halen's first record was better than Marquee Moon because I think it's a better album. Why do I have to make an argument for it in the first place? There's a lot of bullshit establishment of cred involved in "making arguments that band X is better/more important/more influential than band Y" too. Sometimes I'd rather take my thumb out of my ass and just listen to Van Halen because it's a great record. I'm with Scott too... I can list hundreds of records I'd rather listen to than Marguee Moon, and I got nothing against Television or that album either.

Even if I thought it was worth it, I don't feel like making an argument at this point since you acted like a total douchebag after I made an admittedly not-terribly-funny joke in my first post.

Ah, bless you sir.

But again- sorry about that.....

I think I did get your wondering outloud, and I think your original posited explanation is pretty accurate. It's similar to the way a lot of people I know made the transistion from Top 40 to indie or post-punk and somehow forgot that they'd ever listened to Top 40 in the first place (either to maintain cred or because they really did just kinda forget what they listened to before they discovered whatever it was that got them interested in something different).

For whatever reason, some major hard rock acts/albums have been allowed inclusion in these kinds of lists. It's partly because of the age of the folks making lists like this (who likely cut their rock teeth on Van Halen or AC/DC or whatever), and it's also partly because that era in hard rock is (not without reason) generally held to be a big turning point in the genre, yet it's recent enough to escape the cred-curse of the term "Classic Rock."

Heheheh. Funny thing is I'm pretty rockist corny indie foxxor myself, and like I said, I'd put VH over MM by a longshot.

To remember where I came from and clearly show my bias though... My favorite band(s) over time:

pre 1982: Didn't really have a favorite/too young for it (I was born in '74)
1982-1987: Van Halen
1987-present: They Might Be Giants

So there you go.

But, ultimately I think RS' point

I think it's very limiting to insist that listeners must continue to truly love most what they loved as adolescents.

is a very valid one.

(I like VH too, BTW, mostly for how the guitars sound. Like the way the high ringy guitar line ripples against the fuzzy rhythm guitar line in "Dance the Night Away". Actually, via Prince [and Vernon Reid?], EVH may have had more influence on the way guitars sound in funk and hip-hop and maybe even fusion/jazz.)

2. I think that Marquee Moon is a far better record than Adventure.

3. Lyrics on Marquee Moon are more oblique than Wire.

x-post: Yeah the "sold out" thing was a little tongue-in-cheek too. But did they go in a much more mainstream direction after their first album?

Stupid. Of course it's because of conditioning. Taste is because of conditioning. Your thesis sucks because a) 'types' of music cred conditioning (ie the indie type) would be so hard to define that they're usless and b) you're making typical assumptions about a list that was compiled from many sources and generalizing about the "majority" of voters

Sorry to get all sociological on you indie fuxx, but this thread is so fucking tired

For the record, I much prefer Tom Verlaine's guitar playing to Eddie Van Halen's, and that's why I like Marquee Moon better. Although, on a cursory listen I might enjoy VH better, I've spent years falling in love with the performances and songs on MM and I don't think I would bother putting the same effort into Van Halen.

And yes, ranking Television so high simply reflects current tastes among the hipster set. In the unlikely event that prog becomes chic and there's a huge revival, you can bet Genesis and King Crimson would be near the top of the list with Caravan and Gentle Giant ranked high. But because punk, post punk, and glam are the chief influences of many of the current indie bands we're all supposed to praise, the heroes of those scenes will sit on the throne.

Personally, I hate Van Halen, but that's pretty subjective. The idea of making a list to reflect my tastes seems like an idiotic waste of time. But so long as we read Top 100 lists, critics will produce them.

I can intellectualize music on my own time- why subject the world to it unless it has a genuinely constructive purpose?

As long as we're willing to call these lists conversational entertainment, I'm ok with them

i can relate to the general premise above because i think mm is the "get out of jail free" cred card to play in crit monopoly. it's one of the man goober things you use so you don't have sit there trying to roll doubles and eventually pay $50 when you can't think of anything more shocking or noncanonical to put down in a top 100 list.

i actually prefer richard hell and voidoids better, but hey, my point: "HOT FOR MOTHACRACKIN TEACHER!"

dude,
m.

Sonny A. is OTM as far as taste is concerned, though this quote is missing an important part of the entire indie "psychological profile" (at the risk of being arbitrary). Sure, an up and coming indie/hipster/intellectual music listener will probably know a great deal about Marquee Moon's reputation even before they hear the goddamn album, and will therefore be pressured in some unmeasurable way to like it.

But an equally important part of taste-making is not just what you're pressured to listen to, but what you choose to listen to in the first place. As Sonny points out, everyone will devote different amounts of time to different bands based on individual taste. I used to listen to Sgt. Pepper while doing art projects in high school, and no matter how much I read about George Harrison's noble experimentation with the sitar, I refused to listen to "Within you/without you" after a few times. It might be the greatest song on the album if I give it time - I really don't know, or care. But the point is, musical taste is not just about what groups one is pressured to like; it's about the time and effort you want to invest in listening to music for appreciation as opposed to pleasure.

You say that "an equally important part of taste-making is not just what you're pressured to listen to, but what you choose to listen to in the first place." But how is this choice made? You have to hear about an artist first somewhere.

I just find the suggetion that there are people who read about Marquee Moon, buy it, don't really like it, and yet nevertheless represent it as being great to be questionable. Are people that cowed by others' opinions that they don't venture to speak up for themselves?

People aren't universally cowed by others' opinions but there's certainly a degree of uniformity involved. And if you're self-conscious to any degree whatsoever, you're going to feel somewhat defensive about making a top-100 albums list, and you will put certain albums in there no matter what. Who was surprised by London Calling?

I suppose when I say that it's important "what you choose to listen top in the first place," I mean that even aside from all the outside factors, on some gut level people's musical taste is based on what they like. No matter how influenced you are by critics, you might prefer 80's indie to 70's punk, or whatever. Every time you make a choice as to what to listen to, or what to purchase, you're making an equal choice to NOT listen to or purchase something else.

Um, yeah Tim, they are. Look at the entire fucking Democratic Senate during the Clinton impeachment, the certification of the 2000 election, the signing of the Patriot Act, the drum beat to war with Iraq. Educated people quite often roll over for fear of being the only voice of dissent.

So we can assume that via the inclusion of plenty of Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and the like, Pforkers (at least I'm not calling them "Porkers") probably caught on to the rock/metal dynasties far ahead of the likes of Television, Wire, and the like

I don't think this naturally follows. Not necessarily anyway, because it probably does for some people. I got into both Led Zeppelin and old REM around the same time and loved both. The glossiness, the 'party mentality', the flash, and the near-total absence of blues or folk roots in VH makes them somewhat alien from both. Someone who values looseness, improvisation, earthiness, and noise in rock could easily find lots to love in Zeppelin and Hendrix as well as Husker Du and Sonic Youth but not necesarily in Van Halen.

jsoulja, I think this just happens to be your perspective. There has been no talk about HOW the first Van Halen album is thought to be better than Marquee Moon. I haven't heard the VH album in a long time, but if asked for an immediate reaction, I'd say that I honestly think that Marquee Moon is better.

And your comparison of critics to politicians was loaded.

By the way, we're talking about only six pitchfork writers out of fifteen who had MM in their top 15, four of whom had it in their top 10.

X-POST

That's actually really surprising. It seems that almost everyone I know in their 30s who's not an ILx poster was into them. And a lot of people in their 20s seem to be into the Hagar era. Are you in the UK? Did they not make as big a splash there?

Excellent point. So how does it end up #3? Even if you do the math, there had to be some allowances somewhere in the equation, and that is the heart of what I'm arguing.

And fine, even if you don't agree with me, it's lame to say the thread is a dud, because you were or are reading it.

Major problems I have with ILMers:

-Not enough response arguments or backing up of declarations.

-Making your argument "Yeah, well that's YOUR opinion!" (So weak...)

-Disclaiming the thread with "This thread is a dud." (Ok, off you go....)

Marquee Moon > Bitches Brew and Exile On Main St. = BULLSHIT

No fucking way that record is better than those two (among others), nor did it have anywhere near the impact, either at the time or posthumously. There you have two major milestones in music history by artists that Television can't even come close to touching. Really. It would be like saying Bret Easton Ellis's "Less Than Zero" is a better and more relevant existential novel than Camus's "The Stranger". Or easier: it's like saying that Dr. Octagon's debut (me being lazy) tops Paid In Full and It Takes A Nation....

Nope. No way. Not even close.

I really wanted to make my point with Van Halen alone, but there it is. Definitive proof. Sorry to the doubters and haters, but you LOSE.

When I heared Marquee Moon for the first time (ten stars for the single in Record Mirror (top mark was five)), it spoke to me directly. It took no smokes.

A friend bought the Van Halen album round, yes about the same time. I have no recollection of the album itself, only I remember thinking "This is well done, but I don't like it much".

I didn't not like it because it was well done, btw.

Van Halen always struck me as pathetic cock rock. That they are even being mentioned in the smae breath as Television puzzles me. But horses for courses eh?

fite!

yeah, "right now" is ASS PIMPLE CHEESE on crackers. indie cred aside, television on their worst night ever (drunk, asleep, and quadraplegic) is > van hagar.

seriously tho, the fist pumping fury of "hot for teacher man"... how can that be dull? have you no gutt? you're not deaf by chance? joke! bad joke. sorry. you're entitled to level it of course.
m.

oh boy.
m.

Meanwhile, Van Halen. "Jump." That's where my knowledge of the band begins and ends. What do you bet some of these Pitchfork critics just haven't heard that much Van Halen, what with all their indie conditioning?

this is what Christgau said about Marquee Moon when it was new:

I know why people complain about Tom Verlaine's angst-ridden voice, but fuck that, I haven't had such intense pleasure from a new release since I got into Layla three months after it came out, and this took about fifteen seconds. The lyrics, which are in a demotic-philosophical mode ("I was listening/listening to the rain/I was hearing/hearing something else"), would carry this record alone; so would the guitar playing, as lyrical and piercing as Clapton or Garcia but totally unlike either. Yes, you bet it rocks. And no, I didn't believe they'd be able to do it on record because I thought this band's excitement was all in the live raveups. Turns out that's about a third of it. A+

so that "after the fact" bizness is a little ripe I think

What jsoulja is really saying is more like: there's something suspect about liking music that wasn't released in your life time (unless it's continued to get mainstream air-play), or that you in any way would have to make a slight effort to find out about. And I still think that's limiting.

I wonder where college radio fits into this? Lots of music that many people have said they first discovered by reading about it, I originally discovered on college radio (which may have given it added punch, since I never even suspected that a lot of it existed when I first heard it). On the other hand, the DJs, in many ways, functioned as critics. They talked about how great various people were, and even they didn't explicitly say so, the tone in which they simply announced certain artists left no doubt that they held them in high esteem.

And in fact, I think I did kid myself into thinking I liked certain things I didn't really like under the influence of college radio. But I also think that only last for about 2 or 3 years. I have since gone through the process of wanting to like certain things so much, and trying to like them (whatever that can mean), in other genres, but after I've been listening for a while, I tend to spit out what I don't like, and keep what I do like. (Larry Harlow's Salsa may be a great album, but I can't get into it, and don't like charanga in general.)

Look at the entire fucking Democratic Senate during the Clinton impeachment, the certification of the 2000 election, the signing of the Patriot Act, the drum beat to war with Iraq. Educated people quite often roll over for fear of being the only voice of dissent.

Some of these examples are just not comparable, since so much more was at risk than indie cred. Take the Iraq example in particular. The U.S. public had witnessed a large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I remember having a conversation with someone I know during the lead up to the war, someone I like, but someone who I'm sure is more trusting of the government than I am, and someone who doesn't do a whole lot of digging for news. She seemed genuinely afraid of this "45 minute" threat business.

I don't remember the Clinton impeachment very vividly--I don't think I was paying much attention to the news at the time--but I would think a lot of senators were out to save their jobs.

this thread is a dud no matter which side of the argument you take

OTM.

I don't believe our tastes develop in a social void, since we don't live in a social void; but I also don't think it's as simple as "I heard that Sonic Youth are really great and important, so I'm going to like them."

ewww ... Crazy Horse is the grossest 40oz. ... makes you shit like crazy in the morning.

thus,
merlot > crazy horse.

hot for teacher man!

hot for teacher!
m.

ps HOT SNAKES!!

Whereas Wolf Eyes' Gothic hoo-ha is NOT, of course.

I'm glad "Hot for Teacher" came up, the rhythm alone on this song is better than anything Television ever did.

I'm not talking about Bauhaus, jON.

"Whereas Wolf Eyes' scary oooh-ah is NOT, of course."

Before that I listened to really shitty music like Sublime and shit. Probably not the case for everyone, but if one is comparing the stuff they've plucked from the canon to the shitty-ass shit music they used to like then it will naturally be rated higher.

So your point is that any minority opinion is suspect?

Van Halen is the more significant band with the more significant cited album (when compared to Television and Marquee Moon), as are The Rolling Stones (Exile), as is Miles Davis (Bitches Brew), as are many of the artists (and cited albums) that fell far below TV on that 70s list. And I say TV made #3 because of indie cred posturing and nothing more.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, forget it.

I think it may actually be as simple as that, though not at a conscious level. It's like that famous psychology experiment where they drew a bunch of lines on the board and asked a group of people, Which one is the longest? Everyone in the room except for one person (the subject) is a plant, and they all say that the second-longest line is in fact the longest. What is surprising is how often the subject will agree with them.

Did they consciously decide to pick the second-longest line? No, but they probably started to doubt their own eyesight, thinking "They are awfully close, maybe that other line is longer, it does look a bit longer, doesn't it?" If that phenomenon can happen with something as relatively cut-and-dried as comparing the lengths of lines, how much easier could it happen with something so subjective and taste-based as choosing which is the best album? After all, there are many ways to enjoy an album. Perhaps the listener learns to substitute a higher-order intellectual pleasure for the more direct pleasures they experienced in their less sophisticated listening period. Gradually they become convinced that those higher-order pleasures are more valuable than the direct ones. They may like the album more for what it represents to them than for how it sounds. Thus highly esteemed albums may be rarely played.

well, um, i do think that!

Yeahbut, that's a case where there is the social pressure of having people actually present. I think that's a very different experience than reading music criticism. But your example does have some bearing on what would happen when I group of people talk about music together.

After all, there are many ways to enjoy an album. Perhaps the listener learns to substitute a higher-order intellectual pleasure for the more direct pleasures they experienced in their less sophisticated listening period. Gradually they become convinced that those higher-order pleasures are more valuable than the direct ones.

Now this is kind of an interesting idea. Would it really be dishonest though if a person came to value that new "higher-order" pleasure more than the old immediate Top 40 AM radio ones? (I don't think you are saying that, but I think the original poster probably would.)

Couldn't a "higher order" more intellectual pleasure be something like, "Wow, how did they just go from a 13th to like some sort of rare version of the Indonesian slendro scale?" Or, "These guys were the first to use this model of synthesizer in a Norwegian experimental music context!"

Early Wire's great too, btw.

I'm old, though. When those records were coming out, they were like candy. You didn't have to make any intellectual leap of faith to like them.

Good question, but that would be a pretty grim peer group.

And I say TV made #3 because of indie cred posturing and nothing more.

That's not much of a theory, and every time anyone challenges you, you viciously insult them ... gee, can I give you a grant?

I get where you're going with this, but your attempts to psychoanalyze Pitchfork are pretty tossed-off compared to this guy's.

http://www.fasteddiesbullet.com/images/stookie1.jpg

!http://www.his.com/~borgrav/web%20images%201/gber1.jpg

Neither, I would hope! We value them when we feel that there's good music being made that's obscure and complex.

My friend, a film buff (real person, by the way), names Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood" as one of his all-time favorite films, even though he's seen it maybe three times. He also likes John Hughes "Sixteen Candles", which he has seen almost twenty times in his life. Both films blew him away when he first saw them, though of course he came to Kurosawa's film much later in life. If you look at his DVD collection, there are many similar classic/art type films that he has seen maybe twice each, at best, but few of the teen romps or action films that he's seen so many times that he can recite the script. Now, if you ask him for his list of favorite films, he puts all the classics at the top and leave the old favorite teen romps and action pics at the bottom, but why? Does he really prefer it this way, when the history of who he is suggests otherwise? My answer was/is that he recognizes that the mature, informed pick is supposed to be the classic over the romp, and since he truly does appreciate the classic and its artistry, and since his tastes have evolved anyway, in that direction, this is the obvious choice.

I'm suggesting that making this choice might also be a lie.

Iris Murdoch is my favorite novelist, but I've only read The Green Knight (my favorite book by her once) once. Do I like it better than some book I read five times when I was a teenager? Of course.

And Peter, I have NEVER felt any social pressure to like some music! Putting on airs about something so that I can participate in some social situation is not something that I've ever felt the need to do.

Does that mean you liked the two times you had sex with the "more your speed these days" art school girl in undergrad than the 50 times you did it with Wild Lucy in high school?

I'm suggesting that making this choice might also be a lie.

-- jsoulja (jsajd...), June 29th, 2004.

nobody REALLY likes art movies. they just say they do. you tell 'em soulja.

Are you suggesting that this can't be so???

no, he wants us to think that we all are just hair metal/low-brow movie freaks and won't let ourselves admit it.

i mean who actually listens to Television, right? Especially when you can rock out with Diamond Dave!

And to all those people who say I'm throwing out insults, um, if you read the thread, I tossed out an idea (perhaps roughly), but I didn't start throwing out anything until it was thrown at me, and I find the whole vicious sarcasm trend on ILM to be far more tiring than an IDEA (even if it's half-cocked in your mind).

For example, play "first thought" with someone: TV or VH? "TV"

Ok, that's the immediate truth.

Take the same game, same person, sleep deprivate them for 4 days, give them only limited food, loud noises, bright lights (yes, US military prisons) and ask same question: answer is the closest you get to the ecstatic truth.

Not my intended point, but I think that it's funny that, on a similar level, the likes of Van Halen are reduced to mere "cock-rock" on this thread when it's possible and even likely that to some portion of us that it was VH or a similar band that introduced us to rock music in the first place, and that the experience somehow takes a backseat to the later, artier and more cerebral discovery of Television. And one scoffs when I throw out words like "poseur" and "elitist"?

Pop art, on the other hand, is art that has the cause and effect in itself - the viewer's reaction is built-in. Anyone watching a teen movie knows when to laugh, when to cry, etc. People watching a more complex art film often have to put more cerebral thought into how they react.

Of course, this isn't to say that Van Halen is trash and TV is art for art's sake. But it's a useful illustration, especially in light of jsoulja's post about his film buff friend.

A better example might be found in their 80's list. For instance, putting Talking Heads "Remain in Light" over albums by the Smiths and R.E.M.

cheerleaders, man, cheerleaders!

(This is where I also say that jsoulja's a spiff feller, having met him a few weeks back.)

I thought high art/low art was consigned to the wastebasket of the 17th century. I suppose there's Mr. Adorno and mass art. But I think we all know what he'd say about Television.

James

But by the same token, don't you think that people are also conditioned to like or say they like their ostensibly "direct" childhood pleasures (which are, invariably, hugely popular and heavily marketed mass media products)?

Once again, there is no magic barrier separating Van Halen from Television, but if you're going to tell me that putting a band whose lead guitarist doesn't even tune up half the time next to a band that consciously strove to be cerebral and artistic (never mind if they failed or if YOU don't think they're cerebral!), I'd have to disagree. VH is accesible, easy, fun. Television might have been accessible to you but how many people have you met that have even heard of it? More people know Van Halen than Television. Van Halen didn't strive to intellectualize its music. Television did (the allmusic review says this, so it must be true).

Interesting art? Well, a retro kitsch item is interesting now but was utterly banal when it served a purpose in the 50s, 60s, or 70s. And "interesting" changes with individual preferences, so it's not so much a convenient category as a recipe for cultural anarchy.

I would rank them higher, but I've never understood the point of ranking everything.

For me, tho, it does seem somewhat more defensible to like "Marquee Moon" more than a Van Halen album. It does seem a little more thought-out to me. Whether or not "thought-out" or subtle is a positive virtue is something rock and roll has made us all think about. But that's just me and I have to agree that this is kind of a tired thread--c'mon, haven't we gotten beyond this point? Van Halen is a nice populist something or another with, I must say, no discernible content, whereas "Marquee" does appear to be about walkin' around in New York or something, good. Van Halen, OK, it appears to be about riding in a convertible in San Diego or something, so I guess that's all right.

Slim Pickens OTM w/r/t everything he said in the last several posts! See, for whatever reason, I can't come out and make that kind of point without some inner tourettes (sic?) blurting out "yeah, and you an indie rock punk, too!" But I'm working on it.....

Cheers for the props, Ned!

The problem with that Pitchfork Top 100 is their lack of soul, funk, and reggae. But those indie guys did a decent list. They gave props to Sly's Riot, but to exclude Curtis and Marley in a 70's Top 100 is sorta stupid.

Low and Marquee Moon are some of my favs from that decade though. It was a fun Top 100 to read to me.

OK, Slim, but can you tell me what makes a bond "intrinsic"?

And what's up with the racial slurs? I understand the context, but still totally inappropriate.

Any list or compilation of lists that drops Marquee Moon as a #28 ALL TIME album is evidence enough that these "best of" lists are inaccurate and stupid. I don't really care about TV or VH to be honest, I was just interested in starting a thread exploring people's transitions from mainstream music to more left-of-center music and how it is that the latter ends up replacing the former in terms of preference.

But of course, as I suspected from the start, the whole idea of indie music cred posturing DOES play a major part in this, as we can see by so many people on this thread jumping all over me to dare to challenge the significance of a band as insignificant (in the grand scheme) but conveniently as indie as Television, while the more mainstream (but granted, equally insignificant) VH supporters take a more passive stance, because they're not worried about the POSE.

* Everyone's own taste will be paramount for them and them alone, though they might wish to communicate otherwise

* Lists will either be made or voted on

* Nobody has to care about them, but they're there anyway.

*shrug*

i would just like to point out, in a general sense, that there are many arguments, the individual parts of which can be disproven when considered individually and seperate from the others, that nonetheless stand and are correct when taken as a whole.

......but it IS OK to start a thread where everyone gets to bash on Dave Matthews Band.

Contradiction? Hypocricy? Huh?

PS I think DMB sucks, but that's just my opinion....

But when people respond by disagreeing and forming some sort of argument in opposition to what you initially suggested, you act shocked. If you make a claim here or anywhere else on an open web board, generally speaking you can expect some people to disagree with you.

x-post: the person who most consistently misses the point on this thread is you, jsoulja. You didn't just question the place of a Television album on a music list, you presented a psychological theory about what led to it being chosen.

The thing I am shocked about is how so many people found it unfair for me to dare suggest that Television's place on that list was somehow a form of indie rock name-dropping, and that this concept itself could not possibly have been attempted by the likes of Pitchfork staffers. I just don't think it's a crazy idea.

And yes, Marcel, there IS some conditioning involved with DMB. Sure, I think they suck, but the frat stigma attached to them also plays a part, even if you never heard the music.

Amongst a stack of CDs purchased in the midst of two very fair and even-handed ILMers not even a month ago, one of them saw a Death Cab CD in my pile and immediately said "You're getting that for your girlfriend, right?" Right there you have an example of conditioning. And I'm guilty of it, too.

Van Halen, according to jsoulja's assumption (which I agree with) that many Pfork writers grew up with it and absorbed it way before ever hearing of Television (unless, of course, there are millions of undercover TV fans openly listening to Van Halen).

Extrinsic: Originating from the outside; external.

As in, "Television, on the other hand, probably came to them through magazines, friends, or other sources, all of which probably made great mention of the band's cult status and pretensions to high art. Unlike candy, Television might not have been easy to swallow."

I do like to use big words a little too much sometimes, but most of the times they do make some sort of twisted sense.

(None of which should be taken to mean that there's anything wrong with VH or liking them.)

(OT: OK, Chuck, you're right about "Cold As Ice".)

Yes, that is also a possibility. That's pretty much what happened to me. I'm just suggesting that Pfork writers' early infatuation with Van Halen, fueled by heavy radio play, seems to have much less impact on the top 100 list than their later discovery of Television.

Perhaps all the writers were indeed bright young things and recoiled from cock rock to embrace other sorts of music, but this entire thread has to rest on some basic assumptions, and I don't think it's a lost cause to assume that many Pitchfork writers like Van Halen, considering it beat almost thirty other great 70s albums. The question originally posed was "why TV over Van Halen, at such a numerical distance?"

If any of those writers "recoiled" from Van Halen, why does it belong on the list at all? And does anyone here really think the Pfork writers included that album because it was brainy? Um..."the worth in aerobic kicks and bare-chested catsuits" is the band's primary attraction, followed closely by the "big-grinned spirit." I'm not seeing any intellectualizing in that description.

Sundar: when I say "intrinsic" I mean that bond that people develop with massively popular songs during their childhood and early adolescence. Some of us may have started upon the road of music geekdom earlier than others, but it's a fair bet that anyone in my generation will remember Kriss Kross as being more of an impact on them than, say, Pavement. At least, until they got older and wiser (or discovered the revolutionary efficiency of wearing their pants with the zipper in front).

I do count anything foisted upon us by popular culture as more "intrinsic" simply because it's part of that cloud of white noise that surrounds us - most of it bad, but some of it good. I do think that even today people don't hear about Television from mainstream media, their knowledge of the band is much more filtered through friends, specific magazines, discussion boards, etc. Van Halen = populist, Television = elitist. I haven't read anything here that changes this basic assumption yet.

It's the same idea that Vice Magazine is built on. To label someone or something elitist often overlooks the context in which that judgement is made and within a circle as small as alternative music journalism, thumbs-up to Van Halen = elitism within the wider circle of alternative music fans.

New thread:

"Van Halen AND Television?" Are P-fork elitist trying to have it both ways?

First post:

"this thread is a dud no matter which side of the argument you take

Player Piano Gamelan"

over and out

Why is this even worth speculating about? As I pointed out yesterday, Television placing at number three was due to six voters out of fifteen putting MM in their top 15 (four out of fifteen in their top ten). Does it not suffice to think that MM is one of the great punk albums and one of the great guitar albums of the '70s?

And what's with this use of the term "elitist?" Liking Television is not intrinsically "elitist."

One only "tends toward elitism" if one is actually being elitist in liking something that's less popular. Obviously, it's not a given. A different term or way of talking about it would be in order.

is there anyone who debates this?

That said, I think I'm being unfair on myself. I conditioned myself againt it because I thought it was crap.

I love Marquee Moon a lot and it wouldn't surprise me that it turns up on lists higher than Van Halen. Particularly in the UK, where I think I'd be right in saying that TV ver more popular than Van Halen at that time.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you believe people are telling the truth; and that's tricky.

Er.

I believe it was added to the Rhino reissue of the CD a couple years back, but it does pre-date MM by a couple of years.

Did I miss something there?

Carry on... ;)

Van Halen do strike me as an '80s metal band, in spirit if nothing else.

actually, i don't mind Van Halen (diamond dave era) much anymore.

And yet, Van Halen hired Marquee Moon producer Andy Johns to summon some big drums for their F.U.C.K. LP. Does that throw a wrench in things, or settle the score? Well, either way...

It's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to comeIt's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to comeIt's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to comeIt's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to comeIt's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to comeIt's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to comeIt's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to comeIt's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to comeIt's undeniable that Van Halen dominated the course of rock music for almost a decade to come