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

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