Clash more pretentious than Yes

Cheesecakemouse wrote: Toaster Mantis wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: So Black Flag is artsy eh? Yeah... lots of surprisingly complex rhythms, weird time signatures and creative use of guitar feedback. They're not just one of the few 1980s hardcore punk bands who had the same artsy streak as proto-punk but "proper" punk mostly threw out the window in the mid-1970s, they actually got more experimental with each album. They sound really interesting, I'll  have to sample some of their stuff one of these days.

first a quick comment  about your signature - are we about to become the AC/DC tsunami that will overwhelm the purists here at PA
Second, it is amazing how few people know that Art in music exists outside of Prog, classical, folk or jazz music.
Third, one must question those who bought, borrowed, or somehow picked up albums like London Calling and are unable to see what the big hubbub was about after a few listens; while insisting that prog albums must be listened to many many times to appreciate their superiority to other genres' releases.
London Calling will stand as one of the classics in the Rock n Roll pantheon. It is not a favourite of mine, but I have more than a few friends (mostly with a wide variety of musical tastes, and also of different age groups) that love it.
And for a prog fan to not recognize the fact that this Punk figurehead was risking its' standing by not just straying, but jumping completely out of the genre stereotypes to make the music they wanted is befuddling.
Whatever they were, they were the Clash. And just like some prog bands, they played what they wanted, and they didn't always stick to what their fan base expected or wanted. And the shameful comparison for  Prog fans is that most Clash fans were able to accept their idols playing some music that was more mainstream or pop because the Clash wanted to play it. The Clash plays a reggae tinged tune. Fine ! The Clash play an R & B flavoured song. Alright ! The Clash play a song you can dance to. Woohoo ! Let's infiltrate the mass media !
No need to mention Yes or Genesis, eh ... and the reaction that their followers have to certain periods in their respective careers

"I don't even have to listen to their music,just looking at one of their album covers makes me sick already".

Edited by Gustavo Froes - April 15 2009 at 07:31

debrewguy wrote: Gustavo, do you think thatsome musicians in other more " musically superior" genres did not share in this kind of attitude about music that they disliked ? You must have heard of Jazzbos dismissing out of hand the very possibility that Jazz Rock / Fusion players even merited comparison to their own greats. Or how about classical musicians finding the very idea that even the most sophisticated rock music (as proclaimed by its' fans) even matched the High Art of Beethoven , Back or Mozart; not to mention lesser known composers, that some of them snort in derision ? So for any act to "rely" on something is a strange comment. The Clash attracted their fans by the simple fact that people liked their music. Be it for its' supposed political slant, or its' rebellious pose, does not matter. And you'll find Clash fans who hate Cut the Crap. Just like you have Yes fans who dislike 90125. As for substance, banality, or any other "criteria" you want to set up as a guide to quality ... well, remember this - the listener enjoys a piece of music for what it is. If you like atonality, and love Univers Zero for this, then you can say that is why you enjoy it. Your wife may find them annoying for this same reason, yet this likely won't affect your reaction to UZ's music, except to only play when she's not around.

Edited by Gustavo Froes - April 14 2009 at 21:32

Gustavo Froes wrote: "I don't even have to listen to their music,just looking at one of their album covers makes me sick already".   Joe Strummer,about Led Zeppelin.   This is worth than pretentious.Who are they,or the Sex Pistols,or anyone else,to make three corded songs with completly banal composition and absolute zero substance,and announce themselves as the second coming?Now,just because their music is not complex or 'demanding' doesn't mean they are not pretentious,just in a differen't(much worse)way.And I do enjoy some classic punk rock.Just tell me what these guys would rely upon if it wasn't for some charming lyrics and atittude.   At least Yes made it about the music,and left the rest for us to decide...

Either you get it, or you don't get it my friend. Sadly you are in the latter camp.

Judging music based on its' performers public persona is like judging a painting by the frame.
What is within is what counts. Remember, Liam Gallagher had quite the attitude, Rick Wakeman isn't exactly a reticent type when he wants to. Fripp has never come across as low in self esteem.
Attitude is attitude. And in the entertainment field ( and yes, even prog rock is entertainment), public personas are sometimes nothing more than a show.

debrewguy wrote: Judging music based on its' performers public persona is like judging a painting by the frame.

It pains me to admit this, but the foregoing is quite brilliant.

The question "who is more pretentious" is impossible to answer since there are no measurement units for social interactions.

If you ever went on stage with a guitar in your hand, that's pretentious to a degree. Whether you want to fulfill your rock 'n' roll dream about fame, money, chicks and Cadillacs, or to show people how good technician you are, be it able to play ultra fast shredding or 51/8 time measure, or simple to let people know your poetry and thinking about the world, if you want to pretend you're someone else, if you're introvert and shy and just playing three quiet chords in a background of a folk duet - it's all the same.

One of question in modern philosophy is - could art itself exist if there's no one to experience that art?

So it's all down to one's taste, and pretentiousness (or lack thereof) doesn't matter. Just think what you think and listen what you like.