Re: [bomp] Untalented Eighties Bands

["Stephen Molly" <wytches@xxxxxxxxx>]

I was just looking back at "peaks" of blandness.  I could be all wrong.  But there seems to be these periods when a type of music really takes hold and there is a massive cash-in.  Currently it has been teeny pop groups, the second and third string Britney's, cashing in really insipid melodies, bare midrifts, and some very clever vocal track tweakings.

The eighties saw the same thing after a few a years of MTV's birth.  When the video techinques improved enough and image could be forged, out they came.  To this day, I CAN NOT STAND TO HEAR A CHORUSED GUITAR or Kim Carnes/Gary Numan snapclap track. There simply was not enough talent to maintain a career.  Some have been lucky to hack out niche, like Gary Numan; but others have slid back to obscurity and if lucky have some change to show for it.

I think in the seventies, as the boomers were moving on a whole new demographic came about.  Thus spate the bubblegum.  Toss in the singer/songwriter, let simmer at 350 for two years and out pops the Pistols.  Fifteen years later, same recipe, change the ingredients and you got your Nirvana.

Go back to the early sixties and along comes the Stones and Beatles and a zillion brats with Danelectro's. 

I could be hungover into the afterlife, but this is just an observation.

PS:  I was a sucker for some of the A Flock Of Seagull hits.  Guilty pleasures for diseased skin.


On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:39:31   
 HOODOO3005 wrote:
>
>Stephen Molly wrote that the mid-eighties, like the early 70's, had a mess of 
>one-hit wonders. Myself, I don't think there's ever been an era where there 
>WEREN'T one-hitters. For every Led Zep who hit it big, there was always a 
>Bubble Puppy who you never saw again. And then there's people like Lou Reed 
>who only had one hit because his fans bought albums, not 45's.
>

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