From: jpmunday@bmdhh155.bnr.ca (Jonathan Munday)
Subject: Re: Not quite right...
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, Maidenhead, UK
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:26:33 GMT

In article <1eh71aINNs9q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aa765@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Young) writes:
|> 
|> Previously, TGERMAN@vax.cns.muskingum.edu ("Tom German") sayed:
|> 
|> aa765@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Young) writes:
|>  
|> >Face it.  There aren't enough of us honest to goodness rock fans who appreciate
|> >diversity in music--or are there?  Maybe we just need to make our voices
|> >heard. That seems to be happening, as groups like Nirvana become mainstream,
|> >but someone sees "Smells Like Teen Spirit"  start to make some money, and all
|> >of a sudden it's totally commercialized until no one can stand it anymore.
|> 
|>      Plus, dozens of wannabe's and hang-ons (e.g. Ugly Kid
|> Joe) come on the scene to cash in on the music's new poplu-
|> larity.
|> 
|> >Sounds like Catch-22, doesn't it?
|> 
|>      Everything goes in cycles- the punkers of the late
|> seventies were a reaction to the overproduced, overblown,
|> glitzy 70's rock, and its bastard offspring, *disco*.
|> 
|>      So, in the early eighties, groups like the Clash and
|> the Police took some of the edge off hard-core Punk, and
|> had commercial success. Then followed a bunch of New Wave
|> bands (from Men Without Hats to INXS to Duran Duran).
|> 
|>      When this got too cheesy and commercial, Heavy Metal
|> reared its head in (or at least NEAR) the mainstream. Then,
|> bands like Poison, Bon Jovi, etc- the Glam-Rockers- made
|> the Heavy Metal image commercially appealing.
|> 
|>      See what I'm getting at? What I've always liked about
|> GNR was their simple, straightforward approach to Rock. It
|> sucks to see them go down the road to teeny-bopper commer-
|> cialism too...
|> 

 I think you need to accept that there are several ways in which bands can become
commercialised. Metallica, for example sold out musically (IMHO) on their last
album and although I personally liked the album, reading their newsgroup, you
can't help feeling that they've let their fans down.

  Guns 'n Roses on the other hand have visibly sold out in terms of their their
choice of singles releases. Musically, which is (IMHO) what really matters, I 
think YUI 1 & 2 are great albums, written with the same skill and style that made
AFD so good.

  The point that I'm trying to make is that, this business of bands becoming
commercial is, in a lot of cases, mainly a perceived thing (in terms of their
appearance and actions), while often their music has remained relatively
unchanged. And unless there is some way in which you have to watch GnR whilst
listening to the CD (dunno, maybe I misread the instructions), I don't really
care what they do or look like.

  Disliking a band because they appear glam is just as bad as Liking a band
because they appear glam, since it means that your basing your opinion of how
good a band are on their appearance as opposed to their music.

  Finally, I'm not really sure that in terms of video's etc., they really have
sold out. I get the feeling that this is the kind of thing they always wanted to
do, and now they have the fame and cash, they're doing it. Sure the videos are
overproduced and commercialised, but lighten up, they are, after all, just a bit
of fun!

|>      College radio will yet prove the Savior of American
|> Popular Music.

  Wouldn't know - I'm British, and I never bothered listening to my university
radio station coz they played Indie all the time.
 
|> >I'd love feedback from anyone listening, because I think true GNR fans can
|> >relate.

  You got some.
 
|>                                              - C Young
|> 
                                                Jon.

  "We oil the jaws of the warmachine and feed it with our babies"
                                                Iron Maiden, 2 minutes to midnight

The thoughts expressed here in no way reflect those of my employer.