The Year of Punk!

The Scream was post punk? never realised that when i bought it. Still can't quite accept it. Will take some getting used to.

Saperlipopette! wrote: rogerthat wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: Very few of the artists considered the most important throughout history were also the most successful during their time. Look beyond the rock era and practically none of the biggest sellers are considered the most important any longer. Influence and what another age defines as quality will always prevail. That's not necessarily true either seeing as Mozart was ALSO very successful in his time apart from being considered influential.   Of course. That's why I wrote practically and not all. I don't know how you failed to notice. Nowhere am I suggesting that the greatest artists couldn't also be popular.  And you're correct: Beyond rock is wrong and clumsy english (It happens all the time as its not my first language).  Btw: Bach was drowned in the archives for nearly 200 years until Mendelssohn rediscovered him.

I did notice it.  The point is, Mozart is too significant an example for me to consider him just an exception to the rule.  I am not really sure it is a rule anyway.  Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis were much celebrated too so such theories have a lot to do with confirmation bias.  If you find a few examples of musicians who were not successful but proved to be influential - like Bach - you might be tempted to come up with a hypothesis that only merit and not popularity would ultimately prevail.  

Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: The Scream was post punk? never realised that when i bought it. Still can't quite accept it. Will take some getting used to. So at the time what did you think of Switch? Did that strike you as a typical Punk song or something radically different? Because for me hearing that for the first time was a jaw-dropping moment, I didn't know what the hell it was but it certainly wasn't punk anymore.

Edited by Snow Dog - October 21 2012 at 05:25

Miles album sales are marginal compared to the real hit factories of all decades he was active. And it is in that context I am thinking. That he was one of the biggest sellers in jazz does only make him the most popular jazz artist. But history considers jazz as more important than than rock 'n' roll, motown mm... because "we" decided the musical quality is higher and that a lot of jazz is art, while a lot of popular music isn't. Therefore Miles position is bigger than albumsales and his popularity when he was active alone will tell us.   

Saperlipopette! wrote: Miles album sales are marginal compared to the real hit factories of all decades he was active. And it is in that context I am thinking. That he was one of the biggest sellers in jazz does only make him the most popular jazz artist. But history considers jazz as more important than than rock 'n' roll, motown mm... because "we" decided the musical quality is higher and that a lot of jazz is art, while a lot of popular music isn't. Therefore Miles position is bigger than albumsales and his popularity when he was active alone will tell us.

Of course it is.  But what if he hadn't been so popular in his time....aside from other things, he may have then found it difficult to collaborate with so many prominent jazz musicians over the years which added immeasurably to his legend.   The mere presence of talent is unfortunately never enough in music; it must be recognized.  And when an artist is recognized within his lifetime, it means he attained some popularity.   Jazz being more performance oriented, it was already more crucial than in classical music that the artist was given his due within his lifetime and not years later.   In classical music, it was possible to evaluate a composer based on the score which it is not in rock and jazz and therein lies the difference.  The bands and artists you consider art in this poll also depend on performance so that means some sizable mass of audience must recognize their worth for them to achieve the level of recognition you crave.  You are not talking about recognition within the prog community here (which many, like UZ, already have) but at a general level in music itself.   It is difficult to foresee such recognition accruing unless their place in mainstream culture itself goes up exponentially.  

rogerthat wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: Miles album sales are marginal compared to the real hit factories of all decades he was active. And it is in that context I am thinking. That he was one of the biggest sellers in jazz does only make him the most popular jazz artist. But history considers jazz as more important than than rock 'n' roll, motown mm... because "we" decided the musical quality is higher and that a lot of jazz is art, while a lot of popular music isn't. Therefore Miles position is bigger than albumsales and his popularity when he was active alone will tell us.    Of course it is.  But what if he hadn't been so popular in his time....aside from other things, he may have then found it difficult to collaborate with so many prominent jazz musicians over the years which added immeasurably to his legend.   The mere presence of talent is unfortunately never enough in music; it must be recognized.  And when an artist is recognized within his lifetime, it means he attained some popularity.   Jazz being more performance oriented, it was already more crucial than in classical music that the artist was given his due within his lifetime and not years later.   In classical music, it was possible to evaluate a composer based on the score which it is not in rock and jazz and therein lies the difference.  The bands and artists you consider art in this poll also depend on performance so that means some sizable mass of audience must recognize their worth for them to achieve the level of recognition you crave.  You are not talking about recognition within the prog community here (which many, like UZ, already have) but at a general level in music itself.   It is difficult to foresee such recognition accruing unless their place in mainstream culture itself goes up exponentially.

Snow Dog wrote: If I ever read the word "Post Punk" I would not have assumed it a genre.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: Punk is now more looked upon as hits for kids and nothing anyone should take seriously. It is? Where? Maybe in the minds of people who don't like punk, but Rolling Stone and the likes would still have you believe that Never Mind the Bollocks is art.

My point exactly.  I don't like the Bollocks either (though I like a fair few post punk bands and a lot of metal music) but I think it is still very much the critics' darling.

rogerthat wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: Punk is now more looked upon as hits for kids and nothing anyone should take seriously. It is? Where? Maybe in the minds of people who don't like punk, but Rolling Stone and the likes would still have you believe that Never Mind the Bollocks is art. My point exactly.  I don't like the Bollocks either (though I like a fair few post punk bands and a lot of metal music) but I think it is still very much the critics' darling.

 

rogerthat wrote: I just said it is ironic that considering you have scant regard for pop music, you would like these albums to command their rightful place historically because what that entails in the present day scenario is popularity votes.  I am not going to comment on what you have written later on in this comment about punk.

Pop music? Thought I was only ranting about punk's place in rocks canon. I think re-evaluatation is a better and more precise term for the present day scenario than popularity. Its easier to look at phenomenas from a distance and see them for what they really were. Such as: