Taking Sides: Shoegazing vs Baggy

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

And - why did US anglophiles go crazy for the former and not for the latter...?

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 11 December 2003 10:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Because they hate fun?

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 11 December 2003 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Or, because US anglophiles like their English sensitive and cerebral, not loutish and off their heads on E.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 11 December 2003 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I think some shoegazing shared some of the riffage with US hardcore and Baggy had too much to do with dance/house/whatever and (as far as i know) that hadn't caught on yet.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:36 (twenty-one years ago)

i think its to do with images of britain abroad

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Bands from both sides had Bowl Cuts but baggy bands were mainly from the north of England so the London media rated them more, reverse snobbery.

― Skinny, Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:44 (twenty-one years ago)

If the Stone Roses had really wanted to catch on the US Ian Brown should've tried rapping. The whole history of indie would have been altered.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:46 (twenty-one years ago)

what N. said - when I was in SF & working at an indie disco, they wouldn't even play the happy mondays! "pearl" was as close as they got to baggy!

― etc, Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i fell into a comer/the simpson dad is homer/gimme some cocaine/it goes into my brain/think i've gone insane/come on come on/get it on yeah yeah/gimme castanets

― Ian Brown (Ronan), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I am the resurrection / hard like an erection / my flow's got the best inflexion / to the rhythm section *ten minute Squire guitar solo*

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I have to say the history of indie remained resolutely unchanged by MC Tunes.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:51 (twenty-one years ago)

the Stone Roses though, they had the funk man

― Random Scally Fitzgerald (Ronan), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Baggy bands were too gobby and working class for the U.S. rock crits.

― Skinny, Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:55 (twenty-one years ago)

the only rhyme that bites was kind of truthful, but not in the way theat he meant.

― chris (chris), Thursday, 11 December 2003 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Erm... who says they didn't? I was an indie kid in America (oh-whoa-oh) at the time, and loads of my anglophile American friends loved the Stone Roses et al. Though more for the typically jangle-thing than the raver type stuff.

It's different, perhaps, because of timing - Shoegaze happened a few years later, so a lot of the shoegazer heads I know talked about it on the internet, and that creates/reinforces a bigger/more fanatical cult following.

I mean, for fucksake, Madchester was huge in Anglophile circles. There was a band called She Only Drinks In Manchester, for fecks sake!

― HRH Queen Kate (kate), Thursday, 11 December 2003 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

why did US anglophiles go crazy for the former and not for the latter...?

Speaking as a recovering one, I'd say it has more to do with the simple fact that Americans seem to need guitars to latch onto, regardless of how they're being employed. "Baggy" seemed a bit too steeped in Brit culture (the whole takin' E's and causing trouble in Ibiza and whatnot, wearing silly hats and doing equally silly dances). "Shoegazery," however, recalled the comparitively exotic strains of the post-punk scene. I mean, wouldn't you choose Lush over the Farm?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

For those of us a certain age, exposure to the English music scene began and ended with 120 Minutes. For months and months, the Stone Roses, the Charlatans, the Happy Mondays, etc. were the most heavily rotated videos. It wasn't until later that bands like Ride, Slowdive, and MBV began showing up.

I'd say the Britboom at the turn of that decade came in two equal parts. Revisionist history just remembers the shoegazers, though.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Thursday, 11 December 2003 14:07 (twenty-one years ago)

It may be of course that my introduction to Anglophilia was Ned!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 11 December 2003 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Thinking about it seriously, could it be something to do with the fact that a lot of shoegazing was 'head' music, in that you could listen to it alone with headphones on, whereas baggy was more about getting off your tits with your mates and dancing 'til dawn. Therefore shoegazing could easily translate to a foreign market without the band having to go over to that country and play gigs.

― Rob M (Rob M), Thursday, 11 December 2003 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

my rememberance of the infiltration of both of those was late 80's, early 90's... and the baggy stuff was played at several pop dance clubs, but the shoegaze resonated heavier with the doom/gloom/angst that was grunge (and pre-grunge) era indie... darkness was important. baggy stuff was just too damned bright. but i think my rememberance is heavily tinted with the same high school, mtv 120 minutes watching, teen angst. i don't recall being into anything remotely "happy" until i heard unrest's "imperial ffrr"... then it was all teenbeat and merge downhill from there... (or perhaps i should say uphill?)
m.

― msp, Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)

quite the opposite for me. i was the lone shoegazer loser(most of the time) while bunches of my friends were loaded up on E in random warehouses. thing is the ravers didnt know (or care ) what the dj was spinning.

― kephm, Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

you say that like its necessarily a bad thing. a sy tape, an easygroove tape, and a mickey finn tape and you're all set. no need for thousand yard stare OR the milltown brothers!

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

am i the only one who finds the association of the stone roses with dance music/pills/raves a little odd?
i mean,obviously it happened and all,but as someone who was only about eight or nine at the time,i find it hard to see how the stones roses were considered dance music
did they play at raves?
if so,did they play with any djs or just bands?
did they headline?
etc

― robin (robin), Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

You may be surprised, but I prefer baggy. The shoegazers would usually bury their tunes in lots of guitar noise, while baggy production (provided there were tunes at all, which was not the case in the case of Happy Mondays) let the tunes out loud and clear.

No shoegazing act comes even close to Stone Roses, Jesus Jones, Charlatans or early Blur at their best.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

It may be of course that my introduction to Anglophilia was Ned!

Oh dear. (And I had most of the baggy records as described, Mondays etc., at the same time I was scaring up every Creation release.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

No shoegazing act comes even close to Stone Roses, Jesus Jones, Charlatans or early Blur at their best.

Blur were initially lumped in with the Shoegazers (circa Leisure) and toured with the likes of the J&MC, Curve and MBV.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Blur were also lumped with baggy. "There's No Other Way" and "Bang" both had a dance beat, remember.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Jesus Jones were fraggle, not baggy - they were the commercial end of the spectrum that has PWEI, EMF,Wonderstuff, Carter and Ned's Atomic Dustbin on it. Baggy shorts, not Baggy.

And yeah, Blur were involved in both scenes (they were on every scene.

― Jim Eaton-Terry (Jim E-T), Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

This question does perplex me because my perception is that few people in the US actually made much of a distinction between baggy, grebo and shoegaze.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Dan is so completely OTM than I want to buy him a sixpack of the most expensive beer known to man.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

That should've been that of course.

The point being: Anglophiles like myself tended to eat up and not really care to much about the distinctions between the respective scenes (remember when Shoegazing was originally referred to as "the Scene that Celebrates itself"?). It made perfect sense to a Yank Anglophile to like both, say, Birdland and the Inspiral Carpets, while such a thing would probably be unheard of to the average musichead in Manchester, England ("Birdland? You must be joking!")

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I was always amazed at how the Stone Roses got classified as 'indie-dance', just because of the ending of "I am the resurrection" (which was ripped off ACR anyway, wasn't it?) and "Fool's good". Everything else sounded like poor quality Byrds rip-offs to me. Their more important gigs tended to be more like raves - they did use DJs as support - but that was about it.

The Scene That Celebrates Itself. Hurrah! MM in early '91 was so much fun to read. But Birdland were crap, wherever you were listening to 'em. 8-)

― Rob M (Rob M), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I know that my rampant Anglophilia divided things up into two boxes: Bands Before 1986 (The Cure, New Order/Joy Division, Siouxsie, XTC, The Smiths, The Housemartins, The Jesus And Mary Chain, Depeche Mode, Erasure, OMD, Soft Cell, ABC, The Human League) and Bands after 1986 (Pop Will Eat Itself, Lush, The Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, Primal Scream, Underworld, Ride, Catherine Wheel, Slowdive, Candy Flip, Charlatans UK, Blur, The Farm, Soho, Soul II Soul, Inspiral Carpets, Ned's Atomic Dustbin, Massive Attack, Definition Of Sound, The Shamen for all intents and purposes).

Note how these bands really have nothing in common besides chronology.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

But Birdland were crap, wherever you were listening to 'em. 8-)

hahaha. Maybe they were a bad example (although i still like "Paradise" and "Hollow Heart").

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Birdland fucking ruled live. I saw them twice.

― Jim Eaton-Terry (Jim E-T), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, those of us in the provinces didn't make much of the distinction, either.

― Jim Eaton-Terry (Jim E-T), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Regarding Birdland live, I just remember them pogoing out of synch and not in time with each other nor the music they were playing.....which I thought most striking. "How do you get something as rudimentarily stoopid as 'pogoing' wrong?" Somehow they managed it.

Underrated guitarist, though.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

See also (PIL, The The, and Big Audio Dynamite) vs (Flowered Up, One Dove and Seal).

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Everything else was better (but not dance'ey, which was a good thing) :-)

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

"She Bangs The Drums" and "Waterfall" are both pretty danceable.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe we Americans never heard of Baggy? I listen and read to a lot of stuff, that's the first mention I have heard of it

― Dave Vinson (Gaughin), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

The Stone Roses' first album seemed to transcend all the labels and scenes and whatnot, and remains a classic album by any standard (if you ask me, of course). Not so with the Happy Mondays, who I found rather awkwardly lumpen to be considered a proper "dance" band. "Step On"'s rather good, though. "Tokoloshe Man" as well (from the otherwise entirely expendable Rubaiayat compilation).

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:14 (twenty-one years ago)

To Dan, regarding the 1986 limit. I think the main point here is that genres are very differently divided in the UK and the US. In the UK, genres are usually defined by music writers, as "scenes". Thus, you end up with really narrow genres defined by certain criteria decided through music, image, generation, geography etc.

In the case of the US, the US genres are usually defined by radio formatting rather than genre. This never mattered much in the UK, since BBC would usually play most genres anyway, but in the case of the US, you needed somewhat wider genre definitions. Thus, you had "New Wave" (which in the US covered any "new" late 70s/early 8s music from punk via powerpop to synthpop/new romantics) and "Modern Rock", which is very much what you are speaking of because 86/87 was roughly when New Wave ended and Modern Rock started (Modern Rock, in turn, was followed by "Alternative" in the mid 90s)

This way, American genre terms have always been wider and less consise than UK ones.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

You're forgetting "college rock", Geir, which should precede "Modern rock".

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

shaun and mates got it sorted on the Black Grape first lp though ..

― mark e (mark e), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:19 (twenty-one years ago)

"College Rock" did practicially go on along with New Wave and modern rock, only it was more underground/indie than New Wave or Modern Rock.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Not to get all hung up on terminology, but where does Post-Punk fit into your tree, Geir?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe it was cos I was 'there' at the time but the shift from bands like Flowered Up, Paris Angels, World of Twist, Northside getting the 'hot! new!' hype to bands like Chapterhouse, Slowdive, etc. getting it seemed quite a big one (within the world of guitar pop/rock anyway) - so big in fact that I stopped buying the NME for a year!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Cripes! World of Twist. I remember constantly finding them misfiled in the Wonder Stuff section. Wot a bag of crap they were!

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

harsh. they were fine. their offspring Earl Brutus were far nastier and therefore a lot more interesting and fun ..

― mark e (mark e), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

!! They were the best baggy band after the Mondays!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

surely "therefore a lot more predictable if good for a laugh"

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

world of twist were great! (but 3rd best after mondays and flowered up)

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Ah, Alex, the WoT fanbase on ILX will rise in revolt now!

My memory of MM at the time was that all those bands were covered together in a big huge heap, Tico!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah world of twits were great.

Intastella mind, hmmmmmm

― chris (chris), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

That's a beautiful misspelling.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

World of Twist were fab and groovy, like the missing link between the Mondays and Pulp.

Oddly enough WOT were one of the bands I was playing recently who issued LPs in late '91 and got kind of swept away and ignored in Nirvana-lust - the likes of Paris Angels, Spirea X and the like who'd been championed as great white hopes after a single or two finally get around to issuing an album and the world's moved on completely.

― Rob M (Rob M), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

along with the hope of the surfacing of the WOT great lost second album. i read recently that its back on .. (not that i ever got 1st album .. )

― mark e (mark e), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the 1st wot album is pretty poor (mainly shit production c/o dave ball iirc) but the singles are great.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I did it on purpose Ned, sorry.

Paris Angels, one amazingly fantastic single and then a world of dross, whadda shame

― chris (chris), Thursday, 11 December 2003 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

i recently found the world of twist's 12" with their cover of "she's like a rainbow", and since then it hasn't left my dj bag (it goes really well with "fool's gold" and "window pane").

― joan vich (joan vich), Thursday, 11 December 2003 17:14 (twenty-one years ago)

i think the thing that sounds weird about them being a dance band is the idea of them being supported by djs and playing at raves-i mean i can see how some people would consider them pretty danceable,but to a bunch of people on pills who've been dancing to house all night,i would have thought they would bring the buzz down a good 26.7%

― robin (robin), Thursday, 11 December 2003 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Well at the time there was still the whole Balearic ideal of getting loved up and dancing to all sorts of stuff going on, plus dance music was much slower. Also robin you have to realise that 95% of people going to a Roses show were there to see the Roses not to hear the DJs specifically. The time I went to see them they had DJs as support (Oakenfold I believe) and even naive young Tico could tell that a lot of the crowd were on one but the band still came on at half past ten and played a rock set. (It was shit actually but generally things were much closer together back then).

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 11 December 2003 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

so was it a case of the stone roses loving dance music and wanting their fans to get into it?
did many people get into rave through the stone roses?
or did established dance music fans just love the stone roses?
(obviously i'm generalizing,i'm just curious what way things went i suppose..)
(i suppose even today dance radio stations play the stone roses,usually as part of a "here's the five indie records i used to like before i got into dance" segment though,or so it seems to me...)

― robin (robin), Thursday, 11 December 2003 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

DJ supports were a good idea for the roses because i) they liked the music ii) it aligned them with trendy dance culture and made ppl forget their goth past iii) they had this big thing about being the only band that mattered going on and were also a bit shit live on occasion (due to only playing huge event gigs after they got big), so not having a support act for the huge gigs was very handy.

Did people get into dance music through them? Yes I think so, definitely. I'm sure baggy encouraged loads of students and indie kids to do E, anyway. I didn't get into the music until a year or two after but the baggy scene made me much more open-minded about it.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 11 December 2003 18:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Did the Moonflowers' 'Get Higher' ever make it in the USA?

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 11 December 2003 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I always thought the Stone Roses were considered dance-y because of Reni's drumming.

― rw, Thursday, 11 December 2003 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought it was because of his hat.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 11 December 2003 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't buy this fact that shoegazing is supposed to have a larger following these days than baggy does btw.

I mean, compare all those "Best Albums Of All Time" lists from around the turn of the millennium. Which album is usually the higher placed one, "The Stones Roses" or "Loveless"?

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 12 December 2003 01:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Not to get all hung up on terminology, but where does Post-Punk fit into your tree, Geir?

Post punk is a writer defined genre term, not a radio format. The most typical post-punk bands, like The Cure, Magazine, Joy Division, Gang Of Four etc, are usually classified as new wave in the US.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 12 December 2003 01:07 (twenty-one years ago)

"Blur were initially lumped in with the Shoegazers"

No doubt they were (Wot wiv that "Sing" song on Leisure) but they were also a bit baggy as well!!! In fact, I seem to remember on the release of the album Leisure Damon Allbran was claiming that they "killed baggy" with the ambitious scope of their album!!!

Re: The Stone Roses having a bit of a dance thing- I remember early interviews with them round about the time of their first album in which they big up dance music and say they see no reason why their fans shouldn't be into dance music as well as their stuffs!!! Remember that this was around the time of "Madchester", and although the Roses didn't have as much of a dance element to their music as say the Happy Mondays, they came from the same background as them and 808-State, and some of their early gigs were in the Hacienda with the likes of Mike Pickering playing DJ sets between bands... In fact, I think it might have been the Stone Roses that invented the old interview cliche of "There's always been a dance element to our music!!!"!!! As mentioned above, this was a reflection of the original Balaeric vibe of early rave, which was not exclusively house or electronic- it could include indie stuffs like The Woodentops or whatever!!!!

― Old Fart!!! (oldfart_sd), Friday, 12 December 2003 09:53 (twenty-one years ago)

DJ supports were a good idea for the roses because...

iv) most support bands would probably have blown them off the stage!!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 12 December 2003 09:56 (twenty-one years ago)

That was what my iii) was discreetly suggesting Pashmina ;)

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 12 December 2003 09:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, yes, sorry, I'm not quite awake yet (trans: I wd have probably missed it anyway, but as it's morning I have an excuse)

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 12 December 2003 10:08 (twenty-one years ago)

a dance element to their music

Ah, happy days.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 12 December 2003 11:37 (twenty-one years ago)

In my mind that particular bleat was first bleated by the Soup Dragons, but I could well be wrong about that.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 12 December 2003 11:39 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I think you're right.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 12 December 2003 11:42 (twenty-one years ago)

he am indeed.

― chris (chris), Friday, 12 December 2003 11:44 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread has the memories flooding back. Rob M is spot on above on a lot of the second division baggy bands receiving Single Of The Week but then fatally delaying on the LPs. Things seemed to move faster back then (89/91) and living through it all week by week in NME/MM was very exiting for someone in their late teens/early 20's, at least for me anyway. I remember reading a piece on the Boo Radleys and Chapterhouse in the double edition Christmas NME of 89, the one with the Roses on top of the mountain. I think it was a review of new trends within indie from that year. "Shoegazing" hadn't been coined then but that was the first I'd heard of Chapterhouse. 1990 was when these bands really started getting press, more so in Melody Maker which was far superior in every way, a fact that has obviously been well documented on this board.

― David Gunnip (David Gunnip), Friday, 12 December 2003 12:41 (twenty-one years ago)

i agree with whoever said that the roses introduced a lot of indie fans into dance music. in my case, as in many others, it was them (plus the charlatans and the happy mondays) and screamadelica.

― joan vich (joan vich), Friday, 12 December 2003 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Shoegazing was perfect if you were one of those Americans who fanatically collected Creation/4AD; the 'baggy' lovers were fanatical about Manc/Northern bands and collected Factory. I liked Manchester and Liverpool bands and also had a thing for JAMC and the Cocteau Twins so my record collection reflected this reality.

Dance entryism: Screamadelica/Happy Mondays/New Order, Technique/Stone Roses/KLF. Possibly also geed up by hip-hop, Technotronic/SNAP, Deee-lite.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 12 December 2003 13:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah Deee-Lite must have been a massive record for that. There was a good thread on what-was-the-first-dance-record-you-liked once.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 12 December 2003 13:20 (twenty-one years ago)

weird, I never thought of Dee-lite as dance, more like pop. Looking back I'd say I was most likely wrong. It certainly got played at all the indie clubs in Chesterfield back in the day.

― chris (chris), Friday, 12 December 2003 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

But it was the pop tracks that were a little bit dance that got people to 'trust' dance music I reckon Chris.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 12 December 2003 13:25 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, deee-lite fit perfectly into the 'introduction to dance music for indie kids' category.

― joan vich (joan vich), Friday, 12 December 2003 13:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Incidentally, baggy sonically and rhythmically is far closer to DeeLite/Snap/MARRS/KLF chart-friendly dance music than the actual club-friendly house music of the time but its the latter sound that actually moved into the centre of the 90s.

So maybe the whole 'dance' element of the Roses/Mock Turtles/Soup Dragons/whoever wouldn't have sounded anywhere near as odd to yer reasonably open-minded rock fan/hack at the time as it does to us after ten years of dance history in between.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 12 December 2003 13:31 (twenty-one years ago)

We don't need a clique
To make our clock tick
Our clique is the world
The world is our clique

This is closest my black industrial ass came to being a PLURhead.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:09 (twenty-one years ago)

So cute the way she pronounces it 'click'!

I disagree with the views expressed about deee-lite above.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, Deee-lite were really just pre-Alig Club Kids made good on the Wigstock scene, and this was a rather camp group of people putting the Leigh into the Bowery. They were very into club tunes, vintage fashion and Ecstasy and there is always some version of jet-trash Anglophilia going on in the NY club scene. They also appealed to GIRLS, esp. the Edie Sedgwick/Warhol fetishisers weaned on Smiths/Creation. Ahem.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 12 December 2003 14:39 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread is making me all misty for the early 90's. :::blows nose noisily, wipes tears from eyes:::::

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 12 December 2003 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.