And the results are in...

rickenvox said:
My comment and your reply are both non-provable empirically. So argument over. I do however usually feel smugly smarter than people who use the word "douchebag" but that again is not provable.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I could have chosen a more eloquent adjective such as "personality challenged individuals". It's easy to fall into the colloquial trends of the time in which we inhabit this world.
rickenvox said:
The Cars were hugely derivative of a bunch of bands that came before them like Roxy Music and Talking Heads (first breakthrough New Wave hit with Psycho Killer), but dumbed it down into a palatable pop form for more common tastes. Good hit making machine, but no ground broken on their watch.
Click to expand...
Every Rock band regardless of flavour is "derivative". That's actually a term oft used by Rock/Music Critics to try and convince the audience that they are far more intelligent and knowledgeable than the harsh reality. It's a ludicrous descriptor and honestly has zero gravitas when it comes to this topic.

The argument was "Breakthrough", a point you quite effeciantly cemented for me. Thank you. Roxy Music and The Talking Heads may have had great influence on The Cars. Personally, I don't hear it in any obvious way. The fact is, neither of those bands had commercial appeal on the level... Or even close for that matter as The Cars. Both were far more esoteric, especially early on. Yes, they are highly respected and critically acclaimed, but those things don't pay the bills. The biggest successes for both bands, was in fact a direct result of dropping the bulk of their "artistic pretense" and delving into commercially viable music that bore little semblance to their previous work.
Peen Simmons said:
When your favorite band is A Flock of Seagulls, it’s gonna be tough to win arguments about taste.
Click to expand...
Again, you perfectly punctuated my point about personal taste vs quality or substance. Thank you.

Again.
 
OGG said:
Perhaps I could have chosen a more eloquent adjective such as "personality challenged individuals". It's easy to fall into the colloquial trends of the time in which we inhabit this world. Every Rock band regardless of flavour is "derivative". That's actually a term oft used by Rock/Music Critics to try and convince the audience that they are far more intelligent and knowledgeable than the harsh reality. It's a ludicrous descriptor and honestly has zero gravitas when it comes to this topic.

The argument was "Breakthrough", a point you quite effeciantly cemented for me. Thank you. Roxy Music and The Talking Heads may have had great influence on The Cars. Personally, I don't hear it in any obvious way. The fact is, neither of those bands had commercial appeal on the level... Or even close for that matter as The Cars. Both were far more esoteric, especially early on. Yes, they are highly respected and critically acclaimed, but those things don't pay the bills. The biggest successes for both bands, was in fact a direct result of dropping the bulk of their "artistic pretense" and delving into commercially viable music that bore little semblance to their previous work. Again, you perfectly punctuated my point about personal taste vs quality or substance. Thank you.

Again.
Click to expand...

You're listening to Flock of Seagulls right now, aren't you?
 
OGG said:
Perhaps I could have chosen a more eloquent adjective such as "personality challenged individuals". It's easy to fall into the colloquial trends of the time in which we inhabit this world. Every Rock band regardless of flavour is "derivative". That's actually a term oft used by Rock/Music Critics to try and convince the audience that they are far more intelligent and knowledgeable than the harsh reality. It's a ludicrous descriptor and honestly has zero gravitas when it comes to this topic.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not in the anti-critic crowd as they are writers and that's my background. Derivative means what it means and applies exactly to The Cars. The influence of their sound was immediately identifiable the day they were first played on the radio and everyone, journalist or just regular listeners, commented on it at the time.

I think a nominee abstaining from that ridiculous ceremony would have a lot more integrity than Steve Miller showing up and then whining about the whole thing afterwards (it was Steve Miller right?).

Not everyone who has a different opinion than you or doesn't want to join in some bandwagon is pretentious. Name calling is not a great way to hold a grown up conversation. Although I admit to calling the R&RHOF "stupid" and an "idiotic institution." Which "it", not a person, is.
 
Last edited:
OGG said:
Perhaps I could have chosen a more eloquent adjective such as "personality challenged individuals". It's easy to fall into the colloquial trends of the time in which we inhabit this world. Every Rock band regardless of flavour is "derivative". That's actually a term oft used by Rock/Music Critics to try and convince the audience that they are far more intelligent and knowledgeable than the harsh reality. It's a ludicrous descriptor and honestly has zero gravitas when it comes to this topic.

The argument was "Breakthrough", a point you quite effeciantly cemented for me. Thank you. Roxy Music and The Talking Heads may have had great influence on The Cars. Personally, I don't hear it in any obvious way. The fact is, neither of those bands had commercial appeal on the level... Or even close for that matter as The Cars. Both were far more esoteric, especially early on. Yes, they are highly respected and critically acclaimed, but those things don't pay the bills. The biggest successes for both bands, was in fact a direct result of dropping the bulk of their "artistic pretense" and delving into commercially viable music that bore little semblance to their previous work. Again, you perfectly punctuated my point about personal taste vs quality or substance. Thank you.

Again.
Click to expand...


How I Imagine OGG spends his time...

https://media.giphy.com/media/VVotgEXBX2Umc/giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
I think some of you folks are getting hung up by the faulty egotism that equates personally liking something with that thing’s artistic greatness. There’s tons of well-crafted, enjoyable and thoroughly mediocre/2nd rate popular entertainment out there. No one is trying to deny you the pleasure found in that stuff.

I’m merely saying that no one should mistake The Cars for the Beatles or Bon Jovi for Bob Dylan.

The RNRHOF is hamstrung because rock-era popular music is a crazy quilt of actual mad practitioners of actual greatness and lightweight scam artists and one-in-a-million lucky fuckers who fell backwards into one weird and glorious triumph. Trying to build a sports style HOF around that is a doomed endeavor. But this doesn’t change the fact that Bon Jovi is simply an example of an excellent mediocrity and not an example of the very best of what a rock band can achieve.

Stop being a bunch of poptimist snowflakes.
 
I’ll still be able to sing every song off Slippery When Wet long after the memories of who my children are fade forever... had that piece of shit album blasted on the school bus every day for WEEKS.
 
Peen Simmons said:
I think some of you folks are getting hung up by the faulty egotism that equates personally liking something with that thing’s artistic greatness. There’s tons of well-crafted, enjoyable and thoroughly mediocre/2nd rate popular entertainment out there. No one is trying to deny you the pleasure found in that stuff.

I’m merely saying that no one should mistake The Cars for the Beatles or Bon Jovi for Bob Dylan.

The RNRHOF is hamstrung because rock-era popular music is a crazy quilt of actual mad practitioners of actual greatness and lightweight scam artists and one-in-a-million lucky fuckers who fell backwards into one weird and glorious triumph. Trying to build a sports style HOF around that is a doomed endeavor. But this doesn’t change the fact that Bon Jovi is simply an example of an excellent mediocrity and not an example of the very best of what a rock band can achieve.

Stop being a bunch of poptimist snowflakes.
Click to expand...

And some people need to stop worshiping at the altar of the Beatles and Dylan as if they were some demigods. While there is no denying their artistic merit, influence and popularity, they were pop and folk stars. Nothing more. The fact that you and some others put them on such a pedestal doesn't make them more than the sum of their work. You act like there is only room for a specific number of 'truly great artists' that fit your preconceived mold, and the rest are by definition second rate.

Rock and Roll is dynamic, and is best experienced in a live venue. Too bad the Beatles couldn't reproduce their later works live. It's a shame they never realized their potential.

stirthepot
 
Peen Simmons said:
How I Imagine OGG spends his time...

https://media.giphy.com/media/VVotgEXBX2Umc/giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Please. Bale's character in that film was talking out of his ass. It was quite clear that his musical knowledge was deeply flawed.
rickenvox said:
Well I'm not in the anti-critic crowd as they are writers and that's my background. Derivative means what it means and applies exactly to The Cars. The influence of their sound was immediately identifiable the day they were first played on the radio and everyone, journalist or just regular listeners, commented on it at the time.

I think a nominee abstaining from that ridiculous ceremony would have a lot more integrity than Steve Miller showing up and then whining about the whole thing afterwards (it was Steve Miller right?).

Not everyone who has a different opinion than you or doesn't want to join in some bandwagon is pretentious. Name calling is not a great way to hold a grown up conversation. Although I admit to calling the R&RHOF "stupid" and an "idiotic institution." Which "it", not a person, is.
Click to expand...
Whoa their pardner! I wasn't calling YOU names. I was making the point that it's nigh impossible to be a bona fide "Rock Star" and have a fair dose of narcissistic tendencies. No matter what any of them say, they love the recognition and adoration. The RRHOF may be silly and convoluted, but being inducted is still a huge "honor" and I seriously doubt anyone would honestly reject the honor for any reason other than trying to prove a false narrative that bolsters their "I don't give a shit" outer persona. "Integrity" has nothing to do with it. By your logic, not one single member of the RRHOF has "Integrity". No one has ever said "thanks, but no thanks". This "integrity" you speak of is conspicuously absent from the business as a whole. Sure, lots of artists stand on a soap box and preach about it and make entire careers out of it, but it's all bullshit playing to the audience. Everybody thought the Sex Pistols ushered in this whole new wave of "integrity" with their blatant anti-establishment, grandiose utter bullshit. Remember their song "EMI"? It was direct slap in the face to the record company and the entire industry. Meanwhile, Syd was a fucking junkie that would eventually murder his junkie girlfriend before taking his own life in jail. Is that "integrity"?

John Lydon (Johnny Rotten) was the poster boy for "integrity" of the type you cite. The last time I saw him, he was Hawking I can't believe it's not butter in a TV commercial... FFS.
Help!I'maRock! said:
You're listening to Flock of Seagulls right now, aren't you?
Click to expand...
No, but they were definitely on my mind as my dear friend and original AFOS bass player Frank Maudsley is currently lying in a Liverpool hospital ICU after suffering a major heart attack 3 weeks ago (not public knowledge).
Peen Simmons said:
I think some of you folks are getting hung up by the faulty egotism that equates personally liking something with that thing’s artistic greatness. There’s tons of well-crafted, enjoyable and thoroughly mediocre/2nd rate popular entertainment out there. No one is trying to deny you the pleasure found in that stuff.

I’m merely saying that no one should mistake The Cars for the Beatles or Bon Jovi for Bob Dylan.

The RNRHOF is hamstrung because rock-era popular music is a crazy quilt of actual mad practitioners of actual greatness and lightweight scam artists and one-in-a-million lucky fuckers who fell backwards into one weird and glorious triumph. Trying to build a sports style HOF around that is a doomed endeavor. But this doesn’t change the fact that Bon Jovi is simply an example of an excellent mediocrity and not an example of the very best of what a rock band can achieve.

Stop being a bunch of poptimist snowflakes.
Click to expand...
See above.

Also note, I'm a writer... Published and everything. Doesn't change my opinion that using "derivative" to describe a rock band is horribly lazy and completely worthless. The Fucking Beatles were "derivative". So has been every band since in one form or other. If they weren't, they wouldn't be "Rock 'n' Roll".
 
335clone said:
Really? 30 million copies is second rate?

Just for comparison, name 5 bands from the same era you consider first rate, just so I know who you think was better, say popular from 1980-1991.
Click to expand...
Hey Justin Bieber probably sold 5 times that number, it doesn’t mean he should be in the Rock Hall.
By that same reasoning McDonalds is the best restaurant in the world because it sells the most food
 
bsman said:
I had a “best of” cars disc but got rid of it, because all the songs sounded exactly alike, and not in a good way.
Click to expand...

I will fight anyone who says "Moving in Stereo" is not a great song.

tenor.gif
 
IamSeaDevil said:
Hey Justin Bieber probably sold 5 times that number, it doesn’t mean he should be in the Rock Hall.
By that same reasoning McDonalds is the best restaurant in the world because it sells the most food
Click to expand...

The same logic you are using could be used to make the case that the Beatles are the McDonalds of pop music. Are we living in a world of hipster irony? Can music be popular, accessible, and of high artistic merit at the same time?

My point was that BiA was an extremely well received album from a very well respected rock band in their prime, and that there was nothing second rate about it. Sorry you and a few others have a knee jerk reaction regarding record sales. Yeah, not everything popular with the masses equates to quality, but in the same respect, just because something is extremely popular doesn't automatically make it shit.
 
335clone said:
The same logic you are using could be used to make the case that the Beatles are the McDonalds of pop music. Are we living in a world of hipster irony? Can music be popular, accessible, and of high artistic merit at the same time?

My point was that BiA was an extremely well received album from a very well respected rock band in their prime, and that there was nothing second rate about it. Sorry you and a few others have a knee jerk reaction regarding record sales. Yeah, not everything popular with the masses equates to quality, but in the same respect, just because something is extremely popular doesn't automatically make it shit.
Click to expand...
Well see here’s where you’re wrong, I hate The Beatles. I am 42 years old so I am hardly a hipster.
Can music be popular, accessible and of high artistic merit at the same time?
I don’t know, but I guess a more precise answer would be:
Who gives a fuck?
I don’t give a good goddamn what music you or anyone else thinks is good. Just like how you don’t give a shit about what I listen to.

At the end of the day 99% of what I listen to will never be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or win a Grammy. I like what I like.

Some people need to have some sort of validation that the music they like is good. Like it needs to be respected by their peers or winna meaningless award. Or by the shear number of record sales somehow justifys their taste in music.

People can really be insecure about what they like or what they are supposed to like.

I love the Brothers in Arms record. Except for Money for Nothing, that dog is absolute shit to me and uses the word faggot a little too cavalierly for my sensibilities
 
OGG said:
Also note, I'm a writer... Published and everything. Doesn't change my opinion that using "derivative" to describe a rock band is horribly lazy and completely worthless. The Fucking Beatles were "derivative". So has been every band since in one form or other. If they weren't, they wouldn't be "Rock 'n' Roll".
Click to expand...

Me too! I’ve even been paid to actually write about popular music.

And I didn’t bring up the baloney about derivativeness. I’m just trying to maintain some standards between stuff that was really aces and stuff that was enjoyable popular fluff that is being propped up as “great” because the international rock institution is addicted to self aggrandizement but running out of truly great boomer and boomer-aligned institutions to praise.

Plus it’s stilly that people cannot like something without recognizing that it is kinda lightweight.

For example, I love 2 19th century novels about the relentless pursuit of primal monsters. One is great and the other is kinda not great. Moby Dick is a great novel. Dracula is fun. I can tell the difference between the two. Just how I can tell the difference between the Kinks and the Dum Dum Girls despite enjoying both of them.
 
IamSeaDevil said:
Well see here’s where you’re wrong, I hate The Beatles. I am 42 years old so I am hardly a hipster.
Can music be popular, accessible and of high artistic merit at the same time?
I don’t know, but I guess a more precise answer would be:
Who gives a fuck?
I don’t give a good goddamn what music you or anyone else thinks is good. Just like how you don’t give a shit about what I listen to.

At the end of the day 99% of what I listen to will never be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or win a Grammy. I like what I like.

Some people need to have some sort of validation that the music they like is good. Like it needs to be respected by their peers or winna meaningless award. Or by the shear number of record sales somehow justifys their taste in music.

People can really be insecure about what they like or what they are supposed to like.

I love the Brothers in Arms record. Except for Money for Nothing, that dog is absolute shit to me and uses the word faggot a little too cavalierly for my sensibilities
Click to expand...

FWIW, I agree completely. Especially about money for nothing. Otherwise, that album is golden. And don't get me started on the bugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top