Re: [bomp] Re: More thoughts on the new crop

[Deena Canale <roots66@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Don wondered:

>> 
>> You don't like Creed, but you like The Knack? Explanation, please.

And Mykel expounded:
> 
> She's your adolescent dream,
> Schoolboy stuff, a sticky sweet romance.
> And she makes you want to scream,
> Wishing you could get inside her pants.
> So, you fantasize away.
> And while you're squeezing her, you thought you heard her saying...
> 
> "Good girls don't,


Thanks for the "explanation," Mykel.  In short, the Knack had some humor
(shallow sexist adolescent humor, mind you, but humor nonetheless) and some
catchy tunes, where Creed apparently has absolutely no sense of humor, way
too much self-importance, and a (IMHO) lousy sound.

But perhaps I should explain that I was using those band examples to attempt
to illustrate the popularity the bands engendered, rather than to compare
their respective sounds.  I guess I didn't word it correctly, but when I
said

>   I was actually kinda pleased with
> the state of popular rock & roll back in the Nirvana/Green Day era of
> the early '90s-- that phenomenon reminded me of the late '70s when Cheap Trick
>& the Knack ruled the airwaves.

I was referring more to the phenomenon of the masses digging cool, fun rock
& roll for a change (yes, I'm strange enough to consider much of Nirvana's
sound "fun"), not implying that Green Day reminded me sonically of Cheap
Trick--and certainly not implying that I think the Knack were geniuses.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

>What sort of reputation does the Times Styles section have?

Not a good one, particularly where music journalism is concerned--its entire
raison d'etre is the reportage of "privilege"-related things: fashion, high
society parties, weddings, social trends, consumerism.  It's incredibly
superficial, shallow, vacuous and meaningless--and I still read it more
often than I read the op-ed page.  Oy vey.
 
>Those are three very different bands. PJ is a great band--one of rock's
>most important bands ever, and not just for their music.

Ho boy...you went from proselytizing about the Ramones (which only a select
few of your '70s contemporaries "got") to seeing "importance" in those
guys???  Yikes...  

>It's that you're old. You wouldn't say that if you were 15.

Perhaps, but even when I was 15 (mid-1980s) my absolute favorite kinds of
rock & roll were made either well before I was born, or when I was too young
to enjoy them as they were being made.  Where rock & roll is concerned I
could be an old fart--I've long wished I were at least 10 years older than I
am, preferably older, if only to have experienced my favorite things
firsthand.  Do today's teenyboppers lack a sense of history?

>That's funny. I just *do* like it. I didn't have to put any effort into
>it. I was only half-way through Main Offender before I was completely
>sold on The Hives...Why me?

Good for you.  You've got the gift.  As I said, I kinda wish I did hear
something in the bands you mentioned that really grabbed me--but somehow I
just don't.  Not to worry, there's more than enough wonderful music falling
under the general public's radar--and, whether it shifts a lot of units or
not, fortunately I *do* hear magic in much of it.

Signed D.C.   

===> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe bomp" to majordomo@xnet2.com <===