Thurston Moore on Cobain and the state of "underground rock" in the NYTimes

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Here

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 8 April 2004 02:59 (twenty-one years ago)

So rockist.

typical ILM guy, Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:13 (twenty-one years ago)

"We were in a Brooklyn basement full of artists and sound-poets gathered to watch musicians throw down extreme noise improvisation. One performer played records with two customized tone arms on his turntable; the discs broke and scratched, creating shards of hyperfractured beat play. He was followed by a quartet of young women scraping metal files across amplified coils mixed through junk electronics. I was to perform a spontaneous guitar/amp feedback piece with a stand-up bass player on loan from his teaching post at Berklee College of Music and a free jazz percussionist who had traversed through New York's downtown underground in the 60's."

Thurston Moore would be the most embarassing father on Earth. I feel for his kids, hopefully he'll shuffle off into retirement before they hit their teens.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Aw that's mean.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Frankly his completely sunny sense of the current crop of underground/experimental American musicians quality and possibilities (rather than thoroughly staid vision I have of them) seemed the most puzzling thing about the piece, but he's got a vested interest in making the "scene" seem prosperous, I suppose.

I also think it's nice that he kept the focus away from Cobain's personal problems, by and large. It's nice to read a piece about him without hearing what a poor unfortunate tortured soul the guy was. Unfortunately it's pretty obv Moore is no Hemingway. I sorta wonder why Kim (who was the much better journalist--judging from the old Art Threat mags I've seen anyway) didn't write it.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:22 (twenty-one years ago)

When someone has passed away, it can be gauche to complain about someone's written tribute. In the case of the mythologizing of Kurt and Nirvana, though, and the fact that this article was written by Thurston Moore, it seems appropriate to comment.

Thurston is obviously REALLY stretching things when he claims that Kurt/Nirvana was "imbued with avant-garde genius(!)"

He also claims that Kurt was "one of the finest rock voices ever heard." This is a platitude. It's like Thurston is talking about a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame type canon!

What is he talking about, one of the 100 finest? One of the 500 finest? One of the 5,000 finest?

Tim Ellison, Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I think he had a great voice. I think it' s as good as John Lennon's. Is that a platitude? It's certainly rockist.

shookout, Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I have been wondering what the deal is with the Nirvana hate here at ILM? Anyone?

hector (hector), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Could somebody please post the text of the article? I don't have a New York Times account.

Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Article's only sorta about Cobain. And if you don't get hung up on the specific performers Moore cites, I think it's clearer that what he's driving at is how it's possible to like experimental, underground pop/jazz/whatever as well as spiffy mainstream pop and become hugely popular yourself. And that this is a desirable phenomenon. But certain segments of the audience are going to scoff at either the underground or the mainstream sides of Cobain's fixations.

This seems correct to me. Even if you don't agree with Moore about any particular scene or players.

Dock Miles (Dock Miles), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:45 (twenty-one years ago)

he boy looked just like Kurt Cobain. He was no more than 19. Same yellow hanging hair, fallow blue eyes, the sad square jaw, innocent and adult.

We were in a Brooklyn basement full of artists and sound-poets gathered to watch musicians throw down extreme noise improvisation. One performer played records with two customized tone arms on his turntable; the discs broke and scratched, creating shards of hyperfractured beat play. He was followed by a quartet of young women scraping metal files across amplified coils mixed through junk electronics. I was to perform a spontaneous guitar/amp feedback piece with a stand-up bass player on loan from his teaching post at Berklee College of Music and a free jazz percussionist who had traversed through New York's downtown underground in the 60's. Not your typical night of alternative rock.

And I had a feeling this kid was looking for alternative rock. It was the year 2000. Kurt had died six years earlier, and through whatever fleeting friendship I had with him, this ethereal look-alike saw me as some connection.

Before being labeled alternative rock, Sonic Youth, the band I started in 1980 (and continue in still!), was called "post-punk." By the early 90's, we existed as a sort of big brother (and big sister) group to Kurt's generation of underground America. When Nirvana became popular, we were all called alternative rock — a less threatening term than anything with punk in the title (though with Green Day and Blink 182 in the late 90's, punk ultimately became accessible and extremely profitable — at least for the new MTV punks). The original alternative rock bands — Nirvana and Sonic Youth included — never had any allegiance to alternative rock. We all had come too far and through too much for any professional advice toward stylistic adjustment.

Kurt was not enamored with new traditionalism. He was more attached to the avant-garde rock of his hometown pals, the Melvins, who continue to stretch the parameters of what rock music can be. The traditional aspects of Nirvana's music — aspects that lent it accessibility — were expressed through Kurt as if they were experimental gestures. (The Beatles, also grand pop experimentalists, were loudly whispered by Nirvana as a primary influence, something unusual for punk devotees.) These elements were an important part of Nirvana's appeal. But what is transcendent about Kurt's art — what today, 10 years after his death, gives him rock immortality — was his voice and performance ability, both of which exuded otherworldly soulful beauty.

The initial popularity of alternative rock was in conflict with punk culture, which has a history of denouncing commercial success. Nirvana's second album, "Nevermind," along with the success of the Lollapalooza tours, changed the game. Both announced the discovery of an unaccounted-for demographic, cynical and amused by the pop rebellion displayed by new wave (Duran Duran) and hair-metal (Guns N' Roses). This newly discovered audience, one that surged well beyond the punk elite to the greater population of alienated and dislocated youth, was all at once represented by Kurt.

Kurt was aware of his sudden high profile and how it could be perceived as uncool in the punk scene. He made snotty comments about the fresh-minted alternative rock acts being touted by MTV. We all did. At the request of The New York Times, Nirvana's first record label, Seattle's Sub Pop, created a mock lexicon of "grunge" culture. Remarkably, the news media ran with it — to our disbelief and delight.

In the face of success, Kurt seemed to feel the need to maintain this stump position of punk rock credibility. Save the mainstream acceptance of the relatively straight-ahead pop of R.E.M. — which Kurt loved as much as hard-core thrash — there really was no model for such success from our community. He told Flipside, the iconic Los Angeles punk rock fanzine, that he hoped the next Nirvana album would vanquish their affiliation with the "lamestream." He recounted being taken aback by an audience member who grabbed him and advised him to, "Just go for it, man." I remember smiling at this, as it was how most of us felt. We didn't perceive Nirvana's status as lame. It was cool.


hector (hector), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I've noticed in reading the Nirvana-hate on ILM that it seems to have more to do with what Nirvana's success represents to the hater than the music itself.

shookout, Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:46 (twenty-one years ago)

After all, the kids chose "Nevermind." Geffen Records, the band's label at the time, had no real plans for it, hoping for modest sales. Rolling Stone gave it a lukewarm review. Its subsequent off-the-map success was wonderful, fantastic and completely genuine. What was disingenuous and annoyingly misrepresentative was the reaction of the corporate music industry. The alternative rock phenomenon was a youth culture hit and it made stars out of select artists but, for the most part, it was a bunch of corn to the creative scene where Kurt came from.

Nirvana made a point of touring with challenging groups like the Boredoms, the Butthole Surfers and the Meat Puppets and presenting them to a huge audience — one that was largely unaware of those bands' influence. But only the Meat Puppets would click a little bit. Without MTV or radio support, no one was likely to reach Nirvana's peak.

When Kurt died, a lot of the capitalized froth of alternative rock fizzled. Mainstream rock lost its kingpin group, an unlikely one imbued with avant-garde genius, and contemporary rock became harder and meaner, more aggressive and dumbed down and sexist. Rage and aggression were elements for Kurt to play with as an artist, but he was profoundly gentle and intelligent. He was sincere in his distaste for bullyboy music — always pronouncing his love for queer culture, feminism and the punk rock do-it-yourself ideal. Most people who adapt punk as a lifestyle represent these ideals, but with one of the finest rock voices ever heard, Kurt got to represent them to an attentive world. Whatever contact he made was really his most valued success.

You wouldn't know it now by looking at MTV, with its scorn-metal buffoons and Disney-damaged pop idols, but the underground scene Kurt came from is more creative and exciting than it's ever been. From radical pop to sensorial noise-action to the subterranean forays in drone-folk-psyche-improv, all the music Kurt adored is very much alive and being played by amazing artists he didn't live to see, artists who recognize Kurt as a significant and honorable muse.

The kid who looked like him sat next to me in the basement where we were playing and I knew he was going to ask me about Kurt. This happens a lot. What was Kurt like? Was he a good guy? Simple things. He asked me if I thought Kurt would've liked this total outsider music we were hearing. I laughed, realizing the kid was slightly bewildered by it all, and I answered emphatically, "Yeah, Kurt would have loved this."

Thurston Moore is a member of the band Sonic Youth.

hector (hector), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I seem to have read a ton of griping about how crap they were.

hector (hector), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I just think that a lot of the same people would have loved a band with the same songs if they'd remaind unsung heroes whose singer died in obscurity.

shookout, Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Interesting that Moore cited the "lukewarm review" that *Nevermind* got in *Rolling Stone*. Made me go back and check it out. Done by Ira Robbins, who can be very, very good. And he isn't *wrong* about anything in the album, really, he simply fails to see anything monumental about it. Which does serve to underscore Moore's point that nobody saw the Nirvana juggernaut coming.

Dock Miles (Dock Miles), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"I just think that a lot of the same people would have loved a band with the same songs if they'd remaind unsung heroes whose singer died in obscurity."

Exactly. It just seems like a reaction to the hype, which for me is very disappointing. I don't listen to Nirvana much anymore but at one time I really thought they were brilliant.

hector (hector), Thursday, 8 April 2004 03:59 (twenty-one years ago)

"I have been wondering what the deal is with the Nirvana hate here at ILM?"

I really can't stand questions which suppose an ILM group-mind about a certain band. If you want to know why a certain person dislikes a band, then ask. And there is plenty of hate/indifference for bands--Beatles, Stones, Nirvana, the Velvets blah blah blah--who are assumed by their fans to be universally loved ("they changed the WORLD, they were IMPORTANT! Remember!") That anyone would be remotely shocked that people don't like Nirvana (on ILM or anywhere) baffles me.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Also fucking get a NYTimes account for chrissake, people. It's free and it's not like even have to use a real fucking e-mail address.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Alex in SF = Henry Luce???

Huck, Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow you can't stand questions? Well then don't reply to them. The idea is to discuss, and I was hoping for a discussion. But I guess an angry pointless rant will have to do.

hector (hector), Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:25 (twenty-one years ago)

You can't stand finishing sentences, obviously.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the "Nirvana juggernaut" was the mainstream media learning its lesson. They really lost a fair chunk of control with Punk and it wasn't until New Wave that they reeled it back in. Alternative music (oh, how I hate that term) was building in earshare, the media saw it, and were waiting for someone to grab hold of and support before they lost control again. Look at how many times Thurston was on MTV back then. More people knew who he was than had heard Sonic Youth. Nirvana starts breaking, MTV and radio start touting it. Rock mags pick them up, so they can say we were there.

It's like all those damn "live coverage" things the local news does. They screwed up a few times, missed the boat on a big story, some other station or medium got the scoop, and they learned their lesson. Be there if it looks like it might be big.

In my opinion Nirvana was a pretty good band, who had a couple pretty good albums. I enjoy Bleach now and again, but it's nothing special. I just like yelling along in the car sometimes. Nevermind is pretty good, and I think In Utero is up there, like top 500, maybe. I don't blame them for their success or the exploitation of their music or the dual shams of that whole "grunge" thing, and the "Seattle scene". At the same time it's crap to say that Kurt hated being famous. From looking at it now, he fought hard to get there. But either way I could really care less. His compromise was his personality, personal life, etc. not his music.

As for Thurston: he's an idealist. It's funny (cute, sad, whatever) to see a man that old still talking like that, but in some ways I guess I'm kind of proud of him. He still has that excitement that I rarely get anymore.

Mike Salmo (salmo), Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't get the Henry Luce thing. Wasn't he the Time guy?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Why would Thurston Moore ever be on MTV? It's not like they ever played his band's videos or anything.

Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Also fucking get a NYTimes account for chrissake, people. It's free and it's not like even have to use a real fucking e-mail address.
-- Alex in SF (clobberthesauru...), April 8th, 2004.

Pipe down, gramps.

Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Thurston Moore is a member of the band Gay Dad.

djdee2005, Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:38 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, he was the time guy, but it sounded better than Wm. Randolph Hearst and I couldn't think of any other old-time newspaper magnates.

Huck, Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Why did Thurston Moore utilize Butch Vig's talents on Dirty?

To be huge...but avant-huge.

p.j. (Henry), Thursday, 8 April 2004 04:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I taped many Sonic Youth videos off of MTV. Not that that affects his argument. Just something to keep in mind.

Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Thursday, 8 April 2004 05:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked this piece. I do get really sick of a lot of the kneejerky stuff I've read re: Nirvana on this board recently (by individual board members, Pedant in SF) not just because I love/d the band (though that certainly plays into it) but because it's, well, kneejerk. As are a lot of the reasons that drive people to offer blanket dismissals of same, which is why I do understand a certain percent of that kneejerkitude around here. It really is kind of sad when a band people took deeply to heart becomes a password for something really generalized, and I think that's where the piece succeeds--in locating them somewhere specific (Alex in SF is spot on about this).

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 8 April 2004 06:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 8 April 2004 06:45 (twenty-one years ago)

But then again, I'm really dumb and can't type or write very well.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 8 April 2004 06:46 (twenty-one years ago)

That ultra-indie avante-guarde fetishism of the outsider image and disdain of any kind of commercial aspirations or success was one of the things that Mr. Cobain cited in his suicide note. So it seems incredibly ironic that Moore is still working this outsider-fetish in a *eulogy*.

Does anyone else find this as tasteless as someone singing the praises of cigarette smoking while eulogising someone who died of lung cancer?

Super-Kate (kate), Thursday, 8 April 2004 06:59 (twenty-one years ago)

you know, now that I think of it--is it really sad when something people take deeply to heart becomes a password for something really generalized? honestly? I've always tended to think that can be a good thing a lot of the time, actually, so that statement isn't quite right. a lot of what bothers me about kneejerk Nirvana-hate is that it reads like a negation of the populist impulse that made them, to my and a lot of other ears, transcendent--the thing that makes great pop transcendent, no matter who made it or what its "impact" is or whatever. that music still sounds to me like something that somebody made to reach people, and the fact that it succeeded, especially on such a widespread scale, is remarkable given how circumscribed the bands Nirvana were aligned with at the time Nevermind came out were in terms of popularity. I think to some degree it seems impossible for something to get that kind of genuine groundswell anymore--or for one to cut as broad a swathe as Nirvana did or seemed to at the time. (please save your "well it wasn't *that* broad because it didn't reach *me*" posts, k thx bye.) obviously the net can help things groundswell and get popular--see Dashboard Confessional. but that's an example that's pretty gradual by comprison--a year plus's worth of word-of-mouth, whereas Nevermind went to no. 1 in three months. that kind of skyrocket was and remains pretty unprecedented, and I don't blame anyone for getting sick to death of hearing about how far it shot--it's like hearing your uncle tell you for the 20th time about the time he met the president. but it doesn't negate the fact of its unprecedence.

also, I think what I meant was more that it's difficult to say something like "Nirvana meant a great, great deal to me when they were around, helped define certain things about myself that I hold dear to this day" because in a lot of ways saying that has become a cliche, and you're supposed to put up a front like, well, it didn't really, it was just a phase or something. I don't agree with the idea that saying that somehow, in any way, negates someone else not feeling the same way. I don't agree with the idea that other viewpoints and/or disinterest in that particular area of culture or music are "irrelevant," either--I think that's been clear in all my time of posting here. but it does bother me when the idea that "my passion for this wasn't mine alone and that's good" is turned around into "well, you're just a sheep like everybody else." (that's a general statement, not one specific to this thread, btw.)

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 8 April 2004 07:05 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost w/Kate, who said some of what I did more neatly, though we disagree on specifics--e.g. I don't think it was "tasteless" of Thurston to champion avant-gardism at all. he was making a case for Cobain in a certain context; also, the avant-garde didn't kill him, whereas cigarettes could be seen as killing a lung cancer victim.

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 8 April 2004 07:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't say that the avante-guarde killed him, I said that the fetishisation of outsider status definitely contributed to the depression/self-loathing/etc. which may or may not have been a cause of his suicide.

Cigarettes don't kill, lung cancer kills.

Something which causes a cancer of the spirit or cancer of self worth (such as this Outsider-Fetishisation) is going to be as harmful to a person with depressive tendencies as a carcinogen is to a person with genetic predisposition to cancer.

Super-Kate (kate), Thursday, 8 April 2004 07:15 (twenty-one years ago)

no, I caught that; I don't think the two things are as equal as you do, though.

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 8 April 2004 07:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I enjoyed Thurston's article. It's not the kind of piece that a professional writer would pen -- it's rough around the edges, overtly subjective, and "amateurish" (whatever that means). A nice breath of fresh air (not to diss any pro journalists, of course).

Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 8 April 2004 07:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh man! DJDee beat me to the Gay Dad thing! !#@%#!#

Dan I. (Dan I.), Thursday, 8 April 2004 07:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Cancer doesn't kill people, I kill people. Wait a minute...

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 8 April 2004 08:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I like the article, even if the term "sound poet" makes me laugh.

shookout, Thursday, 8 April 2004 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

"I've noticed in reading the X-hate on ILM that it seems to have more to do with what X's success represents to the hater than the music itself."

This goes way beyond Nirvana... it is virtually a general law!

bugged out, Thursday, 8 April 2004 11:24 (twenty-one years ago)

=>I don't agree with the idea that saying that somehow, in any way, negates someone else not feeling the same way.=<

My brain's not working today. I don't understand, can you re-phrase?

pheNAM (pheNAM), Thursday, 8 April 2004 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

As far as musicians-writing-shit goes, Thurston is now and always has been remarkably good. Strong but breezy if that's possible. One of my favorite musicians-with-a-pen/spellcheck, besides Ahmir Thompson.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 8 April 2004 13:22 (twenty-one years ago)

There are as many people whining about "the typical ILM poster" on this thread as there are complaining about Nirvana. You'd think this might indicate something to these people but sadly not.

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 8 April 2004 13:24 (twenty-one years ago)

but what about all the people whining about the people whining about the typical ILM poster?

just saying, Thursday, 8 April 2004 13:30 (twenty-one years ago)

how clever!!! you showed me!

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 8 April 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

You whinists.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 8 April 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

ilm is full of clever boys

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 8 April 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

(Actually, Chuck, I was listening to the Spooky/Shipp/Parker today. It's got more ambient prettiness and less beats than I was giving it credit for so maybe you're right about that one. Spooky's Modern Mantra might be a better example. I stand by the other examples though.

And I suppose I could see the slow-dance value of "I Want to Know What Love Is".

Maybe some more to come in a bit. I think we both agree though that the main issue is that Cobain's voice doesn't really click with you.)

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 12 April 2004 03:25 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread has gotten even better while I was away.

My problem w/thurston is he resorts to Nirvana memes just as much as the idiots on my college radio station's message board who are saying KURT KILT HAIR BANDS and asking WHERE WERE U WHEN KURT DIED? etc. Even if he tries to obscure them by repeatedly invoking THE AVANT GARDE. I don't expect him to be a good writer, but apparently he has shitty ideas as well (I already figured as much from this from listening to his records anyway).

I am going to need to sort out if chuck is just a good/convincing writer or if hair metal is worth my time (I always enjoy the songs I hear incidently except a Cinderella song I strongly disliked whose title I cannot recall and I am trying to find a path, any path, out of indie-hell).

christhamrin (christhamrin), Monday, 12 April 2004 05:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Nirvana were like Kiss who didn't swing at all either with their original drummer. Paul Stanley's voice was better when it was low like K Cobain's. Kiss wanted to sound like the Beatles. (I like old Kiss and Nirvana btw) At the time if you were in an alternative band it was OK to be into 70s music but if you started doing a funky beat in rehearsal you'd be outed as a closet session guy and told to go join a hairmetal band which would suck because you'd have to spend money on clothes you couldn't even wear to work. Kiss songs were OK tho because you couldn't jam them out, you'd have to start and finish at the same time and remember where the choruses went, instead of just doing any old shit like you could do with "Stranglehold" or "Mississippi Queen". Nirvana songs are like that too. Hairmetal guitarists all claimed to be influenced by Tal Farlow and Barney Kessel.

dave q, Monday, 12 April 2004 10:52 (twenty-one years ago)

"And I suppose I could see the slow-dance value of "I Want to Know What Love Is"."

But don't you see the disco-dance value of "Urgent" (feat Jr. Walker) too??? (And you can at least imagine dancing fast to "Round and Round" by Ratt or "Pour Some Sugar On Me" by Def Leppard, I hope...) (Actually, "Dirty White Boy" and "Headknocker" might be even better dance songs than "Urgent," though; I'll go back and check sometime.)

Patrick actually asks a pretty good question in his post above. If I had more time and energy, I'd probably formulate some long convoluted explanation about how "acting like you should be REALLY IMPRESSED" is shorthand for stuff bands DO, not for stuff they INTEND (and I'd say I usually outline said "do" specifics when I use that formulation anyway -- I mean, I'm talking about a Nirvana VIDEO, not a Nirvana INTERVIEW; I'm talking about the difference between looking labored and looking easy), but for all I know he's right to call me on what might be an internal contradiction & tick that balonifies my writing.

chuck, Monday, 12 April 2004 14:48 (twenty-one years ago)

"urgent" always sounded really anemic to me

funny how these metal bands (or quasi metal bands) always seem to "come up" no matter the context

the video for "teen spirit" always seemed badly-shot and pointless to me, in some ways it marks the moment where my grand indifference to the tastes of my generation took root

amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 12 April 2004 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

"Actually, let's get back to Motley Crue a bit, because why didn't you ever care about them, Chuck? I've actually always been sorta curious."

Because "Home Sweet Home" is the least catchy power ballad in the history of the human race? Actually, that might not be true; I forget what it sounds like. But anyway, it's kinda the same as my Judas Priest problem, maybe: They just seem WISHY WASHY to me. Pop but not TOO pop, heavy but not TOO heavy, fun but not TOO fun, bouncy but not TOO bouncy, pretty but not TOO pretty. I just hear caution there that bugs me, I think. Don't connect with their early stuff at all, though I know lots of people with otherwise great taste who totally disagree with me about it. I actually prefer *Girls Girls Girls* and *Dr. Feelgood*, oddly enough. (I own *Decade of Decadence,* but it's a bit of a chore to get through.) At least they improved with time I guess.

chuck, Monday, 12 April 2004 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

But anyway, it's kinda the same as my Judas Priest problem, maybe: They just seem WISHY WASHY to me.

Hm, I was sorta thinking along the lines of how you might find them too macho for glam (pace yer Poison comments, ie they weren't glam enough -- but then again you like Kiss, so I dunno, cause they pretty much WERE a chronological connection between Kiss and Poison).

Actually, thinking of Poison, Arthur and I spotted Rikki Rocket at the Sparks show the other night.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 12 April 2004 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

What was Thurston Moore's brief review of Motley Crue's take of "Anarchy In The UK"?

something about being "the most candyass cover ever recorded" or something?

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 12 April 2004 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

"Hm, I was sorta thinking along the lines of how you might find them too macho for glam (pace yer Poison comments, ie they weren't glam enough -- but then again you like Kiss, so I dunno, cause they pretty much WERE a chronological connection between Kiss and Poison)."

Well "too macho for glam" IS kinda what I meant by not being pop or pretty enough, so I think you're right!!! And I DON'T like Kiss very much, at least beyond their first (as in only great) album and a few random singles here and there. They were too macho for glam, too! Thanks Ned! I will steal your answer the next time anybody asks me!!!

chuck, Monday, 12 April 2004 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Glad to help!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 12 April 2004 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

"urgent" always sounded really anemic to me"

that's 'cause not even a nostalgic posturing reassessment strategy will get you past the fact that acts like foreigner and the eagles were in fact egregious perpetrators of the most horrid traxx ever. it might feel good to reify the banal, but it don't sound good, do it?

duke dude, Monday, 12 April 2004 17:37 (twenty-one years ago)

"a nostalgic posturing reassessment strategy "

what, exactly, does this idiotic phrase have to do with anything that anybody has written or said on this thread (or anywhere else)?

chuck, Monday, 12 April 2004 17:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Who says it's part of "a nostalgic posturing reassessment strategy"? Some people liked 'em from the git-go! (I'm not one of them...I felt schizy about 'em from the git-go.)

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 12 April 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked them without ever hearing "Juke Box Hero" until I was 24 or something. Strange. The weird synth bits behind the title on "Urgent" make the song as much as Junior Walker does.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 12 April 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Some people liked 'em from the git-go!

yeah, isn't the Eagles greatest hits the best sellling album of all time in america?

MOP likes foreigner too...

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 12 April 2004 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)

And not much in music opinionizing is more "banal" (or cliche'd) than dismissing the Eagles and Foreigner as "horrid" or "banal" and thinking you're saying something interesting, either.

chuck, Monday, 12 April 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

They were both great bands, by the way. If anybody's wondering.

chuck, Monday, 12 April 2004 17:55 (twenty-one years ago)

perhaps i ought to have said "socialist" or something. get under your skin a bit there chuck? no need to name call, and it's what i believe in my heart, i'm not out to aggrandise my view nor do i think it's especially interesting to point out. and they were not good bands

duke idiot, Monday, 12 April 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

There is great eagles love and hate on here:

Say something charitable about the Eagles.

scott seward (scott seward), Monday, 12 April 2004 18:07 (twenty-one years ago)

So what makes you think it's "posturizing," idiot? The fact that you dislike the Eagles and Foreigner, which by definition therefore proves nobody else must like them? Yeah, that kind of brilliant logic ALWAYS gets under my skin, I suppose. (Not sure what word "socialist" was supposed to substitute for, or what it could possibly mean.)

chuck, Monday, 12 April 2004 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

...
b.

banana, Monday, 12 April 2004 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

now "posturizing" i don't mind so much

duke moisture, Monday, 12 April 2004 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)

speaking of poison and candy ass and rikki rocket... his drum solo last time i saw them about a year or two ago was embarassing to watch. part of the solo involved drumming to a drum machine house beat.

eekies,
m.

msp, Monday, 12 April 2004 19:04 (twenty-one years ago)

According to some guy that was on the radio today and who wrote a book entitled: Nirvana:Chosen Rejects (at least i think that was the title) Nirvana's Unplugged thing was the only Unplugged to be done in one take. I didn't know that.

Oh, and Chuck if you read this: The version of The Man Who Sold The World that Bowie did with Lulu in the 70's was pretty good. glammy, sleazebowie sax sound, etc.

Something else that hit me like a brick today was realizing that Boney M's "Nightflight To Venus" is just a re-working of Cozy Powell's "Dance With The Devil". I can't believe that passed me by. I'm really slow sometimes. Chuck-maybe you told me this or wrote about it before i can't remember. It felt like a revelation this morning for some reason.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 15 April 2004 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

The version of The Man Who Sold The World that Bowie did with Lulu in the 70's was pretty good. glammy, sleazebowie sax sound, etc.

I like all the versions of this song, but this one is probably my favorite.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Thursday, 15 April 2004 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

i think my dislike of "urgent" may have something to do with the fact that i heard it most often on an unusually-poorly mastered and well-worn cassette i picked up at some church yard sale in days gone by. maybe with a nicer master on a more dependable media it would sound more clear and sprightly, who knows, maybe even crunchy.

i also don't like the guy's voice. and, i worry that some may slice and dice me for this, the lyrics--with the whole lazy extended metaphor thing--sort of embarrass me.

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 15 April 2004 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't know about the lulu version.... bowie is a particularly interesting singer when he wants to me, and lulu's more conventional reading, with her little blue eyed soul asides, sort of strips away most of the interest for me. though i do like her version of "shake".

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 15 April 2004 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)

six years pass...

can't find a good place to put this, so this thread'll have to do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qe427Kcz8E

ksh, Friday, 16 April 2010 18:05 (fifteen years ago)

context: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/04/see_sonic_youths_thurston_moor.html

ksh, Friday, 16 April 2010 18:05 (fifteen years ago)

awesome

I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 16 April 2010 18:07 (fifteen years ago)

Hope everyone that pays for their kids to attend Partners & Spade’s Avant Garde Preschool series is cursed with their kids making noise racket through amplifiers day and night.

Seriously, little kids are the one group that does not need to be taught how to make noise -- they do it quite naturally!

Moore played a few noise pieces on his boombox (which he said he’d bought on Delancey Street thirty years ago) and implored kids to buy their own cassette decks. Listening to an iPod, he said, is like “listening to a cassette that has been left to bake in the sun.” My son loved the story about the days in New York when people were walking around and riding the subways with their boomboxes, sharing music and ideas.

LOL. This stuff belongs in the 'quiddities' thread. Aging hipsters with kids and money to burn.

Adam Bruneau, Friday, 16 April 2010 19:18 (fifteen years ago)

http://www.hallockhill.net/post/513966489/moorepreschool

Adam Bruneau, Friday, 16 April 2010 19:19 (fifteen years ago)

haha, this is some rose-tinted glasses shit here
riding the subways with their boomboxes, sharing music and ideas.

tylerw, Friday, 16 April 2010 19:23 (fifteen years ago)

Im sure the 6-year-olds in attendance are really inspired by that.

Adam Bruneau, Friday, 16 April 2010 19:25 (fifteen years ago)

http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/06/10/img-hp-main--conn-subway_14290063606.jpg
sharing music and ideas and then stabbing one another

tylerw, Friday, 16 April 2010 19:27 (fifteen years ago)

lol yeah exactly

I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 16 April 2010 19:56 (fifteen years ago)

Moore read passages from Whittaker Chambers' Witness (which he said he’d bought on the Upper East Side thirty years ago) and implored kids to buy their own cassette decks. Listening to Barack Obama, he said, is like “listening to a cassette that has been left to bake in the sun.” My son loved the story about the days in New York when people were walking around and riding the subways with copies of The National Review, soaking in conservatism regnant.

Throwing Muses are reuniting for my next orgasm! (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 16 April 2010 20:05 (fifteen years ago)

hey kids, here's your first taste of Tinnitus

solid yet bouncy (herb albert), Friday, 16 April 2010 20:26 (fifteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bRHKCcJW_Y

jaxon, Friday, 16 April 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)

The more parents try to show their kids how cool noise is, the more the kid is just gonna want to listen to Paul McCartney and Abba records when they get to be teens.

Adam Bruneau, Friday, 16 April 2010 22:38 (fifteen years ago)

I'm sure Geir's totally on-board with that strategy

I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 16 April 2010 22:42 (fifteen years ago)

the singing was really weak.

i'd suggest to them try out something new, try out a different singer for once.

they are horrible. and dumb.

Daniel, Esq., Friday, 16 April 2010 22:46 (fifteen years ago)

in all likelihood, they were not forced to listen to the entire song, which is the real tragedy here. would've loved to hear their opinion of the last three fourths of the song

or give them the extended version from The Destroyed Room, which was, what, 25 minutes long?

ksh, Friday, 16 April 2010 22:50 (fifteen years ago)

rufus and cyrus dig the noize

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i3FrnAASFk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efAXZoyAWLg

scott seward, Friday, 16 April 2010 22:53 (fifteen years ago)

peanut butter! oh man, so great Scott

ksh, Friday, 16 April 2010 23:02 (fifteen years ago)

"now that was experimental music and we have no idea what it was called"

awwwww so cute

Ndamukong HOOS (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, 16 April 2010 23:11 (fifteen years ago)

Listening to Barack Obama, he said, is like “listening to a cassette that has been left to bake in the sun.”

That is so profound.

micheline, Friday, 16 April 2010 23:31 (fifteen years ago)

lol that is so cute/awesome

lesley gorguts (latebloomer), Friday, 16 April 2010 23:34 (fifteen years ago)

I must bow down before the awesome that is Flaming Dragons of Middle Earth.....

booty claps and harp solos (leavethecapital), Saturday, 17 April 2010 03:16 (fifteen years ago)

they're the real fuckin deal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI7pcrA52QI

solid yet bouncy (herb albert), Saturday, 17 April 2010 03:27 (fifteen years ago)


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