I think a step back (on all sides) might reveal that while Slipstream was treated pretty antagonistically by some of the responses to his post, there is a palpable sense of superiority to some of the things he says in this debate. To claim, for instance, that folks here lack musical knowledge is pretty arrogant, and I'll pretty much guarantee that your 'rock/rock and roll' division, while meaningful to you, may read like utter nonsense to others. There are plenty of the so-called 'rock' bands who are "fascinated with the actual act of rocking." Regardless, I think you set out a false dilemma (you're either a rock band or a rock and roll band) and then base your insults of people's intelligence on your false dilemma, which isn't fair.

Criticism aside, at least you have something interesting to say. I assume that everyone here, whether they agree or disagree, can agree to that, and maybe we can all play nice.

quote:

Originally posted by slipdream:
hmmm....it sounds like in general most of the users on this boards are very unfriendly and hostile towards new members.

Hahaha! Calling everybody else stupid and closed minded is not a good way to introduce yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by slipdream:
Raving,

The Velvet Underground were purposely bland and average, and purposely made bland, unambitious music.

Nonsense!

quote:

Originally posted by SDF:

quote:

Originally posted by slipdream:
Raving,

The Velvet Underground were purposely bland and average, and purposely made bland, unambitious music.

Nonsense!

I'm going to have to go with SDF on this one. I don't really listen to Velvet Underground, but I seriously doubt they made music with the intent to be bland and unambitious.

quote:

Originally posted by SDF:

quote:

Originally posted by slipdream:
Raving,

The Velvet Underground were purposely bland and average, and purposely made bland, unambitious music.

Nonsense!

First I would like to thank Raving for that simple and succinct response to a ridiculous comment. Second,slip wow I mean just wow. Where could one ever get that idea? I mean have you heard Sister Ray, What Goes On, Stephanie Says or any of their music?!! Because dear God why would you ever say something like that if you did?!

quote:

Originally posted by L. R. William Spencer:
I'm going to have to go with SDF on this one. I don't really listen to Velvet Underground, but I seriously doubt they made music with the intent to be bland and unambitious.

The Velvet Underground were a band that relied heavily on simple chord progressions, repetitive, monotonous beats, primitive guitar riffs repeated over and over, and bland, emotionless, uninteresting vocals. Lou Reed was basically a Dylan imitator (and wrote many Dylan rip-offs).

They were horrible improvisationalists, and dragged-out riffs could be excruciatingly boring. To top it off, the band’s lyrics were horrible—mostly your standard, clichéd sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll lyrics.

The V.U. spawned some of the most lame, overrated bands of all time, such as the Jesus and Mary Chain. The JMC were reviled by most U.S. underground bands of the '80s. They dressed and sounded just like the velvet underground, played 15 minute concerts, and had the lamest looking hair. They were later somewhat worshipped by shoegaze bands for being so fashionably bland and faux-threatening.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. The VU were very cutting edge for their time, and I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anything that sounded like "Venus in Furs" in 1967. Although I'm a big Bob Dylan fan, I wouldn't consider Lou Reed's work Dylanesque. Also, the chord progressions on stuff like "New Age" and "Candy Says" is far from simple.

Looks to me like somebody's trying too hard to be different. Different is the new same; didn't you get the memo?

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:
Looks to me like somebody's trying too hard to be different. Different is the new same; didn't you get the memo?

Actually, pointing out the V.U.'s shortcomings is nothing new. There are many knowledgable music critics out there that have expressed negative views towards the V.U. over the years.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
You're entitled to your own opinions, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. The VU were very cutting edge for their time, and I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anything that sounded like "Venus in Furs" in 1967. Although I'm a big Bob Dylan fan, I wouldn't consider Lou Reed's work Dylanesque. Also, the chord progressions on stuff like "New Age" and "Candy Says" is far from simple.

They definitely had their decent songs (like most simple rock 'n roll bands do from time to time). It's not that they were NEVER innovative, it's that they were not nearly as innovative or "cutting-edge" as many "experts" will have you believe.

I'd say even if you don't enjoy the VU's music, their impact on rock is huge. I don't see how anyone could deny that. If there are, as you say, critics who believe otherwise, I don't see how "knowledgable" they can possibly be.

You seem obsessed with putting everything and everyone into opposing camps. I have a hard time believing that you can enjoy ANY music since it all seems to be some intellectual exercise, which, in my book, has nothing to do with the purpose of music.

OK, now it's your turn to call me a simpleton.

Mark, you're the Mayor of Simpleton.

I think Partridge owes me money.

Duh!

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
I'd say even if you don't enjoy the VU's music, their impact on rock is huge. I don't see how anyone could deny that. If there are, as you say, critics who believe otherwise, I don't see how "knowledgable" they can possibly be.

You've never read any negative things about the V.U. by any music critics?! You need to start doing a little bit of research. The V.U.'s "huge impact" on rock music has been one of the most controversial and most talked-about discussions for quite a while.

Sounds like a vague intellectual exercise...

quote:

Originally posted by slipdream:

You've never read any negative things about the V.U. by any music critics?! You need to start doing a little bit of research. The V.U.'s "huge impact" on rock music has been one of the most controversial and most talked-about discussions for quite a while.

I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying their knowledge of rock history is dubious. There are countless rock bands that cite the VU as a direct influence. That's not my opinion, that's fact. I could easily say the Beatles had no impact on music, but it doesn't make it so.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
There are countless rock bands that cite the VU as a direct influence. That's not my opinion, that's fact. I could easily say the Beatles had no impact on music, but it doesn't make it so.

When did I ever say they didn't directly influence many bands? They sure did. As I've already mentioned multiple times, the Jesus and Mary Chain sounded just like the V.U. BRMC, the strokes, galaxie 500, and luna are some others.

Does not influence imply impact?

I can't argue anymore. I'm drunk and tired. Peace out homey.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Does not influence imply impact?

Aww, I see what you mean. By impact, I was thinking more in terms of innovation.