Don Yates wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, William F. Silvers forwarded this:
>
> > Here's a clip from Scott Miller, of Game Theory/Loud Family anonymity,
> > that doesn't exactly speak for me, but says it well:
Boy, I guess maybe I shoulda stood back just_a_bit further from this maybe?
<g>
> > And nothing like "low-fi" or "electronica" or any of the
> > > hip-hop variations has struck my ears as being new and innovative.
I *knew* this sentence was a red flag. I didn't edit it out from my clip,
though.I'd love to see you and Scott Miller debate it. Coupla pretty smart
guys.
But I don't hold this sentence up as my feelings on the matter.
The guy's wrong.
> OK, that does it. Power pop has to be one of the most retrogressive rock
> styles imaginable. Most power pop bands pale in comparison to the old
> bands they obviously emulate and most often rip-off, the Beatles, Big
> Star, etc.
Well, there's always a lot more mediocre or worse purveyors of whatever form
than interesting ones."Retrogressive" or "rip-off" are value-loaded
expressions, and it seems you don't place much value on this genre.
I mean, aren't (to name just a few) Paul Burch or Wayne Hancock or Dale Watson
or the Derailers (or most any bluegrass artist true to that genre)
"retrogressive" or "rip-offs" by the same token?
> It doesn't surprise me that popheads like Scott Miller can't
> find anything new or innovative in hip hop, or in much anything else it
> seems besides his own little musical world. What's most hilarious is that
> *real* pop music left him in the dust decades ago. That's 'cuz -- unlike
> power poppers -- most folks have no problem appreciating modern black
> music. Jeez, talk about an insular musical universe -- most popheads act
> like black music doesn't even exist, or if it does, it's certainly not as
> "new and innovative" as their pasty-white Beatles imitations. Whatta
> buncha self-deluded nonsense. Hell, at least the Beatles knew that pop
> also encompassed black music (one important point that passes most power
> poppers by).
No doubt, the genre is insular. I guess I don't see how that's necessarily a
bad thing. I think folks play, or listen to, what pleases them aesthetically.
Dismissing musical forms because they don't appeal much to you is a natural,
if unadventurous, part of the process. And isn't that what you're doing with
"power pop"?
But yeah, Miller's been at it for 15-some years, two "different" bands, making
records distinguishable from one another more to fans than anybody else. <g>
His statement is pretty ignorant. Whether that's intentional or not I have no
idea.
> As for the Posies, we always thought they were a buncha
> wussies up here in the NW, even when they pretended to "rock."--don
Well, Marie, er, Don <g>, Mister "Midwest Pussy Boys", (a badge we're now
wearing proudly, damn it!) I think the "power pop" genre in general, and the
Posies in particular with their sweet, dreamy at times harmonies, invite this
sort of macho bluster.And on the other hand folks like Jerry can't forgive 'em
for cranking up and abandoning the "wussier" stuff.
"Pretended to rock". Oh, whatever...<g>
b.s.
n.p. Dan Kibler CAPSULE
