a ton of bands around now that are aping that Beach Boys / Soft Psych sound. It's all very hip daddy-o.
DCarfagna said:
nostalgia hounds with limited perspective.
I don't thinks that's true either. There are bands out there who are on a nostalgia trip, but there are those who've taken their influence, but moved in a completely different direction.
Anyway, my point still stands, that there are plenty of bands around that are still being influenced by the Beach Boys, and plenty more young people who, in turn, will be influenced by those bands. So they're not in danger of becoming irrelevant like you say.
I think the thing that problematizes the Beach Boys for a lot of folks is that they are so very, very white. Connecting them to any sort of black music/aesthetic--which is easily the #1 go-to legitimization for modern aesthetes of all colors--requires some pretty impossible gymnastics of logic.
It's not just their pristine whiteness, it's their total lack of connection with any kind of underground. And no, the Manson thing doesn't count, it just makes them look naive and kind of stupid.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
Like this matters any kind of a shit whatsoever for anyone or anything.
I think the thing that problematizes the Beach Boys for a lot of folks is that they are so very, very white. Connecting them to any sort of black music/aesthetic--which is easily the #1 go-to legitimization for modern aesthetes of all colors--requires some pretty impossible gymnastics of logic.
It's not just their pristine whiteness, it's their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
Yeah, there's that, too, I guess. Anyone still fixated on rebel chic, notions of counterculture, general badassitude, or some vague conception of "grit" certainly won't be able to get much traction on the Beach Boys.
their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
Like this matters any kind of a shit whatsoever for anyone or anything.
It often has. Are you serious?
Maybe you'd be happy with endless contextual variations on "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window" or "Be My Baby" but that shit only goes so far.
Wow
I have no real idea what "underground" means
But I am pretty sure that "Be My Baby" stands up to the work of any "underground" artist ever
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
PelvicDust said:
DocMcCoy said:
their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
Like this matters any kind of a shit whatsoever for anyone or anything.
It often has. Are you serious?
If such a thing matters to anyone, it's only to people whose main interest in any sort of music is how cool they appear by professing to like it.
C'mon, son - "underground"? In this day and age, where the only true way of staying off the grid is to not actually produce any music? I'd be embarrassed to use the term at all, much less as a measure of artistic worth.
their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
Like this matters any kind of a shit whatsoever for anyone or anything.
It often has. Are you serious?
If such a thing matters to anyone, it's only to people whose main interest in any sort of music is how cool they appear by professing to like it.
C'mon, son - "underground"? In this day and age, where the only true way of staying off the grid is to not actually produce any music? I'd be embarrassed to use the term at all, much less as a measure of artistic worth.
Didnt "counter-cultural" hold some merit up until the internets/90's?
Not everyone like the Beatles at the same time. Or Punk or Hip Hop or OG Rock-n-Roll.
Pat Boone covers = the OG.
The music/art comes from a different place(not garage,ghetto,etc.), just from another intent?
their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
Like this matters any kind of a shit whatsoever for anyone or anything.
It often has. Are you serious?
Maybe you'd be happy with endless contextual variations on "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window" or "Be My Baby" but that shit only goes so far.
There is plenty of pop music with no "underground" connections that I love.
The Crystals and Ronnettes being great examples.
And there is plenty of "underground" stuff that is absolute shit.
By no means do I buy into underground = good.
Nor do I.
By "underground connections" I'm including stuff like Dylan introducing beat poetry into rock music, or Jimi Hendrix turning the Star Spangled Banner (which is a pretty shitty tune) into a subversive anthem.
their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
Like this matters any kind of a shit whatsoever for anyone or anything.
It often has. Are you serious?
If such a thing matters to anyone, it's only to people whose main interest in any sort of music is how cool they appear by professing to like it.
C'mon, son - "underground"? In this day and age, where the only true way of staying off the grid is to not actually produce any music? I'd be embarrassed to use the term at all, much less as a measure of artistic worth.
I'd be embarrassed to use the phrase "in this day and age," but then maybe that's just me.
I didn't say anything about "staying off the grid." Nor did I only say "underground."
But yeah, I guess there's no difference between the Velvet Underground and the Beach Boys that's worth talking about. It's just all about "artistic worth," and that's some sort of concrete principle that can be determined mathematically.
Jimi Hendrix turning the Star Spangled Banner (which is a pretty shitty tune) into a subversive anthem.
Woodstock was under the radar?
Who said anything about under the radar?
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
batmon said:
DocMcCoy said:
PelvicDust said:
DocMcCoy said:
their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
Like this matters any kind of a shit whatsoever for anyone or anything.
It often has. Are you serious?
If such a thing matters to anyone, it's only to people whose main interest in any sort of music is how cool they appear by professing to like it.
C'mon, son - "underground"? In this day and age, where the only true way of staying off the grid is to not actually produce any music? I'd be embarrassed to use the term at all, much less as a measure of artistic worth.
Didnt "counter-cultural" hold some merit up until the internets/90's?
Not everyone like the Beatles at the same time. Or Punk or Hip Hop or OG Rock-n-Roll.
Pat Boone covers = the OG.
The music/art comes from a different place(not garage,ghetto,etc.), just from another intent?
Devil Advocate.....
To me, "underground" can only be legitimately used these days to describe shit like Scandinavian black metal. That's the kind of shit that's right out at the margins and staying there. IMO, nothing counter-cultural has come from rock music since the US hardcore scene of the 80s.
I think pop culture and musical trends were already accelerating at an absurd rate before the internet really blew up. By the 90s, I was only hearing the phrase "underground" used in connection with house music, indie hip-hop and Detroit techno, probably by the same kind of people who'd later use the acronym "IDM" with a straight face.
I hear what you're saying about intent as opposed to geographical/cultural origin. US hardcore is a good example of something that developed its own aesthetic, but which could accommodate a lot of different things stylistically and politically - Bad Brains, Husker Du, Minutemen, that kind of shit. At a certain point, though, that aesthetic becomes more important to some people than the music itself, to the extent that it becomes a lifestyle choice where ticking all the right boxes takes precedence over everything else. Anywhere there's a musical scene where people use the prefix "underground" before the kind of music itself, you'll find people twisting themselves into ideological circles over whether or not certain things are fake, soft, real or true. And the only people to whom such things matter, have ever mattered and will ever matter, are people who are hopelessly hung up on how fake, soft, real or true something is at the expense of everything else. Take that away from them, and how would they be able to assert their superior taste over people with different values?
their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
Like this matters any kind of a shit whatsoever for anyone or anything.
It often has. Are you serious?
If such a thing matters to anyone, it's only to people whose main interest in any sort of music is how cool they appear by professing to like it.
C'mon, son - "underground"? In this day and age, where the only true way of staying off the grid is to not actually produce any music? I'd be embarrassed to use the term at all, much less as a measure of artistic worth.
Didnt "counter-cultural" hold some merit up until the internets/90's?
Not everyone like the Beatles at the same time. Or Punk or Hip Hop or OG Rock-n-Roll.
Pat Boone covers = the OG.
The music/art comes from a different place(not garage,ghetto,etc.), just from another intent?
Devil Advocate.....
To me, "underground" can only be legitimately used these days to describe shit like Scandinavian black metal. That's the kind of shit that's right out at the margins and staying there. IMO, nothing counter-cultural has come from rock music since the US hardcore scene of the 80s.
I think pop culture and musical trends were already accelerating at an absurd rate before the internet really blew up. By the 90s, I was only hearing the phrase "underground" used in connection with house music, indie hip-hop and Detroit techno, probably by the same kind of people who'd later use the acronym "IDM" with a straight face.
I hear what you're saying about intent as opposed to geographical/cultural origin. US hardcore is a good example of something that developed its own aesthetic, but which could accommodate a lot of different things stylistically and politically - Bad Brains, Husker Du, Minutemen, that kind of shit. At a certain point, though, that aesthetic becomes more important to some people than the music itself, to the extent that it becomes a lifestyle choice where ticking all the right boxes takes precedence over everything else. Anywhere there's a musical scene where people use the prefix "underground" before the kind of music itself, you'll find people twisting themselves into ideological circles over whether or not certain things are fake, soft, real or true. And the only people to whom such things matter, have ever mattered and will ever matter, are people who are hopelessly hung up on how fake, soft, real or true something is at the expense of everything else. Take that away from them, and how would they be able to assert their superior taste over people with different values?
I'm not sure why you're reading what I said - which was "their total lack of connection with any kind of underground" - and reacting as though I said something like, "because they weren't an underground band."
But at least I gave you a chance to assert your superiority over people who have a different idea about what matters than you do.
Yeah, now there's a real liability for you. :exclaim:
PelvicDust said:
it's their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
This very well may possibly be your most pathetic argument point ever. Underground, schmunderground, take their music on its own terms without any copout bullshit need to tie it in to/contextualize it to anything else.
Yeah, now there's a real liability for you. :exclaim:
PelvicDust said:
it's their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
This very well may possibly be your most pathetic argument point ever. Underground, schmunderground, take their music on its own terms without any copout bullshit need to tie it in to/contextualize it to anything else.
You mean like how you keep referring to them as "American"?
Like who gives a fuck? Would they be a lesser band if they were Canadian?
And didn't you once run a label called "Zabriskie Point"? Was that a copout bullshit move?
You mean like how you keep referring to them as "American"?
Like who gives a fuck? Would they be a lesser band if they were Canadian?
The Beach Boys are a band that is uniquely American....right place, right time......surf/skateboard culture had ground zero in Cali but reached everywhere U.S.A.
Surf LP's by the likes of The Hang Five Mann in Utah, Los Perdidos in Pennsylvania and The Lancers from the Panama Canal Zone prove it was quite a phenomena.
You mean like how you keep referring to them as "American"?
Like who gives a fuck? Would they be a lesser band if they were Canadian?
The Beach Boys are a band that is uniquely American....right place, right time......surf/skateboard culture had ground zero in Cali but reached everywhere U.S.A.
Surf LP's by the likes of The Hang Five Mann in Utah, Los Perdidos in Pennsylvania and The Lancers from the Panama Canal Zone prove it was quite a phenomena.
But undeniably, American.
That applies to Buddy Holly & the Crickets also. Among others. But what does it have to do with a debate over whether they were overrated or not?
I liked the comment about how America's best band was the Beatles.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
PelvicDust said:
I'd be embarrassed to use the phrase "in this day and age," but then maybe that's just me.
Yeah, me and my Chaucerian English.
I didn't say anything about "staying off the grid." Nor did I only say "underground."
What's "underground" if it isn't in some way "off the grid"? And since you avoided my point, the term becomes meaningless when a brand new band can be all over The Hype Machine a week or two after their first gig. So, you carry on basing value judgements on anachronistic hippy notions such as an underground, and I'll stick with terms like "in this day and age". I doubt either of us will envy the other too much.
But yeah, I guess there's no difference between the Velvet Underground and the Beach Boys that's worth talking about. It's just all about "artistic worth," and that's some sort of concrete principle that can be determined mathematically.
Thanks for setting me straight, sonny.
Who brought the Velvet Underground into it, or said anything about concrete principles, mathematical or otherwise? Criticising the Beach Boys because they've no connection to any kind of underground is like complaining about ice-cream being cold.
I'd be embarrassed to use the phrase "in this day and age," but then maybe that's just me.
Yeah, me and my Chaucerian English.
I didn't say anything about "staying off the grid." Nor did I only say "underground."
What's "underground" if it isn't in some way "off the grid"? And since you avoided my point, the term becomes meaningless when a brand new band can be all over The Hype Machine a week or two after their first gig. So, you carry on basing value judgements on anachronistic hippy notions such as an underground, and I'll stick with terms like "in this day and age". I doubt either of us will envy the other too much.
But yeah, I guess there's no difference between the Velvet Underground and the Beach Boys that's worth talking about. It's just all about "artistic worth," and that's some sort of concrete principle that can be determined mathematically.
Thanks for setting me straight, sonny.
Who brought the Velvet Underground into it, or said anything about concrete principles, mathematical or otherwise? Criticising the Beach Boys because they've no connection to any kind of underground is like complaining about ice-cream being cold.
I was responding to a comment that suggested that some people didn't warm up to the Boys because of their extreme whiteness. I used a phrase (not just the single word "underground" that seems to have goosed you extremely hard) to suggest that it wasn't just a matter of whiteness, but their extreme mainstream suck-off-the-boss and mind-your-manners attitude as well.
The Beach Boys would have been the favorite band at Omega in "Animal House." Greg Marmalard and Doug Neidermeyer looked like Beach Boys.
Yeah, now there's a real liability for you. :exclaim:
PelvicDust said:
it's their total lack of connection with any kind of underground.
This very well may possibly be your most pathetic argument point ever. Underground, schmunderground, take their music on its own terms without any copout bullshit need to tie it in to/contextualize it to anything else.
You mean like how you keep referring to them as "American"?
I don't validate the greatness of their music by them (The Beach Boys) truly being America's band (which they are) or being simply "American", period. Their music is great on its own terms, of that there can be no doubt. However, their very Americaness is something that both informs and is projected by their music in a way that is singularly distinct and influential in informing music listeners the whole world over as to what the essence and spirit of America is, encapsulated and transmitted in the form of two to three minute pop perfections par excellence.
PelvicDust said:
Like who gives a fuck? Would they be a lesser band if they were Canadian?
If they were Canadian they would have sounded different (and been a completely different band.) The music of The Beach Boys itself is inextricably linked with their Americaness.
PelvicDust said:
And didn't you once run a label called "Zabriskie Point"? Was that a copout bullshit move?
I don't get your point here. How could the randomly selected name of my previous record label be seen as any sort of "copout bullshit move"?
Comments
Anyway, my point still stands, that there are plenty of bands around that are still being influenced by the Beach Boys, and plenty more young people who, in turn, will be influenced by those bands. So they're not in danger of becoming irrelevant like you say.
It's not just their pristine whiteness, it's their total lack of connection with any kind of underground. And no, the Manson thing doesn't count, it just makes them look naive and kind of stupid.
Like this matters any kind of a shit whatsoever for anyone or anything.
Yeah, there's that, too, I guess. Anyone still fixated on rebel chic, notions of counterculture, general badassitude, or some vague conception of "grit" certainly won't be able to get much traction on the Beach Boys.
It often has. Are you serious?
Maybe you'd be happy with endless contextual variations on "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window" or "Be My Baby" but that shit only goes so far.
There is plenty of pop music with no "underground" connections that I love.
The Crystals and Ronnettes being great examples.
And there is plenty of "underground" stuff that is absolute shit.
By no means do I buy into underground = good.
Wow
I have no real idea what "underground" means
But I am pretty sure that "Be My Baby" stands up to the work of any "underground" artist ever
If such a thing matters to anyone, it's only to people whose main interest in any sort of music is how cool they appear by professing to like it.
C'mon, son - "underground"? In this day and age, where the only true way of staying off the grid is to not actually produce any music? I'd be embarrassed to use the term at all, much less as a measure of artistic worth.
Didnt "counter-cultural" hold some merit up until the internets/90's?
Not everyone like the Beatles at the same time. Or Punk or Hip Hop or OG Rock-n-Roll.
Pat Boone covers = the OG.
The music/art comes from a different place(not garage,ghetto,etc.), just from another intent?
Devil Advocate.....
Nor do I.
By "underground connections" I'm including stuff like Dylan introducing beat poetry into rock music, or Jimi Hendrix turning the Star Spangled Banner (which is a pretty shitty tune) into a subversive anthem.
Woodstock was under the radar?
I'd be embarrassed to use the phrase "in this day and age," but then maybe that's just me.
I didn't say anything about "staying off the grid." Nor did I only say "underground."
But yeah, I guess there's no difference between the Velvet Underground and the Beach Boys that's worth talking about. It's just all about "artistic worth," and that's some sort of concrete principle that can be determined mathematically.
Thanks for setting me straight, sonny.
Who said anything about under the radar?
To me, "underground" can only be legitimately used these days to describe shit like Scandinavian black metal. That's the kind of shit that's right out at the margins and staying there. IMO, nothing counter-cultural has come from rock music since the US hardcore scene of the 80s.
I think pop culture and musical trends were already accelerating at an absurd rate before the internet really blew up. By the 90s, I was only hearing the phrase "underground" used in connection with house music, indie hip-hop and Detroit techno, probably by the same kind of people who'd later use the acronym "IDM" with a straight face.
I hear what you're saying about intent as opposed to geographical/cultural origin. US hardcore is a good example of something that developed its own aesthetic, but which could accommodate a lot of different things stylistically and politically - Bad Brains, Husker Du, Minutemen, that kind of shit. At a certain point, though, that aesthetic becomes more important to some people than the music itself, to the extent that it becomes a lifestyle choice where ticking all the right boxes takes precedence over everything else. Anywhere there's a musical scene where people use the prefix "underground" before the kind of music itself, you'll find people twisting themselves into ideological circles over whether or not certain things are fake, soft, real or true. And the only people to whom such things matter, have ever mattered and will ever matter, are people who are hopelessly hung up on how fake, soft, real or true something is at the expense of everything else. Take that away from them, and how would they be able to assert their superior taste over people with different values?
Are there any pure pop artists that you like?
If so, who?
I'm not sure why you're reading what I said - which was "their total lack of connection with any kind of underground" - and reacting as though I said something like, "because they weren't an underground band."
But at least I gave you a chance to assert your superiority over people who have a different idea about what matters than you do.
Those bastards!
I don't really know what "pure pop" means. I like plenty of stuff that has been very popular.
I'm not rocking with Celine Dion or Kenny Chesney, though.
Just throw one out there....what YOU would consider a "pop" artist that you dig.
Yeah, now there's a real liability for you. :exclaim:
This very well may possibly be your most pathetic argument point ever. Underground, schmunderground, take their music on its own terms without any copout bullshit need to tie it in to/contextualize it to anything else.
You mean like how you keep referring to them as "American"?
Like who gives a fuck? Would they be a lesser band if they were Canadian?
And didn't you once run a label called "Zabriskie Point"? Was that a copout bullshit move?
Laura Cantrell
I was expecting Diana Krall
That applies to Buddy Holly & the Crickets also. Among others. But what does it have to do with a debate over whether they were overrated or not?
I liked the comment about how America's best band was the Beatles.
Yeah, me and my Chaucerian English.
What's "underground" if it isn't in some way "off the grid"? And since you avoided my point, the term becomes meaningless when a brand new band can be all over The Hype Machine a week or two after their first gig. So, you carry on basing value judgements on anachronistic hippy notions such as an underground, and I'll stick with terms like "in this day and age". I doubt either of us will envy the other too much.
Who brought the Velvet Underground into it, or said anything about concrete principles, mathematical or otherwise? Criticising the Beach Boys because they've no connection to any kind of underground is like complaining about ice-cream being cold.
Of course you did Mr. Peanut Brittle.
I was responding to a comment that suggested that some people didn't warm up to the Boys because of their extreme whiteness. I used a phrase (not just the single word "underground" that seems to have goosed you extremely hard) to suggest that it wasn't just a matter of whiteness, but their extreme mainstream suck-off-the-boss and mind-your-manners attitude as well.
The Beach Boys would have been the favorite band at Omega in "Animal House." Greg Marmalard and Doug Neidermeyer looked like Beach Boys.
I don't validate the greatness of their music by them (The Beach Boys) truly being America's band (which they are) or being simply "American", period. Their music is great on its own terms, of that there can be no doubt. However, their very Americaness is something that both informs and is projected by their music in a way that is singularly distinct and influential in informing music listeners the whole world over as to what the essence and spirit of America is, encapsulated and transmitted in the form of two to three minute pop perfections par excellence.
If they were Canadian they would have sounded different (and been a completely different band.) The music of The Beach Boys itself is inextricably linked with their Americaness.
I don't get your point here. How could the randomly selected name of my previous record label be seen as any sort of "copout bullshit move"?
RJD2
Ugly Duckling
Cut Chemist
Dj Shadow
Z-Trip
Van Halen
French Montana