Re: Anglo/Americo/Notes from all over

[Swingset Disaster <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>]

>From: Bob Krajewski <lmi-angel!rpk>
>Subject: Anglo|Amero/philia|phoiba

>Boy, you guys really touched a sensitive nerve there.  A few observations:

>. Look at things from a musical history point of view.  It is clear that
  >the most vigorous forms of music on the worldwide scene all heavily borrow
  >from American sources.  In other words: no blues, no America, no nothing.

Bob said everything I was trying to say without using the esoteric art of 
flaming.  The people here who say they're enamored with the "art" of it
all are really just amused by the cleverness of all the hidden meanings
they've found in stuff.  For the most part, the English music is fey, 
surface music.

>. Since Americans in general are so ignorant of their musical heritage, many

True, not all of us but yes, in general and yes, the Brits do tend to take
it and mangle it (MaClaren being the prime abuser).  There was a comment where 
someone called Amercan music "he-man" music.  If that means, it's an active 
yet agressive form, hell yes!  I see this as a compliment (thanks whomever)  
But, I'd venture to say this wanker stuff disscussed here is in turn "she-man" 
musak.  It's much more passive and introspective and stagnant.  Now that I'
ve insulted all the genders, we continue.

  >funk, and soul people.  Hip hop is just as big in Manchester and
  >Birmingham (England) as it is over here.  On the other hand, all those 60s
  >punk/pysche groups in the 'burbs of the USA were trying (at first) to
  >sound the like Stones and the Yardbirds, who themselves loved American
  >music. 

I'd say hip-hop in England is even "bigger" in the sense of the attention
it receives particularily among white people.  White Americans generally seem
to be ignorant of the true roots of hip-hop (i.e. a hybrid of spoken word/hard
rock/ and funk).  Go-go may succeed in bridging this gap since it isn't as
alienating and race-identity-concious as rap.  It should be noted that Prince
and the Minneapolis progressive attitude towards race has paved the way.

>. The Emperor Has No Clothes: (anti-flame)

  >. Synths are evil.
As the cost of Synths goes down, they become less and less so.  American
music (or at least the most heartfelt Amercan music) is music of economy.
There are some up and coming bands who are using synths in front of audiences
that would a couple of years ago trashed and gobbed them for doing so.

  >. These American bands rely on songwriting and sincerity, not gimmicks.

Exactly, they put their shit on the line.  The poseur wimp bands distance
themselves from their audience, lose all sense of perspective and even end
up degrading the audience (and in turn themselves) by stealing stuff off
the street but at the same time looking down at this scene.

  >. The ``roots'' concept is valid.

As long as it isn't overdone (or merely just redone over and over again).
There's nothing more boring than a band playing straight R&B covers.  Almost
as bad as a Top 40 band.

  >. The ``roots'' stuff you're hearing is really covers all the diversity
>    of American music.
Damn straight, hip hop is as much "roots" as is hardcore.  

  >. Pop is evil.
Only in the sense that it usually is phoney and braindead.  Some of the better
English types have proven this wrong (Hitchcock and yes, Kate) but I sasid
in my initial flame that English bands make great commercial (read: pop) stuff.

  >. The studio is evil.
Again, it depends - this attitude comes from bands I have talked to who have
gone into the studio ignorant of recording but still wanting complete control
of what was going on.  Alot of times they had no "producer" to act as a buffer
between the band and the engineer and ended up totally alienating the technical
talent.  Bands that have attempted basement recording with 4 or 8 track porta
studios generally are ready for the studio so the idea of "studio being evil"
is sort of a question of experience.  Certainly, a lot of fans would agree 
mainly because it's so foriegn and sterile to them.  A good homey studio where
the band is totally cognizant of what's going on behind the window is not
evil.

  >. Amateurism is cool.

As a means for learning as you go - yeah, sure.  Again, it's an attitude that
eventually loses out to experience (in the long run). The best rock musicians
generally learn as they go.  The most boring (and self-indulgent) musicians are
usually classically trained.  I've taken great pains to forget everything
classical I've learned (and I'm not ashamed).

  >. Beer-drinkin' music is honest.

Hmmmm, honest music is honest.  I think this is a weak point in your anti-flame.Counter-Examples being Minor Threat, J.F.A. etc etc`

  >. Synth-poppers aren't rockists.
Unless they get off their synth and stop making pop.  Using the synth in
lieu of an expensive organ or using the wierd sounds very sparingly is cool.
I imagine as the synth becomes further ingrained and less expensive it will
become more cool to use it for other things.

  >. Loud guitars are always rad.
Damn straight!  Even the art cliques in New York have come to that conclusion.
Check out Sonic Youth, Live Skull, Glenn Branca, etc etc.

  >. Jangle bands are less ``sound'' oriented than synth-crap.
No comment.

>Cool American Producer: T-Bone Burnett.
I've only recently been exposed to his stuff.  Can you recommend any opuses?

>Cool Region: New Zealand.
And Australia - need we mention the Birthday Party, Civil Dissident and
scads of others from Down Under.  I guess I'm not really a bigot but the
intensity of these bands puts their sister island to shame.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you can't keep it in your pants, keep it in the family" - The Inbred.