Our music legends - just yuppy accessories?

[Frau_Blucher]

I was watching an old interview of British music journalist Paul Morley. He spoke about the 70s mood of many musicians talking about their acheievements in life being equated more to abstract ideals, a more pure ideal of how to achieve perfection in life somehow through their music. Morley mentions how he and others at the time thought the scene would move more toward an imaginative and artistic notion of achievement rather than a strictly capitalistic one. Most pointedly, he notes that maybe some of us regard these seminal 70s acts like The Clash, Joy Division, or Iggy as more of yuppy accessories stuck in there between Coltrane, Joni Mitchel, Miles Davis, etc, rather than as truly loved and revered musicians in their own right - a Badge of Honor to some degree if you will.

I can't say I totally disagree when you hear 'kids' like Interpol or some modern critics always pointing out that something is so inspried by so-and-so or how they're following in the footsteps of Gang of Four or they have that Joy Division ethos or whatever. Do they really? Are they sincere? Or are they looking to find and recreate some of that mythos of the past greats mostly for the money or cachet? And are some 'fans' of the past greats indeed in it out of 'yuppy accessory' and cachet as well?

I honestly feel very personal and passionate about the Ian Curtis' or Joe Strummers or Paul Wellers of the world. But I can't say that my tone or attitude when speaking about them to some others doesn't allow some of that 'yuppy accessory' or pride to seep in either. Any thoughts?

[fanciz]

In Manila, there are two vocalists Wawi and Katrina who sound like Siouxsie and I don't think it's intentional although they heard a few songs of Siouxsie, it's just their style and it's not for the money because there is none. As far as Interpol is concerned, I consider this band as the best Modern Rock band nowadays. Obviously they have been influenced by Joy Division but so what? Actually, we should be happy that one of our favorite bands could influence new comers. Furthermore Interpol could probably make more money by joining the mainstream, their CD Antics didn't make it to our shores, I had to import it from Australia with a stupid opendisc whereas Simple Plan and (all the)American Rejects are available here in full force! As to the yuppy accessory theory.... nan yuppies listen to Nelly![:D]

[bpdp3]

hmmm...this is such a good post that I have to come out of my christmas festivities to respond. It brings up a myriad of interesting points.

It certainly is SUSPECT that all of a sudden all these bands came out which were influenced by the alternative music of 25 years earler. But are you suggesting that they throw these names around to lure in someone OUR age, who might have more disposable income to throw around on a CD by a new band, in order to get rich? I'd like to think that's unlikely.

However, I'm the first to admit that if some new group is touted as having post-punk influences, or a "Gang of 4 meets Joy Division" sound, I go out of my way to try and hear it. Please God tell me I'm not just falling prey to savvy marketing by record companies (ala the use of our music in Mitsubishi commercials).

As far as the 'yuppie pride' aspect...and this is important...I think that our music was more prone to this than anything else stylistically (although maybe avant garde jazz is a similar situation). People can now latch on to it because it now appears cool - the equivilant of putting a specific 'hip' coffee table book out for the dinner guests to see.

Don't sell yourself short Blir. I spent alot of time starting in my early teens listening to this stuff, reading about it and discovering it, and it is MY MUSIC. It's in me like a virus. True, I may have been influenced by positive record reviews and hip press at the time, but it would've been too easy just to listen to hair metal instead. It was a 'disposition' I had; it wasn't just a passing fancy (I had friends who were willing to sell their XTC and Devo lps in 86 in favor of Grateful Dead bootlegs).

Maybe I'm proving your point. Maybe it is like a badge of honor we wear. It's probably why I roll my eyes everytime a bunch of 20-something journalists roll out the "SPIN Guide to Alternative" or whatever.

[kola]

i'd like to think it's due to the cyclical nature of the record-industry - the bright young things who worked in record companies are now the same age as me, and have worked their way to a higher and influential position within the trade, hence revivals always seem to happen twenty years after the fact.
same with the marketing industry - as well as the fact that us 40 somethings are now (theoretically) in possession of plenty of money to spend on updating our record-collection, which usually includes re-buying all the obscurities from our youth that has been unavailable for a couple of decades.
it's exploitation of nostalgia really - in the 80's, i remember Jack Daniels milked the heritage dollar with their 50's styled ads.
nothing like a safe bet to keep the marketing people happy, so why not stick with a tried and tested formula, even if it's something like Joy Division who got f***-all mainstream coverage when they were still around... [:(!]

[ghosty]

Here's an interesting tidbit for ya: As a DJ I get sent many new releases and the label always slaps a sticker on each jewel case claiming "if you like (fill in the blank) you'll love this band!".
In the mid-90's "fill in the blank" was always Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys. It did'nt matter if there were'nt any harmonies on the album, unusual instrumentation or introspective lyrics...it did'nt matter WHAT the record sounded like it was always going to be compared to Pet Sounds (which was THE uber-hip album to rediscover back in the mid-90's).
Now it's Gang Of Four...EVERY single CD has a sticker claiming Gang Of Four is a huge influence on whatever band this is. Once again, the band could sound a heck of a lot more like The Stooges but it's going to be compared to Gang Of Four because it's trendy to be into Gang Of Four right now and they're hoping that DJ's will want to appear trendy.

[fanciz]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>Here's an interesting tidbit for ya: As a DJ I get sent many new releases and the label always slaps a sticker on each jewel case claiming "if you like (fill in the blank) you'll love this band!".
In the mid-90's "fill in the blank" was always Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys. It did'nt matter if there were'nt any harmonies on the album, unusual instrumentation or introspective lyrics...it did'nt matter WHAT the record sounded like it was always going to be compared to Pet Sounds (which was THE uber-hip album to rediscover back in the mid-90's).
Now it's Gang Of Four...EVERY single CD has a sticker claiming Gang Of Four is a huge influence on whatever band this is. Once again, the band could sound a heck of a lot more like The Stooges but it's going to be compared to Gang Of Four because it's trendy to be into Gang Of Four right now and they're hoping that DJ's will want to appear trendy.


[/quote]

Yeps, I noticed that, a number of bands have claimed to have been influenced by Gang Of Four.....In fact, I suppose that their agent made them say that. May be it's the reason why Gang Of Four came up with their own Return the Gift album. The message being: Hey guys you are making money using our name, now return the favor, it's time for us to make a few bucks!
In Manila, yuppies are really dumb, so they didn't realize that they could look cool by pretending to like new wave. On the other hand, Goth is in, mostly because of girls who love to wear black with lots of fancy accessories...

[Frau_Blucher]

Very cool...some really thoughtful replies. What do you think about this other aspect of art over commercialism. I guess it has to be somewhat commercial for anyone to appreciate it. Will the new media finally allow some of this ideal to shine through? Not that things shouldn't sound great and be enjoyable, but I'd bet we'd see a lot more creativity if the source of that goodness came from someone wanting to create something radical and new rather than trying to make money and get into the bling. Granted, if they're great, they'll go commercial eventually and I'll be happy for them. But are there current bands that appear to have originated through this ideal?

[KYYX4ever]

Very deep topic, the more one thinks about it. I really can't say about new bands: are they for real, or are they just making money off of "older legends". Hmm. But your implication of pride and how much do we really care about our music is an intriguing one. On the one hand, in my usual conciliatory way, I'd say that we are all different consumers, and some of us care much more for the music than others. Thus, to some of us, that artist/music is a very REAL and PALPABLE force, that it becomes something much more to us than "just sounds". A topic that often pops up on This NWO that I rather enjoy are threads about "what does your S/O think about New wave?" and the like. I love reading the different responses because I find it interesting that many of us have spouses/SOs who love it as much as we do, but other spouses/SOs do not, and some think it's downright weird and inane. (my own is not into The Wave, but he is REALLY into the music that HE likes. He's as big a fan as me, just other kinds of music). What I am getting at here is that for many of us, music IS life, it's a part of our lives, deeply ingrained, and for some reason, we're a collection of people that this music has REALLY TOUCHED, and I think that's part of our bond. We're more than casual fans. We care about the artist him/herself, their motivations, their various incarnations, their likes & dislikes, their musical noodlings, all of that. So I agree with your initial assertion about being very passionate about the Ian Curtises, Paul Wellers, & Joe Strummers of the world. Because we ARE. IMHO, the artist is only as serious as their fans. (that sounds kind of silly but think about it. It's true.) I mean, yeah, Ian was one serious dude--too serious, really. But I think most of these musicians did it b/c they really cared and loved what they were doing. Times have changed, however, and now that the muscial climate is so different, it's easier for musicians who just want to make a buck get into the biz. Also, what about the idea that "it's all been done before"...perhaps we are hearing so much copycatting b/c that's all there is to do anymore ? Does that make them any less of a "serious" musician? Can anything be truly original in music anymore ?