Re: Re: Anglo/Americo/Notes from all over

[J. Peter Alfke <alfke@cit-vax>]

Swingset Disaster <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA> sez:
>>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.

Well, you haven't insulted all genders, just the female.  Your "Hell yes!
Toss me another brewski, duuuude!" bit was doubtless not intended as offensive
to males ...

As for "mangling": what's wrong with it?  Many many American bands are
working directly from the "roots" framework, which is O.K, but it's just
one way of doing things.  British bands take the American blues/country/
gospel basics, as well as the rock refinements, and interpret and
deconstruct them.  As I'm a postmodern kinda guy, I often find this more
interesting than the basics.  (This is not to say that all American
bands stick to the roots, but they're usually much more reverent toward
them.)

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

  >>. Synths are evil.

..etc..

I thought that Bob was just quoting all the American-testosterock
cliches as an "Emperor has no clothes" thing, and Hofmann goes on taking
them all at face value.  Who's right here?  I think some of the
statements Bob quotes (and I don't know if he believes them) have some
validity, but most are just ridiculous.  Synths are evil, indeed.
"Anything new is *strickly* for faggots", hmmm?  The proggers showed
that you didn't have to be an avant-garde Stockhausen-oid to use synths,
the syth-poppers showed that you didn't have to be pompous to use them,
and bands like Cabaret Voltaire and Executive Slacks show that you
don't even have to have binky-binky bouncy hooks or moussed haircuts to
use 'em.  The synth is an amazingly versatile instrument, and dismissing
it as "evil" is an absurd generalization that goes nowhere.

And kids: let's not fall back on homophobic (British music is by and for
flaming-limp-wristed-pouffter-dickless-faggots) or sexist (British music
is feminine, i.e. "much more passive and introspective and stagnant")
cliches.  Get real.

					--Peter Alfke

"`That's by Stockhausen', the hip graybeard informed
her, `the early crowd tends to dig your Radio Cologne
sound.  Later on we really swing.  We're the only bar
in the area, you know, has a strictly electronic music
policy.  ...we got a whole back room full of your audio
oscillators, gunshot machines, contact mikes, every-
thing.  That's for if you didn't bring your axe, see,
but you got the feeling and you want to swing with
the rest of the cats, there's always something
available.'"
	--Thomas Pynchon, "The Crying of Lot 49"