The Year of Punk!

Saperlipopette! wrote: I'd say history gets magically rewritten all the time. Of course influence has plenty to do with it as we both agree on. You can call them elitists, but these elitists have always written our history.

They wrote the history - or so it seems - for a certain era of music.  Much less is known about pre-Renaissance/Baroque music than after but it is highly unlikely that no music worth listening would have been made at that time.  From the 1700s to the early 1900s, scoring helped document the work of composers systematically while the establishment exerted control over what music did and did not deserve accolades.  The power of money, more so than other considerations, has made the establishment bow to public taste and let that music be made which the public might like.   Also the capability to reach a much larger audience than was possible before the recording era.  It is the artists themselves and the audiences they can enthrall that write musical history in the 21st century scenario.   The appeal of some wears out while some continue to please audiences of later eras, but the audience is now a key factor.  

For all that 'important' people may wax eloquent about the Beatles, it would count for nought if re-issues of their albums were roundly shunned by the market.   There is unfortunately not much evidence other than your own fervent belief that the appeal of Sex Pistols has forever faded.  I highly doubt that that is the case anyway.   Are they wedded to their epoch?  I don't think so.  Punk simply presents rock in a raw, bare avatar and such a notion is likely to appeal to several generations of rock music listeners.  So whoever writes the history these days, even if they are elitists, it would appear that they have failed you at any rate.       

Knowledge is a useful thing, so long as it is not accompanied by bias and contempt.   I think imposing one's preferences on others as the "right thing" is biased and prejudiced because it presumes ignorance on the part of the other person merely because he has a different opinion.   I don't think it is up to anybody in particular to decide what the public should or should not listen to, which is what attempting to form canons for rock albums amounts to.   You have learnt a lot about music...fine, share your knowledge with others who are on the same journey and further the progress of music to new frontiers.  But don't try to monitor what music people listen, that's not up to you.     

You have to also read my comments with context as they are in response to blanket statements like normal people know nothing about music/normal people don't count/normal people this and normal people that.   If I appear to sound contemptuous about music elitists, it is only to put things in perspective.  Let's not inflate the importance of the elite...we are not living in the 18th century anymore.  

thellama73 wrote: . Look at any "best albums of all time" list chosen by popular vote. In Britain, these lists are invariably topped by the Spice Girls and Oasis. Is this because people have listened to loads of music and have carefully decided that the Spice Girls are unsurpassed as musicians? I think it's more likely that the people voting have only heard a very small amount of music and like the Spice Girls because they hear them on the radio a lot.

That's a useless list in any case, regardless of the demographic of the polled audience.   Even the elitist can hardly claim to have listened to ALL the music in the world.   There is no such thing as "the best album ever".  We are all merely listing the albums we enjoy most and it is best we do not attempt to suggest that what we enjoy the most individually is the best for everybody else because such a statement doesn't make sense at any level. 

thellama73 wrote: I have no interest in telling other people what the must listen to. That has never been my point.

That may not be your point but that is what elitism has been about.  Decrying jazz when classical was still the elite music and decrying rock in its early stages when jazz was still reigning.  Are they pro-quality or are they pro-establishment?  I suspect it is the latter.  It is no coincidence that the 'death' of rock and roll happened to be lamented more frequently once hip hop took centrestage.    Since they seem to take rather a long time to revise their stand to like what the masses once liked, they might as well not attempt to tell the masses what they ought to listen to.  

^^^ That may or may not be true but that's not the point I was interested in arguing anyway.   All I have said from the beginning of this discussion is over the last 50 years, influence is determined to a large extent by the mainstream success of the artists. So there is no such thing as the 'wrong albums of 1977-78 are celebrated as influential'.  There is no right or wrong about it.  Punk is simply the music that made a huge impact during that time, that cannot be denied and therefore it is influential.   Whether it is complex, sophisticated, 'good' is a moot point here.  

tamijo wrote: thellama73 wrote: . Whatever you may think of the "elites," you must admit that they have more knowledge, and in my view knowledge is always preferable to ignorance, all other things equal. In general Yes, knowledge is preferable. but when it comes to the evolvement in the arts, the educated are educated in the existing art, and therefor often fights against the upcoming movements.

Well said, and I largely agree as far as the scenario of the last half a century or so goes.   It is not about knowledgable v/s ignorant but pro v/s anti-establishment.   Punk's insistence on a rudimentary framework was symbolic at one level; it pointed to how rock had become a big business, which was what it was supposed to rebel against. 

Not to self: Never discuss anything with a cultural relativist ever again (written while listening to Funky Fräuleins Vol. 2).

^My opening post has been dissected plenty of times already and now you've done it twice. 

And included Exposure

^^^ If you didn't want people to respond to your OP, you might as well have not said it.   If you make a statement, expect favourable and unfavourable reactions to it, simple as that.   And it's not just about the OP, there are plenty other comments along the way that you have made and I don't see that they particularly redressed the position.  It's ok, that's your worldview for better or worse; now brace for the reactions to it as well.