TfF (really the usual LH slanging match)

[Richard Jennings <hpda!hpcea!hplabs!hpopd!richi@uunet.UU.NET>]

Duane Day (who obviously has nothing better to do than get upset at people's
opinions and, refusing to acknowledge their right to hold a different one to
his own) gets upset:

> Excuse me!

	You're welcome.


> A lot of people's impression of TfF, based on the _Big Chair_ hits
> and the photos, is exactly that they are just another Brit-pop duo, and I've
> seen them lumped together with Wham! under that heading more times than I care
> to think about.

	So?


> Based on limited information, I can see how someone might question that they
> are serious.

	Evidently.


> Based on a knowledge of their work, I find it hard to understand how one could
> disagree with labeling them "serious", although whether or not they are major
> league rock heavyweights is of course a matter of personal opinion.

	So??


> I guess it boils down to what constitutes a "serious rock act".  No offense
> was meant by my assumption that Richard was somewhat unfamiliar with the
> entire body of TfF's work.

	Ah!  No it doesn't you see -- what it actually comes down to is the
	usual "My opinion is the Ultimate Truth, and you're full of
	b*llsh*t" attitude that pervades this list.


> OK, given that you know a lot more about them than just a passing
> acquaintance with the hits, please let me know how, in your opinion, they 
> fail to qualify as "serious".   Perhaps it's their frivolous subject matter 
> such as the pain of childhood?

	Good grief, Duane!  I don't know what to make of you, really I don't.
	Perhaps it's culture shock or something.


> How many casual dismissals of Kate as a teen-sex-idol-pseudo-intellectual
> have we suffered through, eh?

	But she is, isn't she?
	JOKE! JOKE!! JOKE!!! -- the above line is not meant to be serious!!!!


> My postings reflected my opinion, just as all of the postings on this
> newsgroup reflect the opinion of the authors (with the possible exception of
> IED's and |>oug's, which are apparently to be read as gospel.)  
> :-) *just kidding, guys* (-:

	...and all responses that in any way diverge from those opinions
	give the original authors the automatic right to throw virtiol at
	the network?
	

>>This all smacks of rather tacky pretension to my eyes.

> And again, you're entitled to that opinion.  But, please clarify - pretension
> on the part of TfF, the hypothetical marketing types, or me?

	No, Duane, how could I possibly think you're pretensious? -- I've
	not met you, I've not even seen you on video, sitting in a camping
	chair talking about how you "laid yourself bare".  [<-- this is IRONY]


> I'm not guessing, however, about Janov being an influence; they've cited him
> in many print interviews.

	Big deal.


> Well, I expected to be roundly flamed for taking such a fluff group 
> seriously.  It's happened before

	Now, I wonder why that could be?  (Ooops, there I go again, expressing
	my opinion -- slapped botty).


Jeffrey P. Adams asks:

> "Commercially successful music has no artistic integrity."
> 
> That seems to be an underlying attitude of many recent postings.
> Do people really believe that?  Even if you deny it, is there
> something inside you that feels that it's true?

	Now, you sir have (in my opinion) a better grasp of the problem.
	There is no reason why success -> ~integrity, in just the same way
	that the presence of grass implies that the ground is green; it's
	just that it's *usually* that way...


> Do you think Phil Collins is a lightweight just because he has
> become pheno- menally successful, or is it something about his
> music?  Same for Tears for Fears, The Beatles, etc..

	Actually, The Beatles are probably a good exception to the non-rule.


> Hypothetical situation: If KaTe's next album were somehow to become 
> incredibly popular, outselling all other albums in history, and winning
> fans among all age groups, cultural backgrounds, and educational levels,
> would you somehow feel "It can't be as good," or, "Too bad she sold out."?

	Actually, |>oug made this sort of observation when HoL came out, if
	memory serves (oh no, he's going to ask me to quote chapter & verse
	now).


> Hypothetical thought: Maybe there is merit to the above statement.
> Maybe, just maybe, struggling artists have a different kind of energy,
> and unpopular artists have lives more like yours and mine.  Who can
> really relate to Tears for Fears's messages of suffering when we know
> they're millionaires and are very successful in their careers?

	Interesting point, actually two points -- the first sounds good
	(why not write a thesis on it  :-).
	

> On the other hand, maybe they're popular for a reason.  Maybe, just
> maybe, their music is so good that even "normal" people find meaning
> in it.  Think: Would you jump off a cliff just because everyone else
> *wasn't* doing it?

	I always thought the whole raison d'etre of this list was so that
	we could all sit on our high-horse and poo-poo The Masses who went
	out and bought megatonnes of Bros/Phil Collins/Wham!/Madonna/
	(insert name of your local teeny plunkers here)?


richi.